Research indicates that abuse in intimate relationships between teenagers from disadvantaged backgrounds may be higher than previously thought. The issue was examined, for the first time, by the University of Bristol in collaboration with the NSPCC.

Worryingly, many of the study’s subjects appeared to consider violence as an unavoidable evil of relationships.  Christine Barter, lead author and Senior Research Fellow at Bristol University’s School for Policy Studies, expressed concern over the findings.  She stressed the reality that many girls were reluctant to realise the harmful consequences of such relationships; together with not fully acknowledging the violent nature of their partner.

In line with this acceptance, many deprived young women did not report instances of violence to their assigned social workers.  Worryingly, this was because welfare professionals were perceived as not being interested in such information. This strongly signals the need for a re-visiting of working methods when addressing issues faced by disadvantaged youths.  This is particularly so seeing as young mothers may choose to remain in such relationships in a bid to avoid the risk of being stigmatised.

Andrew Flanagan, Chief Executive of the NSPCC, has stressed that young people need to be better educated on violence and violent relationships. A move which he feels will empower affected individuals to seek help.

Certainly education is one part of the jigsaw.  However, establishing a good relationship between youngsters and social workers is equally crucial.  Failure to do so means that issues of this sort will continue to surface only through studies.  A scenario which would continue to leave many affected individuals in dangerous situations.

This year’s GCSE results face additional scrutiny against the new EBacc benchmark: A*-C achievement in the five ‘core’ academic subjects. How schools measure up aside, the government is failing on this indicator.

The Coalition Government argues that ‘The EBacc is there to make sure that every single child gets a chance to study the core academic subjects…’ However, by basing the EBacc on A*-C performance the least advantaged students may not get the chance to study EBacc subjects at all.

Schools’ response to previous A*-C benchmarks has shown that league table pressure can lead them to discourage students deemed unlikely to achieve a C from taking non-compulsory subjects.

In Civitas research one South-East London teacher outlined practice in her school, where students predicted less than a C were actively prevented from taking particular GCSEs:

‘When it came to options, the Director of Learning… made lists of students who were not allowed to do history. The other departments also published lists of kids who they didn’t want. So on Options Day, where the students and their parents come and talk to you, I had to say I’m afraid that that subject is not suitable for you.’

The EBacc will not only fail to address this scenario, it could potentially exacerbate it by shifting the purpose of course entries entirely to securing the EBacc A*-Cs. A student judged to be unlikely to get a C risks both failing to add to the league tables and distracting teaching time away from the EBacc target.

In theory, greater opportunities for those with fewer are at the heart of the EBacc. In July the Schools Minister stated that ‘[The E-Bacc] …is about closing the attainment gap between rich and poor and about increasing opportunity’.  Yet, in light of the current correlation between lower exam performance and free school meal eligibility, those students liable to be excluded from EBacc subjects are disproportionately likely to be poorer. The focus on a C or above means not only that ‘risky’ students may not even get the chance to try for a good grade but that the value of doing the course itself is undermined.

A significant percentage of D, E and F grades are achieved in compulsory English and maths: we can assume that taking the course, despite not gaining an A*-C, is still valuable. This is not the message the EBacc is giving.

Michael Gove is attempting to play the league tables to what he considers to be educational advantage. However, league-table wise, entering students for the EBacc courses is only ‘worth it’ for schools when they are a safe bet in terms of gaining a C or higher. Students may now be being ushered into academic GCSEs to boost EBacc performance, as the Government hoped, but the A*-C benchmark means that others will also be ushered out.

If the government is to realise its ambition of every student having a chance to study core subjects, the EBacc should be based on entry for courses. This would not only ensure that ‘underperformers’ do not miss out, it would also lessen current pressures to deploy questionable performance-boosting strategies. Furthermore, it would contribute towards a move away from having to prioritise league table needs over students’.

The House of Commons Education Committee found little evidence to suggest that the EBacc would help the most disadvantaged. The A*-C focus is a key impediment. Ensuring equality of access to academic subjects is a positive goal; but the strategy is redundant if the most deprived lose out.

The two aspirations of increasing classical courses and modernising assessment methods may seem incompatible at first sight.  On closer examination, however, they may not only work in harmony but actually foster positive outcomes, writes Therese Wallin.

The imminent arrival of the 2012 Olympic Games has sparked London’s mayor Boris Johnson to resurrect his passion for advocating a training in classical subjects, including Latin and ancient history.  This, significantly, is no frown upon ‘modern’ courses.  Rather, Johnson envisions that a diverse academic plan, embedding both practical and academic activities, will have a positive impact on declining youth crime crates. This is alongside the argued benefit of enhancing the opportunities of students from less advantaged backgrounds applying to Russell Group universities.

Johnson’s vision is however currently somewhat impeded by existing provision.  Wilf O’Neill, of the Association for Latin Teaching, notes that the low availability of classical subjects is strongly connected to a shortage of trained teachers.

Meanwhile, there is an increased awareness of the paradox between traditional individual exams and an academic environment that highlights the importance of collaborating and being a good team-player.  As such, considerations of possibly altering some exam formats are circulating.

Ultimately, it can surely only be beneficial for students to be exposed to a varied range of topics, where different teaching methods are applied.  Even if students later choose to specialise, they are certain to benefit from having been exposed to a broad way of thinking.  With an increasingly diverse range of subjects being taught, the exam structure and conditions must necessarily reflect any such development.  The alternative is likely to be disharmony between the teaching structure and the exam format, discouraging students from enrolling on a diversity of courses.

The Prime Minister is a well-known advocate of family life: a conviction he has now employed to encourage the British public to stigmatise non-present fathers, writes Therese Wallin. 

Children facing this reality, he argues, run the risk not only of inadequate financial support, but also the deprivation of the unique roles played by each parent.  Alongside cracking down on errant dads, Mr. Cameron believes that commitment should be encouraged by implementing tax breaks for married couples.  A policy which has met with criticism from shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, who warns it may benefit absent fathers who remarry.

The PM has another proposed fiscal shake-up in the equation: currently payments from absent parents are managed by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, but controversially the Government is considering implementing a fee for couples resorting to the Commission, hoping that this will encourage them to reach a solution privately.  The opposition has seized on this proposal too, accusing Mr. Cameron of double standards: simultaneously criticising absent fathers and potentially creating a financial burden on the primary-carer parent seeking financial support.

Looking beyond the financial, Erin Pizzey, founder of the world’s first women’s refuge, has argued that Mr. Cameron is failing to properly grasp the breadth of relevant issues by neglecting factors: from the instances where fathers are being denied the opportunity to play an active role, to the reality that bad behaviour in the separation scenario stretches between both sexes.

The bottom line is that parenting certainly plays a decisive role in the upbringing of children. As such, any criticism must be supported by both solid facts and an awareness of the range of the surrounding circumstances. Ultimately, surely the best way forward is two-fold: firstly, providing ‘broken’ families with advice and support, but also crucially, addressing the roots of later problems by emphasising the responsibilities that come with becoming a parent.  For those unwilling to take on the responsibility of parenting, greater thought on how to avoid becoming a parent in the first place is in order. 

Aoife O’Donnell, a Debate Mate mentor, writes about the value of debating – for all.

Recognising the many benefits associated with debating, Margaret McCabe saw debating as a means of addressing many of the social issues associated with areas of deprivation and a way of promoting educational achievement and social mobility. As such she founded ‘Debate Mate’ – a venture which uses debating to develop the verbal intelligence of young people in disadvantaged areas. The programme develops skills identified by the CBI as ‘missing’ in mainstream education namely communication, teamwork and leadership. Debating is a statutory requirement of the National Curriculum and serves as an invaluable learning tool in the classroom. Yet it is not routinely available in state sector education. Debate Mate is the only organisation that runs debate clubs and trains teachers to use debating in the classroom.

Given that debating, as well as developing critical thinking, also leads to improved academic achievement through enhanced language skills, research skills and subject knowledge, why does this debating deficit exist?

The American Urban Debate League has been operating since 1985 and its success has been recognised internationally. In ten years, 40,000 students have competed in UDLs from urban school districts with approximately 87% minority and 78% low-income student populations. Multiple studies have shown Urban Debate Leagues to have increased traditional measures of academic success: literacy score increases of 25%, grade-point average increases of around 10%, and high school graduation rates increasing to nearly 100%. Other positive benefits have been documented in attendance rates. In addition, preparation for debate tournaments has been found to motivate students to conduct extensive research and to develop organised and complex spoken and written communication skills. What is more, the intellectual and interpersonal benefits of participating on a debate team are equipping a new generation of students with the skills, motivation, confidence and ambition to pursue a wide variety of careers. School debating clubs help to grant students with the advocacy skills to empower them to be the architects of their own futures.

The value of the humanities in this country has long been under-represented in public discourse. Never has this deficit been more evident than in last month’s Browne report, which saw the removal of the teaching budget for arts and humanities subjects, writes Aoife O’Donnell.

Arts and humanities subjects play an essential role in equipping graduates with the analytical and communications skills needed for today’s knowledge-driven economy, – far from being ephemeral, thereby fostering the necessary conditions for economic growth. The creative industries, one area arts and humanities currently feed into, account for £16.6bn in exports and contribute almost £60bn to the economy. Even in these difficult economic times, this sector is set to grow at more than double the rate of the rest of the economy; and, crucially, at a much faster rate than international competitors.

What is more, arts and humanities researchers are increasingly playing a larger role in innovation. There has been a tangible increase in research, both inside and outside academia, in investigating large and multifaceted problems which often involves collaborating with scientists to tackle complex societal issues. To give an example, an AHRC Research Grant is currently supporting an interdisciplinary project at the University of Ulster, in which strong materials are being developed, potentially transforming the construction industry. This particular project aims to channel technical expertise, which has been put to use in aerospace engineering, towards a creative impetus that will help push the UK woven textile industry into the global playing field by producing radical, new high-quality products.

At a time when the UK is facing major challenges to the economy, quality of life, the environment and security, the arts and humanities can make a decisive contribution in all these areas. Meeting these challenges requires innovative and creative ways of thinking and processes of knowledge generation, transfer and exchange that are often intrinsic to the arts and humanities – and that’s the ‘luxuries’ of matters such as cultural enrichment, or the ability to make sense of the changing attitudes, discourses and values at work in the world around us, aside.