The Named Person Scheme

[MassiveFanDan]

There was a post on Labour Hame that called the Named Person legislation an "attack on the working class."

When it was pointed out by a commenter that the policy for "named person(s)" was first proposed in 2004, when Labour were in power at Holyrood, in a document called "Protecting Children and Young People: The Charter", a deep silence fell.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2004/04/19082/34410

[Crossbill]

MassiveFanDan, on 05 Dec 2015 - 23:12, said:MassiveFanDan, on 05 Dec 2015 - 23:12, said:

There was a post on Labour Hame that called the Named Person legislation an "attack on the working class."

When it was pointed out by a commenter that the policy for "named person(s)" was first proposed in 2004, when Labour were in power at Holyrood, in a document called "Protecting Children and Young People: The Charter", a deep silence fell.

That's the problem with being faux-outraged for political ends rather than actually having any sincere beliefs, you forget what you pretended to support and object to in the past.

Big thanks to IA for his input to this thread.

[NotThePars]

There was a post on Labour Hame that called the Named Person legislation an "attack on the working class."

When it was pointed out by a commenter that the policy for "named person(s)" was first proposed in 2004, when Labour were in power at Holyrood, in a document called "Protecting Children and Young People: The Charter", a deep silence fell.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2004/04/19082/34410

The same thing's happened (at least with some Labour supporters) over Curriculum for Excellence as most people think it's only just been formulated with the introduction of the National 3-5 rather than being something which has been in place for about a decade.

[invergowrie arab]

There was a post on Labour Hame that called the Named Person legislation an "attack on the working class."

When it was pointed out by a commenter that the policy for "named person(s)" was first proposed in 2004, when Labour were in power at Holyrood, in a document called "Protecting Children and Young People: The Charter", a deep silence fell.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2004/04/19082/34410

There is an absolute nugget called Stuart Waiton who is a senior lecturer at Abertay (LOL) in Sociology (LOL) who tries to sell this narrative. He also calls the criminlisation of sectarian singing an attack on the working class too.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The same thing's happened (at least with some Labour supporters) over Curriculum for Excellence as most people think it's only just been formulated with the introduction of the National 3-5 rather than being something which has been in place for about a decade.

A lot of people argued against CfE when it was first proposed by Labour - myself included. One of the major objections was that it would lead to pupils treading water not just for two years in S1 and S2 but for a third year in S3. Some LAs have recognised this and are now effectively paying lip service to Broad General Education in S3 by allowing schools to start National courses in S3 (but not actually be assessed until S4).

Personally I think there needs to be a major rethink of CfE in the junior phase as it is not preparing pupils at all for either examinations in the Senior phase or the world of work beyond.

[Gordon EF]

Well, it depends. Some aspects of these things you know nothing about are good, however there's an argument to be had that some are bad.

This has given me a lot to mull over. i'll need some time to process this.

Thanks. x

[NotThePars]

A lot of people argued against CfE when it was first proposed by Labour - myself included. One of the major objections was that it would lead to pupils treading water not just for two years in S1 and S2 but for a third year in S3. Some LAs have recognised this and are now effectively paying lip service to Broad General Education in S3 by allowing schools to start National courses in S3 (but not actually be assessed until S4).

Personally I think there needs to be a major rethink of CfE in the junior phase as it is not preparing pupils at all for either examinations in the Senior phase or the world of work beyond.

They're bringing back national testing probably to address your last point. Not directly to address YOU obvs but you know what I mean. Tbh, I think CfE is a great idea but its implementation has been half-hearted and met with resistance. A more holistic approach to education could and should yield more well-rounded students but the demands for results and the noticeable shift from BGE to the Nationals and Highers hasn't been effectively addressed.

[Monkey Tennis]

They're bringing back national testing probably to address your last point. Not directly to address YOU obvs but you know what I mean. Tbh, I think CfE is a great idea but its implementation has been half-hearted and met with resistance. A more holistic approach to education could and should yield more well-rounded students but the demands for results and the noticeable shift from BGE to the Nationals and Highers hasn't been effectively addressed.

Yes, pretty much this.

To be implemented fully though, would require a real and expensive change in the structuring of secondary schools, that hasn't come about. Primaries are better suited to its delivery, but there are problems there related to recording and reporting of progress, which as you say, testing is designed to address.

We have a culture in this country of expecting academic progress to be rigidly monitored in distinct curricular areas. CfE really requires a move from that but that in turn requires a certain leap of faith.

There are also issues attached to how it marries with the senior phase where suddenly, nobody pretends that it's about much other than performance in certificate courses.

[Mark Connolly]

I also have grave concerns over things I know nothing about. Can someone tell me whether they're good or bad please?

This a great question, but the real question is something so unrelated that you can't quite understand how I have managed to segue into speaking about it. That's the real question.

[Gordon EF]

For crying out loud are you capable of debating with people who don't share your views at ANY sort of level above puerile?

It genuinely worries me to have people like you in any sort of position of responsibility for vulnerable people.

Some people are so thick (you, for example), you're as well debating with a brick wall. So puerile is the only route left.

[Gullane No 4]

I'm sorry Kev you are absolutely correct.

If you can tell me specifically what it is about NP or GIRFEC that has changed from the previous system,or indeed any aspect of the new Children's Act that concerns you and I will do my best to answer those concerns.

Is Kev still thunking?

[Todders]

There is an absolute nugget called Stuart Waiton who is a senior lecturer at Abertay (LOL) in Sociology (LOL) who tries to sell this narrative. He also calls the criminlisation of sectarian singing an attack on the working class too.

Hey! Abertay is a fine establishment. It made me the barely employable layabout I am today.

[MarkoRaj]

Heartening to see people on here having sensible opinions on this rather than the grotesquely irresponsible 'state guardian' whining coming out of the scheme's opponents.

All it takes is some quick research. Sadly some people don't look past the author before coming to a judgement

[the snudge]

Who is the named persons childrens named person?

[Monkey Tennis]

Who is the named persons childrens named person?

Good question actually.

It must happen frequently that the person who would be named person due to their role (particularly in school) would be the named person for their own child.

I'm not sure if there's any guidance on whether anything needs done about such instances.

[invergowrie arab]

Good question actually.It must happen frequently that the person who would be named person due to their role (particularly in school) would be the named person for their own child.I'm not sure if there's any guidance on whether anything needs done about such instances.

Different in every area. Could be another teacher in the school, guidance, HT, deputy etc would take that role.

Or it could someone from a central education support team or child protection team who have a Council wide remit. Some people use these teams for holiday time named person too.

[Monkey Tennis]

Different in every area. Could be another teacher in the school, guidance, HT, deputy etc would take that role.

Would there be a requirement that it be someone other than a parent, if it would normally have fallen that it was?

[invergowrie arab]

Would there be a requirement that it be someone other than a parent, if it would normally have fallen that it was?

No, the guidance isn't that specific. It would just be good practice.

In a multi-agency intervention there the role of NP might actually me fairly minimal, merely convening the single child's planning meeting and the bulk of work taken on by the lead professional.

[Monkey Tennis]

No, the guidance isn't that specific. It would just be good practice.

In a multi-agency intervention there the role of NP might actually me fairly minimal, merely convening the single child's planning meeting and the bulk of work taken on by the lead professional.

Yes, I suppose it comes back to what you were saying about rather than have a lead professional, each child merely has access to one. Were intervention required, it could then go to someone else I suppose.

[Glen Sannox]

Probably the only SNP idea that I agree with. An awful lot of Scots aren't capable of responsible parenting. You just need to look at the very moving "father/son" relationship thread on here.