Stupidest Article I've read in a long time

[MadameOvary]

here

In essence, babies from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to fulfill their "genetic potential"
Oh and poor people don't nurture their kids and like to plonk them in front of the television..

Is the ES famous for this sort of thing then?

Is "rich kids do better than poor ones" a shocker for you? Do you live under a rock?

Statistically, it's probably true. Doesn't mean to say poor kids whose parents aren't the brightest won't grow up to be successful though. And vice-versa.

Makes sense to me. More opportunities, more connections, access to better diet...the list is endless. And obvious.

Social mobility is the worst it has been since the fifties.

And under Cameron, I'm not waiting with bailted breath for thigs to improve.

I wouldn't say anything in that article in "news" but I would like them to define rich and poor.

"All over by age 2"
Obviously as they grow up they will have better opportunities, connections etc but to imply poor people don't nurture their kids at a young age is stupid.
As if rich people have a higher emotional intelligence than poor people.

but MadameO, statistically (which means there are always exceptions), the poorer children are NOT nurtured as well as the richer ones - its not just about what people can or cannot afford to offer in terms of out of the home enrichment activities such as singing classes, toddler groups etc,its about lack of basic quality interaction that ANYONE could offer their child just by talking to them all day about everything and anything, reading, singing, playing simple counting and rhyming games etc

thats why in deprived areas, the primary schools have nurture groups/target groups, where the children are taught the basics of social interaction, and all the " normal" stuff most parents assume all kids know by the time they start school - and some dont - like which way up you hold and turn a book, what basic colours and shapes are called, what common farm animals are called,how to use cutlery, saying please and thank you....and all sorts of other every day normal stuff that some kdis just have no idea about

This really is no surprise. It's why Labour developed the first Surestart Centres in deprived areas.

But it a a serious problem. There was a UK study a few years ago in (a deprived part of) Stoke, which found that by 3 years old - 60% of of the children were one year behind the average UK child in terms of development.

Perhaps the most shocking thing was these children's parents had no idea their children were behind. It was normal for them.

Says who Word?
You?

This is from 2007 - but makes interesting reading.

Wealth gap in learning, by age 3.

And this Language skills 'lag a year behind in poorest children' gives some possible reasons why (although we are probably looking at correlation not necessarily causation).

Just found this John Humphrys article which includes the Stoke Research.

"Stoke-on-Trent is one of the UK's most deprived areas. In 2004, they tested a cohort of three-year-old children and found that 64% of them were a year behind the national average.....

...So the authorities embarked on a huge - and very expensive - campaign. They gave free nursery provision to parents and trained every public sector worker who came into contact with small children in how to improve their language.

Not just the obvious people such as nursery staff, but firemen and police officers and anyone else who might go into people's homes.

It worked - up to a point.They reduced the 64% by more than 10%. But one of the speech therapists involved in setting up the scheme told me it would take a generation to achieve the national average. And that assumes they can afford to keep it going."

Fundamentally, it IS true though. You only have to look at Reception intake in different socio-economic areas to see how true it is.

We live in a very middle class village, the vast majority of parents are in professional occupations, a significant proportion of mums are SAHM by choice, house prices are very high but so are many families' incomes. So, by definition it is a 'rich' area.

The children arrive into reception knowing how to sit and listen, they know how to eat using a knife and fork, many know some letters, many can write their names, most can count and dress and undress themselves, they are toilet trained and, for the most part, have reasonable social skills for 4yos.

Compare that to the school where DH used to work.

It's on an inner city estate, the vast majority of parents are 2nd and 3rd generation unemployed, they live in council houses, they claim benefits. There is a significant drug problem on the estate, a significant percentage of the children are known to SS; several are in care. It is a very, very deprived area.

The reception teacher in that school spends that year teaching the children how to dress themselves, how to sit quietly, how to listen. She has to actively work at improving their concentration. They have to be taught how to use a knife and fork, how to play with their peers. These are children who have spent most of their early lives sat in front of a TV screen. Not all of them, of course, but the majority.

If she's lucky, by the easter term she may be able to start teaching phonics and number work.

Unfortunately, for too many children growing up in these sorts of 'poor' areas, that research is very, very accurate and, tbh, you must be quite naive if you think that socio-economic background has no bearing at all on a child's development.

No I know that Olihan,
I haven't put my response to this article across clearly, it just looks like I'm saying it's bollocks that rich kids do better than poor ones.
I just took offence at the implication that people on a low income have no idea how to nurture their DC's, and by that I mean teach them how to sit, dress themselves, read, hold a knife and fork, and so on.
Of course there is deprivation which has a lasting effect on kids development, and it's fucking depressing, especially when it carries on into the next generation, but poverty does not always equal ignorance about how to bring up your child.