|
|
One in five children
disturbed, say doctors ONE IN five school children suffers from some form of mental health problem ranging from violence and aggression to depression and eating disorders, leading psychiatrists said yesterday. Children as young as six were increasingly showing aggressive behaviour fuelled by broken families and parents who could not cope. At the same time, teachers were becoming "proxy parents", left to teach many primary school children basic social values as parental skills diminished, said Dr Peter Hill, chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' child and adolescent psychiatry section. He said it was now an accepted view that 20 per cent of school children had a mental health problem. "In every class of 30 children, three will have an important mental health problem and three will be sufficiently distressed for it to affect their ability to get on. Half of these children need to be seen by specialist services," he said. "Teachers are having to mop up the problems. Children start school who do not understand prohibition, who do not understand emotions and who do not understand what they are supposed to do with other children." Speaking at the launch of a series of 21 leaflets for parents, teachers and older children, Dr Hill said: "The parents least able to cope are those with the least encouragement and support." The fact sheets, supported by the Department of Health, cover a wide range of mental health problems that affect school children, including discipline, bullying, bed wetting, sleep problems, divorce, abuse, bereavement, suicide and self harm. Every primary school should have a "quiet room"Dr Anula Nikapota, a child psychiatrist in Lambeth, south London, said the number of severely disturbed primary school children was so high in the borough that health professionals were being asked to look for solutions. "It was of great concern to find out the number of children aged six and seven who had been permanently excluded," she said. She suggests that every primary school should have a "quiet room" with a punch bag so that angry children could get rid of aggression. "There is a visible increase in young children of severely disordered conduct and aggressive behaviour. The children grow up with the idea that if they are angry they should hit someone. They need to learn control," she said. Dr Guinevere Tufnel, consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist, said children were not born knowing how to behave. "They have to be taught. Parents under pressure do not have the time. "Parents have a difficult job getting it right. They are also under increasing scrutiny by government and by schools. Hardly a day goes by without some mention in the media of badly behaved children and the inadequacy of their parents and their teachers," she said. Dr Alyson Hall, a consultant psychiatrist, said that family breakdown undoubtedly contributed to the problems, with hard-up parents finding it difficult to cope and working parents often having too little time. "In those circumstances, it is much harder to enforce bedtimes and meal times. When there is no routine in family life, the child is often hungry or tired. "It is easier to give the baby a dummy or the older child sweets. It is easier to give in," she said. Dr Hall, who works at the Emanuel Miller Centre, in Limehouse, east London, said the annual number of referrals to the centre had trebled between 1976 and 1994, from 300 to 1,000. Many of the children were aged between four and eight and the number of children with serious behavioural problems had doubled. "There has been a tremendous rise, particularly in the 1990s. These are children who are extremely difficult to treat," she said. "It is much harder to be firm than it was, when our society has lost many of its traditions." Dr Hall said a study of family circumstances of the children attending her clinic provided more evidence of the effects of family breakdown. In the 1970s, 48 per cent of the children referred were children who lived with both their parents. In the 1990s, it 28 per cent. Similarly, 20 years ago, only one per cent of the children she saw were living with neither parent. Now 62 per cent of the children referred are living with relations or foster parents. Head
suspends 35 unruly boys for five days THE head teacher of a secondary school has suspended 35 pupils in an attempt to eliminate unruly behaviour. The pupils, aged 11 to 15, have been excluded from Central Technology College, Gloucester, for persistent disruption in the classroom. Paul Monnelly, the head teacher, said the mass suspension had been necessary to ensure the majority of pupils at the boys' school were able to continue their education without disruption. "The school cannot allow a minority of students to continue to disrupt and jeopardise the education of the majority," he said. The boys had been identified as "causing concern" by teachers and the local education authority behaviour support team. In a letter to parents, he wrote: "The college has a small minority of students who display challenging behaviour. In common with every school in the land, we have a duty, as educators, to ensure that our students can learn and progress." The suspensions led to protests from some parents. Lorraine Grines, 37, said no specific reason was given for the exclusion of her son, Sam, 13, other than that he "disrupts the education of other students". She said: "He has been suspended in the past for fighting and I agreed with that - children need discipline. But we were given no real reason for his suspension this time. Recent reports have praised Sam's behaviour and his attendance. So why has he been suspended now?" The suspended pupils have been told to stay away from the school, which has 620 boys aged between 11 and 18, for five days. Gloucestershire county council's education department said it was "surprised and concerned" at the suspensions. Stewart King, acting head of education services, said he had asked Mr Monnelly for an explanation. · The college was at the centre of a race row earlier this year after the expulsion of four black pupils suspected of involvement with drugs. An independent appeal panel ruled that the pupils had been the victims of indirect racial discrimination. |
|
|