Posters who say they want all children to have an equal chance in life

[GeneralPeter]

Do you actually mean equal, or do you mean you want a decent minimum standard for all children (perhaps a very high minimum), plus good avenues for social mobility?

I believe in the above (not strict equality), and I'm always curious whether that's what others mean too when they say "equal" on these boards.

There is no way to equalise everything. There just isn't. Humans are not The Borg.

It's an ideal, but it's not a realistic one - there are too many variables in play. It would be more realistic to say you'd like all children to have a fair chance in life - as you said, a decent minimum standard of living and a sound education.

The first one.

Things like a suitable place to live, access to healthy food and a good standard of education. All children should have these.

Do people say they want everything to be equal? I think they say 'fair' which is a very tricky concept or not disadvantaged. Which is what I think - so you remove barriers or look at who isn't doing well and think about why the system is stacked against a certain group and what you can do to level the playing field. See also reduce inequality.

I think the standard of public education and healthcare should be such that everyone has the opportunity to learn and be well. What you do with those things is up to you.

there should be equality of opportunity for education certainly.

The word is probably fair. At least covering basic needs and human rights. Such as access to food, shelter, good quality education.

Unfortunately once an equal start to life is given, it’s up to the parents, community and circumstance.

I would like our taxes to fund state education that is good - meaning SEN support, specialist teachers in secondary, education including what may be seen as ‘luxuries’ like music education.
I would like less wage inequality, a proper welfare safety net, and more flexible working, affordable decent childcare etc. to help struggling families.
I would like Sure Starr Centres and youth services restored. I know you can’t prevent abusive parents having children but would like to properly fund services that try and stop the cycle.
So - good education for all, no children going to school hungry, and proper services to provide support when needed. That would be my wish list.

I mean every child should have a safe place to live, access to quality education, enough healthy food, clean clothes, books, exercise including swimming, and not to be judged on things like accent and background. Extra help for those with disabilities and SEN.

To answer your question more directly, I wouldn’t want to stop the wealthy buying additional benefits for their children - but I do think they should pay higher taxes to fund public services (including better models of tax on things like ownership of huge swathes of land).
PS I left off children’s mental health services from my list above.

Stuff a 'decent minimum standard'. Kids, - all kids - should be give the same high standard of education. Equality of opportunity does not come from a minimum standard. Give every child the same opportunities and experiences through school and the cream will rise to the top, regardless of wealth and status. Let the poor kids have the same as the rich kids and see this country transformed.

The problem is though that you can give the kids all the chances and great education etc you want but if they come from chaotic families that don’t value any of those things, it will make very little difference.

Real equality doesn't, and can never, exist. Some people are born with inbuilt advantages and some will disadvantages.

Also, much of life is down to luck, or bad luck, which is out of our control.

I don't agree that with a decent standard of education for all, that 'the cream' will rise to the top. (It depends on the definition of the top. Does this mean wealth, decent relationships, good health?) Again, much of this is random.

At present, intelligent children who want to learn are being held back by being in schools with disruptive behaviour from some pupils.

Pupils will special needs should have better provision. They used to have, but instead, they have been integrated into mainstream education, which isn't doing anyone any favours.

I have heard the term 'hidden away ' regarding sen children, but surely it would be better if they were in settings properly adapted to their needs.

No. If kids who have had difficult backgrounds experience school as somewhere they feel safe and accepted, they are more likely to stay in school, build positive relationships, and live a good life. It won't work for all kids, but if they are, given the opportunity, it works for some.

Children have no control over the parents they are born to. Many parents have challenges that impact the prospects of their children so I believe that the state should provide high quality education and healthcare plus local services (sports, youth services, libraries) that enable those children to be healthy and successful. It will never make up for good parenting but it should smooth the road. It’s in all our interests as a society that children born in challenging circumstances can succeed in life.

I dont think I mean equal as I guess that is everyone being offered the same. I think I mean equitable, so a child from a difficult background would get more input and support.

I dont think we can end up with everyone having an equal outcome it's unachievable.

I'd like to think we could aim for all children being a satisfactory version of themselves. Like 'good enough' parenting on a society wide scale.

Well like many of the top and influential jobs, such as the government (that impact millions) going to those from a minority or institutions (often paid for - ie private schools)

It’s not a true reflection of the society we live in.

Money talks and the rich get richer and the poorer… well can’t get a Dr/dentist/hospital appointment or feed our kids…

Yes, this exactly.

Then we need to put support in place for these children so their family lives are not chaotic. Children don’t choose to be born in chaotic environments and I don’t believe that parents choose to parent chaotically they simply don’t have the resources not to.

when you have children your needs come second place. If you have complex mental health needs they no longer matter because “you have a child to care for” and are miraculously cured but, in reality, they just became more complex. There are families where they now no different than chaotic lifestyles. They can’t break the cycle on their own so society need to step in and support that. In the long term we all benefit and money is saved.

This.

@Helloworld56 Also, much of life is down to luck, or bad luck, which is out of our control.

The biggest determinant of whether someone will be successful is whether they are born to wealth, because wealth buys privilege. If you give all children the same high standard of education you level that particular playing field and children will achieve according to their intelligence, not their parents' jobs and bank balances.

Decent minimum standard e.g. food, shelter, education and healthcare.

It’s not possible for things to be equal, but with a decent minimum standard it is then down to each individual what they do with their life.

Well surely it would be nice if all children had an equal start in life?
it isn’t possible, and that’s why a base line of standards would be good. But just wanting actual equality for children seems normal? No one looks at a 5 year old and thinks this one deserves more money and food and better treatment, do they.

if we can provide a base line of education, nutritious food, support etc however that improves the chances of those more disadvantaged children and improves their overall life outcomes. The better that base line is and closer it is to the advantaged children, the more equal society is.

A good minimum standard and a fighting chance to progress.

I think it’s a more complex picture than equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. To be honest I think framing the discussion in those terms limits it.

There are various barriers that see people unable to fully participate in life (racism, ableism, sexism, classism etc).

Then alongside that there are the financial aspects of participation.

So I’d like to see justice (barriers removed), and also a much greater degree of financial equality between different people.

And then not exactly equity but everyone meets a high minimum standard plus a much lower degree of disparity between the top and bottom sections of society financially.

That likely means limits on inheritance and caps or taxation of earnings, a higher degree of public or common ownership of resources. Ot would also mean redistribution to those who are struggling.

Combine that with effective mechanisms of mobility and opportunity based on merit and you’re starting to get somewhere decent.