“Parents should take lessons in how to control children – PM” – runs the main headline in the Observer this morning.
Expansion of parenting classes is certainly something to be welcomed. When I was first a parent, I thought it was very strange that parents were offered classes on breathing techniques during pregnancy and pelvic floor exercises, plus inspection of changing areas and bottle procedures after birth, but not a word of guidance after that, until primary school “parent/school agreements”.
I am not comfortable with the word “control” in the Observer headline. David Cameron uses the word “discipline” in his quotes about this. This should be about supporting parents and, dare I say it, encouraging “quality time” between parents and children.
Reading the Observer article, this government initiative seems to be somewhat directed at poorer families. But middle class families have no reason to be smug about this. Often busy parental professional lives can buy toys, gadgets and nannies, but children miss time with, and love from, their parents. I once came across a situation where some working affluent parents dumped their six month old baby, who was normally looked after by a nanny while the parents worked, in a nursery (admitted one of the best and most expensive in the country) while they jetted to the Caribbean on holiday for three weeks. This just seemed to me something which no parent would do. One’s instincts would just stop one leaving one’s precious little baby alone in someone else’s hands for so long.
So I think David Cameron could afford to adopt a less patronising tone in respect to less privileged families.
My complaint with this Cameron story is perhaps one of cynicism. Why is he raising this issue at this time? It feels a bit “Back to Basics” to me. This is a classic Cameron diversion tactic – rather like the somewhat diversionary Syrian air strikes nonsense.
If we look at Cameron’s quotes he says:
Children in families that break apart are more than twice as likely to experience poverty as those whose families stay together.
I have all sorts of issues with this. It suggests this is perhaps another Cameron “bash the poor” initiative. He’s basically talking about nuclear 2.2 children families. But sometimes the greatest examples of fine parenting are in poor single parent families and the worst examples of parenting are in affluent middle class dual parent families.
I also worry whether David Cameron is mixing up cause and effect. Had it not occurred to him that experiencing poverty, in the first place, might actually be a key cause of the odd marital break-up?
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calum Miller makes the case for a much closer relationship with the European Union
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
expats
Daniel Stylianou
David Raw
Nonconformistradical
19 Comments
I’m fully behind Cameron on this one.
And if we are really serious about dealing with mental health, as I believe we are, when will we start acknowledging the link between family breakdown and mental ill-health (e.g. See http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/UserStorage/pdf/Pdf%20reports/MentalHealthInterimReport.pdf)
It reminds me of what a wag once said, which, I think came out of the teaching service and went something like this: “The trouble with parents and children is that all parents do is have them.”
While it might smack of the nanny state, it is clear that many youngsters are arriving in school lacking anything like discipline – yes, I will use that word- and make life really tough not only for their fellow students but for the teachers whose task it is to get them started in formal education. When the parents of these children are challenged they often react with defiance or throw up their hands in despair. What was it the Jesuits said about “give me a child for its first five years…”?
Strange that Cameron makes this announcement at the same time his government are continuing the closure of ‘Sure Start’ centres (which, over the years, have provided a similar support service to families and children?)
Trouble is, if it’s totally voluntary, then the only people who’ll turn up will be the ones who least need the advice. Whereas if it’s compulsory, it will cost a bomb and cause great resentment (and lose the Tories a lot of votes, so that’s an argument clinched, then!)
Maybe the least worst way to do it is to give health visitors, GPs and (perhaps) nurseries a stock of free voluntary attendance vouchers to give out to parents they think would gain from attending?
Personally, I think parenting is none of the governments business and as a parent I resent it. It just sounds another way to hand money to unmonitored private outsourcing and play to the Tory gallery.
Glenn,
You might be a model parent according to your definition of the word, whatever that is. In this age of political correctness, it’s very hard to criticise how some people bring up their children without being accused of interfering.
You ask a typical primary school teacher and I bet that many would agree that more and more youngsters are arriving at school with little or no idea how to behave. In this age of ‘parent power’ it’s very hard to tell mum and dad (if there is a dad around) that their offspring’s behaviour is unacceptable. This phenomenon has nothing to do with wealth or poverty but rather to an attitude to life and to others.
John.
Show me more than vague anecdotal evidence and un backed up assertions.
Glenn,
There have been plenty of reports in the press. Perhaps what I and others consider inappropriate behaviour is acceptable to you. As a teacher for 34 years I can assure you that I saw a definite deterioration in the behaviour of many of my students – and I retired in 1999.
It may be a generation thing. If you don’t want to accept what I say, there’s not much point continuing this particular argument. I can assure you that there will be many people who will applaud what the Tories are saying, even if it is doubtful whether legislation will bring about the changes many of us would like to see.
I think that it is wrong to suggest that this may be a ‘bash the poor’, initiative. In fact coming from a working class family, I find it rather insulting that one automatically links poor child discipline with financial poverty rather than social attitudes.
I agree with John Marriott, ( My husband was educated by Jesuits and I think it was seven years not five John). There are some parents who have never had their own needs met and therefore they are unable or unwilling to meet the needs of their children. These children do not receive the discipline, and an understanding of boundaries that are not only necessary for them to be accepted socially but also offer them a sense of security.
There is a lot of hypocrisy from people who yell, ‘you are being judgemental’, ( the ultimate sin), whilst at the same time making sure that wherever possible, they and their own children don’t mix with such families. It is actually the poor who do not have choices available to them, whose lives are most likely to be negatively affected by disruptive, antisocial behaviour caused by the poor parenting of others.
Thanks for your support Jayne. You are, of course, right about the ‘seven’ – maths was never my forte! Good behaviour – and I think most of us have a good idea what that is – should not be negotiable, and certainly bad behaviour is not confined to any class. Does anyone remember the incident in Newquay a few years back, where young people from a private school were running riot celebrating the end of their exams, I think, and were dismissive of attempts to control them?
@ Glen,
A friend of mine told me about healthy children in primary schools who were still not toilet trained or able to use a knife and fork to eat, and this seems to be more widespread than just her experience. A survey commissioned by Sky News and carried out by the National Foundation for Educational research in 2014 certainly backs this up.
You could check it out ‘ Children over five wearing nappies in class’ on the Sky news website.
@ Glen,
I also meant to mention:-
‘Massive Rise in disruptive behaviour, warn teachers.’ a Guardian article, March 2013, based on a survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
Is this something a Minister asked him to say?
Please also see Vince Cable’s article on page 42 of the main news section. An Observer sub-editor has entitled it “Selling off Channel 4 would be a dogmatic act of vandalism”.
Vince Cable said ” … I blocked asset sales that were demonstrably contrary to the public interest.”
Maybe this issue should have its own thread.
I have been a school governor for 32 years and an education committee member for 24years. It is surprising (or is it?) that Cameron whose government have cut the Sure Start policy now bangs on about the needs for which it was created.
Parenting is an amateur pursuit. Those from a loving home will have the advantage when learning it with their own kids particularly the nurture bit. Other parents will not particularly those without advice. I recall a very experienced Head of Infants in a deprived community saying “all mums want the best for their kids but they don’t know what it is”. That is why outreach as well as in-centre work was and is so important.
It is fair to note that behaviour problems are more but not exclusively found with social disadvantage. Osborne is conscientiously increasing social disadvantage. Cameron should have a word if he really means it.
Another reason for instilling a bit of discipline and respect into our young people might mean than a few less teachers will be quitting the classroom prematurely in future.
I have very little time for Cameron, but as John Marriott rightly says school children need discipline. Having been a teacher all my life I understand that no-one can teach effectively if they do not have control in the classroom and equally therefore no-one can learn effectively. Many young people are being short-changed in the classroom nowadays because the prevailing climate is against rigour. I visit schools all over the country as I run an educational consultancy nowadays and I feel so sorry for some of the children I see. Also, of course, teachers who lack control suffer personal misery. A lot of this is caused by the view many parents seem to hold now that they should be ‘friends’ of their children. That is in my view totally misguided. Children need to be given boundaries so they can grow up with confidence. They don’t get this from someone who describes themselves as a ‘friend’. What they need is unconditional love alongside the capacity to take firm action when necessary. I am not cinvinced tjhat parenting classes are the answer, but I’d need to see what the content of them is before commenting further.
Glenn: So parenting is none of the Government’s business ? And whose business is the cost of all this disruptive behaviour ?
Children in families that break apart are more than twice as likely to experience poverty as those whose families stay together.
David Cameron’s party’s welfare and asylum/immigration policies have caused large numbers of families to split up and to live in poverty. Benefits for the children of refused asylum seekers have been cut and parents are removed from a reasonable chance of success in the UK to poverty and often danger in their country of origin and some are forced to leave their children behind. It is not credible that he might be concerned about poverty or splitting up families..
There is something distinctly illiberal about the notion of telling parents how to bring up their kids. On the other hand the preamble to our constitution requires that no-one shall be enslaved by ignorance. To satisfy the latter whilst avoiding the former requires a balancing of which our society no longer seems capable if the general thrust of earlier contributions is to be believed. For Cameron to suggest however that parenting classes are the answer without a detailed analysis of what is required, for whom, by whom delivered and resourced may not be more than just another cheap trick to satisfy the Tory authoritariat, but I’m prepared to suspend my judgement until more detail is forthcoming.
What I find being overlooked is any discussion of how it has come to this. Cameron’s proposal seems to be addressing the symptoms but without a deeper understanding of what is happening such an approach may lead to unintended consequences.