No funding for new child named person scheme(66 Posts)
Apparently some authorities have no extra cash for this scheme.
Our LA has sacked all the Teaching Assistants, I wonder what else will be cut to fund this new legislation? It sounds a half baked plan to me.
Haven't read the article yet, but DH was telling me that teachers and school staff were refusing to be responsible during the school holidays for those children allocated to them under the named person scheme. Which I suppose is obvious when you think about it so that would mean that for the long summer holidays in particular the majority of school age children will not actually have a named person who is actively looking after their interests.
Dh also wondered if the named persons (people?) would be charged with making sure that all the 16 and 17 year old children in their care get to the polling station to lodge their vote for SNP.
Now there's a surprise, the SNP coming up with a hare brained scheme and not putting any money in place for it...
I am completely opposed to the Named Person scheme, it is an invasion of privacy of the 99.9% of us who are competent and caring parents.
A named person will not solve or prevent child abuse or neglect imo its a half arsed idea that will never work being a named person will only add to that persons probably already packed workload the responsibility will be immense (sp)
I think the teachers and health visitors must have been offered
bribes extra pay to take this on because all teachers I know feel very overworked already as the cuts to social care etc mean they already have more responsibilities for disadvantaged DCs in school. There must have been an incentive to take on this extra work - plus it runs 365 days a year, you can't schedule when a child needs support! Who in their right mind would take that on?
Add to that all the transgenderism legislation which means providing support for possiibly transitioning children (from primary age up), which again will fall onto teacher's shoulders as there is cut backs in social services, and it means teachers will barely have time to teach.
Teachers and health visitors weren't bribed - they were told that it was happening and given no choice over the matter. (So that's fair).
In essence, I can see the benefits of having one person coordinating all the different agencies involved with a child. But unless there are very good reasons to the contrary, that person should be the parent!! Schools and health visitors should only be meddling with families who either ask for their support, or raise red flags that they're not coping.
It sounds a huge amount of work for a named person to take on on top of other duties, can't believe they are not paid more for doing this!
I feel it was sold as a central go-to for parents of children with disabilities which is good in theory but that doesn't mean the resources for those children will be there any more than they are now. And instead it is a sneaky way to gather info on Dcs at a risk of abuse, also a good idea in theory, but gathering info on all dcs at the same time is too much like Big Brother watching you.
Social care and NHS are supposedly combined now so you just needed to insist the schools and/or police passed any concerns to SS and everything was joined up without sticking another link in the chain.
I feel trust between GPs/HVisitors and the public will be damaged - if I wanted sleeping pills as I was going through a difficult divorce, would I want that passed to the school/named person, would I want HV popping in to check on DCs. I think that's the last I would want, so upshot would be I would lie to doctor as to reason for visit.
Depute in charge of pastoral care at ds' school is relaxed about the legislation; he doesn't see it as changing that much from the good practice that they already follow and in some circumstances will make life easier for them when there are issues.
Not sure how holidays will be covered though. Must get someone on the Parent Council to ask.
This is probably a really silly question, but when I was a school I had a guidance teacher, and I'm pretty sure their remit was pretty similar to the named person thing. Am I completely wrong?
I think it's now called "Pastoral Care" and yes, according to the deput in charge of pastoral care at ds' school, nothing much changes.
Could be that schools that are not following good practice re pastoral care (and dh experienced a safeguarding issue at another school where they didn't respond appropriately ) will struggle.
I think that is a point. The good schools do it anyway.
I am abut health visitor having more powers as I had good ones (lovely, kind person) and a pia who brushed aside any concerns I had. I could easily have fallen out with her and not sure where that would put me in being regarded an able parent.
Ditto re HVs which is why I was initially wary of the legislation. Ds was a "non-failure-to-thrive" baby (he dropped off the growth charts until he'd completed his "catch down") so I avoided HVs while I got loads of support from the maternity hospital and the breastfeeding counsellors there.
However, once I read up on the legislation for myself
as opposed to the fear mongering from N2NP, I was less concerned.
I think you have more faith than me prettybird - but I am a bit of a pessimist.
I'd prefer a temporary hold on things whilst the many questions raised are clarified.
Correcting things after the event would be the more expensive way to do it imo.
The govt. have already spent £61million if not more on named persons.
If nothing is changing why has the govt passed 8 pages worth of statutes into law, or are trying to? Of course this is a game changer... Don't believe their lies when they say nothing is changing,.
Yes it will make things easier for the govt. because they can share data with whoever they think it's appropriate to share it with and without your consent.
stkildasnun that's a good point. Your a GP will be required to tell named persons about your health if they think it might harm your children's wellbeing. Your health as a parent/adult is one of the risk indicators in the assessment papers.
Prettybird the school will have to do things very differently - the law changes what they can record and who they can share it with - good schools definitely do not do this now. If someone has told you that they either don't realise what the changes mean or they don't want you to know how far reaching the changes are.
Have a read of this www.dartington.org.uk/inc/uploads/Evidence2Success(UK)_independent_evaluation.pdf
These surveys are already going out to school kids in Perth & Kinross, Dundee and several other councils. I wonder how these surveys will tie into named persons and how many kids will be flagged as being in danger based on their answers. I expect the named person will be very busy...
I have evidence that the person who is to become my child's NP has interfered in communication between my child's teacher and my child's GP.
How can this be okay?
It's scary imo wheelofapps - I was going to suggest you write to your msp, once they are in office, but really, that puts you at risk of being branded troublesome and even that you are making it look as if you are innocent and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of those in authority, when you are not!!
wheelofapps some councils have implemented NP early though I cant see how they can do that given the legislation hasn't been passed. if they have broken the law at this point in time the person should be accountable - make a formal complaint.
peggy - problem is, the 'authority' you complain to, is the one who has set the legislation. It is 1984, pure and simple.
I spoke to my MSP 4 years ago when we were reported to SS for 'potential emotional abuse' for asking for a Dyslexia assessment for my child. (SS never took the case forward). MSP told me to be 'very careful as I had obviously put noses out of joint'. 4 years later, the LA have assessed ds as Dyslexic. He still gets no qualified learning support.
NS on Radio 4 two days ago.
Caller has Qu about NP scheme and is fairly frothing about it.
Mentions Nazi's and Korea (!).
NS doesn't miss a beat.
Says: 'we've been doing it in the Highlands since 2007'.
'if there are no "concerns" about your child, you don't have to engage'.
What she doesn't say is: 'if you don't engage that automatically raises a Red Flag about your parenting and your child then becomes a child with "concerns" so you cannot withdraw engagement'.
My heids like mince at the moment, I've lost the plot on what age this applies up to, is it 18 or 16?
So, if I have a married and living independent 17 year old who is still at school. He has some ishoos that come to light to his named person at school, say he's depressed and under age drinking or something. Would I still be responsible or are they going to be chasing his 18 year old partner as the responsible adult for him? I know that scenario is unlikely, but it's not impossible.
Of course if it only applies until age 16 then that doesn't apply. With any luck mine both might turn 16 before this nonsense comes in. I have nothing to hide btw. but I think, for example, that if my son goes to the GP at age 14/15 and they don't have to inform me why as it's his private business (which I think is fair enough) then I don't think it's right that his teacher then knows about that if he doesn't want them to. It's either private or it's not. It's probably an easier scenario to understand if say a girl goes to get birth control and doesn't want her parents to know but this information is obtained by the named person when they gather in some data as she is showing some undesirable behaviours at school.
I live in a small village and some things you wouldn't want passed from GP surgery to school or vice versa.
Wheelofapps breaking data protection laws is a big deal. You don't complain to the authority who has broken then law you would complain to the information commissioners office.
I listened to NS on the radio, the guy who phoned in didn't know enough about the legislation to keep knocking NS down, she got an easy ride from him.
Join the discussion
Please login first.