How does Poverty Impact Child’s Education?
A child’s ability to perform academically and socially in a school environment requires parental readiness. Poverty decreases a child’s readiness for school through home life. A child’s home life has a strong impact on a child school readiness. Children from low-income families do not receive the social skills and the stimulation that is needed for being prepared for school. Also lack of support and role modeling demonstrates association between low-come families. As a new born baby being raised in a low-income house hold and exposed to drug use, environment toxins, and poor nutrition. Affect cognitive development throughout the child’s life. Many functions of the brain, as language development and executive functioning develop slowly in low income children compared to other peers. In October 2013, Hillary Clinton, who is dedicated to closing the vocabulary gap say’s class studies have found that by the age four, children in middle and upper-class families hear 15 million more words than children in working class families and 30 million more words than children in families on welfare (Hillary Clinton 2013). Parents that comes from higher education and better income more likely to engage with their children than a parent that comes from a lower education and income. Therefore, some parents read to their babies that aren’t even born yet. By parents reading to their children, helping them learn alphabet, numbers and colors builds their cognitive development. Poverty effects a child achievement when he or she enters the first year of school. This raises the question is there anything we can do to help these children and to prevent from future child.
In 1991, more than one in five children under 18 years of age lived in poverty: and among children under 6 years of age, the poverty rate was 24% almost one of every four children in this age group was poor (Lewit 198). Resulted from the termination of loyal employees at several, American unemployment rates raised. The growing space between wages earnings and the cost of housing in the United States leaves millions of families and individuals unable to make ends meet. Children’s economic wellbeing depends primarily on the income of their families. Accordingly, children are classified as being poor if they live in families whose annual money incomes included cash benefits from the government programs before taxes fall below official poverty threshold (Lewit 199). Three factors that explain the cause of childhood poverty is demographic changes, an increase e in single parent households, and the economy. The poverty rate in single parent household are greater than children living in both parent’s households. Poverty occurs mostly in Blacks and Hispanic, in 1991 the percentage of Black and Hispanic children below poverty thresholds was 42% Black and 38% Hispanic according to U.S Census Bureau. (Lewit 201). In recent years, the age of benefits to families in poverty has changed. Traditional welfare programs have been reduced but programs like income tax credit and Medicaid had expanded. By these programs it put some children above the poverty level. For example, when the definition of family income is expanded to include the value of noncash benefits received minus taxes paid, the poverty rate among children drops (Lewit 206). In 1991 the cash transfer and noncash benefits had the effect of reducing the child poverty rate than in 1980, but now it appears that the reduction in public support for children in low income families increase poverty among children and decline the well-being of some children.
Drugs and alcohol affect about 20 percent of the homeless population. Drugs can become so addictive that some people use all their money on their habit. Lack of education is one of the leading causes of poverty. In America; due to lack of education; people from low class families cannot attend college or even finish high school because of their ranking in the economy (Lewit 203). The only job that is available are low paying jobs. Therefore, Children that grow up in poverty 70 percent tend to live in poverty as in adult (Hirschl 8). The growing faces of poverty with 27.2 percent of the state’s children living in poverty. Georgia now has the 6th highest childhood poverty rate in the nation. Leslie Millis says, I call poverty the invisible epidemic because educators and communities throughout the state have selflessly worked to counter its devastating impact . More than 94,000 poor Georgia children not served by child care and early education programs. More than 1 out of every 4 Georgia children are food insecure, that more than 700,000 children under 18. Students are likely to come to school hungry because they can’t afford food.
Dr. Alene Magill says, There is a difference now in the number of students who need special support and the types of support they need . Schools are struggling to meet student needs in ways that schools were never set up to. 87 percent of the school district in Georgia serve a majority of low in-come students.
The future children are exposed to inadequate nutrition; fewer learning experiences, instability of residence, lower quality of schools, environmental toxins, family violence and homelessness, dangerous streets or less services and adolescent jobs. Children under 6 years of age family members read to them less than four times per week. Children living below the poverty threshold are 1.3 times as likely as nonpoor children to experience learning disabilities and developmental delays (Brooks 7). Poverty children scored between 6 to 13 points lower on various standardized test. These differences are large from an educational perspective. Poverty children suffer from emotional and behavioral problems more frequently than nonpoor children (Brooks 8). These emotions are triggering aggression, acting out, and fighting are externalizing behavior and anxiety, social withdraw and depression are internalizing behavior. Everyday exposure to these stresses in childhood can cause early development in academic and behavioral problems. Children home environment provides opportunities for learning, warmth of a mother-child interactions and the physical condition of the home account for substantial portion of the effects of family income on cognitive outcomes in young children. The home scale has been shown to be correlated with family income and poverty associated with higher levels of income improved home environments as measured by the scale. Several studies have found that differences in the home environment of higher and lower-income children, is measured by the home scale, account for a substantial portion of the effect of income on the cognitive development of preschool children and on the achievement scores of elementary school children (Brooks 11). Poverty is link to low mother-child interaction. Research suggest that parental practice may be important pathway between economic resources and child outcomes (Brooks 12).
When we look at the research on youth violence we find that the united states have one of the highest youth violence rate. Ronald C. Kramer explains when we investigate the shooting incidents it tells the social problems in our young. Poverty, inequality, and social exclusion shape most of the youth violence in America. Conservative commentators frequently assert that it is a lenient criminal justice and juvenile justice system that causes high crime rates or crime and violence are the result of culture decline called moral poverty (Kramer 124). Violence is more current involving young people between the ages 15 to 24. This what set the united states apart from other developing countries. The America justice system is one of the harshest in the world, the culture and moral condition of American families and communities is important to consider in understanding crime, these conditions are affected by large social and economic forces. (Kramer 124) The social structural sociological and criminologists are the root of violence. When we look at the research on poverty and economic inequality, we find that the united states have by far the highest poverty rate and the biggest gap between the rich and the poor of any of the developed nations (Kerbo 1996). This deprivation and social exclusion are related to high rates of violence within the united states and other countries to demonstrate the connection. Cross national studies show that countries with high degree of economic inequality have gather levels of violence (Gartner 1990). Other studies have shown that, even within a generally deprived population, it is the most deprived children who face the greatest risks of engaging in crime and violence (Werner and smith 1992). Poverty and inequality allows children ability to be successful in school or at work, violence and abuse creates angry and fearful children. The lack of parental care and guidance contribute to the young strike on the world through violence.
The stages of progress methodology help identify household’s movements into or out of poverty. In 2002 the stages were used over the next several years for examining the experience of 35,567 households in 400 diverse communities of India, Kenya, Uganda, Peru and North Carolina USA. (Krishna 1). This experiment explains the development of different methodology that explores poverty flows and the results. There different reason for escaping poverty and falling into poverty. A retrospective method collecting data, through recall, so it can provide more better result, a clear chronological succession of stages of progress was related by village respondents. physiological needs (such as food and shelter) came first, socially dictated needs (wearing presentable clothes and repaying debt) came next, economic development needs were third (cattle and land) and luxury needs came last (such as television and jewelry). (Krishna 3). These stages worked for most household not all household moved up the economic ladder. This methodology has seven successive steps, each time a study is conducted it follows in the same order. The successive stages of progress worked in each of the regions. This study was used in diverse regions of five separate countries, this provided the first large scale of household strategies. This information was collected for households that escaped from poverty or fell into poverty but also for households that remained poor or non-poor. Stages of progression can be conceived of as providing subjective assessments of an absolute measure related to a context (Krishna 9). poverty changes across contexts, meaning over time if the context stays the same this indicates the wellbeing and the economic progress. The stages of progression methodology have been adapted for use by other scholars and several practitioners. Several years after stages of progress was developed and made public the world bank developed a methodology of its own, which is called Ladder of life (Krishna 10).
Today, student are four times more likely to drop out of high school coming from families that are low income or in poverty. Student that are proficient is more likely to graduate high school but far less likely to finish college in the united states. The gap in wealthy student and poor student has grown in the last two decades. Even college graduates there are less far of financial stability, one third of adults above 30 years of age forming an independent household. The reality is that families that are in poverty have a pattern of unstable environment for the children and their childhoods. This leads to poor academic readiness. Therefore, a high dropout rate. Children will start to have behavioral problems, drugs and alcohol use, more violent, and an increase in teen pregnancies. Melissa S. Kearney believes that higher levels of income inequality have lower rates of social mobility. But there are questioning raised that how elevated levels of inequality lead to lower rates of mobility. Hypothesize that income inequality can negatively affect the perceived returns on investment in education from the perspective of an economically disadvantaged adolescent, either through an effect actual returns or through an additional effect on the perception of these returns (Kearney 3). The data predict that low socioeconomic backgrounds are likely to drop out of school if they live in a place where a greater gap in the income distribution. if children from low income background can move up in the income distribution and obtain a middle-class life by dropping out of school, that would perpetuate economic reality and middle-class life by dropping out of school, that would perpetuate economic disadvantage and impede rates of upward mobility. This implication that programs promote upward mobility among youth of low socioeconomic status.
Hire a verified expert to write you a 100% Plagiarism-Free paper