And none but fools do wear it. Cast it off.

Once again, school inspectors are saying 'things need to be better'.  Their most recent press release notes "Our greatest challenge today is tackling mediocrity to bring the weaker providers up to the level of the best. We need to raise expectations and motivate learners to be ambitious and to achieve the best they can."

Simultaneously, they note there is a connection between socio-economic grouping and achievement.  Their evidence is somewhat wobbly, however, as they observe "At all key stages of their schooling, pupils entitled to free school meals perform much worse in exams," thus equating the provision of free school meals with underachievement.  One wonders, therefore, what the effect would be and how they would word their subsequent findings if Councils simply stopped free school meals.  Is it free school meals that are stopping children learning, perhaps?  Maybe charging them would make them work harder.  Or are the dinner ladies sneakily dosing the semolina with psychotropic drugs?

Estyn then sparkily notes "More schools want to make better provision for their more able and talented learners.  In too many cases, the provision is restricted to out-of-hours work when these learners need stretching learning experiences during the school day."

Those unaware of the Jungle insurgency terrorist training venue that is the classroom in the average secondary school, however, might look back fondly on those days when the grammar school existed, the forms were all streamed - 4x, 4t, 4z - and the teachers fell over themselves to teach the best and simply fell over when teaching the worst. 

Of course, every politician and journalist knows how it should be done, and the failed teachers that comprise the inspection bodies are absolute experts.  Trouble is, the answer is extraordinarily simple and straightforward.

1. Specify exactly how children are expected to behave and learn on day 1.
2. Spell out the consequences for not doing so.

Now that last bit is where the solutions lie. Each child in school should be given 2 chances.  First misdemeanour is a warning.  Second misdemeanour removal from the classroom and warning by senior staff.  Third misdemeanour - child is thrown out.

Now, some will argue that it will put children back on the streets which of course it wouldn't, any more than the three months holidays they have throughout the year. But the second part of this is that the parents of these children would be held legally accountable for their education.  And not just as now.  These kids are the ones that slow down the education for the good kids, so they must be removed.

And then, of course, we're back to parenting.  Now there's a surprise.