Chidren and Poverty

...

to a certain extent. Such as “when the family’s income grew, so did the children’s working memory and planning abilities.” Nevertheless, there are definite concerns that pertaining to the research findings published by Clay along with statements by Martha J. Farah, PhD. There are various contradictory statements such as – “a common measure of childhood socioeconomic status – significantly predicted the thickness of the prefrontal cortex in children’s brains.” Which cannot be associated or linked to a solid fact. However, after making such claims Dr. Martha J. Farah goes on to contradict her findings by claiming the formation differentiations among poor children’s verses children who are not deprived can be attributed to genetics. Which is emphasized in her claims that “Although brain differences may be genetics, causes at work.” There was also documentation which claimed that children who live in poverty may be capable of catching up with the other children who are more cognitively advanced. This creates a level of doubt which leaves room for personal bias possibly created by false preconceptions, and not solid empirical findings. The generalization of certain individuals can lead to unclear and inaccurate results and mislead others into believing false statements and data to be true. The purpose of the research is to produce results that can assist in the advancement of society and the people in it. Research of any kind cannot include personal beliefs, or opinions. People must be given the correct information despite the research issue or topic. An individual should be allowed the opportunity make an educated decision based on truth and the integrity of the facts that are being presented. However, after reading these articles it becomes very apparent the researchers

were unable to present accurate information, which makes it difficult to know what is opinion and what is fact.

Methodology

Prior to the start of the research consent was obtained from all participant’s parents and guardians. The data collected consisted of homework assignments, quizzes, and state standardize exams. The age range of the children was 4 to 9 years old. The students were studied using data collected for a period of four years. The research study was comprised of two groups with dissimilar socioeconomic statuses Group (A) and (B) was formed using 50 male and female students. However, their socioeconomic statuses differed. Group (A) consisted of children from low income homes. Group (B) however, was made up of children from middle class households. The reason for this was to better examine if there was a difference in academic performance among children who live in poverty and other children who are considered to come from financially stable home. (Please, see chart below for information on income levels of participants.) Throughout the duration of the study the teaching curriculum remained the same for both groups (A) and (B). The students were given the same materials, teacher, and the exact amount of time during exams. Following the examination, a pilot observation was conducted, the basis for this was to generate feedback from the teacher. The teacher suggested the best time to monitor the children would be prior to recess, which was the time when the children were calmest. The motive for this was to observe students during periods when reduced attentiveness can occur. In addition, one observable variable was attention span. However, the generated answers were obtained through the use of data collection based on quantitative information such as test scores and grade averages. My variables were grades, and household income.

Please note the graph shown below is provided by the National Center for Children in Poverty the information and relevant statistics were used to identify all subjects obtained to gather data for both groups (A) Poor children and (B) children living above low income stable children.