Paying Parents To Help Children With Homework? Will This Break The Cycle Of Poverty Or Just Embed Negative Attitudes?

A few weeks ago, I read an article which discussed a scheme to be trialled in Middlesbrough and Camden, North London in which parents will be paid up to £600 to attend ‘parenting academies‘ where they will learn to help their children with English, Maths, Science and Reading.

The move is thought to be intended to help poorly educated parents develop their own skills which will in turn enable them to help their children. The Child Poverty Action Group has found that 3.7 million children in the UK are living in poverty.  Those in receipt of free school meals gain on average 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their more affluent peers and this translates to lower earnings over a lifetime.  It is clear that we need to do something to break the cycle of poverty in the United Kingdom, particularly as current projections expect child poverty to rise to 4.7 million by the year 2020.

The complicated nature of poverty and its cyclical nature make it extremely difficult for politicians to agree on the best way to tackle the issue and I don’t profess to offer any solutions.

But there is one thing of which I am certain: Paying parents to help their children is not the answer.

Poverty destroys lives.  Let us be clear that there are far too many people in Britain who cannot afford food, heat and other basic necessities nevermind luxurious items that many of us take for granted such as designer shoes, magazines and trips to coffee shops.

The problem with this new scheme is that it is not targeting the right people, at the right time and in the right way.  Recent studies have shown that children raised by disadvantaged parents in areas of poverty are already 19 months behind at the age of 5 when they enter school and that this disparity usually continues until GCSE level.  Surely then the solution is to help new parents or even pregnant mothers and equip them with skills to help them give their children the best start in life.  How to read with their children; how to talk to their children in ways that will help their language to develop; how to help them to learn their numbers.  If these are the areas that are shown to make the most difference when a child attends school, then this is where we need to focus our attention.  Not waiting until the gap has already begun to widen.

OFSTED inspector, Baroness Sally Morgan, has made the ludicrous suggestion that the answer to this problem is to take those children and throw them into school at the age of 2.  This would apparently give them a better chance to catch up the gap and be more in line academically with their peers by the time they reach compulsory school age.  Perhaps.  Or, more likely, this would simply cause to weaken the bond between parent and child, make parents feel less involved in the education and indeed life of their children, leading them to offer less support as they progress through the school system.  Children in parts of Europe who do not start school until 7 consistently  outperform British children academically.  One of the reasons for this is that the children are happier because they have been given more quality learning experiences and love at home.  They start school feeling secure in themselves because they have been enveloped in a loving environment which develops their confidence and immerses them in learning in a way which helps them to become self-motivated individuals with minds like sponges.

This brings us back again to when we help parents.  The Surestart initiative was devised in order to provide and help parents to provide quality experiences for young children.  Staff were intended to be on hand to help with day-to-day matters of childcare to ensure that our most disadvantaged families were given at least some of the support they needed.  The scheme is now being phased out; indeed it has already been phased out in a lot of areas.  The few times I attended the centres, they were filled with competitive, cliquey, yummy-mummies who sought only to prove that their child could sit, walk and talk faster and more proficiently than their peers.  Activities were charged for and so the families who actually needed the centres found them largely inaccessible.

In addition to the fact that this new initiative seems to be introduced too late for the children it is designed to be helping, it is simply wrong to pay parents to do the right thing.  This will only serve to further embed the culture of worklessness which is a huge problem in Britain.  I am not for a second suggesting that all, or even most poverty, is caused by this.  Wages are too low, childcare is too expensive, families in Britain are not supported at all by the government.  If Mothers work, they are criticised for leaving their children; if they don’t, they are called workshy.  Families cannot win.  Notwithstanding this, it is a fact that there are many thousands of people who believe that it is their right to sit and do nothing and to be funded by the benefit system and it is imperative that we break this cycle.

If we pay parents to attend these academies, we are advocating the view that there should be an incentive for them to want to help their children.  I’m talking an incentive beyond wanting their children to be happy, successful individuals.  We should want to help our children because we love them and we want to enable them to escape the bonds of poverty.  Not because someone has paid us to do it.

What happens when the funding runs out?  Will these parents continue to help their children and apply the skills they’ve gained?  No.  Because the financial incentive is removed.  And what about those who miss out on the scheme?  Well, why should they help little Janey for free when Sharon down the road was paid £600 to help her John?

Providing a way for people to improve their skills can never be a bad thing; the academies will offer free childcare which will remove barriers to access but I cannot accept that the scheme will do anything to help children currently in poverty because the assistance is offered too late.  Intervention needs to be earlier.  This is just another example of our government completely missing the point.

 

 

 

 

Read 7 comments

  1. Awesome post! I totally agree that paying the parents to do what is best for their children is absurd. In the US, sadly, there are way too many parents that only have kids for the amount of welfare they can milk the system for. They only send them to schools as daycare, they don’t really care whether they get an education or not. It is really sad!
    Sadly, our family falls in the low poverty level category, but we also homeschool and I am thankful that I am available to help them as they need. I think that parents could use the education, when the children are little or even on the way, but it will also only work if the parents care enough to want it! Thanks for sharing and hope you have a great week!

  2. Great post Katie. It is yet another fad by the government which will doubtlessly result in more problems. Trying to put right the wrongs of a broken education system by paying to reeducate the people if failed the first time only highlights the failings of the system. How awful for a child to think that their parents had to be paid to want to help them. In years to come will they be paying to treat the psychological problems caused by this scheme? I doubt it.

  3. Interesting post. It’s so hard to know what the answer is. A surprising number of parents don’t realize that one of the most valuable things you can do for your children is spend time reading to them, and surround them with books. But maybe it’s too easy for me to trot out lines like that when I’m not a parent who’s wondering how I’ll afford food tomorrow, and I’m not living in some godforsaken hellhole estate where scarcely anyone has ever been known to get a job. Thinking about one of your previous posts, I think role models are far more effective than government policies. We need nuclear physicists from sink estates!

    • I think you’re right. It is so easy for us to say when we don’t have to wonder where our next meal is coming from or whether we’ll be able to afford to heat our houses and pay our bills. I saw something on TV quite recently (I think it may have been the Pride of Britain awards) where a young man with a terribly disadvantaged background had managed to turn his life around and help children like himself. He had been a petty thief, a drug abuser and (I think – memory like a sieve) spent time in prison. He set up a business which helps children to learn their times tables by setting them to rap songs. Kids related to him because he was exactly like them; he was a such a great role model for the kids because he knew where they were coming from and the problems they had to face on a day-to-day basis.

  4. Pingback: Five Fresh Posts from UK Parent Blogs | Tots 100

Leave a Reply