Appended below are emails [19th January 2003 & 29th July 2003] from John which show an ongoing discussion regarding a flawed ethnicity survey conducted within Cornish schools on the 16th January 2003. The oldest communication at the bottom of the page.
The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.
It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such
racism it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation. It is a corrosive disease."John Angarrack----------------------------------
CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCILand an ongoing case ofMINUTES GENERATING MYTHSIn the Jan 16th pupil ethnic monitoring survey Cornwall LEA prevented families from recording their children's identity as Cornish. Those that wrote 'Cornish' were unaware that the authorities later erased that word and applied another identity.We now have a situation where Census Order 2000 [ratified by Parliament] gave rise to adults registering as Cornish on the UK wide Census apparently having no children in any UK schools. This has far reaching adverse cultural and educational implications for Cornish people which are not immediately apparent.The role of Portfolio Holder for Education makes Liberal Democrat Cllr Doris Ansari the highest paid councillor in Cornwall. Despite being consistently asked to explain how so many irregularities crept into the Jan 16th Cornwall LEA pupil ethnic background survey, Cllr Ansari still refuses to answer any parental questions on the matter. When reminded of her responsibilities under redress procedure guidelines, the Member asserted that she "did not respond to threats".While parents, my ward councillor, my MP, the Ombudsman and now my solicitor all await answers to our specific questions, the minutes of the 2nd May 2003 Cornwall County Council 'Executive Members and Members' meeting chaired by Liberal Democrat Leader of the Council John Lobb carry a seemingly unchallenged assertion from Cllr Ansari that the survey forms were "produced in accordance with advice from the DfES".DfES guidelines say that they need to consult LEA's to ensure that their Key List of ethnic groups takes account of any newly emerged requirement. However, despite being asked, Cornwall LEA categorically refused to inform the DfES of the emerged requirement to include the Cornish on the schools survey.DfES guidelines say that schools must accept the responses given by pupils and parents; but when these people wrote 'Cornish', as was their right, it was erased.DfES guidelines say that pupils under 16 should fill in the forms with the support of parents. In a great many cases this was not permitted and often parents did not even know that the survey was taking place. There is at least one instance of a school carrying out wholly irregular 'third party' mass ascription.DfES guidelines say that monitoring problems should be reported back to them. If pupils are being coerced by the authorities into defining themselves as something other than Cornish, and the authorities are erasing the word Cornish even when written, the problem of not being able to identify as Cornish remains submerged.DfES guidelines say "treating children the same does not mean that all children gain access to the education to which they are entitled". However, Cllr Ansari has stated that treating children in ways that reflect their different ethnic background is "dangerous".DfES guidelines say that the survey must be carried out in accordance with the Race Relations Act. My most recent submission to Cornwall County Council makes it clear that the survey was not carried out in accordance with this Act, let alone within DfES or Commission for Racial Equality guidelines.Members attending the meeting are given as W J Lobb (Chairman), D M Ansari, B M M Biscoe, G B Brown, Ms O P England, G J R Hocking, B L Hunkin, T Lello, M K McTaggart, A P Mitchell, B Morris, G M Nicholls, B D Preston, N C Walker, and D Whalley.Were these public servants made aware of DfES guidelines prior to the meeting taking place? If not, are they now satisfied with the Liberal Democrat's minuted assertion that the survey was produced in accordance with advice from the DfES?JOHN ANGARRACK [one of a number of aggreived parents]45 Higher Bore StreetBodmin----------------------------------
PUBLIC NOTICE 25th March 2003CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL ACT OUTSIDE LEGAL NORMS
Alarm has been raised after questions surrounding the operating practices of Cornwall LEA chief Doris Ansari remain unanswered.
After a number of children were forced out of Cornish schools for daring to question the authority's fabricated version of history, Cllr Ansari said that it was "not her job" to take account of legislation designed to ensure that only historical truths are relayed to pupils.
When it was discovered that Cornwall LEA circulate forms which allow pupils describing themselves as "Traveller of Irish Heritage" to record their identity, but take covert steps to prevent children from recording their identity as Cornish, her department issued a press release saying that allowing children to self-idenitfy as Cornish is "a waste of money". It should be pointed out that the Cornish are a recognised Census 2001 ethnic group.
Despite stating that it is "dangerous" to introduce an education which met the diverse needs of pupils, Cllr Ansari was still placed in charge of 'Cornish diversity' programme A Sense of Place. Unfortunately, the Portfolio Holder for Education could not find time to visit the projects recent launch where, after months of work, enthusiastic children performed exhibitions and mounted displays.
Awarded an OBE for "service to the community of Cornwall", aggrieved parents have been asking the Portfolio Holder to explain her actions in respect of the Cornish. [See attached sample]
The Councils own Constitution states that decision makers must be accountable for their own actions. Yet despite being repeatedly asked to account for her behaviour she has refused to answer any questions. Now the Chief Executive of Cornwall County Council has instructed that complainants must desist from attempting to directly question Cllr Ansari.
Today, the LEA is exposed as operating outside legal norms. This discrimination, and the ongoing closing of ranks to protect one individual, means that the Council has placed itself into maladministration.
Meanwhile, Cornish children are still being deprived of the identity, status and education to which they are entitled.
Civil Rights group Cornwall 2000 are now calling for an independent enquiry into not just the activities of the LEA, but also the subsequent CCC strategy of effectively preventing the chief decision maker from being held to account.
Our patience is not limitless. Unless this situation is properly addressed as a matter of urgency, we will be urging aggrieved pupils, parents, taxpayers and voters to firstly, copy all correspondence and secondly, take their complaint direct to, one or more of the following bodies:
OFSTED
AUDIT COMMISSION
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SKILLS
COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
UN COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS
STANDARDS BOARD FOR ENGLANDFull contact details, complaint procedures and appropriate advice available FOC from:
cornubian@tiscali.co.uk
John Angarrack
Parent, taxpayer and Director
Cornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human Rights
45, Higher Bore Street, Bodmin, Cornwall, UK
Tel/Fax: 01208 76336----------------------------------
45 Higher Bore Street
Bodmin PL31 1JSCllr A Quinnell
Cornwall County Council
County Hall
Truro TR1 3AY
13th March 2003Cllr Quinnell
COMPLAINT: SCHOOLS CENSUS/CONTENT OF CURRICULUM
I am writing to you as my County Councillor under redress procedures laid out in the Constitution of Cornwall County Council. Because I have been copying to you the dialogue between myself and the Council you will already be familiar with the nature of this complaint. To sum up the current situation I set out the two main points at issue below:
ISSUE 1. In respect of policy development and the delivery of services, at a full session of Cornwall County Council held on 19th February 1999 the Council voted in favour of treating the Cornish the same as any other group. The present Portfolio Holder for Education was one of only six Councillors to oppose the motion. The Cornish have been accepted as one of 79 ethnic sub-groups for Census 2001 and government departments like the National Health Service collect separate data on the Cornish. On 22nd May 2002 Cornwall County Council Legal Services confirmed in writing that pupils in Cornwall are free to record their ethnicity as Cornish and on 2nd Dec 2002 the Assistant Director of Education [School Improvement] acknowledged that, regarding the schools census, "There will be many families and young people who will be happy to identify themselves as Cornish".
However, when the January 16th 2003 annual schools survey took place parents discovered that Cornwall LEA had covertly acted to prevent their children from recording their identity as Cornish. Cornish pupils are the only Census 2001 White British sub-group prevented from recording their ethnicity on the UK wide school survey. The DfES have confirmed that Cornwall LEA were asked if they required this option and the offer was declined.
The UK is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which says that when children are deprived of their identity, States must act speedily to restore it. Although the Council is bound by statutory equal opportunities policy, the LEA are on record as saying that data collection on a Census 2001 ethnic group is a "resource heavy exercise having no practical purpose" and that data processing with respect to the Cornish is "irrelevant", "non-advantageous", "unnecessary" and a "waste of money".
The original decision, and the subsequent remarks [which are clearly outside the Councils own democratically arrived at policy framework], led to widespread public anger and protest. Although several members of the public have complained directly to the Portfolio Holder for Education she has refused to answer any questions.
ISSUE 2. It is a matter of public record that the existing content of the school curriculum causes discord in Cornwall. Last year two pupils who questioned the delivery of the history curriculum were obliged to leave their school. For a number of years I have been attempting to hold those who devise and implement the history curriculum to account.
The LEA are under an obligation to comply with Sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996. I am advised by the Secretary of State for Education that there is a statutory requirement for teaching material to be "objective, critical and pluralistic". The National Curriculum itself states that pupils must be able to "investigate sources, evidence and fact". The government of the United Kingdom is subject to a March 2002 request by the Council of Europe that they should, in consultation with Cornish groups, incorporate Cornish history into the curriculum. I have written extensively on this subject and, in my letters to the Portfolio Holder for Education, shown [briefly] how the existing curriculum falls short of these requirements. On 14th August 2001 I received a telling letter from the Portfolio Holder for Education saying that it would be "dangerous" to comply with the law and introduce a multi-cultural education in Cornwall.
Although the LEA has initiated the ‘Sense of Place’ project, and this is being used as a means of neutralising demands to implement a mandatory, politically impartial, meaningfully diverse curriculum, this purely optional primary level exercise cannot meet statutory requirements. The degree of diversity acceptance and depth of historical objectivity deployed in the Sense of Place project is also questionable. This is why, by making reference to an important historical benchmark, my initial letter tests the LEA’s willingness to exhibit tolerance towards historical facts elements within the LEA find politically or ideologically distasteful. The National Curriculum states that pupils must be permitted to "find evidence, weigh it up and reach their own conclusions". The public has a right to know if de facto LEA historical censorship is rooted in ignorance, political bias, preconceived prejudice or racial discrimination. Despite asking four times, the Portfolio Holder for Education refuses to answer specific questions relating to the content of the curriculum.
The Portfolio Holder for Education is the person responsible for making and implementing decisions that adversely effect the Cornish ethnic group. Her special responsibilities in this area make her the highest paid councillor in Cornwall and she is often seen in the media elevating her profile by accepting praise for LEA decisions seen as benefiting the community. Yet responsibility works both ways. It is not right that credit for correct decision making be accepted but responsibility for wrong decisions be offloaded onto third parties. The questions posed are tailored to address issues arising from her own behaviour and this person must, in order to retain public confidence, be held accountable for her own decisions.
In circumstances such as this I might be expected to address my complaint to the Councils Monitoring Officer, County Solicitor Ian Kennaway. However, having on 27th January 2003 already raised questions with Mr Kennaway and received no answers, I have little faith in the Councils internal investigative procedures. I should also point out that my 7th February letter and questions to the Director of Education have also been unanswered.
A number of people have complained over these issues and to date the LEA has provided not one single answer. It would appear that, in the course of adopting tactics that place obstacles in the way of those seeking to hold the Portfolio Holder to account [and thus avoid the strong possibility of the entrenched attitudes of the Portfolio Holder being further exposed and subject to adverse publicity] customer care standards, as laid down by the Citizens Charter, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Councils own Constitution are being routinely shredded. Indeed, in refusing to answer our questions the Portfolio Holder for Education would appear to be acting as a law unto herself; for at no time does she provide those refused answers with the relevant exemptions which, under the various redress procedures, she is required to do; and the Council, in full knowledge of this, give her free reign to, once again, evade her responsibilities in this area.
You should also be informed that, following a 4th March meeting between the Portfolio Holder and the Chief Executive, I was told by John Sawle of the Chief Executives Department that, "In order to ensure that all correspondence is efficiently processed" I, and others, must desist from contacting the Portfolio Holder for Education and direct correspondence only to the Chief Executive. Members of Cornwall County Council should be aware of this move to curtail the citizens democratic right to question the Portfolio Holder for Education and/or contact other decision makers. The ability of one individual to vet, and then co-ordinate, all incoming and outgoing dialogue is not only counter to the democratic process but harmful to our ability to gain an insight into Council working practices and operating procedures. For it is the various conflicting departmental policies towards the Cornish, and the uncoordinated nature of the service delivery in respect of this group, that we wish to test for compatibility to existing Council policy and legislation. It can be seen from the above that we have only discovered what we now know after writing to various individuals and discovering departmental policy disparities. The genie of LEA incongruity on the Cornish issue is now out of the bottle. It is not for anyone to seek a solution to the Council’s problem by trying to place restrictions on the ability of the public to hold LEA members, officers and staff to account. There should be no attempt to initiate procedures that not only give the Council an extraordinary degree of control over the system of accountability, but leave the Council open to a charge of manipulating procedures in order to retrospectively engineer circumstances that put a favourable gloss on LEA bad practice. In order to ensure that "all correspondence is efficiently processed" all the Chief Executive need do is request that the Portfolio Holder for Education discharge her functions in accordance with that expected of a public figure.
Not only is the LEA’s pattern of behaviour at odds with the Councils own democratically arrived at policy, existing equal opportunities legislation, aspects of domestic law relating to the provision of education and international agreements designed to protect the rights of cultural minorities, there is now a clear case of maladministration. Maladministration is deemed to be present when public authorities act unfairly, break promises, take too long to answer questions and/or do not follow their own rules or procedures.
The Council’s Constitution states that decisions should be both within the law and respectful for human rights. Section 13.7.4 states that the presumption should always be in favour of openness and the opening recital informs us that contact with members of the public should be "positive, informative, friendly and effective". Yet when I remind the recalcitrant Portfolio Holder of her obligations under the various redress procedures she accuses me of issuing "threats". This, the Portfolio Holders previous comments regarding the curriculum [including referring to celebrating diversity as "putting Cornwall on the road to the Balkans"], her many other displays of antipathy towards the Cornish [including preventing schoolchildren from self-identifying as Cornish], the many witnesses to the LEA’s institutionalised hostility to the Cornish dimension and now a consistent refusal to answer questions reflect not a policy of inclusiveness and openness but a siege mentality designed to protect those that harbour the prejudiced beliefs that give rise to this form of biased activity.
Considering the serious nature of this complaint, and my justifiable lack of faith in the Councils ability to hold itself to account, would you ask the Chief Executive to immediately instruct the Portfolio Holder for Education to answer all my questions point by point. If the Chief Executive proves reluctant to exercise his authority and, in effect, sanctions the Portfolio Holder’s refusal to be held to account, I ask that, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, you request the Chief Executive to institute an independent enquiry into both the activities of the LEA and the subsequent institutionalised attempt to prevent LEA decision makers from being held to account.
The Council has, in a number of areas, discriminated against the Cornish. It follows up this activity by flouting redress procedures and exceeding permitted response times. In order to focus the Councils attention on this matter please inform the Chief Executive that I expect to receive a definitive reply within 14 days from the date of this letter. This reasonable request constitutes my last attempt to seek localised redress.
I make this approach to you on behalf of my sons who have been deprived of both their status and the education to which they are entitled.
John Angarrack
Parent and Director of Cornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human Rights
Recorded delivery, copy retained, copy to various parties.
DATELINE: ST PIRANS DAY - 5th March 2003PACKET NEWSPAPER GROUP SLAM CORNWALL L.E.A. FOR PREVENTING CORNISH CHILDREN FROM RECORDING THEIR IDENTITY AS CORNISH ON JAN 16TH 2003 SCHOOL SURVEY.
'BOY'S ANGER AT CORNISH SNUB' FRONT PAGE HEADLINE DETAILS THE CASE OF 12 YEAR OLD REDRUTH PUPIL JOSS TRATHEN WRITING TO THE DUKE OF CORNWALL. HIS LETTER, WRITTEN IN CORNISH, ASKS THE DUKE TO INTERVENE ON HIS BEHALF.
DESPITE 22ND MAY 2002 COUNTY LEGAL SERVICES WRITTEN ASSURANCES THAT PUPILS WOULD BE FREE TO RECORD THEIR IDENTITY AS CORNISH. CORNWALL LEA COVERTLY REVERSED THIS POLICY ON GROUNDS THAT REGISTERING AS CORNISH WAS A WASTE OF PUBLIC MONEY.
THIS DISCRIMINATION MEANS THAT THE CORNISH ARE THE ONLY CENSUS 2001 WHITE BRITISH ETHNIC SUB-GROUP PREVENTED FROM RECORDING THEIR ETHNICITY ON THE SURVEY.
BY ENSURING STATISTICAL INVISIBILITY, CORNWALL LEA HAVE MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR CORNISH PUPILS TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE EDUCATION TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED.
THE PAPER FINSHED BY SAYING THAT "CORNWALL EDUCATION CHIEFS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THE PATHETIC EXCUSE PUT FORWARD FOR PREVENTING PUPILS FROM RECORDING THEIR CORNISH IDENITY".
For more information contact:
cornubian@tiscali.co.uk----------------------------------
CORNWALL 2000: CIVIL LIBERTIES/HUMAN RIGHTS
45 Higher Bore Street, Bodmin, Cornwall PL31 1JS
PRELIMINARY COMMENT.
The ‘final’ DfES response to Cornwall 2000 inquiries [shown below] is characterised by the need to evade and dissemble. The desire to avoid repercussions means that responsibility for shredding government guidelines, overseeing serious breaches of Data Protection Act regulations and flouting human rights legislation must be offloaded onto Cornwall LEA. It is not lost on us that, quite conveniently, Cornwall LEA have no authority to order a new survey.
We are now left with a situation where, not only are the Department for Education happy to work with knowingly invalid statistics, unless appropriate action is taken, Cornish children will remain statistically invisible for years to come.
Ultimate responsibility for this injustice rests with the Secretary of State for Education.
Feel free to forward this dialogue on.
----------------------------------
DfES RESPONSE
Mr J Angarrack
Cornwall 2000 Civil Liberties/Human Rights
45 Higher Bore Street
Bodmin
Cornwall
PL31 1JS13th February 2003
Dear Mr Angarrack,
In response to your various correspondences with the Department, I have contacted colleagues in both the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to gain their views on some of the points you have raised. What is or is not a census output category, I believe misses the real issue. Having said that there have been some fundamental misunderstandings as to the requirements placed on the DfES by the CRE’s non- statutory document, ‘Ethnic Monitoring: A guide for public authorities’ and the 2001 Census output categories.
With regard to the CRE, colleagues there have confirmed that: -
In the CRE’s guidance document, where it is stated that the CRE will seek information from public authorities "on the basis of the categories that will be used for census output data in England and Wales" the guidance is referring to the 16 standard output categories not the 79 detailed ethnicity categories. Public authorities are not expected to provide the CRE with data that is based on the 79 detailed ethnicity categories.
This is further reinforced by the ‘CENSUS OUTPUT DATA’ categories listed on page 84 of CRE document ‘Ethnic Monitoring: A guide to public authorities’. The table figure one, in appendix four, confirms that the census output categories, in the understanding of the CRE, are the 16 standard categories.
You are quite correct that there is an onus on public authorities to "reflect local demography". The DfES, however, cannot be an expert on the local demographys of each of the 150 English LEAs. Therefore, as part of our procedures, we gave each LEA an opportunity to suggest categories that would enable LEAs and us to reflect their local demographys in accordance with CRE guidance.
If you require confirmation of the CRE recommendations I suggest you contact: -
Pam Smith,
Commission for Racial Equality,
Elliot House,
10-12 Allington Street
London
SW1E 5EH
- To be clear: under the CRE guidance, public authorities are expected to collect information on the following categories: -
White- British
White- Irish
White- Any other White background
Mixed- White and Black Caribbean
Mixed- White and Black African
Mixed- White and Asian
Mixed- Any other mixed background
Asian- Indian
Asian- Pakistani
Asian- Bangladesh
Asian- Any other Asian background
Black- Caribbean
Black- African
Black Any other Black background
Chinese
Any other ethnic background.ONS.
You are quite correct that the ONS census Output Classifications document includes a category of Cornish in the ‘detailed categories’ section. However it is not the case that Government Departments are required to adopt these detailed categories in their data collections: -
We are under no legal obligation to use any part of the census 2001 ethnicity classification. Adoption of these categories is simply recommended by both the CRE and the ONS.
We chose to use the 16 standard census ethnicity categories, with our own additional extended categories which were suggested to us by LEAs, to enable us to create comparability with the standard census ethnicity categories. This is/ was for practical and not legal reasons.
The ONS 79 detailed ethnicity categories are not included in the standard census output but in output that is commissioned, i.e. requested by a census user from the ONS. We are using the 16 standard census categories as the basis of our data collection to ensure our data can be compared with the standard census output not with the many various commissioned outputs.
It is also not the case, as you state in your letter dated 19th January, that "the DfES Key List recommended use of the entire Census White British ethnic sub-groups quoted above except ‘Cornish’." As I have said in each of my previous correspondences and will repeat again now, the DfES ethnicity classification was derived via consultations with LEAs and not with reference to the ONS list of detailed ethnicity categories. Additionally, besides Cornish, there are 24 categories that appear in the ONS detailed categories output list that do not appear on our list. Despite some similarities our list is clearly different.
Again if you need confirmation of the ONS position please contact: -
Lucy Haselden,
Office for National Statistics,
1 Drummond Gate,
London,
SW1V 2QQ.DfES is sympathetic to the feelings that our form has not allowed individuals to record themselves as Cornish. I must, however, re-iterate once again that the reason the DfES survey/ ethnicity key list did not include a category of Cornish is because it was not suggested to us by any LEA. You are quite right that this is not a matter of apportioning blame; however it must be made clear that in the creation of our list of ethnicity, DfES has not sought to limit the inclusion of any ethnic groups from our list of categories or discriminate against any groups.
In response to your two questions.
DfES will not be updating its key list to include ANY new categories in the near future. When we do update our key list, we will do so after a nationwide consultation exercise involving each LEA and the wider public via our web- site to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to suggest new categories. One of the reasons why we consulted with all LEAs, beginning in November 2000, on the revision of our data collection procedures is precisely because once these categories were finalised there would be no further opportunity to revise these categories for the foreseeable future. This is due to cost, planning time and the fact that we cannot at this late stage re- commission new software and processes to accommodate this change in schools. Although you may say that this argument is "superfluous ", the fact of the matter is that unfortunately we do not have the resources to revisit decisions that have been made after a prolonged and thorough consultation process. As you may appreciate there are around 23,000 schools, 7.5 million school pupils of compulsory school age and 150 local education authorities. Most schools in England have taken a year to collect the data according to the new procedures and it has been a considerable undertaking for all concerned. To change our key list in any way at this late stage will have major implications for all schools in England.
We are concerned with the some of the aspects of the data collection in Cornwall that you and others have drawn to our attention and we will be contacting the LEA regarding the additional issues you raise. We will not and cannot, however, request that the LEA re- conducts the survey. Our guidance document gave LEAs the responsibility for the methods by which they carry out the data collection exercise in their area. The guidance did set out recommend procedures to ensure that Data Protection and Race Relations legislation were taken into account but ultimately the responsibility for how these are applied is the responsibility of each LEA. Complaints about how the survey has been carried out in any LEA should, therefore be addressed to that LEA. Additionally the status of our guidance document is recommended. We do not, therefore, have legal powers to enforce any LEA to carry out the survey again in accordance with the procedures in our guidance. If there is a complaint that that an LEA in their method of data collection has breached either Data protection or race relation legislation this needs to be taken up with the LEA, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Commission for Racial Equality.
I am aware of the article in the Western Morning News concerning this issue and our press office will be responding to this article to correct some of the inaccuracies it contained and respond to the answers from Cornwall County Council.
You will also shortly be receiving a response from our legal department regarding the legal arguments you have used concerning the Human Rights Act 1998, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and the EC Article 13 Race Directive.
Yours sincerely,
John Knights- DfES Analytical Services.
Paul Jackson- DfES Ethnic Minority Pupils’ team.Copies to: -
Lucy Haselden- Ethnicity and Identity Branch- Office for National Statistics.
Ian White- Legal Support Manager- Office for National Statistics.
Richard Beasley- Analysis & Policy Integration- Office for National Statistics.
Pam Smith- Commission for Racial Equality.
Geoff Aver-Secretary for Education- Cornwall County Council.----------------------------------
CORNWALL 2000 INITIAL RESPONSE.
John Knights says that "What is, or is not, a census output category misses the real issue". Yet the CRE publication, Ethnic Monitoring: A Guide to Public Authorities [to which John Knights refers] says "The census provides the most comprehensive and reliable data about the population. You should therefore use the same ethnic categories as those used in the census". [p.82] For the purpose of Census 2001, ‘Cornish’ was and is an ethnic category
The DfES refused to provide Cornwall 2000 with copies of the exchange of dialogue between John Knights and the CRE’s Pam Smith. As such, we cannot follow the pattern of argument that led to the CRE phrase "Census output data" being restricted to the extent that it applies only to ‘standard output’, as opposed to all output. [Where all output equals ‘standard output’ for the 16 standard categories plus ‘commissioned output’ for the extra 79 sub-groups]. By restricting the meaning of this phrase in such a way, there is seemingly no requirement upon the DfES to collect data on the Cornish, or for that matter, any of the other 78 Census 2001 sub-groups.
Yet curiously, John Knight goes on to state that, "You are quite correct that there is an onus on public authorities to reflect local demography". I can only agree. The Race Relation Amendment Act places a general duty upon public authorities to be proactive in promoting equality between ethnic groups. In addition, Cornwall LEA is under a UN treaty obligation to respect a child’s right to preserve his or her identity. In the exercise of discretionary powers it is also unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that fails to accord with the many principles of non-discrimination enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
On 22 May 2002 the County Solicitors Department confirmed that Cornwall County Councils position on this issue was in line with legislation when it stated that pupils in Cornwall would be "free to confirm their Cornish ethnicity in accordance with Convention rights". So not only is it a lawful requirement, it is also a matter of public record that the Office for National Statistics policy of utilising a Cornish category would continue for ethnic background data collection in all Cornwall County Council departments. Although departments like Cornwall Health Authority utilise a Cornish tick box on the ethnic background forms, Cornwall Local Education Authority refuse to implement this measure. Yet it is difficult to see how Cornwall LEA can adhere to legislation, maintain the corporate view and reflect local demography without utilising the, lawfully recognised, Cornish sub-group category.
Unfortunately for Mr.Knights, although he had previously admitted that there was "an onus on public authorities to reflect local demography", he later contradicts himself again by saying that, although the ONS has a Census 2001 output classification for Cornish, "it is not the case that Government Departments are required to adopt these detailed categories in their data collections". He seems to overlook the fact that government departments are public authorities.
The [alternating] DfES position is further undermined by the CRE who accept that using only ‘broad categories’ can sometimes hide differences between groups. They therefore urge public authorities to collect and analyse ethnic data in as much detail as possible.[p.86]
John Knights is right to say that page 84 of the CRE’s Ethnic Monitoring: A Guide to Public Authorities shows an ethnic monitoring form containing the 16 standard categories. However, he is quite wrong to say that this confirms that the phrase "Census output data" refers only to these 16 categories. Nowhere in the CRE document is there any indication that this phrase is restricted to just 16 categories. Indeed, if the ONS release data on any of the 79 Census 2001 sub-groups this must, ipso facto, be census output data.
Furthermore, while referring to the CRE 16 category specimen form, John Knights ignores the CRE’s second specimen form shown on the same page. This second form shows 19 categories – the 16 plus English, Scottish and Welsh sub-groups added. The CRE say these examples are only possible ethnic classification systems [p.10] The idea is that public authorities should amend classification systems to reflect local demography.
John Knights says that the DfES is under no legal obligation to use the Census 2001 ethnicity classifications. He also asserts that "it is not the case, as you state in your letter dated 19th January, that the DfES Key List recommended use of the entire Census White British ethnic sub-groups except Cornish".
It is an indisputable fact that English, Scottish and Welsh Census sub-groups appear on the DfES Key List and the Cornish do not.
John Knights attempts to add weight to his argument by saying that there are 24 other categories that appear on the ONS list that do not appear on the DfES list. It is difficult here to follow his train of thought, for although the missing groups include Polish and Israeli sub-groups, these are not White British sub groups.
Note: It should be remembered that LEA’s were under an obligation to define ethnic categories for groups exceeding 100 pupils as a whole across all year groups. Extrapolating up from the recent Plymouth University [Aldous-Williams] Cornwall-wide pupil ethnic background survey gives a figure of approx.25,000 pupils wishing to self-identify as Cornish in Cornwall.
The Western Morning News article states that Cornwall LEA prevented Cornish pupils from registering their identity as Cornish on the pretext of cost. John Knights uses cost grounds to avoid having to rectify the injustice. What would happen if a Yorkshire based, BNP influenced, council used cost grounds to prevent 25,000 Asian children from registering their ethnicity?
We hear about the need for states to obey UN Resolutions. UN Resolution 47/135 [18th Dec. 1992] decrees that states will "protect the ethnic identity of minorities and encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity". Article 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child orders that States "undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States shall provide appropriate assistance and protection with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity". And what of costs? Article 4 of the UN Convention decrees that social and cultural rights enshrined in the Convention will be implemented "to the maximum extent of available resources".
John Knights says that the DfES are ‘sympathetic to our feelings’ and ‘concerned’ about some of the aspects of data collection in Cornwall [at least one Community school carried out mass ascription without telling parents]. Yet DfES sympathy and concern does not extend to invalidating the ‘survey’ results and then re-constituting the survey so that it gives 25,000 children due recognition, and the possibility of access to an education to which they are entitled.
Cornwall 2000 await with anticipation the DfES responses to matters raised in respect of the Human Rights Act 1998, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and EC Article 13 Race Directive.
This, and other, information will be incorporated within a Cornwall 2000 shadow report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to coincide with the governments mandatory third Compliance Report on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child due for submission in June 2004. This information will also be incorporated into our complimentary report to the Council of Europe Framework Convention Advisory Committee to coincide with the governments second mandatory Compliance Report.
Lastly, Cornwall 2000 asks that, with regard to our forthcoming reports, those writing letters of complaint, or instigating formal redress procedures, copy all correspondence and official responses to us.
John Angarrack
Director
Cornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human RightsNote for Clarification: John Knights claim that Cornwall 2000 described his outlining of procedures necessary for carrying out a new survey as ‘superfluous’ is incorrect. Our reference to John Knights constructing arguments that were superfluous referred to his introducing obstructionist debate as follows:
1. The suggestion that ‘Cornish’ was simply an ONS ‘internal category’, and did not constitute a lawfully recognised ONS ethnic category for the purposes of Census 2001.
2. The inference that UK schools could [and many did] allow English, Scottish and Welsh pupils to record their distinct ethnicity, but to allow the Cornish to record their ethnicity would involve vast time and expense. [Schools in Cornwall were told to used the minimum 18 categories, schools in Middlesex used 84 categories. Although both LEA’s coped, Middlesex managed to reflect local demography without recourse to using write-in boxes and paying thousands of skilled coders]
I repeat part of John Knights argument below:
"The census sub- groups you mention are the codes that the Office of
National Statistics (ONS) have applied to any write- in responses such as
Cornish given in response to the ethnicity question in the 2001 National
population census. They are internal categories used by the ONS for their own coding
purposes and do not constitute the new categories used in the census.
Additionally these 'sub- group categories' are not mandatory and the actual
2001 census categories for recording ethnicity are above. I attach a copy
of the census form for your information.
I should also mention that the national population Census had a "write in"
box where individuals could record their ethnic background if they felt it
was not covered by the offered list of categories. The national Census
employed thousands of skilled coders who would determine where the write in
categories would map on to the national categories. We had obviously
considered a "write in" box as a possible solution to the issue of the
potential limits that the national categories may have to schools with an
increasingly diverse pupil population. In practical terms, the collection
and recording of ethnic background data is something that falls to schools
and usually the school administrator, to undertake. Without hugely
increasing burdens on schools, who do not have the benefit of thousands of
specially trained members of staff, we could not reasonably ask schools to
undertake the task of interpreting "write in" responses. The potentially
very wide range of responses could prove very difficult for a lay person to
code correctly."
Best wishes,
John KnightsEND
----------------------------------
CORNWALL 2000: CIVIL LIBERTIES/HUMAN RIGHTS
45 Higher Bore Street, Bodmin, Cornwall PL31 1JS
John Knights
Member of the National Statistics Working Group on Ethnicity and Identity
Lead DfES Analytical Services Officer responsible for Pupil Level Annual Schools Census
Department for Education and Skills
6P22 Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3BT11 February 2003
Sir
STATISTICAL CLEANSING OF A CENSUS 2001 ETHNIC GROUP FROM DfES JAN 16th PUPIL IDENTITY SURVEY
This is our tenth attempt to resolve the outstanding issue of UK educational authority discrimination against the Cornish.
I still await your urgent response to my enquiries and remind you that under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information [1997] public authorities have 20 working days in which to articulate a comprehensive response. This window expires on the 14th February 2003.
To date, responses from your department have been less than forthcoming. Our questions have still not been answered. On at least two occasions I have asked the DfES to provide an assurance that they would re-constitute the Pupil Ethnic Background Monitoring Survey so that it accords with all statutory requirements and existing guidelines. On both occasions you evaded the question; merely describing how long such a process would take. Not only have you declined to answer specific questions, your responses have often included superfluous arguments that bear no relation to the specific enquiry being made. It is becoming clear that in order to avoid having to face up to the situation, DfES responses are characterised by prevarication, obfuscation, deviation and selectivity.
You will have seen Cornwall LEA’s response to our various questions printed in the Feb 1st edition of the Western Morning News [regional newspaper]. Contained within that response were LEA assertions that: data collection and monitoring of a Census 2001 ethnic group is "a resource heavy exercise having no practical purpose" and that ethnic data collection and monitoring of a Census 2001 ethnic group is "irrelevant", "non-advantageous", "unnecessary" and a "waste of public resources".
This is an outrageous response totally at odds with DFES guidelines, wholly in breach of the LEA’s statutory duty not to discriminate and blindly dismissive of the adverse effect such a approach has on the educational rights and cultural aspirations of Cornish children.
The Cornish are the only Census 2001 White British sub-group to be excluded from the DfES Key List. There is absolutely no defence for this. We cannot permit a situation to exist where, as a result of wholly unwarranted educational authority statistical cleansing, tens of thousands of Cornish parents register as such on the national Census but, according to the education system, have no children in UK schools. The DfES are fully aware that if ethnic minority children are condemned to statistical invisibility they cannot hope to gain access to the education to which they are entitled. Producing ‘statistics’ that distort the ethnic balance of the population in order to deprive children of rights to which they are entitled is not only wholly unacceptable, but also entirely unlawful.
This is our final recorded delivery request for you to answer our questions in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (1997). I repeat:
1. Will the DfES inform Cornwall LEA of its statutory obligations in respect of ethnic minority pupils?
2. Will the DfES update its final PLASC ‘Key List’ of recommended ethnic groups to take into account the emerged requirement to include the Cornish Census 2001 ethnic group?
3. Bearing in mind that we have a plethora of evidence showing that a great many parents of under 16 pupils were not informed of the survey; that promises were made as to the recording of a pupils Cornish ethnicity that could not be fulfilled and correspondence from my sons own school informs me that mass unlawful ascription took place, will the DfES undertake a new survey that accords to all existing legal requirements, set procedures and reporting requirements?
The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information also permits us "access to the facts and analyses which provide the basis for consideration of policy" and commits the DfES to,"make available internal guidance to officials".
I would ask that the DfES not only answer our outstanding questions; but make available to us the 'facts and analyses' [i.e. DfES internal legal advice and exchange of dialogue between the DfES, CRE and ONS as outlined in your letter of 24 January] that provide the basis for formulation of DfES policy.
The DfES should understand that this problem will not go away simply by unilaterally terminating dialogue. Failure to meet the terms of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information simply results in other redress procedures being followed.
John Angarrack
Director
Recorded delivery, copy retained.
Copies to: Richard Thomas – Information Commissioner; Charles Clark – Secretary of State for Education and Skills; David Bell - Chief Inspector of Schools at OFSTED; Mark Neville – Executive Secretary to the Council of Europe Framework Convention Advisory Committee; Trevor Philips – Chair, Commission for Racial Equality; Cynthia Morel – Legal Cases Officer at Minority Rights Group and others.
----------------------------------
To receive a copy of the 4th February 2003 Western Morning News [regional newspaper] report into UK Educational Authority statistical cleansing of a Census 2001 ethnic group send s.a.e. to John Angarrack @ above address.
For an insight into the Cornish, their history and status in present day society read OUR FUTURE IS HISTORY: Identity, Law and the Cornish Question by John Angarrack.
The 350 page sewn-bound quality hardback, described by the Western Morning News as a 'startling and truly liberal work', is available in local bookshops or by post from the above address. Additional details from: cornubian@tiscali.co.uk
Please forward this mail to other interested parties.
----------------------------------
To enable me to provide you with a comprehensive response I am currently awaiting responses from the Commission for Racial Equality, the Office for National Statistics and our legal department. I will send you a full response once I have received contributions from these bodies.
John Knights
DfES Analytical Services----------------------------------
From: Angarrack[mailto:cornubian@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 24 January 2003 16:08
To: John.KNIGHTS@dfee.gov.uk
Cc: paul1.jackson@dfee.gov.uk; Cynthia Morel; regina.jensdottir@coe.int; john_reid@new.labour.org.uk; c.bird@ioe.ac.uk; NEVILLE Mark; Nick.KEW@dfee.gov.uk; nhoskin@cornwall.gov.uk; john.Knights@dfee.gov.uk; graeme hicks; Bert Biscoe; Jim Pengelly; geoff avers; pstethridge@cornwall.gov.uk; tewilliams@cornwall.gov.uk; Armorel Carlyon; Caroline Jackson; Eva.Blassar@eurolang.net; info@fuen.org; Nigel Druce; Pedyr Pryor
Subject: Cornwall LEA cleansing of a Census 2001 ethnic group8th ATTEMPT TO SEEK A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE UK EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITIES HAVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE CORNISH BY STATISTICALLY CLEANSING THEM FROM ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.
John Knights
Department for Education and Skills
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London24th Jan 2002Dear Mr KnightsI still await your urgent response to my 20th Jan enquiry as detailed in the attachment.I should remind you that under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information [1997] public authorities have 20 days in which to articulate a comprehensive response.John AngarrackDirectorCornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human Rights.45 Higher Bore StreetBodmin PL31 1JS----------------------------------
7th ATTEMPT TO SEEK A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE UK EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITIES HAVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE CORNISH BY STATISTICALLY CLEANSING THEM FROM ADMISTRATIVE RECORD.
Dear Mr Knights,
Thank you for enclosing DfES Ethnic Background Monitoring Guidance guidance a copy of which I already have.
On the basis of assertions made in your previous E Mail [some of which are repeated in your follow-up E Mail below] the problem stems from your department making the flawed assumption that instructing schools to collect data merely on ONS Census 2001 main categories [as per the 16 codes you constantly refer to] satisfies Commission for Racial Equality guidance to public authorities [which I repeat].
CRE guidance states that, from time to time, they will seek information from public authorities "on the basis of the categories that will be used for census output data in England and Wales." This means the CRE require the DfES to collect ethnic background information on all output data; NOT just the 16 ‘standard output’ categories as you continually infer.
Perhaps it would help if I put it another way. The 16 main ethnic categories used in the 2001 Census question have been recommended by both the Home Office and the Commission for Racial Equality for use by local authorities and other organisations as the basic categories in their ethnic monitoring programmes. This means that instead of simply conducting the survey using the DfES standard form, LEA’s are expected to reflect local demography by trawling through the DfES Key List of sub-groups. They then seek additions to the standard form as appropriate [subject to there being more than 100 pupils within the authority across all year groups]. As indicated previously, other LEA’s have met their obligations in this respect.
The reason for deviating from a standard form that features the 16 standard categories [and two others in the DfES case] is because these 16 standard categories provide the CRE with only ‘standard output’ data. Yet the CRE expect public authorities to be able to provide them with data on the entire census output ie. the ‘standard output’ data [the 16 main ethnic categories] plus the ‘commissioned output’ [as per the 79 ethnic sub-groups]. The Welsh, English, Scots and Cornish are all Census 2001 ethnic group sub-categories.
In response to your request to provide the source for my information [which you say conflicts with the advice you were given by the ONS] I would say that the September 2001 final output classifications for Census 2001 ethnic groups have been well publicised and are currently available on ONS website:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/IntroUserConsultation.asp
Link status removed it workls but causes link testing warning [TGG] .
Now that it has been confirmed beyond all doubt that ‘Cornish’ is a recognised ethnic group for the purposes of Census 2001, I would ask that the DfES accept the situation and not question the position further or subject the issue to additional debate.
We must now start to resolve the core problem ie, What led to a situation where the DfES held an Ethnic Background Monitoring Survey that excluded a Census 2001 ethnic group?
Both you [and DfES guidelines] say that, after holding consultations with the CRE and ONS, your department produced a ‘Key List’ of recommended ethnic sub-groups [in DfES parlance - extended groups]. From this point on, the DfES Key List recommended use of all the Census White British ethnic sub-groups quoted above except ‘Cornish’. This alone constitutes an act of racial discrimination. [The term racial is used in accordance with the 1976 Race Relations Act]
For now we must leave aside the separate issue of whether or not Cornwall LEA acted unlawfully in not asking the DfES to include the Cornish ethnic group within the recommended DfES Key List.
Returning to the DfES final Key List as it exists today, it is clear that DfES consultations with the CRE and ONS failed to produce a situation that remains in accordance with the statutory requirement not to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity [Race Relations Act 1976] and the statutory requirement not to interfere with the right to self-expression [Article 10 in conjunction with Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights{now incorporated into domestic law as the Human Rights Act 1998}]. The present, clearly defined, position of the DfES also violates the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and the recent EC Article 13 Race Directive.
This is not our only concern. There are other matters which question the integrity of the ‘survey’ and the validity of the results. I have previously informed you that we have hard evidence that wholly irregular mass ascription has taken place in Cornish schools. This practice has occurred without the knowledge of pupils or parents, it is in breach of your own guidelines and it is in contravention of the Data Protection Act.
I have also described how some parents were told that asserting ‘Cornish’ on the form would be recorded for ethnic monitoring purposes. In fact, because DfES ethnic monitoring software does not recognise the word ‘Cornish’, this is not the case. These activities alone are reason enough to halt the present survey and order the commissioning of another.
To date, responses from your department have been less than forthcoming. The two urgent questions I asked on 14th January have still not been answered. On at least two occasions I have asked the DfES to provide an assurance that they would re-constitute the Ethnic Background Monitoring Survey so that it accords with all statutory requirements and existing guidelines. On both occasions you, as spokesman, evaded the question; merely describing how long such a process would take. Not only have you declined to answer specific questions, your responses have often included superfluous arguments that bear no relation to the specific enquiry being made. It is becoming clear that in order to avoid having to face up to the situation, DfES responses are characterised by prevarication, obfuscation, deviation and selectivity. Perhaps it is time to move to the next level of redress.
This problem will not go away. Indeed, we have the means to seriously escalate matters and amplify your problems should we wish to do so. Our linked database contains the E Mail address of all Members of Parliament, most Cornwall County and District Councillors, all 300 schools in Cornwall, nearly 150 media organisations, all government departments, numerous civil liberty groups and hundreds of individuals [including school governors].
One of our many options is to use our contacts within the Cornwall wide press to mount our own survey. This survey would ask A) Have parents been made aware that a pupil identity survey had taken place? B) Did the school consult parents of under 16’s before resorting to coercion or ascription? C) If consulted, were parents who recorded their child’s identity as ‘Cornish’ given assurances that this data would be recorded? D) Were parents aware that all forms featuring the word Cornish have been subject to covert ascription? These witness statements would then be assembled into a dossier to be used as evidence when making formal complaints to the appropriate authorities.
You must start to realise the strength of feeling and our determination to overcome injustice. We cannot have a situation where tens of thousands of adults are recognised as a distinct ethnic group for the purposes of Census 2001, but their children do not officially exist in schools.
We do not seek to apportion blame. We simply want the survey to be carried out in accordance with all legal obligations, correct procedures and reporting requirements.
I therefore once again ask that you respond to the following questions:
1.Will the DfES update its final ‘Key List’ of recommended ethnic groups so that it takes into account the emerged requirement to include the Cornish Census 2001 ethnic group?
2. Bearing in mind the vast number of other survey ‘irregularities’ taking place in Cornwall, will the DfES consider undertaking a new survey that accords to all existing legal requirements, set procedures and reporting requirements?
John Angarrack
Director
Cornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human Rights----------------------------------
From John Knights, DfES
Mr Angarrack,
It may be helpful for me to explain the process by which we drew up the DfES list of ethnicity categories. In January this year the Department circulated new guidance to local education authorities to confirm their role in providing leadership and support to schools on the collection and recording of pupils' ethnic background. This guidance included a listing of the national categories adopted by the DfES, these categories are based closely on the ethnic background categories used in the 2001 national population Census in England and are the categories detailed on the form you received. Many authorities have historically collected more detailed ethnic group data than asked for nationally to reflect their own data collection, monitoring and planning priorities. The DfES recognises that there are often sound reasons why authorities wish to collect more detailed information locally using categories outside of those used in the 2001 national population census. Officials therefore consulted with local authorities, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Office for National Statistics to create an additional "key list" of extended ethnic group categories. This key list can be viewed on the DfES web- site at
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ethnicminorities/collecting/?template=F&top
_id=1143.We received representations from a number of local authorities regarding the categories they would wish to add to this list. These representations included Cornwall LEA who stated that they did not wish to add a category of Cornish to the key list. Therefore this category is not on our key list. Additionally each LEA selects the categories on the key list that they will use for collecting ethnicity data based on their knowledge of their local area. Dorset and Hertfordshire are using additional ethnicity categories from the key list as they have decided to use these. Equally Cornwall LEA had the right to select any sub -set of the codes listed on the key list and if Cornwall LEA had of requested a category of Cornish and this had been accepted by the DfES they would have been able to use this category.
On point two specially our key list was indeed provisional at the time of the publication of our guidance document (attached) in January 2002. Following the Departments consultation with LEAs detailed above and on page 4 of the guidance document the key list is now final.
Therefore in answer to your specific questions: -
1. As I have explained before conducting the survey again is by no means a simple exercise and we are looking at very long lead times before schools software systems could be changed.
2. The Department has never stated that the 'Cornish ethnic group should accept being excluded from the DfES recommended list of extended categories', the categories on our list of extended categories are those that where suggested to us by LEAs.
It would be helpful if you could send me a copy of the ONS Census 2001 final classification (Sep 2001) as it appears to contradict the advise DfES where given by the ONS and indeed those that are included on the census form. I must reiterate and I state this as this as a member of the National Statistics Working Group on Ethnicity and Identity which has had numerous discussions around the ethnicity classification used in the census, that the National Statistics classification for ethnicity is: -
White- British
White- Irish
White- Any other White background
Mixed- White and Black Caribbean
Mixed- White and Black African
Mixed- White and Asian
Mixed- Any other mixed background
Asian- Indian
Asian- Pakistani
Asian- Bangladesh
Asian- Any other Asian background
Black- Caribbean
Black- African
Black Any other Black background
Chinese
Any other ethnic background
Regards,
John Knights
DfES Analytical Services----------------------------------
6th ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR DfES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE CORNISH
Dear Mr Knights
The reasoning as detailed in your E Mail below is flawed. In simple terms:
1) Page 38 of the ONS Census 2001 Final Classifications [Sep 2001] states that the full list of ethnic categories includes British (01), Irish (02), English (03), Scottish (04), Welsh (05) and Cornish (06).
2) Your departments own guidance states that "The department proposes to adopt the new 2001 national population Census ethnic background categories"
and that the existing DfES extended category list [which excludes the Cornish] is "provisional".
3) Cornish is the only White British Census 2001 sub-group [in DfES parlance - extended category] excluded from the DfES database.
4) It is unlawful to treat one ethnic group less favourably than another.
This is not about employing thousands of staff to sift through a write-in box as you suggest. It is about Cornwall LEA deviating from the standard form [with a simple ‘Cornish’ tick box in accordance with DfES and CRE guidance] in order to reflect localised demography as other LEA's have done. For instance, Hertfordshire LEA added two sub-groups [Italian and Turkish] while Dorset LEA added four.
I note that COMMISSION for RACIAL EQUALITY guidance to public authorities involved in ethnic monitoring states that the CRE will, from time to time, seek information from public authorities "on the basis of the categories that will be used for the census output data in England and Wales, and in Scotland." Information will be sought on all output data, NOT just the 16 standard output categories as you infer. I should inform you that we have recent correspondence from the ONS stating that data on the Cornish forms part of the census output data.
Before I take matters further will you now please end the prevarication and either:
- Announce that the survey will be done again but this time in accordance with the statutory requirement not to discriminate or
- Explain why the Cornish ethnic group should accept being excluded from the DfES recommended list of extended ethnic categories [ and thus deprived of recognition and rights]?
John Angarrack
Director
Cornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human Rights
----------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: <John.KNIGHTS@dfes.gsi.gov.uk>
To: <cornubian@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: <Paul1.JACKSON@dfee.gov.uk>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:31 AM
Subject: RE: Response from local school
Mr. Angarrack,
I cannot comment on the comments of your local head teacher, but I would
like to make clear what are and are not the 2001 census categories. The 2001
census categories for ethnicity are as follows: -
> White- British
> White- Irish
> White- Any other White background
> Mixed- White and Black Caribbean
> Mixed- White and Black African
> Mixed- White and Asian
> Mixed- Any other mixed background
> Asian- Indian
> Asian- Pakistani
> Asian- Bangladesh
> Asian- Any other Asian background
> Black- Caribbean
> Black- African
> Black Any other Black background
> Chinese
> Any other ethnic background
>
The above are the National Statistics categories for collecting ethnicity.
The census sub- groups you mention are the codes that the Office of
National Statistics (ONS) have applied to any write- in responses such as
Cornish given in response to the ethnicity question in the 2001 National
population census. They are internal categories used by the ONS for their own coding
purposes and do not constitute the new categories used in the census.
Additionally these 'sub- group categories' are not mandatory and the actual
2001 census categories for recording ethnicity are above. I attach a copy
of the census form for your information.
I should also mention that the national population Census had a "write in"
box where individuals could record their ethnic background if they felt it
was not covered by the offered list of categories. The national Census
employed thousands of skilled coders who would determine where the write in
categories would map on to the national categories. We had obviously
considered a "write in" box as a possible solution to the issue of the
potential limits that the national categories may have to schools with an
increasingly diverse pupil population. In practical terms, the collection
and recording of ethnic background data is something that falls to schools
and usually the school administrator, to undertake. Without hugely
increasing burdens on schools, who do not have the benefit of thousands of
specially trained members of staff, we could not reasonably ask schools to
undertake the task of interpreting "write in" responses. The potentially
very wide range of responses could prove very difficult for a lay person to
code correctly.
Best wishes,
John Knights
DfES Analytical Services
----------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Angarrack [mailto:cornubian@tiscali.co.uk]
> Sent: 16 January 2003 01:37
> To: John.KNIGHTS@dfee.gov.uk
> Cc: paul1.jackson@dfee.gov.uk; Cynthia Morel; regina.jensdottir@coe.int;
> NEVILLE Mark; Nick.KEW@dfee.gov.uk;
> nhoskin@cornwall.gov.uk
> Subject: Response from local school
>
>
> 4th E Mail TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE.
>
Dear Mr Knights
>
Regarding the current DfES Ethnic Background Monitoring Survey where under
16 pupils are, according to DfES guidelines, to decide on their ethnic
identity "with the support of parents".
>
I have just received written confirmation from the Head of our local
school that "in order to avoid giving families lots of extra work we are updating
the information already held on students". Whenever did ticking a box
constitute doing a 'lot of extra work'? Doesn't the Head appreciate that
ethnic identities are subjective, prone to influence and open to change over
time?
>
DfES guidelines say that "all pupils must be given the opportunity to
define their ethnic background under the new categories". Because all the new
Census 2001 sub groups categories are not included in previous PLASC
surveys, this practice cannot in any way, shape or form be taken as
satisfactory. Such casual practices are definitely not in accordance with
the requirement to include Census 2001 sub-groups as outlined in
DfES circular 16/89 or the statutory requirement not to discriminate
against any Census 2001 ethnic group.
>
Because it has now become clear that those responsible have not followed
appropriate procedures this whole exercise is fatally flawed. This one-off
survey must be done again, and it must be done in strict accordance with
DfES guidelines.
>
> John Angarrack
> Director
> Cornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human Rights.
>
Understood. All we need is a commitment that the results of this survey will be voided when the new survey is carried out as soon as possible and in accordance with set procedures. I am of course referring to this important one-off survey, not the annual PLASC survey [which also needs upgrading to take into account all Census 2001 sub-groups].
----- Original Message ----- From: John.KNIGHTS@dfes.gsi.gov.uk To: cornubian@tiscali.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 8:50 AM Subject: RE: Cornwall LEA and Ethnic MonitoringMr Angarrack
I am still awaiting a response from Cornwall LEA. In the interim I should inform you that it is not unfortunately just a matter of issuing a new survey. Schools software systems are currently configured to accept any ethnicity category that appears on the DfES list of ethnicity categories. The suppliers of school software systems have very long lead times and strict timetables in relation to changing and distributing their software systems. What may seem a small addition to the software, i.e. adding in an additional category of Cornish to allow schools to use this category, does in fact constitute a huge amount of work. It will require each software supplier (there are at least ten) to re- configure their software and re- distribute it to each school in the country. In real terms if a new survey was issued, and I am not committing DfES or Cornwall LEA to this course of action, we are looking at least six months before school software systems could be set up to except a category of Cornish. It should be noted that each school also chooses their own software system independently so we are dealing with a mixed economy.
John Knights
DfES Analytical Services
Sent: 15 January 2003 23:51
To: John.KNIGHTS@dfee.gov.uk
Subject: Re: Cornwall LEA and Ethnic MonitoringDear Mr Knight
Thank you for contacting Cornwall LEA on our behalf. However, because the survey is currently being undertaken in my childrens own school [for which the details must be collected by the end of this week] I cannot stress how important it is for us to obtain as a matter of urgency the definitive dfes stance on this matter.
We would rather settle this without conflict by having a new survey issued that firstly, allowed pupils to record their Cornish identity in accordance with the Census 2001 ethnic codings and secondly, followed dfes guidance by prompting under 16's to fill these forms in "with the support of their parents" [see dfes FAQ's and Circular 16/89]. This latter guidance has simply not been put into effect and schools have been putting pressure on under 16s to fill in the forms at school. If the existing tick box selection has been ignored and the word 'Cornish' written, it has in some known cases been erased by the school.
Whatever reasons might be given for carrying out the survey in such a manner, this present exercise is in fact distorting the ethnic ballance of the population. This cannot be allowed to stand.
John Angarrack
Mr. Angarrack,
Thank you for email and please accept my apologies for not responding to you earlier. I have contacted Cornwall LEA on the issue and I am awaiting a response from them before I send you a full reply. I will send you a full response as soon as possible
Best wishes,
John Knights,
Analytical Services,
Department for Education and Skills
From: Angarrack [mailto:cornubian@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: 14 January 2003 18:07
To: john.knights@dfee.gov.uk
Cc: paul1.jackson@dfee.gov.uk; Cynthia Morel; regina.jensdottir@coe.int; Bert Biscoe; graeme hicks; NEVILLE Mark
Subject: Cornwall LEA and Ethnic MonitoringURGENT RESPONSE REQUIRED
Sir
I am a civil rights activist, author and freelance journalist seeking the dfes position with regards to a serious breach of Cornwall LEA's statutory requirement not to discriminate against a Census 2001ethnic group.
A dfes inspired Ethnic Background Monitoring Survey is currently being undertaken in Cornish schools. Dfes guidelines say the Survey is compliant to the 2001 Census codes. Dfes guidelines also say that, in order to reflect their anticipated demographic profile, LEA's are expected to have made prior arrangements with the dfes to deviate from the standard form.
A recent survey by Plymouth University found that over a third of children in Cornish schools self-identified as Cornish [At Cape Cornwall School the majority self-identified as Cornish].
For the purposes of the Council of Europe Convention for Regional and Minority Languages the Cornish language has been recognised by the government.
Public Authorities like the National Health Service make use of a tick box for the Cornish in ethnic monitoring surveys.
Cornwall County Council have previously used a Cornish tick box in ethnic monitoring surveys.
5) For Census 2001 the UK Office of National Statistics designated separate codes for the English, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish.p
The government are subject to a June 2002 Council of Europe request to firstly, reflect Cornish language, history and culture in the curriculum and secondly, consult the Cornish to this effect. In 2004 the Government must submit its 2nd Framework Convention Compliance Report to the Advisory Committee to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
7) Cornwall Education Portfolio Holder Doris Ansari is on record [letter dated 7 July 2001] as saying that her department have no mechanisms in place to consult the Cornish. The same letter makes it clear that she is against introducing a multi-cultural curriculum that reflects the Cornish dimension.
8) The dfes extended set of ethnic categories approves of every Census 2001 ethnic group except the Cornish.
We have a letter from Cornwall LEA [2 December 2002] to a parent aggrieved that the Ethnic Background Monitoring Form does not allow his childs identity to be recorded as Cornish.
In this letter the LEA acknowledge that "many families and young people would have been happy to identify themselves as Cornish". The LEA then admit that they took a conscious decision to exclude the Cornish from this survey.
As it stands, there is a clear breach of the Race Relations Act 1976. There are infringements of rights due under the Human Rights Act 1998. There are transgressions of the EC Article 13 Race Directive and there is a refusal to implement the terms of the United Nations Internation Covenant on the Rights of the Child.
The Director of Cornwall LEA has been made aware of the seriousness of the situation. Whilst acknowledging that his department had erred in law, he refuses to halt work on the existing discriminatory survey. The Director has instead offered to provide a written assurance that a Cornish tick box will appear on the next routine PLASC survey.
Because the dfes describe the present unique survey as a one-off, this 'offer' is not acceptable to those who are now likely to be deprived of future educational rights and resources. There is also an additional factor to consider. Despite dfes instructions to the effect that schools should accept the responses provided by parents and pupils, there are recorded instances of teachers and heads eliminating responses that read 'Cornish'.
The only way to ensure equality in the future deployment of educational resources, placate growing adverse public opinion and negate the assured likelyhood of the educational authorities facing public censure, the LEA are obliged to re-constitute the survey in accordance with statutory requirements.
Before we inform the press, follow redress procedures and submit reports to the relevant authorities we need to know the dfes position on this issue.
Please answer the following:
a) Will the dfes endorse Cornwall LEA policy and actions with regard to statistical and administrative cleansing of the Cornish in this identity survey, or will the dfes ask Cornwall LEA to reconsider its stance?
b) Are the dfes of the opinion that Council of Europe recommendations regarding opening dialogue with representatives of the Cornish community with a view to implementing a multi-cultural curriculum [that specifically incorporates the Cornish dimension] should continue to be ignored?
John Angarrack
Director
Cornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human Rights
Sent: 14 January 2003 at 10 am.This is an urgent request for information. I have asked my contacts within the regional press to put this story on hold for 48 hours in order to allow the dfes to respond.
This suite of 'Action Pages' will be continually developed as new 'actions' emerge! If you have any suggestions for inclusion - perhaps your own actions? - please send me an email for consideration.
Are you lost? Go to Main Index and Home Page
