kids going to school hungry and tired

[dearyme]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13081777

is this poor parenting or real poverty - or a mixture of both?

More than three-quarters of 627 primary, secondary and college teachers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who responded to the survey believed they taught pupils living in poverty.

Of those, 80% said students came to school tired, 73% said they arrived hungry and 67% said they wore worn-out clothes or lacked the proper uniform.

why would you feel compassion for parents who willfully neglect their children?

I got the impression they were angry on behalf of the children. So wouldn't that be compassion for the children?

Yes we're all angry that some children don't get a better deal. How does it help to blame the parents - who either don't know any better or have huge problems themselves? Wouldn't it be better to try to understand what makes them like that? And then do something about it, if we can.

I think the reason that posters have been attracted to this thread is because we're all upset at the level of deprivation faced by some children. I don't see how sneering at their parents helps. You can't address a problem if you don't understand what causes it.

"Wouldn't it be better to try to understand what makes them like that?"

Actually I think an explanation is being repeatedly offered, which is that the parents behave this way partly at least because of the way the benefits system is structured. I think an offer of "doing something" about it is also implied, along the lines of adjusting the benefits system. I think one of the problems is that good intentions and compassion sometimes cloud understanding of what causes it, which can be quite simple and straightforward and is often selfishness, eclipsed by neither education nor self control.

AbFab - "I'm firmly in the , " If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em " camp

Somewhat off topic but does that also apply to Toby Young and his 4 kids he can't afford private school for and now getting state funded?

I don't think you should have more kids than you can cope with but it's not an attitude reserved for the undeserving poor.

A further three cheers for the teachers and others working in schools who look out for these children.

Because raising children to minimum acceptable standards isn't brain surgery, it takes love and care.

Feed them, keep them warm, love them, stimulate them and at a push inspire them or at least be stable for them.

If you can't mange that then don't bother at all, if you find you can't do it for one child then certainly don't go on to have more.

I am angry about this because I have compassion, compassion for the children who are suffering and are powerless to do anything about it. Everybody of this generation has had an education and healthcare.

.....posted too early

Everyone has had education and healthcare, if they are too selfish to put a person of their own creation before their own needs then take the children away from them when they are babies and let them be brought up by loving, caring adoptive parents.

What happened to restraint and responsibility? Why are some people unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives and their own children?

One reason is that the nanny state has patted them on the head and thrown money and Sure Start and social services and Health (fags) in Pregnancy grants and gawd knows what else at people and still they can't/won't deal with their own lives.

Seriously, what MORE do you suggest the beleagured bloody tax payer does?

So parents didn't behave this way before the Welfare State, ie pre 1945? They used to send their kids down the mines didn't they? In Victorian times they divided the poor into deserving and undeserving. Even if that's what you think, what difference does it make to the children, who still suffer anyway?

What would you put in place instead of the benefit system? Imagine you remove it, or even change it so people only recieve a tenth or half or a fifth of what they get now. What is the likely consequence of that? All the so-called feckless people suddenly thinking 'Oh-oh, better not get my fags this week. I'll buy little Johnny a decent breakfast instead.' I don't think it works like that.

FGS, we have better sex education, more financial and emotional support, better education , greater benefits and a more involved social state than at any point in history and STILL people say it isn't enough and make excuses for these " parents" instead of seeing that maybe, just maybe this whole nanny pandering is part of the problem in the first place!

Abfab, there have always been irresponsible people. The rest of society has a choice. Let them suffer in the problems that are considered to be of their own making, or help them. Which choice is most likely to benefit their kids?

Some parents are battling depression, poverty, lack of good parenting themselves which sometimes leads to less than brilliant parenting.

However, there is a small minority of parents who do not give a shit about their children and is a mystery why they ever had them in the first place.

I believe that it takes a whole village to bring up a kid. Society means trying to help the weakest. Doesn't it?

Mellow, I will tell you what I would do.

Every child on benefits to have two free hot meals at school, breakfast and lunch.

If parents piss/smoke their food money away at least they will be fed.
Vouchers for school uniforms and all school trips paid for by the state.
Vouchers for childrens shoes and clothes and free swimming lessons.

Free after school homework clubs. Free bus fares for these children.

The very worst thing any Govt ever did was throw more money at these parents because none of it gets to the kids.

Perhaps the answer is just to remove children and benefits from those who choose fags over Jonnys breakfast. The child gets placed with a family who are interested in his needs, the taxpayer stops paying Waynetta to sit on her arse, and hopefully injects her with depo provera to prevent anymore Jonnys being neglected.

Interesting ab.. paid for out of the parents' money.

God that would take some organisation.

No, paid for by the state by replacing most of their benefits with vouchers.
It woudl take some organising but worth it, surely?

Great suggestions, Abfab - agree with every single on of them.

Gooseberry, it tends to come from the taxpayers money so that's the easy part.

yes that' swhat I meant. Interesting. I need someone to come along and point out the flaws but it sounds interesting.

Not sure about the vouchers, Abfab, but keep thinking!

I mean apart from the uniforms etc.

2 hot meals a day
Uniforms
School trips
Shoes clothes swimming lessons

MAJOR FLAW - those in work but earning less than those on benefits would just give up. What would be the point of struggling on through pride to even try to work when you would be far better off on benefit and receiving vouchers for the above. Totally not fair. No incentive for the low paid to work. Just as there isn't now actually, but even worse. More on benefit. More cost to the country.

My dd goes to preschool sometimes hungry and tired, a) shes been up half the night b) shes refused any breakfast or any food.