Elton (1989)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Contents, Foreword, Membership, Summary
Recommendations
Chapter 1 The enquiry
Chapter 2 The nature of the problem
Chapter 3 Teachers
Chapter 4 Schools
Chapter 5 Parents
Chapter 6 Pupils
Chapter 7 Attendance
Chapter 8 Police
Chapter 9 Governors
Chapter 10 Local education authorities
Chapter 11 Government
Appendix A Written evidence received
Appendix B Witnesses
Appendix C Visits
Appendix D(i) Teachers and Discipline Part I
Appendix D(ii) Teachers and Discipline Part II
Appendix E Selected bibliography
Appendix F Behaviour policies

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1989
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 5 Parents
[pages 133 - 141]

1 We recognise that educationalists are more likely to read this report than parents. We have therefore considered whether it would be sensible to direct any or our recommendations towards parents. We concluded that not to do so would suggest that parents have no independent power to influence their children's behaviour. This is clearly absurd. Parents are the first educators. They play a crucial part in shaping their children's personalities and attitudes. They continue to have a powerful influence over them throughout their school years.

2 Parents are not the only influences in these years. We highlight the importance of classroom and school factors in chapters three and four. Other children are also an important influence on behaviour. But an essential ingredient is the establishment of an effective working partnership between parents and schools. This point is emphasised in evidence sent to us by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations (NCPTA). The partnership can only become real if parents accept that they have a duty not only to send their children to school but also to encourage them to behave well when they get there.

3 Our evidence suggests that teachers' picture of parents is generally very negative. Many teachers feel that parents are to blame for much misbehaviour in schools. We consider that, while this picture contains an element of truth, it is distorted. We note in chapter four that there is considerable scope for misunderstanding between teachers and parents. It also seems clear that there is a small minority of parents who cannot or will not provide appropriate guidance for their children and who are positively hostile to schooling. We are convinced, however, that the vast majority of parents share and support the aims and values of the schools to which they send their children. In this chapter we suggest ways in which that support can be realised.

RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD

4 We believe that socially responsible parenthood is particularly crucial in the first five years of a child's life. Parents must do everything they can to help their children relate cooperatively to adults and to other children. They must also do their best to encourage their children to develop the attitudes and values on which both school and society are based. These include self-respect, respect and concern for others, self- discipline and moral qualities such as truthfulness and honesty. Some aspects of bringing up children may be instinctive. Others must be learned. Our impression is that, whereas many parents are highly skilled in guiding their children towards adulthood, others are less so. A few seem not even to recognise the need for such skills at all.

5 Our evidence indicates that many teachers are experiencing problems with children who have great difficulty in relating to each other or to adults in a cooperative way. Most of these pupils are boys, but the number of girls in this category is not insignificant. These children seem to use verbal and even physical aggression as a substitute for other forms of communication. A number of submissions to us suggest that this kind of behaviour is becoming more common among young children. We have been told that some of the children now entering nursery and reception classes lack the basic social skills needed to talk to and play with other children. A recent study of disruptive behaviour in primary schools has drawn attention to the use of aggressive behaviour as a means of getting the teacher's attention, particularly by boys (Steed and Lawrence 1988). Our survey also highlights the concern felt by many primary teachers about aggression by pupils towards one another.

6 We are aware of research findings which link antisocial and aggressive behaviour to the quality of children's upbringing and family relationships (eg West 1982). Research evidence also suggests that children who present serious behaviour problems in school are likely to have experienced either neglect or rejection or a combination of both. It also suggests that children's capacity to feel and show concern for others is influenced by the degree of concern shown by their parents for them. Guidance and support in the home seem to be key factors. One study found that the most violent boys were likely to be those whose parents' response to their behaviour was one of two extremes, either permissive or punitive (Lefkowitz 1977). Neglect can be expressed through permissiveness, and rejection through physical punishment. We were told by teachers at schools we visited of parents who seemed to ignore or even encourage their sons' aggressive behaviour towards other children. We were also told of parents whom schools were reluctant to contact when their children misbehaved. Teachers knew that a complaint to these parents would lead to a severe beating for the child and probably result in more bad behaviour in school. Other parents were reported to treat their children in unpredictable and inconsistent ways - sometimes kind, sometimes cruel, sometimes indifferent.

7 We have emphasised the importance of teachers modelling the behaviour they expect to see in children. This is even more important for parents who are presenting models of behaviour to children from their earliest years. Many of our correspondents commented on the poor models of behaviour presented by some parents, including verbal and even physical aggression towards each other.

8 When it comes to the reasons suggested for irresponsible parenthood, our individual correspondents can be very roughly divided into two groups. The 'tough' group believe that the parents of pupils who behave badly tend to be irresponsible, immoral and hostile to the values represented by schools. The 'tender' group believe that these parents tend to be so distressed by factors such as marital breakdown and poverty that they bring up emotionally disturbed children who behave badly in school.

9 We believe that, while both views contain valuable insights, each has serious limitations. The 'tough' view rightly emphasises parents' responsibilities for bringing up their children properly, and the need for them to make conscious decisions to do so. We consider that it overestimates the extent to which parents and schools disagree over fundamental values, and underestimates the effects of family stress. The 'tender' view highlights the real problem of family stress, but comes dangerously close to absolving parents from any responsibility for their children's behaviour by suggesting that some have been rendered incapable of positive action.

10 We use the term 'family stress' to cover both the emotional and material problems from which families can suffer. Such problems can interact with one another. They include marital discord, poverty and bad housing. We are concerned in this report with the effects of these problems, not their causes. The government Statistical Service's publication Social Trends (1988) includes figures which suggest that the incidence of family stress has increased over the last two decades. The increase in the divorce rate is well known. The 1985 rate was more than double that in 1971. The number of single parent families has also increased from about 3% of all households in 1971 to about 5% in 1985. Child poverty also seems to have increased. In 1971 22% of the poorest households contained children. In 1985 this proportion had risen to 30%. The increase in the number of new clients registered by the Samaritans is an indicator of distress which we found particularly striking; it rose from about 90,000 in 1971 to just under 400,000 in 1985. The largest single group of clients were women aged 25 to 39.

11 Research evidence seems to show that the majority of persistent absentees from school live in very poor material conditions. We discuss this further in chapter seven. The material circumstances of pupils involved in seriously disruptive behaviour seems to be more varied. A detailed study of pupils who had been excluded from secondary schools in Sheffield found that, while half of them lived in council accommodation, just under a third came from owner-occupied homes (Galloway 1982). Emotional tensions within the family seemed to be a more important factor. The mothers of excluded pupils were interviewed. Nearly half had symptoms associated with depression or anxiety.

12 We do not believe that family stress absolves parents from their responsibilities for bringing up their children properly. But it would be unrealistic to assume that all families are equally well placed to discharge those responsibilities. Some need more help that others.

13 Schooling is disrupted by selfish and aggressive behaviour. We have suggested that the kinds of bad parenting which encourage such behaviour are characterised by permissiveness (neglect), harsh punishment (rejection) or inconsistency (a combination of both). We have also suggested that children are more likely to behave in this way if their parents do.

14 Our evidence suggests that the way in which some boys are brought up causes particular problems in schools. Some parents tolerate or even encourage aggressive behaviour. In some cases, parents telling boys to 'stick up for themselves' seems to mean that they should attack other children and defy teachers. We were concerned by the extent of this behaviour brought to our notice in the primary sector. This kind of aggressiveness should have no place in schools. Our evidence also suggests that parents who respond aggressively to their children's aggressive behaviour are likely to aggravate rather than reduce the problem.

15 We recommend that the government, LEAs, governors and headteachers should consider means of impressing on parents that the way in which they bring up their children is likely to have a significant influence on their behaviour in school. Parents should recognise the need to: (R68)

15.1 provide firm but affectionate guidance in the home, which is most likely to produce the attitudes on which good behaviour in school can be based; (R68.1)

15.2 ensure that they set a good and consistent example to their children by their own behaviour; (R68.2) and

15.3 avoid permissive or harshly punitive responses to aggressive behaviour, particularly by boys, which can encourage attitudes which are incompatible with schooling. (R68.3)

17 It seems clear from our evidence that some parents lack the skills necessary to bring up children in a socially responsible way, and that this is affecting standards of behaviour in schools. But parenting skills can be learned. We believe that the education system can help to reduce this problem by providing systematic preparation for adult life including parenthood. We believe that pupils of both sexes should be introduced to the values and skills involved in good parenting, and that schools should aim to identify and cultivate the adult attitudes which form the basis of responsible parenthood. We recommend:

17.1 that the Secretaries of State should ensure that education for parenthood is fully covered as a cross-curricular theme in the National Curriculum; (R69.1) and

17.2 that governors and headteachers should ensure that education for parenthood is fully covered in school personal and social education programmes. (R69.2)

LONE PARENTS

19 It has been suggested to us that the increase in the number of single parent families has in itself caused standards of behaviour in schools to deteriorate. The wide variety of causes for lone parenthood, and the differing ages of the children involved, makes it difficult to generalise. However, the quality of family relationships seems to be a more important influence on children's behaviour than the number of parents. The poverty factor cannot, however, be discounted. Single parent families are much more likely to be poor than families with two parents.

20 We are aware of evidence from the USA that vocational training packages which provide for childcare can be successful in lifting lone parents out of poverty. The government's scheme of Employment Training (ET) for the unemployed provides a childcare allowance for lone parents. Applicants for the scheme need to be registered as unemployed for at least six months to be eligible. When planning ET the government recognised that this was difficult for many lone parents because without childcare they were not available for work, which is a condition of registration. It relaxed this restriction for lone parents with children of school age. We welcome this development and urge lone parents to take up the training opportunities offered by ET.

BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS BETWEEN HOME AND SCHOOL

21 In chapter four we discuss the barriers that exist between schools and parents, and some of the ways in which they can be broken down. We emphasise the importance of good informal relationships between teachers and parents and discuss what schools can do. Good relationships will not, of course, develop if parents do not take up the opportunities for contact and cooperation offered by schools. We therefore recommend that parents should take full advantage of all channels of communication made available by schools and develop good working relationships with teachers in order to help their children to become constructive members of the school community. (R71)

22 Formal links between schools and parents also exist. Others could be created. In this chapter we consider three types of link. They are: PTAs, parents' evenings and annual parents' meetings. We also consider the question of parental accountability for their children's behaviour in school.

Parent-teacher associations

23 PTAs aim to bring staff and parents together for regular meetings, social events and collaborative projects such as school fairs. The NCPTA, in its evidence to us, describe how such events and functions can also help to develop a sense of community and encourage parents to take a greater interest in the education of their children. But they also note that many associations still limit their activities to fund-raising. Although many schools have PTAs, some do not. The School Matters study found that having a PTA was no guarantee of good relations with parents. The existence of PTAs in the sample schools was actually associated with lower standards of work and behaviour. There seem to be two reasons for this. First, PTAs can be used by schools as a substitute for good relations with parents. Second, they may be dominated by a small group of enthusiasts who are not typical of the parent body as a whole. They may, for example, have more time to spare or be more articulate. The result often seems to be that staff spend a considerable amount of time talking to this small and unrepresentative group while the majority of parents feel excluded.

24 These findings do not, however, lead us to conclude that PTAs should be discontinued. On the contrary, they are potentially useful organisations which should be improved. We consider that parents themselves must take action to improve them. Activities should, for example, be planned to happen at times and in places convenient to most parents. Particular efforts may need to be made in schools serving communities which are mixed in terms of social class, ethnic or cultural origins. We believe that more representative PTAs, whether operating at school, class or tutor group level, would provide better informal opportunities for staff and parents to discuss pupils' behaviour. We therefore recommend that parent-teacher associations should ensure that their activities are accessible and rewarding to as many parents as possible. (R72)

Parents' evenings and meetings

25 Attendance at parents' evenings varies greatly from school to school. Although they are traditional in all schools they often do not attract the parents that teachers most want to see. There is much that schools can do to maximise attendance but parents must respond positively to these opportunities to discuss their children's progress.

26 Annual parents' meetings, at which the governing body presents its annual report to parents, were introduced very recently (1987). Traditions of attendance have yet to be established. In chapter nine we recommend that the governors' annual report should cover pupils' behaviour and attendance. We believe that regular discussion of these issues at annual parents' meetings should be helpful to schools, but only if that discussion is responsible and constructive. References to individual teachers and pupils should be avoided. Alarmist statements can have a very damaging effect on the morale of staff, pupils and other parents.

27 We believe that parents' evenings and meetings are important channels of communication between schools and parents, and that high turnouts for such events can contribute towards realising the ideal of partnership. We therefore recommend that parents should make every effort to attend parents' evenings and annual parents' meetings. (R73)

PARENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

28 In chapter four we suggest that schools should consider the use of written agreements with parents to reinforce their behaviour policies. We have received a number of submissions suggesting that, in cases of the most serious misbehaviour such as major damage to school property or violence towards staff, parents should be made legally liable for their children's acts. We consider the question of attacks on school staff in chapter 10. Our survey indicates that teachers do not see damage to school buildings or equipment as a particularly widespread or a serious problem. We are, however, impressed by the strength of feeling behind calls for greater parental accountability.

29 We consider that there is a need to increase parental accountability for their children's behaviour. Scope exists within the present law. It could be extended by new legislation. The issues involved are complex and need careful consideration.

30 The law covering damage to school property by pupils can be summarised as follows. Causing such damage may be an offence under criminal law, a 'wrong' under civil law, or both. It is a fundamental principle of English law that a person can only be held liable for his own criminal acts. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is set at 10. Most primary pupils cannot therefore be prosecuted for a criminal offence. Almost all secondary pupils can. If they are, section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (as substituted by section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982) places a duty on courts to order parents to pay any fines, costs or compensation imposed, unless the parents cannot be found or this would be unreasonable in the circumstances. The courts also have power to order the payment of compensation to the victim of a crime, either instead of or in addition to imposing a fine.

31 The two possibilities for change would be lowering the age of criminal responsibility and making parents liable for the criminal acts of their children. Our evidence suggests that, while there is some concern about destructive behaviour in primary schools, the majority of incidents which might warrant criminal prosecution occur in the secondary sector. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility would have implications far beyond schools. We are not convinced that the severity of this particular problem in the primary sector justifies such major change and we do not recommend it.

32 We consider that the indirect penalties which can be imposed under section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provide adequate parental accountability for criminal offences committed in school by children aged 10 to 16. Headteachers and LEAs will need to consider whether to press for criminal prosecution in particular cases. We discuss this further in relation to attacks on staff in chapter 10.

33 There is no minimum age of civil responsibility. A child of any age can be sued for damages. However, the child will not normally have the means to pay damages and the parents will not be liable for them, since the normal rule is that a person cannot be held liable for a civil wrong committed by somebody else. The major exception to this rule is the liability that employers have for the wrongful acts or omissions of their employees, committed in the course of their employment. This is called vicarious liability.

34 As regards civil wrongs, we consider that there may be a case for extending the principle of vicarious liability to make parents liable for any injury or damage caused by their children's wrongful actions in school. There is no civil law equivalent to the provisions of the criminal law which relate to parents, and the change suggested would be a development from an existing legal principle. We do not underestimate the difficulties involved in doing this. Vicarious liability is not a simple concept which can be easily applied in a new context. Legislation would be required to introduce it, and its implications, particularly those which extend beyond education, would need to be studied very carefully. The economic viability of civil actions in this context would also be an important consideration. If the claim made by LEAs or governors against parents was less than the limit of the small claims court, which currently stands at £500, costs would not be awarded. Such action might only be worthwhile in cases involving much larger sums. A more economical approach to less serious damage would be to act through the criminal law by prosecuting the child in the juvenile court and seeking a compensation order against the parents. Bearing in mind these complications, we recommend that the government should explore the possibilities for imposing on parents civil liability for their children's acts in school. (R74)

35 In some cases punishment may not be the most constructive response. We would encourage the government to consider how, in suitable cases, the courts could provide for family counselling as an alternative to damages, fines or other punitive measures.