Diminishing parental responsibility is damaging our schools and our children's futures

The following was a phone conversation between a teacher and a parent of a child who should have been attending a workshop that had been organised but the child had failed to attend.

Teacher: Good morning, this is Ms Riley from Westchester School. Rashid is supposed to be attending a workshop that’s been organised for the students in his Geography class but he isn’t present.
Parent: Oh (said nonchalantly). Does he need to be there?
Teacher: Yes. Rashid’s signed up for the workshop and letters were sent home to parents advising them that students would need to attend today.
Parent: I didn’t get a letter. Couldn’t you have sent a text message? Rashid said the rest of his group weren’t going so he didn’t need to be there.
Teacher: No, he needs to be there…

And this was a conversation between a teacher and a parent at parents’ evening.

Teacher: Derek’s comprehension and his ability to engage with other children and contribute in class has become a concern. His understanding of basic instructions and information is very limited, even when spoken to in his home language, and it’s affecting his interaction with other children and his progress. Does he talk much at home?
Parent: Yeah, he talks at home.
Teacher: OK… that’s good. We need to encourage him to talk, and it’s fine if he’s talking to you in his home language, as that’ll help him with his confidence and his comprehension. Ask him questions about his day, about books he’s read…
Parent: (sighs and rolls eyes) Boss, I don’t have time to talk to my kid…

In both instances, all names and personal details have been changed. Nonetheless, these are based on real and recent examples with real parents and real teachers and they aren’t isolated instances. Instead, they are a sign of the lack of engagement and diminished parental responsibility that is increasingly present in some of today’s parents.

The shift of a parent’s responsibility being pushed onto schools and teachers, the acceptance and nonchalance towards a child’s lack of responsibility (because handing a letter to your parent is so arduous that teachers should instead send a text message) and the unwillingness to communicate with your child (one of the biggest determinants in younger children acquiring knowledge and broadening their vocabulary) all feature in sections of today’s parents. And it’s damaging our children’s futures and their attainment in school.

Firstly, it’s important to acknowledge that being a parent is not easy. For those who are parents in today’s society, the distractions upon children, and the demands upon parents, exacerbate that task in a way that yesteryear’s parents would not have had to deal with. The altering in the traditional balance of influence and control from parents to children also makes modern parenting a challenge. Essentially, society has impeded some parents from effectively parenting their children in this skewed change in dynamic.

Secondly, for anyone reading this and assuming that poor parenting and a lack of importance placed upon education is exclusively a feature of parents from lower socio-economic groups, you’d be wrong.

Poorer students and their families, particularly those that are from immigrant communities, are often much more appreciative of education because of the opportunities they know it affords them in life. As a result, education, teachers and their efforts are revered by these students and their families (this was certainly the case for my peers and I). Therefore, I don’t seek to make any sweeping judgements or reinforce erroneous stereotypes here. To do so would be folly, impossible and wrong. Rather, both the parents who fulfil their responsibility, and those who don’t, come from a range of backgrounds and not respective homogeneous groups.

The success of a school, and of its students, depends on a number of factors. Furthermore, achieving that success and how it’s measured is becoming increasingly difficult (and well-discussed on iamalaw). However, in the truest sense of success (of nurturing and encouraging the social, emotional and academic progress of students in an environment that never loses sight of their well-being), government policy, teachers and school leadership would be the typical responses to who or what can make or break this. Yet what about parents?

Parents bridge the gap between school and home. Just as teachers build upon the successes of a child’s home life, parents are positioned at the other end of this reciprocal relationship of building upon the successes at school. It seems obvious but it’s a given that’s lost on some parents and indeed some schools in their efforts to engage parents.

If at home a young child is read to and listened to reading daily, and conversed with in constant exposure to language, their orthographic store (our long term memory from which we retrieve all the words that we’ve learned to date), comprehension, knowledge and proficiency as a reader will progress far more rapidly than a child who is only exposed to these experiences at school. Similarly, this gives a child an appetite and positive attitude for learning that will put them in good stead for life. Sadly, an astounding number of parents feel that they need not play any role in supporting their children in such crucial early stages of their education let alone subsequently.

For these parents, sending their children to school is the extent of their required effort. They’ve fulfilled their end of the bargain and now it’s down to the school to teach their child everything they need to know without any input at home. That isn’t to say parents should undertake the role of a teacher but encouraging their child and instilling an attitude for learning and value for education is part of being a parent.

For some parents, it gets worse and school is ultimately a childminding service. An opportunity to be free of their children in an environment where they’re absolved of all responsibility. Again, I’m sure some might read this and with Daily Mail tinted glasses envision it to refer to ‘working class parents of broken Britain’. Wrong. Many middle class parents do exactly the same as school enables them to get on with their other priorities in life that clearly supersede their children. Indeed, they often go further as they have the means to extend that via clubs and endless tutors that maximise the time their children aren’t in their presence and minimise the responsibility they feel they need to assume.

There are of course many good parents who despite the never-ending duties of a parent, ensure that their child is on the right path. They foster the right attitude and behaviour within their child from young and support their child in whatever way they can while equally supporting the school. That includes supporting schools in their behaviour policies when a child has been been issued a sanction.

With older children, it can merely be ensuring homework is completed, words of encouragement and direction and support of the school within a home environment where education is valued. Conversely, the absence of that can make all the difference to a child’s attitude to education and their life opportunities because of it. These measures don’t cost anything and aren’t demanding on parents’ time either. Nevertheless, they can make a significant difference to a child’s attainment and the success of a school.

It isn’t just all about academic progress either. A child’s mental, social and emotional growth and well-being is arguably more important and depends as much on their parents as their teachers. If a parent is disinterested in their child’s life, that growth and well-being is going to find itself limited.

Parental engagement in schools can make the difference between a bad school and a good school and a good school and great school. Plenty of research supports the notion that parental engagement has a huge impact on attainment and behaviour. This isn’t just the attending of parents’ evenings and school performances and functions. It’s also being invested in your child’s learning and progress and sharing that goal with the school.

If you take two schools with similar cohorts in communities of similar socio-economic and even ethnic composition, both could be doing exactly the same in the way of teaching and additional programmes and support for students. Although if they have different outcomes in attainment and perception within their respective communities, it’s going to be down to the impact of parental engagement. And the school that has further engagement will yield improved results.

While I feel there are a lot of question marks over free schools, parental engagement is an asset that those set up by community groups driven by parents have from the start. The schools aren’t necessarily doing anything different from other school operating within the local education authority but they’ve embedded a culture that other school aren’t always afforded (though their supporters won’t concede that it’s that simple). The same goes for academies that have started schools from scratch or taken over schools where ensuring parental engagement is a priority.

Schools too need to do better in engaging parents. Most parents want to be involved and supportive in their child’s school life and their education. But if they aren’t given the opportunity, and where applicable the guidance to do so, then they can’t. School’s can’t lament the lack of engagement from parents if they aren’t providing the direction to achieve it.

The lack of parental responsibility that exists in today’s parents is a worrying trend that doesn’t bode well for children’s futures and is impeding attainment in schools. It’s also at risk of creating adults that project the same attitude which in turn becomes perpetual in subsequent generations.

To the large number of parents that provide the positive influence and direction required for their children, they deserve huge kudos for raising the bar in an already tough job of parenting. And for those who aren’t even aspiring to that, they’re letting themselves and their children down in an easily avoidable manner but with woeful consequences for their children's futures.

I like the Queen but the monarchy is an outdated institution

When I think of the monarchy, I’m perplexed as to how it’s managed to experience such longevity in an age of otherwise social progression. Should monarchies ever become consigned to history, they’ll surely be studied with intrigue and incredulity. I can see exam questions and dissertations of the future questioning why societies never considered the suitability of a monarch for the position amidst centuries of democracy where leaders that actually ran the country had to be elected. Or the inexplicable rationale for how even in times of great austerity, monarchs and their families continued to live lavish lives that were funded by the public.

Surely the attire of a monarch will add to future commentators’ confusion for how we didn’t see anything wrong with monarchs wearing jewelry-adored crowns and attire where the jewels had been violently pillaged from other countries in the name of their ancestors. If monarchies do come to an end (and I think they eventually will), history will surely ridicule the generations that permitted them to occur.

It’s probably apparent that I’m not a monarchist. However, I must admit that I actually like the Queen. She comes across as a figure who isn’t quite aware of just how out of step her position as a monarch is with modern society but nevertheless, it’s a role she appears to take very seriously.

The maternal connection the Queen has to the UK, and indeed the other colonies and former colonies for which she remains head of state, has been palpable throughout her time as Queen. Indeed, when America invaded Grenada in 1983, I suspect the Queen would have privately been incandescent with rage given her role as head of state of Grenada.

During the global mourning for Princess Diana, whom the Queen was said to not be fond of, the Queen’s tribute to Princess Diana showed a human side. It also displayed her maternal relationship with the nation in acknowledging their grief and seeking to bring comfort as their monarch.

Similarly, I’ve got a lot of time for Prince William and Prince Harry, the latter especially. Prince Harry seems like he’d be good value on a night out and a decent guy to have in your circle. Not to mention, his decision to join the army, and his tours of duty, give him more credibility than most monarchs are afforded in their role as head of the armed forces. Yet both princes seem strained with the realisation of just how outdated the monarchy is despite it being a life they’ve been born into.

And what of the rest of the British monarchy? Prince Charles might be well meaning (if not sometimes misguided on the restraint a member of the monarchy should show in matters for elected representatives) and Prince William’s family do present a warmer side to the monarchy. But beyond the aforementioned, I see nothing but individuals who are living a life of privilege for which they haven’t done anything to deserve. And this is the crux of why I feel the the monarchy is outdated.

We tell children that they can be or do anything they want to as long as they work hard at it. Well what about being part of the monarchy? Unless you marry into the royal family (what a wonderfully modern route to enter an equally modern institution eh?), I’m afraid not. And if you’re an ethnic minority, working class, openly homosexual or of any group that would be frowned upon as being part of the establishment, your chances are practically non-existent. Is that a system that we should be allowing to continue in a time when equality should be championed in what is supposedly (but isn’t) an egalitarian society?

I also can’t remain ignorant to the fact that slavery and colonialism is intertwined not only with the British monarchy but also the riches and pomp that the monarchy enjoy today. Their continued privilege is derived from the brutality, rape, violent theft, dehumanising and psychological destabilising of the black diaspora; an experience that continues to impact black people and the the states and nations from which we originally came.

As a black man, I would be both irresponsible and in denial to ignore this in my perception of the monarchy. I don’t think the Queen is racist or justifies the campaigns waged against the former empire in the name of her ancestors. Nonetheless, I do think said history is put down to a regrettable past that isn’t considered in the context of the impact that it has today. The same goes for other diasporas that were subject to British colonialism. Their past and present woes can be traced back to actions carried out in the name of the British monarchy and this isn’t something we can ignore.

Recently, it was announced that Buckingham Palace is due to undergo ‘essential’ refurbishment to the tune of £369 million. ‘Essential’? Someone is surely having a laugh here. I appreciate that the palace is old and probably does need upgrading but it’s one of several residences the Queen has and at such cost, it’s impossible to justify.

Every aspect of the public sector and public expenditure is subject to sharp austerity but Buckingham Palace is having £369 million spent on refurbishment? We’re in the midst of a housing crisis in the UK with an acute shortage of social housing especially, and the Tory government is willing to spend public funds on the royal household. It tells us what we already know about the Tories. But the fact they felt this was OK reinforces the baffling and archaic inequality represented by the monarchy.

I’m sure the Tories wouldn’t defend the genuinely essential work necessary in many social housing properties with the same passion. Though we already know they don’t care about the proletariat in the way that they protect the interests of the monarchy and the establishment. Spending such an amount on Buckingham Palace against a backdrop of such austere times, and the royal family already being in receipt of public funds (and their own private funds), is ludicrous and you’d need to be incredibly ignorant to think otherwise.

The argument that the monarchy brings in much needed revenue to the UK is one that I’ve always been dubious of too. Certainly, they are a tourist attraction but without the monarchy, the buildings and history would still be there and the tourists will still come.

In contemporary history, the monarchy has modernised in not taking a role in matters that should rightly be reserved for elected representatives. Consequently, the Queen effectively rubber stamps legislation and royal assent (when the Queen agrees to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament) is little more than this. I’m sure the Queen is very au fait with the work of her government and feels a sense of great responsibility in giving royal assent. Although as a figure that is effectively an apolitical observer, the effectiveness of the role she plays in this capacity has to be questioned.

With the Queen’s relationship with other heads of states, her apolitical role also limits her ability to use her position to speak out or in favour of regimes in conversations that she could add her weight and influence to. And as the Queen rows back on her public engagements, her relationships with other governments may become even less relevant.

I don’t want to see the Queen, a seemingly nice woman in the twilight of her life, made to feel unwanted in a role that she’s held for most of her life. That said, when a new monarch assumes the throne, it’d be timely to begin the dialogue around how outdated the monarchy is. We need to ask if it’s an institution we can justify as relevant, necessary and in keeping with what should be a modern society based on meritocracy; not arbitrary claims rooted in an often ugly yet celebrated history.

Boxing needs the casuals but not their undue influence on the sport

In what to most boxing fans was a routine defence of his IBF belt, Anthony Joshua stopped Eric Molina in round 3 of their fight. In contrast to the absolute barnstormer that preceded it in Dereck Whyte vs Dillian Whyte, Joshua vs Molina was one sided and somewhat embarrassing as the so-called main event. The Manchester Arena was likely mostly populated with Joshua fans who otherwise take little interest in boxing and besides Joshua, may not even follow other boxers. Nevertheless, they buy tickets, PPVs and therefore make boxing a more marketable sport.

As a boxing fan, I recognise the need for said fans to make boxing a commercially viable sport. But this group of casual fans (typically known as the ‘casuals’ within boxing circles) are responsible for fights like Joshua vs Molina not receiving the disdain it should do. It’s yet another hollow defence by Joshua against a fighter who didn’t represent a credible challenge (amidst the already slim pickings of credible heavyweight fighters that could be deemed as world class).

A deal to fight Wladimir Klitschko, a former champion until he lost his belts to Tyson Fury in 2015, seemed to be on the verge of being signed for Joshua. Based on Klitschko’s performance against Fury, it’s clear that Joshua’s team were banking on Father Time having called on Klitschko. Indeed, he represented less of a risk than he would have prior to taking the L at the hands of Fury. Nonetheless, Klitschko was still a live opponent and respected name in boxing circles.

The story of that fight wasn’t written before either fighter had stepped in the ring and Joshua and his team knew that. Conversely, possibly with exception of his fight against Dillian Whyte, every one of Joshua’s opponents to date have been against handpicked fighters that were selected to pad Joshua’s record and protect his ‘0’. Hence the fight with Molina continuing that trend.

I’ve gone on record as saying that I think Joshua is a good prospect. Although the more he fights lacklustre opponents, the less likely he is of fulfilling that and the more likely he is of being exposed when he finally meets a bonafide contender.

Returning to Joshua’s actual fights, why hasn’t he received the opprobrium that was eventually met by his fellow Team GB boxing gold medal alumnus, Audley Harrison? By this point in his career, Harrison was getting booed out of the arena after every fight while Joshua seems to have staved off any criticism. Harrison too fought opponents that presented no risk but Joshua, to his credit, gets his opponents out quicker and in more impressive fashion than the borefests that Harrison’s fights descended into. Joshua also has the hype machine of Sky Sports and promoter Eddie Hearn behind him that could convince the casuals that a fight against a wet paper bag was a potential banana skin for Joshua en route to unification fights.

Herein lies the problems with the casuals. They provide demand and acceptance for fights that shouldn’t be accepted and aren’t good for the sport. They will happily part with their cash to pay for a Joshua PPV that actual boxing fans will scorn because we know how poor a match-up it is. Yet without their support, the sport of boxing arguably wouldn’t be as commercially healthy as it is now.

Boxing is flying high. Eddie Hearn has taken it as close as it’s been to the levels it experienced when it was a regular feature of Saturday night terrestrial television and boxers were household names. The heavyweight champions of the world were recognisable and transcended boxing even with sections of the public that didn’t like the sport. Despite David Haye’s popularity, not since Lennox Lewis has a heavyweight champion been so recognisable outside of the sport as Anthony Joshua is today. That is no bad thing for Joshua or the sport and we have to attribute it at least in part to the casuals.

There’s no doubt that there are some annoying casuals. With their sycophantic yearning of Eddie Hearn to retweet and repost their photos of their tickets for Matchroom Boxing events or photos of their televisions showing they’ve ordered the PPV, they’re an irksome nuisance on my timeline. On the other hand, some casuals are just casual fans who while not having more than a superficial interest in the sport, want to enjoy a night of boxing without having to pledge their allegiance as hardcore fans. And we shouldn’t lambaste them for it either.

I’m undoubtedly a casual fan to some sports where I just don’t have the same level of interest as I do in boxing and other sports that I actively follow. I’m happy to be a casual in other sports in that regard and I don’t claim my interest to be anything beyond that.

The casuals aren’t going anywhere as long as there are promoters and broadcasters that realise that boxing is a business and not just a sport. The casuals are what make boxing a viable business and they’re needed unless we want boxing to become a fringe sport. When you look at the job that Dana White has done with UFC, you realise that many of their fans are really fans of the atmosphere generated by their events and of big name marque fighters rather than being a concentration of hardcore MMA fans.

Even watching McGregor’s recent WWE-esque theatrics at the presser for UFC 205 shows that McGregor, clearly an astute businessman, realises how to maximise his audience and fanbase to include MMA casuals. And while I don’t want boxing to descend into that, it’s the direction it’s going in with fighters like Dereck Chisora already looking to up the ante on UFC.

Promoters need to acknowledge that while the casuals form part of boxing’s fanbase, there is no credibility without the hardcores. Not catering to core fans will cause the sport to relinquish its credibility as fans become disillusioned. The casuals often can’t see past the mesomorphic build and effortless KOs (because of the lack of quality opposition) of a Joshua or the snapchat videos of high workrate working the bag (which tells us little as the heavy bag can’t hit back) of a Eubank Jr. And that attraction has little validity upon which to determine who the stars of the sport should be let alone how they should be perceived.

We need the casuals in boxing and we should make them welcome without allowing their presence to influence what isn’t right for the sport. Boxing is a business. But after all, it’s still the hurt business.