Parenting - it's about responsibilities

I was pleasantly unsurprised by the social worker who appeared on Radio Four this morning over the potential removal into care of four of their children from their parents because they were 'too fat'! The four children (aged 1, 3, 7 & 11)  face the situation where they will be 'fostered without contact' or 'adopted'.

Now I have to be honest and say that I do think that letting our kids become obese is an issue and that steps need to be taken (and I understand many have been) but the frightening bit in all of this (for me at least) is the comment from a supposedly aware and competent social worker that. "Parents have no rights only responsibilities!" This professional went on to add that publishing stories like this only caused people to doubt and regard social workers.

Is it any blinking wonder?

I know a goodly number of social workers who are overworked and try to ensure that the right outcome is brought into being and then I know many others who appear to be inept, out of touch and to be honest, totally incompetent (just like dogcollars) and their decisions and outcomes fill the newspapers, promote the popularity of public enquiries and keep coroners busy.

In this case it appears that the parents have worked to meet the demands of the social workers, pity the same can't be said of the professionals with regard to the family.

Pax

Back home - time for a cup of tea and then chapter (Yeeha!)

School trips and institutionalised lying

Now this is a really controversial topic for many people because what happens is that the parent gets a letter from scholl saying that little billy's class is going for an educational visit to the local amusement park and that the school would like an 'voluntary' donation of £15 to offset the costs. The letter goes on to say that no child will be excluded on the grounds of non-payment. Bit the voluntary donation and the non-exclusion clause are products of the 1984 Children's Act and the 1996 Education Act.

Now, for the sake of a bit f social experimentation, decide not to send the voluntary donation and, having lit the blue touchpaper, wait for the show.

Point the First - there's the reminder that there is money outstanding. When this comes telephone the school and tell them that you are unable to pay the required 'voluntary' donation.

Point the Second - You are then told that if the money isn't paid then the child cannot be included in the trip. To this you point out that the donation is 'voluntary' to which you will be told that the word 'voluntary' is only in the letter because the law requires it and that if you don't pay they can't go!

Point the Third - explain that it is illegal to prevent any child going on an 'educational' trip because they haven't paid. This is the good bit, because whilst acknowledging that this is what the law says, the person on the other end points out that what the law says and the real world are a great deal different form each other!

So what we have here is institutionalised deceit and illegal behaviour as well!

I work in an area where there are many who can pay, but apparently often don't and many more who struggle to exist and yet pay and this is, for me, an area of concern, frustration and intense niggle. As Christians we are called to let our 'Yes' be 'Yes' and our 'No' be 'No' but it appears that the (increasingly less than) noble profession of teaching and the world of education exists to live in a world of deceit and double-talk!

Is it any wonder we live in such a sad world when the basic tenets of integrity no longer apply to those who teach our kids?

Pax