Ofsted endorses the view that not enough is being done to support and encourage disadvantaged parents and that the cycle of deprivation needs to be broken with early education and childcare. Following comments by Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw and the publication of Ofsted`s annual report on early years, General Secretary Deborah Lawson – a former local authority childcare commissioning manager – said:
"Though early childhood is recognised world-wide as a crucial stage in its own right ministers and officials in England persist in viewing it simply as a preparation for school. The term `School readiness` is now dominating policy pronouncements, despite considerable criticisms from the sector. The role of play is being down-valued in England`s nurseries."
"I am also concerned that we are moving towards a lowering of the school starting age – changing the landscape of schools and the early years sector. While some countries in Europe don’t start formal education until six of seven, the plan for England seems to be to start formal testing and schooling at four or even younger."
"If children are in school rather than nursery, that would reduce the cost of childcare for the state and parents, but it wouldn’t necessarily be in the best interests of children."
http://www.voicetheunion.org.uk/index.cfm?cid=1258&page=1
The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) has been in the news a lot recently with particular emphasis on the politicians and higher establishment figures drawn into it. For instance, HERE and HERE. Another article in Spiked looks at the issue from a different perspective and examines the connection between PIE and children`s rights during the 1970s.
The nineteenth-century child-savers movement was driven by a powerful sense of humanitarianism, justice and altruism. It sought to protect children from the many inequities confronting them. Unfortunately, significant parts of this movement, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), sometimes expanded their remit from protecting children to claiming moral authority over childhood itself. As a result, child-saving entrepreneurs often started to perceive their main aim in terms of saving children from their parents. And this has been the main intellectual and political legacy of the child-saving movement: it popularised the assumption that the interests of parents and children are either potentially or actually contradictory.
The assumption that what is in the interest of the child is different to the interests of the parent creates a conflict that can only be mediated by those possessing the moral and expert authority to pronounce on the dispute; namely, the child-saver... the 1970s was also the decade when the idea of children’s rights was articulated and gained cultural influence.
Kelly is right to point out the ease with which PIE could slot into the confused sexual-liberationist agenda of the 1970s. But PIE was not simply the radical wing of the GLF. PIE also expressed newly invented ideas about the need to liberate children. Like other supporters of this misguided ideal, the question of whom children needed liberating from was rarely made explicit. Not that it had to be made explicit, since the only agency that children could be liberated from was that of their parents and family.
No doubt PIE was entirely opportunistic when choosing which arguments it would use to justify its predatory obsession with children. But that doesn’t disguise the fact that the arguments it voiced about children’s liberation were consistent with the emerging narrative of children’s rights...These are not rights demanded by children; they are rights invented by adults who claim to best understand the real needs of children...‘Regrettably, a leading characteristic of the children’s rights movement is the propensity to separate children’s interest from their parents’’, wrote Martin Guggenheim in his compelling study, What’s Wrong With Children’s Rights. Children’s rights do not empower children; rather, they disempower parents. They provide an ideological rationale for perceiving parent-child relations as fundamentally contradictory.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-pie-and-the-nspcc-have-in-common/14763
Ofsted has come under fire after it emerged that a lead inspector working for the watchdog is responsible for running two academies which have been placed in special measures.
Last February, Derek Davies was appointed executive principal at the troubled Richard Rose Federation in Cumbria. This came after one of its schools, the flagship Richard Rose Central Academy in Carlisle, became the first academy to be placed in special measures for the second time.
Since then, despite two further monitoring visits by inspectors, the school has remained in special measures; in the most recent report, the lead inspector claimed that it was "not making enough progress". In January, the federation’s other Carlisle academy, Richard Rose Morton, was also placed into special measures. Both schools were rated inadequate in every single category.
But despite Ofsted’s damning verdict on his own schools, Mr Davies continues to inspect schools himself, working for private provider the CfBT Education Trust.
http://news.tes.co.uk/b/ofsted-watch/2014/04/03/39-anger-and-incredulity-39-over-ofsted-inspector-who-leads-two-schools-in-special-measures.aspx
The Sutton Trust exemplifies the well tried formula of a third sector organisation acting as a think-tank, lobbying the Government to push forward the Government`s agenda, whilst the Government then refers to the charity to justify its actions. It is a formula that is beginning to wear a bit thin.
As Nicola Horsley says (see below) it is increasingly the third sector which provides the evidence base to support government policy and not rigorous neuroscientific studies. However, this is not how the Sutton Trust sees it:
The Sutton Trust has funded and evaluated programmes that have helped hundreds of thousands of young people of all ages from low and middle income homes. We have published over 140 research studies that have had a profound impact on national education policy. Our work is highly influential among leading politicians and opinion formers, and attracts prominent coverage in the national news media.
Perhaps the Sutton Trust is part of the problem. Children and Young People Now reported the extraordinary claim by the Sutton Trust that 40 percent of children do not form strong attachments with their parents in the first few years of life. The Sutton Trust recommended that Children`s Centres should do more to help parents bond with their babies in order to narrow the school readiness gap and prevent problems arising in the future. Help should be given to troubled families even before the child`s birth.
"Its research also found that a quarter of children reported avoiding their parents when upset because they have ignored them in the past, and 15 per cent resisted their parents because they cause them distress.The report welcomes government-backed parenting support programmes, such as the Family Nurse Partnership and Troubled Families initiative, but concludes intervention needs to happen at an earlier stage in order to prevent children experiencing long-term effects of poor parenting."
- See more at: http://www.cypnow.co.uk/cyp/news/1142990/childrens-centres-focus-attachment#sthash.xrdo5wWW.dpuf
The Sutton Trust report has been criticised by Nicola Horsley, Research Fellow on the Brain Science and Early Intervention Project.
"You might expect a claim like ‘there is a burst of brain development when attachment bonds are made’ to cite a neuroscientist but the reference supporting this quote is the work of Sue Gerhardt, a psychotherapist who is one of the founders of the OXPIP parenting programme; and her book Why Love Matters: how affection builds a baby’s brain, is core reading for practitioners delivering the programme.
The Baby Bonds report features only one neuroscientist in its bibliography and that is Jack Shonkoff, director of the Harvard Center on the Developing Child, which is a partner of the UK’s Early Intervention Foundation. Increasingly, third sector organisations like the Early Intervention Foundation and ‘strategic philanthropists’ like the Sutton Trust, and not rigorous up-to-date studies or neuroscientific thinking, are providing the ‘evidence’ on which policy is based...
When nurses tell us that they are under pressure for their delivery of a parenting programme to be seen to have a direct effect on future prison populations, it is clear that family life has become atomised beyond all recognition. We are left with a science of parenting where family support used to be and this can only serve to further isolate those who are consigned to the 40%." Nicola Horsley
http://weekscentreforsocialandpolicyresearch.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/are-we-the-60-percent-claims-about-attachment-as-an-evidence-base-for-family-policy/
From a British diplomatic source I learn that Britain has lobbied the United States against the publication of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture and extraordinary rendition. The lobbying has been carried out "at all levels" – White House, State Department and CIA. The British have argued that at the very least the report must be emasculated before publication...
The unabashed collusion of two torturing security states in concealing the truth of their despicable acts – including complicity in the torture of women and minors – and blocking criminal prosecution of the guilty is a sign of how low public ethics have sunk. Fortunately there are still a few people in the British Foreign Office disgusted enough to leak it.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/04/uk-moves-to-block-us-senate-report-to-protect-blair-straw-and-dearlove/
You have to ask: Where do these non-governmental and unelected agencies come from? There are hundreds of them springing up around children. What makes them expert on other people`s children and their wellbeing and why are they allowed to pronounce on anything? Having said that the Children`s Parliament proudly announces their plans for a survey:
The survey tool is unique because it is a subjective measure of wellbeing. [In other words it is unscientific] This means that it measures how the child or young person is now in the context of their environments and relationships – at home, at school and in the community. So, rather than count what children and young people do or don’t do, or focus on problems or challenges from an adult perspective, our survey looks at wellbeing and rights from a holistic, empowering and positive view of children and young people’s lives, as defined by them.
We have undertaken a first phase of work with the support of an intern funded by the Open University Third Sector Internship Programme. Extensive desk research and small scale piloting has evidenced the efficacy and validity of the tool we have produced in draft.
Now, with the support of a grant from the Scottish Government’s National Voluntary Organisations Support Fund (via YouthLink Scotland) we are undertaking further development work to April 2014. This will see us working with Aberdeen City Council and Midlothian Council to engage with a further 1000 children and young people between the ages of 8 and 18 to further test and then produce a final survey tool.
http://www.childrensparliament.org.uk/childrens-views-of-life-in-scotland.html
When checking out the patrons and board of trustees of these unelected bodies. there is sure to be a Baroness or two, and in this case there is no exception. The patron of the Children`s Parliament is Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill. I am sure we are now all reassured that the Children`s Parliament is an independent body with the best interests of children at heart. After all the Baroness is sure to know all about the wellbeing of ordinary children.
Among the other hangers-on is the trustee, Kate Smith, Corporate Governance Manager for Scottish Widows Investment (Yes, that makes sense) - and let us not forget the Friends of Children`s Parliament: actress Elaine C Smith and Robin Harper, a green campaigner and writer.
Well if the Scottish Government is pushing global citizenship and sustainable development on children, who else would you want?
Since the Scottish Government wishes to profile and database every child in Scotland (GIRFEC) why would they not provide the funding to this assorted group of nobodies or require consent from the rest of us?
(Children’s Parliament is a company incorporated in Scotland No. SC170891 | Recognised as a Scottish Charity SC 026247)
"They want government action to limit families to just two children and propose a crackdown on immigration to slash Scotland's population by a quarter.
But radical green group the Optimum Population Trust - branded "eco-fascist" by opponents - has now won the backing of some MSPs and will today stage a major conference at the Scottish Parliament."
"SNP MSP Dr Ian McKee and Green MSP Patrick Harvie have given their support to the Holyrood conference, in which OPT members will call on Alex Salmond to launch a government campaign to limit family size, with the slogan "two's plenty".
"Prominent supporters of the OPT include its patron, BBC naturalist Sir David Attenborough and scientist Dr James Lovelock, whose "Gaia" hypothesis suggests that the Earth is a single organism and humanity is destined to be wiped out unless it reduces environmental damage."
"Government green adviser Sir Jonathon Porritt, who also briefs Prince Charles on environmental issues, is another top OPT figure."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/holyrood-platform-for-eco-fascist-group-aiming-to-curb-population-1-834524
Also read
Real Street
"A CHILDMINDER who drove kids to school in her car boot faces being banned after a legal battle was launched against her.
The Care Inspectorate say Hannah Chibanga also left children unsupervised, let them play inappropriate video games and lied about the number of kids in her care.
But the 47-year-old mum of five, of Glasgow, yesterday claimed the care watchdog had exaggerated her case and said her husband had driven the car with her two boys in the boot but not other people’s kids.
She added she would fight to keep her registration in court. But inspectors who visited her Garthamlock home in August said they had "concerns about the care, welfare and safety of the children".
They claim Chibanga tried to mislead an inspector about how many kids she was caring for."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/childminder-who-put-children-car-3403490?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
The four most important failures to arrest Savile all occurred at Scarborough Police Station and in the Force Intelligence Bureau at Force Headquarters:
The failure to arrest Jaconelli, from 1947/51 to 1999 which would surely have led the police to Savile.
The failure to investigate complaints about Savile in Scarborough from at least the 1970’s until his death in 2011, which would have led to his arrest and prevented decades of offending.
The failure to arrest Savile as a result of the allegation North Yorkshire Police now admits it received in about 2003 or even earlier.
The failure to pass on the intelligence to Surrey Police in 2007 that North Yorkshire Police now admits it had in at least 2003 (as Real Whitby has consistently alleged), which ensured the failure of the Surrey investigation. Again, had it been passed on, it would probably have led to Savile’s arrest, but would inevitably have revealed that North Yorkshire Police had protected Jaconelli for years, because he was a Councillor, Alderman, the Mayor, a millionaire and a prominent local business man. Something North Yorkshire Police were obviously at great pains to avoid.Yet this has not been addressed in Operation Yewtree, the HMIC investigation, the IPCC investigation, the Cross Report or the Home Secretary’s statement to the House of Commons. Savile and Jaconelli’s blatant offending in Scarborough and the failure to investigate it properly by North Yorkshire Police have been immaculately airbrushed out of history and Operation Yewtree.
http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/police-station-shamed-britain
Also read Daily Mail
There is a bewildering array of data-mining procedures at large. Practitioners are even encouraged to draw ‘genograms’ and ‘ecographs’ for children, detailing their aunts and uncles, siblings and grannies on both sides and mapping any associations they and their families have in their communities. The Shannari wellbeing indicators have been mapped onto a ‘wellbeing wheel’. Then there is the ‘Girfec Dashboard’, the ‘Resilience Matrix’, the ‘My World Triangle’ and flow charts galore.
More disturbing still are the ‘chronologies’ which chart life events for all children and move with them from school to school by dint of being attached to their records. SEEMiS has a handy ‘module’ for this, called a ‘Pastoral Notes Application’. The website enthuses: ‘As well as the ability to record minor events a chronology can be created for any event which could have a significant impact on a pupil.’
Between this and the Behaviour Tracking module where ‘class teachers, principal teachers and management can record and track instances of poor behaviour in real time’, the chances are that our pupils are already having highly sensitive personal data routinely recorded, tracked, analysed and profiled
http://www.highlandperthshirenews.co.uk/general-news-main/no-kidding
