The grief felt by a parent that has lost a child must be completely unbearable.
In such circumstances it is no surprise and indeed completely understandable that the family would wish to lash out at the world around them, and if they felt that a particular person or group was to blame for this, would seek to target them in whatever way they can.
Such a scenario was evident this week when a report was published regarding the tragic death of a teenager during an army cadet course. Following this the girl’s father said that the army had ‘murdered his daughter’.
On hearing this it occurred to me that there are two ways the newspapers could handle such a claim; they could either sensationalise it as a ‘murder’ story or they could instead describe the basic facts of the case whilst recognising that a father’s grief is not really to be exploited for the sake of a headline. It’s sadly no surprise that some went for the former option.
Whilst the father’s emotions are no surprise, and it would be a cold heart that would somehow berate him for such thoughts, the facts remain that this case clearly does not involve murder. Incompetence almost certainly and it is highly unlikely that the matter will end here.
However at what point do the media have a duty of care to report issues in a considered and sensitive manner? Using the ‘murder’ comment gives them a quick headline but it does nothing to illuminate the real facts of what happened, or what should happen next.
This is not the first time that such a scenario has occurred in Scotland. A few years ago a similar murder claim was made towards social workers after a Fife girl was killed by a psychiatric patient. However the ‘murder’ charge in this case reported in the media was not aimed at the actual perpetrator but instead the social workers responsible for him.
The media may claim that in reporting stories in this manner they are simply reflecting a wider anger about what happened in these cases then surely the actual legal facts and criticism received by the army and social work department would have been apt to achieve this. They could even have said that the family were understandably still upset at its outcome.
But in using such tragic emotions as a way to a quick and cheap headline all that is really achieved is a public intrusion into a family’s personal grief. And it’s not clear how this in any way helps or can ever be defended.
29 May 2009
6 May 2009
Saving local schools
Of all the decisions that politicians can take which may spark anger and community protests, closing schools has to be at the top of the list.
People generally have an emotional attachment to their local school (especially primary); it may be where they attended, they may have family there and it can also be a symbol of a specific community.
Of course in recent times this issue has received great prominence as Glasgow City Council have continued with their ‘pre-12 strategy’, which is essentially a programme of school closures.
The argument for this is simple: there are drastically less school children in Glasgow now than there were even 30 years ago. As such many schools are well-under capacity, or children are being taught in sub-standard buildings.
However it’s fair to say that this view isn’t shared by all, at least not the decision to resolve this by closing local schools. Those against claim this decision – as well as being wrong – is down solely to the council attempting to save money.
So is there a reasonable way forward? Or is this just one of those difficult decisions which have to be made and that there can never be agreement on?
In the first place it’s obvious to have sympathy with parents who worry about their child’s school closing. It is inevitable there will be disruption in this and, particularly for those in poorer communities, the local school might be the only local facility available.
That being said there is a question about how much people understand the quality of education their child does or will receive. A concern often raised is that because they believe their child’s school does well this obviously means it won’t be the case in a new school.
However it’s likely that this is wrong. The quality of teaching between different institutions surely does not vary that much and thus wherever a child attends (especially primary) will offer a similar quality.
The exception to this may be class sizes. Another worry is that by merging schools it means class sizes will rise and thus the overall teaching quality and attention an individual child gets will decline.
Perhaps, although this isn’t clear. For one, in those schools with very small school rolls what often happens is what’s called a composite class; thus although there may only be eight primary 7 pupils, there are actually part of a class with 17 primary 6 children, meaning 25 in total.
It is worth asking if by putting two or more schools together and keeping the total class size at 25 but only having pupils from the one year together whether or not this would actually improve education. A point to consider at least.
It’s also the case that parents do have to watch they are not creating confusion and worry for their children in protesting about school closures. When Glasgow made the closure decision there were TV pictures of children crying and the Glasgow Save Our Schools coordinator has talked about such changes being ‘traumatic’ for children.
Such an attitude is greatly unhelpful. Such emotive language tends not to sway the opinion of those with who will make the ultimate decision. Therefore all it does is create fear amongst pupils.
Children are remarkably resilient. Of course they don’t like change – no-one really does – but they will also adapt to new situations. If their parents tell them each night that their new school will be a bad place of course they will be worried. It may not help the campaign but it would surely be better for their children in the long-term to try and assuage such fears.
The one question which always exists and is rarely answered is why these changes actually need to take place. The logic runs that if the council can afford to run these schools just now then where are the budgetary pressures forcing this change?
Well again it depends on your perspective. The Scottish Government says that local councils have been given an above inflation budget for the coming years, which means there’s no need to shut schools.
Part of the problem with this though is that many of the items councils spend money on have gone up way above inflation, not least fuel costs. Therefore once staff get a pay rise (even it is only inflationary) other rising costs may mean councils have less money to spend in real terms.
At this point it is obvious that councils will look at the situation in which they have three under-capacity primary schools in broadly the same area, each with their own administrative and logistical cost e.g. maintenance, heating, etc and think that in fact some of these could be merged.
Is this the correct choice? Well at this point it has to fall to your own personal views. If you believe that keeping schools open in all cases so as to protect children – regardless of cost – is the right choice then you’ll go with that.
If however you think that there is only so much public money available and that it might be better to focus it on actual teaching and resources rather than paying to keep half-empty schools open then you’ll likely go with the council.
Like most people my personal view is sympathy for those who face their local school closing but confusion as to what the alternative is. If the council – like everyone else – has growing financial pressures it cannot be sensible to keep children in half-empty schools. This of course is not popular – hence this post’s introduction – but it’s hard to see beyond it.
If we are serious about our children’s future then putting more money into education is essential. But surely that money should go where it is most needed and not simply on avoiding causing protests?
People generally have an emotional attachment to their local school (especially primary); it may be where they attended, they may have family there and it can also be a symbol of a specific community.
Of course in recent times this issue has received great prominence as Glasgow City Council have continued with their ‘pre-12 strategy’, which is essentially a programme of school closures.
The argument for this is simple: there are drastically less school children in Glasgow now than there were even 30 years ago. As such many schools are well-under capacity, or children are being taught in sub-standard buildings.
However it’s fair to say that this view isn’t shared by all, at least not the decision to resolve this by closing local schools. Those against claim this decision – as well as being wrong – is down solely to the council attempting to save money.
So is there a reasonable way forward? Or is this just one of those difficult decisions which have to be made and that there can never be agreement on?
In the first place it’s obvious to have sympathy with parents who worry about their child’s school closing. It is inevitable there will be disruption in this and, particularly for those in poorer communities, the local school might be the only local facility available.
That being said there is a question about how much people understand the quality of education their child does or will receive. A concern often raised is that because they believe their child’s school does well this obviously means it won’t be the case in a new school.
However it’s likely that this is wrong. The quality of teaching between different institutions surely does not vary that much and thus wherever a child attends (especially primary) will offer a similar quality.
The exception to this may be class sizes. Another worry is that by merging schools it means class sizes will rise and thus the overall teaching quality and attention an individual child gets will decline.
Perhaps, although this isn’t clear. For one, in those schools with very small school rolls what often happens is what’s called a composite class; thus although there may only be eight primary 7 pupils, there are actually part of a class with 17 primary 6 children, meaning 25 in total.
It is worth asking if by putting two or more schools together and keeping the total class size at 25 but only having pupils from the one year together whether or not this would actually improve education. A point to consider at least.
It’s also the case that parents do have to watch they are not creating confusion and worry for their children in protesting about school closures. When Glasgow made the closure decision there were TV pictures of children crying and the Glasgow Save Our Schools coordinator has talked about such changes being ‘traumatic’ for children.
Such an attitude is greatly unhelpful. Such emotive language tends not to sway the opinion of those with who will make the ultimate decision. Therefore all it does is create fear amongst pupils.
Children are remarkably resilient. Of course they don’t like change – no-one really does – but they will also adapt to new situations. If their parents tell them each night that their new school will be a bad place of course they will be worried. It may not help the campaign but it would surely be better for their children in the long-term to try and assuage such fears.
The one question which always exists and is rarely answered is why these changes actually need to take place. The logic runs that if the council can afford to run these schools just now then where are the budgetary pressures forcing this change?
Well again it depends on your perspective. The Scottish Government says that local councils have been given an above inflation budget for the coming years, which means there’s no need to shut schools.
Part of the problem with this though is that many of the items councils spend money on have gone up way above inflation, not least fuel costs. Therefore once staff get a pay rise (even it is only inflationary) other rising costs may mean councils have less money to spend in real terms.
At this point it is obvious that councils will look at the situation in which they have three under-capacity primary schools in broadly the same area, each with their own administrative and logistical cost e.g. maintenance, heating, etc and think that in fact some of these could be merged.
Is this the correct choice? Well at this point it has to fall to your own personal views. If you believe that keeping schools open in all cases so as to protect children – regardless of cost – is the right choice then you’ll go with that.
If however you think that there is only so much public money available and that it might be better to focus it on actual teaching and resources rather than paying to keep half-empty schools open then you’ll likely go with the council.
Like most people my personal view is sympathy for those who face their local school closing but confusion as to what the alternative is. If the council – like everyone else – has growing financial pressures it cannot be sensible to keep children in half-empty schools. This of course is not popular – hence this post’s introduction – but it’s hard to see beyond it.
If we are serious about our children’s future then putting more money into education is essential. But surely that money should go where it is most needed and not simply on avoiding causing protests?
