To think it this was a horrid thing for my friend to say?

[cadburyegg]

I have a friend who also has 2 boys except hers are younger than mine, 7 and 4, the 4 year old due to start school in September. We got talking about the cost of childcare and I asked her if the funded hours were helpful. She said financially it was better but she noticed a real difference in the children accessing the nurseries her kids have used. She basically said the funding opened up places that lower income families couldn’t afford and that all the nursery staff were always busy with the badly behaved kids and no time for her child. She said that her 4yo started coming home saying things her 7yo never did at that age and she was (I quote) “fed up of all the shit kids taking up places where before they’d never be able to afford to go”. Basically she wants her kids to only mix with other kids like them. i didn’t think much of it at the time cos we were in a car in a hurry to get home but now i can’t stop thinking about it, im quite shocked by her attitude. but maybe i am overreacting and it was just a silly off the cuff comment?

Being a little shit isn’t the same as being a “shit kid”. All children have their moments but they’re not “shit”. They are innocent little humans, and don’t deserve to be written-off at the age of three.

Some children have no chance of a decent life from the second they are conceived, not their fault, but their parents and the life they chose for that child.

I understand why her wording has stopped you in her tracks but it’s probably not anything the majority of us haven’t thought at some point.

The language she used is unkind, but there probably is some truth in it. My friend manages a nursery and says the children attending who wouldn’t have before, do seem to have more behavioural issues and that their parents seem less open to listening when it’s discussed. I can see how it’s annoying but these are likely to be the children that will benefit most from attending nursery so it’s a good thing overall for society.

If course it's a horrible thing to say, but it is basically why some school catchment areas are more sought after than others and why people will buy more expensive houses to get into them.

She sounds like an ignorant and hideous snob and I'd be distancing myself

There is a strong, well-documented correlation in the UK between childhood poverty and poor behavioural, emotional, and social outcomes. Poverty acts as a driver for increased anxiety, lower self-esteem, and higher rates of conduct issues, often stemming from parental stress, poor nutrition, and limited resources.

Early Intervention Foundation +4
Key Aspects of the Correlation:

• Emotional and Behavioral Issues: Children in poverty are more likely to experience behavioral problems, including difficulties in managing emotions and coping with stress.
• Mental Health Impact: Poverty in the UK is linked to higher rates of anxiety and depression in children, with those in insecure, low-income households being significantly more likely to be unhappy.
• Root Causes and Mediators: The link is often mediated by factors associated with poverty, such as poor parental mental health, high-stress environments, and lack of access to, for instance, proper nutrition or safe spaces.
• Academic and Social Impact: Children from disadvantaged backgrounds often do less well in school, fall behind peers, and may face bullying due to signs of poverty (e.g., in clothes, resources).
• Long-term Effects: Persistent poverty is linked to higher risks of teenage violence, involvement with the police, and lower educational achievement.
• Early Intervention Foundation +6

Research from the Early Intervention Foundation suggests that the relationship is complex, with parents' education levels and mental wellbeing being key factors. Organizations such as the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) emphasize that poverty affects mental health through the "toxic effects" of living on low income, rather than a lack of ability or ambition.
Early Intervention Foundation +2

Thank you, AI. 🙄

I have genuinely never thought of any kids as "shit kids", especially at this age. Badly behaved kids, kids with issues, kids in need of better discipline/parenting perhaps, but "shit kids"? I don't think most people label children like that, no.

What's the face for?

Because you were proved wrong?

If you want to educate yourself you can check out the correlation yourself.

These are kids of parents who outsourced parenting to screens. The next will be gen of kids of parents who outsources thinking to AI.

Well, looking at this thing called the Internet shows that it's both parents working and earning in excess of the equivalent of 16 hours NMW up to £100k.

At the same time, the main parent has to work for 30h a week in order to meet the earnings requirement for UC.

The data will be made available soon enough, but less than 2 years in which time there were still transitional claims means that youll need to wait until you can compare like with like. But nobody is taking a job for 16 hours and putting their kid into nursery so they can party between 12 and 2.30.

If only one parent works, why do they need to put kids in nursery?

If there is factually a lot of disruption and her child is not getting the service that her elder child gets and she knows factually it’s from a specific demographic, them I guess it’s factual rather than snobbery, however I’d challenge does she know this, and to be fair to her here, she might.

YANBU. She sounds awful. No toddlers are the equivalent of human feces, and early years interventions benefit the poorest children the most.

Exactly this and anyone who pretends this isnt true is kidding themselves.

Because apparently these kids will be underprivileged and miss out on experiences that other richer kids get 🙃 or at least in NI thats the excuse

Because apparently these kids will be underprivileged and miss out on experiences that other richer kids get 🙃 or at least in NI thats the excuse

Really? How do you know this as Ive never been surveyed on my background?

I don’t think any decent involved parent from any social class would be particularly thrilled if their child’s peers were badly behaved and disruptive due to poor upbringing .

The only exclusion to the both parents earnings rule is if they are disabled.

ETA: One is for the 30hrs, the working 30h main parent is for UC. Two different things.

I think its fine to vent to a friend. But this behaviour can happen with all kinds of backgrounds. I have 2 kids and they couldnt be more different. 1 angel, most liked in the entire school by kids and teachers. Never had an argument, works well with others, helps out the kids with difficulties or invites kids who get bullied often to play with her. Then theres my other one. Always the loudest, always in trouble. If there is an incident in school i will be sure to get a phone call because for sure my kid is always part of it. Has been caught being rude to teachers or mean to other students and no matter the consquence at home or in school, a couple of weeks later i get the next phone call.
They grow up in the same home with the same parents, just different personalities. Im sure if i only had my angel child i would look down on people with trouble makers.. but since i know both sides i feel for those parents because i know its not all down to upbringing.

What do you put this deterioration down to? Is it linked to income as OP's friend seems to suggest? Or maybe parenting styles (gentle for example) or something else altogether. Interested in perspectives of anyone on the front line.

Agree and perhaps she has reason based on her experience to say such a thing. Perhaps it came out wrong

If she’s getting funded hours, she’s in the same boat as those “shit” kids. She’s no better.