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.

Surely tax credits are paid to prevent people earning less than if they were on benefits? They are supposed to make working worthwhile.

I tried to force feed her breakfast as i was worried that she had not eaten before preschool only for the little blighter to hold it in her mouth for half and hour and even when she arrived at preschool still had it in her mouth and had to spit it out as it was against their health and safetly to let her have food in there incase of choking.

Would schools also employ someone to wash and change these children?

How could this improve childrens sleep? Maybe, have them board overnight?

Used to be called childrens homes, I think.

It isn't about benefits it's about communities and values within them. The DH's grandad, born in 1905 in a Welsh mining village was the eldest of 11 (two up two down I think). He was very clever but on his 14th birthday he had to go down the mine - no benefits, his money was desperately needed. Go down he did and on his 18th birthday he didn't, he walked to Cardiff and joined the Welsh Guards and was a professional soldier for 25 years reaching the rank of corporal in WWII. He married a teacher and they had 6 children. Every one of them went into further education: two teachers, two nurses, one accountant and one made a fortune! He was brought up in abject poverty (his own children weren't exactly well off) but nowhere in any of this was there any neglect.

One thing he was adamant about though for the rest of his life and most strongly in the 80's and during the miners strike. Keeping the mines going was not the way forward for a civilised society - in his opinion they were filthy, vile holes fit for neither man nor beast but they taught a man to work by god they did.

Swimming lessons is an interesting factor, most parents want their child to swim for safety reasons. Yet even when our local pools were offering free swimming the amount of children who couldn't swim by year 6 didn't decrease. The staff (at this particular "deprived" school) were deeply saddened that a free, healthy activity wasn't taken up by most parents.

No, Alouiseleg tax credits dont prevent people earning less.

If your total income including tc's is around £16K, you still dont get the extras like free school meals, council tax benefit, help with school trips, etc that those on income support do. Factor in the cost of free school meals alone for say three children per week, and you are worse off working. People working for low wage also pay fares to work which those on income support don't. You end up working for a loss, but that's not actually publicised too heavily.

Ok, understood.

The vouchers and free meals wouldn't be an add on extra.

They'd replace much of the benefits so actually an incentive to get a job .

There aren't all that many jobs available - especially to mums who don't have adequate childcare in place. Childcare has just been reduced from tax credits too, and can you really see some of the parents we're talking about here actually being the best candidate on offer for the jobs that are available?

Thousands upon thousands of hardworking Europeans without the benefit of English as their native language, happily manage to get work.

And that is one of the reasons why there aren't many jobs left

Lol!!!

Of course, damn those people getting jobs the lazy feckless buggers didn't want!

they were available before

and besides, maybe if the money dried up these unwanted children wouldn't be born in the first place

jeez that's harsh, sorry. Am thinking of teenage pregnancy and the Shannon Matthews type family set up. But I am being too harsh and nasty.

No, you're not Gooseberry, you're being a realist rather than an idealist. Nothing wrong with that at all.

That is pretty much what I said a few pages back Gooseberry - about the benefits system actually encouraging people to have children they really probably shouldn't.

I find it very disturbing, this continuing stereotype that children who are neglected and/or abused must be from poor backgrounds, not the kids from the "nice houses". Parents with high paying jobs can spend all their money on themselves just as well as someone on benefits.

They can Notjustkanga, but the statistics show that neglected children are far more prevalent in deprived areas with high unemployment etc rather than leafy suburbs.

That, or parents with higher incomes are more like to have the knowledge, connections, and/or status to hide their neglect better or have reports of neglect disbelieved or put as low priority because of income level or postcode.

We are talking about hunger and dirt and tiredness. Not easy to hide and far less likely to occur in affluent areas where people have money and often time and education and are not living chaotic lives worrying about who to pay off this week.

It's completely daft to say that this sort of neglect happens at a similar rat ein well off homes. It just doesn't. Other neglect can - lack of time, money thrown around but little parental input etc etc but rarely dirt, tiredness and hunger.

True NJK.

Is it neglect to work so hard that you have to put your kids in before-and after-school care (or send them to boarding school); you don't have time to go to any school functions, they have to go to playschemes in the summer; when you do see them you're exhausted and just want them to go to sleep, so you can? But you have a nice house, nice clothes and nice car and they have a computer in their rooms, of course.

I know some people live like that. They have different priorities, and think they are doing their best for their kids by providing them with all the material things they need. Are they wrong?

Notjust - if you look back to some of the comments on Page 1 or 2 of this thread, it's pointed out that not all children from poor backgrounds are neglected by their parents, (myself included), but that some of them are. Indeed only 7 or 8 where I work are classed as such, out of 300.

The "obvious" signs of neglect (daily hunger, unwashed for days/weeks) are not as apparent in the children of more wealthly parents, who probably neglect their children in other, less obvious ways (probably emotionally).

Mellow - I see your point but I guess we are talking extremes on this thread.

I disagree. My personal experience has shown that children from those backgrounds who are routinely dirty or smelly will be more likely to be labelled as depressed or rebellious because the parents can parents themselves immaculately. Tiredness or hunger will be written off as stress. Accusations from the children that they are neglected are filed under acting out brats seeking attention. I know a secondary school in an extremely wealthy area which has "self-esteem group", which is actually for those children who are known to be neglected, but the staff have given up trying to get SS involved. I know a case of a 14 year old girls in one of the wealthiest areas being left on her own with her younger sister for a week, maybe over a fortnight at a time regularly with very little money to care for themselves, and the parent neglected the bills in favour of trips and various types of drugs to the point that the electricity was cutoff when they were home alone. And she is far from an isolated case, but the authorities won't get involved. They aren't in the stats. Their lives are just as chaotic as anyone elses. They just have parents who know how to work the system.

True Kanga - anyone can be neglected, abused or live in chaos.