Two year olds don't need a formal education to fix Broken Britain. They need a family.

During his Autumn Statement yesterday, George Osborne announced that around 40% of two year olds would be able to receive 15 hours of free nursery education per week in order to help their parents get back to work.

The government plans to increase funding to £380 million a year in order to entitle approximately 260,000 more two year olds from the poorest families to these places.

Addressing the Commons, Osborne said, "We can double the number of children who can receive this free nursery care - 260,000 children from the most disadvantaged families will get this support in early years. This is how you genuinely lift children out of poverty."

Call me a cynic but when I heard this I thought, "What rot!"

Two year olds do not need any kind of formal education at all. For the government to claim that they are doing the children a favour by taking them away from their parents at a young age for their own future good is, quite frankly, codswallop.

This is nothing about the best interests of a disadvantaged two year old. Ian Duncan Smith has said, "A child’s life development score at just 22 months can serve as an accurate predictor of educational outcomes at 26 years."

Did he mean that a child's way of thinking can be more easily manipulated the younger they are?

The sooner the child is removed from within the family unit and placed in a state controlled setting, where what and how they learn is dictated to by the government, the more influence over them the state will have. The most disadvantaged are the easiest to get on side. Once the culture of dependence has been created, the government has them where they need them to be and has full control. The benefits system in this country has created a culture where it pays more for someone not to work than to be in employment. This suits the powers that be because if they are providing your means of living, your home and your money, you are going to give them your vote. You won't bite the hand that feeds you, after all.

Like I said, call me a cynic.

Removing children from the care of their parents, from the environment of the family home and a main, sole carer with whom they have an emotional attachment in order to provide a state controlled, formal education is not going to fix the problems that a disadvantaged child is likely to face in the future.

The claims that these free places will be helping the most disadvantaged don't have me convinced. If these children's parents are failing to talk to or read with their children, or teach the the most basic of things such as recognising their own names, or shapes or colours, then these parents are unlikely to become pillars of the working world.  Those with poor parenting skills would benefit more from hands on parenting classes and re-education themselves, after all, they are the parents for the rest of the child's life - not just during term times.

Ministers claim that mothers cannot afford not to work.  These plans will not change the mindset of these parents. If they do not have the motivation to find employment, and if they do not have a work ethic instilled already, having already been caught up in the benefits trap and finding that it is better not to work than to be employed, then an extra few hours of free childcare for them will not make a jot of difference.

If the government was genuinely concerned about the need for childcare for working parents, they should be providing these places to the parents already working yet having their hard earned wages eaten up by childcare costs, finally proving to the country that work does pay.

If the government were truly concerned about bringing children out of poverty and helping the most disadvantaged children they need to break the cycle.  They need to stop the benefits culture. They need to stop it being a lifestyle choice rather than the safety net it is supposed to be by making work pay.  They need to stop making a benefits lifestyle so attractive to have. This is how to prevent another generation from falling into the trap of a lifetime of handouts.  But they won't.

Young children in disadvantaged families do not need to be taken from their parents and placed into an environment of formal education to improve their lives.  If there is such concern about how little the parent is doing to encourage raising their child to have learnt the most basic of things, it would be better to provide parent/child classes for them together.  The two year old gets to remain with their sole caregiver who in turn is themself being taught how best to educate and support their child. How about providing parenting support to these families rather than dividing them even more?

Why doesn't the government do more to make it possible for one of a child's parents, their emotional link, to be their constant carer during their formative years?  The family unit is being destroyed, eroded little by little with each of these government pledges which are trumpeted behind the mask of "helping" but with the purpose of gaining more control over individuals from a younger and younger age.

You want to fix Broken Britain?

Help families to be families again.


Stop trying to tear mothers who want to raise their own children themselves away from them.  Yes, some mums do want to work outside of the home (so help these ones out with the free education places, won't you?). There are other mums who would rather be raising their children themselves but needing to hand them over to somebody else to care for them while they try to earn enough for their family simply to live.

Why is there no encouragement any more for mums to stay at home to raise their own children?  Why are childcare/nursery places/daycare centres always pushed to the forefront of any election campaign, with everyone else looking after everybody else's children, yet nobody has placed any importance on the value of the family unit and made it possible for us to be parents to our own?

Why can't the minimum wage be set higher enabling one earning partner to support their family more easily, as they should be able to?

Why can't the costs of utilities be more controlled?  The spiralling costs of electricity and gas are hitting families yet the companies are reporting stomach churning profits.

Why are we paying such high prices for fuel?  If the VAT and fuel duty were deducted from the current price of fuel, a litre of unleaded would drop from a pump price of 132.7 pence to 52.63 pence per litre.

House prices have rocketed out of control. Why can't they be reined in or salaries risen to reflect the rising costs of everything else.

Yeah, right... silly me.

No wonder families are falling apart.  It is too difficult for them.  How has something so fundamentally important to the strong structure of society become so meaningless and insignificant?  Why is it so necessary to take children away from the family unit rather than to encourage the unit to grow and strengthen?

The one thing that needs to be nurtured which can help to fix Broken Britain is being damaged beyond belief.

The Family is at risk.  We need it back.

Now.


 Tweet

Subscribe to Larger Family Life and get the latest news directly in your inbox or reader.  You can also join us on Facebook and Twitter too!

Larger Family Life is also available on Kindle!

Large families - what's in a number?

I was having a conversation about something-or-other with my mother-in-law earlier this week when she mentioned something referring to a family with fourteen children.  I asked her whether the number seemed high to her.

"Fourteen?" she asked, as if she was thinking about it for the first time and I explained what I meant.

On Monday it was my birthday.  Ben and Stephanie came over for the day along with my parents and we had all eleven children in the house together.  As we gathered around the table to fill our plates with the selection of food we had set out Mike and I cast our eyes around it and commented to each other on how there still didn't seem to be very many children there.  I have blogged before about family size and how we've experienced the feeling that not everyone is present even when we are all there.  It just doesn't feel like there are that many of us.

As Mike explained it, when you think of 11 children you imagine them to be taking up so much more space, and for things to look far busier and manic than they actually are, like scenes from the Steve Martin film, Cheaper by the Dozen or something.  In truth life is a lot calmer and not as hectic as you'd imagine.

Like I said to my mother-in-law, when we had only four children and watched a programme about a family with fourteen, our reaction back then was, "Wow! Fourteen!" whereas now it doesn't seem such a big deal at all.  I then asked her again that as she's now familiar with us having "so many" ourselves, did she think of fourteen children being a high number.

"No.  I suppose not!" she concluded.

So what do you think?  How many children do you have and how many do you consider to be a lot?  Has this figure changed as your family has grown?  I'd be interested to hear your comments.


 Tweet

Subscribe to Larger Family Life and get the latest news directly in your inbox or reader.  You can also join us on Facebook and Twitter too!

Larger Family Life is also available on Kindle!

The worst thing in life is having children

I’ve blogged before about the media’s ever increasing  negativity regarding children.  Or to be more specific, couples having children of their own. 

Becoming a parent, starting a family, or adding to your family.  Even the day to day logistics of running a household which includes children.  Nothing is safe from the scrutiny of a reporter’s fingers frantically tap, tapping away on their keyboard eager to tell you to “STOP!  IT’S ALL A GRAVE MISTAKE”.

This isn’t a new development.  Articles are regularly circulated through newspapers and magazines regarding how much each child will cost you and how that money could be better spent.  Don’t forget how a woman’s body will be ruined by pregnancy and then any remaining motherly curves which are likely to remain afterwards will most certainly lead onto the demise of her previously blissfully happy relationship with her husband.   Of course, the writers may be right.  You may well have a husband or partner who states they won’t entertain the thought of children purely because your figure will be ruined.  If this is the case, you’d better go easy on the grapes and salad.  Wouldn’t want him to find you repulsive if you gain a pound, after all.

Your spiritual happiness will leave your soul once your placenta has been delivered.  With it will go the new father’s optimism or zeal for life too.  You’ll both become dishevelled wrecks, unable to converse with each other or anyone else – at least not with any level of coherence and as for intelligence, well, what’s that?   Plus you don’t need intelligence once you have children.  You’ll never use your brains again.

Just this last week alone has presented us with several anti-child articles.  Only today the Daily Mail has an article explaining how Natasha Kaplinsky has had enough of motherhood.  To paraphrase her words in the interview, she tells how she has been at home with her children since Christmas and is bored of it.  Of them?  Bless her cotton socks.  Have your trophy children lost their lustre, Natasha?  To you, your (I use the term loosely) “celeb” colleagues and those who are not rich, nor famous yet look up to folks like you, I’d like to ask, “Did you think parenthood was a three month contract?”.

A second article today kindly tells us what happiness is.  Apparently, as the headline roars, “Happiness is... not having a fourth child”.  I’ll be sure to let Harry, my own fourth child, know that he has made my life a living hell, full of misery and loathing, shall I?  I suggest those of you with four or more children do the same.  And if you’re currently below that number make sure you stop right there.

Yesterday we had an article both in the Daily Mail and ParentDish telling  us how motherhood was better in the seventies and eighties, with mothers now struggling as they have less time to themselves. Ah yes, the old "me-time" line.

If that hasn’t yet convinced you don’t forget last week’s article which informs us of a scientific study claiming that mothers and fathers who say they enjoy parenthood are lying.  Yes, the joy of parenthood is a fantasy according to psychologists.  It’s expensive and time consuming.  It contains the figure of the total cost of raising a single child within the report. £120,000 per child, apparently.  And because it costs so much we lie that spending this extortionate amount on our children is worth it.  We can't possibly think that's true though. Certainly, for that money we'd much rather have a porsche on the driveway, wouldn't we?

Look closer at these articles.

We’re bombarded by the latest fashions, gadgets and not to be missed exclusive events.  All are must haves. Spending money on “stuff” is good.  Using money to raise children who will hopefully and in most cases become productive adults and members of society is bad.  A room full of designer shoes and handbags is more valuable than a life? 

Really? 

An expensive wardrobe full of too many outfits, weekly manicures and exotic holidays is something we should admire someone having and all strive for?   

That’s okay?

Too big houses, too flash cars and too much of everything.  That's what we should invest in.

Honestly?

How much would that come to over a lifetime?  More than the over exaggerated, super inflated, and no doubt fabricated yet off putting costs of raising a child?

The “me-time” myth is trotted out over and over again, resulting in an growing “L’Oreal” generation of parents.  Both mothers and fathers who excuse their extravagances and wants with the explanation of “I’m worth it.  I’m a good mum/dad.  I need some time to myself.  It makes me a better parent.”

Why shouldn’t they think that?  After all, if it’s good enough for Natasha Kaplinsky, Posh ‘n’ Becks and any other celebrity parent from A-list down to Z, it’s good enough for this Joe Public generation of current or perhaps-one-day parents.  A healthy dose of superficiality and self-absorption.  Always nice qualities to encourage don't you think?

The truth is, spending time away from your children doesn’t make you a good parent.  Being with your children does.  And not slating them in the media helps too.  It was hurtful enough listening to my own mother bemoaning the school holidays and how she couldn’t wait to get rid of me.  That was to her friends or our family.  How would I have felt if she’d splashed it all over the daily papers?

The flames of selfishness are being fanned daily, intensifying narcissistic tendancies throughout our society, our country and our world. 

When is parenthood finally going to be encouraged as the worthwhile vocation it actually is, or can be with the right frame of mind and view?  When are we going to stop being bombarded with articles telling us how bad, financially and emotionally draining and altogether abhorrent it is to be a parent.  Will the next generation be told how it isn’t a bad thing to look further than themselves, their own needs and their own wants? 

Do we brace ourselves for an increasing influx of negativity until either everyone is brainwashed into the media’s way of thinking, or will we finally have enough and stand up to it?  Are articles like that just not what people want to read or is there a lack of freelancers who are unprepared to report something against the grain of popularity for fear of their article not making the papers?  

What do you think?

Hey Media! Why do you hate kids so much?

Over the years I've noticed an increase in the number of articles or reports on the burden of having children. Everywhere we look now we are faced with something telling us how terrible being a parent is nowadays. Why is this?

In two consecutive weeks the Daily Mail ran two different articles on the curse of parenthood. The first was the almost forty something woman who had twins through IVF but was speaking about her terrible anguish and how she wanted to adopt one out because... she had downs and wasn't "perfect" (her words, not mine). Unfortunately I can't find the link to that article. The second, more recent article can be found here. The couple speak woefully of how their triplets wrecked their marriage.

Edit: The first article I refer to is here thanks to a lovely lady who found the link for me!

Now raising kids is hard. Raising multiples must be really hard. But in both these articles stands out the "me, me, me, my, my, my" attitudes of the parents. In the latter, which I'll focus on here because you can read what I'm talking about, there are several things which don't sit well with me.

This couple lived beyond their means and didn't even reign it in even though they were in debt. They could have chosen to downsize their home or cut back on their lifestyle. If they can afford two separate homes now surely they could have afforded some changes while still together in order to relieve some of the financial pressure? He chose to take a job abroad probably to try and keep the lifestyle they were accustomed to despite having newborn triplets. He could have got a job closer to home. They made the decision to go ahead with IVF knowing full well the chances of conceiving multiples are higher. They cannot claim to know that two/three/four children at once is going to be more expensive than one at a time. You will be aware that you will need to account for childcare costs if you are planning to return to work after one child. Go into IVF with the possibility of multiples and you should be aware that more than one child will equal more than one set of childcare costs. And a couple should not make a decision to have a child in order to "seal their love". Children shouldn't be added to a relationship as a means of making it stronger. The relationship should be on solid footing to begin with. If your relationship is already fragile a child is not going to be the miracle glue to fix it.

Nowhere have they taken responsibility for their own actions. In fact, the husband says: 'The tragedy is that neither Bernadette nor I did anything wrong,'. Really? So you just go and blame your triplets in a national newspaper? Great parents and I hope your children never learn to Google their names.

The thing is, couples like this can be found in articles everywhere now. Children are no longer seen as something special or something to be cherished. Is it any wonder that so many people seem to resent their children now? After all, it's how the media tells them they should feel, right?

From the three page spreads in the glossy parenting magazines which tell us the latest baby must-haves to the newspaper columns listing the extortionate costs of the privilege of raising a tiny, screaming, milk-puking red-faced bundle into a lumbering,screaming, alcohol-puking, red-faced teen which runs into thousands per child (the article above quotes the cost as £10,000 per child). Of course there is the fact that having kids will ruin your body, destroy your relationship, and leave you an emotional wreck. You need x amount of "me-time" for every parenting hour you put in because, horror of horrors, if you don't you will suffer for it. But this "me-time" must consist of going out and spending money on YOU because YOU are worth it. And it must be true because that's what they all say.

Even a trip to the library will re-affirm the truth in this. Look under the "self help" (i.e the "How to become more selfish and narcissistic" section). It's all about you, don't you know. Where is the "Selflessness" or "How-to-put-others-before-yourself-for-once-in-your-bloody-life" section? Or the article that will not nurture your spirit because you are made of marshmallow fluff and delicate china but will tell you straight that actually, the world doesn't revolve around you and yes, you can actually think of others (including, oh dare I say it, your children) before yourself and, get this, it won't kill you!

And if it all goes wrong, if the decisions you have made go to pot and everything hits the wall it's easy. You don't need to take responsibility for any of it. Just blame the children. It's ok. Everyone does it. All it takes is one look at a programme, magazine article or newspaper column.

For once, just once in this day and age, I'd like to see parenthood portrayed in a positive light. Why is it so bad to have an article titled "Babies, the true cost on a real budget" or "Don't even consider it - baby stuff you don't need, will never use and will re-sell on an auction site for a smidgeon of the amount you originally paid for it".

How about more articles on the positives of family life?

How about the strong relationships that have become stronger as their families grew?

How about a half page spread, that's all I ask, on mothers that enjoy motherhood? On fathers that love to spend time with their families? Is that too radical?

How about less of the "me-time" encouragement and the idea that when you decide to add a new life to a family the family dynamics change, therefore "me-time" will become "us-time". The "us" will consist of whoever is in the family. It's not a bad thing. Honest! It's different. But unlike the image that is portrayed it is not a negative.

How about re-encouraging the family unit?

How about recognising the blessing of children rather than using the idea of them as burdens to sell your publications? Or doesn't that bring the money into the WAG/popstar/reality TV Z-lister celeb idolising generation you want to sell to?

Well media, how about trying it?