NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Coalition cuts are destroying lives


A TOTAL of 2.67 million people are now unemployed while youth unemployment (16 to 24) has hit one million. One public sector job has been lost every 138 seconds since the coalition government came to power – that is 625 a day. Whatever the justification, the impact of the government’s agenda of austerity is clear. Families too are under pressure. Figures from Save the


Pete


Henshaw Editor SecEd


Children show that in some cities one in four children now live in poverty and overall 1.6 million youngsters come from homes struggling to cope financially as a result of unemployment. This is compounded by the fact that £18 billion has been wiped off benefits since May 2010. A survey of 2,000 parents by Netmums found that one in


five mothers are missing meals so that their children can eat. Just stop and think about that fact for a moment. It also found that six in 10 families are short of cash every


week to meet bills – 15 per cent describe themselves as desperate; one in 33 say they cannot cope and feel suicidal. More than 125 Sure Start children’s centres have closed –


and many, many more of the 3,500 or so centres nationwide are thought to be under threat. The Educational Maintenance Allowance provided a crucial lifeline for disadvantaged students to be able to afford further education, but has been axed too – its replacement is worth £400 million less. Ben Cooke, 17, has had to pull out of attending college


because of the loss of EMA. He told SecEd: “Clearly the government doesn’t believe that a further or higher education is for people like me.” Again, stop and think about what it must take for a 17-year-old to lose hope like this. Women are being hit disproportionately as well. Female


unemployment stands at 1.13 million. Twice as many men as women lost their jobs in the final quarter of 2011 – a fact that is particularly poignant in education where 75 per cent of teachers and 85 per cent of support staff are female. Meanwhile, schools in England face a 3.4 per cent


decline in their budgets between now and 2015, while funding to the home nations from Westminster has been slashed (10.6 per cent down in Scotland, 11.4 per cent down in Wales). In Northern Ireland, ministers have said that 30,000 jobs are at risk. Local services are being decimated. In Bradford, cuts


totalling nearly £30 million will result in the loss of 600 jobs. In Sandwell, cuts of £20 million will mean 300 redundancies on top of 500 last year. Just two examples. Our front page this week carries yet another story of a


devastating service closure. The ACE Centre in Oxford, along with hundreds of other charities and specialist services across the country, has seen funds used to support children and adults who require augmentative and alternative communication support reduced or withdrawn. ACE will close its doors in June despite having supported thousands. And teachers are being hit hard. We all know about the


extensive raid on and devaluation of teachers’ pensions. This at a time when pay is frozen. On top of this, the chancellor in his Budget signalled his plans to regionalise public sector pay. This, if pushed through, will see the pay of teachers in some of the poorest regions cut by as much as 18 per cent. All of the above comes at a time when the government


is spending at least £650 million on the creation of its free schools programme. The National Audit Office has also found that the transition costs of the government’s reorganisation of the public sector could reach £825 million. The government will justify its austerity measures with


talk of the deficit, but it blindly ignores the alternatives. World Bank data, for example, suggests that tax evasion may amount to £70 billion a year in the UK while tax avoidance and late payment each amount to £25 billion. This is just less than the £127 billion government deficit this year. Let us be clear, the government’s approach to austerity is


not a necessity, it is a choice. There are better, more effective alternatives and we must fight to make them heard.


• SecEd this week publishes Cutting the Future? – a special supplement which focuses on the impact of the government’s austerity measures on children, families and education, and argues for the alternatives. Join the debate – email your view to SecEd editor Pete Henshaw at editor@sec-ed.co.uk


6 SecEd School nursing


THE GOVERNMENT has recently published its new vision and model for school nursing, Getting it Right for Children, Young People and Families, plans for which were set out in the 2010 Public Health White Paper – Healthy Lives, Healthy People. This new strategy is part of an


on-going development programme for school nursing and aims to provide a framework for the service and clarify school nurses’ role and remit. The paper sets out a four- level approach to school nursing services: • Community: a public health leadership role in the school and community. For example, working with young people and school staff to promote health and wellbeing within the school setting.


• Community Universal Services: delivery of the Healthy Child programme to children and young people aged five to 19 years (the programme sets out the recommended framework of services to promote optimal health and wellbeing).


• Universal Plus: Early help and extra support for children, young people and families who need it. For example, care packages for children with additional health needs.


• Universal Partnership Plus: On-going additional services for vulnerable children, young people and families requiring long-term support.


• Safeguarding and child protection will be a core part of all four levels of service. The document also highlights


the need for visible, accessible and confidential services. Children,


The government has published its long-awaited strategy for the future of school nursing.Caroline Voogd, editor of the British


Journal School Nursing, offers her analysis


young people and parents who have been involved in the development of the strategy felt that school nurses needed greater visibility in schools. One of the recommendations


from the British Youth Council, one of those organisations involved in the strategy’s creation, said: “School nursing teams and school staff should make sure that all young people know how they can access the school nurse without being expected to refer their enquiry to a teacher or school staff member such as a receptionist.” Technology is one of the paper’s


proposed ways to ensure a more confidential and accessible service. Hannah, 17, who is a member of the UK Youth Parliament for Wolverhampton and who helped to develop the British Youth Council proposals, said that being able to use technology would reduce the perceived stigma of going to the school nurse. She added: “School nurses


should promote themselves more in school by doing PSHE lessons and assemblies. This way young people would know that someone is there to provide support.” To support the implementation


of the new vision, the paper also sets out a series of necessary actions, including “strengthening


IN RESPONSE… Dear sir,


The article in SecEd (Manage or remove, SecEd 312, March 15, 2012) acknowledges that depending on the location, type and condition of asbestos in a school it should either be managed or removed. It does however appear to favour the argument for management rather than removal. To support his argument the


author, incorrectly, quotes from the All Party Parliamentary Group’s booklet and claims that “MPs who authored the report are calling for total “removal”. That statement is misleading,


for what the MPs are calling for is “the government should set a programme for the phased removal of asbestos from all schools, with priority being given


to those schools where the asbestos is considered to be most dangerous or damaged.” It is the policy in


Nottinghamshire that has large numbers of schools containing large amounts of asbestos, as they routinely remove asbestos during maintenance work or refurbishment, and the work is completed safely. Phased removal was also


the policy of the Association of Metropolitan Boroughs and the Inner London Education authority in the 1980s, and if it had been continued then the asbestos problem in most schools would have been resolved by now. The article author acknowledges


that “tragically for some, awareness has come too late” but considers that “while the solution is not simple, with the correct


professional approach the risks can be managed”. The flaw in the argument is


that many schools are not aware of the dangers of asbestos and do not have a professional approach to asbestos management. This was underlined in February


2012 by the Asbestos Consultants Association (ATAC) which stated: “We are in agreement with the statement that properly-managed asbestos presents little risk. However, we can provide literally hundreds of examples each year that we personally have first-hand knowledge of where effective management controls have either broken down or were not present at all. “Regardless of any subsequent


enforcement action, many of those failures in effective management will have resulted in an exposure


that may cause an incurable cancer in those exposed, sometimes decades later. “To believe that asbestos


management is in the main effective is to deny the evidence that we see repeatedly, every day, not only in schools but also in offices, public buildings, hospitals, rented accommodation, and private workplaces. “As long as people are around


asbestos, the evidence shows that reliance on management controls is often ineffective. The only safe way to draw a line under these repeated exposures is to either remove the people from the building, or the asbestos.”


Michael Lees Founder, Asbestos in Schools campaign group (www. asbestosexposureschools.co.uk)


local working” between health and education services.


Analysis


It is essential that school staff and school nurses work together to ensure that services are adequate and meet local needs. Health education and promotion for instance can greatly benefit from shared work. For example, teachers may be aware of needs specific to their school or area and by sharing these with school nursing services a joint strategy can be developed on issues such as drug misuse or forced marriage. As part of the Health and Social


Care Bill, which recently received Parliamentary approval, school nurses will no longer work for primary care trusts but for local authorities under the guidance of directors for public health. In light of the changes to the


state school system and the current government’s drive for free schools and academies, which are removed from local authority control, one of the concerns would be a consistent level of access to school nursing services in these new schools. However, Wendy Nicholson,


a professional officer at the Department of Health, said: “The school nursing model outlines an ‘offer’ to the child or five to 19


population rather than an offer to a school. The school nursing service is well placed to lead and deliver the Healthy Child Programme (five to 19) to the child regardless of the school status; this may require new and innovative approaches to service delivery.” Another concern for the


plans is feasibility. Although it is encouraging to see the government’s vision and model for school nursing and its aim to have visible and accessible services, especially using technology, this cannot be delivered in most areas under the current staffing conditions. The latest NHS census data shows a total of only 1,165 full-time equivalent qualified school nurses in England. For it to be a success we need


the right numbers of qualified school nurses with the right skills and the right targets. Without these and incentives for local areas to commission the services, it is likely that the strategy will remain only a wish list. It is therefore crucial that


schools and educationalists are aware of the services that the children and young people in their care could be receiving and work to encourage local authorities to commission them.


www.sec-ed.com


SecEd


• Caroline Voogd is the editor of the British Journal of School Nursing, a SecEd sister title. Visit www.school-nursing.co.uk


Further information


The government strategy for school nursing services is at www.dh.gov. uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/ Publ i c a t ions /Publ i c a t ions PolicyAndGuidance/DH_133011


SecEd • April 19 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16