Poverty and Education

Although the percentage of children ages 18 and under living in poverty in the United States dropped from 18.9 percent in 1998 to 16.9 percent in 1999, children in the United States are more likely to be poor than any other age group. Moreover, U.S. child poverty rates are well above those in other industrialized nations, such as Spain, Canada, and Australia. Put simply, 12.1 million children in the United States are living in families with earnings at or below the conservative income poverty line ($17,601 or less for a family of four, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2001 guidelines), indicating they are likely to be lacking the finances to fund basic needs such as food, shelter, and clothing.

The rise in both divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births in the last quarter of the twentieth century is partially responsible for the staggering number of poor children in the United States. One-third of U.S. births in the early 1990s were to unmarried mothers. Single-parent families are more likely to be poor due to both their dependence on a single wage earner for income and the probability that the household heads are younger and less educated than their dual-parent counterparts. Given this information, it is not surprising that 53 percent of poor families are headed solely by a female adult.

Changes in employment patterns, declines in the manufacturing sector, relocation of jobs into the suburbs, and wage polarization may also explain the high national poverty rates. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 also has the potential to affect U.S. poverty rates. With PRWORA's prescribed time limits, work requirements, sanctions, and categorical restrictions for cash assistance, many families may find themselves unable to receive needed benefits. Moreover, the current welfare legislation does not offer a safety net for parents facing difficulties transitioning into full-time work.

Effects of Income on Child Outcomes

Findings are modest but significant regarding the direct role of poverty in influencing children's cognitive and school-related outcomes throughout early, middle, and late childhood. Children reared in conditions of poverty face more adverse developmental outcomes than their non-poor counterparts. Much of the research prior to the mid-1990s on the impact of poverty status on children suffered from shortcomings such as flawed measures or unrepresentative samples. Additionally, the differences between income and socioeconomic status (SES) were often blurred, elevating the risk of using inappropriate indicators of SES such as occupational prestige or level of maternal education (fairly stable variables) as proxies for income (which is often quite volatile). Large, longitudinal studies such as the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), the Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP), and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) have remedied many of these methodological problems and include adequate child development assessment instruments, measures of family income, and socioeconomic status indicators. A common current practice of researchers is to calculate an income-to-needs ratio, which takes into account family size relative to the current poverty line; a ratio of one or below denotes living in poverty. Utilization of this poverty measure compared with a two-pronged (poor versus not poor) approach allows for a more thorough analysis of how different depths of poverty affect children's outcomes.

Physical health. Beginning prior to birth, poor children experience more health problems than their non-poor counterparts, even after adjusting for potentially confounding factors. Controlling for mothers' age, education, marital status, and smoking status, women with incomes below the federally established poverty line were found to be 80 percent more likely to bear an infant at low birth weight (2500 grams or less) than women whose incomes remained above the poverty line. Children born at a low birth weight are at risk for negative outcomes well into their childhoods. Compared to full-term children, neurologically intact very-low-birth-weight children (1500 grams or less) present more impairments in arithmetic, motor and spatial skills, language, and memory, and perform worse on measures of achievement. Children with birth weights of less than 1000 grams are at the highest risk. One study revealed that 34 percent of low-birth-weight children were either repeating grades or placed in special education classrooms in school; only 14 percent of normal-birth-weight children experienced the same outcomes. Other research also reports elevated levels of grade repetition as a result of low birth weight. One study of siblings found that low birth weight reduces children's chances of graduating high school by nearly 75 percent when compared with their full-term siblings regardless of family income. Sibling studies control for unmeasured family characteristics and for selection bias–the fact that families with low-birth-weight children may be different in important ways from those who do not have low-birth-weight children–and therefore may provide more nuanced results and greater effects. The detrimental effects of low birth weight remain intact, though diminished, through the adolescent years and possibly into adulthood.

Although the rates of child malnutrition are lower in the United States compared with other countries, poverty is associated with nutrition-related disorders. Often linked with nutritional deficits, poor children in America experience higher rates of growth stunting (low height-for-age) and wasting (low weight-for-height) than their non-poor counterparts (13% and 5% respectively). These height and weight differences between poor and non-poor children are greater when long-term rather than single-year measures of income are used. Stunting and wasting are associated with lower cognitive test scores; short-term memory is especially diminished. Chronic malnutrition, often the cause of stunting, is associated with low cognitive test scores even after controlling for poverty status and its correlates. Children who are born both at low birth weight and short for their age have lower test scores that children who fit in only one of these categories.

Exposure to lead poisoning presents yet another heightened risk for poor children. The prevalence of elevated blood lead levels (20 to 44 μ per deciliter) was four times greater for children from low-income families (16.3%) compared with their peers from high-income backgrounds (4.0%). Rates were especially high (28.4%) for low-income black children. The deleterious effects of lead exposure on children vary depending on the severity of exposure, and also on the developmental stage of the child. At young ages, elevated blood lead levels are associated with stunted growth, decreases in IQ, and various physical impairments. A study conducted by Walter J. Rogan and his colleagues explored the effect of chelation therapy to reduce blood lead levels in poor children ages twelve to thirty-three months. The study found that although the treatment did lower children's blood lead levels, IQ scores were lower and parent-reported behavior problems were higher for treated children than for controls who only received a placebo at a thirty-six-month follow-up. Chelation therapy proved unable to successfully prevent deleterious outcomes for lead-exposed children; therefore, prevention of lead exposure for poor children needs to be a priority.

Health problems and nutritional deficits are important ways through which poverty affects children's cognitive and school-related outcomes. Poor children face an increased probability of being born at a low birth weight and experiencing both nutritional deficits and elevated blood lead levels. Past research suggests that the prevalence of these conditions in addition to other health problems can account for as much as 20 percent of the difference in IQ scores between poor children and their non-poor peers during preschool. Efforts to improve the health and well-being of poor children, including improved access to affordable health care and the provision of nutritional supplements and food stamps, are necessary to promote school-related success and competence.

Mental health. Children's mental health can be assessed via dimensional scales that screen children for various types of less severe subclinical symptoms (e.g., behavior problems) or with scales that more formally determine whether or not a child's behavior falls within a clinical diagnostic category according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Most large national studies contain measures that assess dimensionality/level, such as the Child Behavior Checklist. Parental reports of behavior problems are the most common indicator of children's mental health and are generally classified along two dimensions: externalizing or undercontrolled behaviors including aggression, fighting, and acting out, and internalizing or overcontrolled behaviors such as depression, anxiety, and withdrawal. The reliance on maternal reports of behavior problems is a shortcoming in many of the large national studies. While these studies do control for maternal mental health and other characteristics that may influence how parents rate their children's behavior, higher instances of teacher-rated behavior problems are needed to corroborate mothers' responses.

Studies have established a negative link between income and behavior problems, although modest in size compared to the effects of income on both physical and cognitive outcomes. After controlling for a host of family-level variables including maternal education and single parenthood, the effects of income or poverty on children's emotional and behavioral outcomes are often muted or dissipate altogether. Some researchers, however, have found significant effects of poverty on children's mental health.

Using data from both the IHDP and the NLSY, researchers found that kindergarten-aged children growing up in persistently poor homes had substantially higher internalizing behavior problem scores than their peers who were never poor. Lower self-esteem, which is related to internalizing problems, most notably depression, may also result from persistent poverty, although mothers who are actively involved in their children's lives may lessen this effect. The timing of poverty in children's lives may also be relevant. Children who suffered from persistent poverty early in their lives maintained heightened levels of depression through the age nine in one study. Children who experienced economic hard-ship were also less popular among their peers than those who did not face economic adversity, possibly due to their higher levels of behavior problems.

Research is mixed as to whether current poverty status or persistent poverty contributes to children's externalizing behavior problems, including antisocial behavior. Data from the Charlottesville Longitudinal Study, examining elementary-school-aged children, found that children who endured even one year of family economic hardship possessed higher levels of externalizing behaviors than children who did not experience poverty; boys were more adversely affected than girls. Other research, using an income-to-needs ratio as an index of family poverty, reported a link between poverty and delinquency for young boys studied longitudinally between the ages of 6 and 16 years. Boys experiencing transitory poverty were at greater risk of engaging in extreme delinquent acts than boys who were never poor. Less severe manifestations of externalizing behavior were not influenced by family poverty in this particular study. Thus, families' poverty status may have its greatest impact on externalizing behaviors in their most severe form.

Due to the confounding of race/ethnicity and class and the fact that poverty rates among blacks and Hispanics living in the United States are two to three times higher than that of non-Hispanic whites, it is important for researchers to consider children's racial/ethnic backgrounds when examining links between poverty and child outcomes. One line of research suggests that the effects of persistent poverty on children's behavior problems, both internalizing and externalizing scales, may be stronger for white than for African-American children, possibly explaining some of the discrepancies regarding the relationship between poverty and externalizing problems. Other research found the opposite pattern emerging with internalizing scores. For black children, internalizing behaviors increased with the number of years spent in poverty, whereas the inverse was found for persistently poor white children.

Thus far, the direct impacts of income on children's mental health have been considered. Risk indices, which take into account other factors correlated with family poverty status (i.e., low maternal education, single parenthood, and parental substance abuse and mental health), provide an alternate way of examining the effects of poverty on children. Not surprisingly, the more risk factors children experience, the greater the number of behavioral problems they show at six and seven years of age. Moreover, behavioral maladaptation is more likely to occur for children experiencing numerous risk factors simultaneously rather than one individually. Parental attributes or behaviors such as substance abuse, antisocial behavior, negative life events, and psychiatric episodes tend to be the most devastating risks for children. Thus, it may not be poverty per se that has a negative impact on poor children, but other risks experienced more frequently by poor children than by their nonpoor counterparts.

Parenting behavior and parent mental health. The Family Stress Model has been used by researchers to examine the indirect links between poverty and child development. According to this model, stress generated by economic hardship and income loss results in parenting that is less consistent, less supportive, less involved, and more coercive and harsh. These lower quality parent-child interactions lead to higher rates of behavioral and school-related problems among poor children. Maternal mental health, most notably depression, is also negatively affected by poverty. The higher incidences of maternal depression and distress in poor families most likely drives the use of these less effective parenting styles. Many studies have documented the link between maternal depression and children's internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, indicating that the emotional detachment and disengagement resulting from depression is quite harmful to children. Other indirect influences include the home environment, child care and schools, neighborhoods, health care, and exposure to violence.

Implications of mental health on children's educational outcomes. Poor children's academic performance may be hindered due to the higher rates of behavior problems within this group. A large body of research has established a link between behavior problems and outcomes in the academic or cognitive domain early and late in children's school careers. Difficulty in paying attention, a form of externalizing behavior, is highly associated with underachievement for younger, elementary-school-aged children. Aggression toward peers in fifth grade has been found to predict school dropout. Compared with peers who were never poor, persistently poor children were found to be most at risk for fighting with peers in the sixth grade, even after teacher-rated behavior problems in kindergarten are taken into account. These same children were two times more likely than their never–poor peers to be in a non–age appropriate classroom and to be at risk for experiencing academic failure.

Other studies indicate that both externalizing and internalizing symptoms (including hyperactivity, intrapersonal adjustment, lethargy, and withdrawn behaviors) in kindergarten or first grade may be associated with poor reading and math achievement the following academic year. Early behavior problems have been found to have relatively long-term effects on reading skills, IQ, and class placement during later school years, possibly even into high school. Teacher-reported ratings of internalizing and externalizing symptoms in second and fifth grades predicted grade point averages and achievement test scores during children's freshman and senior years of high school.

Past research has shown that teachers at high socioeconomic level who teach poor children tend to regard their pupils in a more negative light, in terms of behavioral characteristics (maturity/immaturity), academic expectations and performance, even in the early school years. These teachers were also more likely to view the school and classroom contexts less positively than teachers of children at higher socioeconomic levels, possibly creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which these children begin to act, behaviorally and academically, in line with their teachers' thoughts at very early ages. Some have argued that in order to mitigate the powerful effects of poverty and its correlates on children's school outcomes, teachers must allow students greater autonomy and decision-making, have positive expectations for all of their students, possess good management, disciplinary control, and exemplary organizational skills, and provide a variety of challenging, yet meaningful tasks.

Policy Implications

It is always important to contemplate how government social policy concerning income transfers, employment, child care and schooling, social services, housing, and health care can potentially help or hinder our nation's poor families. Preliminary results from ongoing research examining the effects of mothers transitioning off welfare and obtaining employment suggest that job earnings often are not lifting families out of poverty. Without a significant increase in earnings, it is likely that these working families may not see any marked improvements in children's well-being. Moreover, if these families continue to live in high-poverty neighborhoods with elevated crime rates and inferior public schools, are unable to afford high-quality child care for their children, and do not receive family health benefits, the situation seems dire still. Policy efforts may need to go beyond cash transfers and concentrate instead on the provision of high-quality services such as medical care (e.g., Medicaid), the provision of nutritional information and supplements (e.g., food stamps; Women, Infants, and Children; and the National School Lunch Program), early childhood education (e.g., Head Start and Early Head Start), and housing (e.g., Section 8 vouchers). It is not clear whether programs that target some of the indirect effects of poverty, such as in-home interventions, are effective in improving adults' parenting skills and their ability to facilitate literacy and learning within the home, which are crucial for children's school success. Continued investment in creating new and unique policies and programs that are aimed at either preventing economic deprivation altogether or help to assuage its negative effects are needed.

Conclusion

The effect of poverty on children's physical and mental health begins early and often continues to leave its mark well into the adolescent years. While many researchers have examined the connections between growing up poor, children's health, and their cognitive and school-related outcomes, few independent research efforts have made similar connections between the pernicious effects of low income on youngsters' mental health and the subsequent impact of poor mental health and behavior problems on children's academic performance. The association between income poverty and mental health is not as strong as its effects on physical and cognitive and/or academic outcomes. In fact, when effects are found, they are often mediated by parenting and parental mental health. Children are negatively affected by poverty throughout their lives in many domains, especially when the poverty occurs at a young age and in severe form. Policy efforts to assist poor families in order to bolster children's chances of succeeding in school need to start early and target the entire family and their environment.