Governor's, that is. The Sutton Trust have today published a report which is both depressing and familiar in which it sets out the current findings of an ongoing long term longitudinal study, of children born in the early 90s compared with children born in 2000, in this case dealing with behavioural issues.
It's depressing because it shows that for those children born into the lowest income families, behavioural issues have actually got worse and familiar because the impact of problematic behaviour on curriculum outcomes is significant across every phase of schooling. It has had a high priority in my particular school (necessarily in my view) because unless children know how to behave towards each other and the adults in the room, and how to manage and control their emotions properly, they cannot begin to learn and just as important, neither can anyone else in that room with them.
Nevertheless we have just had an Ofsted inspector comment that we should not lose sight of our other curriculum outcomes at the expense of PSED (Personal Social and Emotional Development) as it's known in the jargon. We haven't, believe me, but as I say if a child cannot share, or wait and take his/her turn or hits out at another child in frustration, then no learning can take place in that room.
Nationally this pattern of behaviour issues is also associated with poor attainment on entry to Primary school in CLL (Communication Language and Literacy). It's hardly surprising when you think about it a little and equally, if successful intervention takes place which necessarily involves the child learning to verbally express their frustration as well as be polite ie say "Please" and "Thank you", the corollary is an improvement in CLL outcomes.
Very often though, it is the parents who need support and whilst that might sound critical, it's not meant to be. Parenting is hard: not just the daily monotonous grind of physically caring for young children but rather the realisation that it's a process, that they are not going to be beautifully behaved just because you tell them to. It takes energy and consistency and young children are naturally programmed to test their boundaries. Also they 'model' behaviour - in other words they copy what they see and observe rather than what they are told.
How do we make parenting support and 'training' less judgmental, I wonder? One ongoing project in Southwark, which I have mentioned before is EPEC (Empowering Parents, Empowering Communities). But I think it would be facile to imagine that one single project could be the answer. It takes a whole range of approaches and input from different agencies sometimes to reach a satisfactory outcome which is why I remain convinced that Children's Centres offering a range of support to children and their parents, are the best way to help all kinds of families achieve the best possible outcomes for their children.
Showing posts with label Children's Centres. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Children's Centres. Show all posts
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Early intervention
Yesterday Sarah Teather, Children's Minister at DfE and Ian Duncan Smith Work & Pension Secretary announced the setting up of a new independent commission into early intervention, which aims to ensure that children at greatest risk of multiple disadvantage get the best start in life. This will be chaired by the Labour MP Graham Allen (who has previously worked with IDS on a a similar joint review entitled "Early Intervention: Good parents, great kids, better citizens" in 1998).
The earlier report is well worth reading. Essentially, they suggested that 'early' intervention means within the first 3 years of a child's life. The earlier report was of course written when IDS was in opposition, but for this Commission to do a further review now interests me for 2 reasons.
Firstly, and I have to declare an interest here, Surestart. The Surestart programme has been running since 1998 but NESS (National Evaluation of SureStart) found that there was little evidence of positive impact from the first part of the programme (and this was after a great deal of public money had been spent). It was not until the programme switched to Children's Centre provision after 'Every Child Matters' in 2006, that impact was measurable although the evidence is still patchy and the evaluation is ongoing. It's also worth bearing in mind that Surestart covers children aged 0-5. ( http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/).
The future of the Surestart programme via Children's Centres has of course been the subject of heated debate over the part few weeks with Ed Balls in particular, suggesting that the Coalition government intends to cut and even abolish it. But if 'Early Intervention' means anything it means Surestart.
So I 'm wondering whether we are not seeing, with the setting up of this commission, a first step towards a re-organisation of Surestart, possibly narrowing the age criteria and also I suspect the number and type of programmes offered by Children's Centres. Speaking both as a parent user and Chair of Govs of a Children's Centre, I have to say I would have no problem with this. When the money was flush, it was perhaps not a problem that the majority of mums accessing services when I attended as a parent, were just like me ie over 30, middle-class. But let's be honest - it was not set up for people like us.
Secondly and this is simply an observation, made elsewhere too, that Ian Duncan Smith looks and sounds very different to how he did when he led the Conservative Party. It renews my faith in human nature to observe how his views seem so entirely different now and that, no longer having any ambition to lead the party or the country, he is freed up to actually make a difference worth making, using research-based evidence and not simply ideology.
My question I suppose is, was he always like this and was our view of him simply distorted by the prism of media coverage OR following his departure as Leader, did he undergo his own Damascene coversion on the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow? Either way, he seems an altogether more human politician now and that is surely a positive thing and leads me to be cautiously optimistic about the future of Surestart.
The earlier report is well worth reading. Essentially, they suggested that 'early' intervention means within the first 3 years of a child's life. The earlier report was of course written when IDS was in opposition, but for this Commission to do a further review now interests me for 2 reasons.
Firstly, and I have to declare an interest here, Surestart. The Surestart programme has been running since 1998 but NESS (National Evaluation of SureStart) found that there was little evidence of positive impact from the first part of the programme (and this was after a great deal of public money had been spent). It was not until the programme switched to Children's Centre provision after 'Every Child Matters' in 2006, that impact was measurable although the evidence is still patchy and the evaluation is ongoing. It's also worth bearing in mind that Surestart covers children aged 0-5. ( http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/).
The future of the Surestart programme via Children's Centres has of course been the subject of heated debate over the part few weeks with Ed Balls in particular, suggesting that the Coalition government intends to cut and even abolish it. But if 'Early Intervention' means anything it means Surestart.
So I 'm wondering whether we are not seeing, with the setting up of this commission, a first step towards a re-organisation of Surestart, possibly narrowing the age criteria and also I suspect the number and type of programmes offered by Children's Centres. Speaking both as a parent user and Chair of Govs of a Children's Centre, I have to say I would have no problem with this. When the money was flush, it was perhaps not a problem that the majority of mums accessing services when I attended as a parent, were just like me ie over 30, middle-class. But let's be honest - it was not set up for people like us.
Secondly and this is simply an observation, made elsewhere too, that Ian Duncan Smith looks and sounds very different to how he did when he led the Conservative Party. It renews my faith in human nature to observe how his views seem so entirely different now and that, no longer having any ambition to lead the party or the country, he is freed up to actually make a difference worth making, using research-based evidence and not simply ideology.
My question I suppose is, was he always like this and was our view of him simply distorted by the prism of media coverage OR following his departure as Leader, did he undergo his own Damascene coversion on the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow? Either way, he seems an altogether more human politician now and that is surely a positive thing and leads me to be cautiously optimistic about the future of Surestart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
