Correlation between Lower Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Lower Cognitive Ability
More than 20% of the standard deviation for the IQ and educational achievement can be recorded by socioeconomic status (Heckman 15). The majority of the conducted researches have reveals a positive relationship between the achievement and SES in all ages of children (Weis 15).
The socioeconomic status also influences the probability of remaining in school and colleges. A study by Abadzi (2006) showed that the annual dropout ratio in high school was 9% for children from families with low income status as compared to 4% of middle income earners and 2% for those who have a high family status. It shows that 82% of America’s criminals are high school dropouts as well as 45% of all the people who earn minimum wage. Reflectively, only three percent of college graduates work at minimum wage (Abadzi 19).
Learners from low income families are three times more likely to drop out of school as opposed to those from higher-income homes. As of the year 1997, children living in families with incomes in the bottom 20% of all family incomes were nearly seven times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers from families in the top 20% of the income distribution table (Abadzi 28).
There is a strong relationship between lower socioeconomic status in children and cognitive ability which has been proved by psychological methods. Questions arise regarding how socioeconomic status influence cognitive ability and vice versa. For example, cognitive ability can explain socioeconomic status related influence on Neuro-cognitive development in adolescence and children which over time might reduce socioeconomic success in adulthood (Arrighi and Maume 17).
Recently, research has shown that socioeconomic status is related to neural development. In one study, it is shown that close to half of the difference in cognitive ability were linked to the adopted socioeconomic status. The influence of lower socioeconomic status is greater if it is experienced earlier in children. In fact, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Jacobus 35).
Identifying causes of low socioeconomic status and cognitive skills in children
As described by Heckman (2008), children from lower socioeconomic status families get lesser cognitive stimulation than children from higher socioeconomic status. This is attributed to the fact that these children had few toys and books, little exposure to museums and zoos and social gatherings (Heckman 21).
In addition, Feinstein (2003) showed that the average hours for one on one reading and learning of books or pictures experienced by children previous to kindergarten entry were at 25 hours for low socio-economic status in children compared to about 1000 to 1700 hours for middle class children (Feinstein 25).
As well as material limits, the concerns and the expectations of parents may lead to the differences emerging in the number of cognitive stimulation, which low and middle socio-economic children experiance. As a result, “it creates a world after its own image” (Jacobus 41).
The study about brain development in regards to poverty and cognitive Neuroscience carried in the year 2006 by Abadzi proved that the relationship between the behavior and brain dates many years ago. The findings of Abadzi (2006) confirmed that individual brain and mind contains a number of relatively independent and specialized processing mechanisms.
As subjects perform visual, linguistic, auditory, tasks and mnemonic, different parts of the mind and brain become active to perform various cognitive procedures (Abadzi 26). The results have revealed that children from low income families have lower IQ skills. These dissimilarities are very large from a learning point of view.
This remained same after controlling other factors such as marital status, maternal age, ethnicity and education. The disparities “are deserving of serious examination” (Jacobus 51). The least differences seemed for the first measure of cognitive skill though the magnitude of the influence was same for children from 3 to 8 years. These findings propose that the influence of poverty on children’s cognitive skills occur at an early age (Gregg 31).
Though the poverty rate among the children has reduced in the United States child poverty from the high ratios of the 1980’s, roughly 19% of all the children are poor and almost 35% are black children. Furthermore, 29% of the children in this group are of Latino descent. A recent study revealed that two thirds of children in America are not getting enough developmental sources that may place them on a pathway to success in adulthood (Thompson 34).
Poverty and low socioeconomic status are closely related to cognitive development of children. Poor children are likely to have issues completing primary school, high school and college education. In addition, they score low on measures of cognitive development, health, social achievement and emotional health than children from high income status families.
This is because the “law, morality, and religion are the so many bourgeois prejudices; behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests” (Jacobus 47). Many researchers have ascertained this relationship. For instance, Mason (2005) recognized the multiple influence of poverty as consisting of erosion of parental coping, family distress and marital discord. These factors have a direct influence on the social-emotional development and growth of a child (Mason 28).
Works Cited
Abadzi, Helen.Efficient learning for the poor: Insights from the frontier of cognitive neuroscience, Washington D.C: World Bank, 2006. Print.
Arrighi, Barbara & D. Maume. Child poverty in America today, Westport: Praeger, 2007. Print.
Feinstein, Leon. “Inequality in the early cognitive development of British children in the 1970 cohort.” Economic Journal, 70.3(2003): 73-97. Print.
Gregg, Paul 2009, Family income and education in the next generation: Exploring income gradients in education for current cohorts of youth. PDF file. 02 Dec. 2013. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/cmpo/migrated/documents/wp223.pdf
Heckman, James. “Role of income and family influence on child outcomes.”Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 11.36(2008): 307-323.
Jacobus, Lee. A world of ideas: Essential readings for college writers, New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013. Print.
Kothari, Robert. Research methodology: Methods and techniques, New Delhi, India: New Age International
Mason, Jennifer. Designing qualitative research, London, UK: Sage, 2005. Print.
Thompson, Rosemary. Nurturing future generations promoting resilience in children and adolescents through social, emotional, and cognitive skills, New York: Rutledge, 2006. Print.
Weis, Lois. The way class works: Readings on school, family, and the economy, New York: Rutledge, 2007. Print.