Nearly 17 percent of children living in the United States live in poverty, but what does this mean for them? Studies have shown that because of their poverty, it will likely cause problems in the future. Poor children are more likely to be exposed to toxins such as lead which could lead to future neurological problems and development. Stress on these children is another important factor, there is a 35% increase of daily problems compared to other children and a dangerous living environments cause more of these children to not perform their best in school. The stress can also come straight from being poor, low income families are five times more likely to be evicted. This could lead many children to stress out about where they’re going to live next or if they’re going to see their friends once they get evicted and move somewhere else. Low income children interact less with their parents and hear less supportive words from their parents causing them to believe to be less accepted. Poverty has a very profound effect on children and their level of cognitive thinking, whether its because of toxins or even less interactions with parents. This doesn't mean that these children will never succeed, there are many example of poor children succeeding, but poor children have a harder time in academic studies due to some of these issues.
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_829.html
Awesome post! I think the psychology of the situation is really important to recognize!
ReplyDeleteSo I googled some statistics, specifically what percentage of low income families actually attend college. In a study from 1992, only 21% of these kids actually qualified for a four year school (that isn't necessarily how many went to college). However, I also found counter evidence to prove this may not necessarily be true. I found an infographic that explained that low-income college graduate (in a pool of kids that were in the top of their class) rates are at 29%. Kids from high incomes who are the bottom of their class have a rate of 30% meaning that low income families, though having low rates, can still compete with those from high income.
https://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/03/high-scoring-low-income-students-no-more-likely-to-complete-college-than-low-scoring-rich-students/
https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OPE/AgenProj/report/theme1a.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. This got me thinking about what the poverty rate was in Santa Clara County, 13% (2010). In the same report from 2013 it shows that pockets of child poverty are spread out across the country. Historically it was eastern San Jose and Gilroy but now it is more wide spread. Poverty also seemed like a civil rights issue because in this report it stated that the poverty rate for African Americans and Latinos was three times higher than white children.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sccgov.org/sites/sccphd/en-us/Partners/Data/Documents/Child%20Poverty/Child%20Poverty%20Report_final_072913.pdf
So this leads back to the article from the Stanford Alumni magazine we read the other day. A chronic stressor can be based in a sense of lack of control, like that which is present in poverty. I think that it is very interesting that the stress of a high power job and people depending on you is less punishing than that of an uncontrollable condition or situation. That really tell us a lot about human nature, and our need to find stability and autonomy.
ReplyDeleteSo this leads back to the article from the Stanford Alumni magazine we read the other day. A chronic stressor can be based in a sense of lack of control, like that which is present in poverty. I think that it is very interesting that the stress of a high power job and people depending on you is less punishing than that of an uncontrollable condition or situation. That really tell us a lot about human nature, and our need to find stability and autonomy.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your point that children in poverty are greatly affected by an environmental factor, such as the lead exposure that you mentioned, however there is more to elaborate on. A lot of low-income housing doesn't meet the expected standards for living that we have here in the silicon valley. Children in poverty may also have a higher risk for contracting illness and disease. The social aspect of falling into drug abuse also takes a large toll on the quality of life in low income areas. Many teens/ young adults fall into the habits of smoking and drug abuse at their young age which can permanently shape the rest of their lives. Low income families may also have difficulty achieving equal opportunities economically, and in the education system, making it rather hard to remove themselves from their economic slump.
ReplyDeleteI think this post is an important reminder for us as students. We are all very lucky to live in a safe environment like Los Altos and Mountain View, and to have the opportunities we do thanks to Los Altos High School. As Jesus pointed out, "dangerous living environments cause more of these children to not perform their best in school." We thankfully don't have to deal with these problems. This also got me thinking again about the Tiger Parenting controversy. The "Revenge of the Tiger Mom" article mentioned how much money the mother wasted on her toddler's future. Children who live in low income families don't have to deal with (or don't have the opportunities thanks to, depending on how you view Tiger Mothering) Tiger moms. Despite this, I think children who live in these environments still have a fair chance to take their education very far, as Emily pointed out in her comment. This yet again disproves the perceived effectiveness of Tiger parenting that Amy Chua preaches.
ReplyDelete