Not solely poverty holding children back

[Chil1234]

I keep hearing about 'broken Britain', increasing inequality and how chidren in the poorest homes are denied the life-chances available to others. The solutions range from encouraging marriage to giving people more money to providing lap-tops for the poorest kids. However, I think a lot of this misses the point. Or rather, naively assumes that every family automatically wants to improve their kids' prospects but just lacks the resources.

A teacher I know working in a primary school in a poor area of Bolton tells me that all of the children in her class come from families on limited incomes. But there is a big difference in attitude. Some of the parents (mostly from the Asian community) are keen to get their children educated, value schooling and take an interest in what they do. These children turn up on time and are told by their parents to work hard. Many other families (mostly indigenous white population, sadly) simply don't care what their children do all day, don't turn up for parent consultations, don't listen to them read, don't even get out of bed to make them breakfast or bring them to the school gates. It's not lack of money letting these children down, it's lack of parenting.

I'd like to see a scheme to identify bright but disadvantaged chidren at an early age, take them out of their home environment if necessary and give them special tuition and mentoring. Break the cycle, not solely of poverty, but also the 'can't be bovvered' culture they find themselves in.

[AMumInScotland]

But why stop at "bright but disadvantaged" - shouldn't you also help the "average but disadvantaged" and the "lower-than-average but disadvantaged"? They could all have a better chance in life with a bit of a helping hand from someone showing an interest in them.

In theory, schools could do more, by providing breakfast clubs for those who don't get anything at home, and after school homework clubs so they can get support with homework - in some areas they are doing these things, but I don't know how far it spreads.

As to taking children out of their home environment, that's always going to be controversial. Are you saying some parents can't be trusted to raise their children, just because their children are bright enough to do better? If their parenting isn't bad enough for social services to already be getting involved to that level, why would the brightness of the children suddenly justify intervention?

[Chil1234]

Ideally every child should have the very best schooling with one-on-one tuition, homework/breakfast clubs etc., and be able to overcome even the most appalling homelife. But the reality is none of those things.

I deliberately picked out 'bright kids' because I think that any effort put in at an early age there would have the most effect in improving social mobility, and because I think we should stop being afraid to reward merit. We know that bright children from poor families are already doing worse than bright children from wealthy families age 6 & 7.

The current system driven by 'nearest school' means that your postcode determines everything. Taking someone out of their home environment might simply mean attending school in a nearby town, might mean special weekend tuition, might mean going as a boarder to a prep-school. I don't see it as perjorative or judgemental (and certainly not a social services matter) but rather an opportunity to broaden a kid's horizons

[AMumInScotland]

Do you see these parents - who you already think don't care about their children's futures - being happy to let their child be taken away from their family and community, and sent to a "posh" school to learn to think they're better than their family?

By all means think up schemes to offer to families, to help their children do better. But those schemes will be taken up by families who value education, not by those who don't. The families you would hope to reach would be the ones who have lost any faith in education, work, or anything else improving their lot in life, and in some cases that's on the basis of generations of hoplessness.

I agree it's a problem that there are children growing up in a situation where no-one makes them feel it's worth even trying. But I don't think you can take them away from their community to do it - you have to go into their community and show people that it can work. And you have to keep on at it even when you can't show anything for the extra investment for many years, as it will be a tiny slow trickle of effect, which might just encourage a few children to think it's worth it.

[ToccataAndFudge]

• on several levels.

What about the parents with decent incomes who don't value their children's education?

[Chil1234]

The people with decent incomes and presumably living in decent locations get access to the better schools by default. If they are not interested in their child's education it is compensated for to a degree. The child will most likely do OK in spite of them.

Poor kids are struggling not only with financial poverty (which is what the politicians are focusing on) but also the probability that they are nearest to the worst schools (something that is changing but far too slowly). If they or their parents are motivated for them to succeed, or if they have a gifed teacher or something else incredibly lucky they might overcome those handicaps. If not, too bad.

At least in the old days you had a chance aged 11 to get to a grammar school and maybe change the course of your life for the better. People said it was unegalitarian... but how is this better? Now the poorest kids don't even have that glimmer of hope on the horizon.

[ToccataAndFudge]

gosh what a sweeping statement - that people on middle incomes upwards automatically get decent schools because of where they live..........and therefore I guess there are no decent schools in poor areas .

[AMumInScotland]

But what are you defining as a better school? Many parents, and most of the media, work on league tables and SATs results to say a school is "better". But those results are largely defined by the school intake, not the value added by the school. A school in a poor area with a low rate in tests may be doing far more for its pupils than one in an affluent area where parents are also paying for tutoring to give their child (and therefore the school) a boost.

[minipie]

Of course parental attitude has just as big an impact on a child's prospects as money (if not bigger).

The difference is that the government can't do anything about parental attitudes. (taking kids away from their homes is unrealistic for many, many reasons). Whereas it can do something about money (and so can be blamed if it doesn't do anything)
And of course the government doesn't want to be seen suggesting that poorer kids doing badly is basically the parents' fault.

So for these reasons, the govt focuses on talking about inequality and poverty, and less on talking about bad parenting.

[janeite]

Much, much more needs to be done at antenatal, pre-school level etc. Children beginning school can have differences of thousands in the known vocab they have when beginning reception, so are already way behind.

[TiggyR]

I'm always a bit at the assumption that the poorest children always have the added misfortune of being in the catchment of the 'worst' schools. Just let's all think that statement through for a moment...Is someone plotting against them to do that on purpose? Do they look at Google Earth and say 'there's a nice leafy middle class area, let's get all our best teachers, build the best building with the best facilities, put our heads together and agree on a really nurturing ethos, and open up just there, next to Waitrose' ? Of course they don't. 'Good' schools are perceived as 'good' for a reason. The children (and parents) in it. And almost always the reverse is true. It's almost never the school's fault. They can only deal with what they have.

[mateykatie]

It's interesting to ask WHY there are disparities between ethnic groups though.

Why do children of Chinese and Indian background routinely outperform, regardless of income? Why do those of Bangladeshi background underperform? Why do white boys lag behind?

I refuse to believe it is genetic; it must therefore be cultural. To address the problem at source you therefore need to address the cultural issues in underperforming groups.

Easier said than done, obviously, but that seems to be the only long-term strategy with a chance. Just directing extra money towards shiny new school buildings in areas with high underperformance won't do much.

[BethNoireNewNameForPeachy]

'At least in the old days you had a chance aged 11 to get to a grammar school and maybe change the course of your life for the better'

It wasn't there for all

My dad was the first in his family to be offered a palce... but as child 15 / 16 to a disabled Mumand useless father, he had to refuse the aplce as they couldn't afford the uniform and textbooks required.

Somewhere in teh middle is the answer of course,random handouts won't helpevery child but might for some(wewereworking poor and whilst my parents werevery pro-education,and all 3 sisters ahev HE now gained as adults, basics like no heating meant we were huddled in one room trying to doourr homework in the winter- a serious setback.

I wouldn'tgive laptops- I would loan them. I wouldn't ship all the achieving kids out of schoolsleaving them destitute of ability but I would stream for certain lessons more efectively.

[nickschick]

I dont actually like the tone of this post.

Ive worked in socially deprived schools and what I gather from my time there is that the asian,chinese and indeed afro carribean families have that we as 'white' families dont always have is a sense of community- in these communities there is support and guidance to encourage children to do well.

Children from different backgrounds have varying degrees of responsibility at home too that enables them to facilitate their studying better.

I live in a deprived area and I see kids left to rack and ruin and they leave school with no bright future ahead,its as adults they realise what they need and have to pursue it then....my own dc are admitedly pushed and pushed as I am a 'victim' of poverty and see the way to succeed.

Could it be that these generations of race saw this a generation earlier and are therefore pushing too?

Please dont judge everybody by what your friend sees in one school.

Poverty really is a crippling thing,a friend of mine couldnt send her son to school for almost 2 weeks bcos hed grown out of his shoes and income support wasnt due until 2 weeks later.

[nickschick]

Mateykatie with reference to your comment about bangladeshi children underperforming it has been my experience that thses children come from larger poorer families where their responsibilities in the home take a lot of time that could be spent on study and they dont always have access to the expensive equipment within the home that promotes education.

White boys in deprived areas have no middle ground there is nothing for a child who isnt educationally bright to do after school - a few talented lads might get onto a local football team but the rest without groups and clubs get sucked into drinking on street corners and yes smoking weed - hardly conducive with positive GCSE study.

We need positive role models,facilities to promote education and supervised activities and im no 'bible basher' but discipline when I was young to attend youth club you had to attend church and this brings 'community spirit'.

Poor doesnt equate to ignorant.

[Seeker33]

I suppose a child from a middle class home starting school able to read
is likely to get further than a child from a poor home not able to read.

But it is a complex subject. And I am not sure Mr Gove helped in his rampnt school changes,