30 March 2006 - Push for stronger emphasis on Every Child Matters Education and Inspections Bill: The children's sector is pinning its hopes for the education Bill on a clutch of amendments tabled by Conservative MPs, Children Now reports. A standing committee of MPs has been set up to analyse the Education and Inspections Bill and the first few amendments have now been tabled. Senior figures at the Local Government Association and children's charities have successfully persuaded the Conservatives to table two amendments that could place a greater responsibility on schools and councils to deliver the Every Child Matters agenda. The relevant amendments have been signed by four Conservatives - shadow education secretary David Willetts, shadow schools minister Nick Gibb, shadow vocational education minister John Hayes, and the party's assistant chief whip David Evenett. One amendment states that a local authority can send a formal warning notice to a school if it believes "that the school fails to deliver improved wellbeing for all pupils". Another is an ambitious attempt to amend the Children Act 2004 to require schools to deliver the five outcomes. Gibb said: "We want to ensure the Bill reflects the general objectives of the Children Act 2004. That is why we have tabled amendments to ensure councils and schools take into account the wellbeing of children." Neera Sharma, principal policy officer at Barnardo's, said: "We believe that change in education legislation needs to complement the Every Child Matters programme. These amendments can help achieve that." Further amendments to the Bill are expected to be tabled over the next few weeks. Barnardo's is currently drafting changes to drive down the cost of education for the poorest children. Meanwhile, the NSPCC is finalising an amendment that would require head teachers to consider closely a child's individual circumstances before deciding how to respond to bad behaviour. The standing committee was due to start debating the Bill yesterday (Tuesday, 28 March). Source: Children Now 30 March 2006 - 'Good' food provided in childcare Most childcare providers offer a nutritious, balanced diet to those in their care and are knowledgeable about healthy eating, Ofsted say. They visited 110 day childcare providers in England including nurseries, crèches and childminders. Almost 70% were good or outstanding - no childminders and 4% of day care providers were judged inadequate. Most offered food low in sugar and fat, but 11 often served sweets and crisps. Such foods should be available in moderation, or as an occasional reward, Ofsted recommends. Ofsted's director of Early Years, Dorian Bradley, said that amid the debate around the standard of school meals, little had been said about the food offered to very young children. "I'm pleased to say the picture looks rosy," he said. "Childcarers, in the main, have embraced the concept of healthy eating and the wider benefits gained from it." The best providers found out about children's likes and dislikes, presented food well and worked with parents to encourage children to try new foods, Ofsted said. However, some carers were reluctant to question parents when they gave children fatty or sugary foods in their lunchboxes, inspectors found. Childcare providers already have to adhere to national standards on the quality of food they provide. They stipulate that every day, at least one item from the following groups of foods should be available: Bread, potatoes, rice or pasta Fruit and vegetables Milk and dairy products Meat, fish and other non-dairy sources of protein Schools will have to meet standards provided by the Department for Education and Skills from this September. Ana Palenciano is co-director of Polkadot Day Nursery in Stratford-upon-Avon, which is rated outstanding in the quality of food it provides. She said supporting children to eat a balanced diet was about more than just offering them healthy choices, “a lot of people… miss out on learning to eat properly, but the children here become used to eating at the table with us as a family”. "Children need to know how to respect and value food," she said. Reference www.bbc.co.uk/news 10 March 2006 - Government misses poverty target The government has missed the first target in its bid to end child poverty. Tony Blair pledged in 1999 to eradicate child poverty by 2020 - and to have cut it from 4.1m to 3.1m by April 2005. Department for Work and Pension figures show the number of children in poverty has fallen by 700,000 since 1999, missing the target by 300,000. Ministers say the government remains committed to wiping out poverty within a generation, but opposition MPs called it "disappointing" and "disturbing". A family is considered to be officially poor if they are living on less than 60% of Britain's median (average) level of household income. This means a single person is currently judged to be living in poverty if they have an income of less than £100 per week, said Peter Kenway from the New Policy Institute think tank. He said a household of two adults with two children was living in poverty if it had a weekly income of less than £260. DEFINITION OF POVERTY: Anyone living on less than 60% of the UK average (median) income. For a single person it means an income of less than £100 per week after tax, housing costs and benefits, says the New Policy Institute. For a family of two adults and two pre-school children it means living on a weekly income less than £260, says the institute. Poverty campaigners say good progress has been made but they want further investment in benefits schemes to help lift more families above the breadline. Shadow work and pensions secretary Philip Hammond said: "These figures are further proof that, despite the progress that has been made, the state alone cannot eradicate child poverty. "We must employ the skills of the private, voluntary and social enterprise sectors to create opportunities for parents who are struggling to get back into work." David Laws MP, Liberal Democrat Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said the figures were "extremely disturbing" and called for an urgent review of the child poverty target. "It is no surprise the Government is failing to deliver when the CSA is in chaos, tax credits are a mess and our lone parents employment rate is one of the lowest in Europe," he said. Employment Minister Margaret Hodge told the BBC the government was committed to its pledge to eradicate child poverty within a generation, but she acknowledged that a lot of work remained to be done. "Of course we've got to constantly renew our thinking. Of course we've got to redouble our efforts," she said. "But you - three or four years ago - probably would never have thought we'd get this far. And we've set ourselves deliberately tough targets so that we really do drive forward policy and have a real change for children and their families". Labour MP and former social security minister Frank Field said: "The target is audacious but it is not achievable. "I was amazed and gobsmacked when the government announced it." Mr Field added that "braver" ideas were needed to alleviate child poverty. Under the government's welfare-to-work policies, more than 300,000 extra lone mothers have found employment. But campaigners believe these strategies have left behind large families or those with disabled children. Guy Palmer from the New Policy Institute said he thought the target set was right, calling it "challenging but achievable". The government should "redouble their efforts", he added. Charity, One Parent Families said the government had set itself "a historic and laudable task" to reduce and eventually eliminate child poverty, and serious progress had been made. Earlier Sir Jeremy Beecham, vice-chairman of the Local Government Association, said there had been a significant reduction in child poverty but there was "still much to be done". He said enhancing the take-up of council tax benefit by the low paid would help reduce poverty numbers further. Source www.bbc.co.uk/news 06 March 2006 - School vetting controls tightened Tougher controls on who is cleared to work with children have been set out by the government, following the furore over sex offenders working in schools. A single list of people banned from working with children in England and Wales will be brought in under a bill called Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups. The legislation will also enable parents to check whether private tutors or nannies are barred. Employers who hire un-vetted staff could face £5,000 fines or jail. Education Secretary Ruth Kelly said it was a fundamental reform of the system: “This bill brings forward root-and-branch reform ensuring we have a far more comprehensive and coordinated system” "Today's bill will introduce a 21st Century approach to the protection of children and vulnerable adults," she said. "It will fundamentally reform and rebalance vetting procedures so that children's and other vulnerable people's safety is unequivocally the first priority. Under the changes brought in by the bill, a new independent "central barring unit" will take all decisions on banning any person. Key changes • Overall decisions on barring moved from ministers to independent body • New central vetting system replaces various check lists • Automatic ban on anyone cautioned for sex offences, not just those convicted • Employers who hire barred people face jail or fines of up to £5,000 At the moment, separate checks have to be made on List 99, a health service list currently operating under the Protection of Children Act, and the sex offenders' register. The changes move the ultimate responsibility for barring individuals from ministers to an independent body. The panel will be led by Roger Singleton, the former head of Barnardo’s. The DfES has announced the members will include • A police chief responsible for child protection • A child psychiatrist and expert on child sexual abuse • The head of the National Confederation of PTAs • Head teachers' and college leaders' representatives • NSPCC executive • Directors of social services and children's services • A forensic psychiatrist The government says this will also cover companies which run internet chat rooms, and will ensure employers take their share of responsibility over who they hire. The bill will allow employers to make secure, online checks on the records of up to eight million people who work with children. Individual schools will also be able to run checks on existing employees as well as new recruits if they wish, under the new arrangements. People cautioned for sex offences will automatically face a ban on working with children, not just those who have been convicted. Many of the changes being announced were published for public consultation in April 2005, following the Bichard inquiry into the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Cambridgeshire. They had not been implemented when the row over the employment of sex offenders broke out in January after revelations that the Department for Education had cleared a number of sex offenders to work in schools. The measures will come in from 2007, officials say. There is broad support for the changes. Mary Marsh, director of children's charity NSPCC, welcomed the bill but said concerns remained. "Employers must do more than just tick the 'vetting box', as many abusers are not known to the criminal justice system," she said. But the loophole surrounding overseas workers was worrying, as was the time frame, she said. Michelle Elliott, director the children's charity Kidscape, said the changes would be a great step forward and would make children safer. But she said parents, head teachers and charities such as her own had to accept their responsibilities and be vigilant. "This does not mean paedophiles will stop trying to get into schools. They are always going to find a way through," she said. Jerry Bartlett, from the teachers' union NASUWT, said children's safety was a concern for every decent member of society and that the creation of a single vetting list would "clear the fog" surrounding checks. "But there must be a fair right of appeal for teachers," she added. "School staff have all too frequently been the victim of false and malicious allegations." Source www.bbc.co.uk/news