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

By the time they get to school it is too late. It needs to start with the potential parents before they conceive.

I have read the thread and I think that the last government did invest in 0-3's. There have been lots of initiatives in place 'Birth to three matters' leading onto the EYFS covering 0-5's. Maybe they have missed the mark by using a top down method to deliver this message. They should involve parents at grassroots when their baby is born, heck whilst they are in the womb even.

I have recently trained as a CM and have attended lots of courses run by my LA Early Years Department. The whole gist of my training is how important these years are.

My thoughts though are that these courses should be rolled out to parents, rather than just practitioners. Child development is fascinating and I wish I knew then what I know now. (I have DSs 6 & 3)

I also think that free early years child care should be given to all 2 year olds. Maybe not 15 hours a week but a couple of sessions a week. Sometimes the cost is prohibitive to parents. But children benefit so much.

margerykemp Wed 02-May-12 14:40:38
"By the time they get to school it is too late. It needs to start with the potential parents before they conceive."

Yes, but I thought that was Labours idea...sort things out for this generation, and the next would stand some sort of chance. It was a (very) long term thing.

And why are you called margerykemp? She was my Grandma's best friend. Have you come back to haunt me?

add an e and google it

If Margaret Thatcher had been the daughter of a manufacturer rather than a grocer, I wonder whether we would still have a healthy manufacturing industry, today? Was she the victim of her own upbringing?

Or should I say, were we the victims of her upbringing?

i dont think it was her....so it must have been the reset of us.....

Just out of interest I'd like to know if you people would have given my BF a job based on the following.

Store manager earning 27k a year, quit job now looking for lower work mainly sales assistant, senior sales but never management.

Ended up unemployed for 2 years eventually got a job at a place a relative worked at, never wrote on the CV the reasons why but would happily say in interviews.

Just what to know what nasty reasons for going for a lower position are in the heads of you judging types before I say why he quit.

Ryoko - if you mean me, you are reading way too much reviewing a CV. you have to make a decision. and like anything, you do what you can but it wont be perfect.

what would appeal to an employer about his CV is getting a manager's experience for a sales assistant salary but yes why he made the change would be pertinent.

mini said 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

What hurdles do you think working class/disadvantaged youngsters face? Todays students have oppertunity poured onto them.

Ryoko, if your accent holds you back why not just change accent. It is not very hard. Just go and watch some youtube videos and change how you speak.
There was an item on Woman's Hour recently about how much harder it is to get jobs if you are fat too so if people lose some weight they can also help themselves.

Yes, social mobility went right down under Labour as they drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

I may also have levelled off too if all the bright people from poor homes have done well and the ones left behind have very low IQ and other problems. In a sense if social mobility ceases it can also mean that you've succeeded in allowing all the bright good working class people to come through. Eventualyl ify ou have done that well enough then those left rightly should remain there as their IQ is 80 or whatever. I doubt we are at the point of the latter theory but it is certainly a possibility. In that sense then we might be the best not worse in Europe.

What is you IQ Zenia? you seem to think everything boils down to IQ
Is your IQ higher than your EQ?
Are fat people the new black or gay people? Are people with lower IQ the new Jews?

In the UK you can discriminate on grounds of weight,intelligence, exam results, people skills, accents and a whole load of unprotected characteristics. You cannot on grounds of colour or sexual orientation. If people think the law should be changed so that with two equal candidates the employer cannot reject the 18 stone one over the 9 stone one they should lobby for that change.

So its all about regulation and thought policing is it? so a person can not actively choose not to discriminate and regulation will always weed out sexism and racism. I have entered a twiglit zone clearly.

It is not acceptable to discriminate on some grounds but entirely rational to do so for fat people or people lacking in certain characteristics both social and inherited where it suits??????? Class discrimination is rife but instead we duck the issue and decide that we are all "middle class now" and a few "you tube lessons" in speech and deportment will see an otherwise discriminated person rise to the top despite early life experiences or disadvantage.

I am not sure if you are talking about legal or moral issues. I have described the law. You may discriminate against fat people, people with a low IQ and a host of things as long as they are not on the list. Now employers who choose only to recruit from a tiny pool tend to find long term it does not do them much good so they widen it and that is market forces working and is why HR people try to ensure people do not recruit too narrowly.

I think it is perfectly justifable to recruit by how someone speaks and it is one reason I think youtube and other footage of people can be so helpful. If someone cannot communicate with your customers why hire them?

I would have assumed that discussing moral issues eventually fed into legislation otherwise we wouldn't have laws at all.

"Ryoko, if your accent holds you back"

Xenia are you suggesting that a regional accent or being over weight gives people a speech impediment and they have fewer communication skills?

Ryoko feels her accent holds her back. She said that, not I. Therefore one solution is the change the accent.Other people make millionaires and it's a matter of principle they retain their Scouse accent or whatever. It's entirely up to the individual.

If you are overweight in some business areas it is harder to get jobs so yes that does hold you back.

On the accent point there are various interesting issues. One is if you simply have a strong accent but your grammar is good and most people can understand you. In most sectors that would not therefore hold you back and there was a time at the BBC when you only got on if you did have a regional accent. It comes and goes.

Second issue is if the people with whom you will be dealing might not want you on their account because you are too different from them - now that might be because you are too posh (Eton being a disadvantage in some jobs etc) or because you are too "common" etc. Difficult issue for employers. Most businesses have to make a profit to pay the workers. So if they employer workers which means no customers will ever come their way then they are not doing anyone any good. On the other hand if their customer base is varied and customers start to leave if no women lead the company or they recruit from a very narrow base then they would be silly to keep such restrictions in place.

Provided I can understand what comes out of the mouth, I'm only concerned about what it says about the head behind it, and whether it's the right head for what I need.

But I do need to understand what is being said. The accent can spice up the conversation, but it's optional.

It is very difficult to generalise as in huge numbers of jobs it will not matter. Indeed in a lot of what I do I am via email. I could have two heads for all people know. However in some jobs it does matter and it remains an option for lots of people to change accents, clothes, dress and things they say to fit in particular environments.

If we go back to the thread title it was about by the time you are 3 a lot of damage can be done. The study had found some massive difference in number of words a bright parent would have said to a child compared to one who did not know many words themselves.

This is why I stayed at home with mine. So that I could influence their early years. Both mine have fabulous vocabulary. Because of me. Because I am intelligent and believe or not being a housewife, have more to talk about than soap powder.
I didn't want to send them to nursery where they would be looked after by young nursery workers barely out of school. Some of whom can't speak properly. IME and backed up by Nutbrown's recent research about poorly qualified early years staff - who come from the 'hair or care' option of education.
We couldn't afford a nanny which would be preferable to nursery and certainly didn't want to dump it on GP's. So I took the opportunity to go part time after DS1 and then left after DS2 due to redundancy.

That is why intelligent women leave their careers to become SAHM's because if you don't have access to pots of cash you sometimes do not get the best care for your children.

Poor kids DO stand a chance of getting into the Grammar schools. Currently my DS1 is practicing at home (without a tutor) for his 11+. His HT thinks he has a very good chance of getting in to CRGS, our closest Grammar. It isn't about money or the lack of it - it's about the level of support in the home and how highly education is viewed in that home.

IMO, even as a fairly left-leaning person, Grammar schools are a GOOD thing. The people on the left that don't like them are, IMO, not 'getting' that for poor people they ARE a way to break out, so to speak. Fingers crossed, I'll know by October how successful he has been!

Xenia. I am poor. My DS1 had an IQ test administered by his school when he was 8y3m. His IQ was 132. He is on FSM. Does it make him unemployable because he has an 'Essex' accent, and comes from a 'poor' background?

You shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, Xenia, you will miss out on some very able candidates for jobs, because of your prejudices.