Sunday, 28 October 2007
1 E-mentoring as aftercare?
I was impressed by this project http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialcare/story/0,,2192278,00.html When I worked as an education social worker, it always seemed to take ages to get support to children whose troubled behaviour was rapidly moving them into harms way. Too often, by the time they were offered support, it was too late and they were already locked into serious anti-social behaviour. Forgive me, but I doubt the claim here that after this intervention, only 6% of these little lovelies ever get into bother again. I can well believe that they fall back to a lower level of troubled behaviour, and maybe for a good while. However, I was wondering if anyone has ever considered the use of e-mentoring as a mechanism for delivering aftercare to these young people following a successful intervention. With a system of long-term mentoring support maybe the minimal aim of keeping out of serious trouble could be developed into constructing a positive future.
2 Scots do it differently
One of the interesting effects of Scottish and Welsh devolution is that social policies are now being pursued differently within the UK. One example that caught my eye is the plan to provide free school meals for all pupils in some Scots primary schools http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7054334.stm – This deceptively simple initiative could, in my opinion, significantly benefit the whole school population. It will benefit children from seriously disadvantaged families, who will no longer be identified or feel stigmatised by qualifying for free school meals (FSM). It will also help the borderline disadvantaged who come from families with low incomes, but who don’t qualify for FSM and whose carers sometimes don’t think it worth the financial outlay, as they know their child hardly eats anything. For all the pupils, it could be the basis for a healthy diet which could be a key component in an integrated exercise/local life style regime aimed at combating early year’s obesity. It would also build social capital, through encouraging a sense of social inclusion and unity among all pupils in a school. We often hear how good it is for families to sit down to a shared meal, a common experience and bond, why not among school pupils. Meanwhile, initiatives in England seem to be all puff and nonsense, celebrity based baloney, such as super nannies, super chefs, and patronising advertising campaigns. Why are the population of England so easily fobbed off with celebrity stunts while the Scots do policy seriously?
3 Too clever Eddie
Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has announced some interesting additions to the range of the new educational diplomas, some of which are being launched next year. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/pnattach/20070195/1.htm For us, at The Brightside Trust, the new general science diploma might be of particular interest.
However, the newspaper responses were almost entirely focused on whether the announcement of these new non-vocational diplomas, combined with a delay to the review of A levels until 2013, was indicative of a government manoeuvring to replace A levels with the new education diplomas, as had originally been proposed by the Tomlinson report http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2197531,00.html
The background to this is that Blair’s former education ministers buckled under pressure when presented with the Tomlinson report and refused to get rid of A levels. It’s going to be a recurring problem for the Brown government, how to reverse policies brought in by the Blair government, often by individuals still in the Cabinet, without admitting the reversal. The preferred strategy seems to be to make the changes by manoeuvre and stealth, accompanied by the mantra ‘circumstances have changed’. I think the press commentators were basically correct, this government would like to adopt the Tomlinson proposals, and in particular it would like to abolish A levels. Ed Balls thinks he can manoeuvre into a position where he can argue that diplomas have become the qualification of choice and that A levels can be phased out. Just one problem Eddie, the approach you’re adopting won’t work. The diplomas will not be seen to flourish as long as A levels are on general offer. Sometimes you cannot manoeuvre cleverly while presenting yourself as the unbiased Renaissance man making a rational choice.
Look back to 1988, when Mrs Thatcher abolished O levels. Thatcher abolished O levels in the teeth of opposition from her own party, her own supporters and her own supporting newspapers. She didn’t finesse the change, she didn’t manoeuvre, she knew that wouldn’t work, so she just did it, poleaxed them with a single blow, and that was the end of the debate and the end of O levels. Sometimes you just have to do it, Eddie. Take a leaf out of Mrs Thatcher’s book; some might say you’ve already borrowed the entire first volume, so what harm in one more page. As long as we have A levels there is no chance of diplomas being seen as an equal alternative, just as there was no chance of grammar and secondary modern schools ever having, to use the ministerial jargon of the 1960s, ‘parity of esteem’. Kill the A levels Eddie, shut your eyes and think of Maggie.
However, the newspaper responses were almost entirely focused on whether the announcement of these new non-vocational diplomas, combined with a delay to the review of A levels until 2013, was indicative of a government manoeuvring to replace A levels with the new education diplomas, as had originally been proposed by the Tomlinson report http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2197531,00.html
The background to this is that Blair’s former education ministers buckled under pressure when presented with the Tomlinson report and refused to get rid of A levels. It’s going to be a recurring problem for the Brown government, how to reverse policies brought in by the Blair government, often by individuals still in the Cabinet, without admitting the reversal. The preferred strategy seems to be to make the changes by manoeuvre and stealth, accompanied by the mantra ‘circumstances have changed’. I think the press commentators were basically correct, this government would like to adopt the Tomlinson proposals, and in particular it would like to abolish A levels. Ed Balls thinks he can manoeuvre into a position where he can argue that diplomas have become the qualification of choice and that A levels can be phased out. Just one problem Eddie, the approach you’re adopting won’t work. The diplomas will not be seen to flourish as long as A levels are on general offer. Sometimes you cannot manoeuvre cleverly while presenting yourself as the unbiased Renaissance man making a rational choice.
Look back to 1988, when Mrs Thatcher abolished O levels. Thatcher abolished O levels in the teeth of opposition from her own party, her own supporters and her own supporting newspapers. She didn’t finesse the change, she didn’t manoeuvre, she knew that wouldn’t work, so she just did it, poleaxed them with a single blow, and that was the end of the debate and the end of O levels. Sometimes you just have to do it, Eddie. Take a leaf out of Mrs Thatcher’s book; some might say you’ve already borrowed the entire first volume, so what harm in one more page. As long as we have A levels there is no chance of diplomas being seen as an equal alternative, just as there was no chance of grammar and secondary modern schools ever having, to use the ministerial jargon of the 1960s, ‘parity of esteem’. Kill the A levels Eddie, shut your eyes and think of Maggie.
4 Future perfect
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, has committed the Conservatives to abolishing poverty in the UK. A summary of his speech can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7047193.stm This commitment appears to be more than a match to the Labour government’s pledge to end child poverty by 2020. Consequently, it would seem that whoever is in government, we at The Brightside Trust, and the bulk of the rest of the third sector, have at the most 13 years before our collective reason to exist will disappear. However, before everyone under the age of 52 rushes off to discover new challenges, I think we should check the small print. The full speech can be found at http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=139763&speeches=1
Limiting welfare, as a strategy to end poverty is, of course, nonsense, but as a way of getting some people to move into the workforce and out of poverty, has been shown to have some success during periods of full employment. In that regards, the Cameron policy is on a similar trajectory to that of the government. Unfortunately, it doesn't look to me as if the target of halving child poverty by 2010, which was the first and easiest part of this strategy, will be achieved. Today, the government are announcing a new unit to co-ordinate their anti-poverty drive, this will involve officials from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department for Children http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7066838.stm I’m not sure what they plan to do, but the link with the DWP suggests a further increased emphasis on getting carers into work. This is a worthwhile enterprise, which I could see The Brightside Trust being involved with, but ending child poverty by 2020, I'm afraid there's a lifetimes work here.
Limiting welfare, as a strategy to end poverty is, of course, nonsense, but as a way of getting some people to move into the workforce and out of poverty, has been shown to have some success during periods of full employment. In that regards, the Cameron policy is on a similar trajectory to that of the government. Unfortunately, it doesn't look to me as if the target of halving child poverty by 2010, which was the first and easiest part of this strategy, will be achieved. Today, the government are announcing a new unit to co-ordinate their anti-poverty drive, this will involve officials from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Department for Children http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7066838.stm I’m not sure what they plan to do, but the link with the DWP suggests a further increased emphasis on getting carers into work. This is a worthwhile enterprise, which I could see The Brightside Trust being involved with, but ending child poverty by 2020, I'm afraid there's a lifetimes work here.
5 Young people today: I say bring back national service
Yes, that’s exactly what I think the government will do. If I were laying a bet on what will be the surprise idea of the Brown government, I’d put money on a ‘new’ national service for young people. It won’t be in the military, they have no need for mass cannon fodder these days, despite the revived fashion for invading countries. It will be a community service organisation. It will be a copy of the sort of organisations that are already in place in the USA. Remember, Gordon Brown is a more integrated Americophile than Blair ever was. There are a variety of American models to choose from, for example http://www.americorps.gov/for_individuals/ready/programs_vista.asp This program is aimed at post-college students, while my guess is that any UK variant would be aimed at 18 year-olds, as a sort of gap year exercise. Note the way that service is counted as a financial credit against college debts in the USA.
These American origins will not feature strongly in the UK launch, as the aim will be to build on the Brown vision of Britishness. The movement will strongly feature the union flag and it will be projected as a force building national unity through community development. There will be an emphasis on the way that it unites individuals from all classes and ethnicities in a common endeavour. Politically, the quasi-military style will play well in middle England where it will be spun as instilling discipline into our feckless youth. It will also be presented as a practical way to mend the broken bits of society rather than just moaning about it (Cameron).
Still, a significant question remains, should this movement take its name from its inspirational founder and be called the Brownies, or maybe the brown shirts, oh no, I guess all forms of brown trousering is out; so the brown socks it is. Forward the brown socks, always loyal to our movements historic pledge, ‘a little community DIY or death’.
These American origins will not feature strongly in the UK launch, as the aim will be to build on the Brown vision of Britishness. The movement will strongly feature the union flag and it will be projected as a force building national unity through community development. There will be an emphasis on the way that it unites individuals from all classes and ethnicities in a common endeavour. Politically, the quasi-military style will play well in middle England where it will be spun as instilling discipline into our feckless youth. It will also be presented as a practical way to mend the broken bits of society rather than just moaning about it (Cameron).
Still, a significant question remains, should this movement take its name from its inspirational founder and be called the Brownies, or maybe the brown shirts, oh no, I guess all forms of brown trousering is out; so the brown socks it is. Forward the brown socks, always loyal to our movements historic pledge, ‘a little community DIY or death’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)