Jeff Madrick, journalist and economic policy consultant, wrote an important post for the New York Review of Books blog about the inequalities that begin at birth.
Madrick writes:
“Pre-K is not enough…Indeed, two studies completed in 2013 relate neural deterioration directly to poverty. A group of researchers from six universities measured the brain activity of adults who had been poor at age nine and found that the areas that control emotions were physically underdeveloped. A Washington University study found that poor children who are nurtured adequately, thus avoiding constant stress, usually have normally developed brain tissue, while those with less nurturing have less white and grey matter and smaller control centers, such as the hippocampus.
“What’s been discovered is that human beings have a chemical reaction to stress that at first protects them from damage. But the defense is limited. Should a young child, whose brain is still forming, be bombarded by constant stress—from violence at home, lack of food, parental drug abuse, and, not least, chronic lack of attention or nurturing—the overloaded mechanism fails and the brain is adversely affected.”
But poverty and the stresses it causes are not inevitable, Madrick writes:
“What concerns me most, however, is that our political leaders and legislators have until now largely overlooked the connection between poverty, poor educational attainment, and even neural malfunctions—and the extent to which effective poverty reduction itself can correct the problem. Economists Janet Gornick and Markus Jantii analyzed data across nations and concluded that child poverty is far lower in European nations, not because their economy produces higher wages for lower income workers, but because of more robust social programs. Most of these nations, and many in Latin America, for example, provide direct cash allowances for parents with children.
“More and better paying jobs are vital to combating child poverty and the problems it leads to. A full employment economy, with good jobs, is still possible with substantial fiscal stimulus, especially including public investment in infrastructure.
“But social programs are critical. Contrary to the widespread cynicism about social programs and welfare, the US knows how to reduce poverty. As Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes, the federal safety net, including Medicaid, Food Stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child Tax Credit, kept 41 million people out of poverty in 2012, including 9 million children. Without government benefits, today’s poverty rate would be 29 percent. Instead, using the best measures of poverty, which include government transfers and tax credits, the rate has dropped from about 26 percent in the late 1960s to 16 percent today. In other words, the War on Poverty begun in the 1960s worked.”
And he concludes:
“Armed with the unambiguous findings of twenty-first-century neuroscience, we can no longer just tell children raised poor to study harder and find jobs as they grow up. A nation that needs all its citizens to be productive workers, and that promises a fair and dignified life to all, regardless of race or color, must now turn its attention to its enormous pool of poor children.”
Unfortunately, now within that pool, are families of educators. They are being unjustly fired by a system that wants to pay only low salaries and provide no job security. My son with a BA, MA and 30 credits above, went from making over $60,000 to just above the poverty line. Thanks Mr. Gates!
This is the research that should be repeated like a mantra . This research is not new. Teachers like me have been informed about this since the late 80s.
This is why experts in language and literacy development need to be included in education policy. decades of excellent commonly accepted research in the teaching community is disregarded . This research can be used to help us fight against the ‘reform’ machine.
Which is most damaging for children, poverty of physical needs, or poverty of social/emotional needs? The answer is both, but poverty of social and emotional needs is most damaging to development of self and identity, and their future success and functioning.
Children learn to perceive security as their parents or caregivers perceive it. If parents are fearful and anxious, children will be fearful and anxious, regardless of family income.
Children cannot feel secure and make emotional attachment to parents or teachers who are fearful, worried, and emotionally detached. Instead of addressing that deficit, we are promoting a Common Core environment that is most neglectful and damaging to children’s social and emotional needs.
Schools should be safe havens for all children, regardless of income. They should compensate for the out of school deficits. However, Common Core has caused schools to become the opposite. Schools are now institutions of abuse, with punitive methods of “obedience” training like that used for zoo animals, and with total neglect for children’s social and emotional needs.
Elementary schools could provide an environment that nurtures children’s holistic growth and authentic learning, like Montessori. Yet, the social and emotional poverty of Common Core is equal to a psychological ghetto. We could eliminate all traces of punitive abuse and psychological poverty caused by Common Core, yet we are not?
Why are we NOT?
“Psychological Ghetto” is a good name for Common Core!
Elementary schools should be “incubators” for holistic development for children. That is the only way our country can be strong.
Instead, our elementary schools have become “chambers of horror” for children. Eight year olds being tortured with 8 hours of testing insanity. One would think that Dick Cheney designed Common Core.
I like your comments, Ken.
Ken: you may be on to something…
Dick Cheney, the One Percent Doctrine…
Kommon Kore, the vanity project of the top One Percent of the top One Percent of the…
“Men lie and women lie but numbers don’t.” [“Dr.” Steve Perry, channeling rapper Jay-Z]
😱
Is that why some testing companies include vomit bags with the tests in case the little tykes want to, er, make a comment about the hazing ritual?
Perhaps we can start calling high-stakes standardized testing “Enhanced Interrogation”?
Ugh!
😡
Unfortunately, most politicians are “adult children” whose own social and emotional development was regressed, and they are still using “avoidance” and “denial” as coping.
the tpp trade agreement will solidifiy the inequality in America and prevent the return of good paying jobs. please everyone work against the tpp. only solution for children is return of decent employment for parents.
Tpp?
Trans Pacific Partnership.
Until billionaires stop paying workers minimum wages to amass even more money, until bought politicians pass bills that force said groups/corporatios to pay their fair share of taxes, until the political will cares enouhg to see that pverty and lack of access to success are destroying our nation….I could go on but I will stop here, to internally heard strains of John Lennon’s “Imagine”…
Until we strip morality from the American narrative of poverty and its causes, all the brain research in the world — as fascinating and enlightening as it is — will not change policies, let alone the hearts and minds of the bazillionaires.
Or maybe we need more brain studies that involve functional MRI’s of bazillionaire brains. Hmmm . . .
Lobotomies would be more efficient.
Until folks learn that we labor under the delusion that people who make gazillions are more moral, more deserving, more intelligent, and simply better, the facts won’t make any difference, they will be ignored in service to the myth of the superiority of the 1%.
I don’t see evidence that these social programs have much success at changing the patterns that contribute to generational poverty. Another study might indicate that these programs perpetuate poverty by creating an environment of subsistence that individuals are willing to settle for due to fear of losing their safety net. I, personally, have experienced after my parents divorce, an adolescence of poverty, a school system where guidance counselors were overwhelmed, a teen pregnancy and marriage that itself ended in divorce. Despite a multitude of social programs, I was unable to achieve and begin to reach my potential until
I was willing to risk it all, work as a waitress while going to school to become a nurse and raise my children. Of course other people had more than me, but never once did I feel like it was unfair. The programs that worked for me? Subsidized housing (not a housing project), healthcare, childcare and community college. Cash and foodstamps were not a help, they encouraged me not to work and food can be found in many places. What I needed was support to improve my lot by my own actions and not settle for a life of subsistence. Today I enjoy the satisfaction of being a productive member of society who works in an inner city ER, owns her own (very small) house, and the mom to four productive, hard working, compassionate children and three grandchildren. We need to be sure the programs we institute “first do no harm”.
“Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
I was under the understanding that we had a separation of Church and state.
If you want to give, give. I support it wholeheartedly. Charity should be personal, not bureaucratic.
Our “charity” pales, Janine, compared to our expenditures on military adventurism and perks for plutocrats. We have obligations to children in dire circumstances through no fault of their own. It’s simply the right thing to do.
And I respectfully agree, except history has proven that federal programs remand generations of families to a subsistence that that leaves them dependent upon those plutocrats with little chance for escape.
I agree, Janine, that we’ve had a lot of really stupid federal programs that have had precisely the opposite of the effect that was intended. I agree with TE, who often posts here, that we should adopt a negative income tax.I also believe that we’re not going to break the cycle of poverty until we do vastly more than we have been doing to help poor kids LONG BEFORE they go to school. By then, it’s often too late. Enormous, irreparable damage has already been done.
The goal should be to empower people not simply feed them. The poor and undereducated are exploited by one group after another for political gain. It is shameful to see the political elite use their power to create the biggest glass ceiling ever to keep each and every one of us in our place which is to be just educated enough not to threaten their power.
What, specifically, would you propose we do in addition to what we are already doing?
I think that we need to have, in every poor neighborhood, well-funded baby and toddler care centers that basically run 24-7 and provide extremely nurturing environments. I know that this is a very radical proposal. But what we are allowing to have happen to millions of poor children today is far more radical.
Food stamps are harming people? Really? So based on your anecdote alone, you appear to want to do away with the social programs that help people in abject poverty?
I don’t want to do away with social programs. I want to see evidence these programs lift people out of poverty.
Well, food stamps may not lift people, especially children, out of poverty, but they help keep them from going hungry.
Is there something wrong with that?
I have no problem with feeding hungry people. I have a huge problem with creating a welfare state; encouraging young people not to marry in order to receive more benefits. Encoraging people to not work because they can make more money staying unemployed. I have lived that life and have countless friends and relatives who continue to live it. I know where
you can sell your foodstamps for cash and
which drug dealers will give you dope for an
EBT card, which politicians will trade section
eight vouchers for sex. Don’t be naive there is
a whole world of corruption associated with
the welfare state and I see little evidence and
few examples where people are lifted out of it
by foodstamps or cash benefits or Obama
phones. What has been done to the integrity
of poor families in this country is an absolute
outrage and we sit in our ivory towers and
advocate for more of the same even though
anyone with their eyes open can see it is
ineffective in lifting anyone out of poverty.
Amen, janine. “Give a man a fish…” How do you feel about social services with some modicum of responsibility attached? I’m not implying that those in need must perform certain tasks in order to earn the help. What I’m envisioning is a training program for people who require public assistance. Every adult (aged 18 and over) in the household is required to attend schooling in a trade or an area of study with eventual employment incentives. You don’t show up, you don’t get assistance. For those who claim disability, have them evaluated for training and work they are medically able to perform. It’s like a work assistance program where they eventually do not need the same level of assistance in the future barring great medical need.
It’s amazing that the AFT and NEA are still some of the most powerful unions in the country given the corporate reform onslaught they face. However, this power continues to be chipped away at and will wither away if nothing more is done. Commentators like Diane Ravitch and Jeff Madrick are right to highlight the problems associated with economic inequality and misguided macroeconomic policy. Many corporate ed reformers have no interest in seriously engaging with these ideas because it does not fit into their individualistic political framework and may involve an increase in taxes. As such, they are all too happy to place the blame on individual teachers and students.
Unions have historically been the bulwark of progressive politics in the United States and throughout the world, so their decline should be a major concern for anyone who leans to the left. Their weakness in the United States raises a number of questions: Who will lead the fight against austerity and excessively tight monetary policy? Who will fight for equality? Who will fight for free public education? Who will promote economic security?
The primary problems that exist within the American education system are a reflection of broader economic issues. Forget this fact and we risk ignoring the root of our troubles. Private sector unions have little left and likely cannot be revitalized under our current economic paradigm. Teachers and their unions must stick up for themselves and their students! We have no choice and little time. Let’s get going in earnest.