Is there a worrying class divide with parenting?

[teaandcupcake]

I saw a tweet (and subsequent TikTok) about this and found it interesting.

The author of the tweet and the girl on TikTok were basically saying they notice the way their middle-class friends parent their small kids is screen-free, lots and lots of books, lots of time and attention. Their toddlers can read and write. In contrast, teacher friends at deprived primaries have shared stories of reception starters in nappies, children who have no idea how to turn the page of a book or use a knife and fork.

The concern being that the divide between middle-class and working-class children is going to be so vast in the future we ‘can’t even fathom it right now’

I found it interesting as the topic of reception children starting school without reaching basic milestones has been discussed on here many times before but not whether it’s class issue and what’s causing this.

@Differentforgirls

I remember my oldest son lying under the dining room table, which I had made into a tent with blankets over the chairs. He was in there for ages, blowing wee bubbles and thinking. Children don’t get that time to themselves now because they are institutionalised from a very young age. I really hate this new culture where children are farmed out to strangers and spend all day away from their parents and people think this is normal. It isn’t.

By "farmed out to strangers" I assume you're referring to the practice of using paid childcare? (I'm sure you do because I see this ugly trope on here all the time and it's as old as the hills).

Do you realise that many of us have to "farm our children out to strangers" (as you so charmingly put it) because we need to put food on the table? If I hadn't used childcare my child would have either starved or lived on benefits. What would you suggest I do?

This ugly little phrase is really really insulting and small minded.

Apparently, people who claim UC to be with their children are “scum”. I think they’re good parents.

The parents who can choose to claim UC to work PT aren't scum, nor are the parents who are working in a professional responsible jobs.
Now being honest, do you think that parents on UC would stay home for the joy of being with the DC, if there wasn't money giving out for it over working for the money?
Keep in mind that those high earners "who farm their DC out" pay for the UC.
Remember also that the children in childcare are stimulated daily, being educated, not plonked in front of the TV.
Children who have been to nursery are much more independent and capable than those who didn't go.

You can work FT and claim UC. It's not necessarily about not working or only working PT. It depends how low your wage is.

Sadly it's quite possible to be a full time working single parent and be entitled to UC. It shows how crap wages are in this country.

It can make the difference between having to work two jobs to keep a roof over yours and your child's heads and being able to do one FT job, get home at a reasonable hour and have energy and time to devote to them.

There'd nothing wrong with being a high earning parent either, even if it means using childcare. High earners can provide much that lower earners can't such as holidays and interesting hobbies so there are benefits to both.

We all want the best for our children at the end of the day.

We all want the best for our children at the end of the day. True. 💯

I remember running in circles around the garden barefoot singing to myself and making up stories. Because there wasn't much else to do. My mum had no car no spare cash and we kids didn't do much in the way of activities back then anyway. My DD has never done that. She rides horses, takes guitar lessons and you know what? That's what I chose for her. I didn't want her idly running around in circles because she was bored. I wanted her to have experiences. And she has. I agree that looking back to the days of free play is just nostalgic nonsense. I was scared of half the neighbourhood children. It was a rough area. And we conveniently forget the tragic stories of children who were abducted, killed and harmed. It wasn't safe at all. I member children climbing walls and jumping onto a pile of old mattresses. Dirty mattresses that tramps had been sleeping on. I remember finding discarded, used condoms on an old garage (we didn't know what they were). A friend of mine had a man come outside his house, expose himself and beckon her to come in. I remember my friends going to the railway to play and climbing into an old railway truck. No it wasn't Stand by Me or the Goonies. It was neglectful and dangerous and I so so glad neither of my children had those experiences. Yes they were helicoptered and went to football and ballet and stagecoach and swimming and art club and pony club and all the rest of it. And I'm so glad.

Those children should not be in school without a parent's presence to deal with nappies, that might concentrate their minds about their failure as parents. Usual caveat re genuine, certified illness, not the 'Mummy says they're not ready' rubbish.

They all get trained eventually anyway. You don't get 10 year olds in nappies.

My DS was slow to potty train and wet his pants for a few weeks after starting nursery. He's at uni 300 miles away now and I haven't (yet) had any calls home from his lecturer that I need to bring him a change of trousers. Chill. They're children. They're fine. Let them grow at their own pace.

@Differentforgirls

Apparently, people who claim UC to be with their children are “scum”. I think they’re good parents.

I have never said people who claim UC are "scum". Or anything anywhere close to that.

But surely you realise that not everyone can just merrily chuck their job in and claim UC in order to spend every waking minute with their children? Are you really saying that the benefits system should fund everyone to drop out of the workforce to spend a few additional years with their children? Who do you think will pay for this, given that the benefits system is ultimately funded by.... wait for it... people who work and pay taxes? You haven't really thought this through.

Also do you really think that having a parent hovering around you all the time compensates for the reduction in opportunities a child would have by having is parent wilfully choose UC over work?

@KHMP1971

No it wasn't Stand by Me or the Goonies. It was neglectful and dangerous and I so so glad neither of my children had those experiences. Yes they were helicoptered and went to football and ballet and stagecoach and swimming and art club and pony club and all the rest of it. And I'm so glad.

Thank you. This "children need to be bored" narrative is reductive and simplistic groupthink. There is a grain of truth in the idea that overscheduling burns children out and deprives them of imagination, but most of the time I think the "just let them be bored" is parroted by people who lack the imagination of the gumption to do anything more interesting with their children.

I think Covid magnified the problem as children were not mixing outside their homes for the first year of their life or more. Children with good, engaged parents did better, children with less involved parents did worse. That cohort of babies are now in Reception and Year 1.

UC is like £700-£800 per month for a single parent and child (you can get some help towards rent but it doesnt always pay the full amount). Noones chucking their job in for that.

It does provide a top up to a low wage. Which can mean a parent can get by without having to find additional work giving them more time with their child in evenings and weekends. But its not enough to give up your job for. People on UC aren't on it because they gave up a job to scrounge, beleive me. Most would rather be working with a good salary so they could offer their child a better quality of life and not have to live with constant financial stress.

All I know is that when I was running circles around the garden or jumping on a dirty mattress on the scrappy piece of ground at the end of our road called "The Croft" where people used to fly tip their rubbish with a group of children i didnt like very much who were a bit rough, I would much rather have been at Pony Club or Stagecoach as my daughter was at the same age.

Free time is great when they've got a good selection of books, some art supplies, a pet to cuddle, an instrument to play (doesn't need to be expensive), a garden to dig. I agree the "let them be bored" is mostly a lazy dismissive response. There's no need to be bored. They should totally have time to themselves to do whatever interests them but they should also have access to things to explore and be creative with. The creativity is in letting them decide what to do.

I honestly think that the whole going to school in nappies thing has been caused by the advice that we should wait until the child is ready and that could be 3.5, that is fine.

It seems to me that there is a bit of a potty training window, where the child is interested to learn. I think the whole advice around potty training is wrong and we are simply leaving it too late.

Unfortunately I think this is the crux of it, and something no one (especially MN) wants to talk about because who wants to hear a message like that? It sounds anti feminist.

The message I hear is that society simply isn't doing enough to support parents with more flexibility.

I agree. But at the same time the kids who were jumping on dirty mattresses are now just staring at screens. And; as a volunteer with children in a club capacity; I have seen how some kids physically are so much more unfit these days. I personally think this has widened the gap between kids whose parents bring them to sports (which is across the board money wise - lots of low income type options and lots of working class parents take their kids also)

But basically I think the health of kids with parents who are involved and those who are more neglectful has expanded widely - just over the last 15 years I’ve been involved with kids clubs.

The gap between rich and poor is not the biggest it’s ever been. Think about the difference in lifestyles in history!

Yes, I do think it's sad when some talk as if music/ballet/sport/drama etc are middle class fripperies that children were fine without in the 60s. Sure, lots of kids are, and it's sad when kids are forced to do a instrument etc that they hate just to get into a particular school or similar.

But we shouldn't go off the deep end & say there's no value in hobbies. They can bring immense value all your life.

Not sure if it’s a middle class thing either as both parents typically work and are time poor. Plenty of middle class children using screens! I think there’s a big divide between one parent working and one staying at home - that person staying at home as more time to dedicate to their children’s education

This is a horrible topic to discuss, but sibling sexual abuse is being discussed more and more recently. It is far more common than previously thought, & risk factors include being supervised by siblings a lot & sharing a room.

I understand people harking back to 60s-70s etc era when siblings played outside together & siblings sharing a room wasn't criticised so often as neglectful or bad, but there is a serious reason to be wary of these things, at least to some extent.

www.csacentre.org.uk/research-resources/practice-resources/sibling-sexual-abuse/

I agree, both DS and DD played in local football teams when younger. Subs were around £3 a week. Shirts were provided by the club, boots and other bits of kit could be expensive although the main investment was the time spent in driving them to practice and standing around freezing on cold evenings and weekend matches plus travelling to matches when they were playing at other local grounds. Obviously some parents weren't prepared to do this.

Swimming wasn't expensive and they also did Scouts and Guides which provided activities. Both also did Karete for while (that was the most expensive activity they did. Taekwondo was cheaper at £3 a session)

Finances aren't really a barrier to sport I agree (especially if your DCs are happy to wear Sondico kit!)

But jumping on dirty mattresses was just neglectful and dangerous and it makes me so sad that was how we often ended up entertaining ourselves.

I would loved to have done ballet as a child. Makes me very sad I didn't get the chance. I also discovered as an adult that I have a nice singing voice. I do a few solos at my church now but I feel sad to think of all the children's choirs etc I might have missed out on.

Some good resources are the podcast SiblingsToo and others mentioned in the major article on this last year in The Times.

https://archive.ph/RjuYi

I was thinking about this more recently in the context of articles about the falling birth rate. Presumably more and more 'one and done' families would mean this happens less. I'm not saying one & done is better bc of that, but otoh I do worry about promotion on the other end of big families.

I follow quite a lot of right wing (often US) and/or conservative Christian writers on various publications & Substacks to get different views. The ones from Catholic mothers are often full of cheerful articles about the joys of 7 kids. They're nice to read (I myself was only and plan to do that too) but I sometimes worry when they say things like, 'Let your kids play out with older siblings supervising. Having more kids is actually easier.'

Kids playing out etc is nice ofc but just going back to the idyllic 50s-style attitude isn't ideal imo, for the reason I mentioned above, in particular.

OP You’ve just described good parents and bad parents, not middle class and deprived. Books (libraries), time & attention, nappy training, knives and fork teaching are cheaper than screen devices. We need to stop making excuses for this. Next thing you know Labour will be introducing a good parenting privilege tax.

No.