Putting up barriers to social mobility
Peter Hoskin 8:57am
Another week, another essential column by Rachel Sylvester; this time on the successes and failures of the Sure Start programme. Here's the key passage on how the programme could encourage social segregation:
When it comes to social mobility, appearances are very nearly everything. If the class (or, more rightly, the income-) system looks fluid rather than ossified, then it's more likely that children will work to move up that particular ladder. Of course - as Sylvester points out - it's crucial that programmes such as Sure Start help those who need them most, but instilling a sense of "us and them" at such an early age seems counterproductive, to say the least."In some cases parents are asked whether they have a garden for their children to play in. The objective is clear - to identify the middle classes. A friend of mine was telephoned by her local Sure Start organiser and asked not to come to baby massage classes any more because she was too posh......Of course it's important that Sure Start reaches the people it was originally designed to help. But it would be ironic if the policy designed to reduce social exclusion ended up building up class barriers in another way. It was, after all, social segregation that in part led to the fate of Baby P and Shannon Matthews.
Middle-class parents send their children to Sure Start activities because they are good. It would be a tragedy if they were turned into ghettos for the poor."
Previous
John Adlington
December 9th, 2008 9:57am Report this commentMy experience of sure start is that middle class parents are over represented because they care enough about their kids to make the effort to turn up, chav women cannot be arsed.
Prodicus
December 9th, 2008 9:57am Report this commentSo Ed Balls *does* believe in selection, then.
GJTory
December 9th, 2008 10:05am Report this commentIt is also rather unfair - the taxes of the middle classes pay for those sure start centres. It is unfair that they should not be able to use them.
wight tory
December 9th, 2008 10:16am Report this commentToo Posh, this is madness.
These type of get togethers more often than not help raise peoples esteem, those at the bottom of social mobility ladder have somebody to aspire to be like, it maybe faux in reality but the system couldn't come close to the benefits of this type of set up.
Those that are higher in the chain, tend to adapt a counsellor roll, using the tools they've been given to help people less fortunate then themselves to help them stand on their own two feet.
Sorry if this is sounding generalised, but in my experience, this is what I've seen.
Closures of a facility, being protested and debated in a mature and concise manner, rather than a low esteemed slanging match without format or basis, which tends to happen without this input.
Moreover, it opens the eyes of those up the scale, to witness and understand the real issues of the poor, rather than what the media's and government's view of it are...
Marcus Cotswell
December 9th, 2008 12:52pm Report this commentSorry this is almost entirely irrrelevant to the post but please, please, please can we stop using this word "essential" to describe what are, when all is said and done, just newspaper articles?
Back to top