"An emperor who cares too much about clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime. The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital show off his new "clothes". During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, "But he has nothing on!" The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth."
The conflation of cohabitation and marriage - strongly promoted by HMG [Her Majesty's Government] - with its mantra "We shall not promote one type of family structure over another" is bringing its chickens home to roost. HMG - indeed many politicians and City and Wall Street "insiders" - are faced with a dilemma. Do they admit they were inept and have been proved profoundly wrong in their acceptance of the mantra, or do they continue to ignore the research evidence and hope what is a still "a cloud no larger than a man's hand" evaporates?
Cohabiting couples who are in arrears with their mortgage payments have precipitated the mortgage/credit/economic crisis. Why them more than married couples? Well, the research evidence - though not yet conclusive - points in the direction of cohabitants as the culprits. Please follow these links:
[1] "Are the Sub-Prime, Northern Rock, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascos connected with the increase in cohabitation?" [article and comments]
[2] "Cohabitation is not the same as marriage; most importantly, cohabiting couples break up at a much higher rate than married couples".
[3] "Cohabitation vs. Marriage: How Love’s Choices Shape Life Outcomes" [Top Ten Findings]
The Economist reports "For much of this financial crisis, America’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has cut a pathetic figure, relegated to the sidelines as a hyperactive Federal Reserve tried a variety of creative measures to keep the system afloat. When the market watchdog finally did get in on the act, it was highly controversial: a temporary order restricting short-selling the shares of 19 financial firms deemed systemically important, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two troubled mortgage agencies" [Not to mention Northern Rock in the UK].
The "short-selling" of marriage has been the real scandal, and this goes way above and beyond the Securities and Exchange Commission. All the "Emperors" who have all allowed themselves to be deceived about this will need to address the issue sooner or later. The institution which is "systemically important" is marriage. Attempting to legislate against bucket shop type operations without attending to the real issue is futile.
25 Jun 2008
Lies, damned lies, teenage pregnancy and abortion
"The number of abortions, including among young girls, has hit a record high, official figures showed.
Procedures to women living in England and Wales have increased across all age groups since records began, the Department of Health confirmed.
Yearly figures showed the number of abortions among girls under 14 rose 21%, from 135 abortions in 2006 to 163 in 2007.
There was also an 11% rise among girls aged 14, from 907 abortions in 2006 to 1,008 in 2007. Furthermore, there were 3,205 abortions to girls aged 15 in 2007, a 9% increase on the 2,948 in 2006.
Among all girls aged under 16, there was a 10% rise, from 3,990 abortions in 2006 to 4,376 in 2007.......
Across all age groups, there was a 2.5% increase in the number of women living in England and Wales having an abortion, from 193,700 in 2006 to 198,500 in 2007, today's figures showed.”
Despite its failure, the sex education lobby is fighting back:
“Based on information from 70% of English Local Authorities, the SEF [Sex Education Forum], the national authority on sex and relationships education (SRE), based at NCB [National Children’s Bureau], found that of the 2,185 schools surveyed, 29% had an on-site sexual health service.
Confidential sexual health services on the school site make it easier for young people to get help with problems early. Health professionals build on what young people learn in SRE by giving young people crucial one-to-one advice about their health and wellbeing as well as access to contraception, pregnancy and STI [Sexually Transmitted Infections] testing services if needed.
Research confirms that the combination of good SRE in schools, linked to easily accessible, confidential, sexual health services is key to reducing teenage pregnancy rates and improving sexual health."
Not surprisingly, this mantra is being echoed enthusiastically and unquestioningly by writers in dozens of newspapers and journals.
But, in a response to comments made by the Government concerning his research
Professor David Paton, an economist at the Nottingham University Business School, wrote:
“In March 2002, a paper was published in the Journal of Health economics entitled “The Economics of Family Planning and Underage Conceptions (Paton, 2002). In this paper, an economic model of rational choice was presented which suggested that “improving access to family planning can have an ambiguous impact on underage conception and abortion rates” (p. 223). In the rational choice model, the reason for this ambiguity is that access to family planning may increase the likelihood of young people engaging in sexual activity in the first place. I tested this model on a panel data covering UK regions between 1984 and 1997. Over this period, I found no evidence that the provision of family planning reduced either conception or abortion rate for the under 16s.”
Professor Paton concluded in his subsequent research paper:
“The discussion in this paper makes it clear that the sources cited by the Government do not support the Government’s assertion that international research contradicts the findings in Paton (2002). Rather, it would be fairer to state clear that the international research has not come to any strong conclusion relating to the impact of access to family planning services on teenage pregnancy rates. The strongest evidence available in the sources cited by the Government, together with evidence from other well-regarded studies, far from being contradictory, is perfectly consistent with the key finding of Paton (2002) that increased access to family planning does not reduce underage pregnancy rates.”
Needless to say, the BBC follows the herd by parroting:
“Government advisers called for high quality sex education at school and investment in contraception services for young people. ............”
Rather than refer to an earlier BBC report:
Dr David Paton, of Nottingham University Business School, said:
"We found that as you increase access to family planning services pregnancy rates for this group either do not change or there is some evidence they go up.
"They certainly don't decrease which is what the government wants. It seems family planning seems to encourage more people to have sex, which teamed with a high contraceptive failure rate can cancel out any gain."
Professor Paton comments:
‘One of the problems with research on sexually transmitted infections is that we only have data on diagnoses and not on actual infections. With some of these infections, most notably chlamydia, there are often no symptoms at all. It could be that the increase in diagnosis rates just reflects the fact more young people are aware about diseases like chlamydia and are getting themselves tested.’
‘In fact, the notable feature about my results is that I found a significantly positive correlation between increases in family planning services and increases both in rates of chlamydia and in rates of those sexually transmitted infections where the symptoms are more noticeable.’
One explanation for these results is that easier access to family planning for young people may have been partly responsible for the increase in risky sexual behaviour among young people. The increase in this risk-taking behaviour may then have outweighed any positive impact of family planning policies.”
On 4th January 2008 Professor David Paton said:
"The underlying social deprivation of an area, family breakdown rates and religion seems to have a greater effect on teenage pregnancy rates than more obvious policies such as sex education or providing access to family planning.
"There has been a tendency for the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy to focus on creating schemes where teenagers can get the morning after pill or other forms of family planning at school or clinics.
"The danger with this sort of approach is that it can lead to an increase in risky sexual behaviour amongst some young people.
"There is now overwhelming evidence that such schemes are simply not effective in cutting teenage pregnancy rates."
Professor David Paton repeated his comments more recently [19th June 2008]:
'Pretty much all the research on school-based family planning clinics suggests they have little or no impact on teenage pregnancy rates.
'There is a possibility that such services change the behaviour of some young people and may increase risk-taking sexual behaviour.'
Fortunately, David Cameron is reacting with more sensible proposals:
“One way is to start early - and insist, for example, that there's no sex education in schools unless it includes relationship education.”
One of the most effective writers is a parent:
“I think if parents are to be successful in raising counter-cultural kids, they need to work out how their kids are going to survive the indoctrination offered by the school system - or else remove them from the line of fire...........
At the top of my mind today is sex education. We had a parents’ evening meeting about it at my childrens’ junior school, and I was frankly outraged at what is being done.As part of this, we were shown a ‘tasteful’ video which the kids were going to see, including a cartoon couple having sex.
If anyone but a teacher were to make my kids watch videos of people having sex, he would be put on the sex offenders’ register.
We were also given a handout which included the claim that ‘Research has shown that sex education helps to reduce teenage sexual activity.’
When questioned the head was unable to refer me to that research - he had simply copied the quotation out of the booklet supplied with the video.
To his credit he was embarrassed to admit this...
On further examination, the booklet offered no reference to research to back up the claim either.
Moreover the booklet was produced by Brook.
Much of the research evidence I have seen suggests that early and explicit sex education is a co-factor with early sexual activity, as is the provision of the services that Brook offers.
In an age of evidence-based medicine it is extraordinary that the response to the failure of the government’s sex education strategy (soaring levels of STDs among teenagers, for example) is to try more of the same....
I had a further meeting with the head, who admitted the school’s policy was a fudge, and I sent him this letter as a follow up...
Dear Mr **********
Sex and Relationships Education
Thank you for making time to see me at such short notice this morning, and also for the courtesy and understanding with which you discussed my concerns.
As I mentioned, [my wife] and I having discussed this further, we would now like to confirm that we will be withdrawing [our children] from all parts of this programme which are not compulsory as part of the National Curriculum.
I thought it might be helpful to summarise those concerns, as you mentioned you may wish to discuss them with the County Advisor.
The primary concern is the ideological one. On one side there are those like me who believe that we should be educating our children for life-long monogamous marriages; on the other, those who want to see children as informed, active, consumers of sex.
If you think I am over-stating the position, look at the www sites for fpa and Brook, where they make their position, including condoning under-age sex, very explicit. They are advocates of children’s right to enjoy their sexuality, and are among the country’s leading campaigners for and providers of abortion.
It is evident that Brook and fpa talk the language of ‘relationships’ to get their material past parents: there is none of that concern in their www sites. But of course any teenager can convince himself that the current infatuation is ‘a meaningful loving relationship.’ That kind of thinking provides no protection against promiscuity - but then it is not intended to.
The middle ground is made up of those who would prefer children to delay having sex and not be too promiscuous, but believe that they can’t be stopped. That risks being a self-fulfilling prophecy, transforming the historical pattern of a very small number of children being sexually active into a much larger number being so.
The evidence on early sexual activity and multiple partners seems pretty clear: the two go together, and are an unhealthy combination, physically, emotionally and psychologically. Oddly, Brook and fpa, who are so keen to deal in fact, ignore these facts absolutely - as they ignore the research which shows that 70% of girls who engage in sex early (pre-16) regret it later on and wish they had waited.
These different ideologies naturally lead to radically different approaches to sex education. I believe sex is private (indeed sacred), and that taboos (and even some things labelled by the government’s experts as prejudices) are often helpful in protecting children from premature exposure to adult issues and from aberrant thoughts and behaviours. The other side believe that anything goes (as long as it is consensual), and that openness and choice are the primary virtues.
Whilst I fully understand that the school has to comply with the government’s directives on this, the government’s view is not the only one, and some research suggests their policy to be ill-founded. I can give you details of that if you are interested (eg Marsilio and Mott’s study, based on interviews with 12000 US children which identified 4 co-factors of teenage sexual activity, of which one was sex education,)
The reason that the government is so keen on pushing this into junior schools seems to be the remarkable failure of it at senior level - indeed the more they push sex education, the more promiscuous the children seem to become with all the attendant physical, emotional and psychological damage that implies. Again, I can supply data showing the increase in teenage promiscuity coinciding with sex education, and also with the existence of Brook Advisory Centres in a locality. For example, those areas targeted by the government with special measures have seen greater increases in teenage conceptions (Oxfordshire 7.3%, Cornwall 16.4% and Torbay 22.4%) I can also supply research questioning the lessons drawn from the Dutch experience (which may be the source for the research cited in the booklet you quoted).
My second major concern is the psychological impact of sex education at this age. The risk is that it disrupts the children’s latency period - a development period widely acknowledged by psychologists when they are not naturally interested in sex. Many psychologists see the disruption of this by sex education as abusive and dangerous. For one psychologist’s assessment of this, see Melvin Anchell’s Killers of Children. I believe our children have a right to stay children and stay innocent, and that the fact that there are commercial interests desperate to turn them into adolescent consumers earlier and earlier should not drive education policy.
The third area of concern is the philosophical one. The whole approach explicitly outlaws any absolute moral teaching (We don’t judge others, we respect the choices of others...) in the sexual realm. It is curious, then, how ready the same non-judgmental policy condemns behaviour of which the government really disapproves (bullying, discrimination). In fact the implicit lesson of this whole approach is that sexual morality is subjective. This begs a massive philosophical question and risks teaching an absolute answer (ironically!) to children before they are even able to comprehend the issues at stake.
It seems to me therefore that the schools are being used by one side of an ideological debate, that the evidence supporting what you are required to do is, to say the least, unproven, and that the government is in effect experimenting with our children with potentially very grave consequences.
I can supply the research references for all the claims made above, if that would be helpful to you. Thank you once more for the time and trouble you took to understand and engage with these concerns and to explain where the school stands and how it intends to proceed.”
Letter ends.
What can we suggest to teachers they might usefully teach about relationships? There are plenty of rich sources within English Literature, History and Religious Studies. No doubt enlightened teachers use the opportunities these provide. Schools should develop a holistic approach, exploring and discussing relationships in the subjects mentioned above, making it a part of the ethos of the school.
For those interested in Jung’s idea of synchronicity, the readings on Sunday from the Common Lectionary were Genesis 21: 8-21 and Matthew 10: 24-39. In the first, Abraham drives out into the wilderness his first born son, Ishmael with his mother, Sarah’s maid, Hagar. In the second, Jesus says he comes not to bring peace but with a sword to divide families. Tough messages. Families are rapidly divided if the members retain tribal attitudes and fail to mature. Children, like Ishmael, become fatherless. All manner of poor social outcomes ensue. We are living with the consequences.
The sex education lobby is a new tribe of delinquents who think they can help people mature by dishing out condoms and morning after pills, despite the evidence to the contrary. When will the experiment end?
Procedures to women living in England and Wales have increased across all age groups since records began, the Department of Health confirmed.
Yearly figures showed the number of abortions among girls under 14 rose 21%, from 135 abortions in 2006 to 163 in 2007.
There was also an 11% rise among girls aged 14, from 907 abortions in 2006 to 1,008 in 2007. Furthermore, there were 3,205 abortions to girls aged 15 in 2007, a 9% increase on the 2,948 in 2006.
Among all girls aged under 16, there was a 10% rise, from 3,990 abortions in 2006 to 4,376 in 2007.......
Across all age groups, there was a 2.5% increase in the number of women living in England and Wales having an abortion, from 193,700 in 2006 to 198,500 in 2007, today's figures showed.”
Despite its failure, the sex education lobby is fighting back:
“Based on information from 70% of English Local Authorities, the SEF [Sex Education Forum], the national authority on sex and relationships education (SRE), based at NCB [National Children’s Bureau], found that of the 2,185 schools surveyed, 29% had an on-site sexual health service.
Confidential sexual health services on the school site make it easier for young people to get help with problems early. Health professionals build on what young people learn in SRE by giving young people crucial one-to-one advice about their health and wellbeing as well as access to contraception, pregnancy and STI [Sexually Transmitted Infections] testing services if needed.
Research confirms that the combination of good SRE in schools, linked to easily accessible, confidential, sexual health services is key to reducing teenage pregnancy rates and improving sexual health."
Not surprisingly, this mantra is being echoed enthusiastically and unquestioningly by writers in dozens of newspapers and journals.
But, in a response to comments made by the Government concerning his research
Professor David Paton, an economist at the Nottingham University Business School, wrote:
“In March 2002, a paper was published in the Journal of Health economics entitled “The Economics of Family Planning and Underage Conceptions (Paton, 2002). In this paper, an economic model of rational choice was presented which suggested that “improving access to family planning can have an ambiguous impact on underage conception and abortion rates” (p. 223). In the rational choice model, the reason for this ambiguity is that access to family planning may increase the likelihood of young people engaging in sexual activity in the first place. I tested this model on a panel data covering UK regions between 1984 and 1997. Over this period, I found no evidence that the provision of family planning reduced either conception or abortion rate for the under 16s.”
Professor Paton concluded in his subsequent research paper:
“The discussion in this paper makes it clear that the sources cited by the Government do not support the Government’s assertion that international research contradicts the findings in Paton (2002). Rather, it would be fairer to state clear that the international research has not come to any strong conclusion relating to the impact of access to family planning services on teenage pregnancy rates. The strongest evidence available in the sources cited by the Government, together with evidence from other well-regarded studies, far from being contradictory, is perfectly consistent with the key finding of Paton (2002) that increased access to family planning does not reduce underage pregnancy rates.”
Needless to say, the BBC follows the herd by parroting:
“Government advisers called for high quality sex education at school and investment in contraception services for young people. ............”
Rather than refer to an earlier BBC report:
Dr David Paton, of Nottingham University Business School, said:
"We found that as you increase access to family planning services pregnancy rates for this group either do not change or there is some evidence they go up.
"They certainly don't decrease which is what the government wants. It seems family planning seems to encourage more people to have sex, which teamed with a high contraceptive failure rate can cancel out any gain."
Professor Paton comments:
‘One of the problems with research on sexually transmitted infections is that we only have data on diagnoses and not on actual infections. With some of these infections, most notably chlamydia, there are often no symptoms at all. It could be that the increase in diagnosis rates just reflects the fact more young people are aware about diseases like chlamydia and are getting themselves tested.’
‘In fact, the notable feature about my results is that I found a significantly positive correlation between increases in family planning services and increases both in rates of chlamydia and in rates of those sexually transmitted infections where the symptoms are more noticeable.’
One explanation for these results is that easier access to family planning for young people may have been partly responsible for the increase in risky sexual behaviour among young people. The increase in this risk-taking behaviour may then have outweighed any positive impact of family planning policies.”
On 4th January 2008 Professor David Paton said:
"The underlying social deprivation of an area, family breakdown rates and religion seems to have a greater effect on teenage pregnancy rates than more obvious policies such as sex education or providing access to family planning.
"There has been a tendency for the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy to focus on creating schemes where teenagers can get the morning after pill or other forms of family planning at school or clinics.
"The danger with this sort of approach is that it can lead to an increase in risky sexual behaviour amongst some young people.
"There is now overwhelming evidence that such schemes are simply not effective in cutting teenage pregnancy rates."
Professor David Paton repeated his comments more recently [19th June 2008]:
'Pretty much all the research on school-based family planning clinics suggests they have little or no impact on teenage pregnancy rates.
'There is a possibility that such services change the behaviour of some young people and may increase risk-taking sexual behaviour.'
Fortunately, David Cameron is reacting with more sensible proposals:
“One way is to start early - and insist, for example, that there's no sex education in schools unless it includes relationship education.”
One of the most effective writers is a parent:
“I think if parents are to be successful in raising counter-cultural kids, they need to work out how their kids are going to survive the indoctrination offered by the school system - or else remove them from the line of fire...........
At the top of my mind today is sex education. We had a parents’ evening meeting about it at my childrens’ junior school, and I was frankly outraged at what is being done.As part of this, we were shown a ‘tasteful’ video which the kids were going to see, including a cartoon couple having sex.
If anyone but a teacher were to make my kids watch videos of people having sex, he would be put on the sex offenders’ register.
We were also given a handout which included the claim that ‘Research has shown that sex education helps to reduce teenage sexual activity.’
When questioned the head was unable to refer me to that research - he had simply copied the quotation out of the booklet supplied with the video.
To his credit he was embarrassed to admit this...
On further examination, the booklet offered no reference to research to back up the claim either.
Moreover the booklet was produced by Brook.
Much of the research evidence I have seen suggests that early and explicit sex education is a co-factor with early sexual activity, as is the provision of the services that Brook offers.
In an age of evidence-based medicine it is extraordinary that the response to the failure of the government’s sex education strategy (soaring levels of STDs among teenagers, for example) is to try more of the same....
I had a further meeting with the head, who admitted the school’s policy was a fudge, and I sent him this letter as a follow up...
Dear Mr **********
Sex and Relationships Education
Thank you for making time to see me at such short notice this morning, and also for the courtesy and understanding with which you discussed my concerns.
As I mentioned, [my wife] and I having discussed this further, we would now like to confirm that we will be withdrawing [our children] from all parts of this programme which are not compulsory as part of the National Curriculum.
I thought it might be helpful to summarise those concerns, as you mentioned you may wish to discuss them with the County Advisor.
The primary concern is the ideological one. On one side there are those like me who believe that we should be educating our children for life-long monogamous marriages; on the other, those who want to see children as informed, active, consumers of sex.
If you think I am over-stating the position, look at the www sites for fpa and Brook, where they make their position, including condoning under-age sex, very explicit. They are advocates of children’s right to enjoy their sexuality, and are among the country’s leading campaigners for and providers of abortion.
It is evident that Brook and fpa talk the language of ‘relationships’ to get their material past parents: there is none of that concern in their www sites. But of course any teenager can convince himself that the current infatuation is ‘a meaningful loving relationship.’ That kind of thinking provides no protection against promiscuity - but then it is not intended to.
The middle ground is made up of those who would prefer children to delay having sex and not be too promiscuous, but believe that they can’t be stopped. That risks being a self-fulfilling prophecy, transforming the historical pattern of a very small number of children being sexually active into a much larger number being so.
The evidence on early sexual activity and multiple partners seems pretty clear: the two go together, and are an unhealthy combination, physically, emotionally and psychologically. Oddly, Brook and fpa, who are so keen to deal in fact, ignore these facts absolutely - as they ignore the research which shows that 70% of girls who engage in sex early (pre-16) regret it later on and wish they had waited.
These different ideologies naturally lead to radically different approaches to sex education. I believe sex is private (indeed sacred), and that taboos (and even some things labelled by the government’s experts as prejudices) are often helpful in protecting children from premature exposure to adult issues and from aberrant thoughts and behaviours. The other side believe that anything goes (as long as it is consensual), and that openness and choice are the primary virtues.
Whilst I fully understand that the school has to comply with the government’s directives on this, the government’s view is not the only one, and some research suggests their policy to be ill-founded. I can give you details of that if you are interested (eg Marsilio and Mott’s study, based on interviews with 12000 US children which identified 4 co-factors of teenage sexual activity, of which one was sex education,)
The reason that the government is so keen on pushing this into junior schools seems to be the remarkable failure of it at senior level - indeed the more they push sex education, the more promiscuous the children seem to become with all the attendant physical, emotional and psychological damage that implies. Again, I can supply data showing the increase in teenage promiscuity coinciding with sex education, and also with the existence of Brook Advisory Centres in a locality. For example, those areas targeted by the government with special measures have seen greater increases in teenage conceptions (Oxfordshire 7.3%, Cornwall 16.4% and Torbay 22.4%) I can also supply research questioning the lessons drawn from the Dutch experience (which may be the source for the research cited in the booklet you quoted).
My second major concern is the psychological impact of sex education at this age. The risk is that it disrupts the children’s latency period - a development period widely acknowledged by psychologists when they are not naturally interested in sex. Many psychologists see the disruption of this by sex education as abusive and dangerous. For one psychologist’s assessment of this, see Melvin Anchell’s Killers of Children. I believe our children have a right to stay children and stay innocent, and that the fact that there are commercial interests desperate to turn them into adolescent consumers earlier and earlier should not drive education policy.
The third area of concern is the philosophical one. The whole approach explicitly outlaws any absolute moral teaching (We don’t judge others, we respect the choices of others...) in the sexual realm. It is curious, then, how ready the same non-judgmental policy condemns behaviour of which the government really disapproves (bullying, discrimination). In fact the implicit lesson of this whole approach is that sexual morality is subjective. This begs a massive philosophical question and risks teaching an absolute answer (ironically!) to children before they are even able to comprehend the issues at stake.
It seems to me therefore that the schools are being used by one side of an ideological debate, that the evidence supporting what you are required to do is, to say the least, unproven, and that the government is in effect experimenting with our children with potentially very grave consequences.
I can supply the research references for all the claims made above, if that would be helpful to you. Thank you once more for the time and trouble you took to understand and engage with these concerns and to explain where the school stands and how it intends to proceed.”
Letter ends.
What can we suggest to teachers they might usefully teach about relationships? There are plenty of rich sources within English Literature, History and Religious Studies. No doubt enlightened teachers use the opportunities these provide. Schools should develop a holistic approach, exploring and discussing relationships in the subjects mentioned above, making it a part of the ethos of the school.
For those interested in Jung’s idea of synchronicity, the readings on Sunday from the Common Lectionary were Genesis 21: 8-21 and Matthew 10: 24-39. In the first, Abraham drives out into the wilderness his first born son, Ishmael with his mother, Sarah’s maid, Hagar. In the second, Jesus says he comes not to bring peace but with a sword to divide families. Tough messages. Families are rapidly divided if the members retain tribal attitudes and fail to mature. Children, like Ishmael, become fatherless. All manner of poor social outcomes ensue. We are living with the consequences.
The sex education lobby is a new tribe of delinquents who think they can help people mature by dishing out condoms and morning after pills, despite the evidence to the contrary. When will the experiment end?
24 Jun 2008
Strengthening our society
David Cameron said in a speech recently:
“The number one challenge we've got in this country today is to strengthen our society. There is no more important way of doing that than strengthening families, and there's nothing more important to families than the strength of their relationships...........”
This might be considered to be self-evident, based - on the one hand that much of the press and other media are preoccupied with celebrity weddings and marriage and relationship breakdowns, and - and on the other by the number of bleeding heart journalists and other dignitaries demanding the government tackle child poverty, single parent poverty, fuel poverty, pensioner poverty etc. and then arguing that poverty is the main cause of broken relationships.
If David Cameron is right – and I believe he is – about “strengthen[ing] our society” being “the number one challenge”, and “there's nothing more important to families than the strength of their relationships”, one might expect the press and other media to be equally interested in the possible solutions that are being tried and the research that has been done into them.
Not a bit of it; the last thing with which the press and media are concerned is solid research: volatile opinion polls, “Yes”, but hard evidence, “No”!
Despite protestations to the contrary, politicians are not much better than journalists. Take for, example, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice in a written answer about domestic violence:
“There is no evidence available regarding the effectiveness of accredited programmes, which are delivered within England and Wales. The drop out rate in the year 2007-08 was 37 per cent. This is an improvement from previous years. We do not hold information for local projects.”
A 37% drop out rate for expensively government funded relationship education programmes with “no evidence available regarding the effectiveness”!
One is entitled to ask why the government is promoting such programmes in preference to marriage preparation and relationship education courses to couples visiting register offices. The drop out rate from marriage preparation programmes is minimal, though the better the research base behind the programme, the higher the chances that between 10% and 15% of the couples will defer or cancel the wedding. The research shows that these couples have a profile similar to those who marry and divorce within three years.
According to the government’s own estimates, domestic violence:
- accounts for 16% of all violent crime
- will affect 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men in their lifetime
- 77% of victims of domestic violence are women
- has more repeat victims than any other crime (on average there will have been 35 assaults before a victim calls the police)
- on average, two women are killed every week by a current or former male partner
- one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute
The estimated total cost of domestic violence to society in monetary terms is £23 billion per annum. This figure includes an estimated £3.1 billion as the cost to the state and £1.3 billion as the cost to employers and human suffering cost of £17 billion. (Walby 2004).
The estimated total cost is based on the following:
- The cost to the criminal justice system is £1 billion per annum. (This represents one quarter of the criminal justice budget for violent crime including the cost of homicide to adult women annually of £112 million).
- The cost of physical healthcare treatment resulting from domestic violence, (including hospital, GP, ambulance, prescriptions) is £1,220,247,000, i.e. 3% of total NHS budget.
- The cost of treating mental illness and distress due to domestic violence is £176,000,000.
- The cost to the social services is £0.25 billion.
- Housing costs are estimated at £0.16 billion.
- The cost of civil legal services due to domestic violence is £0.3billion.
The statistics collated by Walby above are recognised as an under-estimate because public services don't collect information on the extent to which their services are used as a result of domestic violence ......... The cost of domestic homicide is estimated by the Home Office at over one million pounds: a total of £1, 097, 330 for each death, or £112 million per year.
This is the same Maria Eagle who said:
“we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another”
David Cameron, however, is looking at the evidence:
“In 1996, President Clinton introduced funding for projects that "encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families." And President Bush continued, setting up the 'Healthy Marriage Initiative', which funds 'marriage education services' nationwide. For too long, politicians here have been afraid of getting into this territory, for fear of looking old-fashioned or preachy.......
Family breakdown is of course not the only cause of our present social problems. But let me give you just two figures. A child whose parents have split up is twice as likely to live in poverty. And they're seventy-five percent more likely to suffer educational failure.........Of course not every couple needs relationship support - but many more do need it than actually get it. If you have a nagging headache, you go to the doctor. And I want us to de-stigmatise relationship support so people feel completely comfortable, if they have a nagging difficulty in their relationship, in getting help .......... One way is to start early - and insist, for example, that there's no sex education in schools unless it includes relationship education.
...... it's about creating a positive social norm. In plain English - it's about understanding that one of the biggest influences on our behaviour is what we think is expected by the society around us, and what we see other people doing.”
An example of this – a result of the US 'Healthy Marriage Initiative' - includes
“The healthy marriage initiative in Texas is intended to promote free, skills-based marriage education and provide couples with the tools they need to manage the challenges inherent in relationships. Extensive research has shown that couples who receive relationship education have more stable relationships, thereby increasing favorable outcomes not only for themselves, but for their children.
Classes will be taught in various venues around the region and include eight hours of training focusing on communication skills, conflict resolution and the elements of a healthy marriage. Classes will benefit couples who are seriously dating, engaged to marry and those married for any length of time.
Beginning Sept. 1, engaged couples completing the class will have the added benefit of having the $60 of their marriage license fee waived, and they will not have to wait 72 hours to get married.”
It is excellent news that David Cameron is expecting to tackle the issue of relationship education at a much earlier stage than the present government, including its delivery with sex education, which will not be promoted as a single topic.
However, since the Conservatives control the majority of local authorities, what is there to prevent this process of early provision of relationship education from starting now?
“The number one challenge we've got in this country today is to strengthen our society. There is no more important way of doing that than strengthening families, and there's nothing more important to families than the strength of their relationships...........”
This might be considered to be self-evident, based - on the one hand that much of the press and other media are preoccupied with celebrity weddings and marriage and relationship breakdowns, and - and on the other by the number of bleeding heart journalists and other dignitaries demanding the government tackle child poverty, single parent poverty, fuel poverty, pensioner poverty etc. and then arguing that poverty is the main cause of broken relationships.
If David Cameron is right – and I believe he is – about “strengthen[ing] our society” being “the number one challenge”, and “there's nothing more important to families than the strength of their relationships”, one might expect the press and other media to be equally interested in the possible solutions that are being tried and the research that has been done into them.
Not a bit of it; the last thing with which the press and media are concerned is solid research: volatile opinion polls, “Yes”, but hard evidence, “No”!
Despite protestations to the contrary, politicians are not much better than journalists. Take for, example, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice in a written answer about domestic violence:
“There is no evidence available regarding the effectiveness of accredited programmes, which are delivered within England and Wales. The drop out rate in the year 2007-08 was 37 per cent. This is an improvement from previous years. We do not hold information for local projects.”
A 37% drop out rate for expensively government funded relationship education programmes with “no evidence available regarding the effectiveness”!
One is entitled to ask why the government is promoting such programmes in preference to marriage preparation and relationship education courses to couples visiting register offices. The drop out rate from marriage preparation programmes is minimal, though the better the research base behind the programme, the higher the chances that between 10% and 15% of the couples will defer or cancel the wedding. The research shows that these couples have a profile similar to those who marry and divorce within three years.
According to the government’s own estimates, domestic violence:
- accounts for 16% of all violent crime
- will affect 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men in their lifetime
- 77% of victims of domestic violence are women
- has more repeat victims than any other crime (on average there will have been 35 assaults before a victim calls the police)
- on average, two women are killed every week by a current or former male partner
- one incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute
The estimated total cost of domestic violence to society in monetary terms is £23 billion per annum. This figure includes an estimated £3.1 billion as the cost to the state and £1.3 billion as the cost to employers and human suffering cost of £17 billion. (Walby 2004).
The estimated total cost is based on the following:
- The cost to the criminal justice system is £1 billion per annum. (This represents one quarter of the criminal justice budget for violent crime including the cost of homicide to adult women annually of £112 million).
- The cost of physical healthcare treatment resulting from domestic violence, (including hospital, GP, ambulance, prescriptions) is £1,220,247,000, i.e. 3% of total NHS budget.
- The cost of treating mental illness and distress due to domestic violence is £176,000,000.
- The cost to the social services is £0.25 billion.
- Housing costs are estimated at £0.16 billion.
- The cost of civil legal services due to domestic violence is £0.3billion.
The statistics collated by Walby above are recognised as an under-estimate because public services don't collect information on the extent to which their services are used as a result of domestic violence ......... The cost of domestic homicide is estimated by the Home Office at over one million pounds: a total of £1, 097, 330 for each death, or £112 million per year.
This is the same Maria Eagle who said:
“we shall not promote one type of family structure as opposed to another”
David Cameron, however, is looking at the evidence:
“In 1996, President Clinton introduced funding for projects that "encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families." And President Bush continued, setting up the 'Healthy Marriage Initiative', which funds 'marriage education services' nationwide. For too long, politicians here have been afraid of getting into this territory, for fear of looking old-fashioned or preachy.......
Family breakdown is of course not the only cause of our present social problems. But let me give you just two figures. A child whose parents have split up is twice as likely to live in poverty. And they're seventy-five percent more likely to suffer educational failure.........Of course not every couple needs relationship support - but many more do need it than actually get it. If you have a nagging headache, you go to the doctor. And I want us to de-stigmatise relationship support so people feel completely comfortable, if they have a nagging difficulty in their relationship, in getting help .......... One way is to start early - and insist, for example, that there's no sex education in schools unless it includes relationship education.
...... it's about creating a positive social norm. In plain English - it's about understanding that one of the biggest influences on our behaviour is what we think is expected by the society around us, and what we see other people doing.”
An example of this – a result of the US 'Healthy Marriage Initiative' - includes
“The healthy marriage initiative in Texas is intended to promote free, skills-based marriage education and provide couples with the tools they need to manage the challenges inherent in relationships. Extensive research has shown that couples who receive relationship education have more stable relationships, thereby increasing favorable outcomes not only for themselves, but for their children.
Classes will be taught in various venues around the region and include eight hours of training focusing on communication skills, conflict resolution and the elements of a healthy marriage. Classes will benefit couples who are seriously dating, engaged to marry and those married for any length of time.
Beginning Sept. 1, engaged couples completing the class will have the added benefit of having the $60 of their marriage license fee waived, and they will not have to wait 72 hours to get married.”
It is excellent news that David Cameron is expecting to tackle the issue of relationship education at a much earlier stage than the present government, including its delivery with sex education, which will not be promoted as a single topic.
However, since the Conservatives control the majority of local authorities, what is there to prevent this process of early provision of relationship education from starting now?
5 Mar 2008
Poverty – is it the cause or consequence of family breakdown?
Martin Narey is chair of the End Child Poverty coalition and chief executive of Barnardo's. He was formerly head of the prison service at the Home Office. He has been appointed by Nick Clegg to chair the Liberal Democrats' commission on social mobility because he is seen as an independent, expert voice, Andrew Sparrow reported in the Guardian on Monday 3rd March 2008.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/03/welfare.socialexclusion
Guardian: “When Iain Duncan Smith looked at this for the Conservatives, he identified family breakdown as a cause of inequality. Do you think he's got a point or do you think he's barking up the wrong tree?”
Narey: “I wouldn't say he's barking up the wrong tree. I met IDS for the fist time [recently] and I found him enormously impressive. But I would offer an alternative theory, which is that dire poverty leads to family breakdown. Anyone who has brought up children or a family, if you think seriously about what it must be like under such immense financial pressure, I think it's very easy to understand why we have so many marriages that fail.”
In an article in the Daily Mail, James Chapman comments on a study by former Inland Revenue consultants Don Draper and Leonard Beighton, working for CARE. He concludes: "Among highly developed economies, the UK is almost alone in operating a tax system that ignores spousal obligations."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509438&in_page_id=1770
Professor Rowthorn is quoted as saying: "The system is resented because it is so biased against one-earner couples who wish to look after their own children. There is growing recognition that it penalises stable couples and encourages family breakdown and un-partnered childbearing."
Therefore, in so far as Martin Narey’s theory is correct in pointing to poverty being the cause of family breakdown, it is the bias against marriage in the tax and benefit systems that is bringing about much of the poverty, in addition to inherently unstable “unpartnered childbearing” and childrearing.
In a later article [2nd March 2008], also in the Daily Mail, Steve Doughty reported that Don Draper “examined the income of 98 theoretical couples with different incomes ranging from basic benefits to more than £46,000 a year.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=524381&in_page_id=1770
“His report took into account benefits, rent or mortgage payments, and whether a missing father is paying maintenance. Checks of family entitlements against tax and benefit tables used by the Department for Work and Pensions showed that 75 of the 98 families would be better off apart than together. The analysis - which also took into account the additional costs of running two homes - showed that on average the premium for living apart would be £69. A similar study last year found 71 couples out of 98 would be worse off and the extra cost of living together averaged £63. The worst affected families were those where only one partner worked and the other stayed at home to bring up one child. For them, the extra benefits if the family broke up would be worth £95.62 a week.”
Mr Draper said: "These are very considerable sums for people whose incomes may be less than £300 a week. Breaking the cycle of poverty by encouraging the formation and maintenance of stable families would make a major contribution to reducing long-term poverty. Many social problems seem to have their roots in unstable family structures."
The Labour MP Frank Field has calculated that a single mother with two children under 11 on the minimum wage received tax credits that took her weekly income to £487 if she worked only 16 hours a week. A two-parent family with one earner would have had to put in 116 hours of work on the same pay to get the same money.
CARE's report said the extra cost to the Treasury of a couple choosing to stay apart to claim more benefits this year - of whom there are 1.2million - will average £7,732.
Let’s hope Martin Narey – “an independent, expert voice” - looks first at the numbers with a dispassionate eye.
At much the same time [4th March 2008], the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill accused politicians of failing the nation's children by conducting an experiment to "downgrade" marriage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/nbishop104.xml
He says the "great British experiment to downgrade marriage and the family" was showing no sign of running out of steam.
"Our legislators have got a bit careless and they've not noticed that some of the things they've done have not helped home life in our country.
"The tax system works so that if you get married you are penalised.
“We have been dismantling the institution of marriage and saying to our young people it doesn't really matter if you get married."
It is good to see a public figure like the bishop engaging in this important debate. Thus far it has been like a “phoney war” with very few prominent figures willing to enter it. The result has been that the "great British experiment to downgrade marriage and the family" has continued almost unchecked and without serious debate.
There was a debate in House of Lords on Thursday, 28 February 2008 on “Families, Community Cohesion and Social Action”, but not a single male Conservative peer participated.
In an article in the Guardian, “Marital splits are still costly for mothers” by John Carvel, social affairs editor, Wednesday March 5, 2008:
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2262214,00.html
Dr Paul Dornan, the head of policy and research for the Child Poverty Action Group, said: "Some have argued the tax credit system somehow incentivises parents to live apart, but that argument is hollow - mothers are worse off after relationship breakdown."
No doubt mothers are worse off after relationship breakdown, but it doesn’t alter the fact that many separated parents receive in total more money through the tax and benefit systems than married couples living together. The question is, “is it fair and sensible for the state to give more money to people raising children apart than those who opt to stay together despite their difficulties?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/03/welfare.socialexclusion
Guardian: “When Iain Duncan Smith looked at this for the Conservatives, he identified family breakdown as a cause of inequality. Do you think he's got a point or do you think he's barking up the wrong tree?”
Narey: “I wouldn't say he's barking up the wrong tree. I met IDS for the fist time [recently] and I found him enormously impressive. But I would offer an alternative theory, which is that dire poverty leads to family breakdown. Anyone who has brought up children or a family, if you think seriously about what it must be like under such immense financial pressure, I think it's very easy to understand why we have so many marriages that fail.”
In an article in the Daily Mail, James Chapman comments on a study by former Inland Revenue consultants Don Draper and Leonard Beighton, working for CARE. He concludes: "Among highly developed economies, the UK is almost alone in operating a tax system that ignores spousal obligations."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=509438&in_page_id=1770
Professor Rowthorn is quoted as saying: "The system is resented because it is so biased against one-earner couples who wish to look after their own children. There is growing recognition that it penalises stable couples and encourages family breakdown and un-partnered childbearing."
Therefore, in so far as Martin Narey’s theory is correct in pointing to poverty being the cause of family breakdown, it is the bias against marriage in the tax and benefit systems that is bringing about much of the poverty, in addition to inherently unstable “unpartnered childbearing” and childrearing.
In a later article [2nd March 2008], also in the Daily Mail, Steve Doughty reported that Don Draper “examined the income of 98 theoretical couples with different incomes ranging from basic benefits to more than £46,000 a year.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=524381&in_page_id=1770
“His report took into account benefits, rent or mortgage payments, and whether a missing father is paying maintenance. Checks of family entitlements against tax and benefit tables used by the Department for Work and Pensions showed that 75 of the 98 families would be better off apart than together. The analysis - which also took into account the additional costs of running two homes - showed that on average the premium for living apart would be £69. A similar study last year found 71 couples out of 98 would be worse off and the extra cost of living together averaged £63. The worst affected families were those where only one partner worked and the other stayed at home to bring up one child. For them, the extra benefits if the family broke up would be worth £95.62 a week.”
Mr Draper said: "These are very considerable sums for people whose incomes may be less than £300 a week. Breaking the cycle of poverty by encouraging the formation and maintenance of stable families would make a major contribution to reducing long-term poverty. Many social problems seem to have their roots in unstable family structures."
The Labour MP Frank Field has calculated that a single mother with two children under 11 on the minimum wage received tax credits that took her weekly income to £487 if she worked only 16 hours a week. A two-parent family with one earner would have had to put in 116 hours of work on the same pay to get the same money.
CARE's report said the extra cost to the Treasury of a couple choosing to stay apart to claim more benefits this year - of whom there are 1.2million - will average £7,732.
Let’s hope Martin Narey – “an independent, expert voice” - looks first at the numbers with a dispassionate eye.
At much the same time [4th March 2008], the Bishop of Lichfield, the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill accused politicians of failing the nation's children by conducting an experiment to "downgrade" marriage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/nbishop104.xml
He says the "great British experiment to downgrade marriage and the family" was showing no sign of running out of steam.
"Our legislators have got a bit careless and they've not noticed that some of the things they've done have not helped home life in our country.
"The tax system works so that if you get married you are penalised.
“We have been dismantling the institution of marriage and saying to our young people it doesn't really matter if you get married."
It is good to see a public figure like the bishop engaging in this important debate. Thus far it has been like a “phoney war” with very few prominent figures willing to enter it. The result has been that the "great British experiment to downgrade marriage and the family" has continued almost unchecked and without serious debate.
There was a debate in House of Lords on Thursday, 28 February 2008 on “Families, Community Cohesion and Social Action”, but not a single male Conservative peer participated.
In an article in the Guardian, “Marital splits are still costly for mothers” by John Carvel, social affairs editor, Wednesday March 5, 2008:
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2262214,00.html
Dr Paul Dornan, the head of policy and research for the Child Poverty Action Group, said: "Some have argued the tax credit system somehow incentivises parents to live apart, but that argument is hollow - mothers are worse off after relationship breakdown."
No doubt mothers are worse off after relationship breakdown, but it doesn’t alter the fact that many separated parents receive in total more money through the tax and benefit systems than married couples living together. The question is, “is it fair and sensible for the state to give more money to people raising children apart than those who opt to stay together despite their difficulties?”
21 Oct 2007
Standing ovations and obfuscation make for poor marriage and family policies
Iain Duncan Smith won a well deserved standing ovation for his speech at the Conservative Party conference, but will the Tory faithful get off their seats to take his ideas forward?
Iain Duncan Smith said later:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592302.ece
“The decline of marriage is a difficult social trend to reverse. It would be too simplistic to argue that a tax break will reverse this trend and we have made 29 recommendations on the subject, including more education on how to sustain relationships.”
Despite this evident common sense, his colleagues and government ministers continue to talk only about tax breaks and not at all about relationship education and support.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071018/debtext/71018-0004.htm
Theresa May said, “In the latest Government flip-flop, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said: ‘It’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise ... marriage’.
She called on the government to “commit to a debate in Government time on how to support families in the tax system?”
If she is serious, surely the Conservatives will allocate some Opposition time to a debate, as there is no chance – and Theresa May must know it – that the government will want to leave their ambivalent policies towards marriage and the family open to scrutiny.
The previous day Gordon Brown said, “As far as the tax issues are concerned, it is because we recognise marriage in the tax system that we have made the changes that we have on inheritance tax ……….. But as far as children’s tax credits and child benefit are concerned, I believe that the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children.”
This is very confusing. What Gordon Brown seems to be saying is that it’s Ok for there to be just a little bit of recognition in the tax system for marriage, but when it comes to benefits it’s Ok for the government to squander money on people however tenuous their relationships, even if it means giving 200,000 cohabiting couples benefits to which they are not entitled, there being that number more claimants of single parent benefits than there are registered single parent households.
This makes no sense, especially since in other respects – such as pensions - the benefit system penalises married couples compared with single people. Gordon Brown then starts talking piously about, “the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children” as if this lets the government off the hook when it comes to supporting families.
It is worth recalling what Paul Boateng said in 1996 during the passage of the Family Law Bill. He was then the Opposition spokesman on marriage for the Lord Chancellor’s department:
http://ww.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960424/debtext/60424-37.htm
“In 1971, in the aftermath of the last great reform of divorce law, Lord Scarman said:
"The law is groping its way towards a new conception of the duties of married life."
The duties of married life have been cast aside. Married life and the importance and value of marriage are being widely questioned. Marriage is undervalued, marriage is not supported, marriage is now something that one can win on a game show.
If one turns on the television on a Saturday night, one can see someone win a marriage. The young couples who walk down the pink staircase--I do not know why the staircase is not white; no doubt pink looks better on television--get more preparation for marriage, in terms of what they will get at the end, than we give them in relation to civil marriage today…..
At the moment, there is no preparation at all for civil marriage, and there is absolutely nothing on the face of the Bill to give any hope whatsoever that that will occur or is envisaged. Are we going to have any assurances about that tonight? That is something that hon. Members want to hear…… The Government also have to come forward with proposals in relation to preparation for marriage and with proposals that recognise the need for concerted and focused action to support the institution of marriage and the family. Only then can hon. Members rest easy in terms of the consequences of their deliberations today.”
Iain Duncan Smith deserved the applause and his standing ovation at the Conservative Party conference earlier this month. Unfortunately the implications of what he is saying are lost on most of his colleagues and on most members of the government. But we must be thankful to Andy Burnham [like Paul Boateng who was also later], Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for keeping the issue in the public consciousness.
Iain Duncan Smith said later:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592302.ece
“The decline of marriage is a difficult social trend to reverse. It would be too simplistic to argue that a tax break will reverse this trend and we have made 29 recommendations on the subject, including more education on how to sustain relationships.”
Despite this evident common sense, his colleagues and government ministers continue to talk only about tax breaks and not at all about relationship education and support.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm071018/debtext/71018-0004.htm
Theresa May said, “In the latest Government flip-flop, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said: ‘It’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise ... marriage’.
She called on the government to “commit to a debate in Government time on how to support families in the tax system?”
If she is serious, surely the Conservatives will allocate some Opposition time to a debate, as there is no chance – and Theresa May must know it – that the government will want to leave their ambivalent policies towards marriage and the family open to scrutiny.
The previous day Gordon Brown said, “As far as the tax issues are concerned, it is because we recognise marriage in the tax system that we have made the changes that we have on inheritance tax ……….. But as far as children’s tax credits and child benefit are concerned, I believe that the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children.”
This is very confusing. What Gordon Brown seems to be saying is that it’s Ok for there to be just a little bit of recognition in the tax system for marriage, but when it comes to benefits it’s Ok for the government to squander money on people however tenuous their relationships, even if it means giving 200,000 cohabiting couples benefits to which they are not entitled, there being that number more claimants of single parent benefits than there are registered single parent households.
This makes no sense, especially since in other respects – such as pensions - the benefit system penalises married couples compared with single people. Gordon Brown then starts talking piously about, “the duty of every citizen of this country is to support not just some children in our country, but all children” as if this lets the government off the hook when it comes to supporting families.
It is worth recalling what Paul Boateng said in 1996 during the passage of the Family Law Bill. He was then the Opposition spokesman on marriage for the Lord Chancellor’s department:
http://ww.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960424/debtext/60424-37.htm
“In 1971, in the aftermath of the last great reform of divorce law, Lord Scarman said:
"The law is groping its way towards a new conception of the duties of married life."
The duties of married life have been cast aside. Married life and the importance and value of marriage are being widely questioned. Marriage is undervalued, marriage is not supported, marriage is now something that one can win on a game show.
If one turns on the television on a Saturday night, one can see someone win a marriage. The young couples who walk down the pink staircase--I do not know why the staircase is not white; no doubt pink looks better on television--get more preparation for marriage, in terms of what they will get at the end, than we give them in relation to civil marriage today…..
At the moment, there is no preparation at all for civil marriage, and there is absolutely nothing on the face of the Bill to give any hope whatsoever that that will occur or is envisaged. Are we going to have any assurances about that tonight? That is something that hon. Members want to hear…… The Government also have to come forward with proposals in relation to preparation for marriage and with proposals that recognise the need for concerted and focused action to support the institution of marriage and the family. Only then can hon. Members rest easy in terms of the consequences of their deliberations today.”
Iain Duncan Smith deserved the applause and his standing ovation at the Conservative Party conference earlier this month. Unfortunately the implications of what he is saying are lost on most of his colleagues and on most members of the government. But we must be thankful to Andy Burnham [like Paul Boateng who was also later], Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for keeping the issue in the public consciousness.
29 Sept 2007
Biblical texts to support a political party's family policy
In his speech to the 2007 Labour conference this week Gordon Brown quoted scripture – “suffer little children to come unto me” [Mat 19 13-15, Mk 10 13-16, & Luk 18 15-17] – in support of Labour’s inclusive policy of all family structures. By implication he was criticising the – as yet to be defined - pro-marriage policy of the Conservatives and its supposed exclusivity.
In the immediately preceding verses of both Matthew’s gospel and Mark’s, Jesus quotes from the book of Genesis, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, they twain shall be one flesh” [Gen 2 24].
In John’s gospel [John 4 1-42] Jesus says to the woman of Samaria, “Go call thy husband and come hither.” The woman answered him and said, “I have no husband”. Jesus said unto her, “Thou hast well said, I have no husband, for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband”.
Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’, but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” [Mat 5 27-28].
At the end of the story of the woman caught in adultery [John 8 1-11] whom he saved from being stoned to death, Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more”.
Forgiving the sinner is not to condone the sin. By no stretch of the imagination can the policy of Jesus towards marriage and the family be described as one that is tolerant of promiscuity.
In line with the foolish virgins in the parable [Mat 25 1-18], Gordon Brown and his colleagues are exhorting their followers to make no preparation for marriage.
There will be free condoms, the NHS to conduct abortions – more readily available than maternity services - and the welfare state to bale the promiscuous out of any hole into which they dig themselves, and larger benefits for unmarried than married couples.
While the foolish virgins went off to buy oil for their lamps “the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage; and the door was shut”.
The wise virgins of the parable couldn’t give the foolish virgins some of their oil for the lamps because it was spiritual capital and cannot be transferred, it must be acquired. Labour’s mistake is in imagining that any wrong can be righted by taking value from one party and giving it to another. But the things of greatest value cannot be gifted away.
By distorting scripture Labour is promoting a society which is unprepared for the realities of life.
Will the Conservatives be able to get their theology right?
In the immediately preceding verses of both Matthew’s gospel and Mark’s, Jesus quotes from the book of Genesis, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, they twain shall be one flesh” [Gen 2 24].
In John’s gospel [John 4 1-42] Jesus says to the woman of Samaria, “Go call thy husband and come hither.” The woman answered him and said, “I have no husband”. Jesus said unto her, “Thou hast well said, I have no husband, for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband”.
Jesus said, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’, but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” [Mat 5 27-28].
At the end of the story of the woman caught in adultery [John 8 1-11] whom he saved from being stoned to death, Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more”.
Forgiving the sinner is not to condone the sin. By no stretch of the imagination can the policy of Jesus towards marriage and the family be described as one that is tolerant of promiscuity.
In line with the foolish virgins in the parable [Mat 25 1-18], Gordon Brown and his colleagues are exhorting their followers to make no preparation for marriage.
There will be free condoms, the NHS to conduct abortions – more readily available than maternity services - and the welfare state to bale the promiscuous out of any hole into which they dig themselves, and larger benefits for unmarried than married couples.
While the foolish virgins went off to buy oil for their lamps “the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage; and the door was shut”.
The wise virgins of the parable couldn’t give the foolish virgins some of their oil for the lamps because it was spiritual capital and cannot be transferred, it must be acquired. Labour’s mistake is in imagining that any wrong can be righted by taking value from one party and giving it to another. But the things of greatest value cannot be gifted away.
By distorting scripture Labour is promoting a society which is unprepared for the realities of life.
Will the Conservatives be able to get their theology right?
31 Aug 2007
David Cameron’s call, “men [must] realise that having children is an 18-year commitment - not a one-night stand”.
He went on to say [The Tory leader's speech at Sudellside community centre in Darwen, Lancashire, on youth crime and measures to reduce it - Wednesday August 22, 2007 - Guardian Unlimited]:
“We need to make mothers realise that it's work, not welfare, that offers their family the best future. We need to help couples stay together, not drive them apart with the tax and benefits system. And we need to make society as a whole - that's you and me - realise that we all have duties to our neighbours. These are duties as compelling as the taxes we pay and the laws we obey. They represent a social responsibility. For me the most exciting development that is happening in Britain today is the growth of social enterprises and other voluntary bodies dedicated to social justice.”
And Peter Fahy, chief constable of Cheshire’s comment, “public was right to think that antisocial behaviour was out of control” in The Guardian (Monday August 20, 2007) follows an article the previous week. He argues, “the system [is] failing to tackle the underlying causes of crime ……. [including] family breakdown”.
In an article [16th August 2007] in The Telegraph, ‘Alcohol ban is no answer; proper policing is’ David Green, Director of Civitas, writes: “children are more likely to stay away from crime if both biological parents are committed to their well-being”.
“…. there is no getting away from the fact that children are more likely to stay away from crime and to lead fuller lives if both their biological parents are committed to their well-being during the two decades it takes to grow up. Solving that problem is beyond most of us.”
Now David Cameron has also weighed in with, “More Government support for families and better male role models are the best ways to combat the yobs who are causing “anarchy in the UK” [Telegraph 21st August 2007].
The problem can be solved with determination, the application of the available statutory powers (Fixed Penalty Notices), modern technology (texts to mobile phones, e-mail, Digital TV), and engagement by schools with parents in the social, emotional and behavioural development of the pupils.
One solution available within the UK, brings parents, children and schools together. By using talk2me (www.talk2me.org.uk) schools and families can monitor social, emotional and behavioural development over time by taking the online inventory each year. What is required is the will to bring together the complementary strands of intervention and to treat the issue of family breakdown holistically.
Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Cheshire writes, “a fundamental rebalancing [is] needed for the criminal justice system - away from simply concentrating on punishment towards more rehabilitation and offers of help, backed up by sanctions for those who [refuse] to change their behaviour.”
There is a strong correlation between truancy and future criminality. Local authorities [especially those under Conservative control!] and local crime reduction partnerships could be tackling this problem now with the same zeal that is being directed against the owners of illegally parked vehicles - with FNPs (Fixed Penalty Notices) and clamping.
However, if the main focus is punitive, it won’t work. Follow-up supportive measures are crucial too:
1. An individual re-integration plan for each child picked up during a truancy sweep combined with FNPs (£50 if paid in 28 days, £100 in 42 days) would change the culture of truanting, in some areas, to one of regular school attendance.
2. A whole school approach to measuring change in social, emotional and behavioural development, together with a programme engaging parents in this process – possibly as part of the extended schools programme - would change the culture prevalent, in some areas, from antisocial to social behaviour for all pupils and parents. Targeting a few parents will alienate them. A universal programme will not.
There are now 50,000 truants each school day in the UK and one million pupils who have been truants during the year. There are 16,000 PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers) and strong teams of EWOs (Education Welfare Officers) and other staff in schools and local authorities tasked with combating truancy and antisocial behaviour.
There are schemes such as Truancy Call and Teachers2Parents for engaging with parents. These allow school staff to make first day contact with parents of absentees via automated phone call, text message and email, parents can then respond in the same way.
Examination of data from 2004 shows a strong correlation between average absence levels in schools and their pupils’ attainment. For example:
88% of pupils gain 5 or more good GCSE grades at schools with average absence of 8 days or fewer per pupil. But only 26% at schools with average absence of more than 20 days per pupil; and
86% of pupils reach Key Stage 2 Level 4 Maths in schools where pupils average fewer than 8 days absence a year but this drops to 57% in schools where average absence is more than 15 days.
The 2004 Youth Crime Survey showed that 45% of young people in mainstream education who have committed an offence say they have played truant from school, compared with just 18% who have not committed an offence. It also showed that 62% of 10-16 year olds who have committed criminal or anti-social behaviour have also truanted.
Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ensures that education authorities have a legal power to disclose information – such as the names of persistent truants - to the police officer/police community support officer for the purpose of a truancy sweep. The requirements of the Data Protection legislation need to be taken into account in exercising this power, and certain other requirements. The best way to ensure these requirements are satisfied is by using carefully drawn up protocols between the education authority and the police.
Where appropriate, EWOs, Connexions Personal Advisors, learning mentors and school pastoral staff should aim to work together to create an individual re-integration plan for each child picked up during a truancy sweep. Police officers/police community support officers have the power to return truants to their school or to a local authority designated place.
Schools using schemes like www.teachers2parents.co.uk can provide much of the intelligence that is needed to make daily or frequent sweeps effective, for example, details of:
- regular non-attenders who are absent;
- pupils who are legitimately out of school; and
- dates of training days and other school closures.
Suresh Patel says, “Schools across the country using www.teachers2parents.co.uk have seen a huge reduction in truancy.”
Seamus Ryan, principal of Dunshaughlin Community College, a mixed school with 930 pupils has commented: “By installing Truancy Call we can manage absences more effectively and encourage parents to notify us about the whereabouts of their child. One of the real benefits of Truancy Call is that it alerts parents immediately, should their child be absent for any reason.”
Mr Ryan continued, “It gives parents the opportunity to inform the school directly of the reason for the absence and the likely duration, reducing the workload for teaching in collecting and recording absence notes.”
Using Truancy Call, the school carries out registration as normal each morning. Once finished, the system automatically calls, texts or emails parents until a response is received. Once a response is received and a voice message recorded no further calls are made, until the start of the next absence.
Using talk2me throughout the school as a regular online survey can enable the relevant staff and all parents to measure changes in social, emotional and behavioural development by pupil, class, and year group, under the headings of the ECM (Every Child Matters) agenda. If parents participate – and in future this should be possible with mobile phones or digital TV - facilitators or mentors can engage with individual pupils and families to enable them to discuss issues important to them, and to evaluate their progress during their time at school.
There is no single programme or intervention that will solve the problem of truancy. But several of these together will have a very significant impact on it. The knock on effects in terms of improved behaviour and better exam results can be considerable.
There's certainly been a dramatic improvement in exam results over a very short period (at Ladymead Community School in Taunton). Ladymead's head, Mark Trusson, ……. says: "Use of ICT and our school management systems combined (including Truancy Call) has been a powerful system for improving school performance, linked to teaching and learning. Our results (children gaining five As to Cs at GCSE) have improved from 54% in 2005 to 64% in 2006."
“We need to make mothers realise that it's work, not welfare, that offers their family the best future. We need to help couples stay together, not drive them apart with the tax and benefits system. And we need to make society as a whole - that's you and me - realise that we all have duties to our neighbours. These are duties as compelling as the taxes we pay and the laws we obey. They represent a social responsibility. For me the most exciting development that is happening in Britain today is the growth of social enterprises and other voluntary bodies dedicated to social justice.”
And Peter Fahy, chief constable of Cheshire’s comment, “public was right to think that antisocial behaviour was out of control” in The Guardian (Monday August 20, 2007) follows an article the previous week. He argues, “the system [is] failing to tackle the underlying causes of crime ……. [including] family breakdown”.
In an article [16th August 2007] in The Telegraph, ‘Alcohol ban is no answer; proper policing is’ David Green, Director of Civitas, writes: “children are more likely to stay away from crime if both biological parents are committed to their well-being”.
“…. there is no getting away from the fact that children are more likely to stay away from crime and to lead fuller lives if both their biological parents are committed to their well-being during the two decades it takes to grow up. Solving that problem is beyond most of us.”
Now David Cameron has also weighed in with, “More Government support for families and better male role models are the best ways to combat the yobs who are causing “anarchy in the UK” [Telegraph 21st August 2007].
The problem can be solved with determination, the application of the available statutory powers (Fixed Penalty Notices), modern technology (texts to mobile phones, e-mail, Digital TV), and engagement by schools with parents in the social, emotional and behavioural development of the pupils.
One solution available within the UK, brings parents, children and schools together. By using talk2me (www.talk2me.org.uk) schools and families can monitor social, emotional and behavioural development over time by taking the online inventory each year. What is required is the will to bring together the complementary strands of intervention and to treat the issue of family breakdown holistically.
Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Cheshire writes, “a fundamental rebalancing [is] needed for the criminal justice system - away from simply concentrating on punishment towards more rehabilitation and offers of help, backed up by sanctions for those who [refuse] to change their behaviour.”
There is a strong correlation between truancy and future criminality. Local authorities [especially those under Conservative control!] and local crime reduction partnerships could be tackling this problem now with the same zeal that is being directed against the owners of illegally parked vehicles - with FNPs (Fixed Penalty Notices) and clamping.
However, if the main focus is punitive, it won’t work. Follow-up supportive measures are crucial too:
1. An individual re-integration plan for each child picked up during a truancy sweep combined with FNPs (£50 if paid in 28 days, £100 in 42 days) would change the culture of truanting, in some areas, to one of regular school attendance.
2. A whole school approach to measuring change in social, emotional and behavioural development, together with a programme engaging parents in this process – possibly as part of the extended schools programme - would change the culture prevalent, in some areas, from antisocial to social behaviour for all pupils and parents. Targeting a few parents will alienate them. A universal programme will not.
There are now 50,000 truants each school day in the UK and one million pupils who have been truants during the year. There are 16,000 PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers) and strong teams of EWOs (Education Welfare Officers) and other staff in schools and local authorities tasked with combating truancy and antisocial behaviour.
There are schemes such as Truancy Call and Teachers2Parents for engaging with parents. These allow school staff to make first day contact with parents of absentees via automated phone call, text message and email, parents can then respond in the same way.
Examination of data from 2004 shows a strong correlation between average absence levels in schools and their pupils’ attainment. For example:
88% of pupils gain 5 or more good GCSE grades at schools with average absence of 8 days or fewer per pupil. But only 26% at schools with average absence of more than 20 days per pupil; and
86% of pupils reach Key Stage 2 Level 4 Maths in schools where pupils average fewer than 8 days absence a year but this drops to 57% in schools where average absence is more than 15 days.
The 2004 Youth Crime Survey showed that 45% of young people in mainstream education who have committed an offence say they have played truant from school, compared with just 18% who have not committed an offence. It also showed that 62% of 10-16 year olds who have committed criminal or anti-social behaviour have also truanted.
Section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ensures that education authorities have a legal power to disclose information – such as the names of persistent truants - to the police officer/police community support officer for the purpose of a truancy sweep. The requirements of the Data Protection legislation need to be taken into account in exercising this power, and certain other requirements. The best way to ensure these requirements are satisfied is by using carefully drawn up protocols between the education authority and the police.
Where appropriate, EWOs, Connexions Personal Advisors, learning mentors and school pastoral staff should aim to work together to create an individual re-integration plan for each child picked up during a truancy sweep. Police officers/police community support officers have the power to return truants to their school or to a local authority designated place.
Schools using schemes like www.teachers2parents.co.uk can provide much of the intelligence that is needed to make daily or frequent sweeps effective, for example, details of:
- regular non-attenders who are absent;
- pupils who are legitimately out of school; and
- dates of training days and other school closures.
Suresh Patel says, “Schools across the country using www.teachers2parents.co.uk have seen a huge reduction in truancy.”
Seamus Ryan, principal of Dunshaughlin Community College, a mixed school with 930 pupils has commented: “By installing Truancy Call we can manage absences more effectively and encourage parents to notify us about the whereabouts of their child. One of the real benefits of Truancy Call is that it alerts parents immediately, should their child be absent for any reason.”
Mr Ryan continued, “It gives parents the opportunity to inform the school directly of the reason for the absence and the likely duration, reducing the workload for teaching in collecting and recording absence notes.”
Using Truancy Call, the school carries out registration as normal each morning. Once finished, the system automatically calls, texts or emails parents until a response is received. Once a response is received and a voice message recorded no further calls are made, until the start of the next absence.
Using talk2me throughout the school as a regular online survey can enable the relevant staff and all parents to measure changes in social, emotional and behavioural development by pupil, class, and year group, under the headings of the ECM (Every Child Matters) agenda. If parents participate – and in future this should be possible with mobile phones or digital TV - facilitators or mentors can engage with individual pupils and families to enable them to discuss issues important to them, and to evaluate their progress during their time at school.
There is no single programme or intervention that will solve the problem of truancy. But several of these together will have a very significant impact on it. The knock on effects in terms of improved behaviour and better exam results can be considerable.
There's certainly been a dramatic improvement in exam results over a very short period (at Ladymead Community School in Taunton). Ladymead's head, Mark Trusson, ……. says: "Use of ICT and our school management systems combined (including Truancy Call) has been a powerful system for improving school performance, linked to teaching and learning. Our results (children gaining five As to Cs at GCSE) have improved from 54% in 2005 to 64% in 2006."
13 Aug 2007
Ofsted report on social, emotional and behavioural education
One finding from the Ofsted report [July 2007] was:
“Most schools reported that they did not have sufficiently detailed information at the beginning of the pilot. Schools expressed a wish to receive materials in electronic form, with hyperlinks to more detailed research about developing social, emotional and behavioural skills.”
Affintities is pleased to suggest teachers visit www.talk2me.org.uk where they will find a useful online programme for assessing individual pupil needs and for measuring progress by pupil, class and year group in social, emotional and behavioural skills.
An earlier report by Ofsted on Sex and Relationships Education [April 2002] recommended that pupils should be taught more about values, not just facts.
The Ofsted report Time for Change? on PSHE [April 2007] contained the following:
"At times, it is the school rather than the home that provides the moral code and, in its absence in the home, some children are put under additional pressures."
"Parents’ greatest challenge is to set clear expectations, and to be aware of and to accept responsibility for their children's behaviour. Some parents do not rise to this challenge."
"the ability to make moral judgements about what to do in actual situations and the potential to put these judgements into practice"
"Most of the schools in this survey ensure that their aims and values are well known to pupils and their parents, and that they are adhered to consistently. They will often refer to personal morality, the effects of actions and choices, and the nature of relationships concepts very relevant to SRE. However, some of the schools visited need to broaden their coverage of SRE and clarify what they mean by achievement in this area, so that it includes developing pupils' values and attitudes....."
"focusing on a pupil's individual needs and avoiding a one size fits all approach......... trying to bring together the work of mentors, counsellors and external support agencies with individual pupils and, if appropriate, with their families"
Now the Ofsted report “Developing social, emotional and behavioural skills in secondary schools” [July 2007] moves the debate on further. This report is based on visits to 11 schools selected from 54 in 5 local authorities that have adopted the Secondary National Strategy pilot programme for SEAL [Social and Emotional Learning]. There are some interesting findings:
The impact on pupils included:
“- more settled behaviour
- less demonstration of egocentric behaviour
- a greater willingness to persist with tasks they found difficult”
In one school, “Exclusions from the group dropped by 90% and relationships among pupils were improved greatly.”
Generally:
“After five terms, the greatest impact in the schools was on teachers’ attitudes towards the idea of social, emotional and behavioural skills and their understanding of how to develop these skills systematically within subject lessons.”
“Some teachers initially showed resistance to the initiative: they expected an increase in workload or had reservations about the extent to which developing pupils’ social and emotional skills should be part of the teacher’s role.”
“…. schools found it difficult to analyse their pupils’ specific social, emotional and behavioural skills needs and struggled to find an appropriate starting point ……..”
“The programme for developing social, emotional and behavioural skills was introduced most successfully when senior leaders understood its underlying philosophy. Where this was not the case, it remained a ‘bolt-on’ to personal, social and health education (PSHE) lessons or form tutor time and was largely ineffective.”
“Developing social, emotional and behavioural skills was most successful in schools with a strong and clearly articulated ethos. More than half the schools in this small social, emotional and behavioural skills survey found that it helped them to revisit their values and articulate them more clearly.”
“The pilot’s greatest impact was on developing teachers’ understanding of pupils’ emotional and social development.”
“Almost all the schools initially emphasised behaviour. Understanding how to develop pupils’ social and emotional skills, and the planning to do so, came later.”
“All the schools found it difficult to evaluate the impact of the work. Even where the work was successful, schools often found it difficult to disengage what had been achieved through the programme from other initiatives. Where the work had not been integrated with broader school improvements, its influence was negligible…….”
“The pilot was most effective when senior leaders made time for staff to discuss and reflect on their own social, emotional and behavioural skills. This was potentially contentious but, nonetheless, important.”
“… where the philosophy was not understood, social, emotional and behavioural skills work remained a ‘bolt-on’ to PSHE lessons or form tutor time, rather than being taught across the curriculum, and was largely ineffective.”
“Towards the end of the survey, schools were asked whether they planned to continue with social, emotional and behavioural skills work when the pilot finished. All but one intended to do so, and almost all had clear plans about the next steps. Even in the schools which implemented the programme most effectively, it was clear that social, emotional and behavioural skills development needed to be continued for a significant period of time before it would have an impact on pupils’ skills.”
“Evaluating success challenged even the most effective schools. Throughout the pilot, schools found it difficult to evaluate the impact of their work in developing social, emotional and behavioural skills and the guidance from the Secondary National Strategy was not clear or detailed enough about monitoring and evaluation.”
www.talk2me.org.uk enables schools to promote and evaluate changes in social, emotional and behavioural development and to engage with parents in improving their understanding of this important subject. Affinities welcomes the latest Ofsted report.
“Most schools reported that they did not have sufficiently detailed information at the beginning of the pilot. Schools expressed a wish to receive materials in electronic form, with hyperlinks to more detailed research about developing social, emotional and behavioural skills.”
Affintities is pleased to suggest teachers visit www.talk2me.org.uk where they will find a useful online programme for assessing individual pupil needs and for measuring progress by pupil, class and year group in social, emotional and behavioural skills.
An earlier report by Ofsted on Sex and Relationships Education [April 2002] recommended that pupils should be taught more about values, not just facts.
The Ofsted report Time for Change? on PSHE [April 2007] contained the following:
"At times, it is the school rather than the home that provides the moral code and, in its absence in the home, some children are put under additional pressures."
"Parents’ greatest challenge is to set clear expectations, and to be aware of and to accept responsibility for their children's behaviour. Some parents do not rise to this challenge."
"the ability to make moral judgements about what to do in actual situations and the potential to put these judgements into practice"
"Most of the schools in this survey ensure that their aims and values are well known to pupils and their parents, and that they are adhered to consistently. They will often refer to personal morality, the effects of actions and choices, and the nature of relationships concepts very relevant to SRE. However, some of the schools visited need to broaden their coverage of SRE and clarify what they mean by achievement in this area, so that it includes developing pupils' values and attitudes....."
"focusing on a pupil's individual needs and avoiding a one size fits all approach......... trying to bring together the work of mentors, counsellors and external support agencies with individual pupils and, if appropriate, with their families"
Now the Ofsted report “Developing social, emotional and behavioural skills in secondary schools” [July 2007] moves the debate on further. This report is based on visits to 11 schools selected from 54 in 5 local authorities that have adopted the Secondary National Strategy pilot programme for SEAL [Social and Emotional Learning]. There are some interesting findings:
The impact on pupils included:
“- more settled behaviour
- less demonstration of egocentric behaviour
- a greater willingness to persist with tasks they found difficult”
In one school, “Exclusions from the group dropped by 90% and relationships among pupils were improved greatly.”
Generally:
“After five terms, the greatest impact in the schools was on teachers’ attitudes towards the idea of social, emotional and behavioural skills and their understanding of how to develop these skills systematically within subject lessons.”
“Some teachers initially showed resistance to the initiative: they expected an increase in workload or had reservations about the extent to which developing pupils’ social and emotional skills should be part of the teacher’s role.”
“…. schools found it difficult to analyse their pupils’ specific social, emotional and behavioural skills needs and struggled to find an appropriate starting point ……..”
“The programme for developing social, emotional and behavioural skills was introduced most successfully when senior leaders understood its underlying philosophy. Where this was not the case, it remained a ‘bolt-on’ to personal, social and health education (PSHE) lessons or form tutor time and was largely ineffective.”
“Developing social, emotional and behavioural skills was most successful in schools with a strong and clearly articulated ethos. More than half the schools in this small social, emotional and behavioural skills survey found that it helped them to revisit their values and articulate them more clearly.”
“The pilot’s greatest impact was on developing teachers’ understanding of pupils’ emotional and social development.”
“Almost all the schools initially emphasised behaviour. Understanding how to develop pupils’ social and emotional skills, and the planning to do so, came later.”
“All the schools found it difficult to evaluate the impact of the work. Even where the work was successful, schools often found it difficult to disengage what had been achieved through the programme from other initiatives. Where the work had not been integrated with broader school improvements, its influence was negligible…….”
“The pilot was most effective when senior leaders made time for staff to discuss and reflect on their own social, emotional and behavioural skills. This was potentially contentious but, nonetheless, important.”
“… where the philosophy was not understood, social, emotional and behavioural skills work remained a ‘bolt-on’ to PSHE lessons or form tutor time, rather than being taught across the curriculum, and was largely ineffective.”
“Towards the end of the survey, schools were asked whether they planned to continue with social, emotional and behavioural skills work when the pilot finished. All but one intended to do so, and almost all had clear plans about the next steps. Even in the schools which implemented the programme most effectively, it was clear that social, emotional and behavioural skills development needed to be continued for a significant period of time before it would have an impact on pupils’ skills.”
“Evaluating success challenged even the most effective schools. Throughout the pilot, schools found it difficult to evaluate the impact of their work in developing social, emotional and behavioural skills and the guidance from the Secondary National Strategy was not clear or detailed enough about monitoring and evaluation.”
www.talk2me.org.uk enables schools to promote and evaluate changes in social, emotional and behavioural development and to engage with parents in improving their understanding of this important subject. Affinities welcomes the latest Ofsted report.
29 Jul 2007
Conservative peer moves to support well-being in the community
In a House of Lords debate on Wednesday, 25 July on the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, Lord Bruce-Lockhart proposed a new clause to allow local authorities to take full responsibility and have full powers for the issues of worklessness and welfare dependency.
“The amendment seeks to allow local authorities and their partners in the private, community, social enterprise and voluntary sectors to work together to tackle these all-important worklessness issues. They need to work together and harness the capacity within communities to support people through carefully supported steps and allow them to get back into employment, to have greater independence and more fulfilling lives. The amendment seeks to allow this to happen through community strategies.”
Baroness Andrews (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government) replied: “I hope the noble Lord will not be too disappointed when I say that, although I understand why he feels passionately and we share his commitment to reducing worklessness and creating opportunity, his chosen method is not easy for us to accept…… and we would not want to open up more opportunities for local authorities to spend randomly…… Along with the well-being power, opportunities have recently arisen for local government to use new powers. I do not think that this Bill is the right place to take forward major legislative changes in the way that the noble Lord suggests, although, as I said, I am sympathetic to his reason for wanting local authorities to be able to address these very stubborn and difficult problems locally.”
Lord Bruce-Lockhart responded: “I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am grateful that she shares my objectives and motives, and I hope that we can continue to discuss this matter. I was not sure that I agreed with her when she said that equity means that we have to have a national system. One problem with a national system is that it tends to be a Whitehall, one-size-fits-all, top-down system. We need systems to be locally tailored to local circumstances and to individual circumstances. I do not totally accept that this is just about being more ambitious with the power of well-being. In the United States, where individual states picked up President Clinton's very bold welfare reforms and were able to bring in their own powers, we could see that devolution made a real difference on the ground. As I said, I am grateful for the Minister's response and I hope that we can continue to discuss this issue.”
The Conservatives control the majority of local authorities in England. It is good to see a Conservative peer trying to influence the ways in which they tackle well-being in the community.
Earlier [11/7/07] Affinities welcomed the Conservative plan for an index of family and social cohesion from Iain Duncan Smith’s Social Justice Policy Group:
“A new statistical index of family and social cohesion ……. Such an index would make individual local authorities accountable for addressing family breakdown in their boroughs.”
The SJPG report pointed out: “In 1998, the government consultation paper Supporting Families proposed a range of measures to strengthen marriages and families (such as wider roles for registrars in the provision of marriage preparation and information) but nine years later, very little government policy is directly preventative of family breakdown and lone parent family formation has, over the last quarter century, consistently increased by 40,000 families per year.”
The report backs up the proposal for an index with an excellent idea for extending the role of the commissioner for parenting services:
“Robust local government support of relationship and parenting education - Just as local authorities must have a single commissioner responsible for assessing need and co-ordinating delivery of services to parents, a senior ‘champion’ should also be similarly responsible for relationship education (with the same degree of importance placed on that aspect of their role).”
With the index in place to measure the effectiveness of local authority performance, it would soon be possible to see which local authorities are being successful in improving family and social cohesion and outcomes for children.
It is sad that Baroness Andrews - for the government - could only respond feebly to Lord Bruce-Lockhart’s amendment with, “we would not want to open up more opportunities for local authorities to spend randomly……. I do not think that this Bill is the right place to take forward major legislative changes in the way that the noble Lord suggests.”
“The amendment seeks to allow local authorities and their partners in the private, community, social enterprise and voluntary sectors to work together to tackle these all-important worklessness issues. They need to work together and harness the capacity within communities to support people through carefully supported steps and allow them to get back into employment, to have greater independence and more fulfilling lives. The amendment seeks to allow this to happen through community strategies.”
Baroness Andrews (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government) replied: “I hope the noble Lord will not be too disappointed when I say that, although I understand why he feels passionately and we share his commitment to reducing worklessness and creating opportunity, his chosen method is not easy for us to accept…… and we would not want to open up more opportunities for local authorities to spend randomly…… Along with the well-being power, opportunities have recently arisen for local government to use new powers. I do not think that this Bill is the right place to take forward major legislative changes in the way that the noble Lord suggests, although, as I said, I am sympathetic to his reason for wanting local authorities to be able to address these very stubborn and difficult problems locally.”
Lord Bruce-Lockhart responded: “I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I am grateful that she shares my objectives and motives, and I hope that we can continue to discuss this matter. I was not sure that I agreed with her when she said that equity means that we have to have a national system. One problem with a national system is that it tends to be a Whitehall, one-size-fits-all, top-down system. We need systems to be locally tailored to local circumstances and to individual circumstances. I do not totally accept that this is just about being more ambitious with the power of well-being. In the United States, where individual states picked up President Clinton's very bold welfare reforms and were able to bring in their own powers, we could see that devolution made a real difference on the ground. As I said, I am grateful for the Minister's response and I hope that we can continue to discuss this issue.”
The Conservatives control the majority of local authorities in England. It is good to see a Conservative peer trying to influence the ways in which they tackle well-being in the community.
Earlier [11/7/07] Affinities welcomed the Conservative plan for an index of family and social cohesion from Iain Duncan Smith’s Social Justice Policy Group:
“A new statistical index of family and social cohesion ……. Such an index would make individual local authorities accountable for addressing family breakdown in their boroughs.”
The SJPG report pointed out: “In 1998, the government consultation paper Supporting Families proposed a range of measures to strengthen marriages and families (such as wider roles for registrars in the provision of marriage preparation and information) but nine years later, very little government policy is directly preventative of family breakdown and lone parent family formation has, over the last quarter century, consistently increased by 40,000 families per year.”
The report backs up the proposal for an index with an excellent idea for extending the role of the commissioner for parenting services:
“Robust local government support of relationship and parenting education - Just as local authorities must have a single commissioner responsible for assessing need and co-ordinating delivery of services to parents, a senior ‘champion’ should also be similarly responsible for relationship education (with the same degree of importance placed on that aspect of their role).”
With the index in place to measure the effectiveness of local authority performance, it would soon be possible to see which local authorities are being successful in improving family and social cohesion and outcomes for children.
It is sad that Baroness Andrews - for the government - could only respond feebly to Lord Bruce-Lockhart’s amendment with, “we would not want to open up more opportunities for local authorities to spend randomly……. I do not think that this Bill is the right place to take forward major legislative changes in the way that the noble Lord suggests.”
18 Jun 2007
Unmarried parents - "Why can’t they be left alone?"
Labour’s chaotic approach to relationships for unmarried couples by John Elliott and Claire Newell in The Sunday Times 17th June 2007
"Last week Frank Field, the Labour MP and expert on welfare reform, produced a new analysis of how the [Labour] government’s complicated tax credits and benefits system affects different types of family.
Field found that the system “brutally discriminates against two-parent families”. Startlingly, Field showed that while a lone parent with two children has to work 16 hours a week on the minimum wage to earn £487, a couple with two children would have to slog away for 116 hours.
“I can’t believe the [Labour] government, when it set out, thought this would be the effect,” said Field, adding that there is now a “huge disincentive” for single parents to find another partner, because to do so would incur a large drop in income for both of them.
“There is also a disincentive for two-parent households to tell the truth,” said Field, noting that last year it had emerged that the [Labour] government was paying tax credits or welfare benefits to 2.1m lone parents – 200,000 more than its own official figures said exist. "
But what is really new about this? Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Independent Labour Peer, said about the Conservative Government in a debate on the Family Law Bill [11th January 1996]:
"The [Conservative] Government have been saying over a long period of time that they support the family and marriage, yet all their actions belie that claim. For example, the taxation system - on the pretext of achieving equalisation between the sexes - has progressively worked against marriage. Everyone in the House knows that that is true.
The freezing until the last Budget of the married man's allowance and reducing its value from 25 per cent. to 15 per cent., the refusal to allow the transfer of the personal tax allowances between spouses and from one working spouse to a non-working spouse - thus failing to assist those wives who wish to do so to remain at home and look after their children - has actually been destructive of the family.
My noble friend said that that argument is nonsense. Of course, it is not nonsense. A burden has been put on the family that almost forces both spouses to go out to work. It is a system designed to encourage women to go to work rather than remain at home and look after their own children.
Indeed, as we all know, the social security system itself favours the single parent in many ways, even to the extent that it is financially more favourable for fathers and mothers to live apart. No one can deny that that is happening under the present system.
The impression has been given to women that they do not need a stable relationship with the father of their children as the state will provide. That has all been done under this particular [Conservative] Government who say that they want to retain marriage as a strong institution.
Of course the impression has been given to fathers that they need not worry too much because the state will pick up the tabs.
The social consequences of the single parent family - poverty, crime, deprivation, lack of education and unemployment - are all evils which affect the children of single parent families along with the fiscal and social policies of the [Conservative] Government which have all exacerbated the problems."
Politicians across the political spectrum have been undermining the institution of marriage for a generation. What will make them stop doing this?
"Last week Frank Field, the Labour MP and expert on welfare reform, produced a new analysis of how the [Labour] government’s complicated tax credits and benefits system affects different types of family.
Field found that the system “brutally discriminates against two-parent families”. Startlingly, Field showed that while a lone parent with two children has to work 16 hours a week on the minimum wage to earn £487, a couple with two children would have to slog away for 116 hours.
“I can’t believe the [Labour] government, when it set out, thought this would be the effect,” said Field, adding that there is now a “huge disincentive” for single parents to find another partner, because to do so would incur a large drop in income for both of them.
“There is also a disincentive for two-parent households to tell the truth,” said Field, noting that last year it had emerged that the [Labour] government was paying tax credits or welfare benefits to 2.1m lone parents – 200,000 more than its own official figures said exist. "
But what is really new about this? Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Independent Labour Peer, said about the Conservative Government in a debate on the Family Law Bill [11th January 1996]:
"The [Conservative] Government have been saying over a long period of time that they support the family and marriage, yet all their actions belie that claim. For example, the taxation system - on the pretext of achieving equalisation between the sexes - has progressively worked against marriage. Everyone in the House knows that that is true.
The freezing until the last Budget of the married man's allowance and reducing its value from 25 per cent. to 15 per cent., the refusal to allow the transfer of the personal tax allowances between spouses and from one working spouse to a non-working spouse - thus failing to assist those wives who wish to do so to remain at home and look after their children - has actually been destructive of the family.
My noble friend said that that argument is nonsense. Of course, it is not nonsense. A burden has been put on the family that almost forces both spouses to go out to work. It is a system designed to encourage women to go to work rather than remain at home and look after their own children.
Indeed, as we all know, the social security system itself favours the single parent in many ways, even to the extent that it is financially more favourable for fathers and mothers to live apart. No one can deny that that is happening under the present system.
The impression has been given to women that they do not need a stable relationship with the father of their children as the state will provide. That has all been done under this particular [Conservative] Government who say that they want to retain marriage as a strong institution.
Of course the impression has been given to fathers that they need not worry too much because the state will pick up the tabs.
The social consequences of the single parent family - poverty, crime, deprivation, lack of education and unemployment - are all evils which affect the children of single parent families along with the fiscal and social policies of the [Conservative] Government which have all exacerbated the problems."
Politicians across the political spectrum have been undermining the institution of marriage for a generation. What will make them stop doing this?
30 May 2007
"Tough [illegal] rules expose scale of bogus marriages"
by By Duncan Gardham in The Telegraph 16/05/05
"Since the Asylum and Immigration Act came into force in February [2005] the number of marriage applications at some offices has dropped by 60 per cent.
........ Mark Rimmer, the superintendent registrar at Brent, north-west London, who is on a Government working group, said: 'There has been a significant decrease throughout London.
"Since the Asylum and Immigration Act came into force in February [2005] the number of marriage applications at some offices has dropped by 60 per cent.
........ Mark Rimmer, the superintendent registrar at Brent, north-west London, who is on a Government working group, said: 'There has been a significant decrease throughout London.
"In Brent we have seen a huge decrease - 60 per cent in February and March. It is nothing short of remarkable. We had suspicions about roughly 20 per cent of marriages but we could only report them where we had concrete evidence. It now seems that figure was an underestimation.
"The decrease in applications has been significantly higher and that suggests, perhaps, that the estimate of bogus marriages was a gross underestimate."
.......... Karen Knapton, the general secretary of the Society of Registration Officers, said: "If people really want to get married they will persevere but the new regulations have highlighted the scale of bogus marriages. Register offices, especially in London, have been very quiet.
"We have been asking what nationality applicants are for two years but we have been aware that crime rings have been making a lot of money out of sham marriages.
"It has been no fun when we know people have been using marriage to get around immigration laws. It has made a mockery of our job."
Now [May 2007] that the Court of Appeal has held that the rules the Home Office brought in to stem the flow of bogus marriages are illegal, and the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill is proposing remedies for forced marriages, surely it is high time to take a holistic view marriage and of the plight of Registrars rather than just a piecemeal view relating to some minority groups?
Let us return to what Ruth Kelly said in 2002:
"In our White Paper, [Delivering Vital Change] the Government explained that the registration service is ideally placed to act as a focal point for information about services associated with births, deaths and marriages, such as ........ marriage preparation ...... I believe that there is a genuine opportunity for local authorities to develop those services innovatively to meet the needs of their communities, now and in future. A wider role for the registration service will improve on the current piecemeal approach by local authorities and will be underpinned by the proposed national standards."
Nobody needs to eat their words, just get on with Delivering Vital Change!
28 May 2007
"........ demand that the Conservatives introduce strong pro-family policies"
by Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail
"The problem for Cameron is this: there are much more important decisions coming up over the course of the next 12 months, and this week’s grammar school row simply opens the question whether he has the strength to push them through.
In December, Iain Duncan Smith’s Social Justice Commission is due to bring to a culmination two years’ dedicated work into the causes of crime in Britain.
It is likely that Duncan Smith (whose former lieutenant Tim Montgomerie has been a leading protagonist of the grammar school revolt) will identify family breakdown as the main cause of social collapse, and demand that the Conservatives introduce strong pro-family policies.
If so, David Cameron will be forced to choose between offending Conservative activists, and offending conventional opinion. If he fails to rally behind the traditional values of support for the family, he will face an internal row many times bigger than the one over grammar schools."
David Cameron has said the Conservatives must support marriage and the family, but - so far - there has been no sign through Conservative controlled local authorities that they are actually doing anything now specifically towards this.
The LGA [Local Government Association] has not been demanding that the ONS or its successor publish a Social Capital Index like the Retail Price Index, so that changes in social and domestic cohesion by neighbourhood can be measured by local community leaders and in order that local authorities can be ranked in terms of the improvements that are being made.
Shadow Conservative Ministers are not proposing amendments to the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill to promote healthy marriages and to prevent bogus marriages from taking place.
It is true that the Conservatives are hinting at tax breaks for married couples with families. But they have made such proposals before in the election manifesto only to drop them again before subsequent elections, so why should anyone believe them? When pro-family policies are being implemented by Conservative local authorities, the necessary credentials will start to emerge.
David Cameron is right to be talking about social responsibility, but he will only be believed when the Conservatives demonstrate that they want social and domestic cohesion to be measured, otherwise it is an empty phrase. People want to see where social capital is being built up and what programmes are helping to achieve it.
If the Conservatives don't want to measure social capital and aren't prepared to promote any programmes when the opportunities arise - such as by proposing amendments to the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill and the Statistics and Registration Service Bill - for improving marriage and family life, electors are going to remain sceptical about whether Conservative hearts are really in the issue and their stomachs ready for the fight.
Peter Oborne is correct in saying:
"If he [David Cameron] fails to rally behind the traditional values of support for the family, he will face an internal row many times bigger than the one over grammar schools."
26 May 2007
Rules to stop 'sham' marriages unlawful
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor - Daily Telegraph
"Tough rules to stop illegal immigrants using sham marriages to get in to the country were declared unlawful by the Appeal Court yesterday. Judges said regulations brought in two years ago to block thousands of alleged ''marriages of convenience'' breached human rights laws............
The Appeal Court - upholding an earlier High Court ruling - said this was a "disproportionate interference'' in the human right to marry. Lord Justice Buxton said the scheme could only be lawful if it prevented sham marriages intended to improve the immigration status of one of the parties. "To be proportionate, a scheme must either properly investigate individual cases or at least show that it has come close to isolating cases that very likely fall into the target category,'' said Lord Buxton. "It must also show that the marriages targeted do indeed make substantial inroads into the enforcement of immigration control."
Much of the problem is caused the the Government's failure to adopt a holistic approach towards couple relationships. It presents a hostile attitude towards every aspect of marriage. Instead of trying to promote 'healthy marriages', like the Americans, the UK Government is trying merely to prevent bogus marriages, domestic violence, teenage pregnancy etc..
The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill needs an amendment [see earlier posts]. Engaged couples should be invited by Registrars to complete an internationally approved programme of marriage preparation such as one of those that meet the criteria of the US government's Healthy Marriage Initiative. At least 2 are available in the UK.
The judges said the Home Office was within its rights to stop sham marriages but it would need to legislate in "a proportionate manner". They said that could mean properly investigating individual cases.
If a couple decline to participate in one of the approved marriage preparation programmes suggested by a Registrar or member of the clergy and the celebrant is suspicious the proposed marriage is bogus, he/she would be behaving in "a proportionate manner" in declining to marry the couple and in referring the matter to the Home Secretary.
"Tough rules to stop illegal immigrants using sham marriages to get in to the country were declared unlawful by the Appeal Court yesterday. Judges said regulations brought in two years ago to block thousands of alleged ''marriages of convenience'' breached human rights laws............
The Appeal Court - upholding an earlier High Court ruling - said this was a "disproportionate interference'' in the human right to marry. Lord Justice Buxton said the scheme could only be lawful if it prevented sham marriages intended to improve the immigration status of one of the parties. "To be proportionate, a scheme must either properly investigate individual cases or at least show that it has come close to isolating cases that very likely fall into the target category,'' said Lord Buxton. "It must also show that the marriages targeted do indeed make substantial inroads into the enforcement of immigration control."
Much of the problem is caused the the Government's failure to adopt a holistic approach towards couple relationships. It presents a hostile attitude towards every aspect of marriage. Instead of trying to promote 'healthy marriages', like the Americans, the UK Government is trying merely to prevent bogus marriages, domestic violence, teenage pregnancy etc..
The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill needs an amendment [see earlier posts]. Engaged couples should be invited by Registrars to complete an internationally approved programme of marriage preparation such as one of those that meet the criteria of the US government's Healthy Marriage Initiative. At least 2 are available in the UK.
The judges said the Home Office was within its rights to stop sham marriages but it would need to legislate in "a proportionate manner". They said that could mean properly investigating individual cases.
If a couple decline to participate in one of the approved marriage preparation programmes suggested by a Registrar or member of the clergy and the celebrant is suspicious the proposed marriage is bogus, he/she would be behaving in "a proportionate manner" in declining to marry the couple and in referring the matter to the Home Secretary.
21 May 2007
"The love of a good woman" - by Revd Dr Alan Billings
Thought for the Day, 21 May 2007 by Rev Dr Alan Billings
I recently visited a Young Offender Institution. I talked to older teenage lads about their life before custody, to which they would soon return. Even allowing for exaggeration, their stories were disturbing - families without fathers, abuse and violence, absences from school, gangs and drugs. I asked one of the prison officers - whose whole life had been in the Prison Service - what he thought was powerful enough to change the patterns of behaviour they described. His answer took me by surprise. I thought he might say, 'They need to learn basic educational and social skills', or, 'They need a job' - both of which are important. But, after pausing, he said, 'I only know two things that are that powerful: the love of a good woman and religion'. He had seen young men change because they wanted to keep the love of a girl who didn't want a boyfriend whose behaviour got him into trouble with the law. He had seen others change under the influence of a religious faith. I should add that he had no idea that I was a priest. Now, although I don't doubt the truth of what he said, it does present those who are concerned in any way with policy-making with a difficulty. There is no way that the Youth Justice Board or the Prison Service can supply either girlfriends or religion.
But the Youth Justice Board and the Prison Service - and schools and youth groups - can provide access to tools - like talk2me - together with mentors who can help young people make sensible choices. Those who do are more likely to attract "the love of a good woman " and in doing so they are also more likely to find "religion".
I recently visited a Young Offender Institution. I talked to older teenage lads about their life before custody, to which they would soon return. Even allowing for exaggeration, their stories were disturbing - families without fathers, abuse and violence, absences from school, gangs and drugs. I asked one of the prison officers - whose whole life had been in the Prison Service - what he thought was powerful enough to change the patterns of behaviour they described. His answer took me by surprise. I thought he might say, 'They need to learn basic educational and social skills', or, 'They need a job' - both of which are important. But, after pausing, he said, 'I only know two things that are that powerful: the love of a good woman and religion'. He had seen young men change because they wanted to keep the love of a girl who didn't want a boyfriend whose behaviour got him into trouble with the law. He had seen others change under the influence of a religious faith. I should add that he had no idea that I was a priest. Now, although I don't doubt the truth of what he said, it does present those who are concerned in any way with policy-making with a difficulty. There is no way that the Youth Justice Board or the Prison Service can supply either girlfriends or religion.
But the Youth Justice Board and the Prison Service - and schools and youth groups - can provide access to tools - like talk2me - together with mentors who can help young people make sensible choices. Those who do are more likely to attract "the love of a good woman " and in doing so they are also more likely to find "religion".
16 May 2007
Education: Community Cohesion - Schools told to bring parents together
Education: Community Cohesion - Schools told to bring parents together by Nancy Rowntree, 16 May 2007 in Children Now.
"Schools will need to work with parents to improve community cohesion under Government guidelines published last week.
Draft guidance on the new duty to promote community cohesion, which comes into force in September, outlines how schools must bring parents from different backgrounds together, as well as pupils.
The guidance says schools need to consider good partnership activities including "bringing parents from different backgrounds together through parenting and family support and community use of facilities for activities that take place out of school hours".......
Meanwhile parenting groups welcomed the proposals to get parents more involved. Jan Fry, deputy chief executive of Parentline Plus, welcomed the proposals to bring different communities together but said it must be done in a sensitive way. "I would hope that schools would partner with community groups in order to make it work," she said. "And schools taking this on by themselves is a huge responsibility, particularly if there is no extra funding for outreach work."
This is an opportunity for Community Family Trusts which are trying to build up local social capital to introduce schools to services that will help to develop social and domestic cohesion through parenting courses and assessment tools such as talk2me.
talk2me is a tool for measuring progress in social and emotional education in line with the Every Child Matters agenda which can also be used with parents.
"Schools will need to work with parents to improve community cohesion under Government guidelines published last week.
Draft guidance on the new duty to promote community cohesion, which comes into force in September, outlines how schools must bring parents from different backgrounds together, as well as pupils.
The guidance says schools need to consider good partnership activities including "bringing parents from different backgrounds together through parenting and family support and community use of facilities for activities that take place out of school hours".......
Meanwhile parenting groups welcomed the proposals to get parents more involved. Jan Fry, deputy chief executive of Parentline Plus, welcomed the proposals to bring different communities together but said it must be done in a sensitive way. "I would hope that schools would partner with community groups in order to make it work," she said. "And schools taking this on by themselves is a huge responsibility, particularly if there is no extra funding for outreach work."
This is an opportunity for Community Family Trusts which are trying to build up local social capital to introduce schools to services that will help to develop social and domestic cohesion through parenting courses and assessment tools such as talk2me.
talk2me is a tool for measuring progress in social and emotional education in line with the Every Child Matters agenda which can also be used with parents.
27 Apr 2007
Why the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill should include a clause about marriage preparation
The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill should include specific guidance towards marriage preparation and not rely upon the Secretary of State to publish it.
I am suggesting additional clauses should be added to section 2 of the draft Bill concerning 'guidance', which starts with 2 (a) the difference between arranged and forced marriage:
(e) the opportunities and advantages for the parties to participate together in a research-based educational programme of marriage preparation - including an assessment tool or pre-marital inventory that meets international standards.
(f) this programme is to assist them in preparing for a healthy marriage and to:
I am suggesting additional clauses should be added to section 2 of the draft Bill concerning 'guidance', which starts with 2 (a) the difference between arranged and forced marriage:
(e) the opportunities and advantages for the parties to participate together in a research-based educational programme of marriage preparation - including an assessment tool or pre-marital inventory that meets international standards.
(f) this programme is to assist them in preparing for a healthy marriage and to:
- confirm to the Registrar or deputy Registrar the voluntary nature of their commitment to the marriage, and
- protect themselves and each other against any possible accusations about the marriage being one that is forced or bogus.
(g) the advantage of obtaining a certificate from the facilitator of the programme of marriage preparation that they have satisfactorily completed both the educational programme and the inventory.
the purpose of the Bill is described as:
“Make provision for protecting individuals against being forced to enter into marriage without their free and full consent; and for connected purposes.”
In the SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES provided by the Odysseus Trust they refer to:
3.4 Any other changes
The consultation asked for suggestions about any other changes to the Bill. Respondents made various suggestions of other issues relevant to forced marriage, including:
• The need for increased resources to tackle the problem of forced marriage, including for community groups and the voluntary sector;
• The importance of tackling domestic violence, including forced marriage, in a comprehensive, holistic way;
• The need for greater understanding of the obligations of marriage and the voluntary nature of marriage;
Among the proposed amendments is:
63Q Guidance
(1) The Secretary of State may from time to time prepare and publish guidance to such descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about—
(a) the effect of this Part or any provision of this Part; or
(b) other matters relating to forced marriages.
(2) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance is given under this section must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.
Based on what happened to the attempts to have provision for marriage preparation included in the Family Law Act of 1996, I doubt if anyone except a horse marine will believe people can rely upon the Secretary of State in any government getting around to giving guidance to persons exercising public functions concerning marriage.
As evidence for this view, in an earlier debate [4th November 2002] Ruth Kelly said:
"In our White Paper, [Delivering Vital Change] the Government explained that the registration service is ideally placed to act as a focal point for information about services associated with births, deaths and marriages, such as ........ marriage preparation ...... I believe that there is a genuine opportunity for local authorities to develop those services innovatively to meet the needs of their communities, now and in future. A wider role for the registration service will improve on the current piecemeal approach by local authorities and will be underpinned by the proposed national standards."
The Family Law Act was over ten years ago. ‘Delivering Vital Change’ was five years ago. The proposals “to develop …. services innovatively to meet the needs of their communities” - which were contained in a Regulatory Reform Order, not a Bill - eventually failed to come into effect. Have they now been dropped completely? It seems likely. Governments have no stomach for ‘delivering vital change’ in this field, even though they use words to indicate that is their intention.
My conclusion is the principle of guidance for marriage preparation needs to be in the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill and not left to future Secretaries of State to determine. There is another reason for this: how can a Registrar distinguish between a couple entering an arranged marriage from a forced one, unless the couple have undertaken a valid assessment with a suitable facilitator who is willing to sign a certificate that he/she believes the couple have completed the programme in good faith? If the authors of the Bill are really intent upon trying to prevent forced marriages – and not just provide remedies - they should be willing to accept my proposed amendments and Peers and MPs should support it. The Government is perfectly willing to adopt evaluation methods proved to work in other countries. They should follow the example of the Healthy Marriage Initiative in the US.
Social Capital Index - the case for a clause in the Statistics and Registration Service Bill
Social Capital is an unstoppable concept. David Cameron is instinctively in tune with electors in understanding that the highest aspirations of most people are for good relationships with family, friends, and neighbours; and if those aspirations are fulfilled - not merely they, but – the wider society benefits. Such people contribute – in many cases voluntarily and enjoyably – to a wide spectrum of good causes. It is in the interest of the State to foster the development of such social capital, and to do so without constantly trying to engineer outcomes.
Social capital is about networks. It is about connections between family members, friends, neighbours and community groups and institutions.
'Investing in each other and the community: the role of social capital', by Paul Haezewindt [Published in web format: 5 September 2006] from Social Trends, vol 33, pp 19-27. ISSN: 0306-7742 includes:
"Marital status and household type shows a significant relationship with a number of indicators of social capital. Married couples exhibited the highest levels of social capital. They were more likely to be trusting of their neighbours and enjoy high levels of reciprocity with them and were also most likely to have higher levels of social support. Eighty four per cent of married people had three or more people to turn to in a crisis. Divorced or separated people had the lowest level of social support, 72 per cent had three or more people to turn to. This group were also least likely to enjoy living in their local area. Single people were less likely to be civically engaged and be less neighbourly than other groups, but they were more likely to have satisfactory friendship networks. It should be noted, however, that marital status is strongly related to age. For example, 75 per cent of single men and women are aged between 16 and 34, while 84 per cent of married people are aged 35 or above 14. High proportions of lone parent households were likely to have both satisfactory friendship and relatives networks. Non-related households, such as people in flatshares, were least likely to know, trust and speak to neighbours, and low proportions also reported having a satisfactory relatives network...............
Few social capital indicators are found to have statistically significant relationships with factors such as income or employment status..............."
David Cameron is quite right to be upholding the institution of marriage. Given the facts about marital status and social capital, it is only sensible to measure changes in social capital by neighbourhood using the indicators available - such as neighbourhood statistics and indices, local authority best value performance indicators, and NHS Healthcare Commission performance ratings – and to provide an index of social and domestic cohesion by neighbourhood.
Social capital is about networks. It is about connections between family members, friends, neighbours and community groups and institutions.
'Investing in each other and the community: the role of social capital', by Paul Haezewindt [Published in web format: 5 September 2006] from Social Trends, vol 33, pp 19-27. ISSN: 0306-7742 includes:
"Marital status and household type shows a significant relationship with a number of indicators of social capital. Married couples exhibited the highest levels of social capital. They were more likely to be trusting of their neighbours and enjoy high levels of reciprocity with them and were also most likely to have higher levels of social support. Eighty four per cent of married people had three or more people to turn to in a crisis. Divorced or separated people had the lowest level of social support, 72 per cent had three or more people to turn to. This group were also least likely to enjoy living in their local area. Single people were less likely to be civically engaged and be less neighbourly than other groups, but they were more likely to have satisfactory friendship networks. It should be noted, however, that marital status is strongly related to age. For example, 75 per cent of single men and women are aged between 16 and 34, while 84 per cent of married people are aged 35 or above 14. High proportions of lone parent households were likely to have both satisfactory friendship and relatives networks. Non-related households, such as people in flatshares, were least likely to know, trust and speak to neighbours, and low proportions also reported having a satisfactory relatives network...............
Few social capital indicators are found to have statistically significant relationships with factors such as income or employment status..............."
David Cameron is quite right to be upholding the institution of marriage. Given the facts about marital status and social capital, it is only sensible to measure changes in social capital by neighbourhood using the indicators available - such as neighbourhood statistics and indices, local authority best value performance indicators, and NHS Healthcare Commission performance ratings – and to provide an index of social and domestic cohesion by neighbourhood.
26 Apr 2007
Social Capital Index (SCI) compared with the Retail Prices Index (RPI)
"The Retail Prices Index (RPI) is the most familiar general purpose domestic measure of inflation in the United Kingdom. It is available continuously from June 1947. The Government uses it for uprating of pensions, benefits and index-linked gilts. It is commonly used in private contracts for uprating of maintenance payments and housing rents. It is also used for wage bargaining."
"The [Consumer Price Index] CPI is the main UK measure of inflation for macroeconomic purposes and forms the basis for the Government's inflation target. It is also used for international comparisons. The RPI is the most familiar domestic measure of inflation in the UK; its uses include indexation of pensions, state benefits and index-linked gilts. CPI and RPI both measure the average changes month-to-month in prices of consumer goods and services purchased in the UK, although there are differences in coverage and methodology.
The CPI contains price indices, percentage changes and weights for the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), Retail Prices Index (RPI) and the components that make up these indices. Internationally, the CPI is known as the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), although the two indices remain one and the same."
There is no index of 'social capital' in the UK, but worldwide the literature on the subject is growing fast as people are becoming more aware of its significance.
The ONS provides 'Measurement of social capital in the UK 2005'. This paper presents the context for social capital measurement in the UK, the approach taken and international measurement issues. Author: Penny Babb.
"The rise in popularity of ‘social capital’ as a social concept in the late 1990s coincided with a new interest in evidence-based policy in the UK – drawing on social research to inform the nature, implementation and evaluation of policies. There was also a desire in Government to address social inequalities and social exclusion – looking for ways to reduce the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged, and meet the needs of the excluded members of UK society. This focus resulted in the development of community policies, to regenerate neighbourhoods and promote cohesive communities. The principal aim of the community policy is to:
'develop strong and active communities in which people of all races and backgrounds are valued and participate on equal terms…'
The OECD definition of social capital presented in The Well-Being of Nations describes it as:
'networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups'
This embodies both networks and norms and so was adopted in the UK to form the basis of our data collection and analysis.
"The [Consumer Price Index] CPI is the main UK measure of inflation for macroeconomic purposes and forms the basis for the Government's inflation target. It is also used for international comparisons. The RPI is the most familiar domestic measure of inflation in the UK; its uses include indexation of pensions, state benefits and index-linked gilts. CPI and RPI both measure the average changes month-to-month in prices of consumer goods and services purchased in the UK, although there are differences in coverage and methodology.
The CPI contains price indices, percentage changes and weights for the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), Retail Prices Index (RPI) and the components that make up these indices. Internationally, the CPI is known as the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP), although the two indices remain one and the same."
There is no index of 'social capital' in the UK, but worldwide the literature on the subject is growing fast as people are becoming more aware of its significance.
The ONS provides 'Measurement of social capital in the UK 2005'. This paper presents the context for social capital measurement in the UK, the approach taken and international measurement issues. Author: Penny Babb.
"The rise in popularity of ‘social capital’ as a social concept in the late 1990s coincided with a new interest in evidence-based policy in the UK – drawing on social research to inform the nature, implementation and evaluation of policies. There was also a desire in Government to address social inequalities and social exclusion – looking for ways to reduce the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged, and meet the needs of the excluded members of UK society. This focus resulted in the development of community policies, to regenerate neighbourhoods and promote cohesive communities. The principal aim of the community policy is to:
'develop strong and active communities in which people of all races and backgrounds are valued and participate on equal terms…'
The OECD definition of social capital presented in The Well-Being of Nations describes it as:
'networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups'
This embodies both networks and norms and so was adopted in the UK to form the basis of our data collection and analysis.
To measure social capital, we first needed to identify the key dimensions that underpin it. Five main aspects form the basis of the UK work:
- civic participation – the propensity to vote, to take action on local or national issues
- social networks and support – such as contact with friends and relatives
- social participation – involvement in groups and voluntary activities
- reciprocity and trust – which include giving and receiving favours, as well as trusting other people and institutions such as the government and the police
- views about the area – although not strictly a measure of social capital, it is required for the analysis and interpretation of the social capital measures, and includes satisfaction with living in the area, problems in the area."
The ONS seems to be going down a route that requires the completion of questionnaires even though 'proxy' measures could be used. For example from the list above:
- 'problems in the area' could be represented by social statistics that are already available, such as truancy, ASBOs, etc..
- 'Social networks and support' and 'reciprocity and trust' could be represented by marital status, domestic violence figures, household size etc., data that is already available.
The RPI and SCI have in common a basket of components that are weighted. The added dimension of the SCI is that it applies to each neighbourhood, like the ONS Neighbourhood Statistics and indices. As a tool for decision makers the SCI could prove very useful to local people - community and faith leaders, parish councillors, school governors, GPs, health visitors etc.. The question is, "When will politicians recognise that these local leaders are much more likely to be able to address the problems in their area than occupants of the Westminster village?"
25 Apr 2007
Social Capital Index - Statistics and Registration Service Bill
In the debate on the Statistics and Registration Service Bill in the House of Lords yesterday the issue of social and domestic cohesion was raised:
Baroness Noakes: There is also the question of developing new statistics. For example, the social capital project has been drawn to our attention. Statistics which monitor social and domestic cohesion are much sought after by those active in this field — by which I mean active in helping to cure society’s ills with practical projects on the ground rather than developing policies. A lot of statistics and data are available, but they omit some important information on marriage breakdown and family status at a local level. Many groups think that this is particularly important, and the information has not yet been pulled together in the form of a social capital index, as has been suggested to us. I do not know why that has not been done, and I hope that the Minister can tell us why we have no social capital index or equivalent measure available at local level.
The board should have the needs of users at the heart of its work, and there should be full engagement with them.
This is splendid news!
Needless to say, however, the Minister declined to oblige Baroness Noakes with an answer to her question, "I hope that the Minister can tell us why we have no social capital index or equivalent measure available at local level."
So she tried again!
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps the Minister could answer my specific questions about a social capital index. I asked what was happening with the project on that and why we do not have a social capital index.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can. That was one of the things that I said that we would take away and think about. The information that I have is that the ONS carries out work on social capital, and has done since 2001. The board’s powers, including, at Clause 18, that to produce statistics, would enable it to produce additional work on social capital if necessary. I am told by officials that we will write to the noble Baroness to explain more and to answer any specific points that she has.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful that the Minister will write because people who we have been in touch with me are particularly concerned about that. I see that those in the Box are smiling. They will do the letter for the Minister; it is not a problem.
The Minister’s response was entirely predictable. Anything that these Benches suggest to improve the Bill and to keep the needs of persons such as users properly in view are regarded not as an improvement but as an unnecessary elaboration, or possibly even unhelpful. I will consider carefully what the Minister said. I look forward to the letter that his officials will draft for him on social capital and I will decide at that stage whether or not I shall return to this issue on Report.
Feisty lady!
Baroness Noakes: There is also the question of developing new statistics. For example, the social capital project has been drawn to our attention. Statistics which monitor social and domestic cohesion are much sought after by those active in this field — by which I mean active in helping to cure society’s ills with practical projects on the ground rather than developing policies. A lot of statistics and data are available, but they omit some important information on marriage breakdown and family status at a local level. Many groups think that this is particularly important, and the information has not yet been pulled together in the form of a social capital index, as has been suggested to us. I do not know why that has not been done, and I hope that the Minister can tell us why we have no social capital index or equivalent measure available at local level.
The board should have the needs of users at the heart of its work, and there should be full engagement with them.
This is splendid news!
Needless to say, however, the Minister declined to oblige Baroness Noakes with an answer to her question, "I hope that the Minister can tell us why we have no social capital index or equivalent measure available at local level."
So she tried again!
Baroness Noakes: Perhaps the Minister could answer my specific questions about a social capital index. I asked what was happening with the project on that and why we do not have a social capital index.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope that I can. That was one of the things that I said that we would take away and think about. The information that I have is that the ONS carries out work on social capital, and has done since 2001. The board’s powers, including, at Clause 18, that to produce statistics, would enable it to produce additional work on social capital if necessary. I am told by officials that we will write to the noble Baroness to explain more and to answer any specific points that she has.
Baroness Noakes: I am grateful that the Minister will write because people who we have been in touch with me are particularly concerned about that. I see that those in the Box are smiling. They will do the letter for the Minister; it is not a problem.
The Minister’s response was entirely predictable. Anything that these Benches suggest to improve the Bill and to keep the needs of persons such as users properly in view are regarded not as an improvement but as an unnecessary elaboration, or possibly even unhelpful. I will consider carefully what the Minister said. I look forward to the letter that his officials will draft for him on social capital and I will decide at that stage whether or not I shall return to this issue on Report.
Feisty lady!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
