The effects of poverty on the educational system of children - Research Paper Example

?The Effects of Poverty on Children in the Educational System The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Legislation of 2001 was signed into law to bridge the gap between what President Bush called, “the haves and have nots” (Hess and Rotherham, 2007, para. 10). The focus of the Act became the “have nots” which were minority students. Many of these children live in poverty and go to schools in impoverished areas (Wolk, 2011). Most states interpreted this Act as saying that there must be standardized tested on specific curriculum. Each year, millions of children in elementary and high school must take the tests and pass them in order to show that they have achieved the specific scores that teach state has decided upon. Unfortunately, a child who is hungry and who lives in difficult situations that can include violence in the home, malnutrition, neglect and homeless (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007) is still being left behind. Many educators do not know the impact that poverty has on children and they do not understand how poverty impacts the child in the classroom. However, poverty can create stress for the child, emotional challenges, physical challenges and cognitive problems (Jensen, 2009). The research on this topic suggests that there needs to be a better understanding in the classroom about the impact of poverty on children in order to develop a better connection with the children that are served. Demographics of Poverty in Education In the early 20th Century, the number of children who were living in poverty was lower than it is today. As an example statistics from the U.S. Department of Education show that between the years 2007 and 2009 (most recent statistics) the incidence of children living in poverty rose to 19%; In 2000, this statistic was only 15% (Avd et al., 2001). In 2010, the poverty rate for children rose to 22% which meant that one in five children under the age of 18 is living in poverty in America (Censky, 2011). The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was the lowest in 2010 at 9.9%. Blacks had the highest rate for poverty at 27.4% and other Hispanics were at a poverty rate of 26.6%. Men and women also faired differently. For men, about 14% were below the poverty line and single fathers were at a 15.8% poverty rate. Women were at a 16.2% poverty rate, but single mothers had a 31.6% poverty rate (Censky, 2011). In today’s economy, when so many families have lost their jobs and their homes, there are many reasons why there is a rise in these statistics. In the past, it was possible that certain situations produced poverty and the families in poverty were concentrated in certain racial backgrounds. Today, any family of any racial group can find themselves in poverty. In fact, “about 46.2 million people are now considered in poverty, 2.6 million more than last year” (Censky, 2011, para. 4). According to Aldrige & Goldman (2007), every region and every type of family can find themselves in poverty. This means that family circumstances can change at any time, putting children more at risk. Defining Poverty as it Relates to Education Jensen (2009) defines poverty as “a chronic and debilitating condition that results form multiple adverse synergistic risk factors and affects the mind, body, and soul” (p. 6). Jensen (2009) also identifies six types of poverty: Situational poverty that happens because of a crisis, or loss. This type of poverty is usually temporary. The events could be “environmental, disasters, divorce, or severe heath problems” (Jensen, 2009, p. 6). Generational poverty where more than one generation is born into this situation and family members do not have the tools to move out of poverty. In other words, this is all their family has ever seen or known. Absolute poverty were the basic needs of food and shelter are not available (rare in the United States according to Jensen, 2009). Relative poverty exists when a family’s economic situation does not meet the standard of living that the rest of the society experiences. Urban poverty happens in cities of 50,000+ people who rely on bigger cities for services. These families may also experience overcrowding, noise, and violence which adds to their stress. Rural poverty that occurs in areas of 50,000 people or less who live in non-metropolitan areas (Jensen, 2009). In each type of poverty, there can be children who suffer in school. When a child is living in poverty, they experience challenges to their health and safety and chronic or acute stressors on a daily basis (Jensen, 2009). The Effects of Poverty on Academic Performance Poverty hurts a child’s academic performance on many levels. Murnane (2007) reports that many children living in poverty are concentrated in areas where teachers or often ill-equipped to work with them, and the schools are low performers. Many children are not receiving an equitable education in these schools. When a child does not receive the proper education, they cannot become a literate adult. Kellet (2009) states that there is a “literacy achievement gap” (p. 395) that affects the child and as the child becomes an adult, this gap creates more problems for them as adults. Without strong literacy skills, children are not able to manage the world in a way that makes sense to them. The lack of literacy will also limit the child’s ability to think critically, do their own research about the world around them, and provide further opportunities for education (Kellet, 2009). Jensen (2009) states that children born into and living in poverty can be insecure as they grow older. Often the relationship with a primary caregiver is an anxious one. Many of these children are born to teen mothers and “depression and inadequate healthcare” (Jensen, 2009, p. 15) can be a part of their experience. These circumstances create insensitivity in parents toward their infants and can create a child who displays behavior problems and poor academic performance (Jensen, 2009). Joo (2011) mentions that federal programs keep families in poverty and there have been many changes that affect the well-being of children living in poverty. Payne (1996) puts this information into perspective when talking about what children endure in impoverished environments. Payne states that there is a family pattern that evolves with the mother as the center. Pay states that in a generational poverty setting, the mother will often have many sexual partners and many of the children will also have sexual relationships. Some of these relationships will bear children, while others will not. This type of environment also brings chaos and confusion in the home. This chaos and confusion leads to a child who is inhibited at school (Payne, 1996). Payne (1996) also states that the family system in generational poverty is often violent, and children experience many disagreements with family members and may find themselves traveling between two or more homes at any one time, when something goes wrong with one parent. Payne (1996) suggests that teachers who work with these children must take into consideration the characteristics of these families so they are able to be more effective in teaching them. Payne also shows that men socialize with men and women socialize with women in these environments and each has a specific role. As an example, a real man’s role is to fight, work hard, and “be a lover” (Payne, 1996, p. 77). Because of this role, the men in the family can only chose to fight or flee when they are feeling stressed. The sons in the family see this behavior as the only way that boys can handle conflict at school (Payne, 1996). Under this type of stress, Payne (1996) suggest that these children will transfer several challenges to their life at school: They will be more disorganized than other children. They will make excuses for not doing their homework or make excuses for why something is missing. They are more physically aggressive than other children. They have difficulty getting started in most tasks. They have difficulty monitoring their own behavior. “They do not know or use middle-class courtesies” (p. 78). They dislike authority. (Payne, 1996). These behaviors are becoming more visible in school because children in poverty are replacing the “middle class culture” (Payne, 1996, p. 79). Teachers have an obligation to make sure that all children receive an education. According to the NCLB Act, they must provide for specific skills and make sure that a majority of their students pass the standardized tests. However, the legislation provided rhetoric that was to assist children in learning, it did not address the problems that can prevent children in poverty from learning (Payne, 1996). Cuthrell, Stapleton & Ledford (2010) examined the culture of poverty and how it affects a student’s learning. The authors state that children in poverty are always behind other children academically. Many children in poverty are “linguistically disadvantaged” (Cuthrell et al., 2010, p. 105) because they do not have the opportunities for reading readiness, and they are not given activities that promote literacy, like other children. The authors also stated that teachers must understand that children in poverty need more understanding and different strategies than other children. Children living in poverty have low self-esteem and when they become stressed or frustrated in school, they often give up rather than work through their frustration. When this happens, teachers can give up on these children because they think the children are either unwilling to learn or they stop trying (Cuthrell et al., 2010). The perception from these teachers is not true; teachers must be educated to understand how children are affected by poverty and by adverse classroom environments (Cuthrell et al., 2010). Poverty is not only an issue n the United States. Horgan (2009) studied the school experience of young children living in poverty in the United Kingdom (UK). Horgan (2009) states there is a link between “high levels of deprivation and lower levels of educational attainment” (Horgan, 2009, p. 361). This study reinforced the challenges that children have who live in poverty and shows that this is a global problem. Horgan (2009) interviewed young children and asked specific questions about their school experience. Horgan compared the responses between the children from advantaged and disadvantaged schools. The researcher found that children’s perception of their experiences were similar. However, they further found that children’s school experience is generally shaped by two factors: Where the child lived and their family’s background (Horgan, 2009). Because of these factors, children will experience school differently based on their level of disadvantage. Children, “get used to their social position from a very early age” (Horgan, 2009, p. 373). They also realize that they will not receive the same education as children who are “better off” (Horgan, 2009, p. 373). Unfortunately, children living in poverty have a variety of challenges that do not promote their education. It would seem impossible for schools to take all of this information into consideration when they are attempting to make sure that all students learn. Hauser-Cram, Durand & Warfield (2007) studied this issue of children’s perception of their school experience. The sample of children they studied came to school with attitudes positive or negative attitudes towards school. What they were feeling was from their own perception of their low performance academically. The authors suggest that teachers should be aware of this attitude because it will influence how the children feel about themselves when they are older. Some children will also have learning disabilities that will prevent them from doing well. When learning disabilities appear with lower expectations, children are hesitant to work in classes and become easily frustrated (Hauser-Carm et al., 2007). Another reason why teachers should be cognizant of the negative feelings that children bring about school is because their perception may influence the teachers’ ability to teach them. As an example, children who are perceived by the teacher to have bad attitudes will often be ignored or these children may be singled out in class in a negative way. Many of these children will become disengaged in their classrooms which can prompt teachers to give up on them altogether (Hause-Carm et al., 2007). Cognitive and Emotional Factors for Children Living in Poverty Ayoub et al. (2006) studied the cognitive performance of young children living in poverty and the risk factors they exhibited. The authors examined cognitive skills in children from birth to early childhood. The researchers tested cognitive skills based on an ecological systems model. They found that the cognitive skills declined over the first years of life, which was different than the national norms. By the time these children were three years old, their scores on the tests were even lower. The researchers saw that the children living in poverty were not gaining cognitive skills at the same rate as children who were more affluent. This meant that by the third year, children living in poverty were already experiencing a difference in cognitive skills than other children (Ayoub et al., 2006). Ayoub et al. (2006) also found that children living on public assistance who also lived with mothers who had less than a high school diploma, had a higher rate of cognitive decline. From ages 14 months to 36 months, their lowest level skills were shown primarily at 36 months. If these children were living with unemployed parents, there appeared to be a link between the unemployment and “lower level cognitive skill performance at 36 months” (Ayoub et al., 2006, p. 295). Two other factors from this study were lack of stimulation at both the cognitive and language level. When parents neglected their children by not providing stimulation in these areas, the children had lower cognitive skills by the age of three (Ayoub et al., 2006). The implications of this study show that there should be interventions for children at an early age in order t make sure they reach the cognitive levels of their more affluent peers (Ayoub et al., 2006). Payne (1996) adds to this discussion by showing that children can have missing links in their minds that can be caused by the problems in cognition. As an example, when these children have no systematic way of taking in information, they only see about half of what is on a page of text. They are able to go around a room and touch many things in a classroom, but they are not able to state later what they saw. The reason they cannot report in this way is that they were not taught “a cognitive method for doing tasks or a systematic way to finish tasks” (Payne, 1996, p. 123). Other cognitive issues for children living in poverty include: Lack of verbal skills – children are unable to use the language properly because they lack the use of adverbs and prepositions in their speech. Lack of spatial orientation -- these children are unable to understand how to orient people or objects in space. They do not have the vocabulary for spatial tasks, nor the concepts that other children have for special orientation. They inaccurately measure time—instead of valuing time and making sure they arrive on time to school or appointments, children living in poverty associate time with experiences; they tend to remember those that are emotionally intense. “Impaired observations of constancies” – this means that children are not able to see specific shapes and keep them constant in their minds. As an example, the alphabet and learning numbers because they cannot tell the difference in them ( Payne, 1996, pp. 123-124) These cognitive issues present an understanding of how young children are affected by poverty and how this would affect children as they grow older. By the time children reach preschool or kindergarten, the child is already behind. In this respect, if the child stays in poverty, they continue to stay behind their peers until they become frustrated with school and eventually drop out. The Economics of Poverty for Children A study by Blanden, Hansen and Machin (2010) provides information into the economic costs that children growing up poor bring for themselves and their society. The authors present the understanding that the lives of children in poverty is key to helping them later in life. Although their study was in the UK, there are many factors that are the same all over the world. Two of the factors that relate worldwide are: Children growing up in poverty have problems with mental health when they reach the age of 29 or 30. The mental health issues that are involved can be expensive for these children because they have a variety of challenges that keep them going back to the mental health system (Blanden et al., 2010). Noguera (2011) points out that much of the government’s information on poverty suggests that although children living in poverty have challenges when they are not in school, having policies to face these challenges would not be fair to the children. Noguera (2011) suggests that something must be done to assist children in poverty to “counter the effects” (p. 10) that happen over time. The author points out that another issue that is important is more a social condition that cannot be immediately tied to a monetary outcome. Many children living in poverty live in impoverished urban areas where the social conditions allow them to see nothing but more poverty. Children are not encouraged to do well in this type of environment. According to Noguera (2011), this means that these conditions affect school performance in basically three ways: These children do not receive academic or social support outside of school. Schools often have a difficult time getting parents of poor children involved with the school. Often, the schools are met with antagonism or hostility from the parents. Environmental obstacles are present that include challenges to the children’s “health, safety and well-being” (Noguera, 2011, p. 10). Research shows that there is more internal violence in these areas and a lack of resources. Children who are in these situations will naturally bring the behavior they see to other environments. Negative social capital creates adverse conditions that will turn into issues of violence or substance abuse and this can stop parents from becoming involved in school activities (Noguera, 2011). These issues have been shown to carry larger problems for communities which in turn can cause increased economic challenges in those areas. Bond et al. (2007) add to the information on mental health with the research that was done with teenagers and predicting their use of substance abuse in later years. Because many children in poverty are in environments where alcohol and drugs are available, and because children have challenges with the way they perceive their experience in school, there can be problems with substance abuse or drug abuse. These researchers found that students who are not connected socially with other children in school, can suffer from depressed moods, may suffer from substance abuse and may eventually drop out of school. The authors found through their study that those children who felt connected to school and to others socially, were the ones who would stay in school (Bond et al., 2007). As stated previously, children living in poverty already have a disadvantage when they enter school. They have lower cognitive abilities and their opportunities are less than children who live in an affluent neighborhood. In many ways, these children are already struggling to survive. If they begin school already compromised, when they enter school their situation turns worse. As they continue to attempt to stay in school and do well, many circumstances happen that take them from doing well. Instead, they get many “hits” to their self-esteem and they begin to feel worse. As teachers begin to understand that many children in poverty have more problems than other children, some researchers suggest that teachers must understand how to work with these children so that they can have an equal place in education like other children. However, some teachers may argue that this is a difficult task and that it is a daunting task because there are so many children in need. The final aspect of this research is to provide several ways that teachers and others can be effective in teaching children who live in poverty. Interventions for Schools and Children in Poverty Interventions come in many forms and they should be done throughout the school and with children. Children in poverty must have intervention as early as possible in order for them to become more effective in their lives. There has been a variety of research on the subject and different researchers have different ideas of what should be done in this situation. Cuthrell et al. (2010) suggest that several issues must be addressed in order to equal the academic field for children living in poverty. Intervention 1: The School Environment The school environment is very important for these children. The authors suggests that the administration must hire teachers who “believe in their students” (Cuthrell et al., 2010, p. 105). These teachers should also be given incentives so that they will stay over the long-term. These teachers will go beyond what other teachers may do because they deeply believe that all children can learn and they expect that all children will give them results, no matter what their background. Teachers should also focus on academic achievement and this may mean that the teachers have to break down the lessons into manageable parts so that each student can be successful. A focus on assessment throughout the day has also been successful in the school environment. This is not only the yearly testing, but creating ways to assess students on a “daily, weekly and yearly” (Cuthrell et al., 2010, p. 106) basis and the teachers focus on where the child is in the end of the year instead of where they were in the beginning. Jensen (2009) also suggests that teachers and staff should find ways to encourage positive relationships between them. The author states that children can see whether staff is getting along well or whether there are tensions. Also, teachers must build positive relationships with their students, especially when children living in poverty need to be able to trust others in their environment. Jensen (2009) suggests that staff can build these relationships by being mindful of what they do no a daily basis. The author suggests that teachers must teacher children living in poverty with respect and this will gain respect for the teacher. Teachers should always do what they say they are going to do and avoid raising their voices to these children unless there is an emergency where they must be warned. In addition: If a change of plans need to be made, the child should be told. The students must see the teacher being fair and consistent with all the students so they do not feel that the teacher is playing favorites. Teachers must offer their support so students know they will have help with their tasks. Students must understand that the teacher cares about them -- the way they know this is when the teacher shows more caring than they show authority. (Jensen, 2009). The Classroom Environment Cuthrell et al. (2010) state that once the school environment changes to accommodate all children, the classroom environment must logically follow. Teachers should promote activities that set a very positive environment in their classrooms. The teacher may be the only person in the child’s life that presents a positive relationship to them. Teachers must focus on the assets that children living in poverty bring to the class rather than focusing on their deficits. Also, creating relationships with the families and the community on an ongoing basis. Many parents do not know how to work within the school system to work with their children, but their interaction is very positive if they are shown how (Cuthrell et al., 2010). Another issue that Cuthrell et al. (2010) find important is the celebration of differences and of cultures within the classroom. They suggest that teachers must understand the cultures that the work with because there may be “hidden rules that govern the child’s life” (p. 107) that the teachers must know in order to be effective with the child. Lesson plans should also be appropriate and also meaningful to the child in order for them to thrive in the classroom. If the lessons are not meaningful or appropriate, many children living in poverty may interpret them to be more threatening than helpful. As an example, Cuthrell et al. (2010) give the example of a teacher who asks the children to draw a picture of their bedroom. The child in poverty does not participate because they do not have a bedroom or a bed. Cuthrell et al. (2010) suggest that teachers must “think beyond personal experiences and help children develop a base of knowledge and experiences for themselves” (p. 107). These interventions in the classroom are supported by a variety of literature and are ways that any teacher can help the children in their classrooms without singling them out. Family Involvement Family involvement should start as early as the children begin school. The effects of the family in the child’s life can be more effective if they start working with the school early. Cuthrell et al. (2010) have identified three areas where parents have roles: 1. Parents have a primary role in helping their children learn 2. Parents work with the community to create and maintain resources for children and education 3. Parents participate with community members as advocates for their children. There should also be programs that create school-to-home and home-to-school activities about the programs that the school offers and the child’s progress. The teachers and the school system must find new ways of communication if the traditional ways are not working. An example that these authors give is to conduct a parent-teacher conference at McDonald’s instead of making a parent come into the school. Providing information and ideas for families to use with their children at home is also helpful. Teachers can videotape lessons to explain steps that are needed to help a child read or to perform some other task. Teachers cannot assume that parents automatically understand how to help their children (Cuthrell et al., 2010). Azzi-Lessing (2010) offers several interventions for the mental health of children. The author suggests that there are early childhood mental health consultants who can help with understanding challenges these children have at an early age. One of the ways that these consultants can help is to work with teachers to develop effective methods to work with children living in poverty. Also, Azzi-Lessing (2010) states that teachers must have ongoing training regarding children who may have multiple behavior and/or mental health issues because they need tools to handle children with multiple problems. The training should also contain information about how to work with parents of children in poverty. Teachers must be given ways to work with parents who may be difficult to engage in the school system (Azzi-Lessing, 2010). Murnane (2007) suggests that the federal government needs to be more involved with helping children living in poverty. The author suggests that the government should amend the NCLB legislation to change the testing goals and making scores more attainable for all children. The author suggests that the federal government should also ask states to strengthen their graduation requirements so that high school students will have the requirements they will need for life after graduation (Murnane, 2007). Finally, Murnane (2007) suggests that the federal government could “build the instructional capacity of schools to educate low-income children” (p. 163). These ideas are not clearly formed by Murnane, and it seemed that this author was more interested in making sure that people at least knew about the issue; it would be important for the author to talk with policy makers to help them understand what needs to be done. Strategies for Improving Cognition As stated previously, children living in poverty have cognitive problems. These problems can be improved in many ways. Payne (1996) suggests several strategies that can be used to improve cognitive challenges, depending on the challenges a child is having. As an example, if the child is having problems gathering data, the teacher can help the student by using planning behaviors, helping the child control their own impulsivity, focus on the perception of specific stimuli and explore the data in a systematic way (Payne, 1996). If the child is having problem communicating the data, the teacher can visually show the data they want the child to use, again control impulsive behaviors and “use precise and accurate language” (p. 125). Each of these strategies can become interventions that will help students improve their cognitive skills. Conclusion Children living in poverty have a very difficult time, not only as children, but also as adults. The literature points to the fact that children living in poverty have challenges with cognition, have physical challenges, mental health challenges and behavioral problems. Although schools do not recognize children in poverty as having a disability at this time, it would seem that this would be another designation. Many children living in poverty do not have the experience that other children do. This can mean that they come to their classes showing deficits that other children do not have who are not living in poverty. This generally means that children are already behind and coming to school only makes them more behind. Jensen (2009), Payne ( 1996) and others suggest that the schools must change, the classroom must change and the teachers’ attitudes must change about these children. When this happens, everyone can work together more effectively. Children in poverty do have a chance if schools can recognize that they are in need and help them succeed no matter where they currently are academically. References Aldridge, J. & Goldman, R. (2007). Current trends in education. 2nd Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson. Ayouba, C., O’Connorb, E., Rappolt-Schlictmann, G., Vallottond, C., Raikese, H., & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2009). Cognitive skill performance among young children living in poverty: Risk, change, and the promotive effects of Early Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 289-305. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.04.001 Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J. & Tahan, K. (2011). The condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Azzi-Lessing, L. (2010). Meeting the mental health needs of poor and vulnerable children in early care and education programs. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(1), Blanden, J., Hansen, K., & Machin, S. (2010). The economic cost of growing up poor: estimating the GDP loss associated with child poverty. Fiscal Studies, 31(3), 289-311. Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S. , Bowes, G. & Patton, G. (2007) Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health 40, 357.e9 –357.e18 Censky, A. (2011, September 13). Poverty rate rises in America. CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J. & Ledford, C. (2010). Examining the culture of poverty: promising practices. Preventing School Failure, 54(2), 104. Hauser-Cram, P., Durand, T. M., Warfield, M. E. (2007). Early feelings about school and later academic outcomes of children with special needs living in poverty. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22161-172. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.02.001 Hess, F. M. & Rotherham, A. M. (2007). NCLB and the competitiveness agenda happy collaboration or a collision course? American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/article/education/nclb-and-the-competitiveness-agenda/ Horgan, G. (2009). 'That child is smart because he's rich': the impact of poverty on young children's experiences of school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(4), 359-376. doi:10.1080/13603110802707779 Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kid’s brains and what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Joo, M. (2011). Effects of federal programs on children: Absolute poverty, relative poverty, income inequality. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1203-12011. Doi: 101016lj.childyouth.2011.02.011 Kellett, M. (2009). Children as researchers: what we can learn from them about the impact of poverty on literacy opportunities?. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(4), 395-408. doi:10.1080/10236240802106606 Murnane, R. J. (2007). Improving the education of children living in poverty. The Future of Children, 17(2), 161-182. Myungkook Joo. (2011). Effects of federal programs on children: Absolute poverty, relative poverty, and income inequality. Children and Youth Services Review, 331203-1211. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.02.011 Noguera, P. A. (2011). A broader and bolder approach uses education to break the cycle of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 8. Payne, R.K. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty. 3rd Revised Edition. Highlands, TX: Aha! Process, Inc. Southern Education, F. (2010). The worst of times: Children in extreme poverty in the south and nation. Special Summary. Southern Education Foundation, ERIC. Wolk, R. A. (2011). Wasted minds. Chapter 1: The “Get Tough” Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/111015/chapters/The_%C2%A3Get-Tough%C2%A3_Policy.aspx Read More