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 body of research reviewed in this paper consistently demonstrates that poverty is a profound obstacle to educational achievement — one that manifests across racial, geographic, and developmental dimensions. Poor children enter school already behind their more affluent peers in language development, and many remain behind throughout their educational careers. The costs of this failure, both to individuals and to society, are enormous. At the same time, research points to meaningful pathways for improvement: high-quality early childhood programs, well-trained and supported teachers, aligned curricula, family engagement, and adequate and equitable school funding all contribute to better outcomes for disadvantaged students. Federal programs such as Head Start and Chapter 1 have laid important groundwork, but their reach and funding remain insufficient to meet the full scale of need. Addressing child poverty and its educational consequences requires sustained, coordinated investment at the federal, state, and local levels.

References

Anderson, Judith. (1992, April). Poverty and achievement: Re-examining the relationship between school poverty and student achievement — An examination of eighth grade student achievement using the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Center for Public Education. (2005, August 19). Key lessons: High-performing, high-poverty schools. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from

Hannaway, Jane. (2005, January). Poverty and student achievement. In J. Flood & P. L. Anders (Eds.), Literacy development of students in urban schools (pp. 3–21). International Reading Association.

Knapp, Michael S., et al. (1992). Academic challenge for the children of poverty: Study of academic instruction for disadvantaged students — Summary report. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning.

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

Margaret, Arthur. (1990). Five million children: A statistical profile of our poorest young citizens. National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.

Orland, Martin E. (1990). Demographics of disadvantage: Intensity of childhood poverty and its relationship to educational achievement. In J. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation's schools (pp. 43–58). The College Board.

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

Annotated Bibliography

Anderson, Judith. (1992, April). Poverty and achievement: Re-examining the relationship between school poverty and student achievement — An examination of eighth grade student achievement using the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

This source presents a study of the relationship between public school poverty and student achievement among eighth-graders, focusing on the poorest schools most likely to receive Chapter 1 assistance and on students who appear to be achieving despite difficult circumstances compared to peers who are not performing well in the same school. The study found that schools with higher levels of poverty had a substantially greater need for special educational support programs than lower-poverty schools, and that students in these schools — regardless of their own family's socioeconomic status — performed at lower levels than students in low-poverty schools.

Center for Public Education. (2005, August 19). Key lessons: High-performing, high-poverty schools.

This source identifies characteristics common to high-poverty schools that have achieved strong outcomes, including: staff belief that all students can and will learn; ongoing assessment that allows teachers to individualize instruction; curriculum alignment with instruction and assessment; collaborative school leadership; teacher collaboration across grade levels and subject areas; the presence of highly qualified teachers; and active family involvement in children's education.

Hannaway, Jane. (2005, January). Poverty and student achievement. In J. Flood & P. L. Anders (Eds.), Literacy development of students in urban schools (pp. 3–21). International Reading Association.

This source focuses on the relationship between poverty and student academic achievement in urban areas. The researchers review demographic data on urban America, present student achievement data over multiple years to illustrate how the achievement gap has persisted, and identify factors likely to influence it. The study reviews the literature across three explanatory frameworks for the achievement gap and concludes with an analysis of potential social, economic, and school policy remedies.

Orland, Martin E. (1990). Demographics of disadvantage: Intensity of childhood poverty and its relationship to educational achievement. In J. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation's schools (pp. 43–58). The College Board.

This source demonstrates that the longer a child lives in poverty, the more harmful the effects on educational progress. It also shows that the concentration of poverty within a school is harmful to all students in that school, regardless of whether an individual student is poor. The study further establishes that not all student poverty is equal: students who experience poverty over longer periods or attend high-poverty schools are more likely to face educational problems than those from families with shorter durations of poverty or who attend lower-poverty schools. The study also documents a pronounced disparity between Black and white children with respect to both the prevalence and duration of poverty.

Margaret, Arthur. (1990). Five million children: A statistical profile of our poorest young citizens. National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.

This source presents a statistical profile focusing on the needs and challenges of poor young children and their families, and recommends steps to improve their lives. Key findings include: nearly one in four children under age six lives in poverty; young minority children under age six are more likely to be classified as poor than white children; child poverty rates are highest in central cities; many children experience homelessness due to a lack of affordable housing; and children under age six living with single mothers are more likely to be poor than those living with both parents.

Knapp, Michael S., et al. (1992). Academic challenge for the children of poverty: Study of academic instruction for disadvantaged students — Summary report. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning.

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.