To baulk at the phrase 'achieve economic well-being' in the 'Every Child Matters' 5 outcomes?

[Druzhok]

WTF? I spotted this in an OFTSED report.

Dh (a teacher) tells me that the 5th of the Every Child Matters outcomes is to ensure that children and young people are supported to achieve economic well-being.

Or, as I read it, groomed to be little corporate drones.

Economic wellbeing! I don't like it at all!

The other 4, by the way, are:

?be healthy
?stay safe
?enjoy and achieve
?make a positive contribution

They ^ all seem great.

Economic wellbeing!!! I keep muttering it to myself and getting cross

Thats all very well if you don't need a nanny. But there are vast numbers of people who seem to have little grasp of economic basics, can't budget and don't understand how to manage their money. They, and more importantly their children, do need lessons, and maybe we will all be better for it.
If you have school age children surely you know that your home standards and lessons are still more important?

litchick - everyone needs to earn money; do they? how much? what about periods of your life when you can't? how much are people worth if they can't earn money for a time/their whole lives? economic well-being is more complicated than that IMO

A large part of going to school is about attempting to achieve economic wellbeing. You don't go to school simply to learn but also to be examined on what you have learnt. Those examinations will determine whether or not you can enter various different careers.

I can see the other side of the argument though. Part of whether or not someone can achieve economic wellbeing is whether or not the state helps to create a society in which that is going to be a realistic goal for everyone.

Yes, I would be concerned about exactly that kind of (mis)information, Litchick.

But I think I misinterpreted this initiative from the start: or, rather, interpreted it a way other than intended. The people who actually deliver the initiative are saying that the agenda is far more general than that. It's not financial advice per se.

I suspect that some of my resistance is a remnant of a somewhat childish 'being sensible with money is for squares' impulse within me. I've certainly been pretty careless with it in the past, even if I've been forced by circumstance to be careful in recent years.

And yes, my carelessness was facilitated by the generous support of the Bank of Dad, so I suppose I would want my children to be more informed and careful. Particularly as I'll be the Bank this time ...

makataitia - you see we're already at odds as to what that part of the curriculum should cover...and I'm sure many of us would have very very different views.
This isn't like learning Latin, where we'd probably all agree that conjugating verbs and declensions should form part of the course.
Which is why I have misgivings...this one size fits all stuff makes my teeth itch.

Litchick, I would say that 'economic well-being' allows far more flexibility than 'everyone has to earn money', and that it's precisely because it isn't one-size-fits-all that it's quite useful. We've had a National Curriculum for - is it 22 years now? - so there must be something to it, surely?

'Which is why I have misgivings...this one size fits all stuff makes my teeth itch'

One size doesn't fit all though!!
There are so many different ways of fulfilling this outcome like I have said in my previous post.

These outcomes are about helping and supporting young people to grow and develop to the best of their abilities and give them opportunities that will help them as an indvidual rather than giving them a template that has to suit everyone.

All my projects have y.p. that have different needs. Some are very high achieving and ambitioius and others are from backgrounds whose parents struggle to clothe and feed them, other group have SEN and we support them all within the 5 outcomes. 1 size would definatly not fit all the y.p. that I work with.

Well what would you include in it? And let's see if we agree. And if we don't, do you get to impose your curriculum on my DCs? Or mine on yours?
Economic well being, I would say, is bound up in politics and morality. Very tricky.

As for the national curiculum - I don't see that it has had much effect upon standards across the board and has resulted in a lot of great teachers feeling constrained.
I deliberately chose a school for my DCs that didn't worry about it.

you see, I have aspirations (although I can't spell it , I know how to budget, I know how to cook healthy food, etc etc.

But I have no issues with any of these things being "promoted" in schools, to my children. despite my current situation I am a "lucky" one, I already have the knowledge, and the support to improve my situation in the future. If my children end up being "nannyed" and I get information sheets home telling me about stuff I already know, so what. They're not targeting me directly, but doing this stuff through schools is probably the most cost effective way of ensure that as the majority of people have access to it.

I listed what I thought it should include earlier in the thread. However, I'm not the head teacher of a school, nor even on the Curriculum Committee of a school. Their job to sort that one out, thank goodness

Good for you for finding a school that doesn't worry about the NC, I'd agree I would always hope that a school would do what it wants and then check over the NC to be sure that there were no actual conflicts, than to use the NC as some kind of template.

Previous post was to Makataitai.

Upahill - I coompletely agree that the things you are doing are essential for those children. I too have spent many years working wiht children the care system. But the point it the state is their parent and thus have to step in and do things that other families are doing for themselves.

I think resources should b etargeted at the most in need, not spread around everyone, including those that frankly don;t want or need it.

It's all going to change in September, DH tells m; far more flexible, apparently.

but how do you work out who is "most at need"???

believe me, we looked very comfortably off when I was at school, my parents were paying out ££££££'s buying music books and train fares for me to go to boarding school (they didn't pay any fees as it was aided, or is it assisted I get them mixed up) but underneath they were a financial mess. Neither of them had (or have now) any idea of how to manage their money, so as we didn't live in a deprived area, and we didn't "look" like we were doing badly we wouldn't have been targetted. And believe me, that lack of financial skills hit hard in my 20's. Thankfuly I had the decent education behind me to learn how to sort it out and am now pretty good at it (if I say so myself).

Or what about the families who live on takeaways and microwave meals because it's easier.........but they have a decent income, so aren't obvious "targets"

tocca - I see what you're saying but my concerns are

1. Blanket coverage costs ££££. Far better to leave most families alone and spend time and money on those children who really need it.
2. Who decides what's in the blanket coverage? science and politics change daily. Are we certain all of these messages are the right ones?

Would you take advice on climate change from George Bush? Or pensions advice from Gordon Brown? 3.Constant state intervention makes people more reliant on the state. We are intelligent and capable - we don't need to be told by the state to eat well, avoid drugs,take exercise. We know this stuff as did generations before us.

C'mon, we're not lemmings. We don't need to be led by the nose.

but how do you know which children really need it?

No-one ever knew what an awful situation my parents were in, no-one involved with my children in a professional capacity (schools/nursery/hv) new about how badly we were struggling just a few years ago,

I think the risk of trying to second guess who needs the help and who doesn't (as it's not so black and white as "they're poor they need help, they're doing ok they don't") is much greater than the risk of offending a few people who already know the stuff.

The fact is many people AREN'T capable of finding it out for themselves, they don't have the means/knowledge/confidence to seek help. In the past those people were left to fend for themselves, and "oh dear they're living in poverty what a shame" "oh dear they're going to develop diabetes or kill themselves with that lifestyle what a shame" existed.

Just because you and I don't need to be led by the nose, does't mean that everyone is that fortunate. and the point of the ECM is to make sure that those that aren't fortunate enough to be able to sort it themselves (for whatever reason) aren't just left on the scrap heap.

'we don't need to be told by the state to eat well, avoid drugs,take exercise'

well there's not much evidence of that tbh - are you possbily living in a different country Litchick?

Litchick, if it's so obvious that everyone should eat well, avoid drugs, take exercise and work and manage their finances responsibly, then why do we have so many crises in all of those areas?

i suppose it's also evident what interpretation of science, religion, teaching method for literacy, etc. should be used in schools?

It's called free will.

i'm not asking what it's called, i'm questioning the success of its application.

Well thus far the healthy eating and safe drinking programmes imposed by the governemnt have been a resounding success.

So, no, I don't think there is any efficacy whatsoever in these campaigns.

But that is a different issue as to whether I belive the state should get involved in the moral maze of family life.

Here's the thing there are over 70,00 children in the crae system. The state are their parents. These children have the worst outcomes of any children in this county. The state are letting them down. David Milliband accepted that it was a disgrace.
Let's let the state concentrate on its own children and leave mine and yours alone.

God, that is a truly saddening fact. 70,000 'children of the state'.

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, but just wanted to add, that I teach sixth form - and for us, it is one of the few every child matters things that actually make sense. We have to embed ECM into our SoW, and for some of them we end up making ridiculous points - like being healthy - I'm putting things down like 'free access to fresh water' and so on...

But, the economic well-being one is actually a significant factor for us. Many of our students have to work, so to make college work for them, we need to make sure that college and college demands fit in with work. For example, we have a lot of students who go to work in a call centre in the evenings, after doing a full day in college - so we need to be careful not to do things like set homework one evening and to expect it in the next day, or even the day after because it negatively affects those who financially need to work to support themselves (and some students do this totally, I have several students aged 16/17 who do not live at home with their parents). Also, we need to ensure that students have access to the materials and that the books etc remain affordable and accessible to them. Some of the books we might be expecting them to read for homework can cost £20 a book, and again some students can struggle to afford to buy the necessary books and to keep up with the background reading (and there are never enough copies in the library). So, ecomonic well being is one of the few ECM points, where we do have to make serious considerations about how all our students can access all of the learning resources and keep up to date with their work and so on...

But there are other ones that I suspect are very useful in the lower years (such as staying safe), that we really struggle to make valid points on!

It gets worse.
A half of all female care leavers are pregnant.
A thrid of this country's homless have been in care.
60% of young offenders are in or have been through the care system.
Less than 10% leave school with 5 GCSEs.

I could go on and on.

The state parents these children. They need to concentrate on them and not the vast swathes of kids in the uk who are loved and lucky.

helokitty - that is very interesting thank you.
I think it's imperative that an ed establishment makes sure that practically its pupils can learn. And I'm interested that this part of ECM helps you.
Actually I have a lot less issue with this than the ideological stuff iyswim.

I'm all for making text books accessible. I'm against telling students how best to plan for their future in a prescriptive way.

Litchchick - we could get a grip on stats like those if we were more decisive and less naive about putting babies born to seriously dysfunctional parents up for adoption at the first opportunity. As it is, we waste precious time trying to rehabilitate drug-addled, violent, terminally useless lost causes, at the expense of their children's emotional wellbeing, whilst they are passed from pillar to post around the care system. By the time we admit defeat the damage is irreparable.