The Impact of Every Child Matters on Workplace - Case Study Example

The Impact of “Every Child Matters” on Workplace Abstract “Every Child Matters” was developed and implemented within UK’s educational system in order to ensure that the educational and health services that each child will receive equal benefits regardless of their physical and mental condition. In line with this, the act of incorporating the concept of “Every Child Matters” within the school curriculum is important in terms of increasing the students’ self-confidence before joining the workforce, improving each child’s cognitive development, promoting equal learning opportunities to all students regardless of their physical health condition, and prepare them emotionally, physically, mentally, and psychologically once they are ready to join the work force. Aside from briefly discussing the context of “Every Child Matters”, this report will examine the different UK public policies such as Equality Act 2006, the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995, Employment Rights Act of 1996, Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, and Race Relations Act of 1976 as a way of examining how the promotion of cultural diversity within the educational system could help each child prepare and protect themselves as soon as they are ready to look for employment opportunities. After discussing the significance of cultural diversity in work environment, strategic ways on how to develop and create an effective inclusive learning environment for children with or without learning difficulties will be tackled in details. Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ........................................................................................... 3 I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 4 II. Rationale for Choosing “Every Child Matters” ...................................... 5 III. Context of “Every Child Matters” .......................................................... 5 IV. The Impact of “Every Child Matters” in Working Environment .......... 6 V. Conclusion and Recommendation ...................................................... 10 References ................................................................................................. 12 - 16 Introduction Specifically the educational support needs of each child vary depending on their individual learning capabilities. Some students are fast learners whereas students who were born with mental or physical health problems may have difficulty in learning (Learning and Teaching Scotland 2007). In order to remove all the barriers to learning, the Scottish government has exerted so much effort on increasing the social complexity of each school. Under the current Scottish Executive Education Department, the Education Act 2004 promotes an equal opportunity for education regardless of the mental and physical condition of a child. The said Act includes rendering additional short- and long-term support needs related to social, socio-economic status, emotional, cognitive, linguistic, disability or family and care circumstances which may hinder a child’s learning development (Scottish Executive Education Department 2004; Killean 2003). Similar to Children Act of 2004, “Every Child Matters” was developed to ensure that the educational and health services that each child will receive equal benefits regardless of their physical and mental condition. With regards to the government’s effort to improve each child’s opportunity to equal access to education and health services, this report will discuss the impact of “Every Child Matters” in working environment. As part of going through the main discussion, several public policies in UK’s employment system will be provided to prove that the implementation of “Every Child Matters” has a positive impact over each child’s future participation in the work force. Rationale for Choosing “Every Child Matters” Incorporating the concept of “Every Child Matters” in school is important in terms of increasing the students’ self-confidence before joining the workforce. This is possible by making each student aware of the need to improve their skills related to the application of information technology, computation, communication, problem solving abilities, business and customer awareness, team working, and self management strategies (Sutton Education Business Partnership 2010). Most of business organizations today are focused on promoting the importance of cultural diversity at work not only because UK employment law requires employers to treat employees equally but also to create a positive public image and/or increase the company’s profitability by enhancing the quality of its business operations (Corner and Soliman 1996). Since the tight competition in today’s work force requires the practice of work diversity and a combination of good mental and physical health, this report will tackle the impact of “Every Child Matters” on workplace. Context of “Every Child Matters” “Every Child Matters” aims to provide equal educational and health opportunities to children and young adults below the age of 19 years old and 24 years old for children and young adults with disabilities (Department for Children, Schools and Families 2010). When monitoring the impact of “Every Child Matters” in the academic achievements of the students, Ofsted strictly monitors the academic performance of vulnerable groups particularly the students with learning difficulties (Girle 2010). By removing all barriers that are present between the normal students and students with disabilities, the gap between the two groups of students will be narrowed. The government is expecting to eliminate child poverty by year 2020 (ibid). To ensure that each child and young adult will have the opportunity to fulfil their professional goals, the government mandated to incorporate the concept of “Every Child Matters” in school curriculum. Stated in “Every Child Matters: Change for Children” is the long-term vision which suggests that parents and carers should participate in the learning process of each child (Campaign for Learning 2010). School teachers have limited time in terms of improving each child’s learning ability or even develop their skills which are necessary in making them successful when they participate in the workforce. With strong support, motivation, and guidance coming from each child’s parents, family members, and carers, it would be possible not only in terms of increasing the learning experience of each child but also improve their academic achievements (DfES 2003). The Impact of “Every Child Matters” in Working Environment Over the past few years, social scientists throughout the local educational institutions have been studying issues related to work equality regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality and disabilities (van Oorschot and Hvinden 2001; Barton and Oliver 1997). In line with the increasing importance of work equality, the UK government strongly supports the development of public policies that will protect the equal rights of both the disabled and non-disabled people. One of the main reasons for integrating the students with learning disability with the normal students is to minimize and prevent prejudice acts against those individuals who have special needs in learning (The Inclusion Charter 2008). It is also expected that desegregating the special education will be the first step in helping to change discriminatory attitudes towards the students with special needs. As part of the benefits of inclusion in education, continuously promoting the concept of diversity among the students within the educational institutions is important in the social development of each child (Rieser 2001, p. 139). Specifically the promotion of inclusion in education does not only require reformation and restructuring in school policies, school’s curriculum, assessment and recording method but also the provision of social opportunities to all students (Booth et al. 2000; Mittler 2000, p. 2). Since normal students are required to interact with students with learning difficulties, the concept of promoting cultural diversity in school is advantageous in terms of preparing each child when they are ready to participate in the workforce. Specifically the Equality Act 2006 focuses on promoting work equality and diversity in relation to the importance of human rights (Office of Public Sector Information 2009b). To prevent disabled people from being discriminated at work, the government implemented the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which clearly states that it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against disabled employees (Office of Public Sector Information 2009c). In fact, this policy requires each employer to make necessary adjustments on the building construction design or the provision of audio tape or sign language interpreter in order to enable the disabled people to function well within the business organization (Office of Public Sector Information 2009d). In 1996, the Employment Rights Act was passed by the Conservative government for the purpose of consolidating the past statutes made since the Contracts of Employment Act of 1963. Since Employment Rights Act tackled employment issues related to unfair dismissal, the importance of giving early and reasonable notice before implementing employees’ dismissal among others (Office of Public Sector Information, 2009a). Likewise, the Act serves as a guideline with regards to employees’ rights from the time they have been employed by a company. Under the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 which was amended back in 1986, the Equality and Human Rights Commission aims to reduce the work inequality related to direct and indirect sex1 or status discrimination2 on employment or vocational trainings and sexual harassment (Women and Equality Unit 2009). The local government also maintained the Race Relations Act 1976 in order to prevent and minimize racial discrimination to anyone regardless of the person’s race, colour, nationality, ethnicity or national origin (The University of York - Equal Opportunities Office 2009). Aiming to protect the welfare of the workers from inequality, the UK government implemented a lot of different public policies including the Equality Act 2006, the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995, Employment Rights Act of 1996, Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, and Race Relations Act of 1976 among others. Considering the legal implications of these public policies in UK employment, the practice of cultural diversity within the workplace is important part of the corporate culture. As a way of improving the policy on gender, race and disability equality, the UK government introduced the Public Sector Duties back in 1999 (Women and Equality Unit 2005). The Public Sector Duties protects not only the women but also the men on work equality. In line with the local government’s effort in reducing the racial and gender discrimination at work, the employment rate gap among the black, Asian and the ethnic minority significantly reduced from 19% in 1996, 16.9% in 2003 down to 14% in 2006 (Bendelman 2007). Cultural diversity at work or ‘multiculturalism’ integrates different culture related to employees’ age, gender, mental or physical abilities and characteristics, race, ethnic heritage, sexual orientation, geographic location, work experience, income, religious beliefs, language spoken, organizational role and level, communication style used, family status, work style, and employees’ educational background (Loden 1996). By making each child emotionally ready and accustomed with the idea of accepting and respecting the cultural differences of each person, it would be easier for each child to become emotionally, physically, mentally, and psychologically ready by the time they join the workforce. In general, employees who discriminate their co-workers and/or customers can be charged with disciplinary offence which could lead to a ground for early dismissal from work. Likewise, employers who are found guilty of discriminating employees and job applicants can be held liable for committing a criminal offence. To avoid facing legal charges against unlawful discrimination, each should learn about the existing UK policies on equal employment opportunities. Given that “Every Child Matters” promotes the importance of keeping each child safe within their learning environment, each child learns their individual right as a person. Considering the importance of being safe, allowing each child to learn more about their human rights and the existing UK employment laws will be useful in terms of enabling each child to protect themselves from abusive people once they are ready to search for employment. Conclusion and Recommendations The main purpose of promoting inclusion in education is to give equal educational and health opportunity to each child with or without learning difficulty. As part of “Every Child Matters”, the government requires inclusive education throughout the United Kingdom. Inclusive education requires the need to restructure the school curriculum and teaching methods in such a way that it could address the specific learning needs of the normal students and those with learning disability. Aside from educational purposes, inclusive education is important in terms of extending equal social and employment opportunities to students with learning difficulty. Regardless of the physical health condition of each child, incorporating the concept of “Every Child Matters” in school curriculum will improve the competitive advantage of each student. Given that the government requires each school to incorporate “Every Child Matters” in school curriculum, teachers will be made responsible in developing teaching-and-learning approach that is applicable for students with normal learning abilities and students with learning difficulties. As a result of increasing the academic achievement and learning experiences of each child, the future workforce will be more competitive in terms of meeting the hard- and soft-skill requirements within the work environment. For example: Different teaching and learning approach is required when dealing with normal learning students and those with learning difficulties. In most cases, the learning approach used in educating the students with normal learning capabilities will not work effectively on students with learning difficulties. Therefore, allowing students with learning difficulties to join the normal class may only distract the learning process of the students with normal learning capabilities. In general, the use of ‘accelerated school model’ is designed to make the learning of normal students more efficient. This will enable students in normal class to become successful in life as they finish school and start to work. According to Finnan and Meza (2002), teachers who use ‘accelerated school model’ are able to develop a close monitoring and significant interaction between the educators and the learners. Necessary for better learning results, establishing open communication between the educators and learners is useful in terms of developing two-way relationship (De Haan and Elbers 2004). Since this model is usually applied in normal size or a little larger than a normal class size, ‘accelerated school model’ is not applicable to students with learning difficulties. The best way to handle and teach students with learning difficulties is to incorporate ‘Success for All’ restructuring model in school curriculum. This type of model is practically good in terms of teaching students with learning difficulties, students with IQ below the normal level, and those who are de-motivated when it comes to learning. Unlike the ‘accelerated school model’, ‘Success for All’ restructuring model includes a component that is designed to promote a strong linkage between the educational institution and the parents of each student (Borman and Hewes 2002). Similar to the objectives of “Every Child Matters”, ‘Success for All’ restructuring model also consider parents participation as an important formula in improving the students’ learning progress. In line with this, ‘Success for All’ models consider the size of class as an important factor that could significantly affect the learning experience of the students such that a smaller class size could enable the students to achieve a significantly better academic performance aside from improving the students’ social and behavioural development better as compared with larger class size (Finn et al. 1989). Given that “Every Child Matters” strongly encourage parents’, family members’, and carers’ participation in each child’s learning process, the use of multi-agency partnership with different agencies related to children’s learning development, health centres, local school establishments, children’s social work services, play centres, and Child and Adolescent Mental Health services (CAMHS) becomes an important strategy in terms of narrowing the education and health services gap given to each child (Department for Children, Schools and Families 2010 b; Rowe 2008; Robinson, Anning and Frost 2005). By integrating the educational system with the social, educational, and health services for children, parents and carers will be able to improve not only their skills in teaching their children how to improve their learning abilities but also enable each child to improve their own ability to develop their skills and talents (NIACE Family Learning 2007). As a result, there is a stronger chance that the government could successfully improve the future working opportunities of each child. *** End *** References Barton, L., and Oliver, M., 1997. Disability Studies: Past, Present and Future. Leeds: Disability Press. Bendelman, D. S., 2007. Equality: The Government's Response to the Report of the Communities and Local Government Committee - Government Equalities Office. London: TSO. Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M. and Shaw, L., 2000. Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Bristol: CSIE. Borman, G.D. and Hewes, G.M., 2002. ‘The Long-Term Effects and Cost-Effectiveness of Success for All’ Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24(4), pp. 243 – 266. Campaign for Learning, 2010. Submission to the inquiry on Every Child Matters by the Education and Skills Select Committee. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Corner, D. R., and Soliman, C. E., 1996. ‘Organizational Efforts to Manage Diversity: Do They Really Work?’ Journal of Managerial Issues , 8(4), pp. 470 - 484. De Haan, M. and Elbers, E., 2004. ‘Minority Status and Culture: Local Construction of Diversity in Classroom in the Netherlands’ Intercultural Education. 15(4), pp. 441 – 453. Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010 a. About Every Child Matters. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2010 b. Multi-agency services: Systems and processes. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. DfES, 2003. The Impact of parental involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and adjustment: A literature review by Professor Charles Desforges w/ Alberto Abouchaar. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Finnan, C. and Meza, J., 2002. ‘Can a Leader Change the Culture and Embed Reform? The Accelerated Schools Project in Memphis’ in Murphy, J. and Datnow, A. (Eds) ‘Leadership for School Reform: Lessons from Comprehensive School Reform Designs’ Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press. Finn JD., Fulton BD., Zaharias J., and Nye BA., 1989 ‘Carry-Over Effects of Small Classes’ Peabody Journal of Education. 67, pp. 75 – 84. Girle, J., 2010. Vulnerable groups. How to narrow the attainment gap between vulnerable groups and the rest of the school. In SIMS. Upclose. Primary Schools: Issues & Answer 2010. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Loden, M., 1996. Implementing Diversity. Burr Ridge, IL.: Mc-Graw Hill Publishing. Mittler, P., 2000. Open University. Working Towards Inclusive Education: Social Contexts. In Open University's unit E848_1 - Inclusive education: knowing what we mean. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. NIACE Family Learning, 2007, September. NIACE Family Learning Matters. Family learning to employment: Raising aspirations and gaining skills. Topic Paper No. 3. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Office of Public Sector Information, 2009a. Employment Rights Act of 1996. [online] Available at : [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Office of Public Sector Information, 2009b. Equality Act 2006 (c.3) - The Commission for Equality and Human Rights. [online] Available at : [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Office of Public Sector Information, 2009c. Disability Act 1995 (c.50) - Part I: Disability. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Office of Public Sector Information, 2009d. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c.50) - Part III: Discrimination in Other Areas. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Rieser, R., 2001. Open University. The Struggle for Inclusion: the Growth of a Movement. In Open University's unit E848_1 - Inclusive education: knowing what we mean. [online] Available at : [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Robinson, M., Anning, A. and Frost, N., 2005. ‘When is a teacher not a teacher?’: knowledge creation and the professional identity of teachers within multi-agency teams. Studies in Continuing Education , 27(2), pp. 175-191. Rowe, V., 2008. Multi-Agency Team Development. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Sutton Education Business Partnership, 2010. Their future is in our hands. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. The Inclusion Charter, 2008. The Charter's Six Points. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. The University of York - Equal Opportunities Office, 2009. Race. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. van Oorschot, V., and Hvinden, B., 2001. Disability Policies in European Societies. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Women and Equality Unit, 2009. Sex Discrimination Act. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 November 2010]. Women and Equality Unit, 2005. Advancing Equality for Men and Women: Government Proposals to Introduce a Public Sector Duty to Promote Gender Equality. London: DTI. Read More