Search results

This chapter discusses reforms to increase customer-centredness, public consultation (including professional, business and community associations), whole-of-government approaches (a case of trafficking in persons), increased budget, personnel and procurement delegation to departments and increased role of statutory boards (autonomous agencies). According to the author the driving force behind public sector reforms emanates from the inner core of ministers, most particularly the prime minister and deputy prime minister, working in close conjunction with senior permanent secretaries, directors of boards and government-linked companies. In Singapore, power is concentrated in the hands of political executives and senior levels of civil service. Ministers set the policy agenda and make final policy decisions on important issues. The administrative service is the elite service (of about 250 persons) within the civil service that shapes policy, especially permanent secretaries and deputy secretaries. Objections to reforms are often avoided through inputs to the reform process by key stakeholders and experts of relevant fields from inter-ministerial and inter-agency committees and through public consultations. Singapore has achieved an exceptional level of prosperity, and according to the author civil service is guided by practices of meritocracy (e.g., in promotion) and strict accountability through audits and anti-corruption steps.

This chapter reviews the conditions leading to the emergence of hybrid network structures involved in public service delivery, analyses opportunities for boundary-spanning by network members and frames these against different manifestations of leadership in such collaborative contexts. It addresses a gap in knowledge around leadership in hybrid networks, on the one hand, and around effectiveness of hybrid networks, on the other hand. Following an in-depth case-study of a hybrid network (local safeguarding children boards, LSCB) in England, UK, we advance a researchable proposition according to which, in turbulent times, the effectiveness of such networks is enhanced through one particular leadership type rather than others.

Sternberg & Lubart (1991); Sternberg & Lubart (1992).

All school staff (teaching and support) now have a duty and obligation to protect and safeguard children in their care. To be able to do this, school staff need to understand what safeguarding is and how to respond, but also need to understand a number of other concepts such as: why children end up in vulnerable situation in the first place, how teaching practices reduce vulnerability, and how to engage with children and young people in an effective and efficient manner. This chapter explores these latter types of concerns and in doing so identifies that teachers and support staff are key professionals in identifying vulnerability, preventing the escalation of concerns, engaging with children and supporting them and their education over time as they engage with and attend school. This chapter also contains a detailed breakdown of the structure and the content of this edited collection and concludes with reflective comments about the implications of this collection for you as an individual and in your career: working with children and young people in educational establishments.

This chapter explores how children and young people become involved with County Lines gangs, and what issues Educators need to be aware of when working with a child or young person who has been ‘groomed’ into this activity. It begins with an overview of the policies which have framed young peoples' experiences since 2010, the proliferation of vulnerable contexts, and the resultant risk for particular groups of young people. It concludes that schools are one of the key agencies that may be able to identify early signs of young people's involvement in County Lines activities, and to act to ensure young people are given appropriate support.

The most recent research on the prevalence of young caring in secondary school–age children (Joseph et al., 2019) suggests that one in five 11–16 year olds have a caring role. There are inherent challenges with identifying children and young people (CYP) who have caring responsibilities; they find themselves in the role because of love for a family member, as well as the lack of provision to meet the needs of the person they are caring for (Keith & Morris, 1995), not because they have consciously chosen to become a carer, and so do not identify with the concept (Smyth, Blaxland, & Cass, 2011). School can be both precarious and a place of sanctuary for young carers (Becker & Becker, 2008). Experiences of education, as with many aspects of caring, exist on a continuum with no young carers’ educational experience being the same (Dearden & Becker, 2003). Schools have a pivotal role in identifying, understanding and supporting young carers to prevent their education from being adversely affected.