About 'Primary End of Term Awards Ceremony'

I noticed the sensitive warnings young poets sometimes gave at readings about topics like mental health or miscarriage.  They called them a new word, "triggers".  It led me to think perhaps I should do one myself: if you work in Scottish education and you toe the party line you may wish to avoid what follows.

When I first read ''Primary End of Term Awards Ceremony' a guy (he shows up here) who had just published his sixth novel said in the politest tones, "I didn't quite....see what you were...getting at."  Later, a woman thanked me and said I should send the poem to the government. I said after the intimidation we had faced from our council, although mild in comparison to what has happened to others, I would be too scared.  I asked her if she knew the terms 'Named Person' or 'State Guardian', which appear in the poem. She said no and that is a common response.  People still don't know about the scandal that was and still is the Named Person  / State Guardian scheme nor moreoever, what it it is symptomatic of and what its legacy is today. So I wrote this piece.

My kids between them have received, so far, ten years of state education in three different primary schools.  They have been home-schooled twice.  There haven't been many opportunities to go into these schools although you do get an official ten minutes twice a year with the teacher. If, occasionally, parents are invited in, to for an event these are controlled and choreographed to the inch - except for the seating.  There is often insufficient seating. The latest end of year awards ceremony in the most recent school felt particularly oppressive. This piece is largely about the creeping, insidious, infiltration of authoritarianism in primary leadership, where headteachers are remote managers and administrators who appear to have little genuine interest in or human concern for the children themselves. Everyone is too busy these days covering their backs. They have, though, very much a governmental concern.  The government agenda in education is very strong these days and strengthening, particularly in terms of the kinds of responsibilities they are putting on headteachers.

This new breed of head, in my experience doesn't brook any sort of what they might call 'interference'. The 'children' might be yours but the 'pupils' are theirs and if you as a parent are not happy with your child's experience in school then it is just your problem.   There is rarely any working it out with you in a genuine and equal partnership because for them, there is no "it", no problem.   If, by any chance, there is a meeting, who is in charge will be clear.  It will be on their turf and you will be outnumbered by about three to one - the head, their witness and their scribe.  The scribe will set down what ostensibly is said - which is never what you think happened and what you thought was agreed.  Despite the likely ban of phones in school there is probably also a recording device somewhere.  At least that is what it feel like.  All that sets the tone. It's not just me.  Other parents report the same.

Nearly everyone seems to be oblivious to what is happening and it is convenient for time-strapped parents and of course to those managers in the education system that it is so.  Perhaps a few are lucky and have had a different experience but I have spoken to or heard from enough parents now and have had enough experience of the Scottish Primary system to taste the culture and understand the way it is heading. 

The terms State Guardian and Named Person refer to a Scottish National Party idea that became government policy in Scotland in February 2104.  These terms refer to a role usually accorded to a health visitor (for the under fives), a teacher or the school headteacher. Few people were nor still are aware of this change, partly because it was brought in, for good reason, without fanfare. I was told recently that it germinated from an idea inside Perth & Kinross council which many parents have told me is a particularly heavy-handed one and that, to put it mildly, is certainly my experience.

I think the State Guardian idea arose from a wish to protect children from the tragic cases of severe, sometimes fatal child abuse. These hit the headlines from time and time and caused difficulties for various local and national public sector departments: councils, the police, social work, doctors, teachers and so on. Most of these children were known to one or more of these departments. Rather than help the public sector areas communicate better between themselves someone had the idea, that in Scotland all children should be protected - no child should fall through the gap. Protected from what? Well, from their families because that is where the harm was. So suddenly all families were potential risks to their own children. Trainee teachers tell me this view is now part of standard training.  It is brainwashing.

The State decided there should be somebody from their side who would keep an eye - and more than that - on the child and the family.  This state guardian would be the 'Named Person'.  It wasn't just children at risk who got a Named Person, but all children and by extension, their families.  The state decided the person with the most access to and responsibility for the child was the school headteacher. That person would have the power to access and share all sorts of information from different areas about the child and about the family including medical records.  So you had better get on with your head because there were tick boxes which if checked increased the risk to the child.   Single Parent? Check.  Has more than four children?  Check.  Disagrees with a professional?  Check. Yes, if you disagreed with an agent of the state, the state increased the risk that you, your home, your family was to the child.

No wonder it was brought in on the quiet.  Besides, parents didn't have to do anything, so why make a fuss about it?  Parents would only get upset if they understood the full reach and scale of what had happened.  So teachers carried on having casual chats with parents.  The difference was that now, some of them were going away and making notes in reports, compiling secret dossiers about the child, the parent, the family.  And then there were the formal meetings about child welfare that came out of the blue for some families.  If parents don't comply with having meetings with any state representative you are deemed uncooperative and that again increases risk to your child.  You can see where it is heading, tragically for individual families and in terms of government tone for the wider society.  If you are starting to feel chilled, you have good reason.

In July 2016 the Supreme Court made an analogy which showed they thought the government was going too far. What follows is not a quotation by some extremist ranter convinced that the Scottish National Party is ramping up to some National Socialist agenda, it is the careful, considered and sober judgement of the supreme court:

“There is an inextricable link between the protection of the family and the protection of fundamental freedoms in liberal democracies...Different upbringings produce different people. The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”

I cannot forget those words 'totalitarian regime' from the supreme court ruling on the Named Person policy, not because they are scare-mongering but because they ring so true.  For all that the judgement was a reprieve, we are still pointed that way. Named Persons still exist. They are your head teachers.  Schools hardly make it clear that by law your child having a State Guardian is voluntary now, but it is.  You aren't asked on the annual data check form whether you want a State Guardian.  Within those undefined limits parents don't have to be bossed around, legally, any more about how they are raising their child.  In theory, Named Persons can't share your family data the way they used to. However, in the minds of the people who had that power, and even more so, their council masters, the idea is still very much there:  we are the boss. You had better not get in our way. If we decide to think there' is any risk to your child we can make life difficult for you.  We can do anything we like.