The impact of poverty on educational outcomes for children

. Not only have we been unsuccessful at eradicating child poverty, but over the past decade, the inequity of family incomes in Canada has grown and for some families, the depth of poverty has increased as well. Since that time, Canada has developed systematic measures that have enabled us to track the impact of a variety of child, family and community factors on children’s well-being. The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) developed by Statistics Canada, Human Resources Development Canada and a number of researchers across the country was started in 1994 with the intention of following representative samples of children to adulthood (). Much of our current knowledge about the development of Canadian children is derived from the analysis of the NLSCY data by researchers in a variety of settings.

POVERTY AND READINESS FOR SCHOOL

Canadian studies have also demonstrated the association between low-income households and decreased school readiness. A report by Thomas concluded that children from lower-income households score significantly lower on measures of vocabulary and communication skills, knowledge of numbers, copying and symbol use. Janus et al found that schools with the largest proportion of children with low school readiness were from neighborhoods of high social risk, including poverty. Willms established that children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) households scored lower on a receptive vocabulary test than higher SES children. Thus, the evidence is clear and unanimous that poor children arrive at school at a cognitive and behavioral disadvantage. Schools are obviously not in a position to equalize this gap. For instance, research by The Institute of Research and Public Policy (Montreal, Quebec) showed that differences between students from low and high socioeconomic neighborhoods were evident by grade 3; children from low socioeconomic neighborhoods were less likely to pass a grade 3 standards test.

POVERTY AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

 Phipps and Lethbridge  examined income and child outcomes in children four to 15 years of age based on data from the NLSCY. In this study, higher incomes were consistently associated with better outcomes for children. The largest effects were for cognitive and school measures (teacher-administered math and reading scores), followed by behavioral and health measures, and the social and emotional measures, which had the smallest associations.
(eg, lower parental education and high family stress) have a negative effect on cognitive development and academic achievement, smaller effects on behavior and inconsistent effects on socioemotional outcomes. Furthermore, American studies found strong interaction effects between SES and exposure to risk factors. For instance, parents from disadvantaged backgrounds were not only more likely to have their babies born prematurely, but these prematurely born children were also disproportionately at higher risk for school failure than children with a similar neonatal record from higher income families.further is worth noting that international studies have consistently shown similar associations between socioeconomic measures and academic outcomes more, American studies found strong interaction effects between SES and exposure to risk factors. For instance, parents from disadvantaged backgrounds were not only more likely to have their babies born prematurely, but these prematurely born children were also disproportionately at higher risk for school failure than children with a similar neonatal record from higher income families. At these two different stages of schooling, there was a significant relationship between SES and educational measure in all countries.
 Generally, the PISA and the NLSCY data support the conclusion that income or SES has important effects on educational attainment in elementary school through high school. Despite the results shown by the PISA and the NLSCY, schools are not the ultimate equalizer and the socioeconomic gradient still exists despite educational attainment. Test results can be misleading and can mask the gradient if the sample does not account for all children who should be completing the test. A study () completed by the Institute of Research and Public Policy demonstrated only small differences between low and high socioeconomic students when test results were compared in those students who sat for the examination. However, when results were compared for the entire body of children who should have written the examination, the differences between low and high socioeconomic students were staggering, mainly due to the over-representation of those who left school early in the low socioeconomic group.

Longitudinal studies carried out in the United States have been crucial in demonstrating some of the key factors in producing and maintaining poor achievement.. This result strongly supports the notion that schools play a crucial compensatory role; however, it also shows the importance of continued support for disadvantaged students outside of the school environment among their families and within their communities .
A Human Resource Development Canada study titled “The Cost of Dropping Out of High School” reported that lower income students were more likely to leave school without graduating, which agrees with international data. Finally, in Canada, only 31% of youth from the bottom income quartile attended postsecondary education compared with 50.2% in the top income quartile . Once again, the evidence indicates that students from low-income families are disadvantaged right through the education system to postsecondary training