Benefit cuts to hit more than 330,000 children

Fatherof2mids

tomtontom wrote: »

I would link educational achievement far more to strong parental role models than income.

Unfortunately the statistics don't back you up there.

Those who receive free school meals, as a group, perform worse than any other group when dissecting the gcse results.

There may be argument for lack of cultural capital in families who receive benefits, but I would argue that if that's the case, that's and even worse problem.

tomtontom

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

Unfortunately the statistics don't back you up there.

Those who receive free school meals, as a group, perform worse than any other group when dissecting the gcse results.

There may be argument for lack of cultural capital in families who receive benefits, but I would argue that if that's the case, that's and even worse problem.

No, the statistics only look at quantitative factors, they don't consider the aspirations and attitudes of the families concerned.

GirlFromMars_2

tomtontom wrote: »

What do you class as overcrowded and what problems do you associate with it? My father was one of seven children and grew up in a three bed house. That was nothing out of the ordinary back then. He and his siblings have all grown up healthy and happy.

Congratulations to them!

I don't have a problem with children sharing bedrooms, so long as the rooms are large enough to accommodate the number of beds required without being overly oppressive. So there should still be space to move around the room, space for personal possessions, space for somewhere quiet to do homework and some personal space to get away from the rest of the family.

I don't believe parents should have to share with children (past what is sensible with a baby). And I don't believe any family member should be forced to use a living room as a bedroom.

Children with disabilities sometimes require a room to themselves, and this should be recognised.

Personally I live in a two bed flat with my cat, and that feels like just about the right amount of space to me! I have however lived in any number of different situations during my life, and many of them were oppressive. Including, sharing a tiny bedroom with my brother and abusive step brother while my parents slept in the living room, sharing a bedroom with my grandmother, and sharing a bedroom with my father. I could go on, and on, and on, I led that kind of disrupted childhood.

Missyhenry

GirlFromMars wrote: »

Congratulations to them!

I don't have a problem with children sharing bedrooms, so long as the rooms are large enough to accommodate the number of beds required without being overly oppressive. So there should still be space to move around the room, space for personal possessions, space for somewhere quiet to do homework and some personal space to get away from the rest of the family.

I don't believe parents should have to share with children (past what is sensible with a baby). And I don't believe any family member should be forced to use a living room as a bedroom.

Children with disabilities sometimes require a room to themselves, and this should be recognised.

Personally I live in a two bed flat with my cat, and that feels like just about the right amount of space to me! I have however lived in any number of different situations during my life, and many of them were oppressive. Including, sharing a tiny bedroom with my brother and abusive step brother while my parents slept in the living room, sharing a bedroom with my grandmother, and sharing a bedroom with my father. I could go on, and on, and on, I led that kind of disrupted childhood.

Lots of houses have a living room and a rarely used dining room. In house shares and student accommodation thet's often used as an extra bedroom and I can't see any problem with that for a family.

GirlFromMars_2

Missyhenry wrote: »

Lots of houses have a living room and a rarely used dining room. In house shares and student accommodation thet's often used as an extra bedroom and I can't see any problem with that for a family.

No, neither can I so long as it is one or the other. Not both. There should be one comfortable room in the house where people can relax without it having to be turned into a bedroom at some point.

A rarely used dining room is essentially an extra bedroom. An often used living room is nothing of the kind!

(I am assuming that there is enough room for the family to eat comfortably elsewhere!)

bloolagoon

Fatherof2mids wrote: »

Children we be affected , and goes far beyond second hand phones. The fact that kids from families on benefits already perform significantly worse at gcse level than those from working families shows the severity of the issue facing children in poverty.
These cuts will make it worse for these children, attainment gaps will widen, and the idea of meritocracy will disappear from our shores.

It has nothing to do with poverty its sadly down to parenting and no amount of money changes that. We have thrown so much money at them and nothing changes.

They have parents at home to help with homework - not ones out 7-7 then chores and supper to cook. They have access to free or reduced clubs via pupil premium. Often smaller class sizes and many more advantages. One of the main reasons for lack of GCSE grades is genes. Not all children can obtain them. It's not poverty its social problems and money doesn't improve that.

I'm off work due to illness and my children's lives are vastly improved having me at home as opposed to out working. On paper they should succeed more than those whose parents never get the time. But if you don't believe in education, won't enforce education or the child isn't academic it won't happen. Extra money doesn't change that. Some parents do - but again it's not money its them being good parents that's the difference and many children in poverty succeed because they have good parents.

Fatherof2mids

tomtontom wrote: »

No, the statistics only look at quantitative factors, they don't consider the aspirations and attitudes of the families concerned.

Unless you have evidence of this lack of aspiration or poor attitude then I think you cannot ,are such an assertion.
In fact by stating this you are saying that over 63% of people of poor families lack the correct attitude to support there children to 5 gcses.

The fact is that poor children perform worse, through a mixture of lack of cultural capital, lack of family resource and a poverty of aspiration that can be found in many destitute areas.
What I am saying that just because it's a mixture doesn't mean we should make it worse by worsening these children's finances

bloolagoon

GirlFromMars wrote: »

No, neither can I so long as it is one or the other. Not both. There should be one comfortable room in the house where people can relax without it having to be turned into a bedroom at some point.

A rarely used dining room is essentially an extra bedroom. An often used living room is nothing of the kind!

(I am assuming that there is enough room for the family to eat comfortably elsewhere!)

In London many tax payers HAVE to sleep in the living room. I did for years, those just above the help limit often do things those receiving help consider "poor" to survive.

GirlFromMars_2

bloolagoon wrote: »

In London many tax payers HAVE to sleep in the living room. I did for years, those just above the help limit often do things those receiving help consider "poor" to survive.

By "tax payers" I assume you mean adults who have chosen to live that way.

I'm saying that I consider a house to be overcrowded if someone is doing that, and that children should not be forced to live in a house where that is the norm.

Fatherof2mids

bloolagoon wrote: »

It has nothing to do with poverty its sadly down to parenting and no amount of money changes that. We have thrown so much money at them and nothing changes.

They have parents at home to help with homework - not ones out 7-7 then chores and supper to cook. They have access to free or reduced clubs via pupil premium. Often smaller class sizes and many more advantages. One of the main reasons for lack of GCSE grades is genes. Not all children can obtain them. It's not poverty its social problems and money doesn't improve that.

I'm off work due to illness and my children's lives are vastly improved having me at home as opposed to out working. On paper they should succeed more than those whose parents never get the time. But if you don't believe in education, won't enforce education or the child isn't academic it won't happen. Extra money doesn't change that. Some parents do - but again it's not money its them being good parents that's the difference and many children in poverty succeed because they have good parents.

In my post above I agree theat there is a poverty of aspiration amongst some parents. However you are vastly understating the role money in education. Even in the UK where education is free at source, the finances of the family have a massive affect on attainment outcome.