Are parents and kids really that bad?

April 6, 2009 by matthewtaylor
Filed under: Uncategorized 

In a strange editorial decision, The Observer decided yesterday to dedicate its front page splash and nearly three full internal pages to research by the ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) which claimed to show that children and their parents are not only vicious and nasty but getting worse. The Today programme featured the same survey this morning. For the media to report the ATL’s claims so uncritically is lazy and reactionary.   

Twenty five years ago, when working for the teachers’ union NASUWT, I undertook a survey about pupil violence. We sent a questionnaire to every one of the 150,000 or so members and then analysed the responses. Of course, this is a completely unreliable method. Teachers who had experienced violence were much more likely to return the questionnaire than those who hadn’t. Not that this stopped us sending out press releases claiming ‘one in three’ teachers has been the subject of some kind of assault. The media lapped it up. I remember being in London and seeing lurid billboard headlines about classroom violence being out of control and only later realising it was my research that had justified the claims.

I’m sure the ATL research was somewhat more rigorous than mine – although there is no information about methodology on either union or media websites. But I still find the story highly suspect. Asking people whether they think things are ‘getting worse’ and asking them to give examples of bad experiences is a pretty hopeless way of getting a valid picture of reality. It is interesting that none of the coverage seems to feature statistics on actual reported incidents of assault or exclusion. I am pretty sure that data shows a gradual improvement in discipline.

As there is no powerful voice for parents or pupils there is no one to respond to the sweeping assertion that teachers are the victims of a tide of abuse and violence. There is no one to ask, for example, why it is that so many schools are still completely useless (neither interested nor effective) at engaging parents. There are no children to account for the times when hopelessly immature teachers make inappropriate and snide comments to pupils. There is equally no one to explain how powerless parents are when their child is being taught by a clearly incompetent or uncaring teacher.

The survey takes quite a low threshold for parental abuse so maybe I should hold up my own. My older son loves sport so when he had endured two years of virtually no organised activity at his inner city secondary school, I finally rounded on his head of PE about how his lack of commitment and imagination was denying kids the chance to do the one thing that gave many of them a sense of self esteem.

Which is not to say that there is a growing tide of incompetent, child-hating teachers. If anything, my sense is that teachers are getting better, parents are getting more useful feedback on their children’s progress and more schools are taking parental engagement seriously. Not that this would be the picture I would necessarily get if I asked parents to offer random examples of bad teaching or invited them in a questionnaire focussed on school failings to confirm ‘things are getting worse’.

Getting school discipline and relations with parents and guardians right is a challenge. Although some schools work in very difficult areas, the more schools put into positive parental engagement the more they get back. The ATL research tells us nothing except that there continues to be a strong seam of antipathy to children and parents in teachers’ organisations and that that the media will print anything as long as it reinforces the thesis which they are convinced sells their increasingly threadbare offering; namely, that society is falling apart because people like ‘them‘ (not us) are out of control.

  • Share/Bookmark

No related posts.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

10 Comments on Are parents and kids really that bad?

  1. Tessy Britton on Mon, 6th Apr 2009 3:23 pm

    2. Relationships between schools and parents are both delicate and vital to any school community. The tone and message from the ATL does not reflect an understanding of the immense importance of these relationships, but instead aims a universal criticism for an issue which is student, family and school specific.

    This type of reporting is unlikely to foster moderation and understanding between schools and families, without which everyone suffers … most notably the students and teachers.

  2. Joe Nutt on Mon, 6th Apr 2009 9:50 pm

    3. To answer your title question in all honesty Matthew, yes. One may seek the reassurance promised by more objective research, but if you do, then also acknowledge that such a thing is extremely rare in the world of UK education which is dominated by self-serving quangos producing pay-the-piper research, really not worth the paper it is written on. I know, I have to read it for a living.

    Or one can listen to the people actually on the ground. The headmistress, brought in by this government to turn around a south London secondary school for example, who told me, “The only reason any parent would ever visit this school is to abuse, or assault a teacher. We try to keep the kids with us as long as possible, for breakfast, after school, because they are better off with us than at home. If I could turn this into a boarding school tomorrow I would do it without hesitation.”

    What actually trapped my nerves about Mary Bousted’s article is her apparent assumption that teachers aren’t parents. Many members of the ATL, and the other teaching unions, are just as culpable as the parents she castigates. They have steadily relinquished their authority, academically and socially, openly empowering children through silly pretences like school parliaments, failing routinely to handle criminal behavioural in school in the way the law would handle it, and most damaging of all, failing to call foul on the constant imposition of easier exams. I would be more impressed by the ATL if they had said this 10, or even 15 years ago, when it really needed saying. But they were too busy baaing and getting affiliated to the TUC.

    Your own anecdote about your son’s lack of sporting opportunity, is indicative of the same professional weakness. Some months ago I was working on a BSF bid when an architect I was working with couldn’t wait to tell me about a London comprehensive school he had visited because it had this incredibly radical, and effective new way of teaching disaffected boys. “You know what they do,” he told me, excitedly, “they do sport every afternoon!” Bless him, I couldn’t bring myself to tell him that every boarding school in the country has been doing that, in some cases for several centuries because, guess what…it works.

    What the entire UK educational landscape desperately needs, is just a little bit of humility from those who have no idea what they are doing…just enough… for them to listen to those that do.

  3. matthewtaylor on Tue, 7th Apr 2009 10:02 am

    4. I agree Tessy. And see David Aaronovitch (and me) today – the ATL should be ashamed of itself.

  4. matthewtaylor on Tue, 7th Apr 2009 10:06 am

    5. Thanks Joe. Forthright as always. Although I’m not sure what you’ve got against pupil engagement (implied by your disparaging comment about student parliaments). In our Academy the student cpouncil oversee the anti-bullying strategy and it is having a real effect in reducing bullying and making sure those who are bullied get the support they need.

    By the way, the ATL research was even more dodgy than I feared (see my blog today)

    Matthew

  5. Why the ATL (and The Observer) should be ashamed of themselves | Matthew Taylor's blog on Tue, 7th Apr 2009 10:44 am

    6. [...] said yesterday that the ATL’s methodology for its attack on parents and children couldn’t possibly be as dodgy [...]

  6. Chris Gabbett on Tue, 7th Apr 2009 6:23 pm

    7. The paucity of genuine research within the article should not hide the very real concerns about the state of inclusion and education in primary and secondary schools.

    What the article fails to speak about in any depth is the link between this issue of parental support/challenge and genuine aspirational poverty. Anyone who has taught in schools deemed ‘challenging’ can talk a lot about the families considered poor who have a lot of material resources. The issue for so long has not been a lack of wealth, but a lack of real aspiration. This is inter-generational, attitudinal, and finds its expression in all types of anti-social behaviour from low level disruption in classrooms to student/parent violence towards teachers and schools.

    There are schools nationally that do a tremendous amount to effectively engage parents – but the rigour of that conversation is significantly lessened by a few factors. There is a genuine gap in understanding of what education can offer and what is required for success. There is also a need to consolidate the key standards and norms required for socialisation. That is – what is good behaviour? What is unacceptable interaction in a school? The key to bridging the deprivation gap lies within ensuring heightened expectations – and aligning social and behavioural skills more concretely with all other areas of school improvement.

    There’s no easy answer – but if there is one I think we can assume it won’t be found in the Observer.

  7. Joe Nutt on Tue, 7th Apr 2009 6:26 pm

    8. Pay-the -piper ‘research’ Matthew, the bane of my professional life! It is getting so difficult to find any kind of objectivity in the educational field.

    If I sound disparaging about pupil engagement it is because it is so very rarely genuine. I think you might be very surprised, for example, to hear the conversations that I suspect take place between staff after your Academy’s council meets. Ironically, ‘research’ into ‘pupil voice’ has pointed this out quite recently. It is a bit like telling an English class to write a letter which they don’t ever mail, or a business studies class to write a business case for something they will never manufacture. It’s OK, as long as you explain clearly to the children that it is a model exercise, but the value to the child just isn’t very high.

  8. Mike Amos-Simpson on Tue, 7th Apr 2009 11:13 pm

    9. I agree re. the research, seems like a very large industry churning out pointless dribble instigated by organisations requiring justification for their existence.

    Also agree that tokenistic engagement is not good, though I wouldn’t write off efforts to do it just because some do it badly because the aim should be for all to it well, not to not do it at all. I don’t agree its ok if you make it clear its a ‘model exercise’ – thats just laziness and a wasted opportunity.

    I saw an interview with a headteacher talking about violence she’d experienced as part of a news report about this and she explained how she’d been hit while splitting up (primary aged) children. Now who’d have thought you might get caught while splitting up scrapping kids?! I know very well that there are teachers who have faced very serious threats, abuse and assaults, but using that example doesn’t help with credibility of what kind of ‘violence’ is being reported.

  9. Modern ways to improve your IQ part 358 « A blog from the back room. on Tue, 14th Apr 2009 9:20 am

    10. [...] is driving out good. It’s past time to rebase the currency of reporting standards. See here, here, here, here and pretty much anything produced by someone with chips at the [...]

  10. Schools debate - must do better : Matthew Taylor’s blog on Tue, 5th May 2009 8:57 am

    11. [...] few weeks ago I attacked spurious and reactionary research from the ATL which clamed to prove that parents were becoming more irresponsible and hostile. Today, [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!