In Search of Equal Opportunity

This week, the Labour Party conference called for the abolition of independent schools. I do not intend to launch into a defence of our sector as I sense that I would be preaching to the converted. I am more interested in analysing the logic behind the proposal. Schools like LGS are seen by some as being responsible for inequalities in society, and therefore if we did not exist, all children would have equal opportunities in life. Leaving aside the obvious point that you do not raise educational standards by abolishing some of the best establishments, the argument ignores all the other factors that contribute to children’s academic achievement, not least the support for education provided by parents. The value that parents accord to education is evident from the day a child is born. It is ludicrous to suggest that children start their formal schooling on a level playing field and that it is from this point onwards that schools such as ours start to inculcate privilege and entitlement. If we are serious about increasing opportunity for those from the most challenging socio-economic backgrounds, we need to have a coherent plan to support these families from birth.

In The Times on Tuesday, I read an excellent letter from Chris Pratt, author of ‘Building a Learning Nation’, a book that points out the flaws in thirty years of national education policy. Mr Pratt pointed out in his letter that “the quality of (the) home environment is the most significant influence on children’s educational success, far more than the type of school they attend.” For some time, my observations of society have drawn me to the same conclusion. One can confer considerable advantages to children through how one interacts with them in their early years. When I walk through the centre of Loughborough, I can’t help but compare parents who are talking to their toddlers in their pushchairs about the world around them, whilst others, glued to their screens, leave their progeny in silence. When it comes to diet, there are parents who are determined to insist on a healthy balance while others succumb too easily to their children’s reluctance to experiment.

I don’t want to make this into an argument about class. Ignorance may play a part: a lack of awareness of what constitutes good nutrition is a widespread problem these days. Similarly, do all parents understand how important it is to talk to your children? However, it’s also a question of parental moral fibre. There are plenty of parents without great material comforts who manage to bring up their children to eat well, to understand right from wrong, and to value hard work. Equally there are wealthy parents who are too busy or distracted to pay attention adequately to their children’s needs.

We cannot ignore, however, that what happens before the age of five years old determines much about a child’s future. Children learn in these early stages by imitating the adults and older siblings in their lives. Therefore, we have to be the adult that we would like our child to become. If you smoke, they will probably do so. If you read books, ditto.

Parents from any background need determination to insist on appropriate standards. With a toddler, parents have to decide to what extent they hold the line on how healthily their child eats. As children start to push back against their parents, decisions have to be made about whether to give in to the child’s wishes, or to persist with the rules that are being questioned. I get more than a little cross when it is suggested that it is the role of schools to solve all social ills: reduction of teenage pregnancy through sex education; teaching children about healthy eating; reducing the excessive use of technology. Yes, we play a role but there must be a partnership between school and parents if we are to succeed. I read recently that “half of parents want mobiles banned in school”. As you know, I am sure that our ban has been beneficial to school life, but I am concerned if these parents think that a ban in school means that their parenting duties can be neglected once their child returns home each evening. Are these same parents the ones who have bought such large data bundles that their children can stream video non-stop? Have they turned off their WiFi at night? Have they insisted that their child hands in devices before bedtime so that there is no temptation?

Being a parent is undoubtedly hard. We cannot afford to be our child’s ‘friend’. We can never forget that we are the adult in the relationship; a parent who empathises and devotes time to the family, but who is also prepared to have difficult conversations and who is not afraid of saying ‘no’.

The welfare state (in its broadest sense) ought to be there to catch those who suffer the disadvantages of birth. When my children were small, we lived in Luton, a town with some significant pockets of deprivation. My wife and I ended up selecting a nursery for our children in one of these areas, after a tip-off. It was superb and succeeded in involving entire families, educating not just the rising-fives, but parents as well (many of whom spoke only a little English). While my children had all the advantages of well-educated parents with above average income, Hart Hill Nursery fulfilled a vital role in its community of raising aspirations and reducing disadvantage. However, the chances of benefitting from such outstanding provision are regrettably a postcode lottery, particularly as the country’s finances get ever tighter. The blame for educational inequality does not lie at our door. If we really want to make a difference, the answer is to invest in family support services from birth, since, by the time a disadvantaged child arrives at secondary school, the die is cast.