UK Lags Behind In Child-Parent Wellbeing, Says Unicef

Children and parents in two contrasting European countries, Sweden and Spain, have significantly higher levels of wellbeing than those in a third, the United Kingdom, according to a survey and research by Unicef, the United Nations Children’s Fund.


















The survey examined attitudes towards materialism and inequality and found that parents and children had markedly different attitudes towards material possessions.

It was carried out among some 250 children, ranging in age from eight to 13, from all social backgrounds in the three countries. The findings were further discussed in three steering groups, one each in England, Spain and Sweden, of 14-year-olds. Twenty four families in the three countries were also observed and filmed.

“The message from them all was simple, clear and unanimous,” according to the Unicef report, “their wellbeing centres on time with a happy, stable family, having good friends and plenty of things to do, especially outdoors.”

Given the links, in terms of history, cultural and social policy thinking, between Ireland and the UK, the survey is likely to be of interest in Ireland, in particular to social workers, childcare specialists and policy analysts.

“Family life in the three countries was strikingly different,” says the report. It identified pressure on parental time in the UK, linked to long hours and both parents working outside the home, as having an impact on children, with parents trying to “make up” by buying things for their children.

“In the UK homes, we found parents struggling to give children the time they clearly want to spend with them whilst in Spain and Sweden family time appeared to be woven into the fabric of everyday life. We also noticed that the roles played by mothers, fathers and children within the family and the rules which governed family life were much more clearly defined in Spain and Sweden than in the UK.

“Moreover by the time many British children had reached secondary school, their participation in active and creative pursuits – pursuits that children said made them happy – had in fact dwindled, whilst this occurred less in other countries . . .

“Behind the statistics, we found British families struggling, pushed to find the time their children want, something exacerbated by the uncertainty about the rules and roles operating within the family household. And we found less participation in outdoor and creative activities amongst older and more deprived children.”

On materialism, the survey found that British children and parents both had problems.

For the majority of eight- to 13-year-olds in all three countries, “new toys, fashion items and gadgets were not central to their wellbeing”.

“Rather than wanting to acquire things for their own sake, material objects and consumer goods tended to fulfil a range of purposes in children’s lives: utilitarian, symbolic and social,” says the report.

“However, whilst most children agreed that family time is more important than consumer goods, we observed within UK homes a compulsion on the part of some parents to continually buy new things both for themselves and their children . . .

“We also noticed that UK parents were often buying their children status brands believing that they were protecting them from the kind of bullying they experienced in their own childhood.

“This compulsive acquisition and protective, symbolic brand purchase was largely absent in Spain and Sweden where parents were clearly under much less pressure to consume and displayed greater resilience.”

On inequality, in the UK this tended to be defined in terms of money and material possessions.

“Whilst the links between brands and inequality created tensions and anxieties for children in all three countries to some extent, these feelings were only shared by UK parents. Swedish and Spanish parents seemed not to belong to a “consumer generation” in the same way.

“Deprivation for Swedish parents was understood as living in an area where personal safety was threatened, whilst for Spanish mothers not being able to spend time with your children was seen to confer disadvantage relative to others.

“In the UK, inequality was also seen in access to outdoor, sporting and creative activities, with poorer children spending more sedentary time in front of screens whilst the more affluent had access to a wide range of sports and other pursuits.”

Children’s Well-being in the UK, Sweden and Spain: the Role of Inequality and Materialism (Unicef; June 2011) is a qualitative study and may be read online in full at unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/

David Cameron: Parents Of Truants Face Benefit Cuts

Parents of children who regularly truant face having their benefits cut, David Cameron has warned, as he opened the first wave of the Government’s free schools.











In a keynote speech on Friday, the Prime Minister said the government's social policy review, set up in the wake of the recent riots, was considering the proposal.

Addressing the Norwich Free School, Norfolk, he outlined Coalition plans to ensure teaching was based on “excellence”.

Controversial reforms were needed to “bring back the values of a good education” because failure to do so would be “fatal to prosperity”.

Mr Cameron said more discipline and rigour were needed.

In his speech, Mr Cameron signalled a return to “elitism” in schools in an attempt to mend Britain’s “broken society” and secure the economic future.

He said discipline needed to be restored in schools, with teachers and heads being given the tools to do this but “restoring discipline is also about what parents do”.

“We need parents to have a real stake in the discipline of their children, to face real consequences if their children continually misbehave,” he said.

"That's why I have asked our social policy review to look into whether we should cut the benefits of those parents whose children constantly play truant.

"Yes, this would be a tough measure – but we urgently need to restore order and respect in the classroom and I don't want ideas like this to be off the table."

In his speech, Mr Cameron also championed the opening of the first free schools, state-funded institutions run by parents, charities and faith groups, independent of local council control. Some 24 have opened this month.

The Prime Minister attacked the “prizes for all” culture in which competitiveness was frowned upon and winners are shunned.

The comments marked the latest in a series of attempts to focus on education in response to the riots that shocked London and other English cities last month.

They follow the announcement by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, of back-to-basics discipline in state schools.

He plans to give teachers more freedom to search pupils suspected of carrying banned items and to let them use reasonable force in removing the most disruptive children from the classroom.

Mr Cameron sought to move the debate on to standards, saying that a rigorous focus on the basics is needed to give young people “the character to live a good life, to be good citizens”.

The Prime Minister added: “For the future of our economy, and our society, we need a first-class education for every child. Of course, everyone’s agreed on that.

“The trouble is that for years we’ve been bogged down in a great debate about how we get there. Standards or structures? Learning by rote or by play? Elitism or all winning prizes?”

"Every year that passes without proper reform, is another year that tens of thousands of teenagers leave school without the qualifications they really need."

He added: "The most important value we're bringing back to the classroom is a commitment to rigour. Rigorous subjects, tested in a rigorous way.

"However well students perform in their exams, we cannot deny the reality of the past few years. The numbers of people taking core academic subjects - they went down.

"The voices from business concerned about the usefulness of some of our exams - they grew louder.

"We are determined to stop this slide - and already we're making an impact."

Mr Cameron made clear that he was in favour of elitism and not prizes for all.

He added: “These debates are over – because it’s clear what works. Discipline works. Rigour works. Freedom for schools works. Having high expectations works.

“Now we’ve got to get on with it – and we don’t have any time to lose.”

Free schools have provoked fury among teaching unions who claim they smack of elitism and represent an attempt to dismantle the state education system.

But Mr Cameron insisted free schools will “have the power to change lives”.

He also sought to link improvements in education to mending “our broken society.”

“We’ve got to be ambitious if we want to compete in the world,” he said.

“When China is going through an educational renaissance, when India is churning out science graduates, any complacency now would be fatal.

“And we’ve got to be ambitious, too, if we want to mend our broken society. Because education doesn’t just give people the tools to make a good living – it gives them the character to live a good life, to be good citizens.”

He added: "A free school is born of a real passion for education – a belief in its power to change lives.

"It's a passion and a belief this coalition shares. We want to want to create an education system based on real excellence, with a complete intolerance of failure."

The comments come days after Nick Clegg said that parents must take more responsibility. The Deputy Prime Minister insisted that teachers should be left to educate, and not be expected to act as “surrogate mothers and fathers”.

Shafilea Ahmed's Parents Charged With Her Murder

The parents of Cheshire schoolgirl Shafilea Ahmed, the suspected victim of a so-called honour killing, have been charged with her murder.














A coroner ruled that Shafilea Ahmed was unlawfully killed.

The 17-year-old was last seen in Warrington in September 2003.

Her decomposed remains were found on the banks of the River Kent in Cumbria in February 2004.

Iftikhar Ahmed, 51, and Farzana Ahmed, 48, of Liverpool Road in Great Sankey, Warrington, have always denied any involvement in their daughter's death.

The couple appeared at Halton Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, and were remanded in custody.

They are now due to appear before Manchester Crown Court on Friday.

Mr and Mrs Ahmed were initially arrested on suspicion of kidnapping their daughter in December 2003. In June 2004 they were released without charge when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) ruled there was insufficient evidence against them.

They were arrested on suspicion of her murder in 2010 and released on police bail.

The CPS authorised Cheshire police to charge the couple on Wednesday.



The CPS authorised Cheshire police to charge Shafilea's parents.

Two post-mortem examinations failed to determine how Ms Ahmed died but a verdict of unlawful killing was recorded at her inquest in 2008.

The inquest heard she was a bright and intelligent young woman who wanted to go to university and become a lawyer.

Pathologists said she was most likely strangled or suffocated and South Cumbria coroner Ian Smith said he believed she was probably murdered.

The teenager went missing on 11 September 2003 and was reported missing by a teacher a week later.

Her body was discovered by workmen and she was identified by her jewellery and dental records.

Two-Thirds Of Schools Ignore Legal Requirement To Provide Daily Act Of Worship

Most schools ignore the legal requirement to hold a daily act of worship for their pupils, a new study has found.

Almost two-thirds of parents told a survey that their children do not attend a daily act of collective worship at school.

And a majority of people thinks that the law on daily worship on schools should be no longer be enforced.















Assembly: But two-thirds of schooldchildren do not attend a daily act of worship.

A Church of England spokesman pointed out that the BBC Local Radio poll did not differentiate between primary and secondary schools, and argued that most primary schools do have collective worship or a daily period of reflection.

'The law states that all maintained schools must provide a daily act of collective worship, with the exception of those withdrawn by their parents,' he said.


















Praying: The Church of England says that collective worship promotes pupils' 'spiritual, moral, social and cultural development'.

'The Church of England strongly supports this - although it is not its job to enforce it - as it provides an important chance for the school to focus on promoting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils.

'Collective worship is when pupils of all faiths and none come together to reflect - it should not be confused with corporate worship when everyone is of the same belief.'

However, 60 per cent of the public do not support enforcing the law which prescribes a daily act of worship in all state schools, with older people more favourable towards the law than the young.

A small majority (51 per cent) of those aged 65 or over believe it should be enforced, but only 29 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds agree.

Following the release of these findings, National Secular Society executive Keith Porteous Wood called for the law on collective daily worship to be repealed, saying it infringed pupils' human rights.

'As the BBC survey confirms, the law requiring daily collective worship is being widely flouted, and because the law should not be brought into disrepute in this way, it should be repealed,' he said.

'England is the only country in the western world to enforce participation in daily worship in community schools.

'To do so goes beyond the legitimate function of the state and is an abuse of children’s human rights, especially those who are old enough to make decisions for themselves.'

The survey was carried out by telephone in July and interviewed over 1,700 adults, including 500 parents with children at school in England.

School Dinners To Rise By 17%, Warns Consumer Watchdog

Parents will have to pay up to 25% more for their children’s school dinners, a survey has found.













Consumer watchdog Which? discovered the price is rising in two-thirds of schools across the country this year – while the quality of food could plummet.

Parents would rather give their children packed lunches as they believe them to be cheaper and their children do not like school dinners, according to the research. Schools in Poole are the most expensive in the country at an average of £2.50.

But Doncaster Council has increased prices by 17% to between £1.70 and £2 a meal while Lewisham has upped theirs by 14%, from £1.40 to £1.60.

Bolton saw the biggest increase at 25%, although its prices still remain the lowest in the country at £1.25.

It is estimated that 55% of students would need to take school meals in order to keep costs down.

But the research just 45% of pupils in England have them. Richard Lloyd of Which? said yesterday: “It will come as an unwelcome surprise to hard-pressed families to see some local authorities increasing prices well above inflation.

“Meals in most areas are still a relatively low-cost and low-hassle way to provide a decent lunch for your kids.

“But if schools cannot find ways to protect the extra funding that has gone to school meals and increase the numbers taking them, there’s a real risk of even more hikes or a drop in standards, undoing progress made in the past five years.”

Parents Paying £77,000 'Premium' For Homes Near Top State Schools

Parents are paying ‘premiums’ of on average £77,000 to buy homes near leading state schools, research out today suggests.
















Pricey: Catchment area of the Henrietta Barnett school (pictured) has homes with an average price of £655,429.

Property prices within sought-after catchment areas are 35 per cent higher than in the rest of the UK, with an average asking price of £298,378.

The most expensive catchment area of a state school in Britain’s top ten surrounds all-girls grammar Henrietta Barnett, in Barnet, north-west London, where the average house price is £655,429.

The premiums have soared from an average of £20,000 in just four years.

And rent in the catchment areas of the top 50 state schools – at an average of £944 a month – is 7.8 per cent higher than in the rest of the country. For the catchment areas of six of them, rental prices are as high as £1,500 a month.

But the premiums are still cheaper than most private school fees, which can top £30,000 a year.

The research is likely to reignite the bitter row over school ‘selection by mortgage’ rather than ability.

The phenomenon has prompted some councils to adopt controversial lotteries – effectively picking names from a hat – to give children from poorer homes an equal chance of getting a place at a top school.











The research, from property website PrimeLocation.com, is based on average asking prices in July this year and GCSE results taken from 2010.

It shows a handful of the top schools are in areas with typical house prices more than twice the national average of £221,110.

These include St Olave’s and St Saviour’s Grammar in Orpington, Kent, ranked second in the UK, where house prices average £592,471. Notably, house prices in the area around the top-rated Bishop Wordsworth’s Grammar, in Salisbury, are just below the average for leading schools at £286,112.

Nigel Lewis, property analyst at PrimeLocation.com, says: ‘For many years now the challenges of the catchment area-based lottery for state schools have vexed millions of parents across the UK – and our research highlights how much it can cost to get your child into the ideal school.’

n The first 24 ‘free schools’ are to receive £130million between them from the Government to cover their start-up costs this year.

Among those getting state backing is the Maharishi School, in Ormskirk, Lancashire, where children as young as four will be given meditation classes.

Cutting Benefits Of Single Parents Will Increase Number Of Kids In Poverty

Slashing benefits of single parents who don't look for work will increase child poverty and family hardship, a report has warned.

Gingerbread, the charity that represents lone parents, wants ministers to abandon the "big stick" of benefit sanctions proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill.















Interviewing 200 single parents it found most were keen to work but felt hampered by lack of support from Government and employers.

Gingerbread chief executive Fiona Weir said: "Single parents are branded bad mothers if they are not there for their children and derided as benefits scroungers if they stay home - they feel caught in a trap."

The Government says getting single parents to work is the best route out of poverty.

But Gingerbread claims welfare reforms will make it tougher for single parents to juggle work with raising a family.

There are 1.9 million single parents in the UK who care for about three million children. Until last year, those with children aged 16 or younger could claim Income Support and weren't forced to seek work.

They had to attend "Work Focused Interviews" at the Jobcentre twice a year to discuss returning to work.

Since then, the Government has introduced a major change, gradually moving single parents with children aged seven and over from Income Support on to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).

To claim JSA they must attend Jobcentre Plus every two weeks and show they are actively looking for work. Claimants who fail to meet these conditions or who turn down a job without "good cause" can have their benefits cut by up to 40%.

The Bill aims to make parents of children as young as three take part in "work-related activity".

Many single parents are already being squeezed by the recession.

Calls to Gingerbread's helpline suggest more lone parents are seeing maintenance payments slashed as ex-partners lose their jobs.

Gingerbread's research also found many parents were keen to work but said it often didn't pay. "Childcare, travel and school meal costs can wipe out the benefits of many lowpaid, part-time jobs and leave parents out of pocket," says Weir.

Gingerbread wants employers to be more flexible to help single parents juggle work and family responsibilities and says the state could lead by example by offering more flexitime, parttime work and job sharing.

It believes single parents should have childcare costs covered through working tax credits and get their youngsters school meals free.

The DWP stressed the Government was commited to ensuring work pays for lone parents. Work & Pensions Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced a trial that from next year will mean they can earn £50 a week without losing benefits. And the bill has been amended so victims of domestic violence will not have to look for work for three months.

"We need to help families out of poverty by helping parents work, and we will always do so in a way that also supports family life," said Cooper. Here we speak to three single mums facing the challenges...

For expert advice call Gingerbread's free helpline on 0800 018 5026.

The full-time mum

Mother-of-two Jaqueline Carroll says she feels "stuck in a rut" on benefits.

"I want to work," the 33-year-old from Liverpool says. "I think it's terrible that the Government is threatening to take money off single parents instead of help them.

"Some single parents advisers are good - but some ask why you don't apply for jobs starting from 8.30am. When you say you can't because you have to drop your child off at school, they go 'oh you're just being negative'."

Jacqueline was shocked when she went for a supermarket job. "The first thing they said was 'if any of you want cushy hours, forget it. The good hours are for people already here'."

The part-time worker

Wendi New, 40, had to give up her job teaching young offenders in prison when her marriage broke up 12 months ago.

She says staff at her local Jobcentre tried to push her to work at a supermarket, despite her qualifications. Now she has a job teaching children with behavioural problems closer to her home in Lowestoft, Suffolk. She works 18 hours a week and brings home about £900 a month.

"I'd have to work 50 hours a week in a supermarket to earn that. I couldn't do it and look after Hollie. Even now if Hollie's ill I have to take unpaid leave and then I'm worse off than I'd be on benefits."

The full-time worker

Charity worker Sarah Davidge from Bristol wants to work to provide a "positive role model" for her daughters Meg and Beth.

"You have two jobs - work and parenting. But you don't feel as if you do either to the best of your ability. I can't stay late at work and I don't feel able to devote as much time as I'd like going through homework with them."

Sarah admits she is luckier than many lone parents - earning about £25,000 for a 35-hour week, and her employer is flexible about hours.

"But a lot of companies aren't so flexible. The Government should encourage choice, not try to force people to take the first job going."

Ed Miliband Attacks Cameron Over Child Benefit Cuts In Confident PMQs Debut

Ed Miliband today attacked David Cameron over the coalition's plans to slash child benefit in his first Prime Minister's Questions.

The new Labour leader claimed hundreds of thousands of families would lose out under the measures, aimed at helping cut the benefit bill.

Mr Miliband condemned the policy to axe the handouts for higher rate taxpayers as a 'shambles' and urged the Prime Minister to reconsider.

He claimed a family of three will lose £2,500 through the cut backs and suggested this was equal to a 6p rise in income tax.

The plan has caused outrage after it emerged stay-at-home mothers with partners earning just above the threshold will lose out but families with two working parents who are each on a salary just below the threshold will still receive the benefit.















Mr Cameron retorted that it was not fair to ask people who earned 'one sixth' of Mr Miliband's salary to pay tax to cover his child benefit.

But the Labour leader again shot back: 'It's nought out of two on straight answers' and denied he was 'defending the rich'.

'I am defending the deputy head teacher at a primary school, I am defending the police inspector, all of whom are asking a straightforward question,' he said.

And to cheers from his own benches, he quoted Mr Cameron's words at a Cameron Direct meeting during the election campaign.

A confident Mr Miliband demanded to know exactly how many families with one parent out of work would be affected by the cut.

Mr Cameron, with his deputy Nick Clegg nodding behind him, said higher-rate tax hit 15 per cent of taxpayers and admitted the decision had been 'difficult'.

But he insisted: 'As we deal with the deficit, we do have to ask better-off people to bear their fair share of the burden.'

He asked Mr Miliband to justify giving money to the more well-off, but the Opposition leader shot back: 'I may be new to this game but I think I ask the questions and he answers them.'

Mr Miliband criticised the PM for refusing to give a straight answer and insisted hundreds of thousands of families would be penalised.

'The question they are asking is this - why should a family on £45,000 when one parent stays at home lose their child benefit but a family on £80,000 where both partners are working keep theirs?

'It doesn't strike people as fair, it doesn't strike me as fair, does it strike the Prime Minister as fair?'































He said then: 'I am not going to flannel you, I am going to give it to you straight. I like child benefit. I wouldn't change child benefit.

'I wouldn't means test it, I don't think that's a good idea. I agree with the Prime Minister, why doesn't he?'

Mr Cameron insisted Labour had to face up to reality and their legacy to the coalition of the biggest budget deficit in the G20.

He accused Mr Miliband or having no alternative proposals and took his chance to quote back the new leader's words earlier this year.













He quoted former Labour Cabinet minister Alan Milburn who said 'in times of plenty, giving child benefit to high earners is a luxury we cannot afford'.

But Mr Miliband declared he should face up to the huge loss he was handing to families - with those with three children losing £2,500-a-year.

'If he wants to take people with him on deficit reduction, he has got to show that his changes are fair and reasonable,' he said.

The Prime Minister quoted Mr Miliband's own words back in July that: 'Whoever is the Labour leader will by the time of the spending review have to show they have an alternative plan.'

'Where is the alternative plan?', he demanded.

But Mr Miliband was unbowed, claiming he had shown how the Government had no defence for the policy.

'He cannot explain to families up and down the country why they are going to sustain this loss. This policy has been a shambles from day one.

'The rest of the cabinet knew nothing about it... I bet the PM wishes the BBC blackout had gone ahead.'

He added: 'Isn't it time the Prime Minister had the grown up sense to admit this - he's got it wrong, he's made the wrong decision. He should tell middle income families up and down Britain he will think again.'

Mr Cameron accused Mr Miliband of deciding to stand up for the 'squeezed middle' after years of taxing them while Labour was in government.

'It's a completely transparent political strategy to cover up the inconvenient truth that he was put where he is by the trade union movement,' he said.

Likening Mr Miliband to his predecessor, he added: 'It is just short-term tactics and political positioning. It's not red, it's Brown.'

It had been suggested Mr Cameron would be happier to face the younger Miliband brother than David, the former Foreign Secretary.

But today the 40-year-old former Energy Secretary showed he will be no easy ride as the Government battles to push through drastic spending cuts.

At the start of the session, the two leaders had both agreed they would be able to work together in the national interest on many issues.

Mr Cameron congratulated his new sparring partner but added: 'As well as wishing him well, I hope he does the job [of Opposition leader] for many, many years to come.'

David Cameron Denies 'War' With Single Parents Over Tax Breaks

David Cameron denied being "at war" with single parents today as he faced questions over planned tax breaks for married couples.









The Tory leader was accused of "discrimination" as he delivered a speech to members of lone parent charity Gingerbread.

Mr Cameron insisted the Government could not remain "neutral" on the issue of stable family units, and had to send a "long-term signal".

"My view is that there is an importance of trying to say that commitment and relationships and marriage are good institutions. They are good things," he said. "We shouldn't be completely neutral about them as a society.

"I think the tax system and the benefits system as well as helping people in the here and now as it should, also does need to think about what other long-term signals that we are sending out as a society.

"We should be sending long-term signals that are about commitment and the things that encourage commitment. It doesn't disadvantage other people, it's just saying that this is a good institution that society should recognise in such a way."

However, Mr Cameron also stressed that a Conservative Government would not ignore the difficulties single parents faced.

"Lone parents will not be on their own under a Conservative Government," he said. "There is not and never will be a war on single parents."

Apart from defending his party's proposals for tax allowances to be transferable between married couples, Mr Cameron warned that society was ignoring the role of extended families.

He said houses and flats were often being built too small for people to enjoy a family meal, or for grandparents to stay if necessary.

There had been reports that Mr Cameron's aides requested that media access to the event be restricted for fear that he would get a rough ride.

After his speech, one woman single parent demanded: "You talk about tax and that you are looking at providing tax cuts for married couples.

"Do you not think that is discrimination against someone who pays their tax bill every month, and someone who is going to find that my friend down the road who has managed to find Mr Right gets away with paying less tax than I do, just because I am raising my children by myself?

"Also don't you think that's perpetuating the stereotype that actually a married couple is better than a single family?"

Another woman was greeted with applause when she warned that politicians were reinforcing false stereotypes about single parent families.

"What is the Conservative Party going to do to help organisations like Gingerbread to help smash down the images and stereotypes that we have of lone parents?"

Mr Cameron replied: "I think we all have a role in trying to make sure that we portray things in a more reasonable way and a less black and white way."

Gingerbread chief executive Fiona Weir said: "While we welcome his strong message about stigmatising, we would like to see them reflect that through policies.

"He risks making single parents feel like second-class families."

Financial Secretary to the Treasury Stephen Timms accused the Tories of being in an "utter mess" over marriage tax breaks.

"He (Mr Cameron) says he's deadly serious about marriage and intends to spend billions on a tax giveaway to wealthier married couples.

"Then he tries to deny to an organisation of single mums that he intends in any way to discriminate against them.

"The truth is, his marriage tax allowance is unfair and unfunded - it would cost £5 billion and give 13 times as much to those at the top than those at the bottom."