Does coming from a deprived background really seal your fate?

[Pinkjenny]

Just wondering, really, listening to Nick Clegg on R5 live. I come from Anfield in Liverpool, not deprived really, but certainly not affluent. My mum worked in a shop, and my dad was (and still is) an engineer.

I credit all of my success (relatively speaking, of course) to the way in which I was brought up, and the attitude of my parents, who told me I could be whatever I wanted to be, as long as I put my mind to it.

Does giving children money for their first shoes and first suit really help break that poverty cycle?

Or does it depend on the attitude of their parents and their general upbringing?

I really hope that it doesn't, and I always think of dh, in and out of foster homes,childrens homes, really dire poverty malnutrition, etc, and he has a good degree and a Masters and earns a very high salary in a multinational company.

He inherited brains from his (absent) dad and toughness from his (sometimes absent but hardworking) mum.

I think the attitude of the parents matters more than their bank balance tbh. You can be poor but hardworking and give your children a good template, or you can be poor, workshy and unintelligent and give them a terrible one.

I think it comes from seeing the habits of families where there has been "success" (whatever that means to you) and emulating them. I don't think it is to do with money per se (though money makes all of this easier).

My parents certainly came from so-called deprived backgrounds (dad born into a house with a dirt floor/slept in the kitchen; mum had alcoholic father and no money or prospects). They always made sure our questions were answered, that we had books, lots of books, and that we behaved well and had a work ethic. All of these things are achievable without money (find out answers with children/books from charity shops, etc).

My dad really, really benefitted from social policy at the time, because he left school at 16 and got into a professional job and did it until he retired. He was effectively apprenticed in his scientific area. I wish this were possible now. So, the difference for him was opportunity, not so much anything that came from his parents (though they didn't disadvantage him).

I know people who are starting with not much, flobbing about doing a mish-mash of OU courses with no aim at the end of it, slagging off their ds's school and teachers in front of him, happy to say they think he'll be excluded one day, etc: I just think, you know, you will blame the system but the fault here is you. [harsh]

I suppose my muddled post = 'it's complicated and individual'

tricky to unpick but the divide between 'rich' children and 'poor' children is apparent at reception IIRC

acquiring a wide vocabulary, having a calm homelife, parents modelling a postive attitude to books and learning, having access to outdoors, acitivities and experiences - some of these cost money, some cost time

[ponders]

rambling, really

I think having good role models makes a big difference to outcomes - so, children in a financially deprived environment but with parents who value education and hard work will have a better chance than children in the same area whose parents don't show them that kind of example (quite likely because they didn't get shown one themselves back when they were young).

But even children whose parents aren't that good an example can be inspired by other adults - a teacher or youth club leader who shows them that there is a chance to be more than what you see around you.

Its the children who don't have either of those who will have the least chance of getting somewhere in life, and I don't think buying them a suit will make any real difference.

How on earth can you connect doing OU courses with bad parenting, Unprune?

It does depend on parental attitude as well, DH came from a poor but hard working family where "university isn't for the likes of us" and parental attitude and money issues meant he had to leave school at 16 and start work.

DH has now worked himself up into a professional job and is the only person in his company without a degree.

His mother said recently "this is my son, he doesn't have a proper job, he works in an office".

I was brought up by grandparents (after my mother died) on a council estate. They worked very hard, for not very much and obviously hadn't bargained on 2 other kids when theirs left home. At one point there were 5 adults,1 teenager and 3 small children living in their 3 bed council house. It must have been a nightmare for them, but I have mostly good memories.

I think due to how things turned out for their daughters, they were absolutely positive that my sister and I were heading for better things. The importance of a good education (and not getting PG at 16) were drummed in to us from an early age.

They were maybe quite tough on us - no hanging about the streets after school allowed! We were expected to get part time jobs when old enough and bad school reports would have caused hell. It worked though....We were the first in our family to take A'Levels and go to University. Both of us definitely went on to have good careers and a relatively successful life.

I am still in contact with a few of my old friends from back then. They all still live there and are happy, but haven't done so "well" for themselves (if of course having money/career is the only thing you judge by.)

The defining difference was definitely my GPs attitude.

Difficult one - my parents were very keen on me to do well. They sent me to private school between 2 and 8 and were occasionally encouraging.

They were however, alcoholic, violent, criminals so that by the time I was 9 we were in hideous bed and breakfast accomodation and my father was in jail.

I have done 'ok'. I have good loving relationships and a worthwhile life but I know I still suffer emotionally because of my early life which was bad til I was about 25.

It doesn't seal your fate, nothing is as certain as that - just drastically increases your risk of a harder/worse life. You can only attribute effects like this at a population level - you can look at 100 people and say "2 of them are this way because of X" but you could not pick out which two. The exceptions do not prove there is no link, even they have probably had to work that bit harder than their un-deprived peers.

Statistically today, if a child is born into deprived circumstances in the UK, they are more likely to remain that way for the rest of their lives. Even age 5, children from poor backgrounds are statistically more likely to be behind in their development than children from wealthier backgrounds.... and the gap tends to widen after that.

The answers so far on this post of 'I am from a poor background but have done well' are indicative as to how much things have changed even in the last 20 years. The backwards movement in social mobility is nothing short of a scandal. Repressive 'paying people to stay put' government policies of the last 13 years are in no small way to blame for the regression.

Children that consistently buck this trend are those originating from China and other parts of Asia. When it comes to chinese girls they are no more or less likely to succeed at school whether they are from a wealthy or poor family. What makes the difference is the attitude of the family, not the money they have available.

I understand what you are saying Runner, and I don't pretend to understand all the facts and the research. However, I can't understand how a free nursery place for a 2 year old will help a child whose parents don't improve their homelife, either because they themselves know no different, or because they can't be bothered to.

I come from a family where again, university was looked on with a degree of bemusement. I grew up in levels of poverty that would make a social reformer wilt. However, the vast majority of my (many, many) siblings have gone on to university, got good degrees and are all working, contributing members of hte community. We all paid our own way through as well. Where I come from university fees were always one of life's realities.

I put it down to my parents attitude. They didn't actively say "No" to university but they made it clear that if I wanted to go I would have to pay for myself (I was the first of my siblings to make that leap) What they did do, however, was support me in finding part time jobs so I culd save to fund my education. It was a very good lesson learnt early. Since then most of my siblings have educated themselves as well. All but one of them left school, went to work for a few years, saved, then did a degree or two.

Many years ago my mother inherited a small amount of money from her parents. She suggested to one sister that she could give her some of it to help pay her university fees. My sister's response was "You didn't give slug any money for her education, it would be unfair to give any to me, spend it on yourself".

It's not the money that was a factor in our success, it was the culture of self reliance we were brought up in.

I totally agree, slug. Work ethic is so important. I worked from 14, in a cafe in Southport, washing dishes. And whilst I hated it, and I'm not saying we were on the breadline, I wasn't working to provide for my family or anything, it instilled very positive and important values in me.

No, it certainly doesn't "seal their fate".

You can have a motivated child from a very dysfunctional family who will use past experiences to strive to do well.

I had an absent, abusive, drug addict father and a mentally ill, work-shy mother. I was put into care, in various different homes, but have always had a very strong sense of self-belief and motivation.

I have a degree, am a qualified and experienced teacher, and am soon going to start a PhD in order to help encourage other people from similar backgrounds to myself attend university and fulfill their potential.

It is harder with a difficult background, but Nick Clegg and chums seem to be doing everything in his power to make it harder.

"I can't understand how a free nursery place for a 2 year old will help a child"

Age 2, nursery staff will be able to influence a child's life for the better and provide stimulation that they might not be getting at home. When the stories emerge of reception class starters (not special needs) being unable to hold a crayon, sit still for any length of time, not be familiar with the idea of 'a book' etc., then 4 and 5 is clearly too late already.

Never mind being the first person in my family to go to uni - I was the 1st person down my street. My Mum & dad still live there & everyone I grew up with has numerous kids to different fathers & no proper education.

I managed to do well because of my parents nothing to do with the government.

it's so complex. I've worked with homeless families for years.

I think it's:

Expectation of what they will do with their life (from parents, peers, school etc)

Input in the early years (talking/playing/not constant tv etc)

opportunity (decent schools/other activities available/parents willing/able to take them places)

role models (if no one around them works/does anything it seems like an unusal thing to do, also don't know how to act in situations such as interviews etc)

confidence (the self-belief that they can work/do what ever they want, the have a go attitude that creates opportunities requires luck)

Many of the above do not require money but there is a definate link between poor parenting/bad schools/lack of role models/difficult family situations that will affect all of the above.

Money is not the only answer.

Stuff like parenting classes made more available for more parents (been on one loved it) would have more impact than nursery places for a 2 year old. which we have anyway in Manchester for all 3 year olds.

Chil1234 - that's actually the first half of the sentence, completely out of order to change the context of what I posted.

I didn't say it wouldn't help. I said if nothing changed at home, and their homelife was less than positive.

I agree with what you're saying, actually.

It's a mix of all of it IME (parent, former related charity employee, etc)

We're poor, due to carers income and a redundancy we are battling back from. If you give us an extra £20 it will be spent on things for the kids- absolutely. And when that happens, of course education is more likely to have a result, whetehr it's heating so they sleep well at night, good quality food, or educational experiences- they all have value.

But that's down to our attitudes as aprents; not everyone is the same of course. Manya re though.

My family has climbed in satges from severe poverty- my Nan's brood (all 16 of tehm) were raised in semi starvation, expected to work at 5, poaching their tea from nearby farms (hedgehog- lovely!).... grandad an alcoholic, Nan disbaled.

If you had got those kids out of there there's no doubt they would ahev done betetr for it; as it as dad was refused his place at Grammar as the others didn't get to go and the uniform cost too much.
Mum and dad raised us to beleive education mattered: we still ahd a council hosue (dad always worked and still does)- tehre was a concept of both doing your best for yourself, but also supporting thsoe around you becuase not everyone is so lucky. I am a grad; sister 1 maanges a nursery that has several settings and is an undergrad; sister 2 is recently qualified as a vaterinary dentist.

We did OK_ my carer thing being soemthing that could ahppen to anyone after all.

But you also need to look at why people are poor- and that avries.

DS3 won't get the hours as he would be three anyway by April but woudl we benefit from them? hell yes. To cope with the things being a carer destroys- housework backlog, sleep deprivation, etc. And yes, with work as soon as I can find any. And being able to socialise with children who like himself are NT, as he mirrors a lot of ds1's behaviours by copying but is obviously not asd.

Other people ahve different stories and are helped in different ways; i;d like to see money thrown equally at trianing tbh as I think that IS a golden ticket for many.

am posting this about and this thread seemed as good as any

I don't disagree with the proposals per se, I just wonder whether it needs to be part of a more holistic approach. How that would be achieved, I'm unsure. That's why I'm not PM

Coming from a deprived background doesn't have to seal your fate.
I'm another one who comes from a sink estate and a poverty filled childhood.

But I don't think we should underestimate how hard it is to break free.
Whatever interventions the state try, it is very hard to overcome a poor home life.
Labour spent thirteen years trying and social mobility has slid backwards.

having parents that value education (whether they themselves got that education or not) and instill those values into their children makes the difference.

I think, tuition fees becoming incredibly expensive will put poorer children off higher education.

I think money, or the lack of it, is the least important determining factor in the cycle of low aspirations/low achievement.

Like the OP, I was brought up for most of my childhood in a family with enormous money worries- my parents sometimes had to resort to changing labels on meat in the supermarket in order to be able to feed us adequately. We had 7th hand clothes, even underclothes! Never went on holiday.

Neither of my parents were hugely emotional or supportive either. Which is an understatement.

BUT, my parents placed a huge emphasis on books and learning as the path to success. They also made us feel that NOTHING could stand in our way. Not in a friendly emotionally enveloping way, just in a "nobody is as good as my children" (my father) kind of way. So we grew with a massive intellectual superiority complex and the feeling that we could in fact conquer whatever we wanted to, as long as put our minds to it (my father) and persevered (my mother)

And by and large we have. All of us have gone to good universities (4 out of 5 of them Russell Group including 2 Oxbridge) and we've all made our way in life.

So, I agree with you OP.