To think the Stereotype of poorer people = Less stimulation of their child is wrong?

[Jaderuby]

This really does exist and I’m seeing it more and more in the way professionals like teachers and the government think. That children from poorer backgrounds are likely to be less stimulated growing up. It's the reason nursery places are given from 2 to those on benefits, because it's expected that the child is plonked in a buggy and barely spoken too. Not chatted too or interacted with from birth.

You also get lower targets for children in deprived areas, For example some schools have level 2A as high for 7 year olds, when others have level 3, because a better score isn’t expected from poorer people.
It's wrong Class and money have little to do with the amount children are interacted with and how they are taught.

YABU, it does exist, that doesn't mean it's causational, but the things that often cause poverty, also cause lack of interaction. And it's an easy and cheap way to provide differentiation in targets.

Would you rather huge money, time and snooping be spent evaluating every child and family, or that money and time spent on broad brush targets which capture 90%, occasionally giving more resources to those who don't need it?

I think poorer parents are likely to work longer hours and not be around as much to play, educate or enthuse with their children over what they've been learning at school.

I don't think they're any less willing or capable , but sadly the fact is that more working class families are struggling to make ends meet, and that has an impact on their children.

Yes, it exists and is statistically very significant

Your anecdote remember is just your observations and not a generalisation across a statistically significant number

Kids on FSM or pupil premium statistically as a group on average do much worse at school than kids who aren't, as a group.

The figures are undeniable, even if you, personally, know a load of kids on FSM who are doing really well at school.

Is a blunt tool but yes evidence shows this can be the case.

I will dig out some research.

I'd like to agree with you, but the evidence tells a different story.

The problem is that there are so many exceptions to the rule, which is why I completely disagree with the way pupil premium funds are allocated and with the two year old funding.

It does exist. It doesn't mean every person on a low income fails to interact with their child, but on a population level there is a link. It can mean children starting school are two years behind other children before they've even walked through the door. It's absolutely correct to put money into closing this gap - and incidentally, there's also evidence to show intervention in this way helps raise achievement across the whole cohort so it's beneficial for all.

And you're wrong about the targets - our pupil premium students are expected to make MORE progress, and do it faster.

you'll need to download the pdfs on this page. This shows age 11 and on

If you're struggling to feed, house and clothe your children and daily life is a grind then its hard to be motivated to provide any extras on top. Life is hard just surviving it. Its Mazlows heirarchy of needs, if you are struggling to provide the ones at the bottom of the pyramid, you have little time or energy to achieve those higher up
4.bp.blogspot.com/-fZDk9SJzrQo/VSwLYFykuzI/AAAAAAAAE4Q/wBG6jss_e_c/s1600/Maslowr.png

Let's not tar all poor parents with the same brush. Aside from everything else, it is deeply insulting.

Plenty of people whose children qualify for the PP and two year old funding are not struggling to house, feed or clothe their children.

A lot of people aren't natural with talking to babies, While most will happily sit around pointing and counting everything they do from birth, count the babies legs and they are getting dressed, "you've got blue trousers, one leg in, two legs in." Pointing out colours in books, item and shapes they read and so on.
To other people this doesn't come naturally, there are people who don’t realise this will benefit.

I honestly think it would help if soaps and other TV shows had realistic interactions with children, look at eastenders, a baby is born then it's off screen 99% of the time and when they are on screen dialoug is never to them.

And that isn't just working class people by the way.

I come from a very poor background. My mum went out of her way to try and ensure that we were stimulated. But if you compare averagish or below average parents who are well off or poor, it is clear why those from a poor background do worse. The average or below average parents I know who are well off have their children in paid for clubs and activities from babies. Those who are very poor don't have that option.

Yabu. I live in the most deprived area of my city but work in the most affluent area and I'm astounded by the difference in speech and language between kids from the poor area and kids from the rich area, even between the 3 year olds. There is also a big difference in how the parents interact with the children, its really fascinating.

YABU .

We have a fantastic sure start that's very new and amazing facility's. Mostly for a £1 or free. A huge majority that use it are from the neighbouring areas (we live in a poor area) and as a result it's slowly shutting down. There is an amazing sensory room and it's rarely used. I know this as I'm friends with the people that work there as I actually use it. I was on maternity at first and then I gave work up to be a SAMP as we could afford it.

Also when I did a very small stint as a TA the poorer children where just not as bright eyed and bushy eyed in the morning as the kids that had money. There is defanatly a divide

Very true ime.

Let's not tar all poor parents with the same brush. Aside from everything else, it is deeply insulting.

Yes, but from a government's point of view you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Especially if you're a Conservative government. Those horrid public school boys don't care about the poor and won't fund early years education for disadvantaged children. Those horrid public school boys are patronising the poor and assume we need help with early years education.

YANBU

My Mother, born Working Class, to a Mum who had to juggle two part time jobs and a painter/decorator Dad . They never had much and they struggled to accept the place and uniform costs plus travel when my Mum then Aunt got places at a Grammar School.
Mum worked, , worked hard , in jobs not that great but always worked.. Her luck came in the mid 80s through the 90s when she reached a very high position for a well known womens magazines company . Wouldn't say she was middle class now but she and Dad are doing more than alright .

Mum was simulated as a child by Nan , ,could read, write and knew her times tables before starting primary . I was simulated with books, puzzles, toys etc though we were definitely Working Class then . I hate how so many poor are tarnished and judged by those who think they are "better" , ,mainly by a luck of birth .!

YABU - it is a cycle, over all people who grew up without stimulation and encouragement are more likely to achieve poor educational outcomes, and move onto benefits as adults, and bring their own children up the same.

I'm afraid in the tiny sample of the population that I know personally the poorest family I know seem to have limited stimulating interaction with their young children. They leave the children in their cots from waking until lunchtime, for example. The parents have low attainment and no aspirations for themselves and they are just perpetuating the problem. They are getting a lot of help from HV and social services but it wouldn't be a surprise if they don't take their oldest child to nursery at 2 because it is more organisation, and effort than they can manage at the moment.

It's nothing to do with feeling better than anyone.
Where I live there is such a poverty of aspiration. It's very depressing.
Bad parenting begets bad parenting.
And so it goes on.