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.

Many people are working poor these days, they're both in work and on benefits.

It does worry me how much time toddlers sepmd on screen time and how addicted they are, also its just becoming mnormql now that children starting school are not toilet trained
So it's a huge shift in what is now culturally acceptable

Can only see it getting worse tbh

WOW what's wrong with horse riding and art, are they as harmful as drugs? 😂

Where does the money come from for SAHM?

Agree with this. I have worked in schools in both deprived and middle class areas. Kids have different issues.
Those in mid class areas , some parents think they need to do everything for their kids (remove shoes/coats/unpack bags / sort friendship issues)
Whereas at the other extreme those whose parents less invoved, the kids have to fend for themselves with these skills. BUT, with the academic support those from better homes get support (sometimes too much eg the homework has had no input from the kids !!!!!!)

It’s because disabled children didn’t have a right to education in the UK until the 1970s. Those children were at home or in insitutions.

There is an difference between economic and social mobility though. I would argue the latter is far more difficult to truly change.

Like you, I now largely operate in an environment that is populated with people from a different class compared to the environment I was raised in. Money will do this. It is rare though to change your class and values just because you have more or less money. I still largely parent my children in a similar way to how I was parented even if there is more money now to facilitate some nicer things. Conversely I know other families that have seen a decline in their financial position and they have retained their class and values too.

There have always been parents who can't/won't parent in a middle-class way (not the bees knees either - there are other ways of parenting). However, the increase in children being put into childcare very young (e.g. as young as 9 months old) and both parents working long hours leaves little time for spending rearing children, giving them time, reading to them and playing with them.
This was not what feminism meant when it said women should have equal rights - at least, maybe it was what middle-class feminists wanted (having access to good childcare etc) but not what the majority of women thought it meant, and the majority of working class women have always worked and combined this with childcare, but now the sort of job available to w/c women does not allow this (whereas m/c women in white collar jobs can do it if they choose).
We need to re-think how we value child-rearing and the other unpaid work women do and maybe we will see fewer children arriving at school in nappies (also, schools should have the right to refuse to accept such children IMO).

Yes, I also found a picture of MC children going to bed at 7 very strange :)

We are MC. Way too lax with screen time. I wouldn’t say there’s actually much difference at the moment in development to my friends who are no tv at all. He’s 3 and a half.

But then I do think he has had other advantages. Two parents at home most of the time (we are lucky we don’t work often). And has had lots of quite advanced toys from a younger age than most (ie. Playing with brio from 1 and real adult Lego from 3). And I have an RP accent so his pronunciation is quite advanced. We do lots of activities, extended family time and play dates.

He does have problems with soiling unfortunately 😫 poor soul. We have had GP input. It’s part constipation part withholding anxiety.

I live in near an area where there are so many classes and activities funded for babies and toddlers. They are held in buildings in the centre of a deprived area, but they really struggle to get people to attend from those places. I don’t really know why as they seem brilliant.

Are people just now realising that differences in class can impact many things?!

That said while there are average differences people are still individuals. I am from a working class background. My mom taught me to read before I started nursery and I had a house full of books.

My step-sister was a 16 year old teen mom who taught her daughter to read and she had a house full of books too.

Agree, however I have personally experienced both forms of mobility, being economic and social and do parent a lot differently to how I was raised (or not raised) and hold completely different values. Its nuanced and does depend on individual circumstances. But improving my economic situation did change the type of opportunities I could provide myself and the work itself rewired everything I had been raised to believe and my original "moral coding". Because I was required to develop adept critical thinking skills to keep progressing at work.

But either way, it's certainly more complicated than "middle classes parent better". It's too superficial to generalise in such a way.

Obviously there are trends in all things. But I've seen some outrageous middle class neglectful parenting and know teachers at private schools who can tell the most horrific stories about blatant neglect.

yes My children don’t/wont have toys in their room any time soon, as they’ll be downstairs, because we have space. I guess as they get older and are able to be rational about bed time we’ll be able to let them have toys and activities kept in their rooms. My daughter is distracted by everything, so the small selection of books and soft toys is plenty!

Adult education funding got absolutely crushed, and then diverted into the ring fenced 16-19 age group (though I would expect, even that funding is now very thinly spread). The plans for vocational alternatives to what many would say were more academic 16-19 pathways seem to have been rather short lived, and frequently torn up to start again, which does not allow for much continuity or predictability in the framework that has traditionally specialised in them. Branching out to workplace providers to take on this education is patchy, partly very good and partly seems to be running hard to join the bandwagon or catch up.

Most children started at age 5 in year 1 back then - no state-funded provision for younger kids then. A lot of children with more minor delays will have caught up by 5-6 ish.
Also I went to school in the early 80s and some teachers would shout a lot then, definitely my way or the high way. A teacher recently said that my ND kid didn't understand hierarchy, well you were made to understand it years ago: I remember the headmistress slapping my hand for a minor infringement and I have a slightly older friend who went to a different school who remembers their state primary teacher slapping her and other children across the face. It sadly seems that that was accepted then.
I remember other pupils having accidents when I was in years 1-2, I doubt it was as unusual in the past as people think.
Lots of kids left school without being to read in decades past - that's part of the reason the national curriculum was brought in - to make sure there was a standard and to aim to get all pupils to it, but if you didn't learn to read decades ago, it was easier to make a life for yourself than it is these days.

My kids were defo in bed by 7.30 . we went up at 7pm to do the 30 min bedtime routine so in bed at 7.30 until they were about aged 8. They could read a bit until they were tired enough to put own light off which was usually by 8pm-8.30. Extra curriculars were always from 4-6pm.
i was very strict about it and rarely let them stay up later but it taught them good bedtime habits and I never had a single issue getting them to bed or them getting up.

.

I think putting these problems down to class is way too simplistic. Within classes you have engaged and not so engaged parents.
Here, in the state primary schools, the WC children actually do pretty well in the SATs. They are proud to do well and their parents are also proud of them. There are a few tutored kids who do better than they would have done without the tutoring. A grammar option would see plenty of WC children getting the opportunity to have a faster paced more academic secondary education. The realty is, in this grammar free area, that peer pressure takes its toll and at 16 these children are very much underachieving. Leaving a grammar intake until 14 would be too late for most of these children (but would probably benefit the smaller number who pick up their pace and ability a little later, and here I would say they are probably the more MC children).

Probably depends on the area but certainly doesn't work like this in London where you have to drive or take public transport to activities and allow for traffic jams. It's logistically impossible to have a club till 6 and be in bed at 7 unless you live in 5 minutes walk from all clubs. I'm not talking about school clubs but serious music/sport/academic extras MC children often do a few days a week.

I guess it's even more difficult in rural areas as you often have to drive long distances.

Private schools do not finish until 4-4:30 either.

I don't know any MC who can send children to bed at 7. In fact, I think it would be viewed as lazy parenting though of course it's not true, it's just different attitudes and locations.

Deprivation is damaging shocker!

toddlers do not need to be able to read and write. The most successful education systems in the world do not push kids to do things so early.

We don't slap our kids or send them out to play in traffic either, you win some you lose some.

I find it interesting that responses so far have been unanimous that toddlers are not learning to read. I know several people who are teaching/have taught young children to read - by this I mean from around let's say 3? perhaps introducing phonics concepts verbally a little earlier? (I don't know anyone teaching writing at that age though - as this requires physical fine motor control they don't have yet.)

Most people I know are some flavour of MC, but it varies between established MC, dual income City professionals, academics, entrepreneurs etc. I would say the people I know who are most into early reading are the more independent types e.g. academics/entrepreneurs/hackers, rather than established MC or PMC types. Particularly among people in the wider Silicon Valley/AI orbit where it is VERY unpopular to give your kids screens.

https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/literacy-lag-we-start-reading-too

This 5-part Substack series more or less sums up the discussions we have. Essentially: toddlers are capable intellectually of being taught phonics; they enjoy reading; while exercise is good for children, they also need quiet chill-out time which is why parents turn to tablets, but books can provide that; if you wait until 6/7 to learn to read then tablets will already have taken their place and it will be too late.

Indeed, toddler hands are not really developed enough for writing. The ability for eyes to track words and sentences is needed for reading and sometimes this comes later. Children should not be made to feel they are behind because they aren't reading and writing before school age! Any parent pushing this is making it all about them and not what is best for their child.

I have a disabled child and am on a high income and am well educated. The education and income bit is due to privilege in my own upbringing (and also obviously hard work, but the opportunities came far more easily).

I’ve paid for various therapies such as speech and language which is basically non-existent where I am. We’ve driven quite long distances to access therapeutic activities that have had a noticeable impact. I’ve spent thousands of pounds on these.

I have a senior job and so am used to constructively challenging people in positions of authority and am not afraid of pushing back. I’ve been able to advocate for my child in hospital, which has changed their treatment, so their long term outcomes are significantly better. I’ve properly gone into bat around the EHCP and pushed back, with evidence, on several of the reports, so we have 1:1 support and proper therapies now in school. If that hadn’t worked I could have afforded to have gone to tribunal.

I’ve been able to read research on how to best support my child and buy and implement the relevant therapy resources. I have a big enough house that we have space to store this stuff.

Because we’ve been able to do all of this, my child started school with all the markers of school readiness of a typical child - they can recognise and sound out letters, count to 20, just about use cutlery, put on a coat, and is out of nappies. Their condition means they are obviously and noticeably delayed and they have physical and learning disabilities but with lots of hard work we’re in a good place. I’m an extremely proud mum and my kid is amazing, but the foundations we’ve been able to put in place are beyond what most people can access.

I think having privilege, a high level of literacy, good health, high energy levels and spare cash can have a huge impact on how well someone is able to support a disabled child. It’s not class per se but it is privilege.

Regarding "tech is the future"...

The people I know in tech are the MOST vociferously against screen time, or certainly against phones/tablets.

It's ludicrous to compare learning how to code in the 90s with YouTube Shorts scrolling, utterly ludicrous. The type of activity is just not the same. It used to be the case that having a computer/laptop was the higher-status option: I wonder if the posters feel threatened that their 80s-00s "screens" upbringings are now being retroactively degraded in status?

Anyway, many of us learnt how to code only in our teens or as adults and managed perfectly fine. It is an intellectual skill relating to dealing with artificial machines, not something like language development which is baked into brain development and must be done at a certain age.

It is also a creative skill which is not best taught by consuming media.