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

But many do not get the chance because they have no previous experience on their CVs as well as no good school and Uni. it's the catch 22 of don't have a job so can't get a job and if the parents are unemployed they can't help, many people get jobs via connections rather then straight out application for advertised positions.

Plus you have the scourge on Intermship now, something that is totally out of reach of those who have no savings or wealthy parents to prop them up. the media, journalism and fashion industries are mad on interns so are practically inaccessible to the poor now.

things are just going from bad to worse, you can't even do an OU course now without a few grand under your belt to pay for it.

'I wish I could think of an answer to fixing it all....'

The answer is education - improving the standard of schools - and that is not about throwing more tax payer money at it. This government is determined to reverse the dumbing down of the Labour period and to restore standards.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136860/Exam-watchdog-signals-reform-A-level.html

As the excellent Daily Mail article, linked to by the OP, said - it was Labour who abolished assisted places for poor pupils and who are so anti grammar schools.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/667555.stm

Turning our schools around and restoring standards can't be achieved overnight, and in the meantime the brightest poor children should receive assistance to pay the fees that the richest can afford, so that they can go to top independent schools rather than remaining in failing schools. Give a choice to their parents, let's see what they would choose to do. Don't let them be held back by New Labour ideology.

The Daily Mail is also right about the "nanny state" aspect of the push to intervene in the lives of the poor on the basis that some poor 3 year old children have a poorer vocabulary than some other children. Do you think they will intervene for upper class children with a poor vocabulary?

Some children are bilingual at the age of 5. So what? It doesn't predict their future success. It is improving their schools that will create success; improving standards and restoring assisted places.

It can be fixed by doing something real, not by false 'nanny state' ideology.

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

Follow the money. Do you think students would take out huge loans to go to polytechnics?

With the A'levels and the issue of grade inflation surely that would apply to ALL students sitting A'levels, so that isn't the reason why some children from poor backgrounds do not do well compared to middle class children.

I think schooling is part of the answer but parenting in some cases might still be part of the problem.

Poor education is holding people back and preventing social mobility

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098160/Britons-worse-educated-18-European-countries--Lithuanians-achieving-A-level-standards.html

This sounds like a great scheme to help poor children. But I bet some of the professional "champions of the poor" will be against it.

www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/project-to-help-poor-children-win-places-at-top-universities-6404169.html

As far as I understand, Labour were not against the grammar, they were against secondary modern, after which there were no other ways, but to a factory. Since no factories are here any more, the restoration of grammar/secondary moderns is not on the menu.

Could anybody kindly share a link to the original research DM refers to?

The grade inflation is indicative of a system that is not maintaining standards. If there is grade inflation at A level, what type of phony inflation and grades have been produced for children who don't go on to A level?

How can they compete against the Tony Blairs who go to Fettes and Oxford?

'As far as I understand, Labour were not against the grammar, they were against secondary modern'

Then why scrap grammars? Why not do something about secondary moderns instead?

Why did New Labour scrap assisted places for poor children, while some of their MPs used their large salaries to pay for their own children to go to private schools?

Is social mobiility only good for some?

Supposing Tony Blair were 24, he would also have sat bite sized A'levels. He wouldn't have been advantaged.

I don't think grade inflation is the problem with social mobility and deprivation of opportunities.

Yes, he would have sat 'bite sized A levels', which are easier to get A grades in. Then from a good school, he would probably have had less competition to get into Oxford. But with non-bite sixzed A levels, maybe he wouldn't have got an A, and maybe a bright poor child would have done, and then on merit, the poor child should have more chance to get into Oxford.

If for example, 27% get A grades, then A grades on their own lose their value, and we are back to what school you went to, what internship you worked at, how many languages you speak, how many musical instruments you play, whether tou are captain at rugger and on the rowing team and what Duke of Edinburgh award you got. Some inner city children won't have had those opportunities.

Grade inflation and dumbing down are indicative of a declining education system. That means that the education is deteriorating for all children. Who wins in this game? The rich, who attend the top schools, and who start doing IBs and PreUs and IGSCEs rather than the exams that the hoi polloi do in their grade inflated soma style schools.

And teh rich then hire private tutors and learn extra skills to differentiate themselves from the hoi polloi. That is how they buy advantage.

The answer is to improve education for the hoi polloi, so that the rich have to compete on the same exams at the same level as the rest of the population.

A declining education system is failing in its duty to educate future generations and is ill-equipping them for the future. It allows those who are able to escape the declining system bu going to schools like Eton, a free run, and is in part why social mobility in this country has declined in tandem with a decline in educational standards.

When there was no public education, there was no social mobility. A top class education system for the public is what delivers social mobility, because education opens new doors. That is why standards in education are so important.

I agree with everything you have said claig. Except for one thing. You make A'levels harder and give them more credibility so that other factors such as music lessons and extra curricular achievements play a smaller factor in selection, why would you then need to send children to private schools through sponsorship?

Surely the answer isn't just to make exams harder, without improving standards of teaching, expectation, making classes smaller and working with parents to try and get them to support their children and have aspiration for them. I also think that if private schools offer better teaching and more subject choices then state schooling either needs to keep pace or we need to find another way of levelling the ground.

Some parents don't support their children and some times it can be as simple as the parents and school not sharing the same values.

You send kids to private school through sponsorship because private schools aren't just about academic learning. They're about a culture, an ethos, and a whole social network of contacts which makes your life easier when you leave.

Flatpack do your children go to a private school?

But if a child is already disadvantaged by the time they are 3 how in the world are they going to catch up enough to pass the 11+? Especially given how widespread the hiring of private tutors is?

'why would you then need to send children to private schools through sponsorship?'

because it can't be achieved overnight. In the meantime, the brightest poor children should have exactly the same opportunities as the children of the New Labour MPs who pay for their children to go to private schools out of their publicly funded salaries, which are partially paid by the poor parents of bright kids.

'Surely the answer isn't just to make exams harder, without improving standards of teaching, expectation, making classes smaller and working with parents to try and get them to support their children and have aspiration for them. I also think that if private schools offer better teaching and more subject choices then state schooling either needs to keep pace or we need to find another way of levelling the ground.'

I agree, it's not only about making exams harder, it's about curriculum change etc. and better teacher training and if money permits, then smaller class sizes etc. But I don't believe in preventing the rich from having the freedom to spend their money as they please. I don't believe in levelling down, I believe in levelling up.

Just as most rich people will choose NHS care for serious conditions, because the publicly funded NHS is often better than any private hospital, then so too could they choose publicly funded schools rather than private ones, because there is no reason why a publicly funded school could not outperform a private one. But it will take time to improve the standard of all schools.

'Some parents don't support their children and some times it can be as simple as the parents and school not sharing the same values.'

That is true, but that can be equally true of rich parents too. I don't believe in the 'nanny state' blaming parents for their children's lack of success. I think it is the state's fault, the state that pretends it cares, that pretends it is a "nanny", but does not improve the standard of the schools that the children attend. It's not the fault of parents that we have poor literacy levels in schools, it is the fault of the schools and the state.

Imagine if when public education was first introduced, when parents were illiterate, that the 'nanny state' blamed the parents. The state was responsible for education, not the poor parents.

DS turned 3 today. I guess he's ruined then :(

'But if a child is already disadvantaged by the time they are 3'

But do you really believe these figures and studies? Do you really think that a child who is bilingual at 5 will do better than one who isn't. Children are in school for a long time, and they all develop at different rates. Just because a child has a greater vocabulary at 3, means very little.

'Then why scrap grammars? Why not do something about secondary moderns instead'

They did , they introduced comprehensives, which work , well they do where I live

In fact this "nnay state" labelling of children as potential failures at the age of 3, based on these types of studies, is similar to the "nanny state" labelling of toddlers as potential criminals due to them having tantrums. It's a justification for interference in the lives of the poor, but I bet it won't affect the rich. It's a type of stigmatisation that I think is unfounded.

'They did , they introduced comprehensives, which work , well they do where I live'

But the poster said she thought Labour had nothing against grammars, they were just against secondary moderns. So why scrap grammars?

That's like saying you have nothing against front teeth, just the other teeth, so your solution is to remove all the teeth and replace them with dentures.