Out of interest is there anyone else who thinks that schools do things that should be left to parents?

[hurricane]

Do you object to the following being carried out by appropriate professionals in schools (assuming you are kept informed of these things taking place and results of any tests etc)?

1.) vaccinations (like BCG)
2.) eye tests/ dental checks
3.) PSHE
4.) sex education
5.) cooking classes/ healthy eating
6.) PE

If yes, why?

[tori32]

Juuule childminders do not get practical parenting advice on their courses. They get awareness of child protection matters, cirriculum from birth to three/ school children. How to be self employed re tax etc. some staying healthy/ safe. Most of what I know as a CM is through common sense and practice. You can't teach common sense, it is unfortunately something that lots of highly educated people lack as well as underprivilaged parents. Also, there is no right and wrong way to parent. Every family has its own dynamics and priorities so have different needs.

[Tortington]

here are some links - for all you rotten parents out there who recognise your shiteness and want to do better

your library analogy is shit

[Tortington]

and its shit becuase i have already said how skilled teachers are so stop twisting things

[juuule]

tori when I went on the ICP course they also went over things that had me raising my eyebrows as I thought they were common sense. They did cover the other things you mention too though. I agree that it wasn't very in depth but it did cover some areas of how to deal with tantrums and distraction techniques and how to introduce interesting play. I also did the first aid course.
Childminders I know have gone on further courses which as a parent I might have found useful. Obviously these are aimed at the 8 and under age group.
But I do think that something along those lines could be extended to at least discuss different parenting techniques without being judgemental.
Of course every family is different but as mumsnet proves people can be open to knowing how someone else would deal with a situation and then decide whether it would be suitable for them.

[Blandmum]

I think the worrying thing is that if all of this stuff has to wait until the child is in school then quite a bit of 'damage' will already have been done to the child's further development.

I don't have a problem with basic stuff being done in schools, but once to yet to major behavioral issues, by the time the child is 5 things will already be harder to turn around (via parental education and support as well as school intervention).

Nurture groups do fantastic things with disadvantaged children but I can't help but think that the resources would be better used in parental education, compulsory if neccessary

[hurricane]

Custardo, I think you've lost the thread of your own arguments.

Your basic starting point was that you don't think PSHE, vaccinations, blah de blah should be done in schools because this is the parents' job.

You recognize that not all parents are able or willing to do these things or to look after their children and support their educataion in all sorts of ways.

Your answer to this is parenting classes.

You have said explicitly that the Government is not investing in parents or supporting them adequately with the assumption that if they did all of the problems of inadequate parents or all the failures of adequate parents would be resolved.

I have pointed out to you several times that the Govt DOES invest in parents and parenting. I have given you many, many examples of ways in which the government helps parents to parent from midwives, to Parentline to FE colleges etc and also nurseries.

If I was a struggling (financially and as a mother) parent there would be a great deal of support on offer to me.

If as a middle-class, educated, not rich but not poor parent wanted support it would be available to me. I wouldn't hesitate to phone Parentline if I thought it would help and without being at the point of desperation. I have used and benefited from Sure Start, my HEalth Visitor (who I called when I was struggling to get my dcs from tit to teat and who carried on visiting me after this until it began to drive me mad), all the info I was given when pregnant and after giving birth (which included copious amounts on healthy eating and on vaccinations).

Regardless of my financial situation if I was evidently struggling to parent there are a great many organisations who could and hopefully would (depending on the severity of the situation) intervene. Midwives, HEalth Visitors, teachers, social workers, GP blah di blah.

Yet in spite of all of the support above parents can and do fail. Even parents like me (who once again is putting off getting my dc her MMR booster).

Your solution to these failures once again is parenting classes yet you have not outlined the practicalities of this (how many? When? What do you do with the kids?).

I agree with you that people need to be taught the skills and information to be a good parent but I think the vast majority of this information and skills is helpful to all aspects of life. For example, learning how to eat healthily and feed a family, learning how to budget, learning how to respect others and communicate, the importance of exercise, learning how to manage difficult behaviour, learning about contraception. (What else did you envision the parenting classes would consist of?) I think the best, most practical time to teach this stuff is in school as part of the curriculum and as part of PSHE. I think a lot of it already is being taught and there needs to be more of it and better.

Custy, compulsory education is called SCHOOL. You cannot force adults to go to any sort of parenting or other classes (unless there are very special circumstnaces like in place of a fine or prison sentence). This would cause massive resentment. For a great many parents most of what would be taught in these classes would be irrelevant so it would be a massive waste of time and money for them when that money could be targeted at parents who really need the support (like through Sure Start).

But also you cannot define and break down all the zillions of bits of knowledge and skills that good mothers and fathers use into a few classes called 'parenting' classes.

If you've had a poor education yourself you're unlikely to make a good role model or help support your child's education without a hell of lot of motivation, hard work and support. If you've never learnt how to count or cook or read or exercise or respect others then you will struggle with many aspects of parenting.

So in a nutshell what I'm saying is the best way to invest and educate parents is through schools not just in the sense that our students will all too quickly become parents themselves but also by involving parents in what schools do. I think getting existing parents into school and more involved in their kids education could make a dramatic difference to the kids, their parents and their relationship.

As for vaccinations and eye checks I think we've gone about as far as we can with this. Most parents are thankful that these things happen in school. Having these things happen in school is certainyl more efficient and less disruptive for kids and it means more kids are likely to get these things who might otherwise not. It does not mean that parents are any more likely to abdicate their responsibility or rely on schools any more than they will stop feeding their kids tea because they have lunch at school. That argument is spurious and there's no evidence for it. Most parents do not see this stuff as threatneing or interfereing or taking over their role any more than they would see a teacher supervising play or reading a story in this way. If you personally don't like it then that really is your own and a minority opinion which has no basis in fact.

[hurricane]

Anything that is valuable enough for all parents to know or be able to do should be made compulsory through school. If on becoming parents any need extra support then this should be available but targeted to meet the extra needs of those parents.

[juuule]

"compulsory education is called SCHOOL."
No it isn't. It's compulsory education"

"You cannot force adults to go to any sort of parenting or other classes (unless there are very special circumstnaces like in place of a fine or prison sentence). This would cause massive resentment."

True.

"For a great many parents most of what would be taught in these classes would be irrelevant so it would be a massive waste of time and money for them when that money could be targeted at parents who really need the support ".
Substitute 'students' for 'parents' and probably still true.

"But also you cannot define and break down all the zillions of bits of knowledge and skills that good mothers and fathers use into a few classes called 'parenting' classes."

But you could offer somewhere that people could go or be referred to if they needed help with their parenting.

[emmaagain]

I haven't read the whole thread.

But I think what this boils down to is:

If you send your child to a school, you are implicitly consenting to the values of that school. If what you wanted was a muscular Christian education for your child, you should have sent them to a 19th century Public School like Rugby or Harrow.

If you send your child to a State School then what they will get is an education corresponding to the values of the State which, in 2008 UK, involves moral and cultural relativism, environmentalism, low-fat/ low-sugar dietary beliefs, and an undercurrent of statist secular liberalism (with 'liberal' used in the way it's used to describe the liberal democrat party - i.e. anything but liberal). Of course it is going to involve vaccinations according to the current idea that vaccination is good; it's going to involve sex education according to the values of the State and its employees; it's going to include cookery according to the low-fat, low-sugar gospel.

If we don't like what is on the menu at State schools, we are free not to participate. But I doubt any of us would be able to persuade the denizens of Big State Education that parents have the moral (and in fact legal) right and responsibility to educate their children with the schools providing whatever academic stuff the parents deem is required. There's a lot of doing things to people For Their Own Good.

[cory]

"my argument is that the school should compliment the parent." AuntyThesis Wed 06-Feb-08 09:46:45

Ah, wouldn't that be lovely! A compulsory weekly session of you-are-doing-such-a-wonderful-job-mrs-X! I could really do with that! But might it not take time from the lessons?

[juuule]

I understand what you are saying Emmaagain but not everyone is in a position to not participate. If the only option you have is to send your child to school are you also supposed to meekly accept the values of the state without question?

[juuule]

Lol Cory

[emmaagain]

No, Juule. I guess you get to vote for a different lot next time and see if that shifts anything (although the prevailing political culture within schools wouldn't be affected by a different set of faces in Downing Street).

Or you get to join some sort of pressure group which campaigns against centralised curriculums and in favour of increased parental choice in the content and ideology taught in schools.

I don't know. Is there ever no option about sending children to schools where parents don't like the ideology, I mean really no option? Often there might be less-convenient solutions, or less-financially-confortable solutions, or living-in-less-nice-places solutions, or who knows what. (speaking from a family which has no car, doesn't own a house, and has only one income, by choice). Maybe a parent could set up a tiny school like Park school and set the curriculum themselves, funding their own existence and child's education through the fees of the other children who went there. Maybe all sorts of things.

[juuule]

Difficult if your child wants to go to school.

[emmaagain]

Then I guess you make it your mission to find out what of what's being presented at school you disagree with, and provide alternatives, like Sunday School for Christians or opting them out of sex ed, or whatever.

I suppose, the more parents who were "difficult" about the bits of the syllabus they didn't like, and the values of their family and community being undermined by the school, the more likely it would be that schools would bow to that view. That must happen in some instances - schools having Halal cafeterias, for example. It's a question of whether one's own values and culture are represented in the schools on offer.

Legally, schooling families are delegating the education of their children to schools, not abdicating responsibility for that education. If they don't like what's on offer, they are the only ones legally responsible for doing anything about it.

[hurricane]

I think most of what you're saying is accurate emmaagain but I'm not sure about some of the messages behind it.

'If you send your child to a State School then what they will get is an education corresponding to the values of the State'

Yes, I think that's true but it also makes sense. The education system is funded by taxes after all but it is designed to suit the majority of children and prepare them to take their place as adults in their communities and society as a whole. Having said that education today involves much more opportunity for children to discuss, question, challenge and explore than it ever has. Just over a hundred years ago we weren't educating children at all just sticking them up chimneys or down mines.

'which, in 2008 UK, involves moral and cultural relativism, environmentalism, low-fat/ low-sugar dietary beliefs, and an undercurrent of statist secular liberalism (with 'liberal' used in the way it's used to describe the liberal democrat party - i.e. anything but liberal). Of course it is going to involve vaccinations according to the current idea that vaccination is good; it's going to involve sex education according to the values of the State and its employees; it's going to include cookery according to the low-fat, low-sugar gospel.'

But it's not that vaccinations are 'good' according to 'current ideas'. THere is evidence that vaccinations save lifes, prevent serious illnes, preserve fertility, prevent birth defects... There are few people who argue with this and they have the option of withholding consent.

Similarly there is evidence tosuggest that a low fat and low sugar diet is healthy. This is not 'gospel' it is fact.

Likewise with sex education. It's generally considered to be a good thing for children to understand where babies come from and how to prevent them. Generally the message is that it is sex should be consensual and ideally within a loving relationship. Few parents would have a problem with that. Parents who want an explicitly relgious take on sex, morality etc have the option of faith schools.

I take issue with the idea that there are some strange men up in some towers somewhere coming up with some sinister ideas about brainwashing our children. We do live in a democracy after all for all its failings. And teachers are humans and very often parents. Most of what children are taught in schools IS 'for their own good' and it's free. If you don't like it or want something different as you say you can home educate or go a different route.

[emmaagain]

well, whatever the ideology of the State schools are, there are likely to be bits of it that each of us doesn't feel comfortable with, for whatever reason.

I was bending over backwards not to offend the anti-vaxers But they are rationally persuaded for whatever reasons it is that vaxxing = bad.

On the low-fat thing, well, the Atkins/South Beach (is that the right beach?!)/ Barry Groves types wouldn't agree. So there'll be a section of society for whom those messages from school would be distasteful.

I don't think it's men in towers. I think it's a conglomeration of a particular set of political and moral views which tend to be prevalent in schools. By definition, if you're wanting to teach in a State school, you're going to be valuing the role of the State in providing an education for all - the free-market capitalists are more likely to end up teaching at a private school (massive oversimplification. Shoot it down MartianBishop )

[Tortington]

assert that parenting classes for all to support encourange and introduce a thriving culture of parenting would be benefitial

I maintain that these things should be done in the first instance by the primary care giver

and if the schools are to do anything - they should support the parent

rather than the other way round. a good parent will mak sure their child gets enough excersise and eats healthily.

a good parent will take about sex - complimenting the school rather than leaving it to the school

a good parent would organise eye tests and dental check ups

and a good parent shouldnt leave social morality through PHSE to the school.

[hurricane]

There's nothing there that I have ever disagreed with. However, I maintain that the fact that good parents do do these things and in an ideal world all parents would do these things at home first and foremost it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be done in schools as well. Same with reading, swimming, and everything else.

We need to stop arguing now because there are some things we're never going to agree on but I think you need to recognize some of the contradictions in your line of argument as follows:

1.) It's ok for kids to have photos at school (once a year) but not to have vaccinations (once in five years) or eye tests.

2.) It's ok for teachers to supervise lunchtimes and teach Pythagoras but not to teach cooking.

3.) It's a good idea to have compulsory parenting classes but not at school.

4.) Complsory parenting classes is a good thing but PSHE is intervening in family life and taking over basic parenting functions.

5.) The Govt does not invest in parents or parening yet we have parenting classes, Sure Start, Health Visitors, Parentline, midwives, reams of info for pregnant women, free nursery education, Education Welfare Officers, social workers, endless courses at FE colleges etc etc

[hurricane]

By the way, there's nothing new about cooking at school. I did it 20 years ago along with PSHE and still managed to get 9 GCSEs. Didn't you? The only difference is that now both boys and girls do it (a good thing).I made tomato soup, a lovely cheesecake, a quiche, an apple crumble and fairy cakes. I still make these things using same recipe. My mum did not and does not cook. She's a GREAT parent but she doesn't like cooking and worked full time. She would never have taught me these things however many parenting classes you had given her. She chose not to.

And I'm still not getting why pythagoras and apostrophes are good but cooking (alongside all the other things you mentioned) is bad. A good cooking teacher also deals with issues about food hygiene, healthy eating and a bit of science (digestion, vitamins etc). In fact I remember baking bread in biology and making alcohol to see how yeast worked.

[Tortington]

1.) It's ok for kids to have photos at school (once a year) but not to have vaccinations (once in five years) or eye tests.

the point isnt about how much time t takes or how frequent - bthat its easier for the government to ake sure of herd immunity by doing it through schools. health care should be the conccern of the parent - this isn't even a tenuous link like teaching healthyeating - this is doing it for parents becuase parents are shit

2.) It's ok for teachers to supervise lunchtimes and teach Pythagoras but not to teach cooking.

it would be better for parents to be able to cook and the kids get an extra pythaoras - plus lovely time with lovely parents cooking loverly meals - oh loverly

3.) It's a good idea to have compulsory parenting classes but not at school. this doesnt make sense

4.) Complsory parenting classes is a good thing but PSHE is intervening in family life and taking over basic parenting functions. indeed it is

5.) The Govt does not invest in parents or parening yet we have parenting classes, Sure Start, Health Visitors, Parentline, midwives, reams of info for pregnant women, free nursery education, Education Welfare Officers, social workers, endless courses at FE colleges etc etc

sure start for economically deprived communities - ergo message that if you ae working class or middle class then you can finger point at the dossers who teach their kids to say "cunt" for a laugh and then read the daily mail and regurgitate how this country is going to shit becuase of those people

health visitors and their pamhlets for the mum who has time to read/can read who look after the 0-5's but you rarelysee them after 2yo or earlier - excellent resource for those people - as indeed you pinted out - they can inform social services when they come across druggies that aside i am not knocking that as a resource but its hardly teaching parents better parenting skills for the long term

parent line - you make me piss keeping this one up - its a telephone line for desperate parents - you ring it not as a preventative measure to educate yourself but in desperation - its the samaritans of the parenting world - and not that good IME

midwives - pre and post natal - not an ongoing resource, baby based and lots of pamphlets for all that time youhave to read

free nursary education - yes its a support - but it doesnt teahc parenting

does any of these teach parenting to parents? do they? do they do they do they>]

NO - not in the long term.

EWO - for kids skipping schooland problem families

but can they teach a parent how to cook a nutritious meal or how to deal with a teenagers who wants to knob his g/f on valentimes day?

social workers - only at when a child is reported - they dont teach anything - of course a parenting order and parenting clases for fucked up people might come of parents being eported - but thats only in desperate cases

ever rung up social services at the end of your tether and begged them to take your son away?

i have - its catch 22 if your ringing asking for help - you don need it - if you are worried at all - you ae a caring parent and dont need social services

college for all those parents who recognise that they could up their parenting skills ( ergo good parents probably) .....who then have the time and the money to keep the family financially afloat to go to these courses.... or are you talking 0f them whoget it for free?

none of the resources above teach parenting to parents for the long term.
and its simply not good enough to say that the only people who need parenting skillsare poor people - its wrong.

therefore there should be a concerted investment in classes for all - i believe it is only through this that there will arise a cultural change throughout society.

[hurricane]

There really is no pleasing you. Yes, a lot of the resources out there are for problem parents or parents with problems. I call that common sense. What the hell is the point of spending (taxpayers) money and time on parents who don't have problems? I really don't think I need parenting classes Custardo and neither do most of the people I know. Do you really think that you do? If I or any of us did feel the need I could get them for free. I WOULD phone Parentline, or go to my FE college, or go to Sure Start (which I have done) or phone my Health Visitor (which I have done) or go to my GP if I did need help. Without hesitation. But I don't.

And before you start, I know that parenting problems aren't specific to parents living in deprived areas or in poverty. But these are parents who have the most challenges and need the most support. Middle class, educated and well off parents generally need less support. And they're much more likely to know where to get the support and how to access it effectively (on Mumsnet for example or through books or by going on courses or by paying for babysitters or counsellors or whatever).

I have worked and do work with a lot of parents who do need support and do get it from teachers, EWOs, social workers, GPs, counsellors, etcete. Some of them need long-term support. Parenting classes alone would hardly dent the surface of some of their problems.

And yes, those Health Visitors ARE there for the long term and yes Midwives and GPs and Sure Start and nurseries do set down patterns of healthy eating and managing difficult behaviour that last a lifetime. Like breastfeeding (which can have a lifelong impact on a child's health and even IQ). I have certainly learned from all of this stuff. E.g. about salt content, about what vaccinations my kids will have when, about ways of managing tantrums (which teenagers have as much as toddlers!). And saying that parents don't have time to read the stuff they're given is stupid. And mind-blowingly condescending. They're given most of the literature before they become parents. And they can revisit is as and when they need to.

And are you really saying parents don't have time to read the literature they're given but they DO have time to go and sit in classrooms and be lectured at??????

As I've said already good parenting is so complex and multi-faceted that to imagine you could 'teach' it in a series of classes alone is ridiculous and desperately condescending.

Anything a parent needs to know (and most of what parents need to know is essential or valuable to everyone like healthy eating and communicating and adding up and managing difficult behaviour) should be (and generally is) taught in school when education is compulsory, where human beings are most able to learn and are most receptive and where most kids are not yet parents.

If you don't know how to eat healthily and cook by the time you are a parent it's already too late (in the sense that nutrition while you're pregnant is desperately important and also that when you're a new parent especially if you're a single mum living in poverty you probably haven't got the time or resources to learn), same thing about communication etc etc.

I can't bear the way you are writing off professionals like Health Visitors and Social Workers because they don't 'teach' parenting. My Health Visitor came round to introduce herself when we moved into the area and provided a brilliant example for how to deal with our then toddler. She didn't call this 'teaching', she didn't make me sit down and go to a class but she still taught me a lesson.

My in laws foster kids and have regular contact with social workers part of whose role of course is to educate parents on how to cope with their children. Don't you know anything about these people?

One thing my FIL does is supervise parents who are not allowed to be alone with their children (for one reason or another) and he spends a lot of time playing with the kids and showing the parents how to play with their own kids in a way that a parenting class could never ever do.

About vaccinations, again

'the point isnt about how much time t takes or how frequent'

Well, actually that WAS your point earlier. You've said many times that you object to the amount of time spend on non-academic activities like vaccinations (ignoring the evidence that GCSE pass rates still manage to improve in spite of this obviously and the evidence that there's no more time wasted in such activities than there ever was)

' - bthat its easier for the government to ake sure of herd immunity by doing it through schools.'

Yes, it is and less expensive (for the taxpayer) and so that's a GOOD thing. How absolutely bizarre that you would want to make it more difficult, more expensive and more disruptive.

'health care should be the conccern of the parent'

And IT IS. I am no less concerned about my kids health because they are vaccinated at school than I would be otherwise. Eye checks etc at school alert parents to problems and can make them MORE concerned about their kids health and as Martian and others have pointed out you don't have to be a bad parent in any way just because you don't spot that your child is short -sighted as quickly as someone whose job this is!

The fact that my kids are read to at school doesn't make me any less inclined to read to them at home. This argument is ballocks.

'this is doing it for parents becuase parents are shit'

I'm beginning to wonder whose view this is? Do you think that parents 'are shit'? I don't. There's no evidence that the Government does. It's you that saying that parents are so shit that they all need compulsory parenting classes.

'It's a good idea to have compulsory parenting classes but not at school. this doesnt make sense'

What I meant here is that YOU want compulsory parenting classes but you don't want these delivered at school (i.e. through PSHE). Why?

For some reason you think that compulsory parenting classes are not intervening in family life or it doesn't matter if it is(well I'd be bloody annoyed if someone told me that I had to leave my babies at home and go and listen to someone probably with half my qualifications or experience working with young people tell me how to be a good parent when I'm doing fine thanks!) but PSHE at SCHOOL when kids are already in COMPULSORY EDUCATION is. This is bizarre and totally contradictory.

[hurricane]

BTW, the if you look up PSHE you find that the following are covered:

Emotional Health and Wellbeing;
Nutrition and Physical Activity;
Personal Finance;
Safety;
Sex and Relationship Education.
Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco;

I'd say that knowing about the above would certainly help to make a good parent and that it would and should be covered in any sort of parenting classes.

Personal finance has been historically undertaught in schools leaving lots of people vulnerable when it comes to pensions, life assurance etc. No reason why it couldn't be cross-curricular as well e.g. calculating future pensions in maths, debating pension provision in English ...

Going off topic slightly, but my point again is that there are so many aspects to good parenting - being a good role model, budgeting, managing behaviour, caring and loving your kids, feeding them well, clothing them appropriately, helping with their education, encouraging physical activity...

Don't think any one of us could say we're good at all of this stuff all the time or that you could teach anyone all this stuff in a few hours...

[hurricane]

Also wanted to say that when you're taking 9 subjects to GCSE absolutely nothing wrong with one of them being practical (like cooking) and spending an hour on a subject which doesn't have to be examined but might give an opportunity to improve study skills, planning and oranistion, careers etc (i.e. PSHE). Bloody hell, let our kids have a bit of time off from hard theoretical work while they're still children and before they get to A Levels. And for some kids the practical lessons are the only thing that makes school bearable.

[juuule]

Hurricane -If I could just point out a couple of things you say that puzzle me.
You say
"As I've said already good parenting is so complex and multi-faceted that to imagine you could 'teach' it in a series of classes alone is ridiculous and desperately condescending."

So why do you think these classes would be more beneficial to secondary age children with no children of their own?

"taught in school when education is compulsory, where human beings are most able to learn and are most receptive and where most kids are not yet parents."

So many things wrong with this statement that I'm not sure where to begin.
I think human beings are most able to learn when they are interested in something regardless of age or location.
Ditto receptiveness.
I'm not sure why teaching children not yet parents is preferable to teaching parents. While some might take note, sadly quite a lot wouldn't retain the info as they wouldn't consider it applied to them.

"If you don't know how to eat healthily and cook by the time you are a parent it's already too late"
This statement is untrue. I know people who couldn't cook who soon learned after they had children because they were then concerned about their child in a way that they hadn't even considered themselves previously. It's never too late to learn.

I do think that your posts contain some sweeping generalisations.