Whether or Not Poverty Has an Impact on Brain Development and Learning - Essay Example

Discuss whether or not poverty has an impact on brain development and learning. You need to your position and provide an argument to support either for or against by using relevant literature and theories. Normally, the conditions of living can affect a series of human activities; people who live in poverty do not have access to facilities and products available to those who are of medium or average financial status. Brain development and learning could not be an exception from the above rule; more specifically, poverty can negatively influence the learning potentials of children – a fact that has been emphasized in the literature developed in the particular field. In order to understand the effects of poverty on brain development and learning, it would be necessary to understand the time framework in which this interaction can take place; poverty can interact with learning mostly in the early years of human life – when brain development is also in progress. It is during this period – the childhood – that poverty can affect the brain development and the learning ability of a specific person. Pugh et al. (2009) refer to the views of Susan Isaac – a result of her observations of the play of children – as developed in ‘Isaac’s Malton House School in Cambridge for the years 1924-1927’ (Pugh et al., 2009, 111); an important finding of the observations of Isaac has been the fact that the learning needs of children can be identified by observing their play (Pugh et al., 2009, 111); at this point, the following assumption can be derived: the learning ability of a person is mostly related with his/ her childhood – in terms that during this period the brain development is in progress; educators that are interested in identifying and support the learning development of a child they should observe his/ her behaviour in play; in children living in poverty such support is usually not available; their brain development and their learning abilities are not adequately supported – in the context described above. This chain of events leads to inequality in learning between children living in poverty and those who enjoy a satisfactory style of life. The relationship between learning and poverty can be also identified in the social learning theory of Bandura (1989); the above theory is analytically presented in the study of Keenan et al. (2009); the specific theory is based on the fact that the learning of children is mainly observational; in other words, children learn through observing their environment – and imitate the behaviour of people around them (Keenan et al., 2009, 205); in accordance with the social learning theory of Bandura, the social environment of children can directly affect their learning; this does not mean that the social environment of children in poverty is necessary bad; however, such environment would increase the risks for exposure of children to negative language patterns while the potentials for entering an appropriate educational site would be also limited – either because of the lack of funds for such facility or because of the non-availability of such site in the particular area. The importance of the social environment for the learning of children has been also emphasized in the study of Chomsky (1957) who introduced the concept of ‘the poverty of the stimulus’ in order to describe a specific social phenomenon: most commonly, the language used by the parents is not grammatically correct while even when the child makes a grammatical error, parents do not highlight the mistake; in this way, the child-parents interaction can negatively affect the learning of the child – a result of the inability of the parents to follow the rules of the learning theory, as noted by Brown and Hanlon (1970, in Keenan et al., 2009, 205); children living in poverty are more likely to have such experiences – their parents have less chances to be aware of the rules of learning theory; moreover, parents of these children are more likely to have a poor educational background, a fact that increases the chances for violations of the rules of learning theory – as indicatively explained above. In accordance with Newman et al. (2008) the social environment of children can also affect their brain development; it is explained that brain development is highly depended on the ‘caregiving relationships’ (Newman et al., 2008, 9); these relationships are developed within the family and refers mainly to the ability of parents to be ‘appropriately nurturing, responsive and stimulating’ (Newman et al., 2008, 9); it is explained by the above researchers that children living in low-income families are more likely to be exposed to malnutrition and smoking; this fact, could negatively affect their brain development especially if their mothers follow such practices during the pregnancy – in other words, the negative effects of poverty in brain development can begin before the child is born. During the childhood, the brain development of children can be negatively influenced by poverty in the following way: in families with low – income it is more likely for ‘harsh-discipline, low supervision and poor parent-child attachment’ (Kail, 2008, 305) to exist. The theories developed above introduce a common idea: the relationship between the psychology of children and the conditions of their social environment – since the social environment affects the brain development and the learning ability of children, it is expected that it can also affect their psychology and their perceptions on a series of social events and values; a similar approach is adopted by Sampson (1992) who develop a theory based on two different theoretical frameworks: the social disorganization theory (refers to the social problems developed in areas with low living standards, Shaw and Mackay, 1942) and the child development theory; these two theories led Sampson to the following theory: the structure of community can affect all aspects of life of families and children (Brooks et al., 2000, 7). The above theory focus on the role of the community on the child’s development; however, it is not made clear that parents choose the community in which they live; therefore, their choices – as influenced by their financial status – are of higher importance for the child development; a similar approach is adopted by Lillard (1993); his theory is based on the assumption that community can affect the investment made on children’s educational support; the above relationship is explained as follows: within neighbourhoods with limited chances for work the ability of parents to invest on the education of their children is decreased (Brooks et al., 2000, 7); the theory of Lillard (1993) further supports the theory of Sampson (1992) which emphasizes on the role of community in the child development – referring especially to the structure of community in terms of the living standards of families but also of the availability of work. In the same context, the theories of economic choice (Duncan and Hoffman, 1991) are based on the fact that the decisions related with the educational support of children are likely to be based on the employment status and the financial potentials of the parents – it is explained that the level of their investment on their child’s educational support is depended on their ability to respond to the financial needs of the relevant educational schemes (Brooks et al., 2000, 7); the theory of economic choice – as presented above – includes similar approaches with the Extended Investment Model; the above theory (Becker & Thomes, 1986; Duncan & Magnuson, 2003) is based on the fact that parents with significant economic resources are more able to invest on the education on their children compared to parents who have low income (Grusec et al., 2007, 443); in accordance with the above theory, poverty can influence not only the brain development and the learning of children but also their prospects to access higher education, i.e. their personal and professional development as adults. In the same context, the ‘Culture of Poverty’ Theory of Lewis (1969) is based on the principle that poor do not have the choices available to people of middle and high income; in this context, the life of poor is considered to be ‘marginalized with no opportunity for upward mobility’ (Cancian, 2009, 157). The Household Production Theory (G. Becker, 1991) leads to similar assumptions with the following difference: the learning potentials of a child is believed to be depended also by the child’s perceptions on learning – it is mentioned, for example, that ‘if a child shows enthusiasm on learning then parents are more likely to take the child to the library or purchase children’s books’ (Cancian, 2009, 157); the above theory continues to support the importance of economic status of parents for the level of their investment on child’s education but the child’s characteristics are also believed to have a role to the educational support provided to the child. In the context of the theories presented above, learning and brain development can be negatively affected by poverty; in practical terms, this fact is proved through the figures presented by Newman et al. (2008); their research led to the conclusion that ‘in third grade children of low-income families have a vocabulary of 4000 words – while the vocabulary of the children of middle-income families is normally 12000’ (Newman et al., 2008, 9); the above fact indicates the disadvantage of children living in poverty compared to the children of middle-income and high-income families. The lack of effective learning support – either through the provision of necessary courses or through the family – can lead children of low income families to develop lower learning abilities and face delays in reaching the average learning level – necessary for further personal and professional development. Bibliography Brooks-Gunn, J., Aber, D. (2000) Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consequences for Children. Russell Sage Foundation Cancian, M., Danziger, S. (2009) Changing poverty, changing policies. Russell Sage Foundation Damon, W., Lerner, R. (2006) Handbook of Child Psychology: Child psychology in practice. John Wiley and Sons Grusec, J., Hastings, P. (2007) Handbook of socialization: theory and research. Guilford Press Kail, R. (2008) Advances in child development and behavior. Academic Press Keenan, T., Evans, S. (2009) An Introduction to Child Development. SAGE Newman, B., Newman, P. (2008) Development Through Life: A Psychosocial Approach. Cengage Learning Pugh, G., Duffy, B. (2009) Contemporary Issues in the Early Years. SAGE Read More