Gordon Brown is grabbing at PR straws

[AtheneNoctua]

I thought the key to social mobility was education. Wouldn't his my money would be better spend on the (failing) education system?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7468506.stm

Perhaps I'm a cynic, but this program sounds as if it will cost a lot of money and won't actually achieve its intended purpose. But, rather will serve as a quick PR scam for Gordon Brown.

agree with custardo. And to answer what I think is behind sitdownpleasegeorge's question, yes, some of this will go to people who are on benefits. And yes, some will spend it on nonsense.

But it's not the money for the parents that's the "medicine" iyswim. It's the children's attendance at nurseries and surestarts. Children of hopeless parents don't have a chance in hell if you leave it up to the hopeless parents. But if you get them into some other environment for a tiny amount of the week you might be able to achieve a few tiny changes for the child.

And this is about pre school in the main so the free milk and free meals suggested below won't reach them till they are five by which time you've already lost a lot of battles.

some people just won't want to be educated and be refused to.

I know friends of mine who are on benefits like us, have had all the information about why you shouldn't smoke around children, her 10 month old dd has asthma and yet her whole family including them smoke round her dd up to 10 people at a time.

Her excuse well everyone else we know does it it won't hurt them.

Giving that family 200 hundred quid would be a bad idea it would all go on tobacco

we don't smoke round our kids btw

I think the idea is that it doesn't matter what the parents spend the £200 on as long as the children are handed over to the nursery or wherever. Effectively, I think this interprets as the gov't paying parents for their children to be cared for by outside agencies. Or at least this is how I see it.

juuule, you've managed in a sentence what I've been trying to express since 9.38 this morning

Must work on my succinctness...

sheepgomeep, in what you said earlier about further education for us "oldies" ie over 25s. I'm studying for my degree through the Open University, it is the only way I can do so and keeps the hours you study down (or rather the benefits office does not consider OU to be "proper" uni regardless of the fact you need more motivation to get things done and it is a lot harder on your own.)

When the dts are older and about to leave school I will work as many jobs as I need to to ensure they can do whatever they require to aim for the job they want. A few years before having dts I did an HND to change careers and worked two jobs while studying - it was possible then (mid-90s) but now I don't think that would be financially viable. I worked from leaving school (actually before then but under 16s don't pay tax) until dts were born but here I am, the lowest social class, a single mother, in housing association accommodation and on the buroo! It is shaming but that is why I do the OU, I need to get us out of this position however with the current government there is no way out. (I have a cunning plan though )

Oh and I meant to say, I get my OU fees paid but nothing else. It is all I ask for to give me this fresh start.

What annoys me most is the statment:

"Two-year-olds in the most disadvantaged areas would be offered free nursery places, he also said"

They are basically saying that they don't think parents in disadvantaged areas are fit to do their job. This really disgusts me actually.

There's something about it that I find distasteful, too, laugs.

Children from disadvantaged areas are less likely to start even primary school at the same level as children from more advantaged backgrounds. They are less likely to do well throughout the whole school system. Today it was a survey out (heard it on the radio) saying it is a clear link between child obesity and which area you live in. For example, children in Hackney are the most obese in the country apparently. So yes, getting these children into the education system (ie. nursery) early on is sure to benefit them. They will have access to books and forms of stimulation they are less likely to have as good access to at home as children from more advantaged areas. And fruit!

Feeling disgusted that it is implied that these parents are not doing as well doesn't help these children.

According tothis
"Parents who use children's centres and take up the free childcare entitlement could be eligible for the grants."

So only parents using the centres and childcare would be eligible.

I agree with custy that educating and working with the parents is a better option. Not simply removing their children from them. And to pay parents to take their children off them feels a bit chilling and somewhat insulting somehow.

I don't think children of 2 should be in the 'education system'. In other European countries, kids start school at up to 7 and in the UK they keep trying to push it lower and lower.

It's one thing if you want/ need to work and therefore use a nursery as childcare, but the idea that this should be almost enforced on disadvantaged families (and it would be, over time)just feels so wrong to me.

More than that, there is a real sense of hopelessness about it. There's no point in trying to help these families or educate them in bringing up their own kids, let's just take the children out of their hands as soon as possible.

FioFio, my children go to school with children from council estates. Living in a wealthy area, I see massive differences between the children from counsil estate and children from wealthy backgrounds. And the differences are just increasing. Children from advantaged backgrounds have a massive headstart in life from pre-school and I think this is a fact. Do you not agree?

So it's that black and white is it, Fairymum?

Disadvantaged area = rubbish parents. Advantaged area = good parents.

I can't agree from children that I've known and their backgrounds.

Laugs, yes in other countries like Scandinavian countries children start school later, but the difference is that the vast majority is in nursery not at home. This is how they get a very equal start in life.

Laugs, I agree totally with your last post.

But FairyMum, just plonking those disadvantaged kids in childcare for 8 hours a day is not the answer.

Free nursery places for those who need them is a good idea. Surely parents who needed the places would take them up without being paid to do so.

Paying parents to put their children in childcare doesn't feel too good an idea to me. Especially if, as laugs says, it would probably become enforced over time.

Laugs, except you are not plonking them, you are giving them access to the same pre-school education, stimulation and resources as other children. And the probably the chance to mix with children from diverse backgrounds. To improve social mobility education is key. You cannot leave this to parents. If the government tells parents anything at all in this country they are called "nanny-state". You have to target the children directly!

Ooh, the old class debate. I think GB si right in trying to reach the most disadvantaged children, who are of course the hardest to reach. Anyone who works with children (from all backgrounds) recognises they exist, and to ignore this is failing them. Of course children of well off middle class parents can be disadvantaged too, and of course most children brought up in deprived areas have loving parents but too miss the fact that those from severely socially deprived backgrounds have more problems is frankly sticking your head in the sand. The scheme reminds me of the one in Dundee - paying drug addicts to stay abstinent. Completely counterintuitive but if it works... Also like methadone prescriptions - don't really alter drug dependence but cuts down social effects of drug taking (crime etc.) so large part of the benefit is for society as a whole, not just the individual being treated. If some children can get benefits of nursery then great. May pay dividends in the future. *the happy prince steps off soapbox"

I think it would be better to put money into resources that educate both parents and kids eg. daily parent and toddler groups through Sure Start with an educational leaning.

The child gets the advantages of socialising, creative play etc and the parent can learn games to play at home with child.

But I think GB is so keen to get everyone back to work and normalise childcare that he fails to recognise that being a stay-at-home-parent is generally a good thing.

But FairyMum, all children have this access at the age of 3. Don't you think this is old enough?

Taking responsibility away from parents seems like an inherently bad idea to me.