Friday, 22 June 2007
1) What can we expect from Gordon Brown?
Gordon has always taken his annual speeches to the City of London seriously and this year he chose to use the time to introduce his prime-ministership. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6224364.stm There were no real surprises here: the main message was that we can expect continuity with the Blair years. Education featured strongly in his vision, where he appeared to back present policies, including the expansion of the academies program. He re-iterated the commitment to raising the education leaving age to 18, even though this proposal has recently been receiving criticism from, among others, many who will be implementing the change. However, one thing caught my eye, "In future every single secondary school and primary school should have a business partner - and I invite you all to participate". I know Gordon was addressing this to the city folks in his audience, but how about The Brightside Trust becoming a partner with a primary school, once we see what is involved. I assume this proposal is different to sponsoring an academy and would be a lot less demanding. I think we could all learn a lot from the experience and it would ‘ground’ the whole of the charities thinking and work. I don’t have a particular place in mind, but would suggest we try for a school that has a socially disadvantaged population, is firmly attached to a sure start centre and has nursery provision. What do you think?
2) It’s that man again
Frank Field is an unusual MP: he really knows what he is talking about and only talks about what he knows. Last week he launched a report about the progress being made on the government’s pledge to abolish child poverty by 2020 and specially to what extent the welfare to work programs are assisting to achieve this target http://www.reform.co.uk/filestore/pdf/070611%20Welfare%20isn't%20working%20-%20child%20poverty.pdf .
First, a little background information from me: If one looks at the effect of government tax policy over the last 10 years, then I think you can see a consistent strategy of shifting a little money from the middle classes towards getting unemployed parents into work and supporting low earning parents in work. In particular, we have seen the introduction of child tax credits and working tax credits which, as I illustrate below, have generated significant sums of money for some people. However, as has been characteristic of Blair’s general welfare strategy, these payments, or what has been in effect the introduction of negative income tax for some, have been downplayed. I think this is because it was thought it wouldn’t meet with the approval of middle England if they knew the sums involved and who was receiving them. For example, according to Frank Field “In 2006, a lone parent with 2 children under 11, working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, gained a total net income of £487 a week, largely due to tax credits.” (page 21) I note that this is from a part-time job which, as far as I can see, as the minimum wage is £5.35 per hour would otherwise generate gross earnings of £85.60. I can well believe Frank Field has intentionally chosen this example as one of the system’s ‘big winners’. However for him it illustrates the inequity of the present system as “In order to attain the same weekly income, an equivalent two parent household needed to work 116 hours a week; an extraordinary 100 hours more than the single parent” (page 21)
In this vein and in this detail, Frank Field discusses how the benefits system is both assisting and apparently hindering the government’s attempt to abolish child poverty. Unfortunately, I cannot say, read this report and the working of the welfare system will become clear. I myself am still looking for a ‘welfare benefits for dummies’ type of publication, but I think it significant that no-one came forward to challenge Frank Field on his facts when this report came out.
What I do know is that large sums of money are involved here. I calculate that if the money that has gone into the welfare to work schemes and benefits, had gone instead into income tax cuts, then we could have seen a general 3p in the pound reduction to the basic rate. This will not have escaped the attention of the Conservative party who often speak of sharing the benefits of economic growth between state spending and the tax payer.
First, a little background information from me: If one looks at the effect of government tax policy over the last 10 years, then I think you can see a consistent strategy of shifting a little money from the middle classes towards getting unemployed parents into work and supporting low earning parents in work. In particular, we have seen the introduction of child tax credits and working tax credits which, as I illustrate below, have generated significant sums of money for some people. However, as has been characteristic of Blair’s general welfare strategy, these payments, or what has been in effect the introduction of negative income tax for some, have been downplayed. I think this is because it was thought it wouldn’t meet with the approval of middle England if they knew the sums involved and who was receiving them. For example, according to Frank Field “In 2006, a lone parent with 2 children under 11, working 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, gained a total net income of £487 a week, largely due to tax credits.” (page 21) I note that this is from a part-time job which, as far as I can see, as the minimum wage is £5.35 per hour would otherwise generate gross earnings of £85.60. I can well believe Frank Field has intentionally chosen this example as one of the system’s ‘big winners’. However for him it illustrates the inequity of the present system as “In order to attain the same weekly income, an equivalent two parent household needed to work 116 hours a week; an extraordinary 100 hours more than the single parent” (page 21)
In this vein and in this detail, Frank Field discusses how the benefits system is both assisting and apparently hindering the government’s attempt to abolish child poverty. Unfortunately, I cannot say, read this report and the working of the welfare system will become clear. I myself am still looking for a ‘welfare benefits for dummies’ type of publication, but I think it significant that no-one came forward to challenge Frank Field on his facts when this report came out.
What I do know is that large sums of money are involved here. I calculate that if the money that has gone into the welfare to work schemes and benefits, had gone instead into income tax cuts, then we could have seen a general 3p in the pound reduction to the basic rate. This will not have escaped the attention of the Conservative party who often speak of sharing the benefits of economic growth between state spending and the tax payer.
3) The Magic Roundabout
A recent survey in the Times Education Supplement (TES) showed that ‘four out of five primary schools are abandoning traditional subject teaching and introducing theme based lessons’ http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394568 This finding was developed and discussed in 2 further articles in the same issue of the paper http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394589 http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2394568
I find it surprising that despite vicious periodic attacks and a continuous wall of sound and prejudice about what they call progressive education, theme based teaching and learning has continued to thrive (see for example the likes of the Daily Mail, this article by Max Hastings ‘education today is a form of child abuse’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=461356 ). This is all the more surprising as this opposition has been continuously supported by politicians, beginning with Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in 1979, continuing through the Thatcher years and then through the Major and Blair years.
It has been convenient for opponents of modern teaching methods to counterpoise ‘progressive education’ to ‘rigorous subject based education’. It doesn’t seem to matter that this is a largely pointless debate, as teachers have always done both. In my opinion, allowing this question to dominate educational and schooling discussions has been very misleading and unhelpful. As the TES articles above make clear, teachers are very careful to mix theme development with structured learning in ways that they feel appropriate.
Are we destined to go round and round for ever in a sterile and often puerile debate opposing rigorous teaching to learning by exploration? No matter that anyone who has spent 5 minutes in a classroom knows that these two things go together and that developing enthusiasm is the precursor for engaging children in learning. This is especially so in primary school. What’s more, we need the imaginative combination of both and will only achieve this by giving teachers permission, time and resources to be creative. Unless they are allowed to stimulate a fascination with education in their students then the much vaunted life-long-learning that is said to be essential to the country’s future prosperity will not happen. Remember: the old style school system used to turn most people off education for the rest of their lives.
I find it surprising that despite vicious periodic attacks and a continuous wall of sound and prejudice about what they call progressive education, theme based teaching and learning has continued to thrive (see for example the likes of the Daily Mail, this article by Max Hastings ‘education today is a form of child abuse’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=461356 ). This is all the more surprising as this opposition has been continuously supported by politicians, beginning with Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in 1979, continuing through the Thatcher years and then through the Major and Blair years.
It has been convenient for opponents of modern teaching methods to counterpoise ‘progressive education’ to ‘rigorous subject based education’. It doesn’t seem to matter that this is a largely pointless debate, as teachers have always done both. In my opinion, allowing this question to dominate educational and schooling discussions has been very misleading and unhelpful. As the TES articles above make clear, teachers are very careful to mix theme development with structured learning in ways that they feel appropriate.
Are we destined to go round and round for ever in a sterile and often puerile debate opposing rigorous teaching to learning by exploration? No matter that anyone who has spent 5 minutes in a classroom knows that these two things go together and that developing enthusiasm is the precursor for engaging children in learning. This is especially so in primary school. What’s more, we need the imaginative combination of both and will only achieve this by giving teachers permission, time and resources to be creative. Unless they are allowed to stimulate a fascination with education in their students then the much vaunted life-long-learning that is said to be essential to the country’s future prosperity will not happen. Remember: the old style school system used to turn most people off education for the rest of their lives.
4) The right to roam
For once, I commend an article from the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462091&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
What I liked was the map that showed the geographical area over which 3 generations of children were allowed to move around unsupervised. For this generation it had diminished to almost nothing.
I’ve seen many interviews with parents who when asked as to why they restricted their children’s liberty to roam, usually cite three things: the growth of traffic, making roads more dangerous, the growth of crime and in particular the increasing threat of abduction and murder of children by paedophiles. Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand how children can wheedle their way into your affections and how parents and guardians will want to do all they can to keep them safe. However, when one looks closely at these expressed parental fears then some interesting facts seem relevant.
First, the peak year for children killed in traffic accidents was 1922. I’m not playing with numbers here, I’m not saying relative to the increase in traffic, I mean in absolute numbers; half as many children are killed each year in road accidents today as there were in 1922, despite a 25-fold increase in traffic. The parents of the grandfather in the Daily Mail example should have been more fearful of traffic than the parents of today. Child mortality rates have consistently fallen since 1900 and continue to fall http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=952
In 2002 there did seem to be evidence of increasing child abduction. It jumped by 45% in a single year. However, as a Home Office briefing subsequently explained http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r225.pdf this was closely linked to a change in the way the Police understood and recorded this crime. According to the NSPCC child murder has been constant, for at least 30 years, at the rate of 79 per year.
Why don’t these facts influence parents? I can well believe that panic is stoked by a sensationalist national press and TV. For example, the coverage of events such as the disappearance of Madeline McCann is probably part of the reason for this besieged mentality.
But, for me it still leaves open the question as to why people are apparently so susceptible? I think it has something to do with a changing consciousness about death. In short, I don’t think our modern consumer society can cope with it. I’m not saying it was a trivial matter to loose a child a hundred years ago, but it was not unexpected or unbelievable. Whether through disease, warfare or childbirth, the death of your children was part of life. You didn’t welcome it but you prepared for the possibility and then coped when it happened. I know from my own family history this was why ordinary Victorian families began giving their children two or more forenames; so that in the event of a child’s death the family forename, as well as the family surname, would continue. For example, my great grand father’s name was William Thomas Twineham, his older brother William Albert Twineham died in 1916 at the battle of the Somme. Consequently, despite the older son’s death, a William Twineham went on to the next generation. Compared to them, the modern western consumer seems ill prepared. When faced with the possibility of unwanted outcomes we panic and barricade the doors.
The result seems to be a generation of children who will be less prepared to cope in the world when they eventually have to take flight. Also, keeping children locked up in the home might not even work in the short-term. Remember, most sexual abuse of children is carried out by adult male family and friends. As a child you might well be better off taking your chances, with other children in the woods, than being home alone with your uncle!
What I liked was the map that showed the geographical area over which 3 generations of children were allowed to move around unsupervised. For this generation it had diminished to almost nothing.
I’ve seen many interviews with parents who when asked as to why they restricted their children’s liberty to roam, usually cite three things: the growth of traffic, making roads more dangerous, the growth of crime and in particular the increasing threat of abduction and murder of children by paedophiles. Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand how children can wheedle their way into your affections and how parents and guardians will want to do all they can to keep them safe. However, when one looks closely at these expressed parental fears then some interesting facts seem relevant.
First, the peak year for children killed in traffic accidents was 1922. I’m not playing with numbers here, I’m not saying relative to the increase in traffic, I mean in absolute numbers; half as many children are killed each year in road accidents today as there were in 1922, despite a 25-fold increase in traffic. The parents of the grandfather in the Daily Mail example should have been more fearful of traffic than the parents of today. Child mortality rates have consistently fallen since 1900 and continue to fall http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=952
In 2002 there did seem to be evidence of increasing child abduction. It jumped by 45% in a single year. However, as a Home Office briefing subsequently explained http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r225.pdf this was closely linked to a change in the way the Police understood and recorded this crime. According to the NSPCC child murder has been constant, for at least 30 years, at the rate of 79 per year.
Why don’t these facts influence parents? I can well believe that panic is stoked by a sensationalist national press and TV. For example, the coverage of events such as the disappearance of Madeline McCann is probably part of the reason for this besieged mentality.
But, for me it still leaves open the question as to why people are apparently so susceptible? I think it has something to do with a changing consciousness about death. In short, I don’t think our modern consumer society can cope with it. I’m not saying it was a trivial matter to loose a child a hundred years ago, but it was not unexpected or unbelievable. Whether through disease, warfare or childbirth, the death of your children was part of life. You didn’t welcome it but you prepared for the possibility and then coped when it happened. I know from my own family history this was why ordinary Victorian families began giving their children two or more forenames; so that in the event of a child’s death the family forename, as well as the family surname, would continue. For example, my great grand father’s name was William Thomas Twineham, his older brother William Albert Twineham died in 1916 at the battle of the Somme. Consequently, despite the older son’s death, a William Twineham went on to the next generation. Compared to them, the modern western consumer seems ill prepared. When faced with the possibility of unwanted outcomes we panic and barricade the doors.
The result seems to be a generation of children who will be less prepared to cope in the world when they eventually have to take flight. Also, keeping children locked up in the home might not even work in the short-term. Remember, most sexual abuse of children is carried out by adult male family and friends. As a child you might well be better off taking your chances, with other children in the woods, than being home alone with your uncle!
5) Marriage and inequality in the USA
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9218127 an interesting article from the Economist. The author muses on the recent social trend of divorce rates falling at the top of American society while increasing at the bottom. In the USA, 92% of children whose families make more than $75,000 a year live with two parents, while at the bottom, families earning less than $15,000 only 20% live with two parents. The article discusses the fashionable idea that marriage is a ‘wealth generating institution’. How should we understand marriage and disadvantage?
Monday, 4 June 2007
1 The Tory Party and Grammar schools
I think the main educational story of the past few weeks has been the spat in the Conservative party over grammar schools and the part these schools should play in the UK education system. This Sunday Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1813890.ece provides a summary of the quarrel.
I see two strands to this debate. The first strand, which has been dominant, has been discussion of its political significance: was this Cameron’s ‘clause 4’ moment, was he deliberately taking the opportunity to show that the new conservatives were not prisoners of the old Tory party. While for the bulk of the conservative press, it was a betrayal of core Conservative supporters. This particular discussion will rumble on, but I wish to consider the second, less prominent, thread, to the debate: does it make educational sense?
In particular, I want to focus on the question of social mobility. In his original speech, David Willetts argued that Grammar schools do not aid social mobility. It has long been a popular belief among the Tory party faithful (at least as far back as Rhodes Boyson and the Black papers of the 1970s) that Grammar schools were engines of social mobility for bright working class children. This belief is deeply embedded in the lower-middle class psyche of the Tory membership. Willetts’ problem was how not to challenge this engrained belief and yet not support a policy of building more Grammar schools. Typically for David Willetts, he came up with a clever argument: Grammar schools used to be engines of social mobility but they weren’t any longer because the world has changed. In support of this argument he cited the numbers of disadvantaged students who are to be found in grammar schools today – maybe 2%, as measured by entitlement to free school meals. To his credit David Brady, who had always struck me as the classic ‘dim but nice’ tory toff, resigned from the Conservative front bench over the matter. He argued that Grammar schools in his constituency (Trafford) were still engines for social mobility and, more than that, they did not just benefit those selected for the grammar school. He claimed that the non-grammar schools in his area produced better results than non-selective comprehensive schools in equivalent areas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/31/do3101.xml
I would observe that this doesn’t seem to be the case in Kent where the local comprehensives in those areas that have retained grammar schools are very poor. Willetts' argument is also boosted by evidence that the reality of Grammar schools today is that places are obtained by coaching and private school hot-housing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6665115.stm My fear would be that in inner city areas, middle class flight would ensure that the comprehensives would be worse than the old secondary moderns. They would be holding pens for the underclass, dreadful places which would doom their pupils to low quality experiences and outcomes. So, I personally am still in favour of a comprehensive system. Nevertheless, expect to see more comment and debate on the effectiveness of comprehensive schools where grammar schools still exist.
However, I think it’s also worth noting that both Labour and the Tories are now committed to a schools system that is completely unproven: the Academies program. Much is being made of the way that academies have autonomy from local authority control and that this is the key to their success. I hear the sound of a myth being coined here; that schools are tightly controlled by local authorities. In my experience, this simply isn’t the case; headteachers have always been largely autonomous; my experience when I worked in a local education authority was that the Director of Education rarely, if ever, took a day-to-day interest in the running of schools, let alone micromanaged. People propagating this fairy story should reference one of their own favourite educational legends, the ‘William Tyndale Affair’. This was the ‘scandal’ of William Tyndale junior school in Islington where the staff, including the Headteacher, supposedly allowed the children to run wild, in the name of progressive education. The local education authority (LEA) and the Director of Education was apparently powerless in the face of this open anarchy. How so, if they had an iron grip over the running of schools? In recent years, this limited influence of LEAs has been diminished to almost zero. During this time, there has indeed been an increase in the control of school’s activities, but that has been by central government, through the national curriculum and OFSTED inspections. If central control is the problem, then there is no need to establish a whole new type of school: simply loosen the centralised controlling grip, allow a diversity of local supply to develop, and admit that the main planks of educational reform of the last twenty years have been mistaken. What chance of that?
I know there’s nothing new in educational policy being based on myth and one-sided analysis. However, if the Academies’ fail to achieve the inflated expectations being made of them, then Grammar schools will once again arise like the living dead and figure in a future conservative policy. That is, if a post Brown Labour party hasn’t grabbed the Grammars first, as part of a ‘new, new Labour’, ‘real choices for real people’ agenda.
I see two strands to this debate. The first strand, which has been dominant, has been discussion of its political significance: was this Cameron’s ‘clause 4’ moment, was he deliberately taking the opportunity to show that the new conservatives were not prisoners of the old Tory party. While for the bulk of the conservative press, it was a betrayal of core Conservative supporters. This particular discussion will rumble on, but I wish to consider the second, less prominent, thread, to the debate: does it make educational sense?
In particular, I want to focus on the question of social mobility. In his original speech, David Willetts argued that Grammar schools do not aid social mobility. It has long been a popular belief among the Tory party faithful (at least as far back as Rhodes Boyson and the Black papers of the 1970s) that Grammar schools were engines of social mobility for bright working class children. This belief is deeply embedded in the lower-middle class psyche of the Tory membership. Willetts’ problem was how not to challenge this engrained belief and yet not support a policy of building more Grammar schools. Typically for David Willetts, he came up with a clever argument: Grammar schools used to be engines of social mobility but they weren’t any longer because the world has changed. In support of this argument he cited the numbers of disadvantaged students who are to be found in grammar schools today – maybe 2%, as measured by entitlement to free school meals. To his credit David Brady, who had always struck me as the classic ‘dim but nice’ tory toff, resigned from the Conservative front bench over the matter. He argued that Grammar schools in his constituency (Trafford) were still engines for social mobility and, more than that, they did not just benefit those selected for the grammar school. He claimed that the non-grammar schools in his area produced better results than non-selective comprehensive schools in equivalent areas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/31/do3101.xml
I would observe that this doesn’t seem to be the case in Kent where the local comprehensives in those areas that have retained grammar schools are very poor. Willetts' argument is also boosted by evidence that the reality of Grammar schools today is that places are obtained by coaching and private school hot-housing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6665115.stm My fear would be that in inner city areas, middle class flight would ensure that the comprehensives would be worse than the old secondary moderns. They would be holding pens for the underclass, dreadful places which would doom their pupils to low quality experiences and outcomes. So, I personally am still in favour of a comprehensive system. Nevertheless, expect to see more comment and debate on the effectiveness of comprehensive schools where grammar schools still exist.
However, I think it’s also worth noting that both Labour and the Tories are now committed to a schools system that is completely unproven: the Academies program. Much is being made of the way that academies have autonomy from local authority control and that this is the key to their success. I hear the sound of a myth being coined here; that schools are tightly controlled by local authorities. In my experience, this simply isn’t the case; headteachers have always been largely autonomous; my experience when I worked in a local education authority was that the Director of Education rarely, if ever, took a day-to-day interest in the running of schools, let alone micromanaged. People propagating this fairy story should reference one of their own favourite educational legends, the ‘William Tyndale Affair’. This was the ‘scandal’ of William Tyndale junior school in Islington where the staff, including the Headteacher, supposedly allowed the children to run wild, in the name of progressive education. The local education authority (LEA) and the Director of Education was apparently powerless in the face of this open anarchy. How so, if they had an iron grip over the running of schools? In recent years, this limited influence of LEAs has been diminished to almost zero. During this time, there has indeed been an increase in the control of school’s activities, but that has been by central government, through the national curriculum and OFSTED inspections. If central control is the problem, then there is no need to establish a whole new type of school: simply loosen the centralised controlling grip, allow a diversity of local supply to develop, and admit that the main planks of educational reform of the last twenty years have been mistaken. What chance of that?
I know there’s nothing new in educational policy being based on myth and one-sided analysis. However, if the Academies’ fail to achieve the inflated expectations being made of them, then Grammar schools will once again arise like the living dead and figure in a future conservative policy. That is, if a post Brown Labour party hasn’t grabbed the Grammars first, as part of a ‘new, new Labour’, ‘real choices for real people’ agenda.
2 It’s the end of the world as we know it
We are witnessing the wrecking of British science according to an eminent UK Nobel prize winning scientist. This article goes beyond the usual moaning about the closure of science courses and argues that the promotion of scientific thinking is central to a healthy modern culture. The author fears that in the UK this is being displaced by faith and irrationality http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,2084784,00.html Strong stuff – what do you think?
3 Parental aspirations
Attitudes to higher education – the gender gap, again, yawn, but wait, I think there is something new here and it’s interesting. A survey has indicated that parental aspirations for their children going into higher education are now higher for girls than boys. http://www.tes.co.uk/search/story/?story_id=2379179 It seems to me, that this is part of a pattern where girls are under more pressure to become responsible adults than, at least some of, their male contemporaries. The low skilled male seems increasingly drone like, no longer a necessary breadwinner; they are without an adult function and seem destined to remain in perpetual adolescence.
4 Major report into child poverty in the UK
Barnardos report into child poverty http://www.barnardos.org.uk/poverty_full_report_07.pdf and a copy in the library at London Bridge. Criticism first: in my opinion, they overplay the emotive case studies. For example, one of the informants claims not to have enough to eat at times. I calculate that this person has a net cash income, after rent and other costs, of £108.10 per week. At Tesco’s, tins of beans cost 17p, tins of spaghetti 15p and a value white loaf is 28p. Therefore for just over a pound you could buy 2 tins of beans, 3 tins of spaghetti and a loaf. That’s food for 5 gut filling meals. Yes, its not a good diet etc but you don’t need to go hungry; frankly, if you are, then it’s your own bad management.
However, case studies aside, this report is a serious description and analysis of child poverty in the UK today. For example, section 3 discusses the often forgotten and difficult point that over half of children in poverty (52%) live in families where there is an adult in work. Child poverty is not primarily a product of non-working single mums. If you want an authoritative analysis of child poverty in the UK, then this report is a fine starting point, just don’t bother with the case studies.
Having been a bit mean about people managing their money, I readily admit there is genuine disadvantage out there. For example, the young carers described in the following article from the Guardian are truly disadvantaged http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2063731,00.html. This particular issue, of child carers, comes around every few years, where it is often linked to school non-attendance among girls, who are more likely to take time off school to care for others.
However, case studies aside, this report is a serious description and analysis of child poverty in the UK today. For example, section 3 discusses the often forgotten and difficult point that over half of children in poverty (52%) live in families where there is an adult in work. Child poverty is not primarily a product of non-working single mums. If you want an authoritative analysis of child poverty in the UK, then this report is a fine starting point, just don’t bother with the case studies.
Having been a bit mean about people managing their money, I readily admit there is genuine disadvantage out there. For example, the young carers described in the following article from the Guardian are truly disadvantaged http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,2063731,00.html. This particular issue, of child carers, comes around every few years, where it is often linked to school non-attendance among girls, who are more likely to take time off school to care for others.
5 The end of undergraduate bursaries?
There is talk of ending undergraduate bursaries for disadvantaged students. The money would be redirected into school based projects aimed at increasing the numbers of disadvantaged school and FE students considering and applying to higher education. It is suggested that the money could be more effectively employed by, for example, increasing the numbers of students going to university summer schools. But, do these holiday schemes work? I’ve not seen any real evidence. Also, by cutting bursaries will we find an increase in the numbers of disadvantaged undergraduates dropping out of courses? If so, this could prove to be a really negative change in the system, as in my opinion, these students are the most vulnerable to experiencing academic failure as a profound personal failure. See http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/finance/story/0,,2090213,00.html and the OFFA report that questioned the effectiveness of bursaries http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2089733,00.html
Friday, 27 April 2007
1 Less is more
An article from the Observer about ‘ASBO families’ http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2059265,00.html . This article reminded me of the families I used to visit as a social worker. The stories had a familiar and candid feel to them. I’m sure living next door is eventful, if not stressful. However, I also recall that the ‘failing’ families I would visit, both the adults and children, were often more rounded and warm-hearted human beings than many of my local authority work colleagues. In truth, I often found their chaotic lives and run–ins with the authorities as amusing as they did. That was twenty years ago, the mood seems very different now.
I was thinking about them when reading/listening to David Cameron’s latest speech http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=136423&speeches=1. I think this is an important speech and well worth reading, but I was left puzzled as to what it means in practice. For example, when he speaks of pain: for whom and how. How would his policy alter the families in the Observer article? I don’t see how reducing state involvement will change these families; surely they will just carry on.
Or, is he saying abstrusely, what Melanie Phillips is saying openly in the Daily Mail? For this iron lady, these people are the enemy within, and need a few smacks. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=450789&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=256&expand=true#StartComments Withdraw benefits and tighten the leash? I really don’t see this as the road to more pleasant society.
2 Blog on Blog
Yes, I know, you can tell when news agencies are running out of ideas when the reporters start interviewing each other. So, a story about blogs in a blog seems to be going in the wrong direction. http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2058253,00.html However, I think there is a potential and relevance in these accounts of the fine grained experience of practioners that could be of real use to The Brightside Trust. It is an easy way to begin to understand what shapes the outlooks of people who we need to understand better. Perhaps we should find practitioner bloggers for all those areas of interest to us.
I had a look at the sites listed in the Guardian article. In terms of the day-to-day experience of teaching, I felt that ‘it’s your time you’re wasting’ (note the address begins with i, not an L which it looks like in the article) http://iytywnm.blogspot.com and mildly melancholy were the best http://mildlymelancholy.blogspot.com. Mildly melancholy is
3 The art of schmoozing
This particular article seems to be about getting another job; and as for the copious amounts of free alcohol, I’ve definitely been going to the wrong events. I must admit I’m naturally a more ‘I’ll leave you alone if you’ll leave me alone’ kind of a person. Any thoughts on this: tips or tricks? Does schmoozing ever yield anything? http://jobsadvice.guardian.co.uk/officehours/story/0,,2063143,00.html
4 Mentoring Works!
I just thought you should know.
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article2486627.ece
I hadn’t come across IntoUniversity – website http://www.intouniversity.org . I guess they are new, has anyone had any contact with these people.
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article2486627.ece
I hadn’t come across IntoUniversity – website http://www.intouniversity.org . I guess they are new, has anyone had any contact with these people.
5 The age of the volunteer
Cameron backs it; Brown cannot see enough of it: volunteering. http://education.independent.co.uk/higher/article2484536.ece But is there really a wide pool of potential volunteers out there just waiting to be asked? How do we fit in with this fashionable turn?
Monday, 16 April 2007
1 Make Poverty History
Last week, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) launched a major anti-poverty policy initiative called ‘Working for Children’ http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2007/childpoverty/childpoverty.pdf . This builds on the announcements made in the Budget to take a further 200,000 children out of poverty by increasing tax credits and providing wider support for parents. 'Working for Children' refocuses £150 million of resources within the Department for Work and Pensions towards greater support for families.
The proposals include:
Piloting a 'New Deal for Families' approach so more families get access to support that is often only available for lone parents. This will include extending the support available in the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus pilot areas to all families with children in those areas.
Extending the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus scheme and increasing obligations on lone parents with older children to look for work. This proposal dominated news media discussion, which focused on the appropriateness of encouraging single parents to seek work once their youngest child reaches 12.
Providing more support to families, particularly in London, by including widening and improving the in-work credit scheme which provides additional financial support for lone parents as they make the transition to work.
Providing advice and support for the partners of parents claiming Jobseekers Allowance, with the introduction of mandatory six-monthly work-focused interviews for this group.
These proposals build on the analysis of poverty carried out last year by Lisa Harker in her report for the DWP called, “Delivering on Child Poverty: what it would take” http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm69/6951/6951.pdf and the more recent, Freud Report, “Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity; options for the future of welfare to work.” http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2007/welfarereview.pdf .
The government remains convinced that getting people into work is their best route out of poverty. This week, I’ve heard numerous government ministers reaffirm their commitment to halving child poverty by 2010. If you want to understand the government’s strategy, I’d say read Harker, Freud and ‘Working for Children’ and you will know as much as anyone.
The proposals include:
Piloting a 'New Deal for Families' approach so more families get access to support that is often only available for lone parents. This will include extending the support available in the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus pilot areas to all families with children in those areas.
Extending the New Deal for Lone Parents Plus scheme and increasing obligations on lone parents with older children to look for work. This proposal dominated news media discussion, which focused on the appropriateness of encouraging single parents to seek work once their youngest child reaches 12.
Providing more support to families, particularly in London, by including widening and improving the in-work credit scheme which provides additional financial support for lone parents as they make the transition to work.
Providing advice and support for the partners of parents claiming Jobseekers Allowance, with the introduction of mandatory six-monthly work-focused interviews for this group.
These proposals build on the analysis of poverty carried out last year by Lisa Harker in her report for the DWP called, “Delivering on Child Poverty: what it would take” http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm69/6951/6951.pdf and the more recent, Freud Report, “Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity; options for the future of welfare to work.” http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2007/welfarereview.pdf .
The government remains convinced that getting people into work is their best route out of poverty. This week, I’ve heard numerous government ministers reaffirm their commitment to halving child poverty by 2010. If you want to understand the government’s strategy, I’d say read Harker, Freud and ‘Working for Children’ and you will know as much as anyone.
2 Child’s Play
“Toddlers who spend three or more days a week in nursery are more likely to become anti-social, worried and upset, government research has found” was just one of the bylines generated last week by a report reviewing nursery care. Research into the effects of non-parental child care seems to fire more furious debate than any other issue in the UK today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6525039.stm . The full report can be found at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/SSU2007FR020.pdf
Be aware, these people have a track record of being critical of nursery care http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4304528.stm . This report fed straight into middle England’s fear that society is falling apart because of bad child rearing practices. For example, see the great picture and story in the Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/view/3636 . I felt that the Guardian article by Madeline Bunting tried to discuss the results more profitably http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/comment/0,,2049652,00.html
I also think it’s worth perusing the unprecedented 40 pages of reader comments that followed this article. It illustrates both the range of views and intensity of feelings that this issue generates. Personally, I don’t like the argument that if children become a bit more pushy and thick-skinned by the experience of nursery then that is no bad thing in the modern world. That is not an attractive vision.
3 Vital Statistics
Social Trends is an unrivalled source of UK social facts. It is produced every year by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) but the analytical focus of the publication is altered for each edition. This year’s study is especially relevant to The Brightside Trust, as its focus is ‘The changing lives of today’s children’. In what I regard as a genuine example of democratic, open government, the report can be viewed and/or downloaded from the ONS website for free. Hardcopy versions are available at £45; it must have been tempting to charge for the electronic version as well. For a quick summary see the press release http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/st0407.pdf
What seemed to catch news agencies attention was the increase in the numbers of young people, especially men, living at home with their parents for longer http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/12/do1203.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_12042007 . There are rumours of an extreme form of this phenomena emerging in the Berkhamstead area. The publication of Social Trends is also a time to reflect on known, but significant, medium term developments, such as in this article from BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6542031.stm
Something that caught my attention was public attitudes to vocational education
Table 3.17 page 36
Attitudes to vocational qualifications,1 2005
Great Britain | Percentages | ||
Agree2 | Neither agree nor disagree | Disagree3 | |
Only people who can’t do academic qualifications should do vocational ones | 20 | 17 | 63 |
Vocational qualifications are easier than academic qualifications | 29 | 24 | 47 |
Most people don’t understand what vocational qualifications are | 60 | 21 | 20 |
Employers don’t respect vocational qualifications enough | 54 | 24 | 21 |
Schools should do more to encourage young people to do vocational qualifications | 74 | 19 | 7 |
Taking these attitudes to vocational qualifications together, it would appear that the British people are very positive about vocational education and qualifications. It seems to me, that this popular mood could be fertile ground for the new diploma courses if they are rigorously promoted.
Overall, Social Trends is a dense catalogue of 225 glorious pages of facts about UK society.
There are too many headings to do it justice here, why not take a look at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Social_Trends37/Social_Trends_37.pdf . If ever you need a social fact about the
4 The Panopticon
Article from the Guardian about training centres for problem families http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2054827,00.html . Retraining centres for ‘neighbours from hell’ are slowly being established all across the country. This phenomenon has largely gone unnoticed and undiscussed, but like ASBOs, will soon become part of the landscape for disadvantaged communities around the country. The linking of family retraining to them retaining their housing tenancy is punitive, but maybe that is the level of leverage required. Will it work? What would work mean? – any views?
5 The Prince and the Paupers
Last week saw the launch of a major report into youth disadvantage and social exclusion by the Prince’s Trust, entitled ‘The cost of exclusion’ http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/main%20site%20v2/downloads/Cost%20of%20Exclusion%20apr07.pdf . The authors have gone out of their way to calculate the loss to the economy and the extra costs to society when people opt out of the workforce and behave in antisocial ways. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/10/nyouth10.xml . In truth, I found this report something of a disappointment, as I’m not sure these calculations add much to the debate. Yes, it would be good if these people were active contributors to society, but they’re not, and all the evidence suggests that simply offering them a ‘hand up’, a break, isn’t enough. Some of these people are a real pain in the arse if you are unlucky enough to live near them. This report left me asking ‘but what is to be done?’ However, if you want the most recent and authoritative analysis of youth disadvantage then this is the place to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)