Post by David on Jun 23, 2004 19:58:25 GMT -5
Every child, happy or unhappy, taking the initiative or not, if abused or neglected will have established routinely a one-to-one relationship with the inclusions teacher whom they are bound to tell, so that will deter a lot of abuse and detect almost all of the rest. Each child will have one to one inclusions sessions often enough.
Then there will be no need to indiscriminately encourage false allegations so as to detect all that abuse. There will be line management of the inclusions staff, by the best local family support workers whom their clients, the parents, vote in. There will be citizenship classes in tandem to explain that whether upset by other children, adults or systems, a child 's suffering should be reported, should never be paraded, and will be relieved, while lying can be confessed, no child will be called a liar, lying can always be shown to be done for more interesting reasons than occurred at the time, false accusations will be found out and so will abuse.
The consequences of reporting abuse, the humane handling of abuse in families and all the procedures impacting on children will be explained as a matter of course. Sex education will not be graphic, the exploitation of sex by people and the media will be covered, with the bullying and other abuses, discussion in class of children's obsevations will flower, there being not enough time in the syllabus otherwise for a child to get ideas from it. Children will be trained as mediators, advocates, mentors etc, and the inclusions teachers will be given advocacy training too. Then the child can meet the world and the world can meet the child with more confidence.
Of course the other justification for each child to have one to one inclusions support with citizenship, is the unprecedented acceleration of the rate of changes in technology and culture. It is the support that will integrate the child's experience, as well as reveal and put an end to the abuse of children.
The social services can still move into the schools and operate out of the schools, but they have no intention of reclaiming their role as the primary family support service, which role they gave up years ago and delegated to the other agencies now doing the field work and so relied on as familiar with the family by the courts.
The schools may accommodate the SWs but will not give them access on demand to any info or child, in which case the SWs may lose interest in their school move altogether, but if they don't they can co-exist as in-house consultants, while the fieldwork agencies take the initiative to do the referrals, networked liaison and court reports for the children and families, and the police take back the business of criminal intelligence and prosecution.
The SWs can do all the family policing they want, take care of the children of genuine criminals, and assess the family welfare issues, advise and guide, but they'll do far less investigative child interviews, they'll work with, not against parents. They'll have time to analyse and develop and improve welfare systems, devise a community safety-led approach. and can concentrate on the role they've retained, being their chosen role of instigating fostering and adoption
The social services gave up their primary family service functions years ago, and it's the unemployed teachers, (not the social workers), who have the background needed to be recruited and specially trained to provide in all schools enough inclusions workers to give every child a routine time to establish a one to one relationship with an adult in the school who supports them during this unprecedented acceleration of technological and cultural change, and will be told of any abuse and neglect. That is what children do, they tell. Then there will be no more hidden abuse.
The schools will not share confidential child data with the SW in the school. It will be kept local. Citizenship classes will discuss suffering and lying in tandem with the inclusions teachers' confidante sessions. Whether happy or unhappy, taking initiative or not, every schoolchild will have one to one with an inclusions teacher.
Already the whole child protection field relies on the teachers to say whether or not a child is distressed, which "cannot be" if there is no change in behaviour and performance at school. The bodies of behavioural science have more than any other body to clean up their act and discipline their most influential concepts and practices.
The Statisticians came through. Now it is time for the behavioural sciences at university level to define more clearly and beyond doubt, the theories of family behaviour that became so loose in both amateur and expert hands. Please let's identify the relevant body, collect and refer to it all example of behavioural analysis that gave us grief, and ask for it to be scientifically validated, evolved, corrected or plain put to rest, with vigilance for the next crop.
Please lets do this so publicly that all children currently on clinical and other programs to modify their behaviour, are better treated, and not treated upon biased, edited, skewed SW referrals that were not disclosed and agreed with the parents who have responsibility. NSPCC said believe the child, but stopped saying it and the whole industry started saying don't believe the child in a broken family. Let behavioural scientists be more meticulous and let the Society of Statisticians look at the statistics and probabilities spouted every time a child (or adult) from a broken family is said to have complained. Or a mother is said to invent a childhood illness.
And there will be no more challenge in or out of the courts, by suspicion, of a parent's authority, unless and until a parent is criminally convicted. There will be no more nonsense about mothers putting their children at a permanent disadvantage if denying them a nursery place to raise them from 0-5 yrs. The funds so sensibly set aside for the provision of raising children in their early years, will be offered first to the children's mothers
Can we design and propose a format to suit the courts and show that we mean business. Why, if we won't go away, some mutually agreeable outcomes might save a lot of embarrassment, the problem being that any close scrutiny in any reasoning, fair arena would result in criminal charges of gross misconduct by organised criminal deception in child protection.
One example set would deter a lot of that. If there's no excuse left for obstructing due process with a fixation on insurmountable problems, and if there's no illusion left that we can be scape-goated, if the authorities are convinced that they can be held liable, they'll do exactly the right thing, without being told, immediately, to limit the damage....to themselves. Quick. Now. Stop the attack on the public image of the father and mother and child.
David
[glow=red,2,300]FAMILIESFORJUSTICE[/glow]
Then there will be no need to indiscriminately encourage false allegations so as to detect all that abuse. There will be line management of the inclusions staff, by the best local family support workers whom their clients, the parents, vote in. There will be citizenship classes in tandem to explain that whether upset by other children, adults or systems, a child 's suffering should be reported, should never be paraded, and will be relieved, while lying can be confessed, no child will be called a liar, lying can always be shown to be done for more interesting reasons than occurred at the time, false accusations will be found out and so will abuse.
The consequences of reporting abuse, the humane handling of abuse in families and all the procedures impacting on children will be explained as a matter of course. Sex education will not be graphic, the exploitation of sex by people and the media will be covered, with the bullying and other abuses, discussion in class of children's obsevations will flower, there being not enough time in the syllabus otherwise for a child to get ideas from it. Children will be trained as mediators, advocates, mentors etc, and the inclusions teachers will be given advocacy training too. Then the child can meet the world and the world can meet the child with more confidence.
Of course the other justification for each child to have one to one inclusions support with citizenship, is the unprecedented acceleration of the rate of changes in technology and culture. It is the support that will integrate the child's experience, as well as reveal and put an end to the abuse of children.
The social services can still move into the schools and operate out of the schools, but they have no intention of reclaiming their role as the primary family support service, which role they gave up years ago and delegated to the other agencies now doing the field work and so relied on as familiar with the family by the courts.
The schools may accommodate the SWs but will not give them access on demand to any info or child, in which case the SWs may lose interest in their school move altogether, but if they don't they can co-exist as in-house consultants, while the fieldwork agencies take the initiative to do the referrals, networked liaison and court reports for the children and families, and the police take back the business of criminal intelligence and prosecution.
The SWs can do all the family policing they want, take care of the children of genuine criminals, and assess the family welfare issues, advise and guide, but they'll do far less investigative child interviews, they'll work with, not against parents. They'll have time to analyse and develop and improve welfare systems, devise a community safety-led approach. and can concentrate on the role they've retained, being their chosen role of instigating fostering and adoption
The social services gave up their primary family service functions years ago, and it's the unemployed teachers, (not the social workers), who have the background needed to be recruited and specially trained to provide in all schools enough inclusions workers to give every child a routine time to establish a one to one relationship with an adult in the school who supports them during this unprecedented acceleration of technological and cultural change, and will be told of any abuse and neglect. That is what children do, they tell. Then there will be no more hidden abuse.
The schools will not share confidential child data with the SW in the school. It will be kept local. Citizenship classes will discuss suffering and lying in tandem with the inclusions teachers' confidante sessions. Whether happy or unhappy, taking initiative or not, every schoolchild will have one to one with an inclusions teacher.
Already the whole child protection field relies on the teachers to say whether or not a child is distressed, which "cannot be" if there is no change in behaviour and performance at school. The bodies of behavioural science have more than any other body to clean up their act and discipline their most influential concepts and practices.
The Statisticians came through. Now it is time for the behavioural sciences at university level to define more clearly and beyond doubt, the theories of family behaviour that became so loose in both amateur and expert hands. Please let's identify the relevant body, collect and refer to it all example of behavioural analysis that gave us grief, and ask for it to be scientifically validated, evolved, corrected or plain put to rest, with vigilance for the next crop.
Please lets do this so publicly that all children currently on clinical and other programs to modify their behaviour, are better treated, and not treated upon biased, edited, skewed SW referrals that were not disclosed and agreed with the parents who have responsibility. NSPCC said believe the child, but stopped saying it and the whole industry started saying don't believe the child in a broken family. Let behavioural scientists be more meticulous and let the Society of Statisticians look at the statistics and probabilities spouted every time a child (or adult) from a broken family is said to have complained. Or a mother is said to invent a childhood illness.
And there will be no more challenge in or out of the courts, by suspicion, of a parent's authority, unless and until a parent is criminally convicted. There will be no more nonsense about mothers putting their children at a permanent disadvantage if denying them a nursery place to raise them from 0-5 yrs. The funds so sensibly set aside for the provision of raising children in their early years, will be offered first to the children's mothers
Can we design and propose a format to suit the courts and show that we mean business. Why, if we won't go away, some mutually agreeable outcomes might save a lot of embarrassment, the problem being that any close scrutiny in any reasoning, fair arena would result in criminal charges of gross misconduct by organised criminal deception in child protection.
One example set would deter a lot of that. If there's no excuse left for obstructing due process with a fixation on insurmountable problems, and if there's no illusion left that we can be scape-goated, if the authorities are convinced that they can be held liable, they'll do exactly the right thing, without being told, immediately, to limit the damage....to themselves. Quick. Now. Stop the attack on the public image of the father and mother and child.
David
[glow=red,2,300]FAMILIESFORJUSTICE[/glow]
