Time for a rethink

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 38-39
Author(s):  
Peter Moss
Keyword(s):  

From private nurseries to public children's centres? In this thought-provoking article Professor Peter Moss addresses implications surrounding the acquisition of childcare settings.

2021 ◽  
pp. 161189442110186
Author(s):  
Anna Kozlova

The article analyses the survival of the children’s centres, Artek and Orlyonok, during the post-socialist transformation. It is based on 50 interviews with employees who worked there starting in the late-Soviet era. Artek and Orlyonok were exemplary children’s camps, subordinated to the Central Committee of the Komsomol. Since the early 1960s, they have functioned as schools for distinguished teenagers who were considered ‘good examples’ for other children. In this article, I have made an ethnographic analysis of Artek and Orlyonok employees’ late-Soviet experiences. This analysis shows how the agency of Soviet counsellors and camp directors became a creative interpretation of the governmental order to raise the children as active Soviet citizens. Camp educators transformed it in line with the idea to base their agency on ‘common human values’, which was spread in the Soviet educational field in the post-Stalin era. As a result, the Soviet teaching experiences gained in these education centres were heterogeneous. When a child-centred paradigm was later introduced to the post-Soviet educational system, the camps adopted the most applicable practices from their Soviet experiences.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 775-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Coleman ◽  
Caroline Sharp ◽  
Graham Handscomb
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J Hoare ◽  
Denise L Wilson

This paper examines the experience of poverty and child maltreatment among New Zealand?s children as compared with international statistics. New Zealand was a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993, yet indicators suggest that implementation of the Articles of the Convention is limited. In the league of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries it ranks 23rd out of 26 for child poverty and 24th out of 27 for the child maltreatment death rate. A case will be made for coordination of existing and new services for children and families through a dedicated children?s centre, modelled on the United Kingdom?s Sure Start and Children?s Centre program that was modelled in part on the Head Start program of the United States. The paper reports on Wellsford, a rural community north of Auckland, which has embraced the children?s centre concept and is investigating ways to obtain funding to implement the idea.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Bryant ◽  
Wendy Burton ◽  
Michelle Collinson ◽  
Amanda Farrin ◽  
Jane Nixon ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Low parental participation reduces the impact and sustainability of public health childhood obesity prevention programmes. Using data from a focused ethnography, we developed a multi-level, theory-based implementation optimisation intervention. The optimisation intervention aimed to support local authorities and children’s centres to adopt behaviours to promote engagement in ‘HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young)’, a UK community obesity prevention intervention. Methods We evaluated the effectiveness of the optimisation intervention on programme enrolment and completion over a 12 implementation period in a cluster randomised controlled trial. We randomised 20 local government authorities (with 126 children’s centres) to HENRY plus the optimisation intervention or to HENRY alone. Primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of centres enrolling at least eight parents per programme and (2) the proportion of centres with a minimum of 75% of parents attending at least five of eight sessions per programme. Trial analyses adjusted for stratification factors (pre-randomisation implementation of HENRY, local authority size, deprivation) and allowed for cluster design. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation used qualitative interview data and routine monitoring to explain trial results. Results Neither primary outcome differed significantly between groups; 17.8% of intervention centres and 18.0% of control centres achieved the parent enrolment target (adjusted difference -1.2%; 95%CI: -19.5%, 17.1%); 17.1% of intervention centres and 13.9% of control centres achieved the attendance target (adjusted difference 1.2%; 95%CI: -15.7%, 18.1%). Unexpectedly, the trial coincided with substantial national service restructuring, including centre closures and reduced funds. Some commissioning and management teams stopped or reduced implementation of both HENRY and the optimisation intervention due to competing demands. Thus, at follow up, HENRY programmes were delivered to approximately half the number of parents compared to baseline (n=433 vs. 881). Conclusions During a period in which services were reduced by policies outside the realm of this research, this first definitive trial found no evidence of effectiveness for an implementation optimisation intervention promoting parent engagement in an obesity prevention intervention. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02675699 registered 4th February 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02675699


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document