School admissions, some good decisions, why Ed Balls is wrong, and a case of missing the point...

Today the chief School Adjudicator, Ian Craig, published his annual report. He had been asked by Ed Balls to look specifically at three areas - random allocation in admission arrangements (i.e. lotteries), what should happen to twins/children from multiple births when it comes to school allocations and what should be done to parents who make fraudulent or misleading school applications.

For many parents, applying for school is one of the most stressful times of their lives, and it seems to be getting worse and worse. Last week it was revealed that more and more parents are appealing against the school their child has been allocated to, and for many, the idea of "parental choice" is an absolute pipe-dream.

Mr. Craig got it right today when he recommended that twins shouldn't be sent to separate schools against their parents' wishes. He's also dismissed parental concerns about places awarded by lottery, saying they are used rarely (although personally, I think they are fairer than other ways of awarding places and can't be cheated).

He's also right when he says that the government must allow local authorities to crack down on parents who lie and cheat to get their kids into an oversubscribed school. Yet Ed Balls doesn't want to do this – the only suggestion he liked was that of an advertising campaign pointing out that if you lie to get your child in, you are depriving another child of that place. Does he honestly think that people who go to these lengths don't realise that, or haven't thought about it?

It is, of course, what to do about fraudulent or misleading applications which will interest most people. Many parents seem to think there is a magic formula to getting their child into a good school, and when they realise that there often isn't (except for living in the right place and filling in the forms properly), some don't give up. They falsify addresses, for example, or pretend they have split up with their partner and rent somewhere nearer the school short-term. Some of these attempts are more folklore than real, as it's pointed out in today's annual report, but examples do include short term rental, using a business address as the home address or using a friend's address.

Mr Craig reports that 57 local authorities considered fraudulent/misleading applications to be a problem in their area. But he found it more worrying that a number of authorities said they weren't aware of ANY of these type of applications!

As I know from writing this blog, a rather frightening number of parents consider that what's most important for them and their family is solely how their child does. They don't care if it is unfair to others and don't appear to consider society as a whole when they dismiss attempts to help those who are worse off than them (one argument, often used, is that if those "other" parents only cared as much as they did, then they would do the same). Mr Balls needs to realise this. What he's done today (and you can read his response to the report online) is to suggest that Mr Craig goes away and comes up with some more proposals for how to deal with parents who deceive (even though there are a number of proposals in the report). And Mr Balls makes it very clear that he doesn't want to "criminalise" parents.

But what these parents fail to understand, or more likely don't care about, is that fiddling the system denies another child the right to go there. "Every school place obtained by deception is unfair," says Mr Craig.

But local authorities are in a very difficult position, and so many of these parents go unpunished. Not only that, but younger siblings automatically get into the school at a later date! As the adjudicator says today, parents have nothing to lose by lying. Isn't that ridiculous?

Today's report points out that many LA's won't withdraw places from children who get in unfairly - they don't want to punish the children. Why not? They should know what their parents did. A sizeable number of local authorities want these parents to be prosecuted. I find this tempting. Surely there should be some disincentives.

I'm saddened by this entire situation, but also concerned that it keeps coming up, as I think we're missing a major point in education at the moment. Demographics is making a huge difference to the system and putting huge strains on schools and admissions. There are simply not enough places and that's getting worse. If it isn't addressed, then the number of children not getting a place at a school and the number of parents appealing and, unfortunately, the number of those trying to cheat the system will continue to rise. Who is going to address this?

Read School Gate:

Need help with school applications? Read this...

Panic: what it's really like to see your child apply for a selective school

School lotteries - the fairest way forward?

Comments

[agbanks]

I'm not in the habit of flaming bloggers, especially award-winning ones, but really, what an idiotic article. Do you seriously want to see parents slapped with huge fines or even sent to prison, as Ian Craig has contemplated, just because they fudged their address to get their child into a decent school? Has it occurred to you that the overwhelming reason why parents may not live in the catchment area of the best school is because they can't afford it? What on Earth is so much more virtuous about finding the money to buy a house in the right area? And what is so criminal about being tempted to circumvent a system that rewards those lucky enough to be able to buy a house in the right street? When a system pushes well-meaning people into lying, who should be sanctioned, the liars or the creators of the system?

[Sarah Ebner]

I knew this would come up - and that's obviously why Ed Balls won't do it, because it's a problem of the system. But that doesn't mean the system should be abused. In any case, I am in favour of lotteries, as I mentioned, because they are fairer than ridiculous 50 metre catchment areas.
And it's not a fudge - it's a lie....

[Jennifer Howze]

Interesting piece. I agree that parents lying is a big problem. while some of the stories might be just stories, I personally know a handful of families who have moved into areas because of the children, renting out their "real" houses. In those cases, however, they are actually living there - not putting down the address of a friend or empty flat. I'm envious but they are adhering to the letter of the rules, if not the spirit.

[Marylou Tunstall]

Surely it can't be illegal to obtain a second address and then use whichever one is more convenient? I'm sure I've heard of this happening recently...just can't flippin' well think where...

[Eve Sacks]

In response to the first comment, whilst I have a lot of sympathy with those who lie etc to get a place most parents do not lie! How would you feel if you lived 10 mins walk from the school and the person 9.5 mins walk got a place but you didn't because of the liars???

If the government thinks its unfair that those who can't afford a house in the right street get a place they should change the rules.

To the other comment about the 2nd address - you have to actually be living at the 2nd address. For primary school its only around 7-9 months depending on council deadline and need to be there until date child start reception.

I do know people who have rented out their houses and genuinely moved to be near the school and perhaps this shouldn't be allowed either?

[Kim]

AG Banks - "fudged their address": interesting choice of words! Do you mean "lied about where they lived"? If so, why not say so?

Since when was lying morally acceptable? Is this the kind of example you want to set for your children?

I'm completely with Sarah on this one. You have to clamp down hard on parents who commit fraud. She is right, too, about siblings - in one case I know, an elder sibling got offered a place at our local school after the parents used a fraudulent address to get the younger child in (they hadn't been savvy enough to lie when they applied for the elder child).

[Richard Manns]

Yes, yes, state-funded education now is like state-provided food in the Soviet Union: queues, falling quality, no choice.

Solution? The market system.

Let the bad schools fail and be replaced by the better schools that grow. Let pushy parents be the solution, rather than the problem. We celebrate 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall on the 9th; have you forgotten its lessons already?

[Another mum]

It isn't necessarily the case that sending your child to the school of your choice denies another child of a place there: a lot of the best schools are not full to to bursting - they have to allow the rubbish schools to meet their intake needs if there aren't "enough" children to go round in a particular year, ending up with some spaces at each school.

Parents know this and it makes them despise the government more.

I don't like lotteries either. In Brighton there are many parents who can't send their children a short walk away (to a good school) and are forced instead into lengthy and expensive multiple-bus journeys to a school they don't like and where their friends live miles away.

I think the solution is to expand the better schools: increase the class numbers and build new classrooms. If that makes the rubbish schools close, well that's Survival of the Fittest.

[sentry]

More criminalising of parents (especially middle class ones). Parents have the right to do everything they can to further their child's interests. Thank goodness that there are parents who will move heaven and earth to get the best schools for their child. A lot of parents just aren't bothered. Good luck to them I say.

[Kim]

@Anothermum: "It isn't necessarily the case that sending your child to the school of your choice denies another child of a place there: a lot of the best schools are not full to to bursting - they have to allow the rubbish schools to meet their intake needs if there aren't "enough" children to go round in a particular year, ending up with some spaces at each school"

If this were true, then there wouldn't be any need to lie to get your child in. The whole point is that some schools are vastly oversubscribed, and that is why admission criteria come into place.

I have never heard of any local authority deliberately refusing children entry to a popular school where there were enough places to go round and sending them to an unpopular one instead. If you have a real example of this happening, I'd love to hear about it.

[Kim]

@Sentry: "More criminalising of parents (especially middle class ones). Parents have the right to do everything they can to further their child's interests. Thank goodness that there are parents who will move heaven and earth to get the best schools for their child. A lot of parents just aren't bothered. Good luck to them I say."

Interesting ethical position. My daughter didn't get into our local primary school. Other children, who lived further away, did get in, because their parents lied. Do you think the parents who lied are more admirable than I am? Do you think that because I was honest, I'm just not bothered?

[Catherine]

I am bewildered by some people's comments lauding those that lie in order to get their children into a good school. How on earth can that be commendable? If you found a way of cheating your child into Oxford, would you do that too in the interests of doing the best for them? Should you drive a heavily armoured 4x4 because it offers your child the best protection (while risking the pedestrian child most)? Send your child to the local school and get involved to make it better. That's what we've done and there's no lying involved, just a rewarding sense of community. If your child is well supported at home, the chances are they will do well at school, without being taught that fraud is admirable.

[Ruth]

This whole 'cheating parents' thing makes me laugh! Oh Boo Hoo go the LAs, we can't prosecute for fraud because no money is involved. LIERS! They can't prosecute because they would have to admit that children and therefore parents BENEFIT by the deception and that would mean admitting that the school the child would have gone to is materially and demonstrably inferior to the one the parents lied to get them into. Politically they just can't bring themselves to do that.

The solution isn't punishing parents it's removing the reason to lie in the first place by fixing the bad schools!

[Rachael]

I live in one of the top performing leas in the country. Nearly all the schools are pretty good - most people would be incredibly happy with any of them. But still some are more sought-after than others and so parents vie to get into the ones they think are the 'best'.

There is a really good girls' comp near here, but we are just out of area for it. I know parents who have rented their houses out and rented within the catchment area to get into this school, even though there is a perfectly good mixed comp that their daughters could go to.

The trouble is that the Government has talked up this business of parental choice. Years ago people round here accepted their daughters couldn't go to the girls' school - now it's seen as unfair and some parents bend the rules to get their place.

Surely there is a big difference between parents making micro decisions about schools like this and those parents who really do have a big issue with their local school?

[Cathy]

Some of the replies to Sarah's post explain very clearly to me just why so many middle-class parents have such utterly revolting children with no sense of morality. Thank goodness I get to work with nice children from rough areas. I wouldn't want to waste my skills on your little emperors and princesses, frankly.

[Frank]

I live in Islington. If you want your child to be a high flyers (or be given the chance to be one) then forget about going to one of the local state-run high schools. That's the unfairness - not parents trying to do their best for their kids. Of course, politicans will find a way to send their kids to the "right" school. And parents who think that comprehensives are great can send their kids their - just don't make my child pay for your ideological views.

[Kim]

Ruth: "This whole 'cheating parents' thing makes me laugh! Oh Boo Hoo go the LAs, we can't prosecute for fraud because no money is involved. LIERS!"

I probably shouldn't dignify this with a response, but Harrow was on the verge of prosecuting a parent under the 2006 Fraud Act, but after legal advice, it decided that the Fraud Act only covers deception for financial gain. The Fraud Act is, in fact, fairly complicated, as explained in the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_Act_2006.

If you think you know better, Ruth, perhaps you could show us the exact clauses in the Fraud Act that cover deception not relating to financial gain.

[Mary]

When the system fails and all respect for it is lost then it seems people will play by their own rules. I do not blame parents for trying their best and having seen kids fail at bad schools would applaud any scheme and would help anyone to get their kids into a better school.

[Archie]

Is it just me but Balls looks hopelessly out of his depth.

[David Reeves]

Schools can deal with the younger siblings problem themselves by placing it down the list of criteria, as does the C of E school that my children attended. Parents know that they must meet Church attendance criteria for every chold applying to the school, and families applying for their first child are not deprived of a deserved place.

[Rabelais]

Love the photograph of Balls. Looks like he's "goin' to hold my breath until I turn blue" - or "be thick" as Violet Elizabeth Bott used to tell William.

[David]

There's only one way of ensuring your child goes to a good school - pay for it. Even though Labour have done their best to make it expensive and difficult, tried to remove the charitable status and made universities not take private school leavers we parents know that private education is the ONLY way to beat the awful malaise that is the UK school system, so ruined by New Labour.

[S Ravi]

I think the government should be prosecuted for asking parents to send children to fixed schools. This is a ridiculous state of affairs when all around they are clamouring for choice. Bad schools will then wind up and good ones will thrive. Stop treating parents who manipulate the system like criminals. I think all parents should do every thing possible to get their children in to schools where they think their children will do better. That is their moral duty regardless of silly laws that amount to bussing!

[Rosie]

Can't we just get rid of the namby pamby liberal/labour view that we as parents "don't know best" and expand the grammer schools for those children who are bright enough to benefit and invest in the Comprehensives for those who deserve a good education unsullied by in party politics and fighting over idealisms.

[joe]

Great tactic - blame the parents.

Surely the real issue is that there obviously aren't enough good quality schools. Provide enough quality places in good schools and you won't have an issue.

Don't cover up the failure to provide acceptable schools by blaming parents for being unwilling to let their children go to useless schools that fail their pupils.

[James]

Should parents be punished for wanting the very best for their children, and for doing anything they can to ensure their children get the best start in life possible? In fact, why do we want any less? Don't we want parents to be responsible for their children's upbringings? Or do we really want to leave our children to the state?

Surely a simpler solution to the problem of 'fudging' addresses (really, this is a bit rich of MPs no?) is for the government to RAISE standards (an alien concept, granted) in ALL schools? I realise the Labour way is to lower standards universally, but how about they try something new and different? The real scandal here is that our government has revealed, yet again, that it has zero interest in actually the inequalities in our schooling system.

At present, can we really blame parents for approaching the school system as a consumer approaches their weekly supermarket shop? It is Labour who has turned education into a commodity, and warbled on and on and on and on and on and on about 'parent choice' (also note the Dark Lord's latest pronouncements on University education).

I cannot bring myself to condemn any parent who makes the difficult decisions necessary to fight tooth and nail for their child, even if it means finding ingenious, legal ways to circumvent the arbitrary rules of the state. (Remember, buying a second-home, or renting a flat is not yet illegal, despite what the moralisers here seem to think or want.)

Finally, do we think any MPs have to struggle to get their children into their school of choice?

[JK]

As earlier posters have said, the real issue is that the general standard of schools has declined so far that decent ones are over-subscribed. We need to improve all schools, across the board.

And in the meantime, there is a perfectly fair and transparent way to allocate the most sought-after places - academic selection. Just because it's politically unpalatable doen't mean it's wrong.

[Scott Gethelp]

If caught cheating the system, the child should be automatically sent the most undersubscribed school in the area (i.e. The Worst). You won't be punished but your child will.

See how brave they are then at trying to manipulate the system.

[cheaton]

Cathy, do you know what inverted snobbery is? And sweeping generalisations? I hope you're not actually teaching kids but just cleaning the school....

[Jeremy]

With regard to education, parents main responsibility is to give their children the best possible chance in life and this includes the best possible education.

All parents who pay taxes are entitled have available equally good schools for their children.

If the authorities refuse to provide good schools then parents are forced into a corner.

It is perfectly clear to me that the politicians are blaming parents for the politicians own shortcomings.

[Kim]

A lot of people seem to think the problem is that, in JK's words, "the general standard of schools has declined so far that decent ones are over-subscribed." This seems to be one of those things that almost everybody now seems to believe, despite the fact, as far as I can tell, that there isn't any evidence for it. Most of the primary schools I'm familiar with are pretty good. The teaching is certainly a damn sight better than when I was a child, and I went to three different primary schools. Where's the evidence that schools are so terrible?

Then JK says, as if it's an entirely original thought, "We need to improve all schools, across the board." Well, of course we do. Don't you think that that's exactly what both central government and local authorities are working very hard to do? It's easy to say that all schools ought to be good schools, quite another to make it happen. In the area I live in, there are a number of good schools, and one that is pretty dire. It draws families from the poorest, most deprived areas of the town - families who, to use the jargon, lead "chaotic" lives. It is hugely difficult to improve a school like that. One way to improve it would be to send children from better-off, more stable families there, but who's going to volunteer?

[Kim]

And JK - when you talk about "academic selection" are you talking here about academic selection for five year olds or just for 11 year olds? Because many primary schools are heavily over-subscribed.

[Helen]

Lotteries are not fair. Did any of you read the article about the twins who were allocated different schools 18 miles apart in a lottery? How can it be more sensible for someone to go to a school 5 miles from their home than the one across the road? It doesn't exactly make it easier to get rid of the school run either. Catchment areas make sense - all children should go their local school. This is the case in Australia etc. Of course, allowing grammar schools to expand and allow new ones might help as well. It's typical of this government to want to punish parents who want the best for their kids, but refuse to expand schools which are successful and popular. I'm lucky that I live in a town with two good comprehensives and I certainly don't condemn parents who try to keep their children out of sink schools.

[JR]

Oh no! Taxpayers want to choose what taxpayer funded school they go to! They must be punished, after all, the prols get what they are given.

It's shockin to see what a soviet inspired nation we've become.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberal-ism” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” –Norman Thomas, President of the American Socialist Party

[James]

Many commentators have claimed that 'lying' is a terrible example to set children. Butall children are routinely taught to lie, and given time children are more than capable of distinguishing between types of lie, based on intention, effects and ends. Case in point: 'Darling 'cinta, when you open Granny's and Granddad's Christmas present, don't look disappointed. We both know it will be the wrong gift, but they've tried and we don't want to upset them, do we?' At what point will our resident moralisers come down off of their pedestals and join the human race?

And precisely which parents are sitting their children down and explaining to them every intricate detail of the convoluted school application system anyway? Why do people even assume that children are going to be made aware of their parent's 'lies'?

Kim, thank you for sharing with us your minute observations about schools in your immediate vicinity, and details of your singular experience, but a wider perspective might be helpful. In 2007 the number of failing primary schools increased by a quarter (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/number-of-failing-primary-schools-rises-by-a-quarter-434571.html). In 2008 the figures barely changed, which is surely a testament to the strident efforts of our government in raising standards (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7238870.stm)! In 2009, 200,000 children are in 'failing' primary schools (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/5085371/Primary-school-league-tables-200000-in-failing-schools.html).

Lacking this perspective, it's little wonder that you end up arguing against yourself. The very fact that you recognise that schools need to improve belies your assertion that schools are, generally, 'pretty good'. If so, why the need for improvement?

And do you blame parents for not wanting to send their children to your sink-school, the solitary school in your area that isn't up to your arbitrary, for-all-I-know-inadequate, 'pretty good' standard?

On that point: do you think that 'pretty good' is good enough? Perhaps your expectations need to be raised, along with standards?

I don't even know where to begin with Scott, who must be a religious type (of the 'sins of the fathers will be visited upon their children' brand). All I can say is that I think it deeply immoral to make children suffer for their parent's perceived crimes.

[faceless bureaucrat]

The main irony to all this is that the majority of parents actually haven't a clue as to which school adds the most value. They think good school equates to 'school with the most 4x4s outside' or 'school with least migrant kids' or 'school with the most kids who look the way I wish my kid looked'. The facts about key stage attainments, about upport for kids who aren't prospering, exclusion rates and all the rest of it escape them.

The other irony of course is that this is a metropolitan, urban issue. For most of the rest of the UK it's far from the most important education issue. But still we have to listen to people bleating about how they should be respected for lying to 'give their kids a better chance.' Next time some single mum is up in court for fiddling her housing benefit I'll tell her to say that Ed Balls thinks people shouldn't be criminalized for trying to improve their kids life chances. There again fiddling benefits is a crime but fiddling your taxes 'financial management'. It's just good old English hypocrisy in new clothes...

[James]

By 'parent's perceived crimes' I actually meant 'alleged crimes', but hopefully the sense is clear either way.

[Life in California]

We have twins and pushed our school district in California into recognizing the problem of handling twins separately in a lottery situations, as several of our friends had previously found one of their twins getting into a school but not the other.
The very simple solution is just to treat twins as a single unit in any lottery rather than as two individuals. This is perfectly fair to anyone else (their probability of getting in is unchanged) but ensures that twins won't be split up.
I guess our school board here is is responsive to public pressure (because they are elected every couple of years) but its clear it only requires a modest knowledge of probability to solve this problem.

[Cathy]

Kim: Congratulations on your customary calm rebuttals! I'm still steaming (and kicking myself, as usual). I'm sure you'll have seen this, but I think this behaviour is all of a piece:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6891078.ece

[JK]

I apologise, Kim, for saying that all schools need to be improved "as if it's an entirely original thought". Perhaps I should have flagged it up as an unoriginal thought - is that the accepted practice in this blog?

I doubt that there will ever be an agreed measure of the quality of education, but I believe the PISA studies have suggested a decline in UK education in recent years. Anecdotally, we also have some universities claiming that the standards of A-level science and mathematics have dropped off to the point where students with apparently good qualifications need remedial teaching to bring them up to the standards that would have been expected 20 years ago.

Congratulations on your three primary schools, by the way. Coincidentally, I attended six different primaries (and I never had the pleasure of a P7 year). Some of these really were what would now be called sink schools, and some - even in extremely deprived areas - were very good indeed. With the possible exception of RE lessons, I can't recall ever having class time wasted on the sort of idealogical indoctrination that I now see my own children subjected to in school. I don't suppose the teachers were so preoccupied with target-chasing either. But this is how you "improve" schools, right? By inclusiveness training, diet education and ticking a thousand boxes? By rolling three science subjects into one joint award, and offering media studies as a qualification in its own right? By publishing league tables and then leaving teachers to mark their own pupils' coursework?

By the way, when I mentioned academic selection, I did of course mean for secondary education. I don't believe I've ever known anyone to suggest academic selection at 5. It would be pretty difficult to assess the candidates at that age, I should have thought (not an original thought).

[Kim]

James, I'm not sure you read my posts carefully enough. Of course some schools are doing badly - I thought I made that clear. But the majority aren't. There seems to be a lot of unjustified panic about schools and how badly they are supposedly doing.

I also didn't say that I blame parents for not wanting to send their children to the local sink school. Why would I? I understand perfectly that parents don't want to send their children to sink schools - but it makes it very hard to improve those sink schools if they don't have a broad mix of children. What would you have the government do with a failing primary school?

A few commenters have suggested we expand "successful" schools. Interesting idea, but difficult to put into practice. Imagine expanding a secondary school of 1200 pupils to one of (say) 1700 pupils. Where are the extra classrooms going to come from?Where the extra sports facilities? And will a school that's successful with 1200 pupils remain successful when it takes 1700?

Fwiw, my daughter, as far as I can tell, isn't subjected to any ideological indoctrination in school. She just seems to learn what's on the National Curriculum (brought into being by a Conservative government more than 20 years ago). Her teachers don't like having to tick boxes or meet targets very much, and I sympathise, but on the whole they seem to be doing a much better job than the primary school teachers I had nearly 40 years ago. There were one or two good ones, but on the whole they were rather frightening and, in one case, utterly incompetent (the man in question would have long been booted out of a modern primary school).

I don't understand your point about the ethics of lying. You seem to be saying it's OK to commit fraud if your children don't find out about it. Is it also OK to steal if your children don't find out about it?

Of course, all these problems with admissions have come about because the 1981 Education Act introduced the disastrous idea of "parental choice". Before that, almost all children went to their local school. It wasn't a perfect system, but it certainly had its advantages.

[John]

Surely after 12 years in power the 'big brains' of Labour have sorted out the schools and all are equal so no need to care which school your childs attends. What's that? They have made them equal, all equally bad. Now that is a surprise, who would have thought that the team of rabid socialists in Labour couldn't even sort out a few schools........

[OW]

I'm sure it is perfectly ghastly for children to have to go to sink-schools, but it must surely be a comfort to them that in the eyes of posters here their parents are considered morally superior beings... ?

[Evan Roberts]

My neighbours have just rented out their house for a year so that they could rent another smaller house for a year within the catchment area of a more favoured local secondary school. Fortunately, there are enough parents of courage, intelligence and social responsibility in the locality that the local school will continue to receive a balanced mix of children from all walks of life and will continue to offer an extremely high quality of education to all its pupils despite my neighbours surrender to the British vice. Schools fail largely because they are deprived of a balanced intake of children. The sick snobbery and growing social apartheid of British society that is exemplified by our education system is our curse and will be the damnation of us all.

[JK]

I don't know that the difference between one political party and another is really the key here. As you point out, the Conservatives introduced the National Curriculum, but in its current form, it's very much a New Labour tool - complete with the indoctrination. The sort of thing I'm talking about is "citizenship" classes - a ragbag of nothing in particular, so epehmeral that it can be taught by any teacher regardless of specialism. This stuff wastes time and effort that could be better used on something more fundamental. Spelling, perhaps.

Even in primary school, my children frequently have classes devoted to things that I don't see as properly relevant to their education. Sometimes, in fact, they are being taught things that I'd rather they weren't. Just a couple of weeks ago, for example, my eight-year-old daughter - perfectly healthy, but as thin as a stick - started blathering about wanting to go on a diet and lose weight. They'd been learning about the War on Obesity in school.

[thecountrysfinished]

Given the fact that Balls has proved himself to be a spineless bullying weasel, and these "experts" are tasked with giving a predetermined answer, al la Badman, Children's Commissioner, etc, etc, perhaps we should all view him as the only man in the country that can at will lick his own surname.

The photo looks like he's just licked someone else's surname. Were they brown perchance.

[Another mum]

Kim asserts that "most of the primary schools I'm familiar with are pretty good ... Where's the evidence that schools are so terrible?"

I would have thought this was supplied most easily by the large numbers of children who join secondary school functionally illiterate. Not to mention the approx 25% who leave secondary school in the same position.

How marvellous for Kim that her local schools are different.

Perhaps if she volunteered at her local secondary to help the "special needs" children with reading and writing for their GCSEs she would see another side of the picture.

[David Vinter]

Astounding, the fact is that the 'socialist' Ed Balls went to the very upper class 'Nottingham High School'.

[Thecountrysfinished]

The reason Balls, Nottingham High School and Oxford is doing this is in order to pull up the drawbridge behind him, to ensure the rest of us are swimming around in the "egalitarian" shitmoat of the education system he thinks will do us best. Keep us thick and servile is the plan.

Thank God (you choose) we gave up on the system and now home educate. At least we're out of the monotony and tedium of SATS and the National Curriculum. Trouble now is he wants to inflict the same shitmoat on us. So much for choice!

[Cathy]

After reading what passes for 'informed' opinion on these boards, I'd like to propose to Sarah that we could perhaps have a post on 'How I would improve education from inside the classroom' for those armchair teachers who are so anxious to give us all the benefit of their (in-) experience!

Shall I start? I'd like to exclude from the classroom every child who can't behave properly by the age of five due to incompetent parenting. I'd also like to exclude the child of any parent who threatens or intimidates school personnel, or in any way seriously undermines the authority of the teacher. That would get rid of those who don't want to be there and give teachers a chance to concentrate on doing the job they're paid for. And then we'd be back to how things were when I started out - happy children, teachers getting on with educating them and parents not feeling obliged to get so hysterical.

[Cathy]

Another Mum: do you have any data to compare attainment at 11 (say) 25 or 50 years ago? And where on earth do you imagine the special needs children were before the 1980s?

[Cathy]

Thecountrysfinished: Lovely moniker - so concise - so subtle!

I bet your children are marvellous at scatology.

[Kim]

@Anothermum: "I would have thought this was supplied most easily by the large numbers of children who join secondary school functionally illiterate. Not to mention the approx 25% who leave secondary school in the same position."

Where's your evidence for this? I don't think I've seen anything to support the contention that 25% of children leave secondary school "functionally illiterate". Bear in mind that I write about education (among other things) as a living, and therefore spend a lot of time reading about education and talking to people who work in education.

Yes, of course I'm lucky that my local schools are so good (though the secondary ones aren't as good as the primaries) but I have friends all over the country who are very happy with their children's schools, and they don't all live in middle-class enclaves!

JK - interesting points about the curriculum. I don't know enough about what they teach in citizenship to comment, but am interested to hear about obesity. Of course, the idea behind this is a worthwhile one - educating kids in healthy eating and exercise so they don't suffer from health problems and become a burden on the NHS - but it's a bit alarming if some schools are encouraging eight year old children to think they should go on diets!

[Kim]

Not "as a living", "for a living". Sorry.

[Kim]

@Anothermum. Sorry, one more thing. You say "Perhaps if she volunteered at her local secondary to help the "special needs" children with reading and writing for their GCSEs." If you mean that there are a lot of special needs children who have particular problems, then it is actually going to be harder by definition to get these children up to GCSE standard. I'm not sure you can blame schools for the existence of special needs children. But you put "special needs" in inverted commas, so perhaps you are implying that they're not really special needs at all, just children who for some reason have had extra resources dedicated to them. I'm not clear what point you're trying to make.

[Cathy]

Kim: As far as obesity is concerned, I suspect it's an example of what my sister-in-law scathingly refers to as a school 'going for a kitemark'. 'Investors in People' kind of thing.

[Cathy]

Evan Roberts: I applaud your sense of social responsibility - very unusual these days!

I think a lot of the problem is, as well as snobbery, ignorance (reading the 'Daily Mail' does NOT count as being enlightened!). Many parents haven't a clue as to what constitutes a 'good' school. The whole concept of added value seems to have passed them by. The assumption seems to be that good teachers = good results and poor results = poor teaching, with no other variables allowed for.

Deal with bad behaviour, I say, and the rest will take care of itself. Every teacher I know is sick and tired of having to teach with both hands tied behind the back.

Oh, and dealing with bad behaviour means getting rid of all unacceptable behaviour, not just other people's children's!

[Kim]

Cathy, you may be right about the kitemark, but it's also possible that the Chidren's Trust for that particular local authority has set targets for reducing obesity among schoolchildren. One of the ideas in the 21st Century Schooling whitepaper is that schools should be promoting children's health and well-being as well as educational achievement. So it's quite likely that in the authority where JK lives, teaching diet and nutrition to primary school children is one part of their strategy for reducing obesity levels.

[Another mum]

Cathy: I agree absolutely with your 18.53 post - it must be beyond frustrating when the parents are actively hostile towards you.

I would also be fascinated to see the literacy/numeracy data from 10, 20, 50 years ago, ideally both at primary and secondary level. My point (inelegantly made perhaps) is that I find it very sad that so many children leave school without being comfortable reading and writing and I found Kim's comment unhelpful. I don't have the link to show the statistic I mentioned, but it was something I read in the Times at the time of the summer exam results (in the context of the 50% to go to University target).

As regards "special needs" children, again I'm not sure what point Kim is making. I use the term to indicate children who are "statemented" or entitled to a scribe at GCSE. I use inverted commas in an attempt to show a technical meaning (as with "statemented").

At my son's school, in the year ahead of him, 30% of the year group has "special needs"; the average in other year groups seems to be 1 in 6. I don't have the analysis of what the nature of their needs is and I don't know how typical this is. It is obvious that many of these will find GCSEs particularly tough (the dyslexic children may just need more time). But I repeat that I find it sad that after a decade of formal teaching, so many have real problems reading and writing.

[Kim]

Anothermum - about the special needs: all I was trying to do was clarify whether you meant the children genuinely had special needs or whether you were using it sarcastically to denote children who perhaps weren't very bright but the school was designating as special needs as a way of hiding their own incompetence. Now I know you mean the former, that's clearer, though I also think that it must be pretty tough to teach a class where nearly a third of children have special needs. If those special needs are severe, perhaps it's not entirely fair to blame the school if they don't all come out with a very high standard of literacy?

About the number of school-leavers who are comfortable with reading and writing, well, it's hard to have the debate without knowing the numbers and the source of the numbers. I shall remain sceptical about the 25% figure until I know the source!

I'd also like to know the numbers from 20 or 50 years ago, though the comparison would be difficult because we don't know whether they used the same tests to measure literacy.

I think teaching is harder today than it was 50 years ago. In 1959, teachers didn't have to cope with many pupils for whom English is a second or third language, or whose parents are drug addicts or alcoholics, or who come from broken families where the mum (to take the extreme Karen Matthews case as an example) has seven children by five different fathers. We expect an awful lot from schools, and it's unreasonable (in my view) to imagine they can somehow magically redress some pretty intractable social problems.

[Rachael]

The effects of early trauma have a devastating impact on the brain and we are seeing the results of this in our classrooms.

My children were badly neglected as babies - we adopted them when they were 1 and 3 and the damage was already done and it is really difficult to repair. My children are now in a stable environment and have been out of their neglectful family home since they were 6 months and 2 years respectively. And it has been REALLY difficult to help the elder child to be regulated at school - her brain and entire bodily systems were all over the place and couldn't cope with the formal demands of a school situation.

She is fine in school now but it has taken a huge amount of input from us, her family, and the staff at her school. Compare that with kids who have been and still are in pretty violent and/or chaotic homes, where you are shouted at as a matter of course.

Obviously, 'nice' families don't want to be having to have their children schooled with the children from the chaotic families. I can understand that. But people like Cathy need to have a bit of empathy for children like my daughter was - they are how they are because they have brought up in unsatisfactory homes. We can't just turn a blind eye to all of this and jump ship to our own 'nice' schools - oh and maybe live in our own gated communities?

This whole debate is part of a bigger debate about the society we live in and the conditions thousands of children are being raised in. Did anyone see Panorama last night - three kids living in a bedroom with dog faeces on the floor and walls and one mattress for them all to sleep on and no bedding. And the children are still there apparently....... I can't imagine they are going to be happy little bunnies at school. Ignore and isolate children like these if you like but society will pay the price in the end.

[Cathy]

Rachael: I was about to say how much I admire what you've done - until I saw your 'people like Cathy'. How hurtful! I spend my working life with often very deprived children. The ones I'm tired of are the spoilt brats of parents who think no one else matters.

I think others on this forum deserve your vitriol, frankly.

[Cathy]

Rachael: I've found the comment you objected to and yes, it's ambiguous, to say the least. I was feeling extremely miffed when I wrote it but it's obviously not acceptable for a caring teacher to suggest that children who can't cope because of trauma should be excluded. HOWEVER, the fact remains that increasing numbers of children from supposedly 'good' families have no idea how to behave. Like their self-obsessed parents they see only rights but no responsibilities towards society.

'We can't just turn a blind eye to all of this and jump ship to our own 'nice' schools - oh and maybe live in our own gated communities?'

I couldn't agree more, but I'm afraid that this is what's going to happen. I don't see any way out. Despite the fact that my children are nearly done with school I have no sense of relief, only dread that we're going to end up with the scenario you describe.

[Cathy]

Another Mum and Kim: just to add my twopenn'orth ... perhaps the confusion here is about what 'special needs' actually means. Does it mean disabilities or conditions that can't be cured but need to be managed, does it mean learning difficulties (what used to be termed low intelligence) or does it mean the failure of previous teachers to teach successfully? Or all of those, or none, or something else?

I've always been fascinated when a parent has implied I haven't done my job properly with their child. How do they explain other children's relative success? Surely if the teacher (or, by extension, school) is rubbish, then everyone will fail? As a teacher I already have a tendency to take the blame when children do badly and give the child the credit when they do well, which is really a bit inconsistent. I'm sure many mothers recognise that, though.

But let's please think this through. Are so many state schools as appalling as contributors think? Is there evidence? If so, why? Are teachers uniformly inadequate, or is it the curriculum, or pupil bahaviour? It would be lovely to have a debate about this rather than further entrenchment!

[Kim]

Cathy, I'd agree that sorting out behaviour is pretty key to all this. There was a pretty good article by Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article6888851.ece), pointing out that we seem to have gone in 30 years from a situation where teachers could whack children willy-nilly for minor infractions to one where, if a teacher so much as looks at a child askance, he's accused of breaching the kid's human rights (I paraphrase, of course). And instead of supporting the teachers or headteachers, the parents of badly-behaved children support their kids instead. It seems an insane situation, but I do think that teachers need more support from government in their efforts to discipline pupils.

[JM]

Now remind me which group of people were recently caught out lying about where they lived? Oh yes - it was our Honourable MPs (incl. Ed Balls himself). I haven't heard that any of them will be criminalised for doing so. Perhaps lying to get rich is OK whereas lying to help your children is not!

Talk about one rule for them and another for us stupid tax payers!!

[blogdoon]

I'm lucky that my local schools are so good (though the secondary ones aren't as good as the primaries) but I have friends all over the country who are very happy with their children's schools, and they don't all live in middle-class enclaves!

وبلاگ

[Leah Tardivel]

If parents get a place by lying, then make them pay to keep their child there. The child can stay at the school, but the parents have to pay the going rate for the education. If they can't pay, the child is moved to a free place at another school, the same as if the parents could no longer afford a private school.

[Rachael]

@Cathy

Sorry I mentioned you - there were lots of posts from people who don't get it when it comes to children's 'bad' behaviour and I zoomed in on your comments about expelling them.

People can generally isolate themselves from the underclass in society - it's just when it comes to school that we are all piled in together. This is where we can see how other people live and we don't like it.

We need solutions to the underclass, not 'people like us' getting up and moving out.

And when it comes to children from 'nice' families, well, we don't know how those children were raised or are treated at home. There is increasing concern in the USA about the rise in anti-social behaviour by children from 'good' families and a lot of it is being put down to poor early care - babies being left in inadequate childcare for long periods of time, not being picked up and held and rocked as much as before because of the use of the new baby buggy/carrier type contraptions, which mean that you just pick up the seat and move it from one place to another etc etc. I am not making this up - check out the work of Dr Bruce Perry in the USA as an example.

It is all coming back to haunt us.

[Cathy]

Rachael: many thanks for that!

Re: coming back to haunt us - well, yes. It has occurred to me (rather nastily), that the parents of children brought up to believe they're the centre of the universe need to be very afraid, especially when the inevitable euthanasia laws are brought in ... At the very least, I hope these people don't imagine they'll get any thanks for this moral bankruptcy. Their children will go their own sweet way just like everyone else's.

I'm interested in what you say about the 'underclass'. Where we live, there's a desirable suburb separated from a pretty rough housing estate only by the river. We're the only people I know who haven't been burgled (largely because our stuff's all rubbish). The underclass is definitely encroaching. You'd think self-preservation might make people more socially aware, but it seems not!

My parents were miles better than me and had the courage of their convictions - I went to primary school right in the middle of a huge council estate and mixed with all kinds of children. Not that they were like today's underclass, I hasten to add.

[David Vinter]

OK, Cathy and Kim, I can in fact tell you what it was like at council primary school 60 years ago!
Well as it was in WW2,I was allowed to start aged just over 3, [Aug birthday]. I was immediately started on being taught to read,and do simple adding up, [by two ten year old girls, with the teachers' full cooperation].
This early start helped me enjoy books, by age 9 several of us were given the run of the schools modest library, but apart from all the usual boys adventure stuff Ihad read 'First Men on the Moon' by HG Wells.
We were pushed on hard, dealing with long division, fractions, decimals, weights, distance,time, hight,
money, squares and roots,all in the old imperial measures, without any calculators! And 30 minutes of mental arithmetic every Friday morning.
We did bones of the body, gases of the atmosphere,the basic solar system. Local geography--where we lived, the british isles,[with big maps]. The Royal families' royal tour of South Africa including spelling Bloemfontein? All at a country market town council primary school,which I left in 1947,not yet 11!

[Cathy]

David Vinter: I'm not sure what your point is, nor why you felt the need to address your list of accomplishments to Kim and myself. We have been suggesting that parents who lie in order to give 'advantages' to their children are dishonest. What on earth has education sixty years ago to do with that?

[Mary]

Does any-one have evidence that posh kids at poor schools raise the standards. Statistically for results it might but at my school (a poor school that is still poor today) the swatty kids like me with parents that encouraged us were like oil and water with the kids that did not want to learn. My kids now go to a very good comprehensive offering an excellent education but there is still a sizable group that play truant and sabotage the good efforts. The 'middle-class' element in the school do not appear to have any influence at all. I would be interested to hear of others views and experiences.

[Cathy]

Mary: I found your comments extremely interesting and would love to ask you why, in your opinion, the school is 'good' and offers an 'excellent' education? Do you mean the teaching's very good? If so, how do the teachers deal with the would-be saboteurs? I only wonder because it's so very unusual to find someone who on the one hand praises a school while on the other acknowledging that it's not predominantly middle-class! I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to know their secret!

Re: social class - was just pondering this while washing-up. One big problem discussions like this have is that definitions of class aren't what they used to be. I grew up thinking of myself as middle-class but I'm not so sure now. My parents were teachers and I went to university when few did, but I certainly don't drive a 4X4 or educate my children privately or do any of the things middle-class people apparently do now! And working-class is even trickier, I think. A lot of people who are proud to call themselves working-class are much closer in material and lifestyle terms to the 'middle classes' than to those living on council estates. I don't know how these things are defined. Of course, maybe it doesn't matter and we should forget the concept of 'class' but I don't think that's going to happen soon.

[David Vinter]

Cathy, I was trying to explain, that lots of money, does not make for good education, [or don't you think schools were poor in wartime?]. Furthermore I was not top of the class, but was like most lads somewhat lazy. And our teacher in the last two primary year was Mrs Mason,she got 60% of her class of 30 through the 11+ each year. We had proper discipline, she used the cane, on both boys and girls! Wicked you say but it eliminated bullying at our school. The point is if we could learn in wartime,and on rationing, then why the devil can't you do it now! Children today should be years ahead of us then, and they are not. As to which school we went to, there was no choice, no parents had any transport.

[Cathy]

David: Sorry, but I don't think I've ever said that lots of money makes for good teaching (although it would make for more teachers and smaller classes).

Why the devil can't we do it now? Well, er ... apart from the fact that teachers who even touch children are lynched, have you tried teaching a class of 11-year-olds in an inner-city school in 2009? I have (well, actually, I haven't, since about 2007, as they made me ill). I'd love you to explain to me how to do it with today's disaffected children. You really are not comparing like with like at all.

My late mother also went to school through the war. Both her parents were at that time head teachers in Leeds slum schools and both loved their work and were appreciated for their hard work by children and parents. Like them and like me, my mother went into teaching. When she started, in 1955, she had 60 Infants in her class. When she retired she had less than half that number in her class. She said there was no comparison whatsover: the job was far easier in 1955. The children sat in rows, learnt a great deal by rote, she was allowed to hit them, she had the parents' support, children were disciplined at home and teachers were generally respected. NONE of this obtains now and whose fault is it? The teachers'? Do you really think people like me want to struggle in an impossible job or give up altogether?

[Helen]

@Cathy: "I'd like to exclude from the classroom every child who can't behave properly by the age of five due to incompetent parenting."

So how would you deal with kids who are devlopmentally behind or have special needs? How would you decide, as an expert teacher, which kids are simply "naughty" and which need more help? Children start school very young in this country and boys in particular can have problems settling down. So you would expel a lot of kids at the age of 4 or 5? That's right, write them off immediately because they don't conform.

"I'd also like to exclude the child of any parent who threatens or intimidates school personnel"

Fine but does the child deserve to suffer the sins of the father?

or in any way seriously undermines the authority of the teacher.

You did use the word "seriously". However, parents can and do disagree with teachers. That doesn't mean they are bad parents or that their children deserve to be excluded For example, I disagree with homework at primary schools. Does that mean my son should be excluded? Also, teachers make up rules for rules' sake and punish the majority for the sins of a few. I certainly would not allow that to happen to my son. Is that undermining your authority? Undoubtedly. But I think teachers shoudl exert firm AND fair discipline. Some do neither, some exert only firm.

[Me]

Something to ponder - people go on at length about kids getting caned, sitting still in schools etc in days of old, and how teachers were "respected". In my school days (late 70's / early 80's) we were regularly caned for the slightest infractions, real or imagined. We were compliant. However, we did NOT respect our teachers. Feared them, hated them, deferred to them yes. But respected, no. The view was that anyone who maintains control by brutality is simply a bully who can get away with it, and our attitude toward them was utter contempt.

[Cathy]

Helen: As I have already explained to someone else, I was very irritated when I wrote that comment. I spend most of my time on this blog being irritated, I'm afraid! Perhaps understandably.

I didn't define my terms so I'll do it now. Of course as an 'expert' (I'll take that word at face value, I think) teacher I have no power over policy, so this is pure fantasy.

By 'properly' I mean within acceptable limits. If a child repeatedly hurts (ie bullies) other children I don't think they should be allowed to continue. If you think repeated bullying is being noncomformist, I'm afraid we'll have to differ on that one. I think the parents of children who are developmentally immature or have special needs may be offended by your implication that those are the result of 'incompetent parenting' - your reading of my words.

Yes, I would exclude children whose parents harm or threaten school personnel. No one should be expected to work in a climate of fear.

Yes, indeed I DID use the word 'seriously', so I needn't address the rest of your remarks.

[David Vinter]

Cathy, clearly you agree that we need more discipline,so put the students back in rows for a start. It is likely that the whole country would benefit from more disiplined parenting. [I watch the 'Teaching' channel on TV quite a lot, and in no way would jewellery, tattoos, wierd hair fashions have been allowed].
Clearly you come from a teaching family, good luck to you. One of my grandfathers' was a farm labourer, the other a docker on Grimsby commercial dock. But both had a passion for learning, and both were born before the 1880 Education act. It may be no coincidence that I went to school before we had TV?

[Cathy]

ME (or Me?): I agree. Unfortunately, many children only seem to understand brutality because that's the only discipline they get at home. I know it shouldn't be thus, but it is.

At the end of the day (literally) everyone posting here can afford to forget about these nightmarish and intractable problems. I know I'm probably in a minority but anyone in charge of education in this country has my sympathy.

[Cathy]

David: Thanks for the good wishes!

Unfortunately, I have no say in educational policy or how parents bring up their children, being a humble supply teacher (couldn't take the strain of a 'proper' job, sadly).

I think it's always risky to extrapolate too much from one's own limited experiences. I myself was born after 1880 and my parents had a TV when I was born. Despite those disadvantages, I learnt to read at three, went to Oxford and have a PhD.

[nancoise]

Now you've got me musing on the intractable problems. I was never a teacher, but assisted a lot at my son's primary until three years ago when he moved on. I was also a parent governor. Again and again I saw that the most intractable problems among the students were the ones whose parents simply didn't believe that their child was anything but perfect. Also, some of the worst-behaved were clearly desperate for adult attention. I know because they were the ones who'd crowd around me on school trips or walking to swimming or whatever, shouting over each other to tell me how well they'd done at this or that, or what they'd seen on telly, or that their gran was visiting or that they were going to get new shoes. The social class ranged from working to upper middle, but it made no difference. The desperation for adult attention was overwhelming. Or, to put it another way, they were desperate for love. But, of course, my love and my attention weren't the point -- they wanted their parents' love and attention. That's why the problems were intractable. The problems showed up at school, but the solution could only be worked at home.

[Cathy]

Nancoise: I'm sorry if I've ruined your night's sleep ;)

What a lovely comment - spot on, IMO. I'd go further, actually, and say that ALL bad behaviour is attention-seeking. The saddest children are those who'd rather get negative attention (even violence) than what they're used to, which is nothing. And they don't need much attention - just to know that they matter.

This thing about perfectionism is relatively new, I think - at least, in its current widespread form. I do find it amusing when quite ordinary parents sincerely believe their child is a genius, but there's a serious downside, too. Children need unconditional love. I know of what I speak: I have a son of 19 who has cost me many a night's sleep but I think he knows he's loved, even if his behaviour isn't, always. He knows he matters as much as his 'higher-achieving' sisters. I think it's important that this is made explicit. Children do need to know they're loved. They don't just take it for granted.

[nancoise]

Cathy, I should have gone farther about the whole 'my child is perfect' thing, because sometimes it was weirdly more complicated than that. Some parents did seem to truly believe their child was perfect. Some parents were clearly aware that their child wasn't actually, truly perfect, but they assumed and maintained an adversarial role with all members of staff, no matter how honest and supportive said staff tried to be. One of my friends made more than one teacher cry about how her child wasn't being taught properly, yet was canny enough to get him into a secondary school for children with severe dyslexia and now, years later, he still doesn't know his times tables. I talked to her about her attitude several times, but it was like talking to a brick wall. I also remember a very obnoxious mother (just my opinion) coming out of a meeting with the head, loudly saying in the playground, 'I told him! I told him!' while her child was both struggling academically and not at all liked by the other children and the staff were genuinely trying to help. I think there's a different currency at work in those cases, as if success was defined by the power balance in the relationship with the school and there could only be one winner -- the parent -- rather than many winners -- child, parent, school, society.

[David Vinter]

Cathy, an Oxford PhD, is much admired by me. But then I was a simple farm lad, father had me tractor driving at weekends!
I left school at 16, but many years of night school, and at 32 took a Joint Hons degree at Nottinham [Economics and Agricultural Economics].
Still live in the 'sticks' can see a beautiful night sky, love Mozart, can fly a light aircraft, don't mind getting my hands dirty with car or tractor engines. Good arc welder, enjoy photography,and both my children are graduates and live near London--[no work round here].
Cathy, or anyone else, I have written my memoires of going to school through WW2. I can download a copy--vinterdav@aol.com

[Cathy]

Nancoise: It's unbelievable, but I certainly believe it! What's so odd is that their own children are involved in these awful power struggles. Great examples to them. It's all a bit like blaming a doctor when a patient dies. I think some people are just nasty. It's always been apparent when they get into their car; now equally so when their child's pre-eminence is seen as being under threat. I do some private tuition and the parents are a very mixed bunch. Most are just lovely, either worried that their child is falling behind or wanting them to try for the very good local independent school. But one or two ... talk about wanting me to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear! That in itself is quite touching, but it's so often accompanied by belligerance. 'I'm paying you so you've got to do what I say. What do you mean, impossible?' Grrrrr

[Keen2learn]

The simple answer is to provide more good schools. The log jam is the consequence of our failure to achieve this after decades of trying.

[Nancoise]

Keen2Learn, Yes, that's absolutely the answer, but it's not simple. How do you create a 'good' school as opposed to just creating a school? How does a good school differ from a poor one? In my part of London the poor schools have much better facilities than the good schools because the funding formula is set up to give extra support to the struggling schools. That means that some of the 'best' schools are the shabbiest and are constantly on the breadline. Mind you, sometimes those schools have the most amazing PTAs. Clearly, what makes the difference is the leadership, courage, talent, energy, commitment and -- I'm going to use this word again, though I wish English had more terms for it -- love on the part of the head, staff and parents. I guess I'm talking about disinterested love for the community. Do the Greeks have a word for that? If the family and the school are reading off the same hymn sheet, then the children can feel safe and happy and they can thrive. But how do you create schools with those qualities? How do you create training programmes that produce leaders of the calibre we need? These are genuine questions on my part. I hope we're going to have a lot of excellent servicemen and women coming home from Afghanistan soon -- maybe they could be inspired to move to teaching.

Cathy, you're a parent, I'm a parent. But we both know that the part of the job that most teachers loathe is dealing with the parents! I believe there are now schools where teachers are not allowed to meet parents alone in their classroom as a matter of safety. That brings me back to your comment of a couple of days ago about chucking out the children who are unable to behave due to poor parenting and also chucking out the parents who threaten staff in any way...and yet, where do they go? These days the deal is this: if a school excludes a pupil, then that school must take a pupil excluded from another school. Seriously. I imagine the policy was created with the idea that exclusion would humble the child and/or family and they'd be more willing to knuckle down at a new school, but if the unacceptable behaviour was down to serious problems in the family or the sort of ingrained belligerence you mentioned in your posting today, that's a vain wish.

[Cathy]

Nancoise: again, thanks for all the food for thought. Hmmmm! I've been lucky with parents as I'm Infant and it's so much easier to get to know the parents. On supply in tough schools it's sometimes tricky, but then I don't have to go back if it's too bad. But it is a huge problem and I see no way out, since the schools can, at best, only put sticking-plasters over the awful wounds in society. What a vile simile, but it's Friday ...

I've been pulled up by two other people (quite rightly) for that comment about exclusions. Absolutely right - they have to go somewhere. A bit of teacher-NIMBYism on my part, I'm afraid. Nobody wants to deal with these children, despite us all acknowledging that it's not actually their fault. But then you could argue that their parents suffered from bad parenting and so on. I really don't think that exclusion solves anything for the child and the parents don't tend to seem overly humbled by it; it buys the school a bit of breathing space, that's all. Though I don't like the sound of the 'swapping' very much!

I'm afraid I have an instinctive dislike of badly-behaved middle-class children; I feel they should somehow know better. Judging from the number of 4x4s blocking neighbours' drives near our local primary (and the language when the neighbours dare to remonstrate), I think I should give these children the same benefit of the doubt as their neglected peers from housing estates.

[Nancoise]

Cathy, Actually, as a middle-class person it drives me insane when children who seem to have every privilege behave badly. And yet, a teacher I know who has taught music in both state and independent schools says that the worst cases of neglect she has witnessed were among the middle classes. Massive expectations and pressure, fuzzy boundaries, far too little support and therefore, as you said earlier, no hope of unconditional love. There's that word again! I have a friend who feels the same as you and sometimes, in her ringing received pronunciation, absolutely blisters the 4x4 drivers around schools. Even without swearing, she can be terrifying and they do move on.

But the other part of chucking very badly-behaved children out of the class is that it reassures the other children that the grownups are in charge and their appropriate behaviour is valued and even rewarded. If you've got a nightmare child who takes up 80% of your attention, surely you're rewarding the bad behaviour. Though maybe the well-behaved majority are able to enjoy attention from one another and from their families.

Am enjoying this exchange.

[Cathy]

Nancoise: Oh, so am I! Very much. I agree with your acquaintance about neglect among the middle classes; I really do need to adjust my prejudices accordingly! There does seem to be a new kind of parent around since my day (mid-thirties, as compared with my almost-fifties) who is identified as middle-class by income and lifestyle choice rather than educational attainment. Maybe we need to forget these labels now. Oh, what an horrid snob I am. And how I wish I could emulate your friend with the RP (I don't think you can do withering contempt with a Yorkshire accent - can you?)!

[dave]

What do MPs and Ministers expect after they have so blatantly ripped off every honest tax payer.

[supergran]

I didn't like the way caring parents were accused of theft. Surely going through the inconvenience of moving house so that your children can have the benefit of a better school - or indeed one where they can be immersed in their own culture, and the majority of the children speak the same language is more acceptable than the flipping of homes practiced by some politicians. Who is most guilty of theft?

[sofia]

i would like to see Balls prosecuted for his lies, hypocracy and greed.

[DS]

If parents should be prosecuted, then schools, boards of governors and education authorities should also be prosecuted for failing to protect children against bullying, employing unqualified and disqualified teachers.

I cannot understand why the present government is hell-bent on criminalising so many things. It's the mark of anti-liberal authoritarianism. Someone please stop them.

[Kim]

But if you read the article, DS, it says that Ed Balls does NOT want to prosecute the parents. He rejected the recommendation of the school adjudicator that parents should be prosecuted.

So you can rest easy. Parents can carry on lying their way into school places with impunity.

[Steven Bainbridg]

After many MPs have defrauded the tax payer by pretending to live in different homes or renting homes to friends, is it really a surprise that parents don't think it is morally reprehensable to "fudge" their address to get into a better school?

[JFK]

Lying to get your children into a school they wouldn't otherwise have got into is criminal behaviour. Not honourable in anyway. It just shows how self centred these parents are, and why our socitey is falling apart. YES, lack of social cohesion starts here.