Education and Poverty
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Education and Poverty
Introduction
Poverty remains a stubborn fact of life even in rich countries like the USA. The various levels of poverty are a challenge especially when education sector is concerned. It affects a child’s development as well as educational outcomes beginning in their earliest years of life. Poverty limits the chances of attaining proper education. It is a persistent problem across the world and has lethal impacts on various aspects of family life and outcomes for children.
It is important to define poverty before we can carry on with our discussion. Although there have been many controversies surrounding its definition; the economic definition and the general social definition. According to Tilly (2007), the economic definition is based on income measures where the absolute poverty line is computed as food expenditure necessary to meet dietary recommendations complemented by a smaller allowance for non-food items. However, many researchers use a broader approach in defining poverty as lacking not only material goods and health but also capabilities like social belonging, respect and dignity, cultural identity, as well as information and education.
In the USA, the association between poverty and children’s development as well as academic performance has been well archived. Entwisle et al (2005) state that these records begin as early as the second year of life, extending all the way through elementary studies to high school. They noted that when these risks occur in preschool years, the results may have long-term devastating consequences.
Murnane (2007) gives a well establishment link between poverty and low academic achievements. Low income children are at higher risks of dropping out of school than those from affluent families. Evidence from National Institute of Child Health has shown that children from chronically impoverished families have a slightly decreased cognitive capacity and academic performance. Furthermore, these children have more behaviour problems than those children not exposed to poverty.
What links poverty to decreased intellectual development in children? Well, there are many developmental theories that attempt to explain this phenomenon. These theories conceptualize interactions across multiple levels; extending from basic biological processes to interactions at the individual, family, school, community, as well as cultural levels. As with any model system, the interactions are bidirectional such that changes in one aspect may affect the relations and processes throughout the system.
We shall begin by looking at the direct effects of poverty. In this model, poverty affects a child’s development and education by increasing risk factors and limiting protective factors and opportunities for stimulation and enrichment. For instance, children in low income families are at increased risk of malnutrition and overweight, often associated with food insecurity.
Trends (2006), suggests that many of the effects of poverty on children are influenced by the behaviours of their families. In most cases, low income families have limited education, reducing their ability to give a responsive stimulating education environment for their children. They tend to limit their children linguistic environment by using language that is domineering with simple sentence structures. Furthermore, impoverished families tend to use strict parenting styles that are based on parental controls, instead of reciprocal interactive styles which promote emotional development and social competence (Ackerman et al, 2004).
The Moderated Effects of Poverty model is one in which the effects of poverty differ across characteristics of families or children. For instance, families which are poorly educated with poor decision making skills may have challenges protecting their effects from the effects of poverty, as compared to families with better education and rational decision making skills. Moderated impacts may operate by conferring protection to children. The Family Investment Model suggests that parents with better education invest in their children through educationally enhancing materials like books and educational activities such as reading (Gutman & McLoyd, 2005).
Family characteristics can also affect the association between poverty and a child’s development through a process otherwise known as social selection. This hypothesis suggests that individual differences in parental traits lead to differences in income, which in turn impact on the child’s development. For example, parents with pro-social attributes such as integrity, honesty and dependability, pass these traits to their children, hence, conferring protection even in times of poverty.
The mediated effects of poverty model suggest that the effects of poverty are felt through disruptions in family functions, which may have negative consequences on the child. This model is consistent with the Family Stress Model, where poverty, associated with economic destitution may lead to family stress, ergo, may negatively impact on parental emotions and mental health, leading to an increased likelihood of parents using harsh language and controlling parenting. Its outcome is a behavioural and developmental challenge for the children.
The transactional effects of poverty model, theorizes that the effect of poverty resonate through the relations between families and children, integrating both moderated and mediated processes. In the same way, parental characteristics may modulate the effects of poverty in children’s development; children characteristics may play a similar role. For instance, caregivers of temperamental children are less likely to show sensitive-responsive care giving and more likely to develop depression than caregivers of temperamentally easy children.
There is a community influence on poverty. It is a common feature to find low income families dwelling in impoverished neighbourhoods characterised by high population densities, high crime rates, and very few opportunities for academic socialization. The available schools are underfunded, poorly staffed and equipped, be-set by constant disciplinary issues, as well as difficulties meeting educational mandates. Despite the prevalence of community factors on a child’s cognitive development, their impact cannot outweigh family factors.
Income inequality has grown significantly in the USA since the early 1970s. This inequality is present among the different races in the USA and also sweeps across various states; with Texas being the riches and Maine the least rich. A 2011 survey by CBO revealed that the top earning 1% of households increased their income by approximately 275% after federal taxes and transfers betewwn1979 and 2007, in comparison with the rise of just 40% in for the 60% of American middle class income distribution. By 2012,, the gap between the rich, which constitutes 1% of the Americans and the remaining 99 per cent, was the broadest in the history of America since 1920s. These inequalities led to the establishment of social classes.
As Szelenyi and Grusky (2011, p. 58) stated; an individual’s class position is determined by their current market value. Class in this sense, eventually market the situation. The duo claims that a person’s market value is established by what he/she has to offer. If we establish this to our society, various classes will emerge based on education level, skill and ability. In such a scenario, the poor will be alienated even further, making them sink into the oblivion of extreme poverty. This will result into the creation of a greatly impoverished people, regarded by the society as individuals of the lower class as others will be regarded to be of higher social class.
Since America is a capitalist, there is a probable emergence of a new class under capitalism. These new class will comprise of intellectuals from the humanities and sciences. They will dominate from the educational standpoint, but not from the traditional forms of capitalism. Szelenyi and Gusky (2011, p.125) reveal that the emergence of this new capitalist will signify the demise of the old-moneyed domination. Moreover, the new class is the nucleus of a new hierarchy and the elite of a new form of cultural form.
The No Child Left Behind Program
The NCLB is arguably the most far reaching education initiative in the history of America, over the last four decades. The legislation was signed in the year 2002, by the then President Bush. The Act vividly expanded federal influence over the 90,000 public schools in America. The symbol of this initiative compelled states to conduct annual student assesses linked to the standards set by the state while at the same time, identify schools which are constantly failing.
The objective of the NCLB was to ensure that children fair and have equal access to high quality education. It aimed to close achievement disparities between high and low performing students, minority as well as non-minority students, and the disadvantaged and the more advantaged ones. However, the strong emphasis on evaluation and performance accountabilities drawn from the aforementioned objectives has greatly impacted educators in various core subjects. The effects of the NCLB have both positive and negative.
A survey of existing literature on NCLB carried out by Dee and Jacob (2011) revealed that generated large and statistically significant growths in the Math achievement of fourth graders. The increases occurred at multiple intervals in the distribution of achievement and were concentrated among Whites and Hispanics, as well as the students who benefited from the subsidized lunch program. The survey also shows that resulted to more moderate and targeted improvements in the Math of eighth graders. However, there was no consistent or reliable data that demonstrated the role of NCLB on improved reading achievements of the fourth graders.
A study carried out by Professor Sabol (2010), showed that the NCLB had created a lot of negative effects on art education programs. From his respondents, he was able to establish that NCLB had negative effects on scheduling, funding for the art education programs, as well as increased workload. 84% of the respondents stated that because of NCLB, they have interrupted work schedules, increased conflicts and problems, as well as the schedules becoming more complicated. Of the 58% that reported work load increases, they cited additional work needed to compensate for cuts into the arts curriculum. Others cited additional work load to supervise non-art students.
With NCLB’s mixed results, policy makers should question whether to amend the program or halt it altogether. The substantial gains in elementary Math are good news to the proponents of the program. However, when these gains are measured against the statutory goals of NCLB, a lot remains to be done. It is, therefore, prudent to ask, with its little gains, is there a necessity of retaining the program?
References
Szelenyi, S & Grusky, D. (2011). The Inequality Reader: Contemporary and Foundational
Readings in Race, Class and Gender. CO: Westview Press.
Dee, T.S & Jacob, B. (2011). “The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement.”
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3); pp. 418-446.
Sabol, F. Robert. (2010). No Child Left Behind: A study of its Impact on Art Education. Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Tilly, C. (2007). Poverty and the Politics of Exclusion. In Moving Out of Poverty Vol. 1. Cross-
Disciplinary Perspectives on Mobility. Palgrave Macmillan and the World Bank, Washington, DC.
Narayan, D,& Petesch, P. (2007). Agency, Opportunity Structure and Poverty Escapes. In
moving out of Poverty: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Mobility. Palgrave Macmillan and the World Bank, Washington, DC.
Entwisle, D, Alexander, K. & Olson, L. (2005). “First Grade and Educational Attainment by Age
22; A New Story.” American Journal of Sociology, 110: 1458-1502.
Murnane, R.J. (2007). Improving the Education of Children Living in Poverty. Future Child 17:
161-182.
Gutman, L. & McLoyd, V. (2005). “Financial Strain, Neighbourhood Stress, Parenting
Behaviours and Adolescent Adjustments in Urban African American Families.” Journal of Customer Service, 15: 425-449.
Ackerman, BP et al (2007). “Relation Between Reading Problems and Internalizing Behaviour in
School for Preadolescent Children from Economically Disadvantaged Families.” Child Development, 78: 581-596.
Trends, C. (2006). Assessing the Educational Indicators in the Kids Count Data Book. Annie E
Cassey Foundation. Baltimore.
