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.

I don't think I see this through a privileged lens. I didn't grow up monied, and I have earned everything I own, and paid taxes along the way. I have inherited SFA. I grant you that I had a stable ish family background and intellectual ability in my favour. Of course you are right that everyone wants to provide their family a decent life. But when times are tough, the ability to take a brave step into the unknown (like a refugee, perhaps) is what it takes?

But you are using words without actual actions. Say you've got a depressed unemployed person living hand to mouth on benefits and struggling to keep food in the cupboard and a roof over their head. "Brave step" what?

These people have no resources. They dont have money to start a business. They can't move elsewhere as they can't afford a rent down-payment on a flat. They may not even have a decent set of interview clothes. They haven't got a car. They may not have a bike and bus and train fare is a significant chunk of their weekly benefit money.

What do you suggest thus "Brave Step" is? Because these problems have been around for a long time and throwing words like Brave step bootstraps and get on your bike hasn't really done anything.

Refugees are not acting out of economic interest but desperation to try to avoid dying. Even they often have some resources (ie money to pay people smugglers) that set them above the most wretched of their countrymen.

These are just empty words at the end of the day. And I find it hard to talk to conservatives about these things as they always resort to the personality responsibility get up and sort yourself out mantra. But if it was possible these people would have done it already.

You need to be aware of the huge challenges certain sections od society face before you can even begin to understand.

We would not have had the capital to start our business had DH not gone overseas in the 1980s to earn the (tax-free) money that was the starting point. We would not be successful without the five years when I supported DH's baby business and paid the mortgage and bills. We could have gone bankrupt during two or three financial crises in between; we did have 18 months when we paid the people on the payroll and we took nothing at all. So now, we are almost 70; we'd like to retire, pull stumps. But we are responsible for six families' livelihoods, and no one wants the sleepless nights.

@KHMP1971 I don't think we disagree significantly but we start from different beginnings.

Great so in the case of a depressed person on benefits living hand to mouth explain how they "go overseas" when they probably don't have a passport and can't afford the bus fare into town.

I'm sorry but this is very frustrating.

Much as I would like to wave a magic wand over the depressed person on benefits, we both know I can't. So it is down to the individual . As always.

And, actually, I don't feel responsible for every shortcoming. I can't fill in all the gaps. I don't expect anyone to fill in the gaps EXCEPT the folk who have the gaps to fill. Over to you. You have the spoon.

OK well if the individual doesn't have the resources (financial, emotional, intellectual social) to do very much to change things then things are just going to stay as they are.

If they have nothing to fill the gaps with then the gaps remain unfilled. Does that make sense?

Unless s/he gets a lucky break somehow. Sometimes that happens. More often it doesn't.

If it was as straightforward as you make it sound then we would have eradicated poverty generations ago dont you think?.

Beleive me noone wants to be poor.

These are complex problems with multiple layers which cannot be addressed with simple soundbites about being brave.

Some people are more competent than others @KHMP1971 and braver and more resourceful. So in pleading incompetence, are you suggesting that the failures get a free pass to do nothing?

So explain what the "Brave step" should be for someone depressed on benefits with no money no capital no passport maybe no skillset which would land them a good job overseas?

Honestly if you have some magical solution to eradicate poverty that hasn't been discussed to death over the last century I'd love to hear it.

Explain how someone with no resources perhaps no special skillset which would land them a great job perhaps no passport no money to invest would take this brave step.

Start by aiming to access education?

Calling people "failures" is just fucking nasty. You obviously aren't a nice person and give off that superior sneering Tory vibe that quite frankly turns my stomach. Bye.

I don't think I have called any failure. You are out of arguments.

Yes, good point...if there's no jobs...the government should provide jobs. But the person could try to improve skills in the meantime.

I personally wish that government would do New Deal-style workfare where people get money in return for doing tasks. At least that gives practice in a skill & self-respect, keeps the person busy while they look for something more lasting..

Well you said 'does that mean the failures get a free pass'?

Unless you meant 'failures' as in people's failures rather than people themselves?

Well either encourage their kids tobreak the chain by getting a decent education or don't have kids to be another generation of depressed non workers

That’s precisely what they’re trying to do by increase in the public sector which will in turn trickle down to the private sector. It’s funny they don’t seem to like trickle down economics under those circumstances in the private sector.
Because it improves lives and we can’t have that

Again its more complicated than just "do this and poverty will be eradicated". If it was so simple don't you think it would have been eradicated generations ago? It's not a new phenomenon.

I already said we need decent schools to encourage children to explore their options and grow in their talents. But the opportunities need to be there for them - or they need to be able to access the resources they need to make their own opportunities.

Telling people to "not have children" has never really worked. Not sure how you're going to enforce that...

The Tories are really starting to show their true colours I see. "Allow the failures to do nothing". "Some people are just more intelligent and resourceful (ie "superior") than others". "Just don't have children"

Nasty stuff.

No I think the poster knew exactly what they meant. Horrible stuff. This is why I can't talk to Tories. Its always the same vile rhetoric starts spewing out of their mouths when they get cornered. Gross.

They never change.

No different to Tebbit telling people to get on their nonexistent bikes to look for nonexistent work and then painting them as "failures" when they didn't.

Horrible people. I avoid in real life as much as possible but they do have a way of infiltrating online discussions sadly.

Disclaimer: I admire VWoolf as an author and innovator. But despite the Bloomsbury Group’s rejection of the values of the Victorian era, I don’t think they were socially very different. They expected to live leisured lives and have servants and VW was a shocking snob. It’s the same with many so-called revolutionaries of the early 20th century - they espoused all kinds of new freedoms for themselves but I think they were happy for the old social hierarchies to continue for their convenience.

I don’t understand the question!

Those are not my original thoughts- they’re what academic sociologists have said about the sector which used to be called the underclass. I’ve said in another post that I don’t know what the current designation is - happy to be updated. Labels and terminology change very fast these days.

The fact that it’s difficult to address their problems is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. It’s a problem that governments have struggled with for decades and not just in this country. I think that’s largely what we’re discussing on this thread, isn’t it? When we talk about poverty this is the group we are mainly referring to, so I and pretty much everyone has given some suggestions and opinions throughout the thread on how to ‘help’ improve things. But - I think most pps also admit it’s a bloody difficult problem to solve because a) resources are always going to be limited and b) we all know it’s not just about money. It’s about changing an ingrained culture.

It's so much more complicated than that. The early years are critical (and this was where Sure Start came in), if a young child hasn't received the right 'tools' and messages it is going to be much harder for them to get a "decent education". Education begins at home, if you haven't got a parent who is facilitating that, or even worse, telling you that school/reading/phonics is a waste of time, the odds are massively stacked against you.

Just a brief point.

You hear a lot about resourcing schools in terms of equipment, computers etc.

I’m a retired teacher and honestly, by far the most beneficial thing that could be done for schools in disadvantaged areas is to vastly reduce class size.

Bugger the computer suites and fancy gimmicks (see below) and all the trimmings. What disadvantaged kids need is to be in groups of 10 and have MUCH more teacher attention, input and proximity. It’s well-known that the easier to manage the children, the larger class sizes a teacher can teach. In the 70s I was always in a class of 33-36 but those were different times in terms of behaviour and expectations.

Children from chaotic homes and with special needs can get very angry and impatient if they have to wait long for the teacher’s attention- they need to be in much smaller groups and build a connection with the teacher. These kids might have more screen time than they need at home - so give them what they won’t get: quality attention from a teacher.

Another point - once, schools might have had to fork out for a new set of textbooks every ten years. Now they have to replace banks of computers and update software much more frequently than that. The modern era is vastly more expensive than the past!

(I mentioned gimmicks which eat up funding and do zilch, and I remember when that Super Head ((Tostig someone) took over Pimlico School and had a massive professional phot taken of every student, framed them and hung them throughout the school. What a gargantuan waste of money.)

Sorry - that wasn’t very brief! 🤣