Search Results

This chapter evaluates family-based prevention programs or programs that target risk factors for delinquency and later offending that are associated with the family, such as poor child-rearing, poor parental supervision, and inconsistent or harsh discipline. These programs are usually delivered by health professionals such as nurses and they are typically less behavioural, mainly providing advice and guidance to parents or general parent education. The findings reveal that parent education plus daycare services and parent management training are effective in preventing delinquency and later offending.

This chapter focuses on the health behaviours outlined in the previous chapter from research evidence which suggested the key targets for intervention to be: smoking cessation, nutrition and parenting education. It outlines the range of effective interventions at our disposal and considers the local delivery of two important structural targets: early-years education and childcare. It concludes that the most effective interventions tend to be multifaceted, ranging from education and health through to social inclusion and community development.

This chapter considers research evidence that links early life factors to adverse health outcomes and discusses the significance of early life experiences to health inequalities. It suggests that it is theoretically possible to identify the kinds of policy interventions that could improve the healthy development of young children from disadvantaged backgrounds by linking epidemiological evidence that highlights key risk factors to evidence of the social context of risk. It identifies key areas for intervention which include smoking cessation, nutrition and parenting education.

This chapter examines the Berkeley 1900 generation’s perspectives on how their parenting differed from their parents, how their youth differed from their children’s, the virtues and faults of modern men and women, and their aspirations for their sons and daughters. The growing arsenal of parenting information altered their views of children and approaches to parenting, but it also brought new worries and even feelings of incompetence. This generation of parents also wrestled with gendered expectations for themselves and their children, emphasizing the need to address opportunities for women, equality in marriage, and the problems of men, masculinity, and power in society and social relationships. These observations provide a powerful lens for understanding historical change from generation to generation.

Chapter 5 focuses on how educators support the parents of children with developmental disabilities. With the increasing attention on children with developmental disabilities, many parents have read about disabilities, including their neurological bases. Yet their understandings of disabilities were deeply embedded in the social context. They focused on how children’s disabilities impacted their relationships with peers, how the children received educational support, and how children understood and dealt with their differences from peers. Given their focus on the social context, many parents expressed hesitation about placing children in special education classrooms. They were sensitive to “other people’s eyes.” Concerns with stigma made it difficult for some parents to accept that their children have difficulties or disabilities, let alone grant permission for them to receive additional support outside of the peer group. Knowing parents’ concerns, teachers carefully support parents’ gradual acceptance of their children’s need for special education services.

This chapter explores the topic of whether we should institute some kind of parental licensing scheme, that is, require biological parents to demonstrate certain competence and character before they are permitted to parent their biological children. Existing concerns regarding parental licensing tend to be practical concerns such as whether there can be a reliable way of determining who is a competent parent and whether the parental licensing scheme can be enforced. These practical concerns leave open the possibility that parental licensing is theoretically correct. This chapter presents a new, theoretical case against parental licensing. In particular, it is argued that biological parenting should not be licensed because biological parenting is a fundamental (human) right and fundamental rights should not be licensed.

This chapter considers the foundations of parental narcissism. The chapter begins by referencing the shift from the 'Me' decade to the 'Me' millennium, so as to contextualise two critical political developments: the coming of the New Right and the failure of the Labour Party to counter its influence. The chapter shows how the New Right set about creating the economic and social agenda, not least through Sir Keith Joseph's cycle of deprivation thesis and his growing interest in 'parent education' as an antidote to  1960s permissiveness. The chapter then proceeds to examine the cultural remoralising of Britain that begin to occur in the 1970s with particular reference to the Labour Party's retreat from liberal social democratic principles to those of a more authoritarian character. The rightward (and authoritarian) drift was gradually confirmed by the introduction of the 'new behaviourism' into British psychology and particularly into health visiting and social work, which served to problematise children's behaviour in favour of parental convenience.

The school experience is central to the lives of millions of children. Here, we evaluate the ability of school measures to differentially predict violent as compared to nonviolent offending by providing a comprehensive review of studies that have tested associations between school factors (academic achievement, reading, math ability, school attachment, parent education, learning disability, school problems, and academic attainment) and physical aggression or violent behavior. The findings indicate that school measures are consistently correlated with violent behavior and some measures are also related to nonviolent offending. Nevertheless, the body of findings call into question the idea that factors such as reading, parent education, and academic attainment are associated with nonviolent-only offending at all. Discrepancies in academic deficits between violent and nonviolent offenders support out conclusion that academic achievement is a differential predictor of violence. Other measures of school factors remain good prospects for further study.