Children Living in Poverty

Introduction

Imagine living in the richest nation in the world. This nation has all the resources you could ever want. A country that has so much money, it seems to grow on the trees. A nation that prides itself as the “land of opportunity” and peaches equality and fairness for all. Now, imagine you live in this nation of wealth yet reside in the ghetto, downtown in the slums or a trailer park, you live in neighborhoods that lack resources such as libraries and community centers and you attend schools that are well over 50 years old with leaks in the ceilings and stenches so strong you feel intoxicated.

How is it possible for people living in a wealthy and industrialized nation to have such a lack of resources? How is it possible for the wealthiest nation in the world to have the second highest rate of poverty among the 23 wealthiest nations (Campaign 2002, 2002)? How can a society so rich and wealthy in resources be so foolish in the care of their fellow citizens, specifically innocent children?

The United States that poor people live in is quite different than the United States the middle-class and wealthy people live in. People living in poverty have vastly different living conditions, family lives, goals, schooling, values and history than higher socio-economic groups. These differences need to be recognized by educators and society and together as a nation we need to assess our goals both in the here and now and their goals for the future.

Who and How Many?

Poverty in the United States is defined in many different ways and has many interpretations. Nevertheless, there must be a consensus and agreed upon definition of poverty. The official poverty threshold in the United States is determined by the U.S. Census Bureau and from this, the Census Bureau estimates the official rate of poverty, that is, the number and percentage of people living in poverty (Almanac of Policy Issues, n.d.). In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau defined the poverty threshold for a single person as $9,645, for a couple as $12,334, for a family consisting of one adult and two children as $15,067 and for two adults and two children as $19,307 (U.S Census Bureau, 2005). According to this definition of poverty, the Census Bureau determined that in 1998, 12.7 percent of Americans (34.5 million) were poor. They also determined that 11.6 million Americans were nearly poor (defined as families with incomes less than 125% of the poverty threshold).

Poverty is not evenly distributed among, races, ethnic backgrounds or age. The rates of poverty among African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and children are disproportionately higher than other demographic groups. The rate of poverty for African-American and Hispanic Americans are 24.7 and 21.9 percent respectively (U.S Census Bureau, 2005). Of the 12.7 percent total of Americans living in poverty, children (0-17 years) amounted for 39 percent. This means that nearly 18 percent (13 million) of American children are living in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).

These statistics are astounding. It is unacceptable that in a country that prides itself on freedom for all and as “the land of opportunity” that poverty should be so disproportionately distributed, let alone this high. Additionally it is inadmissible that any child should be aloud to live in poverty. The entire American society is responsible to raise the future generations of world citizens. Children living in poverty did not ask to be brought into this world and should not have to struggle daily to survive.

What does this mean for educators?

An educator can estimate that 1 in 5 of his//her students is living in poverty. In a class of 30 students, this number would be 6 out of 30 students. Poverty affects every aspect of a child’s life, including social, emotional, and physical growth and academic achievement. It is of utmost importance for educators to understand the effects of poverty on the development and success of their students. Furthermore, educators must be informed of teaching strategies to improve their development and performance in school and life.

Why do Children Living in Poverty Struggle in School?

The reasons as to why children living in poverty are not as successful academically as their higher socioeconomic peers are not fully agreed upon. Some researchers attribute the inferior success of poor children to parents’ inability to help their children with their schoolwork (Zady, Portes, DelCastillo, Dunham, 1998), lack of parent involvement in the school (Entwisle, Alexander & Olson, 1997), a high stress environment due to the struggle to survive (Entwisle, et al., 1997), the Faucet Theory (Entwisle, et al., 1997), the communities and neighborhoods the poor children live in (Entwisle, et al., 1997), family expectations and expenditures (Entwisle, et al., 1997), and parent attitudes about education (Renchler, 1993).

Zady et al. (1998) suggests that parents cannot help their children with schoolwork for lack of content knowledge. Often times, poverty flows in a cycle-like form. This is frequently referred to as the “cycle of poverty.” Many times parents themselves were not adequately educated or dropped out of school themselves, hence an inability to help their children. Language can also play a be a contributing factor to these difficulties. If the parents of a child living in poverty do not have adequate skills in the dominant language (in the case of the U.S., English) parents often cannot assist their child in their schoolwork due to the language barrier.

Entwisle et al. (1997) suggests several reasons why children living in poverty performance and success in school is proportionately inferior to their “advantaged peers.” Entwisle et al (1997) notes that families living in poverty may experience a higher level of stress due to the constant struggle to make ends meet economically. He suggests that this high level of stress may interfere with the child’s education. Parents may be less involved or concerned about their child’s school success because of the pressures to provide basic necessities such as food and shelter for the child.

Entwisle et al. (1997) also suggests lack of parental involvement in school affects poor children’s success in school. An independent study showed that 100% of middle class parents came to parent-teacher conferences and attended “open houses” at school while only 65% of working class parents came to conferences and merely 35% attended open houses. Entwisle et al. believes that this may contribute to the success of students. Parents who come to conferences and other school functions are more connected to their child’s performance in school and what their child’s academic needs are. Parental participation in these types of events also may send the positive message that school is important and of value to their children.

The faucet theory (Entwisle et al., 1997) has also been suggested as a reason children living in poverty do not do as well in school. The faucet theory suggests that since traditionally U.S. schools are closed during the summer for vacation, students (especially those living in poverty) regress in the skills and knowledge they gained during the school year. Entwisle et al. (1997) cites Japan as an example to defend this theory. In Japan students attend school year-round. Their test scores are higher in all areas and across demographic groups than those of American students.

Students in the US from middle- and upper-class families do not tend to regress as much as students of the lower-class. This may be due to the neighborhoods these families live in and economic resources they have (Entwisle et al., 1997). Children living in poverty usually live in neighborhoods that do not have as much community support for schools. Much of the time, families are more concerned with survival than education. Low-income neighborhoods often lack public libraries and community centers for young children. Additionally, families living in poverty do not have extra money to spend on summer programs, camps, tutors, courses or even family vacations. Lack of a variety of experiences negatively affects the achievement of students.

Parent’s overall attitudes about education may affect their child’s success in school (Renchler, 1993). Children need the support of their parents, family members and community to understand the value of education. Parents who grew up in poverty and struggled in school or dropped out of school may hold beliefs that their child will have the same experiences in their schooling. This attitude affects the child’s attitude of school and belief that they will be successful in school.

Finally, many children of low-income families attend schools with inferior funding of middle- and upper class students (Renchler, 1993).

“Low-SES students often find themselves at another disadvantage not of their own making: they generally are clustered in schools that are grossly under funded, while other nearby schools attended primarily by higher SES students receive substantially more funding on a per-pupil basis” (Renchler, 1993).

In a country that professes equality for all citizens this is an unacceptable reason for inferior success. If this truly is a country of equality something needs to be done to raise the achievement and success of children living in poverty.

What Is and Can be Done on a Macro level?

There are a few programs throughout the country that are trying to address the achievement gap between low-income students and middle- and high- income students. Probably the two most well known programs are Head Start and Title I.

The Head Start program began in 1965. It was initially implemented as an 8-week summer program for children aged 3-4 years (Kafer, 2004). Currently Head Start programs are half or full day for 8-9 months of the year (Kafer, 2004). Since 1965, American taxpayers have spent $66 million dollars on Head Start programs and served 21 million children. The goal of the Head Start program is to provide services to parents and children of low-income families to enable them to begin school with higher rates of success. “On average, poor children enter school with far fewer vocabulary, literacy, math and social skills than their middle-class peers. They start off a step behind and never catch up” (Kafer, 2004).

The reviews of Head Start programs are mixed. Most studies show that Head Start programs at least provide short-term cognitive benefits for poor children (Kafer 2004). One study (Entwisle et al., 1997) showed that the IQ of children who participated in a Head Start program raised about 8 points in first grade. The gain in IQ, however, gradually faded 2 to 3 years later. Head Start participants also showed better math achievement through grade 5. In the same study it was concluded that the students had more pride in their accomplishments throughout elementary school. Kafter (2004) notes, “poor kids make gains in most of the elementary schools that they go to. The gains are parallel to those of more advantaged kids, but the gap still remains.”

This seems to be especially notable in higher elementary grades and during the middle and high school years. However, there is no clear evidence that Head Start programs have any long-term cognitive effects (Kafer 2004), Entwisle et al. (1997) maintains that students who participated in a Head Start program did better throughout their school years when compared to non-participants. He notes that when Head Start students reached 7^th grade, only 14.6% of them were in special education whole 34.9% on non-participants were in special education. Head Start participants were also more likely to graduate High School (Entwisle et al., 1997).

Title I is another federally funded program that addresses the needs of children living in poverty. It is the largest federally funded program in K-12 education (Title I Report, n.d.). Each year taxpayers pay $11 billion to help provide extra services to students living in poverty. Title I money is intended to be used to improve the quality of education and increase support for students living in poverty. 13,081 districts and 46,656 schools receives Title I funds during the 1998-1999 school year. Funds are distributed to schools and school districts based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s analysis of children living in poverty (Title I Report, n.d.). Title I money is used for so many different programs and structures of support so no conclusive data is available for its effectiveness per se.

Although there are mixed opinions on the effectiveness of federal and state programs and funding to improve the success of low-income students it seems logical to conclude that there is some worth in these programs. This is not to say that there is no more that needs to be done to close the achievement gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged. There is much more work to be done on the macro level to claim success.

What Can be Done on a Micro Level?

There are several things teachers can do on the micro level to help their low-income students. In her book, Ten Best Teaching Practices, Tileston (2005) highlights 7 things teachers can do the help their students who live in poverty.

First, provide poor children with the very best teachers. She insists that we need to stop making it a punishment for teachers to teach in poor schools. Teachers teaching in poor schools need to be given the tools, training, technology, support facilities, and materials that the best schools have. Poor students equally (if not more) need the same resources and experiences in schools as their middle- and high-income peers.

Secondly, all students need a high quality and challenging curriculum. Students need to be challenged in school in order to build a positive self efficacy. Students realize when curriculum is watered down to make it easier.

Third, teachers and other staff throughout the school need to build an understanding of the culture of their students. Children from poverty often enter public schools with children from middle class families, however, their experiences have been quite different than those of their middle-class peers. “It is not that these students can’t learn or won’t learn; they often have not had the opportunities to learn” (Tileston, 2005). Furthermore, “public education is built around middle-class values, attitudes, and rules. Until this country begins to examine and structure early childhood programs so that every child in America has the opportunity to have rich experiences in [school], the gap will always begin at this early stage” (Tileston, 2005).

Teachers must understand what drives the different classes. Wealthy, middle and people living in poverty are all driven by vastly different things. Middle class people are driven by work and achievement. Wealthy people are driven by political, social and financial connections. People in poverty are driven by survival, entertainment and relationships. Understanding that it is more important for a child living in poverty to have a beautiful Halloween costume is more important than having books in the home or paying back the library fines is crucial. It is also important that teachers realize the importance of building relationships with poor children and their families.

Tileston also notes that poor children need to be taught proper behaviors. Since our society revolves around middle-class values and practices, poor students need to learn how to act to be successful in this society. For example, many children who live in poverty learn to laugh in the face of adversity or when being punished as a coping mechanism. Teachers need to teach these students the proper way to react to punishment since laughing for being punished will likely lead to further discipline. “We must teach children how to plan, how to use self-talk and what to do when plans are not going well. We must instruct them in the hidden rules upon which school and work depend” (Tileston, 2005).

Fourth, students need to build self-efficacy. They need to be able to know what they are good at and how they can improve. Poor students need to be taught to set goals. The achievement needs to be assessed on a regular basis so they know how they are doing working towards their goals.

Fifth, schools must eliminate bias. Common biases include linguistic bias, stereotyping, exclusion, unreality (misinformation about a group, event, or contribution), selectivity (single interpretation), and isolation. Teachers must work to eliminate their personal biases as well as those of the other students and their families.

Sixth, schools need to work with community leaders to provide support for these students. This could include getting businesses in the community to volunteer in the school, donate money or teach their skill, for example, bankers can come into schools and teach creating a budget. Community members can also help by providing places and programs for students, such as extra curricular activities such as dance or art classes.

Finally, Tileston says we, as a society must change our way of thinking. “We cannot afford a generation that does not read, cannot do basic math and cannot articulate their ideas to others” (Tileston, 2005) Furthermore,

“we will not change the dynamics of poverty until we do something about education. This means that we must begin now to provide a quality preschool program for the poor and we must utilize that time to help provide the scaffolding needed to be successful in school from the beginning” (Tilestone, 2005).

Our thinking must reflect a kind of care and understanding for all people and a goal to be a better society as a whole.

Conclusion

Although, the U.S. has attempted to make changes to help children living in poverty experience higher success in school, “U.S. children’s poverty rate is over twice that in the U.K. or Canada and the relative gap between poor and affluent children is greater in the US than in any other western country” (Entwisle et al., 1997). Something more must me done to narrow the achievement gap. The American society must analyze their goals for society as a whole who we want to be and who we want our citizens to be and we must begin with education. Giving poor children and their families the resources to learn and be successful in life will vastly improve their chances of leading full and meaningful lives.

Sources:

Almanac of Policy Issues. (n.d). Poverty. Retrieved on October 30, 2005, from http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/poverty.shtml

Campaign 2002. (2002). Canada Falling Behind on the International Stage. Retrieved on November 16, 2005, from http://www.campaign2000.ca/rc/unsscMAY02/un10.html

Entwisle, D., Alexander, K. & Olson, L.S., (1997). Children, Schools & Inequality. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Kafer, K. (2004, May 4). A Head Start for Poor Children? Backgrounder, No. 1755.

Renchler, R. (1993, May). Poverty and Learning. ERIC Digest, 83. Retrieved October 7, 2005, from ERIC Digest database.

Tileston, D. (2005). 10 Best Teaching Practices. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Title I Report. (2002). Title I Report. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from, http://www.titlei.com/whatis.htm

US Census Bureau News. (2005, August 30). Income Stable, Poverty Rate Increases, Percentage of Americans 
Without Health Insurance Unchanged. Retrieved November 12, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/ income_wealth/005647.html

Zady, M., Portes, P., DelCastillo, K., Dunham, R., (1998). When Low SES Parents Cannot Assist Their Children. American Educational Research Association. Retrieved October 7, 2005, from EBSCO Host database.