
Children raised by strict parents do better at school, but is that you? Take our quiz to find out
While parents of baby boomers gave little thought to how to bring up their kids, modern families are bombarded with advice and philosophies on nurturing their youngsters in a world where rapidly evolving technology is making the job much harder.
But the raging debate about the best way to do it, fuelled by a vast industry where the parenting app market alone is estimated to be worth over £500m, could finally be settled.
A new UK study which has tracked nearly 6,000 children for more than a decade has provided solid evidence about what parenting style is associated with the best outcomes. And the answer is: 'authoritative'.
By plotting the progress of children since the age of two, the research has concluded that authoritative parenting, typified by high expectations, stricter limits on behaviour and warm relationships, is more likely to yield higher academic scores and better wellbeing.
Researchers at the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) discovered that the approach produced better outcomes than 'permissive' styles where parents are engaged but discipline is lacking, as well as 'authoritarian' styles, where warmth is in short supply.
A challenge to the 'gentle parenting' phenomenon
Children raised in a household with an authoritative parenting approach were more likely to reach the expected standard in the reading, writing and maths tests at the end of primary school, even after taking into account variables such as parents' educational level, according to the report, published this month by the Department for Education.
'At Key Stage 1 [children aged five to seven], higher parental limit-setting was associated with a greater likelihood of children achieving the expected level in Key Stage 1 reading, maths and science,' researchers say. 'An authoritative parenting style, characterised by high responsiveness and high levels of psychological control and clearer parental limit setting was also found to have a positive impact on Key Stage 2 [children aged seven to 11] attainment.'
The findings of the Study of Early Education and Development (SEED) appear to be a direct challenge to the 'gentle parenting' phenomenon that has taken the parenting world by storm in recent years.
Social media is awash with influencers pushing the approach, beloved of millennials, which teaches that the needs of the child must come first and that raised voices and the word 'no' are verboten.
Taken to extremes, the approach can seem outlandish. Actress Mayim Bialik's children went nappy-free as babies. Bialik, star of the hit TV series Blossom and The Big Bang Theory, practised something called 'elimination communication' that involved trying to read a baby's signals, and following them around with a potty. Fellow Hollywood actress Alicia Silverstone, of Clueless fame, posted a video of herself on YouTube in 2012 feeding her then 11-month-old son, Bear Blu, by chewing food and spitting it into his mouth.
According to gentle-parenting advocate Sarah Ockwell-Smith, misbehaviour is 'a cry for help... It is a sign that all is not well in the child's world. But most of the behaviour-control methods used today penalise the child for having a problem, rather than trying to help them solve it,' she says in The Gentle Parenting Book.
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by Sarah Ockwell-Smith (@sarahockwellsmith)
Ockwell-Smith and other devotees argue that gentle parenting is a form of 'authoritative' parenting, and insist that it does involve setting boundaries, just ones that 'validate a child's feelings and employ kindness, empathy and understanding'.
But as gurus preach the gospel of 'respecting' your child, exasperated mothers who have given gentle parenting a go are reporting that, in practice, it might only work with 'gentle children', and that more feisty offspring are running rings round them.
As one frustrated mother of a three-year-old puts it: 'It's a distressingly short journey from validating a child's feelings to letting them cause mayhem in a supermarket.'
Critics claim that whatever the good intentions, in a fast-moving world where parents have little time to endlessly negotiate with their toddler, the gentle parenting approach has morphed into a permissive free-for-all and is spawning a generation of spoilt, entitled children.
Katharine Birbalsingh, founder of the hugely successful Michaela Community School, in north London, and known as the UK's strictest headteacher, is one of them. She has attacked ' middle-class gentle parenting ' for creating a culture where parents are more interested in being friends with their children than holding them to account.
Teachers argue that the impact of this approach in schools is leading to chronic disruption and misbehaviour.
'Young people are more sensitive to simple things like being moved away from a friend for being too chatty in lessons, almost as though they aren't used to consequences at all. There's an unspoken sense of entitlement,' says Nadeine Asbali, a secondary school teacher in London. 'When we give young children the impression their own feelings are superior, we create teenagers and young adults who are selfish and inward-looking and who believe they are exceptions to the rules.'
'What children want are boundaries'
Prof Vivien Hill, psychologist and programme director at University College London's Institute of Education, agrees that the real-world application of gentler parenting styles can run into problems.
'That child is going to be entering the world of school where a teacher has to be able to control and teach 30 children. Nobody has the capacity to negotiate in that environment,' says the academic, who is also a member of the British Psychological Society's Division of Educational and Child Psychology.
'There is nothing more irritating to a teacher than giving a pupil a quick direction to keep somebody safe and they ignore you or want to have a 45-minute conversation about the pros and cons of their preferred course of action. There is something about how that style of parenting translates into wider communities and certainly the world of education and schooling.'
Scaled up, that lack of discipline can bring a school to its knees. School 21, a free school in east London founded in 2012 by Peter Hyman, Sir Keir Starmer's senior adviser for education from 2022-2024, and Oli de Botton, who has just been appointed by the PM in the same role, was initially upheld as a shining example of progressive education.
It opened with one year group and was given a glowing first Ofsted report. As it grew larger, however, the wheels began to fall off. In 2023, it was judged as 'requiring improvement' by Ofsted inspectors who found lessons were 'too often disrupted by poor behaviour'.
According to the new head, Moray Dickinson, who is turning the school around after joining in 2022, behaviour at the secondary school was 'really bad'. Despite this, suspension rates were 'extremely low' and there were no permanent exclusions.
'There was a huge amount of lost learning in class. Teachers were at times frightened and they were not happy in their jobs,' he said. 'There were fights. And as a result of that, the expectations for behaviour were very low.'
His top-down approach which has 'tightened things up significantly' has just been rewarded by a 'good' Ofsted rating.
The head is adamant that establishing clear structures and limits on behaviour do not have to come at the expense of good relationships with pupils. As the NatCen research confirms, with its findings on 'authoritative' parenting, the key ingredients of warmth and stricter limits do not have to be mutually exclusive – in families or in schools.
'What children want are boundaries, but you don't have to be authoritarian to operate boundaries,' says Prof Hill. 'It is about knowing when to give them freedom to explore and do their own thing, but also knowing when they need boundaries. That should be being developed from birth through early years but it becomes essential in adolescence when getting it wrong can be quite catastrophic.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How AI is coming for our top guns
Like countless other schoolboys, Greg Bagwell dreamed of becoming an RAF fighter pilot when he grew up. Unlike countless other schoolboys, he actually did so – beating thousands of others in a selection procedure as stringent as joining the SAS. First, recruits must be fit enough to withstand pressures of 9G during flight – equivalent to nine times the force of gravity on the body, and twice what a bobsleigh crew or a Formula 1 driver endures. Second, they must be capable of complex maths to plot manoeuvres and missile trajectories. Third, they must be able to do all of the above while being shot at. 'Short of becoming an astronaut, there aren't many jobs that are as selective,' says Bagwell, 63, who flew Tornados in Iraq in the 1990s and is now a Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. 'You need the hand-eye co-ordination to fly at supersonic speeds, while also doing the maths that gives you the 3D shaping of the airspace. It's like being a Formula 1 driver while also playing chess; only you're having to make each chess move in split seconds while travelling at nine miles a minute,' says Bagwell. It is no surprise that air forces seek high standards in fighter pilots. Their jets are hugely costly, and are often the first responders in hostilities, be it military reconnaissance of Islamic State bases in the Middle East, or dropping a bomb. Tales of their skills are also the stuff of history books and movies, from Battle of Britain aces such as Douglas Bader to space pioneers like Neil Armstrong, who flew combat missions in Korea before his journey to the Moon. But in a combat arena where the slightest human error can prove supremely costly, the future may lie in removing humans from cockpits – with those like Bagwell replaced by AI-controlled pilots. Brink of extinction Such scenarios may sound like the script of Top Gun: Maverick, in which Tom Cruise's ageing air ace is warned that his ilk will soon be replaced by UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). 'Pilots need to eat, sleep, take a p--s,' sneers a tech-minded superior. 'Your kind is headed for extinction.' This is no case of Hollywood hyperbole: if anything, the Top Gun scriptwriters may be behind the times. For AI-controlled fighter jets are already holding their own against human pilots – as demonstrated in tests this summer carried by Helsing, a German drone maker and AI firm. In a collaboration last month with the Swedish fighter-plane maker Saab, two Gripen E combat jets engaged in mock dogfights over the Baltic Sea – one jet flown by a regular pilot, the other by a pilot guided by Helsing's Centaur AI software. While neither aircraft came out on top, Centaur gave its human counterpart a run for its money. Given the rate at which AI learns, it may be just a few years before it gains the edge. 'Right now, there are still pilots out there that will have a chance, but that will change fast,' explains Marcus Wandt, Saab's chief innovation officer, and a former fighter pilot. 'If you need to retrain for a new weapon system or new tactics, it will be difficult to stay on par.' Helsing was founded as a start-up by German tech entrepreneur Torsten Reil, an Oxford-educated gaming developer, and Gundbert Scherf, formerly an aerospace expert with the German ministry of defence. Their motivation was Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014, which they saw as proof that Europe needed to harness 'autonomous capabilities' to survive against aggressive dictatorships. Having been proved all too right by the war in Ukraine, Helsing has become one of Europe's biggest start-ups, making advanced air and sea drones. Such unmanned weapons have proved game-changers in Ukraine, helping to keep Russia's far bigger army in check, crippling Moscow's Black Sea fleet, and destroying dozens of Russian bombers recently at an airfield in Siberia. Helsing is now valued at more than £10bn, with Spotify founder Daniel Ek's investment company having led a £500m funding round in June. The age of drones The firm's success has already led some to question whether Western governments should even continue investing in manned fighter aircraft. Britain, for example, is purchasing 12 new US F35-A fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear bombs. The F35 is the world's most advanced fighter jet, yet is still built around the concept of a human at the controls. Last year, the Tesla boss Elon Musk described the F-35 as a case of Western militaries training for yesterday's war. He posted an image on X of a Chinese drone swarm, saying: 'Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.' He added: 'Manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones…Will just get pilots killed.' Defence officials argue that planes such as the F-35 take decades to design, and that AI is still too much in its infancy to design an entire plane around. But Helsing put on a recent demonstration of Centaur's skills at the Global Air & Space Chiefs' Conference, a top-level military and industry forum in London hosted by the RAF. On a flight simulator set up in a hotel suite next to the conference centre, two former 'Top Guns' – ex-Tornado pilot Stewart Campbell and ex-French Mirage pilot Benoit Planche – fought two Centaur rivals in 'beyond visual range' combat. This is when the enemy jet is too far away to see, but still within missile and radar range. That sort of military engagement makes success more reliant on computing heights, trajectories and speeds, to maximise the chances of a missile finding its target. The projectiles have limited fuel time, so if a pilot doesn't fire them at the most opportune moment, the target may dodge or outrun them. 'We want to hit the enemy before they hit us, which means we're running maths in our head constantly about heights, speed, loft and so on,' says Campbell, who left the RAF this year after serving in Afghanistan and the Red Arrows. 'Ultimately, I think you're going to see AI take over because it can do those calculations far better than I can.' Campbell also points out that, contrary to the impression given in films, the average fighter jet has limited weaponry. His simulated jet has just four air-to-air missiles – fewer than the number of bullets held by the average revolver. 'I can't just fire with impunity; I need each shot to be lethal,' he points out. 'The chances of the AI getting it wrong are much less – especially if you're a stressed-out junior pilot, being shot at in a part of the world you're unfamiliar with,' he adds. AI advantages The Centaur AI pilots honed their skills on a simulated platform where they were given a simple reward function: 'Kill the other aircraft and don't die.' They then played each other constantly, absorbing the equivalent of more than 100 years' flying time in a few days. The process is broadly comparable to Deep Blue, the IBM supercomputer that took on – and ultimately defeated – chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov in the 1990s, evaluating 200 million chess positions per second. In last week's demonstration in London, Centaur won some of the battles while the pilots won others. Campbell admits, though, that AI also offers other advantages. 'From a risk point of view, you've not got a human being in that cockpit. Nor are you paying a pension or its healthcare.' A running theme at the conference was the risk that AI could creep up, like a stealth fighter jet, on an unwieldy defence establishment. Several speakers suggested that unmanned AI jets could be operational by 2040. 'The F-35 is the best fighter around today, and will be for a good while yet,' says Prof Kenneth Payne, an expert in strategic studies at King's College London. 'But AI will be able to do what human pilots can well before the next RAF fighter comes into service. 'We need to think seriously about whether that aircraft needs a cockpit,' he continues. 'Some leading AI figures think it will surpass human-level intelligence at many, even most, tasks within a few years. I don't think enough people inside defence are taking that seriously yet.' The RAF's next fighter will be the Tempest, a joint British-Italian-Japanese venture due in service by 2035. It is expected to offer both manned and unmanned options, although Bagwell seems unconvinced that pilots will be dispensed by then. 'A manned platform can do all kinds of things, from dogfights and escorts through to intercepting an airliner and looking into the cockpit to see if there is a hostage situation. There isn't a machine that exists today that can do all those things,' he says. 'In combat scenarios, planes will also be flying into deeply hostile airspace, with jamming, spoofing and other attacks on connectivity. If you lose that, you may still need a human being in the loop.' 'Besides,' he adds, 'I spent all my life as a pilot being promised stuff that never quite meets the glossy brochure. And in life-and-death situations, where a pilot might be trying to stop a missile attack on the UK, are we happy to put 100-per-cent trust in machines?' 'Our time is done' Others, of course, argue that the very act of flying requires putting 100-per-cent trust in a machine, and that the whole trajectory of combat aircraft has been away from the reckless 'barnstormer' image of the last century. Indeed, in a memorable article about a tour of a US Air Force base in 1969, the hellraising journalist Hunter S Thompson mourned the demise of the 'daredevil, speedball' flying ace. Today's pilot, he wrote, was a 'supercautious, supertrained, superintelligent monument to the computer age'. In that sense, AI pilots may simply be the next logical step – if not taking over entirely, then flying certain missions deemed too risky for humans. And much as men such as Campbell may still represent the elite, for now, he accepts that the Top Gun legend could be about to end. 'When I joined the Royal Air Force, I was told that a time would come when fighters wouldn't be in the cockpit,' he says. 'Ultimately, when we fight a war, we want to win, and if AI becomes capable enough to win, then I accept that our time as pilots is done.'


Reuters
31 minutes ago
- Reuters
AstraZeneca's rare immune disorder drug succeeds in advanced trial
July 24 (Reuters) - AstraZeneca (AZN.L), opens new tab said on Thursday its experimental therapy, gefurulimab, met the primary goal and all secondary endpoints in a late-stage study aimed at improving symptoms of a rare autoimmune condition that affects muscle function. The therapy reduced the severity of generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG) in adults and improved functional activities, when compared with placebo at 26 weeks, the drugmaker said. In the study, patients' bodies also produced antibodies that attacked a type of protein on the nerves, disrupting communication with muscles. Generalised myasthenia gravis is caused by an abnormal immune reaction in which the body mistakenly attacks itself, weakening the skeletal muscles, especially those controlling the eyes, mouth, throat and limbs, leading to fatigue, difficulty swallowing and breathing. "Rapidly fluctuating symptoms and the unpredictable disability associated with gMG can affect nearly every aspect of a patient's life, making early intervention and sustained disease control a critical treatment goal," said Kelly Gwathmey, principal investigator of the trial and a neurology professor. Gefurulimab is designed to be self-administered as a once-weekly injection under the skin, offering patients convenience. It works by inhibiting the activity of the C5 protein, which triggers the body's immune response. Current gmG treatments include Argenx SE's ( opens new tab Vyvgart Hytrulo, J&J's (JNJ.N), opens new tab IMAAVY, and AstraZeneca's own rare-disease therapy Soliris, which brought in sales of nearly $2.6 billion in 2024. The Anglo-Swedish drugmaker said it plans to share data from the study with health regulators. AstraZeneca, the UK's largest-listed firm by market value, is targeting $80 billion in annual revenue by 2030, and has plans to spend $50 billion to expand manufacturing and research capabilities in the U.S. in the same period to aid that goal.


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
DIY health tests relied on by thousands could be delivering false results and putting lives at risk, major study reveals
Many DIY tests for the likes of high cholesterol, vitamin deficiency, fertility and prostate cancer are not fit for purpose, a study suggests. Researchers examined tests that patients can buy in supermarkets, pharmacies and shops which they then use at home. They found the checks risked giving users the wrong result and could delay diagnosis. Most of them recommended following-up with a doctor regardless of the result, prompting experts to question the point of using them in the first place. Scientists from the University of Birmingham are now calling for much tighter regulation of the sector, adding that the NHS may face additional demand after patients self-test. They said: 'In the absence of guidance from healthcare professionals, individuals might use tests inappropriately or without a clear understanding of the implications of the results. 'False positive test results can lead to unnecessary anxiety, increased healthcare usage, and additional costs, whereas false negative test results may delay appropriate treatment or engagement with screening programmes. 'Test errors can stem from inherent limitations in the accuracy of the test, as well as user-related issues such as sampling errors, incorrect processing, and difficulties in interpreting the results.' However, the team said that in the future home tests could have great potential for patient care. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said it would look at the findings. Self-testing is becoming increasingly popular and the UK market for self-tests is expected to reach £660million by 2030. Overall 30 self-tests costing £1.89 to £39.99 were included in the study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The tests covered 19 different conditions, including vitamin deficiency, blood sugar levels, cholesterol, thyroid function, prostate health, HIV, menopause and bowel cancer. Researchers said only eight of the 30 tests provided information about who should or should not use the test, while four specified the presence of symptoms. External packaging on fewer than half of the tests (14) included any statement about their accuracy. Meanwhile, 90 per cent of the tests recommended following up with a healthcare professional if results were positive or abnormal, while 47 per cent recommended this if the outcome was negative. Accuracy claims were made for 24 of the tests, including in pamphlets, and most (58 per cent) claimed a performance of at least 98 per cent accuracy, sensitivity or specificity. However, the researchers said evidence supporting accuracy claims was largely unavailable or did not provide sufficient information for people likely to purchase the tests. Professor Jon Deeks, from the University of Birmingham, said: 'A plethora of new health self-tests have emerged in recent years and are available to buy from many high street supermarkets and pharmacies in the UK. 'While these kits have been approved for sale, they are not subject to the same stringent regulations as pharmaceutical products. 'Our recent research raises concerns about the suitability, accuracy and usability of many of the self-testing products available that require users to sample, test and interpret results themselves. 'In some cases, it is unclear how accuracy claims are supported, and there is no requirement of manufacturers to share the evidence behind these claims.' Professor Deeks said the UK is looking at a 'new world' when it comes to self-testing, but there is more work to do to show claims made were robust. He said much of the literature contained with tests was 'not easy to understand', while some of the results could lead to a 'wrong diagnosis'. In one example, he said the self-tests for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, a marker of prostate health, were fixed at a certain concentration level. However, he said this depended on how old the patient was, adding 'if you're age 70 you need to have your PSA done at a very different level to when you're 20'. Professor Deeks added: 'Current regulations for the use of self-testing kits in a commercial setting are not adequately protecting consumers.' Dr Clare Davenport, clinical associate professor at the University of Birmingham, said: 'The wide range of off-the-shelf tests now available to the public are not endorsed by the NHS and evidence for their benefit is lacking. 'This is in contrast to well-established self-tests, such as pregnancy tests. 'We are worried that consumers concerned about their health and tempted by the convenience of buying a test over the counter may be harmed if they use these tests in the wrong way.' A spokesman for Suresign, which provides three of the self-tests studied, said: 'We find this blanket condemnation of a small range of home tests available to be unreasonable and unprofessional, since they admit they are content with many of those examined. 'This is not a clinical approach to a highly scientific subject. 'We are content our tests give the public access to healthcare screening not easily available with the NHS at the present time.' Joseph Burt, head of diagnostics and general medical devices at the MHRA, said the regulator is 'overhauling the medical device regulations to further strengthen standards'. He added: 'In the meantime, we strongly encourage anyone using a self-test to check for a CE or UKCA mark, read the instructions carefully, and seek medical advice if they're unsure about their result.'