Health and Socioeconomic Status

In this blog we have discussed that the socioeconomic status alone is not responsible for the achievement gap. However it is the other factors that are responsible for the achievement gap. Currie and Goodman (2006)specifically look at the health issues caused by a low socioeconomic status which then correlates to future outcomes, namely education. They found that low socioeconomic status creates more negative health events, which in turn leads to lower attendance and lower academic achievment. They noticed that even in utero low socioeconomic status affected health. This makes a lot of sense to me. I am grateful to have good insurance that covers wellnes visits 100%. I remember when my son was born I was frustrated that I had to take him to the doctor so much at the beginning. I didn't understand why and it just seemed silly. He seemed healthy to me. He was losing a lot of weight and sleeping a lot, but what could a doctor tell me besides to feed him more. I did take him to his wellness checks and discovered he had jaundice. He was admitted to the hospital to ensure that his billirubens did not get so high they damaged his brain. If I didn't go to his wellness visits his jaundice would not have been treated, damaging his brain cells and in the end lower his academic achievments. My visits were 100% covered by insurance and I did not want to go to the doctor. I can only imagine if I had to pay to take him to the doctor. We probably wouldn't have gone. Currie, J., & Goodman, J. (2006). Parental socioeconomic status, child health, and human capital. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/jgoodma1/papers/seshealthed.pdf

Achievement Gap through the Ages

I found an interesting article illustrating how the acheivement gap increases through the ages. Caro (2009) looked at the achievment gap attributed to SES based on children's age. He noticed that the achievement gap stays the same at the younger ages of 7-11 then the gap increases from age 11-15. I want to speculate as to why the gap would increase in the older ages. I am a big believer that greater intervention opportunities happen at younger ages. I would guess the gap would increase due to apathy. My goal with my children are to ensure they are at the top of their class academically in the begining because then they will be rewarded by their classmates and teachers on a regular basis for their achievements. On the other hand, if they are at the bottom then in a way they get punished because people are always telling them they are not as successful. It would be hard to stay motivated and continue to care if you are always at the bottom academically. I would speculate that the gap increases in adolescence because students are less motivated to achieve if they haven't been successful previously. Caro, D. H. (January 01, 2009). Socio-Economic Status and Academic Achievement Trajectories from Childhood to Adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32, 3, 558-590. Kristin

Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners

July 10, 2013

This is a summary of the book "Educating Everybody's Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners", 2nd Edition, Edited by Robert W. Cole Table of Contents  Chapter 2. Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners by Marietta Saravia-Shore

As previously discussed in our blog, SES students' academic needs are best met through high academic standards and high expectations along with a deep understanding of and empathy for their  family background. In this reading, Dr. Saravia advocates educational programs that, like Head Start, take into account not only academic needs but conceive of children as whole persons with social, emotional, and physical needs and strengths, in a family context (2003).

Overall, the evidence that high-quality education before the child's fifth birthday can yield lifetime benefits is undebatable. We know how to do it. Why don't we make such programs available to all? There are few federal programs in any agency that can support results like these, yet Head Start enrollment has usually hovered below 50% of those eligible. (p. 11)

Unfortunately, many schools do not have the opportunity to work with children at such a young age particularly in districts where Latinos and African-American children are the majority. However, we should try to have heterogeneous grouping of high- and low-achievers in all classes and accelerated learning by gradually eliminating remedial classes and offering all students rigorous classes in mathematics, global history, International Baccalaureate English, and history—classes previously offered only to the highest achievers. "Students learn more when they are challenged by teachers who have high expectations for them, encourage them to identify problems, involve them in collaborative activities, and accelerate their learning ".  They ask open-ended questions requiring students to use their judgment and form opinions. They choose activities where students must use analytic skills, evaluate, and make connections. They expect students to conduct research, complete their homework, and manage their time effectively.

We need to continue providing quality teaching to all students and, particularly, to the SES students so that the gap between the low and high-achievers can be diminished.

Protective Factors for Low SES Students

Along the same lines as Tana's post from the other day, I found another interesting article about protective factors for low SES students. Morales (2010) conducted qualitative interviews with 50 high-achieving low-socioeconomic students of color and the outcome was the identification of two clusters of protective factors, each of which consisted of a series of interrelated protective factors identified by participants as crucial to their academic achievement.

The article points out that as educators we can either focus on failures or focus on strengths. As a counselor, these terms are very familiar to me; counselors often focus on strengths and help our clients to focus on their strengths. I've attempted to recreate the table in Morales' (2010) article, because I believe some of the factors in Cluster 2 can be influenced by teachers and counselors in the school setting.

TABLE 2
Protective Factor Clusters    

Cluster/protective factor                                                           Percentage of sample
Cluster 1.                                                                                            66
Willingness/desire to “class jump” (move up in social class)                  94
Caring school personnel (K–12)                                                          90
Caring school personnel (college)                                                        72
Sense of obligation to one’s race/ethnicity                                            68
Strong future orientation                                                                      86

Cluster 2.                                                                                            70
Strong work ethic                                                                                90
Persistence                                                                                          94
High self-esteem                                                                                  92
Internal locus of control                                                                        92
Attendance at out-of-zone school                                                        76
High parental expectations supported by words and actions                  80
Mother modeling strong work ethic                                                       74

The three that stuck out from Cluster 2 are highlighted above, however, the main factor from cluster 2 that I believe teachers and counselors can have significant impact on in the school setting is a student's self-esteem. Twenge and Campbell (2002) state that children with higher SES have higher self esteem. If teachers and counselors provide tools and support (i.e. groups, empowerment programs, etc...) would it be possible to increase a student's self esteem, which could have positive impacts on a low SES student's academic achievement?

References

Campbell, W. K. & Twenge, J. M.  (2002).  Self-Esteem and Socioeconomic Status: A Meta-Analytic

          Review.  Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 59–71.


Morales, E. E.  (2010).  Linking Strengths: Identifying and Exploring Protective Factor Clusters in

          Academically Resilient Low-Socioeconomic Urban Students of Color.  Roeper Review, 32, 164–

          175.  doi: 10.1080/02783193.2010.485302

Socio-Economic Status and Dropout Rates

The following are some highlights from an article by Russell W. Rumberger, PhD, concerning the impact of family and community poverty on high school dropouts. Rumberger cites the following facts: 1. 1.1 million members of the 2012 high school graduating class not earning diplomas (Education Week, 2012). 2. Dropouts face extremely bleak economic and social prospects. 3. Dropouts are less likely find a job and earn a living wage. 4. Dropouts are more likely to be poor and to suffer from a variety of adverse health outcomes (Rumberger, 2011). 5. Dropouts are more likely to rely on public assistance, engage in crime and generate other social costs borne by taxpayers (Belfield & Levin, 2007). Poverty and dropouts are inextricably connected in the three primary settings affecting healthy child and adolescent development: families, schools and communities: 1. Poor students were five times more likely to drop out of high school than high-income students (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011, Table 1). 2. Child poverty is rampant in the U.S., with more than 20 percent of school-age children living in poor families (Snyder & Dillow, 2012, Table 27). 3. Poverty rates for Black and Hispanic families are three times the rates for White families. While family poverty is clearly related to dropping out, poverty associated with schools and communities also contributes to the dropout crisis. It is well documented that schools in the United States are highly segregated by income, social class and race/ethnicity. Community poverty also matters. Some neighborhoods, particularly those with high concentrations of African-Americans, are communities of concentrated disadvantage with extremely high levels of joblessness, family instability, poor health, substance abuse, poverty, welfare dependency and crime (Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). Disadvantaged communities influence child and adolescent development through the lack of resources (playgrounds and parks, after-school programs) or negative peer influences (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000). For instance, students living in poor communities are more likely to have dropouts as friends, which increases the likelihood of dropping out of school. Two strategies can be used to combat school dropout due to poverty. 1) Improve the academic achievement, attitudes and behaviors of poor and other students at risk for dropping out through targeted intervention programs. 2) Improve the settings themselves, by reducing the poverty level of families, schools and communities and the adverse conditions within them. This would require considerable, political will, and public support to reduce the huge disparities in family income, access to health care, school funding and student composition, and community resources. Russell Rumberger is professor of education in the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education at UC Santa Barbara and former vice provost for Education Partnerships, University of California Office of the President.

High achievers from low SES backgrounds

It seems like our posts have turned into doom and gloom. What can be done for these low SES kids? Here is a positive spin on poverty and what teachers can do to further children's success.  Caldwell & Ginther (1996) found that the difference between low and high achieving children from low SES backgrounds was their motivation. If students were intrinsically motivated they were more likely to succeed in school than students who were extrinsically motivated. That is great news, but so what? Caldwell & Ginther (1996) suggest that students who are in teachers' classrooms where the teacher gives students more choices and flexibility and is less controlling are more likely to increase their intrinsic motivation. They also found that the differences in learning styles do not matter significantly for achievement, motivation is the key factor.

Caldwell, G. P., & Ginther, D. W. (1996). Differences in Learning Styles of Low Socioeconomic      

     Status for Low and High Achievers. Education , 141-147.

SES and Brain Development

I found two interesting articles related to SES and brain development. We have seen the impacts of low SES on academic achievement and there is now research that shows low SES can impact a child significantly in the development of their brain. The first article, Hackman, Farah and Meaney (2010), focused on research showing that prenatal factors, parent–child interactions and cognitive stimulation in the home environment and SES have an impact on neural development. The second article, Kishiyama, et al. (2009) provided evidence that prefrontal function is alterned in low SES children. I believe there is signifant information and implications for the future in these two articles, as once a developmental set-back occurs in the brain happens, it is difficult (developmentally) to make gains until that set-back is addressed.

Hackman, Farah and Meaney (2010) highlight that low SES individuals have worse physical and mental health and experience impaired cognitive and emotional development throughout their lifespan. Is there the possibility that growing up in an low SES environment, impacts the brain and causes the disparity in academic achievement among the "have's" and "have nots"?

I think the both articles provide an opportunity for understanding how environmental factors can lead to differences in brain development. Further, they highlight the importance of improving programs and policies designed to alleviate SES, specific to academic achievement.

What do you think our obligation is to address the fact that low SES is proven to cause brain impairment in children? And what implications will this have on U.S. society and it's citizens if these delays are not addressed?

References

Kishiyama, M. T. (2009). Socioeconomic disparities affect prefrontal function in children. Journal Of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6), 1106-1115.

Hackman, D. A., Farah, M. J., Meaney, M. (2010). Socioeconomic status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(9), 651-659.

It's not just the money

After thinking about one of the posts including a statement to the effect of it can't be just the money. I got to thinking and searching. I found an interesting article from the International Journal of Psychological Studies that claims certain prolonged life circumstances can alter a persons brainwaves. I'm not sure exactly what N2 and P3 waves are, even after reading the study but in essence "prolonged exposure to certain life circumstances can make people less cognitively and emotionally affected by violence and aggressive events and information" (Wang, Zhao, Qui, Ybarra, Liu, & Huang, 2012, p. 37). In the discussion of the study the authors believe low SES groups are more desensitized and this can cause them to have greater struggles in "opportunities for advancement" (p. 42). 
     I cannot imagine living in a world where violence was a part of my daily life. This research makes me think of Maslow's hierarchy. It is hard to learn if you are worried about what will happen when you get home, if you will be able to eat or any number of other things.

Wang, Y., Zhao, Y., Qui, J., Ybarra, O., Liu, L., & Huang, Y. (2012). Neural Correlations of

Aggression amond Individuals from Low and High Socioeceonomic Status: An ERP

Study. International Journal of Psychological Studies , 37-45.

Why is there such a strong correlation between SES and acadmic achievment?

Why is there such a strong correlation between SES and acadmic achievment?
I think a big part of solving a problem is by first understanding a problem. SES seems to be the strongest predictor of academic perfromance. In the graph below we see that at all levels income predicts academic achievment  ("2012 college-bound seniors," 2012).

Table 1:  SES and 2012 SAT Scores

Family Income	Critical Reading	Mathematics
0$ – $20,000	433	461
$20,000 – $40,000	463	481
$40,000 – $60,000	485	500
$60,000 – $80,000	499	512
$80,000 – $100,000	511	525
$100,000 – $120,000	523	539
$120,000 – $140,000	527	543
$140,000 – $160,000	534	551
$160,000 – $200,000	540	557
More than $200,000	567	589

Why is SES such a strong indicator? It cannot really be just the money. There has to be other factors. What does money bring to families to increase their academic performance?

(2012). 2012 college-bound seniors total group profile report. Retrieved from CollegeBoard website: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/TotalGroup-2012.pdf

Inequality of Education- perceptions

"Yet research has shown that there are inequities within schools that are just as significant as inequities between schools. Not only do students of low SES tend to go to lower quality schools, but within those schools, they can receive a lower quality education than that of high-SES students in the same schools" (Wenglinsky, 1998, p. 271).
     We have talked about excuses, now I would like to talk about perceptions. Can the perceptions a teacher has for the student change the way the student is interacted with and taught? Are expectations different for students who are known to come from a "poor" family than those who come from a "rich" home? If there is a difference, are the children treated differently because they are perceived as inferior and less capable of learning? I think it is important to hold expectations high for all and not to let empathy change to something beyond and lower expectations from kids who have less.
     As for the difference between schools I never really thought much about it until last week. I teach in one of the three lowest SES elementary schools in the Meridian School District. I know my kids have hard lives but I try to hold them all to the same expectations. I recently accompanied my husband to his school. He just got a job there and had his leg in a brace so I chauffeured him to the school for a tour by one of the other fifth grade teachers. It is a magnet school whose fifth grade is capped at 27 (she believed). There were 33 kids in each of our fifth grades last year. As she is giving the tour I did not have much to say as I drooled over all of the die cuts, copy machines, endless amounts of paper and things we do not have access to just a block away. Oh, and don't forget they have Subway delivered every Friday. My eyes were opened and I must confess I did not like what I saw. How can  larger class sizes be justified for kids who need smaller class sizes? What makes it okay for some schools to have things but other schools cannot because they cannot afford it?

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Finance Equalization and Withi-School Equity: The Relationship  Between Education Spending and the Social Distribution of Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 269-283.

Problem: Teachers' beliefs about students who have low SES

"[T]eachers who play a role in transforming the academic plight of low-income students are not sympathetic in their orientation, but are instead empathetic, in that they understand the challenges that poverty poses for many students, but they do not become paralyzed by this understanding in their teaching orientation, and instead communicate to their students a firm belief in their ability to be successful." (p. 49)
Howard, T. C. 2010.  Why Race and Culture Matter in Schools.  New York:  Teachers College Press.

Last fall I went to the Association for Middle Level Education in Portland.  Dr. Stanley Trent from the University of Virginia gave a presentation dealing with self-efficacy and equity.  One feature of the presentation was a contrast between teachers who one could say were sympathetic to teachers who were empathetic.  The link below is a video that we watched showing a teacher with an empathetic orientation.

When you open the link, click on #24--Audrey, Year One.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series21.html#


Perhaps we can identify some of Audrey's statements and actions that make her empathetic rather than sympathetic, or perhaps we can question if she is empathetic?