"Touchy-feel" approach damaging our children

[PrimaryTeacherabc]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13120983/touchy-feely-parenting-therapy-Generation-Z-loneliest-depressed-young-people.html

Interesting article and new book written by Abigail Shrier. Here are some facts and quotes from some scientific research.

"Anyone born between 1995 and 2012, are less likely to go on dates, get a job, get a driving licence, socialise with friends, own a house, and much more likely than those born from 1980 to 1995 to develop depression, social anxiety, feel fragile and unable to cope with life. From 2012 onwards, despite a massive increase in children getting more mental health support, than in decades before, the mental health of our children and young people has never been so poor. "

" Whatever the issue, dish out the drugs". Increasingly, instead encouraging children to behave, be respectful, follow the rules, we make excuses and give them drugs. They have ADHD. They have this disorder, that disorder. Is this really helpful to absolve them of all responsibilities and just label them as ill?

The research goes onto say, that children arn't getting dirty, they arn't facing risks, they arn't having to learn how to face disappointment, they arn't being exposed to anything which encourages children to learn how to deal with rejection, disapproval, fear and therefore in later life have little strategies to draw on. Children are shocked when they grow up, and the real world hits them in the face like a thunder bolt (where people don't bring them a hot chocolate and have restorative chat).

There will be plenty of opinions but I agree with this. Dreadful behaviour in many schools, increasing mental health disorders, frustration at an all time high. An important time for schools to reflect on what we are doing to prepare our children for what is a hard life ahead for most. If only we didn't keep pretending that the world is warm and fluffy, they might be able to cope better?

Well, tbh a large proportion of that demographic are still children so of course fewer are going to be getting jobs, buying houses and dating etc. They are also two completely different life stages and economies. Only those born in 2006 onwards will be 18 years old and many of those in university or still in 6th form/college, which means we are comparing 9 years in that bracket with 15 years in the earlier age bracket. The 1980-1995 bracket will have all finished education, those that went to uni will have completed their degrees, potentially even postgrad qualifications, they've had longer to save. I mean, I am only just in that age bracket and I've only just bought a house whereas my parents were mortgage free at my age, with 5 kids and no formal education.

I do think we are setting the kids up to fail in some respects, especially since covid, but I don't think this is a very good article at proving that. It just reinforces the opinions of people who have a bias and no critical skills.

This is pretty par for the course for a story from the Daily Mail, the Sun, Fox News etc. Which is to say it lays out a universally acknowledged problem, then blames that problem on something they know their readers already hate.

We love these types of articles because they make us feel like we are grappling with an important issue, without actually having to re-examine any of our opinions.

An important time for schools to reflect on what we are doing to prepare our children for what is a hard life ahead for most

Surely preparation for life is a parental responsibility? Our job is to teach, push kids through qualifications so they are in.the best possible place, educationally speaking, to move on to the next phase of their life.

The issue is not how behaviour is managed in schools but how schools are expected to do everything for children, spoon feed them rhrough exams and expect to go on capability if our results are not quite where the statistics say they should be. Parents blaming us for their children's behaviour.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68399392.amp

Another very interesting report. Of course poor parenting plays a massive part, but why are schools implementing new "soft" behaviour policies, restorative chats, taking away the clouds and only having the suns, when the most successful people statistically, are those brought up in a time when police could police, teachers could discipline, risks could be taken (little of the intense health and safety we have now), and so on. What was different about parenting and schooling in the late 80's and 90's that produced statically, happier, more resilient people? Young people coming out of education in the 90's, were much more likely not to be too ill to work.

Yet, the highest percentage of suicides is in people over the age of 40, in both men and women, with the overall number of suicides dropping. The highest number of antidepressants are taken by those over the age of 40 too. Perhaps there is something in the new generation's obsession with MH. It depends on how you value success. Are you someone who values the number of hours you put in at work? Or someone who values rich life experiences and work being a means to accumulate those?

I do think behaviour is getting worse and standards are slipping. But then, I think of early career teachers and ITTs doing a pupil pursuit and struggling, yet we expect children to do this day in, day out with much less developed brains. Maybe what we need to do is move towards a more European system where schools finish earlier giving students the opportunity to burn off energy and spend sufficient time doing homework and revising for exams and still have time for hobbies. Maybe the issue is on teacher scrutiny and blame (results, behaviour, attendance, it's all our fault!) rather than purely the students themselves.

I mean, let's take attendance as a prime example. This generation of parents seem to let their kids stay off school for every bug and virus going. Probably because a lot more wfh whereas in our days, schools were required more as childcare so we were sent to school regardless because mum and dad had to go to work. If a child rang in and they were genuinely unwell, should we be persuading them to come in and infect others, and take longer to recover? If schools didn't have to report attendance figures or P8 scores, how many would just check for a pattern in case of safeguarding but then accept it, rather than complaining about the number of children off nowadays and their lack of resilience.

Meh it's just the usual crap the media, especially the Daily Fail, like to pump out 'everybody has ASD or ADHD now and they're all drugged up', 'SEN kids are using up all the councils money' 'kids are all snowflakes now', 'parents are to blame for everything', 'teachers are to blame for everything'.

It's just nonsense that children magically become resilient by doing badly and repeatedly failing at stuff and being left alone to work it all out for themselves. It's just absolute bullshit. Resilience comes when you have high self esteem as that is what allows you to cope with the knockbacks, and someone teaching you healthy strategies for dealing with disappointment so you don't find self harm or alcohol to be the answer to your problems.

Letting little Johnny fall out a tree and in a puddle 20 times on the other hand does not develop resilience. Failing your GCSEs is not going to develop resilience. And secondary schools where you have sometimes over 1000 teenage kids knocking around together with the huge potential for bullying, isolation, work/test pressure, social media, etc are not the best places to be developing high self esteem or resilience. These are 'risks' the kids constantly face.

I had to particularly laugh at idea that there was a massive increase in children getting support for their mental health. Getting support? Do they have any idea how difficult, no impossible, it is to get any kind of help or support for children with mental health problems? What an absolute load of shite.

Nearly a quarter of women 40 -60 are on antidepressants, higher than any other age bracket and in men it's the same for men 40 - 69 the highest age group for antidepressants. Where's their resilience huh? Nearly a quarter on anti depressants? If only they'd been allowed to get a bit more dirty I guess.

Exactly this