Poor argument

29th August 1997 at 01:00
Your report (TES, August 15) on the effects of broken homes as against childhood poverty does not appear to sustain the contention that the traditional family is not as important as some people try to make out. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has been plugging this line for decades, but has been powerfully challenged by, among others, Norman Dennis in Rising crime and the dismembered family.

The fact that, according to your report, "the risk of psychological problems at 16 and depressive tendencies at 33 were markedly greater for children who had been taken into care or had lived in squalid housing" does not prove that poverty is worse for children than a broken home. Children taken into care do not suffer from poverty in the material sense. What they lack is the warmth and security of a real family.


Dean Farm Singleborough, Milton Keynes

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar, Buyagift.com, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today