In 2003 the government published a Green Paper entitled “Every Child Matters” (ECM) and partly as a response to the horrific death of Victoria Climbie, the 8 year old girl who died in 2001 of abuse and neglect while in the custody of her aunt. After consultation, a second document entitled, “Every Child Matters: the Next Steps” appeared, and received statutory backing in the Children Act 2004. The specific aim of this second document was to develop and improve the services dealing with the needs of children and young people.

Although the aim was laudable and the policy was meant with the very best of intentions, the reality has, in my view, been to cloud the issues leaving some children more at risk. Despite the many glossy publications and the large number of consortia/committees/quangos which have resulted from the initiative, in reality the “best of intentions” have been accompanied by cuts in actual front line services an all chiefs and no Indians’ scenario. The good aspirations to help young people more have actually been impeded by a bureaucracy where talk, rather than action, predominates.

The Every Child Matters agenda comprised five aims:

• Be healthy: this applies to mental, emotional and sexual health and to the promotion of a healthy lifestyle whereby the young are able to make choices regarding such life altering decisions as not to take drugs
• Stay safe: this aims to keep the young safe form harm, neglect, violence and sexual exploitation, safe from accidents, safe from bullying and discrimination, safe from crime and anti-social behaviour and, afforded security, stability and care
• Enjoy and achieve: this aim is to promote an enjoyment of school whereby all young people can achieve high standards and are able to develop personal and social skills
• Make a positive contribution: the aim here is to help the young to engage in decision-making in order to support the community and the environment, to encourage law-abiding action in and out of school and to develop positive relationships, self-confidence and enterprising behavior
• Achieve economic well being: this aim is to engage children in education and training which will help them to find good jobs, to live in good homes in sustainable communities with good transport, free from the worries of low income

No one can disagree with the sentiments contained in these aims. But one can however disagree with the approach.

The first observation is that the agenda is too far reaching, making the aims virtually unattainable for any one group of people. As the Head Teacher of a secondary school I find I have a full time job to ensure that educational standards continually improve, whilst also maintaining a safe environment in the school and trying to ensure that pupils enjoy attending. This must be equally true for other professions, for example providing full employment, good transport and good housing, will not be achieved overnight and without a big investment in infrastructure (these aims are not achieved merely through attractive brochures and discussion groups.)

However, the school environment has an important role to play in all five strands of the initiative but one must be realistic; teachers are not psychologists, medics, social workers, policemen, entrepreneurs, town planners, transport planners. In the course of any one day most teachers will fulfil most of these roles in some measure, as well as teaching subject lessons, acting as pastoral tutors, marking, being on duty, preparing lessons and a whole host of other “teaching” duties. But teachers cannot do everything. The ECM document agrees stating that “This is not expected", rather the purpose of the document aims are to provide a co-ordinated approach between services.

But what has happened in practice is that the boundaries between services have become blurred. Many committees have been set up to discuss requirements, but what is actually needed is the availability of professional and expert help in providing the much needed co-ordination. As a Head Teacher I want to be able to call on the services of a psychologist or a social worker or a policeman, whenever one is needed. Simply having a planning group or committee is of no practical help; too much time is spent on strategic development rather than immediate delivery. The situation becomes frighteningly worse when one sees that the local health clinic is to close (where pupils could receive professional medical and sexual advice) and that the local school nursing service is to be cut from two full-time nurses to one part-time nurse. The fact that most Local Authorities now have a Director of Children's Services is another case in point; in the past, each Authority would have had a Director of Education (usually with an educational background) a Director of Social Services (again, with a relevant background) and a Director of Social Services. Now, one person, from one of these backgrounds manages the whole of Children's Services. Does this approach provide greater clarity or rather, will the result be a decrease in efficiency and hands-on capability?

What then, is the answer? I reiterate what I said at the beginning of this article, the aims of ECM are crucial and much overdue, but the current approach is simply dangerous. I believe the answer is to spend money on improving frontline services - teachers, nurses, health workers and on improving communications between the different sectors - all of which are currently over stretched. My fear is that if ECM continues unquestioned, the results will be yet another failure of our young people.

Finally, it may be worth committing this relevant anecdote to memory. During a presentation on the American precursor to ECM which was entitled “No Child Left Behind", one speaker mixed the two documents and referred to Every Child Left Behind as “No Child Matters". I believe that unless we reconsider current thinking on ECM, this may turn out to be more than just an unfortunate verbal error.