The new youth Green Paper on the future development of youth services (see 'A tough challenge', Nursery World, 4 August) is the latest in a series of policy initiatives that raise questions about the Government's attitudes to children and young people.
The proposal that attracted the most criticism was the 'youth opportunity card'. Under the scheme, all cardholders would receive a one-off payment of 12, with young people who make positive contributions to society receiving top-ups and those who commit crimes having their cards suspended or withdrawn.
Child and youth crime also featured in the unpublished Home Office document, Crime Reduction Review. The 250-page report included a proposal that children as young as three years should be identified and monitored when their behaviour or family circumstances marked them out as potential future criminals ('Toddler tearaways targeted', Sunday Times, 12 June 2005).
Cause and effect
The Home Office has maintained silence over the leaked document. However, past initiatives have shown the current Government is keen to be perceived as 'tough on crime'.
This motivation has created a situation in which positive developments, such as family support through Sure Start and parenting education, risk being judged against success in reducing crime (see 'Trouble ahead', Nursery World, 24 October 2002).
In recent years, out-of-school clubs have had to argue in funding applications that their service will reduce local juvenile delinquency.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that some holiday playschemes have led some children to exchange vandalism or shop-lifting for a game of football and friendly adult company. And, of course, all the local children deserve the football, art projects and chat.
Yet I am not aware that funding applications for anti-crime initiatives have to convince decision-makers that the project will improve local play and leisure facilities. If the two are linked, then why is the cause-and-effect in only one direction? Perhaps spin creators believe that 'Children will be happier' carries less political capital than 'You will be less afraid'.
The approach to young children within the leaked review highlights a serious lack of joined-up thinking - now there's a phrase that has gone out of political style! Nevertheless, it is more joined-up thinking that is needed here.
Early years
There are broad continuities between how individual children characteristically behave in early childhood, and their later behaviour patterns. Part of the continuity may be explained by temperament, but a great deal is best explained through the detail of early experiences.
* Children who lack suitable adult guidance may not learn how to manage their own behaviour without imposing on other people.
* Unresolved management difficulties with young children can blossom into self-centred adolescent and adult behaviour.
Patterns of behaviour are learned, but actions and outlook can be pro-social as well as anti-social. We need at least as much attention on how children learn the former as on trying to clamp down on the latter.
Informed researchers point out that there is no simple cause-and-effect relationship between observations of early and later behaviour patterns.
The kind of research quoted in the review works backwards.
* One statistic was that 85 per cent of inmates in young offenders'
institutions had been bullies at school. But 85 per cent (or a similar large percentage) of pupils who are called a bully at some time through their childhood do not end up in such institutions.
* Yes, we should tackle all kinds of bullying. No, you cannot use the label of 'bully' as a predictive device.
* The Home Office review stated that children who were not 'under control'
by the age of three were four times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence later. This hindsight analysis has to admit that many young children who are a serious handful to adults do not go on to be violent criminals.
* Yes, we need consistent and developmentally appropriate actions to help 'hard-to-manage' children and their families. No, we cannot have three-year-olds demonised, carrying the 'out of control' label into their school life.
Disadvantageous family circumstances do not inevitably lead to anti-social, disengaged teenagers. US research during the 1980s on why some children emerged well from unpromising circumstances found one explanatory variable was having a strong family, often one helped by well-judged support, including early years services.
Identify, target, monitor
The Home Office review pinpointed early childhood as a time when nursery practitioners should be trained to identify those children supposedly at risk of turning to crime later.
* The suggestion patronises experienced early years practitioners, who are well able to notice patterns of behaviour outside normal range. They will not spot incipient psychopaths, as some commentators have assumed - a highly specialised skill and one that is not applicable to early childhood.
* Responsible support for young children and families has to be based on knowledge of child development, with realistic expectations. Many three- and four-year-olds lose their temper; they run out of words and turn to physical means. But not every fraught three-year-old will turn into a violent criminal, and even children who hit or shout are not all 'bullies'.
* Then, what will be done with this information about children? Will it be placed on a computer database - run by whom? Recent events such as the fiasco of CRBchecks and the tax credits disaster caution us to beware 'trust me and my computer system'.
* And how exactly will children be monitored in the fight against crime?
Notice also that the review and related Government pronouncements are limited to a certain type of criminality - potential 'thugs'. Are we advised to have CCTV in the maths corner to spot potential embezzlers? Are practitioners exhorted to observe the home corner or pretend office area to spot future burglars?
And then what?
Supportive practitioners and teams do not, of course, stop with identification and some kind of tracking. The current Government too often favours the solution 'measure one thing and then ban something else'.
Public pronouncements linking the 'battle against childhood obesity' with a belated recognition of grim school dinners have been dominated by proposals to weigh children and ban a list of lunch ingredients. Yet across the country, pre-Jamie Oliver, there were excellent local developments to change food and children's eating choices. For behaviour, as with healthy habits, we need a process of 'What is working anywhere?', 'What makes this approach effective?' and so to 'How do we implement something similar here?'
I have been privileged to meet early years practitioners who make a genuine difference to children struggling to learn pro-social behaviour.
Caring adults work within a shared policy on behaviour. But what really counts then is to forge a personal relationship with children and their families.
* Nursery and school-age children learn through daily experiences when their important adults are patient, kind and ready to step in constructively, again and again. Practitioners reaffirm, by words and actions, what 'we do in our nursery (or our school)'.
* Practitioners need to resist pressures to overload a day or session in ways that leave children little option but to protest through 'bad behaviour'. But educational harassment also pushes out relaxed communication and giving the vital time to guide rather than tell a child, to offer a quiet chat when children are responsive.
* Primary and secondary schools need an effective policy on behaviour that accentuates the positives, not just 'stop that!' A whole-school approach requires consistency between all team members. Tony Blair's enthusiasm for a 'culture of respect' has to be two-way, so adults also listen to children. Changes in adult behaviour and low-cost improvements to school grounds can make a significant difference to playground problems. (See 'Take a break', Nursery World, 17 July 2003.)
A responsible adult approach avoids being punitive or attempting to impose power struggles. This summer, school standards minister Jacqui Smith responded to a news item (The Times, 24 June) about expulsion levels, particularly in secondary schools, and problems with assaults. She reiterated the Government's commitment to a 'zero-tolerance approach... on everything from backchat to bullying or violence'.
It is unacceptable for anyone to be assaulted within the school community - teachers and pupils have the right to feel safe and experience basic courtesy. But 'zero tolerance on backchat' will alienate the many pupils who are reasonably well disposed, who are only guilty of the crime of being a teenager. Some kinds of cranky child or adolescent behaviour need to be greeted with what Bill Rogers calls 'tactical ignoring'. This option co-exists with clear rules, fairly applied, and adults who set a good example by their own behaviour. NW
Further resources
* For materials about a positive approach to behaviour and dealing with bullying: www.luckyduck.co.uk and www.kidscape.org.uk
* Jennie Lindon, Understanding child development: linking theory and practice (2005, Hodder Arnold)
* The Nursery World series about behaviour from the Camden Early Years Intervention Team
* The High/Scope approach to coaching children in skills of conflict resolution: telephone 020 8676 0220 or visit www.high-scope.org.uk
