Parenting style the key determinant of life chances, says Cameron ...

[Molesworth]

Today David Cameron gave a speech at thinktank Demos as part of their "Character Inquiry". In the speech Cameron refers to research carried out by Demos and makes the following bold claim: "the differences in child outcomes between a child born in poverty and a child born in wealth are no longer statistically significant when both have been raised by 'confident and able parents'."

Policy recommendations include training HVs to assess parent-child attachments and parenting styles.

Details of the inquiry are available here: www.demos.co.uk/projects/the-character-inquiry

And the research paper to which Cameron refers is available to download for free here: www.demos.co.uk/publications/parenting

"to say that these people were not bus conductors in their countries is offensive to the large porportion of people who have come here with very little - little education, little English- live in awful conditions, make sacrifices,work their arses off in poorly paid jobs, pull together and demand alot from their kids - and yep - they've done very very well."

I hope this doesn't sound racist because it's not meant to but I think immigrant families can teach us a lot about family values, and I think that what they instill in their children, the way they raise them, is reflected in the success of their children, which is what I was trying to say before, their achievements in school (especially considering english for many is a second language) are remarkable.

giveit, that is what I am saying.

atlantis was saying that working class people can make it in Britain, and using immigrants as an example. I pointed out that many immigrants are not working class, ie they bring middle class culture with them.

Good parenting does not equal middle class values. The point is, that people who arent aspirational and competitive, should also have decent lives.

atlantis, your statement sounded as though you think the british middle classes are superior to the ugandan middle classes. I would say, they share many values. The british ones probably have more material goods and freedom to behave badly, and the ugandan ones probably behave better.

He's using emotive language and making statements we'd all broadly agree with: of course 'good parenting' is desirable and makes a difference to one's life chances.

But that's not all that he's saying is it? He's claiming that 'good parenting' is the primary determinant of one's 'character' and thus one's life chances, more important than structured material deprivation. He is effectively saying that those at the bottom of the heap have it within their power to improve their life chances, if only they would take steps to improve their 'character', and he's suggesting that the way to improve this deficient 'character' of poor people is to increase state surveillance of their parenting practices via health visitors and teachers and intervene when those practices are found to be 'bad'(surprisingly nanny-state-ish words from a tory!).

Now, he may have a point about 'character': the distinguished sociologist Richard Sennett wrote a book called "The Corrosion of Character" in the late 90s, in which he examines the ways advanced capitalist societies (and especially the changing ways that work is organised) undermine the development of the sorts of characteristics referred to in the Demos report. Pity the Demos people didn't bother to read it.

My concern here is that Cameron will use this as a reasoning NOT to provide to poor families, withdraw/cut existing benefits and argue that if only the poor were 'warmer' parents then your child wouldn't be living in poverty.

I am actually pleased that he is saying in the hope that people will remember exactly what the Tories think of those not born in the same class as the majority of them

"My concern here is that Cameron will use this as a reasoning NOT to provide to poor families, withdraw/cut existing benefits and argue that if only the poor were 'warmer' parents then your child wouldn't be living in poverty."

The argument isn't that being "warmer" parents will stop the child living in poverty but rather that being "involved" parents will help increase the chances of the child doing well and of that child breaking out of poverty.

However much as I agree with the base concept, good parenting being the major player in a child's life chances, I am a bit worried about where Cameron might end up taking this argument. In particular I worry that it might be used as a basis to change the tax or benefits system to encourage or discourage a certain sort of family.

True enough I believe that certain family units help foster good parenting but in the end good parenting can come from any shape of family and I've seen some of the worst come from those families the Tories might label "ideal".

Nightby - many mamy immigrants are working class in their own countries - my mum is from a rich family and came here for fun her family's gardner came over here because he didn't want his kids to be servants - his family have done better than my family - it's not particularly middle class culture it's quite often a case that people have more opportunities than the country they came from and bloody hell they're going to go for it - very little to do with middle class culture more like last chance saloon.

I am basing my observations on living in Slough, which has around 45 % immigrants from all over the world, many of whom are middle class, even though they may be working as cleaners or in a factory.

plenty of heroin addicts amongst old etonians.

i am pinko. i believe in a govt's duty to do it's best to level the economic playing field, to allow the poor the chance to lift themselves out of poverty.

however, I also believe the PRIME determinant of your life chances are your early attachment relationships.

it's not an either or though. and it is dangerously simplistic to argue that it is.

of course poverty has an impact on the ability of a parent to provide a secure and safe environment.

Training hvs in parent-child attachments?
Mine said to me (about weaning) 'oh well the advice changes all the time, how are we expected to keep up with it'. Fills you with confidence, that does.

And I'm basing my obsverations from family and our community and we're from all over the place.

I do find it rather difficult that we have families where kids never see their parents working and yet we have people coming from all over the world with zero fighting to make a better life for their families and doing it.

I think that a welfare state is critical - but how far does it go to reduce inequality - I'm not convinced our system does and I wonder whether it goes some way to reinforces the status quo.

Immigrants who genuinely come from a working class background and make it, are ime, as rare as indigenous english people from sink estates who make it.

And anyway, "oh, immigrants can lift themselves out of poverty, so we dont have to work to close the gap between rich and poor, they simply have to try harder" is a shitty argument.

I grew up in a poor family and hd parents who valued education etc; my ex grew up in a rich family that had similar parents. We both did similar levels quals.

Was it easier for him?

Private education,a car meaning he could attend events, extra curricular stuff,a school that even mentioned HE- hell yes. Heating in more than one room so you didn't have to do your homework wearing full outdoor gear (my french teacher didn't give me work for home between Sep and March)

If this were used to help famillies improve the opps for their kids I'd back it.... it won't, it will foster a blame culture.

What would be mroe useful is to know what we can do to actually improve things- poor famillies are statistically more likely to have underlying mild SN, or other health issues.... a child with disability (and usually a few without getting no extra help..... it would save money long term to help those people out because benefits, ill health and all the things that poverty brings are more expensive that setting up specialist weekend homework clubs or young carers groups, running mentor schemes (they work, have been involved with a few) whatever, but politicians don't think that long term (any of them), they see immediate savings, soundbites or the ability towash their hands by assigning blame.

David Cameron's love of HVs as the answer to all ills worries me. There are thousands of examples of ill-informed or plain barking HVs mentioned on MN and IRL - plus the ones I know complain that they are not given any time or funding for training so can't be expected to keep up. Relying on them to boss poor people into being 'better parents' seems unlikely to succeed, even if you accept the rather dubious assertion that being poor means you are a bad parent, or being well-off means you are a good one.

It's a lot easier to have a pop at poor people than actually do something about and poverty, no doubt that's why it appeals to DC.

(Although the Family Nurse Partnership scheme, where nurses are trained to offer long-term practical and emotional support to parents who are at risk of struggling does seem promising.)

oops, stray 'and' in there.

I haven't ever met my HV, despite ds4 being high risk for disability.

Where the money would make a difference is by making sure charities like home start don't go under (ours did)- they offer real value for money returns and results.I worked on a mentoring scheme taking HE students into the valleys to work with older comp kids- excellent.And then the money stopped.

Yet that money- minimum wage for the students 3 hours a week,plus a few admin- w could be saved in a year by helping just one of those high risk benefit dependency kids into work

Schemes like that can be expanded to cover wider ranges, different types of at risk kids. Some operate voluntarily but then there's massive over subsctription rates- ds1 had a volunteer from NAS,she went abck to Ireland so it's atwo year wait for the next, he adored her and it helped him immensely.

IMHO, good parenting skills can narrow the gap between parents doing ok eg both parents left school at 16, SAHM, Dad earning 20k,small mortgage in okish area and graduate professional parents with 70k+ combined salary living in swanky area with high mortgage. Am I making sense?

It does not bridge the gap between those living in real poverty with no money for anything, no outdoor space etc and affluent parents who can offer a wealth of enrichment opportunities.

Sorry this waffle. Just my opinion.

Sorry, I'm a wee bit drunk so not venny articulate.

"Relying on them to boss poor people into being 'better parents' seems unlikely to succeed, even if you accept the rather dubious assertion that being poor means you are a bad parent, or being well-off means you are a good one. "

That's not what's being said at all.

What's being said is that being a "good parent" is the key factor in determining the "life chances" of your child.

That's it.

Nothing about the parent's own economic status at all.

"It's a lot easier to have a pop at poor people than actually do something about and poverty, no doubt that's why it appeals to DC."

Having misunderstood the argument it's easy to see why you think it's having a pop at "poor people".

It's basically saying to "poor people" that one of the best paths to hopefully give your child better chances than you might have experienced is to be an active and involved parent.

Now you could conclude that DC is having a pop at "poor people's" parent, I don't think he is but at least that would be the correct causal effect to point the finger at.

And I don't actually like David Cameroon, but at least let him be criticised for what he has said rather than what he hasn't.

nightby - is your second para of last post aimed at me?

"It does not bridge the gap between those living in real poverty with no money for anything, no outdoor space etc and affluent parents who can offer a wealth of enrichment opportunities."

I've seen "affluent parents" be "bad parents" too, by that I mean not bothering with homework, not bothering to read with their child, not backing the school up and so on and so forth.

Likewise having little money does not mean that you can't keep in touch with the school, sit down with your child and read library books and back the school up on the discipline front.

Money does help.

But I do believe that the biggest single factor that will shape a child's life is education, and that needs parental support, and that doesn't really cost anything.

But, Badgers, I think what people are saying is that for many people living in true poverty, being a good parebt is not enough to give you child even half way decent chances.

When both parents are constantly shattered doing numerous jobs and very down about life, it's difficult to be the best parent you can be. If you have no money no car and no access to a library it can be difficult to instill a love of books.

What I was trying to sayb in my garbled post waas that for a huge chunk in the middle, good parenting can often be a reasonable leveller or at least raise the chances/opportunities of those from the poorer families. It simply isn't enough for those stuck in real pobverty.

Yes of course affluent parents can be bad parents. I meant where both were good parents the gap can be narrowed. What Im trying to say is that all things being equal on the parenting side, poorer kids can do better but its not enough for the poorest

But BadgersPaw it is much easier to be a 'good parent' if you are middle class than it is to be a 'good parent' when you are living in poverty.

As has already been said on here(Peachy?) if parents have access to a car, enough money to provide a healthy diet, money to take you swimming/classes etc. their child has a better starting point (I am being v simplistic here)

If parents are wondering whether to pay bills or buy food/shoes then they are going to be in a very different frame of mind and I believe that children suffer because of that. Their children have so much further to go to just to reach the same starting point as the middle class child.

Whatever your parents are like, poverty puts a child- at birth- further back from the starting line. Privilege (such as Cameron enjoyed and is- of course- still reaping the benefits of) puts a child further on.

This blaming the poor for their own outcomes is a very Victorian thing, which this particular lot of tories like to dress up as something somehow progressive and modern

the bastards

I've only had a quick shufti through the study but the 'child outcomes' appear to be a set of 'character cpapbilities' measured at age 5, rather than any actual material outcome at a later age. Of course, the character capabilities and later educational and economic outcomes may be be associated. But that isn't in this study. Presumably that will come later (too soon to tell - this is the Millenium Cohort Study - we're not that far into the millenium yet!). The behaviours are measured using a parental report. I find it interesting that one of the factors associated with negative outcomes is low maternal self esteem, and one of the acknowledged problems with parental reports of a child's behaviour is that low self esteem is associated with more negative behaviour ratings. Seems slightly circular to me perhaps.