Wednesday, 23 December 2015

Wait, Using Children As Human Shields Is OK Now..?

…because I thought we all got really upset when Saddam Hussein did it?
Education experts are calling on the government to review its bedroom tax after early research indicated it was having an adverse impact on learning because affected children were stressed and hungry at school.
Which is unfortunate, but 100% the responsibility of their parents.
Researchers from Manchester University found that children were showing signs of emotional distress because they were seeing their parents under pressure and were experiencing material hardship as a result of the benefit cut. Parents were having to cut back on food, shopping for fewer and cheaper provisions, and hungry children were finding it harder to concentrate in lessons, sometimes leading to classroom unrest and aggressive behaviour, the report said.
Aha! Yet another excuse to be trotted out when ‘It ain’t ‘is fault, ‘e ‘as that ADHD!’ stops working…
The study, by researchers at Manchester Institute of Education, found that forcing children to share bedrooms – under the policy, two children of the same sex under 16 are expected to share, as are two children under 10 regardless of sex – was also having a negative impact on learning, with no quiet place for homework and teenagers’ sleep disturbed by younger siblings.
So a hard-working parent struggling to afford rent must see a benefit monkey get a larger house so their kids can have separate bedrooms? I should cocoa!
Erica Burman, also professor of education at Manchester, added: “The government should review its policy. Doing so would show a greater commitment to supporting children, helping parents to maintain their responsibilities, reinforcing communities, tackling educational inequalities and ensuring that the effects of austerity do not fall disproportionately on poor families.”
Everything will fall ‘disproportionately’ on poor families – it’s an incentive not to be poor in the first place!
In addition, the Manchester research claimed that the policy was not persuading families to downsize. As well as a lack of suitable smaller properties in the social housing sector, parents said they were prepared to lose money and suffer the hardship in order to stay in their home and keep local family ties and friendships.
So, it’s their choice. They are the ones condemning their offspring to these disadvantages. Not my problem. Certainly not worth a single penny more of my taxes.
Schools and community groups have responded to increased need by reallocating resources to ensure that children are fed and clothed. Schools have used pupil premium funding, available to children from deprived backgrounds who are on free school meals, to extend breakfast clubs.
Clearly the schools have too much fat in the budget. Time to cut it again, Education Secretary!

10 comments:

ivan said...

Oh that it would read: Schools and community groups have responded to increased need by leaning on their parents to ensure that children are fed and clothed.

Bunter said...

On the plus side, we can tick the obesity crisis off as solved ?

Andrew Scarborough said...

... And we draw ever closer to the Soviet model of State Créches. Now where's that image of Russian nannies, a whole army of the things, identical uniforms, identical prams, identi-kit kids? I think it was on Nourishing Obscurity, about five years ago.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

"two children of the same sex under 16 are expected to share, as are two children under 10 regardless of sex"

In other words, just like all of us did in the fifties and sixties when we all hard up, and guess what - most of us turned out just fine.

Stop whinging and get on with it.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Oh and btw it's NOT a "bedroom tax", it's a reduction in a benefit.

WE are the ones who pay the actual taxes.

Uncle Badger said...

And of course, none of those 'researchers' had an opinion before they began their 'research', did they?

Bill in St Louis said...

Just a thought, forced sterilization after your first child if you are on benefits?

Lynne at Counting Cats said...

My sister and I shared a bedroom until early adulthood and we never felt deprived. It certainly didn't prevent us being civilised human beings. In contrast our brother had his own room and turned out to be an absolute cnut.

JuliaM said...

"Oh that it would read: Schools and community groups have responded to increased need by leaning on their parents to ensure that children are fed and clothed."

Amen. But personal responsibility is not the order of the day any more... :/

"On the plus side, we can tick the obesity crisis off as solved ?"

Heh! If only...

".. And we draw ever closer to the Soviet model of State Créches."

Of course! The better to control an increasingly dependent population.

"In other words, just like all of us did in the fifties and sixties when we all hard up, and guess what - most of us turned out just fine. "

Which is, of course, what they don't want! All must be dependent on - and grateful to - the Almighty State.

JuliaM said...

"And of course, none of those 'researchers' had an opinion before they began their 'research', did they?"

*gasp* That would be unethical! ;)

"Just a thought, forced sterilization after your first child if you are on benefits?"

Why not? It was good enough for socialist Shangri-La Sweden, with the mentally disabled...

"My sister and I shared a bedroom until early adulthood and we never felt deprived. It certainly didn't prevent us being civilised human beings."

If a room was all that was needed to ensure that, we'd have cracked all the problems of the world!