http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5797186/the-damage-of-poverty-is-visible-as-early-as-kindergarten
Hahaha, maybe those dumb kids should have picked better parents!
Hahaha, maybe those dumb kids should have picked better parents!
-
Features
The damage of poverty is visible as early as kindergarten
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,338
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
Get a job kid. Builds character. Especially when it pays $2.13 an hour plus tips. So pick up that broom and sweep.
I know you're only five, but you need to not be a moocher. So sweep this school hall, dammit.
I know you're only five, but you need to not be a moocher. So sweep this school hall, dammit.
doubtingt
Senior Member
Seems like this should be in "Social Science" rather than "Politics". The political implications are rather pointless to speculate about until we know the causal mechanisms that links poverty to these language outcomes, and the cited study doesn't seem to provide any insight about that. The article puts forth many speculations but no data that gives insight into the relative importance of countless plausible causal pathways. Are these results due to actual brain development issues related to nutrition, are the kids just stressed at the time of testing, are their parents not exposing their kids to language so they can learn it?
There is growing evidence that the latter plays a huge role in language development that would impact just the kind of tests reported in this study. Between the ages for 6 months and 3 years, parents in poverty talk to and around their kids about 1/3 as much (30 million fewer words) as parents in upper income brackets. In addition, when poor parents do talk to their kids, they use less varied vocabulary, shorter sentences, and less likely to have actual conversations with their kids where they listen to and respond to what the kid is saying. Also, poor parents speech was much more likely to entail scolding, which is likely to trigger negative emotion that interferes with language processing and undermines any benefit from language exposure. Other more recent research I've seen at conferences shows that kids pick up language better if a single speaker does most of the talking to them rather than many caregivers. Phonetics are critical to language development and to a young child's ear, the same word spoken by different voices sounds like a different word. It's plausible that this creates confusion in children figuring out what words go with what things and what words go together. This could be relevant if kids in poverty tend to have more turn-taking caregivers (e.g., extended family, siblings) than wealthier families.
Of course we can then ask, why are poor parents not speaking with their kids as much and scolding them so much? Again, we need some data to sort through the countless possibilities. The research balanced race and gender across the income samples, so its not tied to those variables. The research also shows that it is not primarily an issue of not being around their kid because of work. Even when they are with their kid (or with them all day because they are unemployed), poor parents have fewer conversations with their young kids. As far as I know the cited research did not measure other variables that would allow for much insight into why poor parents don't talk with their kids as much. Some plausible speculations would be something as simple as number of kids. This could matter in multiple ways. First the parent is having to deal with and supervise more kids, so each one gets less attention. Also, siblings can play with and entertain each other. The fewer siblings a child has, the more a child will go to the parent for interaction and thus the more exposed to developed adult language. Then there is the fact that poor parents have lower language skills themselves. They have poorer education and/or may have had low language exposure themselves due to absent parents. Thus, even if they are around their kids often, they just are not as verbose and don't use as wide a vocabulary. Then there is stress and emotional issues that could motivate poor parents to want to be left alone when not working rather than having to interact with their child, answer their questions, etc., which can be tiresome work.
There is growing evidence that the latter plays a huge role in language development that would impact just the kind of tests reported in this study. Between the ages for 6 months and 3 years, parents in poverty talk to and around their kids about 1/3 as much (30 million fewer words) as parents in upper income brackets. In addition, when poor parents do talk to their kids, they use less varied vocabulary, shorter sentences, and less likely to have actual conversations with their kids where they listen to and respond to what the kid is saying. Also, poor parents speech was much more likely to entail scolding, which is likely to trigger negative emotion that interferes with language processing and undermines any benefit from language exposure. Other more recent research I've seen at conferences shows that kids pick up language better if a single speaker does most of the talking to them rather than many caregivers. Phonetics are critical to language development and to a young child's ear, the same word spoken by different voices sounds like a different word. It's plausible that this creates confusion in children figuring out what words go with what things and what words go together. This could be relevant if kids in poverty tend to have more turn-taking caregivers (e.g., extended family, siblings) than wealthier families.
Of course we can then ask, why are poor parents not speaking with their kids as much and scolding them so much? Again, we need some data to sort through the countless possibilities. The research balanced race and gender across the income samples, so its not tied to those variables. The research also shows that it is not primarily an issue of not being around their kid because of work. Even when they are with their kid (or with them all day because they are unemployed), poor parents have fewer conversations with their young kids. As far as I know the cited research did not measure other variables that would allow for much insight into why poor parents don't talk with their kids as much. Some plausible speculations would be something as simple as number of kids. This could matter in multiple ways. First the parent is having to deal with and supervise more kids, so each one gets less attention. Also, siblings can play with and entertain each other. The fewer siblings a child has, the more a child will go to the parent for interaction and thus the more exposed to developed adult language. Then there is the fact that poor parents have lower language skills themselves. They have poorer education and/or may have had low language exposure themselves due to absent parents. Thus, even if they are around their kids often, they just are not as verbose and don't use as wide a vocabulary. Then there is stress and emotional issues that could motivate poor parents to want to be left alone when not working rather than having to interact with their child, answer their questions, etc., which can be tiresome work.
Petrel
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2013
- Messages
- 213
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Basic Beliefs
- less passion; more compassion
You can ask whatever you like, as long as you like -
- but, meanwhile, give people a chance to live in a safe place, adequate health care and nutrition for all the children, reproductive choice and daycare for the mothers, decent work and pay for all the parents - then observe change in school performance.
Don't do it like climate change response, where you can't make a move until every known fact has been debated, challenged, argued-over, verified three extra times and measured to the 24th decimal place, and only then realize that.....
...oops, we've missed the last bus.
- but, meanwhile, give people a chance to live in a safe place, adequate health care and nutrition for all the children, reproductive choice and daycare for the mothers, decent work and pay for all the parents - then observe change in school performance.
Don't do it like climate change response, where you can't make a move until every known fact has been debated, challenged, argued-over, verified three extra times and measured to the 24th decimal place, and only then realize that.....
...oops, we've missed the last bus.
Lots of people here are missing the point.
Since the difference predates school it can't be due to bad schools.
It's what's going on at home that matters. Parenting.
Since the difference predates school it can't be due to bad schools.
It's what's going on at home that matters. Parenting.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,338
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
do you ever read previous posts?
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
Nope. That's bullshit perpetuated by the psychically interconnected ruling class (which happens to perpetuate and enforce the lie (myth) that there are no psychic powers- anyone who mentions them is insane!).
They force the lower classes into stupidity and servitude, damaging their minds at a young age in ways that will ensure that they will never be able to organize and rise up against the ruling class. Of course, we know what side of the line YOU are on. You probably willingly damage the minds of babies in an effort to create more downtrodden working class individuals. You know what that means, don't ya? The jig is up.
lpetrich
Contributor
But
Seems like poor people's parenting is much like the right wing's ideal: information should flow only one way, down the chain of command from parents to children, and parents should be as strict and punitive as possible toward their children.
dx713
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 808
- Location
- Provence, France
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Epicurean, Compatibilist
Yes.
Also, you still have two ways to deal with the problem:
1) Right wing/libertarian: what happens at home is private, and it's up to the poor parents to step up and pull their kids by their bootstraps, too bad if they don't, but why should I spend money to correct the others bad parenting?
2) Bleeding heat left wing/socialist commie: kids shouldn't be punished for their parents shortcomings (said in a non-criticizing way, people do what they can with what life deals them sometimes), so society should step up to correct the initial unbalance and give them a chance, either via school/pre-school programs or via helping the parents, too bad it's going to cost you tax money.
(I also happen to think that in the long run, option 2 would prove less costly to society, because the investment will bring a better educated and more peaceful society, fostering better innovation and lower security costs... But that's just my talking point to cold calculating libertarians. My primary driver for supporting 2 is my empathy and my experience of being a father)
Petrel
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2013
- Messages
- 213
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Basic Beliefs
- less passion; more compassion
Poor people's parenting is a functions of poor people's life situation. Having dropped out of a violent school at age 15 and making 3 babies before age 20, juggling three part-time jobs while worrying about the rent and whether you'll get mugged for your groceries on the way home doesn't give you a whole lot of time, energy or patience for cozy chats and bedtime reading.
Underseer
Contributor
This just proves that poor people are genetically deficient, which is why they deserve to be poor. [/conservolibertarian]
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Remember when the Romneys said that they knew what it was like to be poor because they didn't even have enough money to entertain while Mitt was in graduate school at Harvard? Aah... those were the days.
Providing the mental stimulation for the kid doesn't cost anything.
- - - Updated - - -
If you don't have time to raise a kid you shouldn't be having one in the first place.
Part of parenting is the decision to have one in the first place.
Petrel
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2013
- Messages
- 213
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Basic Beliefs
- less passion; more compassion
If you can't be rich, don't get born. It's all about poor life-choices.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,338
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
Loren people will be having kids and don't give a damn what you think about it. Children will be cared for and care about by people in and outside of their family and no one doing that caring will give a damn what you think. Public and private money will be spent and each generation will produce the next be they rich or poor and you sitting there making the oh so sage pronouncement of if you can't afford a child don't have one will produce as much positive effect in the world as pissing in the ocean trying to swell the tide.
IOW, if you have no more original thing to say than that, don't say anything at all, the rest of us can put the oxygen to better use.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Please support your ludicrous assertion that libertarians are supposed to believe the poor to be genetically deficient.
Oh, you can't.
Yeah, people think they have a right to abuse children.
AthenaAwakened
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 5,338
- Location
- Right behind you so ... BOO!
- Basic Beliefs
- non-theist, anarcho-socialist
Loren
You don't get to complain about child abuse in this breath when you were damning the fact that the children were even born in the previous one.
If you feel the situation is hopeless, which you have made clear that you do, why the fuck are you talking about it?
If you actually have something useful to share, share it.
Otherwise you may feel free to stop beating the don't-have-children-until-you-deemed-worthy horse. That pony died at the starting gate.
lpetrich
Contributor
I made that comparison to right-wing ideals because social conservatives never tire of bellyaching about "permissive" parenting. Like those who blamed Sixties radicalism on it.
But what must be disturbing to them is the upper-middle-class and upper-class people who practice it, because in their minds, such people are superior people and society's legitimate rulers.
Given such complainers' track record, they'd complain about a "birth dearth" if they got what they wanted.