“The school should have an obligation to contact both parents about all school activities. Clearly if the situation is hostile – there may be issues – but at least both parents would be informed”

Based on personal experience I have to disagree on this, the requirement of schools to notify both parents (regardless of custody arrangements) of school events and to allow both parents attend meant that, despite having no contact with my father, he would show up at parents evening with his wife. I cannot tell you how awful it is to have a deadbeat cheating SOB of a father have the right to turn up at parents evenings, ask questions and comment on your performance. Furthermore, it is not a nice thing to have to warn all your teachers in advance that you do not speak to your father.

I totally agree that both/all parents should be involved in the school life of their children, however, bear in mind that there are always exceptional circumstance so universal rules do not always work.

Humanite

Yes – I do bare those sort of situations in mind – and would have included them in the article but word count for original purpose didn’t allow. There will always be certain circumstances where it is inappropriate for a parent to be included. One size most definitely doesn’t fit all. .

i think schools do and should have other priorities like teaching children how to read and write and do maths. Schools are educational institutions, not social (re-)engineering clinics.

‘Schools are educational institutions, not social (re-)engineering clinics.’

Actually, recent amendments to child protection laws have acknowledged the fact that schools’ pastoral role is essential in children’s development. Education isn’t just a case of teaching children how to add up.

Humanite, I sympathise, I’ve been there too. There are lots of institutions where it is simply assumed that if the parents are separated (or even if they aren’t), the mother is in charge. Steps taken to redress that balance must surely be positive on the whole, although, as ever, not all fathers are equal. Not all fathers are good caregivers and not all fathers know how to excercise responsibly that ‘right to see their children’ so often touted in the press. I think before words like ‘duty’ are chucked around too regularly the kind of duty we’re talking about should be considered.

By the way, Lynne, I’ve just moved to Haringey. You can count on my vote, and I suspect my housemates’ too. Thank you so much for all the good work 🙂

“Actually, recent amendments to child protection laws have acknowledged the fact that schools’ pastoral role is essential in children’s development. Education isn’t just a case of teaching children how to add up.”

Making a law doesn’t make it so.

Education is certainly more than making children add up, but pastoral care doesn’t necessarily include introducing the “mission creep” of tasking schools with navigating the complex social dynamics of individual families. I think the responsibility to include both parents (if it is appropriate) has to lie with the families themselves rather than educational institutions.

Nick, that’s probably how it sould be in a perfect world. However, we don’t live in a perfect world, not all parents do all that they should.The argument against SRE (Sex and Relationship Education) is always that it should be the responsibility of parents. Lots of things SHOULD be the responsibility of parents, however, it does not mean that all parents will carry out that responsibility.

The education system has to involve itself for many reasons and you need to bear in mind that younger children spend as much time at school as they do at home (assuming that most younger children go to school from 9am-3pm and go to bed at 9pm). It is not just a requirement that schools involve themselves in children’s personal lives, it is also unavoidable. Most teachers concern themselves with their students well-being whether they should or not.

Finally, when a child is stuck between two bickering parents in the middle of a messy divorce, it is undoubtedly a good thing if their school and teachers are looking out for them and talking to them about it.

Lynne,

I think this is an excellent proposition. I know my father was completely disenfranchised from knowing about my educational progress and choices. IHe wasn’t the best father in the world by a long shot but this might have made him feel more involved in my life.

Since you last brought this up I have started raising this at meetings at the school where I am a governor; we need ot make sure that infomration goes out to parents and carers on not just carers.

So many things from the provision of maternity leave to this practice of excluding fathers from school contact lists institutionalises the requiremetn for women to be primary caregivers. It doesn’t benefit either sex .

Jo

While well-intentioned, I’m sure this is – it is of course closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Rather than getting schools to encourage fathers to take an active part in their children’s lives, perhaps Labour may want to pause and reflect on how it’s policies over the past 11 years have seen families paid to live as separate units. Why should schools – which have no real moral authority in these matters – have to pick up the mess this Government has made?

I want the schools I pay for to be almost solely focussed on the educational outcomes of little Peter and Jane. Education in this country is now a national disgrace – and these kinds of bonkers ideas are not helping to improve it one iota.

Well exactly, Humanite: “Lots of things SHOULD be the responsibility of parents, however, it does not mean that all parents will carry out that responsibility.”

Education is social policy, so there is a function to be undertaken in schools – even if they shouldn’t stray into coercive practices, there is a duty to ensure a balance of responsibility is retained on all sides.

All too often parents view schools (partly as a consequence of the own previous experiences) as an extended creche service, thereby denying full socialisation and integration into the community either for the child or parent. It is increasingly rare for parents mix with each other at the school gate any more so vital communication channels with their peers about how roles are functioning are closed down, for example.

There are serious issues here about how the work-life balance has had detrimental side-effects on our institutions which are reflected in our collective personalities – it is not just about pointing fingers at who is or should be responsible, but understanding the pressures behind choices which force any abrogation of responsibilities and learning how to cope with the aftermath.

In this sense Cameron has completely failed to identify the multiple and deep-rooted causes of ‘irresponsibility’ in making the simple declaration that he wants to be tough on it.

Daniel, “Why should schools – which have no real moral authority in these matters – have to pick up the mess this Government has made?”

This isn’t a question of moral authority it is a question of practice – in the end someone’s got to ‘pick up the tab’ if you don’t want your kids to fall through the net.

Sorry, but your comment reads like you don’t have children and you’ve lifted your opinion straight from the pages of a politically biased commentary in a newspaper. I appreciate your concern, but it isn’t based on the reality of dealing with the daily problems of ongoing conflicts of interest (do I work late and let my kids take the bus home, or do I upset my boss again and try to beat the traffic? etc).

Whether I have children or not is entirely moot, I’m have no interest in your personal life.

if you don’t want your kids to fall through the net…

Then get off your arse and take some personal responsibility and do something about it. The only fathers disenfranchised from their kids educations are the ones who take no interest and do nothing to ameliorate the situation – regardless of how tough their life is. Life is hard, it’s a fact – if your life is so hard, then perhaps you should think twice about having children in the first place. The more the state provides for bad parenting – the more bad parenting we shall have.

As for politcally biased….. eh? All political commentary is “biased” – it’s called having an opinion. For what it’s worth, I read the Guardian – but it doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything thats in it.

If you have kids, it is your absolute priority to ensure that all their needs are met – otherwise you are basically an idiot who doesn’t deserve them. This government’s policies have created a lot of idiots – look at euducation itself – we have a generation of parents educated under the mantra of inclusion who are functionally illiterate and innumerate – Labour did that, and society is reaping the rewards.

“The more the state provides for bad parenting ”

I’m not sure you’ve chosen your verb carefully enough. Firstly you state that it is a matter of personal responsibility, then you say its all a matter of state responsibility – why don’t you make your mind up?

Sorry, but whether you are a parent or not is not moot when you start shooting your mouth off such intolerant and incoherent rubbish. This is a subject about how to find the correct balance in power relationships, so it’s no good imposing reactive expressions of ones own experience on your analysis without reference to alternatives.

It’s all well and good looking at the problem retrospectively, but that doesn’t ‘provide’ any guarantee of a correct answer in the future and it doesn’t change what’s already occurred.

“The more the state provides for bad parenting – the more bad parenting we shall have. ”

Well… no. Its more like the opposite. If the state doesn’t step in and address the failings of kids parents then when those parents grow up they too will follow the same attitude to their kids as their parents did to them. Its called replication. If my parents don’t educate me about sex (which BTW they didn’t) and my school doesn’t either (they did), then I would not know the importance of educating my own children about it. If the school steps in (as mine did) and does educate me about SRE and its importance then I am more likely to tell me kids about it.

“Why should schools – which have no real moral authority in these matters – have to pick up the mess this Government has made?”

What mess? There are any number of screw-ups that this Labour government has made, but very few of them involve social policy which has actually been (relative to everything else) pretty good under Labour.

I’m not sure you’ve chosen your verb carefully enough. Firstly you state that it is a matter of personal responsibility, then you say its all a matter of state responsibility – why don’t you make your mind up?

Eh? What I am saying is the more the state provides for the shortfalls in parental care – which should actually be the responsibility of the parent (e.g. getting themselves to parents evening or suchlike) the more parents are actually disempowered and that perpetuates the situation. I have not said it is all the responsibility of the state at all – apart from providing a damn good education, which is what they should be doing.

Sorry, but whether you are a parent or not is not moot when you start shooting your mouth off such intolerant and incoherent rubbish

Do please explain my intolerance? I am simply saying (and again, feel free to explain the “shouting my mouth off” bit) what I feel about it. Perhaps, it challenges the orthodoxy in this thread, but I fail entirely to see how that is intolerant. Also, denouncing someone as intolerant is a sure-fire way to make your argument look thoughtless. Yes, I am intolerant of crap parenting, surely we all ought to be. It’s why kids are dying on the streets every week.

I want schools to give ALL kids a first class education – and I want parents to do what they are supposed to do, by virtue of the fact they are parents. What on earth is intolerant about that?

As for your point about retrospectivity, surely schools should be saying to parents the moment the child lands with them – this is what we will do; this is what we expect YOU to do. We will provide every opportunity for your child to excel, we expect you to do the same.

What mess? There are any number of screw-ups that this Labour government has made, but very few of them involve social policy which has actually been (relative to everything else) pretty good under Labour

The mess that education is in. You don’t honestly believe the educational standards in this country have increased do you? I know someone patiently waiting for his A level grades – he’s predicted an A in Maths, I put this paper (pdf) in front of him recently, he didn’t have a clue where to start. Just one example, I could give a hundred others.

Why yes I do actually, I may not have any experience with A-Level Maths but I do have experience with A-Levels and happen to know a lot about the current education system. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the education system is perfect. It has big weaknesses, such as teaching people how to pass the test rather than teaching the actual knowledge. This affectively means that anything that they will not be tested on they will not be taught.

However, educational standards are excellent. There is more choice for students, they have any number of different subjects to choose from; and they are taught more and more how to apply their knowledge. For the record, most people given today’s A-Level papers would fail them. They are very difficult and students are put under a lot of pressure.

But all of that is really besides the point, the article is not about education standards, it’s about socialisation, families and schools. Even if your ramblings were true, they aren’t relevant. If you wish to find space on the internet to sound off about Labour, I doubt you’ll have too much trouble.

Daniel, I’m glad we can get down to some nitty-gritty.

Role responsibility is largely explained upon school entry, the problem arises when the contract between the parties is not fulfilled adequately or where it was inadequate to start with.

But this is a problem for all sides: some parents reject certain responsibilities, some find it impossible to comply; many schools don’t have adequate funding or facilities to provide sufficient range, bredth or depth of opportunity to every child, while more are faced with the choice between basic standards for all and excellence for the few.

Of course we all want things to be better, but what are you prepared to exchange from your current settlement in order to make it happen?

Ramblings? Thanks. This was not about sounding off about Labour, but asking the OP to pause and think about current Government policy, which has a lot to answer for in my opinion.

This is socialisation, rather than education, is it? It doesn’t sound that way…

I continue to believe that given it has been shown that a kid’s reading ability, particularly boys, improves beyond measure in correlation to how much reading they do with their dad – it’s time for pro-actively engaging fathers more.
I’m sure lots of you reading this (fathers) are engaged and equally involved with your kids – but this is about improving a situation where there is need

Educational standards are not excellent, they are terrible compared to thirty or even twenty years ago. Todays A Level papers are not difficult – that is entirely the point I was making. They are dumbed down beyond belief, and are just one of myriad examples of Labour’s failed education policy (remember “Education, Education, Education?)

If you think choice counters actually getting an education that means something, and that the application of a more limited education balance against rigour, the “ramblings”, as you so generously put it, are entirely your own.

Well I believe that A-Levels are difficult today. However, it seems rather pointless to keep arguing the point since we are not going to agree. No, the article is not about the quality of education, it’s about the roles of both families and schools in socialising and educating children.You have still not said anything about this.

“Well I believe that A-Levels are difficult today.”

Humanite, this sort of area is always open to interpretation but the evidence that A-levels have got easier is damn near as close to rock solid as can be. See: http://www.cemcentre.org/documents/CEM%20Extra/SpecialInterests/Exams/ONS%20report%20on%20changes%20at%20GCSE%20and%20A-level.pdf

It is possible that the “higher grades/not any better students” result isn’t down to the exam questions themselves but the format (repeated for best results, narrower curriculum, prior knowledge of questions coming up) but that is to get rather nuanced about the what the meaning of “easier” is, and the important thing is that students are learning less then they used to, not exactly what grades they are achieving.

The problem is the political establishment simply haven’t woken up to this problem yet. The government itself is very much in denial. Until whatever ideology is keeping politicians from seeing the problem comes crashing down, talking about parent/school interactions is going to be very much a middle-class luxury while ordinary children are being failed consistently by a system which lacks anything resembling a feedback mechanism. This is why it is important to talk about the quality of the education, because if you ignore it, you are actually ignoring one of the few things that schools really could impact on.

“the important thing is that students are learning less then they used to”

But the paper you cited doesn’t contain any evidence at all that students are learning less than they used to.

Its authors don’t even believe the evidence is strong enough to conclude that the standards required to get a particular grade at GCSE or A-level have fallen [which, given that students are getting progressively better grades at GCSE and A-level, wouldn’t be evidence that they’re learning less than they used to] – much less that overall educational standards are lower.

(has Mount Everest become less tall over the last 50 years, or have climbers become better-prepared?)

Back with a response to you both later re your points, but in the meantime, just this quicklya :

From the Graun

Quite right, John. All it was showing was that the same grades do not represent the same level of developed abilities as they used to. Which doesn’t matter at all, assuming the purpose of schools and teachers is to teach people how to pass GCSEs and A-levels. But thats the problem, it isn’t!

The researchers who wrote the study are just doing what good academics do, commenting narrowly on what their results are showing. But the results are solid grounds for saying that similar grades at A-level do not represent the same level of developed abilities in students as they used to. And that is why universities are struggling to work out who are the good candidates for their courses, and why employers are struggling to find skilled workers.

John:

I gave a simple, empirical, demonstration of the decline in knowledge requirements in GCSE physics in this post…

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2007/12/11/the-key-to-future-global-wellbeing/

You can’t a more straightforward comparison than a juxtaposition of two examination questions on the same topic.

And for the record, When talking to my son’s physics teacher at an open day earlier this year, the teacher freely admitted that to cover the same syllabus I studied at ‘O’ level 25 or so years ago, my son would have to take an AS level in the subject.

“Which doesn’t matter at all, assuming the purpose of schools and teachers is to teach people how to pass GCSEs and A-levels. But thats the problem, it isn’t!”

In a climate of league tables and parental choice, I can’t think why schools and teachers would teach people how to pass GCSEs and A-levels.

I agree, but I think it is more a climate of league tables and a LACK of parental choice. The government treats GCSEs and A-levels almost literally as if they were cans of baked beans coming off a production line (they have a whole cargo cult framework of “productivity” models built into how they judge the education system). The government is also the sole purchaser of education in the state sector (with a tiny, tiny bit of input from parents) which means that it is the productivity model which wins the day rather than whatever parents would actually choose or the judgements they would actually make about a school. To conflate league tables with parent choice is to buy into the Thatcherite doctrine that managerialism somehow equals competition.

“All it was showing was that the same grades do not represent the same level of developed abilities as they used to”

The paper wasn’t clear, and there isn’t any material easily findable (read: first three pages of searches with reasonably obvious terms) on what the TDA test they use for comparison actually shows.

If, as vaguely implied in the paper, it’s primarily logic/reasoning, then this is exactly what you’d expect from an improvement in standards – kids who are less ‘naturally’ bright are doing better in the exams because they’re taught better.

If, as you seem to be suggesting and the paper also implies in places, it’s a test of subject knowledge, then how the hell do they deal with curriculum changes? (not much use in consistently asking history questions every year on the Vikings, if the A-level syllabus is all about the Nazis…)

“I gave a simple, empirical, demonstration of the decline in knowledge requirements in GCSE physics in this post…”

No, as commenters Simon and Dan on your post demonstrate. I’d add to their comprehensive list of points, that you’d also need have the distribution of marks and associated grade boundaries for each question to demonstrate that one was harder than the other (e.g. if an A at O-level involved getting 50% of the marks for that question while an A at GCSE involved 80%).

(and the fact that you’ve found a teacher who thinks A-levels are easier than they used to be doesn’t prove a lot. I can throw a metaphorical stick in blogland and find a whole bunch of policemen with daft views about crime, but that doesn’t make them right…)

If memory serves (it is out there somewhere), the TDA uses a combination of verbal reasoning, maths and vocabulary. An imperfect standard obviously for A-levels, but the sort of skills that anyone undertaking university study or employment will need. Obviously, you need some general measure in order to compare exams that have different curriculums so whether you think the measure is appropriate will depend on what you think A-levels are actually for (which I don’t think the government knows at the moment, apart from for getting more people, nominally, into university).

John:

The grade boundaries for the AQA Physics GSCE for 2007 were 75% for an A* and 66.7% for an A.

For the GCE physics paper I used as a comparison, in which the question is considerably more rigorous and demanding, the grade boundary for an A ranges from 76% – 80% depending on the year.

>I continue to believe that given it has been shown that a kid’s reading ability, particularly boys, improves beyond measure in correlation to how much reading they do with their dad

Please can you provide citations for that?

Yes I can.

It comes from the School of the Bleeding Obvious in the same chapter as ” the more you practice the luckier you will get”

Sorry Lilliput but “Because I say so” doesn’t work in adult debates, if everyone else in the discussion was five years old you might have a chance of getting it through.

My own experience couldn’t contradict that postulate more so I was asking if there were any links to research that showed this trend.

Lynne’s comments are wholly welcome. From a policy and legal perspective men are increasingly seen as “secondary care givers”.. This inadvertent sidelining of fathers in the rearing of their children is highly damaging.

Given the demographic changes in family structure, we really need to think how we support and empower both men and women to be fully involved in the raising of their children.

much wisdom in the previous 33 articles as well as a diversity of views. I think that the education system is but one part of the reallity of marital break up in Britain today. As mentioned one size does not fit all and a case by case aproach will benefit the children of marriages that have failed. This will inevitably mean more work for the Family Courts but Justice will be better served as will the children involved. My own experience is that there seems to be a bias in operation which is inexcusable and predictably fails parents and children.
I think a system change that would allow for finding of fact, balance of probability, challenging stautory reports, evidence given under oath and allowing for the cross jurisdictional inclusion of evidence would go a long way to improving the system. Improving the outcome for children, parents and thus society as a whole
I would never argue that all midwives, gyneacologists and paediatricians should be women or parents but it is hard to comprehend how a non parent aged 25 and recently graduated has the breadth of knowledge or experience to allow them to make decisions on such matters especially when they are not obliged to be informed of all the facts involved in the particular case in question.

Actually they should in law inform both parties.

LEAs often get this wrong for example the definition of parent in the 1996 education act is pretty all encompassing and includes biological parents as well as anyone else who has care and control over the child. so a breach of a parental duty in the act can lead to a prosecution against grandparents as though they were parents.

sometimes, actually quite often, LEAs get this wrong and miss names in a prosecution, especially in truancy and section 437 prosecutions. This can lead to them loosing their case even against the parents named as it can be argued to being discriminatory prosecution. In law you are not allowed to chose who you go after in a criminal case, if the defense can show that the law has been unevenly applied the case can fall.

In any event fathers have a right in law, unless the right has been removed by the courts, to information held by the school. Fathers should be informed as are mothers.

if the father looses his parental rights thats a different thing of course.

but remember a father with parental responsibilities can be held liable for prosecution for truancy even if he does not live with the child. but, by not sending him info about the child’s misbehavior they provide him with a defense or at least mitigation especially if he can show that the mother was hiding info from him.

Wouldn’t “dads and doughnuts” contravene the health comissariats target number 474b on the promotion of “unhealthy” food ?

Slightly more serious than information about parents eveneings is the fact that unmarried fathers have no legal rights whatsoever in respect of their children, (and Government via the CSA and the Family Courts has worked hard to keep it that way) and that, again at the behest of the government, the rights of a child to a father in donor IVF programmes no longer needs to be considered.

“(has Mount Everest become less tall over the last 50 years, or have climbers become better-prepared?)”

Climers have better equipment. The mountain is still the same size. Therefore someone with lesser ability can acheive the same result with less effort and ability

Kids today have scientific calculators in exams. I had log Tables. Kids today can take text books into English exams. I had to memorise whole tracts of Shakespeare. Therefore someone with lesser ability than me can acheive the same result as me with less effort/ability

With intensive training, most people can significantly improve their IQ scores, but it doesn’t make them more intelligent, as in their wider academic performance doesn’t improve. Why do the left always have such trouble untangling empirical cause and effect ?

matt,

you seem to be clouded my the miscomprehension that regular, structured paternal contact (be it school-organised or not) has to involve some sort of junk food. That point is entirely moot, as the focus of this organisation was to provide a background of comfort and alterior gratification – in this case sugary treats (hooray!) – to detract from what could be an uncomfortable and unpleasant situation; as Humanite was referring to in the very beginning of these comments. Not to increase the proportion of overweight kiddies running around.

“Why do the left always have such trouble untangling empirical cause and effect ?”

firstly, i feel vaguely amused at your wonderfully brazen generalisation of ‘the left’ – as if we were some sort of tree-hugging, armchair army; the personification of all irrational thought. Hmm.
be that as it may, i see little evidence in the previous comments against which you have tried to form a rebuttal of the entanglement of cause and effect; indeed in many other articles, that would warrant such an out-of-the-blue and clearly irrational steretype

there is more than a glimmer of resentment that these inferior, less intelligent mortals than yourself have an ‘easy’ time of it, as clearly such new-fangled claptrap like “calculators” – *gasp* -have no place in modern education. i would just like to point out that in less priviledged school areas, 30% of the children will come away this summer with no GCSEs whatsoever. What is needed is a more universal standard of good quality education, and less grumbling about the good old days

Oh, and just fyi, Everest has decreased 1.3m in height in the past 34 years 😉

There does seem to be a tendency to dispose of ‘the father’ as a concept

A friend of mine was surprised by a mutual nurse of ‘ours’ who arrived at his flat late at night, jumped his bones before he was awake, and skedaddled pregnant – I’m still mortified almost 30 years later, despite having had a similar experience myself

I don’t know what the solution may be.

Perhaps a state persecution of ‘cultural christianity'(sic) would help?

Nice article.
I’ve been happily married for the past 11 years, but I was so dissapointed with the way that fathers were treated in the UK and the decline in education standards that I moved to a Scandanavian country. I like the A-level mathematics example posted by Daniel above. I’m a mathematician/computer scientist myself and have spotted the same trends that he has.

My children (of 6 and 8 years) have never been happier, they are multilingual and fathers are treated as importantly as they should be. That is, as equally importantly as mothers.

I feel that the current government in the UK are destroying the UK’s children with their anti-male and declining “one size fits all” education policies. How you can have the likes of Harriet Harman as number two is beyond me.