DEMOS

Anyone interested in the debate on public behaviour – and the role of government in affecting it or otherwise – should read today’s leader in The Times. It contains makes one unspectacular but extremely important point…and then another that sums up some of the problems we’re having in dealing with these kind of issues. 

The point that I agree with is that before government wanders into the political minefield (and operational complexities) of human decision-making, it needs to do the basics right. Where schools are concerned, that means delivering the things that they are have direct control over: attractive, healthy food and opportunities to exercise. Without this government misses out on easy wins, doesn't keep it's part of the bargain and risks losing legitimacy to enter these debates at all.

The next point, though, is that these things are complex. And that means that simply arguing that ‘Schools exist to provide education’ is unhelpful. Firstly, schools’ objectives are wider than this. Of course they exist to provide education. But we also expect them to do lots of other things too. Keeping children safe, for example. Or ensuring that their development and well-being is supported and safeguarded.

Secondly, as Charlie Leadbeater argues, learning can’t just be schooling in the same way as hospitals can’t be the extent of healthcare. Services should not only deliver to people inside institutions, but they should also help them to help themselves outside of them. So relationships with parents are a key part of schols' role in contributing to outcomes for children, not an incidental bolt-on to delivering the outputs of PE classes and healthy lunches.

There is, of course, a fine line between bossiness and lending a hand, but the idea that schools should only take any interest in what goes on within their gates is long gone. None of this means that a letter home is the answer to the world’s problems. But it doesn’t strike me as the end of the world either.