Ellee Seymour

See if this adds up. Truancy figures are at a record high, despite the government spending £900 million on tackling it. So they suggest keeping kids at school until they are 18, even though thousands of them refuse to stay there until 16. They already have the choice to stay until 18 if they wish.

They are now spending £2 million in Norfolk to pioneer a new anti-truancy programme, also aimed at improving classroom behaviour. This involves appointing parent support advisers to befriend parents of unruly kids over a coffee at their home or in a cafe if they find schools intimidating.

Talk about money for old rope, throwing away good money after bad. I thought the government was going to get tough on this, and had threatened to fine the parents of “hard core” truants. Has this actually happened yet?

What has that £900 million been spent on? Why have local education authorities failed on this so dismally?

What can a special adviser tell parents that they haven’t already heard? The parents know their kids are doing wrong, I expect they’ve been given lots of chances and support. But none of it has been wanted. I know of a case like this with a local lad, everyone has pulled out the stops for him, but he is not interested in education or training.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m sure that this £2 million could be better spent on providing desperately needed facilities in schools - it could pay for some special needs assistants to help kids struggling with dyslexia who DO want to go to school but don’t get the support they need.

It’s absurd and very below the belt to suggest that as a childless woman, Condoleezza Rice did not understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

She was told bluntly by Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer during a hostile Senate hearing:

“You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within your immediate family. Who will pay the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, my grandchild is too young. So who pays the price? Not me, not you.”

The same could be said about our Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, who is also childless, and making decisions about our soldier’s fate in Iraq. Although I am no fan of Beckett, I would not support a tasteless swipe like that.

I do admire Condi’s skills and strength of character, her response later said it all:

“Gee, I thought single women had come further than that.â€?

And hopefully, they have.

Meanwhile, America is waiting for Senator Boxer to apologise, but it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. Do you feel she should apologise, or do you agree with her views? Couldn’t the same be said about childless men in equally influential positions?