To think it is not poverty to blame.

[goneanddoneitnow]

I see in the news poverty being blamed for childrens bad behaviour and under achievement as well as for health problems.
I think it is attitudes that need changing not income.
If attitudes could be changed through education of parents and students then I think you would find that income and health will improve as a result.
If children are reaching school unable to sit still, listen, share etc, without basic skills and knowledge then what are the parents doing?
And secondly what is the point of free nursery places from age three?
Shouldn't nurseries be preparing children for school?
The majority of the wealthy are wealthy because of the time and effort their parents and family put in and the effort they them selves put in acquiring valuable skills and knowledge.
How many times have you seen big lottery winners lose it all in a few years?

And just to add I don't think the right thing to do would be to make it a communist country sakura!:)

OP. I disagree with just about everything you say.

Apart from: "I think it is attitudes that need changing". Because a great many attitudes need changing. Including yours.

So, Baroque, what that is saying is that when I was growing up I was less poor than the other kids on the slum estate because my parents,

a)Read to me
b)Took me for long walks in the woods looking at plants/animals
c)Always made sure I had some fruit a few times a week
d)Told me manners were important.
e)Told me education was the key to a better future

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. I was just as poor and hungry as everyone else.

I know you quoted from the UN, btw.

OP, you make some valid points but you lost the debate before it began due to your last paragraph which frankly, is bollocks!

and what Custy said about where you live is the very reason I have opted to rent privately and claim HB to put into a LL's pocket (actually it just pays his rent but that's beside the point) rather than go on the council list - which I would have been able to do with ease.

And also the reason we moved from our first house to the home I left last year.

Because I've been lucky enough to have the stuff behind me that makes me able to see there is a different way to live. My children already have the odds stacked against them, parents split up, males, etc etc - it's really not a pretty picture if you look at all the stats .

However, our first home we owned, and a council house would have been back on a council estate. Of course there are many working people, doing well, and quite happy there, but the general feeling those areas often is one of little opportunity and vision for the future. It's ingrained into the culture of the area, and many children do grow up like that. Of course I could have struggled uphill through treacle to make sure my boys could see a different future for them than living in a crime, drug ridden area.

But I opted not to do that, because I had an educated choice I was able to make. A choice that many people don't have, or don't think even exists.

Now at least (for the time being) my children are growing up in an area that doesn't have the many problems associated with poverty (although overall the entire town does)

This isn't a slight at people on benefits and council estates - I'm on benefits myself right now. Many of my childhood homes were in council estates - but a sad reality of the statistics.

Of COURSE there will be parents and children growing up in such situations where things will turn out well, and they'll do well and will only be poor in cash terms. But many won't.

I sometimes think its peoples attitudes towards people that live on council estates thats part of the problem ..not actually the people who live there

Violethill - what makes them do that - a lack of vision and future. They can't see that 5yr slogging it on on the production line may lead to a promotion as line manager, and then maybe further up, leading them out from where they are now.

It's so complex, that it's hard to explain properly as I've only ever really studied the basics (so far).

Longwalk - no that not what I said. Being poor in cash terms doesn't always mean that you're going to suffer the long term effects of poverty. Plus evidently your parents had an education behind them to be able to do those things. There are parents today who don't read to their children because they themselves can't read well enough. There are parents who couldn't take a child on a walk to point out plants and animals - because they wouldn't have any idea what those plants and animals are.

Naturally there will always be some that just can't be bothered, even if they have all the tools to do better, and will churn out kids just because they can't be arsed.

And there will be those growing up in slum estates who will "beat the odds" and do better than their parents.

And there will be middle class kids who turn into lazy sods or criminals, or become teenage parents etc

But overall that's not what happens. It's not a co-incidence that most of the issues mentioned on this thread are found in areas that are poor.

usual - I sometimes think that people not in poverty like to think that poverty isn't to blame because then they don't have to care or try to make things better.

Agree baroque.

I also think its not helpful that some people seem to think in very black and white terms, as if all MNers are either wonderfully lucky and well off, or desperately unlucky and poor.

Many of us have moved from one to the other; its quite possible to have begun your life in poverty and moved out of it, or conversely, to have been born into plenty of opportunities, but have messed up through bad choices or misfortune. And some people move from one to the other and back more than once.

Usualsuspect - that's true as well. But that can affect how the people on the council estates react.

What is they say about telling a child that they're naughty or stupid - and never telling them they're good or clever.

A child that grows up with that attitude towards them is unlikely to benefit from it. Some will be lucky and come out ok as adults, but for many it will cause a negative reaction.

Now imagine a child growing up and the only time they see the type of area they live in, in the news, it's negative, with negative "outcomes" for the people living there, and "normality" for the people in their kind of area always being shown of one in low wage jobs, or on benefits, or teenage pregnancies, or drugs and crime.

Like the child that's told they're stupid or naughty all the time - some will think "sod that I'll show them I can do better" -and will come out of it well. But many more won't. Many more will believe these things and react like the child that is made to belive they are naughty or stupid.

A sense of hopelessness and discouragement will be rife. And so stem the issues........

And this isn't get my housework done and people will be starting to believe that I really do ignore my kids all the time

yes yes Violethill - I think that's a huge problem this idea of black and white when there are actually a 1000 shades of grey in between.

I saw an article that argued that poor children who don't say 'lawyer' or 'accountant' when they are asked about their future careers are actually the rational ones. If no-one else from your school has ever become any of those things, it's a sensible answer. Expecting children who have grown up in poverty to aspire is probably a bit foolish. You need to help them aspire, we need to change society so it is possible - not just for the odd exception but for all children in poverty.

They don't have the education, aspiration or believe that they can be something.

It would help if it wasn't confirmed at every turn, and if you're lucky enough to have got social housing you can't always move without risking throwing away the one thing you have, a roof over everyone's heads.

You try believing your kids can be something despite what you are, when no one around you thinks you should have aspirations for them.

Throwing money at that really changes it.

Attitudes on council estates are changing though ..the one I live on has its problems I agree but its not full of drug dealing single parent wasters as some would like to believe ..many of the teenagers are in sixth form or college or at university ..There are certainly shades of grey in all social backgrounds

Well, my father was a miner who left school at 15yrs. The vast majority of kids of my parents age could read regardless of how poor they were. Very few 'baby boomer' who are now in their 60s cannot read. It was fundamental.

Yes, there are a few parents my age whose literacy skills are not what they should be but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of their parents could read and write so what went wrong?

The UN report implies that a child whose family is 'only' poor financially but does not suffer from poverty of aspiration is somehow less poor. I just disagree with that.

I used to teach and I'm now in social work. I see disadvantaged families every day. It is very common to come across two families where the parent(s) have similar incomes and education levels themselves yet one is very keen and interested in their child's leaning and behaviour and the other not so much.

For one, working 40hours a week in a factory is important because it could lead to more and it is setting a certain example to their kids. For others they cannot see past the 'doing an awful, mind numbing job for 40hours a week when they could be at home, cosy and on benefits.

I'm not judging, just pointing out these stark differences in ethos ot ethics or attitude do exist. I find that both interesting and staggering.

The biggest problem is a lack of aspiration in those from poorer backgrounds. I'm from a poor background but got into grammar school and so was surrounded by people who did aspire to work in top jobs etc and it rubbed off on me. Other kids I grew up with never got it and so put little or no effort into their education and have done nothing with themselves.

The first part of my post was to Baroque in answer to the statement that my parents must have been educated. Just pointing out that they were no more educated than any other child who had to leave school at 15 to go down the pit.

Btw, he knew nothing about the plants and animals but would wait on the corner of our road for the mobile library every fortnight and we'd get book out together and learn together because they fundamentally believed that education was the 'holy grail' (which it was in the 80s)

I see a lot of poor, uneducated parents telling their children that people with schooling, manners, etc. are just rich, stuck-up snobs. And then there are those who tell their children that if they work hard and stay focused they can have better than what they were born to.

That's the difference, I think.

CY, I see that difference every day.

Did anyone else see this Guardian article about why Chinese children do so well at school - according to that, even Chinese children from families eligible for free school meals (one of the basic markers for relative poverty in this country) do better than well-off white British children, and sometimes even better than better off Chinese children.

I think that shows that relative poverty by itself can't cause underperformance - aspirations, expectations, culture etc have a lot to do with it. But in this country long-term poverty and unemployment has created (amongst some families and in some areas, not everywhere) a culture of low expectations and lack of interest in education.

I'm lucky enough to come from a family where education has been the top priority for several generations, and with education has come relative prosperity - but the attitude towards education started when the family was relatively poor (small farmers, miners, railway workers etc) and my ancestors saw education as a way to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. Not necessarily through schools or universities, at least to start with, as the options were limited in the valleys, but through evening classes, libraries, church groups, unions etc.

Most of those opportunities are still available, even in the poorest areas (though give the current government another few years and they may have disappeared) but it seems that the people who need them most aren't interested in taking them up, I presume because of the prevailing culture of hopelessness and lack of aspiration.

OP - and can we guess which party you vote for then - hmmmmmmm????

Good post exexpat - agree

decentdragon - agree v much. i think money could be better spent on career and life guidance in schools and resurrecting things like YTS and getting local businesses into schools to recruit etc. i don't think careers advice is literal enough. i think it should almost be flashcards explaining things like: train as electrician at college, get job as junior, work for x many years, get experience, get payrise/start own company with small business loan, work x many more years, buy 4 bed house in nice area, drive reasonable car, afford holiday every year and other modest luxuries (i am only guessing at details but you see what i mean)

i think there should be more accesible information about the rewards of hard work and commitment in jobs. i also think careers advice should be compulsory and often and include basic life skills too.

rant over. money isnt the solution to self perpetuating poverty but there are things that could be done!

When writing a post about people are stupid you really ought to check your spelling is on par.

YTS was just a way to exploit teenagers ..proper training with a job at the end needs encouraging ..but not cheap labour for a year which was basically all the YTS scheme was