WRITTEN ON June 29th, 2007 BY Ruth Kennedy AND STORED IN Uncategorized

So the Department for Education and Skills disappears, one part of it becoming the new Department for Children, Schools and Families, responsible for children’s services, families, schools, 14-19 education, and, er, the Respect Taskforce.

In 2003 when machinery of govt changes brought everything to do with children and families into the DfES, developing into the Every Child Matters agenda, there were high hopes that the department would lose its notoriously structures/producer-driven approach, and instead focus on the 5 children’s outcomes. Alas, despite the importance of these outcomes which cut across early years, formal education, and wider family policy, the old name was retained. This week we saw a second bite at the cherry, as the department’s objectives (helpfully) got focused down yet further onto the needs of the -9 months to +19 years agenda. It might seem sensible to some of us to then highlight this cross-cutting approach and call it the Department for Children and Families. But no, the structural fiefdoms win again, and DCSF it is (bad luck children’s centres, pupil referral units, youth services and other structures that don’t get a mention). Apparently there was even a huge debate as to whether they could possibly cope with putting schools at the end of the title AFTER the C and the F, which would probably have led to the department becoming known as ‘children and families’ in shorthand – which would have been helpful IMHO. Hey-ho.

2 Responses to “Government structures get customer not producer-focused – almost”

 
Richard wrote on June 29th, 2007 7:16 pm :

Why is that “Every child matters” organisation so dictatorial that it needs even to ‘fiddle’ with the browser scroll bars on its web-site?

Does this bode well for permitting children a happy, well-adjusted childhood?

Does it betray a strong desire for state intervention & control – even when not needed?

W wrote on July 1st, 2007 1:03 pm :

I’m intrigued by the notion that any child might not matter, and that we need an organisation or policy to tell us that every child matters. Should we have a department called Smoking is Bad for You, and another called We think You Should Take More Exercise. Perhaps we should rename the bit of the MoD that does Trident “Your Views on Nuclear Bombs Don’t Matter”