Your future wealth is decided by the time you’re 3

[minimathsmouse]

"Social mobility in Britain is the worst in the Western world and the gap between rich and poor has become ingrained in children as young as three"

As we know, so far the response has been to make savage cuts and close family centres, to come up with policy after policy that will just polarize the haves and have nots.

Sorry it's the mail www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137585/Britain-worst-social-mobility-Western-world.html

Social mobility fell every year under Labour even as they expanded the welfare state to double its 1997 size.

And if you can point me to any savage cuts when spending is still rising and will continue to do so until 2014, I'd be fascinated to see them.

Bring back the grammars - at least give the poor kids on the estates a chance.

Do you really think the poor kids on the estates would stand a cat in hells chance of getting in the grammars? While the rich can afford to tutor their children to get in?

Getting rid of Grammars is the way to go, leveling the playing field , not making education even more divided than it is now.

The problem with the grammar system, usualsuspect, is that there aren't enough of them. Poor kids on estates did stand a chance when there was one in every town. Now they're in a few counties. My mum went to East Ham grammar in the 1950s/60s and she came from a poor background.

I now live in a county with grammars, and poor kids on the estates still make it to them, despite people tutoring their kids.

Middle class parents would and could afford to have their children tutored for the 11 plus.

Anyway in what way would bringing back Grammar schools deal with the fact that children of three from poorer backgrounds are already way behind their peers in both speech, vocab, reading and social skills.

I agree with flatpack. When there were grammars in every town, significant numbers of poor-but-bright kids would win places and get enough education to get out of poverty. Particularly when this was combined with free university places.

The Grammar system was in place when I was at school , the ones who failed the 11 + were written off at 11 , how is that a good thing?

I think the Grammar schools did an excellent job in there time. My father went to Midhurst (although he wasn't from a poor background) I don't think his aunt would have paid for private education.

Shouldn't we really be focussing on what can be done to create better life chances for children from the day they are born. More free nursery care?

I now live in a comprehensive area and everyone has the opportunity to go on to university or into further education

And not all estates kids are poor , believe it or not

I disagree , I went to a secondary modern having failed the 11+ We were called factory fodder back then.

MrPants Tue 01-May-12 17:12:13
"Bring back the grammars - at least give the poor kids on the estates a chance."

Hahahahahahaha!

So fates are decided by the time we are three? And yet so often teachers/schools are blamed for "this country going down the pan".....

How about sorting out the state of the housing some kids are growing up in, support for vulnerable parents in actually interacting with their children? To be honest though, there is such a massive likelihood of history repeating itself each generation, I wish I could think of an answer to fixing it all.... make me sad :(

You could probably analyse each child's family (parents qualifications, income, ect) at birth, and predict it's future from that.

The baby's expected achievement could be handed to parents as they leave the hospital with their newborn. Why not? We like to test children in this country.

The grammars here are certainly MC, not simply tutoring, but there is no free transport. For DD2 I would still be tied to a 3 mile drive and then paying for a public bus, that arrives early and leaves late.

The comp picks up from just down the road. Apart from the money (petrol and bus) its a real constant on the hours I could work, if DD can't let her self in.

Daily Fail nutters are to blame, judging people on background before they have even set foot in the door.

I was unemployed for 11 years, lived on a council estate in a shit part of London sent off hundreds of CVs to no avail, put my boyfriends address on the CVs (he lived in a leafy middle class area) and I got 3 job offers.

Still get called Chav simply because of my accent, I am a rocker, I dress in black, never owned a Burberry item in my life.

Got constantly passed over for promotion at work, people with Uni dregrees got the jobs then got sacked a few months later for being useless brown nosing idiots. mean while I was doing the work of those 3 positions above me with no extra pay, just the promise that it would look good next time a higher up position became available blah.

Surely it is better to invest in comprehensives and improve standards for all students.

Ryoko, that is shocking.

Mini, I agree but wonder if we need to introduce technical schools so less academic children can be successful and gain valuable skills. Eg. Plumbing and building

I background check any job candidates to check their story hangs together including checking where they live, but its more complex than bad estate = no jobs..... I have rejected one candidate on the basis he was applying for a fairly av. salary but had been to a v expensive school (30k pa) so should have covered more ground by the time is was 30 and someone else for having a massive house which he obviously hadn't paid for himself. Unless its customer facing when you have to fit the clients expectations, an employer doesn't care about your postcode, in itself.

We used to have polytechnics, why were they all turned into Universities?

The story in the op is particularly sad because some of the changes could be made by the parents e.g. Regular bedtimes. Yet the parents are probably only repeating their own childhoods and the cycle continues.

Mini I dont know.

Wow, no wonder we have no social mobility in this country when people fail to get jobs because they went to a good school or live in a big house.

Clearly, either of these facts is irrelevant to their ability to do the job - this kind of inverted snobbery is no fairer than any other kind of snobbery.

Exactly people should be given a chance and judged on the work they do.

it's all this constant nit picking to whittle down applicants that leads to the lack of social mobility and the continuation of the statues quo.

I don't think Wasabi is using inverted snobbery. I too would question why someone with an excellent start in life hadn't made much progress. I would be more inclined to employ someone from a poorer background who had already showed they were prepared to work hard by having overcome some of the hurdles working class/disadvantaged youngsters face.