ScotSquid Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I was in town a couple of weeks ago and was handed a leaflet about this. I'd never heard of it til then. Against its purpose reading the leaflet attacking the scheme actually made me warm to it. For those who know a lot more about it than me, is it a good idea to protect children? Or nanny state authoritarian rubbish from the SNP? I was immediately concerned by the UKIP esque 'parents should be left to parent' dross the anti leaflet was peddling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 On the basis that a load of full time mummies on my facebook have been moaning about this, I fully support it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Think they used to be called 'friends' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 My job involves named person implementation. It is a far more sensible system having one point of contact and one plan and one set of records for a child than health, social work, education and community work all having their own systems which don't speak to each other and things getting missed. Almost every tragedy the investigation shows the child and family had contact with multiple agencies, information wasn't shared and chances to intervene missed. The No2NP lot are nutter Christians, nutter libertarians and nutter Christian libertarians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 On the basis that a load of full time mummies on my facebook have been moaning about this, I fully support it Aye the same lot that want to lynch social services for not acting when some bairn gets battered to death by their stepdad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 We've covered it as part of the PGDE and I support it. I think allowing greater cooperation between different organs of the government and services through a person with contact with a child is a good thing. There's too many instances of a lack of cooperation allowing children to slip through the cracks and get lost as they grow up and hopefully this addresses that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Seems like a good idea from my point of view. Guidance teachersin secondary schools massively struggle to do the job with the sheer volume of paperwork these days. But it could also be fucked up. Devil in the detail and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Seems like a good idea from my point of view. Guidance teachersin secondary schools massively struggle to do the job with the sheer volume of paperwork these days. But it could also be fucked up. Devil in the detail and all that. For schools the named person will be the Head Teacher, Depute Head or a Guidance teacher. Given the cutbacks in those roles - my own school has gone from 5 to 3 deputes and from 8 to 5 Guidance teachers - my worry is that it might just be too much of a workload with all the other initiatives and pressures on the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Two competing top 10s: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/named-person/top-ten http://no2np.org/named-person/ Seems well-intentioned, but also somewhat intrusive and nanny-stating. The workload seems like a considerable hurdle. Proof, pudding, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted December 5, 2015 Author Share Posted December 5, 2015 Yeah, it looks a good policy to me on the face of it. My concerns with it would be the usual SNP ones. Will they allocate enough funding to properly finance it. Or just wash their hands of it and tell people to work smarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cb_diamond Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 To be honest Pupil Support (guidance ) have been doing this job anyway within their case loads for years, coordination and keeping all the records. Remember also that as well as the Named Person there can also be a Lead Professional, which is when a case gets too heavy and another agency need to step in and lead, eg Social Worker in a Child Protection case, so that would supersede the Named Persons authority. It's a good idea imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Doesnt Edinburgh already have this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotSquid Posted December 5, 2015 Author Share Posted December 5, 2015 Doesnt Edinburgh already have this? They said they've been piloting it so it's maybe that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 They said they've been piloting it so it's maybe that... Aah ok cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Doesnt Edinburgh already have this? It's been up and running for a while. It makes a degree of sense. As observed elsewhere, the Lead Professional would be more of a key figure in cases where there is genuine concern. There are difficulties however, attached to the fact that for the vast majority of kids, the named person spends up to a quarter of the year on holiday. I don't think these have been addressed. It's all part of the broader GIRFEC agenda and it's well meaning and will prove effective much of the time. Any idiot suggesting that parents should be left to parent, has not met a broad range of the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 There really shouldn't be any additional workload for guidance teachers. They would have been taking on a pastoral care role with pupils anyway, if anything duplication of effort will be avoided. Also important to note that the Named Person will not always be the lead professional identified to coordinate the single child's plan. They will just be the main contact in the first instance for welfare concerns and to ensure a single child's planning meeting is called. The three localities I have sight of have all put in additional administrate support to help with this. As for the nanny state pish. The "nanny state" has always existed. Teachers, health professionals and social workers have always had an eye on children and families and have always had statutory powers to act where there this a child protection or welfare concern. All this does is coordinate that. There has always been named persons but the problem before is that they were not many, overlapping, did not communicate with each other or families. It's also completely untrue to say every child will have a named person or "state guardian". Every child will have access to a named person service. Unless statutory child protection measures are put in place child and family engagement with the named person service is voluntary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Doesnt Edinburgh already have this?Yes.Everyone should have been piloting their NP service for a while now. Full implementation in every LA needs to be in place by August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 It's been up and running for a while.It makes a degree of sense. As observed elsewhere, the Lead Professional would be more of a key figure in cases where there is genuine concern. There are difficulties however, attached to the fact that for the vast majority of kids, the named person spends up to a quarter of the year on holiday. I don't think these have been addressed.It's all part of the broader GIRFEC agenda and it's well meaning and will prove effective much of the time.Any idiot suggesting that parents should be left to parent, has not met a broad range of the species.f**k multi quote I'm on my phone.Scot gov can't legislate for holiday times because the additional support and pastoral care for school age children varies significantly from one local authority to the next. It is therefore up to LAs how they deal with that. However every LA will have some sort of 52 week school support service which is what every authority I have spoken to are using. Every LA will have this covered it's just specific roles can not be explicitly named in guidance. Your last point is unfortunately spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 There really shouldn't be any additional workload for guidance teachers. They would have been taking on a pastoral care role with pupils anyway, if anything duplication of effort will be avoided. Also important to note that the Named Person will not always be the lead professional identified to coordinate the single child's plan. They will just be the main contact in the first instance for welfare concerns and to ensure a single child's planning meeting is called. The three localities I have sight of have all put in additional administrate support to help with this. As for the nanny state pish. The "nanny state" has always existed. Teachers, health professionals and social workers have always had an eye on children and families and have always had statutory powers to act where there this a child protection or welfare concern. All this does is coordinate that. There has always been named persons but the problem before is that they were not many, overlapping, did not communicate with each other or families. It's also completely untrue to say every child will have a named person or "state guardian". Every child will have access to a named person service. Unless statutory child protection measures are put in place child and family engagement with the named person service is voluntary. Is it untrue to say that every child will have a Named Person? My understanding is that that's exactly what every child gets in a bid to get it right for each of them. As you say though, only a small proportion will need access to the services that person can activate. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. You're absolutely right in saying that this actually changes little. The idea of individuals having explicit responsibility in this regard is to be welcomed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mortar Bored Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 f**k multi quote I'm on my phone. Scot gov can't legislate for holiday times because the additional support and pastoral care for school age children varies significantly from one local authority to the next. It is therefore up to LAs how they deal with that. However every LA will have some sort of 52 week school support service which is what every authority I have spoken to are using. Every LA will have this covered it's just specific roles can not be explicitly named in guidance. Your last point is unfortunately spot on. IA, you seem to be extremely well informed on these matters and provide a good insight for those of us not completely understanding of the machinations of child protection/ assistance issues. For that, thanks. If you don't mind me asking (in a non-stalkerish way), what is your job/link to this legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.