I don't know what to think about this - Some parents need to be nannied by the state

[Another2Cats]

An article in yesterday's Times (share token below) with this title. I have thoughts both ways on this.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/d2c38325-db32-4e36-a213-6d84be59a2f0?shareToken=58b28456ef3641836cb2ba7f3f70c791

[redacted by MNHQ for copyright reasons]

My A-Level in Media Studies meant I had the skills to realise that some of that article is embarassing shite when I was 17/18.

There is so much snobbery about media studies, but actually, I think it should be a mandatory subject. I dropped it pretty quickly at AS Level as I didn't like the teacher, but I did a communications degree and one of the most imporrtant parts of that degree was learning about where to find and access information.

In today's digital age with social media disseminating "fake news" and the media having such a huge impact over wider society, we should absolutely be learning about media bias, where to identify the truths from the facts, and learn what is real reporting and what's been embellished.

I was always taught - read a news article in a tabloid. Then read the same story in a broadsheet and see the differences in reporting. Learning how to think critically about the information we're given is a crucial skill yet its not routinely taught in schools.

I used to take my oldest to a Sure Start which ran amazing craft and play clubs where we lived. It was most definitely a middle-class demographic which attended.

This is nothing new. My mum who is now 80 taught primary school for decades and every year came across children starting school who didn't know how a book "worked" - that the pictures related to the story, which way to hold it and open it, that the words started at the top and flowed downwards, which way to turn the pages. This is something which a child who has been shown books since baby hood knows instinctively and does not need to be taught.

I have also come across a huge "not for the likes of us" attitude from many people - university is for mugs, for people who are stuck up, why do you need an education anyway, do you think you're too good for manual labour, are you saying there's something wrong with working in a factory/warehouse/shop your whole life?

He needed to live dangerously and find one of the rare specimens he clealry thinks do not exist - an intelligent and capable poor person - so they can explain to him in very simple language and pictures that he's just produced incontrovertible evidence of being a patronising wanker without the slightest idea of anything other than how to emote other posh people into paying him shitloads to be fucking useless.

Agree and since the loss of sure start and other early intervention the number of children needing Sen support and ehcps in mainstream had gone up as those children who didn’t have the benefit of early intervention work there way though the system and get to crisis point before support is put in place, don’t know if there has been a study but I’d hazard a guess it’s cost more than it’s saved in long run

I taught and helped oversee a local Sure Start. Although it was in an area of poverty -high unemploymet, we did have a mix of parents (usually mums from across different classes) come along. They definitely mixed and got on well although would have probably never have mixed without it.

Give good support to kids and parents in the very early years and you will reduce many issues further along the road.

Also could cut down on fostering fees etc if parents are given more support to keep kids at home ( BTW I'm a foster carer and know that some kids just have to be moved, and some parents won't improve even with the support).

I think it's as much a class thing as it is educational. I don't think the parents who don't know about the right universities or whatever are bad parents, but the writer (who has an annoying tone and throughout the OP I kept thinking, "surely this isn't from The Times") is right that lots of parents don't know what they don't know. And because so many of those families who are either economically or socially disadvantaged are looked down on and generally treated poorly, they are, in my experience, less willing to engage with genuine well meaning efforts to help them.

I agree with a PP also that there's a sort of culture of "let the children decide" which I find quite frustrating sometimes. There needs to be a balance between supporting and guiding which is often lacking.

We've known that's the first 2 years of life essentially determine life chances and outcomes for a long time. This article seems to be conflating 2 issues though. You don't need even a university or a top uni education to be successful..I'm not sure what they're talking about.

I don't think it's the closure of sure start per se but the idea of child focused hubs, which sure start were, where interventions could be attempted. In our county we used to have a scheme run by LA which was like one step before SS intervention. It basically encouraged good parenting, reading, playing with your ore schoolers etc, but was open to everyone with groups too. All went in the cuts. We actually have a charity in our town that does similar but most towns won't. So there is absolutely no provision and an epidemic of really poor parenting, exacerbated massively by screens. Note it's poor parenting, not necessarily neglectful, so these parents would probably never be on the radar for SS despite the fact they are neglecting to equip their DC with basic life skills.

I have also come across a huge "not for the likes of us" attitude from many people - university is for mugs, for people who are stuck up, why do you need an education anyway, do you think you're too good for manual labour, are you saying there's something wrong with working in a factory/warehouse/shop your whole life?

Reverse snobbery is absolutely a real issue. As you say, there's going to be a lot of parents who generationally have been taught "I never went to university/had an education, it hasn't done me any harm..."

What needs to be fixed is the default belief that university is the be-all and end-all. It's not.

I went to university, my husband didn't. Personally, I don't think I will be pushing my kid into uni unless she really wants to go. I'd rather she did an apprenticeship or something where she can learn and earn.

What needs to be resolved is perhaps options for training in non-academic careers. Where's the financial support/training available to help kids become lorry drivers/bus drivers? What help is available to train someone up to become a plumber/electrician or other tradey? Those job roles are just as essential.

The writer of this article was so patronising and unable to see any other perspective, it was embarrassing to read.

I think it’s totally uncontroversial to say that having “connections” helps young people get on, that having parents who understand the university system helps them make the right choice and get in and on. Etc etc. But somehow saying “having parents who don’t understand how university works holds poorer kids back” is controversial.

Supporting is not stigmatising. Pointing out differences between parents is not blaming parents for those differences, merely a necessary condition for helping to address them. Schools alone can’t narrow the gaps between children from different families.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. But if Labour dare to tread here, this is not how it will be characterised.

But it should not be about everyone being high academic acheivers. Or shoehorning those with top grades into Oxbridge. We need people to build things, make things, invent things, make food, serve coffee, deliver things, give good health and social care and to build a more equal society. We need a thriving Further Education sector which the Tories cut massively.

What’s wrong with middle class people also accessing sure start centres? I think it’s much more beneficial for parents and children both to mix with a broader section of society than they might previously be able to.
I know when I was young we were very working class in a very WC area, where you don’t know anyone with a professional job and it feeds into the idea of possible attainment.
In the most idealistic way sure start centres should support everyone and be a 3rd space for parents and carers to receive non structured support also by meeting other people and being exposed to other ideas and lifestyles.

We need compulsory daytime education/care orders for children (from any age) don’t meet the threshold for removal from parents but who have parents who are not able to do the basics day in day out. Being able to get children into nursery for 8 hours a day away from parents who have chaotic lifestyles but want to do the right thing would be transformative.

As a sidenote, I think this is what the Princess of Wales is really focused on too. I think she looks even earlier at the very very early years, but isn't this her big project - the reality that we need to support families much earlier?

DS incidentally has ADHD and isn't terribly academic. He HATES reading. And yet, it turns out he has a vocabulary significantly higher than average and is reading at a level slightly above his age. The Educational Psychologist who assessed him told me that the single biggest factor for children's vocab in her experience is parental education. Which is interesting because we're always being told it's reading. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle (my parents weren't highly educated, but we all read a lot. Me and DH are both highly educated so perhaps that compensates for DS not reading!)

Dc3 has read about 5 books for pleasure in the last 8 years - I'm not even sure they've actually fully read any of them. Has never read for pleasure. Just got 2 x A stars and an A at A level including an essay subject!

I think surely parents with higher education do read more books to their DC..and probably a wider range of books. So it will be a bit of both.

I did a course with Sure Start taking up a spare space after the initial targeting at families in need of additional support. It really did make a difference to those mums' confidence and parenting skills. I remember some of them chatting about going to the breast feeding support group that kept them breast feeding beyond 6m- they hadn't even initially had breast feeding on their agenda early in pregnancy. Babies were fed with formula and that was that in their previous experience.

It turned out that DS1 has additional needs and although the course wasn't revolutionary to me, it was a great reassurance that I had been covering the fundamentals of developing his social and communication skills when they were delayed.

I was parenting with no village. I could afford some commercial activities, but access to free/ cheap library and Sure Start activities helped me get out most days, have social contact and benefit DS's development.

Parents can only raise children with the resources that they have- financial, skills and knowledge. It's not an even playing field out there and Sure Start was a very approachable way of adjusting that playing field. I'd love to see a return of it.

DS1 was born 2010, DS2 2013 so they both benefited at the tail end of the scheme. I notice at my youth groups that parents of younger children who didn't have Sure Start opportinities are much more anxious as parents, far more fussy and have far less confidence about child development. Life has become more pressured and financially tighter for most social groups.

The problem with things like Surestart and parenting courses is that we can't simultaneously be pushing mothers back into work/jobseeking 2 weeks after they give birth (a la the rules on JSA/the JS component of UC) and at the same time expecting them to have free time in the day to go to playgroups and other centres to attend this stuff.

These sorts of places need weekend opening times to actually make a difference for parents who aren't long-term sick/unemployable. Literally everything for young children happens within the standard working week. This means families living chaotic lives, perhaps also below the poverty line, but working (perhaps irregular hours but nonetheless having to keep that time free) are unable to access this stuff.

If we want a parent to spend quality time giving children a good start and going to all these initiatives, we need to make those initiatives work for parents in work/who have to be available for work.

I think the reading thing is usually linked to children’s exposure in their early years, not when they are teenagers.

I come from a poor and uneducated family, I was academically brilliant and got no guidance from school on what to do other than a vague 'you could be a teacher', I assume their attention was elsewhere. I had to teach myself everything about education including realising that I could go to uni and how to get there, what careers were out there because all I knew was manual and service work.

I had actively been taught the wrong behaviours by my parents - don't ask people questions, don't think too highly of yourself, work hard and you'll get noticed. It took years for me to realise and even longer to change.

I do think some families don't have the time or knowledge to guide their DC. I don't think you'd be able to educate the parents on this, they're too busy working and caring. I also think most are too busy to go to sure start. The solution is to get those kids into formal settings as often as possible, around me there's always been more free hours for lower income households.

Then there's teens. I think mentoring is the way to go. A glimpse into another world and some practical advice on how to get there.

I agree so much with everything you've said here. I see some of the families like this around me and they aren't going to change things because they don't see the need. It's getting the children into different environments, and giving them that guidance as soon as possible that makes the difference.

DS high school is a good school. But in our area we also have two long-standing outstanding schools with smaller catchment zones (in the more expensive parts of town). However, his school has been working really really hard to improve things, has lots of investment etc over the last few years and they're making fantastic progress. I attended a talk there last year where they were providing some information on some feedback and analysis they'd been doing on their performance. One thing they were completely open about was that where they have NOT yet reached a sufficiently high standard is in supporting their children to present themselves better. He didn't say anything about the socio-economic reality of our school vs some of the other schools, but I understood it. As a school though, they're now trying really hard to compensate for this because they're fully awsare that even when they're getting grades up (which they are) and improving the progress children make (whcih they're doing brilliantly), they now have to help these children learn other soft skills too.

I'm amused by the subtext of the article is that the proper aim of parenting should be to produce future readers of the The Times. As someone who works in less prestigious universities that still do a good job of turning out useful graduates, including teachers and healthcare professionals, I really don't think we need a society consisting solely of Oxbridge Classics and PPE graduates.

That said, it is frustrating to have children potentially miss out on life opportunities because they don't know they are there and don't have anyone to tell them.

I'm not exactly sure where you stand on this OP but I think the benefit of strong early years support is vastly underestimated. There is tonnes of evidence that good quality early years care benefits all children. Sure start centres I imagine really helped not only for parents to gain the tools necessary to raise a child well but also just to get them out of the house and meeting like-minded parents. Lots of people can't afford £10 a week to chuck a bit of tin foil and sticklebricks at their baby in a baby sensory lesson. Services like this definitely bridged the gap. Another thing that I loved with my child was the free library rhyme-time sessions. Our council now has almost entirely volunteer-led libraries so this has naturally gone. I agree that as a parent the responsibility ultimately lies with you to do what's best for your child but I do think in an already very overwhelmed society it's really sad that these quite little things that can make a massive difference are being overlooked.

This is a problem with many interventions and services aimed at adults. Adult social services have faced the same problems with conventional service provision being focussed on the needs and expectations of the white middle-class.

The answer isn't to chuck the baby out with the bath water by removing the service entirely, it's to adapt the provision to meet the needs of a wider audience.

Evidence, please?

Exactly.... And are they forgetting that genetics also play a huge role in intelligence and attainment? With all the will in the world, if a child is just not that intelligent, they're not going to be achieving brilliant exam results and going to prestigious universities.