In loco parentis

Many women gave up work, or worked part time, while their children were young. Being a stay-at-home mum was considered an important job. These days, the Government
regularly trumpets the increase in the number of women in the workplace. But one consequence is that parents are less likely to be at home with their children.

Many of my friends could take an extended period off work when they had babies. Their family income levels meant they could work part time, or give up work, before their children were older. They sent their children to pre-school for the social aspects. But many on lower incomes do not have this luxury - funded childcare must feel almost like a demand that they 'get back to work asap'.

As the number of funded childcare hours increases, settings are being asked to take on responsibilities once those of parents. We must get children 'ready for school'. Last year, Sir Michael Wilshaw criticised the sector for not doing this properly. The implication seems to be that, since parents are busy working, settings must take over jobs such as toilet training.

Of course, settings must work in partnership with parents - we want to do the best for our children and their families. We are there to support children's health and well-being, as well as their learning. It is great that women who want to continue their careers can do so, and that more men are taking on the role of stay-at-home dad. But the danger of taking on so many parenting jobs is that we end up infantilising parents; we engender a sense of 'learned helplessness'.

Some parents interpret the message as 'Don't worry, we'll do that job for you'. Others feel patronised. Drawing the line between a sensitive intervention and an inappropriate intrusion is not easy. And soon, solving all of society's ills becomes the job of educators. The latest statistics show a rise in childhood obesity; no prizes for guessing who'll be asked to solve that one.