The state is a pretty rotten parent

Before the state goes any further in its attempt to make the rest of us better parents, maybe it should take a look at what is going on in its own back yard. One of the current billion-dollar policy questions is how to create the perfect parent - that mythical creature who will help to solve myriad social and education problems ranging from antisocial behaviour, lack of respect and underachievement to poor discipline in the classroom.

But how realistic is a nation of perfect parents and carers? Should we settle for "good enough" to define a role that involves a range of practical techniques and complex emotions? Some adjectives do recur in the research about effective parenting: warm, loving, supportive, consistent and authoritative without being too punitive.

And most parents are doing a "good enough" job. However, the number of vulnerable families needing interventions from the state, much of which will now be delivered through extended schools and children's centres, is growing. At its core are the 65,000 children for whom the state already is the "corporate" parent.

The new obligation on schools to give admissions priority to children in care is an important breakthrough, assuming all schools play by the new rules. But if you are a child in care, getting into the right school is only the start of a long journey, during which your corporate mum and dad may continually let you down. Your chance of success will probably depend on where you live, as the achievements of care-leavers vary dramatically across the country.

Then there is the shortage of foster carers, which means you may be moving around a lot, changing schools. Your new parents - and indeed your teachers - may lack confidence in how to support your learning and lack the therapeutic techniques needed to bring out the best in you if you have been chronically neglected, abused or bereaved. You may also lack the crucial role modelling that is the key to aspiration and motivation, which many "good enough" parents provide.

And you will struggle to get your voice heard. Even young people with stable home lives are rarely heard in the great education debates, but it is harder for looked-after children. They are often not warm and cuddly enough for the media and, if the opportunity arises, there is risk attached to speaking out against a system on which they depend. When they do speak out, the same themes recur: dreams and aspirations are often met by low expectations and a patronising response, usually along the lines of "be realistic and get a job".

At the higher education stage, the problems for care-leavers can get worse. Nowhere to go in the holidays, no one to turn to when the money runs out, constantly having to fight for extras other students take for granted. There is even something called the "no bin bag" campaign, which calls for care-leavers to be provided with suitcases so they don't have to carry their possessions around in bin liners.

Less than 10% of looked-after young people get five good GCSEs; only one in every 100 get to university, and a quarter of adults in prison have had a spell in care. Judged by any objective criteria, the corporate parent must be deemed a colossal failure when it comes to education. If the looked-after sector as a whole was a school, it would have been shut down by now (or replaced by an academy and lavished with investment).

So before the state goes any further in its attempt to make the rest of us better parents, maybe it should take a look at what is going on in its own back yard. A corporate body probably can't show love and warmth in adequate supply, but those other touchstones of "good enough" parenting - support, consistency and authority - should be readily available. And the rest of us should be shamed into supporting the corporate parent, putting its children before ours if need be.

Fiona Miller
11 July 2006

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/columnist/story/0,,1817221,00.html

home / Previous viewpoint