What Makes the Difference? Children and teachers talk about resilient outcomes for children 'at risk'

AbstractArising out of debates over ‘children at risk’ and the ‘rights of the child’, the article compares two contrasting childhoods within a single large society—the Hausa‐speaking peoples of northern Nigeria. One segment of this society—the non‐Muslim Maguzawa—refuse to allow their children to be beaten; the other segment, the Muslim Hausa, tolerate corporal punishment both at home and especially in Qur'anic schools. Why the difference? Economic as well as political reasons are offered as reasons for the rejection of corporal punishment while it is argued that, in the eyes of Muslim society in the cities, the threat of punishment is essential for both educating and ‘civilising’ the young by imposing the necessary degree of discipline and self‐control that are considered the hallmark of a good Muslim. In short, ‘cultures of punishment’ arise out of specific historical conditions, with wide variations in the degree and frequency with which children actually suffer punishment, and at whose hands. Finally the question is raised whether the violence experienced in schooling has sanctioned in the community at large a greater tolerance of violence‐as‐‘punishment’.

Download Full-text

Knowledge translation in child welfare—improving educational outcomes for children at risk: study protocol for a hybrid randomized controlled pragmatic trial

Trials ◽

10.1186/s13063-018-3079-4 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Thomas Engell ◽

Ingvild Barbara Follestad ◽

Anne Andersen ◽

Kristine Amlund Hagen

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Child Welfare ◽

Knowledge Translation ◽

Study Protocol ◽

Educational Outcomes ◽

Pragmatic Trial ◽

Children At Risk ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Outcomes For Children

Download Full-text

Networks, Connectedness and Resilience: Learning From the Children's Fund in Context

Social Policy and Society ◽

10.1017/s1474746406003459 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 193-197 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Marian Barnes ◽

Kate Morris

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Social Exclusion ◽

Children At Risk ◽

Policy Action ◽

Policy Initiatives ◽

The Past ◽

National Programmes ◽

Outcomes For Children ◽

The Uk ◽

Voluntary Organisations

During the past decade, expectations placed on child welfare services in the UK have moved away from individualised provision geared to meeting the needs of specific children at risk, to consideration of the broader context for children. The introduction of a series of national programmes aimed at addressing social exclusion and tasked with stimulating new approaches to enabling better outcomes for children formed the background for the recent legislation and guidance for local children's services. The Children's Fund was one of a raft of New Labour social policies promoting partnerships between statutory and voluntary organisations in order to address the cross-cutting issue of social exclusion. It was announced following the UK 2000 Spending Review and drew from the Policy Action Team12 (PAT12) Report, ‘Young People at Risk’ (SEU, 2000). Funding started in January 2001 and continues until 2008 with a total allocation during this period of £960 million. Like most special policy initiatives instigated following 1997, the establishment of the Children's Fund was accompanied by both national and local evaluation requirements. The National Evaluation of the Children's Fund (NECF) was undertaken by a team from the Universities of Birmingham and London and this themed section draws on selected findings from that evaluation. Overall results are reported in Edwards et al., (2006).

Download Full-text

Can protective services improve outcomes for children at risk?

Paediatric Care ◽

10.7748/paed.21.5.10.s13 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 10-10

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Children At Risk ◽

Protective Services ◽

Outcomes For Children

Download Full-text

Research With Young Children at Risk for Speech/Language Development Disorders

Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication ◽

10.1044/aac8.2.1 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 1-2

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Young Children ◽

Language Development ◽

Children At Risk ◽

Language Development Disorders

Download Full-text

Discriminant Validation of the Test of Reading Performance (TORP) for Identifying Children at Risk of Reading Difficulties

European Journal of Psychological Assessment ◽

10.1027//1015-5759.16.2.139 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 16 (2) ◽

pp. 139-146 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Padeliadu Susana ◽

Georgios D. Sideridis

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Elementary School Students ◽

Reading Difficulties ◽

Reading Performance ◽

Low Achievers ◽

Children At Risk ◽

School Students ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Group A ◽

The Mean

Abstract This study investigated the discriminant validation of the Test of Reading Performance (TORP), a new scale designed to evaluate the reading performance of elementary-school students. The sample consisted of 181 elementary-school students drawn from public elementary schools in northern Greece using stratified random procedures. The TORP was hypothesized to measure six constructs, namely: “letter knowledge,” “phoneme blending,” “word identification,” “syntax,” “morphology,” and “passage comprehension.” Using standard deviations (SD) from the mean, three groups of students were formed as follows: A group of low achievers in reading (N = 9) including students who scored between -1 and -1.5 SD from the mean of the group. A group of students at risk of reading difficulties (N = 6) including students who scored between -1.5 and -2 SDs below the mean of the group. A group of students at risk of serious reading difficulties (N = 6) including students who scored -2 or more SDs below the mean of the group. The rest of the students (no risk, N = 122) comprised the fourth group. Using discriminant analyses it was evaluated how well the linear combination of the 15 variables that comprised the TORP could discriminate students of different reading ability. Results indicated that correct classification rates for low achievers, those at risk for reading problems, those at risk of serious reading problems, and the no-risk group were 89%, 100%, 83%, and 97%, respectively. Evidence for partial validation of the TORP was provided through the use of confirmatory factor analysis and indices of sensitivity and specificity. It is concluded that the TORP can be ut ilized for the identification of children at risk for low achievement in reading. Analysis of the misclassified cases indicated that increased variability might have been responsible for the existing misclassification. More research is needed to determine the discriminant validation of TORP with samples of children with specific reading disabilities.

Download Full-text