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

I live in an area where this study would be applicable (I also volunteer with a pre-school children's charity) and, yes, I believe these studies and figures.

Unfortunately some parents do not gave a clue to be effective parents. I have met mums who never talk to their children because "he doesn't talk to me", who think a bag of crisps makes a great lunch and let their 4 yr olds play "Code of Conduct".

These parents aren't bad enough for social services to be involved.

I have no idea what the answer is.

It's not the vocabulary. Or the school. It's the brain development in response to effective parenting. If the basics haven't been provided by 3 then it's too late for some, an impossible change and investment for others.

This doesn't need schools, it needs parenting and where that is compromised investment in 0-3s. Investment in children starts at 3, this represents nursery funding which is too little too late. Investment peaks for older children only if and when they enter the system usually though criminalisation or social care. Too little, too late again.

TheCrackFox, you are right, there are parents like that. I think teh answer there is to educate the parents. It all comes back to education. If these parents had received a good education when they were at schoiol then they probably wouldn't be like that. The system has failed the parents and the cycle will continue unless education is improved for the children and the parents.

What always amazes me about these surveys, is that nearly every family I know has one child who chatters away by the time they are three, and another who hardly speaks. Does that mean that one child in every family is disadvantaged, or is actually that the surveys are a load of rubbish?

Education is part of the problem - a well funded school with great teachers can only be good for children. However, no school I know of teaches parenting. Being a good mum or dad tends to be an inherited skill anyway.

This is from the article

'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, MPs conclude today.

They quote a study showing that the prospects of half of all children born in the UK can be almost entirely linked to the circumstances of their parents ? compared to only 15 per cent of those in Denmark.
Differences are also noticeable at a very young age, with toddlers doing far better in vocabulary tests if they grow up in a more affluent household.
...
Controversially, the MPs call for more intervention in the lives of under-threes.'

This seems to be blaming the parents for the lack of social mobility and offers the solution of intervention in the lives of under-threes.

Did the study ask why our social mobility is the worst in the Western world? Did they ask if Denmark has more intervention in the lives of under-threes? Do they think that British parents are the worst in the Western world and need more intervention?

'that the surveys are a load of rubbish'

I think many of these surveys have a political objective and avoid the real problems and solutions.

'the prospects of half of all children born in the UK can be almost entirely linked to the circumstances of their parents'

So they seem to conclude that the problem is the parents. Do you believe that? It's easy to divert attention from the real problem by playing the blame game. It's not teh schools, it's not the state, it's the parents, they seem to be telling us. And presumably British parents are the worst in the Western world.

I don't doubt that we have very low social mobility. Certainly we need to find out what Denmark is doing differently to us.

I actually don't think school is to blame here. And I do often wonder what's changed in our society? I mean poverty was much worse back in the 'olden days'. The welfare system was nowhere near as comprehensive as today and it was almost socially acceptable to give the missus a bit of a slap to keep her in line. Yet we all tend to look back on those days and believe they were better.

Schools can only do so much. We can pour money into schools and education but none of that would ever replace good parenting. My own parents grew up with nothing. My mum was one of 7 children and had to carry water from the only working tap to their one room flat on the 10th floor. Both her and my dad left school at 14 because it was either go to work or the family goes hungry. We came from a country with little/no state support.

So when I say my family had no money, i mean it. Yet despite going to a state school, I've done pretty well for myself. In fact, all my aunties & uncles and my cousins & my siblings have done well. Why? Because we all had parents who cared. Who taught us right from wrong. Instilled in us the value of hard work. And it was drummed into us that if we wanted a better life, we needed a good education.

My point is that unless you have parents whom nurture you, push you and inspire you then you will stand less chance of succeeding. It stands to reason. I was lucky that my family knew how to impart those lessons to me and hopefully I will pass those values onto my kids.

But looking around me I see many parents who simply don't care. There are kids in my daughter's class in secondary with a reading age of a primary child. There's nothing wrong with them. They're smart as hell but they lack the self discipline needed to succeed in school & life. We probably all know parents whom could work but choose not to because it's easier on benefits.

How those parents got that way and how THEIR parents failed them in such massive numbers, i honestly have no idea.

'the gap between rich and poor has become ingrained in children as young as three'

Thank God that 3 year old Wayne Rooney escaped the 'ingraining' process.

I have supported one mum who was constantly getting called into the school because her eldest wasn't doing his homework (he was very bright actually) but she had very low literacy levels and was to embarrassed to tell the school. I helped her into an adult education programme and also arranged for a close relative to help with homework.

Certainly nobody should ever go through 11yrs of compulsory education and be unable to read and write.

Homework clubs would also be a good idea in some schools.

I am NOT a Tory but PLEASE.....

THERE ARE NO CUTS. SPENDING IS RISING. There is just a reduction in projected spendin increases

I just don't believe that most parents are like that. That is what the 'nanny state' tells you, but it is not true that poor parents are bad parents. It's not as bad as they paint it. They say that Britain is broken and the nanny state wants to fix it by more intervention, but it doesn't want to increase standards in education; it presided over grade inflation and prizes for all.

Agree, TheCrackFox. We can't go around blaming all these parents. Most parents want the best for their children and they hope that the state will provide the education that they are not able to provide themselves, particularly if they are themselves illiterate or uneducated.

Extra classes, Labour's one-to-one tuition initiative, these are great things.

It is the parenting. Historically, although I don't know if it is currently true, Denmark and some of it's neighbours spent much more on it's 0-3s and didn't wait to spend until disadvantage is evident.

It is the parents, the learning that needs to happen is emotional and social. Brains have some plasticity but not enough to compensate fully for a poor start and that would suppose the environment was suddenly optimised for the 0-3s who suffer the most. Nursey places will certainly not provide redress.

Most parents aren't bad parents. Even inadequate parents love their children and they are fed, washed, toys to play with and have nice clothes too. Which is an improvement on 3 generations ago.

I really don't know what the answer is but children are only at school 6hrs a day the other 18hrs is actually mote important.

If you think it is the parenting, do you think the solution is for the 'nanny state' to intervene in the parenting, for the experts to decide what good parenting is and to intervene if under-threes have a smaller vocabulary than average?

'I really don't know what the answer is but children are only at school 6hrs a day the other 18hrs is actually mote important.'

I think school is where the learning is done. At home, they shouldn't need to do hours of homework; they should be playing, socialising, watching TV and doing sport etc. The key to their education is their school and the experts should look to improving their schools above all else. Stopping assisted places for poor children and leaving them in failing schools held them back more than their loving families.

If I am being really, brutally honest I think the nanny state has probably made parenting worse. There seems to be an expectation that some authority figure will make it all better and that some parents do not seem to have any ambition for their children which is an attitude I find difficult to understand.

'the gap between rich and poor has become ingrained in children as young as three'

I'm a little sceptical of experts who report such things. I know they are educated, I know they have doctorates and may well be what is known as 'czars', but sometimes I wonder if they know their elbow from their arsz.

Did anyone read the Daily Mail articles that John Hemming linked to about Doctor Hibbert and how young mothers were observed to see if they were doing parenting right? It is heartbreaking stuff.

You will probably tell by what i am about to say that i am no financial expert. (not much of any expert to be honest!) but if the top boss in any company could only earn 100(ie)x the wage of the lowest paid then that would bring the rich poor divide closer and when the top dogs fancied upping their wages they would have to raise the lower pay grades(they could embrace their greed and the lower grades would all benefit) How frustrating would it be, they want more but don't want us to benefit. I can't stop smiling when i think about it . Ok so i like to dream, but in an ideal world!!! P.S. Bonus's have to follow the same pattern and only 1 a year when earned. Ok rip me to pieces i can take it but it's only a dream.

Middleagedwino, that is a very good point. That is probably one reason why the rich poor divide is so high in teh UK and probably more than in Denmark. It does have something to do with teh extraordinary rewards of the bankers etc. among others in this country. I wonder if the experts brought that up. But maybe they are right and it is ingrained by the age of 3 and the answer is more "intervention", but of course not any intervention over bonuses or wage differentials.

Love doesn't help if you think babies don't need eye contact and conversation. Huge numbers of parents think there is no point talking to babies of three and even six months, t v better than nursery rhymes. Toys, washing and clothes matter less in many ways than cuddles, talking and eye contact.

The investment needed is in family support, 0-3 support, we have never invested in the younger years. The disadvantage aren't just language delayed, they can't sit still and listen to story books, play imaginatively, make rhymes, read body language regulate their emotional responses...

These children don't learn at school because they aren't ready for school, many aren't toilet trained, can't put coats on, follow verbal instructions or negotiate and self regulate. They don't thrive in any school which is why demographics determine outcome so clearly.

I saw two children from abroad enter a v low attaining comp, they excelled in sport, academic work and everything else as they mastered a new language. They school gave the same intensive support to other gifted children. The two incomers went on to great things, most of their gifted peers didn't. The difference was the parenting not the access to education, music and sport. My children went to a special measures primary, never got extra tuition went through local low attaining comps. No tuition or hothousing, they excelled did as their friends who had similar parents. These anecdotes are typical, it's what the research shows. It's no surprise to neuroscientists.