for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 130: Winter 2007/2008

In In this issue:

Children’s Plan sends out more mixed messages about the role of parents

On 11 December, the government unveiled its first ever Children’s Plan. In his Foreword to the 169-page document, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, states his intention that the Plan will ‘strengthen support for all families during the formative early years’. His vision includes making progress towards achieving ‘world class schools’, involving parents fully in their children’s learning, ensuring that children and young people have ‘interesting and exciting things to do outside of school’ and providing more places for children to play safely.

One of the five principles that underpin the Children’s Plan is the recognition that ‘government does not bring up children – parents do’. It states that:

‘Partnership with parents is a unifying theme of this Children’s Plan. Our vision of 21st century children’s services is that they should engage parents in all aspects of their children’s development, and that children’s services should be shaped by parents’ views and command parents’ confidence’.

However, while the Children’s Plan plays lip-service to the importance of parents, the government continues to pursue policies that marginalise them and exclude them from their children’s lives.

Daycare

For example, the government is keen to increase the number of pre-school aged children in daycare, but says nothing about the benefits of young children being cared for at home by a full-time mother:

‘Since 1997, we have created a universal early years system. Use of regular, reliable care has benefits for children’s development and benefits for parents… Children must be attending these high quality settings if they are to benefit from them – and so we must improve the access and affordability of early years provision’.

During the House of Commons debate on the Children’s Plan, the Liberal Democrat spokesman for children expressed concern that one in ten three and four year-olds were not accessing their free entitlement to nursery places and asked what measures the government was taking to improve uptake. In reply, Ed Balls stated:

‘More quality and more graduates in the early years is the best way to persuade parents to take up their entitlement and to do the best by their children. I hope that the measures on quality will encourage many more parents to take up the opportunities available’ (HC Hansard, 11.12.07).

Again, there is no recognition of the fact that some parents might have good reasons for thinking that they are ‘doing the best by their children’ by caring for them at home.

Expert parenting advisors

In order to ‘help every parent do the best for their child’, the Children’s Plan states that the government is committed to:

    • allocating £34 million over next three years to provide two expert parenting advisers in every local authority. These advisors will operate in extended schools to provide support for families who are finding it difficult to deal with their children’s behaviour;
    • increasing the number of school-based Parent Support Advisors (PSAs). There are currently PSAs in 1,200 schools, but the government wants to expand their availability so that they reach 10-15 schools in each local authority;
    • creating a new Parents Panel to advise government on policies affecting parents. The document states that the Panel will have links into a full cross-section of parental opinion in order to provide a voice for parents at the heart of government, so that parents’ perspectives are better reflected in government policy making.

The document does not reveal how the government plans to set up the Parents Panel, how members will be selected and what its guiding principles will be. Since parents are no more an homogenous group than men, women or children, much will depend on the make-up of the Panel as to how parents’ views are sought, interpreted and represented to government. Other ‘independent’ groups established and funded by the government, such as the Family & Parenting Institute and the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People have all too often pursued their own ideological agenda.

Parental influence

The Children’s Plan rightly recognises the importance of parental influence on children:

‘Evidence shows that parents remain the most direct influence on young people’s outcomes, shaping their aspirations and values. We need to work with parents to help ensure that young people benefit from this influence, so that the problems that some parents face are not passed on to young people.’

However, this statement wears a bit thin when government policies are having the effect of minimising the influence of parents. When children are young, the government is keen that they should be away from their parents in daycare; when they start school, the government is committed to making activities available from 8am to 6pm; and when they enter secondary school, the government supports confidentiality policies that allow them to obtain contraception and the morning-after pill without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Sex education

Ed Balls writes that he is determined to ensure that the Children’s Plan ‘is the beginning of a new way of working’, but there is nothing new about his department’s proposals for sex education. While the document promises a review of ‘best practice in effective sex and relationships education and how it is delivered in schools’, the government remains wedded to a contraceptive-based strategy, with a commitment to making contraception ever more readily available in schools:

‘We will also increase young people’s knowledge of effective contraception and improve their access to advice through encouraging the provision of on-site health services in schools, colleges and youth centres.’

Young people have never had so much information about contraception and never been able to obtain it so easily, and yet sexually transmitted infection rates have risen dramatically over the past decade. The government recognises that:

‘Recent trends in common sexually transmitted infections (excluding HIV) in the UK show an increase in the number of diagnosed cases in 16-19 year olds of over 100 per cent between 1997 and 2006 (from c.26,700 in 1997 to c.53,350 in 2006), which is a far higher increase than for other age groups. The highest rate of increase [excluding syphilis]was in new episodes of chlamydia infection which rose by nearly 200 per cent from 9,900 cases in 1997 to 29,500 in 2006.’

The Children’s Plan is doubtless correct when it states that ‘many young people feel that they do not currently have the knowledge they need to make safe and responsible choices in relation to their sexual health’. Many have never been told that the only truly safe and responsible choice for optimal sexual health is to keep sexual intimacy within the confines of a mutually faithful and lifelong marriage. Sadly there is no indication that the government has any intention of giving young people that information in the near future.

No support for marriage

Despite the fact that the Children’s Plan states: ‘Our priority is to ensure every child enjoys the benefits of living in strong and stable families with an active and   healthy   lifestyle’, the document contains no recognition of the fact that, on average, families founded on marriage provide a far more stable upbringing for children than any other living arrangement. In fact the word ‘marriage’ does not appear in the entire document.

The related document detailing ‘evidence to support the development of the Children’s Plan’ draws attention to the damaging consequences for children of family breakdown. It notes that a fifth of children who experienced the divorce of their parents in 2005 were under five years old, nearly two-thirds were aged ten or under, and that:

‘Family break-up translates to instability in children’s lives and children experiencing parental separation experience an approximate two-year adjustment period where psychological problems such as sense of loss often feature.’

It also comments that, after bullying, ‘the second most common reason for children contacting Childline related to family tensions, including divorce and separation’, and observes that:

‘Survey evidence indicates that the prevalence of conduct disorders (indicating behaviours such as fighting, bullying or theft) more than doubled between 1974 and 1999 (from 7.6% to 16.7%). The proportion of young people with hyperactive or emotional problems has also increased significantly [although] this increase may not reflect an increase in incidence, but rather greater awareness of conditions due to media attention, increased diagnosis, development of effective treatment, or other factors.

Yet the Children’s Plan assures us that ‘children do not in general see different family structures as a particular problem, with 70 per cent saying one parent can raise a family as well as two’ – as if children are qualified to make such an assessment.

Quite how the government proposes to deliver on its priority to ‘ensure every child enjoys the benefits of living in strong and stable families’ is not made clear in the Children’s Plan. Like many other aspirations in the document, this is an objective that lies beyond the power of any government. But we cannot hope to make even the smallest steps in the desired direction without recognising that support for marriage and a genuine respect for parents are required if more children are to enjoy the benefits of being raised in strong and stable families.

The Children’s Plan: Building brighter futures, DCSF 2007.
www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/childrensplan/

^ Back to the top ^

The Children’s Plan: What the politicians are saying

Extracts from the House of Commons debate on 11 December 2007

 

Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
With schools, children’s services, the voluntary sector and Government all playing their part and meeting their responsibilities, and with the £1 billion over the next three years we are allocating today to meet our children’s plan commitments, we can unlock the talents and promote the health and happiness of all children, and not just some; back parents as they meet their responsibilities to bring up their children; and intervene early so that no child or young person is left to fall behind. We will make our country the best place in the world for children to grow up.

Michael Gove, Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families
Today, the Secretary of State announces a review of the primary curriculum to clear away the clutter. It sounds attractive. However, at the same time, the Department is pressing ahead with a pre-primary school curriculum, with 576 different targets for professionals, which prescribes exactly how toddlers should:

‘rub a rusk around the tray of a feeding chair… show delight by kicking and waving… use gloop’, which is helpfully defined as, ‘(cornflower and water in small trays) so babies can enjoy putting fingers into it and then lifting them out’.

How can the Secretary of State credibly say that he is clearing away the clutter and empowering professionals when he is sticking his fingers into everything and generating gloop on an industrial scale?

David Laws, Liberal Democrat spokesman for Children, Schools and Families
What we have heard today is not, by anybody’s independent judgment, a serious 10-year plan for children, but a hotch-potch of reviews, recycled announcements from earlier Secretaries of State, one or two gimmicks and a unifying theme that is a belief only in top-down big government solutions.

^ Back to the top ^

 

Facing the facts about sex education and the morning-after pill

 

In a recent article in support of compulsory sex education in all UK schools, Guardian columnist, Polly Toynbee, launched an attack on Family and Youth Concern (FYC).1 She had evidently been irked by the press interest in our new report, Waking Up to the Morning-After Pill, which had been the front-page story in the previous day’s Daily Mail and had also received prominent coverage in other national and regional newspapers. In view of the factual inaccuracies contained in her article, we asked the Guardian to publish a correction. In reply, the newspaper offered us the opportunity to write a comment piece in response to Polly Toynbee. A shortened and edited version of the following article by FYC director, Norman Wells, was printed in the Guardian on 7 December.2

According to Polly Toynbee, the small reduction we have seen in teenage conception rates ‘may be partly due to easier emergency contraception from local pharmacies’. However, the fact remains that there is no evidence in the world to support her hypothesis. International studies have consistently shown that increased access to the ‘morning-after pill’ has reduced neither abortion nor unintended pregnancy rates.

Our own study,3 which Polly dismisses as ‘a spurious story’ and ‘evidence-proven nonsense’, reveals that 84 per cent of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) have policies permitting the pharmacy supply of the emergency pill to girls under the age of 16, and over half are prepared under some circumstances to insist on such provision as a condition of granting a pharmacy licence. Yet not a single PCT was able to cite any evidence that the confidential provision of the morning-after pill in pharmacies has contributed to a reduction in under-16 conception rates. If Polly has any evidence that has hitherto eluded all 152 PCTs in England, I am sure they will be only too pleased to hear from her.

Counter-intuitive?

This may sound counter-intuitive. After all, if the ‘morning-after pill’ works at all, it stands to reason that it does prevent at least some unwanted pregnancies from developing and thus prevents at least some abortions. However, there is also evidence that the ready availability of contraception results in some young people becoming sexually active who would not otherwise have done so.

For almost a year following Victoria Gillick’s Court of Appeal victory in 1984, under-16s were unable to obtain contraception without parental consent. The sex education establishment and contraceptive industry protested that teenage pregnancy rates would rocket. But they didn’t. While under-16 attendances at family planning clinics went down by a third, teenage conception rates remained the same, suggesting that the restriction on contraceptive provision to under-16s led to a reduction in underage sexual activity.

‘Children’s reproductive health rights’

But not everybody regards less teenage sexual activity as a positive outcome. Some are wedded to the notion of ‘children’s reproductive health rights’ – a euphemism for the ‘right’ of children to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse, with confidential access to contraception and abortion. Polly Toynbee herself is dismissive of any attempt to discourage teenage sex and even goes so far as to say that, ‘It is good news…that more pregnant teenagers are opting for abortions’. Bearing in mind the trauma experienced by many women for months and years after an abortion, this is hardly a cause for celebration.

Polly refers to Ofsted’s criticisms of much sex education in its Time for Change? report. This same report asserted that, ‘School nurses can…provide a valuable service, particularly in terms of providing emergency hormonal contraception and advising on other forms of contraception.’ The basis for the claim? Not that it reduces teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, but ‘pupils said they appreciated it’. It does not bode well for children when the body responsible for improving standards in schools cannot tell the difference between what children say they value and what is truly valuable.

Sex education – an ideological battlefield

‘Abstinence teaching doesn’t work’, Polly asserts, while sex education ‘taught well’ can serve as the panacea for any number of social ills. But this all begs the question as to what it means for sex education to ‘work’ and to be ‘taught well’.

The organisations demanding compulsory sex education in all schools share a strong hostility towards teaching children the positive benefits of saving sex for marriage. Yet this is a message they desperately need to hear. Separating sex from marriage has not only led to high rates of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and abortions, but it is also a major contributory factor in divorce and family breakdown and all the human misery and adverse social consequences that flow from it. Young people desperately need to hear that there is a better way.

Sex education has become an ideological battlefield on which war is being waged for the hearts and minds of children. For this reason it is vital to resist attempts to impose a state-approved approach. Schools must remain accountable to parents who bear the primary responsibility for the care and nurture of their children, and parents must retain the freedom to withdraw their children from sex education lessons that they believe will do more harm than good.

Notes

1. Polly Toynbee, Sex education works, so why is it not compulsory, Guardian, 4 December 2007.

2. Norman Wells, Don’t believe the contraception industry: sex education doesn’t work, Guardian, 7 December 2007.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/sexeducation/story/0,,2223744,00.html

3. Norman Wells and Helena Hayward, Waking Up to the Morning-After Pill, Family Education Trust 2007.

 

Copies of our new report, Waking Up to the Morning-After Pill: How parents are being undermined by the promotion of emergency hormonal birth control to under-16s, are available from the FYC office, at £6.00 + £1.00 p&p.

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Government resists pressure to ban smacking

Following its review of the reasonable chastisement defence, the government has concluded that the law should stay as it is. The defence therefore remains available to parents and others acting in loco parentis when charged with common assault against a child. The government’s review of changes to the law made under Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 consisted of several strands including a survey of parental attitudes, focus groups involving children and young people, a public consultation, and in-depth interviews with police, prosecutors and children’s social care professionals.

1. Survey of parents

An Ipsos MORI poll of 1,822 parents commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) found that the overwhelming majority of parents draw a clear distinction between moderate smacking and child abuse, and that there is very little support for a ban on smacking:

    • 85 per cent agreed that there is a big difference between smacking a child and physically abusing a child (65 per cent agreeing strongly);
    • 78 per cent disagreed that only bad parents smack their children (45 per cent disagreeing strongly);
    • 59 per cent agreed that the law should allow parents to smack their children, with only 22 per cent disagreeing;
    • 68 per cent disagreed with a complete ban on parents hitting (sic) their children, even a smack as punishment, with only 18 per cent supporting a ban.

Interestingly, many parents who do not themselves use smacking as a form of discipline are less inclined to impose their own beliefs on other parents than the anti-smacking lobby. Of those who disagreed that it was sometimes necessary to smack a naughty child, 30 per cent still agreed that the law should allow parents to smack their children, and 45 per cent were opposed to a ban on smacking. Even among those who said they thought it was always wrong to smack a child and that they do not do it, 24 per cent agreed that the law should allow parents to smack their children and 34 per cent disagreed that there should be a complete ban on smacking.

Interpret with care

The MORI report acknowledges that the figures need to be interpreted with care at several points. For example, while only 24 per cent of parents said that they had used smacking to ‘manage their child’s behaviour’, asked directly when they had last smacked their child, 57 per cent of parents indicated that they had smacked their children at some stage. With regard to the former question, the report notes that:

‘parents were not specifically asked if they have smacked their child, rather they were asked which of a range of methods form part of their behaviour management ‘tool-kit’; it may be, therefore, that they regard smacking as a sanction rather than as a proactive management method… When asked directly, further on in the survey, if they have smacked their child, a higher proportion say they have done so.’

The importance of carefully weighing the terms employed when assessing survey responses is also evident in a question aimed at obtaining parents’ views on the effectiveness of smacking as a teaching tool. Presented with the proposition, ‘Smacking is a good way of teaching children right from wrong’, only seven per cent ‘strongly agreed’ and 21 per cent ‘tended to agree’, while 26 per cent ‘tended to disagree’, and 29 per cent ‘strongly disagreed’.

Putting smacking in context

According to the MORI report, these responses suggest that ‘many would doubt that smacking has positive instructional efficacy’. However, the problem with this question, as with many other survey questions on smacking, is that it divorces one small parenting tool from the total parenting context. By itself smacking achieves nothing, and no one would claim otherwise. But when it is accompanied by reasoning and a verbal rebuke for what the child has done wrong combined with encouragement to behave well, in the context of a warm, supportive parent-child relationship, moderate physical correction certainly can play a part in teaching children right from wrong.

Care also needs to be taken with interpreting questions regarding the effectiveness of smacking. In its own summary of the research findings, the DCSF claims that ‘few believe that smacking is an effective form of behaviour management’. However, this is an unfair inference. For one thing, parents were never asked whether smacking was ‘an effective form of behaviour management’; rather they were asked to select from a list of options two or three methods which had had ‘the most effect’ on their child’s behaviour in general terms. In addition to that, as the MORI report observes:

‘among those parents who do mention that they have smacked their child, around three in ten believe it to be one of the most effective methods of managing their child’s behaviour (28%): broadly on a par with praising good behaviour (29%) and stopping them doing something they like to do (26%).’ (We might add to this that only 16 per cent included ‘sending them to their room’ among the two or three methods that had the most effect on children’s behaviour.)

One of the main findings highlighted in the survey is that ‘parents’ attitudes towards smacking have shifted over time as smacking is less likely to be used/have been used by current parents [parents with at least one child under the age of 18] than by ever parents [parents whose children were all over the age of 18]’. On the basis of this finding, Minister for Children, Schools and Families, Kevin Brennan, claimed that ‘smacking is becoming a less commonly used form of discipline as more parents recognise that there are more effective and acceptable methods of disciplining children’. This statement, however, reflects a value judgment that is not supported by the evidence.

Is smacking declining?

In its report to Parliament, the DCSF cited the finding that only seven per cent of parents aged 15-24 have used smacking compared with 44 per cent of those aged over 65 as evidence of less support for smacking among younger parents. Quite apart from the fact that respondents to this question had been asked about methods of ‘behaviour management’, not whether they had smacked their child, it is simply not valid to compare the parenting practices of parents who have raised their children to adulthood with those whose children are still in infancy. In the very nature of things, most children of parents aged 15-24 will be very young, and many will not have reached the stage where smacking becomes an issue. The DCSF report does not appear to even consider the possibility that older parents, with the benefit of experience, may be better qualified to recognise the valuable, albeit small, part that physical correction had in the discipline of their children.

Another factor that should not be underestimated when considering responses from ‘current parents’ about the way they discipline their children is the climate of fear that surrounds smacking as a result of widespread professional disapproval. There is also considerable confusion regarding the current law, with some parents even thinking smacking is against the law. The MORI report comments:

‘It should…be noted that the behaviour of parents discussed throughout this document is self-reported so a degree of under-reporting is likely in relation to behaviours that respondents may think are less socially acceptable.’

Many parents will have felt particularly vulnerable in view of the fact that interviews were conducted face-to-face in their own homes.

2. Survey of children and young people

In another strand of the review, the DCSF commissioned Sherbert Research to conduct in-depth interviews with 64 children and young people aged between 4 and 16. Children were asked about a range of sanctions used by their parents and one recurring theme was that the context in which punishment was delivered and the manner in which it was administered was closely related to its effectiveness.

For example, the researchers found that exclusion (e.g. being sent to their room), ‘if administered in a fair way’, could help children reflect on their behaviour, while if it was used with little or no explanation, it could be ‘one of the worst types of punishments they could receive, as it made them feel insecure and unloved’. Likewise, children reported that verbal discipline (‘being told off’) was most effective when done in a calm and measured way.

The study similarly found that the effectiveness of smacking was closely related to the manner in which it was administered. Where parents were inconsistent in the discipline of their children and their actions were due more to their own mood than their children’s behaviour, smacking could feel like ‘a random act, unjustified, and sometimes an abuse of parents’ power’. Around a quarter of respondents encountered what the Sherbert report describes as a ‘negative emotional experience of smacking’.

However, a larger proportion of children and young people (around a half) testified to a more positive experience of physical correction. For example:

    • ‘I don’t like the idea of getting smacked, but I understand why my parents do it and it doesn’t happen that often.’ Boy 7 to 8, Newcastle.
    • ‘When I have done something wrong it feels right that I might get a smack because I deserve it and I am angry with myself for lying or being bad.’ Girl 8 to 9, Birmingham.
    • ‘It’s not good to be smacked; of course, you don’t look forward to it…but I appreciate why my parents did it because it told me what I’d done was wrong.’ Boy 15 to 16, Croydon.
    • ‘I’m pleased my parents smacked me because it made me a better person and better behaved now. It didn’t happen very often but did have a good impact.’ Boy 13 to 14, Croydon.

These children were usually smacked for a more serious action. Their parents regularly explained why they felt smacking was justified, and smacking was most likely to stop around 10 years of age. The report states:

‘Children in this group generally reported feeling safe and secure, and respected their parents’ stance on discipline. They said they saw smacking as the consequence of their behaviour and therefore it felt more justified. They also claimed that they appreciated that smacking was used as a way to help teach them about right from wrong and that it could help support the “growing up” process, even though it was not something they relished the idea of.’

Yet, quite inexplicably, the authors of the report describe that as ‘a neutral emotional experience’, rather than a positive one, and the fact that so many children spoke of the effectiveness of smacking is not noted in the DCSF report to Parliament. The DCSF report chooses to focus on the responses given by the minority of children who reported a more negative experience.

For documents containing evidence gathered in the course of the review, see http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/section58review/

^ Back to the top ^

 

Comment on smacking review

The government is quite right to reject a ban on smacking. In a free society it is vital that parents should be allowed to bring up their children in a reasonable way, in line with their convictions. Parenting is an art and not a science, and for that reason it would be quite wrong for any one group of people to impose their own views on parenting upon everyone else by force of law.

Smacking has become a contentious issue only because of a vocal minority who are determined to undermine the authority of parents. They are failing to see that parents have a unique relationship with their children, bearing unique responsibilities and unique powers.

However, in its report to parliament, the government plays down the effectiveness of smacking as a method of correction and presents it as a sanction on its way out. The report states that, ‘The government does not condone smacking and believes that other methods of managing children’s behaviour are more effective.’ We are not aware that the government has ever singled out any other method of discipline for negative comment in this way.

Risks to parents

Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 owes more to political expediency than to the protection of children, and concerns about its practical effects remain. The recent review revealed that where the police exercise their discretion not to prosecute a parent for causing a relatively minor injury on the basis that it will not be in the best interests of the child to initiate court proceedings that might lead to a criminal record and run the risk of family breakdown or financial hardship, the case will be recorded as an unsolved crime. The government’s report to parliament notes that:

‘Police officers interviewed argued that it is important that the performance management system of the police does not lead to perverse incentives which result in increases in inappropriate entrances to the criminal justice system.’

Another concern is that parents could be charged with actual bodily harm rather than common assault for very minor incidents in order to deprive them of the reasonable chastisement defence. In 2000, the government accepted submissions from the Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers and other legal bodies that this was a very real possibility, and therefore opted not to propose legislation that ran the risk of ‘overcharging’.

However, if there was a danger of ‘over-charging’ in 2000, following the revision of the Crown Prosecution Service’s charging standards and the publication of strengthened guidance to Crown prosecutors on cases of assault, the risk today is even greater. It is therefore a major shortcoming of the recent review that the government refused to consider whether the new law had led to parents being charged with actual bodily harm for actions which might previously have been charged as common assault.

^ Back to the top ^

 

Is cohabitation a good preparation for marriage?

Raymond J De Souza considers why it is that couples who live together before they marry are more likely to divorce than couples who do not.

In the fourth-year economics seminar I teach at Queen’s University, we cover a range of topics, from globalized trade to the nature of rationality. But one topic seems to attract more interest from the students than others – economics and marriage. Perhaps it is because the senior students are at an age when they are beginning to think about marriage and family questions themselves, or perhaps because it is a topic in which the real-world applications are easy to see.

For example, applying economic principles to divorce law, one would expect that the lower the exit costs from marriage (no-fault divorce, for example), the lower the ‘entrance requirement’ would be (commitment to the marriage). Therefore, if the law makes it easier to get out, it also makes it correspondingly less important to consider the decision to get in. No great surprise there, as it is a basic economic axiom that if you lower the price of something (divorce) there will be an increase in the demand for it.

It is another set of figures, though, that spark the more intense discussion. For about 10 years now there have been many studies, both in Canada and the United States, which show a link between cohabitation before marriage with greater marital instability. That is, couples who live together before they marry are more likely to divorce than couples who do not. This year our seminar had the benefit of the latest Statistics Canada from the 2006 census, which reported again the same phenomenon.

Some students find this counter-intuitive. Their intuition is that if a couple were to live together first, they would learn more about each other, see each other with both strengths and weaknesses, and therefore be able to make a better decision about marriage. It is like a trial period for a new product, or a probationary period in a new job – a chance for the parties to see if it is a good match, with a less costly way to break off the agreement if it is not.

So why do the data show the opposite? Perhaps there might be a ‘selection’ issue, namely that cohabiting couples are less committed to marriage initially than non-cohabiting couples. In that case, when cohabiting couples eventually get around to marrying, their lower level of commitment leads to a higher rate of divorce.

There could be another explanation though, which is that the decision to marry is not really like getting a new product or starting a new job, where functionality and compatibility are key factors. If marriage is something different, then the preparation too should be something different.

What helps marriages to endure is not the compatibility of the spouses or the delight they take in each other. After all, over time people do change, circumstances are different and the pressures of life are brought to bear. Not all age equally gracefully. What enables marriages to endure, and thrive, is the commitment of the spouses to the marriage itself. Most married couples will tell you, quite unsurprisingly, that they could never have imagined beforehand the circumstances that they have faced over the years of the marriage. Keeping one’s promises and a willingness to sacrifice for the other are the foundations of marital and family stability.

The question then arises: Is cohabitation good preparation for keeping one’s promises and learning to sacrifice? Perhaps not. What distinguishes cohabitation from marriage is precisely the absence of the formal promise or solemn commitment. And it is more difficult to make significant sacrifices for the other if there is less confidence in the permanence of the arrangement.

Cohabitation is bad preparation for lasting marriages because it confuses what marriage is about. It mistakes the fruits of marriage – delight in each other, a shared project in life, the joy of children – with what constitutes the essence of marriage itself. The fruits, to mix the metaphor, are the result of the foundation – which is built by duty, commitment, sacrifice, loyalty, perseverance and fidelity. What is needed is not so much a trial period of preparation, but training in those virtues. It turns out, both intuitively and according to the data, that cohabitation is not good preparation for that.

Professor de Souza serves on the faculty of the Department of Economics at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. This article was originally published in the National Post (www.nationalpost.com) and is reproduced here with permission.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Home education guidelines

Following a consultation exercise during the summer, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has published guidelines for local authorities on elective home education.

The guidelines reassert the principle that ‘the responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents… [E]ducation is compulsory, but school is not’, and clarify that:

    • Parents are not required to register or seek approval from the local authority to educate their children at home (2.4);
    • Local authorities should recognise that there are many approaches to educational provision, not just a ‘school at home’ model (2.5);
    • Parents may choose to employ other people to educate their child, though they themselves will continue to be responsible for the education provided (4.8).

Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities, DCSF 2007.

 

^ Back to the top ^

New sponsor: Michael McKenzie CB, QC

We are delighted to welcome Michael McKenzie CB, QC as a sponsor of the Family Education Trust. Prior to his retirement, Mr McKenzie worked in the higher criminal courts of England and Wales for over 42 years and served as head of the Old Bailey for a number of years.

For his last 15 years in office, he held the centuries old titles of Her Majesty the Queen’s Attorney and also her coroner, and Master of the Crown Office. He also served as Master of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.

Mr McKenzie is a professor of law at South Carolina University, an honorary fellow of the University of Canterbury, and a life member of the State Bar of California. He has lectured extensively on English criminal law in America, Canada, Australia and Tasmania.

^ Back to the top ^

ContactPoint to be delayed

The government has announced that it is to delay the introduction of ContactPoint, the information sharing database for children’s services, in the wake of security concerns following the disappearance of two discs containing the personal details of all child benefit recipients. In a written statement, the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, Kevin Brennan, stated that:

‘The news on Tuesday 20 November of the loss of large volumes of child benefit data from HMRC [Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs] has raised questions about the safety of large scale personal data in other Government systems, including ContactPoint.’1

He went on to say that in the light of the security breach at HMRC, the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) was continuing to check its procedures to ensure that standards were as high as they could be. To this end, the Secretary of State had commissioned Deloitte to undertake an independent assessment of his Department’s security procedures.

Mr Brennan stressed that the ‘fundamental design’ of the database would not change, and remained confident that:

‘Delaying the implementation of ContactPoint will enable the independent assessment of security procedures to take place as well as address the changes to ContactPoint that potential system users have told us they need.’2

The statement on ContactPoint was made a week after the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House of Commons that discs containing child benefit records for 25 million individuals and 7.25 million families had gone missing. The discs contained children’s names, addresses and dates of birth, child benefit numbers, national insurance numbers and bank or building society account details.3

Revised timetable

The delay will mean that ContactPoint will no longer be available to all local authorities by the end of 2008 as originally planned. It is now envisaged that it will be deployed to ‘Early Adopter’ local authorities and national partners in September or October 2008, but will not be available across the country until May 2009.4

The recent breaches of security at HMRC have merely heightened widespread concerns about the desirability of a database containing personal data about every child in England. In our response to the DCSF consultation on Draft ContactPoint Guidance during the summer, we expressed concern that ContactPoint would inevitably fall short on each of the key principles that lie at the heart of the project – i.e. simplicity, security, and accuracy.5 These concerns have been echoed by the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas:

‘Recent events have brought a long overdue recognition of the importance of handling personal data with the utmost respect. No one can now be ignorant of the reputational and other risks of getting it wrong. This is not just a matter of ensuring adequate security — it covers, for example, ensuring that excessive personal information is not collected in the first place and that it is accurate and not retained longer than necessary.’6

Notes

1. HC Hansard, 27 November 2007, col 11WS;

2. ibid.;

3. HC Hansard, 20 November 2007 : Column 1102;

4. HC Hansard, 27 November 2007, col 11WS;

5. Family Education Trust response to the DCSF consultation on Draft ContactPoint Guidance, July 2007;

6. Richard Thomas, Information Commissioner, Times, 19 December 2007.

^ Back to the top ^

Denis Riches (1926-2007)

It is often said that behind every successful man there is a woman, but often it works the other way around.

Denis Riches, who passed away on 15 December last, was a trustee of Family Education Trust, but that scarcely conveys the crucial role he played in building up the organisation. Valerie is, of course, well known as the person who created what was first called The Responsible Society, by involving herself in the embryonic campaign following the publication of Dr Ellison’s letter in The Times in 1971. Valerie was for many years Honorary Secretary, then Director, of the society to which she brought her invaluable experience as a medical social worker, as well as being the mother of teenagers.

However, as Valerie herself would be the first to acknowledge, the Trust would not have achieved the prestige and respect it attracted without Denis’s input. He was a tireless worker, not only supporting Valerie in everything she did but adding his own considerable artistic talents and skills acquired in industry.

When I went to work for the Trust in 1984 I stayed for the first few months in Wicken Manor, where I had the opportunity to observe Denis’s phenomenal capacity for work. He would get back from his work as managing director of a leading electronics company then, after dinner, get down to an evening’s work for the society. No job was too arduous: in the days before gift aid, supporters were asked to covenant their subscriptions, which entailed a lengthy process to get a tax refund from the Inland Revenue. Denis did most of this very fiddly work, which resulted in thousands of pounds for the society.

He then discovered a talent for typesetting and design of publications. In the very early days of desktop publishing, when PCs were still a novelty, he began to do the layouts for the Family Bulletin, then for the society’s publications. When he retired from industry he began another career as a publisher and distributor of Catholic books which took off in the most extraordinary way. Family Publications, which began quite literally on a table, now occupies an office in Oxford with its own staff and faithful clientele.

In 1987 Denis was awarded the Family Life Award, and the citation read:

‘Denis Riches has been a tower of strength to Family & Youth Concern since 1972; without his help and financial support the society would have floundered. Patient, generous, never expecting to receive any acclamation or to be noticed for what he does, he works quietly and humbly at any task from licking stamps for the post to editing the society’s publications without any expectation of reward. All those who know Valerie and Denis would say that their harmonious marriage has been further strengthened and cemented by his loving support and encouragement of his wife’s activities.’

It is supremely appropriate that an organisation set up to defend the family based on marriage should have been led by a couple whose marriage was a living testimony to their beliefs, and an inspiration to all who came into contact with them.

Robert Whelan

^ Back to the top ^

Northern Ireland children’s commissioner fails in bid to ban smacking

A High Court Judge has ruled that the Northern Ireland law covering the physical correction of children does not contravene international instruments. In an application for judicial review, the Northern Ireland children’s commissioner had argued that the existence of a defence of reasonable chastisement ran contrary to both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

However, Mr Justice Gillen ruled that, ‘not a single authority, domestic or European, was put before the court which suggested that all physical punishment of children, no matter how trivial, is unlawful’. The Judge dismissed claims that all physical chastisement was inherently ‘inhuman and degrading’ and contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR. He found that punishment must attain to a minimum level of severity to breach the Convention and that Article 3 did not require total abolition.

Judge Gillen also found that the UNCRC did not demand a ban on smacking, and stressed that the government was not committed to accepting interpretations placed on the Convention by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to that effect. He concluded that it is not unreasonable for the government to hold the view that ‘the danger  of criminalising  parents  and the unsuitability of creating a tendency to resort to the criminal justice system for minor physical reprimands is potentially detrimental to parent child relationships’.

The full judgment is available at: http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2007/2007%20NIQB%20115/j_j_GILF7001Final.htm (21 December)

 

^ Back to the top ^

Government to review sex education in schools

In the course of a House of Lords debate on schools, Baroness Massey of Darwen, a former director of the fpa (Family Planning Association), asked the Schools Minister ‘when personal, social and health education [PSHE] will become statutory in schools’. In reply, Lord Adonis stated, ‘I am not in a position to give the dates she seeks as to when it will be made statutory.’

Since the Minister’s response appeared to suggest that the government had agreed in principle to make PSHE a statutory part of the curriculum and that it was a ‘when’ rather than an ‘if’, we wrote to Lord Adonis to seek clarification.

Lord Adonis replied:

‘As you are probably aware, the government recognises that many young people feel that sex and relationship education (SRE) does not currently provide them with the knowledge and skills they need to make safe and responsible choices about relationships and sexual health.

 

‘We therefore plan to undertake a review of delivery of SRE in schools, to help in identifying what improvements are needed and how we might best achieve them. The review will involve young people fully, and this will ensure that future SRE is better equipped to meet their needs. The government is also aware that many parents also have views on how this subject should be taught, and whether or not it should become a statutory requirement in schools.’

The Minister’s reply appears to suggest that young people know better than their parents what their needs are. It is important that we remain vigilant and ensure that parents are also fully involved in the forthcoming review.

^ Back to the top ^

Annual General Meeting and Conference

The 2008 AGM and Conference of the Family Education Trust will be held on Saturday 14 June 2008 at the Royal Air Force Club, 128 Piccadilly, London W1.

We are delighted that Irina Tyk and Ray Lewis have agreed to address us during the afternoon session. Mrs Tyk is headmistress of Holland House School in Edgware and author of The Butterfly Book, a phonic reading course for young children. She will speak on the subject of ‘Education and the Culture’.

Ray Lewis, a former prison governor, is founder of the Eastside Young Leaders Academy in East London. The Academy exists to nurture and develop the leadership potential of young African and Caribbean males, empowering them to become the next generation of successful leaders. Mr Lewis will address us on the principles that lie at the heart of his work, its achievements to date and his vision for the future.

Further details will accompany the Spring bulletin. Please note the date in your diary now and plan to join with us if you are able.

^ Back to the top ^

>