Sunday 27 September 2009

The reactionaries


There has always been a strong tradition in this country of opposing new laws, or indeed any change at all in the status quo, as being dangerous and unnecessary. Whether it was the Great Reform Act of 1832, the abolition of the Corn Laws, free public education for the working classes or the enfranchisement of women, there have always been those who have viewed the new law as a risky experiment, liable to strike at traditional English values. I have been prompted to reflect upon this by threads currently running on the HE-UK and EO lists. Under the heading of Government Intrusion into Family Life, a succession of posters are expressing concern about the regulation of childminding. Almost unbelievably, the consensus on those lists seems to be in favour of an increase in unregulated childminding! Like me, many of those writing about this see parallels with the law on home education, although our conclusions are probably different.

Unregulated childminding has for many years been a popular way for women to make a little extra money. Thirty or forty years ago, when childminding was all but completely unregulated, it was possible to turn one's home into a battery farm full of babies and toddlers. It was in those days not uncommon to see a house containing six or seven small children. Times change and that sort of thing does not really go on any more. Thanks to a series of laws, unregulated childminding is now a far more hole and corner affair. Instead of providing a steady and reliable income, it is often used these days as part of a series of little earners, alongside clothing catalogue scams, cash in hand cleaning jobs and bar work. Usually, it is limited to one or at the most two children, rather than six or seven. This is a good thing and it is a direct result of the tightening up of the law. Women do not wish to draw attention to childminding unless they are registered and so are a bit more discrete about it.

None of these various laws were ever meant to affect how families look after their children, they were instead brought in to protect some of the most vulnerable members of the community, i.e. babies and toddlers, from exploitation. I find it astonishing that anybody could possibly think such laws a bad thing. Similarly, registered childminders are now obliged to follow the Early Years Foundation Scheme, the so-called "Nappy Curriculum", not because the government is determined to regulate childhood out of existence, but because a lot of childminders have historically been in the habit of plonking their charges down in front of the television and leaving them alone to watch cartoons all day. This is a bad thing for babies and toddlers.

Some of the people posting on HE-UK and EO are equating the regulations around childminding with the intention to introduce new laws to keep an eye on home education. In both cases, the government is concerned about children and trying to look after their interests. There will always be opposition to anything new, particularly new laws. When compulsory education was introduced in the late 19th Century, many parents were outraged. It was said to be striking at the heart of family life and an unwarranted interference in the private affairs of citizens. Plus ca change...... Perhaps it is time for those who are in favour of unregulated childminding and against the monitoring of home education, to ask themselves what they truly imagine the government's motives to be. Do they really imagine that this is all part of a sinister, wide ranging plot to undermine family life? Or is possible that a government composed of fallible men and women are struggling to pass imperfect laws, some of which will be misused, with the honest aim of improving the lot of the nation's children?

8 comments:

  1. Yet however good the original intention, "the innocent" always get trapped in the fall out...and some of the rules are plain silly. Take the case of the policewomen in todays press; whatever the rights or wrongs of them having to register as child minders, under current law they could happily and legally look after the children in the childs own home without needing to be registered at all - so they would then count as nannies. It is the obvious inequalities which make people mad....

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's right Julie. There are always idiots who will misuse any law. Luckily, the Children's Minister had now intervened and is going to read the riot act to Ofsted about this. Obviously the law was not intended to prohibit babysitting ! The trouble is that when, as in this case, a nosy neighbour reports somebody, then an investigation is made and the minor official then says something stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. An example of how poorly written legislation can have unforseen and negative results. Over 8,500 have signed against it so far, http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/reciprocalcc/ Even the government is having second thoughts and has ordered a review and children's charities have spoken out against it, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm. Seems a lot of support for the views also expressed by the home educators you mention.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, you are quite right about this. The Children's Minister is furious as well and has already been yelling at Ofsted about it. All laws are open to misuse. This does not mean that we should have no laws; simply that we should think carefully while framing them. In this case, the law was worded like this so that unregulated childminders, of whom there are still many, could not get round the law by being paid in cigarettes, bottles of whiskey or favours. It was never meant to encompass informal arrangements of the sort which those police officers had.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Simon says,
    "Or is possible that a government composed of fallible men and women are struggling to pass imperfect laws, some of which will be misused, with the honest aim of improving the lot of the nation's children?"

    Perfectly possible I reckon. But then, you know what they say about good intentions and the road to hell...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ah Allie, you are quite right! I'm not sure though what the alternative is. All laws can be, and are, misapplied.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The alternative is less State interference.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We all of us, including me, want less state interference. The problem is that we all have different ideas as to what constitutes a bare minimum! Until 1968 it was possible for anybody to walk into a shop and buy a shotgun. No firearms certificate, no questions asked. Would we like to see a return to that state of affairs? Is that unwarranted state interference? What about the law that prevents the sale of fireworks to children? Is that the nanny state gone mad? We all accept thousands of laws and regulations like the two above. They are part of the background of our lives. Some would say that the laws regarding the safety of children should be a similarly natural part of the background.

    ReplyDelete