Steve has hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head, and driven it right home:
�...its a partnership between the parents & the school to do the best for the child..�
Many parents do not take any interest in their child�s education. They see it as solely a function for schools (which many see as a convenient free child minding service). Some take more of an interest. They get involved in the school�s activities and help their offspring with their homework. They support their child, and if they see the need for additional tuition they have the audacity to use their own money to pay for it (instead of going to the pub or the bookies or Florida � often in term time). For their troubles they are labelled �pushy�.
I lived on a council estate. My father was a painter and decorator. I went to a grammar school. Many of my pals did not as they did not pass the eleven plus. They went to comprehensive schools which were, in terms of pupil/parent satisfaction, just as good as my grammar school. They came out as well educated rounded individuals able to make their way in the world. They may not have become brain surgeons or stockbrokers, but neither did I. Some have gone on to considerably greater success than me. All of us had supportive parents who took an interest in our education and our future. Today they would all be labelled �pushy�.
Lower achieving schools are usually found in �deprived� areas (and I agree with theoldgit, they are not deprived at all). A method should be devised to measure the depth of parents� involvement with their children�s education and the standard of education those children achieve.
Yes, State education is a disaster in some areas, and it is no wonder that many parents feel the need to make considerable sacrifices to �go private�. But it is not all the fault of schools.
Meanwhile, all power to the �pushy� parents.