Frank Field's report on Child Poverty - is MN really for one 'class'?

[LilyBolero]

The report on child poverty includes a suggestion for a 'working class version of Mumsnet'.

Discuss!

how odd!!

It's just an attack on working class parents and an excuse to not pay decent wages or fund education because he can blame parents for the poverty trap - disgusting! and likely to be supported by all those daily mail readers who think that anyone who works (excpet themselves of course) is feckless. No wonder Clegg and Cameron like the report - it absolves them of any reponsibility towards raising standards for children!

kate, I totally didn't read it like that, I read it more as taregetting money towards investing in services that would benefit poorer children, right from the start, when it is of the most benefit.

I am not in favour of cutting anything from the poorest people, but I do agree with making sure money put in is having the maximum benefit for the people it is intended for, and sometimes this will mean targetting it at nursery education rather than £££ in the pocket iyswim.

I think as ever, the test will be in the implementation - and the Government do not have a good record of this, if you look at the Child Benefit debacle - the principle of not giving benefits to very wealthy people is ok, the practice of withdrawing it from some groups of people whilst others on double the income retain it, is barking mad.

yeah well it would help if they weren't cutting libraries, money for catch-up reading, aim higher, raising uni fees, cutting EMA, cutting CAMHS funding - the list goes on and on. I work in education and basically anything that helps children who are disadvantaged is being cut - and what's all that stuff about private companies taking over surestart - there is only one reason that would happen and that would be to make a profit - children's needs would go out of the window.

kate, I totally agree with you that many of the cuts are counterproductive and will disadvantage poorer kids. But I don't think that this report is really part of that, it's more of a 'looking forward' report (or at least that's how I read it).

Where I think he is spot on is that early intervention is the key, and if they can get this right then that should have a very positive effect on life chances.

But what he's doing, although in a roundabout long wordy type of way is saying that poverty can't be eradicated by raising income (recipe for not fighting for a living wage then) or better working conditions but that somehow if those millions of 'working class' ie those who sell their labour, only understood parenting a la mumsnet (presumably no fruitshoots then) then children would have a better attainment. I tend to think that if people cannot afford to feed their kids or put a roof over their heads (and I know more and more parents in this position in the last few months)then parenting classes are not much cop!
Oh yeah and I love the bit about tv programmes helping childrens speech - might be better if they hadn't cut funding for speech therapists - also I thought the feckless poor weren't supposed to plonk their kids in front of the tv.
I tend to think that if I don't want his stuff for my kids I don't want it for others either.
oops apologies - a bit long and ranty!

I do agree with a huge amount of what you're saying, I do think there is some merit in his report though.

It is sad but true that many parents can't afford to feed their children healthily, and have problems paying for accommodation. BUT, I think that is a separate issue and should be treated as such really - I don't see money for helping with food/accommodation/clothing as being money to 'help social mobility' - it is survival money.

In terms of helping children move out of the poverty trap, I think money given to parents may often be misdirected - there are certainly a significant number of parents who cannot help with, say, reading, because they themselves cannot read. So I would much rather see the money going into a more targetted approach in the early years. I think a great many parents would take up an offer of 'free reading support' (for example) from age 3, who wouldn't necessarily spend money given out to them by the government on books/reading. (And of course there are many parents who WOULD - but I'm thinking about the children who are currently let down by lack of support, parental or otherwise, not the many children whose parents do a fantastic job irrespective of wealth).

So I think one lot of funding needs to come from the welfare budget - ie money for housing/food/clothing/heat etc. And the other lot needs to be under the Education department umbrella, and the two must be separate. Then you avoid the problem of providing reading to a family that now can't afford to buy food, which I agree would be a strange priority.

I think MN has a pretty good mix of people on it - both in terms of class and cultural backgrounds, so find the idea of a 'special' version for working class people (actually, we're talking about benefits claimants more than people in employment) rather patronising.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if we pay people to have children, they will do.

Parenthood is an individual choice and the State should have no part to play in it. If people can't afford to raise children through their own efforts, they should not have them. Simples.

Well for me, in what I have to admit is a home counties middle-class ghetto , MN has been the best education ever into the wide range of circumstances children are being brought up in in the UK (if that doesn't sound too patronising!).

At the heart of the report there is a good principle, "parents are the key drivers in determining their children's life chances". You can throw all the resources and money that you can at a child but if they come from a home that doesn't value education, doesn't support the school and it's discipline and doesn't encourage the child then the child isn't probably going to get where it could.

So the idea of helping and encouraging good parenting is absolutely vital.

However how to do that is a very good question.

And I'm also worried that the Tories will latch on to this as an excuse for massive cuts in all sorts of things. And that would be very wrong.

Education alone without parental support will usually lead to children failing.

Parental support without education gives a child no real chance to succeed.

You need both together to really give a child a chance.

I'm not suprised at all by the report and politically, it's where I've been coming to myself (though veeeeerrrrry slowly).

100 billion quid was spent by Labour on tax credits. Result = social mobility barely moved.

Don't know the figure, but a record amount soent on education = social mobility barely moved.

So we can't just keep doing more of the same. We have to think the unthinkable ( as Tone told Frank last time - then promptly ignored him).

Frank has come to the conclusion that although poverty in and of itself undeniably affects the life chances of children...there is much more to it.

I volunteer in a school where the children have awful life chances. Throwing more cash at their parents has made material things a little more comfortable, but it has not really affected their life chances in a serious way.

We have to address this.

Oh, and I think MN is incredibly MC in its outlook.
Coming from a disadvantaged background myself, the values and mores expressed by the majority of parents on MN are heartening.

I would have loved to have been brought up in an environment like the one most MNetters seek to achieve.
A lot of the kids I work with would bloody love it too.

What government initiatives could improve those kids life chances Litchick? I often think free parenting classes would be a great idea but I think they would be over run with mc mothers. How easy was it to involve yourself with these kids, I would love to volunteer as you do but I'm afraid I would come across as patronising.

sue - I think often small things would really help, if done early. Think of it as filling in the gaps (obviously for some children this would itself by wholly inadequate, but might be a start).

So - take a 2.5 year old. If they can be given some sort of free nursery/playgroup place at this age, then they can offer;
reading sessions - lots of children start primary school able to read, some children don't even know which way up to hold a book, don't know that printed letters = text, don't know where the beginning is. So LOTS of reading stories!
painting/drawing - starting to make those linkages that enable fine motor-skills to develop
socialising - learning to play in an appropriate way with their peers, helping language development, and learning about a group environment, starting to introduce conflict resolution etc, which will help when they are in the classroom environment. Some idea of turn-taking and sharing
Physical activity - developing gross motor skills - teaching them to kick a ball/pedal a trike, blow bubbles in the garden etc
Outdoor play - learning that you can grow food, learning about insects/birds etc
Visits to a farm/station/beach/wood - all with ample opportunities for learning.

So - things we all take for granted and do naturally with our kids, but that for many children are unknown.

Very very difficult, because what we are actually talking about is the state quasi parenting these children, no?

And whilst I can see that that might be the way forward, I'm really not sure how I feel about that.

I'm also worried about the government simply taking this report as green light to reduce benefits and do precious little else.

GuardianReader, that isn't a very guardian-reading point of view you have there. Saying that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford it: Should people have to apply for a license to get have a child and prove they have income? And what about people who can afford it and then lose their jobs, get divorced etc?

But Litchick, if the parents themselves weren't parented in this way then they may have no capacity to do that for their own kids, and the cycle is repeated. Break the cycle, and you stand a chance of getting somewhere.

lily I know you're right, really.

I just feel very uncomfortable saying that a certain section of parents (not abusive, just well, let's be honest, poor) really are not doing there job properly.

I think my reaction against the notion comes from my Mum.

We were very very disadvantaged. Dad in and out of work. Regualarly evicted from our home yadda yadda yadda.

But my Mum rose above it all. She wanted the best for me. She cooked food from scratch. She read poetry to me. She worked on a market stall so I could go to Brownies (seen by her as the epitome of middle class lushness) She was the original MNetter. If Fruit Shoots had been invented, you can bet I wouldn't have been allowed them.

But I do see that she was unusual...and that most of my peers on the estates are still there and their kids will stay there too...

Litchick, I think the key is that some children of poorer parents are let down, some children of richer parents are let down, but the ones who really suffer tend to be in the poorer sectors of society, so this is the most logical place to target help. It's not saying that a poor (in terms of wealth) is a BAD parent, it's saying that statistically, this is the group where this sort of help would be of most use, for whatever reason.

Your mum sounds fantastic!

Lily - surely the things you say in your 20:47:08 post are all part of the EYFS and being made available 15 hours per week, term time for 3 and 4 year olds...

Will have a look at the article/report now.

link to the full report

I think this place is predominantly middle class, I put that down to the fact theres a lot more middle class SAHMs for obvious reasons who actually have the time to be on here a lot more.

Like to know why he thinks there should be a working class version, I think it's a thinly vialed insult of the working class to say they need there own version.

tabouleh, yes they are, I think some of the proposals are to start even earlier though - from age 2, as the earlier the intervention, the better the outcomes.