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.

STEWART DEUCHAR

Dean Farm Singleborough, Milton Keynes

Subscribe to get access to the content on this page.

If you are already a Tes/ Tes Scotland subscriber please log in with your username or email address to get full access to our back issues, CPD library and membership plus page.

Not a subscriber? Find out more about our subscription offers.
Subscribe now
Existing subscriber?
Enter subscription number

Comments

The guide by your side – ensuring you are always up to date with the latest in education.

Get Tes magazine online and delivered to your door. Stay up to date with the latest research, teacher innovation and insight, plus classroom tips and techniques with a Tes magazine subscription.
With a Tes magazine subscription you get exclusive access to our CPD library. Including our New Teachers’ special for NQTS, Ed Tech, How to Get a Job, Trip Planner, Ed Biz Special and all Tes back issues.

Subscribe now