RAISING attainment is among the most talked about goals for our 21st century education system but while schools are trying to ensure all pupils, from all backgrounds, have equal opportunities, teachers are also faced with the growing problem of making sure children are coming to class clean.

A study commissioned by the charity In Kind Direct showed more than four in 10 parents said they had to go without basic hygiene and cleaning products because they can't afford them. Other parents said their children wear the same underwear at least two days in a row while teachers reported pupils showing up to class in dirty clothes, unwashed or without having cleaned their teeth.

Hygiene poverty is on the rise.

When I was at school there was no label for the situation afflicting the child in class who no one wanted to sit next to. Now, they are living with hygiene poverty.

Scotland is one of only a handful of countries in Europe to define fuel poverty, according to Housing Minister Kevin Stewart.

Fuel poverty is the situation where a household spends 10 per cent or more of its income to maintain a warm home and, government figures say, more than a quarter of Scottish households are in this predicament.

This week it was announced that Scotland is to introduce a new law committed to reduce fuel poverty to five per cent by 2040.

On Thursday, the MP Danielle Rowley made Westminster history by mentioning her period in the Commons, using it an excuse for being late to the debating chamber and as a lead in to asking Women and Equalities Minister Victoria Atkins what she plans to do about period poverty.

While Ms Rowley was praised for breaking a taboo, it does feel like a backwards step to use one's biology as an excuse for not meeting your professional obligations.

Feminists fought long and hard to free women from the discrimination that comes with viewing a female body, and its routine bodily functions, as an impairment.

The fight against period poverty has brought with it an increasingly popular narrative: a narrative of openness about menstruation in a bid to hammer home the message that access to sanitary products is access to essential healthcare.

There is a fine balance to be struck between freeing women from a financial burden and reintroducing the ancient notion that women are less capable at certain times of the month.

But poverty, of course, means one can't be too choosy.

Tomorrow is the final day for local organisations to apply to Glasgow City Council for funding to take part in its Glasgow Children's Summer Food Programme, which aims to put a stop to "holiday hunger" - an extension of food poverty.

Hygiene poverty, fuel poverty, period poverty, food poverty: it's interesting, this trend of breaking poverty down into bitesize chunks with neat labels. It should come as no surprise that people who have no money can't afford to buy things.

Yet we are portioning out poverty into special interest areas with individual fixes. It is easier to gain support for clearly defined problem with a straightforward solutions - if women can't afford tampons, give them tampons. If people can't afford to eat, give them food parcels.

Period poverty garnered enough interest that the Scottish Government has stepped in, responding to a member's bill from the tireless Monica Lennon’s that will create a statutory duty for free provision of sanitary products.

In the meantime, dozens of grassroots efforts have been established - from the Bloody Big Brunch to projects in secondary schools.

Foodbanks are left to pick up the pieces of food poverty while beauty banks deal with the ills of hygiene poverty.

The root of all these issues is the same: unpredictable, insecure employment; failures in the welfare system; austerity. It is morally repugnant that people living in a wealthy country are living with the sort of poverty that prevents them buying soap.

Holyrood is leading the way on these issues with policy changes but, ultimately, women should be able to afford sanitary products, parents should be able to bathe their children.

The success of individual campaigns against individual facets of poverty show the strength of public outrage but we must not allow Westminster to shirk its responsibility to rectify a system that allows some to have too much and others to have barely anything at all.