Skip to main content <#maincontent>
We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!
Internet Archive logo A line drawing of the Internet Archive
headquarters building façade.
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Upload icon An illustration of a horizontal line over an up pointing
arrow. Upload
User icon An illustration of a person's head and chest. Sign up
| Log in
Web icon An illustration of a computer application window
Wayback Machine
Texts icon An illustration of an open book.
Books
Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip.
Video
Audio icon An illustration of an audio speaker.
Audio
Software icon An illustration of a 3.5" floppy disk.
Software
Images icon An illustration of two photographs.
Images
Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape
Donate
Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses.
More
Hamburger icon An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by
interacting with this icon.
Internet Archive Audio
Live Music Archive Librivox Free
Audio
Featured
* All Audio
* This Just In
* Grateful Dead
* Netlabels
* Old Time Radio
* 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
Top
* Audio Books & Poetry
* Computers, Technology and Science
* Music, Arts & Culture
* News & Public Affairs
* Spirituality & Religion
* Podcasts
* Radio News Archive
Images
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Featured
* All Images
* This Just In
* Flickr Commons
* Occupy Wall Street Flickr
* Cover Art
* USGS Maps
Top
* NASA Images
* Solar System Collection
* Ames Research Center
Software
Internet Arcade Console
Living Room
Featured
* All Software
* This Just In
* Old School Emulation
* MS-DOS Games
* Historical Software
* Classic PC Games
* Software Library
Top
* Kodi Archive and Support File
* Vintage Software
* APK
* MS-DOS
* CD-ROM Software
* CD-ROM Software Library
* Software Sites
* Tucows Software Library
* Shareware CD-ROMs
* Software Capsules Compilation
* CD-ROM Images
* ZX Spectrum
* DOOM Level CD
Books
Books to Borrow Open Library
Featured
* All Books
* All Texts
* This Just In
* Smithsonian Libraries
* FEDLINK (US)
* Genealogy
* Lincoln Collection
Top
* American Libraries
* Canadian Libraries
* Universal Library
* Project Gutenberg
* Children's Library
* Biodiversity Heritage Library
* Books by Language
* Additional Collections
Video
TV News Understanding 9/11
Featured
* All Video
* This Just In
* Prelinger Archives
* Democracy Now!
* Occupy Wall Street
* TV NSA Clip Library
Top
* Animation & Cartoons
* Arts & Music
* Computers & Technology
* Cultural & Academic Films
* Ephemeral Films
* Movies
* News & Public Affairs
* Spirituality & Religion
* Sports Videos
* Television
* Videogame Videos
* Vlogs
* Youth Media
Search the history of over 835 billion web pages
on the Internet.
Search the Wayback Machine
Search icon An illustration of a magnifying glass.
Mobile Apps
* Wayback Machine (iOS)
* Wayback Machine (Android)
Browser Extensions
* Chrome
* Firefox
* Safari
* Edge
Archive-It Subscription
* Explore the Collections
* Learn More
* Build Collections
Save Page Now
Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in
the future.
Please enter a valid web address
* About
* Blog
* Projects
* Help
* Donate
* Contact
* Jobs
* Volunteer
* People
* Sign up for free
* Log in
Search metadata
Search text contents
Search TV news captions
Search radio transcripts
Search archived web sites
Advanced Search
* About
* Blog
* Projects
* Help
* Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape
* Contact
* Jobs
* Volunteer
* People
Full text of "Born To Fail 1973
"
See other formats
An Arrow Special
The National Childrens Bureau.
reports on striking differences _,
in the lives of British children “1
‘Bornto al?
Peter Wedge & Hilary Prosser
BORN TO FAIL?
BORN TO FAIL?
Peter Wedge and Hilary Prosser
Photography by G. A. Clark
Arrow Books
in association with
The National Children’s Bureau
Arrow Books Limited
3 Fitzroy Square, London W1
An Imprint of the Hutchinson Group
London Melbourne Sydney Auckland
Wellington Johannesburg Cape Town
and agencies throughout the world
First published by Arrow Books Limited 1973
Text © The National Children’s Bureau 1973
Photographs © G.A. Clark 1973
Diagrams © Hutchinson Publishing Group 1973
Made and printed in Great Britain
by The Stellar Press Limited, Hatfield, Herts
This book is published at a net price and
supplied subject to the Publishers Association
Standard Condition of Sale registered
under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956
ISBN 0 09 908280 2
tH
le
Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Social Conditions of British Children
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
Chances at birth
Cimensions of Disadvantage:
House and neighbourhood
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
Family circumstances
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
ill-health and physical development
Dimensions of Disadvantage :
School experience and parental interest
Dimensions of Disadvantage :
Behaviour and attainment at school
Strategies for the Disadvantaged
Some Suggestions for Further Reading
Acknowledgements
The study of socially disadvantaged children
reported in this book was financed by a grant
from National Children’s Home. We should like
to acknowledge this and also the assistance of
all involved in collecting the data—the children,
parents, teachers, doctors, health visitors and
other local authority staff—and the considerable
help of past and present colleagues at the
National Children’s Bureau.
This book is about children and about Britain. It shows that the
adversities of some boys and girls can extend into almost every
aspect of their health, their family circumstances, and their
educational development; it shows the enormous inequalities of
life for ‘disadvantaged’ compared with ‘ordinary’ children. It
questions some of the priorities, perspectives and seeming
indifference of British society itself.
The information is based on the National Child Development
Study, unique in the world, which is following the progress from
birth to maturity of all the children in England, Scotland and Wales
who were born in the week 3~9 March, 1958. Thus the children
come from every corner of Britain; they are fit and handicapped,
privileged and deprived, talented and retarded. The tatest
information was gathered in 19869 when the children were eleven.
Earlier information was obtained when the children were born and
when they were seven years old.
The collection of all the information at the various ages involved
a host of professionals — doctors, teachers, health visitors,
midwives — who examined and tested the children and interviewed
their parents, who reported on their physical health, educational
progress and behaviour, their families, homes and schools.
For technical reasons, we have included in our special study only
those children on whom virtually complete data were available ;
the number involved was 10,504. These children are themselves
representative of all in the National Child Development Study in
terms of the composition, housing circumstances and income of
their families. Our investigation is reported here in broad terms to
provide an easy reference book; we hope to publish detailed
findings in due course.
The comparisons we make interested and concerned us not
just because they were very ‘significant’ statistically, but because
they show accurately and reliably the conditions in which British
children are growing up today. We set out to discover the facts
about bad housing among children, about low income, about
children in big families or one parent families. Each of these
circumstances can present a hardship for the growing child — but
what of those children in whose lives such hardships combine ?
What has life been like for them? How has it compared with that
of most children — the ‘ordinary’ children? Have they been victims
of some recent unexpected misfortune or has their whole life been
one long struggle against the odds? What of the children’s
development? Have they had more illness? Do they fare as well
at school? If change seems to be needed, how might the
chances for ‘disadvantaged’ children be improved ?
9 introduction
i RE rome
Social Conditions
of British Children
There is no general agreement about what constitutes a ‘social
disadvantage’, but to us three factors seem fundamentally
important:
Family composition, i.e. a large number of children in
the family or only one parent-figure.
Low income.
Poor housing.
Common sense suggests to us that any definition of ‘social
disadvantage’ must take account of these factors, whatever else
may be considered. Each of them identifies a crucial aspect of the
child's experience when growing up.
Family composition
Children living with only one parent-figure at seven or eleven
years of age are likely to have less help or attention from adults
than children with two parent-figures and, other things being
equal, will often be vulnerable emotionally and economically.
Our survey showed one child in 16 (6% of all children in Britain)
was living with only one parent-figure at either or both of these
ages. This group does not include children living with step-
parents, or foster parents, or adopted parents, nor does it include
any children in hospitals, or children’s homes; they were
omitted from our study altogether.
Children in large families are also more likely to have less help
or attention from adults. We found that at the age of seven or
eleven more than one in every six children (18%) lived in a family
where there were five or more children.
Overall, the proportion of eleven-year-old children who came from
a large family or who had only one parent-figure was one in four
(23%).
Low income
To define this we have made use of nationally applied means tests
for free school meals and supplementary benefit. If at the time of
interview of a parent, a child of the family was said to be
11 Social conditions of British Children
<2 Supplementary benefit and free school me
a
Supplementary benefit only
| free schoo! meals only
| not low income
receiving free school meals, or if we learned that in the previous
year the family income had been brought up to a minimum level
by supplementary benefit — then for the purposes of this study the
family was living on a low income.
SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
Supplementary benefit applies only when there is no father or he is not
in work. It is intended to bring the family’s income up to a defined level
which depends on the number of adults, ages of children, etc. The basic rate
of benefit when our information was obtained in 1969 was £13.05p for a
couple with three children aged 13, 11 and 9 years For the same family the
mid-1973 equivalent was £19.05p, about half the average earning of men
in manual work.
FREE SCHOOL MEALS
Free school meals were available to all families on supplementary benefit and
in other circumstances when certain income requirements were met. The
calculation of these is complicated because allowance can be made for some
fourteen items of family expenditure such as rent, fares to work, maintenance
payments, insurance premiums, tax. Where the net income of a three child
family in 1969 fell below £14.95p after allowing for these items one child
received free meals. The equivalent mid-1973 figure was £20.40p.
Our figures will tend to underestimate the proportion of children
living in low income families, principally because families often
fail to take up benefits (through ignorance, fear of stigma, bureau-
cratic confusion and so on). A government report revealed
that in 1966 free school meals were received by only a third of
12 Born to Fail?
eligible children with fathers in full-time work. [Ministry of
Social Security (1967) Circumstances of Families, London,
H.M.S.0.]
Despite the likely underestimate, the low income group among
our children includes one child in every seven (14%).
This ‘snapshot’ is only of children in poverty at eleven. Some
children who had spent a part of their earlier childhood in poverty
would have moved out of it by the time our information was
obtained. The needs and resources of a family vary considerably
over time. Some families become better off, perhaps as older
brothers and sisters begin work ; others become worse off,
perhaps as further children are born. Certainly, we can be sure
that more children than our one in seven will have lived in a low
income family at some stage.
How far the prevalence of poverty among eleven- year-olds is
typical of that among all children of any age will depend on
variables like the ages of other children in the family, family
health, employment circumstances, and so on. If our figure for
eleven-year-alds were to be typical of all children under
compulsory school leaving age — approximately 14 million — it
would imply that by our crude definition alone as many as two
million children were living in flow income families.
Poor housing
The standard of accommodation considered tolerable for growing
children will vary. We have taken as inadequate those homes
where the family was living at a density of more than 14 persons
per room, or where there was no hot water supply for the family’s
exclusive use.
Our definition of overcrowding is quite stringent since it
implies that a husband, wife and four children could occupy a
living room, dining-kitchen and two bedrooms and just fail to be
overcrowded. Yet one in six of the children (18%) was found
to be in an overcrowded home either at seven or at eleven.
Lacking sole use of a hot water supply is a more stringent
indicator of poor housing than lacking other such amenities
in the home. Of those children in families without hot water,
approximately four-fifths were also without a bathroom, and four-
fifths were also without an indoor lavatory. Even so, at seven or
eleven years of age one in eleven children (9%) lived in a family
that was without the exclusive use of a hot water supply.
Bes overcrowded and tack of hot water
overcrowded only
[ | lacking hot water
Noi in poor housing
On this basis we found that by the age of eleven nearly one in
four of all children (23%) was living or had been living a few years
earlier in poor housing.
Just as some children will move in and out of poverty during
their childhood, some will also move in and out of poor housing.
Our ‘snapshots’ at seven and eleven take no account of those
who may have been poorly housed for substantial periods,
14 Born to Fail?
but not at the time our information was obtained. To this
extent our figures are an underestimate of the numbers of
eleven-year-old children who have lived in bad housing. And if
more eleven-year-olds have lived in bad housing than, say,
five-year-olds, fewer of them have been badly housed than have
fifteen-year-olds.
It seems reasonable to infer that our figures are not an over-
estimate and that there are therefore at least 33 million boys and
girls under compulsory school age who have spent part of their
childhood in bad housing.
How many children altogether ?
So far these findings have shown that large numbers of children
fell into each of these important categories. But this is only part
of the picture. Of great concern also is a) the number of children
included in one or other of these groups, and then b) the number
of them who are in more than one group. The picture they
present is, of course, representative of children who were eleven
years old in 1969.
The facts speak for themselves:
More than one child in every three (36%) was in either a
one parent-figure family, or a large family, or a low
income family, or had been badly housed.
Nearly one in three (30%) of all children was from a low
income or poorly housed family.
15 Social Conditions of British Children
Soe eee SS ee Se Ur ee ee a wn ee
Socially disadvantaged children
So far we have described none of these children as socially
disadvantaged. We have reserved this description for that group
who were in all of the three categories mentioned above. They
were thus in either a one-parent or large family, and they were
badly housed, and they were in a low income family. Of course,
the proportion of children included in all three categories was
much smaller. Nevertheless, it amounted to one child in every
16 (6%).
In our view, the circumstances of such children were extreme.
What must it be like for a child to live in a large, overcrowded
family that has a low income? Or to live on the poverty line with
only one parent and in a home with a lack of basic amenities ?
Yet on average it will have been the experience of two children
in every British classroom.
Where socially disadvantaged children are found
One child in 16 was the proportion of disadvantaged among all
children in Britain, but in individual regions the prevalence varied.
in Southern England there was only one in 47 children. In Wales
and in Northern England, on the other hand, there was one in
every 12.
But the most disturbing proportion was found in Scotland,
where one in every 10 children was disadvantaged.
11% of the eleven-year-old British children lived in Scotland,
but 19% of disadvantaged children were found there.
ss
OQ fow income family 14.3% ey disadvantaged 6.2%
bad housing 22.7% ordinary (none of these) 63.9%
i} one parent or large family 23.0%
17 Social Conditions of British Children
SS eee Saat
DIMENSIONS OF DISADVANTAGE
While there are neighbourhoods in which the proportion of
disadvantaged children is higher, the average over the whole of
England, Scotland and Wales is one in 16. Although the family and
material circumstances of this group were extreme, only a small
part of their total measurable disadvantage has been mentioned.
To reveal their plight more completely, we shall make a number
of comparisons between the ‘disadvantaged’ and our large group
of ‘ordinary’ children. These ‘ordinary’ children comprised all
those in our study who fell into neither the one parent family, nor
the large family, nor the low income, nor the poorly housed
categories. ‘Ordinary’ children account for two-thirds (64%) of all
British eleven- year-olds. Hence as a group they are by no means
exceptionally well-off or living in well-appointed homes. They
are a large and representative group of what politicians,
magistrates, teachers, doctors and so on might regard as
‘ordinary’ boys and girls. Throughout this report we are calling
this group ordinary children.
In presenting these comparisons we are not seeking social
research explanations. We are essentially concerned to describe
conditions and circumstances at birth, in the home, at school.
It can be no consolation to disadvantaged children that one reason
for their living in poor housing is that their families have a low
income. The harsh fact is that their families are struggling to live
in poor housing and have the further problem of a low income to
add to their difficulties.
Our concern is to describe quantitatively something of the range
of disadvantages that pile one on to another to depress body and
spirit, hope and expectation.
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
Chances at birth
A number of pregnancy and birth circumstances are known to be
associated with mortality in infancy and with physical and
educational development later in childhood. They are related to
physical and mental handicaps, health, growth and attainment at
school.
There ts, for example, a greatly increased risk of birth
complications and handicaps among children born to mothers who
have already had four or more pregnancies. One in three of the
disadvantaged fell into this category.
Disadvantaged children were also much more likely to be born
to teenage mothers (one in 14) compared with ordinary children
(one in 25); and one in five of them had mothers who smoked
heavily during pregnancy (ten or more cigarettes per day)
compared with one in ten of the ordinary group. The children of
young mothers and of those who smoke heavily are known to be
additionally vulnerable to handicaps and poor development.
The best possible pre-natal! care is therefore particularly
importani for the group of disadvantaged children so that their
progress in the womb can be effectively monitored and any
problems dealt with appropriately. Yet, in practice, 70% of their
mothers had not made their first visit for antenatal consultation by
the 15th week of pregnancy. Among ordinary children the
proportion was 42%.
69.7%
90 antenatal less than 5 teenage mather mother smoking — mother is less
visit before 15 antenatal visits heavyily during than § feet
weeks altogether pregnancy tai
ee
21 Chances at birth
5.2%
eee |
Ee “23 disadvantaged
ts! ordinary
Further, one in ten mothers among the disadvantaged mace
fewer than five antenatal visits during the whole of their
pregnancy compared with one in 33 of the mothers of the ordinary
group.
When it came to arranging for the delivery of their baby, one in
40 of the mothers of the disadvantaged made no booking whatever,
either for a hospital or a home confinement. Among mothers of
ordinary children the proportion of unbooked deliveries was cniy
one in 250.
The disadvantaged children, therefore, were vulnerable before
birth not only because more of their mothers had had several
previous pregnancies, were young, and had smoked heavily.
They were also vulnerable because their mothers sought less
medical attention for their developing offspring. In view of all
these hazards it is hardly surprising that disadvantaged children
were less likely to be within the normal range of weight at birth
and were more likely to be born prematurely. One in 12 of them
weighed 53lb. or less compared with one in 20 of ordinary
children, and one in four was born before the 39th week of
pregnancy compared with one in six ordinary children.
What all this reveals is that compared with ordinary children the
disadvantaged group — identified at eleven by their social circum-
stances — were at the time of birth a/ready facing substantially
diminished prospects of normal development of their chances in
life.
Without a particularly favourable environment in infancy and
childhood what hope do they have?
22 Born to Fail?
ey
s.__ 2 ere ea
Wa Ws TSAO cee ce
SA VA GSR OS cx
a - 5
A k
Cm Hy .
ATEA SA 403 FR 1S GE ee
J %
4
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
House and neighbourhood
The genera! amenities of the home and its immediate
neighboushood can affect children’s development in various ways.
They can restrict the child’s opportunity for investigation and
exploration, for secure but independent play, for ‘space to dream’,
within the house itself and outside. But a dearth of space and
amenities not only affects the children directly, it usually
implies extra strain on other members of the family, with
consequent indirect effects upon the children.
How much extra effort is required of a mother who must heat a
kettle for every drop of hot water needed to keep children clean
and healthy, clothes washed, utensils germ-free ?
Accommodation
One in six of the disadvantaged children was, at eleven, living in
a family without the sole use of a hot water supply. Further, one
in six of them was similarly without a bathroom, and one in four
without an indoor lavatory. Among ordinary children the
24.7%
lacking bathroom lacking indoor lavatory
EE] aisadvantages
DD) orainary
25 House and neighbourhood
proportions were respectively none (by definition), one in 45,
and one in 16.
Fewer of the disadvantaged children lived in a house. One in
six of them was in a maisonette, a flat, rooms or a caravan
compared with one in fifteen ordinary children.
The shortage of space at home is reflected in the number
sharing a bedroom. More than 90% of the disadvantaged
shared their room compared with less than half the ordinary group;
three out of ten among the disadvantaged shared with at least
three others. Although many children might prefer to share their
bedroom fewer of the better housed group do so. Many more of
the disadvantaged would doubtless have a room to themselves if
the possibility were open to them.
The same must surely be true of sharing a bed, which brings an
inevitably increased likelihood of disturbed sleep and of cross-
infection and which, like room sharing, was far more common
among the disadvantaged group. Over half of them were reported
to share with someone else, compared with one in 11 ordinary
children.
Furthermore, one in 22 of the disadvantaged children both
shared and wet their bed — at eleven years of age! And if we but
knew how many of the brothers or sisters wet the shared bed, no
doubt this picture would look even more disturbing ; some of the
‘dry’ disadvantaged children would also be found to be sleeping in
a wet bed. As it is, this one in 22 represents a staggeringly high
proportion who both shared and wet the bed. It compares with
one in about 250 among the ordinary children.
Even when disadvantaged children were in bed, the nature of
their sleep was /ikely to be very different from that of ordinary
children.
26 Born to Fail?
Leisure amenities
Since disadvantaged children lived in poorer accommodation than
ordinary children and probably more lived in inner city areas, it
was surprising to find that outdoor facilities — parks, fields or
recreation grounds — were neither less available for them nor less
frequently used.
However, disadvantaged children were less likely to have access
to swimming baths or to indoor play centres, clubs and the like,
or to take advantage of them where they were reported to be
available. Also, fewer disadvantaged children were said to have
access to a public library, or to use it when available. Nevertheless,
half the disadvantaged group were reported by their parents to use
a public fibrary at least ‘sometimes’.
Parents’ feelings
Despite their poor physical accommodation, two-thirds of the
disadvantaged group's parents said that they were ‘very satisfied’
or ‘fairly satisfied’ with their accommodation. Yet most of them
lived in homes that by the standards of most people in Britain
were ill-equipped or far too small.
No doubt some parents will have been expressing satisfaction
with the results of their home-making rather than with the house
itself. Others will have felt ‘satisfied’ because their neighbours
were in similar poor housing, and provided the standard of
comparison. Perhaps some were ‘satisfied’ with their current
housing compared with their own previous accommodation. A
proportion will have been ‘satisfied’ with their housing because to
be dissatisfied constituted a threat to self-esteem.
One’s home is a reflection and an expression of oneself; openly
to show dissatisfaction with it can involve self-criticism, shame,
and embarrassment. Deprivation itself can diminish aspirations
and expectations. Yet those at the bottom of the housing scale
need to protect and preserve their shreds of self-esteem. Why
should they publicly recognize the inadequacy of their
accommodation ?
That two-thirds of the disadvantaged were satisfied with their
housing is no justification for society not offering something better.
Among the disadvantaged who were dissatisfied (one-third) the
most frequently expressed reasons were ‘shortage of space’ and
‘lack of comfort’, i.e. over-crowding and lack of amenities, one or
both of which had been the experience of every disadvantaged
child’s family.
29 House and neighbourhood
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
Family circumstances
So far we have seen how the group of disadvantaged children
were vulnerable at birth and had been growing up in poor physical
surroundings. This might not have mattered too much if life at
home were all that it might have been — happy, secure, healthy,
stimulating. The home, we know, plays a vitally important part not
only in the formation of character and personality, but in
influencing children’s physical development and most aspects of
their ability to learn.
All of the children in our comparisons whether disadvantaged
or not were living with their family at seven and at eleven years.
Left out of the reckoning were any living in children’s homes,
specia! residential institutions and the like.
Social and educational background, and reading habits
Judged by their father’s occupation, very few disadvantaged
children were living in middle-class homes at eleven. Only one in
23 had fathers in professional, managerial, technical or other
non-manual occupations. Among the ordinary children two in five
were from middle-class families.
We looked back a generation to the social class of the
grandparents of the two groups of children. Very few
disadvantaged children had middle-class grandparents, and even
among those from middle-class homes, only a few had middle-class
grandparents, i.e. most of their grandfathers had been in manual
occupations. Among the ordinary group, on the other hand, there
were many more with middle-class grandparents; and among
those children from middle-class homes, a substantial core had
middle-class grandparents, i.e. most of the grandfathers had been
in non-manual occupations. Thus the families of the middle-class
disadvantaged group had quite different social origins from those
of the middle-class ordinary group.
One in twenty of the fathers of disadvantaged children had
stayed on at school beyond the minimum leaving age compared
with one father in four of the ordinary group. Although more of
the mothers stayed on, when considering the difference between
the two groups, the pattern among them was much the same.
The influence of parent's social class and education was
31 Family circumstances
reflected in their reading habits. Newspaper or magazine reading
was a daily event for the mothers and fathers of two in five of the
disadvantaged children but for three-quarters of the ordinary group.
The reading of books or technical journals followed the same
pattern, and with fathers reading more than mothers. However,
one parent's reading pattern tends to reflect the other's. Among
those children with two parents, two in every five of the
disadvantaged were from homes where both parents ‘never’ or
‘hardly ever’ read a book. This compared with one in six ordinary
children.
Fewer disadvantaged children were thus from middle-class
homes, fewer of them had middle-class grandparents, fewer had
parents who had stayed on at school beyond the minimum age and
fewer of their parents read newspapers or books.
Use of personal social services
Social services exist to provide help for various groups in the
community who are under particular stress of one kind or another.
We should therefore expect disadvantaged children’s families to
make more use of them than ordinary families. Their life is beset not
only by more problems of overcrowding, poor amenities and low
income but with more difficulties of almost every kind. Although
these difficulties interact one with another, as we have shown, they
also accumulate.
One group of children whose home life had clearly been disrupted
were those who at some time had been in the care of a local
authority or other children’s organisation. These were children
whose parents either could not or would not provide an adequate
home for them. Taking a child into care and away from his
family is so undesirable that Parliament decided in 1963 that local
councils must ‘promote the welfare of children by diminishing the
need to receive children into care or keep them in care...’ Yet,
adopted children excluded, one in nine of the disadvantaged
group had been in care at some stage before the age of eleven,
compared with one in 100 among the ordinary group.
0.9%
disadvantaged ordinary
Other members of the families may also have had contact with
social services, and the parents were asked about this when the
children were eleven. This is what their answers revealed about
the four years prior to interview:
Children’s Departments: used by one in ten of the
families of the disadvantaged children and one in 300
among those of ordinary children.
Mental Health Departments: contacted by proportionately
three times as many families of the disadvantaged as of
the ordinary children (one in 22 compared with one in 67).
Education Departments: of the disadvantaged, one in six
mentioned some special help, and of the ordinary, one in
100.
33 Family circumstances
Probation Service: mentioned by one in eleven of the
disadvantaged and one in 300 of the ordinary.
While these figures show that the services were much more used
by the group likely to be in greater need, the extent of the
differences between the groups is striking.
It appears that among ail families with children, the families of our
relatively small disadvantaged group (one in 16) accounted for
two-fifths of all those who called on Children’s Departments and on
the Probation Service. The families of our large ordinary group
(two out of three of all children) accounted for one-sixth of
‘callers’ on the same social services.
Thus a reduction in the numbers of disadvantaged could have a
great impact on the social services.
1f 2% of children were no longer in the disadvantaged group and
as a result fewer of the families called on the social services, then
we would expect there to be a reduction of between 11% and
14% in the number of ‘calls’ from families received by the
Probation Service and by Children’s Departments (now Social
Work or Socia! Services Departments), i.e. there would be a
reduction of up to one-seventh.
Family ill-health
The extent of chronic or serious disability or ill-health among the
children’s parents revealed their need for help of various kinds.
Among the disadvantaged group, one in nine of the mothers and
19.6%
8.7%
20-49 $0-52
numbes of weeks father off work sick im past year
(0)
[EE] cisacvantazec
[ Jerainary
34 Born to Fail?
one in six of the fathers was assessed to have such a chronic or
serious condition. Among the ordinary group there were one in 20
and one in 22. Thus although this in itself is a very high figure,
the mothers of the disadvantaged children were twice as likely
and their fathers were four times as likely to be chronically ill or
seriously disabled as those of the ordinary group.
Again, the families apparently under the greatest stress were
having to cope with an additional difficulty — a situation further
confirmed by absences from work.
Absence of father from work through sickness or
unemployment
The figures relate only to those children with a father-figure but
are so striking as to require little comment.
Of the disadvantaged, half the fathers had been off work
through sickness at some time in the 12 months prior to
interviews compared with only a quarter of the ordinary
group. One in ten of the disadvantaged had a father off
work sick for the whole year; only one in 500 of the
ordinary group. One out of three of the disadvantaged
group mentioned unemployment at some time during
the year prior to interview compared with one out of 30
among the ordinary group. Of the disadvantaged, one in
twelve had a father who was unemployed for the whole
year; of the ordinary group there was one in 3,000.
10.8%
8.5%
0
5-19 20-49 50-52
number of weeks father off work unemployed in past year
disadvantaged
[__Jordinary
35 Family circumstances
Use of social security benefits
Families qualify for national insurance and other social security
benefits when unemployment or sickness prevents the earning of
income through work. At an interview, when the children in our
study were eleven, the parents were asked about the sources of the
family income in the preceding 12 months.
Among the disadvantaged children's families, three in ten had no
income whatsoever from work in the year, one in three had
received some sickness benefit, one in four had had unemployment
benefit, and one in 25 had been on a disability pension. Half of
them had received supplementary benefit — one of the criteria for
their selection.
The ordinary group differed sharply. Of their families, none had
received supplementary benefit (by definition), only one in six
mentioned sickness benefit (half as many as among the
disadvantaged), only one in 50 had had unemployment benefit
(less than a twelfth of the disadvantaged figure), and one in 50
had been on a disability pension (again, half as many as among the
disadvantaged).
The greatly increased dependence of their families on these social
security benefits confirms the vulnerabitity of the disadvantaged
group in particular and the importance of such benefits to them.
However, the benefit rates are not generally set at a level that
enables the long-term sick or the long-term unemployed to live
without hardship.
But the problems are not only economic. Most people feel
ambivalent about dependence. They would prefer to be self-
supporting. That is why it is so often unnecessary and so often
unhelpful when the wider society criticises social security
recipients for supposedly ‘scrounging’. It is criticism that is
frequently unjustified, but also it creates an atmosphere of stigma
that adds to the burdens of those who have no choice but to be
dependent.
Our findings underline yet again the difficulties confronting many
of the families of the disadvantaged group.
37 Family circumstances
Pecerenee caramels
‘
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
Hil-health and physical development
The physical development of the disadvantaged children by eleven
will have depended on the groups of factors that we have so far
examined — on birth circumstances, physical environment and life
with the family. In each respect the disadvantaged children were
worse off. They began fife with a deficit and the difficult social
circumstances in which they grew up are hardly likely to have
helped them to overcome their vulnerabilities at birth.
Height
This provides a practical and reliable indicator of general physical
develonmeni and as such offers a means of comparing the relative
health of groups of children. It has long been known that
children’s height ts closely associated with social circumstances.
Children born to mothers who had already had several pregnancies ;
children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy, or whose
mothers were short or young at the time of birth; children from
lower working-class homes or with a number of younger brothers
and sisters — these children are known to be on average shorter
throughout childhood than those not subject to such
circumstances.
a
8
P
80,0)
t 0:0: :0:0:
NL
cs
up to a7 over y7° cer d' tt
ishort) upto 4 11" (tail)
(medium)
zg
2528 disaci antagod
—J oruinary
39 {Il-health and physical development
“eo
Each one of these factors was more common amongst the
disadvantaged than the ordinary children and it is therefore not
surprising to find that they were also shorter. Children whose
height was no more than 4ft. 7ins. account for a fifth of British
eleven-year-olds; among them were found two-fifths of the
disadvantaged but only one-sixth of ordinary children.
Use of child health services
Just as antenatal care is provided free nationally to help preserve
the health of the pregnant mother and her unborn child, facilities
are also available for the infant, young toddler and school child.
When the children in our study were seven their mothers were
asked about the use of such facilities. The replies indicate that one
in three of the disadvantaged children never attended an infant
welfare clinic, whereas among ordinary children only one in five
was a non-attender. Only one-third of disadvantaged but two-
thirds of the ordinary children attended regularly. The local health
clinic staff will therefore have had less opportunity to detect
potentially handicapping conditions at the earliest ages. Some
necessary remedies might therefore have been delayed — with all
that this would involve for additional suffering and less complete
recovery. Health care services delivered to the children in their
homes try to compensate for this, but they are more expensive and
time-consuming.
Mothers were also asked about the immunisation of their child
against polio and diphtheria, and vaccination against smallpox.
Compared with ordinary children the disadvantaged group were
less likely to have been protected against each of these serious
diseases. One in eight was unprotected against polio, one in
seven against diphtheria and two in five against smallpox. The
proportions of the ordinary children not protected were one in 40
(against polio), one in 30 (against diphtheria) and one in five
(against smallpox).
{IIness, and absence from schoo!
At eleven, disadvantaged children were, according to their mothers,
absent from school appreciably more because of ill-health or
emotional disorder than ordinary children. One in eleven
disadvantaged was absent for between one and three months,
and one in fifty for more than three months in the year preceding
the collection of our data. These figures compare with one in 25
ordinary children away for one to three months, and one in 250
away for more than three months. !t seems likely that a part of the
40 Born to Fail?
difference between the two groups is associated with a greater
prevalence among the disadvantaged group of infections generally
and of respiratory infections, such as coughs and colds, in
particular.
However, even the more serious illnesses which occur
infrequently are more often found among the disadvantaged group.
One in 16 of them was affected by rheumatic fever, infectious
hepatitis, meningitis or tuberculosis compared with one in 32
ordinary children.
Accidents
Here too the disadvantaged were more affected. By the age of
eleven the children were more likely than ordinary children to
have received a burn, scald or serious flesh wound as a result of an
accident at home.
These findings about the disadvantaged children are consistent
with their living in cramped accommodation and with poor
amenities. The boiling kettle will more often be knocked over if
space for movement is restricted and if, as the family's source of
hot water, the kettle is often in use. One in seven disadvantaged
children had had a burn or scald compared with one in eleven
41 Hl-health and physical development
ordinary children. One in 25 of the disadvantaged had received at
home a flesh wound requiring ten or more stitches, a proportion
four times greater than that among ordinary children. Again,
shortage of space could explain some of this difference in prevalence
between the two groups of children.
Vision, hearing and speech
t{mpairment of any one of these three functions which are
obviously essential for normal effective communication between
people represents a handicap to the developing child.
As a result of the tests at eleven of visual acuity and squinting, the
examining doctors identified those children with a visual
impairment whether or not this was likely to interfere with norma!
schooling and everyday functioning. Such a visual impairment was
found among one in six disadvantaged children. There was no
difference between them and the ordinary group.
This was not the case with hearing impairment — one of the most
handicapping of conditions, which, if severe, can have a
crippling effect on communication and so on a child's capacity for
learning. Tests showed that marked hearing loss was suffered four
times more frequently by disadvantaged children as against the
ordinary group (one in 35 compared with only one in 140). Some
of the increased prevalence among the disadvantaged will have
resulted from ear infections. These in turn are likely to be more
common among the disadvantaged because of over-crowding,
bed-sharing and so on.
Difficulties of speech were also found to be more common
among disadvantaged children. Compared with the ordinary group
they made more speech errors when repeating five short test
sentences. One in 22 of them mispronounced four or more words,
out of a possible 41 compared with one in 66 of the ordinary
children. Whatever the explanations for poor speech (faulty
learning, impaired hearing, etc.), it clearly can complicate personal
communication and affect a child’s ability to function normally in
the classroom, which in turn will serve to depress the educational
chances of the disadvantaged compared with those of ordinary
children.
Special educational treatment
Children who are thought to be unable to take advantage of
normal schooling because of some specific handicap (e.g.
blindness, deafness, sub-normality) are said to require ‘special
educational treatment’.
42 Born to Fail?
ee ee
By the age of eleven, one in 14 of the disadvantaged children
was either receiving or was waiting to receive special education
compared with only one in 80 ordinary children. This wide
difference is accounted for almost entirely by the high proportion
of disadvantaged children said to be educationally subnormal (one
in 20) ; among ordinary children there was only one in 150.
Disadvantaged children are thus over-represented in special
schools in general, and in schools for the educationally subnormal
in particular. Some of this subnormality might have been avoided
if parents had been more free of the stress discussed in earlier
sections which is associated with poor health, crowded conditions,
low income, unemployment and so on. With more freedom from
parental stress, perhaps there would have been fewer of those
children whose educational subnormality might be ascribed to lack
of home stimulation. The need for special educational treatment
that arises because of overcrowding, poor amenities, low
incomes, etc., is surely avoidable.
43 W-health and physical development
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
School experience and parental interest
Pre-school and early experience
The crucial importance of the first five years in a child's
development ts well recognised. Where home conditions limit
stimulation and appropriate play then nursery provision of various
kinds becomes particularly important. The disadvantaged children
would therefore seem to have been in greater need than ordinary
children — but fewer of them had any form of ‘pre-school
experience’ (one in seven compared with one in five), whether
this experience was at a day nursery, nursery class, nursery
school or playgroup.
In addition, the disadvantaged group were on average older
when they began full-time compulsory schooling. They were also
less likely to have had any part-time attendance. Since it is known
that starting at school before the age of five rather than after
is associated with higher achievement at seven, it seems that in
terms of attainment the disadvantaged get off to a relatively
poor start.
Schoo! conditions at eleven
Some measure of the physical condition of schools attended by
children in the study when they were eleven was obtained by
asking the age of the main buildings. We found no difference
in the overall proportions of children attending schools of various
ages; for example one in four of each group was at a school
built before 1890.
Concern is often expressed about the high rate of teacher
turn-over in some schools. We thought that this would be more
common among disadvantaged children of whom more would be
living in the less attractive inner-city areas. But it was not so.
There was no difference in teacher turn-over between dis-
advantaged and ordinary children when we considered the
proportion of teachers in schools for less than one year, for one
or two years, or even for more than ten years.
Disadvantaged children were not more likely to be affected
by higher teacher turn-over than the ordinary group. Whether this
reflects education policy, the concern of the teaching profession
45 School experience and parental interest
for the less privileged, or whatever, this is a second example of
educational provision — age of school building being the other —
which did not discriminate against the disadvantaged.
The number of pupils in a class is held by the teaching
profession to be an important factor in children’s learning. Small
classes are thought to be better although research has tended
perversely to link higher measured attainment with larger classes.
Clearly, however, teachers feel better about their working
conditions where there are smaller classes, and arguably this ought
to lead to improved education for children. Whatever the pros
and cons of this class-size controversy, more disadvantaged
children were in smaller classes and fewer in larger classes than
were ordinary children. Even when we excluded those needing
special education, we found that one in three of the disadvantagec
was in classes of 30 or less compared with about one in five
ordinary children. At the other extreme one in six of the
disadvantaged was in a class of more than 40 compared with
one in five of the ordinary children.
Parental interest and aspiration
The active interest of parents in their children’s education is
associated with higher measured attainment. One indication of
this active interest is the extent to which parents visit the schooi
to discuss their child; when the children were eleven their
34.7%
disadvantaged ordinary
46 Born to Fail?
teachers were asked about any such visits by parents in the
previous twelve months.
Neither the mother nor the father had visited the school of three
in every five children in the disadvantaged group compared
with only one in three of the ordinary group.
Where some meeting did take place between teachers and
parents of disadvantaged children, it usually involved the mother
only; very few fathers saw the child's teacher on their own,
and the proportion of children whose parents visited the school
together was as small as one in thirteen.
This failure to visit school must to some extent reflect a lack
of parents’ interest in their child’s education — through apathy,
unconcern or a real sense of a divorce of interest between home
and school — but they imply much more than this.
Parents will not go out of their way to talk with teachers
if they fee! that by doing so they run the risk of feeling ill at ease,
embarrassed, or criticised, even implicitly. Teachers represent
authority and parents who have unhappy experiences of authority
figures or unhappy memories of their own school days will be
reluctant to meet teachers. This is not to say that they are
necessarily without interest in their children’s future. Recent
research in some educational priority areas found high concern
by parents for children’s development and a great deal of interest
in education — but that this was often inappropriately or even
unhelpfully expressed. (Halsey, A. H. (ed.) (1972) Educational
Priority. Vol. 1. EPA Problems and Policies, London, H.M.S.O.)
In our study parents were asked whether they wished their
child to leave school at the minimum possible age or to stay on
longer. Even among the disadvantaged only one in six said that
they wanted their child to leave as soon as possible (although
there were only one in 30 among the ordinary group). Also,
two-thirds of parents of the disadvantaged (compared with 17
out of 20 of the ordinary) said that they would like their child
to continue with further education after leaving school. These
parental aspirations for children’s education contrast sharply with
the proportion actually staying on at school or receiving further
education. Perhaps they are unrealistic aspirations — but they do
not suggest a widespread lack of interest.
49 School experience and parental interest
OOOO
ee
<=
Dimensions of Disadvantage:
Behaviour and attainment at school
Behaviour at school!
Grading people's behaviour is bedevilled by technical problems
of assessment and by value judgments about what are acceptable
differences. When, for example, does politeness become fawning,
independence become selfishness, shyness become withdrawal,
or non-conformity become hostility ?
On the basis of a list of descriptions completed by teachers,
just under half of the disadvantaged children were rated ‘well
adjusted’ compared with almost three-quarters of the ordinary group.
At the other extreme, one in four of the disadvantaged was
‘maladjusted’ but only one in eleven of the ordinary children.
Despite the circumstances of their upbringing, the
disadvantaged seemed remarkably ‘well adjusted’. Some might
argue that this is a measure of their conformity to teachers’
standards and that this kind of ‘good adjustment’ is not in the
long-term interests of children if it means that they will tolerate
bad conditions when adults rather than loudly assert their
72.4%
45.6%
28.5%
25.9%
18.4% 3
9.2%
x
BRUT ENS os aa
well adjusted disturbed maladjusted
(0-9) (10-19) (20 and over)
idisadvantaged
J ordinary
51 Behaviour and attainment at school
—————
a
resentment. Should children be ‘educated’ to put up with their lot
in later life, or should they be encouraged to find a means of
changing their circumstances ? This raises a fundamental question
about the purpose of education (in its widest sense) particularly
for the disadvantaged.
Educational attainment
At the age of eleven the children were tested in maths and in
reading. Unsurprisingly, disadvantaged children did less well than
ordinary children on each test. The averages of their reading and
maths scores were lower; more of them scored in the lower ranges,
fewer of them scored in the higher ranges.
One in six of them was receiving special help within the normai
school for ‘educational backwardness’ compared with one in 16
of the ordinary group.
More of the disadvantaged children than expected (one in
seven) were mentioned by their teachers as having ‘outstanding
ability’ of some kind or other — in science, sport, music, chess, etc.
One in four ordinary children was mentioned and, of these, two
out of three scored highly on the maths test and two out of
three scored highly on the reading test. Of the disadvantaged who
had ‘outstanding ability’ only one in three scored highly on these
tests.
41.5%
medium good
ability ability
ty disadvantaged
fe ordinary
52 Born to Fail?
56.4%
40.1%
38.3% Q
21.7%
Higher achievement among the disadvantaged children
Although we calculated that, on average, disadvantaged children
were some 33 years behind ordinary children in their reading
scores this does not mean that all of them did worse than all the
ordinary children. In fact one in seven of them did better on our
reading test than half the ordinary group. The same was true for
maths.
As expected, some disadvantaged and some ordinary children
were found at the highest and at the lowest levels of measured
attainment. Being disadvantaged does not of itself explain why
children do less well. We wondered whether differences in the
attainment of disadvantaged children were associated with the
same factors that are known to differentiate the attainment
of children in general or whether particular factors might be relevant
for one group but not for another. To this end we examined
the average reading scores of groups of disadvantaged and
ordinary children. tn all, 40 factors were considered.
The preliminary analysis of birth, housing, school, health and
family circumstances suggests broadly that:
a) many factors are associated with differences in reading
attainment among both the ordinary and the disadvantaged
groups,
b) some factors show differences among the ordinary but not
among the disadvantaged children,
c) no single factor shows differences among the disadvantaged
children and not among the ordinary group.
53 Behaviour and attainment at school
ad
Further, where an association is found in both groups of children,
then it is never greater among the disadvantaged ; in some cases
the difference is greater among ordinary children.
There is no indication here of a new ‘magic formula’ that could
greatly improve the attainment of disadvantaged children
specifically. Rather it seems that with a few exceptions, factors
known to be relevant to children generally are relevant also to the
disadvantaged.
Social class and education
Among children generally, the single factor most strongly associated
with high attainment is social class. This is not surprising since,
apart from any other advantage middle-class children may have,
the education system itself contains a ‘bias’ towards them in that
the language used, the behaviour expected and the teachers
themselves reflect middle class standards. Ability and attainment
tests of various kinds also reflect the principle that a middle-class
54 Born to Fail ?
way of thinking or doing things Is right and should be adopted.
Many in the field of education now question the validity of
inculcating middle-class values; but whatever the merits of this
argument, schools tend to be middle-class ‘institutions’ in which
most of the pupils are working class. Those whose life at home
incorporates the same values, language and behaviour as the
school are the pupils most likely to ‘do well’.
Only one in 25 of the disadvantaged was middle-class; the
overwhelming majority was working-class. Hence part of their
failure to ‘succeed’ arises from the differences between their own
language, values and experiences of life and these implicitly or
explicitly put forward by the school.
The need for change in the relationship of home and school in
this respect is emphasised by the Halsey report on educational
priority areas: ’... not only must parents understand schools,
schools must also understand the families and environments
in which the children live’. Or again, when arguing for a
curriculum appropriate to the child’s community: ‘Teachers need
55 Behaviour and attainment at school
t &
eoreneaorercss— qaanphaat
57
to be sensitive to the social and moral climate in which their
children are growing up.’ The report argues for the application
of teaching to ‘a compassionate, tolerant and critical examination
of all social, political and moral issues,’ but regards this as ‘the
highest hurdle along the road to a community-orientated curri-
culum. !t could take years and it will require a generous and
sympathetic change of heart, not only among educational
authorities but in society at large.’
A change to such a curriculum would have major implications
for the disadvantaged. But this is likely to be a long and slow
process — and changes are necessary not only in education if
disadvantaged children are to be significantly helped.
Behaviour and attainment at school
aoe
then ct a
Strategies for the Disadvantaged
Our study has shown a catalogue of vast differences between the
way of life of disadvantaged and ordinary children. !ndividual
findings have perhaps prompted little surprise, but what is striking
is the massive accumulation of burdens afflicting disadvantaged
children and their families, and which they are frequently expected
somehow to overcome. Yet it should cause no surprise that so
many of these children fail to ‘behave’, fail to ‘learn’ and fail to
‘succeed’. The message of these pages has been rather: what do
we expect ?
One in sixteen, the disadvantaged group, suffered adversity after
adversity, heaped upon them from before birth; their health was
poorer, their school attainment lower and their physica!
environment worse in almost every way than that of ordinary
children.
Three approaches for helping disadvantaged children are otten
put forward — through social work, education and a redistribution
of material resources for families. How might they ease the problem ?
Social work
First, families can be supported by social workers so that they cope
more adequately with the demands of life. One criticism of this
approach is that for many families these demands of life are totally
unreasonable, and so stressful that no parent could possibly cope
without a serious effect on them and their children. It is also said
that by providing social workers to help these families to ‘adjust’
to their situation, society is neglecting the real problem. This, so
the argument runs, is the lack of decent housing and of sufficient
income. It is not that the parents are ‘inadequate’ but that their
problems are too numerous and overwhelming, and that this is not
their fault; they should not be expected to cope.
A criticism of this argument is that it overstates the case. The
point is that if the stress caused by low income and poor housing
were removed, social workers and others in the helping professions
would be able to concentrate on the much smaller remaining
group whose problems are not strongly associated with their
material circumstances.
59 Strategies for the Disadvantaged
Education
How relevant to this situation is the second strategy — to improve
the plight of the disadvantaged through their education ?
Undoubtedly schools have a large part to play in developing
children’s skills and awareness. But for how many disadvantaged
children is school really relevant ? Some critics have dismissed
the idea of education as a force for social change because of the
tendency of schools to reflect a way of life quite alien to
disadvantaged children. Education as a ‘social distributor’ of life
chances often compounds rather than eases the difficulties of
disadvantaged children. Changing this is likely to take a very
long time.
Material resources
What, then, of the third strategy — the redistribution of material
resources for families? This is the most politically contentious of
the thre2 alternatives. it can be criticised either for failing to solve
the problem or for being impractical.
Whether or not it could solve the problem depends greatly on
what the problem is seen to be. Without doubt some parents of
disadvantaged children are inadequate; perhaps their childhood
was also disadvantaged. But if it is accepted that many parents
are expected to cope with impossible burdens and that their
material circumstances provide a major contribution to those
burdens, then there is much to be said for tackling more earnestly
the poor housing and low income that our study has revealed.
Arguably it could eliminate a large part of many families’ difficulties.
And on humanitarian grounds alone large numbers of children
need a better chance to grow, develop, learn and live than they
currently receive.
But how practical a possibility is the significant redistribution of
income and the significant improvement of housing? It does not
necessarily require the creation of vast new national resources.
On the contrary, redistribution implies that society re-allocate the
resources already available. The issue was well defined 60 years
ago by Tawney: ‘The continuance of social evils is not due to the
fact that we do not know what is right, but that we prefer to
continue doing what is wrong. Those who have the power to
remove them do not have the will, and those who have the will
have not, as yet, the power.’
But power is said to rest in us all; our leaders only act for us.
So if we have the w/// the social evil of disadvantage might at least
be greatly reduced.
60 Born to Fail?
What then /s our will ?
Do we want technological progress, or human progress? Are
we more interested in a bigger national cake so that some
children get a bigger slice eventually — or are we ready for
disadvantaged children to have a bigger slice now, even if as a
result our personal slice is smaller? How many of our pleasures
are bought at the expense of the disadvantaged ?
\f children are indeed our country’s investment in the future, then
everyone has a stake in their welfare. Reducing the material
inequalities that help to cripple the life chances of disadvantaged
children should have an urgent priority. Do we mind if children
grow up in bad housing when we could do something about it ?
Do we mind the stress caused by low incomes when we could
afford to change it ?
As a society do we really care sufficiently about our children to
reduce drastically the hardships of their families ?
Do we care that so many are born to fail ?
61 Strategies for the Disadvantaged
Some suggestions for further reading
The theoretical concept of disadvantage has been widely
discussed in the United States but this literature is not always
relevant to the British situation. American research has
concentrated on the negro population. However, the following
books offer useful discussions about defining ‘disadvantage .
MOYNIHAN, D. P. (ed.) (1969) On Understanding Poverty,
New York, Basic Books.
PASSOW., A. H. (ed) (1963) Foucation in Depressed Areas, New
York. Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
FANTINI, M. D. and WEINSTEIN, G. (1968) The Disadvantaged :
Challenge to Education, New York, Harper & Row.
DAVIDSON, H. H. and GREENBERG, J. W. (1967) Schoo/
Achievers from a Deprived Background, New York, Associated
Education Services Corp.
In Britain, comparatively little has been written on the theory
of social disadvantage, but two books in particular are worth
reading for a general view.
TOWNSEND, P. (ed.) (1970) 7he Concept of Poverty, London,
Heinemann.
A collection of papers on the methods of investigation and life
styles of ‘the poor’ in different countries.
BULL, D. (ed.) (1972) Family Poverty, London, Duckworth, in
association with Child Poverty Action Group.
Examines the problems of family poverty and gives a careful
account of recent key developments and policy suggestions.
For some historical perspective on the concept of poverty—
ROSE, M. E. (1972) The Relief of Poverty 1834-1914, London,
Maemillan.
Reviews the extent of poverty in the 19th century, as judged by
contemporary sources, illustrates the changing attitudes towards
it and the growth of social policy up to the First World War.
Present day poverty —
COATES, K. and SILBURN, S. (1970) Poverty: The Forgotten
Englishmen, London, Penguin.
The findings of a survey of St Anne’s — a slum area of Nottingham
— giving a deiailed account of material poverty — low income,
poor housing, etc., but also of people’s attitudes towards their
poverty. Later chapters discuss poverty on a wider front with
criticisms of social policy and suggested strategies for tackling
the problem.
62 Born to Fail?
Official statistical sources relevant to the identification of family
poverty are:
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY (1967) Circumstances
of Famities, London, H.M.S.O.
DEPT. OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (1971) Two
Parent Families - a study of their resources and needs in 1968,
1969 and 1970, London, H.M.S.O.
Based on the annual Family Expenditure Surveys.
CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE (Quarterly) Social Trends,
London, H.M.S.O.
For a review of national policy concerned with children —
WYNN, M. (1972) Family Policy, London, Penguin.
“A study of the economic costs of rearing children, and their
social and political consequences Examines the needs of
families and the extent to which these needs are met through
social policy, not only in Britain, but in the United States and in
Europe
For some insight into the particular problems of the one-
parent family
MARSDEN, D. (1969) Mothers Alone (Poverty and the Fatherless
Family, London, Allen Lane.
GEORGE, V. and WILDING, P. (1972) Motherless Families,
London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Two books which cover the range of problems faced by these families
and focus on single parents perceptions of their situation.
For some health aspects of ‘disadvantage’ —
RUTTER, M., TIZARD, J. and WHITMORE, K. (1970) Education,
Health and Behaviour, London, Longmans.
Reports on a series of studies carried out in 1964-65 on complete
age groups of children living on the Isle of Wight. Deals with
the prevalence of educational handicaps as well as psychiatric
and physical handicaps and discusses social handicaps where
they relate to other disorders.
BIRCH, H. G. and GUSSOW, J. D. (1970) Disadvantaged
Children. Health, Nutrition and School Failure, New York.
Harcourt Brace & World Inc.
A review from different sources of birth and health factors
including nutrition and growth. The emphasis is medical, although
the relevance of environmental, school and home conditions, etc.,
is discussed.
The following are concerned primarily with various educational
aspects of disadvantage —
COLEMAN, J. et a/. (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity,
Washington, U.S. Department Health, Education and Welfare.
Presents the results of a major American survey into the ‘influence’
of school characteristics on pupil performance. Much of the
data refers to the negro/white differences.
GOODACRE, E. (1970) Schoo/ and Home, Slough, National
Foundation for Educational Research.
63 Some suggestions for further reading
A review of current trends in home/schoo! relations.
KELSALL, R. K. and KELSALL, H. (1971) Socia/ Disadvantage
and Educational Opportunity, London, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Draws on research findings from Britain and the United States
to give a readable and comprehensive account of the relationship
between various types of social disadvantage and poor school
attainment.
CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (ENGLAND)
(1967) Children and their Primary Schools, London, H.M.S.Q.
(The Plowden Report.)
HALSEY, A. H. (ed.) (1972) Educational Priority. Vol. 1 EPA
Problems and Policies, London, H.M.S.O.
Based on the action research projects being carried out in
Educational Priority Areas. Outlines a wide range of policies around
the development of pre-schooling and the community school,
and focuses on the implications of attempts to change schools
and neighbourhoods as suggested in the Plowden Report.
BEREITER, C. and ENGELMANN, S. (1966) 7eaching
Disadvantaged Children in the Pre-Schoo/, New York, Prentice-
Hall.
Prescribes teaching procedures and curricula for the pre-school
education of disadvantaged children in America.
RUBENSTEIN, D. and STONEMAN, C. (eds.) (1970) Education
for Democracy, London, Penguin.
A collection of essays by teachers, sociologists and educationalists
which challenges much of the present educational system and
argues for a more ‘relevant’ approach.
Finally, two books which are not primarily concerned with the
problems of social disadvantage but which provide a more general
view on the development of all children. Both are based on
longitudinal studies although in method and in scope they are
entirely different.
NEWSON, J. and NEWSON, E. (1970 Four Years Old in an
Urban Community, London, Penguin.
Very readable, descriptive account of family life among a group
of 700 Nottingham children. The second phase in a long-term
project designed to investigate parent/child relationships.
DAVIE, R., BUTLER, N. and GOLDSTEIN, H. (1972) From Birth
to Seven, London, Longman.
The second report of the National Child Development Study,
which is monitoring the progress, from birth to maturity, of every
child born in England, Scotland and Wales during one week of
1958. This report examines the health, education and home
environment of the children from the time of birth until they were
seven.
64 Born to Fail?
Of all the children Hors at nin th Ae of
* lin 4 have growa vn sciy with © + more
children or wiir ony one parent
* 1 in 4 have been living in bad housing
* 1 in7 have been in low income families
Any one of these experiences may be hard enough for
a child to overcome
But 1 in 16 children — on average 2 in every British
classroom — have to face all three situations
Born to Fail? shows the massive accumulation of
additional hardships that confront this group of
children in almost every aspect of their daily lives:
What do we expect to become of them?
What should we do to help them?
Peter Wedge is Assistant Director of Research, Hilary Prosser is a Research
Assistant and G. A. Clark, who took the photographs is an Administrative
Officer — all at the National Children’s Bureau.
kA Category: Social Problems/Sociology and Education ISBN 0.09 908280 2
United Kingdom 30p New Zealand 95c
Australia 95c* Malta 32c5
“RECOMMENDED BUT
NOT OBLIGATORY Canadas 2e