Blog

NASUWT’s Gangs and Schools Report

The NASUWT published the interim findings of their Gangs and Schools Report today, which suggest that gangs are not a widespread problem in schools, but schools need significant help to tackle the problem head on where it exists. It’s only the interim findings, the full report is out in September, but it makes some interesting points.

Firstly, it is heartening to see the NASUWT painting a responsible, realistic picture of the problem, acknowledging it without blowing it out of proportion or scaremongering, and offering positive and sensible recommendations.

The findings show that gang related activities can stem from truancy, and are linked to poor interfaith and interracial relations. Beatbullying knows that bullying is linked with both of these issues, and it’s not too big a leap to see that prevention work around bullying will therefore have a significant effect in tackling the problem of gangs in schools as well.

We’ve been acutely aware of the links between bullying, violent behaviour, and gang culture for a long time. Bullying often operates with a pack mentality, with young people forming groups both to target others and to protect themselves. This can be seen as a precursor to gang behaviour, with young people searching for an identity and common ground, to ingratiate themselves with others, and for protection. As tensions increase, violent behaviour is not uncommon. Interestingly, however, many young people state that they carry weapons more as a self defence mechanism than as an offensive weapon. The fear element here is something that needs further attention I think – young people aren’t out to commit violent behaviour, but they fear attack themselves. Perhaps the biggest challenge here must be promoting levels of knowledge and tolerance, rather than hatred and fear, between young people.

Most interestingly and laudably, the NASUWT strongly advocates the use of peer mentoring schemes, working directly with young people involved, to change behaviour, re-educate, and prevent further involvement in undesirable activities.

For years Beatbullying has been lobbying the Government to introduce peer mentoring programmes in all schools, to tackle bullying and inappropriate behaviour.  We therefore welcome the NASUWT’s findings and fully agree with their recommendation of peer mentoring schemes. The Government has recently funded a pilot peer mentoring scheme in schools, but this means that the majority of pupils will have to wait three years for peer mentoring in their school.

The NASUWT findings are simply a further indication that we need these schemes in all schools now. Beatbullying’s Peer Mentoring programme is proven to reduce bullying and have a direct impact on behaviour. All schools need peer mentoring programmes, and with Government spending on education at an all time high, it’s time that funding was given to peer mentoring schemes so that every young person has access to it, and we can effectively tackle these issues that concern young people the most.

Can we improve discipline in schools?

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Gordon Brown backed plans to extend the Cadet force in more British comprehensive schools.   The Tories aren’t against the idea either, and they outlined their own separate plans to tackle discipline and behaviour in schools on Monday in policy document titled Giving Power Back to Teachers.

While it’s pleasing that both parties are trying to tackle behaviour in schools and address the problems facing our young people, I can’t help but think that some of their strategies won’t be as effective as they claim.

The Tories main proposals include boosting powers of exclusion and giving teachers more power in dealing with violent and disruptive pupils, pressing for an end to the ‘no touch’ policy. Some of the obvious flaws in the proposals have already been outlined in the Independent.

Yes, we need to improve levels of behaviour and discipline within schools, but it seems to me like this is all ‘stick’ and no ‘carrot’ for pupils. Young people behave well in environments where they are valued, where they can contribute, and where they can progress. Not surprisingly, these are also the environments where they will respect others. I doubt that many pupils will find this environment within the Tories plans. Will they make teachers feel happier?  Yes. Teachers can forcefully restrain pupils, can take away possessions without reason, and can turf them out of education if they don’t like it. Will the fear of being restrained and expelled without appeal improve pupil behaviour? There’s no substantial evidence to say so.

Now, there is an argument that the cadet environment is precisely one where young people can contribute, be valued, and respect each other. Yes, but only for a small minority of young people. In relation to the 35,000 young people Beatbullying has worked with directly over the last few years, only a very small percentage would react well to a bootcamp environment. For all those who do not enjoy physical activity or games, the prospect of a cadet lifestyle is unlikely to have a beneficial effect on their behaviour.

Furthermore, you can’t help but be a little worried about the prospect that bullies will migrate towards this system, and the allure of power that they will be in a position to exert over their junior officers. Perish the thought that we might even be putting bullies in uniform and putting them in a position to abuse any authority. Without substantial evidence, beyond the anecdotal, that cadet forces significantly improve behaviour among its recruits, then you’d have to wonder whether this is the best system of anti-conflict education.

Yes, we need to improve levels of discipline and respect, and encourage youth participation in activity, but let’s not limit this within an army environment. Perhaps what would be a better, more mixed and more inclusive, policy response in the way we tackle behavioural problems in schools, is the roll out of mentoring schemes in both schools and communities.

We know that mentoring schemes work – they reduce bullying, they improve behaviour, increase attainment, increase attendance.  Unlike the cadet force proposal, they are all inclusive – sporty kids mentor sporty kids, young people who like music can find a mentor they can relate to, and so on. And unlike the Tories plan, mentoring proposals actually take into consideration the position of young people.  They are monitored by adults, and their results undoubtedly make life easier for teachers, yet young people are at the heart of them, and unlike the Tories proposals, young people benefit too.

Byron Review - let's listen to the young people

Dr Tanya Byron's report "Safer children in a digital world" was published today, and the Government, who commissioned the review 6 months ago, welcomed it and committed to respond to its recommendations to ensure that young people are safe online.

The Byron Review looked at the risks to children's safety and wellbeing of exposure to harmful or inappropriate material on the internet and in video games.  The report recognises the need to develop a shared culture of responsibility to reduce and prevent harmful content on the internet, and increase children’s ability to understand and tackle any problems.

There has been a fair bit in the media today on the report's recommendations into the classification of video games.  Indeed a neutral stumbling across the story, might wonder whether this was all the report entailed.  Video games is clearly a key area in the consultation, and people, including us at Beatbullying, have questioned the nature of some inappropriate games in the past.

I can't help but feel, however, that the adult voices are still drowning out the young people, and once again, the Government is listening to the adult voice (questioning video games), and sidelining the young person.  In general, Young people weren't complaining overtly about video games, and most of them said that they knew how to avoid the harmful content on their computer.  Let's give them credit - they choose not to play some video games, and if they stumble across something inappropriate on the net, they can 'click away'.

The key finding of the report is that young people are telling us that cyberbullying is the biggest issue for them.  The big problem is not a parent’s fear of inappropriate material on the web, but direct cyberbullying from other young people, which they feel they can’t avoid as easily or ‘click away’ from.

So the message from the young people is clear: the Government needs to tackle cyberbullying, and it needs to do it now.  Raising awareness is important, and advice on what to do is useful, but the solution must involve young people, giving them the information and tools to tackle the problem themselves.

Beatbullying is about to launch its Cybermentors programme: an online adaptation of our proven bullying prevention model. Thousands of young people will be trained as Cybermentors to help, support and assist young people being bullied online. Young people can take responsibility for bullying, whether it’s happening in school or online, and do something positive to tackle it.

The Government has committed to following the Byron Review's recommendations, so perhaps it will now listen to the young people and tackle cyberbullying?  It could do this by supporting and investing in the practical solution, Cybermentors.  Now that would certainly be a giant step towards keeping young people safe online.

Time for those proud parents to speak up.

If you've been following the media over the last year or so, you might be forgiven for getting the impression that the young people of Britain are nothing but a bunch of rude, knife-carrying under-achievers who do not and will not contribute to society.

I understand the nature of the media, and I understand the agenda some of them might have.  Although I don't agree with the picture the national media paints of Britain's youth, I understand the job they are doing.  What I don't understand is why the public, including parents of these 'good-for-nothing' kids, are quite happy to accept how young people are being portrayed and generalised in this way.  What really perplexes me is how some of them then jump on the bandwagon of blame, and perpetuate the demonisation of their own kids.

London, in particular, has seen a series of terrible incidents, many of them fatal, involving young Londoners. It's a problem that needs to be reported and addressed.  What it doesn't need, or deserve, is the reaction of mass labelling all young Londoners as threatening, violent and dangerous.  A few adults chip in with their own horror stories, an MP expresses fear of her own neighbourhood, and before you know it, we don't give the time of day to the next young person we see in the street.  "He's probably on drugs, she's definitely pregnant, that jacket's stolen, and this young man is going to steal my mobile if i take it out."

Now I've met quite a lot of young people.  The vast majority of them don't smoke, let alone do drugs, don't binge drink, aren't being reckless with their sexual health, and don't get into fights.  And I'm yet to meet one who robs old grannies in the street.

In fact, quite a number of them are doing something really positive with their lives.  They are involved in community projects that clean up, or look after their neighbourhoods.  They earn a decent living, they look out for their friends and siblings, and they have fun.  Some of them mentor other young people, and offer support and advice to those who have problems.

So where are we when they need us?  When one young person gets into trouble, where are the proud parents of those not in trouble to stand up and fight their corner?  What we get instead is blame, criticism and an augmentation of the fear and distrust in our youth.  When one pupil attacks another pupil, everyone in that school gets tarnished with the same brush.  "It's typical of the school, pupils there have no respect, they're all troublemakers."  All of a sudden, we've forgotten about the vast majority of well-behaved pupils.  No one is there to champion the good, positive contributions they are making.

Wouldn't it be an outrage if all adults were labelled in the same way?  And perhaps, if adults were constantly branded as a waste of space and no one bothered to listen to them, or tell anyone about the good things they did, maybe they'd reconsider how they viewed yourselves.  If we continue on this path, perhaps young people will stop making a contribution, and if we continue to label them all as a threat, perhaps they'll turn into one? Then who would we blame?
 

Bullying is bullying, no matter who the target is

The NAHT announced today that teachers are being bullied and harassed by pupils and, what's worse, many of these incidents are going unreported, as Head teachers conceal them for fear that it would paint their school in a bad light, and tarnish their reputation.

Now, it's shocking that teachers should suffer terrifying and humiliating experiences, and feel that they have no choice but to turn up the next day for more.  They have chosen to enter a profession fraught with ingratitude, hostility and frustration, and we owe to them a debt more than any salary can repay.  No one deserves to be bullied and harassed.  Fortunately, teachers have the support of unions behind them, and the NAHT and NASUWT are doing a great job of championing their rights and calling for action to be taken against bullying.

Young people do not have a union.  56% of young people are bullied.  You can bet that if a pupil has the audacity to target a teacher, you can be sure they think their classmates are fair game.  You would imagine that bullies, who have progressed to a high risk level of bullying teachers, would've started off by systematically tormenting their peers, and then, unpunished or tiring of low-level bullying, proceeded to something more audacious.

The point that the teachers unions are missing, is that the bullying of teachers is no different to the bullying of young people.  And yet, lo and behold, they only kick up a fuss when it's actually them on the receiving end.

Schools would be better off if they nipped the bullying problem in the bud prior to letting it take hold, waiting until it begins to happen to them, and then either shouting about the injustice of it all, or worse, covering it up.  So how can schools do this?  By running bullying prevention programmes.  Of course I'm going to say that, but it works.  Progressive peer mentoring schemes reduce bullying.

Interestingly, now that teachers are beginning to feel the effects of bullying, they might take notice.  After all, these schemes reduce bullying, they divert the behaviour of low-level bullies ensuring that their behaviour does not graduate to the serious incidents that some of the NAHT's menbers report.  The irony won't be lost on me - "teachers tackle bullying only to save themselves" - but I won't mind.  If teachers intorduce these schemes and they reduce bullying, you know their effects are going to be seen amongst young people.  And if that means we have more young people attending school, able to fulfil their potentials, perform better and have a happy childhood, we'll be going in the right direction.

As for head teachers covering up incidents, it's not surprsing.  Schools have failed to admit or acknowledge bullying amongst pupils since the day they were built.  The ones that have admitted that bullying happens in every school, and have done something about it, are the ones with smaller problems.  Pupils are performing better, less of them are truanting, and both teachers and pupils are happier.  It doesn't take a genius to work out which schools now have the better reputation.

 

Ed Miliband caught me smoking

26 February 2008

Last week The Rt. Hon. Ed Miliband M.P. Minister of the Cabinet Office, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told 650 people I smoked!  My humiliation knows no bounds.  Ed also said, he respected and trusted our sector he wanted government and the Third Sector to be partners in change and encouraged us to “bit the hand that feeds us”! Frankly all things considered I don’t care about that, the man told 650 of I hope my peers that I smoked.

Despite my ritual humiliation, the NCVO conference on Civil Society last week was fabulous!  A Conference that gave me great hope for the future and a sense that if the Third Sector play our cards right, at last our sector will join the top table.

Ed Miliband’s keynote and Oliver Letwin’s closing speech at the NCVO conference left me in no doubt that the Labour and Conservative Parties view our sectors potential relationship with them quite differently.

As a Minister, Ed is a thoughtful, compelling and honest advocate for the Third Sector.  The chap gets us.  Mr Miliband spoke of The Government and the Third Sector being partners and not rivals, that our relationship should be founded on mutual respect and the challenges we will be facing concerning social justice. It seems to me that Ed is justifiably challenged by many of the most pressing social issues of this country and in intellectual and policy terms, is genuinely seeking to re-define the relationship Government has with our sector. Ed in my opinion is a big time supporter of devolved, grass roots interventions, putting it crudely a power to the people sort of guy. A Government of facilitators and of funders, working to encourage social change.  But most importantly a Government charged with creating the political and policy catalysts that will tackle so many of our quintessentially 21^st century problems. Social Change by citizens for citizens sort of thing.

Oliver Letwin also seems also to mean business. The Conservatives are searching for a new philosophical framework to build what they consider a new social consensus. Three times over the last month I have heard senior Tories talk about Edmond Burke. David Cameron told a room full of journalists two weeks ago that he “travels back to Burke” when searching for the politics of social change.  Some may consider this the same old same old from the Tories, Burke being the Father of Modern Conservatism and all that. The Conservatives however are thinking big, I feel it likely their social consensus agenda will go big on personal liberty and will I should imagine focus on the tyranny of the “brutal mob” (those that are perpetrating anti-social behaviour) and how the Tory government and its authority / authorities can turn back the tide.

These are two very different views of the world; one of these views will dominate the next 10 years of the Third Sectors existence. We do have a trump card though, as very senior politicians Ed Miliband and Oliver Letwin understand that without the Third Sector the social fabric of this nation would disintegrate. It would leave The Government, any Government bewildered and pretty much impotent. Knowing this to be true, what power our sector could wield if only we acted in unison.     

Ed Miliband and Oliver Letwin are writing their respective manifestos for the next election and both of them turned up and set out their stall. Rightly so, for decades, indeed centuries, this sector has done what I heard one delegate call “our nation’s dirty work”. Toiled to carve out a good society, a civilised society, we are the backbone of this nation’s civil society.     

We must set out our stall and that stall must be a united stall. So NCVO, where now?

On that note I am off for a cigarette!

Emma-Jane Cross | Chief Executive 

Mentor Britain PLC

12 February 2008

A year ago the much discussed and despoiled Unicef Report on the state of our world’s children was published. Inevitably it was met with nationwide wringing of hands and perplexed indignation. According to UNICEF, British children were among the least healthy, the least educated, the least happy and the most at risk in the developed world…many of us, rightly so, felt ashamed, worried and dispirited.

It was revealed, with what seemed like great media merriment, that: young Britons do not trust their peers, do not feel respected, and do not talk to their parents. They take too many risks with their sexual, physical and mental health.

As pointed out by ministers, and fairly so, the findings were significantly out of date, much of the ethnographic work was undertaken five years ago.  The findings did not place in context or measure the impact of policy innovations such as the 1300 Sure Start Centres; the considerable increases in Child Benefit; the 1,100 new schools; the personalised learning of 600,000 children that is benefiting some of the most disengaged and hard to reach young people in the UK.

Much more importantly the hysteria that met the report did not, as usual, tell the truth about young Britons. Millions of kids, despite constant demonisation, live positive lives: they work hard and do well at school. They have strong and loyal friendships and protect and love their siblings. Young Britons volunteer in their local community, assisting and supporting older people, working on conservation projects, attending school, doing well in exams, carrying hope, talking and generally holding society in respect and making a contribution. They have never seen the inside of a police station and they never will. They don’t carry guns or knives.  They experiment with drugs and alcohol, but they don’t binge drink or spiral into drug abuse.  They take their sexual health very seriously, but they also fall in love and sometimes make mistakes. 

They have strong views on poverty, the environment, on immigration, on human rights… and I know because I have worked with thousands of children and young people.  They love this country: they are all proud to be British and have great hope for the future.

The lives of our children and young people are better today than they were 10 years ago. If UNICEF was to repeat the survey today, I believe the results would be very different. They would, however, still not make for comfortable reading. Our children are besieged by society, government and media representations of adult fear, mistrust and worry over the UK’s dangerous, violent and criminal youth. A generation is being caricatured as being too busy to make a contribution because they are mugging the elderly, truanting, failing exams, carrying knives, graffing, fighting and generally holding society to ransom. God forbid they stand on street corners in groups.  This nonsensical caricature is an offensive, simplistic and fictitious representation of our children.

Children and young people are bombarded with the rhetoric of “turn that music down”, “pull those jeans up”, “what have you had pierced?”, “don’t stand on that street corner”.  Hoodies are symbols of fear and imminent violence, of failing schools, falling standards, anti-social behavior.  We demand that young people “never ever get angry” and “respect” adults because I say so, be thinner, be fatter or eat this, but don’t eat that, of sex equals STDs and unwanted pregnancies, with the tax payer footing the benefit bill. We throw up our hands in mock surprise that the aspirations of our children are reduced to the desire to be a model or a gangster.   

If, in 10 years time, when UNICEF publish again the UK still fares badly it will be because The Government has not had the foresight or the courage to get their hands really dirty and sort this out.

Four things, if addressed and resourced could, continue the process of reclaiming the streets, the ambitions and hope of our children and young people. Firstly, cabinet ministers, especially younger members, need to commit to countering the rhetoric of negativity constantly being spewed at our young people.  If all of us spent as much time praising and highlighting the great achievements of our young people as we do condemning the vile behaviour of the very few, children may not feel so isolated.  This can be done. The Labour movement has successfully shifted cultures since it was founded. Think only of the trade union or anti-racist movement, equal pay, the minimum wage or human rights, radical cultural change is what we do.  

Secondly, acknowledge (even in private) that the stick will not work.  It hasn’t worked, ever. It will not work with young people and families that are so often feeling left behind and excluded.  Let’s please call it like it is, there is absolutely no empirical evidence of note that the stick can shift cultures.  None. I know I keep on saying it, I have worked with disengaged young people and their families for 15 years now. The stick is pointless young people are contemptuous of ASBO’s, of parenting orders & contracts and of behavior contracts.

Thirdly, bring back the extended family but a 21^st century version. Set-up and resource a nation-wide mentoring/support scheme, (Mentor Britain PLC) for children, young people, families and lone adults: A network of citizens, young and old, to support and sustain each other.  Imagine mentoring for single mums by single mums on a deprived estate in Manchester or London.  A locally-based network of women who are living similar lives, experiencing similar problems, trained and supported to assist each other, and their children and living just around the corner!  Imagine again, an army of older people networked to support and assist each other and even more radical young people, to work together to discuss and find solutions to some of their fears both actual and perceived. Imagine again mentors (old and young) for every young person across this nation in, and outside of school, properly trained to support and sustain each other’s emotional well being.   Then Imagine finally all three networks plus others working together ensuring better understanding, and watching out for, guiding and mentoring our young people because they know it to be their civic duty.      

This isn’t neighbourhood watch or tenants’ associations. It is best seen as “UK Citizens Anonymous… Hello! I am a UK citizen and I need some support please”. (I obviously jest, but hope I make my point). 

Fourthly, (I would say this wouldn’t I?) partner with the Third Sector and the private sector to deliver this.  Don’t rely on the over-burdened teacher, social worker or health worker. There is a legion of skilled, voluntary sector organisations who can assist The Government in building the ever-important communities and families that can raise our young people and would take great pride in returning this nation to a new 21^st century extended family. 

Emma-Jane Cross | Chief Executive

The importance of charities in our society

22 January 2008

Public benefit and charities worry me... not however, because I agree or necessarily care about the on-going obsession with Independent Schools. Wee bit of a red herring, I feel.

I, too, believe in the dynamism of charities, indeed, if the third sector were to down tools, the very social fabric of this country would disintegrate. Why then are charities resisting with such gusto and combined voice the introduction of public benefit measures?

They worry me because the new measures don’t go far enough. Our sector must embrace the notion and expectation of strict, transparent evaluation and assessment. Instead, the mere mention of universal measures which clarify social returns, how in the real world we benefit, assist and support the vulnerable and the disengaged seems to terrify the sector. Even a quick enquiry from the Charities Commission which is all that is really being introduced, seems to have some mortified and indignant.

Of what? Donors, stakeholders, service users, and yes government have an absolute right to enquire into the state of the nation’s charities. Charities have an ethical duty to answer. Are we competent? Are we working toward and delivering public benefit? Who funds us and how (explicitly) we spend the cash? How do we actually know we are delivering? Who is checking we are? How do we measure social returns? And importantly, why are thousands of charities, (even the majority?) not measuring social value and outcomes.

As taxpayers, as individuals working in the sector, as citizens, we often and rightly seek similar clarification from our representatives and our government. It is important we understand how our tax pound is being spent. Many of us also feel it critical that the private sector avail us of the details of their investment portfolios, just so we can choose to boycott if we disagree with whom and in what they are investing their profits.

Surely if we expect (or lobby hard) for transparency and truth from our legislators, the corporate sectors and even (perversely in the age of twenty-four hour news) our celebrities, why not us? Minister, don’t take this nonsense from us! If charities are to take their rightful place at the top of the policy table, then we’d better make sure we know damn well we are delivering! Emma-Jane Cross | Chief Executive