Sunday, August 12, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Cooley's 'Looking glass self'
Sociologist Charles Cooley is best known for his concept of "looking-glass self", the theory that self-image is formed largely by the messages we get from others, and an individual's interpretation of those messages.
The three components to Cooley's looking glass self are
- envisioning how one's self appears to others
- imagining what others must think of one's appearance
- developing self-feeling, such as pride or shame, from one's understanding of these perceived judgments by others
Essentially we see ourselves through other peoples view and opinions of us C. H. Cooley has summed it up in his statement:
"I am not what I think I am and I am not what you think I am; I am what I think that you think I am.
The picture below shows a great example of the looking glass
The three components to Cooley's looking glass self are
- envisioning how one's self appears to others
- imagining what others must think of one's appearance
- developing self-feeling, such as pride or shame, from one's understanding of these perceived judgments by others
Essentially we see ourselves through other peoples view and opinions of us C. H. Cooley has summed it up in his statement:
"I am not what I think I am and I am not what you think I am; I am what I think that you think I am.
The picture below shows a great example of the looking glass
CWDC - Childrens Workforce Development Council
The Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) leads change so that the thousands of people and volunteers working with children and young people across England are able to do the best job they possibly can. The aim of the CWDC is to ensure England’s children and young people’s workforce are respected by peers and valued for the positive difference they make to children, young people and their families.
They advise and work in partnership with lots of different organisations and people who all want the lives of all children and young people to be healthy, happy and fulfilling. In short, they join up the way different agencies work, and bring consistency to the way children and young people are listened to and looked after. The CWDC are the voice of employers and ensure their concerns, experiences and views directly influence workforce reform.
CWDC supports 2.6 million people who work with children, young people and their families, in sectors including early years, childcare, work with young people, education welfare, social work and social care. They also had impacts on over five million volunteers who work with children and young people
There are five outcomes on the Every Child Matters agenda - one of these is that every child stays safe. The CWDC aim to make England to be the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up in. Keeping children safe is of paramount importance to everyone that works for and with the CWDC.
In November 2010 the government announced it would withdraw CWDC funding after April 2012.
From April 2012 onward the leadership of CWDC’s programmes of work will be taken forward either by the Department for Education (DfE) and the new Teaching Agency.
The CWDC do an amazing job in helping to support workers that keep children and young people safe, I only hope that the agencies taking over their role can carry on the great work in helping to keep England's children safe.
They advise and work in partnership with lots of different organisations and people who all want the lives of all children and young people to be healthy, happy and fulfilling. In short, they join up the way different agencies work, and bring consistency to the way children and young people are listened to and looked after. The CWDC are the voice of employers and ensure their concerns, experiences and views directly influence workforce reform.
CWDC supports 2.6 million people who work with children, young people and their families, in sectors including early years, childcare, work with young people, education welfare, social work and social care. They also had impacts on over five million volunteers who work with children and young people
There are five outcomes on the Every Child Matters agenda - one of these is that every child stays safe. The CWDC aim to make England to be the best place in the world for children and young people to grow up in. Keeping children safe is of paramount importance to everyone that works for and with the CWDC.
In November 2010 the government announced it would withdraw CWDC funding after April 2012.
From April 2012 onward the leadership of CWDC’s programmes of work will be taken forward either by the Department for Education (DfE) and the new Teaching Agency.
The CWDC do an amazing job in helping to support workers that keep children and young people safe, I only hope that the agencies taking over their role can carry on the great work in helping to keep England's children safe.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Baby P Timeline of events
This timeline shows the many events that happened during baby P's short life. It just highlights how many services he came into contact with and how many missed opportunities their were to help him.
March 1 2006: Baby P is born. He lives with his father and mother in Haringey, north London.
May 2 2006: Baby P's first visit to GP. He is suffering from vomiting and returns on May 26 with a similar complaint.
July 17 2006: The baby's father leaves the family home in Haringey.
October 13 2006: Baby P, now eight months old, is taken to his GP with bruising on the side of his head and chest. The mother claims he has fallen down the stairs.
November/December 2006: The mother's 32-year-old boyfriend moves in to the family home.
December 11 2006: Baby P is taken to his GP with a head injury, bruising to the bridge of the nose, sternum, right shoulder and buttocks. The mother is "flustered" and cannot give an explanation. Baby P is referred to the paediatric department at the Whittington hospital near Highgate for a skeletal scan and blood-clotting tests. The mother claims Baby P has fallen off the settee and been scratched by the dog. Baby P Is referred to social services.
December 12 2006: Haringey social services strategy meeting considers Baby P's case.
December 15 2006: Baby P is discharged from hospital into the care of his mother's friend. A police investigation begins.
December 19 2006: The mother and grandmother of Baby P are arrested for assaulting the child and bailed to return on January 11 2007 (the grandmother has never been charged with any offence in relation to the case).
December 22 2006: Baby P's name is placed on the Haringey child protection register for neglect and physical abuse.
January 26 2007: Baby P returns to the care of his mother. She is still on police bail after December arrest for assaulting the child.
February 2007: The mother, partner and baby are moved to a bigger council home in north London.
February 22 2007: Allocated social worker Maria Ward makes her first visit to the new house. The mother complains about Baby P's name going on the register. She denies causing the bruising.
March 2 2007: Second visit by Ward, together with health visitor Paulette Thomas, the day after Baby P's first birthday. Ward sees the child butting the floor and refers him to the child development centre. The mother admits "taking her eye off the ball" after her separation with the father but claims to be back on track.
March 8 2007: Arranged visit by Ward. Baby P is seen banging his head on the sofa.
March 22 2007: Ward notices Baby P has a red mark on the side of his chin. The mother claims he bumped into a side table at her friend's home. Thomas completes a one-year check and reports "no concerns".
April 7 2007: Baby P is seen by a family friend sitting in the garden with a large bruise on his forehead eating dirt. He is very quiet and withdrawn.
April 9 2007: The mother takes Baby P to North Middlesex hospital with a large swelling and bruising on the left side of his head and a small bruise on his right cheek. She claims he was pushed over by an 18-month-old child and hit his head on a marble fireplace the previous Thursday, April 5.
Baby P also has bruising around the eyes, scratches to his face and earlobe, and headlice. The CT scan is normal. Social services are informed and a diagnosis of possible meningitis is made. Social services provide the family with a fireguard.
April 11 2007: Baby P is discharged from hospital.
June 1 2007: Baby P, now 15 months old, is visited unannounced by Ward. He is lying on the sofa under a blanket. His face is red with some bruising under the chin and a red line under his eye. His mother claims he has been in a fight with the 18-month-old child.
The social worker informs the police and tells the mother to see the GP. The boy is taken to the North Middlesex hospital. Medical staff find 12 areas of bruising. The mother is worried the baby may be taken away but social services arrange for a family friend to supervise the baby's care.
June 5 2007: The mother is arrested for a second time and questioned by police. She claims she is a "damn good mum".
June 6 2007: Baby P is taken to Lordship Lane health clinic. Health visitor Thomas notes he has lost weight since March and sees scabs on his head. The mother claims he has had an allergic reaction.
June 8 2007: Photographs are taken of Baby P during a visit to his home by the police child protection team. He appears to have a bruise at the centre of his spine.
June 12 2007: Childminder notices a weeping and bleeding sore on Baby P's head. She also says the child is often unwashed, smells of vomit and always seems to be hungry.
June 15 2007: The childminder tells social services of a bruise on the boy's chin but they decide it is a pre-existing injury.
June 19 2007: A social worker visits Baby P at the childminder's home and sees scratches on his scalp. The mother takes him to North Middlesex hospital for treatment to scratches on his ear and scalp. She claims he has had an allergic reaction after eating red Leicester cheese.
June 18 2007: Mother tells Ward over the phone she is going away the next day for her birthday.
29 June 2007: Another man, Jason Owen, moves into the home with a 15-year-old runaway girl. Ward tries to contact the mother but fails.
July 2 2007: Ward contacts mother and is told they are at her seriously ill uncle's home in Cricklewood, north-west London. It was alleged in court that this was a cover story to conceal the fact that Baby P had a black eye.
July 4 2007: The health visitor is unable to contact the mother but leaves message on phone.
July 9 2007: Baby P is taken to a walk-in clinic at North Middlesex hospital to get antibiotics for ear and scalp infections. The mother cancels an appointment with the health visitor.
July 10 2007: A police meeting leads experts to agree that the injuries to Baby P in December 2006 are "suggestive of non-accidental injury but non-conclusive".
July 11 2007: A social worker visits the family and notes Baby P's ear and scalp infection.
July 16 2007: The mother cancels her appointment with the health visitor.
July 18 2007: Baby P is examined by Thomas and found to have again lost weight. He continues to suffer from scalp infection. Bruising is also noted around his ear. His mother claims it was caused when she was trying to clean his ear.
July 19 2007: Baby P is taken to a walk-in clinic at North Middlesex hospital. He has an ear infection and swelling, and a nail infection on his right hand. Antibiotics are prescribed.
July 23 2007: An appointment for Baby P at the child development centre at St Anne's hospital, Tottenham, is cancelled.
July 24 2007: The childminder informs Ward she cannot look after Baby P because of the scalp infection. Ward telephones the mother and tells her to go to a GP. The mother fails to turn up for an appointment with the health visitor and claims she forgot.
July 26 2007: The mother takes Baby P to his GP. Baby P is withdrawn and pulls away from the doctor during examination. The GP prescribes anti-bacterial cream and makes an appointment for August 2.
July 27 2007: Baby P stays overnight with his father. He appears to be healthy apart from the scalp infection and a bandage to his finger.
July 30 2007: Ward makes her last visit to see Baby P. He is in his buggy and has chocolate smears over his face and hands, and anti-bacterial cream on his scalp. They may have been used to obscure the injuries, said Owen.
July 31 2007: The CPS decides there is insufficient evidence against the mother or the maternal grandmother.
August 1 2007: Baby P is taken to the child development
centre at St Anne's hospital following two previous cancelled appointments. By this time he is probably suffering from fractured ribs and a broken
back, paralysing him from the waist down.
Dr Sabah al-Zayyat notes bruises to the body and face but does not carry out a full examination because Baby P is "miserable and cranky". In evidence, she insists that the boy was moving his legs – something she has not mentioned before.
She tells the court: "I did examine him. He didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold.
"He was sitting without support. There was no reason to suspect anything else."
The mother cancels an appointment with the heath visitor.
August 2 2007: The mother decides not to take Baby P to the GP. Ward agrees, as Baby P was seen by a paediatrician the previous day. At a meeting with police and social services the mother is told that police would be taking no further action over the assault. She cries with relief and says she will go back and give him a big hug and bake a cake.
August 3 2007, 1.10am: The mother chats to friend over the phone and says the boy is "fine".
August 3 2007, 11.35am: A 999 call is made. Baby P is taken to hospital but pronounced dead on arrival.
March 1 2006: Baby P is born. He lives with his father and mother in Haringey, north London.
May 2 2006: Baby P's first visit to GP. He is suffering from vomiting and returns on May 26 with a similar complaint.
July 17 2006: The baby's father leaves the family home in Haringey.
October 13 2006: Baby P, now eight months old, is taken to his GP with bruising on the side of his head and chest. The mother claims he has fallen down the stairs.
November/December 2006: The mother's 32-year-old boyfriend moves in to the family home.
December 11 2006: Baby P is taken to his GP with a head injury, bruising to the bridge of the nose, sternum, right shoulder and buttocks. The mother is "flustered" and cannot give an explanation. Baby P is referred to the paediatric department at the Whittington hospital near Highgate for a skeletal scan and blood-clotting tests. The mother claims Baby P has fallen off the settee and been scratched by the dog. Baby P Is referred to social services.
December 12 2006: Haringey social services strategy meeting considers Baby P's case.
December 15 2006: Baby P is discharged from hospital into the care of his mother's friend. A police investigation begins.
December 19 2006: The mother and grandmother of Baby P are arrested for assaulting the child and bailed to return on January 11 2007 (the grandmother has never been charged with any offence in relation to the case).
December 22 2006: Baby P's name is placed on the Haringey child protection register for neglect and physical abuse.
January 26 2007: Baby P returns to the care of his mother. She is still on police bail after December arrest for assaulting the child.
February 2007: The mother, partner and baby are moved to a bigger council home in north London.
February 22 2007: Allocated social worker Maria Ward makes her first visit to the new house. The mother complains about Baby P's name going on the register. She denies causing the bruising.
March 2 2007: Second visit by Ward, together with health visitor Paulette Thomas, the day after Baby P's first birthday. Ward sees the child butting the floor and refers him to the child development centre. The mother admits "taking her eye off the ball" after her separation with the father but claims to be back on track.
March 8 2007: Arranged visit by Ward. Baby P is seen banging his head on the sofa.
March 22 2007: Ward notices Baby P has a red mark on the side of his chin. The mother claims he bumped into a side table at her friend's home. Thomas completes a one-year check and reports "no concerns".
April 7 2007: Baby P is seen by a family friend sitting in the garden with a large bruise on his forehead eating dirt. He is very quiet and withdrawn.
April 9 2007: The mother takes Baby P to North Middlesex hospital with a large swelling and bruising on the left side of his head and a small bruise on his right cheek. She claims he was pushed over by an 18-month-old child and hit his head on a marble fireplace the previous Thursday, April 5.
Baby P also has bruising around the eyes, scratches to his face and earlobe, and headlice. The CT scan is normal. Social services are informed and a diagnosis of possible meningitis is made. Social services provide the family with a fireguard.
April 11 2007: Baby P is discharged from hospital.
June 1 2007: Baby P, now 15 months old, is visited unannounced by Ward. He is lying on the sofa under a blanket. His face is red with some bruising under the chin and a red line under his eye. His mother claims he has been in a fight with the 18-month-old child.
The social worker informs the police and tells the mother to see the GP. The boy is taken to the North Middlesex hospital. Medical staff find 12 areas of bruising. The mother is worried the baby may be taken away but social services arrange for a family friend to supervise the baby's care.
June 5 2007: The mother is arrested for a second time and questioned by police. She claims she is a "damn good mum".
June 6 2007: Baby P is taken to Lordship Lane health clinic. Health visitor Thomas notes he has lost weight since March and sees scabs on his head. The mother claims he has had an allergic reaction.
June 8 2007: Photographs are taken of Baby P during a visit to his home by the police child protection team. He appears to have a bruise at the centre of his spine.
June 12 2007: Childminder notices a weeping and bleeding sore on Baby P's head. She also says the child is often unwashed, smells of vomit and always seems to be hungry.
June 15 2007: The childminder tells social services of a bruise on the boy's chin but they decide it is a pre-existing injury.
June 19 2007: A social worker visits Baby P at the childminder's home and sees scratches on his scalp. The mother takes him to North Middlesex hospital for treatment to scratches on his ear and scalp. She claims he has had an allergic reaction after eating red Leicester cheese.
June 18 2007: Mother tells Ward over the phone she is going away the next day for her birthday.
29 June 2007: Another man, Jason Owen, moves into the home with a 15-year-old runaway girl. Ward tries to contact the mother but fails.
July 2 2007: Ward contacts mother and is told they are at her seriously ill uncle's home in Cricklewood, north-west London. It was alleged in court that this was a cover story to conceal the fact that Baby P had a black eye.
July 4 2007: The health visitor is unable to contact the mother but leaves message on phone.
July 9 2007: Baby P is taken to a walk-in clinic at North Middlesex hospital to get antibiotics for ear and scalp infections. The mother cancels an appointment with the health visitor.
July 10 2007: A police meeting leads experts to agree that the injuries to Baby P in December 2006 are "suggestive of non-accidental injury but non-conclusive".
July 11 2007: A social worker visits the family and notes Baby P's ear and scalp infection.
July 16 2007: The mother cancels her appointment with the health visitor.
July 18 2007: Baby P is examined by Thomas and found to have again lost weight. He continues to suffer from scalp infection. Bruising is also noted around his ear. His mother claims it was caused when she was trying to clean his ear.
July 19 2007: Baby P is taken to a walk-in clinic at North Middlesex hospital. He has an ear infection and swelling, and a nail infection on his right hand. Antibiotics are prescribed.
July 23 2007: An appointment for Baby P at the child development centre at St Anne's hospital, Tottenham, is cancelled.
July 24 2007: The childminder informs Ward she cannot look after Baby P because of the scalp infection. Ward telephones the mother and tells her to go to a GP. The mother fails to turn up for an appointment with the health visitor and claims she forgot.
July 26 2007: The mother takes Baby P to his GP. Baby P is withdrawn and pulls away from the doctor during examination. The GP prescribes anti-bacterial cream and makes an appointment for August 2.
July 27 2007: Baby P stays overnight with his father. He appears to be healthy apart from the scalp infection and a bandage to his finger.
July 30 2007: Ward makes her last visit to see Baby P. He is in his buggy and has chocolate smears over his face and hands, and anti-bacterial cream on his scalp. They may have been used to obscure the injuries, said Owen.
July 31 2007: The CPS decides there is insufficient evidence against the mother or the maternal grandmother.
August 1 2007: Baby P is taken to the child development
centre at St Anne's hospital following two previous cancelled appointments. By this time he is probably suffering from fractured ribs and a broken
back, paralysing him from the waist down.
Dr Sabah al-Zayyat notes bruises to the body and face but does not carry out a full examination because Baby P is "miserable and cranky". In evidence, she insists that the boy was moving his legs – something she has not mentioned before.
She tells the court: "I did examine him. He didn't look any different from a child of his age with a common cold.
"He was sitting without support. There was no reason to suspect anything else."
The mother cancels an appointment with the heath visitor.
August 2 2007: The mother decides not to take Baby P to the GP. Ward agrees, as Baby P was seen by a paediatrician the previous day. At a meeting with police and social services the mother is told that police would be taking no further action over the assault. She cries with relief and says she will go back and give him a big hug and bake a cake.
August 3 2007, 1.10am: The mother chats to friend over the phone and says the boy is "fine".
August 3 2007, 11.35am: A 999 call is made. Baby P is taken to hospital but pronounced dead on arrival.
Keynesian v Monetarism
Keynesian Economics
Keynesian economics is an economic theory named after John Maynard Keynes, a British economist who lived from 1883 to 1946. He is most well-known for his simple explanation for the cause of the Great Depression. His economic theory was based on a circular flow of money, which refers to the idea that when spending increases in an economy, earnings also increase, which can lead to even more spending and earnings. Keynes' ideas spawned numerous interventionist economic policies during the Great Depression.
In Keynes' theory, one person's spending goes towards another person's earnings, and when that person spends his or her earnings, he or she is, in effect, supporting another person's earnings. This cycle continues on and helps support a normal, functioning economy. When the Great Depression hit, people's natural reaction was to hoard their money. Under Keynes' theory, this stopped the circular flow of money, keeping the economy at a standstill.
Keynes' solution to this poor economic state was to "prime the pump." He argued that the government should step in to increase spending, either by increasing the money supply or by actually buying things itself. During the Great Depression, however, this was not a popular solution. It is said, however, that the massive defence spending that United States president Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated helped revive the U.S. economy.
Keynesian economics advocates for the public sector to step in to assist the economy generally, which is a significant departure from popular economic thought that preceded it (Laissez-faire capitalism). Laissez-faire capitalism supported the exclusion of the public sector in the market. The belief was that an unfettered market would achieve balance on its own.
The proponents of free-market capitalism include the Austrian School of economic thought. One of its founders, Friedrich von Hayek, lived in England at the same time as Keynes. The two men had a public rivalry for many years because of their opposing thoughts on the role of the state in the economic lives of individuals.
Keynesian economics warns against the practice of too much saving and not enough consumption, or spending, in an economy. It also supports considerable redistribution of wealth, when needed. Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth. Another central idea of Keynesian economics is that trends in the macroeconomic level can disproportionately influence consumer behavior at the micro-level.
Monetarism Economics
A monetarist is an individual who holds to the understanding that fluctuations in economic conditions are created as the supply of money within that economy increases or decreases. The general concept of monetarism is often attributed to the work of Milton Friedman, who related the flow of money in an economy to government efforts to control that flow. It is not unusual for a monetarist to also make note of unemployment levels as a factor that impacts the flow of money and thus exerts considerable impact on how a government structures its monetary policy.
In the most simplistic terms, a monetarist usually accepts the theory that the level of social spending has a direct effect on the level of inflation that is experienced within a given economy. This means that in situations where social spending is higher, the potential for inflation to rise is greater. Should social spending be curbed in some manner, this will help to lessen the possibility of inflation taking place, since there is less money being freely distributed through the economy.
As by products of an increase in inflation, a monetarist will often also state that the logical outcome of this economic condition is that there is less flexibility in the labor market. In other words, people will find it harder to locate and secure jobs that make it possible to earn enough money to maintain their buying power during the inflationary period. At the same time, this period of inflation can undermine productivity, due to increased costs that may lead to companies cutting back on production, and the number of workers needed to maintain that production. With less disposable income to feed the economy, it grows stale and the inflation is likely to continue, unless steps are taken to correct the imbalance.
A monetarist will tend to promote the creation of specific strategies that have the effect of stimulating the money supply within an economy. This in turn has the effect of restoring flexibility to the labour market, making it easier for displaced workers to find jobs that pay equitably and make it possible to enjoy a decent standard of living. At the same time, inflation begins to ebb as productivity rises and competition is restored to the marketplace. While the theory of monetarism may be employed in rather simple and straightforward ways, there are also many adaptations of the basic theory that a monetarist may develop in light of specific conditions that exist within a given economy. Those approaches can further be adapted to fit a localised economy, such as within a state or parish; apply to a national economy; or even be utilised to address issues in the world economy.
Which works?
You can see over the past years how different governments have used the different economic models to their advantage...Labour wanted us to spend, spend, spend and that worked our economy was booming however only to bursting point. The coalition took over and want to cut,cut,cut but is is really working? Do we need a happy medium to balance a stable economy?
Keynesian economics is an economic theory named after John Maynard Keynes, a British economist who lived from 1883 to 1946. He is most well-known for his simple explanation for the cause of the Great Depression. His economic theory was based on a circular flow of money, which refers to the idea that when spending increases in an economy, earnings also increase, which can lead to even more spending and earnings. Keynes' ideas spawned numerous interventionist economic policies during the Great Depression.
In Keynes' theory, one person's spending goes towards another person's earnings, and when that person spends his or her earnings, he or she is, in effect, supporting another person's earnings. This cycle continues on and helps support a normal, functioning economy. When the Great Depression hit, people's natural reaction was to hoard their money. Under Keynes' theory, this stopped the circular flow of money, keeping the economy at a standstill.
Keynes' solution to this poor economic state was to "prime the pump." He argued that the government should step in to increase spending, either by increasing the money supply or by actually buying things itself. During the Great Depression, however, this was not a popular solution. It is said, however, that the massive defence spending that United States president Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated helped revive the U.S. economy.
Keynesian economics advocates for the public sector to step in to assist the economy generally, which is a significant departure from popular economic thought that preceded it (Laissez-faire capitalism). Laissez-faire capitalism supported the exclusion of the public sector in the market. The belief was that an unfettered market would achieve balance on its own.
The proponents of free-market capitalism include the Austrian School of economic thought. One of its founders, Friedrich von Hayek, lived in England at the same time as Keynes. The two men had a public rivalry for many years because of their opposing thoughts on the role of the state in the economic lives of individuals.
Keynesian economics warns against the practice of too much saving and not enough consumption, or spending, in an economy. It also supports considerable redistribution of wealth, when needed. Keynesian economics further concludes that there is a pragmatic reason for the massive redistribution of wealth: if the poorer segments of society are given sums of money, they will likely spend it, rather than save it, thus promoting economic growth. Another central idea of Keynesian economics is that trends in the macroeconomic level can disproportionately influence consumer behavior at the micro-level.
Monetarism Economics
A monetarist is an individual who holds to the understanding that fluctuations in economic conditions are created as the supply of money within that economy increases or decreases. The general concept of monetarism is often attributed to the work of Milton Friedman, who related the flow of money in an economy to government efforts to control that flow. It is not unusual for a monetarist to also make note of unemployment levels as a factor that impacts the flow of money and thus exerts considerable impact on how a government structures its monetary policy.
In the most simplistic terms, a monetarist usually accepts the theory that the level of social spending has a direct effect on the level of inflation that is experienced within a given economy. This means that in situations where social spending is higher, the potential for inflation to rise is greater. Should social spending be curbed in some manner, this will help to lessen the possibility of inflation taking place, since there is less money being freely distributed through the economy.
As by products of an increase in inflation, a monetarist will often also state that the logical outcome of this economic condition is that there is less flexibility in the labor market. In other words, people will find it harder to locate and secure jobs that make it possible to earn enough money to maintain their buying power during the inflationary period. At the same time, this period of inflation can undermine productivity, due to increased costs that may lead to companies cutting back on production, and the number of workers needed to maintain that production. With less disposable income to feed the economy, it grows stale and the inflation is likely to continue, unless steps are taken to correct the imbalance.
A monetarist will tend to promote the creation of specific strategies that have the effect of stimulating the money supply within an economy. This in turn has the effect of restoring flexibility to the labour market, making it easier for displaced workers to find jobs that pay equitably and make it possible to enjoy a decent standard of living. At the same time, inflation begins to ebb as productivity rises and competition is restored to the marketplace. While the theory of monetarism may be employed in rather simple and straightforward ways, there are also many adaptations of the basic theory that a monetarist may develop in light of specific conditions that exist within a given economy. Those approaches can further be adapted to fit a localised economy, such as within a state or parish; apply to a national economy; or even be utilised to address issues in the world economy.
Which works?
You can see over the past years how different governments have used the different economic models to their advantage...Labour wanted us to spend, spend, spend and that worked our economy was booming however only to bursting point. The coalition took over and want to cut,cut,cut but is is really working? Do we need a happy medium to balance a stable economy?
Black & Wiliam - Assessment for Learning
In 1998 professors Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam of Kings College, London, likened the classroom to a ‘black box’. Government initiatives focused on the box’s input and output, but not what went on inside it. Attention was paid to the process of teaching and learning, but this was sidelined in favour of ‘summative assessment’ – the recording of data for certification and evaluation.
In order to restore the balance they advocated ‘formative assessment’, or assessment for learning (AfL). In AfL, information from marking or other means of assessment is used as feedback to modify learning activity. This might take the form of teachers giving comments on how a student can improve their work instead of awarding grades, or students assessing for themselves where their weaknesses lie. It is based on the idea that all students can improve, and fosters a spirit of cooperation in the classroom, with students actively involved in their own learning. (AfL should not be confused with the mere performance of classroom tests by teachers. If the information from such tests is simply used to record progress, it is not directly contributing to improving learning.)
Black and Wiliam (1998) had demonstrated in a wide-ranging research review that such an approach could improve both learning and exam results. However, they and their colleagues at Kings realised that they needed to provide practical examples of its use if AfL was to be widely adopted. They went on to develop a project with 48 teachers and Oxfordshire and Medway LEAs – the King’s, Medway, Oxfordshire Formative Assessment Project (KMOFAP). This project developed formative practice in four areas.
Developing formative practice
•Questioning:
Teachers found that if they allowed more time for students to reply to their questions, more thoughtful answers were given. They also found that lessons became richer if they changed the focus of questions from testing students’ knowledge of facts to exploring their understanding. For example, a science teacher who had begun lessons with questions such as ‘What is this instrument and where would you find it?’ now began to ask questions such as ‘Why do you think these two plants have grown differently?’
•Peer and self-assessment:
Teachers encouraged students to take more ownership of their own learning by helping them to understand learning targets. ‘Traffic-lighting’, in which students assigned red, amber or green to a piece of work, according to the degree which they did or did not understand it was also found valuable. Peer assessment showed that students were more likely to challenge each other’s judgments of their work, thereby sparking discussion and debate.
•Marking:
One of the central tenets of AfL is feedback which identifies what the student has done well and focuses on what he or she can do to improve. Following the research evidence that students pay more attention to comments when they are not accompanied by marks, teachers were encouraged to give comments only. This required effort from both student and teacher, but led to the fostering of better learning environments as all saw that learning was improving.
•AfL through summative assessment:
AfL has to operate in a world of summative assessment, but exams can be used to directly improve learning. Students were encouraged to understand the criteria against which exams were marked, and to revise more actively by generating their own exam questions, explaining parts of units to each other and marking peers’ work.
In order to restore the balance they advocated ‘formative assessment’, or assessment for learning (AfL). In AfL, information from marking or other means of assessment is used as feedback to modify learning activity. This might take the form of teachers giving comments on how a student can improve their work instead of awarding grades, or students assessing for themselves where their weaknesses lie. It is based on the idea that all students can improve, and fosters a spirit of cooperation in the classroom, with students actively involved in their own learning. (AfL should not be confused with the mere performance of classroom tests by teachers. If the information from such tests is simply used to record progress, it is not directly contributing to improving learning.)
Black and Wiliam (1998) had demonstrated in a wide-ranging research review that such an approach could improve both learning and exam results. However, they and their colleagues at Kings realised that they needed to provide practical examples of its use if AfL was to be widely adopted. They went on to develop a project with 48 teachers and Oxfordshire and Medway LEAs – the King’s, Medway, Oxfordshire Formative Assessment Project (KMOFAP). This project developed formative practice in four areas.
Developing formative practice
•Questioning:
Teachers found that if they allowed more time for students to reply to their questions, more thoughtful answers were given. They also found that lessons became richer if they changed the focus of questions from testing students’ knowledge of facts to exploring their understanding. For example, a science teacher who had begun lessons with questions such as ‘What is this instrument and where would you find it?’ now began to ask questions such as ‘Why do you think these two plants have grown differently?’
•Peer and self-assessment:
Teachers encouraged students to take more ownership of their own learning by helping them to understand learning targets. ‘Traffic-lighting’, in which students assigned red, amber or green to a piece of work, according to the degree which they did or did not understand it was also found valuable. Peer assessment showed that students were more likely to challenge each other’s judgments of their work, thereby sparking discussion and debate.
•Marking:
One of the central tenets of AfL is feedback which identifies what the student has done well and focuses on what he or she can do to improve. Following the research evidence that students pay more attention to comments when they are not accompanied by marks, teachers were encouraged to give comments only. This required effort from both student and teacher, but led to the fostering of better learning environments as all saw that learning was improving.
•AfL through summative assessment:
AfL has to operate in a world of summative assessment, but exams can be used to directly improve learning. Students were encouraged to understand the criteria against which exams were marked, and to revise more actively by generating their own exam questions, explaining parts of units to each other and marking peers’ work.
Bullying
Bullying is something that's been around for so many years, when I was at school it was more where you got to sit in the dinner hall but with the introduction of facebook and other social networking sites bullying can take place 24 hours a day!
It is an awful thing for both the child and their parents. All UK state schools have an anti bullying policy and it is taken very seriously within school settings however it is hard to manage outside of school. Sites like facebook do have 'reporting' tools to try to eliminate bullying but it is very hard to police.
I found some really useful websites and links that give help and advice on bullying and organisations such as Bullying UK that can help children and families. There are also national campaigns through charities like the NSPCC and childline. National bullying week is held every year to raise awareness of bullying how to spot if someone is being bullied and how they can get help.
Parents Channel website has some really useful videos too. Take a look...
http://www.parentchannel.tv/video/bullying-5-9-signs
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Yourchildshealthandsafety/WorriedAbout/DG_10015786
http://www.bullying.co.uk/
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforteachers/classroomresources/bullying_wda55551.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)