| View Blog
|
|
|
Ok - this is a bit embarrassing. It seems we have less social mobility in Britain today than we had in 1961 according to the latest figures. By social mobility we mean children aspiring and able to have a better life than that of their parents. The story can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7468506.stm
I get a bit animated about this as I just cannot understand three things affecting this story:
1) poverty of aspiration...
I've mentioned before that a relative that teaches in a school in a deprived area has told me that the kids in his school want to be rich and/or famous, as footballers or popstars or lottery wins, not to go into professional jobs. I just cannot understand why parents are encouraging their children to believe that winning a TV talent contest is a valid career path.
One of the worse moments on a programme like the "X-factor" is when the judges face some child with a terrible voice and witness either hysterics or temper. Often the family then storm in and round on the judges - leaving it for Simon Cowell or another to explain that they are deluding themselves and damaging their child in persisting in insisting that they'll make it in a world for which the are clearly not suited.
And it's exactly that -that the parents feel no need to encourage their children to do strive to do better educationally. Maybe they are worried they couldn't afford to fund children through university in any case.
The other aspect of this is crime... that some children seem genuinely to believe that they can make money through crime or specifically drugs, because that's what they've seen their parents do, or their rapper heroes fresh out of jail say that they do.
And how many kids now go to Scouts/ Guides, join choirsor church youth groups or other organised group activities? These sorts of organisations go beyond the uniform and the actual activities to instill a kind of confidence and can-do attitude that helps people feel that they can achieve something more than they currently have - whether a beautiful song or attaining a badge- in weekly chunks.
So I reckon social mobility is affected by unrealistic aspiration... it's better to aspire to an achievable better life than a 14 million to 1 dream.
2) selfish parenting?
I'm probably slightly on the hyperactive parenting side: while we have lots of playtime together, my son and I do several minimal cost or free activities during the week to get me out of the house and for him to have new experiences and meet other babies. My son loves books and we've "read" them together practically since birth. We do occasionally watch TV together too.
Friends are more into the rattle race: baby gym classes, swimming classes, baby music classes, the list goes on. I've heard from some people that hothousing kids - which is what this all seems to be the start of - and giving them a rigorous rigid timetable of activities can leave them unable to amuse themselves or cope with boredom, and unable to take decisions for themselves. That can't be good.
Others say that there's no point doing activities or looking at books with their kids: it's not like very tiny babies can focus on them anyway so they won't get anything out of it. I very much disagree with that view - my son grabs the pages of most books now to see if there's a fabric bit to touch like the ones in his books...
It must be terribly hard to be a single parent. I feel like a single parent much of the time because my husband works such long hours, but at least I know he'll be there some of the time to try and comfort the screaming baby or to help take decisions. If I need time away with friends he might even step in and babysit for an evening so I can have it. Trying to work and be the only parent with no time off at all, not even the tiny bit I get must be a real nightmare. Is it politically incorrect to say that for this reason, and for parental sanity, it's better for a child to grow up with two parents?
Come next month, I've got to return to work part-time. the time I get to spend with my son on the days I'm working will be very early morning and early evening, with him likely to be exhausted from a day at nursery and me tired from the classroom or office. I've got to return to work - the mortgage demands it and the government recommends that mothers should get back into the workforce as soon as possible, but I just wonder why the idea is that someone other than me should be bringing up my son.
I can understand already the guilt of the working parent ~(not least becuase I see my husband suffering it already) and that these feelings are likely to provoke one of two responses: hyperactive attempts to stuff activities into quality time together, or opting out to watch TV.
It is technically possible for my son to watch TV all day if I let him- he's too young to understand the programmes but he's starting to respond to some of them. I know because I try to watch it with him rather than use it as a babysitter. But so many people do just dump the kids in front of the TV and hope that'll do.
Equally those that rarely communicate with their kids seem to be buying more and more expensive guilt-assuaging presents - not just a teddy but a Wii, for example which probably holds the attention for the same amount of time if the kids don't know how to play imaginatively?
Are these then the same kids that later on are out on the streets, in gangs, drinking in parks, shouting and swearing at their parents because they've never really had boundaries set?
So by parents being required to or choosing to put their jobs or their relaxation first, and not giving their kids the real loving personal social interaction that only a parent (or guardian) can give, opportunities for real social mobility based on reality can be damaged.
3) education policy is confusing to me
Right from nursery level there's much I don't understand. Why is it better for someone else to raise my child and me to return to work - is my contribution to the economy as an employee really more valuable than the input I can give my son that will help his future economic role?
Sure Start (a scheme with one stop shop centres for parents and young children) which is a good idea but is meant to be the miracle cure to close the gap between the advantaged children and those with a worse start in life: why is no one saying that while the aim is noble many of the single mum types it's aimed at tend to meet together in cafes and avoid state-run places like this like the plague?
I'm not even sure how to guarantee that my son gets into the right school: as I'm a churchgoer we'll probably be ok if we can find a local Church of England run primary school, but with the introduction of lottery allocation of places it's not enough to live in the right catchment area. I'm not remotely reassured by the idea that 90% of parents get one of their top three schools, when it comes to it I want my son in my number one choice. And my husband's utopian view that "all schools should be good" fits the government line that what parents want is for the local school to be the best option for their child, but currently that doesn't match reality.
Another confusion at Secondary level... I still can't understand why there are attempts to introduce specialised subjects in secondary schools on the basis of which schools can select a certain number of students, but the model of selecting on potential for academic attainment (known as grammar schools in the old language) is considered anathema despite the fact that they were a major factor in enabling social mobility in their 1950s and 1960s heyday.
It's not as if the secondary moderns which offered the alternative education are attempting to offer the same product: it is far more likely that it would be this type of school that would offer the diplomas (in e.g. construction and the built environment) and other more vocational qualifications introduced to encourage those turned off by academic approaches to subjects to stay on in education.
Talking of which, how are some of the 300-odd schools including secondary moderns that have been written to by the Secretary of State last week and told to set a plan in action to sort themselves out or be taken over and turned into academies simultaneously to be found with the highest OFSTED results and do well in the league tables which adjust for the social situation of the schools in question? Are they good or failing?
And the languages thing - mandating teaching of foreign languages at primary school but only after making them non-compulsory post-14 risks our children being increasingly monolingual with only the brightest and those educated at private schools likely to pursue language courses (if you think I'm exaggerating Cambridge University is already having to drop its language requirement because it is thought to discriminate against state sector applicants). Being monolingual will make it harder for our young people to seek employment in multinationals, in international organisations and to take advantage of the options that should be embraced to travel and live overseas. Now that really will impact on social mobility.
While poverty is and always has been a cycle that few escape, today, unlike years gone by, the difficulty is compounded by drugs, family breakdown and by a culture that doesn't prize hard work and cleverness, only the quick win.
At the end of the day, I'm just not clear that free nursery places for 2-year olds in deprived areas and £200 for poor (sorry, the latest jargon is "hard-working" - as if those of us who earn a little more for our labour do not work hard) parents willing to send their children to social development classes are actually going to help very much. Maybe the idea is to get the children out of the hands of the parents and into an environment where they can be offered visions of an inspiring professional future?
Parenting skills classes in the already crowded school curriculum (facing the wrath of those who think sex ed leads to early sexual activity and teen pregnancy when e.g. the Netherlands show that's not the case), or even offered as part of the antenatal classes programmes might help. More support for youth workers and youth clubs to help young people feel part of something that's not a gang and that might even encourage their self belief. TV programmes modelling happy families rather than always the more effectively dramatic broken families, and where guns and drugs are not a way of life might help normalise the normal. But you can't mandate that. |
|
Posted by rose22 on 2008-06-23 18:53:31 | Rating: | Views: 83
|
| |
|
|
