While education is promoted as means of escaping poverty and moving up the social scale, poverty is still considered one of the main obstacles encountered by those who pursue a high education degree. Is there a link between education and poverty?
The answer can only be "yes", and the numbers prove that, while poverty is indeed an impediment to education, the lack of education leads to poverty in most cases. Several studies show that children coming from poor families show lower school engagement and are more likely to obtain poor academic performances (Jensen, 2013).
On the other hand, 86% of the children coming from poor families who obtained a college degree succeeded to move up the social scale, escaping the low-income level (Friedman, 2012). What does this mean? Simply that America needs to find a way to support and encourage its poor children to stay in school and study hard, so as to break the poverty cycle.
How Does Poverty Affect Education?
In a Huffington Post article, UN statistician and health economist and teacher at Columbia University, Howard Steve Friedman argues that the connection between education and poverty is obvious at every educational level. Poor American children begin their pre-primary education with a disadvantage.
The enrollment rate for pre-primary education is 20% lower in children from families with an annual income under $15,000, compared to that in children from families with an annual income over $50,000. Unfortunately, this seemingly insignificant disadvantage has long-term consequences, since statistics show that those who do not attend pre-school are more likely to repeat grades, drop out of high school and break the law.
Moving higher up the educational scale, things get worse. Due to the fact that school funding is ensured mostly by local and state governments, only 10 percent coming from the federal government, funding varies from one school to another and, most of the times, schools in poor regions are poorly funded. In fact, starting from 2006, schools in poor regions receive funding with up to $2,000/student lower than schools in developed regions (Friedman, 2012).
Thus, poor students face even more disadvantages. Additionally, the best teachers are always tempted to choose schools that pay better, offer better facilities, ensure a safer working environment and provide advanced learning conditions. It is not difficult to see how poor students are forced to learn, most of the times, from uncertified and inexperienced teachers, with insufficient resources, in substandard facilities.
It is one of the reasons why, in the second half of the 20th century, several courts reached the conclusion that education public funding was unconstitutional. Those courts ordered changes in state funding that closed the achievement gap in the corresponding states, but the achievement gap is still a reason for concern in the states where such orders were not issued.
The disadvantage of the poor American students becomes obvious in cross-country exams like PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). Compared to other similarly developed countries, the United States obtained average to below average results for disciplines like reading, math, and science.
If the consequences of poverty are difficult to assess on a national level, they become clear when analyzing the results at state or regional level. For example, the reading scores in high-income schools were far better than the scores of similarly developed countries, while the scores obtained in low-income schools were much lower.
Actually, the PISA exam scores were an accurate reflection of the socio-economical background of the students, more accurate than in any other OECD country. In the US, students from low-income families earned approximately 60 points less compared to students from higher-income families, while the difference was only 40 points in other countries (Friedman, 2012). While it may seem natural for wealthier students to outperform their less fortunate colleagues, this considerable difference is a serious reason for concern, since it reflects the low social mobility across the country.
The educational disparities between poor and rich American students go even further during college, where tuition fees have almost doubled throughout the last two decades. In 2008, for example, the average tuition fee for public colleges was of $14,000 a year, meaning approximately half the national average personal income (Friedman, 2012).
In America, the tuition fees for public universities are considerably higher than those in developed countries in Europe. If the universities in France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal or Spain have minimal tuition fees, Greek and German universities are tuition-free. The high tuition fees in the American universities prevent the access of half of high school graduates to four-year educational programs and of one-fourth of them to any type of college education.
You would think these figures will make the federal government react, but, if in the 80s the Pell grant program used to cover around 75% from the cost of four-year college education for students in need, it now covers around 30-35%. This means that even those who are eligible for these grants will have trouble paying their tuition fees and graduating from college.
Understanding and Breaking the Link between Poverty and Education
No matter the education level considered, the discrepancy between the results and future perspectives of students coming from low-income families and those coming from higher income families are overwhelming. Unfortunately, without proper measures in place, things will only get worse. These measures should follow two directions: on one hand, more opportunities should be created for poor students and their access to education should be ensured at all levels and, on the other hand, teachers should be better informed and prepared to deal with the needs of poor students.
As far as the latter direction is concerned, Eric Jensen shows that the poor students' low school performances are the direct result of seven major differences between children from middle and high-income families and children living in poverty. According to him, the engagement of the students in the latter category is negatively affected by their poorer health and nutrition, limited vocabulary, lack of motivation, lack of hope and confidence, lower cognitive capacity, troublesome relationships and distress. Briefly put, poor children are children who do not receive adequate health care and do not eat right, have trouble expressing themselves and understanding others, cannot focus on their activities, have no hope for a better life, do not receive the love and support they need and constantly live in fear and stress.
Jensen explains that all these factors inhibit the poor children's desire and ability to learn, especially when teachers are unknowing, unprepared, inexperienced or uncaring. He underlines that, just like the children's behavior is conditioned by their social and economic background, it can also be influenced by the attitude of their teachers, if the latter understand the link between poverty and education, what sets poor students apart from their more fortunate colleagues, and if they adjust their teaching methods to the needs of each student.
In fact, the close link between poverty and education should be the starting point of any policy meant to improve access to education and allow poor students to pursue a college degree and improve their socio-economical status. The stronger this link is, the worse things are, so America should aim at breaking it, by accepting poverty as a reality and taking urgent and drastic measures to diminish if not completely eliminate its impact on education.
References
Friedman, Howard Steven. 'America's Poverty-Education Link'. Huffington Post 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.
Jensen, Eric. 'How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement'. Faces of Poverty 70.8 (2013): 24-30. Print.
