Let’s see, unwed mother at 16, broke, not working….yeah, looks like W is definitly disadvantaged
I’ve actually thought of this before. If I’m going to be perfectly frank and a little profane, I think it’s a prize piece of bullshit. I’ve known kids in rich homes who I’d say are seriously disadvantaged at least emotionally, because their parents couldn’t give a crap about them and consequently they’ve been sleeping round, self harming, and having eating disorders since they hit puberty and possibly before. Never mind the drug and alcohol abuse. Sure they may have been bought off with a half decent car and some pocket money, but they hate themselves and they are miserable.
I call that disadvantaged, or if you want to be blunt, fucked up. Are they really trying to say that because their parents have more cash, they are somehow better off than the kid whose parents might be half-broke, but who love their child, give them attention and respect, respect for themselves and others around them?
But hell, they can’t buy the latest piece of electronic tat, so they must be really disadvantaged.
In this case, I can’t decide if the people who drew up this list really do have an ulterior motive, or if they are just moronic
Wow, I love this thread! Such a wonderful opportunity to moan, take the mick out of the DCSF and get mixed up about whether to laugh or cry! Who makes up these “guidelines” that have effectively become “rules” by which we are obviously expected to live.
Up until 2 months ago, we had lived lived in 2 areas that were considered very disadvantaged, but now that we live in a more affluent area that is therefore considered less “disadvantaged”, guess what? I had to leave my job in order for us to be able to live here and the rent is a lot more than it ever was before. Oops, did I say rent? That means our unborn child is going to suffer because we are not “homeowners”, and therefore we cannot support a child, obviously.
The most “relevant” and amusing/frustrating for us though, is point 7:
Families where at least one parent has a long-standing illness or disability
Of course, my lack of “perfect” vision means I’m going to be a very bad mother who is incapable of caring for a child, so the “best” solution to that would undoubtedly be either to give the child up for adoption (don’t get me started on a certain person who doesn’t think we should have children for that reason…) or, a less extreme possibility would be nursery, where the child will, of course, have much more natural, less institutionalised and all round better care than a disabled person like me could ever hope to provide.
Actually, are we extra disadvantaged? Cat also has what is classed as a disability, and what irresposible man who has epilepsy would even consider having a child. Of course, two happily married soul mates couldn’t help each other now, could they? Send the unfortunate disadvantaged sprog off to be passed between institutions, and that way, he or she will not turn out to be an axe murderer - guaranteed.
By the way, do families with addictions count as disadvantaged? Cat is addicted to tea, and I to Scrabble…
Families where at least one parent has a long-standing illness or disability
Of course, my lack of “perfect” vision means I’m going to be a very bad mother who is incapable of caring for a child, so the “best” solution to that would undoubtedly be either to give the child up for adoption (don’t get me started on a certain person who doesn’t think we should have children for that reason.. ...
Nooooooooooooo. You’ve gotta be kidding me. It’s like saying because I’m morbidally obese I shouldn’t have a child because my movement is restricted. That’s just plain daft, you adapt and you find solutions!
I really am trying to work on my more violent tendencies.. but in this case I can’t help it…...... did you smack the git in the mouth? Cos I would have!
I would have thought pretty much every child in the country would have at least one point on that list! Yup, we’re also disadvantaged on several points. Sigh. So, are the government going to give us some money to make us less disadvantaged then? Oh no, that’d be a far too simple way to end poverty. Taking the kids away instead. Obviously that’s better
I can’t believe that the government has spent tax payers money on this utter tosh. Actually stop press….yes I can :-( .
Take this for example
Those parents who had not used any childcare for their children in the last year were asked
why this was the case. The most commonly mentioned reason was that the parents preferred
to look after their children themselves (68% of all parents, and 76% of parents in the most
disadvantaged families). The affordability of childcare was mentioned by 13% of all parents,
and 20% of parents in the most disadvantaged families.
While there were substantial differences in the levels of use of formal childcare for pre-school
children by families experiencing different levels of disadvantage, there was little variation in
the parents’ reasons for not using childcare or early education. However, the awareness of
the free entitlement to early education for 3 and 4 year olds among parents in multiply
disadvantaged families may be lower than among those in better circumstances (it is difficult
to draw a definite conclusion due to a very low number of cases used in this analysis).
So the reasons some kids aren’t in formal childcare is that some of us believe that having kids means looking after them rather than paying somebody else to do it. Holey crap!!!!! Really!!!!????
But it then goes on to say they can’t be sure why kids aren’t in free provision because the sample sizes were too small to draw firm conclusions. Ummmm…...so the whole piece of research is total crap then? If the sample size is not large enough to determine this then that by default kinda puts the finger of suspision on ALL the conclusions made.
But the thing that really goads me is that NOWHERE does it question the assumption that being in childcare is desirable/advantageous/good for educational/emotional/spiritual/social or any other outsomes. Which many other studies have of course proved that it’s not. The best place for children is in the home with loving emotionslly and physically present parents who care about them.
However there are of course kids who ‘might’ be better off with more time outside the home. I just can’t see that multiple disadvantages as measured by this research can possible identify who those kids are.
Right rant over - I really must go off and practice what I preach and stop ignoring my kids (one of whom is cureently eating playdough - at least it’s homemade I s’pose!).
Having read the whole thread I am not going to download the doc today as I feel it might anger me just a little too much! Ignorance is bliss.
We live in social housing so yep, mine are disadvantaged too apparantly! I don’t intend to send them to nursery and I’d rather they didn’t go into childcare when I go back to work as they will be part of the whole EYFS profiling agenda but hey, I can’t afford not to work otherwise they really would be dissadvantaged!!!
Me too Rachel - I want to live off grid or off planet or both!
Yep, as I’ve said so many times, the state owns our kids now, no wonder so many parents are emmigrating. I’ve noticed recently I’m asked when I go to the doctors if I live in my own house or if I rent it. My kids are apparently “disadvantaged” too, but they are the most loved children who fill us with pride. It’s disgusting to “blacklist” families in this way, it’s like saying these kids are less of a person than other children.
But the thing that really goads me is that NOWHERE does it question the assumption that being in childcare is desirable/advantageous/good for educational/emotional/spiritual/social or any other outcomes. Which many other studies have of course proved that it’s not. The best place for children is in the home with loving emotionally and physically present parents who care about them.
Totally, totally agree. The entire study is about getting children into free childcare places, without one moment spent to ask if they would be better off there or not.
Also want to say that *everything* Feathers wrote, yup, love that too.
No real details on this,e xcept someone has been arrested on suspicion of sexual assault at a nursery in Wales :-(
As a childcare provider this deeply angers me because parents should be able to trust the people they leave their children with… sigh.
Anyway, that report doens’t seem to take into account of the sheer amount of trust parents do need to use nurseries… and the horrendous damage that can be done to children in these settings. :-( Must be paedophila heaven for those never accused or charged. (Thus will not show up on CRB checks) I just hope this sort of thing is actually really rare.
- at least it’s homemade I s’pose!).
I like to dream now and again lol