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

Talking up values poverty is cat nip for the traditional (squeezed) middle classes.

Tell them that their DC can still be aspirational provided they have the right values and they will fail to take stock of the fact that their lack of funds is eroding the ability to meet their aspirations in practice.

Superior parenting will supposedly compensate.

While middle class mothers are urged to be Tiger Mothers, and Mumsnet goes into overdrive arguing about how to do that, and which values will be the most...er...valuable...the wealthy will crack on. Business as usual.

"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."

Firstly, I would re-read your copy of the Beveridge report. "Want" was about economic resources - how much money you had to purchase the things you would need to live. "Squalor" was about accommodation and environment. There was no element of moral poverty in either suggestion. One could argue that "Idleness" had an element of moral judgement attached, but the report blamed under-employment on the economy rather than the individual (rightly or wrongly is a political question).

The idea of moral poverty or moral bankruptcy has never left the political arena. Look at the current arguments around "immigrants" to tar them all as feckless foreigners who want to come here and claim our benefits. There are a range of other examples too numerous to count, but ending up with "Benefits Street" as the outcome.

I thought the dinner party joke was quite good, rather than an insinuation. And you haven't denied being David Cameron.

Lol at being David Cameron I think I probably fail that test though, on account of not being rich or virtue-signally enough.

Thanks - some interesting food for thought here. This is probably getting a bit away from the topic in the OP, but you raise a good point about the public discourse indeed including a moralistic dimension. You are of course right that MPs and newspapers are full of more or less dog-whistly comments about the deserving and undeserving poor. I stand by my argument though that many of the institutions oriented towards addressing poverty in this country have a vested interest in seeing people as lacking in moral or political agency and as near-pure products of their economic circumstances.

Much of the public sector has a left-wing bias (have you ever met a Tory social worker?); left-wing politics are founded on an economic/structural analysis rather than one rooted in moral values or individual agency. You can see this in discussions about how to help 'those people' (it's always 'those people'), when the problem in question is some thorny factor in a multi-factorial poverty trap such as violence, drug abuse or multigenerational unemployment. Because people are presumed unable to help themselves, the suggestion is always more help, more intervention, more professionals, more support - in other words, more money and staff for the institutions that deliver this help and support. While there may be good arguments for this, it's also self-interested.

Conversely, if the institutions of welfare operated from a premise of moral agency, there might come a point in a thorny situation where the helping professions would say 'sorry, we've advised you time and again. You brought this situation on yourself. You're on your own with sorting it out now' and withdraw their interventions. And, over time, there would be less money, fewer staff, a limit on what the helping hand of the state is expected to do, a shrinking of the institutions. That's what I mean when I say some institutions of government and welfare have a vested interest, however unconscious it might be, in seeing humans as helpless.

The media and MPs, now, that's a completely different matter. MPs have an interest in placating their constituents, many of whom take a very different view on 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poverty. Likewise the media, who serve the population at large. So while it's true that as you say there's plenty of discussion of a moral dimension to poverty, that discussion - very understandably - happens elsewhere than within institutions whose job it is to address poverty.

It's often the children on FSM who often have an iPhone 6.

"I stand by my argument though that many of the institutions oriented towards addressing poverty in this country have a vested interest in seeing people as lacking in moral or political agency and as near-pure products of their economic circumstances. "

I don't work in that sphere any more, so couldn't possibly comment. However I strongly imagine you are correct - it sounds very plausible. There are agency costs in all walks of life. The army will also argue for more troops, social services will always argue for more social workers.

I was born amongst "those people" and they are different and have a different outlook. They have a different outlook because their aspirations are coloured by the fact they are starting poor. If your parents were told they couldn't achieve (and have lived that life) because the system is designed against them, it is hard to instil anything else into your children.
I really like the way it is described in "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" which I can't do justice to here. And I am not even from a poor but well meaning hard working "working class" family. I am pure third generation chav scum.

We DO need to have a greater sharing of wealth, aspiration and educational excellence than we currently have in this country. It benefits everyone if we do. Being diverted into talking about "value poverty" which is what the OP suggests is not going to fix it.

But who is telling the parents they can't achieve?

"But who is telling the parents they can't achieve?"

The same people, but one generation earlier.

But seriously, who are they?

Parents, teachers, who? Who is sitting these children down and informing them they will not achieve anything?

"But seriously, who are they?

Parents, teachers, who? Who is sitting these children down and informing them they will not achieve anything?"

It's not telling them - it's showing them and controlling the environment to the point where it is ingrained. Most usually summed up by phrases such as "it's not for the likes of us" or "money goes to money". It is in everything and of everything. If nobody in your family has ever been to University - do you know how brave you have to be to go?

Why do you think wealthy middle class parents all buy houses in the same areas - because they are the better schools. That leaves educational ghettoes.

Or it's setting a level of aspiration SO LOW that achieving it feels like a win, when you have closed your mind to it. My parents are STILL angry with me because I didn't become a teacher. Their reason for that is growing up the only professionals they came across were doctors and teachers (and during my teenage years, lawyers). They wouldn't have enough knowledge of the world to see that there were other careers out there. Basically you can't see the prison because you have never been outside the walls.

So you would need to change all of that - not just tell teachers to stop saying it (for example).

But there are other factors that contribute to educational ghettos as well as house buying and send a more damaging message across.

I think that aspiration has a lot to do with motivation. You can only aspire to achieve something if you can see that it is genuinely within your power to achieve it. The gap between rich and poor has grown wider because a) there are fewer jobs for the low-skilled and what there is is becoming more and more badly paid in real terms and b) it has become harder than ever to get into the better paid jobs from a disadvantaged background.

If you're at school - regardless of who your parents are or how much money they have - and you can't see a clear link between putting the effort in to understand tricky maths or taking the time to read a more challenging book, and an eventual outcome of a rewarding career, then you're not going to bother. You won't see that link if you don't know anybody who has a rewarding and well paid career.

Jobs and careers for the bottom 74% are increasingly menial and low paid - there aren't the skilled and semi-skilled jobs that you could learn by starting out as an apprentice. You even need a degree these days to do practical jobs lie nurse or paramedic. So it's hard for the unacademic to aspire - where are the rewards?

I don't think teachers or parents are to blame. I think that society more generally has stopped valuing skills and practical competence. Employers have stopped providing on the job training (much easier to buy in skilled workers from abroad). Society has severely narrowed the pathways from school into adult life. We shouldn't be surprised if those who cant' see their journey along those pathways just decide to drop out altogether. Or that their parents don't know what to do about it.

economics and the money hungry have outsourced it all to china/other country with the equivalent to modern slave labor. daily in the news photo's are shown of large groups of poor unemployed people somewhere demonstrating. nightly we hear of a downturn in this or that sector and further unemployment. these are all messages telling children that they will not achieve anything.

And you honestly think those children sit glued to the news and translate it directly into their own lives?

They don't need the news. It's their daily reality.

Their elder brothers and sisters and mates can't get a job that will pay more than NMW or provide zero contract hours.

Also a quick thought on the often expressed aim of "narrowing the attainment gap"

Just wonder if this is a realistic goal ... if we want every child to fulfil their potential I can imagine every child doing say 20% better in terms of attainment than they are currently doing. If this happened the attainment gap would in fact widen as people are starting from different places.

I see some evidence that this is happening such as the grades of those securing a place at Oxbridge rising steadily year on year.

Is it realistic to think that those with the most disadvantage are likely to be able to raise attainment whilst the higher achievers stand still and allow them to catch up? I'm all for equality of opportunity and proper resourcing of education and following of best practice from early years upwards, but I think it's a simplistic aim. I think if education improves it will benefit everyone and be unlikely to result in a catch-up effect.