
Absentee students should make us ask, what is school for?
The family has been threatened with fines and then, if they get three, a parenting order or prosecution. I guess I can sort of understand the government thinking here, but it's the same sort of thinking that leads someone to open a bottle by smashing it against a wall, isn't it? Or fix a paper-cut with staples. The term the school uses to describe the difficulty kids like my friend's daughter face is 'emotionally based school non-attendance'. It's a term that's evolved over time, rarely fully describing the anxiety at its core. When I was at school it was called truancy or delinquency. Before that perhaps it was just 'laziness', more recently 'school refusal', but all these terms have obscured the mental health needs of the young person, instead implying blame or bad parents or a kind of moral weakness. The truth is, for people like my friend's kid and the thousands like her, school is a place of fear and despair. I read my friend excerpts from the report ('Absence and suspensions are two-thirds higher than they were pre-pandemic') and she sort of sighed and said, sometimes, 'yep'.
There's a ragged kind of anger that you hear when talking to the parents of children like hers – I heard it in the voice of Anna Maxwell Martin, who spoke on Woman's Hour recently about her daughter. She objects to the term Send (which stands for 'special educational needs and disability') when discussing children like her daughter, who require extra support, preferring 'individual needs', which would require 'active listening to the child in front of you'. Instead of schools prioritising exams and valuing results, she argued they should be making children feel they have worth, that their fears are understood, and that they're being listened to. 'I want to see all schools be inclusive and compassionate by design,' she said, 'rather than reacting only once children have reached a crisis point.' What helped Anna Maxwell Martin's daughter eventually get back to school was not the threat of 'cruel and idiotic fines', but instead, she said, 'kindness'.
Because low school attendance is a symptom of the problem, an expression of something deeper, sometimes a confession. The reasons why young people aren't going to school today often involve a messy combination of neurodiversity, anxiety and poverty, though this is an issue that straddles class divides. A parent of a 'school refuser' in the Telegraph wrote soon after lockdown that many people thought 'These children come from so-called 'feckless families'… Once, I'd have thought the same myself. But within that statistic [are people like their daughter], a bright girl with professional, well-educated, middle class parents who couldn't care more.'
The solution is clearly not simply to fine these children, or forget them. Suspensions and exclusions are up by over a third in a single year, despite the fact that removing these kids from the education system destroys their opportunities. When the consequences include (says a contributor to the report) 'Rising mental health issues, youth violence, and risks to national growth,' not to mention what ignoring vulnerable children says about us as a society, they impact everyone. After years of struggling with her child's reluctance or inability to go to school, my friend has found herself regularly pausing, mid-cooking dinner, mid-Zoom meeting, mid-changing her baby, and considering what school is for.
Young people in England today are learning in the schools that Michael Gove built. But whatever you think about his curriculum or focus, the world has changed immeasurably since 2010. Those leaving at 16 or 18 are unlikely to be expecting secure work when they emerge into the adult world, and for many of them university is increasingly out of reach. Perhaps our ideas about skills and success need updating. Is the point of school still, for example, to train for work? Is it a place to learn how to think, or how to create society, or discover yourself? Last month, Professor Becky Francis, who is chairing the government's curriculum review panel, said children need to be better equipped for the 'challenges of the future', with the Daily Mail reporting her plans to 'dumb down' the curriculum by learning more about 'climate change and AI'. The horrors!
My friend (waiting for another work meeting to begin) idly sketched out for me what a modern school might teach her child. 'They should learn about their bodies and how to communicate pain. They should learn how to feed themselves, to cook, to grow food. They should learn history and art and, instead of maths, how to understand money and budgets.' She paused. The thing she really grieves, with her daughter staying home, is not that they might fail their exams or miss the chance to learn a language, but, the chance to discover what they really love and, she said, to 'Learn how to live.'

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


The Guardian
25-07-2025
- The Guardian
There is a dangerous disconnect: on Gaza, politics no longer speaks for the people
It was meant to be a cosy conversation about cooking and new motherhood. But BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour took an unexpectedly bleak turn on Thursday morning, when the chef Yasmin Khan turned suddenly tearful in the middle of promoting her new cookbook, saying she couldn't talk about her own struggles to breastfeed without mentioning the mothers in Gaza unable to provide for their literally starving babies. It was a striking illustration of how far this medieval horror has broken through, bleeding across the everyday lives even of people who don't usually follow politics. You don't have to know anything about the Middle East to understand what those newspaper pictures of emaciated children, with their drawn little faces and heartbreakingly visible ribs, mean. This is what famine looks like, right down to the return of Bob Geldof, begging the world to act just as he did 40 years ago at Live Aid. Except this time it's no natural disaster, but what the World Health Organization calls a man-made mass starvation: the chillingly avoidable consequence of an aid system forcing people to choose between risking their lives for a bag of flour, or dying for lack of one. More than 1,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces while seeking food in Gaza since May, according to the UN. Médecins Sans Frontières says even its staff, lucky enough still to be earning salaries, are now going hungry: there's almost nothing left to buy in the markets. The newswire Agence France-Presse spoke of watching helplessly as its Palestinian freelancers, who have risked everything to get news out of Gaza when foreign journalists can't get in, become too weak to work. Meanwhile, back in Britain, people who want to see arrests for war crimes read instead about clampdowns on pro-Palestine activists. That ministers have been quick to empathise with the frustrations of a very different crowd protesting at the housing of asylum seekers in hotels merely adds salt to the wounds. Labour MPs are openly desperate now for their government to do something more than issue dramatically worded threats of future action that never quite materialises. Even cabinet ministers are publicly lobbying for the formal recognition of Palestinian statehood while (in the words of Wes Streeting, who could easily lose his marginal Ilford North seat over this war) there's still a Palestine left. Recognition would be a largely symbolic act of solidarity, which in itself would do little to fill hungry bellies in Gaza. But ministers' problem is that there seems increasingly little reason for not doing it now: the longstanding argument that this prize should be saved for the right moment, to help unlock progress towards a two-state solution, made more sense when the two-state dream wasn't being actively crushed in front of us. But perhaps the real plea here is for Keir Starmer to recognise the country he actually leads. After the horrors of the 7 October 2023 massacre, there was broad acceptance that Israel could not be expected simply to sit back and do nothing. Even a year into what was by then a highly divisive war, YouGov found that more than half of Britons still felt Israel had been justified in going into Gaza. But critically, only 14% felt its use of force there was proportionate. Sympathy has drained away as Israel's war of self-defence began to resemble first one of vengeance, and then something darker. In language no former Israeli prime minister uses lightly, Ehud Olmert has described a proposal to corral Palestinians into a settlement on the ruins of Rafah and prevent them leaving as in effect a 'concentration camp'. More than half of Britons now favour financial sanctions like those slapped on prominent Russians over Ukraine, or suspending arms sales. These arguments are now mainstream, cross-party – the veteran Tory MPs Kit Malthouse and Edward Leigh made passionate cases in parliament this week for recognising Palestine – and driven not by the kind of creeping antisemitism Starmer was quite right to confront in his own party, but by what people see every morning, scrolling through their phones. David Lammy's rhetoric is already about as strong as a foreign secretary's can get – this week he condemned Israel's 'inhumane' and 'dangerous' new aid system, and what he called 'settler terrorism' in the West Bank – and many Labour MPs suspect he'd privately like to go further than the sanctions and restrictions on arms sales he listed. But Downing Street is said to be wary of getting ahead of Donald Trump at a crucial stage in ceasefire negotiations (with Israel's parliament going into summer recess, relieving some pressure on the minority government of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, it's hoped there is a window for a deal). Britain has always argued that our influence over Israel is best magnified by synchronising efforts with the US, and though the chaos of this White House makes that harder, Trump's is still the only voice Netanyahu really hears. Yet while everyone prays for that ceasefire deal to be done, a dangerous gap is opening in Britain between parliament and people. A year into power, Starmer is increasingly adept at foreign policy, but much less so at handling the emotive domestic blowback from it. Without seeing the intelligence reports crossing the desk of the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, I wouldn't second-guess her decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terror group. A breach of security at RAF Brize Norton was never going to be taken lightly. But, inevitably, the process of police officers trying to figure out in real time what elderly vicars can or can't now say in public about Palestine has caused its share of farce and fury. After a retired teacher was arrested for allegedly holding a sign featuring a Private Eye cartoon about the proscription, West Yorkshire police issued an unusual statement saying they were sorry if he was 'unhappy with the circumstances' of his arrest. As with this summer's other prospective powder keg, the protests building up outside some asylum seeker accommodation, doubtless everyone is learning as they go. There is, however, only so much policing can do to resolve what are really political conflicts, born in both cases of frustration with what both sets of protesters (in their very different ways) see as political failure to act. To hold together all these volatile, mutually hostile parts of a fractured society through a hot and angry summer will be head-spinningly complicated, a daunting ask even for an experienced government. Yet that's the nature of the job Starmer applied for last July. A year on, we must all hope he is equal to it. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.


The Guardian
24-07-2025
- The Guardian
There is a dangerous disconnect: on Gaza, politics no longer speaks for the people
It was meant to be a cosy conversation about cooking and new motherhood. But BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour took an unexpectedly bleak turn on Thursday morning, when the chef Yasmin Khan turned suddenly tearful in the middle of promoting her new cookbook, saying she couldn't talk about her own struggles to breastfeed without mentioning the mothers in Gaza unable to provide for their literally starving babies. It was a striking illustration of how far this medieval horror has broken through, bleeding across the everyday lives even of people who don't usually follow politics. You don't have to know anything about the Middle East to understand what those newspaper pictures of emaciated children, with their drawn little faces and heartbreakingly visible ribs, mean. This is what famine looks like, right down to the return of Bob Geldof, begging the world to act just as he did 40 years ago at Live Aid. Except this time it's no natural disaster, but what the World Health Organization calls a man-made mass starvation: the chillingly avoidable consequence of an aid system forcing people to choose between risking their lives for a bag of flour, or dying for lack of one. More than 1,000 people have been killed by Israeli forces while seeking food in Gaza since May, according to the UN. Médecins Sans Frontières says even its staff, lucky enough still to be earning salaries, are now going hungry: there's almost nothing left to buy in the markets. The newswire Agence France-Presse spoke of watching helplessly as its Palestinian freelancers, who have risked everything to get news out of Gaza when foreign journalists can't get in, become too weak to work. Meanwhile, back in Britain, people who want to see arrests for war crimes read instead about clampdowns on pro-Palestine activists. That ministers have been quick to empathise with the frustrations of a very different crowd protesting at the housing of asylum seekers in hotels merely adds salt to the wounds. Labour MPs are openly desperate now for their government to do something more than issue dramatically worded threats of future action that never quite materialises. Even cabinet ministers are publicly lobbying for the formal recognition of Palestinian statehood while (in the words of Wes Streeting, who could easily lose his marginal Ilford North constituency over this war) there's still a Palestine left. Recognition would be a largely symbolic act of solidarity, which in itself would do little to fill hungry bellies in Gaza. But ministers' problem is that there seems increasingly little reason for not doing it now: the longstanding argument that this prize should be saved for the right moment, to help unlock progress towards a two-state solution, made more sense when the two-state dream wasn't being actively crushed in front of us. But perhaps the real plea here is for Keir Starmer to recognise the country he actually leads. After the horrors of the 7 October 2023 massacre, there was broad acceptance that Israel could not be expected simply to sit back and do nothing. Even a year into what was by then a highly divisive war, YouGov found that more than half of Britons still felt Israel had been justified in going into Gaza. But critically, only 14% felt its use of force there was proportionate. Sympathy has drained away as Israel's war of self-defence began to resemble first one of vengeance, and then something darker. In language no former Israeli prime minister uses lightly, Ehud Olmert has described a proposal to corral Palestinians into a settlement on the ruins of Rafah and prevent them leaving as in effect a 'concentration camp'. More than half of Britons now favour financial sanctions like those slapped on prominent Russians over Ukraine, or suspending arms sales. These arguments are now mainstream, cross-party – the veteran Tory MPs Kit Malthouse and Edward Leigh made passionate cases in parliament this week for recognising Palestine – and driven not by the kind of creeping antisemitism Starmer was quite right to confront in his own party, but by what people see every morning, scrolling through their phones. David Lammy's rhetoric is already about as strong as a foreign secretary's can get – this week he condemned Israel's 'inhumane' and 'dangerous' new aid system, and what he called 'settler terrorism' in the West Bank – and many Labour MPs suspect he'd privately like to go further than the sanctions and restrictions on arms sales he listed. But Downing Street is said to be wary of getting ahead of Donald Trump at a crucial stage in ceasefire negotiations (with Israel's parliament going into summer recess, relieving some pressure on the minority government of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, it's hoped there is a window for a deal). Britain has always argued that our influence over Israel is best magnified by synchronising efforts with the US, and though the chaos of this White House makes that harder, Trump's is still the only voice Netanyahu really hears. Yet while everyone prays for that ceasefire deal to be done, a dangerous gap is opening in Britain between parliament and people. A year into power, Starmer is increasingly adept at foreign policy, but much less so at handling the emotive domestic blowback from it. Without seeing the intelligence reports crossing the desk of the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, I wouldn't second-guess her decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terror group. A breach of security at RAF Brize Norton was never going to be taken lightly. But, inevitably, the process of police officers trying to figure out in real time what elderly vicars can or can't now say in public about Palestine has caused its share of farce and fury. After a retired teacher was arrested for allegedly holding a sign featuring a Private Eye cartoon about the proscription, West Yorkshire police issued an unusual statement saying they were sorry if he was 'unhappy with the circumstances' of his arrest. As with this summer's other prospective powder keg, the protests building up outside some asylum seeker accommodation, doubtless everyone is learning as they go. There is, however, only so much policing can do to resolve what are really political conflicts, born in both cases of frustration with what both sets of protesters (in their very different ways) see as political failure to act. To hold together all these volatile, mutually hostile parts of a fractured society through a hot and angry summer will be head-spinningly complicated, a daunting ask even for an experienced government. Yet that's the nature of the job Starmer applied for last July. A year on, we must all hope he is equal to it. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist


Telegraph
25-04-2025
- Telegraph
JK Rowling accuses trans activist of ‘low blow' over Wayne Couzens jibe
JK Rowling has accused a transgender activist of a 'low blow' over a Wayne Couzens jibe. India Willoughby, a former news presenter, has become a vocal advocate for the transgender movement and the right to self-identity as a given gender. The 59-year-old wrote on X that Couzens, the policeman who raped and murdered Sarah Everard in 2021, would 'have loved' the decision of the Supreme Court that 'women' refers to those who are biologically female. The oblique attack on the decision hailed by gender-critical campaigners as a victory for women's rights has been criticised by the Harry Potter author Rowling. Rowling responded to Willoughby: 'Rapists and woman-killers tend not to 'love' legal restrictions on where and how they can access vulnerable females. If you're capable of feeling shame, India, now would be the moment.' Previous clashes between the pair led to Rowling being reported to the police by Willoughby last year for referring to the broadcaster as a man. Northumbria Police found that Rowling's comment did not meet criminal threshold. Willoughby led a double life for several years from 2010 – as a woman through the week before returning to the role of a father at the weekend, according to a 2016 interview with the Daily Express. The former ITV and Channel 5 journalist has made numerous TV appearances on Loose Women, GB News and Good Morning Britain to talk about being transgender. In 2017, Willoughby was interviewed by Jenni Murray on the BBC's Woman's Hour and later complained about the experience, writing: 'I'd gone on expecting a nice chat, but she was horrendous from the start. 'It felt like I was being cross-examined for a murder by a beady old owl. The whole thing was geared to questioning whether I was 'real'.' Public bodies have been left under pressure to tear up pro-trans guidance following the Supreme Court ruling on April 17. Expected changes include who can access single-sex NHS wards, which police officers can carry out strip searches and who can join female teams in elite sports.