to think that maybe we all expect too much support from 'the government' with everything-childcare,healthcare, breasfeeding, the whole shebang?

[moondog]

Eh?

'though I realise that state schools seem wholly incapable of teaching these children even how to read.'

As I said, if teachers could concentrate on teaching instead of being viewed as catch-all wastebins for solving all society's ills, then maybe we'd be able to teach our learning units to be literate and numerate.

what happens to the least clever children in private education then?

What bollox that state schools are 'wholly incapable' of teaching [these] children how to read. If that were the case illiteracy would be far higher than it is now surely. Maybe it would go back to the levels of the good old days?

My son is one of 'those'. I dont need the school to teach him how to function in society thank you. Me and his dad can do that perfectly well. Having learning difficulties doesnt make you a thick delinquent, nor does going to a state school.

Poor teachers...I never knew they were 'catch-all wastebins'

I agree, information is presented for the lowest common denominator and the people it applies to don't read/use/listen to it anyway. I am depressed by the number of women I come into contact with at work who want to pass over all responsibility for their health and wellbeing to a 'professional' so that they have someone to blame if it doesn't work out. Like this bloody tamiflu thing. Instead of making an informed decision about whether their child needs it, people think 'I don't want anyone else's kids to have what mine don't and if the doctor gave it to me it must be okay.' We need to accept some level of risk and responsibility in our lives and start acting like adults. The number of threads on here complaining about teachers/social workers/GPs/midwives is boring. Take some responsibility and do it yourself if you need to...(Btw, I am not excusing poor practice by aforementioned professionals. I always try to give a competent caring service but refuse to allow intelligent women to 'pass the buck').

Mantee - there is a certain section of society that obviously doesn't read such literature. Breast-feeding take up rates are minimal, child obesity is high, home cooking non-existant etc, etc. Why is it so shocking to say that lots of these people can hardly be described as clever? Certainly they have been failed by a pretty crap education system that spends more time in crowd management than it does teaching children basic skills. Children from poor backgrounds fair badly because they are not being educated. Also, the very fact that the children you describe at your uni have got to uni means that they are not dysfunctional.

I don't believe for a minute that the Govt considers success rates - it just reacts to the latest bad news to try and look good.

we can blame goverments/teachers all we like but in all honesty its parents that fail to teach children to function in this world, parents who fail to give their children the best start (Im not talking money either) and early experiences.
Lack of respect and the fact that extended families arent as close are reasons along with the push to get both parents back to work (Im not slagging working parents, both me and dh work).

too much is put on what we can afford to give our children, instead of the basic and free skills we used to learn.

ok rant over

Chegirl - it has obviously escaped your notice that illiteracy rates are going up along with child poverty, despite all of the social engineering the Labour govt has undertaken.

Also, quite right that you should be teaching your child how to function in society - it shouldn't be down to teachers/schools to teach this. However, there is a significant minority that don't teach their children how to function in society and therefore, to try and break the cycle, these children should be given the opportunity to learn these things in school.

When I first moved to the UK, it did strike me this whole "the government will sort it out" attitude. People are losing the ability to think for themselves, as the government tries to run everything (and to an extent, people expect it to). For example, if you take the tube in London, there are people who stand on the platforms announcing where the train is going, telling you to mind the gap, move along inside the carriages, blah blah blah. I have yet to use a public transport system in another country which gives you so many instructions. In Paris, the doors open, people get on/off, I've never seen anyone fall down gaps, not realise that they need to move further inside the carriage if busy ... I don't think the commuters in London are particularly stupid, they're just treated that way. Another example is the current financial crisis. Yes, the banks and the government did play a part, but if memory serves, neither sent around salesman with guns to point at people's heads to make them take out massive mortgages or loans.

The problem for me, and the reason I'm not quite sure I know where I stand on all this, is what you might call the feckless parent - and the need to help/support/protect the (blameless) children of the feckless parent. It's a very difficult line for a govt to tread. As an example: On the one hand I (as a not-feckless parent) resent the implication that I'm not capable of chosing good childcare for my children - and that I need govt schemes/registration/regulation/advice to tell me what good childcare looks like (and that childcarers, accordingly, need to spend vast amounts of time filling in forms and ticking boxes). On the other hand I do acknowledge that the state has some form of obligation to the children of feckless parents. I have a gut instinct that the govt has got the balance wrong - and has made too many nanny-state-like in-roads that impact negatively on the lives of the not-feckless majority, to protect the lives of the few. Somehow their efforts are not targetted enough, not focused on the real problems. for example, I'd much rather that at least some of the money spent on regulating childcare on all our behalf (and taking away individual responsibility from people who for the most part are perfectly capable of exercising it) was spent on more social workers who work directly with the truly vulnerable people/children that really need support and who currently have such ridiculous case loads that they simply can't do their job.

Callisto They can pass A levels, but they don't know how to hold a conversation with someone outside of the private school life. They don't know how to earn money when they can just call on Daddy. They don't even know how to dress themselves!!!

My ds used to be in private school, and is now in a state school where none of what you have described is seen! I am aware there are a couple of children in ds's class whose reading level is very low, but both have learning difficulties. They do a LOT to help socially too, it is a 'good' school, but it is not exceptional! It seems to me you are writing from certain position where you will not understand.

The statistics that suggest illiteracy rates are rising with child poverty could be described as statistical engineering, rather than a result of social engineering.

only skimmed over the op - as is my wont - but I tend to agree.

Yes I agree with the op.

Reading an article about obesity and it was shocking the numbers who actually thought it is the governments role to make them thin!

No it is the govts job to inform people how much fat/salt/sugar/calories etc etc there are in food products, by the imposition of food facts on products, but it is an individuals duty to then use this information and sort out their own diet.

Ahem manatee - not only did I pass my A Levels, I'm perfectly capable of holding conversations with most people I meet. And dear Daddy only goes so far - if I need something, I earn the money I need to get it. I would also certainly hope that I can dress myself (then again, with a 3mo, I'm currently favouring my oldest and scabbiest jim-jams).

I understand that Callisto in her first post was making an unacceptable generalisation (which she then goes on to explain and qualify). However, so are you.

Here's what I would say from my experience - those that send their DC to private schools are the ones who are able to look at what is on offer from the govt and then go on to make a decision independent of that govt as to what they believe is best for them and their children (and no, not all of them are millionaires either). In doing so, they benefit society by paying twice over the odds (taxes and fees) and ensure that the govt is able to provide subsidised school spaces for those that need it. It is then not their fault if the govt choose to waste that extra they are given in pointless meandering to the lowest common "Daily Mail-esque" denominator by simply trying to be seen to be doing something in reaction to headlines and yet not focusing on the real issues at hand.

Manatee - lots of inverse snobbery there. How do you know that these people are so very inept? They are at uni fgs and are probably no more inept than the next student of the same age who is clueless about cooking/washing clothes/catching the bus etc. I know lots of people who went to private schools and the vast majority are very successful, charming and independant people.

Obviously there are better and worse state schools and I very much doubt you would send your children to a crap state school so it doesn't suprise me at all that most of the pupils there are bright and able. However, I don't believe that state education in general in the UK is much good, however 'good' the school is. But this is getting way off topic now.

I agree with the op and also with callisto - certainly about all the rubbish literature that is sent out aimed at the lowest common denominator and that the govt doesn't take any notice of whether it is working or not. Those who it might actually help in the most part don't/aren't capable of/interested in reading it and therefore it doesn't achieve anything. The most recent example is the NHS online check thing for 5-8mth old babies' development - it is the most pointless, patronising waste of money & time that I have seen in a while, I cannot see who it is really aimed at.

There is a difference between support and information being there when you need it (e.g. BF counsellors etc) which is great and so called "support" being shoved down your throat by pen pushing bureaucrats with money wasting literature/adverts etc that fail to reach those that do need the support and really annoy everyone else who have to pay for them through taxes.

Asana are you a 18-21 year old ex boarding school pupil now at Exeter Uni!? I wasn't generalising about people with A levels, I was generalising about the majority of students at Uni!!!

Callisto Just comments I hear, their idea of joking, talking with a friend of mine who is a 'normal age' student who did go to state school. Just observations. Also a friend works for the police in the area where most students live, plenty of evidence there of their general inability to function in society.

If the OP is that this support is wrongly targeted then i'd agree.

I think the government 'support' goes for the easy messages and targets so they can get 'quick wins' and fails to address the trickier questions/topics and 'harder to reach' elements of society.

I think that possibly some sections of society are recieving too much 'nannying' but i also believe that some sections of society are missing out entirely on some very important support they really need (e.g. families in B&Bs essentially 'homeless', children excluded from school as punishment but not offered a viable alternative, ex-offenders abandoned after they've done their time, children who grow up in care and are abandoned at 16/18)

Manattee, re this

Callisto WTF!? The literature IS aimed at those who need that knowledge, what makes you think they don't read it??? Many don't I'm sure, but there must be a success rate for these schemes to be considered.

Er,no. There are very few outcome measures for the vast amounts of money hurled at public 'problems'.Take the Sure Start scheme for example (with which I am involved). Noble idea but in all a complete waste of time which has served only to make people feel more entitled to this 'support' everyone bleats on about.

Similar happens in education (and having just completed MSc on literacy issues, I am quite sure of my sources). Throwing more monet at IT resources, smaller class sizes and so on doesn;t make very much difference at all.

Manatee, according to the figures quoted in their latest access agreement Exeter actually had 73.1% of students from state schools in 2006/7, so the idea that the majority of its students are from private schools, though common, is unfounded.

However, DD (from a state school) who has been there for the last year, living in a hall which probably does have a majority of ex-private school students, tends to agree with your assessment

sorry, that should read 'your assessment of their capabilities'

Very interesting discussion.

I hate the low-level nanny state interference that feels entirely ineffective. e.g. the nurse at the well-women clinic who sweetly informs me that I am a little overweight (only about 0.5 over ideal BMI) and recommends some sensible eating and a little bit of exercise. btw she is about 6 stone overweight...

There is no support(e.g. low cost activity class) for me to get some more exercise, but if I was excessively overweight, they would pay for me to go to the gym. It's a bit perverse.

On the other hand I do want to live in country where the vulnerable are supported and where we aspire to an improved life for everyone. And I am happy to pay my taxes to live in a society like that.

I agree with hatwoman that balance of government funding seems wrong. There was so many headlines about the additional money for school meals several years ago, but very little of it was actually spent making a difference. The majority of it was spend employer "healthy eating co-ordinators" who wrote "healthy eating policies and guidelines" that no one could afford to implement because the money had all been spent on "healthy eating co-ordinators" etc.

Interesting also what moondog says about class sizes etc. I have just read Malcolm Gladwell's recent book Outliers, which has evidence that the number of hours that you study something has a much greater impact than the size of the class or the resources available. So children whose parents spend time with them reading at home are more likely to have higher literacy skills, because of the amount of time that they are spending learning that subject. Longer school hours anyone?

I agree so much with these sentiments:

dollyparting "On the other hand I do want to live in country where the vulnerable are supported and where we aspire to an improved life for everyone. And I am happy to pay my taxes to live in a society like that."

and

fluffles "some sections of society are missing out entirely on some very important support they really need (e.g. families in B&Bs essentially 'homeless', children excluded from school as punishment but not offered a viable alternative, ex-offenders abandoned after they've done their time, children who grow up in care and are abandoned at 16/18)"

and as a naturally left-leaning bod I find it incredibly frustrating that Labour does seem to have got this wrong. They've given so much ammunition to the right and they sometimes leave me wondering where I stand and who in the political landscape represents my viewpoint. Does thinking that labour is overzealous and nannyish mean I'm moving right? I blummen well hope not because that goes against every political bone in my body.

I am wondering same Hat, being a lefty hippy (or so I tohught).

Dolly, I share your outrage at lardy nurse lecturing (I would have said something to her) but am perplexed by your comment that

'There is no support(e.g. low cost activity class) for me to get some more exercise, but if I was excessively overweight, they would pay for me to go to the gym. It's a bit perverse.'

What, do you really eaxpect someone to be coercing you into losing the small amount of extra weight you are carrying? This is precisely the sort of sentiment that grates with me.

There was someone posting a few wekes ago outraged because swhrn she went to her GP aboyt her wieght poroblen (insiting on appt,. with dieticuan), he told her to eat less and do some exercise.

Hi moondog, no, I don't expect anyone to be co-ercing me into losing a small amount of weight, I totally accept that that is my responsibility, and that I am fortunate enough to know what I need to do (even though I am currently sat on my backside MNing, rather than going for a swim ).

I was just musing at the economics of having lots of low level information (not very effective imo), and some very high cost interventions (maybe also not very effective when you look at high rates of non-attendance for these classes), but nothing in between, when there are a lot of people who are slightly overweight and at risk of developing high blood pressure diabetes etc - which eventually does cost a lot of money.

Having recognised the harm that smoking does there are loads of smoking cessation clinics / classes / assistance. Wonder if there will ever be anything like this that helps motivate (maintain motivation) for people who are overweight?

At what point do we say it's nannying behaviour, and at what point do we say it's such a problem that it needs addressed?

Fair point but I think it woukd be truly dangerous and disempowereing to medicalise and manage tubbiness.

As an aside, was in Malysia last week and saw that most fag packets have horrific pictures of diseased lungs and premature babies on them. I have the very occasional fag but it really made me stop and think. I doublt I could have bought or smoked from such a pack.