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

giveit - yes and no. Saying that working class immigrants can make it, so why cant working class natives, is rather missing the point. Good, stable parents may produce good, stable children, who all the same, stay poor! And they should be looked after.

Success is not about whether you can become a doctor or a lawyer, and neither should it be. In our town, some of the best houses belong to people with working class jobs, because their families have always owned them. When I was a child, that was the case in Britain too, but not any more - they've all been squeezed out.

I am just annoyed that someone as privileged as Cameron, who is going to have the power that he will probably have over others, can say something like this, putting the responsibility for whether chidlren have good lives or not in the hands of the parents, when the governement should be working as hard as it can to reduce the gap between rich and poor. And making out that working class immigrants are more likely to succeeed than native people, is just playing into the hands of people who are quite happy with the status quo. Oh, somebody managed it, the system must be OK then.

"I am just annoyed that someone as privileged as Cameron"

FFS, why does it matter so much what his background is?, are rich people not allowed to give a damn about poor people? does it make someone a better polititian because they came from a middle class/ working class background? Should we ban anyone over a certain amount of personal wealth from entering politics? Out with Harman.. Boo.. she came from money and was priviledged.

"Saying that working class immigrants can make it, so why cant working class natives, is rather missing the point."

It's not missing the point, it's entirely the point, it's about the parenting not the class.

"putting the responsibility for whether chidlren have good lives or not in the hands of the parents"

Who's responsibility should it be? Government can only do so much, ultimately it is the parents responsibility to do the best for the child, which is where Labour have gone so terribly wrong in turning our society into a nanny state and taking away the responsibility from the parents.

" Oh, somebody managed it, the system must be OK then. "

If the system were ok then it wouldn't need changing, some parents relying too much on the state, it's time parents took their responsibilities back.

I'm not particually fond of Cameron myself, in fact I was hoping Davis would be leader, but having listened to what cameron has to say I think he's a decent man and is firmly rooted in the family.

I have a suspicion I agree with Richard Sennett, though I haven't read his book.

There may well be a link between poverty and character, but I suspect the "bad" character traits they list, (yes, even including empathy and definitely deferred gratification,) are a rational, though unconscious, response to the lived conditions of poverty and the related reality of low-income work in an increasingly individual-based, insecure work environment. And to the environment produced by such work.

The link between poverty and character may be there, but the link is rather that poverty produces certain character effects, rather than that character produces poverty.

"Application" pissed me off quite a lot, in particular, actually.

N - I didn't say that that working class brits can't make it - whatever 'it' is. And I'd also say we make far too much of 'class' in this country and that also inhibits social mobility. We also love our class hatred.

We cannot do anything about our family backgrounds and economic circumstances but we can only do our best.

It is harder for the poor certainly - it's also hard for women in work, for many ethnic minority groups etc. We all do our best.

This country offers alot of assistance (NHS largest eu employer - welfare database the largest nonmilitary database in the world - quite something for a tiny island) - that's something that many newcomers to this country point out - so why are there so many poor people in this country, why are outcomes so linked to early years?

My dh is from another eu country and you get poor kids becoming dentists, doctors etc. We don't get that here as I think our education system which relies on league tables to fuel parental preference means that there are very oversubscribed schools and schools noone wants. Also we don't seem to recognise non academic education. It's a levels or nothing - in many other countries non academic study can lead to higher education. You can study pretty much anthing and they'll take you right from the very beginning.

Well, the US is definitely not a nanny state, and there's a bigger rich/poor gap there than anywhere else in the developed world, and parents who suffer from low self esteem, high rates of domestic violence, poverty, live in high crime areas, have abysmal levels of education themselves -- their children's performance on school readiness tests at 5 and their final educational outcomes are predictably awful.

Britain's problems are not all the fault of government not letting parents take responsibility.

I think Giveitago has a good point about the class system having an inhibiting effect on upward mobility and the desire for education.

Educational outcomes are perhaps linked to what happens in a child's early years because high levels of stress in a child's home, from various causes, change the chemical makeup of a child's brain. Children whose home life is marred by scenes of domestic abuse, drunk or high adults neglecting them, a general culture where corporal punishment of even very young children is considered ok, have brains that are not wired to learn in an academic setting as effectively as children whose lives are not touched by these problems by the time they reach school.

I haven't read the article, but I think David Cameron is spot-on.

What is important is that a child grows up in a household with caring parents who take an interest in their lives, who eat their meals together (not in front of the TV), who spend time together. A household where discipline and boundaries are fair, clear and consistent, and where parents and teachers have the same goals. All these things are free.

The argument about poor immigrants making it here just proves that it is middle-class homelife that is important rather than money. They come with nothing, but bring their children up with solid foundations, and the children go on to do better than their parents.

I am shocked with the opinions of many people here. I think there are too many chips on too many shoulders. I also think that people are interpreting that DC is suggesting that someone goes from bottom to top in one generation, which is not realistic.

I absolutely agree with wicked. Children who have involved and caring parents (middle class values, I suppose) who try to instil solid work ethics, a sense of morality, and push their children to achieve will have a much better chance in life than children who don't. This is true in the poorest families up to the richest families. Children from wealthy families with disinterested parents may have financial security when they grow up, but their outcomes are usually pretty sad - same as those from poor households.

I too share concern about the implementation of this and what will happen to government support levels.

Being involved and caring parents are NOT just middle class values, SofaQueen. It's absolutely insulting to millions of hard-working, decent, loving working class parents to suggest otherwise.

The point is, these values don't have to be restricted to one class.

And I suspect we are really talking about how to help the underclass.

I think we probably are Wicked.

But not the adults, IMO ( I did work in exactly this field(parental support on a big deprivation index estate) so think that to someextent the adults are thewrong targets: its the kids.

not by making their parents feels shamed / bad /inferior either, that won't cut it- it willactively harm. The reality is that a great many of the poorest aprents do a stunning job with very little; schools that are failing, frequent house moves because of the way rented no LA / HA accomodation works, probable low education themselves.

There is a proportion ofpeople out there who can be helped with that themselves- I ahd a few famillies where what was needed was someone to go in, show them what was out there for college etc,make the calls- they'd been told toomany times they weren'tcapable that they needed someone to guide them.

But the biggest changes are those that can be made from the next generation. generational poverty is the real eviland is about getting kids out of the sinks chools and the estates,showing them there are options. If you put all the kids at risk in thsoe schools then of course they will follow the mould, you cannot reasonably punish someone for only following the path it has been shown after all.

I think for real change the MCwould ahve to welcome WC kids intotheir schools etc- and I cannot see that happening in a hurry. But on a more do-able level,it has to be a varied approach: stop this silly MC is everything attitude: it is not only MC parents that eat with their children and there is alot to be valued about a WC lifestyle as well, ghettoising the image of mr and mrs average to become a parallel with the underclass is damaging in the extreme. Teach kids self respect, give them rolemodelsand don'tde value alla lternative lifestyles to MC preferred options.... access to Uni is good; making it the only accepted route is poor.

No child grows up wanting to be on benefits forever, the problem for many is they are not shown (and I mean by society rather thanfamily) that there are many alternatives. Value the cleaner'sinput asmuch as the office workers, don'tplacethem on a levelwith non workers (that happens,we'relow income but frequently that gets confused with non working with p's me off immensely).

Get role models out there,kids out of the enclosed- enstate mentality and teach them that we believe in them instead of criticing everything about the WC culture, dismissing their parent's ability to parent andsending unaware overworke dprofessionals in for box ticking exercises,

Sorry forpost and tun;school taxi due andgot to go out as snow due and no food in.

OK I can see that saying good parents in appalling circumstances will magically reverse any harm to their children is a tad optimistic. And of course we need to look at addressing the problem of real poverty, failing schools, no opportunities. But to dismiss the idea that parenting can make a difference, and that supporting parents in these situations so they can better help their children, is MUCH worse. Then you're saying that if you are in a shitty situation, TOUGH. There's nothing you can do about it without state assistance, Which is nonsense.

I wonder how many people banging on about lack of opportunity actually come from poor backgrounds? Both my DH and I had no money when growing up (me: working class parents in low-paid jobs, him: single mother) yet we did well at school (grammar), got into a good university, got good degrees (2:1/1st) and would now be seen as firmly middle class. But then we had the infrastructure in place: supportive parent(s), access to good schools, university grants (albeit the tail end) and no tuition fees.

Maybe the answer is to ensure the system GIVES opportunities to people rather than pegging them firmly in their place with a bit of extra cash but no incentive to go any further (cf the current tax system)?

What I find surprising is that while David Cameron is, sensibly in my view, trying to move the debate away from "class" by looking at attitude etc rather than background, looking at ways of showing people (from whatever background) how they can give their children opportunities, happiness etc so many people immediately jump on the band wagon and say oh well he's from a rich background he wouldn't understand. This brings what could be an interesting, worthwhile debate down once again to a supposed issue of "class".

dittany - how is he rubbing his privilege in anyone's face by suggesting that parents should "combines warmth and consistency" as it says in the study to best help their children? It doesn't cost anything to do that! (and in fact you could argue that it is easier to do that if your child is at home with you rather than away at boarding school)

While a lot of people, quite rightly, complain about the appalling state of some state schools in the country and the complete mess that the education system is in, that does not address the concerns raised by a number of research projects showing that it is how a child is brought up from birth to 3 that really makes a difference to what they will do in live/how happy & settled they are etc. This is before they have entered any education system and is solely about how their parents treat them, behave around etc and I think Cameron is absolutely right to focus on this. Whether the detail of what he proposes is workable or not I am not sure but the theory certainly is imo.

I agree till a certain extent that parenting style the key determinant of life chances, because we need to take into account the child's personality, everyone knows how different siblings can be, despite the same nature and nurture.

Having said that I will do my best as a parent and try to help my child to achieve his maximum potential.

There are probably as many 'bad' middle class or upper class parents as there are working class. Domestic violence, abuse or neglect are not confined to any one social group. There are wealthy people with nannies and boarding schools who don't bother to spend much time with their children (disclaimer: I am talking about the minority of bad parents not everyone who has a nanny or sends their kids to boarding school - just as it is only a minority of people who can't afford these things who are bad parents).

EffiePerine - I don't see anyone here claiming that parenting doesn't matter; to say that good parenting improves life chances is stating the bleedin' obvious. But to claim that it is the key determinant of life chances is, I think, dangerous and wrong. But then Cameron has taken this piece of research and claimed that its finding is akin to the "E=MC2 of social science"

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he, because he thinks that it lets him off the hook.

cassell- okay, not class then but many of the opportunities that money can bring are simply not affordable to many loving supportive parents.
If you have a parent with a child at a bad state school, for example, and that parent is aware that their child is struggling with maths, yet cannot afford to send the child to Kumon classes, or hire a private tutor etc (necessary if parent lacks maths skill themselves)then lack of money does become very important.

SofaQueen-Since when being a loving, supportive parent become a middle class value? There are good and bad from all backgrounds, to suggest otherwise is nonsense.

[Little hi-jack ...

Molesworth - are you named after some protests in Cambs. ages ago?]

['fraid not! It's a reference to Nigel Molesworth of St Custard's!]

[Hi-jack

Molesworth - never come across that before! - an mn education.

P.S. Liked your post at 11 jan 20:15 V. pithy. think I might seek out RS book.]

'I wonder how many people banging on about lack of opportunity actually come from poor backgrounds'

Deprivation index estate (well it is now), all of my friends left at 16 to go into factories- we were absolutely classic 70's working poor. And we've largely pulledo urselves out (factoring in ds1's disability which pulled me out of the job market(but am studying) and dh's redundancy,though he is working again/retraining - wemight be poor of cash atm but not poor of future opportunities, I hope).

If I believed parenting didn't matter i wouldn't have worked for homestart, that's exactly what they do. But it's a single factor, and the deification of the MC is completely barking up the wrong alley IMO. Famillies bad if they don't read the right books (if its printed word and suitable its good-my Mum got me reaidng cereal boxes every day as practice!), eat together...... so stop building affordable homes too small to fit a table in, and realise that working for a great many esp. in lower income groups means shifts. Becuase the message that sends out saps the confidence that is needed for decent parenting.

Good parenting is a wonderful thing that should be worked towards absolutely, it makes differences- but A) doesn't mean a classic MC model( esp.if you mean Eton etc), and B) does not have to have a multi degree holding professional as desirable outcome- raising a child the doesn't head straight of to the local drug dealer with his first wage packet or join a gang is, IMO, just as stunning a sign. You need to look at what theitr peers achieve typically, not what someone with every priveledge (alledgedly- am not convinced by boarding type ed myself)
might get.

Many years ago, when I was feeling low about my then poor education, my then-boss pointed out to me that for a kid from my school, not having a child at 15 and having GCSE's was a pretty big thing. I was too young to get what he meant then, but I do entirely now.
And as my sisyters also are very similar, I presumemy parents, with all their flaws,contributed most of that.

We don't need to breed a larger professional percentage but help the least advantaged kids avoid the pitfalls.

pointy.

My childminder when I was little is an excellent mother. A real rock with very clear standards and discipline combined with lots of fun and affection. She also happens to be working class (her own description).

One of her sons has done alright, the other became a heroin addict (although thankfully has sorted himself out now). Very good parenting, very different results. (Oddly it was the son of her first husband, a violent tosser who ended up in prison who did OK straight off, the son of her second who is lovely who went off the rails.)

edam her son sorted himself out- you can't give them a surefirepath, you can try and give them thefibre to hoik themselves back out again.

So really, she did do well with both,even if the return with one was delayed.

And you do have tolook at lifelong outcomes here- dodgy teen doesn'tmean dodgy life,someone who completely falls out the system at 17 might be running it by 40. You can give them the values but you have to allow them to work out how to apply them for themselves. DS1'sASmeans the chancesof him being very stable at 20 arereduced (fromobservati0ns of similar kids):i won't even be starting to assumeany concrete development then,I will be starting took a bit harder ten years later though.

Poor people who are warm and loving parents have the odds stacked against them. Those odds deteriorate families, they bring stress, worry, tension, and that is linked to finacial stability. If you have a good and mostly autonomous level of income, and you are a warm caring parent then you are resilant to lots of the everyday traumas that poor people face day in day out.
Parenting style is firmly linked to finacial stability which has a direct knock on effect to how you feel. If you feel good and high self esteem then you are balanced and loving, if you are worried about where every penny is going and stressed about how to heat your house, clothe and feed yourself your family it wears you down. That wearing down impacts how you feel, and then how you parent. Of course it is more complex than this, but it is ignorant and offensive to think that poverty is nothing to do with parenting.
David Cameron just doesn't get it. I hate the Tories and everything they stand for.