To think that this government wants to prevent social mobility?

[lottieandmia22]

They peddle sound bites about hardworking people and then close all the children's centres. Therefore stopping disadvantaged children from starting out on a more level playing field. Of all the things I hate about the Tories this issue makes me the most angry.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/20/childrens-centres-closed-austerity-council-cuts-tracy-brabin?CMP=sharebtnn_fb

I agree. That's British society for you loud and clear. It is one of the most unequal societies disallowing social mobility.

Need to curb:

House prices and renting injustices
Offshore accounts
Internships and summer jobs through family contacts
Prejudice of names, race and ethnicity (in France & Germany names and DOB are removed from cvs for example)
The stigma behind the 11+ and not passing
The stigma of internships (again in Germany and the Netherlands internships are a good route into positions)

The 11+ was the biggest creator of social mobility and we all know who to thank for the bog standard comrehensive system. And they aint wearing blue.

Holly - the time to create a level playing field and improve outcomes for the socially disadvantaged is when the child is very young - not at 11.

My dad from a well off background passed his 11 plus. My mother from a poor background failed hers. As did all of her siblings except one. Go figure...

Stop reading the Guardian then

Regarding CC's - our council still run ours but following a review it was found the the centres in more affluent area's were far better attended by middle class mums than the parents they really wanted to reach in the more deprived areas.

It's a chicken and egg situation isn't it. The reason we need social mobility is because Britain has such a large social hierarchy in the first place. Which is being reinforced by the lack of social mobility. Which is only needed because of the social hierarchy.

European socialist democracies have flatter hierarchies and higher mobility. It's linked.

I agree with the problem LifeBeginsAtGin (lovely username btw) mentions too. Every decision since the 80s has had the effect of reinforcing the need for individual power and opportunity - and of course that will entrench the advantage of those who have power and opportunity, i.e. the pre-existing middle classes.

in France & Germany names and DOB are removed from cvs for example

I thought German CVs included a photo. You can guess someone's ethnicity and age from a photo.

At one point they also included parents' occupation so employers could tell whether your year out was funded by mum and dad, or whether you'd got a job and worked your way round the world. Not sure if that's still the case, but was normal in the early and mid 90s.

HollyBayTree The grammar system is a way to prevent social mobility by only allowing a few (often coached, often by buying up property) in.
Outcomes for comprehensive education are far better for far more children. Bright children do well anywhere. My eldest two got excellent academic results from a comprehensive- but that’s only anecdotal. More children do better from comprehensive schools statistically. They also allow more protected, middle class chit learn about compassion towards less affluent and less able peers, to really educate children to ‘mix with everyone’ and to understand the impact of disadvantage.

@Iprefercoffeetotea

True many cvs still have photos on them. Agencies etc ask people to remove them which makes me think that they are being phased out.

'Stop reading the Guardian then'

The closures of the children's centres are a matter of fact. They are not something that has been fabricated by the Guardian or anyone else

Anecdotally, when my children were very young I used to live on a council estate with mixed ownership in a fairly deprived area. I loved the sure start centre, it had great facilities and baby and toddler groups. Not one mum attending was from a poor family, we were all middle class parents coming for a cup of tea and a chat. I'm sorry to see children's centres closing, but I doubt they are a vehicle for social mobility.

That's not my experience of the children's centres at all. You can't base your view on one centre that you attended.

The government says one thing and does another with pretty much everything. They have no integrity whatsoever and cannot be trusted.

Oh well, sorry for venturing an opinion based on my personal experience. As I said, it's anecdotal evidence. I doubt many of us have attended more than a couple of centres in their lifetime, but I'm sure you're an expert so we'll listen to your superior experience.

Nyetimber Bright children do well anywhere. Matter of opinion there. I taught a bright boy, professional parents, sisters had done well, who did not and would not, engage in any academic area whatsoever. He had decided pretty much by the end of Year 9 to drop out.

I went to a comp, am fairly bright, but was not pushed enough, even though we were both streamed and setted. The comps in which I have taught, haven't done either. It's been mixed ability. That really doesn't help.

The children’s centres were generally all attended by middle class mums. Their target market weren’t interested in them.

Well it's ridiculous to say that a scheme aimed at young children will not be a vehicle to help social mobility. The formative years are the most important. Where I live young children who seemed disadvantaged developmentally were encouraged to go to the children's centres by health visitors. There were a wide range of different people.

You can't base your view on one centre that you attended.

I haven't read the linked article, but if this is about Sure Start centres, then they are being cut because statistical evidence from across the country is that they are being used by the wrong people, in precisely the way the person you are responding to described.

It's not a topic I follow, but the last I read (quite a while ago) is that they were not being abolished everywhere, they will continue in areas where they do reach the right people.

Sadly, sure start centres rarely worked in the way they were supposed to. The "wrong" people used them. There may be a few that bucked that trend, but nation wide, they ended up being prodominately used by middle class parents, who didn't need them.

(The grammar debate is a separate issue, they did seem to improve social mobility when they were a country wide scheme, certainly the replacement of comprehensives seems to do little to change the status quo re social mobility, but then is the aim of education just about social mobility or providing appropriate education for as many children as possible? )

That's not my experience of the children's centres at all. You can't base your view on one centre that you attended.
It may not be your experience but you can't ignore someone's experience just because it doesn't agree with yours...

Does anyone know what will be done to support poorer families though?

Also, why those target families did not attend?

Also anecdotally, as a poorer person now due to health problems, but formerly middle class and Grammar school IYSWIM, it can sometimes be a mixture of imtimidating, frustrating, embarrasing etc etc to attend somewhere where you are the poorest poor in the village surrounded by people doing better than you, being confident and aspirational. Becasue many poorer families will also be struggling with poor health and poor MH as well as less education and opportunities, and the usual alienation from and suspicion of the system and authorities.

I'm not saying any of you were not lovely people but if 'the wrong people' were going then that may be why the right people weren't going. That isn't to say that mixing with all people/classes isn't the ideal but perhaps it was too much, too soon?

And that is of course if you realise that it would be beneficial for you and your kids.

My concern is what will be done now?

Not one mum attending was from a poor family, we were all middle class parents coming for a cup of tea and a chat

This is the same experience as I had. The tea and coffee was free at the local Sure Start baby groups and Childrens Centres but you had to pay for it at the bounce and rhyme group or baby babble groups the other side of the town in the richer areas. It attracted more wealthy parents than it did those who really needed the service.

I think that for lots of families in more deprived areas the Sure Start and Childrens Centres were seen almost as a judgement on their parenting ability.
They feel that they don't need the support because they will do just fine or that the volunteers (mostly middle class I might add) made them feel they were failing in some way if they relied on them.

Several volunteers had been going into high schools to highlight the work they were trying to do to support families and parents complained they felt their children were being informed about the service not because its generally useful but because theres an expectation theyre going to be teenagers who get pregnant and need the help from the childrens centres.

Basically the childrens centres set up to help those who might need help, support and information weren't being used because of social attitudes. If they're not being used they cant help improve anything. Its an expensive project to help poorer families but find theyre not the ones using the service.

"It may not be your experience but you can't ignore someone's experience just because it doesn't agree with yours..."

try that again with the Tory haters. They never accept that anyone else can have a different experience or... wait for it... disagree with them.

in France & Germany names and DOB are removed from cvs for example
which is complete bollocks, you can pretty accurately guess somebody's age based on the date of his exams and the length of his past employment.

My local children centre were great, but only seemed to attract middle class mums between 2 expensive private baby groups and childminders.

In an ideal world, there would be unlimited funding for these kind of things, but where is the funding supposed to come from?

Baby clinics held in GP surgeries would be a great help too, many around here seem to require a car. Mums who recover from c-section and don't have a driver (friend or family), or mums without cars are losing out.

I would agree with some pp that initiatives to close the gap for deprived families don’t seem to be effective. Perhaps the basic social infrastructure - decent housing, properly funded social services, access to mental health services, a living wage etc - need to be in place before thinking that a couple of play sessions a week is going to make up for the lack of basic human physiological needs.