EXCLUSIVE: Frank Field to show Cameron the way he COULD have helped families out of poverty (From Wirral Globe)
Send us news by text, start your message Globe News and your send photos and videos to 80360
EXCLUSIVE: Frank Field to show Cameron the way he COULD have helped families out of poverty
1:35pm Monday 30th July 2012 in News Exclusive By Leigh Marles, Editor
Frank Field to show Cameron the way he COULD have ended child poverty
AFTER his Downing Street-commissioned review on poverty and life chances was all-but ignored by the Prime Minister, Birkenhead’s MP is about to embark on a unique mission in Wirral.
Frank Field has set up his own charity-registered Foundation and is applying for a £12m Government grant to fund a pioneering scheme whose purpose will be to “prevent poor children from becoming poor adults.”
Mr Field’s aim is to introduce a powerful local network of professionals and volunteers who will be supporting, helping and advising young mums and dads from the moment they are referred to hospital by their GP for a 12-week scan.
When he embarked on his review in 2010, the Labour MP had been told by David Cameron that gaining an understanding of the real causes of poverty was vital for his Coalition Government's vision to “make Britain a fairer society in which opportunity is more equal.”
However, in the intervening two years Mr Field has become frustrated with waiting for the PM to act.
So instead he has decided to launch a life chances pilot scheme in Wirral which will be a micro-model of the proposals he was recommending should be introduced across the nation.
The “Foundation Years” network will be based upon Mr Field’s conclusions the UK needs to address the issue of child poverty in a fundamentally different way if it is to make a real change to children’s life chances as adults.
Mr Field’s investigations found overwhelming evidence children’s chances are most influenced by their development in their first five years .
It also noted huge class differences in the range of abilities measurable on their first day at school.
Mr Field said: “For many poor children life’s race is by then already effectively over.
“I believe this initiative - the first of its kind in the world - will be a great opportunity for Birkenhead families.
“Family background, parental education, good parenting and the opportunities for learning and development in those crucial early years matter more to children than money in determining whether their potential is realised in adult life.”
It is expected the pilot scheme will be launched in early-2013, aiming to help an initial 300 mothers in and around Birkenhead.
Mr Field is heading up new group called the Foundation Years Trust whose members include Lord Hunt of Wirral, Fiona Johnstone, the borough’s director of public health, leading GPs, Wirral councillors and charity leaders.
The Trust will be seeking a £12m grant from the Department for Education to allow the pilot scheme to expand.
Council leader Cllr Phil Davies said: “I am determined for Wirral Council to be a hot bed for innovation, and it is important for Wirral’s citizens to see that they have a council which, even in the most desperate of times, is one which is intent on finding new ways to improve their lives.
“Here is a project which has the potential to have a transformative effect on life chances, which could also lead to considerable budget savings for the authority in the future.”
Comments(29)
red devil
says...
5:23pm Mon 30 Jul 12
2. Cameron ignores Fields report- are we surprised? signed former Tory, now UKIP
ordinary personn
says...
8:11pm Mon 30 Jul 12
“Family background, parental education, good parenting and the opportunities for learning and development in those crucial early years matter more to children than money in determining whether their potential is realised in adult life.”
I agree with Frank on this: poverty relates to more than money – tackling a poverty of opportunity and a lack of social justice are paramount in people changing their lives for the better.
I’d rather try and improve things than sit back and complain that people are happy to live on benefits, drain resources that could be better used elsewhere, have children they cannot support, are feckless, lazy candidates for the Jeremy Kyle show etc etc. £12 million invested now may reap dividends in the future – as a tax payer I’m happy to take that chance (I accept that others are not). If it works it will improve the lives not only of the children involved and their descendents but also if it results in responsible individuals, who understand what is expected of them and what they can expect of society, the rest of us will benefit as well.
Positive thinker
says...
7:19pm Tue 31 Jul 12
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
11:17am Wed 1 Aug 12
"It also noted huge class differences in the range of abilities measurable on their first day at school."
“For many poor children life’s race is by then already effectively over."
As a dedicated civil libertarian, my instincts should be against this plan. But on the contrary, I am all in favour of it.
What Frank Filed says is spot on - intervention must begin at a very early stage if we are to break the spiral of deprivation which threatens to overwhelm us all.
reliant22
says...
11:32am Wed 1 Aug 12
When that scheme was introduced it was meant to teach good parenting skills?
What if parents stick two fingers up to the introduction of another (as they will see it) layer of `big brother`. That would be because these individuals have their own ideas about how not to treat their children, (just go to any shopping centre during school holidays) so why should they go along with a plan to change things for the better? Teenagers have babies and then realise it`s a job for life.They seem to find acceptance of responsibility a problem.Still wanting to have their social networking. More taxpayers money wasted, but if it works, then thank goodness for Frank Field`s intervention.
Spiffy
says...
2:50pm Wed 1 Aug 12
...
Pretty much and the "new" name isn't original either. These proposals are identical to and...if Frank gets his 12 million quid out of us... will duplicate an already existing public sector taxpayer-funded national project as detailed on (www.)foundationyear
s.co.uk.
...
There are many more such projects and the "poor"...whoever they actually are...certainly generate a huge amount of employment for other people. One cycle inevitably perpetuates the other and the logical question has to be; Is there any real incentive for those on the payroll to ever really end "poverty".
...
I find the aim of ending poverty...as we all know and understand it to be...fairly admirable (if assumptive) but the runaway expense and seemingly deliberate chaos of the methods ? Not so much.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
7:47pm Wed 1 Aug 12
Have you read "The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children
Becoming Poor Adults" which was Frank Field's 100+ page independent review on poverty and life chances published at the end of 2010?
It makes interesting background to this grant application. and certainly convinced me that Frank Field was on the right track.
ordinary personn
says...
8:06pm Wed 1 Aug 12
Yes I have read it. It is also worthwhile reading other UK work on cumulative disadvantage over the lifecourse and the research done in the Netherlands on intergenerational cycles.
littleme77
says...
12:15am Thu 2 Aug 12
Spiffy
says...
10:01am Thu 2 Aug 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:No Ben, I haven't. Whilst I'm open to new ideas and "right tracks", as you call them, I consider this is not a new idea and it is on a parallel track...as are many others...that start and end nowhere in particular.
Spiffy (and other interested parties)
Have you read "The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children
Becoming Poor Adults" which was Frank Field's 100+ page independent review on poverty and life chances published at the end of 2010?
It makes interesting background to this grant application. and certainly convinced me that Frank Field was on the right track.
...
That said I do respect your opinions so if you can honestly tell me it's really worth ploughing through yet another 100+ pages of Socialist advertisement....tha
t it is in any way different or goes above and beyond the interminable Rinse & Repeat action of just about every other project of it's ilk we pay for...or there is any possibility of this replacing them all and actually achieving something definitive...then I *might* *just* consider it.
Spiffy
says...
10:04am Thu 2 Aug 12
...
Sorry, what language is that ?
...
*I'm poking fun at you ;)
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
10:15am Thu 2 Aug 12
Surely not....;-)
ordinary personn: Thanks for that. I'll look at the Dutch research.
ordinary personn
says...
11:32am Thu 2 Aug 12
Spiffy wrote:LOL - sorry academic sociology jargon!
OP - "cumulative disadvantage over the lifecourse " ... Sorry, what language is that ? ... *I'm poking fun at you ;)
ordinary personn
says...
11:37am Thu 2 Aug 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:Ben - the work done by UK researchers such as - Alan Walker, Chris Phillipson, and Tom Scharf and their colleagues is really worth reading. (Although, it is a huge body of work). It shows how if you start off disadvantaged things are likely to get worse not better.
Spiffy: Frank Field a Socialist? Surely not....;-) ordinary personn: Thanks for that. I'll look at the Dutch research.
antisthenes
says...
11:08pm Thu 2 Aug 12
Hence Frank Field's 'insights' are far from new and neither are the 'radical' early years intervention strategies he proposes.
The USA during the 60s had 'Head Start' an early years booster programme that was aped by New Labour's 'Sure Start' with its Birth to Three Matters, then Birth to Five and Matters and Early Years Foundation Stage gimmmicks all policed by that other 'great enabler' of educational improvement OFSTED.
In the USA Head Start was a failure and in the UK The Audit Commissioin report on the 'efficacy' of Sure Start was damning; for all the millions spent on creating a conformocratic child care culture little was achieved.
Other that is than the wiping out thousands of community based and volunteer led playgroups run by low flying heroes with a real feel for the families they supported.
Many of these excellent groups were bulllied out of existence by Sure Start; sadly eclipsed by the 'Mothership Monoculture'. Those grassroots groups that have survived now have to scrabble around for small grants and scrape together the means of doing their excellent work with no recognition and no support from the public authorities.
Frank the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your £12million will not make any impact other than to employ a phalanx of credentialist technocratic child care professionals on inflated poverty industry payscales.
People need to take responsibility for their own lives and If such a sum were invested in powering up local communities to take responsibility for their own families and children so much more could be achieved.
With so much cash washing around the project will rapidly degrade into a local version of Sure Start populated by high earning refugees from the sinking Sure Start Mothership who steeped in a statist approach to child development will merely replicate its failure.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
10:43am Fri 3 Aug 12
Grandparents never worked and on benefits, a big proportion of which which is spent on drink.
Parents, following the example of their mothers and fathers, don't work and spend their money on drugs and outlawed pet dogs.
The children, brought up in a culture of no work and alcohol/drug abuse, are more likely than not to ratchet even further downwards.
These children are the innocent ones and the ones who deserve our intervention, whether it be in school or earlier.
If a system has failed, it doesn't mean the end aims were wrong. So find another one that works instead, which is exactly what Frank Field and others are trying to do.
"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of God."
antisthenes
says...
12:23pm Fri 3 Aug 12
I do not question the ends I merely question the means..means which have singularly failed to impact on poverty, disadvantage, educational under achievement and subsequent life chances.
Having worked for over 25 years with the homeless, the addicted, the criminal, the chaotic, dysfunctional families and their children I have a 3D insight into the dynamics and drivers of the culture of poverty.
I therfore need no instruction from you as to the nature of the intergenerational transmission of
the culture of poverty.
I can attest to the fact that top down child welfare interventions run by credentialist professionals have lapsed into an ineffectual element of the poverty industry gravy train.
Despite the billions expended the problems remain hence I am suggesting that we try things from a different angle.
That we invest in self help and powering up those who are passionate about helping others in their own backyard; rather than create jobs for recently graduated child development theorists who have no idea about the realities of the lives of the people they seek to reform.
montague1
says...
1:46pm Fri 3 Aug 12
Antisthenes.
There is an undeniable place for the theorists,but without the cheek by jowl experience you describe, there is little hope for an effective or improving outcome.
ordinary personn
says...
2:28pm Fri 3 Aug 12
I have worked with people living in disadvantaged communities for over 30 years and am a fervent promoter of participatory practice and empowerment of individuals and community groups. After all, if things are to be sustainable after the “professionals” leave the area, people need to have the capacity to continue to deliver the necessary services themselves. I am also an "academic" with a perspective driven by the need for social justice and the work of people such as Freire. Hence, my suggestion to Ben about useful reading. (BTW Walker, Phillipson and Scharf have nothing to do with child development.)
Therefore, I guess I am a theorist with cheek by jowl experience ;)
Spiffy
says...
3:33pm Fri 3 Aug 12
...
Not me OP. I picked out the phrase you used because as one who grew up "in poverty" and could still quite well be considered as "in poverty" if only I knew what definition they were using these days..... with little outside authoritarian intervention utilising lots of other people's money...I understood perfectly well what it meant.
...
Not only that but somehow...and the gods only know how...I've managed to raise children "in poverty" who are excelling at school.
...
How on earth...in Frank Fields world...should that even be possible ? The irony made me laugh out loud :)
...
Ben...you've quite a list there of people you consider of in need of intervention in their lives and I do not disagree that some is necessary in certain circumstances BUT *are* these the people that Frank Field is lining up for his experiment ?
...
Hence my question on Selection Criteria in my first post. Maybe best not to get too excited about this little project until that one is answered ?
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
6:55pm Fri 3 Aug 12
I don't question his expertise in this matter, nor that of ordinary personn. What I bring to the party is my personal experience of childhood poverty and my exposure over the last twenty odd years to young socially deprived children.
I am certain that we are all working towards the same outcome and sincerely hope we get there one day, for the sake of the children if nothing else.
ordinary personn
says...
11:12am Sat 4 Aug 12
Ben – feel free to question my expertise any time, please don’t think I am being patronising here, your experience and knowledge is as valid as anybody’s. As I said, I believe completely in participatory practice and for me that means bringing together “lay” (again for want of a better word) people, “professionals” and academics as equals, where everyone’s input is considered valid and valuable. I also do not dismiss the input of the newly graduated as they often provide a new perspective on issues that those who have been in the field for many years may not have and can challenge existing thought. Furthermore, I also know there are new graduates who come from disadvantaged communities and are “passionate about helping others in their own backyard”. (Due to the changes in funding for higher education I guess that may change but that is for another thread).
I agree that there is as montague1 says a, “place for theorists”, for me it is important for them to work in partnership with people so that they learn the ongoing and changing reality as well as the theory. In my opinion theory should be driven by this and not be formed by testing predetermined hypotheses. Academics also have a role to play in supporting applications from funding from community groups with evidence from such research; believe me funding bodies love to have research supporting grant applications and academics may also bring money with them in the form of research grants.
I also agree with Antisthenes about the importance of empowering people and that is always my aim. However, one size does not fit all and in my experience building community capacity is not a five minute job, although many people are completely able and need no support this is not always the case - for some people it takes months, and for others years, until they are able to operate completely autonomously, and the reality is some people will always need some measure of support.
I can’t claim to be driven by any faith but my driver is social justice and as Ben says, no matter what the motivation, we all have the same aim – to help people improve their lives.
Spiffy
says...
11:49am Sat 4 Aug 12
...
I guess it depends on who is setting the definition of "successful"...and Mr Field & Friends might disagree...but from you I'll take that as a compliment, thank you :)
...
Now if I could name (what I think was) just one MAJOR influence in growing up and raising my own kids it would boil down to a single word...Consequences.
...
There were ALWAYS consequences for my behaviour. Positive ones when it fell within expected social and legal parameters and negative ones when it didn't. Just as there had been for my parents...on both sides...and their parents before them etc.
...
Just as there was for my husband and his family and now so there are for our children.
...
Money aside in a persons upbringing...d'ya think it can really be *that* simple ? For the most part, I do. It doesn't cost money, either.
ordinary personn
says...
7:35pm Sat 4 Aug 12
antisthenes
says...
7:56pm Sat 4 Aug 12
Here on Wirral for over a decade funny money poured in via Neighbourhood Renewal, Working Neighbourhoods, ESF and ERDF.
The result?
The Council under Labour set up a welter of half baked schemes top slicing millions of pounds to backfill Council funding and fuelling an expansion in poverty industry posts.
Big money being thrown at problems just does not work; not least because the funding in large part enriching the poverty professionals.
There are on Wirral some excellent home grown, comunity based family support services that do fantastic work; with motivated local people who as experts by experience are getting alongside families and giving real deal common sense advice that comes from a lived experience of the issues
Helping people to help themselves and inspiring by example; with no intial assessments, action plans, milestones measures; just honest to goodness support and encouragement.
It works and it does not cost a fortune!
Frank why don't you make a start by championing what already works instead of establishing a high profile rival service at a time when charitable reources are under mounting pressure.
Or is it a legacy thing?
Spiffy
says...
2:20pm Sun 5 Aug 12
...
Agreed. It seems to me that deliberately fostering an amoral no-blame culture has led us down a path where "tolerance" is seen as "acceptance" which then becomes an "entitlement" sometimes aggressively defended.
...
I've had similair experience to your mum (gods rest her soul) but mine resulted in a week long barrage of insults and threats. I stood my ground and they backed down eventually but not everyone wants to risk that nor should they be expected to.
...
That their parents failed miserably in teaching them social graces isn't something the state can fix though no matter how much money is thrown at it. When they break the law, however...it could and doesn't. Frank would do better to focus on *that*, frankly.
...
As far as tolerance and acceptance goes I can't help wonder why on earth 300 pregnant women would hold their hands up and say "Pick me ! I'm poor ! I'll be a bad parent!" then voluntarily subject themselves to this experiment in the first place. Especially when the "help and advice" proffered is widely and freely available anyway.
...
For all it's apparent benevolence this particular project smacks of stigmatising not only the parents but their children and wayyyy before they are even born.
...
There's something really rather nasty about that.
bickyboy
says...
4:50pm Sun 5 Aug 12
-to-be, at least he's keeping these issues in the news and in the public eye rather than pretending they don't exist; or taking the view that "if they do exist, they don't matter" as per the Coalition's current position.
There's a great deal to be said for the argument that the rise of the entitlement culture has weakened our society; weaknesses which have become much more apparent since this government began to withdraw the well established network of generous benefits on which so many people relied to preserve an unsustainable standard of living.
However, the issues created by poverty affect not just the poor but the whole of society except the very rich, and I believe its in our interests to get behind anything which MIGHT make a difference.
12 million quid doesn't sound like a lot of money if it starts to make our society a happier place, and let's face it: you'd be hard pushed to build a decent Velodrome with such a paltry sum, or keep a handful of Remploy factories open for a year or two.
David Scott
says...
7:29pm Sun 5 Aug 12
Spiffy says...
3:24pm Mon 30 Jul 12
...
1) Do we now finally actually have a concise definition of "Poverty" ? If so, what is it ?
...
2) Why do "volunteers"...whom I presume will be at the sharp-end... require 12 million quid of taxpayers cash ?
...
3) Why do "volunteers"...or anyone else involved... require 12 million quid of taxpayers cash to simply duplicate services already provided and paid for by various charities, state-funded "charities" and state authorities ?
...
4) How, precisely, is this vanity project any different to the myriad of current social engineering projects...sorry, "help for those poor people" ?
...
5) What is the Selection Criteria for the unsuspecting 300 mothers about to be pounced on and experimented with...sorry, "invited to take part in a project that *could* have a transformative effect on their child's life chances" ?
...
6) What, precisely, is this "transformative effect" of which you speak ?
...
7) How much *could* it...whatever "it" really is... save the authority...sorry, us taxpayers... in future ? A ballpark figure will do...
...
I have more but that's enough for them to be going on with for now and, of course, I'm not holding my breath for any direct answers.