to be annoyed that being in the lowest socio-economic group seems to be an accepted excuse for bad parenting

[MummaEss]

I am constantly seeing reports in the media about how children from backgrounds of relative poverty are entering school without the necessary skills, have little or no access to books in their early years, are often hungry and generally ill equipped for school. In such reports the fact that these children are often the ones entitled to free school meals seems to change the focus of the issue from one of bad parenting to the problem being a symptom of being poor.

Now, I do understand that the pure statistics do indeed show a clear correlation between these problems and social grouping but I do not think that this should automatically mean that the families being financially poor is the problem. The problem is horrendously bad parenting.

I have raised my girls on a shoestring. I have been a single mum for years, have done my time on income support and now work for minimum wage yet I still managed to teach my girls the basics in personal hygiene and manners before they started school. They always had shelves full of books bought from charity shops and we regularly visited the library for free. Being hard up for cash has no effect on how you teach your children. Yes, I couldn't afford to send mine to ballet lessons or piano lessons but teaching good behavior, manners, bedtime, potty training etc is free and books and reading can be also.

So, AIBU to be annoyed and concerned that us poor people are getting bad press here?. Many of us manage to raise well rounded and educated children despite our financial dire straights and that those who don't can blame only their bad parenting and not their 'poverty'.

Do you expect your DC to be in the lowest socio-economic group? You are raising your DC to be 'well-rounded and educated'. My DPs and DH's DPs both come from mining/mill/dirt shit poor backgrounds. They wanted and worked for their DC not to be in the same socio-economic class as them. Back then that was enough.

Mobility is being stifled by education, class, economics, snobbery (both traditional and inverse). The current government doesn't want your DC to make a million or join a golf club.

kim147 to be honest, I think it is difficult to be a good parent. I find it hard. I keep trying mind you. I love my kids but they're both spirited, they never stop fighting, one has sn, the other is just a push the boundaries type! I have ambitions for them, so I soldier, sometimes I announce "I give up!" but I always pick the reins back up again, cos I'm terrified of the consequences of relaxing the guidance/influence/discipline, but it is hard. For me, the hardest part was not the poverty per se but the having nobody there to share the drudgery with.

A couple of things. There is a correlation between being poor and poor educational standards. That doesn't mean 99% of poor people are parenting inadequately. You might get that impression from reading moral panic articles but it doesn't make it the case.

The figures might be 4% of not-poor children fail to reach x standard by x age. But the same for 8 or 9% of those officially living in poverty. I don't know actual figures. That is a statistically significant difference that deserves to be addressed.

Also anyone can be living in poverty for a short or long time. But there is also a correlation between drug or alcohol dependency and poverty, between mental health or disability and poverty. Or so on. These things do not just potentially affect families financially but also in ability to parent to a set standard. Being poor on its own affect parenting, for instance the stress of financial difficulties may make one depressed or tetchy, but so can being money rich but time poor.

Correlation and anecdote are different things. 'Me and my friends managed fine' does not change the statistics.

I'm not entirely clear what your point is. Maybe that the impression given is that poor automatically equals bad parent which of course it doesn't, any more than comfortable or rich automatically equals good parent.

Pre eclampsia is commonest in first pregnancies, or subsequent pregnancies with a new partner so whether the partner is the same is a very relevant question and is part of a routine booking appointment, though it does sound like some sensitivity was lacking given the circumstances.

Every parent has their challenges, their strengths and weakness. Poverty doesn't help with any of them.

It's not just poverty though; it's everything that goes along with that. Someone in second, third or more generation poverty is less likely to be literate or have above basic numeracy skills. They can't teach their children to read, write or add up because they themselves lack the skills and/or have been disillusioned about the education system by their own experience so don't see the value in it.

That is a MASSIVE generalisation on my part, but the intent is to demonstrate that it's not cut and dry crap parenting.

Being poor does not equal being a crap parent, as you (OP) yourself demonstrate. Conversely being wealthy does not automatically make one a model parent, despite having access to better resources for education.

Married,

Those questions are the standard social questions they ask everybody, and no kimthey are not designed to seek out DV victims well apart from the one that directly asks if you are or have you ever experienced DV.

They are intended to find out income group,level of education,social issues

If you answer in the way they feel is negative,they send a referral early to the HV who bung you on either universal plus or the next one up they do a home visit to check your not a child abuser or in need of additional support and if not drop you back down to universal.

Harold shipman and Beverly allitt would have both passed the questions with no further scrutiny.

Being poor also means you have very little, if any, control over where you live, and thus where your children go to school, meaning they get stuck in the less good schools, often have poor educational experiences, and are pretty much unemployable. So the cycle repeats itself.

Forgot to add that yep the digs she made after you answered were snide and unacceptable as well as unprofessional

Yeh, and some of these issues, we've 'circumnavigated them because my parents have a nice house, are comfortable, they're stalwarts of the parish and my children got into a good school on their coat tails. But if we'd had two generations of poverty it would have have been harder. One generation of poverty, nouveau pauvre! there are people to lean on. also, there is social contagion. I may have had less money than my friends from school but my ambitions for my children are the same as their ambitions for their children.

I foster - so see a lot of the "worst" parenting - their birth parents are often exactly the type you hear about in the media. ( though often have had far from idyllic childhoods themselves - so the pattern repeats)

However, you are NOT being unreasonable to be annoyed at thinking this should be treated as normal/OK parenting for lower incomes. Love and care is what matters. There are children in third world countries who are more loved and cared for than some children in the UK - despite their poverty - so money isn't the issue. Plus we have free health care. {{Sorry, Maja00 but I don't think money has anything to do with parental love and guidance.}}

...and - I hope I'm not out of line here - I'd like to say a heartfelt congratulations on bringing up your girls so well.

Also when you are told you are shit continually, looked down on, ostracised, when you can't fit into their 'ingroup' you can end up rejecting their values.

For instance a lot of people will lol and maybe even brag about how bad they are/were at maths at school. Best to make a joke about it. Pretend it doesn't matter. Who'd want to be good at maths anyway, bloody maths geeks, never got a date blah blah.

It all gets a bit 'I was going to dump you first anyway'.

I know exactly what you're saying, and not saying.
We all know it runs deeper than that but it's just the bloody insinuation really.

I spent some time on IS, and felt the same as you about manners etc.

I once wrote a furious letter to a newspaper that printed a ridiculous article suggesting that 'poor children' were incapable of eating with cutlery at a table, due to spending their lives eating pizza on the sofa.

All children need is love. I have met some very "deprived" children who have everything but love. And some very poor children who are blessed with the wealth love brings. Mine are lucky they have both and yet I know there are times I could have been a better parent. I could praise DS more but fear it will go to his head and I could praise dd less but fear her self esteem will plummet further.

I think children need stability as well as love - stability in the form of someone who shows they love them. That's a slightly garbled point but i have known parents who really do love their kids but are still poor at parenting them.

There is poor parenting in higher social groups, but the effects can be mitigated by access to better schools, extra-curricular activities and external childcare. Some of them are time poor from holding well-paid but demanding jobs. They may have the social skills to be successful in a workplace, but they may not transfer to good parenting.

Where people in poverty get "ghettoised" into estates or deprived areas, there are more negative influences. There are less aspirational role models, less access to enriching activities and it is harder for the cycle to be broken and social mobility to occur. There's also a greater distrust of authority- maybe the parents/ grandparents had a difficult time in a secondary modern school, and their negative experiences rub off on the next generation. I've taught in a few pit towns where education wasn't valued because it wasn't needed to earn a decent wage down the pit. Those pits have gone, many children have grown up without working role models and education is still not valued, but sadly is essential for any chance of earning a decent living salary in the current economy. Some parents are just time poor from the battle to survive and juggling multiple low-paid jobs. They may have the skills to be decent parents, but poverty is getting in the way of effective parenting. Often those who have most to gain from services like SureStart are the ones least likely to use them. People with sub-functional literacy can't read up on different parenting ideas to diversify away from the way they were brought up.

Breaking the cycle of poor parenting is very hard in a free society, and those families caught in the poverty trap over several generations tend to have few resources to move up the socio-economic ladder. That will create a bias of poorer parenting in the lowest social groups, and its effect is more obvious.

Only complete arseholes assume you are a bad parent because you are in a lower socioeconomic group. They are either too stupid or bigoted to bother to look at the whole picture.

What you have to remember about statistics is they don't always fully examine cause and effect I.e more ice creams been eaten on a sunny day doesn't mean eating ice cream makes it sunny.

People who are illiterate or just have poor literacy and numeracy skills are more likely to be in a lower socioeconomic group. These are the same people who would find it hard to teach their children those skills no matter how much they want to. This skews the figures.

BTW I'm not saying everyone in the lowest socioeconomic group are illiterate. I just want to make that clear.

I once overheard a conversation in the alley-way near my former house. It started with, "get back here Chantelle you fucking little cunt" because the toddler had wandered towards the main road. My windows were open and I then heard from the parent saying to the friend with her, "I'm not gonna just drag my kids up like I was dragged up. I'm gonna teach 'em right from wrong"

In her view, she was being a good parent, screaming abuse at her child and smacking her so that she didn't get run over. That isn't teaching right from wrong in anyone's book, is it? It's basic care. Makes you wonder what such people's moral code actually is, if they have one at all.

And that's awful and has nothing to do with poverty itself, but poverty of ambition, aspiration, imagination and all that follows. I don't think it's helpful to blame anyone for being so damaged but it does seem to be the culture these days: divide and conquer...

I agree, to a point.

What was your own background? Perhaps you were educated more than those who lack parenting skills, or were given moral guidance from your own family?

I don't think poor parenting is exclusive to the poor but I do think society has changed. My grandparents met and married shortly after WW1, they were severely affected by the great depression and spent most of their lives in appalling poverty yet had very high expectations of behaviour, morals and standards.

I think the standards in society as a whole have fallen

"I think the standards in society as a whole have fallen".

I couldn't agree with this more.

Totally agree about standards. In previous times schools set boundaries and moral expectations. Now they say they can't because it will offend those who have none and make exceptions for those who have none at home in the name of equal ops. It's one of the reasons why we moved our dd from a high performing comp. Our standards at home were not being supported by a church of england school.