There was no special emphasis on ‘need’ in that paragraph which is why I didn’t put it in bold or italics. My ideal system does not rely so heavily on parent participation that it would fail without it. Most parents already do many of things I mentioned to facilitate learning as well as other things like reading, playing games, researching on the internet, help with homework etc etc… I was merely saying that as a general rule parents should make the effort to be involved with their child’s education by being aware of what they are studying and helping to facilitate that learning, which is pretty much what is expected of us now, and I would argue that the parents who do take the time are the one’s that are giving their kids an extra shove in the right direction.

On your point about disabled parents, parents who are so physically or mentally disabled that they are unable to visit a gallery or museum would be entitled to support to help look after their children. Of course the examples I made were just that and there are many other ways that support can be provided with learning.

On your final point about accident and illness, no system can be prepared for every possible outcome, however, perhaps we could direct some of the resources to ensure these children get all the opportunities they deserve.

I believe in equal opportunities for all children and my post wasn’t meant to segregate anyone other than those parents who are too bone idle to invest in their children. As I mentioned I have lived on what would be classed as the lower rungs of the social ladder, on the ‘Free School Meals’ that figure so heavily in governement stats, so the last thing I want is a class tiered education (although that’s what we have with private schools).

I want to become a teacher myself, and although I think our education system has some strong areas, I believe there could be lots of improvements which was supposed to be the main theme in my article.

As a parent myself I think my involvement in Erin’s education is crucial and I hope it will make all the difference in the end.

I think the point that you have highlighted is that there are children out there with parents and I’m mostly thinking about parents who are alcohol/drug dependant (there will be others, ME sufferers?) who should benefit from a larger chunk of the resources to afford them the opportunity to do the activities I suggested, perhaps a weekend learning club once every two weeks which can incorporate excursions etc… This could be a workable idea. Your thoughts?

The kids of those parents who aren’t willing to be involved are in no sense of the word responsible for their parents’ irresponsibility. Yet, if they don’t learn they are likely to have bad outcomes in their own lives. For example, every survey I have read of literacy in prisons show far greater rates of illiteracy amongst prisoners than amongst the general population. As a taxpayer, I want the education system to serve everyone including those whose parents are incapable or irresponsible. An education system where “parents need to be more involved” is a failed education system in my opinion.

When I talked about disabled parents, I specified parents who couldn’t take their kids round to all those activities because of their disability. Saying that most parents with disabilities can take their kids around doesn’t answer my point.

I’m glad you agree that fear of illness or accident should not be enough to put parents off having kids. So what do you think should happen to those kids who have parents who, due to illness or accident just don’t have the time to be involved in their kids’ education? If you advocate an education system where “parents need to be involved” you’re sending those kids up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Firstly I believe every child deserves and has the right to an education regardless of their background and I have never said anything to the contrary. What I did say is that parents need to be more involved.

Many disabled parents are perfectly capable of escorting their children on the activities I mentioned, which, for the record, were just examples.

I happen to know that life does not always work out the way we would wish. I was brought up in a one parent family for the most of my childhood, my mum worked three jobs and we lived on the bread line becoming homeless more than once. I also have crohn’s disease so I understand what it’s like not to be able to do all you want with your child/ren.

I think you take it to the extreme when you suggest that I am saying people shouldn’t have kids for fear of what might happen, and in my post I was specifically talking about those parents who aren’t willing to sacrifice their time, no mention of illness, accident or other.

For the record, not one of my relatives lives within 400 miles of me, my husband and I manage on one main wage, I care for Erin full-time, I do a part-time job and I’m studying at college, so let’s just say I know what it’s like trying to juggle life and all the demands, yet I still think I’m right in saying that parents have a duty to their children to spend time nurturing and teaching, I didn’t say how much time because that will vary from family to family.

And what happens to the kids of those people who have kids anyway despite your advice? What happens to the kids of parents who are disabled and unable to take them around to museums, galleries, and other appropriate activities? Are schools to be set up only to tend to the children of responsible parents? Personally, as a taxpayer, I want all kids to be educated, not just the ones lucky enough to have good parents.

Plus, how nicely do you think life works out? I recently read a book by a woman whose husband suffered a major head injury as the result of an accident. They had two kids. This woman’s life was flat out for some years:
1. Her husband could no longer work. So she was working full time to supply the family income.
2. Her husband couldn’t do any housework. So she was running the house.
3. Her husband couldn’t take care of the children. So she was doing all the childwork.
4. Her husband needed help with his therapy. He also had a variety of behavioural problems that just took up time (like following her around the house and then standing in doorways and stopping her from going by).

People have bad times in their lives. Should this couple never have had kids because of the possibility that one of them might have an accident? Or should you only have kids if you are part of an extended family that can step in all the time? Not just harsh, but bloody harsh I’d say. In fact, I’d go further and say cruel.

I REALLY, REALLY appreciate folks who have the courage to speak honestly. Thank you. This entire argument comes back to the family unit, doesn’t it? Schools can’t be fixed until families are fixed.

But anyway, when yoy qualify you’re gonna change all that and restore my faith in teachers now aren’t you