Funding everyone to have multiple children???

Maybe shitting teaching? The schools not putting enough support in place for these children?

Yeah I think many are beginning to see he is different from his peers. Funnily enough I get the most looks from some school staff at the school my eldest goes to!

A teacher working in an SEN school calling for parents to be castrated for having children with autism?

You just jumped the shark.

You’re not unreasonable but I think the whole of the benefit system needs to be assessed. I have a friend who had her first kid at 19, then didn’t work again til she was mid 30’s while she has and raised two more. Living in comfort, sky TV, MacBook, iPhone, consoles for the kids, designer labels etc. Things I didn’t even have myself at times because I was being sensible with my money and it had value to me because I earned it.

Another friend from years ago with a small child was told “oh you don’t need to work til he’s 16”.

Both of these women were perfectly capable of working, neither did. It shouldn’t be possible to raise a family paid purely by the state when you’re capable of work, even if just part time.

Something is seriously wrong, the benefit system is a backup for dire circumstances or genuine disability with no prospect of being able to work any job.

Oh, I really feel for you. For what it's worth, if they remain 'obviously' disabled (minimally verbal, lots of stimming) you do start to get slightly less judgement (the toddler years were awful for us, really so many tuts and comments). Now my kids are older, we tend to get a bit more help and grace when out and about because people know.

My friends with autistic kids who are fully verbal do not always get the same understanding when in public.

I already get looks because my three year old with limited speech and waiting to be assessed does a runner or lies on the ground screeching.

Many of them really do think this. It becomes pretty obvious on these threads.

They don't seem to care how much evidence the DLA forms or EHCPs actually require.

These threads always go the same way:

• 'I'm not talking about disabled or autistic children.'
• 'Well OK, I am talking about children who go to special schools / EHCPs / DLA but only the ones who aren't the REAL disabled'
• 'I can confidently claim the majority of autistic children / those who claim DLA are just naughty / badly parented even though I am not a trained diagnosing clinician.'

As a mum to two severely (and obviously) disabled children, it would be quite easy to get sucked into this narrative that they're in the minority of deserving disabled / real disabled but I don't believe in pulling up the ladder behind me at the expense of other disabled children and ultimately this narrative puts our whole community at risk. What happens if the lines are redrawn and only severe physical disability is seen as a real disability? What if someone looks at my nappy-wearing, non verbal 10 year old and starts to believe I caused that through crap parenting? It's not out of the realms of possibility - refrigerator mother theory was not all that long ago in history.

You think my child having autism is down to neglect?

No need to be rude.

I didn’t mention taking children into care, I’m talking about children receiving better care and supervision in their own homes. Part of that has to be educating people to make better choices and not funding them to continue to make poor ones.

I’m not craven about my language but I’m conscious of how some words might trigger some people. You perhaps don’t care.

It doesn't just go off your word you need evidence.

Have you ever applied for DLA before?

To get DLA (no income limited benefit) you don't need any diagnosis! So no need to say my son is autistic/hyperactive- you can just describe his behaviour and difficulties which can very well be down to a neurological problem or just abuse/neglect.

Oh, I can see it's already been said that a 'huge amount' of autism is just shitty parenting.

Ok, in an SEMH special school (I've taught in them) you will have extensive social problems but there will also be a significant proportion of children with undiagnosed (or sometimes diagnosed) disabilities. Both my children are autistic with learning disabilities and attend a generic state learning difficulties school. One child remains non-verbal, but the other gained some (limited) verbal abilities but still severely delayed (extremely obvious 'classic' autism for want of better description) and when he ended up out of school the LA tried to put him in an SEMH special school! He only didn't end up in one because it was an 'over my dead body' situation, however I know it happens to children like him (worked with them myself). So there are definitely significantly disabled children in SEMH schools not just there because they are neglected.

It's no secret that in classrooms there can be a middle class kid and a poor kid both behaving in the same way and the middle class kid will get a diagnosis of autism or ADHD (because they are indeed autistic or ADHD) and the poor kid's parents will be told they're just bad parents (even if the child is autistic or ADHD).

I think it's really unfair to suggest nearly all children in an SEMH special school only have needs related to neglect. Also, without the qualification that this is an SEMH school and not a different type of special school, it sounds like you are also suggesting (even though you later clarified you are not) severely disabled children are just neglected and their parents shouldn't have more children (bit eugenicsy). I know that's not what you're saying but plenty of people do believe that (how many of us parents of non verbal children have heard 'you just need to talk to them more' or 'there weren't kids like that in my day', or 'how much TV do they watch?') As a teacher, you must know people are more likely to trust what you say but I think the reality is more nuanced than you've let on.

I honestly don't understand the point you are making here. Poland has one of the lowest birth rates in the world (they rank #185 out of 193 - like, it's REALLY low, and still falling) and I can't find any data at all to support what you are saying.

The temporary, very short-lived increase in births reversed in all groups, and is now in sharp decline, across all groups. The very small, very temporary increase is attributed to people who were already planning to have children, having them a bit sooner. And yes, no surprises that more poor people brought their plans forward than rich people - but it was such a temporary blip.

I can't find a single thing that supports your claim that the increase has persisted in lower socio-economic groups - Poland has a real fertility problem. Where are you getting your information?

YANBU at all OP and I believe a huge amount of the issues children have with autism and mental health issues is a direct result of shitty, neglectful parenting. Not all, but a lot of it. These parents should be castrated, not financially incentivised. Thank you for doing such a hard job.

As is the case with all Labour Governments, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I think they genuinely believe that they are helping people, but seem to be incapable of understanding that throwing money at a problem simply won’t help, and in some cases, will encourage people to be even more irresponsible with their life choices.

In OP’s “rant” she points out the blooming obvious! Caring parents, who want the best for their DC, will normally procreate only the number of children they can afford, on their salaries, because they will want to ensure that they can give their DC a good life. IMO the cap on two children was a good thing…

It's not that I expect you to believe me on anything.

And I could just as well ask you - or anyone here - to show me the study that proves that 'feckless' parents spend any uplift in benefits irresponsibly, on non-essentials. No such study exists.

So all we can do, to make evidence-based policy decisions to support children, is look at the vast amount of data that does exist, that shows that increasing benefits DOES lift children out of poverty, that most low income families DO spend that uplift on household essentials, and that lifting the child benefit cap evidentially WON'T drive birth rates up.

You are undoubtedly correct that within this pot, some children won't benefit because their parents are dickheads. Some parents are irresponsible dickheads - I'm with you there.

But we can't make policy decisions based on the few, when so, so many children evidentially will be positively and directly impacted, and that impact has far-reaching, lifelong consequences. One of the biggest and most cost-effective things we can do to reduce long-term NHS costs, improve educational outcomes and reduce the costs associated with low paid work and unemployment, is lift children out of poverty. It will more than pay for itself, in terms of your tax-payer money.

Fair enough thought you were responding to me, so much is made of removing the cap “for the kids” but I’ve never heard anyone mention how under 25s get a lot less even though they may have kids and a home of their own