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?

"No-one worries about the child whose parents may be reasonably affluent but apathetic, and there are plenty of those too. "

NO, nobody worries about them, because statistics show that those kids will be okay, in the long run.
However, kids with apathetic parents and an impoverished back-ground are the ones who really suffer.

And I do understand contraception.

My point is that you have to give these girls a better option in life than having a child. Right now they do not have a better option than that.

I don't think we do have a particular bad rich/poor divide. We jhave a welfare state much better than many and if you compare us to South American and all kinds of other places and even the US we do very well indeed.

Also rich/poor divides aren't necessarily a bad thing.

Well, they're not necessarily bad for the rich, that's for sure

But for crime rates, for example, or society's morale, a rich/poor divide is a disaster

It's true that the UK is not as bad as the US, or Russia- Europe is better on the whole, but that's because of social policies in place. But take away the support network and you do not get lots of random entrepreneurs making the most of a bad job- you simply get dire poverty and homelessness and the rich enclosing themselves in gated communities.

Poverty is relative- so a person feels poor if he cannot buy something that everyone else around him has (in the UK, let's say a mobile). Whereas a person without a mobile or a TV or money to buy a cup of coffee may not feel poor in another country, if the people around him cannot buy those things either

headlesshorseman I am totally with sakura on this

Effective education is the key.

"
You are SO wrong to say that all that's needed is 'education, good and equal education for all'. Do you think our state education is all crap then? Do only public schoolboys get 'good' education? Or do you think the state operates a deliberate two-tier system where all the ineffective teachers and lacklustre teaching methods and poor resources are channelled directly into schools especially reserved for children from disadvantaged homes? Are you suggesting poor kids are held down on purpose by the system, or what?

Do you think that schools with a history of low GCSE attainment are full of crap teachers trashing the chances of poor but clever pupils who are all deeply committed to education, and highly ambitious? "

There's no special allocation of crappy teachers for poor areas. Often the teachers are supremely well qualified and aspirational, in the beginning, for the children. It's often the pupils in these schools who drag down levels of achievement with poor behaviour, who drag down the teachers expectations, who abuse the privilege of a free education. They need to be given a sense of achievement, order and routine a whole lot younger. If that means getting them away from their homes, where there's no routine or consistency, into these new child care arrangements, then so be it.

I was quoting you there, it was rather long! and looked like I was saying it myself.

But I disagree v v much!

Another one whose parents were from a poor background and whose attitudes made all the difference. Government had nothing to do with it, for them or me. They were from the 'accept no help from the state because someone is always worse off and needs it more' school of thought. Worked hard and encouraged us to do the same. I was first to go to uni etc. Worked all through it doing crappy jobs. Was there with much wealthier students (some of them) who never had to work and were there for the fun of it. (Which is important too) but not all have done as well. Was it Goethe who said you have to earn what you inherit by your own merit, or lose it.

Sakura the better option IS not having a child! At least not too soon, with entirely the wrong bloke, and no financial support from anywhere but the state. When these girls always trot out the old chestnut about wanting to give their child a better life, it breaks my heart because for so many of them the battle is already lost the day they give birth. The very best chance they can give their children is to wait a bit before they have them!

Not always, obviously, there are always the exceptions and the success stories, but for many (most) it just digs their pit a few feet deeper.

And of course some people will never function very well as financially self-sufficient adults no matter how long they wait, for all sorts of reasons, and they need to be supported. But not to an unlimited degree. They must accept some personal responsibility too. If they continue to have far more children than they can possibly support, or house, or feed, in chaotic circumstances, maybe with multiple partners, and no stability, then it is they who punish their children, not the state, who may at some point withdraw unlimited un-ending support.

Why do you think it is that non-poor children of apathetic parents statistically do better? Given that their parents may not value education especially, or be well-educated themselves?

I'd like to read that book you mention, but in the meantime can you at least outline some of the key points about this two-tier system for me? I'd like to understand what it is the last Labour government gave us that is so unacceptable - even to socialists!

Everyone saying it's "attitude", obvously yes yes yes. But do you disagree that a culture of earning what you merit is not encouraged by a culture of something for nothing?

Generally people work to better themselves, to support themselves and their family, to hoik themselves out of hard times.

Who wants to work to hoik themselves into hard times?

You can't nod wisely and say "it's all attitude" then support a system which encourages a poor one.

Am now a governor at a primary school and the head feels all the work the school does is undone night after night by parents. Not all of course, but there are some who are letting down their children and by extension, the rest of society, relentlessly and unashamedly. Not always the poorest ones but certainly lazy, selfish and neglectful whatever their income.

Ther are people from well-off beginnings who will not 'do well' because of their attitude and plenty from impoverished backgrounds whose parents will make them believe anything is possible if they work hard. Some teachers will back that up and some will achieve amazing things. But is it hard if families don't give a shit. That is the worst disadvantage of all.

Non-poor children of apathetic parents do better because money can buy certain things. A cleaner, for example. Better food. Better clothes. Books.

To achieve the same lifestyle as a better off person a poor parent as to work twice, maybe three times as hard.

Horseman,
I can't be bothered getting the book, it's upstairs, but I've seen the two-tier in action. Private, expensive school right across the road from state school: two sets of children getting two sets of opportunities. There is a lot more to it than that, of course, lots of detail, nuances and descriptions in the book INjustice.

Poor head. Poor teachers.

That sort of behaviour should be judged and condemned. It's like, one isn't allowed to judge, because maybe these parents had a bad upbringing too, etc etc, but you know. The ball stops somewhere.

Unless children are taught that such behaviour is undesirable, not to be emulated, they will copy. "Hey I'm depraved on account I'm deprived." I'm fed up with all the "understanding" and excuses. Just get to the children and show them behaving like that is WRONG and so much more is possible.

They teach differently in private schools and grammar schools. They expect more and they are rigorous. That has more to do with it than money. Money lead children astray, people have said that on this thread. Yes all schools should have the same facilities, same quality teachers and buildings, but that's desirable, not necessary for social mobility.

Appletrees I totally agree with what you just said, including the last bit about getting them into a these new arrangements (I assume you mean the 15 hours free childcare at 2?)

But my whole point is that we cannot keep basing all our social policy on locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Everyone knows that to kill off a problem tree you need to get to the roots. Cutting it down to the ground every few years will always result in regeneration.

Sorry, crap analogy, but it's such a huge and complex issue it's hard to make much sense in a handful of posts without just writing way too much!

GivesHeadlessHorseman - I agree with you and you have said it much more eloquently than I can. Positive parental/home attitude seems to be a recurring theme in whether a child makes the most of educational opportunities and "succeeds". Increasing material wealth, above the basic mimimum for survival does not alter that attitude. Giving that material wealth (in the form of benefits) also breaks the link between hard work and reward. The State taking over parenting, particularly of the very young - by child care provision / get mothers back to work initiatives / "free" playschool from age 2 etc, makes it difficult for children to form a relationship with their parents, to be talked to, read to, taken for walks and adventures etc - at an appropriate level for that individual child (all free) and replaces it with costly mass institutionalised care given by a changing work force who are often young/ not well motivated /not well educated in the widest sense. It also creates a culture where parenting skills from an "untrained" parent are undervalued, to be replaced by "care" from those "trained" in whatever is the latest fashion. Currently this fashion is for unrealistic but measurable achievement such as whether a 3 year old is starting to form their letters. How are the child-care children of today going to bring up their children? Children are the parents' responsibility, not the State's. It is up to parents to create the stability and positive environment. Those not prepared to provide the input should think twice about having children. Throwing endless money at life's underachievers does not make them succeed. It is money Britain cannot afford and it would seem much wiser to target those of good attitude and aptitude with the limited resources available.

No Sakura - don't bring private schools into this - they only look after 7% of the country's children anyway. My children are in private school and I doubt more than 10%of the parents there were privately educated themselves. I certainly wasn't.

I want to know how the state has provided a two-tier system that has disadvantaged poor children further.

6pack and headless yes and the problem is this 15 hours of pre school to take the child away from a crappy home environment. Is it going to do what we think? Or is it going to be treated as fifteen hours of free childcare so the 17 year old can bugger off to New Look. And look I can have another baby as I don't even have to look after this one.

Horseman,
the state has NOT provided the two-tier system. Luckily, Britain is one of those countries which has government social policies in place to help bridge the gap. However it seems to me, with the way the discussion is going on this thread, that taking away benefits is seen as a good thing. A 'tough love' sort of intervention.
All I can say to that is that it's a naive way to think.

Oh, I don't know 6pack that sounded pretty eloquent to me!

You are right here - 'tough love' is one of my favourite expressions. And I think anyone who things we can continue without it, is naive.

Sakura - Gives headlesshorseman is not talking about taking away benefits. It's about the state not having to pay them in the first place if there are less unwanted/unplanned babies being born.

Practical suggestions? Issue 12-15 year old girls the 'virtual babies' for one week. They do this in my town (I work for NHS and have spoken to Publich School Nurses about them and they are VERY effective, the girls practically beg the Nurses to take them back, and go back to enjoying their teenage life, perhaps just a bit wiser...).

Sakura if the only two-tier system in evidence is the one that favours only 7% of children, then I fail to see what the issue is. That's not enough to tip the balance either way - and the kids at the very bottom of the heap have WAY bigger hurdles to go over before they need to worry about any threat from the privately educated elite.

Virtual babies?? 12-15 year olds aren't stupid
They know a real, live flesh and blood child borne of their flesh, who loves them unconditionally, is not the same as a silly doll.

SO how do you propose to convince a young girl whose only prospect in life is working on the checkout of Maccy D's that working on the check-out of Maccy D's is better than having a baby?

Agree with you Appletrees

Horseman, sorry the state/private thing was a red herring.

I'M going to trundle upstairs and get the book...