Parents should bring up children, not the state

The Times reported today (click here to read the article) that a survey for Sky News revealed “hundreds of children at second year in primary school are still in nappies” and quoted a head teacher saying that “pupils are arriving at school without many basic skills including toilet training or being able to use a knife and fork or hold a paintbrush”.  Ofstead is quoted as saying that “nurseries had to do more to prepare children, especially if parents were not able or willing to do so”.  But why should this be the case? 

Clearly nursery schools are not just babysitters; they must take on some of the parenting role while children are in their care, but they are no substitute for parental responsibility.  Children, whether of nursery school, or indeed primary or secondary school, age have far less contact with teachers than they ever will with their parents, who are accountable for their upbringing.  Schools can endorse reinforce particular social behaviours and support parents in the upbringing of their children, but they cannot replace them. 

Schools are not perfect and teachers are not always good, so parents have every right to complain when things are not going well.  But more often than not, and this is supported by the very small sample of teachers of my acquaintance, the problem is more likely to get some parents to show sufficient interest in their children’s education in the first place.  And these are of course likely to be the parents of children who are underperforming.   

Does a child have a problem reading?  Then ask how many books are there in the family home, and who reads them.  Do parents read to their children and do they read for themselves?  If not then in most cases the child’s weakness is not surprising.  

Does a child not concentrate well or complain of being bored?  Perhaps the only form of entertainment at home is computer games or indiscriminate watching of the TV, constantly playing in the living room.  Ask how often parents engage with the child in playing games (not computer games), going for walks or cycle rides, or just conversing.

I am not a teacher or an expert on bringing up children, but it is self-evident that children have the capacity to learn continuously from the people and environment around them.  They cannot easily discriminate between “good” examples  and “bad” examples; they only see examples. So if the majority of the time the examples set are not conducive to getting a good education or to acceptable social behaviour, is it any surprise that those children fail?  It is true that schools are a source of examples, as are peer and the media (which in my opinion has a lot to answer for), but most of all children learn from their parents.

The Times article finished by noting that the latest Millennium cohort study (of children born in 2000), shows that the development gap between “rich” and “poor” children, by which I assume it means between the children of “rich parents” and “poor parents”, has opened up and that “the poor are at a considerable disadvantage”.  It does not follow from this however that the problem will be solved by the state taking responsibility from the parents.  What we need is a strategy to encourage and help those parents who are failing to take enough interest in the upbringing of their children (rich or poor).  It must be clear that it is in their interest, as well as that of their children, to do so.