The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying UK State Intervention in Child Education - A Summary

NATE National Association for Therapeutic Education

Patrons: Graham Allen MP* Rt Hon Professor Lord Alton of Liverpool KCSG KCMCO MP* Gregory Barker MP* Bishop Paul Bayes Rt Hon Richard Benyon MP* Gerry Bermingham MP* Clive Betts MP Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford MP* Tom Blenkinsop MP* Baroness Blower of Starch Green David Borrow MP* Dr Peter Brand MP* Julian Brazier MP* Steve Brine MP* Helen Brinton MP* Annette Brooke MP* Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland KC MP* Paul Burstow MP* Bishop Paul Butler Dr Lisa Cameron MP* Lord Carlile of Berriew KC CBE FRSA MP* Neil Carmichael MP* Jenny Chapman MP* Rt Hon Tom Clarke CBE JP KSG MP* Vernon Coaker MP* Rosie Cooper MP* Lord Cotter MP* Baroness Cox Rt Hon Lord Cryer MP* Alex Cunningham MP* Sir Tony Cunningham MP* Janet Daby MP Cynog Dafis MP* Rt Hon Lord Davies of Oldham MP* Sir Philip Davies MP* Rt Hon Sir David Davis KCB MP* Jim Dobbin MP* Rt Hon Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP* Brian Donohue MP* Rt Hon Lord Dubs MP* Mark Durkan MP* Rt Rev Lord Eames OM Bill Esterson MP Bill Etherington MP* Rt Hon Nigel Evans MP* Tim Farron MP Mark Fisher MP* Robert Flello MP* Lord Flight MP* Barbara Follett MP* Michael Gapes MP* Rt Hon Lord Garnier KC MP* Dr Ian Gibson MP* Stephen Gilbert MP* Lord Glentoran CBE DL Mary Glindon MP Sir Richard Glyn BT Thomas Graham MP* Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC MP* Andrew Gwynne MP Fabian Hamilton MP Mike Hancock CBE MP* Sir Nick Harvey MP* Lord Haskins Rt Hon Lord Dr Hastings of Scarisbrick CBE John Hemming MP* Bishop Ralph Heskett CSsR Bishop Peter Hill Wera Hobhouse MP Sharon Hodgson MP Bishop Anne Hollinghurst Professor Baroness Hollins Adam Holloway MP* Paul Holmes MP* Rt Hon Baroness Hooper CMG DSG FRSA FRGS Bishop Alan Hopes Rt Hon Lord Howarth of Newport CBE PC Rt Hon Sir George Howarth MP Rt Hon Dr Kim Howells MP* Rt Hon Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Kings Heath OBE PC MP* Andrew Hunter MP* Dr Brian Iddon MP* Cathy Jamieson MP* Bishop Sophie Jelley Brian Jenkins MP* Jon Owen Jones MP* Dr Lynne Jones MP* Martyn Jones MP* Fraser Kemp MP* Andy King MP* Rt Hon Lord Knight of Weymouth PC FRSA MP* Rt Hon Sir Norman Lamb MP* Pauline Latham OBE MP* Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE Professor Lord Layard FBA Rt Hon Dame Andrea Leadsom DBE MP* John Leech MP* Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP Rt Hon Sir Oliver Letwin MP* Professor Baroness Lister of Burtesett CBE FBA FAcSS Bob Litherland MP* Elfyn Llwyd MP* Andy Love MP* Karen Lumley MP* Dr Wendy Lynas PhD Rob Marris MP* Steve McCabe MP* Ian Mearns MP* Patrick Mercer OBE MP* Rt Hon Penny Mordaunt MP* Bishop Roger Morris George Mudie MP* Bishop James Newcome KCVO DL Bishop David Oakley Mark Oaten MP* Lembit Opik MP* Diana Organ MP* Sandra Osborne MP* Lord Ouseley Kt Professor Lord Parekh FBA FAcSS FRSA Bob Parry MP* Rt Hon Dame Priti Patel DBE Lord Patel KT Professor Sir Denis Pereira Gray OBE FRCP FRCGP FMedSci Bishop Dr John Perumbalath Peter Pike MP* Bishop Stephen Platten FSA Chris Pond MP* Mark Prisk MP* Bishop John Pritchard John Pugh MP* Lord Rana OBE Syd Rapson BEM MP* Bishop John Rawsthorne Bishop Dr Lee Rayfield Rt Hon Lord Rees of Ludlow OM FRS HonFREng FMedSci FRAS HonFInstP Bishop Edwin Regan Lord Rennard MBE Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick MP* Bishop Tony Robinson Dan Rogerson MP* Sir Bob Russell MP* Christine Russell MP* Martin Salter MP* Adrian Sanders MP* Laura Sandys MP* Barry Sheerman MP Henry Smith MP* Peter Snape MP* Lord Storey CBE Gerry Sutcliffe MP* Lord Taverne KC Simon Thomas MP* Baroness Thornton Rt Hon Viscount Thurso PC MP* Sir John Timpson CBE Dr Desmond Turner MP* Dr Rudi Vis MP* Baroness Walmsley Dame Angela Watkinson DBE MP* Mark Williams MP* Roger Williams MP* Bishop Tom Williams Rt Hon Lord Willis of Knaresborough MP* ( MP* formerly Member of Parliament) (Patron during lifetime - Sir David Amess MP David Cairns MP Rt Hon Lord Chidgey MP* Baroness Greengross OBE Baroness Howe of Idlicote CBE Lord Jones of Cheltenham MP* Baroness Masham of Ilton DL Norman Mikardo Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor Lord Rea Of Eskdale MD FRCGP Archbishop Peter Smith)

59 Birdham Road Chichester PO19 8TB 07984654503 www.n-a-t-e.co.uk johnhtierney@outlook.com /25

The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying UK State Intervention in Child Education

In 1995 The National Association for Therapeutic Education NATE first identified a profound conceptual inconsistency underlying state intervention in child education. This critical deficit has yet to be resolved. To mark the 30^th year of our campaign to persuade senior national leaders to acknowledge and begin to address this issue, three brief statements have been released. These are copied below and describe the exact nature of the conceptual inconsistency underlying state intervention in child education, how the problem occurred and how it could be resolved.

The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying UK State Intervention in Child Education - Historical Context

The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying UK State Intervention in Child Education – Key Points

The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying UK State Intervention in Child Education – Proposed Solutions

The summaries outline the historical context, key points and proposed solutions for the continuing failure of the state to provide a school system which is consistent with both modern psychological theory and United Nations guidance.

For more information please visit www.n-a-t-e.co.uk or phone, email or write to

John Tierney Director National Association for Therapeutic Education NATE

…………………………………..

NATE National Association for Therapeutic Education

59 Birdham Road Chichester PO19 8TB 07984654503 www.n-a-t-e.co.uk johnhtierney@outlook.com /25

The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying UK State Intervention in Child Education - Historical Context

During the 20^th century evolutionary advances in understanding of psychology occurred. Among these was Attachment Theory which revealed that in infancy and beyond psychological development (emotional growth) is dependent on secure, sustained, individualised attachment relationships between children and adults. This breakthrough had clear implications for child education and over decades experimental work confirmed that attachment relationships in the context of small group educational settings - including in special schools - potentially fostered psychological development in childhood. This conclusion was welcomed by psychologists and educationists but presented a dilemma for political leaders - which has yet to be resolved. The problem was that the positive results being achieved with children of school age in a handful of privileged specialist settings had wider implications for the traditional theoretical basis on which mainstream child education had been founded since Victorian times. It was becoming known that child education in any context was for psychological as well as physical, social and academic potential but it was also apparent that in practice the mainstream school system was not equipped for psychological development - and never had been. Put simply if individualised attachment relationships resulting from limited class sizes in special schools fostered emotional growth in childhood how much more could be achieved on a national scale if the many psychologically undeveloped children known to be passing through the mainstream school system could be taught in small, realistic sized groups with potential for attachment relationships?...But at what financial cost to the state?…And with what social consequences...?

The tension between the theoretical ideal of Attachment Theory and its practical implementation on a national scale is reflected in two comments from the time. In 1974 Mia Kellmer Pringle, a child psychologist, wrote in her book ‘The Needs of Children’* ‘When labour was cheap, and fulfilment of potential the prerogative of a minority, waste of human abilities was not seen as a problem. Now this is fortunately no longer so. A beginning has been made with exploring systematically both available and new psychological, educational and social methods for preventing or reducing the loss of human potential; and for undoing and, if possible reversing the effects of early neglect or damage.’ The idealism and growing optimism of psychologists and educationists indicated here contrasts with a view later expressed by Margaret Thatcher in 1987 - which also revealed a possible motive for the uncompromising state intervention in child education which was to follow. ‘I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it”……...”people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations.’** A year later government introduced the 1988 Education Reform Act. This historic legislation simply disregarded Attachment Theory and instead emphatically relaunched the traditional conceptual model for the school system which had prevailed since the Victorian era - in the new guise of the National Curriculum. With the full weight of government behind it by default this mechanism drew a veil over the advances in understanding of psychology which had occurred and deflected growing awareness that the mainstream school system was not equipped for psychological development.

The motive for this intervention by the state remains a matter for conjecture but the impact of the 1988 Education Reform Act was unequivocal and permanently instituted an outdated stereotype for the school system which has since been adopted without question by successive governments - and prevails to the present day. In consequence a quarter of a century into the new millennium the potential significance of Attachment Theory for schools is unacknowledged at national level and conditions for psychological development have yet to be assimilated into the core function of the school system.

As things now stand the conceptual framework for state intervention in child education is inconsistent with both modern psychological theory and United Nations guidance. Recognition of this failure is gradually increasing but the central deficit in the school system continues to be generally overlooked and fuels a deepening nationwide crisis of psychological health and resulting social and economic dysfunction. Since 1995 this small but influential, unfunded, single issue focus organisation has been committed to raise awareness of the conceptual inconsistency underlying state intervention in child education. In addition to defining the historical context for this problem the National Association for Therapeutic Education has released a further two brief statements entitled ‘The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying State Intervention in Child Education – Key Points’ and ‘The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying State Intervention in Child Education – Proposed Solutions.’ These documents are copied here and describe in greater detail the deficit in the school system and outline potential solutions for the continuing general inability of schools to resource psychological development.

For more information please contact

John Tierney Director National Association for Therapeutic Education NATE (Contact details above.)

* ‘The Needs of Children’ Mia Kellmer Pringle Hutchinson 1974

** Interview Margaret Thatcher Woman’s Own 1987

…………………………………………….

NATE National Association for Therapeutic Education

59 Birdham Road Chichester PO19 8TB 07984654503 www.n-a-t-e.co.uk johnhtierney@outlook.com /25

The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying UK State Intervention in Child Education – Key Points

2025 marks the 30^th year since the National Association for Therapeutic Education first drew the attention of senior national leaders to a critical conceptual inconsistency underlying state intervention in child education. This is the continuing general failure of the UK government to resource psychological development in the context of the school system. The problem remains unresolved and is on a scale which potentially fuels the current nationwide deepening crisis of psychological health and wellbeing and resulting social and economic dysfunction.*

Following the evolutionary advances in understanding of psychology of the 20^th century it became apparent that in addition to realising the physical, social and academic potential of each child it is a function of the school system to resource psychological development. But the mainstream infant school sector was not equipped for this purpose – and never has been. The problem was simple to define (see below) but difficult to resolve and the critical deficit in the school system has since been overlooked and deferred by successive governments. In consequence state intervention in child education continues to be inconsistent with modern psychological theory and United Nations guidance and the conceptual foundation for the school system remains unfit for purpose. Four key points which follow explain this.

1 Modern psychological theory reveals that in infancy and beyond psychological development is dependent on secure, sustained, individualised attachment relationships between children and adults. (Bowlby ‘A Secure Base’ 1988, Ainsworth ‘Attachments Beyond Infancy’ 1989.)

2 The Sutton Trust estimates that as many as 40% of children ‘lack secure bonds with adults.’ (Sutton Trust ‘Baby Bonds’ 2014.)

3 The United Nations advises that early childhood is from 0-8 years and conditions for emotional development should apply throughout this phase. (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child CRC/C/GC/7 2006.)

4 The United Kingdom government defines early years from 0-5 and requires infants of statutory school age to be placed in classes limited at 30. (Statutory Framework for Early Years Foundation Stage DfE 2008 - School Standards and Framework Act 1998.)

To summarise, state regulated infant school class ratios limited at 30:1 continue to prohibit conditions for emotional growth (ie secure, sustained, individualised attachment relationships between children and adults) which the UN advises and on which potentially significant numbers of psychologically undeveloped infants depend. Government intervention in child education therefore continues to be inconsistent with modern psychological theory and United Nations guidance. Because of the scale of the problem this failure has implications for the current nationwide deepening crisis of psychological health and wellbeing and resulting social and economic dysfunction.*

Since 1995 the National Association for Therapeutic Education has campaigned to raise awareness of the failure of the state to equip mainstream schools for psychological development and to re-establish therapeutic education in the context of the special school system. Our objective has been to secure an acknowledgement by government that a key function of the school system is to resource psychological development and to persuade senior national leaders to review the means to achieve this. It is hoped to eventually achieve a reduction in infant class sizes to realistic levels to permit the sustained, individualised attachment relationships between children and adults on which it is known psychological growth depends.

For more information please visit www.n-a-t-e.co.uk or phone, email or write to

John Tierney Director National Association for Therapeutic Education NATE

*National institutions including Health, Education, Social Welfare, Criminal Justice - and the Treasury report significant demand. ‘..The NHS is broken…’ (Health Secretary 05/24) ‘….high workload, climbing vacancy rates, strain on care, mental health and SEND services….’ (Education Secretary 08/07/24) ‘...adult social care, ..general practice and community health...in each…..a system in crisis…’ Minister for Care 28/11/24 ‘...the prisons system...under huge stress…’ (Justice Secretary 11/12/24) ‘…..the worst set of circumstances since the Second World War...’ (Chancellor 08/07/24)

…………………………………………………

NATE National Association for Therapeutic Education

59 Birdham Road Chichester PO19 8TB 07984654503 www.n-a-t-e.co.uk johnhtierney@outlook.com /25

The Conceptual Inconsistency Underlying UK State Intervention in Child Education – Proposed Solutions

2 The Sutton Trust estimates that as many as 40% of children ‘lack secure bonds with adults.’ (Sutton Trust ‘Baby Bonds’ 2014.)

The function of child education is to resource physical, psychological, social and academic potential. Psychological development (emotional growth) is dependent on conditions including protection, control, consistency, acceptance, guidance and insight. These should be in the context of secure, sustained, individualised attachment relationships between children and adults. The United Nations advises that conditions for emotional growth should apply throughout early childhood from 0-8 years. The United Kingdom government defines early years from 0-5 and then requires infants to attend schools where classroom pupil/teacher ratios are limited at 30:1. This ratio prohibits conditions for psychological development and implies a systemic failure which potentially impacts significant numbers of children. To this effect the conceptual basis for state intervention in child education is inconsistent with both modern psychological theory and United Nations guidance.

Unlike Early Years the school system is fully statutorily controlled and government therefore has potential to provide conditions for state educated infants on a national scale which are consistent with modern psychological theory and United Nations guidance. To achieve this outcome class sizes in mainstream infant schools should be reduced to the levels established for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) - ie pupil/teacher ratios of 13:1. On arrival in mainstream infant schools children should receive as secure a commitment as possible from an identified teacher and assistant for not one but two years. Teachers and their assistants should be full time and be carefully selected, trained, monitored and supported. Relationships between staff and children should not be conditional on the behaviour of the child and as far as possible should be underwritten by assurances from parents or carers particularly in relation to potential interruptions to staff/pupil relationships and the use of medication. Teachers should be fully accountable but be a key arbiter of what is realistic academic expectation for each individual. The progress of children should be closely monitored and where the two year relationship is significantly disrupted any negative effect should as far as possible be addressed. The state should also reconstitute specialist school settings for the most severely psychologically undeveloped children providing transitional intensive therapeutic educational input in classes with a pupil/teacher ratio of no more than 7:1.

It is anticipated that once conditions described here begin to take effect significant improvements to the psychological functioning of many young people and adults will ensue. Better psychological health on a national scale will gradually reduce the incidence of self seeking, self defeating, deviant and disturbed behaviour in later childhood and in adult society and will potentially begin to relieve pressure on national institutions including Education, Health, Social Welfare, Criminal Justice - and the Treasury.

For more information please visit www.n-a-t-e.co.uk or phone, email or write to

John Tierney Director National Association for Therapeutic Education NATE

Create Your Own Website With Webador