Child Poverty and Life Chances - Essay Example

Child Poverty and Life Chances By Supervisor’s Introduction Childhood has a special place in the social context due to a number of reasons. Firstly, their issues often go unattended by the policymakers as they are unable to raise their voice in social forums (Cabinet Office 2012). Secondly, their inability to communicate properly leads to the introduction of ineffective interventions even when introduced (Department of Work and Pensions 2012). The link between social class, poverty, and life chances is identified by various theorists like Marx and Weber. This work intends to look into how poverty impacts the life chances of children. Browne (2011) defines the term “life chances” as an individual’s chances of getting access to all those things which are considered as desirable by the society and not being affected by all those things which are considered undesirable by the society. Similarly, in the opinion of Ferrante (2012), social class can be identified as the phenomenon in which an individual’s belonging to a section of society can influence their life chances. Thus, one has to infer that the term “life chances” indicates having access to at least good education, healthcare facilities, food, clothing and housing. A look into the theoretical perspectives linking social class and poverty An important point of Marx’s theory of social class is that the bourgeoisies, or the people who own the means of production, enjoy better social standing as they are powerful enough to impose their ideas on the proletariat (the working class). As the bourgeoisie class does not share the wealth justifiably, the difference in wealth between the working class and the bourgeoisie increases. Hence, the working class is deprived of the goods and services enjoyed by the bourgeoisie (Browne 2011). Similarly, Weber categorises the society into two groups; the negatively privileged property class and the positively privileged property class. The positively privileged class is blessed with marketable abilities, and hence is able to enjoy expensive consumer goods and better services. On the other hand, the other class has no marketable abilities, and hence, is deprived of good goods and services (Ferrante 2012). It is pointed out by a UK Government report that measuring child poverty is a difficult task because their life chances are influenced by a number of factors other than just income of the family. Some such dimensions to be included are material deprivation, worklessness, unmanageable debt, poor housing, parental skill level, access to quality education, family stability, and parental health (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2012) Child poverty in the UK and its impact on life chances- a look for empirical evidence The Child Poverty Action Group website gives an alarming picture of the situation in the UK. According to the site, 3.5 million children in the UK live in poverty at present. In addition, it reveals that the number has been growing, starting at 14% in the year 1979. In the UK, relative poverty line is set at 60% of the median income. According to the report, the average household income in the UK is 419 pounds a week. Any income less than 60% of this is considered as relative poverty. The report reveals that the children of workless parents are more likely to be in poverty than all other children. It is seen that nearly 43.7% of the children from workless single parent families live in poverty. When both parents are present, the percentage falls by half (Child Poverty Action Group, n. d). Similarly, nearly 1.75 million children live in jobless families at present, and half of these children belong to the lowest 20 percent of incomes (Dept. of Health 2013). Yet another report points out that 30% of the children in poverty live in households with arrears on one or more bills (Department of Work and Pensions 2012). One report by Barnes et al. (2012) reveals that while 9% of households with children in the UK are damp, approximately 26% of the homes are far below decent homes standard. According to reports, in the year 2005, nearly 15% of the children in the Great Britain lived in overcrowded households and 11% lived in poorly repaired ones. Moreover, about 5% homes were inadequately heated (Department for Communities and Local Government 2006). Poverty and underperformance in education A look into the UK Government data on GCSE performance reveals the link between poverty and educational attainment. To illustrate, the data shows that throughout the period from 2005 to 2010, the students ineligible for free school meal (FSM) far outperformed the students who are eligible for FSM (Dept. of Education 2010). Evidently, it is poverty which usually makes children eligible for free meal, and hence, is an indicator of poverty. Similarly, Income Deprivation Affecting Children Indices (IDACI) reveals that those children from the most deprived areas underperform at GCSE compared to the students from the least deprived areas. While 38.8 % of the students from most deprived areas manage to get five or more A-C grades at GCSE, around 75% of the students from least deprived areas achieve the same. Again, this is a direct revelation of the impact of poverty on education, showing that poverty makes students underperform (Department of Education 2010). The Millennium Cohort Study compares the cognitive growth of preschool children from rich and poor backgrounds, and identifies a gap, which again widens as age grows (Millennium Cohort Study, n.d). The study identifies a number of disadvantages the children from poor background are more likely to face. They are issues related to birth-weight, breastfeeding, and maternal depression. In addition, the study reveals that family interactions like mother-child closeness, home learning environment like regular reading to the child, and parenting styles like regular bed times and meal times are far inferior in poor families. The Avon Longitudinal Study reveals that the gap in school attainment grows as children reach primary school (Avon Longitudinal Study 2010). The reasons identified for this growing gap by the age of eleven are parental aspirations, children’s own believes of the outcome, behavioral problems and so on. Following this, the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England shows that by the time the young people reach secondary school, the poor children again considerably underperform as compared to the rich ones (The Longitudinal Study of Young People in England, n.d). At this stage, it is found that students are likely to perform well if they feel that they will get into higher education. As it has become evident that poverty seriously influences the school performance of children, it becomes necessary to identify the way poverty impacts children’s psyche, making them underperform. Poverty and educational underperformance-the theoretical background At this point, the easiest and the most useful theoretical framework is Maslow’s theory of motivation and hierarchy of human needs. In his Motivation and Personality, Maslow pointed out that human behavior is often multi-motivated, that is, there are many motivations existing simultaneously. According to Maslow’s theory, there are five sets of needs that motivate a person. Out of the needs, the most basic set is physiological needs, which include eating, drinking, breathing, and excretion. When these basic needs remain unsatisfied, an individual will not be able to focus on the higher level needs or motivating factors (Maslow 2008). The report by Peachey, Smith & Sharma (2013) reveals the gruesome picture of food shortage faced by children in the UK. There is the stunning revelation that more than half a million children in the UK live in such families that are unable to provide even a minimally acceptable diet to their children. Another study reveals the fact that many parents in such families skip their meals in order to feed their children (PSE 2013). A third study reveals the fact that as poverty grows, more and more people are moving away from fruits and vegetables to the less expensive processed food (Griffith, O’Connell, & Smith 2013). The study further reveals that single parent households and households with young children are the main demographic group moving to processed foods. This finding is further supported by Barnardo’s report that poor families are left with no other strategy than cutting back on food spending (PSE 2013). It becomes evident at this stage that the basic need of food as identified by Maslow is not fully met in the case of poor children. Immediately after the physiological needs, there is the layer of safety needs. This includes physical safety, financial security, protection from harm, and other necessary materials for survival. When these factors are left unattended, the person will not get the motivation to look into the needs in the higher level. Following this, there is the layer of love needs followed by esteem needs and self-actualisation. Out of these, love needs deal with relationships and belongingness and esteem needs are related to self-respect. Studies reveal that poverty has a negative impact on these two elements (Harris et al. 2009). Only the satisfaction all the basic needs can make a person strive for self-actualisation. This explanation successfully clarifies why poor children underperform in academic areas. At this point, it is necessary to mention two important factors related to poverty. Firstly, the study by Mosley (1995) points out that poverty is directly linked to low self-esteem. In addition, Maclnnes et al. (2013) reports that the poor background and associated low self-esteem result in social exclusion. That is, such children find it difficult to make relationships in school and society (Willow 2002; Weinger 2000; Sutton et al. 2007; Spicker 2007; Ridge 2003; Ridge 2002; Ridge & Millar 2000, Percy 2003, and Preston 2005). The role of income in children’s experience of poverty is acknowledged by ARACY Collaborative Team (n.d) and Yeung, Kinver & Brooks-Gunn (2002). It is claimed that children from poor families are much slower than rich children in developing the feeling of growing up. In addition, Yeung et al. (2002) point out that the children from low income families have lower expectations for future and have less self esteem. In addition, Barnes et al. (2012) reveal that children from workless families are more likely to get no education and engage in risky behavior. Similarly, unmanageable debts affect children’s life chances in a number of ways. According to Sutton et al. (2007), it leaves families with insufficient money to meet children’s basic needs. Secondly, debt leads to family disputes, stress, and strained relations, affecting children in a number of ways (Vleminckx & Smeeding 2001; White, Levy & Masters 2002; SHropshire & Middleton 1999). In the same way, poor housing leads to health problems like coughing and wheezing (Middleton et al.1994; Newman & Blackburn 2002; Morrow 2001). In total, it becomes evident that these all factors as associated with poverty affect children’s life chances in so many ways. Another important aspect of this study is to identify why the children from lower social and economic strata fail to improve their situation even after generations (Roker 1998; Levitas et al. 2007; Mayer 1998). This matter is better understood through the “cycle of poverty” as suggested by Browne (2011, p. 440). In the opinion of Browne, it is difficult for someone to escape the vicious cycle by improving their social and economic situation. To illustrate, children from poor neighbourhoods face unhygienic environment, malnourishment, insecurity, and poor education. Poor food and hygiene result in poor health and more diseases, leading to more expenditure, and poor education results in less skills and no employment, resulting poor income. Thus, the situation turns worse from bad as generations pass and the cycle of social inequality continues unabated. Conclusion In total, it becomes evident that the effect of poverty on children’s life chances is multifaceted. It affects in a number of ways, ranging from poor food, poor housing, poor education, poor health, low self esteem, poor employability, poor social relationships and so on. This is so because poverty in children has many dimensions, depending on the society they live in, the family they are from, and the ethnicity they have, to mention but a few. References ARACY Collaborative Team, Children’s Lived Experience of Poverty: A Review of the Literature, The NSW Council for Children and Young People, Available from:< www.kids.nsw.gov.au/.../251/child_poverty_lit_review.pdf.aspx>. [22 March 2009]. Barnes, M, Butt, S & Tomsaszewski, W, 2012, The Dynamics of Bad Housing: The Impact of Bad Housing on the Living Standards of Children, National Centre for Social Research, Available from:< http://www.eagacharitabletrust.org/index.php/projects/item/the-dynamics-of-bad-housing-on-the-living-standards-of-children-evidence-from-the-families-and-children-study-facs>. [22 March 2009]. Barnes, M, Butt, S & Tomsaszewski, W 2012, Intergenerational Transmission of Worklessness: Evidence from the Millennium Cohort Study Longitudinal Study of Young People in England, Department for Education Research Report 234, Available from:< https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intergenerational-transmission-of-worklessness-evidence-from-the-millennium-cohort-and-the-longitudinal-study-of-young-people-in-england>. [22 March 2009]. Browne, K 2011, An introduction to sociology, Polity, London. Cabinet Office 2012, Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility, HM Government, London. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, n. d, Welcome to the Millennium Cohort Study, Available from:< http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/page.aspx?&sitesectionid=851&sitesectiontitle=Welcome+to+the+Millennium+Cohort+Study>. [22 March 2009]. Centre for Longitudinal Studies, n. d, Welcome to the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England, Available from:< http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/page.aspx?&sitesectionid=1246&sitesectiontitle=Welcome+to+the+Longitudinal+Study+of+Young+People+in+England+>. [22 March 2009]. Child Poverty Action Group, Child Poverty Facts and Figures. Available from:< http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures>. [22 March 2009]. Department for Communities and Local government 2006, The Economies of Deprived Neighbourhoods, HM Government, Available from:< http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/3808/1/Economies_of_deprived_neighbourhoods.pdf>. [22 March 2009]. Department of Work and Pensions 2012, Households Below Average Income: An Analysis of the Income Distribution 1994/5-2010/11, Available from:< https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228829/8483.pdf>. [22 March 2009]. Department of Health 2013, Improving Outcomes and Supporting Transparency: A Public Health Outcomes Framework for England 2013-16, Public Health Policy and Strategy Unit, London. Department of Education 2010, GCSE and Equivalent Attainment by Pupil Characteristics in England, 2009/10, HM Government, Available from:< https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gcse-and-equivalent-attainment-by-pupil-characteristics-england-academic-year-2009-and-2010>. [22 March 2009]. Ferrante, J 2012, Sociology: A global perspective, Cengage Learning, UK. Griffith, R, O’Connell, M & Smith, K 2013, Food Expenditure and Nutritional Quality over the Great Recession, IFS Briefing Note BN143. Economic and Social Research Council, UK. Harris, J, Treanor, M & Sharma, N 2009, Below the Breadline: A Year in the Life of Children in Poverty, Barnardo’s, Available from:< http://www.barnardos.org.uk/below-the-breadline-a-year-in-the-life-of-families-in-poverty/publication-view.jsp?pid=PUB-1442>. [22 March 2009]. Levitas, R, Pantazis, C, Fahmy, E, Gordon, D, Lloyd, E & Patsios, D 2007, the Multidimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion, Social Exclusion Task Force, UK. Maclnnes, T, Aldridge, H, Bushe, S, Kenway, P & Tinson, A 2013, Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, London. Maslow, AH 2008. Motivation and Personality, Dorling Kindersley, Delhi. Mayer, S. E 1998, What Money can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’s Life Chances, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Middleton, S, Ashworth, K & Walker, R 1994, Family Fortunes: Pressures on Parents and Children in the 1990s, Child Poverty Action Group, Available from:< http://onlineservices.cpag.org.uk/product/print/165200>. [22 March 2009]. Morrow, V 2001, Networks and Neighbourhoods: Children and Young People’s Perspectives, Health Development Agency, London. Mosley, J 1995. Poverty, Welfare Receipt and Adolescent Self-esteem, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Newman, T & Blackburn, S 2002, Transitions in the Lives of Children and Young People: Resilience Factors, Education and Young People Research Unit, Scotland. Peachey, J, Smith, N & Sharma, N 2013, Families in Need of Food Parcels- The Food Poverty Crisis Unwrapped, Barnardo’s, Available from:< http://www.barnardos.org.uk/families_in_need_of_food_parcels_-_2013.pdf>. [22 March 2009]. Percy, M. S 2003, “Feeling Loved, Having Friends to Count on, and Taking Care of Myself: Minority Children Living in Poverty Describe What is Special to Them,” Journal of Children and Poverty, vol. 9, no. 1, pp.55-70. Preston, G 2005, At Great Risk: The Children Most Likely to be Poor, Child Poverty Action Group, London. PSE 2013, The Impoverishment of the UK, Living Standards in the UK; PSE UK First Summary Report, Available from:< http://www.poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/pse-uk-reports>. [22 March 2009]. Ridge, T & Millar, J 2000, “Excluding Children: Autonomy, Friendship, and the Experience of the Care System”, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 160-175. Ridge, T 2002, Childhood Poverty and Social Exclusions from a Child’s Perspective, Policy Press, Bristol. Ridge, T 2003, “Listening to children: Developing a Child-centred Approach to childhood Poverty in the UK,” Family Matters, vol. 65, pp. 4-9. Roker, D 1998, Worth More than This: Young People Growing up in Family Poverty, The Children’s Society, UK. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2012, Measuring Child Poverty: A Consultation on Better Measures of Child Poverty, HM Government cm 8483, Available from:< https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228829/8483.pdf>. [22 March 2009]. Shropshire, J & Middleton, S 1999, Small Expectations: Learning to be Poor, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Spicker, P 2007, The Idea of Poverty, the Policy Press, Great Britain. Sutton, L, Smith, N, Dearden, C & S. Middleton, S 2007, A Child’s Eye View of Social Difference, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, London. University of Bristol 2010, Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, Available from:< http://www1.imperial.ac.uk/publichealth/departments/ebs/projects/cdel/euroblcs/cohorts/alspac/>. [22 March 2009]. Vleminckx, K & Smeeding, T 2001, Child Well-being, Child Poverty, and Child Policy in Modern Nations: What do We Know? Bristol Policy Press, Bristol. Weinger, S 2000, “Economic Status: Middle Class and Poor Children’s Views”, Children & Society, vol. 14, pp. 135-146. White, H, Levy, J & Masters, A 2002, Comparative Perspectives on Child Poverty: A Review of Poverty Measures, Save the Children UK, London. Willow, C 2002, Bread is Free: Children and Young People Talk about Poverty, Save the Children UK, London. Yeung, W J, Kinver, M & Brooks-Gunn, J 2002, “How Money Matters for Young Children’s Development: Parental Investment and Family Processes, Child Development, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 1861-79. Read More