Guest post: "To narrow the education attainment gap, we need to rethink 'poverty'"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

The most significant challenge that every school in this country now faces is to bridge the educational attainment gap between the 'haves' and 'the have nots'; to ensure the achievement of 'disadvantaged' students equals or exceeds that of their peers. The government has made this one of their top priorities, throwing a large part of the education budget at it. However, the gap isn't narrowing.

So, have they got it wrong? Not in trying to bridge that gap, but in terms of what poverty actually is today in the UK, and how to deal with its influence on educational outcomes.

As our society has become more materialistic, our definition of poverty has become much narrower in its parameters, focusing solely on financial standing. While the hardships of financial poverty are undeniable, another significant 'poverty' in the UK today is emotional poverty, mindset poverty, aspiration poverty - in essence, 'values poverty'. And this is a form of poverty that finance seems unable to fix.

If you want to visit a more 'value rich' nation, I can suggest Tanzania from personal experience. The people there live with a level of 'poverty' unknown to the vast majority of the UK population. However, dig a little deeper and find out how the young people in that country see the world, experience relationships or spend their time; as a collective, they are infinitely happier than ours, which is pretty astonishing. They are 'values rich'. With that in mind, do we need to widen the definition of poverty in this country to include not only children whose parents are on a low income but also those disadvantaged in other ways?

Imagine, for a second, that we gave equal standing to 'values poverty' and 'financial poverty'. Child A is above the poverty threshold. However, her parents simply don't 'parent' and even when they do, any kind of emotional intimacy or social connection is limited to a shout up the stairs to stop playing the PlayStation at 1am. She lacks any kind of cornerstone in her life, feels alone, struggles to communicate effectively and is desperate for love and attention. However, she does have an iPhone 6. On the government's measure, she can be placed into the giant chasm of 'ok'.

Meanwhile, half a mile away, Child B has two parents who are both on welfare but offer him the spiritual, emotional and physical love that he needs, and instil in him a strong set of principles. He excels at school and is comfortable in his own skin. Above all, he has the aspiration to do well, to lift himself and his family out of the financial situation they are in. I would argue that both of these children are disadvantaged, but in completely different ways. Child A is 'value poor' whereas Child B is 'value rich'.

Why am I calling for this broadening of the definition of poverty? Because without addressing this so-called 'values poverty', we have no chance of dealing with poverty in its more literal sense.

I believe the solution to values poverty lies, quite simply, in love. What this love requires as a prerequisite is sacrifice, its primary fuel being time. Time to connect and time to share. For parents, in particular, a chance to share their vision of the kind of human being they want their child to be. A chance to model expectations, behaviours and values. A chance to set boundaries and cultivate deeper emotional connections.

The challenges here are obvious: primarily a hectic schedule and the constant buzz of technology and social media. While society pushes the message that we should be always making more, doing more and being more, this values vision asks us to ignore some of that 'noise' and get back to basics.

By embracing this philosophy, perhaps our interpretation of poverty would change. With our children more fulfilled, active and engaged in life, the importance we place on being 'value rich' would outweigh that we place on financial wealth.

In an education context, the knock-on impact on performance in school would be interesting to behold. Would it lead to students being able to concentrate more in lessons? To developing better coping mechanisms in their behavioural responses? To valuing their learning experiences more? Would it increase self-esteem and therefore happiness amongst our young people?

Of course, we may never know, but even some time spent contemplating 'value richness' would be a start in finding out.

Tom Rogers is a former head of history who now runs online tutoring service RogersHistory.com. He writes a weekly column for TES, where a version of this post previously appeared.

Photo credit: bibiphoto / Shutterstock.com

While the guest post has lots of valid points, i agree with Out2pasture that a lot of parents see little value in further education after the basic three R's - if the family has no savings or don't own a house then uni is not on the cards even if the pupil gets every grant going.
I might guess that in Tanzania so few of the population can read & write that anyone gaining this gets an advantage and perhaps the family also have some land to farm - unlike in the uk their is no common land ,any more.

Further that having a legal obligation to send a child to school is hardy a good way to start showing some love and also these days any tactile contact from a teacher - a slap on back,a squeeze on the shoulder - is outlawed ...(... in state schools,but continues in public ones ? )
I have a freudian theory that a lot of violent behaviour is due to the perpetrator needing physical contact and they learn early on that a slap is returned,where as a smile isn't.

I have also pondered that in large asian families,the whole extended network chip in to bank role any child who looks like they can go on to higher education,the others get shoved into their uncle's business.

Perhaps the government could do a deal with the parents and offer to underwrite a capped mortgage on any child who doesn't attend uni,this will save the state money on paying for students to do worthless courses and then claim JSA.
It could give the school leaver better options in accepting an entry level job,if they didn't have to pay stupid amounts of their wage in rent.

Schools could also early on,age 12 etc,offer an alternative curriculum like what they used to teach at borstals - fixing car engine's etc - but like all of the uk education system the problem is the lack of available teachers in the subjects,due mostly to the intransigent stance on accreditation .

bob we have that alternative, or near to, already. They're usually called comprehensives in poorer areas. But make no mistake, they offer a different education to normal. Regardless of ability or parental support. We don't need those let alone any more thanks.

it's my grandchild that is in the uk. but I would not be looked at favorably as I totally disagree with starting school at age 3-4 and would never agree to 100% attendance. I firmly believe in a well rounded education and am not convinced the uk system provides that. I fully expect a uni degree and don't see how the strict guidelines encourage a healthy relationship between the school and parents.

Let's face it, there is a huge statistical link between financial poverty and educational underachievement. Tom Rogers, you make some very good points, but your post has a nasty aftertaste of "blame the parents".

The way this government are shafting the poor is an absolute disgrace. Once again, it is the House of Lords who have stood up for us today, refusing to let them get away with measuring child poverty only in terms of gcse results and parental worklessness.

I live in a poor community, so I see first hand how working parents have no money to invest in extra curricular activities, and no time when they pick up their kids from low quality childcare to do much more than feed them fish fingers, give them a quick cuddle and pack them off to bed. As Bob says above, large Asian families are better placed to invest in education, as there is often family based childcare available, and Madrassa, even though I can't agree with the actual theology, does help to build strong principles, values and sense of community.

I'm "on welfare" and my children are achieving educationally. I don't work at all at the moment, I'm a single parent, my youngest is only three, and my oldest gets middle rate dla. I may be poor, but I have time to invest in my children in other ways.
Cutting working tax credits / universal credit is only going to exacerbate the problem of stressed and overworked parents in crap jobs having little time or emotional energy to invest in their children. And if all you can see at the end of leaving school is a lifetime of stacking shelves in asda, supplemented by cash in hand cleaning jobs to make ends meet, because that's what your parents and neighbours have to do in order to avoid benefit sanctions, how is this going to inspire you work hard for gcses do that you can take on a load of student debt?

I agree that the concept of values poverty has (more than a little) aftertaste of 'blame the parents'.

It's a very individualising concept that, while appearing enlightened on the surface, smacks of the kind of moralistic judgmentalism of 'underclass theory'. Redefining poverty as a moral failing (rather than a material condition) is not a good idea and absolutely plays into right wing agendas for withdrawing the welfare state and making it ever more punitive.

I agree with others, this is cleary a thinly disguised attempt to justify redifining poverty as not about money which I think is disgusting.

We are well educated parents with high hopes for our children but we've also had times when we were poor and it impacts everything. Of COURSE it impacts on your ability to parent well and offer your child as many educational activities, or spend as much time supporting them educationally.

The first thing I'd ask my students, were they making this argument, is: whose values are you going to use?

you can bet that the overly romanticised poor Tanzanian family would fail it because the values base would not align with the values chosen by those with the power to dominate the debate.

A concept of values poverty cannot but further entrench existing inequalities, while blaming the victims. Or, actually, blaming the victims parents. So we can add an extra layer of child saving zeal to it too.

"redefining poverty as a moral failing. .."

This sums it up perfectly

We are heading back to Victorian values, with no welfare state at all, and the poor seen as dirty and subhuman. They'll put people like me and my children in the workhouse soon - except that they'll dress it up as some sort of perfectly tailored accommodation where we get extra help to tackle our worklessness and the kids gain skills in cleaning factory floors or whatever!

It feels like success at education comes down solely to money and parenting.

Disagree about the money aspect, but agree 100% re parenting.

You don't need money to instil the importance of a good education. You don't need money to make sure the kid does their homework. You don't need money to instil discipline and respect for their teachers so that rather than play up and waste time in lessons, they sit and learn instead.

Money is a very small part of the equation. Instilling respect, discipline and the work ethic is far more important and costs nothing.

Too many kids inherit their parents' poor attitudes towards education, respect and discipline. In many households, the kids don't stand a chance. No amount of extra money will help if the parent's don't instil core values in their kids.

A childhood friend of my wife became a teacher and works in a very socially and financially deprived area.

She says that school holidays are a negative for the children she teaches. It takes her 4 weeks to undo the effect of the long school summer holiday on attention span and reading ability (nobody reads at home).

A teacher friend of mine also works in a derived area and she told me frankly that the children she teaches have 'no chance' and that is even though the headmistress and all the staff do outstanding work and focus heavily on discipline and good values. The headmistress effectively tries to make school a place that insulates the children from the stress of home life. The things she tells me about her children' daily experience at home are harrowing.

If your teacher friend thinks the children in her care have "no chance", then she shouldn't be teaching! Yes, they may face more barriers (caused by their poverty), but it's very wrong to just write them off. That's how poverty gets perpetuated.

There is always a market for theories/articles about the neglected middle class child.

Whether she is ignored by her working parents or over indulged by her SAHM, or hot housed by her pressure cooler school, the problems are endlessly talked up.

Yet the reality is that DC from more well off backgrounds do better than those from less well off backgrounds.

High achievement (academically and later in the work place ) is expensive.

All the supportive parenting in the world cannot buy a house in a decent catchment area. It can't pay for a tutor when the school can only get a temp, it can't insist your DC's school offers triple science, it can't pay for train fares to university interviews, it can't pay for accommodation at university ...

i don't think your teacher friend has a very good understanding of underlying factors which cause concentration difficulties abetadad.

My grandfather left school at 14, probably because his family needed him to work. Bright, but not well to do as it was a working class family in the 1930s. He joined a manufacturing business and was put into the drafting office (planning and commercial). Because he left school without qualifications, he went to evening classes, and studied for professional exams in the public library in the evenings. By the time he retired, 45 years later, he had become Chief Standards Engineer for British Aerospace.

The same story could not happen these days. No one becomes an aeronautical engineer without a degree.

But what has changed? Lots, of course. We send people into space these days, a development he watched in awe because he understood the technological advances that had made it possible.

What hasn't changed is human nature and the allocation of talent and intelligence. Some people are determined, clever and hard working; others are not. Some people were born to stack shelves in Asda, dig ditches, sort filing or take in washing. Society needs more braves than chiefs; twas ever thus.... I am sure this will offend some people. Apologies if it's you.

I struggle with this word poverty. By today's standards I was brought up in abject poverty: second hand clothes, no bathroom, no tv, no phone, no heating, no handouts. We lived in a council house on an impoverished estate where people worked for a living, decent hard working folk who looked out for one another. We had nothing but in so many ways we had everything that was important. Loving parents who supported and aspired for us and instilled in us a strong sense of self respect and the belief that we could succeed if we worked hard. I like the other children of my age went to the school nearest to where I lived, there were no league tables and there was no choice. I was encouraged and worked hard at school and was the first in my family to go on to university. My parents were so proud, nowadays it seems to be just another flimsy expectation. I was the first in my family to own my own home. I doubt my own children will be able to afford to do so as current prices are ridiculous. Nothing good in life comes easy and I have raised my children to value others, to never think they are better but more importantly to always believe they are as good as anyone else. These are all words that are easy to say but more difficult to live by. If you truly love your children you sometimes have to say no to the materialistic things that so many crave. Instead you give them your love and your time. If you cannot afford either of these then please do not have children.
What a different world in the space of a generation. Are we better people for it? I think not.

I also struggle with the term 'disadvantaged'. There are certainly people who are very 'advantaged' but there is no reason at all for anyone to feel 'disadvantaged'. Feel good about yourself whatever your background and go out and make a difference. The people that impress me most are those who come from the most modest backgrounds and fulfil their dreams. It is not easy but it is possible.

"We need to rethink 'poverty'" No, we really don't. Poverty is lack of money. You don't fix it by moral exhortation but by ensuring even the jobs at the bottom of the pile pay a reasonable wage, that there is genuinely affordable housing and that there is a welfare safety net that enables those who can't work to have a decent living standard.
Yes, parenting is really important too, but it can't be used as an excuse to sweep all of the above under the carpet.

Truly amazed. Whilst I understand the idea of a forum is to start debate, I am surprised that this post has been allowed on the site.

Where to begin - that the OP is completely ignoring the ENTIRE WEIGHT of the evidence base? That study after study (both quantitative and qualitative) show that the biggest impediment to education is a lack of money?

Or the poor use of logic - here is an imagined example of the opposite case of what is the norm - and that proves my point?

Perhaps it is the fact that it is EITHER a thinly veiled party political broadcast for the conservatives (posted on the day that the government were defeated trying this shit in the house of lords OR a thinly veiled advertorial for his own business (hey parents - feel guilty about your child not doing as well as they could - sign them up for one of my courses now).

Or simply it is a teacher trying to ignore the realities of the world and blame educational attainment entirely on parents.

Dreadfully poor guest post.

I feel uncomfortable about the guest post. I think somebody has already posted this, but it puts me in mind of Victorian attitudes towards the 'poor' needing guidance to make better choices in life.
I doubt that a child who is a carer for their disabled parent and living in poverty has considered that he/she 'feels disadvantaged.' He/she may feel tired, isolated and frustrated though. Moral guidance isn't going to clean their only school shirt for the next day, or buy the basic stationary needed for homework.

Unex - Can you point me to evidence that shows there is no causal link between a family's values and culture and educational attainment in the family? That achievement is purely a product of economic resources?

And surely if this were true - and frankly it would amaze me if it is - aren't you basically telling any MNer who is poor but doing their best to raise happy, healthy, well-rounded and educated children that they might as well give up now because unless they earn more money their children are screwed?

"Unex - Can you point me to evidence that shows there is no causal link between a family's values and culture and educational attainment in the family? That achievement is purely a product of economic resources?"

No I can't OTheHugeManatee, because that is not what I said. Please read my post again. What I said is the "biggest impediment" is poverty. If you don't believe me a really good meta-study can be found at www.jrf.org.uk/report/review-research-links-between-education-and-poverty .

Additionally it would be impossible to disprove a causal link - as you would need to be able to prove it was not a factor in ANY situation. Nobody would be able to do that (logically) and also, I am sure that is not the case here. There will definitely be cases of family A and family B of similar resources where one child get's more attention.

"And surely if this were true - and frankly it would amaze me if it is - aren't you basically telling any MNer who is poor but doing their best to raise happy, healthy, well-rounded and educated children that they might as well give up now because unless they earn more money their children are screwed?"

No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that it is much harder for them. However, it is possible and many people have become successful from humble beginnings. If you are working hard for your children from a low resource base, then I doubt you would be put off by the views of someone in an internet forum anyway.

Hopefully this answers the points you have raised. I would also suggest anyone struggling to understand why financial poverty is the biggest impediment who doesn't want to wade through research papers should read this www.vagabomb.com/This-Comic-Will-Forever-Change-the-Way-You-Look-at-Privilege/

Unex - your responses seem very heated and emotional. I'll try again.

So you are not arguing that there are no links between values and educational attainment? You say this is not your point, but rather that the biggest impediment to attainment is lack of money. By inference, then, you are saying we should focus on that and ignore values and culture.

But even allowing that to be the case, does it follow from that that there are no other impediments? The OP reads to me as though it's arguing that there are other factors affecting attainment than money, including what it describes as 'values poverty', and that these should also be taken into account. I don't see what, in that argument, either contradicts the evidence base you quote, or demonstrates the faulty logic or bias you claim.

Indeed I suspect that your insinuation that the OP is a thinly veiled party political broadcast is itself quite revealing of your own interests and bias. Much of the way public and social services are currently delivered in this country is premised on the notion that people - especially poor people - are largely devoid of personal and political agency and are instead helpless products of their material circumstances. Large swathes of the helping professions have a vested interest in maintaining this perspective, as it provides an ongoing justification for their existence. This article challenges that premise - quite gently and to my eye with very good intentions - and it is not in the least bit surprising to find people responding agressively to that.

I would argue further that most poor people - especially those struggling to do the best for their children against often very challenging odds - are perfectly aware of the distinction made in the OP between financial and values poverty and can point it out readily among their acquaintances. Certainly I've heard it articulated to me plenty of times. It's glaringly obvious, and the refusal to see it is purely political.

"Unex - your responses seem very heated and emotional. I'll try again."

Indeed they are. I was dragged up in a sink estate in the North East. However, my arguments are also built along the lines of debate I learned at University. If your argument is mis-represented, and then taken down by someone else, that is a "straw-man" (or aunt sally if you wish). I was simply refuting that by restating my true argument. Certainly though, no personal offence should be taken at any robust approach from me - and I am certainly willing to apologise if I came across aggressively (though not sure that was aimed at me or other posters). I simply see this as important.

My argument is that trying to fix "values poverty" whilst denigrating actual financial poverty to secondary (which the OP very clearly does) is like your dentist saying "let's focus on your halitosis and ignore the gum disease for now".

"Indeed I suspect that your insinuation that the OP is a thinly veiled party political broadcast is itself quite revealing of your own interests and bias." Well, it would be, but for the fact that this is one of the few things that until very recently ALL of the major parties in this country agreed on:
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7914719/Rich-thick-kids-do-better-at-school-says-Gove.html

There is of course a need for an understanding of values poverty, but I would argue in the opposite direction. If you are very poor you may well internalise the belief that you can't progress at school. If all you see is poverty around you your parents are MUCH more likely to be less focussed on your education and MORE focussed on actually feeding / clothing / heating you. Again, a lot of research supports this - and goes all the way back to Max Weber and life chances theory.

"are perfectly aware of the distinction made in the OP between financial and values poverty and can point it out readily among their acquaintances. Certainly I've heard it articulated to me plenty of times".

You have heard it at a dinner party and therefore we should consider it when looking at what to base social policy on it? Hahah! I accuse you of being David Cameron! Seriously though (and I take your point that the ingrained culture of the feckless social workers and leftie educational establishment could have corrupted the research, it's a fair argument) all of the research points in the opposite direction.

Real financial poverty has a much bigger impact. Trying to point the argument in the opposite direction is fundamentally not supported by the available evidence. In fairness to the OP - I think he is saying it would be nice to investigate this further. Certainly that is better than one other alternative remedy - fix everything with parenting classes.

This gives me a bad taste in my mouth and I'm struggling to articulate why.

I can come up with hundreds of concrete reasons that financial poverty limits children in education, even those with supportive aspirational parents and I can see that alleviating poverty would really help in these situations.

Value poverty is much harder to define - and massively subjective. Who gets to decide what these arbitrary values are or how they should be applied?

A hungry child will always struggle to concentrate because they are hungry, a child whose parents are disengaged still has an advantage, because they are not fighting the hunger just to concentrate.

It seems to me that this is just muddying the waters and trying to combine two very separate issues into one in order to avoid having to tackle poverty. By all means look into how you can encourage parents to engage with their children's education, but please don't say that it is a bigger issue than poverty because is just wrong.

Hmm. I don't think our positions are as far apart as all that. However your response initially seemed to dismiss the notion that there is any relationship between values and educational attainment.

My argument is that trying to fix "values poverty" whilst denigrating actual financial poverty to secondary (which the OP very clearly does) is like your dentist saying "let's focus on your halitosis and ignore the gum disease for now".

I completely agree with this. It wasn't what you said in your original response to the OP (that seemed to imply that values poverty wasn't a thing full stop) but never mind that. Clearly hectoring people about having more gumption or reading their children bedtime stories, when they're working three jobs to pay the rent let alone buy school shoes, is not just a waste of time but actively cruel. But it doesn't follow that all problems of attainment among poor families can be solved by supplying more money.

Interestingly, the founders of the welfare state distinguished between 'want' and 'squalor', with the latter being explicitly a form of moral rather than economic poverty. This notion fell by the wayside at some point, replaced by a narrative that focuses on economic poverty to the exclusion of almost everything else, and is itself founded in a specific worldview.

The removal of this notion of moral poverty from the discourse of poverty alleviation in this country is explicitly political. I've no objection to anyone wanting to make a case for that political stance, but to imply that alternative views are simply unmentionable ('uncomfortable'; 'Victorian'; 'party political broadcast'; insinuations about dinner parties and so on) isn't good enough.