poverty and children

Poverty Problem
Poverty is quite an issue not only in third world countries but also here in the United States. Interviews were conducted with 74 families with school-age children, including 44 families living at or below 150% of the federal poverty level and 30 families living above 150% of poverty (Heymann 5). Over 14 million U.S. children lived in poverty in 1997 (Sherman and Sandfort 555).
Many times it is easy for people to hide certain aspects of their lives. However, poverty is not one of them. When a person is poor, it is humiliating for themselves, their families, and is very difficult to overcome. Although poverty is not always a choice, it is a preventable problem in today’s society that can be fixed. If people have the ability to recognize that this is a problem that affects people everywhere and are willing to do something about it, the percentage of poverty-stricken persons would be down to almost nothing.
There are millions of organizations in today’s world that beg for money, clothes, and food so they can be sent overseas to help a poor child in Uganda or Haiti. Helping nationwide is always a good thing to be a part of; however, there are many things that can be done in each person’s community, which is always a great place to start.
As a group, we all spent time with children in our community who do not come from the most financially well off families. As with the majority of small communities, Anderson took a hard hit economically when money was lost and our entire nation took a turn for the worse. Many people lost jobs or were laid off for a couple of months while all the companies took the necessary time to get back up on their feet. Some families have never really bounced back from the economic downfall that recently took place. Many scholars have opinions about poverty or issues concerning poverty.
This article compared normal, poor and immigrant children. The study conducted by Anne Skevik Grødem, of Norway, compared how children of normal, poor and poor immigrant households felt about school as well as their satisfaction with their teachers. The study showed that children ages ten to twelve who were poor immigrants were the most satisfied with school and their teachers, then the children of normal income and finally the people who were poor, but not immigrants. In contract, while interviewing the same students three years later, while they were between ages thirteen and fifteen, they found that the results of each group were very simple, which is very different from when they were young.
Between the three groups of 13–15 year olds 50 percent of low-income immigrant youth said they enjoyed school ‘very well ‘compared with 46 percent of poor Norwegian children and 53 per cent of children in the normal-income sample. That is, the proportion of low-income immigrant children who gave this answer had slightly decreased…, while the proportion in both the Norwegian samples had increased. The overall movement seems to be that Norwegian children enjoy school more as young teenagers than as 10–12-year-olds, but whatever causes this increase in satisfaction does not extend to low income immigrant children. (p.196)
Through this article it is very clear that as children age their satisfaction of school and teachers change, which is a good thing. However, it also shows that we must reach out to the non-immigrants whom are poor while they are between ages ten and twelve. We will compare the salary of the families’ students and look at the effects of low income families. The article “Risky Firearms Behavior in Low-Income Families” is very much trying to express the fact that gun use is very prevalent in those who are of low income households. Once again, according to Edward F.Vacha and T. F.McLaughlin (2004):
These families (five low income families) have experienced considerably more economic deprivation than the families in the middle-class comparison school group. Forty-nine percent of the low-income parents reported earning less than $800.00 per month, whereas all but one parent from the middle-class comparison school reported earning $1,600 or more per month. Only 17 (22%) of the low-income school parents reported earning more than $1600 per month. Furthermore, 49% of the project school families reported income from public assistance (primarily Aid for Families of Dependent Children [AFDC]), and 85% reported receiving public assistance at some time in the past. The middle class parents were much less likely to be dependent on public assistance. (p. 179-180)
This exposure to fear-producing events and stimuli, in turn, appears to be a source of dangerous activities. When asked what made the students feel safe in their home and their neighborhood, the student discussion groups in the low-income neighborhoods mentioned having guns and other weapons(guns and baseball bats were the most frequently mentioned weapons that made them feel safe). The students at the middle-class school, on the other hand did not mention weapons of any kind, but they did mention security systems and fire alarms. Of course, students from all of the schools mentioned locks and police officers on patrol. All of the groups also listed neighbors, having a dog, or having neighbors with a dog that barks at strangers as making them feel safe. These findings suggest that widespread fear in these neighborhoods may lead to maintain in gun secured guns and other weapons. (p.182-183)
Some children are taken away from their parents and put into foster homes. This happens so often to children living in a low income environment. Poverty is one of the many factors when deciding rather or not a child should be put in foster care. The following passage is the belief of Susan Vivian Mangold (2007).
Foster care should be disentangled from public assistance by eliminating the eligibility calculations. This would take poverty out of the eligibility criteria and leave resource calculations solely for service-planning purposes. In this way, all determinations would be to benefit the child, not merely to classify the child. Poverty would not be formally equated with abuse and neglect. While there may be many reasons why poor children make up a large percentage of abused and neglected children in state care, elimination of federal income eligibility requirements would begin to remove improper incentives and disincentives based on poverty and not on service needs. Medicaid and Title XX eligibility define abused and neglected children into the programs regardless of income. The same could be true for all children determined to need foster care services: The state would receive federal reimbursement for their foster care services irrespective of income and assets. (p. 599)
There are many reasons as to why poverty and education coincide. According to the Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) program, the biggest gaps between kids in schools academically were those in which the school split the children up according to their economic stance. The United States is one of the top ten countries for academic gaps. It is said that poverty is the greatest sole indicator of low educational accomplishment. There are also many other factors that contribute to the poverty rates in the education system including gender, ethnicity, and special education needs. One other focus is the parent’s educational levels. The mom is the one most likely to be in charge of the children’s education and the child depends on her.
As stated by Anne West, “the amount of money parents spend on children, and the time they spend with them in joint activities are considered investments that have the potential to enhance their children’s cognitive skills” (p. 286). A child’s socioeconomic background has everything to do with their education. In addition to this, the poorer the parents’ are the less they will become involved with the school activities of their children. Even if the parents make a decent amount of money, studies have found that they are often too busy with their own lives to have much to do with the education of their children. Their parent’s background directly effects their child’s future and how they will be raised economically (West, 2007, pp. 283-297).
Research has shown that a parent’s involvement in the kid’s education has a tremendous difference on their children’s grades. Their participation with their children is known to improve their grades in English and Math, as well as improve their behavior and determination. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (1997) no matter what age the child is, they tend to do better in school if both of their parents are involved. It proves vital to both the child’s cognitive state as well as their behavior. Also, studies tell that one-fifth of low income parents had very little time if any at all with their kids during the week due to work. Working over-time is often not negotiable to many parents single or not.
When parents work before and after their child’s school is, they depend a lot upon the school as well as the community to provide care and support in their absence. This is when all of the after school programs come in handy for the parents. For many families, cost effective and safe after school programs are very difficult to find. In the event that after school programs are not offered, children are often left in the care of older siblings or neighbors. Some of the alternatives for after school programs can leave a little to be desired. When the parents can be involved in their child’s life they are able to make a huge difference in the life of their child. It is as simple as being around and available for their kid.
When it comes to gender and poverty and what affects a child's self-esteem studies have shown that gender has nowhere near the effect on a child's self-esteem as poverty does. Researchers have found the link between poverty stricken families and self-esteem to have a greater impact on children's self-esteem. “Baharudin and Luster (1998) found that children from families in persistent economic hardship showed lower self-esteem than children from better-off families” (Sandra Alder Lent and Josefina Figueira-McDonough). There for children who come from families of low income usually have low self-esteem and need help raising their self-esteem and self-worth. Studies show that school is one of the main places where self-worth or self- esteem are established in a child. So one of the ways After School fun helps poverty stricken children gain a better self image is by helping them raise their grades in school through helping them with their homework.
“Many researchers who found associations between low self-esteem and deviant behavior among adolescents have commented that successful intervention have to start at earlier ages” (Sandra Adler Lent and Josefina Figueira-McDonough). There for, children with low self-esteem like children of poverty are more likely to become involved in deviant activities after school or throughout the day if the decide to drop out of school. After School fun helps children stay out of deviant activities by giving them something more productive and fun to do after school.
One of the major factors contributing to success in school for children in poverty stricken minority groups is their parents involvement in the school; whether their parents help them at home with questions on their school work, or their parents help by being involved in the school itself and having a sense of what is really going on in the school. “Clark (1983) found that parents of high achievers, more than parents of low achievers, engaged their children in deliberate educational activities within the home such as monitoring their homework and engaging them in pedagogical discussions and problem-solving tasks” (as in Leslie Morrison Gutman and Vonnie C. McLoyd).
Also, research suggests that children involved in extracurricular activities after school experience positive growth in their academic achievements. Children are more likely to avoid involvement in deviant activities outside of school if their time is occupied elsewhere. For example, children involved in After School Fun will gain help with school work and remain occupied in positive and creative activities until their parents come and pick them up. Otherwise the children might become involved in activities which can harm their academic achievement and possibly themselves. “Resourceful parents in disadvantaged communities often maintain links to external sources of support such as religious institutions and manage their children’s environment by keeping their children busy in neighborhood recreational programs” (Leslie Morrison Gutman and Vonnie C. Mcloyd).
Iceland’s article was a commentary over a book that was produced by a man who was concerned about social stratification in America. “While some of the discussion on the causes of inequality covers familiar ground, the book offers a sharp, well-reasoned, and politically progressive blueprint for attacking child poverty and its consequences” (Iceland). The article proves poverty is not only on a community level, it is a nationally and worldwide recognized problem. Lack of money or financial problems are the majority of reasons why people find themselves in poverty. As there are many causes, such as cuts in income, tax burdens, child support, mortgages, bills, food, and many others, there are also many choices that need to be made to get oneself out of poverty.
Another possible solution to poverty was proven to us in Hatton, Munns, and Dent article. They discussed they importance of other adult figures outside the home with the primary focus being on teachers. Most of the time when children are poor, those are the kids that tend to act out in school and other public places. The way that teachers or other caretakers interact with these children can have a significant impact on the child’s behavior and future performance. This is not to say that teachers are necessarily responsible for making sure the children learn all the right behaviors, but it is their responsibility to understand them and take a little extra time to let them know they are still loved by God.
“Over 14 million U.S. children have lived in poverty in 1997- more than in any year since 1966 to 1990” (Sherman and Sandfort). This article focuses on the importance of ending poverty on all levels. To be able to do this, it would take the cooperation of people from every level of the system. Government policies would need to be made or stepped up to represent the people and give back what they constantly take away. Each state can take similar steps to reassure persons in their own regions they will be well taken care of. However, the last level is where the average person can begin to get involved-your own community. Each community involves a number of people who are responsible for studying and documenting data concerning poverty which provides assistance to different leaders in the community and will enable leaders in the community to reach out to more people that are affected by poverty.