Thought for the day: Too much kids media? June 11th. By Greg Hands MP

As a child, my brothers and I were banned from watching ITV. Apparently, we weren’t the only family to do this, but this arbitrary rule certainly caused me a little embarrassment at primary school, as at the end of each day the teacher would allow a ten-minute improvisation session, where each of us, or groups, had to act out advertisements of our choice. The other children loved for example the cackling Martians from Smash, one of the favourites in the early 1970s, but I had nothing to contribute.

Later on, in our teenage years, we mocked our mother for her apparent prudishness, but with four boys, this may have been an impromptu but convenient solution to the problem faced by all parents, namely how to control what our children watch. Thirty years on, television is almost the least of our worries, as we fret over the Internet, video and computer games, MSN, Bebo, email and any number of new social networking websites like Facebook and MySpace.

There are two issues for us as either parents, policymakers, or both. The first is how to police detrimental content, in other words pornography, violence and the like. In this short posting, I will focus on the second problem – the effect that even entirely innocent content, taken to extremes, can have on our children.

In October 2005, I hosted in the House of Commons a book launch for two Fulham sisters and authors, Teresa Orange and Louise O’Flynn, and their first book, “The Media Diet for Kids”. The book is a practical guide to helping parents fight back against “screen binging”. It informs parents when and how to say no, how to properly count and assess the time spent by children in front of a screen, and how to even set up a “diet plan” to wean them off it. The book also lauds some of the benefits of modern media, and how parents can actually ensure that only the best of it is available. Teresa and Louise’s techniques are far more sophisticated than my mother’s and for more about them, see their website at http://www.mediadietforkids.com

According to Teresa and Louise, eleven to fifteen year olds spend on average 53 hours a week in front of a screen. This compares with 38 hours a week in 1994. The majority of children spend more time watching TV than actually learning at school. Watching TV is actually in decline, and average Internet use has increased in this age group from 5.2 hours a week in 2000 to 7.3 hours in 2004.

After the publication of their book, the Observer described the authors as “two mothers on a mission to save children from television.” The two are no ordinary mums either. Teresa was the children’s expert at advertising giant, J Walter Thompson. Louise was director of communications at Camelot.

The really nice thing about Louise and Teresa’s approach is that is doesn’t involve state intervention. It is all about parental empowerment, not parenting classes run by local authorities. I introduced Teresa and Louise to the Party’s Quality of Life policy group, and knowing that David Cameron has rightly pledged to put pro-family policies to the fore, I look forward to seeing some high quality proposals this summer on how the Conservative Party will back parents in taking back control.

Greg Hands is MP for Hammersmith & Fulham

Thought for the day: Let our children play. June 6th. By Nadine Dorries MP

Teachers are complaining that when some children begin their education, they no longer know how to share, socialise, or even make friends – creating problems within the classroom and necessitating teachers to teach the most basic of interpersonal skills.

We have a problem with childhood obesity – for the first time ever it is predicted that parents of today will be the first generation to begin to outlive its offspring. And according to UNICEF, British children are the unhappiest in Europe, by a long way.

What are we doing to our kids?

It would be some comfort to think that an entire generation of parents were wrapping children up in cotton wool and living by the stranger danger code, thereby misguidedly killing childhood with love. Unfortunately the problem is two fold, each problem resulting in the same outcome.

The ‘afraid to let the kids move’ parents are the first half of the problem, but  there are also parents who allow the computer, TV and play stations to dominate their children’s lives, and find it easier to let this happen. After all, at least if he’s in his bedroom he’s not out on the streets, which are full of ‘danger.’

Our streets are not full of danger – not in the way almost all children and parents think today anyway.

While he is sat in his bedroom avoiding the imaginary child abusers and kidnappers, he’s also not socialising, making friends, extending his imagination, learning to be creative, playing, getting muddy, ripping trousers, falling out of trees, making dens, kicking a ball around or pushing back the boundaries of acceptable behaviour therefore reinforcing those boundaries even further; he never gets to be the cowboy or the Indian, unless it’s on a plasma screen.

The recent disappearance of Madeleine McCann, desperately sad as it is, will only serve to make this situation worse.

Evidently 95% of children who contact the charity Childline, know who their abuser is. It is usually either a family member or someone in a position of trust, not someone they just met on the street.

I know a number of people who have been sexually abused as children; it goes like this, the vicar, the hospital porter, dad’s friend, uncle. 

Any child is more likely to be run over in the street than to be abused in it. 29,000 children in the

UK were involved in road accidents last year, 156 of which were fatal. We should be ingraining the Green Cross Code into our children’s brains, not stranger danger!According to the NSPCC, on average one child is killed by their parent or carer every week in Britain – far more accidents happen in the home than in the park, the fields or the streets. That fact is going to present any parent with a cotton wool mentality with a problem, do we make the home out of bounds?

Parents need to start relaxing and trusting their children’s instincts and become more aware of their children’s most basic needs. Our children should be healthy and free to explore.Someone needs to get the message out that in order to learn to be responsible and independent, children need to learn to via the most basic first steps how to do this.

How to find your way home when you get lost; how to help your friend down who is stuck in the tree; how to look after the younger children and little siblings in the group; how to a make a picnic last all day; and how to trust.

And of course the most important lesson of all, the one you call on over and over again throughout your adult life – how to fight and make up.

Nadine Dorries is MP for Mid Bedfordshire

 To comment on Nadine’s post please click on the comments section of the title bar.

Thought for the day – May 24th – by John Hayes MP

Risking Our Children’s Futures

A report published last month by the Prince’s Trust exposed the growing crisis of the ‘lost generation’ of ‘neets’ – young people not in education, employment or training. There are now almost 1.3 million ‘neets’ aged between 16 and 24, their number has increased by 15% since 1997. The failure to tap their potential undermines social cohesion, damages the economy and puts a growing strain on the exchequer. The report estimates the cost at £3.65 billion a year.

As we waste a generation’s potential we fail to address the shocking production of still more school leavers without basic skills. Through written questions I have uncovered that 45 thousand 16 year-olds leave school each year either functionally illiterate or innumerate – each one a likely new ‘neet’.These young lives have been damaged by an education system that fails to engage those with practical aptitudes.

Vocational qualifications often fail to harness and develop practical talents partly because there is no clear progression route from one vocational qualification to the next; equivalent to the academic route of GCSEs, ‘A’ levels and degrees.

The authors of a London School of Economics study in 2003 concluded that we have created a complex academic system of vocational qualifications because of a lack of consensus about what vocational education is actually for.

Genuine esteem can only be achieved if we appreciate the true value of practical learning. What vocational education should be about is providing a rigorous pathway for students who wish to acquire a skilled craft. It should be rooted in practical learning and the acquisition of the skills necessary in particular occupations.

The new 14-19 specialised diplomas represent a golden opportunity to provide such a pathway. In his final report Lord Leitch writes that they ‘must succeed’ but profound doubts are already being expressed about their implementation. There is a danger that the introduction of the first five diplomas next year is being rushed, limiting the opportunity for employer engagement in their design.

There are also fundamental concerns that the lack of clarity about the purpose of vocational education that has handicapped curriculum reform in the past may undermine the diplomas. In particular, fears that they will not contain sufficient practical learning to provide a meaningful step to acquiring a craft.

The Nuffield review of skills has warned that this emphasis on theoretical learning means that we may ‘once again be witnessing the process of ‘academic drift’ that occurred with both GNVQs and Advanced Vocational Certificates of Education (AVCEs).The Education Secretary has even got his apology in early by admitting that the diplomas ‘may go horribly wrong’. The absence of practical learning means there is a great danger that the diplomas will be too general in content to provide either a meaningful academic or vocational education. If this is the case then they will simply add to the current confusing array of qualifications and do nothing to provide the kind of clear pathway for vocational education we so desperately need.

If the new diplomas are to be a success then they must provide students with the opportunity to acquire genuine skills in the best environment. We must avoid the trap of teaching students in a classroom setting what it might be like to be an electrician or a mechanic. Barriers must be broken down between schools and FE colleges, schools alone simply do not have the facilities or the resources to deliver all 14 diplomas in practice. Genuine workplace experience should be a compulsory element of all diplomas – so students can be taught and inspired by experienced, skilled craftsmen.

To build a clear vocational path diplomas must be fully integrated with apprenticeships and higher vocational qualifications such as Foundation Degrees. If we can provide such a path then we can engage young people with practical talents and guide many of the ‘lost generation’ of ‘neets’ towards a brighter future and a fulfilling career.

John Hayes is Co-Chairman of The Cornerstone Group

Thought for the day – May 14th

As his idea for evening and weekend opening of GPs’ surgeries shows, Gordon Brown is now setting out his stall for the premiership. It is time for Conservatives to react with some policy initiatives of our own.

Brown’s style is obviously different from Blair’s, but in the most important respect, his substance is much the same. He shares with Blair the guiding principle that the state – using ever more of tax-payers’ earnings – is the best machine for delivering almost anything that government wants.

Yet in spite of that, as Frank Field points out in a report published today by think-tank Reform, his New Deal for youth employment – cost so far nearly £2bn – has been a ‘woeful failure’ (see today’s Telegraph, p 4), with the number of people aged 18-24 out of work up by 70,000 to 505,000 since it was launched in 1998. Numbers of young people “not in employment , education or training” are also up on 1998, and climbing – now 131,000 above the figure when Labour came to power ten years ago. As Field says, many of the people who got a job through the New Deal would have found a job in any case. Not everyone needs the nanny state to hold their hand.

As Field comments “The results show that even if the money was available, which it isn’t, more of the same won’t work and will be a betrayal of young unemployed people.”

No wonder Brown has already attacked Cornerstone for our tax reduction proposals.

We shall continue to be a thorn in his side. P.S The first of the Cornerstone policy papers submitted to David Cameron’s policy review will appear on this site on Wednesday. We will start with Brian Binley’s excellent paper on how to create an “Enterprise Britain” for the 21st Century.

Edward Leigh is Co-Chairman of The Cornerstone Group