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.

I believe in equality of opportunity for all children. Starting with access to good high quality education for all.
If this means that transport services/travel passes need to be provided for them to get there, uniform/clothing/shoes be provided then they should be. Free school meals for all primary age children.
The mechanisms for achieving this would need to be thought about of course but should definitely happen

To thrive, children need good role models. Sadly a lot don't have this,parents who couldn't care less, keep producing more and more children with no means to support them. I watched a programme recently about child poverty in the UK. A woman was interviewed, a single parent on benefits with 3 children, 2 of them with complex needs. I think she had a 3 bedroom flat.
She knew full well that if she had anymore children she would NOT get anymore benefits. But hell, she went straight ahead and had 2 more anyway .complained that she was struggling food, school uniforms etc.
Now I am sympathetic to those who are struggling in the current climate, but to deliberately put oneself in that position and expect the beleaguered tax payer to mop up the mess, well, to coin one of my mother s favourite sayings: "on your own head be it"

Policies striving for equality of outcome lead to tyranny. Equality of opportunity is something else and not inconsistent with policies placing a floor under people (providing housing, education, healthcare etc). See John Rawls on the difference principle.

When I decided to become a parent I factored in the cost of clothing my child, feeding my child, transporting them to school, buying them shoes. It's not the responsibility of the tax payer to feed all primary school children.

I don't think it's actually possible for all children to have the same opportunities, there are just too many variables. but I would like to see everyone having access to a decent standard of housing, nutrition, healthcare and education. There will always be people who have more and who have less, it's always been that way and always will be, but we need to try to ensure that the basic standards accessible to all are good enough.
I feel very fortunate to have been born when I was. I had a very modest upbringing. We weren't poor as in not having enough to eat but there wasn't much spare money after the basics. My Mum grew up in real poverty in the 30s and I know that at least half of my great grandparents were illiterate. I went to the kind of school that nobody sent their kids to if they had a choice in the matter but at least I had the chance to do A levels and that then gave me the chance to go to University and in those dates there were no tuition fees and grants rather than loans. If I had been born earlier it's unlikely thst someone from my background, especially a girl, would have stayed in school beyond statutory school leaving age or have been encouraged to aim as high as I was, and if the financing had been as it is now, the prospect of all that debt would probably have put me off trying.
Steadily improving public services made it possible for my family to go from illiterate mill workers to well paid professionals in 3 generations but I think that it is getting harder for working class kids to break down barriers and improve their lot in life now.
I guess what I really mean is that I want kids like me to still have the opportunities that I had. It wasn't "easy" in the 70s/80s of course but I think it was better than now.

None of this is the children’s fault though. Targeted resources could give these children opportunities, free school meals, assistance in school for example and increase their chances of not living on benefits when they are older.

From a purely cold, financial point of view, it will cost less money in the long run to target resources towards these children now.

I appreciate everyone's replies. There is a good mix of views: many people whose views are similar to mine, and some whose goal is equality.

@WhatThenEh I think my view is close to: "I want to keep my/my children's privilege and share opportunities more fairly".

To be a bit more nuanced: I think my privilege should be reduced (mainly through tax, but also by prohibiting me from buying certain kinds of thing, eg university places). That money should be used to invest in really good education, early health, and other provision for all children, including for children with particular needs (including the very bright and those who are not), with the goal of giving all children a really good start in life and letting them achieve their potential, regardless of their initial circumstances.

Why I don't think equality is the goal though is that we should be trying to lift all children up, and you are just not going to get to equality that way.

Life chances are about much more than schooling. Should, for example, I decline to read with my child, because I know that it's giving them an unequal start, versus the many children who don't get that? Or introduce a touch of malnourishment to even the scales. Thinking through that kind of example makes me realise I'm not actually after equality, but something different that I think serves all children better.

Sorry for the weird italics, which made my post rather more dramatic than intended!

Inequality has been massively increasing since 2008, and that isn’t because lots of individual parents simultaneously forgot to plan their school shoe budgets.

Definitely equality of opportunity, with an understanding that this means some will need more support/resources. The aim should be that every child maximises their potential.

A better educated, happier population benefits everyone.

As an example, blanket free school meals lifts attainment (the data supports this). It also reduces social stigma.

You cannot have (or want) equality of outcome, but you can aim to reduce those barriers that drive unequal opportunity

I see a big division between people who focus on the “parents need to take responsibility for their children” (which yes is true) and those who acknowledge that but focus on the “it’s not the child’s fault their parenting is lacking, they deserve society to step in where parents can’t or wont”. Personally I tend to focus on the latter. It’s not perfect that some parents shirk responsibility but I’d rather step in than see any child go hungry.

I want equal opportunities- the government could start by outlawing internships which are clearly only possible for young people with wealthy parents

Very cynically, most people really want the situation that other children don't have better opportunities than theirs. They don't really care if others have worse opportunities than their DC.

This will get very indignant objections, but my experience when people start talking about equality in detail, it drills down to this

@itsallfuntilsomeonelosesaneye
Yes, I support all the things you have listed (just for a different reason than equality, whether of opportunity or outcome).

For liberty and efficiency reasons, I tend to support quite free markets. To make that morally defensible it's important to me that all children get a really good support to give them the best chances of thriving in that system (and then of course also putting in place protection for people who still struggle, whether temporarily or life-long).

I want measures put in place to level the playing field for those young people born into difficult circumstances whatever the reason (not just money but disability etc) you cannot make things equal, not possible so it's about targeting support, financial and in kind to ensure that children are not disadvantaged entering adulthood because of their parents situation within reason at least, bringing back sliding scale grants for university would be a starting point, along with good wraparound care for younger children, mentors for young people who don't have people able to support their aspirations ... this exists but a national rollout

Like you OP, we are higher rate tax payers and only too happy to pay the amount we do to support those with less. Our children attend state schools. I attended state school. DH is privately educated Oxbridge graduate but he would never be able to reconcile himself to paying for our children to go to private schools either. I think the tier above us should be paying the most tax to be honest, those with millions coming in every year. But happy to pay our bit.

Who doesn't like a picture

In Ireland and in our area there’s a fair few secondary schools. None are fee paying and yet the one with the highest number of students is the one that has students smoking, fighting and hanging around outside it shouting and jeering people people who walk by. The police are there every so often. The vice principal was once heard saying‘let’s be honest, most of the kids here not only won’t go to college, they won’t get a job’. I want no parent to think their child belongs in a school such as this and go for it as a first choice when there’s other options.

The trouble is there are a number of jobs that need to be done that are only paid minimum wage. These wages (and a whole lot more) need to be topped up by benefits so your lifestyle is utterly dependent on the benefits system making anything more than short term budgeting impossible.

personally I think we all “fund” each other. The supermarket workers labour allows the share holder to get dividends so it’s more than fair that the shareholders tax feeds their children

My thoughts on the image:

The third image: this should be the goal in some contexts. Eg ban irrelevant employment conditions that discriminate against certain groups. But systemic barriers that make life unequal are just too deeply ingrained in what humans are. You are part of the system if you prefer a kind, attractive life partner, want a fair and charismatic boss, an intelligent and knowledgeable doctor, a strong and healthy builder, reliable and loyal friends. Children with those attributes are privileged (they also contribute a lot, if we get the system right).

So we need to think about boxes.

Fortunately life is multidimensional, it's not just one baseball game. It's not valuable (to me) that everyone should be at exactly the same eye level (equality). To mix the metaphor, it's important to me that all children get many opportunities to play many games, and to excel at as many of them as they have the capability for. They won't ever have an equal chance at winning all the trophies, but I want every child to have the best possible chance to find the sports where they can win the trophies.

Doing even further violence to the metaphor: we then take some of the trophies from those who have the most, and melt them down to provide for the children who won't be winning anything.

this sums it up perfectly - we are all up for support/equity/ beautiful world etc assuming we personally don't have to pay more than what we're already paying, it's always someone else who should pick up the tab

@norfolkbroadd Yes, I'm a top rate taxpayer and happy to be so. We send our child to a private school. I'm comfortable with that because I see education as in itself a good thing. If I can give more of it to my child, at no cost to the state, that's a positive. There's a certain amount of social harm with that, but on balance I think a social benefit. I'd rather mitigate the social harm (unfairness) by taking my taxes and giving other children a better start than by giving my child a worse one.

(I'm not claiming private schools are always better than state ones, just illustrating my thinking. In fact, there's an excellent state school very similar to our expensive one. I'm not sure taking the place there would be morally better: the kids at that state school are privileged in many ways, but many of them aren't in a position to choose between the schools, so it seems a bit mean for us to take the free place. The real social disadvantage however is not at either of those schools).

Strongly disagree - every job if worked full time should be sufficient to support independent living and providing for a family (assuming working couple)

Equality is impossible. The closest thing is communism and that doesn't work well either

How about equity ? Is that possible ?