Research Report DCSF-RW031
Childhood Wellbeing
Qualitative Research Study
Counterpoint Research
Research Report No
DCSF-RW031
Childhood Wellbeing
Qualitative Research Study
Counterpoint Research
The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Children, Schools
and Families.
© Counterpoint Research 2008
ISBN 978 1 84775 112 6
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Page No
4
7
9
13
14
21
21
22
22
23
24
28
29
29
6.1.
6.1.1.
6.1.2.
6.1.3.
6.1.4.
6.1.5.
6.1.6.
Background to the Research
Research Objectives
Research Methodology & Sample
Discussion Guide & Stimulus used
Summary
Detailed Findings from the Research
Foreword
Defining ‘Wellbeing’, ‘Happiness’ and ‘a Good Childhood’
Discussing ‘Childhood’
‘Wellbeing’/ Childhood Wellbeing
‘Happiness’
A ‘Good Childhood’
A ‘Content’ Childhood
A Discussion of Language
6.2.
6.2.1.
6.2.2.
6.2.3.
6.2.4.
6.2.5.
6.2.6.
Key Factors in a Good/ Content Childhood
Introduction
The Influence of the Family
The Influence of Friends
Influence of Schools and Teachers
‘Other’ Influences
My Child / Young Person and a Good/ Content Childhood
31
31
36
43
45
47
53
6.3.
6.3.1.
6.3.2.
6.3.3.
6.3.4.
6.3.5.
6.3.6.
6.3.7.
6.3.8.
Key Issues Undermining a Good/ Content Childhood
Parents’ and Carers’ Aspirations
No ‘Safe Environment’
Financial Pressures
Limited time for ‘Quality’, ‘Family’ Time
Pressure to Buy Things for Children/ Young People
‘Political Correctness Gone Mad’
‘It’s our Culture, we don’t like Children’
Men’s Issues
54
54
56
61
62
63
64
67
68
6.4.
Appropriate Government Intervention
68
6.5.
Key Issues - Children & Young People
70
6.6.
Appropriate Government Intervention (C&YP)
73
6.7.
6.7.1.
6.7.2.
6.7.3.
Other Types of Intervention
Social Services
Local Authorities/ Local Councils
Other Influences
73
73
74
75
Page 2
Appendices
Appendix One - Stimulus Material/ Images Used in the Research
Appendix Two - Pre-interview Tasks
Appendix Three - Fieldwork Schedule
Appendix Four - Recruitment Questionnaires
Appendix Five - Discussion Guide
Page 3
1.
Background to the Research
The Department for Children, Schools & Families (DCSF) has set the improvement of the
well-being and life chances of children and young people as a major objective, particularly
through the ‘Every Child Matters’ programme. A variety of studies has been commissioned
on that theme, and within these studies there is much discussion of how to define
‘wellbeing’, using differing indices.
‘Every Child Matters’
This programme identified 5 outcomes which every child, from whatever background,
should be able to achieve:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
To be healthy: including physical, mental, emotional and sexual health; having a healthy
lifestyle, and choosing not to take illegal drugs
To stay safe: including safe from maltreatment, neglect, violence and sexual
exploitation; safe from accidental injury and death; from bullying and discrimination;
from crime, anti-social behaviour (in and out of school), and to have security, stability,
and to be cared for;
To enjoy and achieve: being ready for school; to attend and enjoy school; to achieve
stretching national education standards at primary school; to achieve personal and
social development and enjoy recreation; and to achieve stretching national educational
standards at secondary school;
To make a positive contribution: to engage in decision-making and support the
community and environment; to engage in law-abiding and positive behaviour in and
out of school; to develop positive relationships and choose not to bully and discriminate;
to develop self-confidence and successfully deal with significant life changes and
challenges; to develop enterprising behaviour;
To achieve economic well-being : to engage in further education, employment or
training on leaving school; to be ready for employment; to live in decent homes and
sustainable communities; to have access to transport and material goods; and to live in
households free from low income.
UNICEF Report: “An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries”
The publication of this report produced a great deal of media coverage, since the UK was
identified as the “bottom of a league table for child well-being across 21 industrialised
countries” (BBC website, 14th Feb 2007). The report was based on an analysis of a limited
number of databases, some of which were not particularly up to date. Their analysis
clustered around 6 ‘measures’ or categories:
ƒ
ƒ
Material wellbeing: based on relative income poverty, parental / carer employment
status, and reported ‘deprivation’ (measured by child-reported affluence, educational
resources and presence of books in the household);
Health and safety: based on infant mortality & birth weight, immunisation, and deaths
from accidents and injuries;
Page 4
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Educational wellbeing: based on school achievement at age 15; percentage staying in
education; and percentage of 15-19 year olds unemployed or expecting to find lowskilled work;
Relationships: based on family structure / composition, family relationships (including
parents talking with their children, and families eating together), and relationships with
peers;
Behaviours and risks: based on health behaviours, risk behaviours (including getting
drunk, smoking, under-age sex, drug abuse, using condoms, and teenage fertility), and
experiencing violence, including bullying;
Subjective well-being: based on subjective feelings of healthiness, enjoying school life,
and personal wellbeing.
Across these categories, the UK score was in the lower third for 5 out of the 6 - reaching
the middle third only in the ‘Health and safety’ category.
Children’s Society ‘The Good Childhood Inquiry’
This Inquiry represented the UK’s first independent national Inquiry into childhood. The
Society put forward its rationale for the Inquiry as follows:
“We are wealthier than fifty years ago but the well-being of children in the UK is rated
amongst the lowest in Europe, with our young people experiencing increasing levels of
mental health problems - problems that particularly affect the disadvantaged children The
Children's Society works with on a daily basis.
There is a climate of fear and confusion surrounding children and young people:
preoccupied with protecting our own children from harm, we often fail to reach out to those
who need attention most. And all the while our young people are continually subjected to
pressure to achieve, behave and consume like adults at an ever earlier age.”
The Inquiry clustered around 6 themes it identified as important in terms of focussing on
children and young people and the relationships and influences that shape their lives.
They were as follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Friends: how children and young people (CYP) interact with their peers, the activities
that give them pleasure and meaning, and how friends influence their behaviour and
aspirations in positive and negative ways
Family: how family and their relationships shape CYP lives, how families can be
supported to provide a loving, supportive and stable environment in which CYPs can
grow;
Learning: how CYPs learn, alongside the quality and purpose of their education, how
they develop and socialise, how they acquire skills and knowledge and how they form
attitudes and aspirations;
Lifestyle: how CYPs fit in the material world, their growing role as consumers, and the
attitudes and values that shape the way they choose to live their lives (including how
new technologies have changes what CYP do, the ‘spaces’ they inhabit, and the ways
in which they communicate);
Page 5
ƒ
ƒ
Health: CYPs’ health, personalities and behaviours; their sense of self and worth, and
how they feel about themselves, as well as how they can be supported to adopt
behaviours that are good for their present and future wellbeing;
Values: how CYP form values, beliefs and faith, find meaning and a sense of purpose in
life; how they view the world and those around them, and how the world views them;
attitudes towards difference, acceptance of others, and how they can be supported to
develop a sense of wonder, and a sense of responsibility for others, and to participate
in social, cultural and political life.
Ipsos MORI
Ipsos MORI conducted desk research on behalf of DfES, which suggested that wellbeing is
a subjective term, encompassing:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
How happy someone feels
How healthy someone feels
How relaxed or frustrated someone feels
How confident people are when faced with new challenges
How people feel about their future
DEFRA-led Wellbeing Agenda
There was also a good deal of cross Government activity taking place, which aimed to
develop a set of wellbeing indicators for the population as a whole, in order to feed into
policy. DCSF had representatives working with the DEFRA-led team, to ensure CYP were
considered as a separate audience within this work on the wellbeing agenda.
Thus, much work has been completed on defining ‘wellbeing’ and focussing policy
development on improving wellbeing. The DCSF feel, however, that the voice of CYP and
their parents and carers (P&Cs) has not been sufficiently heard or considered within the
debate, and that there is an urgent need to canvass their opinions. Thus, DCSF and COI
commissioned Counterpoint Research to:
a) Delineate what CYP and P&Cs understood to be contributing factors to ‘wellbeing’;
b) Determine the language they used when talking about what is implied by ‘wellbeing’;
c) Understand the ways in which P&Cs felt CYPs could be supported (i.e. appropriate roles
for government, parents, schools, extended families etc)
This document reports the findings from that research.
Page 6
2.
Research Objectives
The overall objective of the research was given in the brief as follows:
“The DfES (DCSF) needs to listen to the views of P&Cs and CYP to gain a better
understanding of what they are thinking about when they talk about wellbeing and
happiness. This will ensure that the DfES (DCSF) response to the current debate can be
appropriate, and allow the Department to demonstrate an informed position of reason and
perspective. It will also allow the DfES (DCSF) to concentrate on key policy themes that will
make a difference going forward”
The detailed objectives were given as follows:
1.
To gain clarity about what P&C and CYP themselves mean by “wellbeing”; how that
differs from “happiness”, and what they define as “good childhood”. We also need to
understand what role they believe the Government should be playing in each of
these.
2.
To understand better what children and young people themselves say are the key
factors determining wellbeing and happiness and how these are conditioned by
general feelings about parents, family life and relationships as well as particular
areas for concern around school, peer groups and friends, health, safety etc. As well
as exploring aspirations and anxieties, other areas to cover would include providing
a picture of whether issues such as “everyday adventures” - the idea that children
would ideally like to be out climbing trees and riding their bikes - are actually
accurate, or whether children today would prefer to be gaming or social networking
on their computers.
3.
In parallel, to better understand what the key areas are for parents of children and
young people today. We need greater insight into their aspirations for their children,
as well as their fears and concerns, including any particular areas of anxiety and
risk. We also need to probe more deeply into understanding whether parents
genuinely believe that their children are happier/ better off (not just financially) today
than they themselves were as children. It’s not clear whether parents are less
confident than in previous generations (or just feel that way), but there are definite
differences between their experiences of growing up and those of today’s teenagers.
a.
4.
An area for exploration in both 2 & 3 is to understand how concerns differ
between averagely well-off sectors of society and those living in relative
poverty, although we recognise that this cannot be fully covered within this
piece of qualitative work
As well as P&C and CYP perceptions of the appropriate levels of Government
involvement around wellbeing / happiness etc, it is very important to understand who
it is that these audiences believe should be offering information, advice, guidance,
help or intervention - both generally and around any specific areas of anxiety or
concern
Page 7
5.
For both audiences, to better understand the drivers for positive opinions, i.e. those
areas where even a small positive change will improve public opinions overall, and
the hopes and aspirations that they hold for themselves / their children
6.
To be able to respond to CYP and P&C in the language and terms that they
themselves understand and use to express concerns, so this research needs to
bring out the key findings framed primarily in the language of the respondents
themselves.
Page 8
3.
Research Methodology & Sample
There were a number of factors which influenced the approach and sample. They were as
follows:
3.1
Importance of language
It was important that the framing of the research encouraged respondents to use their own
language, and minimised ‘imposed’, non-indigenous language.
•
•
•
•
3.2.
Tightly structured peer groups were chosen as the best way of ensuring that
discussion was framed in as ‘natural’ a way as possible.
Since ‘wellbeing’, ‘happiness’ and ‘good childhood’ were all concepts and terms to
be explored within the groups, those terms were actively avoided by the researcher
until a good understanding of the natural language and concepts used by
respondents was established. Visual stimuli were used as they allowed the
researchers to explore the concepts without using those terms. Appendix One
contains the images used.
Throughout the discussion, the moderators used language generated by
respondents themselves.
Since C&YP can sometimes express themselves much more effectively in response
to visual stimulus, additional photographs were used to explore what was meant by
‘a happy childhood’ (and whatever language was generated by them in response to
the initial visual stimulus). These are included in Appendix One.
Insight into their ‘real’ lives
Respondents were asked to conduct a variety of tasks before coming along to the groups.
Details of their pre-group tasks are given in Appendix Two.
3.3.
Inter-family Views
In order to tap into the influence parents might have on their children, and vice versa,
family interviews were held towards the end of the fieldwork period.
3.4.
MRS Guidelines on Conducting Research with CYP
Counterpoint is a member of the MRS and conducted the research in line with the above
guidelines. As per the Department’s policy, all moderators interviewing children were CRB
checked.
Page 9
3.5.
Outline Sample Structure
The following is an outline summary of the sample, the exact details of each group are
given in the Fieldwork Schedule, included as Appendix Three. (N.B. Group Numbers given
in the Fieldwork Schedule correspond to the number after the dash in each cell - this is our
internal numbering for the groups)
3.5.1. Children & Young People
Boys
SEG
Year 3
Year 7
Year 9
Year 11
Higher
1 -1
1 -5
1-9
1 -13
Lower
1 -2
1 -6
1 – 10
1 -14
Girls
Higher
Lower
1 -3
1 -4
1 -7
1-8
1 -11
1 - 12
1 -15
1 - 15
Group 2 was felt to have been biased to C1/C2 SEGs, so was re-recruited in Hastings.
Group 7 had only 3 respondents, so an additional Paired Depth was recruited in Lewes,
Sussex.
3.5.2. Group Discussions with Parents and Carers
SEG
Younger (20-30), with
eldest child in Foundation
KS
Younger (25-40) with
eldest child in KS1/2
Older (35-50) with eldest
child in KS3/4
Fathers
Higher
Lower
1 – 16
1 -19
1 – 22
Mothers
Higher
Lower
1 - 17
1 - 18
1 - 20
1 - 21
1 - 23
1 - 24
3.5.3. Group Discussions with Single Parent Mothers / Carers
Younger (20-30), with eldest
child in Foundation KS
Younger (25-40) with eldest
child in KS1/2
Older (35-50) with eldest child
in KS3/4
Single parent mothers/ carers
1 -25
1 -26
1 -27
Page 10
3.5.4. Family Depth Interviews
Family dealing with poverty, inner city South, eldest child in KS2 FD1
Family dealing with poverty, rural location, eldest child in KS3 FD2
Family dealing with poverty, south coast town, eldest child in KS3 FD3
3.6.
Definitions and Variables
The following definitions were applied in the sample selection:
SEG
• ‘Higher’ SEG: (A)BC1 social groupings, i.e. professional and skilled manual, with
them or their parents having (in current educational terms) at least the following - 5
or more GCSEs or O levels at Grades A-C, Intermediate GNVQ, NVQ Level 2 or
equivalent
•
‘Lower’ SEG: C2D(E) social grouping, i.e. skilled and non-skilled manual,
unemployed, with highest educational achievements lower than defined above.
Family Composition
• Throughout the research a mix of single/ lone parents, carers and step-families was
recruited.
• A range of BMEs was included.
• A mix of number of children in the household was included, and for C&YP, a variety
of positions within the family was achieved, some being lone CYP, others being
eldest, the rest having older siblings.
For the parents groups, the following proportions were applied to the sample:
•
•
•
both birth parent households (around 65% of the sample)
step-parent in the household (around 10% of the sample)
lone parents (around 25% of the sample)
Geographical Location
• A mix of types of location and a good mix of North / Midlands / South East / South
West was achieved in the sample
Length of the Discussions
•
•
•
•
Years 3 & 7 :
Years 10 & 11 :
Parents :
Family depths :
1 hour
1 hour & 15 minutes
2 hours
2.5 hours
Page 11
Locations
The groups were held in the following locations: Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds,
Birmingham, Bristol, Hertfordshire, Kingston, Guildford, Fulham, Ripley, Lewisham,
Bournemouth, Lewes, and Eastbourne in August 2007.
The Recruitment Questionnaires used to assess respondents’ suitability are included as
Appendix Four.
Page 12
4.
Stimulus and Discussion Guide
Both the stimulus material used and the Discussion Guide are included as Appendices One
and Five respectively.
Page 13
5.
Summary and Implications
Foreword
Participants in the research were initially non-plussed by the topic - children and
happiness. On the one hand they felt that what makes for a good or content childhood was,
or should be, blindingly obvious. However on reflection, they felt that this topic was of
fundamental importance, and it was frightening that it was so rarely discussed. During the
discussions respondents tried out new opinions, changed their minds and sustained a
number of contradictions (which has implications for quantitative research, as a
questionnaire might tap into half-formed ideas), but most resolved those contradictions in a
very similar way. That is, there was an extraordinary degree of consensus expressed
across a very diverse sample. During the discussions, respondents - particularly parents
and carers - felt uncomfortable with the mix of topics. First of all, they were talking about
something extremely personal and ultimately down to them - the happiness of their
children. In addition, they felt the topic had potentially dangerous moral overtones and
required them to judge other people in terms of defining what a good / content childhood is
in general. Finally, a political, government policy element was added into the discussion, in
the context of discussing what government could do about creating the conditions for a
good childhood, and how parents and government could control other influences of
concern (the Internet, media etc.) This made for a very uncomfortable, but passionate,
discussion.
5.1.
Defining ‘Wellbeing’, ‘Happiness’ and ‘a Good Childhood’
One of the indicators of how little this issue is discussed was the lack of shared and
accepted language there was to describe what’s implied by ‘Childhood Wellbeing’. They
talked rather about their children and their parenting in a very personal way, and they were
loathe to discussion ‘childhood’ as a concept. They argued that:
•
•
•
every child is different which means that what makes one child happy might not
make another child happy;
parenting skills are relative, and they would be loathe to judge another parent in
absolute terms; and
therefore you can’t objectify ‘childhood’, there are no guarantees, only “your best
efforts”
‘Wellbeing’ was not a term with which they were familiar, and respondents struggled with
its use in a context they cared about and were very familiar with. When pushed they
guessed it might be something to do with health, or the fundamentals of provision for
children - food, clothing, a home, water etc.
‘Happiness’ was judged to be a temporary emotional state, and certainly not defined by
good or bad parenting. Children were happy, they argued, when they were getting what
they wanted, which in itself can be a bad thing.
Page 14
A ‘happy childhood’ sounded accidental, not created, and parents and carers felt that it
conveyed an impossible, and dangerous, level of freedom and independence for children.
They had had a ‘ happy childhood’, one where they were free to roam for hours on end,
from an early age, however they all felt this was a sign of lack of, or very bad, parenting
nowadays. This theme - the lack of a ‘safe environment’ - was very important indeed to
parents and carers. The more appropriate way to describe this for them was ‘for the
conditions to be in place for a child to be consistently and safely happy’. However this still
did not cover or imply the necessary/ appropriate preparation for adult citizenship or the
nurture they felt relevant.
A ‘good childhood’ implied much of what was implied in ‘wellbeing’, however there were
two issues with this term:
•
•
it indicated a childhood with material wealth and
it implied a moral judgement on other families.
Some suggested a ‘content’ childhood as an alternative, since they felt this implied that
children would:
•
•
•
be well cared for, and have enough in place for them to feel happy
think about others, support, help and share
have security and continuity in their lives
However, it was very evident from the research discussions that there was no common
language for ‘childhood wellbeing’.
Implications
Parents and carers had become distanced and disenfranchised from the debate about
childhood, however the experience of discussing it was very powerful: they left the
research groups feeling invigorated, re-enfranchised and determined to try to keep the
discussion going with friends and family. There is a pressing need to encourage parents
and carers to start talking about the quality of childhood and the factors in that.
5.2.
Key Factors in a Good / Content Childhood
Parents, carers, children and young people all agreed on the key factors determining the
quality of childhood. Broadly speaking, they tended to include the themes identified in the
Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda, although they put things in much more relative, “do
your best” terms, and had health and economic wellbeing at the bottom of their list. They
organised the factors in four broad categories, the first was which was absolutely
paramount.
Page 15
Family
Spending time - “quality time”, “one to one time”, “family time” was the single most
important factor, across the board, and from this, so many benefits (essential for childhood
wellbeing) flowed. This was also felt to prevent most causes of friction within families.
Focussing on children and young people was felt to give them confidence, self worth, and a
belief in themselves. It involved physical affirmation of their worth (hugs!), praising them
and noticing what they do and say. Further, it was crucial to listen to them, so that they
would in return listen, giving parents and carers a chance to influence and guide them in
the direction of their own family values, even when they’ve done something they know is
wrong.
It was also important that children and young people had their ‘own space’, allowing them
to reflect, stand back, exercise their imagination and de-stress. All this meant that good
communication was possible within families, which was essential to exercise an influence
over children and young people in their behaviour and ability to communicate outside the
family. This was particularly important in building confidence to say no and avoiding difficult
situations.
It was equally important that parents and carers spent time noticing behaviour they didn’t
approve of, so that they could talk to children and young people and keep them safe.
Establishing boundaries and rules, and enforcing them with consequences was felt to be
essential to allowing children and young people increasing independence as they grew into
young adults. This was also how they knew they were protected - and thus cared for and
loved. In turn this instilled trust and ultimately respect.
Without that family time and everything that flowed from it, parents felt they had very
limited control over their child’s development, and, it was argued, led to parents
“obsessing” and trying to control other influences on their child, trying to micro-manage
them, which inevitably led to very high levels of conflict within the family. The rest, parents
felt, was down to environment: “you do your best as a parent, but where you’re housed,
that’ll determine what kinds of friends they get and what their school’ll be like, and you’ve
no control over that”.
Friends
Friends were also a key factor in the quality of childhood, with good friends helping children
and young people explore their own personality, providing a support mechanism and back
up to the family, as well as keeping them safe(r) in a variety of contexts.
Schools & Teachers
Generally respondents acknowledged that a good education was key, however both
parents and carers, and children and young people felt very vulnerable in this context. It
was difficult to control the quality of teacher a child or young person gets, and there was a
perception that there were too many bad teachers in the system. The potential to change
or improve the life chances was enormous, however it felt too serendipitous for
Page 16
respondents. Parents felt that getting the right school was not only crucial for their child’s
education, but also for giving them the ‘right’ kinds of friends. Children and young people
were also concerned about people at school who were not friends: bullies, “mad” or
unpleasant children.
Other ‘Outside’ Factors
This was a catch-all category, which mainly comprised clubs and activities outside school,
television and film, the internet, music, and the wider community or neighbourhood. The
key issue here was that parents had, to some extent, cede control to their children to
manage their interaction with these factors, and thus the influence they had on them. Most
parents and carers felt that this was an incredibly difficult thing to negotiate: don’t allow
your child enough independence and they’ll never develop their own personality properly,
never be tough, strong or ‘go for it’ enough; allow your child too much freedom and it could
be incredibly dangerous for them, as well as expose them to inappropriate behaviour,
opinions etc.
5.3.
Key Factors undermining a Good, Content Childhood
Parents and children broadly agreed on the key factors having a negative impact on the
quality of their childhood.
No ‘Safe Environment
Generally there was great concern about this. Parents felt that it had majorly curtailed the
freedom they could give their children, freedom to get out and about, explore, learn to take
responsibility for themselves. A number of causes were identified:
•
•
•
•
gun, drug, knife, gang culture and the ‘seepage’ of that culture out of the areas
they’d associated that culture with;
rise in dangerous people and access to new ways of contacting their children (e.g.
paedophiles on the internet, terrorists in public transport systems)
daily confronting violent attitudes, bad language, overtly sexual dress in even young
girls
seeing a grim reflection of the UK on television, particularly on mainstream drama
Thus, they felt there was a choice: restrict children and young people’s access to the
‘outside influences’, and thus over-parent, or give up, and accept previously unacceptable
levels of street-wisdom in their children (i.e. cheek, talking back, being disrespectful etc.)
Other parents and people in community were not felt to be suitable sources of support rather they were felt to be part of the problem.
Page 17
Pressure to Get Money
Parents and carers from all SEGs felt pressure to earn more. The UK was felt to be an
excessively expensive country, meaning often that parents’ and carers’ time for their
children was limited. They argued that they assuaged their guilt for lack of family time by
buying things for their children, particularly the electronic goods (TVs, DVD players, PCs
etc.) they then complained had too much of their children’s attention and time.
Limited Family Time
Some parents argued that not only was their time with their children limited by the need to
earn more money, but that they didn’t feel particularly good at the job, and that their
children were very good at resenting and rejecting their influence.
Pressure to Buy Things
Related to some of the points above, parents felt there was enormous pressure on their
children, and thus on them, to provide the “modern essentials of life” - mostly electronic
goods and expensive designer sportswear and clothes. This created a vicious circle :
parents and carers having to work harder to earn money for these items, and thus even
less able to spend time with the children, which increased their guilt, which in turn meant
they were working harder to provide what they could for their children.
Political Correctness “Gone Mad”
An extraordinary level of dissatisfaction emerged when reflecting on the quality of, and
factors important in, childhood. Parents and carers felt very nervous about offending other
parents (white English as well as BMEs) which reinforced the distance between
neighbours. There was also a perception that it was unacceptable to be proud of English
culture and Englishness, which had an impact on their children’s perceptions of
themselves, as well as their environment (they were not a priority for national or local
government spending). Political Correctness and perceived Health and Safety regulations
were felt to have systematically undermined communities and the quality of their children’s
education, particularly amongst those in the lower SEGs. These parents and carers felt
that the system was loaded towards academic children: with non-academic subjects being
ruined by “PC-ness” (non-competitive sports, inclusion policies in music, drama, dancing
etc.) and H&S (sports days cancelled because of damp grass, concerts cancelled because
of equipment worries etc.).
‘It’s our culture, we don’t like children’
Parents and carers, as well as children and young people felt that the UK was not a childor family-friendly environment, and that children and young people were neither wanted nor
valued in public. They compared attitudes in the UK with that of Mediterranean countries in
particular (to which many would dearly love to immigrate), and found the UK sadly
negative. One of the worst consequence of this attitude was that there were very, very few
places families could go which were welcoming, safe, easy, and either cheap or ideally
free.
Page 18
5.4. Appropriate Government Intervention - Parents and Carers
During the discussions, and when asked about potential Government intervention to
improve the quality of childhood, respondents expressed a gentle nostalgia, rather than
demanded immediate action. Given they were convinced that the principal determinant of a
good/ content childhood was ‘family time’ and good parenting, this was not surprising.
They did, however, have a wish list, itemising where they would like to see government
resources focussed:
•
•
•
•
•
funding to create and extend family friendly places
resources to help make local parks, community areas and neighbourhoods safe
(and free)
think innovatively about existing buildings and their potential use
invest in supervision for areas already available
think strategically about making the UK more family-friendly
However parents and carers were extremely concerned that in thinking about policy,
Government should avoid the ‘Health and Safety’ rule, i.e. legislating to the lowest common
denominator.
5.5. Key Issue for Children and Young people
These issues were astonishingly close to those identified by parents, although they
expressed their ideas in different language. However, as with parents and carers, there
was no shared, common language and each group expressed this in slightly different ways.
They worried about having nowhere to play or ‘hang out; that it wasn’t safe ‘outside’ (in
their neighbourhood, on the roads); families arguing and falling out; not having the same
“stuff” as their friends, or being different in some way; and not having anyone around who’s
there for you, looking out for you.
5.6. Appropriate Government Intervention - Children and Young People
Young people and children tended to have more confidence that they could manage
difficult situations or danger in an environment. They too had a wish list which was very
similar to their parents and carers’, however they were more sceptical about whether or not
something could be done to improve their environment.
Page 19
5.7. Other Types of Intervention
Respondents had very few ideas about other bodies who could help improve matters,
however they felt that Social Services (under very strictly controlled circumstances) should
intervene when children were at risk. They felt that Local Authorities could also address the
issue of where children, young people and families could go outside their home which was
safe, fun and free. Finally mothers, in particular, felt that regulation of the internet and the
media should be more consistent. Given they judged themselves to be less familiar than
their children with internet facilities such as social networking, video streaming and gaming,
they relied heavily on regulatory authorities to have clear, and most importantly, consistent
labelling/ classification so they could make decisions about their children’s exposure on a
reasonably fair and knowledgeable basis. Fathers wanted to see more police on the streets
and to see corporal punishment restored.
5.8. Implications
More than anything else, respondents wanted the problem of lack of family time to be
addressed. Any initiative (or hopefully long term policy) which helps create spaces for
families to interact, improves the quality of that interaction, and releases the pressures
which prevent this taking place would be very, very welcome. Many implications have been
addressed already in the above sections, and these were all interventions which
respondents had requested themselves. To summarise:
•
•
•
•
•
the lack of shared language is indicative of how disenfranchised and disenchanted
parents and carers have become: there is a real and pressing need to raise these
issues and to encourage a debate outside political agendas;
parents and carers need to have their crucial role acknowledged and supported
everything possible should be done to support families, including changing attitudes
towards families, and providing safe, appropriate, cheap areas / places / events for
them;
parenting skills need to be taught in schools to those pupils whose parents have
withdrawn from trying to have an influence on them
the media / internet regulation / classification needs to be as clear and consistent as
possible so that parents can accurately negotiate around those
The issues identified in the research are large and crucial issues, and parents and carers
recognised them as such: parenting skills and confidence; housing and community
environment, crime and perceptions of crime, education, culture and identity. Parents and
carers are extremely suspicious of anything which they suspect is a “quick fix”. They feel
that something fundamental has changed and is ‘broken’, and they want to see significant
changes, made over time to improve the situation.
Page 20
6.
Key Findings from the Research
Foreword
This research was unusual in that the respondents reacted quite strongly to taking part in a
serious discussion about happiness and a happy childhood. Initially, when they realised
what the topic of the groups was, they were confused about how they felt about
participating in such a discussion. In the first place, they felt that the definitions and
components of a ‘happy childhood’ should be very obvious to all. In talking about the topic
in depth they felt that they were being asked to turn what was ‘common sense’ into
something more scientific and that actually what they were saying was really obvious.
“I think we’d all agree on that [pointing to the group of qualities they’d agree comprised
what the essential components of a good / happy / content childhood are], you hope”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
However, on reflection, the feeling was that, counter-intuitively, this was a topic which
should be talked about and debated at length, as it’s such an important topic, and involves
the future of our society.
“It’s incredibly important, I don’t think we talk about this often enough!”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
“It’s not the sort of thing you talk about, and I think that’s very sad”
(Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Ripley)
As is usual when talking through a topic which respondents were reflecting on explicitly and
in public for the first time, they changed their opinion (and often, back again) during the
group, and could be extremely contradictory. Unusually, they most often picked up on their
contradictions and tried to resolve them, with a great deal of success.
“I know this doesn’t make sense given what I’ve just said”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Certainly the topic is both an important one, and one they felt they did not have thoughtthrough and fixed opinions on. This would mean that any quantitative research might pick
up on half-formed opinions, or provoke opinions which, on reflection, were not a fair
representation of how respondents felt about the topic ‘in the round’. These questions
required careful consideration before respondents were able to sum them up.
All participants in the research found it a challenging, but fascinating topic. However asking
them about a ‘happy or content childhood’, and then asking them about triggers to, or
components of, that happy childhood, led them to raise issues which made them very
uncomfortable. They argued that the topics of ‘our’ children and ‘our’ families were
incredibly important, crucial to the future of UK society. Being then asked to identify the
components of a ‘good or content childhood’ was asking them to make moral judgements
Page 21
not only about their own children or families, but about others. Few were comfortable
making those judgements.
What was making them uncomfortable was both shared and clear. Parents and carers felt
judgemental (when talking about others’ families and children), frighteningly responsible
(when talking about what made their children happy or content), and relatively powerless
(when talking about key influences on their children outside the family, including
government policy). Children and young people shared many of these feelings, but were
much more sanguine and accepting than their parents and carers.
However, within each of the discussions and across the sample, there was an astonishing
degree of consensus in their conclusions, in the opinions they formed more firmly during
the discussion.
(N.B. The report highlights differences between groups when relevant, however it was
remarkable just how strong that consensus was across very different socio-economic
groupings, ages, sexes and locations.)
6.1.
Defining ‘Wellbeing’, ‘Happiness’ and ‘a Good Childhood’
6.1.1. Discussing ‘Childhood’
Whilst most of the discussions centred around respondents’ language and definitions, part
of the objectives of the research were to prompt three terms, should they not arise
spontaneously. These were:
•
•
•
Wellbeing / childhood wellbeing
Happiness
A good childhood
Whilst ‘being happy’ was spontaneously and regularly used by all respondents, the other
phrases were not used part of the respondents’ ‘natural’ language and they struggled with
them. They seemed to resist the idea that they’d talk about childhood as an abstract
concept, rather, they were much more comfortable talking about their, or their children’s
childhood.
“I guess you know what makes them happy or unhappy, but whether that makes for a good
or a happy childhood, well who knows?”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
Parents and carers felt much happier talking about good and not so good parenting,
something they felt was much easier to objectify than its outcome in the ‘quality’ of
childhood, however they consistently used more relative terms ...
Page 22
“You just do your best and hope it all turns out ok”
(Mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, C2D(E), Raynes Pk)
“There but for the grace of God and all that”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
Comparatively speaking, the phrase ‘a good childhood’ felt more natural to them, however
for reasons outlined in the following sections, they were extremely reluctant to apply that
concept to today’s children because they defined that term by their own childhood, which
they argued had been very different to their children’s. The term ‘wellbeing’ was unfamiliar,
and felt slightly ‘political’ in tone (possibly because this was such an unfamiliar term used in
a context in which they felt expert, so they were suspicious that they didn’t know this
phrase).
However, the issue with defining the quality of childhood was that all respondents,
including children and young people, resisted making judgements about others’
experiences, particularly moral judgements about others’ childhoods and ‘childhood’
generally. Rather, they felt it was an alchemy of luck, trying to do your best, and hoping for
the best.
nd
“You do your best and you just hope it works out for the best ... (2 respondent) ... they
say that, don’t they, there are no guarantees with children!”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
Certainly the implication in raising the issue of what Government could do to improve their
children’s childhoods left them feeling very uncomfortable: it was to imply a political
element to something which in theory was about ‘innocents’ (“every child should start off
with the same chances”).
6.1.2. ‘Wellbeing’ / Childhood Wellbeing
This was not a term anyone in the sample spontaneously used, and being asked to react to
it, as mentioned above, made parents and carers feel uncomfortable.
“Should we know what it means?”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
That they were unfamiliar with the term, led most to resist its use in the context of their
children and families.
A few recognised the term from childcare or social research courses.
“I’m doing a course at the minute, and that’s one of the modules. Do you want me to tell
you what it is? I should have brought my books with me!”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
Page 23
Some felt it had overtones of, or associations with, government initiatives.
“Is this what it’s going to be now, will they set targets for parents?”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
However all children and young people, and most parents struggled to guess what the term
might mean. They tended to take the word literally, and assume it was something to do
with ‘being well’, and that the definition of ‘childhood wellbeing’ must be based around
health. Interestingly however, it also seemed to have overtones of ‘the basics in life’, such
as the provision of food, shelter and clothing.
“Does it mean that you’ve got enough good food and water?”
(Girls, Year 7, C2D(E), Bournemouth)
What it didn’t imply was a sense of ‘nurturing’ or emotional support; when a definition did
emerge or was guessed at, it was always and only to do with core provision of the
necessities for a healthy child.
6.1.3. ‘Happiness’
This term had a very specific, and consistent set of associations and meanings, usually to
do with the state of being happy, rather than defining ‘happiness’.
They key point raised in relation to happiness was that it was seen to be an emotional
state, usually a temporary one. Indeed, it was remarkable just how strongly everyone
resisted the idea of being in a constant state of happiness.
“Your mum has to say no to you sometimes, you can’t always get everything you want, that
wouldn’t be good.... So sometimes you’re going to be unhappy”
(Girls, Year 7, (A)BC1, Lewisham)
The pursuit of happiness was felt to be an unpredictable and ultimately unachievable
aspiration because of a number of factors:
•
Children have their own personalities and are more or less disposed towards being
happy or not on that basis too: it’s not just a matter of whether the basic sources of
happiness are in place or not. Their individual outlook will be an important, and
unpredictable, determinant.
“Some children will always be miserable little s*ds no matter what you do, others will be
happy regardless”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
•
Thus, happiness cannot be determined by good or bad parenting, they felt. Indeed,
it was a matter of some surprise to parents and carers that children could be so
resilient, and children and young people argued that friends whose parents let them
Page 24
do whatever they wanted to were much happier than they were (although they
disapproved of their friends’ parents’ actions).
“It’s not good for you to get what you want all the time, it makes you selfish”
(Girls, Year 3, C2D(E), Newcastle)
“When you see some kids out on the streets at 10 o’clock in the evening, it makes your
blood boil ... what are those parents thinking ... but I think kids just learn to survive, they’re
much too streetwise nowadays”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
•
Because happiness was so strongly associated with a) doing what you want when
you want to, b) getting what you want, or c) something unexpected, out of the
ordinary happening, it was by default felt to be something which was naturally and
rightly a temporary state.
“That was fantastic a couple of years ago when it snowed. We played outside and just had
a laugh. That was really lovely. That was a really happy time, I remember that.”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
“Being happy is not always the point is it, I could make him happy by just giving her what
she wants all the time but you don’t do you. I don't think that would be right”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
Interestingly, it also had a strong set of associations with being with happy people.
Children and young people, in particular, felt that this was one of the most important
determinants of happiness, and often spontaneously mentioned this.
N.B. In the children’s groups, where images were used to help them explore the important
elements in a good or content childhood, an image of two adults shouting at one another
was very regularly picked as showing what made them unhappy. They would then talk
about how important it was to their happiness (or friends’ happiness) that they were with
people who were happy and enjoyed each others’ company. This is the image they picked
to depict arguing/ unhappy:
Page 25
They contrasted this image with two images in particular: being happy with a member of
the family/ their family, and being with friends:
Parents and carers loved to report times when their children were happy, indeed wanted
them to be happy on a regular basis. However, they also felt it was necessary for children
to be unhappy occasionally - for instance when they were denied something they wanted.
They tried to put in place an appropriate context for their children’s development, however
they expected that putting that context in place would also lead to the occasional conflict
Page 26
and argument as children and young people would always try to get more freedom,
attention, or ‘stuff’ than was probably good for them.
So, ‘happiness’ felt inappropriate in this context too, too “flippant” and temporary, and
implied none of the more basic fundamentals covered by ‘wellbeing’.
“I know I can’t have everything I want, she goes on and on about it, I have to learn to save
up for things”
(Girls, Year 11, (A)BC1, Worcester Park)
Although the term ‘a happy childhood’ implied more than the temporary state of being
happy, parents and carers had real issues with the term.
First, it implied to them a childhood which ‘accidentally’ was happy, rather than one which
had been created or nurtured. Because all felt that a child should not always be happy, a
‘happy childhood’ implied a relative absence of parents, too little influence and control
exercised over children.
“You can say children are happier, but that’s because their parents buy them off with stuff”
(Family Depth, eldest child in KS2, South London)
It implied that children were getting their own way, being allowed to do exactly what they
wanted; that parents were not setting boundaries, challenging their children, and setting
rules for them. Thus, they worried that children having a ‘happy childhood’ were given too
much freedom to do what they wanted, and that their parents had too much belief in
‘children finding their own way in the world’ rather than being guided by their parents.
In contrast, many parents and carers (and many young people too) argued that children
were so adaptable that they could have happy childhoods in dreadful circumstances.
“There’s one particular kid on this estate, something should be done about him; he’s out at
midnight ... but he’s a happy little lad”
(Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Ripley)
“When we go shopping my mum lets me off with my mates, but I have to meet her every
half an hour in front of Top Shop or somewhere”
(Girls, Year 7, (A)BC1, Lewisham)
Interestingly, most parents felt that the term could apply to their own childhood, since they
were given the kind of freedom which they felt was absolutely irresponsible in today’s
society.
“I would say I had a happy childhood. We’d go off for days on the golf club picking up golf
balls and cashing them in and then going and getting some Yorkshire Mix, but you couldn’t
begin to think about that now”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
Page 27
Safety had become of enormous concern to parents and carers, across the board, to the
extent that they argued that ‘freedom’ was a very double edged sword in today’s society.
This was a matter of regret, they felt it was very sad that they couldn’t let their children
roam in the way they’d been allowed to, but they felt it was definitely the case that it had
become dangerous. (N.B. The issue of safety is addressed in detail in section 6.3.2 of this
report)
However, the key issue with a ‘happy childhood’ was that it did not imply or have the
appropriate associations with the whole context of childhood, nor the appropriate and
necessary preparation for adult citizenship, which would definitely involve periods of
unhappiness.
6.1.4. A ‘Good Childhood’
This term implied a wider context, with more of the boundary-setting, and active parenting
which was felt to be important to a rounded definition of what is implied in other reports’
definitions of ‘wellbeing’. It was a term with which most were familiar, and of the three
phrases given to be researched, it was by far the most appropriate from respondents’ point
of view.
However, for most respondents, a ‘good childhood’ definitely implied material wealth, which
most parents and carers were unhappy about including in a definition of childhood.
“You think of caring parents, sure, but you also think of posh villas in tree-lined streets”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
“I’m not happy with that, to me it says you’ve got money, and I don’t think that’s so
important. Sure you’ve got to have enough to provide for your kids, but you don’t have to
have masses for your kids to be OK”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, C2D(E), Leeds)
Many parents and carers were also uncomfortable with a ‘good childhood’ because it
implied a moral judgement on others:
“You can’t say that, you can’t tell whether somebody else’s children have a good childhood
or not, everybody’s different”
(Girls, Year 11, (A)BC1, Worcester Park)
Essentially a ‘good childhood’ had too many moral overtones when talking about others’
families or a concept in general.
Page 28
6.1.5. A ‘Content’ Childhood
Some respondents spontaneously suggested a ‘content’ childhood as being more
appropriate, avoiding the moral overtones of a ‘good’ childhood. By a ‘content’ childhood
they meant:
•
•
•
•
•
Children who are well cared for
Children who have enough in place for them to feel happy (support etc.)
Children who are balanced : who expect to give and take, share, support others and
be supported themselves, to help others
A more long term state (c.f. ‘happiness’ or a ‘happy’ childhood’)
Children who are safe, secure and who have continuity in their lives and families.
This last element was very important indeed to those suggesting the phrase, and was
central to their definition of what makes for an appropriate childhood, which sets children
up with the best possible chance of productive, fulfilling and worthwhile adulthood.
However, others felt this wasn’t a well understood term, and it implied a degree of
smugness with which they were unhappy.
6.1.6. A Discussion of Language
During the discussions, prompted by the visuals, all groups had no difficulty generating
what they felt were the crucial elements of the kind of childhood implied (in previous
reports described in Section 1) by ‘wellbeing’. It is remarkable however, that parents,
carers, young people and children had no common, accepted and used language to sum
these elements up. Many found this disconcerting: i.e. that there was no generally
accepted language for describing something as core to society as a good/ happy/ content
childhood. Certainly, although respondents were happy to guess at more or less
appropriate language when talking about their own or their children’s childhoods, the
resistance to talking about others’ children and childhood in abstract was palpable. This
tension certainly made for extremely lively and emotional discussions: they were engaged
and passionate when talking about their children, but reluctant and recalcitrant when
talking outside that context.
Respondents felt it was an important discussion to have, and one which was good to have
in an independent context: i.e. outside political agendas...
“Politicians are always trying to score points ... (2nd respondent) ... they’re always changing
the schools around but it doesn’t change anything, just makes it more confusing for
parents”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
Two sets of contradictions emerged in the parents and carers groups which also ‘infected’
their language and led to them resisting talking about good/ content childhoods outside
their own family and children.
Page 29
•
Amongst parents and carers, although there was a great reluctance to judge other
parents and their families, their argument was that when something goes wrong with
a child, and they did not have in place the right components for a good/ content
childhood, then it was the fault of the parents.
“In the end it’s down to us to do the best we can”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
•
In contrast, although parents and carers were extremely uncomfortable with the idea
of Government having an influence on their family or even in families generally, they
were very quick to blame Government when the general unhappiness and
discontent of young people and children were discussed.
These contradictions were difficult for respondents to resolve, but led them to argue that
there should be a debate about these issues. They thought that good / content childhoods
were too important to leave down to parents, and then blamed Government for a) not
making it easier to be a good parent in the UK in 2007, or b) sorting out families who are
failing their children (as well as young people who are ‘out of control’). At the centre of the
above contradictions was a perception that parents - although crucial to the outcome of
childhood - had been disengaged or disenfranchised and had no right to talk about the
issue in a wider, more abstract context. This perception that they didn’t have a say, and
thus couldn’t get involved or interfere with other families, along with what they argued was
“political correctness gone mad’ meant that the discussion groups (where they were given
2 hours to talk about childhoods and children, and were listened to by other parents) were
genuinely thought-provoking and engaging. Some parents and carers didn’t want to leave
the discussions, and most parents and carers felt genuinely re-enfranchised by the
experience.
Parents and carers argued that one of the problems with parenting was that it was a very
public activity, and despite not wanting to interfere themselves, they felt under the gaze of
others.
“The curtain twitchers”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
They didn’t want to be criticised or to be judged to be getting parenting wrong, however
they felt genuinely this it was difficult not to ‘get it wrong’ in some ways.
•
They reported schools criticising their efforts to support their children.
“I went through all his letters with him, so that at least he’d know what the letters were
when he got there, but she said, ‘ don’t do that, you’ve put him at a disadvantage’”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, C2D(E), Leeds)
Page 30
•
‘Political Correctness’ meant that the rules were constantly changing and it was
difficult to know what was currently offensive to others, or the right language to use.
“He said to me, mum you can’t use that word, that’s offensive”
(Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
•
•
•
•
Their attempts to support their children in extra-curricular activities, sports, drama,
music were undermined by Health and Safety regulations (or the way schools and
community leaders in particular interpreted them). More is discussed in section
6.3.6.
Ethnic minority parents are felt to have a different view, which undermines their
confidence in the ‘norm’.
There was a perception that although they were loathe to interfere with other
families and parents, there was a certain type of parent who was happy to interfere
with their family, and to ‘have a go’ at them.
Children and young people sometimes ganged up on them as parents, and so they
had given up trying to impose their rules and boundaries.
“This has been really interesting. It’s really made me think. I’m going to go home and have
another go, I think I’ve given up too soon”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
•
Finally, they reported that too often when they read stories about families or young
people in difficulty, the default was that the parents were blamed - by journalists,
Government and in the discussion around such stories, by other parents.
“It’s just ‘blame the parents’ all the time”
(Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
So, after being systematically undermined and distanced from having a say about what is a
good/ content childhood, the discussions re-engaged them.
6.2.
Key Factors in a Good/ Content Childhood
6.2.1. Introduction
(N.B. During the discussions, respondents brainstormed key factors determining a good/
content childhood. These were spontaneously suggested)
The factors identified in the Every Child Matters (ECM) agenda reflected the key areas
covered by parents, carers, young people and children very well, but with different
priorities.
Page 31
Parents and carers identified the following as crucial to a good / content childhood, factors
in common with the ECM agenda:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Being safe
Having fun
Achieving something
Being listened to and understood, listening to and understanding others
Getting things they want
Sports / running around / being out
Children and young people generated a similar range of issues, but used different
language:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Playing / having fun
Getting prizes, stars and / or praise
Feeling protected, cared for and/or loved
Being understood / listened to / able to talk to your parents(s)
Getting the things you want
Sports/ activities (football, gymnastics, horse-riding, dancing etc.)
Interestingly, children and young people used emotive terms such as “being loved”,
“showing they love you”, “they care about you”, “she wants the best for you” or “wants you
to be safe” regularly within the discussion - though sometimes with caveats such as “I
know we argue and that but …”. They took the subject and the discussion really seriously,
and genuinely wanted the researchers to understand their family and the way it worked.
They were also often quick to praise their mothers and fathers, arguing that they weren’t
always perfect children and could make their parents and carers lives unreasonably
difficult!
It was noticeable that where the ECM agenda uses the language of outcomes,
respondents’ language was far more relative and conditional, couching their ideas in terms
of ‘trying to’ rather than ‘outcomes’.
Interestingly, educational achievement was much lower down the list in terms of when in
the discussion it was mentioned. Perhaps this was because parents and carers felt they
had little control over their children’s and young people’s educational achievement.
However parents and carers argued that it was very important to remember other types of
achievements.
“He’s not so strong at school, but he’s a good little football player”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Parents and carers felt it was central to a child’s wellbeing and development that they’re
praised for all their achievements, and that this was an important part of parenting, one
they all admitted not remembering often enough.
Page 32
“You forget to do that often enough don’t you, I’m quick to shout at him, but I don’t tell him
often enough if he’s done something I’ve asked him to”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Although safety was an important issue for both respondents and the ECM agenda, it was
a much more important issue to respondents (A detailed discussion of the issue of safety
and a safe environment is given in section 6.3.2.)
“I wouldn’t tackle a group of kids these days. Even the little ones. There’s nothing you can
do is there and even if you did they’d probably try and get you later or their dad or big
brother would come round and try and have a go”
(Fathers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Manchester)
In contrast, economic wellbeing wasn’t felt to be as important for respondents, and health
was so much taken for granted that it was rarely mentioned spontaneously in the
discussions, although a few mentioned elements of what they judged to be a healthy
lifestyle.
Further, although covering much of the same ground as the ECM agenda, respondents
tended to think of the themes in terms of family, friends and school, rather than as the five
ECM themes. However the consistency across the ECM agenda, and all groups of
respondents was remarkable. Indeed the similarity between children and young people,
and their parents and carers was unusual, and the Family Depths helped establish just
what a strong link there was between parents’ thoughts, values and opinions and their
children’s.(N.B. It was very interesting that the only time the core needs of ‘food’ and ‘a roof
over your head’ came up with children was in a Family Depth. The family had been without
benefits or any income for over 2 weeks, during winter. Both the parents and the children
spontaneously raised this as a crucial determinant.)
Thus, there seems to be a strong and shared vision or ideal type of what makes a good/
content childhood across the sample, although differences in emphases were found. This
similarity can be seen in the following examples of the brainstorms conducted at the
beginning of the group:
Page 33
Page 34
The order of discussion in parents and carers groups tended to be very similar. That is, in
response to the stimulus (given in Appendix One), they talked about children being happy,
and that what made them happy was a combination of having and doing what they wanted.
Page 35
“Mine look like that when they’ve got a new playstation or something like that”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
Then, in subsequent discussion, when addressing what makes for a good / content
childhood, they tended to focus on what parents provide, i.e. that which was essential for a
good / content childhood - the context. This context, parents and carers argued, was
principally a matter of the following (in this order)
•
•
•
•
Family
Friends
Schools
Wider community/ ‘other’ influences
6.2.2. The Influence of the Family
This was felt to be fundamental and multi-faceted, and was always one of the first
suggestions for contributing factors to a good/ content childhood.
Both parents and carers, and children and young people cited ‘spending time as a family’
as absolutely fundamental. From this basic ‘quality’, ‘one to one’, ‘me’, ‘family’ time so
much which was central to a good/ content childhood was felt to flow. This was particularly
true in relation to the ECM themes of ‘enjoy and achieve’ and ‘make a positive
contribution’. Both adults and children / young people used these types of terms in talking
about what’s most important in creating a good/ content childhood, indeed in the family
interviews, it was noticeable that often the children would echo the language used by their
parents - ‘one to one’, ‘quality’, ‘family’ time.
“Unless you spend quality family time with them, how can you get across your family
values”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
“Like on holiday, when you’re together and getting on, it all makes sense again”
(Boys, Year 11, C2D(E), Manchester)
“You look forward to coming home and tell her all about school, what’s happened, if you’ve
got a problem”
(Girls, Year 11, (A)BC1, Worcester Park)
“It’s a really special feeling, I really love it”
(Girls, Year 7, C2D(E), Bournemouth)
“I love it when she spends time with us, we get her whole attention, it makes you feel cared
for”
(Daughter, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
The feeling was that if parents and carers got this right, then the ‘basics’ were in place, and
it would help children and young people deal with all other influences on them when they
Page 36
were growing up, particularly the ‘other’ influences which parents and carers could be very
concerned about (i.e. all other influences which are not those cited above - not family,
friends or school). If this time had been spent, parents and carers felt that it was much
easier to allow children and young people more freedom, since they were likely to have
developed a bond of trust and respect, which was central to allowing them increasing
independence.
“At that age all they want is to be grown up, but if you’ve got over your family values to
them, you can give them a bit more independence, ... because you can trust them ... most
of the time”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Equally, parents and carers felt that if this central relationship was not established, then it
was going to be extremely difficult to have any influence and therefore control over children
and young people. If parents and carers couldn’t trust and respect their children and young
people, then, they argued, those parents and carers would have to try to interfere in what
other influences they have in their lives. Thus, they argued, parents and carers would try to
micro-manage their children’s lives, and could become “obsessive”, which they all felt was
inappropriate.
If the ‘core’ relationship between parent and child had not been established via ‘quality
time’, and parents were unwilling to try to manage outside influences, then what parents
and carers felt happened was that those parents ‘give up’ trying to have an influence on
them completely, and leave children and young people to negotiate their way through life
themselves. This was something most parents and carers felt both dangerous and tragic.
“You just think ‘where are the parents, why are they letting their kids do that?’, but they’ve
nd
just given up. ... (2 respondent) That’s why kids have to be so streetwise and grown up
nowadays”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
There were two types of consequences of spending family time/ quality time with children
and young people:
•
•
positively influencing them, giving them all the things they like, concentrating on
them and
equally important, restricting them, giving them boundaries, disciplining them.
Positively Influencing
On the positive side, respondents felt that giving children and young people their time,
making them centre of attention had significant outcomes:
•
•
•
it made them feel they’re worth something, worth taking time out of busy lives to
spend with them;
that their opinions and thoughts were worth listening to;
that they’re valued, cared for and loved;
Page 37
•
where this is physically reinforced (e.g. with a hug / cuddle) both parents and carers
and children and young people feel protected and safe in a very positive way;
“Yeah, she’ll give you a hug and that, they do love you, it’s just when they do it in front of
your mates”
(Boys, Year 11, (A)BC1, Bristol)
“He doesn’t say that much really, but you know he’s happy when he does the pat-on-theback, well-done thing”
(Boys, Year 11, C2D(E), Manchester)
•
•
that what children and young people do, who they’re with and where they’re going is
noticed, which means parents and carers can comment on what they like/ praise
them, as well as notice things they might be less happy or unhappy about;
all in all, it was felt to build children and young people’s confidence, self-worth and
self-belief.
The second element which consistently emerged was the importance of listening to
children and young people, and for them, being listened to. Children and young people
used that language - ‘they listen to me, even if I know they’re going to disagree with me’.
This made them feel:
•
•
that children and young people would know that their parent or carer understood
them, because that parent or carer had listened to them and thus knew them and
their personality;
related to this, that they wouldn’t jump to the wrong conclusions about why they
were acting in the way they were, that their parent or carer would put things in their
proper context;
“She knows my personality, what I’m like, so she doesn’t think I’ve done something
because I’m bad, she’ll think, well maybe she was a bit depressed”
(Girls, Year 3, (A)BC1, Bournemouth)
•
•
•
thus, parents and carers felt it was much easier to help children or young people
when they were upset or concerned about something, and they would come to them
first if something was bothering them, because they knew they would get a
sympathetic and knowledgeable hearing ;
this was particularly important to young people and children when they knew they’d
done something wrong: it was a source of great relief to them that they could
approach their parent or carer and talk to them/ get their advice when they’d done
something which they knew their parent or carer would disapprove of, but would
listen and help them resolve the situation - which they felt was a much better
situation than having to lie to their parent/ carer;
parents and carers also felt that if they listened to their children / young people, then
they would have a much better chance of getting those children / young people to
Page 38
•
listen to them, when they had something they wanted them to hear and pay
attention to;
thus, they argued, it was possible to have an influence on them, because of the
above mutual respect which would have been built.
These two elements - giving children and young people attention and listening to them and their outcome, i.e. that they would feel secure and loved, formed a fundamental basis
for instilling the ‘family values’/ right way of thinking which was so important to them.
“Make them feel like they’re the centre of your world, that’s what they want”
(Fathers, 25-34, eldest child in Foundation KS,(A)BC1, Bristol)
“Listening to them really helps. That’s why his grandparents are so important, they really
take the time out to do that”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
Interestingly though, parents and carers, young people and children all cited the
importance of providing ‘space’ (a physical space as well as time) for them to be on their
own. Both talked about how important it was to “chill”, or “think about what’s going on”, that
is, to reflect on their lives and its events in order to start forming their own sense of identity
and independence.
“If I don’t have time when people just leave me alone I get really stressed”
(Boys, Year 7, C2D(E), Lewisham)
Both talked about how important it was that children in particular be encouraged to use
their imaginations, and parents worried that the over-stimulus of television, the internet,
gaming etc, stifled their imagination. They contrasted this with books, play, dressing up which were important to them when they were children. Certainly ‘flight’ into a world where
the stress of contemporary living was banished (whether that be in a computer game
world, or a Harry Potter story) was something most parents and carers felt important to
children and young people’s wellbeing. Many reported a difference in attitude and
behaviour in their children when they’d had that ‘time out’.
“When I’m feeling a bit depressed I’ll go up to my room and play some music, and it’ll cheer
me up”
(Girls, Year 7, (A)BC1, Lewisham)
“I don’t know how to describe it, but it’s really important they can have time on their own”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 1/2, Birmingham)
Some parents suspected that the internet and games stifled that imagination, whilst others
argued that they encouraged it. The main worry they shared was in relation to violence in
such games - but then they also argued that they had played some pretty violent games as
children themselves!
One of the main reasons parents and carers felt that attention, being listened to, and
providing space for reflection was so important, was that it allowed and encouraged good
Page 39
communication between parents / carers and their children. This was felt to be, on the one
hand crucial, but on the other, extremely difficult to achieve.
“It’s the teen thing, they’re just impossible. I want to say come back and see me when
you’re 20”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
“I’m not going to say that we get on or anything, but you know they are there if you really
need to talk about something”
(Boys, Year 9, C2D(E), Eastbourne)
So long as that communication had been established, parents and carers felt it was safe(r)
to allow their children more independence and freedom, and to trust them to judge what
was safe for them. Without this, parents and carers felt it would be impossible to judge
what was appropriate - challenging but safe - for their children. Quality, family time was
invariably cited as the chief creator of good communication, even amongst those in care
(including parents who had been brought up in care).
“I was brought up in a home and even in a home they made sure you could talk to them”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Interestingly, family history, extended family and ‘stories’ were also cited as important in
this context. Respondents felt that having an extended family gave children and young
people a sense of continuity, of having a history which extended beyond them, which in
turn, helped them hypothesize continuity in their future. Extended families, where
grandparents told stories about their childhood (and their parents childhoods) were
mentioned here, children and young people arguing that it made them feel loved, because
they were part of something bigger, and that there were people beyond their parents who
wanted to spend time with them. It made them feel that they were connected to a number
of people, not just their parents.
“I love going to my Nan’s. She tells me stories about the olden days when she was young,
and about what my mum was like when she was a little girl”
(Girls, Year 3, (A)BC1, Bournemouth)
“I love seeing my little cousins, you see them able to do things one day and they couldn’t
do that the day before”
(Girls, Year 3, C2D(E), Newcastle)
“(Showing a picture as an example of something indicating a time when she was sad).
This is Rhys, he’s my baby brother. He died when he was only a baby. We were all really
sad, especially my mummy”
(Girls, Year 3, (A)BC1, Bournemouth)
Again the hope was that if parents and carers could establish good communication within
the family, then their children would have a better chance of communicating well and thus
maximising the potential outside the family…
Page 40
“I don’t have any secrets from my mum, I can tell her anything”
(Daughter, Family Depth, eldest child in KS2, South London)
They hoped that their children could communicate well with friends, teachers, other
children…
“Communication is so important for them, it’s their mobiles, those chatting things on their
computers”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
... and that if their confidence has been built through good communication, then they’ll feel
in control of ‘outside influences’ and be able to say no when they feel peer pressure, and to
avoid situations where they don’t feel secure.
“I know she’s already been offered cigarettes, we talk about it and she says her friends are
smoking but she’s not going to”
(Mother, Family Depth, eldest child in KS2, South London)
Influencing by ‘Restricting’
The ‘flipside’ to the positive side was that by paying attention and listening to their children,
parents and carers felt that they could have a much better understanding of what they were
doing, where they were going, what they were thinking in order to address those
behaviours and attitudes they were unhappy with and to have a influence in trying to keep
them safe. This was an extremely important task and necessity for parents and carers.
‘Stranger danger’ was part of this...
“You try to warn them about paedophiles, but you don’t know how much notice they take”
(Mother, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Ripley)
... but the issue was felt to be much broader than this, encompassing traffic, hooliganism,
bullying, street crime, gun/ drug culture, anti-social behaviour and much more (The issue of
safety is addressed in detail in section 6.3.2.).
However, parents and carers felt that their main work was in preparing children and young
people for dealing with this themselves. The feeling was that if they set appropriate
boundaries for them at each stage in their development, then they would concentrate on
trying to break the boundaries they’d set them, rather than trying to do whatever they
wanted to (i.e. behave like an adult) which would put them in danger. They also felt that by
setting boundaries, they were allowing children and young people more freedom, so long
as they stayed within those boundaries. This, they argued also allowed children and young
people to develop independence and to manage themselves more safely and responsibly.
This in turn created the necessary trust for parents and carers to feel comfortable in giving
them freedom outside the home.
By being prevented from doing certain things, children and young people felt that their
parents and carers were trying to make them feel:
Page 41
•
•
cared for, loved, wanted and most importantly, protected
pride in being trusted and respected
(N.B. The discussions with children and young people initially concentrated on their
younger siblings and what would make them happy rather than them personally. When the
discussion turned to how they felt about their parents and carers’ behaviour, they were
very quick to admit that it could make them angry, bad tempered and unreasonable, but all
accepted the positive and valued motives behind their parents’ behaviour. They tended to
be critical of friends’ parents who allowed their children to do anything they wanted. This,
they felt, made their friends selfish, could put them in danger, and didn’t show the ‘tough’
love they all felt was necessary in today’s families. They were, however, envious of such
friends on occasion and admitted using their friends’ freedom as a lever in arguments
about appropriate boundaries!)
Parents and carers also felt that by restricting what children and young people get/ can
have as well as what they do teaches them to share and to support others. They argued
that making them wait or save up for something they wanted made them appreciate the
effort they, as parents and carers, had to put in to earning enough to pay for things for
them. It also helped them prioritise and think about the consequences of them asking for
something. This, they felt, discouraged them from being selfish and taught them some
important lessons about sharing responsibilities as well as things.
“How do they know the value of anything unless they’ve realised what has to happen for
them to have that”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
Further, unless children and young people were given boundaries, they argued, then they
would never learn about consequences. Both parents and carers, and children and young
people (sometimes reluctantly) acknowledged that reasonable and appropriate punishment
was important.
•
•
Parents and carers felt that their children/ young people might find it tough, but that
they would see that they were being punished because they cared about them.
They contrasted this with the behaviour of some of their children’s friends parents,
who allowed them to do whatever they liked. This, they argued, indicated a lack of
concern or ‘bother’ on the part of those parents. They hoped their children would
appreciate that boundaries, and thus consequences, were only in place because
they wanted what was best for them.
Page 42
“She knows they can do what they want at (her friend’s) house, but she prefers if she
comes here. I think kids like to know where they are”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
At the end of the day, parents and carers felt that learning to respect others’ boundaries
and opinions was an important part of learning respect. If children and young people
respected others, then they would also learn that those others would respect them. Indeed
a few parents complained in the loudest terms about teachers, who they argued their
children had respected and (broadly) obeyed, had been disrespectful to their children.
“Some adults don’t deserve respect. He (teacher)’s one of them”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
To summarise then: the argument was that if the family’s/ parent’s influence was not in
place, then it was difficult to achieve a decent childhood. This was true for all types of
families and children, regardless of whether they were rich or poor, one or two-parent
families, girls as much as boys and in rural, sub-urban and urban settings. After the
family’s influence, parents and carers felt the rest was down to environment: they could lay
the basic foundations, but what was built on those foundations was also a matter of where
they lived.
“You bring them up as best you can, and just hope they don’t get in with the wrong crowd
and they get a reasonable school”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
“At the end of the day it’s down to their family and the people they’re brought up with”
(Fathers, 25-34, eldest child in Foundation KS,(A)BC1, Bristol)
6.2.3. The Influence of Friends
Friends were most often cited as the second most important influence or component in a
good/ content childhood, although they fulfilled a very different role to family.
The advantage of friends, was that generally had a lot in common with the child or young
person. Thus, it was argued, they understood them better and could have a different
relationship with them compared with their parents. Young people and children talked
about how important it was to share things, time, events with friends.
“It’s just much more fun doing something with your mates, they keep you company, you
have a laugh together”
(Girls, Year 11, (A)BC1, Worcester Park)
“They know what your on about and aren’t going to tell you what to do about it”
(Boys, Year 9, C2D(E), Eastbourne)
“They're on your side, they understand what you’re going through”
(Boys, Year 9, C2D(E), Eastbourne)
Page 43
Parents and carers also felt that this was an important aspect of friendship:
“I talk to my friends about my parents and my parents about my friends”
(Boys, Year 7, (A)BC1, Ripley)
“They think the same way, sometimes they can get through to them when you can’t”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
Friends were often praised for listening and trying to cheer children and young people up,
something they could do very effectively, since they saw the world / life from a point of view
much closer to young people / children.
“They’re not like adults, they think the same way as you”
(Girls, Year 3, C2D(E), Newcastle)
Interestingly, many children and young people felt that it was comforting and important that
friends were with you, standing by you when you made mistakes, or even making the same
mistakes together.
They also argued that one of the things they liked about hanging out with their friends was
that they needed very few props, they did very little, except live in their own world. They
often laughed when asked ‘what do you like doing with your friends’ because they found it
hard to explain exactly what they’d been up to. Girls frequently talked about just ‘hanging
around’ in shopping centres (open or shut), boys doing the same in parks. A few,
embarrassed, admitted they’d talk about their future lives, about being a “top model”, or
football star, or just about getting away from their current area / situation. It was even
harder to get them to describe what they were doing online. Whilst some talked about
MySpace, Bebo, Facebook and other social networking sites, they were very reluctant to
talk about what they did there, aside from the ubiquitous “oh, you know, stuff”. A few girls
talked about using the internet to be different people - but mostly justified it along the lines
of ‘nobody tells the truth’, or ‘it’s just a bit of a laugh’. Perhaps as a consequence of their
parents and carers asking them “exactly” what they’d been doing, they had developed very
strong defences when adults tried to probe the detail of their ‘re-invention’, and ‘hanging
out’ activities, whatever the context!
“I don’t know what we do, just hang out. There’s no pressure.”
(Girls, Year 9, C2D(E), Lewisham)
Interestingly, in talking about the role of their friends, it became clear that young people
and children were re-inventing themselves with different groups of friends, trying out
different personalities. Indeed those children and young people who had moved house
talked about this most explicitly:
“I decided I was going to use a different name at my new school”
(Girls, Year 3, C2D(E), Newcastle)
“She had to change all her friends (because she moved house), so she’s a different person
now”
Page 44
(Girls, Year 7, C2D(E), Bournemouth)
Most also talked about falling out with friends, and how they learned to say sorry by having
to apologise when they’d behaved badly. Friends were also important in helping children
and young people develop their sense of what it means to help others, to lookout for others
and to share. They argued that if they were doing something silly, then their friends were
good at stopping them, and vice versa.
“I did something stupid (wouldn’t say what, but the police were involved), and she really
stood by me ... it’s all sorted out now”
(Girls, Year 9, (A)BC1, Newcastle)
There was also a sense in which children and young people felt safer (and braver!) if they
were with their friends. They also argued that in the best of worlds their friends encouraged
them to achieve, and supported them to ‘go for what you’d like to achieve’. Parents and
carers were aware of their friends’ influence, and were usually pleased when friends were
supportive in this way. However, for parents, there was always a worry about their children
being exposed to more negative influences.
Boys, particularly older boys, from lower SEGs and in urban areas, talked about how
important friends were in terms of their safety. Urban children talked about how crucial they
were within their estate, indeed some argued they had tried to make friends with
dangerous individuals to make them feel safer.
“It’s easier to make friends with them, otherwise you’re making trouble for yourself”
(Boys, Year 11, C2D(E), Manchester)
“Everyone knows who you are, and if you don’t speak to them then you’re going to get it,
aren’t you?”
(Boys, Year 7, C2D(E), Lewisham)
6.2.4. Influence of Schools and Teachers
(N.B. It should be borne in mind that this research took place during school holidays, which
may have had an influence on attitudes expressed.)
Although all recognised that this was a key influence on childhood and the outcomes of
childhood, it was a controversial subject for both parents / carers and young people /
children. All acknowledged that a good education was incredibly important for their future,
even those who were currently out of school.
“I’m not in school at the minute. But they’re trying to get me back after the holidays.
They’ve changed the school, so I’m going to give it a go”
(Lewisham)
Further, they all felt that the right teachers and school could make the difference in
adulthood.
Page 45
“When they say you’re good at something or can do something it makes a big difference
because they believe in you even though they’re not your family”
(Boys, Year 11, C2D(E), Manchester)
However, both parents / carers and children/ young people felt vulnerable in this context. It
was thought to be difficult if not impossible to control which teacher a child gets, and to
complain and try to change is to jeopardise children and young people’s chances (as
schools are not generally receptive).
“She was being bullied, and I was labelled a difficult mother. They didn’t do anything, so in
the end I managed to get her moved to a Church of England school and she’s a different
person. Our son’s going there after the holidays, it’s just made the world of difference”
(Mother, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
Most respondents argued that there were plenty of good and plenty of bad teachers in the
schools system, which was a matter for a great deal of worry and anxiety, particularly when
changing years or schools.
“I think his teacher picks on him, and he’s got him again next year, which is a worry”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, C2D(E), Leeds)
The difference a good teacher could make, or the potential influence a teacher could have,
for a child or young person was broadly agreed:
•
•
they would take the time to get to know children/ young people, and, as with
parents, if they understood that young person / child, they (the latter) felt they’d be
fairer to them, they’d be much more help because their advice would be based on a
good understanding of their individual personality, strengths and weaknesses; they
could also communicate with children and young people well;
this, in turn, meant that children/ young people were more confident in what they
were doing, and thus were more likely to achieve, building confidence that they
could achieve something in the future.
School was also cited as the main place where children and young people met their
friends. This was a matter of some concern to both parents / carers and children/ young
people.
“School decides who their friends are going to be. If you are lucky they’ll make some good
ones otherwise its all down to you”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS1/2, Bristol)
“There is trouble at school but it’s safer there because there's teachers and people who are
watching you”
(Boys, Year 7, C2D(E), Lewisham)
For parents, it underlined how important it was to get their children into as good a schools
as possible: if school was where their children were going to meet their friends, then they
Page 46
wanted to try to make sure their children would meet “nice” friends, who would be a good
influence, and thus where they’d be happy and learn well.
“They meet their friends at school, so you just hope they’re nice”
(Mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, C2D(E), Raynes Pk)
For young people and children it was also a great concern. Obviously they were happy to
meet their friends at school and to ‘hang out’ in their breaks. However children and young
people talked about how school exposed them to other children who were alternately
unpleasant, bullies, violent, “mad” - but always out of the influence or control of adults,
which was their main worry.
“There’s a horrible boy call xxxx at my school, I hate him he’s very silly”
(Girls, Year 3, C2D(E), Newcastle)
“You want to get back to school to see your friends, but there are some other people there
you don’t want to see”
(Girls, Year 7, (A)BC1, Lewisham)
“He was being bullied for a while. He’s a perfectly pleasant child, but it changed him
completely. The school were absolutely useless and in the end I had to sort it out”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
Children and young people accepted that this was something they had to negotiate
themselves, hopefully with the help of their friends (and parents/ carers), but it was a
definite worry to children and young people and was something they expected to have to
sort out principally on their own.
6.2.5. ‘Other’ Influences
These influences encompassed all other factors aside from family, friends or schools, and
included extra-curricular activities / clubs, media, the Internet, music and the influence of
the wider community or neighbourhood.
Generally respondents felt that gradually children and young people had to deal with or
negotiate these influences themselves, with increasing independence as they became
young adults. Mothers in particular talked about the change in relationship when their
children went to secondary school: this was a key point in accepting that their child
deserved and needed more independence.
This process of ‘ceding’ decision making and freedom to their children was one which
neither ‘side’ felt was easy, and usually provoked some conflict within a household. It was a
process which parents and carers felt could only be negotiated on an individual basis, there
could be no ‘rule book’ of what’s allowed when.
“My son is a really vulnerable little boy, I worry about him much more than I do about her,
even so she’s younger. She’s a little hooligan.”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, C2D(E), Leeds)
Page 47
Certainly parents and carers felt it was important to get it right, and if they allowed children
and young people an inappropriate level of independence, it could be dangerous for them.
“We battle over what they’re allowed to do on the Internet, but I don’t know that there’s
much point. He seems sensible enough though, but you worry what happens at friends’
houses”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Those parents and carers who felt they’d allowed their children to make their own decisions
in relation to these ‘outside’ influences tended to backtrack in the discussions, and vow to
take more control of what their children were doing.
“When I think about it, I should take more notice, it’s just I’m so busy”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Clubs and Activities Outside School
Those involved in such clubs and activities argued that they were really important to their
children. They were usually sports (football, rugby, dancing, acrobatics) or pet/ animalrelated (horses/ ponies).
Children and young people were also receiving praise in this context, being given
reinforcement that they were doing something well. It also introduced them to people who
had the same interests as they did, and was a source of good friends.
Parents and carers also reported finding alternative role models for children and young
people in these groups, and they used them to help reinforce appropriate behaviour.
Community centre ‘drop in’ centres or clubs were mentioned particularly by working class
young people as having been really important.
“This used to be a community centre, there was a club here we used to come to, till they
closed it down”
(Girls, Year 9, C2D(E), Lewisham)
Such centres were often one of the very few places they could go to which was safe,
warm, often supervised, away from home (if indeed home itself was safe, warm and
supervised). They valued it as a place they could come to, outside their home, as ‘getting
out’ was very important to them, and this allowed them to do that in a safe environment.
”It was somewhere to go and chill out when there’s nothing else to do”
(Boys, Year 9, C2D(E), Eastbourne)
“There was always someone alright to talk to and you could play games, go on the web,
even get a drink”
(Boys, Year 7, C2D(E), Lewisham)
Page 48
“It was alright because as long as you didn't make any trouble or anything they didn’t mind
if you smoked out the back or whatever”
(Boys, Year 9, C2D(E), Eastbourne)
“There’s nowhere else around here, it wasn’t great, but it was here”
(Girls, Year 9, C2D(E), Lewisham)
These centres and clubs often had (or had had) activities - pool tables, mini-courses,
games - and the general perception was that there were very few available to children and
young people nowadays. Parents spoke of these types of clubs with some nostalgia...
“Do you remember, we used to go every week. I think they even had a disco once a week
for the over 14s”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Boys talked about how important supervision could be in this context - even if that
supervision was provided by police.
“Nothing’s going to happen when there’s someone else about, so you feel a bit safer”
(Boys, Year 7, C2D(E), Lewisham)
Media - Television & Film
Parents and children had learned to live with the negotiations around TV in particular, but
also (increasingly) films and DVDs in home, from a very young age. They generally had
established an agreement around viewing volume and types of programmes, which the
child or young person would try to review on a regular basis.
Parents and carers thought that both TV and films were potentially a force for good, citing
programmes such as the Night Garden on CBeebies as the modern equivalent of
PlaySchool, and therefore a benign and engaging programme. Parents and carers felt it
was desirable and appropriate for their children to view programmes which had good
stories, however a variety of issues was identified, particularly the problem of broadcasters
pushing the agreed rules in order to make ‘cutting edge’ drama. Some were incensed at
the time of the research by a story in EastEnders, where a young girl is filmed about to
have sex with a boy, including scenes in his bedroom with a box of condoms lying on the
bed. This, they felt, upset their negotiated ‘boundary’ and so would provoke stress and
conflict in the necessary re-negotiation of the boundaries. The ability to make decisions
about what their children could and couldn’t watch was made on the basis that they could
confidently predict the content of a programme. That regulators and broadcasters were
clear and consistent in their labelling of programmes - particularly before the watershed was extremely important to them. They generally had no interest in previewing everything
their child was watching, whether that was a film on DVD or a children’s programme on TV,
and relied on information provided to them to be fair, reasonable, clear and consistent.
This would allow them to make informed decisions which were also fair to their children,
minimising the risk of conflict with them.
Page 49
Some parents felt they had significantly lost control over what their children were watching,
and should therefore just stop trying to have an influence in this context.
Likewise, parents and carers - and some young people - felt that the portrayal of ‘our’
society, the UK in 2007 both on television and in film was exceedingly depressing, with
high volumes of aggression, bad language, and rudeness.
“I think it’s just really grim, it’s depressing”
(Girls, Year 11, (A)BC1, Worcester Park)
As a mirror on society, parents and carers were particularly concerned that it produced
such an (unfairly) ugly picture.
Internet
Most children and young people claimed to feel safe on the internet, very able to manage
their behaviour appropriate (in their eyes), and they argued that they got a tremendous
amount from using it.
•
•
•
•
•
It had become an essential part of their social world.
It gave them a chance to chat with their friends in private and as a group.
It gave them a chance to meet new friends in a (fairly?) safe environment.
It gave them access to whatever information they needed: bands, celebrities, jokes /
humour, games etc.
It was something they definitely had control over rather than their parents - it was
something they (parents and carers) couldn’t dictate (too strongly) to them on.
Both adults and young people/ children felt that it had to be acknowledged that the internet
could not be controlled any more, if it ever could have been. Interestingly many young
people and children were concerned about the behaviour of other young people. Girls were
particularly concerned about friends who might meet people from chat rooms.
“Yeah, (friend from school) went to meet someone she’d been talking to, I said to take a
friend but I don’t know if she did or not. I wouldn’t do it”
(Girls, Year 9, (A)BC1, Newcastle)
“She really worries about it but she doesn’t really understand. It’s where all my friends get
to together when we can’t get out”
(Child, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
“It’s not her friends that I worry about it’s the friends of friends she meets on there, they
might not be who they say they are”
(Mother, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
Page 50
“I don’t know what he sees in it he’d spend all day there if I didn’t kick him out”
(Fathers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Manchester)
However, across the sample, there was a sense that getting ‘worked up’ or overly
concerned about the Internet was not a good idea, since there was so little anyone could
do to stop someone who really wanted to do or find something (dangerous) in that
environment. The argument was that it was an unsafe environment more because of how
people behaved on the internet rather than because of what was actually in it. Certainly it
was judged to be an inevitable, integral part of the future, and had its very powerful uses.
But in the end, parents and carers tended to feel they were relatively powerless in this
context. This was another area where they admitted to relying on their children’s friends to
keep them safe rather than trying to actively manage their children’s behaviour on the
internet too heavily.
Where information was provided about content on the internet, it was welcomed by
parents, and, as with other media, parents and carers were particularly concerned that it be
fair, clear and consistent so that they could make decisions about intervention
appropriately.
Music
There was barely a brainstorm with children and young people in which music was not
spontaneously mentioned. They thought it a powerful influence for good and a real
companion when all others had fled!
“(Laughing) If I lose it with my parents and fall out with my friends, I can always put my
iPod on and that’ll make me feel better”
(Girls, Year 7, C2D(E), Bournemouth)
Music was an important part of their self-expression, and their choice and taste was a
matter of pride and nervousness to them. They used it to lift their spirits, to reflect their
mood, and to share with friends. Its importance was evident by the tentative way they
described their musical taste in a group with strangers!
Amongst parents and carers there was a real concern not so much about the music their
children listened to, but rather about their ability to understand the wider culture around
children and young people’s music. Rap music was most often singled out as of concern.
They had heard of ‘gangster rap’, indeed some had been part of its earlier incarnations, but
they worried about its implications for their children and for young people generally. It
disturbed them to see their children mimicking the clothes and particularly the language
and gestures.
“(Mother moving her head from side to side with appropriate hand gestures)... and she
sayin’ like I’m not, repeat not, understand? stayin’ here. I’m a city girl, this is doin’ ma ‘ed
in. I thought what’s she saying, who is this girl, where’s my niece gone - and she’s
younger than my daughter!”
(Girls, Year 11, (A)BC1, Worcester Park)
Page 51
Their greatest discomfort was with the associations with violence and ‘street’ behaviour,
and they reported feeing concerned particularly with news items covering gangster rapper
violence. For most parents and carers it epitomised the attitude they would hate to see in
their children.
Wider Community & Neighbourhood
Neighbourhood and community are addressed in detail in section 6.3.7.however it should
be noted that parents were very concerned about the lack of community spirit, and that
neighbours were not known. Clearly other children and young people about - as well as
potential adult strangers - were of concern to parents and carers, however there was very
little they felt they could do to minimise the (potentially bad) influence except by keeping
their children at home as much as possible.
“She doesn’t know what it’s like, she things it’s dangerous just being outside, but I know
what I’m doing ... it’s just she doesn’t really understand”
(Daughter, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
It was also felt to be extremely difficult for parents and carers to make the neighbourhood
or community a more positive influence on their children and young people. Parents had
very little trust in ‘community’ and felt that relationships with neighbours had deteriorated.
(The reasons behind this perception are given in the next section).
One exception to this was where parents had chosen to send their children to faith schools
- principally Church of England schools and Muslim faith schools. It was interesting that
there was a general perception that faith schools would be better quality schools, for
reasons it was difficult to pin down. In part parents and carers felt that those who chose to
send their children to such schools had put more thought into their choice, and would
probably be parents / carers who cared more about their children.
There was also a perception, particularly amongst those parents who had sent their
children to faith schools, that children at faith schools were better behaved, and that their
children would have access to a safer community because of the values of that faith.
“We’re Muslim too. It’s not too bad though cos a lot of my friends are there. It’s something
we do together and it kind of teaches you about what's right and wrong”
(Boys, Year 11, (A)BC1, Bristol)
Those parents and carers who had sent their children to a faith school claimed that they
liked the idea that their children were exposed to a different way of thinking - to faith.
Indeed some of the other parents regretted that their children were not exposed to this
‘challenge’. Both groups of parents / carers liked the idea that children and young people
would be taught a different way of thinking about or reflecting on their world, indeed that it
would involve reflecting on things at a deeper level. Like those parents who felt it was
important to provide ‘space’ for their children to chill and reflect, the appeal here was that
young people and children would be given ‘time out’ to stand back and consider the world
on a more global level, ‘the bigger picture”. They would also be taught Christian or Muslim
Page 52
values, values which the parents who had sent their children to such schools, felt were far
more compatible with their own family values than with (perceived) contemporary social
values.
“I love him being at a faith school, I feel safer, and it’s good for them to be taught to think
about faith”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
Other parents were very concerned about faith schools, particularly that they could have
such a fundamental influence on children’s thinking by introducing ideas such as ‘faith’ and
‘religious values’. These were issues they wanted to address and discuss with their
children, and they felt it inappropriate for this conversation to take place in schools.
6.2.6. My Child / Young Person and a Good/ Content Childhood
None of the parents or carers interviewed felt it appropriate to say they had the ‘recipe’ or
ideal of how to give children and young people the perfect ‘good / content’ childhood. They
thought that no-one could be a ‘perfect’ parent, and given that children and young people
are far from perfect, they felt that good parenting was only a matter of:
•
•
Trying to make sure that you remembered what you felt as a child, and try not to
make the same mistakes as your parents.
This they hoped to do whilst taking their idea of parenting principally from the same
parents whose fundamental flaws they had already described in the discussions!
“When I was growing up I always said to myself, I’m never going to do that, but nowadays I
sound just like my father - not my mother, she was great, but my father!”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
Certainly the consensus was that most parents applied a mixture of common sense picked
up from watching others, their parents’ method of parenting, nanny shows on TV, and
making it up on the spot.
“My dad would use the belt and it never did me any harm. Personally I think it’s the only
language some of them understand and now you can’t even do that anymore”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
“There’s no respect nowadays. You’ve got to blame the parents. The schools should bring
back corporal punishment and that would deal with it”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
Page 53
This was another reason most were very reluctant to criticise others’ parenting - they felt
that parenting was a very relative skill, and one which was very difficult to ‘control’.
“How can the government intervene? All they can do is make sure that the support’s there
for the right input from the family and the school”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
“It’s not getting any easier now he’s older, you can’t keep him in the house and
everything's so expensive and anyway… all he wants to do is hang out with his mates. It’s
not like he can go off and have adventures for the day is it?”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
As far as children and young people’s views on the quality of their own childhood was
concerned, it was remarkable how phlegmatic and sanguine they were, even under what
sounded like very challenging circumstances. This, however, in turn made it difficult to
separate what children and young people felt were the key drivers to a good / content
childhood, excepting the comments made about family and friends, and a chance at
school. Their horizons were very, very local and immediate, and when thinking about the
future they did so in a way which had no connection with their current situation. They would
‘dream’ of being somewhere else, being someone else, having a brilliant career, a
wonderful family with a huge house, but there was no causal trail which made them
consider their ‘present’ in a different way. They would argue in general that ‘of course’
school is important, however the rational, deductive logic that unless they worked very hard
at school now, they wouldn’t get qualifications, which would mean they wouldn’t get into HE
or FE, which would mean their choices would be severely limited by the time they were
thinking about careers, was simply not part of their thinking! They were very much caught
in the present and were concerned about immediate things rather than a ‘possible’,
potential future.
6.3.
Key Issues Undermining a Good / Content Childhood
There was an astonishing level of agreement on the key factors which undermined the
conditions for a good/ content childhood. They were as follows:
- No ‘safe environment’
- Financial pressures
- Limited opportunities for ‘quality’ family time
- Pressure to buy things for children / young people
- Political correctness “gone mad”
- “It’s our culture, we don’t like children”
6.3.1. Parents’ and Carers’ Aspirations
Interestingly, parents and carers had fairly consistent aspirations for their children and
young people. They hoped that they would be ‘good enough’ parents, able to keep
sustaining an influence over their children for as long as possible, or at least until they were
capable of making good decisions independently. They also generally hoped that their
Page 54
children would have a better quality of life than they did - on every level. Thus, they hoped
their children would be more successful educationally, that they would have a career they
loved and which was fulfilling, and that they would, in turn, have a family they would be
proud of.
“I’d hate him to have to struggle the same way I’ve had to. I’d do anything for him, really”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
Interestingly, parents and carers focussed on the hoped-for quality of life their children
would have, not on whether their children would have more money than they had. This,
they argued, was not the point.
They argued, across the board, that establishing and keeping that influence over their
children was difficult, and that they felt regularly and systematically undermined or
questioned about what they were doing and why.
“I thought they’d stop that ‘why’ when they were 4 or 5, but she’s still at it, but in a moody,
teenager way”
(Mothers, eldest child in KS 3/ 4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
So, the feeling was that to be a good parent, i.e. one with influence, took both confidence,
which many didn’t feel they had, as well as children and young people who would listen
(which likewise, many felt they didn’t have!)
One interesting point of difference was that parents from higher SEGs tended to have
clearer and higher educational aspirations for their children. They were more likely to have
mentally mapped out a path through higher education, to a career and then into a
successful and happy home life. In contrast, those from a lower SEG tended to live more
‘in the moment’, waiting to see what they or their child achieved at school. These lower
SEG parents and carers, as well as most children and young people were anxious that
they shouldn’t raise their hopes only to be disappointed by their (lack of) achievement.
Indeed many of these parents felt that academic achievement in particular brought a great
deal of stress with it, and that unless their child was firmly and clearly committed to that
kind of success, that they should support them in alternative ways. The happiness of their
child was paramount, and took precedence over their child’s ‘success’. In any case many
argued that success was a very relative thing, and that if their child was a successful
plumber or electrician for instance, then at least they would have money, leisure time, and
be doing something very useful.
Of great concern too, particularly to those from the lower SEGs, was the perceived costs of
higher education - both currently and when their child might want to go into HE. They felt
that it was advisable to confront the possibility of and financing for higher education if they
knew for sure a) that they / their child had achieved the required qualifications for entry; b)
that they / their child was definitely wanting to, and committed to going; and c) they
definitely had a place at on appropriate and worthwhile course at an appropriate institution.
They wanted to “cross that bridge when I come to it”.
Page 55
Some parents or carers admitted having given up trying to have an influence earlier than
they had wanted to, particularly around the ‘other influences’. They argued they had neither
the time nor the energy to stick to their guns, and that children and young people could be
extremely confrontational. Others felt that there was little point in continuing what had
become a battle between them and their children, particularly as they felt they had few
chances for a good life, and where there were few opportunities for children and young
people.
Interestingly, there was, yet again, very strong consensus amongst parents and carers
about the key factors which undermined their attempts to provide a good and content
childhood for their child or young person.
6.3.2. No ‘Safe Environment’
There was a startlingly strong and consistent view that one of the key issues which had
undermined good / content (and in this case happy) childhood in general was that the UK
was not a safe environment for children and young people. This had seriously restricted
the freedom that children and young people could have in their lives, caused conflict
between them and their parents and carers, and had undermined confidence.
All had heard or read about gun, knife, drug and gang culture, and the perception was that
it was not only rife in areas which had always been problematic, but that it was bleeding out
of those areas into all sorts of other areas.
“It’s not just that estate, you see them hanging around just here”
(Father, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Ripley)
Others, particularly single mothers in social housing, and those living on the poverty line,
claimed to have witnessed the effects of this culture locally, whilst some claimed to have
witnessed the violence itself. They felt actively threatened by it, a few having lobbied their
Local Authority Housing Office to try to get accommodation in a different area.
Interestingly, alcohol abuse was rarely mentioned, although some parents and carers
complained about the glamorisation of alcohol. They felt the danger from drug, knife and
gang culture to be much more serious, particularly when they saw drug addicts roaming
near or in the area they lived. Their perception of an ‘unsafe environment’ was particularly
the fault of the permeation of drugs, and the way in which it altered the behaviour and
values of those using them.
“It’s the druggies, they’re everywhere. We’ll have taken the kids over to the park for a
picnic, and they’ll be there. I don’t’ know why they can’t do something about them. This
wouldn’t happen in Ireland”
(Father, Family Depth, eldest child in KS2, South London)
“He will need to know how to deal with things when he’s older but right now its matter of
finding things to do which keep him off the streets”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
Page 56
“My cousin used to be in the police force, and I know for a fact that things are out of
control. If you knew how little control they had you’d be worried too”
(Fathers, 25-34, eldest child in Foundation KS,(A)BC1, Bristol)
There was also deep concern about the perceived rise in paedophiles, and most worrying
for parents and carers, their increasing presence in their homes via platforms they didn’t
feel in control of, principally internet chat rooms. Many were trying to monitor their
children’s use of the internet, locating their PCs in the living room so that they could see
what they were doing, however they were increasingly worried by the following:
•
•
•
•
•
their children’s resistance to their questioning about what they were doing - or how
little sense what they were doing made to them (“just chatting”)
their lack of understanding of what social networking involved, and what the dangers
might be
their children being contacted by people who were pretending - and their children’s
delight in the ‘pretend’ culture on the internet. They didn’t dismiss it as ‘just a bit of a
laugh’ like their children, but they were unsure how to deal with their children’s
delight and the dangers in this ‘pretend’ culture
their children accessing the internet in their friends’ houses, where they had
absolutely no control over what they were doing, and particularly where they didn’t
know the parents of the friend, and thus were unsure how and if they were being
supervised
lack of generally accepted guidance on how to handle children’s behaviour on the
internet - something they would welcome from an authoritative source which allowed
them to confront their children without looking foolish, misinformed or intolerant.
There was generally concern about increasingly aggressive behaviour and attitudes
encountered in day to day life....
“It’s just every night on the news, in the local paper, it’s what everyone talks about”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
Interestingly, parents and carers also felt that negative, aggressive attitudes were to be
found everywhere - from middle class mother cutting them up in their SUVs, to hoodies in
the parks their children were supposed to play in. There was a feeling that violence in
attitude, bad language, sex and putting people down was part of their way of life now, from
which is was almost impossible to protect children.
“It’s everything from speed bumps, to that little girl being abducted, I know that was
Portugal but I bet they were English”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
Page 57
Parents and carers’ ‘solution’ was to either:
•
•
restrict children and young people’s access to the ‘outside’, which for some,
included forbidding their children to play in their friends’ houses; or
assess that they could no longer control the environment their children were in
outside their home (and for some, inside their home), and so to try to ‘smarten up’
their children, to accept a level of ‘street smartness’ (and they reported, talking back,
cheek and disrespect) from them which they didn’t want, but couldn’t argue against.
Both responses made parents and carers unhappy: they felt they were either smothering
their children, restricting their freedom and stunting their independence, or they were party
to their children losing their innocence too early. Neither response was felt to be good
parenting, but they felt that there was little alternative. The grounds for their concern were
varied, but were mostly to do with the deterioration of ‘community:
•
•
•
they compared their current situation with their remembered past, when neighbours
had spent time with one another, were known to each other, and thus when parents
could make informed decisions about where their children could go and when.
Parents and carers felt that neighbours were generally unknown to them, and thus
letting their children spend time in their houses was putting them in a potentially
unsafe situation
this lack of familiarity fuelled a general anxiety about letting their children play / go to
friends’ houses: they were worried about internet supervision, what games / DVDs /
videos they would be allowed to watch, what the parents were like themselves, even
possible the older siblings of their child’s friend; the issue was made worse because
they felt that with the event of interactivity, the level of involvement a worrying ‘friend
of a friend’ could have with their child was much higher - it’s not just a matter of
being exposed to a frightening, worrying or inappropriate image, but that their child
could be cajoled into participating, rather than just viewing (a particular worry in
relation to the internet and video games)
and they also were just generally anxious to keep an eye, as much as possible, on
their children (certainly up to around 8/9/10) when playing/ hanging out with their
friends.
Whilst the higher SEGs felt less vulnerable, they still cited the lack of a safe environment
and the ‘seepage’ from other areas as an enormous worry.
“It’s not safe, everyone knows that, you’ve only to stick your head outside to see what's
going on”
(Fathers, 25-34, eldest child in Foundation KS,(A)BC1, Bristol)
By the time children were in the early-mid stages of Secondary School most parents were
feeling this way. In some areas, parents and carers felt they’d had to cede control much
earlier - or they had felt that the situation had become so out of control that they couldn’t
influence their children, and that they had to accept that.
Page 58
Parents of younger children, particularly those still at primary school and in the early stages
of secondary school, were trying to micro-manage their children’s life and time (as
described in section 6.2.5.). This was leading to enormous conflict, which in turn had led
some parents or children to become so aggressive that the other ‘side’ had backed off,
“given up”. Some examples of what happened (or what was thought/ hypothesized/
perceived to happen) when things broke down included the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
children and young people consistently staying out past the time they’d agreed
they’d return
children and young people withholding information about where they’d been and
what they’d been doing
parents and carers having to scour the local area, phone friends, neighbours etc. to
find their children
children and young people starting to see / become friends with people their parents
were worried about or disapproved
child getting involved in bullying or truanting
children and young people behaving in a way their parents/ carers find ‘excessive’ drinking, smoking, smoking cannabis, sexual activity
having to involve the police “for their sake” (i.e. the child)
unacceptable behaviour from their children, including stealing, getting involved in
fights, and in the worst cases, being part of a gang / carrying a knife, being involved
with drugs
Clearly the perceived lack of a safe environment was a major issue blocking the agreement
of appropriate attempts to manage their children’s independence/ safety balance.
“I banned her, but she still got out”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Parents and carers felt they were over-reliant on children and young people’s friends’
parents to let them know if there was anything to worry about, but they were often not well
know to those parents and carers, meaning that they, yet again, had to just rely on their
children being ‘sensible’.
So, although most parents and carers had cited ‘getting out and about’ as a crucial part of
a good/ content childhood, most were happier when their children were in the relatively
‘safe’ environment of their own home.
Another key factor undermining parents’ and carers’ perception that there is no ‘safe
environment’ was a change in their local community or neighbourhood. They argued that
whilst in the past they were able to rely on neighbours, people in the local community to
help watch over children and young people in an area, this was no longer the case. They
had lost confidence in how neighbours might react to keeping an eye out...
“You don’t like to ask, they might think you’re a real bad parent not knowing where your
child is”
(Mother, Family Depth, eldest child in KS2, South London)
Page 59
... often they didn’t know their neighbours, and certainly couldn’t trust them, as often the
perception was that the ‘danger’ was in their neighbourhood / community.
“I know it’s not so bad here, but it’s still just under a railway bridge [the core area they were
worried about]”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
However, it was alarming that there was not only a feeling that neighbourhoods were more
dangerous places than they used to be, but there was also a perception that the demise/
deterioration of communities and neighbourhoods had been accelerated by local and
national policies.
•
Health and Safety regulations meant that very few communal activities were allowed
(which they compared with their own childhood, when they remembered many
community events/ outings etc.)
“Do you remember the Silver Jubilee - you couldn’t have that any more. ‘Oh no Mrs Brown,
you can’t bring your table out, what if little Johnny snags his trousers on it’?”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
•
It was felt that there was a real dearth of safe, adequate, and ideally supervised
facilities, outdoors, but particularly indoors.
“There’s absolutely nothing for young people to do that doesn’t involve money or them
hanging around people you don’t want them hanging around”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
•
Communities were felt to be adult-oriented, rather than child- or young people
oriented.
“It’s all adult education courses, get back to work courses, Job Centre Plus advisers, noone’s thinking about the kids. It’s no wonder they get into trouble, where is there for them
to go?”
(Mother, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
Parents and carers didn’t feel they were unnecessarily nostalgic about their own
childhoods, and whilst they admitted that some of the problems in the environment existed
when they were children, their assessment was most definitely that things had significantly
deteriorated.
“We didn’t have guns like they do now. It’s different, even the music, the drugs, the
lifestyle is all about sex, violence and money”
(Fathers, 25-34, eldest child in Foundation KS,(A)BC1, Bristol)
Page 60
6.3.3. Financial Pressures
Parents from all sides of the social divide felt that in contemporary society, there was a
tremendous press to earn more (and more).
•
•
•
•
The UK was felt to be an extremely expensive country to live in, particularly in
London and the South East.
House prices were felt to be “ridiculous”, and with a housing shortage, those in
council houses felt the chances of getting somewhere in a good area were tiny.
This in turn increased their worry about there being no safe environment for their
children, particularly where there were no safe communal areas for their children to
play / hang out in.
For those in employment, there was a perception that they should be able to buy
their own house, and felt they were letting their children down if they couldn’t
countenance a time when they would ever be able to afford their own house.
There was also a feeling that their children were always pushing to get new things
(particularly electronic equipment), usually under pressure to keep up with their
friends, and that all too often their children wanted a brand name version which was
expensive.
Another key outcome of this perceived financial pressure was that many mothers also
worked in order to afford either housing, or a better life for their children. This meant that
there was very limited time for the precious ‘quality’ or ‘family’ time highlighted in section
below).
6.3.4. Limited time for ‘Quality’, ‘Family’ Time
As mentioned above, financial pressures, principally forcing mothers to work to sustain a
basic lifestyle, to finance the cost of housing, or to provide for their family, were having a
severe impact on families’ ability to spend ‘quality’ or ‘one to one’ time with their children.
Some parents also felt they were limiting the time they spent with their children, but out of
lack of confidence. The changed environment in which their children were living meant they
felt inadequate and unable to support or coach their children in an environment they didn’t
understand. This lack of confidence included parenting itself, particularly given the different
sets of rules seen represented on ‘Nanny’ programmes, dramas etc on TV; schools, where
they felt the language, qualifications, teaching methods, even the environment/ layout of
the classrooms had all changed; the internet - where parents and carers felt they were
relatively ignorant, particularly in relation to the kinds of sites their children used; the
outside environment and where the ‘safe’ and ‘no go’ areas were nowadays; and others’
homes, as described above.
This meant that all of the desired elements of a good/ content childhood, which flowed from
the fundamentals of ‘giving children attention’, ‘listening to children’ and ‘being part of a
family’ were limited or lacking. Parents reported feeling that it was much more difficult to
protect their children, and to teach them how to cope with the ‘outside world’.
Page 61
“Without that (family time) you don’t have any of that (the core elements in a good/ content
childhood)”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
“It is more expensive now. Course it is. You think what it costs for us all to go swimming
and with snacks and that and its well over £50. That’s an extra days work for me”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
“It’s those days when your altogether and relaxing that count. Normally it only happens
when we’re on holiday”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
This, in turn, meant that external influences had more power to shape children and young
people.
•
Parents, carers, older siblings and some young people were very concerned about
the influence of celebrity culture, particularly the way in which they felt it was leading
girls into dangerous and inappropriate behaviour, and the way it ‘trivialised’ and
belittled people and achievement. It also promoted worrying and unsuitable role
models - footballers wives and pop stars.
“The WAGS in Germany. That was pathetic - they were all over the news, just because
they could shop. That really is a fabulous role model”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
•
There was also a concern that seeing super-rich people and their lifestyles all over
the media (‘in their faces”) encouraged young people to want more themselves,
encouraged them to steal, or to nag their parents unfairly.
‘It’s what they all do, why do you think she’d be any different?”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
•
There was a perception that the quality of programming aimed at young people in
particular was also deteriorating and that standards were changing even on the
main channels pre-watershed.
“I know they complained about Biker Grove in my day, but honestly it’s a completely
different kettle of fish now”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 1/2, Birmingham)
•
Parents and carers felt that news could be particularly disturbing or erosive, and that
the coverage of terrorism underlined how unsafe their neighbourhood was.
Page 62
As mentioned in other sections above, unknown friends were also a worry to parents
and carers. They argued that it was impossible to be certain who their children were
with when they were out, and that friends of friends were a particular concern (since
their children were more likely to trust them and let their guard down).
“So far it’s been OK, but we know there’s pressure with drugs and that, and it’s just
whether she talks to us or not about it”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
The internet was a major concern, although a very frustrating concern for parents and
carers because of their limited control over children and young people’s use of it.
However, they were worried about the increase in the number of reports of young people
accessing extreme content.
“They say they do it for a laugh, but I don’t like it. It only takes one of them to be a little bit
vulnerable and that could have an effect on them”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
Again there was real concern about meeting friends of friends via the internet, as well as
the amount of information children and young people were revealing on social networking
sites. However few parents felt sufficiently well informed or competent in this context to
take control, and most simply worried about the headlines they were reading and what their
child was or wasn’t telling them.
6.3.5. Pressure to Buy Things for Children / Young People
Related to some of the points above, parents and carers felt that there was enormous
pressure on children and young people, and through them, on themselves, to provide
children with the “modern essentials” of life - electronic equipment (TVs, DVDs, Walkmen/
iPods, Playstations / X-boxes, Playstation portables etc.), designer sportswear clothing for
sports and everyday wear, clubs, subscriptions etc - the “stuff” their children want.
Parents and carers felt they bought their children too much, and that they accepted unfair
pressure, mostly because they felt guilty that they didn’t have time to spend with their
children.
“They’ve got the Sony Playstation, the DVD player, a PSP is it? and now they want a
plasma screen”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
“He says to me, mum, I don’t need anything, why don’t you stop working, we’d manage”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
This was unsatisfactory for all involved - some parents felt very guilty that they were
substituting “stuff” for time with their children, whilst others felt angry that they couldn’t stop
working to spend more time with their children.
Page 63
6.3.6. Political Correctness “Gone Mad”
Many of the parents and carers were uncomfortable expressing this view, apologising for
“sounding like the front page of the Daily Mail”, however all felt it was important to address
the issues relevant and to have a debate about how to resolve them. They were, they
argued, having a seriously detrimental effect on their children and their children’s chances.
One of the reasons parents and carers argued that there was no sense of community
evident in their areas, was that there was just too much risk of offending other people white English as well as ethnic minorities. The fear was that the former reject the
“interference”...
“I went to help this elderly lady and I think she thought I was a mad rapist, she grabbed her
bag and stormed off”
(Father, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Ripley)
Others felt that it was extremely difficult to forge a relationship when so many people were
so quick to take offence. Interestingly people from ethnic minority background argued that
this was the case too. The perception was that ‘the authorities’ were the worst, rather than
people from an ethnic minority background. The former, they argued, made everyone so
paranoid about using the wrong language, or acting inappropriately, that people shied
away from one another, rather than risk offence, or worse. Interestingly, some Asian and
Black women argued the same:
“How can you say that I can’t say that [half caste baby], I’m half caste myself, how can that
be racist?”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
The criticism was rather of a culture which supports (irrationally?) the last ethnic group to
arrive in the UK, and which diverts disproportionate amounts of money to those groups, to
the detriment of more established groups.
“There’s a Drop In Centre down there [for one ethnic group], a Centre over there [for
another ethnic group], but there’s nowhere for our kids to go to”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, C2D(E), Leeds)
So their confidence in interacting in the local community was undermined, and this
produced a great deal of defensiveness. The perception was that the newest groups were
far more racist than the white English, or established BME communities.
“If people from [a country cited] bring their fights here we’ve no hope. There was that story
in the papers about someone from [one European country] stabbing someone from ... I
think it was [another European country]
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Page 64
There was an aggressive defensiveness evident in many of the discussions and whilst
most felt they weren’t racist (especially the BME respondents), there was a deep
discomfort with the perceived inequity between their treatment and the treatment of people
who had recently arrived in the UK from other countries. They argued that they were not
anti-immigration, rather, they felt that everyone should have the same chance and that
Political Correctness was dictating that they, as established communities in the UK, not
only didn’t warrant the same special treatment as newer communities, but that their identity
was to be underplayed or denied.
Many of the groups, both upmarket and downmarket, those who contained only white
English, and those who contained BMEs, felt that it was not longer permitted to be proud to
be English. There were many stories told of how their children had been sent home for
wearing clothing containing the Cross of St George, or being reprimanded for having a
English flag on their van. The general perception amongst respondents (parents and
carers in particular) was that it was no longer acceptable to be proud to be English.
“[His employer] had a go at me and made me take it in, during the World Cup, I ask you.
Every single other nation was proud to be flying their flag, and they made us take ours
down. What does that tell you about England nowadays?”
(Father, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Ripley)
There was also a perception that Health and Safety regulations had also impaired our
ability to publicly celebrate English traditions. The lack of May Day celebrations, street
parties and other community events was bemoaned, and blamed on legislation framed for
the lowest common denominator.
“There’ll have been one idiot who’s got drunk and electrocuted themselves and they’ll bring
in some idiot ruling which means none of us can have any fun”
(Father, Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Bournemouth)
However parents and carers were most exercised about Health and Safety Regulations
and Political Correctness when applied to schools and their children - particularly working
class parents whose children did not excel in academic subjects. They accused schools,
government and Education Authorities (collectively “the authorities”) of hypocrisy and of
“stitching up” their children. The argument was as follows:
•
•
•
It’s difficult for children in certain areas to do well in academic subjects (for whatever
reason - hypotheses include having below par teachers, parents not having been
particularly successful at school themselves, pressure and worry about home
circumstances etc.).
However, academic subjects are highly graded, with results fed back to parents,
carers, young people and children in detail, so they know they’re ‘failing’ or not
succeeding.
Often they’re much more interested in sports, dance, acrobatics, music, drama and
other non-academic subjects. (Parents felt that it was only natural that they should
encourage their children in the discipline/ subjects they enjoyed and were good at.
This meant that parents of even primary school children would support and
encourage their children in non-academic subjects, sometimes because of a lack of
Page 65
•
success in academic subjects, and/or sometimes because of a natural talent they
identified in their child. This support solidified and became stronger when their child
had to make decisions, e.g. choice of GCSE subjects, whether to leave school after
Year 11 etc, however it was evident in younger children too).
In these ‘subjects’ or disciplines, it was extremely hard to excel, for a variety of
reasons.
o Sports days had been made into non-competitive events
o Sports days had been cancelled because of Health and Safety worries (“the
grass was damp”)
o Dance classes had been made ‘inclusive’, and talented youngsters had been
given poor partners
o Music performances had been cancelled because of worries about electrical
circuits
o Because of Political Correctness the talentless had been given parts which
seriously undermined the quality of lessons and performances (and led to
their children not being praised they felt)
o Similarly with drama - Political Correctness had meant everyone had to have
a part, and Health and Safety had seriously restricted what they could do and
where - including performances being cancelled.
Parents and carers of non-academic but otherwise talented children were absolutely
incensed by this: the following is only a selection of typical comments made :
“It’s not ... fair. God help you if you’re a good little actress, you have every kind of klutz in a
play with you”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
“Do you know what they did, they cancelled sports day this year because there was a bit of
damp on the grass. Can’t have us suing them for injury to our kids, can we? It makes you
weep.”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
“They have all sorts of league tables for Maths or English, they can get A’s, but God help
you if you’re good at running, everyone gets a prize.”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
“At first I thought we were going to be lucky, ‘cos his school has kept its sports field, it’s
what my son is good at, but they don’t even have competitive football any more!”
(Fathers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Manchester)
Page 66
6.3.7. ‘It’s our Culture, we don’t like Children’
Many groups felt that the problem with raising children in the UK currently was that it was a
struggle to be in public with them, and that the UK was not a family-oriented culture. Both
working and middle class families argued this was the case, although all those families who
had holidayed abroad, particularly in Mediterranean countries compared and contrasted
the UK with those countries, and found the UK sadly lacking.
“When you go on holiday to Italy or Spain, you can take your children with you, everything
is set up for families, people expect you to have your kids with you. In this country it’s
miserable. You get some kind of beer garden next to the bins with a grotty table
overgrown with weeds. I hate it.”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
“Until we start to accept that families are a part of this society it’s always going to be like
this. It makes me so angry when I come back here from being abroad, it’s so easy over
there, children are welcome, they’re made a fuss of, and here we treat them as if they’re
some kind of ... illness”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in KS 3/4, Watford)
Across the groups a variety of symbols of lack of tolerance of children (never mind active
dislike) were cited:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Notices forbidding children at certain hours, and from playing any kinds of games on
the street.
Children not allowed in licensed restaurants and bars (unless outdoors)
No children over 14 allowed in community centres.
Only so many children in a shop at one time.
Tutting and disapproving noises made around children and families.
The ‘children should be seen and not heard’ rule being applied.
However, the overwhelming complaint from parents, carers, children and young people
was that, partly because of this public dislike and disapproval of children (and probably
partly out of parents’ nervousness about being judged on their parenting in public), there
was nowhere to go for families which was welcoming, easy, safe, and either cheap or free.
“It’s more expensive now. Course it is. You think what it costs for us all to go swimming
and with snacks and that and its well over £50. That’s an extra days work for me”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
“It’s those days when your altogether and relaxing that count. Normally it only happens
when we’re on holiday”
(Fathers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Bristol)
Page 67
6.3.8. Men’s Issues
Men had some particular issues. Fathers were particularly sensitive to the loss of control,
and the timing of that loss of control over their children. They argued that declining
standards of behaviour were a consequence of a lack of discipline in (other people’s)
homes and at schools. They felt that the ban on smacking at home and in schools was
partly responsible, and argued that there were times when smacking was an appropriate
and effective method. They conflated this with a worry that ‘PCness’ was interfering with
tried and trusted methods of control, and that it was difficult to exert proper authority within
the home.
There was also some concern that fathers ‘today’, were not acknowledged, and that in
contrast, they tended to be blamed for many of the problems occurring in society. Thus, in
this context, father tended to feel under a lot of pressure and were less confident, feeling
they had little opportunity to express or explore their view.
“There have been times when I actually don’t feel comfortable in the playground because
of the way the mothers look at you. It’s like you don’t have any right to be there as a man”
(Fathers, 25-34, eldest child in Foundation KS,(A)BC1, Bristol)
6.4.
Appropriate Government Intervention
Parents and carers were nostalgic about how childhood used to be, rather than militant,
demanding Government intervention of any kind. They wanted to turn the clock back to
times where they remembered outside spaces were still safe, where children could grow up
with a good degree of independence; they wanted schools to have a only good teachers so
that their children weren’t vulnerable to the poor teachers; they wanted communities to
have places children and young people could go where they could be safe, explore in
freedom, and which were free; but most of all, and most difficult to imagine of all, they
wanted every child to have a caring, good parent.
“You just want them to be able to run off the way we could”
(Mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, C2D(E), Raynes Pk)
On reflection they found it unacceptable or at the very least worrying, that they hadn’t really
thought through the issues raised in the discussion before, and they felt it was important
that parents, carers, children and young people think and talk about these matters. This
way, they argued, perhaps their children wouldn’t take such a haphazard approach to
parenting, nor do so much instinctively, or ‘on the hoof’.
There was a general feeling that Government should not be lecturing parents on what they
should be doing with their individual child - every child is different, and it’s only the parent
who can make the judgement calls on the balance of independence/ safety, or who can
spend the crucial one-to-one time with that child.
However, on reflection, most parents and carers felt that Government could provide
support for parents and carers.
Page 68
•
•
To give them proper parenting tools, for instance by addressing parenting in the
curriculum, so that parents have the confidence to get involved with the children, to
spend the ‘quality time’ with them, and to help support those who have given up
trying to have an influence on their children get back to interacting and influencing
them again.
They also argued that Government could provide support for parents and carers to
be able to have sufficient quality time with their children.
In this context, childcare provision was talked about as a poor second best to quality time
with parents.
“If there wasn’t such pressure on you to go out and earn, if you could stay at home and be
there for them ... that would be better”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Rather, childcare was seen as a way of addressing the issue of those parents who had
given up trying to have an influence on their children too early; taking those children into
childcare, they argued, might help remedy the shortcomings of their parents. In the ‘earlier’
stages, when children were still young and/ or not in imminent danger, parents and carers
felt that those who had ‘given up’ should be supported to try re-establish their relationship
with, and control over, their children. For those further down the line, either in terms of the
dangers they exposed their children to, or the age of their children, they felt that a more
drastic intervention - removing that child or young person at least temporarily from that
dangerous situation - might be necessary.
However, the general feeling was that such families needed support, and that, always, the
better way was to try to sort out relationships within the family, rather than put children into
temporary, full or part time child care of whatever kind.
The whole issue of a ‘safe environment’ was crucial for parents, whether that be in home,
on the internet, in the context of the media or in their local community. They argued that it
was possible, in the absence of them being able to improve or control it, for the
Government to do something to improve it. Their ‘wish list’ was as follows.
•
•
•
•
For someone / Government to provide the funding for places families, children and
young people can go, for free, to have fun or do something outside their homes.
For local parks, community areas and their neighbourhoods to be safe, and free.
To think innovatively about using existing buildings such as schools and community
centres to improve the quality of life for children and young people.
To invest in supervising common areas that are already available.
“They all go down the monument, and you should see it there, there’s beer cans, syringes,
you name it. But it’s only because they don’t have anywhere else to go”
(Family Depth, eldest child in KS3, Ripley)
Page 69
Parents also felt it appropriate that some strategic thinking was done about how the UK
could improve the anti-child culture, and to stop the bans and restrictions on children and
young people.
“How can the kids feel they’re loved when there are signs all over the place saying ‘no
children’, ‘no balls’?”
(Mother, Family Depth, eldest child in KS2, South London)
However, in the context of talking about potential Government interventions, parents and
carers were anxious that Government should not legislate ‘to the lowest common
denominator, i.e. that everyone be made to adhere to a rule designed to stop the poorest
of parents having a negative influence on their children.
6.5.
Key Issues for Children & Young People
Children and young people were amazingly resilient, and they tended to think that no
matter how odd, uncomfortable or difficult their life was, that was what was normal. When
asked about their own lives, most argued that they were happy, or happy enough. Most
also argued that it was ‘normal’ to have sad, depressed times too, but importantly, they felt
in control of their lives, and felt the ‘buck’ stopped with them.
“Sure, I get down every now and then, but I think everyone does”
(Girls, Year 9, (A)BC1, Newcastle)
“I think everybody has times they’re depressed, but you’ve got your friends”
(Girls, Year 7, C2D(E), Bournemouth)
Thus, when they thought about good or content childhoods, they tended to think about their
own childhood, and about the experience of others less well off than they were.
“Some children have a really hard time, if they’ve got teachers they don’t like, or they have
to move schools”
(Girls, Year 11, C2D(E), Watford)
The children and young people tended to identify the same issues as their parents, but the
language they used was much more accusing and judgemental.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Parents not caring, letting children do exactly what they wanted.
Parents not spending quality time with their children.
In bad circumstances, a child’s friends have to become their parents.
Parents giving children everything they wanted because they’re not there for them,
spending quality time - it’s a substitute.
Young people whose parents don’t know (and don’t care) where they are.
Bad teachers, meaning children and young people don’t have a chance of
succeeding at school.
Older children and young people putting pressure on you to do something you don’t
want to do.
Page 70
•
Having nowhere to go to hang out with your friends.
Children and young people leapt on images to help them express what they thought were
issues for themselves and other children:
•
Nowhere to play / get out to / hang out with my friends - can’t get muddy
•
Not safe outside - roads, traffic, fast cars, strangers, bullies, unhappy at school
•
Family falling out, shouting, arguing
Page 71
•
Not having the same things as your friends/ mates, being different
•
And not having anyone around to help you, be there for you
Page 72
6.6.
Appropriate Government Intervention - Children & Young People
Interestingly, young people and children felt that when things were difficult, it was in their
control or power to make things better. However, they all expected to make mistakes and it
was not a big issue for them when things went wrong (compared with parents’ attitudes).
They too had a wish list, however they were far more acquiescent than their parents and
carers about this being provided.
•
•
•
•
•
Again the most important element for them was that children and young people are
able to spend time with their family, parents or carers
Outside spaces for them to ‘hang out’ or where they can play safely
More facilities generally - in and outside school
Better teachers, and no bad teachers
Not being banned from places, or being made to feel more welcome in places.
For children and young people who were really in trouble, children and young people
hoped that social services would pick them up.
6.7.
Other Types of Intervention
6.7.1. Social Services
There was some feeling that those children who had been failed by the parents should
somehow be picked up by social services or schools. However, there was a real reticence
amongst parents, carers, children and young people to argue this, since they felt that social
services too often “get it wrong”. That is, they felt that on occasion social services interfere
or intervene inappropriately, and split families up, which is, they felt, a dreadful thing to do.
Aside from this worry, there was a general feeling that it was presumptuous to break
Page 73
families up and to assume that outsiders can properly assess what was going on in others’
families.
“Social services, my God, no, you read about them adopting kids into new families when
there was nothing wrong with the old one”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, (A)BC1, Watford)
“Social services should pick up kids that are being treated badly ... But they don’t always
get it right, do they?”
(Mothers, 35-45, eldest child in KS 3/4, C2D(E), Worcester Pk)
Whilst parents and carers, and indeed children and young people, felt that the ‘blame’ for
things in a family going wrong should be laid at parents’ door, they felt it was “pointless” to
blame them. The feeling was that the ‘true’ circumstances of a family were never really
known, that parents who fail their children are incompetent and only rarely “evil”, and that
they probably hadn’t been parented well themselves. There was also a feeling that only the
very brave parent blames another for failing their children.
“You get fed up of the headlines ‘blame the parents’, although I agree in most cases it’s the
parents’ fault”
(Single parent mothers, 20-30, eldest child in Foundation KS, Leeds)
Rather, parents and carers felt more comfortable focussing on what should be done.
•
•
For those children who had been failed, it was pointless to try to address the parents
and to try to improve their parenting - it was too late. Rather, they felt, social
services and schools should try to sort out a reasonable start for those failed
children and young people
For the next generation of parents, the ideal was that they be taught parenting in
schools, so that those with poor role models had some idea of good parenting.
6.7.2. Local Authorities/ Councils
More often than not Local Authorities/ Local Councils were blamed for lack of facilities
(although Central Government was expected to help solve the problem). Favourite
pastimes - particularly in school holidays - were judged to be extremely expensive.
•
•
•
•
Swimming (except for the groups in Birmingham who have a scheme to allow all 16
year olds free entry to municipal swimming pools)
Sports centres
Leisure centres
Playing fields - where they still existed.
There was real anger expressed about the lack of sports clubs, places to ride bikes or play
other sports - amongst both parents and carers and young people. Even where they were
provided, there was concern about their children’s safety getting to and from those
locations, and the sheer expense of getting them there safely.
Page 74
“There’s absolutely nowhere to go around here. It’s dead boring”
(Girls, Year 11, C2D(E), Watford)
Further enhancing their fear of ‘outside’ or their neighbourhood, respondents argued that
there was a lack of proper investment in lighting, in security for parks and open spaces,
and locks for these at night time. This, they argued, allowed a ‘street creep’ of no go areas
in urban areas.
“They haven’t controlled the areas where they’re on the streets doing God knows what,
now they’re all over the place”
(Mother, Family Depth, eldest child in KS2, South London)
Local Authorities / Local Councils were also blamed for failing to promote better crosscultural understanding, or organising cross-cultural events. However the suspicion was that
such events would be disallowed under Health and Safety rules. Indeed local Authorities /
Councils were felt to be just as guilty of fear of reprisals / people suing them as Central
Government - citing examples such as skate parks closing because one child had fallen
and broken his leg.
Finally, the lack of playing fields was a real issue, with the general perception being that
Local Authorities / Councils had sold them off to make money for themselves. This was
true even in rural areas.
“It’s terrible. They’ve sold off all these school playing fields, and where do they expect the
kids to go now?”
(Mothers, 25-40, eldest child in KS 1/2, (A)BC1, Raynes Pk)
6.7.3. Other Influences
Mothers also felt something could be done to make the following safer, although they were
very unsure who could or should do something about them, nor what could be done:
•
•
•
Internet usage - they wanted some way of restricting their children’s access to
potentially dangerous or distasteful sites;
Television - particularly “proper” enforcement of the watershed on mainstream
channels and around popular drama programmes. This was also felt to be the case
in relation to certification of films, games, videos and DVDs. Parents and carers felt
that their decision making about what to allow and not allow their children would be
made significantly easier if certification was clear, fair and above all, consistent.
Making roads safer, and not just by adding speed bumps.
Men, on the other hand, wanted to recommend changes which would help keep their
children safer:
•
•
More police on the streets
Being able to use corporal punishment at home and in schools.
Page 75
However, whilst there were many initiatives which parents and carers felt could be
introduced, they felt that the focus should more properly be on eliminating the factors which
undermined parents and carers, and which prevented them from creating the conditions for
a good childhood for their children. Further, any active support which could be given to
them, particularly creating a more family-friendly culture and environment, would be greatly
welcomed.
Page 76
Ref: DCSF-RW031
ISBN: 978 1 84775 112 6
www.dcsf.gov.uk/research
Published by the Department for
Children, Schools and Families