No Shit Sherlock : Supportive parents do more than good schools to boost children's exam results

[TalkinPeace2]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-19923891

You don't say ....

The idea of schools that target those who are I danger of not fulfilling their potential and giving them longer days and providing the support one might expect from parents is sound. It won't happen though. The Tories wouldn't spend the money on people they don't care about and the left of Labour would say it stigmatised the DC and their parents.

It's impossible to make parents care. The ones who are open to being involved but need to be actively courted are being reached by schools, teachers,health visitors, social workers and support programmes like SureStart. You're left with a hard core that don't care.

Our last newsletter from school said that year 11s in danger of underachieving would have a mandatory 'sixth period' lesson once a week ('this should not be considered a detention' whatevs!) to run until 4.35. Actually.

I disagree Narked. I think it is very intimidating to young, disadvantaged parents to access services where the cohort are majority middle class. It's why ante-classes are offered, in my area, as two separate groups - including an under 25 group. Money/investment needs targeted and not co-opted by those for whom it makes life easier.

Good. Unfortunately by Y11 it's rather late.

Yup. Agree with that. Needs to be from first midwife booking appointment.

I think it is that this year 11 are being a bit dodgy tbh, I don't remember seeing anything similar in previous years. I guess what I mean is that I think it's nigh on impossible to level up so that children with uninterested parents have the same advantages as those whose parents are more helpful, but I do think schools can and do try.

Star girl, I don't think these are children whose parents have been crap from day one,or even are necessarily crap at all, just that some pupils appear not to be rising seriously to the immediate challenges of the year.

I remember seeing a programme on c4 couple years ago now.

was reading season i think.

They focussed on deprived schools in bristol.

One particuarly bad secondry schools in quite bad area the head stopped teaching the usual year 7 topics he put them all in primary literacy and numercay classes as said cant teach other subjects unless they can read.

They looked at some of the parets and sadly adult illiteracy was high too.

A teen parent who left school at 14/15 maybe not be confident ith educatioonal side of things when child starts school.

Dd has quite a bit home work. I have 3kids so caqn imagine its quite time consuming when doing 3+lots.

we do lots in holidays educational stuff
books at bedtime.

recently did maths factor as finding school not enough.

in hindsight i wish I had done more last year as think quite a few of current year do more than they let on.

Schools are more concerned about results that end up on league tables.

mmm

interesting

middle class upbringing here, but professional parents who ignored me but lashed out physically to my older sibling, and ignored my younger sibling to the point of me more or less raising him and myself.

On paper, yes, I am academically sound, but emotionally? Not quite on the same level. Self esteem lacking, confidence lacking, self doubt high.

do i want to replicate my upbringing for our kids? not in a million years

so yes, parenting is a hell of an important issue. i wish my mother had simply paid more attention to me growing up. Simple as that. But status was her thing, not children unfortunately.

who knew?! Not me!

More concerned than they are about what?

Even getting DC used to sitting and listening before they go to school is an issue - if they aren't taking in the information they're given how can they learn? And if they're struggling with basic maths and don't read well, everything else becomes a struggle. They lose interest. By the time hormones kick in you've lost them.

"But if you do away with parental involvement, as you suggest, then the effect is to bring all children down to the level of those whose parents aren't involved. "

absolutely not suggesting that, but it should all be extra to superb literacy and numeracy. I really don't think that better off kids, in terms of parental help, would find the mums and dads objecting to a more traditionally exacting curriculum.

Wordfactory and other who helped with Kipp: thanks so much, appreciate that.

"It's impossible to get parent to care" - from Narked - yes, and these are the children left behind. Damned unfair.

The best thing to do for children of weaker parents is to put them in a school situation with things to aspire to
which means having bright kids, sporty kids, artistic kids
rich kids, adored kids, multicoloured kids
which means non selective (as their parents will forget to do the form)
but with support once they are there.

Looking at where the Kipp schools are, they are dealing with a situation that does not occur nearly so much in the UK (extreme local racial segregation) BUT they are also able to deal with low aspirations.
If they were on the UK league tables they would have dire Ebacc and spectacular CVA
rather like quite a few of the London Comps that MN posters avoid like the plague in fact!

I find this thread fascinated. I am passionate about the effects of what early childhood experiences do in terms of later development.
I love the phrase the Jesuits had ''give me the child til the age of seven and I will show you the man''.
My grandmother was a primary school teacher (so I am a product of solid middle-class intensive mothering with rich extra-curricular learning). My granny worked in a school in a small rural areas in the late 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's. She saw social change in the area as the mine closed, with enormous poverty ensuing. And later, advances in welfare, health and standards of living. She would always say that she could tell on a child's first days at school, which were likely to achieve academically and which were bright but lacking the skills to endure.
I think it was Michelle Obama's biography that talks about how prized education was to a coloured child in the 60's and how her parents were determined that she and her brother would have a good education no matter the cost.

Whats my point? I think for all children to attain academically, their parents will do the work, not the school. It's like in therapy...you can bring your child to the best SaLT or OT but if you dont do the work at home, in between appointments, they wont make progress.
So, in my ill-informed opinion, ''educating'' or empowering parents is the best support to the child. And that aint going to happen for a multitude of reasons. The sanctity of the family home and the desire to keep families independent. The lack of self-esteem leading to defensiveness on the part of others. The opposition to the nanny-state.
My kids attend the local multi-class, multi-background primaries....but I will be very careful about where they go after that.

but there is a fine line between parental involvement at home and parental pressure at home which can knock the confidence and ambition of a child too

ie - faced with so much pressure or criticism at home, they begin to wonder what is the point...(speaking from experience, there was 'benign neglect' in our middle class home, yet intense pressure to succeed, yes we all achieved on paper, but emotionally, in our thirities, all 3 of us are 'lost'. So all the education in the world needs careful management, and proper parental input should also be advised and monitored, but no idea how

Oh I agree madda. As said upthread, some of this needs to start at the first mid-wife appointment. How to build resilience and confidence in your child.

You can imagine how popular that would be (I know I would probably have balked at it myself...we all know how to parent until we are one)

Even here, attachment parenting is strongly debated and yet there is (some) evidence that strong early bonds lead to exactly those traits.
So a child who has that strong foundation is more likely to persist at academics and everything else.
Not to mention the role of play, manipulation of objects, exposure to language and reading, movement skills...all the foundation for maths, reading etc.

I have children referred to me for handwriting issues and when I drill down, it's core strength and movement problems that are primary. So parents are non-plussed to see me doing crawling and playdough with their 6 and 7 year olds. Thats where it starts. Not when they come to the door of the school.

even simple parenting thinsg we take for granted impacts on them

healthy diet
breckfast in morning before school
enough sleep.

all these things influence learning and concentration.

Then you have aspiration.

my mum always told me i wouldent amount to much
than uni was pipe dream
alevels waste of time
ideas above my station.

had very few extra curricular activities.

grew up in working class single parent home in small rural ton with few opportunities i did at times feel at secondry that top groups correlated withe the middle class kids.

I think having worked in some deprived areas its really hard for kids to break the cycle as a few genrations have left school young, poorly educated no role models.

I do think primaries need more male teachers for the boys.

frpm dd experice schools obession with levels and tests means schools very narrow focused on not broad wider education of enrichment and no academic skills.

I think theres so little time trying to cram entire nc in schools need longer i think 13weeks holiday is quite a lot.

I think some parents maybe think its more complicated than it is

but its about engaging with child
one to one time
taking them places
playing with them
baking even reading bedtime stories.

It saddens me some kids dont get that,

yy mam29

In essence it is simple

And as usual it's EVERYTHING that counts.

Good parenting won't compensate for a disruptive classroom environment

A good classroom environment won't compensate for a disruptive home.

Has anyone found the source for the BBC report?

I have found this www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-accountability/nclb-accountability-final.pdf but it only goes up to 2007.

It seems that the US have set up a programme to ensure accountability in schools ensuring that No Child gets Left Behind and their deadline is 2013.

It started with 10% extra funding, targeted at schools that weren't getting the results and research has been following childrens progress very carefully.

I think the US system is very much like ours - people move house to get their kids into the best schools, or pay for private and the other children are left behind in schools with demoralised children and staff. They seem to have realised that this will not ensure that every child reaches their full potential and are looking into ways to do something about it.

In the UK they have dealt with this problem at primary level (most primary schools are now fairly good and have enough support). In UK secondary schools it seems that rather than encourage government accountability for education they have thrown the Academy programme into the ring and other non-sensical programmes like free schools and specialisms which has not had any impact on children where it really matters.

www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-accountability/nclb-accountability-final.pdf

forgot to tick the box

I've been accused of living in a dream world. Apparently rather than ensuring that essential work isn't ever sent home, it's easier to dismantle societal structures, end all selective education and ensure that children of weaker parents are in schools with bright kids, sporty kids, artistic kids, rich kids, adored kids, multicoloured kids.

I don't believe you and I don't agree with you. But while you wait for your nirvana children are failing. That bothers me no end.