School governors to be accountable for health support policies

School governors will be responsible for ensuring that children with long-term medical conditions are properly supported in the classroom, under a set of government measures.

From September, governing bodies will be required to ensure that children with medical conditions, such as diabetes and epilepsy, are able to fully access education, including school trips and sport.

They must also ensure that a school’s policies are sufficient to meet the needs of all pupils and that any support needed is actually put in place.

In addition, governing bodies will be required to monitor children’s individual healthcare plans, ensuring they are reviewed regularly and meet the child’s needs.

The measures are contained in statutory guidance, published this week, designed to improve the educational experiences of children with medical conditions.

The guidance supports a clause in the Children and Families Act 2014 that requires governing bodies to become more accountable for supporting children with long-term medical issues.

Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), said the publication of the guidance will allay the concerns of parents who worry about their child’s wellbeing during school hours.

However, he is concerned about how the measures will be implemented.

He said: “We foresee three main logistical issues with the guidance, the foremost being the timescale of implementation in the context of the raft of other changes schools are obliged to implement.

“Staff will need to be trained to cope with particular conditions and head teachers will now need to ensure that the required individual pupil healthcare plans are in place.

“The second concern is that school leaders may be faced with a situation where none of their staff volunteer for extra medical responsibility when it comes to invasive administration of medicines.

“The guidance relies heavily on governors writing policies and on free access to the school nursing service – however, the feedback from our members suggests that there are regional variations in availability of support from the school nursing service.”

Beatrice Barleon, campaigns manager at Every Disabled Child Matters, welcomed the guidance but had similar concerns about the ability of the workforce to deliver it.

She said: “We believe the guidance will help to address the longstanding problem of children with health needs having their education interrupted because schools have not been willing to provide the support necessary.

“However, we have concerns over whether the government has sufficiently accounted for the number of school nurses required to deliver the outcomes the guidance hopes to achieve.”

Source: CYPNow

Children to lose court anonymity at 18

Children could be deterred from giving evidence in court cases and young offenders could have their rehabilitation harmed as a result of a legal ruling that will allow them to be named publicly once they turn 18.

The ruling this week by Lord Justice Leveson in a High Court case means that children previously involved in court proceedings as a defendant, witness or victim will lose their anonymity on their 18th birthday.

The decision has been described as “damaging and concerning” by charity Just for Kids Law and leaves children with less protection than vulnerable adults, who have anonymity for life.

Just for Kids Law director and barrister Shauneen Lambe, said: “The difficulties of encouraging child victims and witnesses to come forward are well recognised, as has been reported by the NSPCC report into the Jimmy Savile scandal. For a child knowing that they could be named in the world’s press once they turn 18, could be a real deterrent to their coming forward.”

She added that the ruling could also harm the rehabilitation of young offenders by allowing the press to publish their identities at a later date.

“The UN Committee of the Rights of the Child states if the defendant was a child when an offence was committed, the traditional objectives of criminal justice give way to rehabilitation and reintegration, rather than retribution. Publishing names of those who were children during court proceedings allows the press to usurp the decision of the criminal courts and impose additional punishments.”

Penelope Gibbs, chair of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, said: “This clarification of the law means that vulnerable witnesses and children who offend may face the harmful glare of publicity just as they are trying to put the past behind them and turn their lives around.

“There is no public interest in identifying child victims, witnesses and offenders who were previously anonymous. We believe the law needs to be changed to stop this happening.”

In the High Court case, Leveson ruled that the anonymity provided to children under  Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 automatically expires at age 18.

The case involved two former child defendants given community sentences for offences committed when they were 16 and 17. They were challenging an earlier Crown Court ruling that they could be named now they had reached 18 even though they were no longer involved in court proceedings. The BBC and other media groups joined the action arguing in favour of publication.

In his written judgment, Leveson called on parliament to “fashion a solution…as a matter or urgency”.

He said: “It is truly remarkable that parliament was prepared to make provision for lifetime protection available to adult witnesses…but not to extend that protection to those under 18 once they had reached the age of majority.”

Source: CYPNow