Early Childhood Poverty, Academic and Life Achievement - Research Paper Example

November 26, Early Childhood Poverty, Academic and Life Achievement Introduction There is an abundance of social and political discussion on the problems of crime and juvenile delinquency, how to direct funds for the building of more prisons and juvenile justice facilities. There is also discussion of the high representation of Blacks and Hispanics among criminals, juvenile delinquents, high school drop-outs, underachievers, and the chronically unemployed. Not enough of that discussion identifies child poverty as the primary culprit and advocates early childhood intervention to buffer the long range effects. This paper will identify the academic effects, personal and social outcomes of early childhood poverty, together with complicating factors, and will identify early childhood intervention strategies that have proven to be successful in preventing negative long range outcomes. The timing of childhood poverty is critical, and intervention must be directed toward early childhood, specifically. Body From the prenatal period through the first six years of life, most human brain growth takes place (Loughan and Perna). Early childhood poverty places the person at high risk for restricted development. Poverty is a primary factor that negatively impacts optimal brain functioning, resulting in cognitive deficits and substantially reduced academic readiness in preschool age children (Smith, Brooks-Gunn and Klebanov). Poor children continue to fall behind in academic achievement, being twice as likely to repeat a grade, be diagnosed with a learning disability, be suspended or expelled, and become a high school drop-out (Loughan and Perna). Poor children grow up to be less educated, have more unemployment, and earn less (Duncan and Magnuson 23). Research now indicates that prenatal and early childhood poverty is correlated with negative effects even four decades later (Duncan and Magnuson 24). The risk is greatly elevated when the child suffers from neglect. There is an inverse correlation between income and the likelihood of child neglect (Sedlak and Broadhurst). Poverty leads to neglect because of a lack of material resources, mental well-being challenges faced by the parents, adverse family coping skills, single parent households, and other factors (Loughan and Perna). Higher income parents tend to have more positive interactions with children, while low income parents tend to be more punitive, use an authoritarian style of parenting, and provide less stimulating learning experiences at home. The latter factor can be a result of parental depression and the psychological stress that comes with poverty (Duncan and Magnuson 24). Neglected children show cerebral abnormalities in the corpus callosum, neocortex, hippocampus, amygdale, limbic system, frontal lobe and cerebellar vermis , resulting in brain dysfunction, impaired psychosocial functioning, psychopathology, and problems with focusing attention, utilizing language and memory, and exercising social skills (Loughan and Perna). One study found that 44-55% of their sample of children affected by poverty and neglect, had low academic ability, and 100% had emotional and behavioral problems (Loughan and Perna). Poor children do not have access to resources that the children of higher income families have access to, The children of professionals are exposed to about 45 million words by the time they are four years old, compared with about 13 million words poor children are typically exposed to by the same age (Rokosa). Less than one third of poor households with young children have even a single book for preschool or kindergarten age children (Rokosa). Most poor children of preschool age do not have access to a quality preschool program. They are, on average, more than one year behind higher income peers (Rokosa). Childhood poverty is associated with and complicated by minority status. Apparently, 40% of Black children and 35% of Hispanic children are living in poverty, in the USA (Rokosa). Black kindergarteners are more likely to be poor than White kindergarteners, and Hispanic kindergarteners have the lowest average socioeconomic level (Johnson). School readiness in kindergarteners is much lower in poor and minority communities, and their test scores and achievement indicators are far lower. They do not catch up later, without intervention, but are more likely to continue through life with fewer advantages and lower achievement (Johnson). Childhood poverty is not limited to a particular nation, but some nations have higher rates than others. Below is a table, adapted (Duncan and Magnuson 24), comparing child poverty rates in some Western nations. The fact of child poverty is not the key to long range damage, however. The key is timing. Because young children are rapidly developing their intellectual capacity, they are most vulnerable to environmental damage and deficiency, in the early years. This understanding, which is a recently emerging one, is critical to appropriate intervention and the prevention of tragic outcomes for poor children and particularly for those whose poverty is exacerbated by neglect and minority status. This table, adapted (Duncan and Magnuson 27), shows the relationship between early childhood poverty, prenatal to age five, and some common adult outcomes. Figure 2 Outcomes Income below poverty line Income 1 to 1 ½ times poverty line Income more than 3 times poverty line Completed schooling (mean) 11.8 yrs 12.7 yrs 14.0 yrs Mean Earnings ($10,000) $17.9 $26.8 $39.7 Poor health (%) 13% 13% 5% Arrested (men) (%) 26% 21% 13% Non-marital birth (% women) 50% 28% 9% Interventions which have proven to be most successful are focused on compensating for the low income associated variables in early childhood. These interventions include income transfer policies (work support, child tax credit, and minimum allotment programs, such as those used in Germany and France). Direct service delivery is also important, for example, state-funded childcare (such as in France) (Duncan and Magnuson 27); programs that provide nutrition supplements, home visits, parenting training, lending libraries (art, documentaries, learning resources, books); and parenting relief programs. Quality ECE programs can significantly decrease the gap between poor and middle class children, between minority and White children (Magnuson and Waldfogel 196). Quality ECE programs can make a tremendous difference in adult outcomes. Significantly lower crime rates, higher earnings, and being 2 ½ times more likely to graduate high school and continue on to higher education are some of the outcome benefits (Rokosa). Quality ECE programs are a smart financial investment also, in that for each one dollar spent on ECE programs, society saves seven dollars (otherwise eaten up by welfare benefits, tax loss, special education expenses, criminal justice programs) (Rokosa). One of the most unquestionably successful early childhood education programs is High Scope Perry Preschool, in Michigan. Research comparing outcomes of Perry ECE with a control group found higher academic achievement throughout the school years, better social skills, stronger economic opportunities, lower arrest rates, higher income. The benefits compounded by age 40, and the researchers concluded that every dollar invested yielded a 17 dollar return (Rokosa). Conclusion Childhood poverty is a severe problem in many countries, including some of the most developed nations, such as the USA, UK, Canada, Germany, etc.. It has very serious outcomes, particularly when compounded by neglect and/or minority status. But it is the timing of early childhood poverty that is correlated with the most serious effects on school readiness, academic achievement, cognitive capacity, social skills, school completion, employment and earnings, non-marital birth rates, delinquency and crime, and other adverse outcomes that last throughout one’s life. There are two primary ways to address this successfully. One is to increase family income, at least during prenatal through kindergarten years. This can be done through work support, family allowances and tax credits. The other way is through direct resource and service delivery. Of the latter, accessibility to quality early childhood education programs is the most critical resource and service. It is a smart financial investment for society to make, to prevent a range of social problems. Works Cited Duncan, Greg J. and Katherine Magnuson. "The Long Reach of Early Childhood Poverty." Pathways (Winter 2011): 22-27. Print. Johnson, Anna D. "The Effects of Early Education on Children in Poverty." nd. Teachers College, Columbia University. Web. 24 November 2012. Loughan, Ashlee and Robert Perna. "Neurocognitive Impacts for Children of Poverty and Neglect." July 2012. American Psychological Association. Web. 24 November 2012. Magnuson, Katherine A. and Jane Waldfogel. "Early Childhood Care and Education: Effects on Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness." Future of Children (2005): 25 (1), 169-196. Print. Rokosa, Jennifer. "Fighting the War on Poverty with Early Childhood Education." 20 October 2011. Center for American Progress. Web. 24 November 2012. Sedlak, A. and D. Broadhurst. The Third National Incidence Study on Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3). Washinjton, D.C. : US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996. Print. Smith, J. R., J. Brooks-Gunn and P. Klebanov. "The Consequences of Living in Poverty for Young Childrens Cognitive and Verbal Ability and Early School Achievement." Duncan, G. J. and JJ. Brooks-Gunn. Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York: Russell Sage, 1997. 132-189. Print. Read More