Basis upon which Khyra Ishaq was deregistered from school

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Could you reply simply yes or no to the following question.

Was Khyra Ishaq de-registered from school on the following basis?

(Quoting directly from The Education (Pupil Registration) (England)
Regulations 2006):

"Deletions from Admission Register
8. —(1) The following are prescribed as the grounds on which the
name of a pupil of compulsory school age shall be deleted from the
admission register—

(h) that he has been continuously absent from the school for a
period of not less than twenty school days and —
(i) at no time was his absence during that period authorised by the
proprietor in accordance with regulation 6(2);

(ii) the proprietor does not have reasonable grounds to believe
that the pupil is unable to attend the school by reason of sickness
or any unavoidable cause; and

(iii) both the proprietor of the school and the local education
authority have failed, after reasonable enquiry, to ascertain where
the pupil is;"

If your response is "no", please state, quoting the above Act, on
what legal basis she was deregistered.

Yours faithfully,

Becky Robinson

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Thankyou for your response. However you have not stated, quoting
the The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006,
specifically why Khyra Ishaq was initially deregistered from
school, if she was indeed officially deregistered at all.

Unfortunately it is not sufficient to state that she was
retrospectively 'deregistered' in mid March 2008, when, as the
court notes state, she went missing from school from 6th December
2007, three and a half months previously.

If her mother had submitted an official deregistration letter
overtly and specifically stating her intention to educate Khyra
'otherwise' than at school, as all carers wishing to provide
elective home education for their children must legally do, then
the school would not legally have been permitted to keep Khyra on
the roll for more than two days after having received the letter.
It is not appropriate or legally correct for EWS to submit
'educated otherwise' as a reason for absence, whether
retrospectively or otherwise in the absence of the aforementioned
process having been fully adhered to.

If, as you suggest, Khyra Ishaq was withdrawn from school by her
mother to be educated otherwise, please prove this by stating on
what date the letter requesting Khyra be officially and legally
de-registering from school was received, and please confirm that it
contained the correct wording, i.e. that her mother overtly stated
her intention to educate Khyra "otherwise than at school".

Please also give an explanation for the enormous length of time
which passed between Khyra's last day of attendance at school, and
her retrospective 'deregistration'.

Many thanks for your help.

Yours faithfully,

Becky Robinson

Dear Birmingham City Council,

If this is the case you still have not explained when such a letter
was received, whether or not it consisted of the correct legal
wording, and why Khyra was deregistered by EWS rather than the
school a full three and a half months after she ceased to attend.

Yours faithfully,

Becky Robinson

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Thankyou for your reply. However, please note that in your previous
letter of 2nd March you state that Khyra was deregistered in
mid-March 2008, which is significantly more than 10 days after the
written request was allegedly made on the 8th Jan that year.

In this case, it appears that the school was in fact in breach of
the law. You mention that a delay may be acceptable on condition
that the pupil has been receiving suitable education while an
investigation takes place. What is the legal basis for allowing
such a delay? (Please provide wording from the relevant Act.)

Can you provide a copy of the deregistration letter's relevant
wording in order to prove that the correct legal terms were adhered
to in this respect?

Yours faithfully,

Becky Robinson

Dear Birmingham City Council,

Thankyou for your recent reply.

Firstly, I wish to make clear that above all I seek unequivocal
evidence that Khyra Ishaq was deregistered from her school on legal
grounds that she was to be electively home educated. I require a
very clear and full statement from yourselves proving beyond doubt
that this was the case. With this in mind, may I draw your
attention to the following.

According to the Government's Guidlines for Local Authorities on
Elective Home Education:

3.8 The school must delete the child’s name from their admissions
register upon receipt of written notification from the parents that
the pupil is receiving education otherwise than at school. However,
schools should not wait for parents to give written notification
that they are withdrawing their child from school before advising
their local authority. Schools must make a return (giving the
child’s name, address and the ground upon which their name is to be
deleted from the register) to the local authority as soon as the
ground for deletion is met, and no later than deleting the pupil’s
name from the register. They should also copy parents into the
notice to the local authority. Further information is available in
Keeping Pupil Registers, the Department’s guidance on applying the
regulations.

Furthermore, the Pupil Registration Regulations (England) 2006
state:

Deletions from Admission Register
8.—(1) The following are prescribed as the grounds on which the
name of a pupil of compulsory school age shall be deleted from the
admission register—
(a) where the pupil is registered at the school in accordance with
the requirements of a school attendance order, that another school
is substituted by the local education authority for that named in
the order or the order is revoked by the local education authority
on the ground that arrangements have been made for the child to
receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability
and aptitude otherwise than at school;
(b) except where it has been agreed by the proprietor that the
pupil should be registered at more than one school, in a case not
falling within sub-paragraph (a) or regulation 9, that he has been
registered as a pupil at another school;
(c) where a pupil is registered at more than one school, and in a
case not falling within sub-
paragraph (j) or (m) or regulation 9, that he has ceased to attend
the school and the proprietor of any other school at which he is
registered has given consent to the deletion;
(d) in a case not falling within sub-paragraph (a) of this
paragraph, that he has ceased to attend the school and the
proprietor has received written notification from the parent that
the pupil is receiving education otherwise than at school;
(e) except in the case of a boarder, that he has ceased to attend
the school and no longer ordinarily resides at a place which is a
reasonable distance from the school at which he is registered;
(f) in the case of a pupil granted leave of absence exceeding ten
school days for the purpose of a holiday in accordance with
regulation 7(3), that —
(i) the pupil has failed to attend the school within the ten school
days immediately following the expiry of the period for which such
leave was granted;
(ii) the proprietor does not have reasonable grounds to believe
that the pupil is unable to attend the school by reason of sickness
or any unavoidable cause; and
(iii) both the proprietor and the local education authority have
failed, after reasonable enquiry, to ascertain where the pupil is;
(g) that he is certified by the school medical officer as unlikely
to be in a fit state of health to attend school before ceasing to
be of compulsory school age, and neither he nor his parent has
indicated to the school the intention to continue to attend the
school after ceasing to be of compulsory school age;
(h) that he has been continuously absent from the school for a
period of not less than twenty school days and —
(i) at no time was his absence during that period authorised by the
proprietor in
accordance with regulation 6(2);
(ii) the proprietor does not have reasonable grounds to believe
that the pupil is unable to attend the school by reason of sickness
or any unavoidable cause; and 5
(iii) both the proprietor of the school and the local education
authority have failed, after
reasonable enquiry, to ascertain where the pupil is;
(i) that he is detained in pursuance of a final order made by a
court or of an order of recall made by a court or the Secretary of
State, that order being for a period of not less than four months,
and the proprietor does not have reasonable grounds to believe that
the pupil will return to the school at the end of that period;
(j) that the pupil has died;
(k) that he will cease to be of compulsory school age before the
school next meets and the relevant person has indicated that he
will cease to attend the school;
(l) in the case of a pupil at a school other than a maintained
school, an Academy, a city
technology college or a city college for the technology of the
arts, that he has ceased to be a pupil of the school;
(m) that he has been permanently excluded from the school; or
(n) where the pupil has been admitted to the school to receive
nursery education, that he has not on completing such education
transferred to a reception, or higher, class at the school.

Please excuse the lengthy quotation! I have quoted in such detail
in order to point out unequivocally that written notification from
the parent IS most definately required for elective home education
to be established for a pupil who has previously been on roll.

I cannot see anything relevant to the case in the document you have
forwarded to me, particularly as it relates to reports and
guidelines which took place well after Khyra Ishaq's tragic death.

The fact that she had a SEN Statement is not of direct relevance,
as she was not attending a special school. If she had been, the
requirements for elective home education would have been more,
certainly not less stringent.

In conclusion, please could you provide, quoting from the above
documents, the basis and date upon which Khyra Ishaq was
deregistered from her school. Please also provide redacted copies
of both the parental letter, and the correspondence from the school
to the LA informing them of the deregistration.

The Local Authority would only have been entitled to deregister
Khyra Ishaq unilaterally (ie. without recourse to the parent or
school) under certain circumstances if she had previously been the
subject of a school attendance order. As far as I am aware this was
not the case.

I look forward to your answers.

Yours faithfully,

Becky Robinson