Thats why I said generally. Parents who spend no time with their children have their priorities wrong, but I bet there is a higher percentage of kids shown little interest amongst the poor than the rich. I wouldn't say good parenting is independent of wealth either, the same parents will do a better job without money worries, less time and an ability to give them experience of things.
As I said just giving an alternative view and encouraging others to think a bit wider than the politicians with their sound bites would like us to. It's interesting that because I explore a view that you find unpalatable, you make a number of assumptions about me that are so wide of the mark they're laughable. Of course it makes it easier to dismiss the views of others if you stereotype them and put them in a nice tidy little box. So those NOT on benefits will most likely be better parents. So what your saying is those people wealthy enough not to claim child benefit or too ignorant to know they can will be better parents. Lets not forget it wasn't the poor that caused the the financial crisis (they have no power), it was those supposedly wealthier better educated persons in our great institutions (governments, the EU, banks etc) that well and truly dropped us in the ****. Although maybe they are better educated, as it would appear that they and the rich are doing very nicely out of the mess. Not only did these supposedly well educated people create the financial crisis, but they also created over many years those communities where benefits claiming has become a lifestyle choice. I'm glad your circumstances are such that you have the time, finances and the ability to support your child's education, as do I (not that my personal circumstances should make my views any more or less valid), but to assume that because you do everyone else is able to is nonsense. There are many thousands of children living in this country in very difficult and unpleasant circumstances, whose situation will be made considerably worse by this government cutting their parents benefits. Personally I'm not against the government attempting to tackle the benefit culture, but I certainly wouldn't do this at the same time as cutting for example the safety net of social services or the police. I guess at least on the bright side food banks seem to be a growth sector. I would suggest that the number of people who have children just so they can claim benefits is proportionally quiet low, although I don't doubt this is the case with some families. Although I can understand why this government would like to over emphasize the numbers who do this in order to justify their policies, although it wasn't that long ago that governments were suggesting that people weren't having enough children and were considering ways to encourage them to have more, mainly becuase they didn't think there wouldn't be enough people to look after the OAP's. Many children who grew up with parents who were on benefits have done very well and equally many children of wealthier parents who had a privilege upbringing turned out total idiots, although on the whole I don't doubt they can read & write. Whilst I fully accept that every child should grow up to learn to read and write (they are basic skills), I think there is a hell of a lot more to a rounded education. There will be many many parents who can not give their children the help and support they need and deserve for a wide variety of reasons, but I fail to see how reducing benefits would change this, indeed I would suggest the opposite. Those that can't be bother won't change and equally those that are managing comfortably will continue to mange. The only people this will effect is those in the middle who are maybe only just managing at the moment. Clearly the education of children is a partnership between parents, schools & wider society and most of us continue to learn well after we stop being children.
How true that is carabuh, as I know some women only 'get themselves pregnant' so that they have a few more years when they can claim welfare without the need to 'sign on' every two weeks!!!! When I was working, I shared an office with someone whose 6 year old daughter was invited to a friend's birthday party. The friend lived in a house in the country where you had to drive through gates to access it. Daddy worked in London and only came home on average 2 nights a week!!! I was very lucky in that during my childrens' early years, I worked shifts and so was able to see a lot of them as babies/young children when they were awake and though both are now in their 40s, I have a very good relationship with both of them I like to think that my grandchildren will have a good education with both parents taking an interest in their learning and I'll certainly do what I can to help. I helped the older one with her times tables and she was one of the first in her year to get all the way to the '9 times table'.
Maybe the question is how can we afford NOT to have a parent at home guiding and educating children in their most formative years. If a parent goes out to work and dumps their child in a pre-school the government helps, if a parent doesn't go to work and stays at home to bring up their children even though they lose out financially they get nothing. Children in Scandinavia go to school at a much latter age, but still generally end up better educated than those that have been placed in a so called professional child care environment almost from the day they where born.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27314075 This says Finland is fifth and we are sixth (second in Europe). Whether it is true or not I don't know. If you stuck the same population density and large cities in Finland I think they would plummet down that table. Considering what we have to contend with our education is pretty damn good in this country. My kids went to a child minder when they were young and they are absolutely fine, granted we were very lucky as it was a very personal care and the kids loved her. It would be lovely for stay at home mums to get more money but the country just cannot afford it at the moment.
This touches on a point I made a while back on a different thread. There is a big tendency in Britain to think that wealth equates to happiness,and it doesn't. Financial and emotional security in balance contributes certainly to contentment in life. I worked hard in business for many years and I have substantial capital assets but a relatively low income. The £2.49 I spent on five pairs of socks at the weekend was the first I have spent on clothes in three years. This idea that buying crap and spending money makes you happy is a myth. But it is one perpetuated by capitalism to ensure lots of unhappy people stay unhappy,albeit while sat in a new BMW.
And following on from the above, parents seem not to want take any responsibility now and are happy to blame all woes on the schools or indeed anybody else for thaa matter. Reading is important but simply being there and talking is a start. TV dinners have been a curse and then we go on to the actual content on the TV itself and the problem just balloons.
Perhaps I'm looking at this through rose tinted glasses but when my sisters and I were ankle biters I always remember Mum and Dad reading to us at bed time and we used to love it. Sometimes Mum would tell us stories of her aventures as a little girl during The War and that was even better. We also used to all eat together at meal times when we would all tell each other about our day and engage in conversation. I hold my hands up, guilty as charged m'lord, because we only eat together as a family two or three times a week these days because of our busy lives. There's a lot to be said for the old ways where if you chose to have a family the mother would stay at home and look after the kids and the home while Dad was the bread winner, those days however are long gone never to return.
It's a uniquely social activity. I once stayed at a place in France where they did an evening meal with the guests all around one big table. It was an interesting experiment. About half of us loved it and the other half seemed a little uncomfortable with it.
As it says in the article "The rankings include higher education as well as international school tests - which boosted the UK's position". and "These rankings are based upon an amalgamation of international tests and education data - including the OECD's Pisa (Programme for International Student Assessment) tests, and two major US-based studies, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (Timss) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (Pirls). They also include higher-education graduation rates, which helped the UK to a much higher position than in Pisa tests, which saw the UK failing to make the top 20". The point I was making (albeit maybe not very clearly) is that children in Scandinavia go school much later and still catch up ours. I accept that our universities are and international schools, probably attract many more able and wealthy students than those in Finland.
KIO I think you are. In my day as well, both my parents were around to read prior to bedtime or to share a family meal. To be fair at the time it was probably the norm. Unfortunately now days in our 24/7 money is everything world it is rare for a child to live with booth parents let alone for both of them to be around to help with the bedtime rituals or to share a meal.
The upbringing of children is the parent's responsibility end of story. The State has a role in providing healthcare and education with the goal of giving every child the best opportunity to grow but the parents and the child have to want to take that opportunity. If the family in question do not take it then there is precious little the State can do about it. It is way too easy to generalise as to whether wealthy or less well-off individuals make better parents but surely it stands to reason that a significant proportion of the genuinely poor are probably not academic over-achievers and as such may not be well-placed to give their child the academic support needed. They may not also be the most motivated to do so either if they are getting by without being either functionally literate or numerate then why bother investing time in bettering their children. There is also the issue of expectations - I may be wrong but I imagine that pushy over-achieving parents tend to push their children harder (for better or worse) than parents at the bottom end of the social spectrum. There are things which the State is doing to address this - there is a pupil premium payment schools get for children regarded as being in need or from deprived areas which means that the schools can invest in additional resources to support poorer pupils (in both senses of the term). Free childcare from 2 for low earners must also be a help. In Norfolk we still have fantastic libraries (I believe the library at the Forum is still the most used in the country) and kids can take 20 books out at a time without the threat of fines for late returns which removes the barriers of access and possible financial penalty. Kids are given bags of books at nursery and there are often days at book shops when free children's books are handed out. You just have to want to do it. Even if you can't be bothered to get up and take your kids to the library there is an excellent on-line facility for borrowing e-books via the library service. You can also download any book over (I think) 99 years old via many sites including kindle for free so there is a whole treasure trove of quality novels available at the touch of a button - I am sure most kids will enjoy the likes of Moby Dick/Sherlock Holmes etc which are easily downloaded at no cost. Maybe it is the case that in order to help the children we need to invest in adult education or try to put a spark into some people to enthuse them to help their kids but I suspect that the people who took it up would already be doing their best and the people who were not that bothered would simply continue not to bother.
Can't really argue with that, after all there is no way on earth someone with a broad Norfolk accent would ever enter No.10 regardless of their academic achievements
