Nearly 1 million children faced destitution in the UK in 2022..

Germanshepherdsmum

I have no idea Doodledog. My belief is that it’s up to the individual. Everyone has the benefit of an education. All pregnant women have access to antenatal classes which include parenting skills. Everyone has access to contraception. All this has been the case for many, many years. But people simply don’t want to take advantage of these things and make the necessary effort to make their lives better than those of their parents. I wonder how many children have, this morning, had to get themselves to school (or off to play truant, getting into trouble) hungry and ill-clothed because their mothers are still lying in bed (perhaps with yet another boyfriend) and just can’t be bothered? Will those children bother to try not to repeat the pattern when they have children of their own or will they just replicate that lifestyle down the years? What do you think any government can do about this CBA attitude?

I don't know how much experience you've had of real families GSM. I taught for 30 years in genuine comprehensive schools and I've had plenty. Some of our pupils went on to Oxbridge and high-flying careers, while some of them came from families which couldn't be described as anything other than "deprived".

I really do object to your stereotyping. Many of the deprived families had a family member who was ill or disabled. Some of the children were carers. Others were in single parent families. Sometimes the other parent had just disappeared or sometimes was in prison. It wasn't the child's fault how parents behaved and there was no aspirational role model around.

This probably is not very politically correct, but sometimes parents weren't very bright and they passed their not very bright genes to their children. No matter how hard those children tried, they were never going to succeed academically. They lacked confidence to stray outside their comfort bubble. It doesn't mean that they were lazy and not capable of caring for their children. They were still human beings. They wanted to feel worthwhile, but they just were not capable of passing exams and had to make do with menial jobs paying minimum wage, which barely pays for essentials. I came across many parents who were both working a number of jobs just to make ends meet. If one of them became ill, it made life even more difficult.

I didn't start teaching until I was in my late 20s. I had a string of letters after my name and already had a successful career. Initially, I found it very difficult to understand the mentality of children who didn't like doing schoolwork. I gave them lectures about working hard to achieve success, but their eyes would glaze over. They'd heard it all before and it was a while before I realised that what I was saying had no relevance to their lives as they experienced them.

There have always been, and will always be, such children growstuff. You’re stating the obvious. When I worked in local government it was for a county council which was responsible for social services so I have seen and heard of plenty of instances of hopelessly dysfunctional families - one family in particular could only communicate in grunts and the children ate on the floor from the dog’s bowl. Modern day Neanderthals almost. So I’m far from unaware. And doing pro bono work I have come across people who were virtually illiterate (possibly dyslexic) who needed help with filling in forms but who worked in jobs they could manage and wanted to do so. They didn’t want to just live on benefits. Apart from paying benefits to those genuinely too disabled to work, and topping up the minimum wage where needed, what do you expect the government to do about it? Resort to a system of only allowing those with a sufficiently high IQ to breed? And no, that is not a genuine question.

May I ask the relevance of having a string of letters after your name?

Germanshepherdsmum

There have always been, and will always be, such children growstuff. You’re stating the obvious. When I worked in local government it was for a county council which was responsible for social services so I have seen and heard of plenty of instances of hopelessly dysfunctional families - one family in particular could only communicate in grunts and the children ate on the floor from the dog’s bowl. Modern day Neanderthals almost. So I’m far from unaware. And doing pro bono work I have come across people who were virtually illiterate (possibly dyslexic) who needed help with filling in forms but who worked in jobs they could manage and wanted to do so. They didn’t want to just live on benefits. Apart from paying benefits to those genuinely too disabled to work, and topping up the minimum wage where needed, what do you expect the government to do about it? Resort to a system of only allowing those with a sufficiently high IQ to breed? And no, that is not a genuine question.

But there is evidence that providing early intervention programmes does help GSM. The Headstart programme run in the US since 1965 has been substantially monitored and participants tracked.
A 2020 study found that cohorts that attended Head Start had higher incomes and years of education as adults than similar children who did not attend.[29] A 2021 study found that the children exposed to more generous Head Start funding had substantially improved test scores relative to children that were not exposed to generous Head Start funding.[30] Another 2021 study found that students enrolled in Head Start ended up having substantially higher high school completion, college enrollment and college completion rates than comparable children who were not enrolled in Head Start.[31] The authors of the study concluded, "these estimates imply sizable, long-term returns to investments in means-tested, public preschool programs."[31] A 2009 study, which compared siblings, found that those who attended Head Start showed stronger academic performance as shown on test scores for years afterward, were less likely to be diagnosed as learning-disabled, less likely to commit crime, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, and less likely to suffer from poor health as an adult.[32] A 2022 study found that Head Start increased the employment and earnings of single mothers.

It's positive in all the areas you claim are impossible to change.
The problem is in the UK the programme was cut before it had any real impact.

But I posted the short term financial gain for the NHS of a proper Sure Start provision. Now why wouldn't a Tory government want to keep something which was reducing cost and usage for the NHS? A service already showing signs of strain. They couldn't possibly want to overburden it could they?

Great if parents engage Glorianny, and this has been my point throughout. If the individual doesn’t engage what can be done? They can’t be dragged kicking and screaming.

As regards your final paragraph, I don’t engage with silly conspiracy theories.

Germanshepherdsmum

Great if parents engage Glorianny, and this has been my point throughout. If the individual doesn’t engage what can be done? They can’t be dragged kicking and screaming.

As regards your final paragraph, I don’t engage with silly conspiracy theories.

But these were the lowest income possible participants and the value was for the children who were included. Nothing to do with the parents really but providing real support for children from destitute families.
Blaming the parents isn't appropriate.
Intervention in early years provides better outcomes.

Of course the value is for the children, do you think I don’t understand that? But how do you get the children included if their parents won’t engage? I fully blame parents who don’t take opportunities which will benefit their children. Why is it not appropriate to blame them?

Germanshepherdsmum

I have no idea Doodledog. My belief is that it’s up to the individual. Everyone has the benefit of an education. All pregnant women have access to antenatal classes which include parenting skills. Everyone has access to contraception. All this has been the case for many, many years. But people simply don’t want to take advantage of these things and make the necessary effort to make their lives better than those of their parents. I wonder how many children have, this morning, had to get themselves to school (or off to play truant, getting into trouble) hungry and ill-clothed because their mothers are still lying in bed (perhaps with yet another boyfriend) and just can’t be bothered? Will those children bother to try not to repeat the pattern when they have children of their own or will they just replicate that lifestyle down the years? What do you think any government can do about this CBA attitude?

I doubt that there is a 'one size fits all' answer. All the same, I think that 'CBA' is more often 'don't see the point'.

I think that incentivising rather than penalising is always better, so maybe child benefit should be conditional on a high level of school attendance, for a start. Better still would be a reward for children with full attendance (unless they have a doctor's note), payable to the parents at the end of each term. EMA was definitely an incentive when I worked in the college. Students were very keen to get full attendance, as they would have had to answer to their parents if not. Maybe that sort of incentive could be used to encourage attendance at clinics and Sure start-type playgroups, properly staffed with people who know better than to try to make everyone share 'middle class' values. We can afford it, as was proved during Covid when billions were found to was found to make furlough payments and payments to all sorts of people who didn't deliver.

I think there should be a change to the structure of UC payments, so that there is no incentive to work fewer hours and get pay made up with credits. The best way to do this would, I think, be to boost the minimum wage so that working people don't have to claim benefits to survive, not to reduce benefits for those who need them. If people are genuinely better off in work, and have evidence of that in their pockets, maybe children will grow up in more ordered households where work is the norm. Free childcare should be available to all pre-school children, and for 5-12s there should be before and after school provision (non-means tested). That is a perfect opportunity for catch-up education to happen in a more playful environment, and also to ensure that all children get a breakfast and late afternoon meal.

I am possibly speaking out of turn here, as I've only taught in post-compulsory sectors, and I've been in universities rather than colleges for more than 25 years, but I wonder whether (if it doesn't already) teacher training should include strategies for presenting topics in ways that genuinely include all pupils, and linking attainment with what used to be called being cool. I know it's really difficult to do this without being patronising, but it's not impossible at all. Too often, being seen to be trying at school is social death, and schoolchildren are, by definition, immature, so it's asking a lot of them to expect them not to care about that. Instead of holding up university entrance as the end goal, ways should be found to make learning valued in its own right - valued by the children, not just the teachers.

I also think that there should be much more support for the sort of self-help schemes that often spring up in areas of high deprivation. People who live there should be involved in decisions about 'levelling up', rather than having initiatives imposed on them from on high. If people feel part of society they are probably more likely to work for it rather than against it.

Re drugs - that is a perennial problem, and I don't know what I think, other than there should be no obvious (or hidden for that matter) difference between the treatment of senior cabinet ministers unable to stand up straight in the HoC and young people on sink estates when it comes to possession and use of drugs. There should be a lot more help for people with addictions, whether to alcohol or drugs, and work should be done to destigmatise it. That could be paid for from the tax on alcohol and cigarettes, and there would be change left over for childcare schemes!

Will that do for starters?

Good ideas Doodledog. However I think that making receipt of family allowance conditional on a good clinic/Sure Start/school attendance record is perhaps problematic; it could only be done retrospectively by a clawback which could be financially disastrous for a family, and the administration would be expensive.

A financial reward for good attendance - if paid to the parents do you envisage some parents visiting violence upon the child if it has been playing truant? Perhaps a bit later in the school career a payment to the child - but hasn’t this happened already? The reward would be some incentive but could never compare with the profits of crime so really it will only interest those who are already on the way to becoming good citizens. Yes, I remember being ‘a swot’ wasn’t cool, even at grammar school - a certain amount of bluffing was needed!

I absolutely agree that free childcare should be available for all pre-school children and I would extend that to the holidays too. And pre- and after-school clubs for all, with free meals provided - the regular availability of food alone will be an incentive for some from the worst of families. I would add to that some form of club outside term time to keep children safe, occupied (maybe learning) and fed. This obviously requires considerably greater investment in education but could well reap dividends in reduction of crime and children turning into good members of society, able to contribute and realising what their own children need to follow suit.

As regards benefits - work should always pay more than benefits and benefits should not be available to those who could, but refuse to, work full time. I would like to see more centres giving work to disabled people; of course what they can do will vary enormously but work gives pride and self-respect. Provision of a warm space, food and companionship are additional benefits and such a system could possibly cut down on the cost of disability benefits - I don’t know. There was such a centre near my last home but it closed and the site was sold for housing.

The minimum wage really should be replaced with a living wage. That would hit employers and consumers unless there is some government assistance - if it saves on benefits maybe it would be cost-neutral.

Drugs - I’m not convinced that people who enjoy the effects and who are able (even through crime) to pay for them will take advantage of offers of rehab. Penalties are not likely to be a deterrent because only those at the top of the chain are going to receive serious prison sentences. Most will get a fine which they can only pay by selling more drugs, a community service order or maybe a suspended sentence. I can only suggest that over time, investment in keeping children in school and off the streets may keep more from starting the habit - but there will always be the pusher on the street corner keen to get them hooked. That’s a very difficult one.

I think that until measures are put in place to improve the outcomes for children, the least we can do as a society is to make sure they have enough to eat, whatever their position in the family, even if they are the sixth or subsequent child.

We need to get in on the ground floor and support young families. Doing so is expensive - very expensive to do it properly - but letting children from families with problems drift into gangs and drug temptations is even more costly to society in both financial and many other ways.

And we owe it to these children and young people - they do not choose the family they are born into.

A financial reward for good attendance - if paid to the parents do you envisage some parents visiting violence upon the child if it has been playing truant?

Heavens, no! That is not my thinking at all. When I taught at the college a payment was made to parents (I think it was £30 a week back in the 80s, so not a token payment) in lieu of CB when their child was over 18 and in further education. Otherwise CB stopped when they left school. In order to qualify for the following term's payments they had to have more than X% (80?) attendance or it stopped. In many cases this was vital to the family budget - in others it was pocket money for the student - but either way it concentrated the mind.

I dare say some parents might use physical punishment, but that is just as likely in high income as low income families, I think. It was more about a sense of immediate responsibility, and an incentive to turn up - both for the education itself, and as an excuse to peers who might be less than encouraging.

Not all poor families live on the proceeds of crime, and by no means all crime is committed by those on low incomes . Im most cases the students I taught had failed O levels at school and were resitting in the hope of getting apprenticeships or of joining the armed forces. The girls wanted to apply for basic levels of the Civil Service (clerical assistant grade) or do office junior roles rather than work in factories. They did have aspirations, but often needed to be focussed, and to have an 'excuse' to attend. They were 16 years old - not adults, even though they saw themselves as such.

The college fostered a very different culture from most schools. It wouldn't happen now, but students were allowed to smoke, there was no separate staff canteen, so they had coffee breaks and lunch with us, and everyone was on first name terms. That sort of thing goes a long way, too. I'm not saying that smoking should be reinstated, but treating them as adults helped, as the norm for many was to leave school as soon as possible and have babies. A generation before they would have been working and contributing to the family income, so would have had adult status. They would have really resented the petty rules of many schools. That

They were working class kids from decent families whose jobs had gone because of the wholesale destruction of heavy industry. An odd one used drugs, but it was nothing like on the scale suffered by that area now, several generations of despondency and government neglect later.

Deprivation causes what you see as 'choices', people don't choose deprivation.

Oh, I didn’t mean you had parental violence in mind when making the suggestion!😱

I hated my grammar school and my parents said I could leave and take my A levels at the local technical college if I passed my O levels - the difference from school was exactly as you describe. Such a shame that it, along with many others, is now a ‘university’. However at that stage you’ve captured a young person with aspirations. Getting them there in the first place is perhaps a carrot and (metaphorical!) stick exercise.

The carrot would be a payment for attendance. I know that things have changed regarding school leaving age, but one way to keep young people in education until they are mature enough to see the point of qualifications would be to have a financial advantage attached to attendance.

I'm pleased we are agreed that beating them into submission is not the way forward though

It used to be the case that disillusioned young people would leave school and try out a few different pathways. It was always possible to go back to college and take A levels as a mature student. With some life experience, degree choices or employment opportunities were probably more considered and valued than for most 18 year olds. I think this route is still open?

I hated my grammar school and my parents said I could leave and take my A levels at the local technical college if I passed my O levels - the difference from school was exactly as you describe. Such a shame that it, along with many others, is now a ‘university’.

Further Education Colleges still exist, it was Polytechnics, Teacher Training Colleges and Colleges of Technology which became or were absorbed into Universities. Students were over 18 and needed A levels or equivalent to all,y.

Because many schools don't have Sixth forms now, FE Colleges provide A level, GCSE and vocational courses, as well as some Higher Education courses.

They offer a wide range of educational opportunities and many students prefer that change at 16 to carrying on in school to Y12 &13.

all,y. 🤔
apply!
(Yes, I did go to school 😁)

If we are going to pay for school attendance then we need to get a grip on the education system and its current failings.

ronib

It used to be the case that disillusioned young people would leave school and try out a few different pathways. It was always possible to go back to college and take A levels as a mature student. With some life experience, degree choices or employment opportunities were probably more considered and valued than for most 18 year olds. I think this route is still open?

Not really. Even when I was teaching in FE, 25+ years ago, General Education was being cut - I think because schools were becoming more like businesses and hanging on to pupils they used to be pleased to let leave and go to college. Some colleges now offer foundation degrees, which are basically shortcuts to university, some collaborate with universities and offer degrees validated by the universities, and others are pretty much confined to level 1 and 2 work, which is GCSE and lower.

When I was there there were 16 year olds who had failed at school, some who wanted to take subjects their school didn't offer at A level, adult 'returners' - often women whose children were at school who wanted to go back to work, older people brushing up on office and learning what were then new-fangled IT skills, HEFC courses (a form of foundation degree that allowed mature students without A levels to get to university faster). As well as that there were evening classes in everything from dressmaking to Ancient Greek. That's all gone now.

Oh, and there were also day release courses for apprentices and short training courses for tradespeople keeping their skills up to date.

Doodledog

Oh, and there were also day release courses for apprentices and short training courses for tradespeople keeping their skills up to date.

There are still courses and exams that electricians who need to keep up with changing regulations and plumbers who want to be registered as gas safe have to take regularly

I have just checked out my local college which is still offering routes into higher education in partnership with a local university. Looks good to me.

GrannyGravy13

Doodledog

Oh, and there were also day release courses for apprentices and short training courses for tradespeople keeping their skills up to date.

There are still courses and exams that electricians who need to keep up with changing regulations and plumbers who want to be registered as gas safe have to take regularly

Yes, they still happen - I just forgot to mention them in my earlier post.

The Foundation degrees are new - or came on stream since I left - but are not much use to a disaffected 16 year old with poor GCSE results.

I don’t know why no one seems to understand that with time, the disaffected 16 year old can morph into the connected focussed 20 plus year old. Not everyone stays stuck at stroppy teenager mould.

ronib

I don’t know why no one seems to understand that with time, the disaffected 16 year old can morph into the connected focussed 20 plus year old. Not everyone stays stuck at stroppy teenager mould.

Yes, many of them do