Poverty and Educational Attainment This

Poverty and Educational Attainment This work addresses the affect of poverty on the educational attainment of children from low socioeconomic families and addresses how it is that the community, the church, and local health care providers have a unique opportunity to assist parents in poverty in raising their children and empowering and enabling these families and their children to succeed despite their limited resources. This work suggests that the church, community and local health care providers should seek grant funding to support these efforts.

POVERTY AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT The effects of poverty on the lives of children are only beginning to be completely understood. The work of Chaikind states that educational attainment is measured by "whether a student is at or behind the modal grade level expected for each given age." (1985, p.1) This work intends to whether poverty alone can account for the gap between the educational attainment of high and low socioeconomic status children. I.

Previous Studies on Poverty and Educational Attainment Gaps The work of Bladen and McNally (2006) entitled: "Mind the Gap: Child Poverty and Educational Attainment" states that the observation that children from backgrounds that were poorer "do worse in terms of educational outcomes was first highlighted in Rowntree's investigation into poverty in York at the turn of the twentieth century." (p.1) The reason that attainment gaps are so very important is because "educational achievements are crucial in determining individual prospects.

Even having low-level qualification can substantially reduce the probability of unemployment or worklessness (the major cause of poverty) and higher level qualifications increase individual earning power." (Bladen and McNally, 2006, p.1) While there are limitations of the data currently available, 'a number of key facts have emerged about the educational attainment of poorer children.

The first of these is that educational disadvantage starts from a very young age." (Bladen and McNally, 2006, p.1) The work of Feinstein using data on the 1970 cohort reports findings of a significant gap existing between children from high and low socio-economic backgrounds on an index of development.

After mapping the development of children from the age of 22 months to the age of 10 years, Feinstein demonstrated that the gaps existing between high and low socioeconomic status children "widen out slightly from 22 months to five years and then more substantially from age five to 10, over the first years of school." (Bladen and McNally, 2006, p.1) II.

Factors Identified as Causative The work of Danziger and Haveman entitled: "Understanding Poverty" states that childbearing by teens, children born out-of-wedlock and single parents are known to be "major causes of poverty and welfare dependency for women and their children." (2002, p.142) However, there are other claims that it is not the deviant family structures but lack of resources that result in educational disadvantages of children from poverty level homes.

According to Danziger and Haveman if it is not childhood poverty but instead disadvantages of parents that are "associated with or cause parental poverty and lead to negative associations between childhood poverty and childhood outcomes, then the policy solution is less obvious..." And a need exists to make identification of precisely what disadvantages of parents are causative in educational disadvantages to the children of poverty.

Findings in this are show the following: (1) poor children average 1.4 fewer years of schooling than do nonpoor children, and they are three times as likely to have dropped out of high school; (2) poor girls are more than twice as likely to have had a teen birth and they are 2.6 times more likely to have had an out-of-wedlock birth than are nonpoor girls; and (3) poor boys work fewer hours per year, have lower hourly wages, have lower annual earnings and spend more weeks idle in their midtwenties than do nonpoor boys.

(2002, p.159) The work of McLanahan and Garfinkel (2001) entitled: "Fragile Families, Welfare Reform and Marriage" reports findings "based on interviews with mothers and fathers...that at the time of birth, the majority of parents in fragile families want and expect to maintain their relationship and raise their children together." (p.1) Based on these findings it is indicated that "policies and programs should facilitate, build upon and maintain the commitment that unmarried fathers articulate at the time of their children's birth.

The major challenge for policymakers is to find ways to support new parents as they work to raise their children under a variety of circumstances." (McLanahan and Garfinkel, 2001, p.1) The work of Chaikind (1985) entitled: "The Effects of Short-term and Long-term Poverty on Educational Attainment of Children" reports the examination of how poverty affects the educational attainment of children.

Findings in this study are stated to include those as follows: (1) for all students, short-term poverty is not expected to affect educational attainment; (2) for all students, longer periods in poverty increase the probability of lagging behind modal grade level; and (3) for white students, there is a statistically significant connection between the amount of time spent in poverty and the lag in modal grade level that is not present for black students.

A series of regression analyses support the finding that years in poverty is related to educational attainment for all students and for whites, but not statistically related for blacks. The analyses also indicate a relationship between educational attainment and the following social and family factors: (1) parents' education; (2) mother's attendance at PTA meetings; (3) age of the mother at the child's birth; and (4) whether the mother was divorced or separated.

Danziger and Haveman report that the research on poverty is badly in need of updating however, findings show that the lack of resources is the primary factor affecting the educational attainment of children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and that the provision of resources to these low-income families is of primary importance in addressing this issue and in mitigating the negative outcomes of children from poor families. Policies that work toward defraying the "costs of basic necessities provide another way to help to increase the disposable income of poor families.

Such policies include food stamps and housing vouchers, the extension of Medicaid coverage to all low-income parents and children, the state welfare programs that provide generous earning disregards." (2002, p.160) III. The Church and Community It has been said that it takes an entire village to raise a child and in reality any parent who has successfully raised children to be capable, educated and self-sufficient adults understands just how true this saying really is.

All children from low-income single-parent homes do not have negative educational or life outcomes but this is due to, in many cases the willingness of the extended family, including ex-in-laws and others having worked together despite the occurrence of a divorce to successfully raise the child a mitigate the potential damages of the divorce of the child's parents.

Included in this is the willingness of ex-in-laws and former daughter or son-in-law to collaborate on the after-school care of children while the mother works and even on weekends which ensures that these school children are not home alone and unsupervised. These types of arrangements also serve to ensure that young teen girls are not left unsupervised and assist in reduction of the chance for an unwanted pregnancy.

In cases where such familial and extra-familial support is not available the church within the community holds great potential in assisting the children from single-parent low-income families through opening the doors of the church for after-school and weekend supervision. The bible relates that children are a blessing of God (Genesis 15:1) and poor children are viewed as being under the special care of God (Psalm 68:5). Additionally Jesus welcomed and treasured children (Matthew 18:1-5, Luke 9:46-48).

From this the church understands that it has a direct responsibility for the nurturing and care of the children in the community and for the social policies which affect the very vulnerable children from poor families. The need for childcare for children of poor families is high with more than half of women from low-socioeconomic homes in today's labor force. IV.

Canada Reports Unique Opportunity of Pediatricians and Family Doctors The work of Ferguson, Bovaird, and Mueller (2007) entitled: "The Impact of Poverty on Educational Outcomes for Children" reports a widening gap in the educational attainment of children in Canada from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds and states that children from low-income families "often start school already behind their peers who come from more affluent families, as shown in measures of school readiness." (p.1) Ferguson, Bovaird and Mueller report that affecting the child's educational attainment are factors such as "...the incidence, depth, duration and timing of poverty...along with community characteristics and social networks." (2007, p.1) It is related that interventions in Canada and at the international level have demonstrated that the effects of poverty can be effectively reduced "using sustainable interventions" and that there are many opportunities available for pediatricians and family doctors to "influence readiness for school and educational success in primary care settings." (Ferguson, Bovaird and Mueller, 2007, p.1) Summary and Conclusion The community and church have a primary role to play in mitigating the negative effects of family poverty of the educational attainment and outcomes of children from these low-socioeconomic families.

As demonstrated in the work of McLanahan and Garfinkel (2001) most parents at the.