Estelle Morris is in danger of blotting her copybook with this daft proposal

The Government is in danger of getting carried away in its determination to crack down on parents who threaten or abuse teaching staff. Yesterday, the new junior minister Stephen Twigg said the Government should look at excluding from school the children of parents who are persistently abusive – which would require a change in the law that members of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) are campaigning for.

There is no doubt that the problem of abusive parents has grown in recent years (last year the NAHT reported 140 cases of parents abusing headteachers), but excluding children from school is the wrong way to deal with the situation. Indeed, it smacks of an attempt to grab headlines rather than to tackle a difficult issue. Leaving aside the moral indefensibility of such a scheme, it is hard to argue that the offspring of such parents will benefit from spending more time in their company, as would happen if the change in the law were granted. The National Union of Teachers advocates greater use of banning orders – prohibiting parents from entering school premises, with the threat of a court appearance if they fail to comply – and this would seem a more constructive way to get the problem under control.

It is good, however, that under the stewardship of Estelle Morris, the Department for Education and Skills has been showing such determination to tackle indiscipline in school. Her advice that headteachers should be able to exclude pupils for a first offence if it involves peddling drugs or threatening staff is welcome because it is common sense, as is her exhortation to exclusion appeals panels not to undermine the authority of headteachers by sending pupils back into school against the wishes of heads.

Her adoption of such a tough stance is the surprise element of her first year as Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Her 18 years as a comprehensive school teacher in Coventry before she became an MP have helped to gain her credibility in the eyes of union leaders in a way that few of her predecessors have managed. She has succeeded in steering a fine line between getting their support and keeping faith with her political masters, so much so that signs of optimism are emerging within the teaching unions that they can do a deal with ministers on reducing their workload without resorting to industrial action.

She even seems to have got off rather lightly for her unnecessary comment last week that there are comprehensive schools she would not touch with a bargepole; teachers' leaders privately excuse her on the grounds that they believe she was currying favour with her bosses in advance of the comprehensive spending review.

Figures out today also show that the Government has managed to attract more students into training, which will help solve the recruitment crisis that threatened to put some schools on a four-day week. There are still many troublesome tasks ahead, however, especially a shake-up of secondary schooling that will include the need to reform the creaking and overloaded examination system.

When she was appointed there were mutterings that she had only been given the job (over the head of a certain Stephen Byers, who had been minister for schools and appeared at an education press launch during the election campaign by the side of the Prime Minister) because Downing Street was determined to have a woman in a key cabinet post. Few people, if any, would say that now.