A thread of some stuff that is making me think hard as I make my way through @CarolynCroberts’s fantastic book 👇 1/9 
I started it a few week ago and posted some initial thoughts here 👇 2/9
Consider - the concept of consent.. that parents entrust schools to share their role in developing their child. And yet, there is really no choice because the relationship between school and home is legally defined... so is it just an illusion of consent? 3/9
The school’s role *in loco parentis* is not delegated by parents. The state empowers and requires schools to do this. Even to the extent that ‘the state-parent power of the school trumps that of the parents themselves.’ (p38) 4/9
This has implications for the way schools conceptualise relationships with parents I think... and could perhaps be damaging. I prefer the (even illusory) concept of consent because it presumes trust and shared responsibility. 5/9
The ‘reasonable entitlement’ that parents feel when they say ‘why haven’t you done better by my child?’ is based on the illusion of consent, but is more about us being professionals, paid from the public purse. How does that shape the way we engage with parents who complain? 6/9
Roberts questions why we measure schools in terms of inputs and outputs instead of the role they play in civic society. It is incompatible with the ‘school as state-parent’ concept, which Roberts feels is insufficiently understood in our profession. 7/9
What we are at least grappling with is the idea that the content of the curriculum represents what the state values... which is then conferred on children by schools... which are working on behalf of the state... which is working on behalf of parents. 🤯 8/9
This section of the book is excellent & adds a fresh dimension to the ‘what should we teach’ debate that can sometimes feel a bit tired & predictable (on Twitter anyway!). I particularly like the idea of the taught curriculum as a ‘public good’. Will leave you with this 👇9/9
