[b3JOkwXL]

The USA & UK comes bottom of a league table for child well-being across 21 industrialised countries. Unicef looked at 40 indicators from the years 2000-2003 including poverty, family relationships, and health.

1. Netherlands
2. Sweden
3. Denmark
4. Finland
5. Spain
6. Switzerland
7. Norway
8. Italy
9. Republic of Ireland
10. Belgium
11. Germany
12. Canada
13. Greece
14. Poland
15. Czech Republic
16. France
17. Portugal
18. Austria
19. Hungary
20. United States
21. United Kingdom

In the UK the Children's Commissioner for England, Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green, said: "We are turning out a generation of young people who are unhappy, unhealthy, engaging in risky behaviour, who have poor relationships with their family and their peers, who have low expectations and don't feel safe."

Colette Marshall, UK director of Save the Children, said it was "shameful" to see the UK at the bottom of the table.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK is accused of failing children


What is the American take on why America is performing so badly?

[Jeffery]

You know with tables like these there isn't a statistical difference between any of the top countries.

[DoctorIrokezov]

"We are turning out a generation of young people who are unhappy, unhealthy, engaging in risky behaviour, who have poor relationships with their family and their peers, who have low expectations and don't feel safe."

Current government policies, on the whole, encourage the least competent parents to have more children and the more competent parents to limit their involvement with their children. We mandate attendence at child warehouses to ensure interaction with the unkempt and the unruly. We subsidize failure and fail to encourage excellence. And we promote gang violence. What else could we possibly expect?

(This foregoing any chest-thumping comments about measurement bias, which could be not only a factor, but even the largest factor, in our poor ranking, in favor of discussing the actual shortfalls of how we handle our children.)

[Asianunta]

"We are turning out a generation of young people who are unhappy, unhealthy, engaging in risky behaviour, who have poor relationships with their family and their peers, who have low expectations and don't feel safe."

Current government policies, on the whole, encourage the least competent parents to have more children and the more competent parents to limit their involvement with their children. We mandate attendence at child warehouses to ensure interaction with the unkempt and the unruly. We subsidize failure and fail to encourage excellence. And we promote gang violence. What else could we possibly expect?

(This foregoing any chest-thumping comments about measurement bias, which could be not only a factor, but even the largest factor, in our poor ranking, in favor of discussing the actual shortfalls of how we handle our children.)

So what exactly is done differently in The Netherlands? It sounds like you are blaming our social safety nets but I do not think they are without them.

[Atmotteenrift]

What are the criteria used?

[iouiyyut]

What are the criteria used?

In most global ranking lists USA (and UK) are below all the industrial coutries - in education, social security, democracy, environment, etc. It does not help to ask what are the criteria - those countries ar performing very badly.

USA is spending trillions of dollars to brutal military aggressions in the world and this money has been taken off from exactly those services creating well-being.

USA is a 3rd world country whatever are the indicators... ok, there is money but no quality of life.

It is funny to see that countries which have a semi-socialistic system are on the top of all the lists (like the Nordic countries) - the American capitalism has created only wars and robbery so far.

[Andoror]

The USA & UK comes bottom of a league table for child well-being across 21 industrialised countries. Unicef looked at 40 indicators from the years 2000-2003 including poverty, family relationships, and health.

U.N.I.C.E.F. stands for United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund.
U.N.I.C.E.F. has been under boycott in the United States since the late 70’s for there abortion provision stance. They are only about abortion with a sticker on there trucks saying there for children. They were down here after our hurricanes last year offering free abortions for hurricane victims. Big help…

Remember the Asian Tsunami? There were 1,300 employees of UNICEF already there on vacation. Must be nice, my company never did that at $25,000.oo per person (They placed Help the Children banners painted on paper on rental trucks and made another 25 million while they were there..).

[DoctorIrokezov]

So what exactly is done differently in The Netherlands? It sounds like you are blaming our social safety nets but I do not think they are without them. One of the biggest problems with government 'safety nets' is that they are inherently 'one size fits all'. In a country like the Netherlands, where there is not a lot of demographic variation, this is fine. But the US is 20% black, 15% hispanic, and 5% oriental (iirc, and very rough numbers) and has people like Jesse Jackson who make a living sowing distrust and pitting the races against each other. This encourages abuses and severely hinders making corrections to any flaws in the system, assuming any one system could be workable across such a diverse population.

And that's only by race - We probably have more religious diversity and other forms of diversity that are less significant, but still contribute to our being much less homogeneous than most (all?) other countries studied.

[Asianunta]

One of the biggest problems with government 'safety nets' is that they are inherently 'one size fits all'. In a country like the Netherlands, where there is not a lot of demographic variation, this is fine. But the US is 20% black, 15% hispanic, and 5% oriental (iirc, and very rough numbers) and has people like Jesse Jackson who make a living sowing distrust and pitting the races against each other. This encourages abuses and severely hinders making corrections to any flaws in the system, assuming any one system could be workable across such a diverse population.

And that's only by race - We probably have more religious diversity and other forms of diversity that are less significant, but still contribute to our being much less homogeneous than most (all?) other countries studied.

So diversity is the problem? If we where all the same race and religion then nobody would abuse social safety nets?

[Jeffery]

So diversity is the problem? If we where all the same race and religion then nobody would abuse social safety nets?

No but if we stopped counting the bible belt our scores would skyrocket.

[merloermfgj]

UNICEF is the most corrupt UN-backed organization there is...perhaps with the exception of the oil-for-food debacle.

Why would anyone would base information regarding the welfare of children on UNICEF? Nuts.

Corrupt and sickening are the two words that most accurately describe UNICEF.

[Enjoymmsq]

One of the things I noticed is that much of the US data in the study comes from a survey conducted of students.

However, I am unable to locate information as to how the WHO Health Behaviour in School-age Children study cited on page 19 of the UNICEF report (PDF) was conducted within the US. It is likely that public schools were easily recruited, but I wonder as to the comprehensiveness of the private and homeschool coverage.

After all, up to 13% of American school-age children are not educated in government schools. This is an expensive proposition: without vouchers, people who send their children to private schools still pay property taxes (through PITI, a direct bill, or as part of rent expense) in addition to the thousands spent on the schools themselves. My daughter's kindergarten will cost us $7,000 this upcoming school year, including books, uniform, etc.

And I consider that a bargain. Really. One school had a tuition of $12k, prior to fees, books, and uniforms. For prices like that, they'd better guarantee an Ivy League acceptance letter, or your money back.

And private schools are usually not required to take part in WHO surveys, and most of them won't. And the 2% of American kids who are homeschooled aren't even touched.

So the US section of this survey is likely skewed away from the large portion (1 out of every 7) of the American population wealthy enough to pay for two schools - their own kids' and the public school supported by their residence taxes. It is skewed away from a significant percentage of the population who do have "more than 10 books in their home", who do "take more vacation time with the children", who are above average in literacy, math, computer competency, and the like.

Here's an Excel Sheet showing public and private school enrollment, by income level, in the US.

No wonder we tend to come in low on these things... they miss the larger portion of American kids who go to Ivy League schools in the first place.

[Gymnfacymoota]

"We are turning out a generation of young people who are unhappy, unhealthy, engaging in risky behaviour, who have poor relationships with their family and their peers, who have low expectations and don't feel safe."

Current government policies, on the whole, encourage the least competent parents to have more children and the more competent parents to limit their involvement with their children. We mandate attendence at child warehouses to ensure interaction with the unkempt and the unruly. We subsidize failure and fail to encourage excellence. And we promote gang violence. What else could we possibly expect?

(This foregoing any chest-thumping comments about measurement bias, which could be not only a factor, but even the largest factor, in our poor ranking, in favor of discussing the actual shortfalls of how we handle our children.)

That's how I see it. We have welfare for people who are complete failures and keep farting out kids at astronomical rates.

[24MurinivaMak]

Dude!! We have 2 wars to pay for. We can't be spending money on children right now. Priorities man! We have to build schools in Iraq and bomb cities and rebuild stuff the civil war keeps blowing up.

Sheesh.

[Andoror]

It’s from the deceivers Sam. I mean, the U.K. behind Russia!!!

[Swidemaiskikemu]

I have worked in a few countries on the top over the years and the state support for the child is very good.

In Sweden if a couple is having a child there is a year of pergency leave to be taken by the couple between them with the minimum for either being 3 months.

In France an employee can go on 80% of his or her salary and take a day off a week (usually Wednesday) and mind there child. France has a half day on wednesday.

My school in Ireland used to have half day Wednesday and Saturday and use the afternoon on sports and other activties. I was a state school.

The countries on the top are all very state school orientated with very little private schools compared to the ones on the bottom. Thats a simple fact.

This encourages classless society in Education. Offering third level free education offers every child the opportunity to become a doctor or engineer. Access in all these countries is taken strictly on academic results to the finest instituions available. Grants are given to the under privileged.

Ireland spents way more money on education in disadvantaged area than the more prosperious.

Is our system perfect? No. But we are trying to achieve more. We know that our economy relies on an highly educated workforce. Picking the best academically rather than financially gies our country the best opportunity.

Think of this way. If your are preparing a team of runners for the olympics at an early stage, do you start with the kids that can afford private coaching or do you go for kids which a fast.

A future workforce needs the brightest to be put in the more demanding courses while the less academically qualified should be in courses which they are good at.

[Enjoymmsq]

The countries on the top are all very state school orientated with very little private schools compared to the ones on the bottom. Thats a simple fact. Yes, but it doesn't necessarily follow that is the reason in regards to the scoring differences. That's simple logic.

My point (which you apparently agreed with, or, at least, didn't disagree with) is that the differences in the organization of the school systems possibly skewed the report. If you miss 1/7th of the students, and those 1/7th have the set of "opportunities" that the survey is looking for, then the survey is flawed... and largely useless.

At best, it might be a comparison between the quality of life of those children who attend government-run schools. Given that nowhere near all children in the US attend government-run schools (and never have, really), it cannot be accurately stated to be a comparative survey of all children in the US. Or the UK, if what you claim about the access to public/private education is so.

[Swidemaiskikemu]

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily follow that is the reason in regards to the scoring differences. That's simple logic.

My point (which you apparently agreed with, or, at least, didn't disagree with) is that the differences in the organization of the school systems possibly skewed the report. If you miss 1/7th of the students, and those 1/7th have the set of "opportunities" that the survey is looking for, then the survey is flawed... and largely useless.

At best, it might be a comparison between the quality of life of those children who attend government-run schools. Given that nowhere near all children in the US attend government-run schools (and never have, really), it cannot be accurately stated to be a comparative survey of all children in the US. Or the UK, if what you claim about the access to public/private education is so.

Have you any proof that they left out private schools... I presume this being UNICEF it was a cross sample....

[merloermfgj]

Being UNICEF it was corrupt and self-serving and nothing more.

They are there to make money and become wealthy...not to help children

(And MAN...have they become wealthy and made money for themselves.)

[Enjoymmsq]

0

Have you any proof that they left out private schools... I presume this being UNICEF it was a cross sample....

I looked up the methodology to the cited WHO report but couldn't find how it was specifically applied in the US.

This question was actually asked a couple of times while we shopped for school... not necessarily, of course, about the WHO survey but about government testing requirements. Other than mandatory "skills tests" applied to all US students, we were told there is nothing that would require any private school to participate in a general survey about children, nor require the children to take them.