# data[].attributes.headline
Free college sounds great, but skeptics ask what's the cost?

# data[].attributes.subject
Free college sounds great, but skeptics ask what's the cost?

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Taurice Lancaster
Posted on May 12 2017
CRAP score 45

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Listen Story audio

Rainy River Community College in International Fal Tom Weber / MPR News 2009

Billed as a way to get more low-income high-school graduates into good jobs, free-college proposals such as the one proposed recently in the Minnesota Senate have been met with skepticism in some higher education circles.

While zero tuition at two-year schools sounds enticing, some ask if it's really the best way to help more low-income students finish college and fill the state's workforce. They also note that money isn't the only barrier low-income students face pursuing a degree.

Free tuition "is sort of a blunt policy instrument," said David Weerts, a professor who studies higher-education finance at the University of Minnesota. "You end up having to invest more than you maybe need to."

State Sen. LeRoy Stumpf, DFL-Plummer, has proposed that the state cover any tuition and fees - currently averaging $5,370 a year - at two-year schools not already covered by Minnesota's state grant program and by the federal Pell Grant, which are students' main sources of free financial aid.

Stumpf says a more affordable community and technical college education would generate more skilled workers for Minnesota industry, especially in greater Minnesota, and may make higher ed more accessible to the state's immigrant and minority populations.

Some aren't sold on the idea, including DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, who told reporters during a budget press conference Tuesday that he would not have proposed free two-year college.

State Sen. LeRoy Stumpf Tim Pugmire / MPR News

Stumpf said he got his idea from a similar initiative - the highly publicized Tennessee Promise program announced last year. That program was also the impetus for President Barack Obama's announcement this month that he wanted to make a two-year-college education tuition-free.

The proposals come as state and national leaders discuss the rising price of college and a perceived dearth of skilled employees in technical fields.

"There's a need to concentrate on more success coming out of two-year community colleges, because they need those workers," said Bryan Lindsley, executive director of the Minneapolis St. Paul Regional Workforce Innovation Network.

To qualify for Stumpf's program, students would have to attend a community or technical college in the summer or fall right after graduation from high school. To remain eligible, they'd have to meet their colleges' yet-to-be-determined academic performance standards.

The program would cover the first two years of education. Students could earn technical certificates and degrees, or earn a two-year associate's degree that would let them transfer to a university.

Stumpf says his proposal could cost between $100 million and $150 million over the next two years, but says those numbers are "a wild guess."

Calculations using state higher-education data suggest the base cost of the proposal would be $78 million to $106 million for that period, depending on how many college-bound students enrolled.

The program would benefit about 30 percent of the 85,000 students projected to study at MnSCU two-year colleges next year.

Each student would receive an average of $1,550 under Stumpf's bill.

What's hard to know is how many additional students would go to college who otherwise hadn't thought of it, or whether the program would lure many freshmen and sophomores away from universities - students who were going to college anyway. Those two groups would push up the cost of the program further.

Who would benefit most under free-tuition programs is a key concern among some advocates for low-income students.

Because of the way the Minnesota and Tennessee proposals are structured, the states first see how much money students already get from federal and state grants and then chip in the rest.

As a result, the neediest students would probably not receive anything more than they already get from state and federal financial aid.

About 42 percent of the eligible Minnesota students - those coming from a family of four earning up to $40,000 a year - already have tuition and fees covered by federal and state financial aid.

On the other end of the income spectrum, 37 percent of the eligible students - those from families with incomes of $80,000 a year or more - would get all of their tuition and fees covered, even though their incomes currently disqualify them from state or federal grant money.

"We definitely don't want to [spend] a whole bunch of money that doesn't [benefit] kids who need it the most," said Dane Smith, president of Growth and Justice, a St. Paul research and advocacy organization.

Critics of the Minnesota and Tennessee proposals also say covering only tuition and fees takes care of only part of the cost of college for those who don't live at home - in Minnesota's case, about a third. Other major expenses - such as books, room and board, transportation and child care - are left out. So many students still won't be able to afford college, they say.

That could change under the Obama administration's proposal. A U.S. Department of Education official said students whose tuition and fees were covered under the proposal could use their federal Pell Grants and state aid for books and living expenses.

Still, some skeptics say getting students into college won't help if they can't perform well in the classroom.

In a college sector where 25 to 30 percent of Minnesota students graduate in three years, Lindsley said, "there is a need to focus on increasing graduation rates first and foremost before increasing enrollment."

That's because many low-income students must still contend with socio-economic handicaps - such as family problems, parenting responsibilities and inadequate academic preparation - that free tuition can't fix, said Metropolitan State University professor Mark Misukanis, a former director of finance and research at the state Office of Higher Education.

"So they [might not] be successful once they get there," he said. "They may need to take remedial coursework. [It] might not get them to the award they're looking for."

Power of You program at work Alex Friedrich / MPR News

But former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, executive director of the education advocacy group Generation Next, says that's no reason to shoot down free tuition.

He said such obstacles, "though tough, can be dealt with" if students have that cost covered, and receive academic and other support services during their studies.

Rybak pointed to the Power of You program, which in 2006 began covering tuition and fees to a limited number of graduates of Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools who enrolled at Minneapolis Community and Technical College and St. Paul College.

Rybak said the clear message of "free tuition" has drawn low-income students who otherwise thought college was unaffordable.

The program has dramatically increased the number of low-income and minority students from those schools who enroll at Minneapolis Community and Technical College, he said. And support services such as advising and tutoring have helped the program more than double graduation rates for its students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free college sounds great, but skeptics ask what's the cost?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen Story audio Billed as a way to get more low-income high-school graduates into good jobs, free-college proposals such as the one proposed recently in the Minnesota Senate have been met with skepticism in some higher education circles.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Time Consuming Life of a Working College Student

# data[].attributes.subject
The Time Consuming Life of a Working College Student

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Taurice Lancaster
Posted on May 12, 2017
CRAP score 45

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Time Consuming Life of a Working College Student

Samantha Ausmus

With a yearly increase in college students, there are many questions being raised about the college experience. What is the difference in price between a junior college, college, or a university? What different scholarships and grants are offered? Most importantly, how will the family or student handle the enormous expense of a college tuition? For many students and families, this answer seems quite easy: working. For example, an alarm goes off at 6:30 a.m., enabling enough time to get ready for classes from 8:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. Finally time for lunch, but it has to be to-go because their on-campus job starts at 11:20 a.m. The student barely makes it in time to quickly eat lunch and clock-in for an hour and a half of work at the library. This is followed by yet another round of classes from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. After class, there are three more hours of continuous work to do in the library. Finally, it's time to head to the dorm and start on the six hours of homework received that day. Whether working on or off campus, this example poses some of the possibilities that many working college students may experience. Over the years, many researchers have spent much time and effort researching the different effects that working has on college students. The basic idea is that a working student's college experience and level of success is influenced by the number of hours worked per week and whether the job is on or off campus.
Studying the life of a working college student is no easy task, since no one lives their lives in the exact same way. However, from the data collected over time, researchers can make general assumptions of the effects that working may have on college students. In Lang's article about working and non-working students, John Warren stated that there are two different models for student employment: the zero-sum model and the primary orientation model. Any time a student's paid employment intervenes with their study time, the student model would be classified as zero-sum. On the other hand, the primary orientation model is described as only mattering when the paid employment causes "a disinterest in higher education" (qtd. in Lang 244). These different models for student employment strongly correlate with the ideas that researchers have found over the years. Those researchers who believe that working can have a negative effect on college students, such as less time to prepare for class and other social activities, would most likely agree with the zero-sum model. Researchers believe that students will be unaffected as long as not working does not disrupt the learning experience. Researchers of this opinion, would more likely lean towards supporting the primary orientation.
Taking the two models into consideration, it is important to recognize the significance of the hours worked by college students. Over the past twenty years, researchers have seen an increase in the number of students working to assist, or even pay for, their whole college tuition. What do these hours mean to the working student when it comes to balancing work and their education? Some researchers even wonder if working during college is worth the effort. With tuition on the rise every year and the cost of books, board, and fees, is an $8-an-hour job even worth the hassle? (Shellenbarger). According to recent research, the average working college student spends about 16 to 20 hours per week on the job (Lang 248). To many individuals, especially working adults, 16 to 20 hours per week does not seem like a great deal of work. However, 20 work hours plus 18 class hours at 3 hours of homework per class accumulates to about a 74 hour work week. These students are then expected to carry out work, a social life, and maintain a favorable GPA. Over the course of many years, researchers, professors, and parents have different perspectives on the impacts that working in college can have on a student.
According to David Cheng and Lucia Alcántara, "Working and nonworking students perform equally well in academic achievement ... students who work between 1-15 hours per week are more likely to have GPAs of 3.5 or higher than those who work longer hours" (302). This information indicates that, with time management and motivation, working and maintaining a good GPA is a plausible task when working within reasonable job hours. Even though work can take away from the college social life, many students say that when their schedules become cramped, they begin to center their life around what is most important: academics (Cheng and Alcántara 303). Some research even suggests that "students' grades, time spent preparing for class, involvement in co-curricular activities and time spent relaxing and socializing do not appear to be negatively affected by employment" (Lang 251). Though some sacrifices may have to be made when students are bogged down with work and academics, with the proper skills and self-resilience, anything is possible. These skills acquired while in college make an individual marketable when applying to graduate school or future careers.
For many students in America, "working is now a fundamental responsibility for many undergraduates" (Perna). However, when applying for jobs and college, no one ever considers the consequence of both work and education until a problem arises. Many parents and professors believe that college students who work are only causing negative effects on their education. Some studies even suggest that "working more than 20 hours a week during college can hurt a student's grades and increase the risk of dropping out or delaying graduation" (Shellenbarger). The students who suffer from the negative consequences of working a job may not obtain the proper skills needed to succeed academically, such as time management or proper priorities. However, some students may obtain these skills but they may simply not have enough time in the day to complete the tasks. In some cases, it seems clear that students could be more successful if they dropped some of their work hours to focus more on their academics.
Many researchers investigate the different effects that working on and off campus can have on a student. Like anything in life, there are both positive and negative effects tied to each of these different working options. One positive for on-campus employment is the advantage for students to interact and get to know their professors, colleagues, or even athletic coaches. Over this past fall, I had the opportunity to work with our football team. This on-campus job provided me with so many opportunities as an incoming freshman. Not only was I able to financially assist my parents with the first semester of college, I was able to meet many colleagues that I would have class with on the first day of school. It enabled me to be involved in athletics outside of my own sport. One of the negative effects of working an on-campus job is that many of the work hours are only available from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. This then causes conflicts between class time, working hours, and studying. On the other hand, working off campus can "provide them with greater access to the world beyond the campus gate, on-the-job learning and opportunities to interact and network with people in the workplace" (Cheng and Alcántara 306). According to Ehrenberg and Sherman, working off-campus creates a greater risk of not going to graduate school and a greater chance of not graduating (qtd. in Lang 246). Through research, parents and students are informed of both the negative and positive aspects of working on and off of campus. There is no definitive answer to which job option is best for students and their academic success. However, many individuals prefer on-campus jobs because of their easy accessibility and the interactions that they may have with colleagues, professors, and other staff members.
From the research gathered, there is no clear indication of enormous effects on college students who work. However, when going to college and obtaining a job, one must closely watch the hours they work to ensure they have enough time to complete assignments and get adequate amounts of sleep. Any student who has motivation, dedication, and time management skills can properly handle the workload presented by both academics and their jobs. The only minor effect that many researchers suggested was the difference between working on campus and off campus. From my personal experience, working on campus was a joy within itself. Being able to work alongside amazing coaches and watch some of my colleagues play the game they loved was a wonderful experience. For some people, working off campus is a better opportunity, allowing for them to gain knowledge in their field for after graduation, putting them ahead of competition. As noted, both on-campus and off-campus jobs have great potential; it just depends on the individual and their work ethic. Altogether, the effects of work on college students are minimal because of the responsibilities and obligations students feel that they owe their parents and themselves. Research suggests that with self-resilience, motivation, time management, and organization, any student can work reasonable hours and obtain a favorable GPA with little effects on their personal life.

Works Cited

Cheng, David X., and Lucia Alcántara. "Assessing Working Students' College Experiences: A Grounded Theory Approach." Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education 32.3 (2007): 301-311. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.

Lang, K. Brandon. "The Similarities And Differences Between Working And Non-Working Students At A Mid-Sized American Public University." College Student Journal 46.2 (2012): 243-255. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.

Perna, Laura W. "Understanding The Working College Student." Academe 96.4 (2010): 30-33. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.

Shellenbarger, Sue. "A Debate Heats Up: Should Kids Help Foot the Bill for their College Tuition?" Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition ed.May 11 2006. ProQuest. Web. 4 Feb. 2015 .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Samantha Ausmus With a yearly increase in college students, there are many questions being raised about the college experience. What is the difference in price between a junior college, college, or a university? What different scholarships and grants are offered? Most importantly, how will the family or student handle the enormous expense of a college tuition?

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Taurice Lancaster
Posted on May 12, 2017
CRAP score 48

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By

It's getting harder and harder to graduate college without taking on student loans.

Nearly 70% of bachelor's degree recipients leave school with debt, according to the White House, and that could have major consequences for the economy. Research indicates that the $1.2 trillion in student loan debt may be preventing Americans,from making the kinds of big purchases that drive economic growth, like house and cars, and reaching other milestones, such as having the ability to save for retirement or move out of mom and dad's basement.

This student debt crisis has become so huge it's even captured the attention of presidential candidates who are searching for ways to make college more affordable amid an environment of dwindling state funding for higher education and rising college costs. But meanwhile, the approximately 40 million Americans with student debt have to find ways to manage it.

MarketWatch and the Center for Financial Literacy at Champlain College convened a panel of experts recently on the Champlain College campus in Burlington, Vermont, to discuss some of the ways borrowers can make sure they stay current on their student loans.

"Trillions capture our attention," Eleanor Blayney, the consumer advocate for the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, said at the panel. "This is big and the way to manage that is really to understand what you have, plan and map it out over the course of your life."

How much?

A few numbers to consider (and some that bear repeating):

The total outstanding student loan debt in the U.S. is $1.2 trillion, that's the second-highest level of consumer debt behind only mortgages. Most of that is loans held by the federal government.

About 40 million Americans hold student loans and about 70% of bachelor's degree recipients graduate with debt.

The class of 2015 graduated with $35,051 in student debt on average, according to Edvisors, a financial aid website, the most in history.

One in four student loan borrowers are either in delinquency or default on their student loans, according the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Over the past few decades a variety of factors coalesced to make student debt an almost-universal American experience. For one, state investment in higher education dwindled and colleges made up the difference by raising tuition. At the same time, financial aid hasn't kept up with tuition growth. In the 1980s, the maximum Pell Grant - the money the federal money gives to low-income students to attend college - covered more than half the cost of a four-year public school, according to The Institute for College Access and Success, a think tank focused on college affordability. Now, it covers less than one-third the cost.

A college degree has also become more necessary than ever to compete in today's workforce at the same time that Americans' wages have remained stagnant. That means more students are going to school with less money to pay for it, resulting in an uptick in student debt.

The boom in for-profit college enrollment during the Great Recession has also served to boost aggregate levels of student debt and student loan defaults. For-profit colleges have come under scrutiny from lawmakers and consumer advocates who accuse them of using inflated job placement and graduation rates to lure students into enrolling and taking on loans.

A September study published by the Brookings Institution found that a large share of the growth in the number of students struggling to pay off their loans over the past several years is tied to students borrowing to go to for-profit schools and to a smaller extent two-year community college.

Other, factors likely also play a role in the growth of student debt. Many have blamed the uptick in college costs and therefore student debt on administrative bloat, the idea that colleges are spending more on nonacademic staff and facilities. In addition, many 17-year-olds likely don't understand what owing tens of thousands of dollars in loans will mean after they graduate.

"What a lot of students don't understand is that student debt is an investment in your future," John Petellier, the head of the Center for Financial Literacy and one of the panelists, said in a separate interview. "A perfect example of what I think is missing at a lot of high schools is one of the key topics in financial literacy, understanding the connection between career and income." A better sense of that relationship could help students make more informed decisions about whether a college or career path is worth the debt, he said.

Even though we've gotten to the point where a large share of Americans have a personal connection to student debt, the experience is felt differently by different people. For one, though it might seem counterintuitive, borrowers with smaller debts are actually more likely to struggle with their student loans than borrowers with large balances.

That's because a small debt may be a sign that the borrower didn't complete school or obtained a low-level degree that's relatively meaningless in the job market. Borrowers with high levels of debt are more likely to have taken on loans to attend graduate school that will pay off in the labor market, allowing them to earn enough to pay off their loans. Just 3% of borrowers with a graduate degree defaulted on their student debts, according to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Borrowers' experience with debt also varies by race and gender. African-American borrowers are more likely to take on loans for college and tend to borrow more, largely because the historical gap in wealth between black and white households means that black students have fewer resources to draw to pay for school. And because women earn less than men on average, they have less money to draw from to pay back their student loans.

Stagnant wage growth also plays a role.

Student loans can also have different consequences depending on age. While the debts may prevent younger borrowers from buying a home, a car or reaching other economic milestones, older borrowers are at risk of losing their retirement benefits. About 36,000 Americans lost a portion of their Social Security check in 2013 due to an unpaid federal student loan, according to the Government Accountability Office.

But regardless of life stage, size of loan, level of degree and other factors, student debt is a factor often in the back of borrowers' minds.

"It sticks with you every day," Ian Foss, a policy liaison at Federal Student Aid, told the panel.

Check out these related stories:

How to manage your student loans while you're still in school

How to manage your student loans after you graduate

How and when to consolidate your student loans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By It's getting harder and harder to graduate college without taking on student loans. Nearly 70% of bachelor's degree recipients leave school with debt, according to the White House, and that could have major consequences for the economy.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by Taurice Lancaster
Posted on May 12,2017
CRAP score 40

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In today's economy, earning a college degree is still a winning choice. The unemployment rate for Americans with bachelor's degrees or higher is just 3.2 percent, compared to a national average of 6.1 percent. So why, then, did college enrollment last year fall by nearly half a million?

Between 2012 and 2013, the Census Bureau reported last week, 463,000 fewer people were enrolled in college. In fact, this is the second year enrollment has fallen by that much, bringing the two-year total to 930,000 fewer college students, bigger than any drop before the recession. The Census Bureau has been collecting this data through the Current Population Survey since 1966.

The decline was to be expected, said Anthony Carnevale, director of Georgetown's Center on Education and the Workforce, repeating the old economics adage that the more things go up, the more they'll eventually fall. And go up it certainly had. The recent decline comes on the heels of a record 3.2 million boom in college enrollment between 2006 and 2011.

So where is the current decline happening, and what can that tell us about why it's happening? Not all colleges are the same, and not all students have equal access to higher education. Enrollment in two-year colleges decreased by 10 percent, while enrollment in four-year schools actually increased, albeit by only 1 percent.

Hispanic college enrollment had been increasing dramatically in the five years up to 2012, adding a million students, far more than blacks or Asians added to the collegiate ranks. But that growth ground to a halt between 2012 and 2013. Hispanics, the Census Bureau points out, are more likely than blacks, whites or Asians to attend two-year schools, reflecting the drop seen in this latest data.

College enrollment always follows the economic cycle, said Carnevale. When the economy is underperforming, the college campus is a "safe harbor." As he put it, going to school beats living in the basement and dealing with your parents when you cannot find a job. But when the economy improves, and jobs are more available, fewer people flock to the ivory tower. That pattern tells a cyclical story about college enrollment.

There's a structural story here, too, though. It's hard to ignore, over the long-term, how much more widespread college-going has become. The 1960s and 1970s forever changed college enrollment in America, Carnevale said; the Vietnam War and the draft gave new meaning to the college campus as "safe harbor." Many more jobs now require a college education, and despite the increasing supply of college grads, the college wage premium (the earnings advantage to having a college degree) remains extraordinarily high, according to Carnevale.

A Pew report released earlier this year, aptly titled, "The Rising Cost of Not Going to College," shows how the earnings disparity between high school and college grads has widened for successive generations of workers ages 25 to 32. The median 2013 salary for young millennials with at least a bachelor's degree was $45,500, while their peers who only went to high school were making just $28,000 a year. A two-year degree increased their earnings, but only to $30,000.

The returns to going to college will remain high, but if college attendance declines next fall, and continues to plummet the year after that, Carnevale said, the structural storyline may shift to the systemic reasons why Americans are choosing not to enroll: Is the cost of higher education rising too fast? Are students unprepared? Or not sold on the benefits of going? And then there's the problem about which employers already complain - that colleges aren't preparing students for the jobs available.

Most of the economics research, said Kurt Bauman, chief of the Census Bureau's Education and Social Stratification Branch, supports the cyclical interpretation of college enrollment, where recessions drive people into school, and recoveries keep some of them from going. It's not his business to make any judgements one way or the other, but Bauman pointed out one possible flip side to that conclusion: if economic times are tough, earning some money immediately might be a recent high school graduate's first priority. In that case, the cost of college - and the cost of not working - could simply be prohibitive.

Indeed, said Carnevale, it can be appealing to make money right out of high school, especially for men, who have traditionally been the ones to find jobs that don't require a college degree (think construction or oil production), and thus have been enrolling in college at a lower rate than women for years now. But their wages flatten out much sooner than the wages of their peers who get four-year college degrees before starting their careers.

So during a recovery, high school graduates face a choice: they can either find a job to make money or increase their debt loads with the hope that going to college will pay off. Of course, making that gamble is a lot more financially manageable for some Americans than for others, depending on their socioeconomic status and where they're trying to go to school.

The drop-off in college attendance between 2012 and 2013 was across all income levels, although it was sharpest among the Census Bureau's middle-income range - families making between $20,000 and $75,000.

That fewer of those families are sending kids to college is bad news for colleges, Carnevale said, because it strikes at the heart of their business model, although it's less of a threat to selective institutions, which already have long lines to entry and intentionally keep their enrollments small.

For prospective and current college students, though, declining enrollment isn't bad news at all, Carnevale insisted. It doesn't mean a college education is any less valuable. In fact, it's a good time to graduate, Carnevale thinks, but 2017 will be even better, he said, predicting the recovery will be "fully baked" by then.

Of course, the advantages of going to college - and graduating - he cautioned, depend on what degrees students pursue and what they do with them. The six-year graduation rate for students of all four-year colleges is 59 percent; at public schools, though, it's 57 percent, while at private four-year schools, it's 66 percent. At for-profit institutions, the graduation rate slips to 32 percent. But "the degree, itself," Carnevale said, "is not what you should aspire to."

With misalignment between the labor market and higher education, there's no question, Carnevale said, that a more efficient system is needed, and he predicts that there's "an industry in waiting" when it comes to job training.

But speaking to the NewsHour from his Georgetown offices, Carnevale's very aware of how "education" and "training" have become class-based terms. That is to say, no one receives "training" from Georgetown. An education, a luxury for most Americans, was traditionally intended to prepare students to, as Carnevale put it, "live fully in their time." The conundrum, he sees, however, is that they can't do that if they don't have a job.

Watch Paul Solman's reports on education and the job market, including the struggles of liberal arts graduates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an economy where college graduates earn significantly more than high school grads and enjoy a much lower unemployment rate, why are fewer people enrolling in college? Enrollment has dropped by nearly a million since 2011. Is this an expected effect of economic recovery or a sign of looming structural problems in the higher education system?

# data[].attributes.headline
Student Loan Expectations: Myth vs. Reality

# data[].attributes.subject
Student Loan Expectations: Myth vs. Reality

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Taurice Lancaster
Posted on May 12,2017
CRAP Score: 42

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Taurice Lancaster
Posted on May  12,2017
CRAP Score: 43

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The issue of making college tuition free has recently come to the fore in American politics, largely because the two leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, have each championed it.

Sanders has called for free undergraduate tuition at public colleges and universities, to be financed by a tax on Wall Street speculation, while Clinton has done the same, although with some qualifications and a different funding mechanism.

The major argument for free public college and university education is the same as for free public education in general: like the free public elementary, middle, and high schools already existing in the United States, free public higher education provides educational opportunity for all.

Actually, until fairly recently, the United States had a free or virtually free system of public higher education. In 1862, to provide educational opportunity for the "sons of toil," the U.S. Congress passed the Morrill Act, establishing land-grant public colleges and universities on a tuition-free basis. For roughly a century thereafter, many American public colleges and universities either charged no tuition or a nominal fee for attendance. The State University of New York ( SUNY) system--the largest in the nation--remained tuition-free until 1963. The University of California system, established in 1868, had free tuition until the 1980s.

In recent decades, however, the situation has changed dramatically, with tuition costs soaring to dizzying heights at both public and private colleges. Between 1978 and 2013, American college tuition reportedly rose by 1,120 percent. Last year, the average annual cost for undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities was $9,139 for state residents and $22,958 for out of state residents. At the University of California, yearly undergraduate tuition and fees now stand at $13,251 for state residents and $37,959 for out of state residents. The cost is considerably higher at private colleges and universities, which average $32,599 yearly for tuition and fees. The ten most expensive average $50,632 a year. These figures, of course, do not include additional thousands of dollars for room, board, books, and other living costs.

This enormous hike in tuition has had a devastating impact upon educational opportunity. Unable to afford college, many young people never attend it or drop out along the way. Studies have found that the primary reason young people cite for not attending college is its enormous cost. Many other young people can afford to attend college only by working simultaneously at paying jobs (which takes time away from their studies) and/or by running up enormous debt. As recently as the early 1990s, most college students did not take out loans to finance their education. Now, however, nearly three out of four college graduates have borrowed to cover their college costs, running up a debt averaging $30,000 each. As a result, American student loan debt now totals $1.3 trillion. Paying off this debt at high interest rates constitutes a heavy burden for young Americans, and all too many of them either default on it or, to repay it, give up on their dreams and settle for working at jobs they dislike.

The tuition squeeze on young Americans results largely from severe reductions in state and local funding for public colleges and universities, usually initiated by conservative, budget-cutting governments. Since 2008 alone, state funding for public universities has dropped 16 percent. During that same period, state funding for SUNY's 64 campuses dropped by 28 percent. Indeed, there is considerable question as to whether public colleges and universities are still public institutions, for most of their costs--once covered by government funding--are now met by student tuition. Today, state funding covers only about 30 percent of SUNY's costs; students pick up the remaining 70 percent.

This campus austerity program hurts not only students, but the entire educational process. Anxious to maintain or expand operations despite declining levels of government funding, college and university administrators cut campus costs by replacing tenured and tenure-line faculty with rootless, powerless, low-paid part-timers (adjuncts) and underpaid full-timers in temporary positions (contingents). In 1969, tenured and tenure-track faculty held three out of four teaching positions. By 2013, this "regular" faculty held one out of five. Faculty morale and the quality of education have plummeted.

In addition, campus administrators, faced with declining income, are increasingly inclined to accept funding from wealthy individuals and corporations that are reshaping higher education to serve their interests. From 2005 to 2013, two rightwing billionaires, Charles and David Koch, spent $68 million funding the kinds of programs they wanted on 308 U.S. college and university campuses. In New York State, when Governor Andrew Cuomo initiated Start-Up NY, a scheme to provide a tax-free haven to businesses that moved onto or near public (and some private) college campuses, there was never any question about how SUNY's chancellor and other administrators would respond. Instead of resisting this business takeover of university facilities and mission, they became cheerleaders for it.

In these circumstances, free tuition would, at the least, restore educational opportunity to millions of Americans and lift the terrible burden of debt from the shoulders of young people. In addition, by bringing large numbers of new students and their funding to public colleges and universities, it would reduce the incentive for administrators to turn the faculty into powerless, impoverished migrant laborers. Indeed, a surge of fully-funded students might even provide administrators with the backbone to resist the growing corporate takeover of higher education. Furthermore, although private colleges might resent this enhanced funding of their public sector competitors, the resulting competition for students might encourage them to decrease their astronomical tuition, thus providing them with a more economically diverse student body.

Overall, then, tuition-free college makes a lot of sense, which explains why Americans established it in the first place.
Dr. Lawrence Wittner (www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, What's Going On at UAardvark?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The issue of making college tuition free has recently come to the fore in American politics, largely because the two leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, have each championed it.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Andrew Hall
Posted on: May 12, 2017
CRAP Score: 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Eric Jensen

In Chapter 1, we were introduced to history teacher Chris Hawkins. The family Mr. Hawkins grew up in was far from poor: his father was a colonel in the U.S. Air Force, and his mother was a store manager. He had no clue what growing up in poverty was like, and he was shocked to learn about what typically goes on (and doesn't go on) in the homes of his kids. He has learned that there's far more behind the apathetic or aggressive behaviors, commonly attributed to a lack of politeness or dismissed as "lower-class" issues, than he had assumed. What he's learned about his students has depressed and discouraged him. The mantra that gets him through the year is the thought that retirement is only six years away.

The Risk Factors of Poverty

There is no shortage of theories explaining behavior differences among children. The prevailing theory among psychologists and child development specialists is that behavior stems from a combination of genes and environment. Genes begin the process: behavioral geneticists commonly claim that DNA accounts for 30-50 percent of our behaviors (Saudino, 2005), an estimate that leaves 50-70 percent explained by environment.

This tidy division of influencing factors may be somewhat misleading, however. First, the effects of the nine months a child spends in utero are far from negligible, especially on IQ (Devlin, Daniels, & Roeder, 1997). Factors such as quality of prenatal care, exposure to toxins, and stress have a strong influence on the developing child. In addition, the relatively new field of epigenetics -the study of heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in primary DNA sequence-blurs the line between nature and nurture. Environment affects the receptors on our cells, which send messages to genes, which turn various functional switches on or off. It's like this: like light switches, genes can be turned on or off. When they're switched on, they send signals that can affect the processes or structures in individual cells. For example, lifting weights tells the genes to "turn on" the signal to build muscle tissue. Genes can be either activated or shut off by a host of other environmental factors, such as stress and nutrition. These switches can either strengthen or impair aggression, immune function, learning, and memory (Rutter, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2006).

Recent evidence (Harris, 2006) suggests that the complex web of social relationships students experience-with peers, adults in the school, and family members-exerts a much greater influence on their behavior than researchers had previously assumed. This process starts with students' core relationships with parents or primary caregivers in their lives, which form a personality that is either secure and attached or insecure and unattached. Securely attached children typically behave better in school (Blair et al., 2008). Once students are in school, the dual factors of socialization and social status contribute significantly to behavior. The school socialization process typically pressures students to be like their peers or risk social rejection, whereas the quest for high social status drives students to attempt to differentiate themselves in some areas-sports, personal style, sense of humor, or street skills, for example.

Socioeconomic status forms a huge part of this equation. Children raised in poverty rarely choose to behave differently, but they are faced daily with overwhelming challenges that affluent children never have to confront, and their brains have adapted to suboptimal conditions in ways that undermine good school performance. Let's revisit the most significant risk factors affecting children raised in poverty, which I discussed in Chapter 1 (the word EACH is a handy mnemonic):

Combined, these factors present an extraordinary challenge to academic and social success. This reality does not mean that success in school or life is impossible. On the contrary, a better understanding of these challenges points to actions educators can take to help their less-advantaged students succeed.

Emotional and Social Challenges

Many low-SES children face emotional and social instability. Typically, the weak or anxious attachments formed by infants in poverty become the basis for full-blown insecurity during the early childhood years. Very young children require healthy learning and exploration for optimal brain development. Unfortunately, in impoverished families there tends to be a higher prevalence of such adverse factors as teen motherhood, depression, and inadequate health care, all of which lead to decreased sensitivity toward the infant (van Ijzendoorn et al., 2004) and, later, poor school performance and behavior on the child's part.

Theory and Research

Beginning at birth, the attachment formed between parent and child predicts the quality of future relationships with teachers and peers (Szewczyk-Sokolowski, Bost, & Wainwright, 2005) and plays a leading role in the development of such social functions as curiosity, arousal, emotional regulation, independence, and social competence (Sroufe, 2005). The brains of infants are hardwired for only six emotions: joy, anger, surprise, disgust, sadness, and fear (Ekman, 2003). To grow up emotionally healthy, children under 3 need

A strong, reliable primary caregiver who provides consistent and unconditional love, guidance, and support.

Safe, predictable, stable environments.

Ten to 20 hours each week of harmonious, reciprocal interactions. This process, known as attunement, is most crucial during the first 6-24 months of infants' lives and helps them develop a wider range of healthy emotions, including gratitude, forgiveness, and empathy.

Enrichment through personalized, increasingly complex activities.

Children raised in poverty are much less likely to have these crucial needs met than their more affluent peers are and, as a result, are subject to some grave consequences. Deficits in these areas inhibit the production of new brain cells, alter the path of maturation, and rework the healthy neural circuitry in children's brains, thereby undermining emotional and social development and predisposing them to emotional dysfunction (Gunnar, Frenn, Wewerka, & Van Ryzin, 2009; Miller, Seifer, Stroud, Sheinkopf, & Dickstein, 2006).

The need for human contact and warmth is well established. A study of infants in Irish foundling homes in the early 1900s found that of the 10,272 infants admitted to homes with minimal or absent maternal nurturing over a 25-year period, only 45 survived. Most of the survivors grew into pathologically unstable and socially problem-ridden adults (Joseph, 1999).

In many poor households, parental education is substandard, time is short, and warm emotions are at a premium-all factors that put the attunement process at risk (Feldman & Eidelman, 2009; Kearney, 1997; Segawa, 2008). Caregivers tend to be overworked, overstressed, and authoritarian with children, using the same harsh disciplinary strategies used by their own parents. They often lack warmth and sensitivity (Evans, 2004) and fail to form solid, healthy relationships with their children (Ahnert, Pinquart, & Lamb, 2006).

In addition, low-income caregivers are typically half as likely as higher-income parents are to be able to track down where their children are in the neighborhood (Evans, 2004), and frequently they do not know the names of their children's teachers or friends. One study found that only 36 percent of low-income parents were involved in three or more school activities on a regular basis, compared with 59 percent of parents above the poverty line (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).

Low-SES children are often left home to fend for themselves and their younger siblings while their caregivers work long hours; compared with their well-off peers, they spend less time playing outdoors and more time watching television and are less likely to participate in after-school activities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Unfortunately, children won't get the model for how to develop proper emotions or respond appropriately to others from watching cartoons; they need warm, person-to-person interactions. The failure to form positive relationships with peers inflicts long-term socioemotional consequences (Szewczyk-Sokolowski et al., 2005).

The human brain "downloads" the environment indiscriminately in an attempt to understand and absorb the surrounding world, whether that world is positive or negative. When children gain a sense of mastery of their environments, they are more likely to develop feelings of self-worth, confidence, and independence, which play heavily into the formation of children's personalities (Sroufe, 2005) and ultimately predict their success and happiness in relationships and in life in general. Economic hardship makes it more difficult for caregivers to create the trusting environments that build children's secure attachments. Behavior research shows that children from impoverished homes develop psychiatric disturbances and maladaptive social functioning at a greater rate than their affluent counterparts do (McCoy, Firck, Loney, & Ellis, 1999). In addition, low-SES children are more likely to have social conduct problems, as rated by both teachers and peers over a period of four years (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994). Unfortunately, a study of negative emotionality and maternal support found that low-income parents were less able than were well-off parents to adjust their parenting to the demands of higher-needs children (Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Stams, Hermanns, & Peetsma, 2007).

Low-income parents are often overwhelmed by diminished self-esteem, depression, and a sense of powerlessness and inability to cope-feelings that may get passed along to their children in the form of insufficient nurturing, negativity, and a general failure to focus on children's needs. In a study of emotional problems of children of single mothers, Keegan-Eamon and Zuehl (2001) found that the stress of poverty increases depression rates among mothers, which results in an increased use of physical punishment. Children themselves are also susceptible to depression: research shows that poverty is a major predictor of teenage depression (Denny, Clark, Fleming, & Wall, 2004).

Effects on School Behavior and Performance

Strong, secure relationships help stabilize children's behavior and provide the core guidance needed to build lifelong social skills. Children who grow up with such relationships learn healthy, appropriate emotional responses to everyday situations. But children raised in poor households often fail to learn these responses, to the detriment of their school performance. For example, students with emotional dysregulation may get so easily frustrated that they give up on a task when success was just moments away. And social dysfunction may inhibit students' ability to work well in cooperative groups, quite possibly leading to their exclusion by group members who believe they aren't "doing their part" or "pulling their share of the load." This exclusion and the accompanying decrease in collaboration and exchange of information exacerbate at-risk students' already shaky academic performance and behavior.

Some teachers may interpret students' emotional and social deficits as a lack of respect or manners, but it is more accurate and helpful to understand that the students come to school with a narrower range of appropriate emotional responses than we expect. The truth is that many children simply don't have the repertoire of necessary responses. It is as though their brains' "emotional keyboards" play only a few notes (see Figure 2.1).

The proper way to deal with such a deficit is first to understand students' behavior and then to lay out clear behavioral expectations without sarcasm or resentment. Understand that children raised in poverty are more likely to display

These behaviors will likely puzzle, frustrate, or irritate teachers who have less experience teaching students raised in poverty, but it's important to avoid labeling, demeaning, or blaming students. It is much easier to condemn a student's behavior and demand that he or she change it than it is to help the student change it. Every proper response that you don't see at your school is one that you need to be teaching. Rather than telling kids to "be respectful," demonstrate appropriate emotional responses and the circumstances in which to use them, and allow students to practice applying them. To shift your own responses to inappropriate behavior, reframe your thinking: expect students to be impulsive, to blurt inappropriate language, and to act "disrespectful" until you teach them stronger social and emotional skills and until the social conditions at your school make it attractive not to do those things.

It's impossible to overemphasize this: every emotional response other than the six hardwired emotions of joy, anger, surprise, disgust, sadness, and fear must be taught. Cooperation, patience, embarrassment, empathy, gratitude, and forgiveness are crucial to a smoothly running complex social environment (like a classroom). When students lack these learned responses, teachers who expect humility or penitence may get a smirk instead, a response that may lead teachers to believe the student has an "attitude." It's the primary caregiver's job to teach the child when and how to display these emotional responses, but when students do not bring these necessary behaviors to school, the school must teach them.

What all students do bring to school are three strong "relational" forces that drive their school behaviors (Harris, 2006):

The drive for reliable relationships. Students want the safety of a primary safe and reliable relationship. Students would prefer parents, positive friends, and teachers, but they'd take an "iffy" friend if no one else were available. The relationships that teachers build with students form the single strongest access to student goals, socialization, motivation, and academic performance. For your school to foster high achievement, every student will need a reliable partner or mentor.

The strengthening of peer socialization. Socialization is the drive for acceptance that encourages students to imitate their peers and join groups, from clubs to cliques to gangs. Students want to belong somewhere. Evidence suggests that it is peers, not parents, who have the greatest influence on school-age students (Harris, 1998). If your school aims to improve student achievement, academic success must be culturally acceptable among your students.

The quest for importance and social status. This is the quest to feel special. Students compete for attention and social elevation by choosing roles that will distinguish them (e.g., athlete, comedian, storyteller, gang leader, scholar, or style maverick). Kids are very interested in what other kids do, whether others like them, and how they rate on the social scale (Harris, 2006). Every student will need to feel like the "status hunt" can just as well lead to better grades as better behaviors.

Each of these forces shapes behaviors in significant ways. Schools that succeed use a combination of formal and informal strategies to influence these three domains. Informally, teachers can incorporate classroom strategies that build relationships and strengthen peer acceptance and social skills in class. This is a fair warning to all administrators: do not dismiss the so-called "soft side" of students' lives, the social side. It runs their brains, their feelings, and their behaviors-and those three run cognition! There is a complex interplay between cognition and emotions. When students feel socialized and accepted, they perform better academically. However, pushing students harder and harder into performing well academically may conflict with social/relational success. You will hit a test score ceiling until you include students' emotional and social lives in your school "makeover." Accordingly, throughout the remainder of this book, I offer specific strategies that address all three of the relational forces.

Action Steps

Embody respect. You can't change what's in your students' bank account, but you can change what's in their emotional account. It may require a considerable shift in your thinking. It is fruitless simply to demand respect from students; many just don't have the context, background, or skills to show it. Instead,

Embed social skills. At every grade level, use a variety of classroom strategies that strengthen social and emotional skills. For example,

Teach basic but crucial meet-and-greet skills. Early in the year, when students introduce themselves to other classmates, teach students to face one another, make eye contact, smile, and shake hands.

Embed turn-taking skills in class, even at the secondary level. You can introduce and embed these skills using such strategies as learning stations, partner work, and cooperative learning.

Remind students to thank their classmates after completing collaborative activities.

Implement social-emotional skill-building programs in the early years. Programs like the PATHS program, Conscious Discipline, and Love and Logic embed social skills into a classroom management framework.

Be inclusive. Create a familial atmosphere by using inclusive and affiliative language. For example,

Always refer to the school as "our school" and the class as "our class"; avoid using a me-and-you model that reinforces power structures.

Acknowledge students who make it to class, and thank them for small things.

Celebrate effort as well as achievement; praise students for reaching milestones as well as for fulfilling end goals. Pack acknowledgments and celebrations into every single class.

Acute and Chronic Stressors

Stress can be defined as the physiological response to the perception of loss of control resulting from an adverse situation or person. Occasional or "roller-coaster" stress is healthy for all of us; it supports our immune function and helps develop resiliency. However, the acute and chronic stress that children raised in poverty experience leaves a devastating imprint on their lives. Acute stress refers to severe stress resulting from exposure to such trauma as abuse or violence, whereas chronic stress refers to high stress sustained over time. Low-SES children are more subject to both of these types of stress than are their more affluent peers, but chronic stress is more common and exerts a more relentless influence on children's day-today lives. Children living in poverty experience significantly greater chronic stress than do their more affluent counterparts (Almeida, Neupert, Banks, & Serido, 2005) (see Figure 2.2). This kind of stress exerts a devastating, insidious influence on children's physical, psychological, emotional, and cognitive functioning-areas that affect brain development, academic success, and social competence. Students subjected to such stress may lack crucial coping skills and experience significant behavioral and academic problems in school.

Theory and Research

The biology of stress is simple in some ways and complex in others. On a basic level, every one of the 30-50 trillion cells in your body is experiencing either healthy or unhealthy growth. Cells cannot grow and deteriorate at the same time. Ideally, the body is in homeostatic balance: a state in which the vital measures of human function-heart rate, blood pressure, blood sugar, and so on-are in their optimal ranges. A stressor is anything that threatens to disrupt homeostasis-for example, criticism, neglect, social exclusion, lack of enrichment, malnutrition, drug use, exposure to toxins, abuse, or trauma. When cells aren't growing, they're in a "hunker down" mode that conserves resources for a threatened future. When billions or trillions of cells are under siege in this manner, you get problems.

Although the body is well adapted to deal with short-term threats to homeostasis, chronic or acute stressors challenge the body differently. Among low-income families, stressors may include living in overcrowded, substandard housing or unsafe neighborhoods; enduring community or domestic violence, separation or divorce, or the loss of family members; and experiencing financial strain, forced mobility, or material deprivation (Evans & English, 2002). The frequency and intensity of both stressful life events and daily hassles are greater among low-SES children (Attar, Guerra, & Tolan, 1994). For example, in any given year, more than half of all poor children deal with evictions, utility disconnections, overcrowding, or lack of a stove or refrigerator, compared with only 13 percent of well-off children (Lichter, 1997). In addition, such factors as lack of proper supervision, physical neglect or abuse, inadequate day care and schools, difficulties in forming healthy friendships, and vulnerability to depression combine to exert inordinate and debilitating stress upon the developing child.

More often than not, low-income parents are overstressed in trying to meet the daily needs of their families. The resulting depression and negativity often lead to insufficient nurturing, disengaged parenting, and a difficulty in focusing on the needs of children. Compared with middle-income children, low-SES children are exposed to higher levels of familial violence, disruption, and separation (Emery & Laumann-Billings, 1998). Lower levels of parental education and occupation also correlate with greater incidence of neighborhood crimes (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). And compared with their well-off peers, 2- to 4-year-olds from low-income families interact with aggressive peers 40 percent more often in their neighborhoods and 25 percent more often in child care settings (Sinclair, Pettit, Harrist, Dodge, & Bates, 1994).

Abuse is a major stressor to children raised in poverty. Numerous studies (Gershoff, 2002; Slack, Holl, McDaniel, Yoo, & Bolger, 2004) document that caregivers' disciplinary strategies grow harsher as income decreases. Lower-income parents are, on average, more authoritarian with their children, tending to issue harsh demands and inflict physical punishment such as spanking (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, McAdoo, & Coll, 2001; Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo, & Coll, 2001). One study found that blue-collar parents were twice as likely to use physical punishment with their 7-year-olds as white-collar parents were (Evans, 2004). Hussey, Chang, and Kotch (2006) found that poor children were 1.52 times more likely to report physical neglect and 1.83 times more likely to report sexual abuse than were well-off children. Abuse occurs with much higher frequency when the parents use alcohol or drugs, experience an array of stressful life events (Emery & Laumann-Billings, 1998), or live in decrepit, crime-ridden neighborhoods with limited social support networks (Jack & Jordan, 1999).

The cost of these constant stressors is hard to quantify. Exposure to chronic or acute stress is hardwired into children's developing brains, creating a devastating, cumulative effect (Coplan et al., 1996). Compared with a healthy neuron, a stressed neuron generates a weaker signal, handles less blood flow, processes less oxygen, and extends fewer connective branches to nearby cells. The prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus, crucial for learning, cognition, and working memory, are the areas of the brain most affected by cortisol, the so-called "stress hormone." Experiments have demonstrated that exposure to chronic or acute stress actually shrinks neurons in the brain's frontal lobes-an area that includes the prefrontal cortex and is responsible for such functions as making judgments, planning, and regulating impulsivity (Cook & Wellman, 2004)-and can modify and impair the hippocampus in ways that reduce learning capacity (Vythilingam et al., 2002).

Unpredictable stressors severely impair the brain's capacity to learn and remember (Yang et al., 2003). Child abuse, for example, is highly disruptive to such developmental processes as the formation of healthy attachments, emotional regulation, and temperament formation, and leads to a wide array of social-emotional and psychological disturbances in adulthood (Emery & Laumann-Billings, 1998). Neurobiological studies have shown considerable alterations in the brain development of neglected or abused children. The production of "fight-or-flight" stress hormones in these children atrophies the areas that control emotional regulation, empathy, social functioning, and other skills imperative to healthy emotional development (Joseph, 1999).

Chronic stress not only diminishes the complexity of neurons in the frontal lobe and the hippocampus but also increases the complexity of neurons in the amygdala, the brain's emotion center (Conrad, 2006). This increased complexity may make the stressed brain's neurons far more sensitive to memory modulation than neurons in nonstressed brains. In chronically stressed kids, the combined effects on the hippocampus and the amygdala may be precisely what facilitates emotional memory (the aspect of memory that encompasses highly salient memories of events such as divorce, abuse, trauma, death, or abandonment) and reduces declarative memory (the aspect of memory that stores standard knowledge and learning).

Chronic, unmediated stress often results in a condition known as an allostatic load. Allostatic load is "carryover" stress. Instead of returning to a healthy baseline of homeostasis, the growing brain adapts to negative life experiences so that it becomes either hyper-responsive or hypo-responsive. Szanton, Gill, and Allen (2005) found higher rates of chronic stress and allostatic load among low-income populations than among high-income populations.

Effects on School Behavior and Performance

Kids coming to your school don't wear signs that say "Caution! Chronic Stressors Live Here." But stress has an insidious effect on learning and behavior, and you should recognize the symptoms in the classroom. Chronic stress

Is linked to over 50 percent of all absences (Johnston-Brooks, Lewis, Evans, & Whalen, 1998).

Impairs attention and concentration (Erickson, Drevets, & Schulkin, 2003).

Reduces cognition, creativity, and memory (Lupien, King, Meaney, & McEwen, 2001).

Diminishes social skills and social judgment (Wommack & Delville, 2004).

Reduces motivation, determination, and effort (Johnson, 1981).

Increases the likelihood of depression (Hammack, Robinson, Crawford, & Li, 2004).

Reduces neurogenesis (growth of new brain cells) (De Bellis et al., 2001).

A child who comes from a stressful home environment tends to channel that stress into disruptive behavior at school and be less able to develop a healthy social and academic life (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Impulsivity, for example, is a common disruptive classroom behavior among low-SES students. But it's actually an exaggerated response to stress that serves as a survival mechanism: in conditions of poverty, those most likely to survive are those who have an exaggerated stress response. Each risk factor in a student's life increases impulsivity and diminishes his or her capacity to defer gratification (see Figure 2.3) (Evans, 2003).

Students raised in poverty are especially subject to stressors that undermine school behavior and performance. For example, girls exposed to abuse tend to experience mood swings in school, while boys experience impairments in curiosity, learning, and memory (Zuena et al., 2008). And the stress resulting from transience-frequent short-distance, poverty-related moves (Schafft, 2006)-also impairs students' ability to succeed in school and engage in positive social interactions. Whereas middle-class families usually move for social or economic improvement, the moves of low-income households are typically not voluntary. In addition to increasing children's uncertainty about the future, these moves compound their stress load by disrupting their social interactions both within the community and in academic environments (Schafft, 2006).

Students who have to worry over safety concerns also tend to underperform academically (Pratt, Tallis, & Eysenck, 1997). Exposure to community violence-an unsafe home neighborhood or a dangerous path to school- contributes to lower academic performance (Schwartz & Gorman, 2003). In addition, stress resulting from bullying and school violence impairs test scores, diminishes attention spans, and increases absenteeism and tardiness (Hoffman, 1996). It is discouraging, but many high school students either stay home or skip classes due to fear of violence.

Socioeconomic status correlates positively with good parenting, which, research has found, improves academic achievement (DeGarmo, Forgatch, & Martinez, 1999). Unfortunately, the converse is also true: the chronic stress of poverty impairs parenting skills, and disengaged or negative parenting in turn impairs children's school performance. Parents who are struggling just to stay afloat tend to work extra hours, odd shifts, or multiple jobs and are less able to provide attention and affection and to devote their time, energy, and resources to their children. These deficits have been associated with higher levels of externalizing behaviors and poor academic performance on children's part (Hsuch & Yoshikawa, 2007).

Fishbein and colleagues (2006) found that adolescence, a period accompanied by dramatic brain changes, is a particularly vulnerable time for children to be exposed to chronic stress. They found that risky decision making (such as alcohol or drug use) and poor social competency correlated with adolescents' previous exposure to highly stressful life events.

In addition, stress adversely affects cognition. One randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study tested the effects of oral doses of cortisol (the stress chemical) on subjects (Newcomer et al., 1999). Cortisol treatment at the higher dose produced reversible decreases in verbal declarative memory in otherwise healthy individuals (Newcomer et al., 1999).

Exposure to chronic or acute stress is debilitating. The most common adaptive behaviors include increased anxiety (as manifested in generalized anxiety disorders or posttraumatic stress disorder) and an increased sense of detachment and helplessness. Students from low-income families who experience disruptive or traumatic events or who lack a measure of connectedness-to family, to the community, or to a religious affiliation-demonstrate increased hopelessness over time (Bolland, Lian, & Formichella, 2005). Nearly half (47 percent) of low-SES African American adolescents reported clinically significant levels of depressive symptoms (Hammack et al., 2004). Low-SES students are more likely to give up or become passive and uninterested in school (Johnson, 1981). This giving-up process is known as learned helplessness. It's not genetic; it's an adaptive response to life conditions. And sadly, it frequently takes hold as early as 1st grade. Many kids with learned helplessness become fatalistic about their lives and are more likely to drop out of school or become pregnant while in their teens.

It is well documented that the effect of stressors is cumulative (Astone, Misra, & Lynch, 2007; Evans, 2004; Evans & English, 2002; Evans, Kim, Ting, Tesher, & Shannis, 2007; Geronimus, Hicken, Keene, & Bound, 2006; Lucey, 2007). Children who have had greater exposure to abuse, neglect, danger, loss, or other poverty-related experiences are more reactive to stressors. Each stressor builds on and exacerbates other stressors and slowly changes the student. It is the cumulative effect of all the stressors that often makes life miserable for poor students.

When researchers provided classes in appropriate coping skills and stress-relieving techniques, subjects demonstrated a decrease in hostility (Wadsworth, Raviv, Compas, & Connor-Smith, 2005) or depressive symptoms (Peden, Rayens, Hall, & Grant, 2005). Unfortunately, these interventions, along with stress-relieving recreational activities, are largely unavailable to those living in poverty. For example, neighborhood parks and recreational facilities tend to be scarcer, in hazardous areas, or in disrepair (Evans, 2004). Poor children are half as likely as well-off children are to be taken to museums, theaters, or the library, and they are less likely to go on vacations or on other fun or culturally enriching outings (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002).

Action Steps

Recognize the signs. Behavior that comes off as apathetic or rude may actually indicate feelings of hopelessness or despair. It is crucial for teachers to recognize the signs of chronic stress in students. Students who are at risk for a stress-related disorder tend to

Believe that they have minimal control over stressors.

Have no idea how long the stressors will last, or how intense they will remain.

Have few outlets through which they can release the frustration caused by the stressors.

Interpret stressors as evidence of circumstances worsening or becoming more hopeless.

Lack social support for the duress caused by the stressors.

Share with other staff members why it's so important to avoid criticizing student impulsivity and "me first" behaviors. Whenever you and your colleagues witness a behavior you consider inappropriate, ask yourselves whether the discipline process is positive and therefore increases the chances for better future behavior, or whether it's punitive and therefore reduces the chances for better future behavior.

Alter the environment. Change the school environment to mitigate stress and resolve potential compliance issues with students who do not want to change:

Reduce the parallels with prison. For example, consider eliminating bells and instead playing songs for class transitions.

Reduce homework stress by incorporating time for homework in class or right after class.

Use cooperative structures; avoid a top-down authoritarian approach.

Help students blow off steam by incorporating celebrations, role-plays, and physical activities (e.g., walks, relays, or games) into your classes.

Incorporate kinesthetic arts (e.g., drama or charades), creative projects (e.g., drawing or playing instruments), and hands-on activities (e.g., building or fixing) into your classes.

Empower students. Help students increase their perception of control over their environment by showing them how to better manage their own stress levels. Instead of telling students to act differently, take the time to teach them how to act differently by

Introducing conflict resolution skills. For example, teach students a multistep process for handling upsets, starting with step 1: "Take a deep breath and count to five."

Teaching students how to deal with anger and frustration (e.g., counting to 10 and taking slow, deep breaths).

Introducing responsibilities and the value of giving restitution. In schools that embrace restitution, students understand that if they disrupt class, they need to "make it right" by doing something positive for the class. For example, a student who throws objects in the classroom may be assigned a cleaning or beautification project for the room.

Teaching students to set goals to focus on what they want.

Role-modeling how to solve real-world problems. Share an actual or hypothetical situation, such as your car running out of gas. You could explain that you tried to stretch the tank of gas too far and reveal how you dealt with the problem (e.g., calling a friend to bring some gas). Such examples show students how to take responsibility for and resolve the challenges they face in life.

Giving students a weekly life problem to solve collectively.

Teaching social skills. For example, before each social interaction (e.g., pair-share or buddy teaching), ask students to make eye contact, shake hands, and give a greeting. At the end of each interaction, have students thank their partners.

Introducing stress reduction techniques, both physical (e.g., dance or yoga) and mental (e.g., guided periods of relaxation or meditation).

Cognitive Lags

Cognitive ability is highly complex. It can be measured in many different ways and is affected by numerous factors, not least of which is socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status is strongly associated with a number of indices of children's cognitive ability, including IQ, achievement tests, grade retention rates, and literacy (Baydar, Brooks-Gunn, & Furstenberg, 1993; Brooks-Gunn, Guo, & Furstenberg, 1993; Liaw & Brooks-Gunn, 1994; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997). There is a gulf between poor and well-off children's performance on just about every measure of cognitive development, from the Bayley Infant Behavior Scales to standardized achievement tests. The correlations between socioeconomic status and cognitive ability and performance are typically quite significant (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst, Guerin, & Parramore, 2003) and persist throughout the stages of development, from infancy through adolescence and into adulthood (see Figure 2.4). But these are data, not destiny. The good news is that brains are designed to change.

Theory and Research

To function at school, the brain uses an overarching "operating system" that comprises a collection of neurocognitive systems enabling students to pay attention, work hard, process and sequence content, and think critically (see Figure 2.5). Five key systems are

The prefrontal/executive system. This system, which engages the prefrontal cortex, includes our capacity to defer gratification, create plans, make decisions, and hold thoughts in mind. It also allows us to "reset" our brains' rules for how to behave. For example, we might have one set of rules for how to behave to our families and another set of rules for how to respond to strangers.

The left perisylvian/language system. This system, which engages the temporal and frontal areas of the left brain hemisphere, encompasses semantic, syntactic, and phonological aspects of language. It is the foundation for our reading, pronunciation, spelling, and writing skills.

The medial temporal/memory system. This system allows us to process explicit learning (text, spoken words, and pictures) and, if appropriate, store that learning. It includes our "indexing" structure (the hippocampus) and our emotional processor (the amygdala).

The parietal/spatial cognition system. This system underlies our ability to mentally represent and manipulate the spatial relations among objects and primarily engages the posterior parietal cortex. This brain area is especially important for organizing, sequencing, and visualizing information. It is essential for mathematics and music and for feeling a sense of organization.

The occipitotemporal/visual cognition system. This system is responsible for pattern recognition and visual mental imagery, translating mental images into more abstract representations of object shape and identity, and reciprocally translating visual memory knowledge into mental images (Gardini, Cornoldi, De Beni, & Venneri, 2008).

The value of understanding "where" in the brain vital processes occur cannot be overstated; there are significant contrasts in these key systems between the brains of lower-SES and higher-SES individuals.

With the advent of cognitive neuroscience, it has become possible to assess these systems more selectively. One study (Noble, Norman, & Farah, 2005) examined the neurocognitive performance of 30 low-SES and 30 well-off African American kindergartners in the Philadelphia public schools. The children were tested on a battery of tasks adapted from the cognitive neuroscience literature, designed to assess the functioning of the aforementioned key neurocognitive systems. This was one of the first studies that showed both global and specific brain differences between lower-income and higher-income children. Another study (Farah et al., 2006) assessed middle schoolers' working memory and cognitive control and also found significant disparities between lower-income and higher-income students in the five neurocognitive areas. I'm often asked, "Has anyone actually scanned the brains of low-SES children and contrasted them with those of higher-SES children?" Yes, it has been done. And when the data are compiled and viewed by effect size, the areas of difference become dramatic (see Figure 2.6).

In another study (Noble, McCandliss, & Farah, 2007), 150 healthy, socioeconomically diverse 1st graders were administered tasks tapping language skills, visual-spatial skills, memory, working memory, cognitive control, and reward processing. Socioeconomic status accounted for more than 30 percent of the variance in the left perisylvian/language system and a smaller but significant portion of the variance in most other systems.

One possible explanation of the strong association between socioeconomic status and language is that the perisylvian brain regions involved in language processing undergo a more protracted course of maturation in vivo (i.e., once the child is born) than any other neural region (Sowell et al., 2003). It is possible that a longer period of development leaves the language system more susceptible to environmental influences (Noble et al., 2005).

For example, we have discovered that the quantity, quality, and context of parents' speech matter a great deal (Hoff, 2003). Children's vocabulary competence is influenced by the mother's socio-demographic characteristics, personal characteristics, vocabulary, and knowledge of child development (Bornstein, Haynes, & Painter, 1998). By the time most children start school, they will have been exposed to 5 million words and should know about 13,000 of them. By high school, they should know about 60,000 to 100,000 words (Huttenlocher, 1998). But that doesn't often happen in low-income homes. Weizman and Snow (2001) found that low-income caregivers speak in shorter, more grammatically simple sentences. There is less back-and-forth- fewer questions asked and fewer explanations given. As a result, children raised in poverty experience a more limited range of language capabilities. Figures 2.7 and 2.8 illustrate how parents' speech affects their children's vocabulary.

At the preschool level, inattention from care providers has a huge impact on the child's developing language skills and future IQ scores. A six-year study by Hart and Risley (1995) that followed the outcomes of children selected from different socioeconomic backgrounds found that by age 3, the children of professional parents were adding words to their vocabularies at about twice the rate of children in welfare families. Both the quantity and the quality of phrases directed at the children by caregivers correlated directly with income levels. They found that a pattern of slow vocabulary growth helped put in place a slower cognitive pattern by the time children turned 3. In fact, IQ tests performed later in childhood showed the welfare students' scores trailing behind those of the more affluent children by up to 29 percent. Parents of low socioeconomic status are also less likely to tailor their conversations to evoke thoughtful and reasoned responses from their children.

Going hand in hand with language acquisition, reading is one of the most important factors affecting the development of a child's brain. Reading skills are not hardwired into the human brain; every subskill of reading, including (but not limited to) phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, phonics, and comprehension, must be explicitly taught. This teaching requires attention, focus, and motivation from the primary caregiver. Again, the time and expertise to make this happen are unfortunately in short supply among poor families. Evidence suggests that poverty adversely alters the trajectory of the developing reading brain (Noble, Wolmetz, Ochs, Farah, & McCandliss, 2006).

Even when low-income parents do everything they can for their children, their limited resources put kids at a huge disadvantage. The growing human brain desperately needs coherent, novel, challenging input, or it will scale back its growth trajectory. When a child is neglected, the brain does not grow as much (De Bellis, 2005; Grassi-Oliveira, Ashy, & Stein, 2008). Unfortunately, low-SES children overall receive less cognitive stimulation than middle-income children do. For example, they are less likely to be read to by parents: Coley (2002) found that only 36 percent of low-income parents read to their kindergarten-age children each day, compared with 62 percent of upper-income parents. In addition, low-SES children are less likely to be coached in learning skills or helped with homework, and they are half as likely as their well-off peers to be taken to museums (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal et al., 2001; Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo et al., 2001) and on other culturally enriching outings. They also have fewer play areas in their homes; have less access to computers and the Internet (and use them in less sophisticated ways); own fewer books, toys, and other recreational or learning materials; spend more time watching television; and are less likely to have friends over to play (Evans, 2004). Low-income parents' financial limitations often exclude their kids from healthy after-school activities, such as music, athletics, dance, or drama (Bracey, 2006).

Effects on School Behavior and Performance

Many children raised in poverty enter school a step behind their well-off peers. The cognitive stimulation parents provide in the early childhood years is crucial, and as we have seen, poor children receive less of it than their well-off peers do. These deficits have been linked to underdeveloped cognitive, social, and emotional competence in later childhood and have been shown to be increasingly important influences on vocabulary growth, IQ, and social skills (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal et al., 2001; Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo et al., 2001). Standardized intelligence tests show a correlation between poverty and lower cognitive achievement, and low-SES kids often earn below-average scores in reading, math, and science and demonstrate poor writing skills. Although the effects of poverty are not automatic or fixed, they often set in motion a vicious and stubborn cycle of low expectations. Poor academic performance often leads to diminished expectations, which spread across the board and undermine children's overall self-esteem.

The dramatic socioeconomic divide in education doesn't help matters. High-poverty, high-minority schools receive significantly less state and local money than do more prosperous schools, and students in such schools are more likely to be taught by teachers who are inexperienced or teaching outside their specialties (Jerald, 2001) (see Figure 2.9). This gap is most evident in the subjects of math and reading.

Constantino (2005) examined six communities in the greater Los Angeles, California, area and found that children in high-income communities had access to significantly more books than children in low-income communities did. In fact, she found that in some affluent communities, children had more books in their homes than low-SES children had in all school sources combined. Milne and Plourde (2006) identified six 2nd graders who came from low-income households but demonstrated high achievement and found that these children's parents provided educational materials, implemented and engaged in structured reading and study time, limited television viewing, and emphasized the importance of education. The researchers concluded that many of the factors of low socioeconomic status that negatively affect student academic success could be overcome by better educating parents about these essential needs.

The composite of academic skills needed for school success is actually a short list. I have introduced these skills as chunks scattered throughout this chapter. In Chapter 3, I list them together as an aggregate of subskills I call the fundamental "operating system" for academic success.

Action Steps

Build core skills. When students underperform academically, teachers can use assessments as an initial roadmap to ascertain the range and depth of skill building they need. Of course, assessments don't measure every skill that students need to succeed in school. Those core skills include

Attention and focus skills.

Short- and long-term memory.

Sequencing and processing skills.

Problem-solving skills.

Perseverance and ability to apply skills in the long term.

Social skills.

Hopefulness and self-esteem.

Once you determine which skills your students most need to hone, create a plan, find a program, and allocate the resources. Later in this book, I address the logistics of implementing an intervention program. Some of the most important skills teachers should foster are social skills and problem-solving skills. When schools teach kids the social skills to resist peer pressure, for example, students stay in school longer, do better academically, and get in less trouble (Wright, Nichols, Graber, Brooks-Gunn, & Botvin, 2004). It is also essential to explicitly teach and model problem-solving skills and provide feedback to students. Here's an example of an established problem-solving process you can post in the classroom:

Identify and define the problem.

Brainstorm solutions.

Evaluate each solution with a checklist or rubric.

Implement the selected solution.

Follow up and debrief on the results to learn.

In addition to posting a model, you can create simple case studies with real-world problems for students to solve. For example, "You are leaving a shopping mall with friends late at night. Your friend is supposed to do the driving. But as far as you can tell, he looks pretty wasted. You have to get home soon or you'll get in trouble. What do you do?"

Pinpoint assessments. Helping to improve students' cognitive abilities and academic performance takes more than just knowing that a student is behind in a given area. For example, with reading skills, you'll want to find out if the student's difficulty is rooted in

Quality assessment is essential, but follow-through is even more important. Pinpointed assessments are crucial to determine areas of strength and weakness. For example, the Woodcock-Johnson III Diagnostic Reading Battery can reveal specific areas that need targeted practice.

Provide hope and support. Any student who feels "less than" cognitively is likely not only to struggle academically, but also to be susceptible to such secondary issues as acting out, getting bullied or becoming a bully, having lower self-esteem, or having feelings of depression or helplessness. Ensure that teachers build supportive relationships, provide positive guidance, foster hope and optimism, and take time for affirmation and celebration.

Although the cognitive deficits in children from low-income families can seem daunting, the strategies available today are far more targeted and effective than ever before. Kids from all over the United States can succeed with the right interventions. I discuss these further in Chapters 4 and 5.

Recruit and train the best staff you can. You cannot afford to let disadvantaged kids receive substandard teaching. A Boston Public Schools (1998) study of the effects of teachers found that in one academic year, the top third of teachers produced as much as six times the learning growth as the bottom third of teachers did. Tenth graders taught by the least effective teachers made almost no gains in reading and even lost ground in math. To find superior teachers, start asking around the district and at conferences, post ads for teachers who love kids and love challenges, and ask the existing good teachers at your school, "How do we keep you here?" Recruiting great teachers is never easy, but it is possible if you know how to appeal to them. Top teachers crave challenge and workplace flexibility and look for highly supportive administrators. They continually strive to upgrade their skills and knowledge by participating in staff development, attending out-of-town conferences, and seeking out printed materials or DVDs. Appeal to their values and specify what you can offer.

Health and Safety Issues

As we have seen, low-SES children are often subject to such health and safety issues as malnutrition, environmental hazards, and insufficient health care. Health and achievement overlap: every cell in our body needs a healthy environment to function optimally. When a body's cells are besieged daily by stressors, they slow their growth trajectory and contract. Kids raised in poverty have more cells in their body "under siege" than do kids from middle- or upper-income families. The consequent adaptations that these kids' immune systems make diminish their ability to concentrate, learn, and behave appropriately.

Theory and Research

Stanford neuroscientist and stress expert Robert Sapolsky (2005) found that the lower a child's socioeconomic status is, the lower his or her overall health. Substandard housing in low-income neighborhoods leaves children exposed to everything from greater pedestrian risks (heavier traffic on narrower streets) to environmental hazards (exposure to radon and carbon monoxide) (Evans, 2004). Poor housing quality may cause respiratory morbidity and childhood injuries (Matte & Jacobs, 2000) and may elevate psychological distress in children (Evans, Wells, & Moch, 2003). Poor children are more likely to live in old and inadequately maintained housing and to be exposed to lead in peeling paint (Sargent et al., 1995)-a factor associated with decreased IQ (Schwartz, 1994). And, as with other risk factors, these negative environmental effects synergize with and build on one another (Evans & Kantrowitz, 2002).

The lower parents' income is, the more likely it is that children will be born premature, low in birth weight, or with disabilities (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Expectant mothers living in poverty are more likely to live or work in hazardous environments; to be exposed to pesticides (Moses et al., 1993); and to smoke, drink alcohol, or use drugs during pregnancy, all factors linked to prenatal issues and birth defects (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002) and adverse cognitive outcomes in children (Chasnoff et al., 1998).

Children from low-income families have generally poorer physical health than do their more affluent peers. In particular, there is a higher incidence of such conditions as asthma (Gottlieb, Beiser, & O'Connor, 1995), respiratory infections (Simoes, 2003), tuberculosis (Rogers & Ginzberg, 1993), ear infections and hearing loss (Menyuk, 1980), and obesity (Wang & Zhang, 2006). Contributing factors include poor nutrition (Bridgman & Phillips, 1998), unhealthy environmental conditions, and inability to obtain appropriate health care. Children with no health insurance may receive little or no treatment for illnesses and are far more likely to die from injuries or infections than are well-off children (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). In addition, early health conditions may have significant long-term consequences, even if children's socioeconomic status improves later in life (McLoyd, 1998). Further, Broadman (2004) found that a significant portion of health differentials across neighborhoods (high- and low-income) could be explained by the disparate levels of stress across these neighborhoods.

Effects on School Behavior and Performance

The greater incidence of health issues among lower-income students leads to increased

School absences.

Duration of school absences.

Tardiness rates.

Incidents of illness during class.

Rates of undiagnosed and/or untreated health problems or disabilities.

Each of these issues can occur among middle- and upper-income students, but they are both more common and more severe among students living in poverty. As a result, low-SES kids are often missing key classroom content and skills. Teachers may see students as uncaring or uninterested, when the real issue is that they're not in class enough to keep up.

Action Steps

Increase health-related services. Lower-income students face a daunting array of health issues. Successful schools understand these challenges and provide wide-ranging support and accommodations. Such support may include

There are serious limitations on what schools can and should do about student health. But all of us understand that when we don't feel right, it's hard to listen, concentrate, and learn. Successful schools find ways to ensure that students have a fighting chance to get and stay healthy.

Develop an enrichment counterattack. A compelling body of research (Dobrossy & Dunnett, 2004; Green, Melo, Christensen, Ngo, & Skene, 2006; Guilarte, Toscano, McGlothan, & Weaver, 2003; Nithianantharajah & Hannan, 2006) suggests that early exposure to toxins, maternal stress, trauma, alcohol, and other negatives can be ameliorated with environmental enrichment. The better the school environment is, the less the child's early risk factors will impair his or her academic success. An enrichment school

The whole point of school ought to be to enrich the life of every student. Enrichment does not mean "more" or "faster" schooling. It means rich, balanced, sustained, positive, and contrasting learning environments. That's what will change students' lives over the long haul (see Figure 2.10).

Beating the Odds

This chapter has painted a bleak picture of children raised in poverty. Certainly not all children raised in poverty experience the brain and behavioral changes described in this chapter, but we have seen that an aggregation of disadvantages creates a difficult web of negatives. Poverty penetrates deeper into the body, brain, and soul than many of us realize.

A childhood spent in poverty often sets the stage for a lifetime of setbacks. Secure attachments and stable environments, so vitally important to the social and emotional development of young children, are often denied to our neediest kids. These children experience more stress due to loneliness, aggression, isolation, and deviance in their peer relationships, and they are more likely to describe feeling deprived, embarrassed, picked on, or bullied. As a result, they more often face future struggles in marital and other relationships.

However, research (Hill, Bromell, Tyson, & Flint, 2007) suggests that although the first five years of a child's life are very important, there is tremendous opportunity during the school years for significant transformation. Low-SES children's behavior is an adaptive response to a chronic condition of poverty, but a brain that is susceptible to adverse environmental effects is equally susceptible to positive, enriching effects. You'll learn more about how brains can change for the better in Chapter 3.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Eric Jensen In Chapter 1, we were introduced to history teacher Chris Hawkins. The family Mr. Hawkins grew up in was far from poor: his father was a colonel in the U.S. Air Force, and his mother was a store manager.

# data[].attributes.headline
Language gap between rich and poor children begins in infancy, Stanford psychologists find

# data[].attributes.subject
Language gap between rich and poor children begins in infancy, Stanford psychologists find

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Andrew Hall
Posted on: May 12, 2017
CRAP Score: 48

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Research by Stanford psychologists reveals that 2-year-old children of lower-income families may already be six months behind in language development. Future work aims to devise intervention methods.

L.A. Cicero

Fifty years of research has revealed the sad truth that the children of lower-income, less-educated parents typically enter school with poorer language skills than their more privileged counterparts. By some measures, 5-year-old children of lower socioeconomic status score more than two years behind on standardized language development tests by the time they enter school.

Stanford researchers have now found that these socioeconomic status (SES) differences begin to emerge much earlier in life: By 18 months of age, toddlers from disadvantaged families are already several months behind more advantaged children in language proficiency.

The study, published in Developmental Science, is the first to identify an "achievement gap" in language processing skill at such a young age and could inform strategies to intervene and bring children up to speed.

In an experiment designed to investigate children's vocabulary and language processing speed, Anne Fernald, a Stanford associate professor of psychology, enrolled 20 children, 18 months old, who lived near the Stanford campus, and tested how quickly and accurately they identified objects based on simple verbal cues. Follow-up tests six months later measured how these skills developed.

Research conducted in university laboratories commonly relies on a "convenience sample" of local participants who are usually affluent and highly educated. Since children in these higher SES families have many other advantages as well, the results of such research do not represent the majority of children living in less privileged circumstances in the United States.

To include a broader range of children in her research, Fernald took her lab on the road. She duplicated the experimental setup of her Stanford-based lab in a 30-feet-long RV and drove to a city a few hours north of campus, where the median household income and education levels are much lower on average than in the Bay Area.

The researchers recruited another 28 toddlers, aged roughly 18 months, from this lower SES population and performed the same experiments as they had on campus. Then they retested the children six months later when they turned 2 years old to see how they had progressed.

The beginning of the language gap

Fernald has devised an elegant test for measuring toddlers' language processing speed. Sitting on their mother's lap, the kids are shown two images; for example, a dog and a ball. A recorded voice then instructs the toddler to "look at the ball" while a high-definition video camera records the child's reaction.

Trained "coders" then review the video frame by frame and note the exact moment that a child's gaze begins to shift toward the target object. In this way, toddlers' efficiency in language understanding can be measured with millisecond-level precision.

At 18 months, toddlers in the higher SES group could identify the correct object in about 750 milliseconds, while the lower SES toddlers were 200 milliseconds slower to respond.

"A 200-millisecond difference in response time at 18 months may not sound like much, but it's huge in terms of mental processing speed," Fernald said.

Both groups of children got faster with age, but at 24 months the lower SES children just barely reached the level of processing efficiency that the higher SES children had achieved at 18 months.

The researchers also asked parents to report on their children's vocabularies at these age points. Between 18 and 24 months, the higher SES children added more than 260 new words to their vocabulary, while the lower SES children learned 30 percent fewer new words over this period.

"By 2 years of age, these disparities are equivalent to a six-month gap between infants from rich and poor families in both language processing skills and vocabulary knowledge," Fernald said. "What we're seeing here is the beginning of a developmental cascade, a growing disparity between kids that has enormous implications for their later educational success and career opportunities."

Kids learn from context

Fernald suggests that slower processing rates are partly responsible for slower vocabulary growth in the early years. Toddlers learn new vocabulary from context, and the faster a child can get at the words she knows, the more able she is to attend to the next word in the sentence and to learn any new words that follow.

"If you say 'the dog is on the sofa,' and the baby at 18 months is slow to process 'dog,' they're not open for business when 'sofa' comes along," Fernald said. "If they're quick on 'dog' and understand that the dog is on something, but don't know what it is, the faster kids are more likely to learn 'sofa' from the context."

This link between early processing speed and language learning is supported by other results from Fernald's research group. In studies following both English- and Spanish-learning toddlers over several years, they found that children who are faster at recognizing familiar words at 18 months have larger vocabularies at age 2 years and score higher on standardized tests of language and cognition in kindergarten and elementary school.

Seeking a solution

Where do such early differences among children come from? One critical factor is that parents differ in the amount of language stimulation they provide to their infants. Several studies show that parents who talk more with their children in an engaging and supportive way have kids who are more likely to develop their full intellectual potential than kids who hear very little child-directed speech.

"For lots of reasons, there is generally less supportive talk to children in families living in poverty, which could partially explain the SES differences we found in children's early processing skill and vocabulary learning," Fernald said.

In previous research on caregivers' speech to Spanish-learning children, Fernald's group found big differences in levels of parental engagement even within a disadvantaged group of families. Those lower SES kids who heard more child-directed talk got faster in processing and learned language more rapidly.

"It's clear that SES is not destiny," Fernald said. "The good news is that regardless of economic circumstances, parents who use more and richer language with their infants can help their child to learn more quickly."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Language gap between rich and poor children begins in infancy, Stanford psychologists find

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research by Stanford psychologists reveals that 2-year-old children of lower-income families may already be six months behind in language development. Future work aims to devise intervention methods. L.A. Cicero Fifty years of research has revealed the sad truth that the children of lower-income, less-educated parents typically enter school with poorer language skills than their more privileged counterparts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Education Matters to Health: Exploring the causes 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Education Matters to Health: Exploring the causes 

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Andrew Hall
Posted on: May 12, 2017
CRAP Score: 48

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans with more education live longer, healthier lives than those with fewer years of schooling (see Issue Brief #1). But why does education matter so much to health? The links are complex-and tied closely to income and to the skills and opportunities that people have to lead healthy lives in their communities.

How are health and education linked? There are three main connections: 1
Read More

The relationship between education and health has existed for generations, despite dramatic improvements in medical care and public health. Recent data show that the association between education and health has grown dramatically in the last four decades. Now more than ever, people who have not graduated high school are more likely to report being in fair or poor health compared to college graduates. 2 Between 1972 and 2004, the gap between these two groups grew from 23 percentage points to 36 percentage points among non-Hispanic whites age 40 to 64. African-Americans experienced a comparable widening in the health gap by education during this time period. The probability of having major chronic conditions also increased more among the least educated. 3 The widening of the gap has occurred across the country 4 and is discussed in more detail in Issue Brief #1.

How important are years of school?

Research has focused on the number of years of school students complete, largely because there are fewer data available on other aspects of education that are also important. It's not just the diploma: education is important in building knowledge and developing literacy, thinking and problem-solving skills, and character traits. Our community research team noted that early childhood education and youth development are also important to the relationship between education and health.

This issue brief, created with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, provides an overview of what research shows about the links between education and health alongside the perspectives of residents of a disadvantaged urban community in Richmond, Virginia. These community researchers, members of our partnership, collaborate regularly with the Center on Society and Health's research and policy activities to help us more fully understand the "real life" connections between community life and health outcomes.

1. The Health Benefits of Education

Income and Resources

"Being educated now means getting better employment, teaching our kids to be successful and just making a difference in, just in everyday life." -Brenda

Better jobs: In today's knowledge economy, an applicant with more education is more likely to be employed and land a job that provides health-promoting benefits such as health insurance, paid leave, and retirement. 5 Conversely, people with less education are more likely to work in high-risk occupations with few benefits.

Higher earnings: Income has a major effect on health and workers with more education tend to earn more money. 2 In 2012, the median wage for college graduates was more than twice that of high school dropouts and more than one and a half times higher than that of high school graduates. 6 Read More

Adults with more education tend to experience less economic hardship, attain greater job prestige and social rank, and enjoy greater access to resources that contribute to better health. A number of studies have suggested that income is among the main reasons for the superior health of people with an advanced education. 1 Weekly earnings rise dramatically for Americans with a college or advanced degree. A higher education has an even greater effect on lifetime earnings (see Figure 1), a pattern that is true for men and women, for blacks and whites, and for Hispanics and non-Hispanics. For example, based on 2006-2008 data, the lifetime earnings of a Hispanic male are $870,275 for those with less than a 9th grade education but $2,777,200 for those with a doctoral degree. The corresponding lifetime earnings for a non-Hispanic white male are $1,056,523 and $3,403,123. 7

"Definitely having a good education and a good paying job can relieve a lot of mental stress."
-Chimere

Resources for good health: Families with higher incomes can more easily purchase healthy foods, have time to exercise regularly, and pay for health services and transportation. Conversely, the job insecurity, low wages, and lack of assets associated with less education can make individuals and families more vulnerable during hard times-which can lead to poor nutrition, unstable housing, and unmet medical needs. Read More

Economic hardships can harm health and family relationships, 8 as well as making it more difficult to afford household expenses, from utility bills to medical costs. People living in households with higher incomes-who tend to have more education-are more likely to be covered by health insurance (see Figure 3). Over time, the insured rate has decreased for Americans without a high school education (see Figure 4).

Lower income and lack of adequate insurance coverage are barriers to meeting health care needs. In 2010, more than one in four (27%) adults who lacked a high school education reported being unable to see a doctor due to cost, compared to less than one in five (18%) high school graduates and less than one in 10 (8%) college graduates. 9 Access to care also affects receipt of preventive services and care for chronic diseases. The CDC reports, for example, that about 49% of adults age 50-75 with some high school education were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening in 2010, compared to 59% of high school graduates and 72% of college graduates. 10

Social and Psychological Benefits

"So through school, we learn how to socially engage with other classmates. We learn how to engage with our teachers. How we speak to others and how we allow that to grow as we get older allows us to learn how to ask those questions when we're working within the healthcare system, when we're working with our doctor to understand what is going on with us."
-Chanel

Reduced stress: People with more education-and thus higher incomes-are often spared the health-harming stresses that accompany prolonged social and economic hardship. Those with less education often have fewer resources (e.g., social support, sense of control over life, and high self-esteem) to buffer the effects of stress. Read More

Life changes, traumas, chronic strain, and discrimination can cause health-harming stress. Economic hardship and other stressors can have a cumulative, negative effect on health over time and may, in turn, make individuals more sensitive to further stressors. Researchers have coined the term "allostatic load" to refer to the effects of chronic exposure to physiological stress responses. Exposure to high allostatic load over time may predispose individuals to diseases such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, and infections 11 and has been associated with higher death rates among older adults. 12

Social and psychological skills: Education in school and other learning opportunities outside the classroom build skills and foster traits that are important throughout life and may be important to health, such as conscientiousness, perseverance, a sense of personal control, flexibility, the capacity for negotiation, and the ability to form relationships and establish social networks. These skills can help with a variety of life's challenges-from work to family life-and with managing one's health and navigating the health care system. Read More

Many types of skills can be developed through education, from cognitive skills to problem solving to fostering key personality traits. Education can increase 'learned effectiveness,' including cognitive ability, self-control, and problem solving. 13 Personality traits, otherwise known as 'soft skills', are associated with success in education and employment and lower mortality rates. 14 One set of these personality traits has been called the 'Big Five': conscientiousness, openness to experience, being extraverted, being agreeable, andemotional stability. 15

These various forms of human capital are an important way that education affects health. For example, education may strengthen coping skills that reduce the damage of stress. Greater personal control may also lead to healthier behaviors, partly by increasing knowledge. Those with greater perceived personal control are more likely to initiate preventive behaviors. 13

Social networks: Educated adults tend to have larger social networks-and these connections bring access to financial, psychological, and emotional resources that may help reduce hardship and stress and improve health. Read More

Social networks also enhance access to information and exposure to peers who model acceptable behaviors. The relationship between social support and education may be due, in part, to the social and cognitive skills and greater involvement with civic groups and organizations that come with education. 16, 17 Low social support is associated with higher death rates and poor mental health. 18, 19

Education is also associated with crime. Among young male high school drop-outs, nearly 1 in 10 was incarcerated on a given day in 2006-2007 versus fewer than 1 of 33 high school graduates. 20 The high incarceration rates in some communities can disrupt social networks and weaken social capital and social control-all of which may impact public health and safety.

"Being able to advocate and ask for what you want, helps to facilitate a healthier lifestyle. ... If it's needing your community to have green spaces, have a park, a playground, have better trails within the community, advocating for that will help."
-Chanel

Health Behaviors

Knowledge and skills: In addition to being prepared for better jobs, people with more education are more likely to learn about healthy behaviors. Educated patients may be more able to understand their health needs, follow instructions, advocate for themselves and their families, and communicate effectively with health providers. 21 Read More

People with more education are more likely to learn about health and health risks, improving their literacy and comprehension of what can be complex issues critical to their wellbeing. People who are more educated are more receptive to health education campaigns. Education can also lead to more accurate health beliefs and knowledge, and thus to better lifestyle choices, but also to better skills and greater self-advocacy. Education improves skills such as literacy, develops effective habits, and may improve cognitive ability. The skills acquired through education can affect health indirectly (through better jobs and earnings) or directly (through ability to follow health care regimens and manage diseases), and they can affect the ability of patients to navigate the health system, such as knowing how to get reimbursed by a health plan. Thus, more highly educated individuals may be more able to understand health care issues and follow treatment guidelines. 21-23 The quality of doctor-patient communication is also poorer for patients of low socioeconomic status. A review of the effects of health literacy on health found that people with lower health literacy are more likely to use emergency services and be hospitalized and are less likely to use preventive services such as mammography or take medications and interpret labels correctly. Among the elderly, poor health literacy has been linked to poorer health status and higher death rates. 24

Healthier Neighborhoods

"Poor neighborhoods oftentimes lead to poor schools. Poor schools lead to poor education. Poor education oftentimes leads to poor work. Poor work puts you right back into the poor neighborhood. It's a vicious cycle that happens in communities, especially inner cities." -Albert

Lower income and fewer resources mean that people with less education are more likely to live in low-income neighborhoods that lack the resources for good health. These neighborhoods are often economically marginalized and segregated and have more risk factors for poor health such as:

Less access to supermarkets or other sources of healthy food and an oversupply of fast food restaurants and outlets that promote unhealthy foods.25
Read More

Nationwide, access to a store that sells healthier foods is 1.4 less likely in census tracts with fewer college educated adults (less than 27% of the population) than in tracts with a higher proportion of college-educated persons. 26 Food access is important to health because unhealthy eating habits are linked to numerous acute and chronic health problems such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, heart disease, and stroke as well as higher mortality rates.

"If the best thing that you see in the neighborhood is a drug dealer, then that becomes your goal. If the best thing you see in your neighborhood is working a 9 to 5, then that becomes your goal. But if you see the doctors and the lawyers, if you see the teachers and the professors, then that becomes your goal." -Marco

"It's a lot of things going on [in this community], a lot of challenges. It's just hard sometimes to try and get people to come together, as one, just so we can solve the problem." -Toni

Less green space, such as sidewalks and parks to encourage outdoor physical activity and walking or cycling to work or school.

Rural and low-income areas, which are more populated by people with less education, often suffer from shortages of primary care physicians and other health care providers and facilities.

Higher crime rates, exposing residents to greater risk of trauma and deaths from violence and the stress of living in unsafe neighborhoods. People with less education, particularly males, are more likely to be incarcerated, which carries its own public health risks.

Fewer high-quality schools, often because public schools are poorly resourced by low property taxes. Low-resourced schools have greater difficulty offering attractive teacher salaries or properly maintaining buildings and supplies.

Fewer jobs, which can exacerbate the economic hardship and poor health that is common for people with less education.

Higher levels of toxins, such as air and water pollution, hazardous waste, pesticides, andindustrial chemicals.27

Less effective political influence to advocate for community needs, resulting in a persistent cycle of disadvantage.

2. Poor Health That Affects Education (Reverse Causality)

"Things that happen in the home can definitely affect a child being able to even concentrate in the classroom. ... If you're hungry, you can't learn with your belly growling. ... If you're worried about your mom being safe while you're at school, you're not going to be able to pay attention." -Chimere

The relationship between education and health is never a simple one. Poor health not only results from lower educational attainment, it can also cause educational setbacks and interfere with schooling.

For example, children with asthma and other chronic illnesses may experience recurrent absences and difficulty concentrating in class. 28 Disabilities can also affect school performance due to difficulties with vision, hearing, attention, behavior, absenteeism, or cognitive skills. Read More

Health conditions, disabilities, and unhealthy behaviors can all have an effect on educational outcomes. Illness, poor nutrition, substance use and smoking, obesity, sleep disorders, mental health, asthma, poor vision, and inattention/hyperactivity have established links to school performance or attainment. 25, 29, 30 For example, compared to other students, children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are three times more likely to be held back (retained a grade) and almost three times more likely to drop out of school before graduation. 31 Children who are born with low birth weight also tend to have poorer educational outcomes, 32, 33 and higher risk for special education placements. 34, 35 Although the impact of health on education (reverse causality) is important, many have questioned how large a role it plays. 1

3. Conditions Throughout the Life Course-Beginning in Early Childhood-That Affect Both Health and Education

A third way that education can be linked to health is by exposure to conditions, beginning in early childhood, which can affect both education and health. Throughout life, conditions at home, socioeconomic status, and other contextual factors can create stress, cause illness, and deprive individuals and families of resources for success in school, the workplace, and healthy living. Read More

Contextual factors throughout one's life can affect education and health. For example, biological characteristics can affect educational success and health outcomes, as can socioeconomic and environmental conditions such as poverty or material deprivation. These influences appear to be particularly acute during early childhood, when children's physical health and academic success can be influenced by biologic risk factors (e.g., low birth weight, chronic health conditions) and socioeconomic status (e.g., parents' education and assets, neighborhood socioeconomic resources, such as day care and schools). 36 School readiness is enhanced by positive early childhood conditions-e.g., fetal wellbeing, social-emotional development, family socioeconomic status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and early childhood education-but some of these same assets also appear to be vital to the health and development of children and their future risk of adopting unhealthy behaviors and adult diseases. 37-40 Early childhood is a period in which health and educational trajectories are shaped by a nurturing home environment, parental involvement, stimulation, and early childhood education, which can foster the development of social skills, adjustment and emotional regulation as well as learning skills. 41

What about social policy?

Social policy-decisions about jobs, the economy, education reform, etc.-is an important driver of educational outcomes AND affects all of the factors described in this brief. For example, underperforming schools and discrimination affect not only educational outcomes but also economic success, the social environment, personal behaviors, and access to quality health care. Social policy affects the education system itself but, in addition, individuals with low educational attainment and fewer resources are more vulnerable to social policy decisions that affect access to health care, eligibility for aid, and support services.

A growing body of research suggests that chronic exposure of infants and toddlers to stressors-what experts call "adverse childhood experiences"-can affect brain development and disturb the child's endocrine and immune systems, causing biological changes that increase the risk of heart disease and other conditions later in life (see Graphic 1). For example:

"The connection that I will say between education and health would be a healthy mind produces a healthy person. A motivated mind produces a motivated person. A curious mind produces a curious person. When you have those things it drives you to want to know more, to want to have more, to want to inquire more. And when you want more, you will get more. You know where the mind goes the person follows... and that includes health." -Marco

The adverse effects of stress on the developing brain and on behavior can affect performance in school and explain setbacks in education. Thus, the correlation between lower educational attainment and illness that is later observed among adults may have as much to do with the seeds of illnessand disability that are planted before children ever reach school age as witheducation itself.

Children exposed to stress may also be drawn to unhealthy behaviors-such as smoking or unhealthy eating-during adolescence, the age when adult habits are often first established.

Read More

Instability in home and community life can have a negative impact on child development and, later in life, such outcomes as economic security and stable housing, which can also affect the physical and mental health of adults. Children exposed to toxic stress, social exclusion and bias, persistent poverty, and trauma experience harmful changes in the architecture of the developing brain that affect cognition, behavioral regulation, and executive function. 42, 43 These disruptions can thereby shape educational, economic, and health outcomes decades and generations later. 44 Dysfunctional coping skills as well as changes in parts of the brain associated with reward and addiction may draw children to unhealthy behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol or drug use, unsafe sex, violence) as teenagers.

Focusing on seven categories of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)*, researchers in the 1990s reported a "graded relationship" for poor health and chronic disease: the higher the exposure to ACEs as children, the greater the risk as adults of having ischemic heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lung disease, and diabetes 45 (see Figure 5). Chronic exposure to ACEs is now believed to disrupt children's developing endocrine and immune systems, causing the body to produce stress hormones and proteins that produce chronic inflammation and lead later in life to heart disease and other adult health problems. 46 Chronic stress can also cause epigenetic changes in DNA that "turn on" genes that may cause cancer and other conditions. 47

Not surprisingly, exposure to ACEs also can stifle success in employment. 38, 48, 49 In one study, the unemployment rate was 13.2% among respondents with 4 or more ACEs, compared to 6.5% for those with no history of ACEs. 50

People who begin life with adverse childhood experiences can thus end up both with greater illness and with difficulties in school and the workplace, thereby contributing to the link between socioeconomic conditions, education, and health. An important way to improve these outcomes is to address the root causes that expose children to stress in the first place.

*The adverse childhood experiences explored were: psychological, physical, or sexual abouse; violence against mother; and living with household members who are substance abusers, mentally ill/suicidal, or ever imprisoned.

"We now know that adversity early in life can not only disrupt brain circuits that lead to problems with literacy; it can also affect the development of the cardiovascular system and the immune system and metabolic regulatory systems, and lead to not only more problems learning in school but also greater risk for diabetes and hypertension and heart disease and cancer and depression and substance abuse." -J Shonkoff (The Poverty Clinic, The New Yorker, March 21, 2011)

What about individual characteristics?

Characteristics of individuals and families are important in the relationship between education and health. Race, gender, age, disability and other personal characteristics often affect educational opportunities and success in school (see Issue Brief #1). Discrimination and racism have multiple links to education and health. Racial segregation reduces educational and job opportunities 51 and is associated with worse health outcomes. 52, 53

How does education impact health in your community?

The Center on Society and Health (CSH) worked with members of Engaging Richmond, a community-academic partnership that included residents of the East End, a disadvantaged neighborhood of Richmond, Virginia. This inquiry into the links between education and health was a pilot study to learn how individuals could add to our understanding of this complex issue using the lens of their own experiences.

What does your community have to say about the links between education and health - or other health disparities? Learn more about community research partnerships and community engagement:

References

Cutler D., and Lleras-Muney A. Education and Health. In: Anthony J. Culyer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Health Economics, Vol 1. San Diego: Elsevier; 2014. pp. 232-45.

Olshansky SJ, et al. Differences in life expectancy due to race and educational differences are widening, and many may not catch up. Health Aff 2012;31:1803-13.

Goldman D, Smith JP. The increasing value of education to health. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:1728-37.

Montez JK, Berkman LF. Trends in the educational gradient of mortality among US adults aged 45 to 84 years: bringing regional context into the explanation. Am J Public Health 2014;104:e82-90.

Baum S, Ma J, Payea K. Education Pays 2013: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. College Board, 2013.

Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed 4/9/14 at http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htm.

Julian TA and Kominski RA. Education and Synthetic Work- Life Earnings Estimates. American Community Survey Reports, ACS-14. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

Sobolewski JM, Amato PR. Economic hardship in the family of origin and children's psychological well-being in adulthood. J Marriage Fam 2005;67:141-56.

Centers for Disease Control, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2010 BRFSS Data. Accessed Feb 14, 2014 at http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/data_tools.htm

Steele CB, et al. Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Screening - United States, 2008 and 2010. CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report - United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control. MMWR 2013;62(3):53-60.

Mcewen BS, Stellar E. Stress and the individual: mechanisms leading to disease. Arch Int Med 1993;153:2093-101.

Karlamangla AS, et al. Reduction in allostatic load in older adults is associated with lower all-cause mortality risk. Psychosom Med 2006;68:500-7.

Ross CE, Wu CL. The links between education and health. Am Soc Rev 1995;60:719-45.

Roberts BW, et al. The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspect Psychol Sci 2007;2:313-45.

Heckman JJ, Kautz T. Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics 2012;19:451-64.

Berkman LF. The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosom Med 1995;57:245-54.

Ross CE, Mirowsky J. Refining the association between education and health: the effects of quantity, credential, and selectivity. Demography 1999;36:445-60.

Kaplan GA, et al. Social functioning and overall mortality: Prospective evidence from the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Epidemiology 1994;5:495-500.

Seeman TE. Social ties and health: the benefits of social integration. AEP 1996;6:442-51.

Sum A, et al. The Consequences of Dropping Out of High School: Joblessness and Jailing for High School Dropouts and the High Cost for Taxpayers. Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, 2009.

Goldman DP, Smith JP. Can patient self-management help explain the SES health gradient? Proc Natl Acad Sci 2002;10929-10934.

Spandorfer JM, et al. Comprehension of discharge instructions by patients in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:71-4.

Williams MV, et al. Inadequate literacy is a barrier to asthma knowledge and self-care. Chest 1998;114:1008-15.

Berkman ND, et al. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:97-107.

Ver Ploeg M, et al. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food-Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences: Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009.

Grimm KA, et al. Access to Health Food Retailers-Unites States, 2011. CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report - United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013;62: 20-26.

Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu Rev Public Health 2006;27:103-24.

Basch CE. Healthier Students Are Better Learners: A Missing Link in School Reforms to Close the Achievement Gap. New York: Columbia University, 2010.

Case A, et al. The lasting impact of childhood health and circumstance. J Health Econ 2005;24:365-89.

Suhrcke M, de Paz Nieves C. The impact of health and health behaviours on educational outcomes in high-income countries: a review of the evidence. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Ofﬁce for Europe, 2011.

Barbaresi WJ, et al. Long-term school outcomes for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a population-based perspective. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2007;28:265-73.

Behrman JR, Rosenzweig MR. 2004. Returns to birthweight. Rev Econ Statistics 2004;86:586-601.

Black SE. et al. From the Cradle to the Labor Market? The Effect of Birth Weight on Adult Outcomes. NBER Working Papers 11796, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005.

Avchen RN, et al. Birth weight and school-age disabilities: a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol 2002;154:895-901.

Chapman DA, et al. Public health approach to the study of mental retardation. Am J Ment Retard 2008;113:102-16.

Conti G, Heckman JJ. Understanding the early origins of the education-health gradient. Perspect Psychol Sci 2010;5:585-605.

Denhem SA. Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: what is it and how do we assess It? Early Educ Dev 2006;17:57-89.

Williams Shanks TR, Robinson C. Assets, economic opportunity and toxic stress: a framework for understanding child and educational outcomes. Econ Educ Rev 2013;33:154-70.

Currie J. Healthy, wealthy, and wise: socioeconomic status, poor health in childhood, and human capital development. J Econ Lit 2009,47:87-122.

Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. The neighborhood they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol Bull 2000;126:309-337.

Barnett WS, Belfield CR. Early childhood development and social mobility. Future Child 2006;16:73-98.

Hackman DA, et al. Socioeconomic status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal research. Nat Rev Neurosci 2010;11:651-9.

Gottesman II, Hanson DR. Human development: biological and genetic processes. Annu Rev Psychol 2005;56:263-86.

Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, Eds. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Child Development. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000.

Felitti VJ, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med 1998;14:245-58.

McEwen BS. Brain on stress: how the social environment gets under the skin. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012;109 Suppl 2:17180-5

Zhang TY, Meaney MJ. Epigenetics and the environmental regulation of the genome and its function. Annu Rev Psychol 2010;61:439-66.

Egerter S, et al. Education and Health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2011.

Mistry KB, et al. A new framework for childhood health promotion: the role of policies and programs in building capacity and foundations of early childhood health. Am J Public Health 2012;102:1688-96.

Liu Y, et al. Relationship between adverse childhood experiences and unemployment among adults from five U.S. states. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2013;48:357-69.

Williams DR, Mohammed SA. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: Evidence and needed research. J Behav Med 2009;32(1), 20-47.

White K, Borrell LN. Racial/ethnic residential segregation: Framing the context of health risk and health disparities. Health Place 2011;18: 438-48.

Smedley BD et al., eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans with more education live longer, healthier lives than those with fewer years of schooling (see Issue Brief #1). But why does education matter so much to health? The links are complex-and tied closely to income and to the skills and opportunities that people have to lead healthy lives in their communities.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Andrew Hall
Posted on: May 12, 2017
CRAP Score: 46

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States is facing a dropout crisis, with an estimated 1.1 million members of the 2012 high school graduating class not earning diplomas ( Education Week, 2012). Dropouts face extremely bleak economic and social prospects. Compared to high school graduates, they are less likely find a job and earn a living wage, and more likely to be poor and to suffer from a variety of adverse health outcomes (Rumberger, 2011). Moreover, they 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.

In 2009, poor (bottom 20 percent of all family incomes) students were five times more likely to drop out of high school than high-income (top 20 percent of all family incomes) students (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & KewalRamani, 2011, Table 1). 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). And poverty rates for Black and Hispanic families are three times the rates for White families.

Family Poverty

Family poverty is associated with a number of adverse conditions - high mobility and homelessness; hunger and food insecurity; parents who are in jail or absent; domestic violence; drug abuse and other problems - known as "toxic stressors" because they are severe, sustained and not buffered by supportive relationships (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012). Drawing on a diverse fields of medical, biological and social science, Shonkoff and Garner present an ecobiodevelopmental framework to show how toxic stress in early childhood leads to lasting impacts on learning (linguistic, cognitive and social-emotional skills), behavior and health. These impacts are likely manifested in some of the precursors to dropping out, including low achievement, chronic absenteeism and misbehavior, as well as a host of strategies, attitudes and behaviors - sometimes referred to as "noncogntive" skills - linked to school success (Farrington et al., 2012)

While family poverty is clearly related to dropping out, poverty associated with schools and communities also contributes to the dropout crisis. It is also well documented that schools in the United States are highly segregated by income, social class and race/ethnicity. In 2009-2010, 9 percent of all secondary students attended high-poverty schools (where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch), but 21 percent of Blacks and Hispanics attended high-poverty schools, compared to 2 percent of Whites and 7 percent of Asians (Aud et al., 2012, Figure 13-2). More than 40 years ago, famed sociologist James Coleman demonstrated that a students' achievement is more highly related to the characteristics of other students in the school than any other school characteristic (Coleman et al., 1966). Subsequent research has confirmed this finding and even found that the racial/ethnic and social class composition of schools was more important than a student's own race, ethnicity and social class in explaining educational outcomes (Borman & Dowling, 2010).

Community Poverty

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.

The adverse effects of poverty on school dropout can be mitigated through two primary strategies. One is to improve the academic achievement, attitudes and behaviors of poor and other students at risk for dropping out through targeted intervention programs. The U.S Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse maintains a list of proven programs; it also issued a Dropout Prevention Practice Guide in 2009 with a set of research-based practices (Dynarski et al., 2008). This approach is limited to the extent that students continue to be exposed to the adverse settings of poor families, poor schools and poor communities.

The second strategy is to improve the settings themselves. Effectively, that would mean 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.

A 2005 United Nations report found that the U.S. had the highest rate of child poverty among all 24 Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) countries exceeded only by Mexico (UNICEF, 2005). The report further found that variation in government policy - particularly the extent to which the government provides social transfer programs for low-income families - explains most of the variation in poverty rates among countries. A recent follow-up report examined five dimensions of child well-being - material well-being, health and safety, education, behaviors and risks and housing and environment - in 29 developed countries, and the U.S. ranked 26th (UNICEF, 2013). Maybe it is not a coincidence that the U.S. also ranks 22nd in the world in high school graduation rates (OECD, 2112, Chart A2.1). If the U.S. ever hopes to achieve President Obama's stated goal of becoming first in the world in college completion rates, then it is imperative that we greatly increase rates of high school graduation and child well-being.

Author Bio

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. A faculty member at UCSB since 1987, Professor Rumberger has published widely in several areas of education: education and work; the schooling of disadvantaged students, particularly school dropouts and linguistic minority students; school effectiveness and education policy. He recently completed a book, Dropping Out: Why Students Drop Out of High School and What Can Be Done About It, published by Harvard University Press in the fall of 2011. He currently directs the California Dropout Research Project, which is producing a series of reports and policy briefs about the dropout problem in California and a state policy agenda to improve California's high school graduation rate. Professor Rumberger received a PhD in education and a MA in economics from Stanford University and a BS in electrical engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University.

References

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2012). The condition of education 2012. (NCES 2012-045). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [date]. Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012045

Belfield, C. & Levin, H. M. Eds. (2007). The price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate education. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Borman, G. & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman's Equality of Opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112, 1201-1246.

Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972-2009. (NCES 2012-06). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved [date]. Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012006

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide. (NCEE 2008-4025). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved [date]. Source: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/

Education Week (June 7, 2012). Diplomas Count 2012: Trailing behind, moving forward: Latino students in U.S. schools. Washington, D.C.: Education Week. Retrieved [date]. Source: http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2012/06/07/

Farrington, C. E., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E. , Ngaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, University of Chicago. Retrieved [date]. Source: https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/teaching-adolescents-become-learners-role-noncognitive-factors-shaping-school

Leventhal, T. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin®, 126, 309-337.

OECD (2112). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Rumberger, R. W. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what can be done about it. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R.J., Morenoff, J.D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing "neighborhood effects": Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443-478.

Shonkoff, J.P. & Garner, A.S. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129, e232-e246.

Snyder, T. D. & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of Education Statistics 2011. (NCES 2012-001) Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved [date].

UNICEF (2005). Child poverty in rich countries, 2005. Innocenti Report Card 6. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

UNICEF (2013). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States is facing a dropout crisis, with an estimated 1.1 million members of the 2012 high school graduating class not earning diplomas ( Education Week, 2012). Dropouts face extremely bleak economic and social prospects.

# data[].attributes.headline
3 Ways Poverty impacts Children's Learning to Read

# data[].attributes.subject
3 Ways Poverty impacts Children's Learning to Read

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Andrew Hall
Posted on: May 12, 2017
CRAP Score: 47

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Reading is a luxury," says Dr. Martha Burns, director of neuroscience education at Scientific Learning Corporation. This is a powerful quote when it comes to understanding the impacts of poverty on children learning to read. Research tells us that children who come from homes in poverty are often not ready to learn to read due to the impacts poverty has on how their brains develop.

Let's explore the reasons for this.

The Poverty Trifecta

According to Dr. Burns, there are three major factors that adversely impact learning and reading on children who come from homes of poverty.

Factor #1: Children from homes of poverty do not have as much exposure to language.

Frequently cited research by Hart & Risley (1995) found that there is a 32-million word gap in students who come from homes of poverty. They simply do not get as much language exposure as peers from homes of higher income levels. This affects development of oral language at early ages, so that by the time these children enter our classrooms there is already a significant difference in how they are able to understand, respond, and be ready to learn.

Factor #2: Poverty changes the way the brain matures.

We can agree that all children have the capacity to learn. Experience in the world drives this learning and affects the development of the brain. What does the world of a child in poverty look like? We don't always know the answer to that question because many factors can be at play. However, neuroscientists have studied the brains of children from different income levels, controlling for variables, and have identified significant differences in the brain maturation of children in poverty. Findings have shown:

Differences in the frontal lobe, affecting cognitive control and self-control (in the classroom, this translates to paying attention, listening, and learning on-demand)

Differences in the occipital lobe (important for spatial skills)

Differences in working memory, impacting the ability to: listen and think about what someone is saying, read a book and remember parts of what has been read, and organize thoughts to formulate written language

The brains of children in poverty mature differently based on experience. They bring these differences with them to the classroom.

Factor #3: Children who come from poverty experience high levels of stress.

Stress? We all experience stress - it's just part of life! At some point, we all experience and must learn to manage stress. However, stress that is chronic, out of your control, or experienced without support becomes toxic stress. Children in poverty often experience toxic stress, also affecting brain development. Neural pathways responding to stress such as fear and anxiety may overdevelop, while other pathways for things such as reasoning, planning, and learning develop more slowly based on the child's experiences.

Educators can influence change

Educators know that third grade marks a critical milestone for students. The learning emphasis shifts from learning to read to reading to learn. Students who are not proficient in reading by the third grade as measured by standardized tests are at higher risk of either graduating late or not at all. The research on children in poverty show that not only are these children more likely to have low reading test scores in third grade, they are less likely to graduate from high school at any reading skill level. These students truly present a challenge to educators. How can we improve outcomes? Know that we have the power to influence positive brain changes through the practices and attitudes we employ in the classroom.

Health and Nutrition. Set the brain up for success! Children who live in poverty can lack basic health care and nutrition. Programs that provide meals for students in turn support cognitive skills such as attention. Recess and physical education programs promote good oxygen intake and blood glucose levels, benefitting the brain and subsequent learning. School health screenings can help identify vision or hearing problems that impede learning and may otherwise go undiagnosed.

Believe in students who may not believe in themselves. "Lazy" is a tough word. It implies that a child just doesn't care. The truth is children may be unmotivated due to lack of hope and optimism that can stem from toxic stress. Furthermore, these students may see the future as hopeless and their situations as fixed. We must help lead students away from a "good" vs. "bad" or "smart" vs. "dumb" perspective and teach them that change is possible.

Build relationships. Let's recall the impacts of toxic stress on the brain. A child who has lived in a state of fear and anxiety has likely developed a significant fight-or-flight response. In homes of poverty, studies have shown children commonly get twice as many reprimands as positive comments (Risley & Hart, 2006). Strong, positive, and caring educators help children build trust in adults. We can further motivate learning by making an effort to understand children's unique backgrounds and incorporating their interests.

Target vocabulary and cognitive skills. Remember that these children typically have significantly less language exposure than their peers. Use vocabulary building activities to introduce and use new words that appear in classroom and reading materials. This supports comprehension. Recognize how differences in early brain maturation may play out in the classroom. Deficits in executive functioning skills make it difficult for a child to attend, listen and learn on-demand. Teach students core academic skills such as how to organize, prioritize, and remember key ideas.

Supplement instruction with neuroscience-based interventions. If anything teaches us that the brain can change, it is the study of neuroscience. Neuroscientific interventions offer a supplement to the work of educators in the classroom. Programs such as Fast ForWordⓇ target core skills to include attention and working memory. fMRI and efficacy studies of students who have completed 6 weeks of the Fast ForWordⓇ program have demonstrated significant gains in reading skills and underlying cognitive skills as compared with children with no intervention, even among students at a secondary level. Neuroscientific interventions are a great option to support reading development for these students.

The takeaway message is that we can positively influence reading and learning skills in children from homes of poverty by understanding their brains. With this knowledge, reading can become a luxury we can all afford!

References:

The Effects of Poverty on School Success - Webinar
How Does Poverty Influence Learning?
How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement
Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation

Fast ForWord has been proven to make a big difference for students in poverty. See Efficacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 Ways Poverty Impacts Children Learning to Read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research shows that children who come from homes in poverty often struggle to learn to read. But there is hope. In this blog, you'll learn about the primary factors that impact children from homes of poverty and how educators can positively influence reading and learning skills by understanding how students' brains function.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Andrew Hall
Posted on: May 5, 2017
CRAP Score: 45

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Edutopia is a free source of information, inspiration, and practical strategies for learning and teaching in preK-12 education. We are published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted By: Andrew Hall
Posted on: May 5, 2017
CRAP Score: 46

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's hard to argue that poverty does not affect education. It's hard to argue that children who come from homes where they may be wanting--wanting for food, for time, or for resources--don't enter the school door with a little less than others. And it's hard to argue that children living in poverty and attending schools that are underfunded, underresourced, and understaffed are not literally up against the system.

We have established a system where those who are poor are more likely to stay poor, and lately we have seen a sharp increase in those considered poor. In fact, a recent research bulletin from the Southern Education Foundation highlights that, as of this year, the majority of public school children come from poverty. According to the bulletin,
The latest data collected from the states by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), show that 51 percent of the students across the nation's public schools were low income in 2013.
In 40 of the 50 states, low income students comprised no less than 40% of all public schoolchildren. In 21 states, children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches were a majority of the students in 2013.

51 percent of our children across the country now live in poverty, and the numbers appear to be growing.

Coincidentally, it has also been 51 years since we, as a nation, declared poverty unacceptable. It has been 51 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty in his 1964 State of the Union Address.
This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort.
It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won. The richest Nation on earth can afford to win it. We cannot afford to lose it. One thousand dollars invested in salvaging an unemployable youth today can return $40,000 or more in his lifetime.

During this address, Johnson also acknowledged that "many Americans live on the outskirts of hope--some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both." Poverty, Johnson said, was a "national problem," one that required a collective response across all levels of government and society. His address singled out every American to do his part.

Fifty-one years later, however, we have established systems that perpetuate and even accentuate poverty. Schools in low socioeconomic areas are underfunded when compared to higher socioeconomic neighborhoods. They tackle chronic issues with a chronic lack of resources. While those who work in these schools may be passionate, hard-working, and motivated educators, they frequently lack experience, support services, and political power.

Thus, the message becomes clear--if you are born into poverty, you are likely to stay in poverty.

As a country, we have deep-rooted negative stereotypes about people living in poverty, despite the fact that people who live in poverty are as diverse in their norms, beliefs, and behaviors as people who live in any other socioeconomic stratum. Poverty spans geographical and ethnic boundaries, from urban cities to rural towns. There are many communities that have battled poverty for decades and many where poverty has arrived recently, unexpectedly, and in a rush.

Poverty is neither fair nor equitable, and it is not productive for society. If we ignore, as Charles Blow called it, the " corrosive effects of poverty" on our nation's children, it will come back to haunt us. And as Steve Suitts, author of the Southern Education Foundation research bulletin, said, "It's a matter of our national future, because when one group becomes the majority of our students, they define what that future is going to be in education more than any other group."

So what do we do? Rather than just get angry, we must get active.

We can and should commit to addressing poverty via intersectoral alignment, change the formula by which we fund our schools, and ensure that inequities are at the heart of all policy discussions. Funding education via property taxes aligned to varying algorithms of local, state, and federal streams results in fundamental inequities. Such systems reward those who require the least rewarding and instruct those living in the poorest areas that the only way out is to relocate, which undermines the notion that education is the great equalizer.

If we dive deeper into these broad systemic changes, we see that there are a number of specific intermediate actions that we can all demand our policymakers undertake in order to directly and profoundly influence the education, well-being, and living conditions of children in poverty today.

Fully Fund Title I
Title I is the cornerstone of federal aid for K-12 schools and provides supplemental funding to local school districts to help meet the educational needs of students in high-poverty schools. While the 2007 allocation for Title 1 was $27 billion, the current allocation for Title I in 2015 is $15.5 billion. Many experts estimate that fully funding Title I to properly serve the more than 11 million eligible children would require an annual expenditure of $50 billion. While this is a formidable investment, national leaders should prioritize the funds to both ameliorate the effects of poverty on children and close the achievement gap with more sustained and targeted educational supports.

Maximize Meal Programs
Just over a fifth of U.S. children live in a household that is "food insecure"--that is, having limited or uncertain access to adequate food at some point during the year. For some children, the food they receive through the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs is their only sustenance. These efforts should remain priorities when the Child Nutrition Act is reauthorized, and states with low direct certification rates should receive support to improve their systems and expand child access.

Improve School Climate
According to Eric Jensen and the Center for New York City Affairs, high-poverty schools are more likely to struggle with school climate concerns such as absenteeism and truancy, bullying, and trust and engagement issues that can weaken the learning environment. Research by the National School Climate Center has consistently demonstrated that a positive school climate is associated with academic achievement, effective risk-prevention efforts, and positive youth development.

Improve Access to Advanced Coursework
Students in poverty should receive just as much access to relevant and challenging coursework through multiple pathways (e.g., Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, dual-enrollment programs) as their wealthier counterparts. But simply offering them the same number of rigorous courses isn't enough. They should also be provided with the academic supports they need to thrive and succeed in those courses.

Poverty affects our education, our economy, and our future. It is becoming the norm, and we appear reluctant to address it. What was once a local, regional, or state concern is now a national issue and will affect our national progress. But we have the steps in place to change it--and we've had these steps for over half a century. What has been waning is our will to act and our determination to succeed.

The benefit we have is that we know what we need to take to make a difference in the longer term and even within the current systems. There are steps we can take tomorrow in our classrooms and this year in our policy decisions. We know the direction the trend is heading and we know the consequences of inaction, but are we ready to make the change?
The issue of poverty and education was discussed and debated at the recent ASCD Whole Child Symposium. Read the report and watch the conversation through these videos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poverty Affects Education--And Our Systems Perpetuate It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poverty affects our education, our economy, and our future. It is becoming the norm, and we appear reluctant to address it. We have the steps in place to...

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Andrew Hall
Posted on: May 5, 2017
CRAP Score: 48

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Americans with more education live longer, healthier lives than those with fewer years of schooling (see Issue Brief #1). But why does education matter so much to health? The links are complex-and tied closely to income and to the skills and opportunities that people have to lead healthy lives in their communities.

How are health and education linked? There are three main connections: 1
Read More

The relationship between education and health has existed for generations, despite dramatic improvements in medical care and public health. Recent data show that the association between education and health has grown dramatically in the last four decades. Now more than ever, people who have not graduated high school are more likely to report being in fair or poor health compared to college graduates. 2 Between 1972 and 2004, the gap between these two groups grew from 23 percentage points to 36 percentage points among non-Hispanic whites age 40 to 64. African-Americans experienced a comparable widening in the health gap by education during this time period. The probability of having major chronic conditions also increased more among the least educated. 3 The widening of the gap has occurred across the country 4 and is discussed in more detail in Issue Brief #1.

How important are years of school?

Research has focused on the number of years of school students complete, largely because there are fewer data available on other aspects of education that are also important. It's not just the diploma: education is important in building knowledge and developing literacy, thinking and problem-solving skills, and character traits. Our community research team noted that early childhood education and youth development are also important to the relationship between education and health.

This issue brief, created with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, provides an overview of what research shows about the links between education and health alongside the perspectives of residents of a disadvantaged urban community in Richmond, Virginia. These community researchers, members of our partnership, collaborate regularly with the Center on Society and Health's research and policy activities to help us more fully understand the "real life" connections between community life and health outcomes.

1. The Health Benefits of Education

Income and Resources

"Being educated now means getting better employment, teaching our kids to be successful and just making a difference in, just in everyday life." -Brenda

Better jobs: In today's knowledge economy, an applicant with more education is more likely to be employed and land a job that provides health-promoting benefits such as health insurance, paid leave, and retirement. 5 Conversely, people with less education are more likely to work in high-risk occupations with few benefits.

Higher earnings: Income has a major effect on health and workers with more education tend to earn more money. 2 In 2012, the median wage for college graduates was more than twice that of high school dropouts and more than one and a half times higher than that of high school graduates. 6 Read More

Adults with more education tend to experience less economic hardship, attain greater job prestige and social rank, and enjoy greater access to resources that contribute to better health. A number of studies have suggested that income is among the main reasons for the superior health of people with an advanced education. 1 Weekly earnings rise dramatically for Americans with a college or advanced degree. A higher education has an even greater effect on lifetime earnings (see Figure 1), a pattern that is true for men and women, for blacks and whites, and for Hispanics and non-Hispanics. For example, based on 2006-2008 data, the lifetime earnings of a Hispanic male are $870,275 for those with less than a 9th grade education but $2,777,200 for those with a doctoral degree. The corresponding lifetime earnings for a non-Hispanic white male are $1,056,523 and $3,403,123. 7

"Definitely having a good education and a good paying job can relieve a lot of mental stress."
-Chimere

Resources for good health: Families with higher incomes can more easily purchase healthy foods, have time to exercise regularly, and pay for health services and transportation. Conversely, the job insecurity, low wages, and lack of assets associated with less education can make individuals and families more vulnerable during hard times-which can lead to poor nutrition, unstable housing, and unmet medical needs. Read More

Economic hardships can harm health and family relationships, 8 as well as making it more difficult to afford household expenses, from utility bills to medical costs. People living in households with higher incomes-who tend to have more education-are more likely to be covered by health insurance (see Figure 3). Over time, the insured rate has decreased for Americans without a high school education (see Figure 4).

Lower income and lack of adequate insurance coverage are barriers to meeting health care needs. In 2010, more than one in four (27%) adults who lacked a high school education reported being unable to see a doctor due to cost, compared to less than one in five (18%) high school graduates and less than one in 10 (8%) college graduates. 9 Access to care also affects receipt of preventive services and care for chronic diseases. The CDC reports, for example, that about 49% of adults age 50-75 with some high school education were up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening in 2010, compared to 59% of high school graduates and 72% of college graduates. 10

Social and Psychological Benefits

"So through school, we learn how to socially engage with other classmates. We learn how to engage with our teachers. How we speak to others and how we allow that to grow as we get older allows us to learn how to ask those questions when we're working within the healthcare system, when we're working with our doctor to understand what is going on with us."
-Chanel

Reduced stress: People with more education-and thus higher incomes-are often spared the health-harming stresses that accompany prolonged social and economic hardship. Those with less education often have fewer resources (e.g., social support, sense of control over life, and high self-esteem) to buffer the effects of stress. Read More

Life changes, traumas, chronic strain, and discrimination can cause health-harming stress. Economic hardship and other stressors can have a cumulative, negative effect on health over time and may, in turn, make individuals more sensitive to further stressors. Researchers have coined the term "allostatic load" to refer to the effects of chronic exposure to physiological stress responses. Exposure to high allostatic load over time may predispose individuals to diseases such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disease, and infections 11 and has been associated with higher death rates among older adults. 12

Social and psychological skills: Education in school and other learning opportunities outside the classroom build skills and foster traits that are important throughout life and may be important to health, such as conscientiousness, perseverance, a sense of personal control, flexibility, the capacity for negotiation, and the ability to form relationships and establish social networks. These skills can help with a variety of life's challenges-from work to family life-and with managing one's health and navigating the health care system. Read More

Many types of skills can be developed through education, from cognitive skills to problem solving to fostering key personality traits. Education can increase 'learned effectiveness,' including cognitive ability, self-control, and problem solving. 13 Personality traits, otherwise known as 'soft skills', are associated with success in education and employment and lower mortality rates. 14 One set of these personality traits has been called the 'Big Five': conscientiousness, openness to experience, being extraverted, being agreeable, andemotional stability. 15

These various forms of human capital are an important way that education affects health. For example, education may strengthen coping skills that reduce the damage of stress. Greater personal control may also lead to healthier behaviors, partly by increasing knowledge. Those with greater perceived personal control are more likely to initiate preventive behaviors. 13

Social networks: Educated adults tend to have larger social networks-and these connections bring access to financial, psychological, and emotional resources that may help reduce hardship and stress and improve health. Read More

Social networks also enhance access to information and exposure to peers who model acceptable behaviors. The relationship between social support and education may be due, in part, to the social and cognitive skills and greater involvement with civic groups and organizations that come with education. 16, 17 Low social support is associated with higher death rates and poor mental health. 18, 19

Education is also associated with crime. Among young male high school drop-outs, nearly 1 in 10 was incarcerated on a given day in 2006-2007 versus fewer than 1 of 33 high school graduates. 20 The high incarceration rates in some communities can disrupt social networks and weaken social capital and social control-all of which may impact public health and safety.

"Being able to advocate and ask for what you want, helps to facilitate a healthier lifestyle. ... If it's needing your community to have green spaces, have a park, a playground, have better trails within the community, advocating for that will help."
-Chanel

Health Behaviors

Knowledge and skills: In addition to being prepared for better jobs, people with more education are more likely to learn about healthy behaviors. Educated patients may be more able to understand their health needs, follow instructions, advocate for themselves and their families, and communicate effectively with health providers. 21 Read More

People with more education are more likely to learn about health and health risks, improving their literacy and comprehension of what can be complex issues critical to their wellbeing. People who are more educated are more receptive to health education campaigns. Education can also lead to more accurate health beliefs and knowledge, and thus to better lifestyle choices, but also to better skills and greater self-advocacy. Education improves skills such as literacy, develops effective habits, and may improve cognitive ability. The skills acquired through education can affect health indirectly (through better jobs and earnings) or directly (through ability to follow health care regimens and manage diseases), and they can affect the ability of patients to navigate the health system, such as knowing how to get reimbursed by a health plan. Thus, more highly educated individuals may be more able to understand health care issues and follow treatment guidelines. 21-23 The quality of doctor-patient communication is also poorer for patients of low socioeconomic status. A review of the effects of health literacy on health found that people with lower health literacy are more likely to use emergency services and be hospitalized and are less likely to use preventive services such as mammography or take medications and interpret labels correctly. Among the elderly, poor health literacy has been linked to poorer health status and higher death rates. 24

Healthier Neighborhoods

"Poor neighborhoods oftentimes lead to poor schools. Poor schools lead to poor education. Poor education oftentimes leads to poor work. Poor work puts you right back into the poor neighborhood. It's a vicious cycle that happens in communities, especially inner cities." -Albert

Lower income and fewer resources mean that people with less education are more likely to live in low-income neighborhoods that lack the resources for good health. These neighborhoods are often economically marginalized and segregated and have more risk factors for poor health such as:

Less access to supermarkets or other sources of healthy food and an oversupply of fast food restaurants and outlets that promote unhealthy foods.25
Read More

Nationwide, access to a store that sells healthier foods is 1.4 less likely in census tracts with fewer college educated adults (less than 27% of the population) than in tracts with a higher proportion of college-educated persons. 26 Food access is important to health because unhealthy eating habits are linked to numerous acute and chronic health problems such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, heart disease, and stroke as well as higher mortality rates.

"If the best thing that you see in the neighborhood is a drug dealer, then that becomes your goal. If the best thing you see in your neighborhood is working a 9 to 5, then that becomes your goal. But if you see the doctors and the lawyers, if you see the teachers and the professors, then that becomes your goal." -Marco

"It's a lot of things going on [in this community], a lot of challenges. It's just hard sometimes to try and get people to come together, as one, just so we can solve the problem." -Toni

Less green space, such as sidewalks and parks to encourage outdoor physical activity and walking or cycling to work or school.

Rural and low-income areas, which are more populated by people with less education, often suffer from shortages of primary care physicians and other health care providers and facilities.

Higher crime rates, exposing residents to greater risk of trauma and deaths from violence and the stress of living in unsafe neighborhoods. People with less education, particularly males, are more likely to be incarcerated, which carries its own public health risks.

Fewer high-quality schools, often because public schools are poorly resourced by low property taxes. Low-resourced schools have greater difficulty offering attractive teacher salaries or properly maintaining buildings and supplies.

Fewer jobs, which can exacerbate the economic hardship and poor health that is common for people with less education.

Higher levels of toxins, such as air and water pollution, hazardous waste, pesticides, andindustrial chemicals.27

Less effective political influence to advocate for community needs, resulting in a persistent cycle of disadvantage.

2. Poor Health That Affects Education (Reverse Causality)

"Things that happen in the home can definitely affect a child being able to even concentrate in the classroom. ... If you're hungry, you can't learn with your belly growling. ... If you're worried about your mom being safe while you're at school, you're not going to be able to pay attention." -Chimere

The relationship between education and health is never a simple one. Poor health not only results from lower educational attainment, it can also cause educational setbacks and interfere with schooling.

For example, children with asthma and other chronic illnesses may experience recurrent absences and difficulty concentrating in class. 28 Disabilities can also affect school performance due to difficulties with vision, hearing, attention, behavior, absenteeism, or cognitive skills. Read More

Health conditions, disabilities, and unhealthy behaviors can all have an effect on educational outcomes. Illness, poor nutrition, substance use and smoking, obesity, sleep disorders, mental health, asthma, poor vision, and inattention/hyperactivity have established links to school performance or attainment. 25, 29, 30 For example, compared to other students, children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are three times more likely to be held back (retained a grade) and almost three times more likely to drop out of school before graduation. 31 Children who are born with low birth weight also tend to have poorer educational outcomes, 32, 33 and higher risk for special education placements. 34, 35 Although the impact of health on education (reverse causality) is important, many have questioned how large a role it plays. 1

3. Conditions Throughout the Life Course-Beginning in Early Childhood-That Affect Both Health and Education

A third way that education can be linked to health is by exposure to conditions, beginning in early childhood, which can affect both education and health. Throughout life, conditions at home, socioeconomic status, and other contextual factors can create stress, cause illness, and deprive individuals and families of resources for success in school, the workplace, and healthy living. Read More

Contextual factors throughout one's life can affect education and health. For example, biological characteristics can affect educational success and health outcomes, as can socioeconomic and environmental conditions such as poverty or material deprivation. These influences appear to be particularly acute during early childhood, when children's physical health and academic success can be influenced by biologic risk factors (e.g., low birth weight, chronic health conditions) and socioeconomic status (e.g., parents' education and assets, neighborhood socioeconomic resources, such as day care and schools). 36 School readiness is enhanced by positive early childhood conditions-e.g., fetal wellbeing, social-emotional development, family socioeconomic status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and early childhood education-but some of these same assets also appear to be vital to the health and development of children and their future risk of adopting unhealthy behaviors and adult diseases. 37-40 Early childhood is a period in which health and educational trajectories are shaped by a nurturing home environment, parental involvement, stimulation, and early childhood education, which can foster the development of social skills, adjustment and emotional regulation as well as learning skills. 41

What about social policy?

Social policy-decisions about jobs, the economy, education reform, etc.-is an important driver of educational outcomes AND affects all of the factors described in this brief. For example, underperforming schools and discrimination affect not only educational outcomes but also economic success, the social environment, personal behaviors, and access to quality health care. Social policy affects the education system itself but, in addition, individuals with low educational attainment and fewer resources are more vulnerable to social policy decisions that affect access to health care, eligibility for aid, and support services.

A growing body of research suggests that chronic exposure of infants and toddlers to stressors-what experts call "adverse childhood experiences"-can affect brain development and disturb the child's endocrine and immune systems, causing biological changes that increase the risk of heart disease and other conditions later in life (see Graphic 1). For example:

"The connection that I will say between education and health would be a healthy mind produces a healthy person. A motivated mind produces a motivated person. A curious mind produces a curious person. When you have those things it drives you to want to know more, to want to have more, to want to inquire more. And when you want more, you will get more. You know where the mind goes the person follows... and that includes health." -Marco

The adverse effects of stress on the developing brain and on behavior can affect performance in school and explain setbacks in education. Thus, the correlation between lower educational attainment and illness that is later observed among adults may have as much to do with the seeds of illnessand disability that are planted before children ever reach school age as witheducation itself.

Children exposed to stress may also be drawn to unhealthy behaviors-such as smoking or unhealthy eating-during adolescence, the age when adult habits are often first established.

Read More

Instability in home and community life can have a negative impact on child development and, later in life, such outcomes as economic security and stable housing, which can also affect the physical and mental health of adults. Children exposed to toxic stress, social exclusion and bias, persistent poverty, and trauma experience harmful changes in the architecture of the developing brain that affect cognition, behavioral regulation, and executive function. 42, 43 These disruptions can thereby shape educational, economic, and health outcomes decades and generations later. 44 Dysfunctional coping skills as well as changes in parts of the brain associated with reward and addiction may draw children to unhealthy behaviors (e.g., smoking, alcohol or drug use, unsafe sex, violence) as teenagers.

Focusing on seven categories of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs)*, researchers in the 1990s reported a "graded relationship" for poor health and chronic disease: the higher the exposure to ACEs as children, the greater the risk as adults of having ischemic heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic lung disease, and diabetes 45 (see Figure 5). Chronic exposure to ACEs is now believed to disrupt children's developing endocrine and immune systems, causing the body to produce stress hormones and proteins that produce chronic inflammation and lead later in life to heart disease and other adult health problems. 46 Chronic stress can also cause epigenetic changes in DNA that "turn on" genes that may cause cancer and other conditions. 47

Not surprisingly, exposure to ACEs also can stifle success in employment. 38, 48, 49 In one study, the unemployment rate was 13.2% among respondents with 4 or more ACEs, compared to 6.5% for those with no history of ACEs. 50

People who begin life with adverse childhood experiences can thus end up both with greater illness and with difficulties in school and the workplace, thereby contributing to the link between socioeconomic conditions, education, and health. An important way to improve these outcomes is to address the root causes that expose children to stress in the first place.

*The adverse childhood experiences explored were: psychological, physical, or sexual abouse; violence against mother; and living with household members who are substance abusers, mentally ill/suicidal, or ever imprisoned.

"We now know that adversity early in life can not only disrupt brain circuits that lead to problems with literacy; it can also affect the development of the cardiovascular system and the immune system and metabolic regulatory systems, and lead to not only more problems learning in school but also greater risk for diabetes and hypertension and heart disease and cancer and depression and substance abuse." -J Shonkoff (The Poverty Clinic, The New Yorker, March 21, 2011)

What about individual characteristics?

Characteristics of individuals and families are important in the relationship between education and health. Race, gender, age, disability and other personal characteristics often affect educational opportunities and success in school (see Issue Brief #1). Discrimination and racism have multiple links to education and health. Racial segregation reduces educational and job opportunities 51 and is associated with worse health outcomes. 52, 53

How does education impact health in your community?

The Center on Society and Health (CSH) worked with members of Engaging Richmond, a community-academic partnership that included residents of the East End, a disadvantaged neighborhood of Richmond, Virginia. This inquiry into the links between education and health was a pilot study to learn how individuals could add to our understanding of this complex issue using the lens of their own experiences.

What does your community have to say about the links between education and health - or other health disparities? Learn more about community research partnerships and community engagement:

References

Cutler D., and Lleras-Muney A. Education and Health. In: Anthony J. Culyer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Health Economics, Vol 1. San Diego: Elsevier; 2014. pp. 232-45.

Olshansky SJ, et al. Differences in life expectancy due to race and educational differences are widening, and many may not catch up. Health Aff 2012;31:1803-13.

Goldman D, Smith JP. The increasing value of education to health. Soc Sci Med 2011;72:1728-37.

Montez JK, Berkman LF. Trends in the educational gradient of mortality among US adults aged 45 to 84 years: bringing regional context into the explanation. Am J Public Health 2014;104:e82-90.

Baum S, Ma J, Payea K. Education Pays 2013: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. College Board, 2013.

Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Accessed 4/9/14 at http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_001.htm.

Julian TA and Kominski RA. Education and Synthetic Work- Life Earnings Estimates. American Community Survey Reports, ACS-14. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

Sobolewski JM, Amato PR. Economic hardship in the family of origin and children's psychological well-being in adulthood. J Marriage Fam 2005;67:141-56.

Centers for Disease Control, Office of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2010 BRFSS Data. Accessed Feb 14, 2014 at http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/data_tools.htm

Steele CB, et al. Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Screening - United States, 2008 and 2010. CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report - United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control. MMWR 2013;62(3):53-60.

Mcewen BS, Stellar E. Stress and the individual: mechanisms leading to disease. Arch Int Med 1993;153:2093-101.

Karlamangla AS, et al. Reduction in allostatic load in older adults is associated with lower all-cause mortality risk. Psychosom Med 2006;68:500-7.

Ross CE, Wu CL. The links between education and health. Am Soc Rev 1995;60:719-45.

Roberts BW, et al. The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspect Psychol Sci 2007;2:313-45.

Heckman JJ, Kautz T. Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Economics 2012;19:451-64.

Berkman LF. The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosom Med 1995;57:245-54.

Ross CE, Mirowsky J. Refining the association between education and health: the effects of quantity, credential, and selectivity. Demography 1999;36:445-60.

Kaplan GA, et al. Social functioning and overall mortality: Prospective evidence from the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Epidemiology 1994;5:495-500.

Seeman TE. Social ties and health: the benefits of social integration. AEP 1996;6:442-51.

Sum A, et al. The Consequences of Dropping Out of High School: Joblessness and Jailing for High School Dropouts and the High Cost for Taxpayers. Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, 2009.

Goldman DP, Smith JP. Can patient self-management help explain the SES health gradient? Proc Natl Acad Sci 2002;10929-10934.

Spandorfer JM, et al. Comprehension of discharge instructions by patients in an urban emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1995;25:71-4.

Williams MV, et al. Inadequate literacy is a barrier to asthma knowledge and self-care. Chest 1998;114:1008-15.

Berkman ND, et al. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:97-107.

Ver Ploeg M, et al. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food-Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences: Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009.

Grimm KA, et al. Access to Health Food Retailers-Unites States, 2011. CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report - United States, 2013. Centers for Disease Control. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2013;62: 20-26.

Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu Rev Public Health 2006;27:103-24.

Basch CE. Healthier Students Are Better Learners: A Missing Link in School Reforms to Close the Achievement Gap. New York: Columbia University, 2010.

Case A, et al. The lasting impact of childhood health and circumstance. J Health Econ 2005;24:365-89.

Suhrcke M, de Paz Nieves C. The impact of health and health behaviours on educational outcomes in high-income countries: a review of the evidence. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Ofﬁce for Europe, 2011.

Barbaresi WJ, et al. Long-term school outcomes for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a population-based perspective. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2007;28:265-73.

Behrman JR, Rosenzweig MR. 2004. Returns to birthweight. Rev Econ Statistics 2004;86:586-601.

Black SE. et al. From the Cradle to the Labor Market? The Effect of Birth Weight on Adult Outcomes. NBER Working Papers 11796, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005.

Avchen RN, et al. Birth weight and school-age disabilities: a population-based study. Am J Epidemiol 2002;154:895-901.

Chapman DA, et al. Public health approach to the study of mental retardation. Am J Ment Retard 2008;113:102-16.

Conti G, Heckman JJ. Understanding the early origins of the education-health gradient. Perspect Psychol Sci 2010;5:585-605.

Denhem SA. Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: what is it and how do we assess It? Early Educ Dev 2006;17:57-89.

Williams Shanks TR, Robinson C. Assets, economic opportunity and toxic stress: a framework for understanding child and educational outcomes. Econ Educ Rev 2013;33:154-70.

Currie J. Healthy, wealthy, and wise: socioeconomic status, poor health in childhood, and human capital development. J Econ Lit 2009,47:87-122.

Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. The neighborhood they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol Bull 2000;126:309-337.

Barnett WS, Belfield CR. Early childhood development and social mobility. Future Child 2006;16:73-98.

Hackman DA, et al. Socioeconomic status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal research. Nat Rev Neurosci 2010;11:651-9.

Gottesman II, Hanson DR. Human development: biological and genetic processes. Annu Rev Psychol 2005;56:263-86.

Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, Eds. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Child Development. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2000.

Felitti VJ, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med 1998;14:245-58.

McEwen BS. Brain on stress: how the social environment gets under the skin. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012;109 Suppl 2:17180-5

Zhang TY, Meaney MJ. Epigenetics and the environmental regulation of the genome and its function. Annu Rev Psychol 2010;61:439-66.

Egerter S, et al. Education and Health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2011.

Mistry KB, et al. A new framework for childhood health promotion: the role of policies and programs in building capacity and foundations of early childhood health. Am J Public Health 2012;102:1688-96.

Liu Y, et al. Relationship between adverse childhood experiences and unemployment among adults from five U.S. states. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2013;48:357-69.

Williams DR, Mohammed SA. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: Evidence and needed research. J Behav Med 2009;32(1), 20-47.

White K, Borrell LN. Racial/ethnic residential segregation: Framing the context of health risk and health disparities. Health Place 2011;18: 438-48.

Smedley BD et al., eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans with more education live longer, healthier lives than those with fewer years of schooling (see Issue Brief #1). But why does education matter so much to health? The links are complex-and tied closely to income and to the skills and opportunities that people have to lead healthy lives in their communities.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement. 

# data[].attributes.subject
How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement. 

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Andrew HAll
Posted on: May 5, 2017
CRAP Score: 45

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Poverty is an uncomfortable word. I'm often asked, "What should I expect from kids from low-income households?" Typically, teachers are unsure what to do differently.

Just as the phrase middle class tells us little about a person, the word poverty typically tells us little about the students we serve. We know, for example, that the poor and middle classes have many overlapping values, including valuing education and the importance of hard work (Gorski, 2008). But if poor people were exactly the same cognitively, socially, emotionally, and behaviorally as those from the middle class, then the exact same teaching provided to both middle-class students and students from poverty would bring the exact same results.

But it doesn't work that way. In one study of 81,000 students across the United States, the students not in Title I programs consistently reported higher levels of engagement than students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). Are children from poverty more likely to struggle with engagement in school?

The answer is yes. Seven differences between middle-class and low-income students show up at school. By understanding those differences and how to address them, teachers can help mitigate some of the negative effects of poverty.

But first, my most important suggestion is to get to know your students well. Without respect-and without taking time to connect with your students-these seven factors will mean little.

Overall, poor people are less likely to exercise, get proper diagnoses, receive appropriate and prompt medical attention, or be prescribed appropriate medications or interventions. A study by two prominent neuroscientists suggested that intelligence is linked to health (Gray &amp; Thompson, 2004). The poor have more untreated ear infections and hearing loss issues (Menyuk, 1980); greater exposure to lead (Sargent et al., 1995); and a higher incidence of asthma (Gottlieb, Beiser, &amp; O'Connor, 1995) than middle-class children. Each of these health-related factors can affect attention, reasoning, learning, and memory.

Nutrition plays a crucial role as well. Children who grow up in poor families are exposed to food with lower nutritional value. This can adversely affect them even in the womb (Antonow-Schlorke et al., 2011). Moreover, poor nutrition at breakfast affects gray matter mass in children's brains (Taki et al., 2010). Skipping breakfast is highly prevalent among urban minority youth, and it negatively affects students' academic achievement by adversely affecting cognition and raising absenteeism (Basch, 2011).

When students experience poor nutrition and diminished health practices, it's harder for them to listen, concentrate, and learn. Exposure to lead is correlated with poor working memory and weaker ability to link cause and effect. Kids with ear infections may have trouble with sound discrimination, making it tough to follow directions, do highly demanding auditory processing, and understand the teacher. This can hurt reading ability and other skills. Poor diets also affect behavior. Students can often appear listless (with low energy) or hyperactive (on a sugar "high").

Remember, the two primary foods for the brain are oxygen and glucose; oxygen reacts with glucose to produce energy for cell function. Schools can provide these at zero cost. Having students engage in slow stretching while taking slow deep breaths can increase their oxygenation. Yoga training has been shown to increase metabolic controls so children can better manage themselves.

Recess and physical education contribute to greater oxygen intake and better learning (Winter et al., 2007). Never withhold recess from students for a disciplinary issue; there are countless other ways to let them know they behaved inappropriately. Children need physical education programs at every level to perform well academically. In addition, the use of games, movement, and drama will trigger the release of glucose, stored in the body as glycogen. Proper glucose levels are associated with stronger memory and cognitive function. In short, physical activity will reduce some of the issues associated with poor nutrition and will build student health.

Children who grow up in low socioeconomic conditions typically have a smaller vocabulary than middle-class children do, which raises the risk for academic failure (Walker, Greenwood, Hart, &amp; Carta, 1994). Children from low-income families hear, on average, 13 million words by age 4. In middle-class families, children hear about 26 million words during that same time period. In upper-income families, they hear a staggering 46 million words by age 4-three times as many as their lower-income counterparts (Hart &amp; Risley, 1995). In fact, toddlers from middle- and upper-income families actually used more words in talking to their parents than low-SES mothers used in talking to their own children (Bracey, 2006). This language difference is not subtle; it's a mind-boggling, jaw-dropping cognitive chasm.

A child's vocabulary is part of the brain's tool kit for learning, memory, and cognition. Words help children represent, manipulate, and reframe information. Kids from low-income families are less likely to know the words a teacher uses in class or the words that appear in reading material. When children aren't familiar with words, they don't want to read, often tune out, or feel like school is not for them. Also, many students don't want to risk looking stupid (especially to their peers), so they won't participate in class.

Vocabulary building must form a key part of enrichment experiences for students, and teachers must be relentless about introducing and using new words. Include vocabulary building in engagement activities, such as by creating "trading card" activities, in which students write a vocabulary word on one side of a 3 × 5 card and a sentence using the word correctly on the other. Students can do a "class mixer" and test other students; they give the new word to their partner, and their partner has to use it in a sentence. Teachers can also draw cards from a bowl and ask the class to use the new word in a sentence.

Teachers can incorporate vocabulary practice into daily rituals. For example, the teacher posts a word for the day and when either the teacher or a student uses it-and another student is first to point it out-that student gets a simple privilege. Classroom teams or cooperative groups should present a word for the day to the whole class every day, with teachers reinforcing those words for days and weeks afterward.

Uninformed teachers may think that poor children slouch, slump, and show little effort because they are-or their parents are-lazy. Yet research suggests that parents from poor families work as much as parents of middle- or upper-class families do (Economic Policy Institute, 2002). There's no "inherited laziness" passed down from parents.

One reason many students seem unmotivated is because of lack of hope and optimism. Low socioeconomic status and the accompanying financial hardships are correlated with depressive symptoms (Butterworth, Olesen, &amp; Leach, 2012). Moreover, the passive "I give up" posture may actually be learned helplessness, shown for decades in the research as a symptom of a stress disorder and depression. Research from 60 high-poverty schools tells us that the primary factor in student motivation and achievement isn't the student's home environment; it's the school and the teacher (Irvin, Meece, Byun, Farmer, &amp; Hutchins, 2011). Effort can be taught, and strong teachers do this every day.

Students who show little or no effort are simply giving you feedback. When you liked your teacher, you worked harder. When the learning got you excited, curious, and intrigued, you put out more effort. We've all seen how students will often work much harder in one class than in another. The feedback is about themselves-and about your class.

Take on the challenge. Invest in students who are not putting out effort. In a study of more than 1,800 children from poverty, school engagement was a key factor in whether the student stayed in school (Finn &amp; Rock, 1997).

First, strengthen your relationships with students by revealing more of yourself and learning more about your students. Ask yourself, "What have I done to build relationships and respect? Do my students like me?"

Use more buy-in strategies, such as curiosity builders (a mystery box or bag); excitement and risk ("This idea's a bit crazy; let's make sure we have the number for the fire department, just in case"); and competition ("My last class accomplished _____; let's see what you can do!"). Make the learning more of the students' idea by offering a choice, and involve them more in decision making.

Second, teachers must make connections to students' worlds in ways that help them see a viable reason to play the academic game. Can you tie classroom learning to the real world? Use money, shopping, technology, and their family members to make the learning more relevant. Without clear links between the two, students often experience a demotivating disconnect between the school world and their home life. As a result, they give up.

Third, affirm effort every day in class. Most teachers don't keep track of their comments to students; maybe they should. When teachers give more positives than negatives (a 3:1 ratio is best), they optimize both learning and growth (Fredrickson &amp; Losada, 2005). When affirmed, challenged, and encouraged, students work harder.

Fourth, set high goals and sell students on their chances to reach them. Get them to believe in the goals by showing them real-world success stories of adults who came from the same circumstances the students did and who achieved their goals.

Finally, provide daily feedback so students see that effort matters and that they can adjust it for even greater success. Affirm your students, and let them know how much good you see in them.

Hope is a powerful thing. Research suggests that lower socioeconomic status is often associated with viewing the future as containing more negative events than positive ones (Robb, Simon, &amp; Wardle, 2009). Low or no expectancy ("helplessness") is also related to low socioeconomic status (Odéen et al., 2012). In short, being poor is associated with lowered expectations about future outcomes.

The student's attitude about learning (his or her mind-set) is also a moderately robust predictive factor (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, &amp; Dweck, 2007). Taken together, hope-or the lack of hope-and mind-set-whether you believe that you're simply born smart or that you can grow in intelligence along the way-can be either significant assets or serious liabilities. If students think failure or low performance is likely, they'll probably not bother to try. Similarly, if they think they aren't smart enough and can't succeed, they'll probably not put out any effort.

Teacher and student beliefs about having a fixed amount of "smarts" that the student can't increase will influence engagement and learning. Teach students that their brains can change and grow, that they can even raise their IQs. Provide better-quality feedback (prompt, actionable, and task-specific).

Also, telling students that they have a limited amount of focusing power is likely to disengage many of them (Miller et al., 2012). There's an alternative to saying, "Don't feel bad that you didn't finish. It's late in the day, and we've all got brain drain." Instead, say, "Stick with this just a bit longer. You can do this! Your mind is a powerful force to help you reach your goals."

Don't use comforting phrases that imply that even though a student isn't good at something, he or she has "other" strengths (Cooper, 2012). Instead, focus on affirming and reinforcing effort. Guide students in making smarter strategy choices and cultivating a positive attitude.

Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often perform below those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds on tests of intelligence and academic achievement (Bradley &amp; Corwyn, 2002). Commonly, low-SES children show cognitive problems, including short attention spans, high levels of distractibility, difficulty monitoring the quality of their work, and difficulty generating new solutions to problems (Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood, &amp; Elliott, 2009). These issues can make school harder for children from impoverished backgrounds.

Many children who struggle cognitively either act out (exhibit problem behavior) or shut down (show learned helplessness). But cognitive capacity, as well as intelligence, is a teachable skill (Buschkuehl &amp; Jaeggi, 2010).

If you're not teaching core cognitive skills, rethink your teaching methods. Students who struggle with reading, math, and following directions may have weak vocabulary, poor working memory, or poor processing skills. Studies show that high-performing teachers can overcome the problems of underperforming kids (Ferguson, 1998). Like effort, cognitive capacity is teachable.

Focus on the core academic skills that students need the most. Begin with the basics, such as how to organize, study, take notes, prioritize, and remember key ideas. Then teach problem-solving, processing, and working-memory skills.

Start small. Teach students immediate recall of words, then phrases, then whole sentences. This will help them remember the directions you give in class and will support them as they learn how to do mental computations. This will take tons of encouragement, positive feedback, and persistence. Later, you can use this foundation to build higher-level skills.

When children's early experiences are chaotic and one or both of the parents are absent, the developing brain often becomes insecure and stressed. Three-quarters of all children from poverty have a single-parent caregiver.

In homes of those from poverty, children commonly get twice as many reprimands as positive comments, compared with a 3:1 ratio of positives to negatives in middle-class homes (Risley &amp; Hart, 2006). If caregivers are stressed about health care, housing, and food, they're more likely to be grumpy and less likely to offer positive comments to their kids.

The probability of dropping out and school failure increases as a function of the timing and length of time that children are exposed to relational adversity (Spilt, Hughes, Wu, &amp; Kwok, 2012). Having only a single caregiver in the home-if the father is absent, for example-can create both instability and uncertainty because the children are missing a role model. Two caregivers offer the luxury of a backup-when one parent is at work, busy, or overly stressed, the other can provide for the children so there's always a stabilizing force present. Relationships can be challenging for children who lack role models and sufficient supports.

Low-income parents are often less able than middle-class parents to adjust their parenting to the demands of their higher-needs children (Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Stams, Hermanns, &amp; Peetsma, 2007). For example, many parents don't know what to do with children who have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), who are oppositional, or who are dyslexic.

Disruptive home relationships often create mistrust in students. Adults have often failed them at home, and children may assume that the adults in school will fail them, too. Classroom misbehaviors are likely because many children simply do not have the at-home stability or repertoire of necessary social-emotional responses for school. Students are more likely to be impulsive, use inappropriate language, and act disrespectful-until you teach them more appropriate social and emotional responses.

Children with unstable home lives are particularly in need of strong, positive, caring adults. The more you care, the better the foundation for interventions. Learn every student's name. Ask about their family, their hobbies, and what's important to them. Stop telling students what to do and start teaching them how to do it.

For example, if you ask a high school student to dial down his or her energy for the next few minutes and the student responds with a smirk or wisecrack, simply ask him or her to stay a moment after class. Never embarrass the student in front of his or her peers. After class, first reaffirm your relationship with the student. Then demonstrate the behavior you wanted (show the student the appropriate facial expression and posture); say why it will be important as the student moves through school ("This will keep you out of trouble with other adults"); and indicate when a given response is appropriate and what it should look like ("When you think your teacher has overstepped his or her bounds, this is what you should say"). End by affirming common goals and interests ("We're both in this together. We can make this work-if we each do our part").

Although small amounts of stress are healthy, acute and chronic stress-known as distress-is toxic. Children living in poverty experience greater chronic stress than do their more affluent counterparts. Low-income parents' chronic stress affects their kids through chronic activation of their children's immune systems, which taxes available resources and has long-reaching effects (Blair &amp; Raver, 2012). Distress affects brain development, academic success, and social competence (Evans, Kim, Ting, Tesher, &amp; Shannis, 2007). It also impairs behaviors; reduces attentional control (Liston, McEwen, &amp; Casey, 2009); boosts impulsivity (Evans, 2003); and impairs working memory (Evans &amp; Schamberg, 2009).

Distressed children typically exhibit one of two behaviors: angry "in your face" assertiveness or disconnected "leave me alone" passivity. To the uninformed, the student may appear to be either out of control, showing an attitude, or lazy. But those behaviors are actually symptoms of stress disorders-and distress influences many behaviors that influence engagement.

The more aggressive behaviors include talking back to the teacher, getting in the teacher's face, using inappropriate body language, and making inappropriate facial expressions. The more passive behaviors include failing to respond to questions or requests, exhibiting passivity, slumping or slouching, and disconnecting from peers or academic work.

Address the real issue-distress-and the symptoms will diminish over time. Begin by building stronger relationships with students; this helps alleviate student stress.

Reduce stress by embedding more classroom fun in academics. Provide temporary cognitive support-that is, help students get the extra glucose and oxygen they need-by having them engage in such sensory motor activities as the childhood game "head-toes-knees-shoulders," in which children touch different parts of their bodies in quick succession. Such actions can support behavioral regulation, which is so important for early academic success.

Next, don't try to exert more control over the student's life. This will only create continued issues with engagement. Instead, give students more control over their own daily lives at school. Encourage responsibility and leadership by offering choices, having students engage in projects, and supporting teamwork and classroom decision making. Having a sense of control is the fundamental element that helps diminish the effects of chronic and acute stress.

Finally, teach students ongoing coping skills so they can better deal with their stressors. For example, give them a simple, "If this, then that" strategy for solving problems using new skills. You can do this through telling stories about your own daily stressors, allowing students to brainstorm solutions, and then sharing the coping tools that worked for you and modeling how you addressed various challenges.

Remember, students in poverty are not broken or damaged. In fact, human brains adapt to experiences by making changes-and your students can change.

You can help them do so by understanding these seven differences and addressing these differences with purposeful teaching. Your school can join the ranks of the many high-performing Title I schools where students succeed every day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement - ASCD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Poverty is an uncomfortable word. I'm often asked, "What should I expect from kids from low-income households?" Typically, teachers are unsure what to do differently. Just as the phrase middle class tells us little about a person, the word poverty typically tells us little about the students we serv

# data[].attributes.body
posted by: Taurice Lancaster
posted on : April 21,2017
CRAP score : 47

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Land Grant College Act into law, laying the groundwork for the largest system of publicly funded universities in the world. Some of America's greatest colleges, including the University of Minnesota, were created by federal land grants, and were known as "democracy's colleges" or "people's colleges."

But that vision of a "people's college" seems awfully remote to a growing number of American students crushed under soaring tuitions and mounting debt. One hundred and fifty years after Lincoln made his pledge, it's time to make public colleges and universities free for every American.

This idea is easier than it looks. For most of our nation's history, public colleges and universities have been much more affordable than they are today, with lower tuition, and financial aid that covered a much larger portion of the costs. The first step in making college accessible again, and returning to an education system that serves every American, is addressing the student loan debt crisis.

The cost of attending a four-year college has increased by 1,122 percent since 1978. Galloping tuition hikes have made attending college more expensive today than at any point in U.S. history. At the same time, debt from student loans has become the largest form of personal debt in America-bigger than credit card debt and auto loans. Last year, 38 million American students owed more than $1.3 trillion in student loans.

Once, a degree used to mean a brighter future for college graduates, access to the middle class, and economic stability.

Today, student loan debt increases inequality and makes it harder for low-income graduates, particularly those of color, to buy a house, open a business, and start a family.

The solution lies in federal investments to states to lower the overall cost of public colleges and universities. In exchange, states would commit to reinvesting state funds in higher education. Any public college or university that benefited from the reinvestment program would be required to limit tuition increases. This federal-state partnership would help lower tuition for all students. Schools that lowered tuition would receive additional federal grants based on the degree to which costs are lowered.

Reinvesting in higher education programs like Pell Grants and work-study would ensure that Pell and other forms of financial aid that students don't need to pay back would cover a greater portion of tuition costs for low-income students. In addition, states that participate in this partnership would ensure that low-income students who attend state colleges and universities could afford non-tuition expenses like textbooks and housing fees. This proposal is one way to ensure that no student graduates with loans to pay back.

If the nation can provide hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and billions of dollars more to Wall Street, we can afford to pay for public higher education. A tax on financial transactions like derivatives and stock trades would cover the cost. Building a truly affordable higher education system is an investment that would pay off economically.

Eliminating student loan debt is the first step, but it's not the last. Once we ensure that student loan debt isn't a barrier to going to college, we should reframe how we think about higher education. College shouldn't just be debt free-it should be free. Period.

We all help pay for our local high schools and kindergartens, whether or not we send our kids to them. And all parents have the option of choosing public schools, even if they can afford private institutions. Free primary and secondary schooling is good for our economy, strengthens our democracy, and most importantly, is critical for our children's health and future. Educating our kids is one of our community's most important responsibilities, and it's a right that every one of us enjoys. So why not extend public schooling to higher education as well?

Some might object that average Americans should not have to pay for students from wealthy families to go to school. But certain things should be guaranteed to all Americans, poor or rich. It's not a coincidence that some of the most important social programs in our government's history have applied to all citizens, and not just to those struggling to make ends meet.

Universal programs are usually stronger and more stable over the long term, and they're less frequently targeted by budget cuts and partisan attacks. Public schools have stood the test of time-let's make sure public colleges and universities do, too.

The United States has long been committed to educating all its people, not only its elites.

This country is also the wealthiest in the history of the world. We can afford to make college an option for every American family.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Land Grant College Act into law, laying the groundwork for the largest system of publicly funded universities in the world. Some of America's greatest colleges, including the University of Minnesota, were created by federal land grants, and were known as "democracy's colleges" or "people's colleges."