Parents face up to your responsibilities

They say some of their charges have been disrupting lessons by singing in class, marching into lessons they shouldn't be in, running through the corridors, and generally being a nuisance at Agnes Stewart C E High School in Leeds.

Their union, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, says unless action is taken within the next two weeks it will ask them to vote on whether they want to ban teaching the most unruly pupils.

I know teacher-bashing can be something of a national pastime.

They get six weeks' summer holiday a year.

Another training day for goodness sake, they're never there.

You know the sort of thing.

But I'd hate to be a teacher in circumstances like these.

How on earth can you try and do the job with such phenomenal odds against you?

Thankfully, in Worcestershire we may have the odd bad apple or two but they're the exception rather than the rule, I understand. Can you imagine anything more soul-destroying than waking up each morning mentally preparing yourself for the sort of classroom battle these Leeds teachers face?

But what's the answer?

Surely parents need to be playing a major part in solving this one unless they consider this behaviour acceptable, of course.

I was listening to a colleague of mine just last week as she detailed the fit of temper her four-year-old daughter threw over some minor irritation to her otherwise comfortable little life.

The wilful pre-schooler "acted like a wild animal, kicking and screaming and had to be hauled across the road and the few yards into her home.

My colleague was most anxious to ascertain she hadn't behaved like this while at nursery school and then set about thinking up a suitable lecture and punishment.

I won't have it, she barked. She's not going to behave like that just because something hasn't gone her way. I don't want a rude brat for a daughter and she can kiss goodbye to her Tweenies advent calendar and tonight's karate lesson.

Admittedly, the bad behaviour had not affected her school performance it was carefully timed to occur outside the gates but surely the principle is the same. After all, this little darling is due to start school in January.

There are standards of behaviour for children of all ages which are intolerable. And it's up to parents to instill this in their offspring.

Imagine the four-year-old hadn't been admonished? Would she then turn into the sort of yob who's making everyone's lives a misery at the Leeds school?

It may seem an extreme comparison but surely some proportion of bad behaviour can be traced back to instances like this where there's a danger that leaving it unchecked can store up future trouble.

It's time SOME parents took responsibility and stopped offloading their inadequacies and problems on to others while shrugging their shoulders.

A hassle over the homework

PRIME Minister's son Euan Blair hit the headlines yesterday when it emerged the Ministry of Defence was enlisted to help with his homework.

Apparently, his mum Cherie Blair sought Whitehall help for the 17-year-old to prepare for a debate at London Oratory School, where he's deputy head boy, on the subject of nuclear deterrence.

Downing Street was quick to stress that she had only been seeking information which would be available to any member of the public.

But a field day was about to be had.

Various critics questioned the use of public resources, whether it had been a waste of tax payers' cash and the use of influence to gain information.

In one newspaper, the story jostled for attention with the war on the front page.

Others gave it fairly high prominence in the early pages.

I'm sorry, but they've all missed the point.

Why is a 17-year-old getting his mum to do his leg work?

He should have been asking for the information himself and I don't see anything wrong with trading the family name.

He might have been told in no uncertain terms his approach was unacceptable, but initiative and a certain amount of brass neck never did anyone any harm.

Mobiles: Do they really need them?

THERE'S a spate of mobile phone robberies at the moment and Worcester, while no way a rival for the likes of Birmingham and Bradford, has had its fair share.

Schoolchildren appear to be the main targets, as attackers sometimes not much older than their victims - snatch their handsets.

If you're lucky, no violence is used, but on many occasions chattering children have been threatened with weapons or physically assaulted.

I heard one radio station last week carrying advice for these young crime targets. It went along the lines of urging fashion-conscious youngsters to perhaps "make do" with a mobile phone that isn't top-of-the range- less attractive to potential muggers. And they need to be a little more wary of what's going on around them as they diligently send text messages oblivious to absolutely anything else.

Oh please!

Here's a much better piece of advice: Don't let children have mobile phones.

They don't need them.

Why on earth do parents want to encourage their children to spend so much time with their ears or fingers glued to the damn things?

Not very many years ago children managed to walk round the corner and talk to their mates - now they phone them.

They also managed to get through an entire evening without texting LH 4 goss.

What is the point of mobile phones for a generation of kids notoriously reluctantly to enter into conversation? Couldn't we build their communication skills better by encouraging them to enagage in face-to-face conversation?

And don't give me the "It's for an emergency" line because how many attackers do you know who'll hang on a moment so their would-be victims can call for help?

Gadgets and peer-pressure may be a heady combination but some old-fashioned common sense will better equip our children for the big wide world.