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

Cuboidal - very interesting post.

Our local children's centre cancelled a popular non council/centre run group. The building, full of toys and resources, is left empty during this time (except for adults having meetings in the side rooms). What a poor use of a building.

Children's Centres were set up for every child aged 0-5 irrespective of background. The trouble is MC children will thrive with or without CC's. Their parents have the ability to seek out help elsewhere if they need it.

The problem lies in deprivation: teenage parents, illiteracy, lack of manual work, lack of aspiration, DV, ill-health. The CC's tried to educate against these issues but the parents were not attending.

The question is why did they not use these facilities to get free contraception, gain qualifications in Maths and English, learn how to cook meals or put together a CV? Understand the Freedom Program, talk to all the agencies that got together to improve children's outcomes?????? Why did the parents not want to improve their children's outcomes?

YANBU, this is exactly what they want. They don't want to change the status quo as it benefits them to keep things the way they are. They'll spew a few soundbites about 'hardworking families' and then stab them in the back (as per that single mum who was on Question Time or something, she cried because her benefits were cut; as she'd erroneously thought she was one of said hard working families*) And people voted for them, like turkeys voting for Christmas.

*they didn't, they saw her as expendable and didn't care about her or her kids!

The conservatives definitely want social mobility as their brand is helping people to be aspirational. For Labour social mobility is less important as their brand is helping the vulnerable. Whether either manages and how to do it is an entirely different matter.

Agree with banning internships. If ever there was a way of keeping working class kids out of certain professions then this is it. Am amazed it's not actually illegal already

Capitalist conservatism relies on a working, disadvantaged lower class. How rich can you really be without poor people to compare yourself against? YANBU.

I don't think the conservative brand is to help people be aspirational, not everyone's aspiration is to be a wealthy business owner. I honestly believe most conservatives can't see further than the end of their own noses, any policy which benefits others will only be a coincidence because it benefits them too.

Banning internships would be a real shame. When they are set up properly, they are a great experience for someone who has never set foot in a work environment. Good companies give fairly low-key work to start, and also include the intern on higher level project. Everybody is happy.
It's not free workforce, the intern might do some "cheap" work (date entry for example) for next to nothing, but is also being tutored and shown much more interesting things. If the company had to recruit a full-paid employee, I guarantee you they wouldn't spend so much time training them

Internships are usually unpaid. Maybe some travel expenses paid, but someone still has to sleep, eat and clothe themselves. Therefore they are only open to someone who can afford to live for ‘free’ - aka usually those with middle class parents who are funding them.

I’m all for someone starting at the bottom and working their way up but someone should be able to survive on what they’re getting. Otherwise those from poorer families just can’t afford to do them.

Therefore they are only open to someone who can afford to live for ‘free’

Indeed. Unfortunately, they're very, very hard to "ban" - just think what the form of words would be, and consider how to frame it so it doesn't also bar volunteers working in the WRVS shop at your local hospital, or the shop owner's kids doing a few hours at Christmas to help with the rush.

It would be better to focus on the positive and provide encouragement to companies to recruit people into paid training roles; the problem for a lot of companies is that they are very reluctant to employ people full time because of the difficulty of ending it if it doesn't work out.

The USA has a very different employment culture and one should be very careful of reading it as though it's a small variation of ours. There a lot of companies have "internships" which are properly paid; but almost all states are "at will" states and people can be dismissed at any time for almost any reason, so there is no risk to the employer.

people can be dismissed at any time for almost any reason, so there is no risk to the employer.
It used to be a bit like this in this country, and it was a benefit to everyone. Sadly, it's now harder and harder to dismiss employees, so employers are just reluctant to employ.

Internship is unpaid, but so is school or university! You can't replace intern roles by paid jobs, because they wouldn't be the same. What would be the benefit for a company to pay someone to train them? If you pay a salary, you reasonably expect the job to be done.

What would be the benefit for a company to pay someone to train them?

That they'd have trained people? If you join the services, you're paid from day one. Doctors are paid in training posts. There are plenty of teaching roles in which people are paid from day one, Teach First notably (yes, I'm entirely aware of the debates over various routes to QTS, that isn't the point I'm making). Indeed, if you get a job on the till at Tesco, you're paid from day one.

"Children's Centres were set up for every child aged 0-5 irrespective of background"

Yes they were supposed to be for everyone. The idea was that universal entitlement is less stigmatising and more acceptable to people who really need it.

They originally had a really broad remit to provide support and childcare generally and targeted support where needed.

Now there's always a balancing act to be struck with this sort of thing. Because while few working class people want to attend a stigmatised service for "people who need help"- neither will they show up to something dominated slightly intimidating middle class Mums.
I understand that some centres walked this line better than others.

IMO the project was compromised by budget cuts almost from the start.
Lots of centres had to cut the more general "everyone welcome" type projects and "extras" in order to concentrate on the most urgent child protection type things.
This had the effect of making the Sure Start Centres (already viewed as a bit "proper" and "worthy"- I remember lots of Mumsnet threads about them trying to feed toddlers raw broccoli and banning Mums from holding tea cups) look like an arm of social services to working class parents. Who duly avoided somewhere where "they watch you".
Meanwhile middle class Mums continued to attend on the assumption that child protection somehow doesn't apply to them.

Its like an object lesson in what happens when you try to provide a universal service on a targeted budget.

I remember lots of Mumsnet threads about them trying to feed toddlers raw broccoli and banning Mums from holding tea cups

This thread is interesting.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1050971-for-being-flabbergasted-about-what-the-sure-start-worker-said

Anecdote:

"i had a bad experience there as well, i was drinking a small bottle of diet coke and got told to put it away or leave"

"I got told off at the creche at mine for leaving my DS a snack-apparently i was teaching him to eat when he was unhappy"

"TOLD OFF for talking to her friends and not playing with her DS enough"

And then the more general problem:

"I remember being solemnly lectured on the importance of reading to my children, as I made a pop-up book from old magazines & glitter. Quite fun actually! The group of parents consisted of three teachers, a librarian & the manager of the local Waterstone's, on that occasion..."

What a delightful bunch.

Does closing libraries mean that the government doesn’t want people to read? No it means the government need to save money. Does cutting funding for cancer drugs mean that the government want people to die of cancer? No it means the government needs to save money.

Same for the children’s centres. Need to save money.

Extremely unfortunate in all 3 cases. My mum needed a cancer drug that got cut for my area. But it’s about saving money immediately. Not preventing social mobility or trying to fuck people over.

And why are they trying to save money Scatty?

Contrary to common complaints the UK is still an extremely rich country. The only difference now is that more and more of that wealth is being allowed, indeed encouraged, to be tied up in fewer and fewer pockets.

The idea of a small state is an ideological stance which is, despite the propaganda pushing it, not necessary and it has been demonstrated by various bodies that it does result in exactly the lower social mobility the inequality we are seeing. Yet it's still being pushed. So which is the primary motivation?

If "bright children do well anywhere" was true, then why do schools in well-off areas get far higher results, on average, than those in deprived areas? Natural aptitude occurs in a similar percentage of children from all backgrounds. It's the environment and quality of education which is most likely to determine how much of their potential they achieve. Two academically identical 3 year olds with similar potential are highly unlikely to reach the same outcomes if one is in an outstanding school and one in a failing school. I only wish grammars were at least a potential option for those of us who can't afford selection by paying fees or moving house. I'd favour a system with a percentage of places reserved for each background to match the population as a whole.

Were never going to sort anything out until we stop paying people to breed. That’s the sad truth. Poverty etc is never going to be sorted out until then.

Yes, you are being unreasonable.
Sure start centres were quite good but unfortunately you can't pay for everything by borrowing. If I had a bit of spare cash there's an empty pub in my town that I would have considered converting into a children's centre to run as a social enterprise. It could be more or less self funding with things like a thrift shop, hireable rooms, space for mums who have their own businesses to create pop up shops. I had a business plan and everything but not enough capital. I used to be a tory, I'm not now for various reasons, but I'm sorry that I appear to be worthy of your hatred OP.

If bright kids do well anywhere why the angst over grammars? Makes no odds if they're at a grammar or comp.

Save your concern for the north south divide as regards education and life chances. That is a far bigger and more worthy issue to get het up about.

They don’t want to prevent social mobility . They don’t want the poor to have children at all , or they want them to limit the size of their families . It’s simple but rather idealistic. If you are born into poverty your life chances are less than if you’re not .

All British government since thatcher's have done their best to widen social divides to keep the poor poor. First it was the whole 'let's spend more money than we have, increases taxes/destroy the economy in general and price the middle middle class and lower out of decent education sand healthcare" then the whole multiculturalism (I.e. Let's stop the others from mixing with the rest of us be abuse their children will move up a few notches if we let them integrate into British society) thing. This one is particularly bad though. The huge tax rises on the self employed have been devastating for hard working people. Opening up grammar schools in the age of middle class monopolisation is also very unhelpful. The government has also been very unsuccessful in other ways (Brexit comes to mind). The only reason I would support a may government would be to prevent a communist one which is not far off from being a real possibility at this rate.

Oh My Gosh Cuboidal, that thread!
Fwiw I haven't ever been to a Sure Start centre but my son did go to a nursery school where the headteacher was on a mission to save all the little estate kids from their low expectations and poor outcomes.
I really, really wanted to be behind the mission but the constant workshops on attachment, the "homework" about healthy eating, the attempts to involve us in everything (DH showed up to something that was billed as preperation for primary school once and was made to construct a dinosaur out of cardboard boxes. He was expecting to be instructed on what to put in a pencil case!)- were frankly exausting to navigate.
You always had the impression that they viewed the parents as something the children needed to be rescued from in some way.
Having said that: I moved him to a middle class primary school, expecting the do-gooding to ease off. No such luck. I just get to be lectured on a different basis (failing to do 20 minutes bloody phonics a night rather than failing to talk to him - as was once implied!) They have higher expectations for me to fail to meet it seems!

I have the slightly contradictory urge to defend sure start even though I wouldn't have enjoyed it. Better a flawed service than no service at all.

I'm going to play devils advocate here. When people call for greater social mobility, what they're actually asking for is a greater number of people who are born working class to end up middle class, yes?

What if everyone who was born working class became middle class? Would the middle class become the new working class? Is it that we want a totally classless society?

This has never worked. Humans are hierarchical creatures.