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.

It's impossible to escape from the relative measure of average. By definition, if half of all families are above the median (in health, wealth, happiness, security, or intellect) then half are below that line.

@Pinkfluffypencilcase

There's also the theory that humans "self-domesticated" by intentionally removing the most violent members from the gene pool, thus creating a more docile, pro-social species, like wolves became dogs (specifically, removing the most 'reactively violent' people, i.e. the ones who would stab you in a bar fight, not the ones who would go to war for your tribe). Extremely punitive ancient legal codes might be explained by this. But (so one version goes), as society has become more humane, we've stopped de-selecting for unstable, reactively violent people. We aren't domesticating any further.

Not my expertise so no idea if it's true, but it seems plausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-domestication

@LifeofBrienne good list... I concur but increase sen massively in the primary.
I would also add far more services into primary school and nursery eg access to specialists quickly.

Schools expanded to be more like hubs because we all know even one disruptive child causes an entire class to grind to a halt.
Children who can't read can't engage and so on.

Teaches need urgent teaching of sen.

Sort of. But it's not so simple as saying that wealth buys privilege and that's why wealthy people do well (some of it is that, of course). That's because talent also buys wealth (that's what we are celebrating when we celebrate upward social mobility). So when talented, wealthy people do well on average, or when their children do well, what's the cause? It's partly money-buying-privilege (which we tend to think is bad) and partly talent-buying-privilege (which we tend to think is good, or at least fair).

(Of course, not all talented people want to be wealthy, or try to be, or succeed at it, and lack of wealth absolutely doesn't mean lack of talent. And there are many other ways to be successful and upwardly mobile than being wealthy. I'm claiming only that there is some loose correlation between talent and wealth and it's not a coincidence, indeed we recognise it's not a coincidence when we celebrate not just the correlation but the causation, in valuing social mobility).

My own rough list of what starting position buys good outcomes (from the perspective of the baby, all of these are luck. From the perspective of the parents, a fair amount is luck too):

1. Be born in good health in a stable, rich country, in a stable home environment
2. With good genes, especially for intelligence, diligence and good mental health
3. And supportive parents, who value education and are at least comfortably off, giving you lots of opportunities
4. Preferably rich and well-connected too

This is largely why I'm very pro-immigration also (1 can be improved, for the next generation. That's great for the family who immigrates. And those who immigrate tend to be higher on 2, and 3 too, which is good for the receiving country. There is a concern that this drains the sending countries of talent, and I think that's partly true and a problem. But it's partly untrue too, as there is some evidence that the possibility of emigrating actually incentivises education, hard work, savings etc, thus actually increasing those levels in the sending country, even once accounting for those people who do actually leave. And of course people send remittances back).

Why would anyone NOT want all kids to have an equal chance?

All children in the UK, or all globally?

Are you volunteering your children to have the opportunity of the global average?

It would drag your children down and probably do nothing for the children who were already there.

Because they want the chances for their own? Rather than their own competing on a level playing field

@frozendaisy It's not the level playing field I am concerned about, but the leveling process.

If your children are fortunate enough to be born in good health to a loving family, with access to good food and educated parents, what are you proposing to do to ensure they don't benefit from any of those advantages?

And why do you need the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to tell you that your child is unequal? Imperfectly, admittedly, the UK does provide universal health care and universal education opportunities; there are a great many countries that expect school to be paid for by parents, ditto healthcare. Even in European countries like Spain, if you expect your family to have meals in a hospital after an operation, you will be taking the food to the patient. The "hotel" costs are simply a family responsibility.

This is a very middle class discussion with a specific frame of reference. A good life should be accessible to all, this means the chance to do work that is important, to be part of a community, to take part in the democratic process, to make a home and raise a family. Not all people have aspirations to university education and professional support qualifications and that’s fine. A reasonable level of education is important to participate in society and that should be available all and kids supported as best they can to access. To those who want it further opportunities should be accessible. To my mind universal benefits are the best way to help, means that everyone has skin in the game eg free school meals, sure start centres. There’s no need to fret that the children of corporate lawyers are on average, more likely to be corporate lawyers themselves and live in communities with other lawyers. That’s life and human nature. Opportunities should be available to all and working class unskilled and semi skilled jobs should pay a decent wage and we should build suitable housing for families who manage on these wages and we’ll be fine. We can’t over engineer social mobility and the world only needs so many corporate lawyers or English professors anyway. The underclass with chaotic lives are a relatively small proportion, we need to remember the reason the state is not your parent is it is a very poor one so should only step in when the need is very high. Otherwise universal benefits, decent education and let what will be be.

A decent education definitely @Superfans but i'd disagree with universal benefits.

Kids of high flying or aspirational parents are not all living perfect lives.

Some parents put pressure on their children that they must not "fail".

I think a good start is for parents to just enjoy their children rather than think of them as a project.

And teach them you can learn from failures.

Society wise it might help if the state could take some of the pressure of bills from schools get the buildings safe and staffed. With decently paid, career path for all teaching staff and support staff (and the medical staff), bring some respect back to the professionals in place who do look after and teach our children when we aren't with them.

We could do some if this now.

Our kids could also do with a stable functioning planet but hey minor details.

While 'equality' is often touted in the media, reports etc you are very correct OP in that it's irrelevant.
Who cares if income is very unequal - if the 'worse off' people still have a good standard of living?
It only becomes important if wealth is a zero-sum game, and having very well-off people automatically means that their poorer compatriots have a worse life.
In reality, this isn't true, and it's very nuanced.

I think everyone should have a high standard of living with basic necessities - food, utilities and housing affordable. I don't think having a holiday every year, like most of MN is a basic human right, no. But the big things, yes.

I think it would be fairest if every child grew up in equal circumstances, yes. In terms of wealth and access to education, leisure and healthcare, etc etc

I am forced to accept that there is no realistic practical way to organise the world in order to achieve this. So I'll settle for as much levelling of the playing field as is practical.

@GeneralPeter - Sort of. But it's not so simple as saying that wealth buys privilege and that's why wealthy people do well (some of it is that, of course). That's because talent also buys wealth.

You seem to be of the thinking that most wealthy people deserve it because they are brighter and more brilliant than the rest.

This does not seem to be the case, social mobility is at it’s lowest in 50 years and while the very rich have got richer - there are now 27% of children being brought up in poverty who will have to struggle to break down many barriers to realise their talents.

Helping them isn’t about pulling down privileged children like you seem to be worried about. Reducing child poverty and reducing inequality will create a safer, fairer country with better public services for everyone.

The sins of the fathers, eh?

@mollyfolk Yes. I want much greater social mobility, mainly by providing much better childhood provision.

As for whether financially successful people "deserve" their success: I have quite nuanced views on this, which some of my posts on this thread have touched on. In short: in a sense they do, yes (unless they've cheated); in a different sense, being in a position to be financially successful is hugely dependent on luck, not moral superiority. To put it even more bluntly, as this is an anonymous forum: I'm relatively rich partly because I'm clever and hard working, but mainly because I was born as such in the modern rich world. That's luck. And I'm clever and hard working mainly because of genes, and also because of family environment, none of which I can claim any moral credit for either. So I don't have a great moral claim on my resulting financial position.

As for whether talent correlates with wealth, I explained quite carefully what I'm claiming in my previous post and what I'm not claiming. The idea of valuing social mobility is premised on believing there's a link, so presumably you believe it too.

@GeneralPeter are you measuring success purely financially?

And what exactly is the lower bar for success?

A lot of us know clever and rich arrogant people. A lot of us know amazing less well off clever successful people.

A couple of our teens friends have lovely parents who just don't value academia highly, or can afford fancy packed lunches on school visits, so we help when and where we can to provide and encourage.

Success comes in many forms, our plumber isn't academic, but by lord is he knowledgeable and kind. With a bunch of kids that drive him mad (in the hard working dad way). When there are deep freezes he is still in his van driving around trying to get boilers working until midnight for his vulnerable customers. He is successful, but some might not see that.

And this is why it's difficult to put in place a blanket system to ensure success. I would rather have a kind plumber than a ruthless corporate lawyer anyday of the week.

I have good genes for success none of my own making : high IQ, extroverted and physically attractive enough and i was given the example of a strong work ethic and charity by my family. My parents were WC but my dad is very driven and moved up several rungs, an outlier.

I am wealthy, through my own career. My brother, who has dyslexia, is not as wealthy but still earns around double.the national average and works very hard.

Both my husbands are outliers. Both very successful, both with ex class mates that have remained in socieconomic jobs, in gangs or jail.

What separated them both from their peers was being exposed, by fate, to other people who 'got out' and having the ability ( brains and drive) to go for it. If my current husband hadn't, I have no doubt that he would be in the gang/ jail cohort as they were the tough boys of the time and you are the company you keep.

We need a baseline of education but it starts early with preschool, well funded, experienced teachers. And we need mentors that go into the system and demonstrate opportunitues.

Teachers pay needs revisited, urgently. The more we put into education and support saves on crime related costs and generates more tax, if they then work.

If some.peiple want to pay taxes and school fees, great use that money for public funding.

No this isn't accurate. I spent a lot of time in education social impact research. The only way of engineering social inclusion, and equality and mobility is education.

School continuation programmes, appropriate SEN provision, access to quality guidance, accompanied by Early Years, after school provision, social support clubs and yes the arts play a piece, they are often the unsung hero is capturing a disengaged child interest.

These can dilute the children's "challenging circumstances" they can provide a glimpse of an alternative future.

It won't help every child, but I have seen it help a substantial number in an area that 40- 25 years ago was an absolute write off. And the expectation of outcomes for those there were on the floor.

Today it is a different story, the impact of the education and social support is starting to benefit the next generation. Parents who didn't get the full benefits of the supports are identifying them and engaging for their own children.

If it isn't there you give no child a chance if it is there you give every child a chance.

Where has Tony Blair's Education Education Education actually got us?

Yeah! But he also said he wanted 75% of children to achieve above average.
Assuming he didn't mean "mode" form of average, then the only way he could get that would be if the bottom 25% failed so badly they brought the average down.
I doubt he meant that.
I don't think maths was his strong point.

75% seems a little unambitious really. I am sure there are people who would insist it should be 100% and damn mathematics (after all, what do mathematicians really know ?).

Your post is interesting because it suggests that things are getting better rather than worse, which is the current perception.