Educational Needs and Outcomes for Children Living in Poverty

Introduction: Poverty and Educational Achievement

Research has demonstrated that the most important reason for substandard educational, health, social, and other outcomes is poverty — particularly poverty during the early stages of childhood. Children who grow up in poverty begin at an unfavorable position and sometimes end up there as well. Education researchers have pointed to staggering inequality between young children raised in poverty-stricken families and their more affluent counterparts. By the time a poor child reaches age six, he or she will have heard one-third as many words as a child from a well-to-do family. This is significant because language proficiency is vital to achievement in the early stages of school, which in turn predicts achievement at later stages.

On the whole, a distinct correlation exists between educational achievement and income. Higher income is directly proportional to the odds of success in school, while lower income leads to reduced prospects for achievement. This variation is also found in health outcomes: children in low-income families have worse health than their wealthier counterparts (Knitzer, 2006). Understanding this relationship is essential for designing effective interventions that give disadvantaged children a fair opportunity to succeed.

The Scope and Demographics of Child Poverty

While all Americans hope their next generation will succeed, many are unaware that approximately 40% of American children are raised in low-income families, with stark realities weighing against them (Knitzer, 2006). The prevalence of child poverty in the United States is higher than in other Western countries, and the proportion of poor children in the population has been rising steadily over the past two decades. Although youth account for just 25% of the population, they represent nearly 40% of all individuals categorized as poor. The majority of these poor children belong to Black communities, representing 43.1%, or are Hispanic, representing 39.6%. As of 1987, 31% of poor children under the age of six were being raised in large cities. The cost these children pay for being poor is very high (Renchler, 1993).

The National Centre for Children in Poverty notes that roughly 67% of the poor population is white; however, poverty is disproportionately concentrated among minorities. Four out of nine Black children and three out of eight Hispanic children live in poverty. Poverty is not restricted to urban areas alone: of young children living in poverty, 54% reside in urban areas, 26% are from rural areas, and 24% live in suburban areas. A 1989 study by the National Rural Development Institute found that rural children performed worse than their urban peers in 34 out of 39 statistical comparisons. For example, approximately 18% of rural high school students reported substance use, compared to 10.1% in non-rural regions. The report concluded that children from rural schools face a greater risk of failure due to crime, drug use, and parental neglect than their urban or suburban counterparts (Margaret, 1990).

Risk Factors and Costs of Educational Failure

According to Carta, numerous sources indicate that children with low socioeconomic status (SES) living in inner cities face a significantly higher likelihood of experiencing educationally disruptive conditions compared to higher-SES children. The risks they face include prenatal exposure to drugs and AIDS, low birth weight, poor nutrition, lead poisoning, and physical injuries. Young people in poverty from inner cities are seven times more likely to be victims of child abuse or neglect than their high-SES peers. Any one — or combination — of these factors places low-SES students at greater risk for poor educational attainment. As a result, these conditions cause low-SES students to drop out of school at much higher rates than their higher-SES peers, with the number of students leaving school annually approaching one million (Renchler, 1993).

The costs of failing to help low-SES students are substantial. Estimates suggest that the lifetime income lost due to dropping out of school ranges from $20,000 to $200,000 per person. The aggregate national loss in personal income is staggering: for instance, lost earnings from the high school class of 1981 alone were calculated to exceed $238 billion, with lost tax revenues of $68 billion. Most specialists agree that the upfront costs of programs aimed at keeping economically disadvantaged youth in school are well worth the investment, generating long-term savings of $4.75 for every dollar spent (Renchler, 1993).

Conclusion

The Study of Academic Instruction for Disadvantaged Students examined the characteristics and effects of alternative approaches to traditional instructional practices in mathematics, reading, and writing in schools serving large numbers of children from low-income backgrounds. The report described and evaluated instructional practices in approximately 140 first- through sixth-grade classrooms in 15 high-poverty elementary schools. The findings indicate that instruction emphasizing meaning and understanding demonstrated its value in producing better academic outcomes.

Knitzer, Jane. (2006, Autumn). The imperative of developing a new anti-poverty agenda. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from

This article provides guidance on formulating a new anti-poverty agenda. Key recommendations include setting clear local, state, and national anti-poverty goals; making work pay and providing effective supports when income is insufficient; and supporting parenting and quality early childhood experiences.

Renchler, Ron. (1993, May). Poverty and learning. ERIC Digest, 83. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from

This article provides information on the number of children living in poverty, the significant costs of failing to assist low-SES children, the steps being taken at the federal and state levels, the connections between poverty and education, and the question of whether financial equity in school funding is an essential component of improving outcomes for disadvantaged students.