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 think it's not nessarily just class but overall social mobility.

There are areas of the country that perform well in social mobility despite being predominantly working class.

I didn't say that children shouldn't pursue different careers in line with their strengths. I champion an excellent education for all.

Engineering powerhouse countries such as as Germany and Japan have and value technical colleges which we have done away with here - although with T-levels attempts are being made to restore that.

I assume that the children that you envisage becoming brick layers and carers at 14 are from middle class backgrounds?

I think this is true. I remember reading an article years ago which was saying that historically a mother’s educational level was an indicator of likely educational attainment, but that was being affected by spending early years in nursery, because it was the educational attainment of the nursery worker which was the primary influence.

I can remember similar things being said in the 70s and these were not new ideas even back then.

Same here. Three different private schools, ban on mobile phones on the premises in all of them. Lots of MC parents who are advocating against smartphones in general so children don't have them at home either.

It feels strange sometimes though as you cannot shield children from reality and their future is all tech anyway.

So he doesn't have a clue about the school, just 30 kids out of maybe 1000 or more. He probably doesn't really know what 60 parents do for work or their backgrounds but does know about the parents of his kids friends, just like I did. Unless he turns up at school events and starts interviewing people which would be weird. But

The chances are he knows far less than he thinks he does about the other families but likes to reassure himself that he isn't the only high earner who can't afford private school fees.

I saw this & as a teacher I disagree. I'd argue it's the mc parents who are more likely to follow parenting "trends" (child led stuff/ gentle parenting, which often leads to later weaning, potty training), while wc parents are often extremely conscious of how they are viewed so ensure their child is smart, well equipped and has ticked as many boxes as possible for school to avoid trouble/judgement. As for tech- we are at the point where that transcends class divides. A wc child is no more likely to have a tablet than a mc child. In fact, mc kids tend to have more/better tech once they reach teenage years because their parents can afford to buy more / upgrade regularly.
This is as extremely over simplified view and really rather patronising to wc parents ("oh their poor children - they really don't know what they're doing, do they?").

If they want to. what has class got to do with anything? The world is a different place in the year 2025 than it was in 1970. There amount of professional roles is decreasing. There is increased demand for the trades. The trades can, and often do, pay more than a white collar professional role.

many young people nowadays look at their parents stuck behind desks for 40 hours a week and don’t want that for themselves.

I honestly think the world has changed - there isn’t the working class people do trades and middle class do desk jobs anymore.

It's a huge generalisation but it's borne out by every study ever done. Not that anyone 'can't parent', but that there is a huge class divide in parenting. I trained to be a teacher, and had a placement on one of Glasgow's biggest housing schemes. I saw and learned there about things I'd never known existed. The entire energy of the staff was geared to offering the kids the time, peace, learning and indeed food and heat that wasn't available in many of their homes. It was thirty years ago but I'll never forget it.

I very rarely see toddlers in buggies with tablets. Occasionally see it in restaurants or trains but normally it looks like parent is just using their mobile. I did for the last 15 minutes of a 3 HR train journey with a restless 2 year old. What he wanted to do was have a wander round the carriage to see what what was going on but it wasn't really appropriate. Id done the books and snacks and playing.

I think that's all a bit simplistic OP tbh. I also feel a bit wearied/ disappointed but resigned at the usual theme of blaming parents ( and by parents we really mean women ) for being not good enough whatever they do. For example if you work from early in your child's life that is bad as your child will be in nursery, if you don't work that is bad as you should work hard to afford children and meet their every need.
Some children do struggle and some children do not have the resources or attention at home that they need. Making assumptions and relying on stereotypes about either middle class or working class families does nothing to help and is lazy thinking .

Ridiculous lazy comment, no one needs to provide scientific studies to you, go look yourself but you’re clearly not interested, only wanting to come across as right.

Middle class parents are just as likely to work very long hours in professions and use school wrap-around care. Little time for 121 parent child time. As others have said, SEN doesn't differentiate by class. But sometimes the difference is the middle class parents know their way around the educational system, have contacts and can also afford to pay for private assessment/tutors etc to support SEN children.

I don't think it's necessarily class based though. More income and parental value system based. Which can relate to class. But there are plenty of working class mums who prioritise their children above money/long working hours.

We shouldn't use a given private school as a barometer of middle class parenting as many private schools perform worse than the local comprehensive as they have a high proportion of students that have behavioural challenges, have been excluded, or are disaffected in the state school system.

Many private schools were destination schools for children that failed the 11+ but who's parents were financially well off. They were essentially Private Secondary Moderns.

Theses private schools were never focused on league topping results but more focused on re-engaging the children with education.

This legacy at those private schools persist today.

Having no knowledge of the content, I've done a very cursory Google. It tells me: "SATs measure curriculum attainment for all schools and pupils, while the 11 Plus is a competitive entrance exam for a smaller number of schools."

You do know the 11+ used to be a measure of curriculum attainment for all schools and pupils? It wasn't an entrance exam; all children did it.

As I understand it, then, my 95% at 11+ would translate to a 95% in yr 6 SATS.

Since 11+ is purely an entrance exam now, I guess the format and content may have changed drastically. That would answer my question.

The most obvious correlation is that parenting attentively means one adult cannot be working. Whoever is talking and reading with the child, or crafting, or taking them on an educational museum trip for an entire day is obviously not actively earning money at that point. So that sort of screen-free maximalism is only possible if the family has enough money to support one parent (at last part time) to spend all that time with the children. A wealthier family may fit into that category but in many of those cases, the mother wants to work and continue with her career.

It's a rare combination of a high earning parent with another parent who is fully happy and willing to keep their kids away from screens as a full-time vocation. This dynamic can be found across all social classes but veers towards middle/upper class due to less financial stress and possibly some cultures and religions too.

Children need meaningful stimulation and entertainment. If a parent doesn't have the resources to provide meaningful screen-free activities, but is simply forcing their child to be bored for the sake of keeping them away from screens, then it's closer to a form of neglect. Whilst some level of boredom can inspired creativity, there's a very fine line between letting your child come up with their own activities and literally forcing them to disassociate because they are not given anything fun for hours/days/months on end.

I've noticed that many draconian screen free children (from "woo" families who prefer Waldorf or outdoor schools) appear younger and slower than their peers. People like to romanticise children spending hours outside, running around the mud, but there is always a limit. Was at a playground once where a mum had clearly spent many hours there already, with snack boxes and drinks spread out on the table etc. The small child just sat on the ground blankly poking a hole in the dirt with a stick whilst staring into the air. He looked so bored he was virtually disassociating while the mum was also staring into space (or on her phone, can't remember).

Children need meaningful stimulation and entertainment.

Yeah:
"Get some sheets and build a ship, a tent or a castle to play in."
"Go out in the garden."
"Haven't you got any books or puzzles?"
... etc.
Children stimulate themselves meaningfully, and can entertain themselves very well.

It’s because there is a large cohort of children who take the exams having spent 1-2 years being drilled in particular the question style and how to tackle it.

For local children, they also have to compete against 11+ tourists who take the exam irrespective of whether they’ll fulfil the residency criteria to take a school place, which skews the bell curve. Counties have to open the exam to everyone, there is no residency requirement. A child may be bright enough against their local peers but not the very brightest of children nationally who are taking 10 odd exams in different regions.

State schools at least in our area are not permitted to prepare children for the 11+, so potentially a child may set off for the exam with no preparation at all. Local preps do prepare children for the 11+, so it’s a very uneven playing field.

who gets their valid information off X and Tiktok?

There is definitely a corrolation between socioeconomic class and school readiness. There are also two different issues going on at schools - one is the level of children with learning disabilities and neurodiversity who would not be school ready, but alongside this there are children who are not school ready socially or educationally due to parenting/ impact of wider determinants but have no intrinsic reason for delayed development.

What is missing at the moment is really good research about which children are particuarly at risk of not being school ready. ie how strong a factor is screen time across socioeconomic groups and what sort of screen time is better or worse. Do parents who work multiple jobs to try and make ends meet have less school ready children than parents who don't work? How negative is the impact of being in temporary accomodation compared to substandard social housing?. Clearly a lot of parents do their best in incredibly challenging circumstances to support their children and its hard for many to access good quality parental support when its needed.
There is a lot of evidence about what works to support children's attainment. Alongside the impact of surestart, 1-1 support in the home, and small grants that used to go to parents. But crucial to this is also supporting parents with the mental health, debt, employment issues and broader support needs. Increased hourly minimum wages aren't the answer to people in the gig economy.

@User987439

Children need meaningful stimulation and entertainment. If a parent doesn't have the resources to provide meaningful screen-free activities, but is simply forcing their child to be bored for the sake of keeping them away from screens, then it's closer to a form of neglect. Whilst some level of boredom can inspired creativity, there's a very fine line between letting your child come up with their own activities and literally forcing them to disassociate because they are not given anything fun for hours/days/months on end.

I completely agree with this and I'm increasingly irritated by this lazy "boredom is always good" trope. I think its a nostalgia-driven over-simplification.

It's true that far too many children are screen addicted and that many are also helicoptered to within an inch of their lives and some children have lost the ability to self-stimulate. But I'm so tired of coming on here and reading "we were just told to play out and off we went, never did us any harm" refrain. It's so much more complicated than that.

Yes there was more free play in the 1970s and 1980s and there was a lot of good in that. But it was also very often born out of neglect of disinterest, there was woefully low safeguarding involved and a lot of the time it meant being forced to play with children you hated. It really wasn't the Elysian heaven that it's now cracked up to be.

Children probably were more resourceful at entertaining themselves if their parents were working or off getting pissed somewhere, but it's not necessarily all upside.

Define class.

If you mean financially affluent, nice house, then no. I can think of several couples who have a high income and great house but have no idea how to feed their children healthy food, teach their toddlers to read or educate their children on basic manners and the risks of drugs/smoking/vaping.

On the other hand my neighbour is a lovely single mum (husband did a moonlight flit a couple of years ago), whose two children are well cared for, well fed, house full of books, well mannered and couldn't wait to start school. She's a capable, well educated lady who works full time, and spends all her remaining time with her dcs. They are so obviously a happy, close family.

Good parenting comes from parental education and commitment.

when did the "not permitted" come in and how is it policed? I am in my 70's and we were taught basic exam skills. It wasn't a massive thing, whole sessions weren't devoted to it, but it was basic stuff like "read ALL the questions carefully before you begin to answer" "make notes so that the examiner can understand your train of thought and see what you would have written if you run out of time" Always do the graph in maths because putting in and labelling the axes gets you points.

I think you're right OP.

I went to school in an area where there was lots of working class families as well as families that relied on benefits. The majority didn't value education at all, were adversarial with authorities and didn't care about important aspects of a child's wellbeing such as diet, exercise and whether their kid was down the park smoking and drinking. My family was slightly more MC and even as a child I felt a bit sorry for some of my friends who never had clean uniform, hadn't done their homework and were pretty much left to their own devices at home. You can argue that it's about time and stress but the parents in these families didn't work and actually weren't massively stressed. I think they simply didn't even realise what good parenting consists of so how on earth could they even attempt to implement it in their own families. These problems are generational and often cultural.

Many of my school friends have raised their (often many) kids in a similar way with all the modern challenges such as excessive screen time and social media sprinkled in too. Many of the children have diagnoses for various conditions and it's all a bit sad really. The lack of aspirations and ambition is almost the worst part. If all you've known is people never really succeeding in anything and bettering themselves then you will naturally think this isn't possible for you either. Many of the kids just assume they will have a life like their parents so why bother trying for anything else?

This is why I am opposed to throwing money at the problem unless it is targeted properly. Money alone won't equip families with the skills they need to actually improve their situation in the long term. The problems run far deeper than simply being poor and continued intergenerational poverty is often (not always) a symptom of something else much more worrying than simply families being financially deprived.

I agree with this. I'm generalising massively but there are lots of anxious little children from well-off families around here. We live in an area where lots of private school kids do the 7+ (and even 4+). So they're having very structured days including extra tuition from Reception age, which seems crazy to me.