Cycle of poverty 1796274 220510869 2008-06-20T05:48:07Z Burrburr 7322539 /* Effects of Modern Education */ In [[economics]], the '''cycle of poverty''' is the "set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."<ref name="Hutchinson"/> This is the idea that [[poverty]] is continued as a result of people trapped in an array of social situations including: low income, poor [[education]], poor housing, or poor [[health]]. These disadvantages collectively work in a circular process making it virtually impossible for individuals to break the cycle. <ref> Marger (2008). ‘‘Social Inequality: Patterns and Processes.’’ McGraw Hill publishing. 4th edition. ISBN: 0073528153</ref> This occurs when [[poverty|impoverished people]] do not have the resources necessary to get out of poverty, such as financial [[capital]], [[education]], or connections. In other words, [[poverty]]-stricken individuals experience disadvantages as a result of their poverty, which in turn increases their poverty. This would mean that the poor remain poor throughout their lives. <ref name="Hutchinson"> [http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Cycle+of+poverty Hutchinson Encyclopedia], Cycle of poverty </ref> The poverty cycle is usually called "'''development trap'''" when it is applied to countries. <ref name="Hutchinson"/> Dr. Ruby K. Payne distinguishes between ''situational poverty'', which can generally be traced to a specific incident within the lifetimes of the person or family members in poverty, and ''generational poverty'', which is a cycle that passes from generation to generation, and goes on to argue that generational poverty has its own distinct culture and belief patterns. <ref>Payne, R. (2005). ''A framework for understanding poverty'' (4th edition). Highland, TX: aha! Process, Inc.</ref> __TOC__ ==Causes of the Cycle== ===<small>Family Background</small>=== A 2002 research paper titled "The Changing Effect of Family Background on the Incomes of American Adults" analyzed changes in the determinants of [[family income]] between 1961 and 1999, focusing on the effect of parental [[education]], occupational rank, [[income]], marital status, family size, region of residence, [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], and [[ethnicity]]. The paper (1) outlines a simple framework for thinking about how family background affects children’s family and [[income]], (2) summarizes previous research on trends in intergenerational inheritance in the United States, (3) describes the data used as a basis for the research which it describes, (4) discusses trends in [[inequality]] among parents, (5) describes how the effects of parental [[inequality]] changed between 1961 and 1999, (6) contrasts effects at the top and bottom of the distribution, and (7) discusses whether intergenerational correlations of zero would be desirable. The paper concludes by posing the question of whether reducing the intergenerational correlation is an efficient strategy for reducing [[poverty]] or [[inequality]]. When improving the skills of disadvantaged children is relatively easy, it is an attractive strategy. However, judging by American experience since the 1960s, improving the skills of disadvantaged children is far from easy. As a result, the paper suggests, there are probably cheaper and easier ways to reduce [[poverty]] and [[inequality]], such as supplementing the wages of the poor or changing [[immigration]] policy so that it drives down the relative wages of skilled rather than unskilled workers. These alternative strategies would not reduce intergenerational correlations, but they would reduce the economic gap between children who started life with all the disadvantages instead of all the advantages.<ref>{{Citation |url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7838.html |title=Family Background and Economic Success |editor1=Samuel Bowles |editor2=Herbert Gintis |editor3= |chapter=The Changing Effect of Family Background |chapter-url=http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ksg.harvard.edu%2Finequality%2FSeminar%2FPapers%2FJencks.pdf&date=2008-01-04 |first=Christopher |last=Jencks |coauthors=David J. Harding, Leonard M. Lopoo, Susan E. Mayer |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2008 |isbn=0691136203}}</ref> Another paper, titled ''Do poor children become poor adults?'', which was originally presented at a 2004 symposium on the future of children from disadvantaged families in France, and was later included in a 2006 collection of papers related to the theme of the dynamics of [[inequality]] and [[poverty]], discusses generational [[income mobility]] in [[North America]] and [[Europe]]. The paper opens by observing that in the [[United States]] almost one half of children born to low [[income]] parents become low [[income]] adults, four in ten in the [[United Kingdom]], and one-third in [[Canada]]. The paper goes on to observe that rich children also tend to become rich adults &mdash; four in ten in the U.S. and the U.K., and as many as one-third in Canada. The paper argues, however, that [[money]] is not the only or even the most important factor influencing intergenerational [[income]] mobility and that the rewards to higher skilled and/or higher educated individuals in the [[labor market]] and the opportunities for children to obtain the required skills and credentials are two important factors; reaching the conclusion that [[income]] transfers to lower [[income]] individuals may be important to children in the here in now, but they should not be counted on to strongly promote generational [[mobility]]. The paper recommends that governments focus on investments in children to ensure that they have both the skills and opportunities to succeed in the labor market, and observes that though this has historically meant promoting access to higher and higher levels of [[education]], it is becoming increasingly important that attention be paid to [[preschool]] and early childhood [[education]].<ref>{{Citation |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mJlKOHGaSaAC |title=Dynamics of Inequality and Poverty |editor1-first=John |editor1-last=Creedy |editor2-first=Guyonne |editor2-last=Kalb |pages=143-188 |chapter=Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults |chapter-url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mJlKOHGaSaAC&pg=PA143&ei=KdZ-R9TFFouotAOEvLWcCw&sig=xujAA5avuWMdAZ-4zoXFhv_tMHE#PPA143,M1 <!-- alternate url for chapter content: http://web.archive.org/web/20040620034722/http://www.cerc.gouv.fr/meetings/colloque_avril2004/Corak.pdf --> |last=Corak |first=Miles |publisher=Elsevier |year=2006 |isbn=0762313501}}</ref> ===<small>Effects of Modern Education</small>=== Research shows that [[schools]] with students that perform lower than the norm are also those hiring least-qualified teachers as a result of novel teachers generally working in the area that they grew up in. This leads to certain [[schools]] not producing many students that go on to college. Students from these schools that go on to be college graduates are not as skilled as they would be if they had gone to a school with higher-qualified instructors. This leads to [[education]] perpetuating a cycle of [[poverty]]. The individuals that choose to work in the [[schools]] close to them does not adequately supply the [[school]] with enough teachers. The [[schools]] must then outsource their teachers from other areas. Susan Loeb from the School of Education at Stanford did a study and found that teachers who are brought in from the suburbs are 10 times more likely to transfer out of the [[school]] after their initial year. The fact that the teachers from the suburbs leave appears to be an influential factor for [[schools]] hiring more teachers from that area. The lack of adequate [[education]] for children is part of what allows for the cycle of [[poverty]] to continue. <ref> Society for The Advancement of Education: ‘’MODERN EDUCATION'S 'CYCLE OF POVERTY.’’ USA Today Magazine Sep. 2006: Vol. 135 Issue 2736, p6-7.</ref> ==Tracking ('' How it perpetuates the cycle '')== History in the United States has shown that Americans saw [[education]] as the way to end the perpetual cycle of [[poverty]]. In the present, children from low to middle income households are at a disadvantage. They are twice as likely to be held back and more likely to not graduate from high [[school]]. Recent studies have shown that the cause for the disparity among academic achievement results from the school’s structure where some students succeed from an added advantage and others fail as a result of lacking that advantage. Educational institutions with a learning disparity are causing [[education]] to be a sustaining factor for the cycle of [[poverty]]. One prominent example of this type of [[school]] structures is [[tracking]]. [[Tracking]] is predominantly used to help organize a classroom, so that there the [[variability]] of academic ability in classes is decreased. Students are tracked based on their ability level, generally based on a standardized test after which they are given different course requirements. Some people believe that [[tracking]] "enhances academic achievement and improves the self-concept of students by permitting them to progress at their own pace." <ref name="Ansalone"> Ansalone, George. "Poverty, Tracking, and the Social Construction of Failure: International Perspectives on Tracking." ‘’Journal of Children & Poverty’’ 9.1 (2003): 3.</ref> The negative side is that studies have shown that [[tracking]] decreases students’ opportunity to learn. [[Tracking]] also has a disproportionate number of [[Latinos]] and [[African Americans]] that have low [[socioeconomic status]] in the lower learning tracks. [[Tracking]] separates [[social classes]] putting the poor and [[minority]] children in lower tracks where they receive second-rate [[education]], and the students that are better off are placed in upper tracks where they have many opportunities for [[success]]. Studies have found that in addition to the higher tracks having more extensive curriculum, there is also a disparity among the teachers and instructional resources provided. There appears to be a race/class bias which results in intelligent children not receiving the skills or opportunities needed for [[success]] or social/economic mobility, thus continuing the cycle of [[poverty]]. There is an overall perception that American education is failing and research has done nothing to counter this statement, but instead has revealed the reality and severity of the issue of the existence of [[tracking]] and other structures that cause the cycle of [[poverty]] to continue.<ref name="Ansalone"> Ansalone, George. "Poverty, Tracking, and the Social Construction of Failure: International Perspectives on Tracking." ''Journal of Children & Poverty’’ 9.1 (2003): 3.</ref> ==Theories and Strategies for Breaking the Cycle of Poverty== While many governmental officials are still trying to find an answer to [[poverty]], many states and localities are making an effort to break the cycle. Mayor [[Bloomberg]] of New York City has been advocating a plan where parents are paid up to $5000 a year for meeting certain goals that will better their lives. This policy was modeled after a [[Mexican]] initiative that aims to help poor families make better decisions that will help them in the long-term and break cycle of [[poverty]] and dependence that have been known to last for lifetimes. In addition, many states also have been making an attempt to help break the cycle. For example, a bill has been proposed in the California Assembly that “would establish an advisory Childhood Poverty Council to develop a plan to reduce child [[poverty]] in the state by half by 2017 and eliminate it by 2027”. <ref name="Billitteri">Billitteri, Thomas. "States and Localities. ''CQ Researcher'' 17.31 (2007): 738-739.</ref> Even when the plan has [[poverty]] reduction as the goal, a rise in child [[poverty]] might be the reality for many states as it was in Connecticut. States are attempting to not only decrease the number of people in the cycle of [[poverty]], but to also adjust the stringent work requirements that resulted from Congress’s [[welfare]] reform. The tougher work restrictions have upset many poverty advocates that believe the new regulations prevent individuals that are vulnerable or that lack skills from preparing for work. California Democrat Representative McDermott believes as a result of this and other effects of the new limitations, it has been harder for individuals to escape a life of [[poverty]]. <ref name="Billitteri">Billitteri, Thomas. "States and Localities." ''CQ Researcher'' 17.31 (2007): 738-739.</ref> ==See also== * [[Culture of poverty]] * [[Welfare trap]] * [[Poverty]] * [[Economic inequality]] * [[Feminization of poverty]] * [[Income disparity]] * [[Social Mobility]] * [[Minimum Wage]] * [[Poverty threshold]] * [[List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty]] * [[Diseases of poverty]] * [[Deprivation index]] * [[Rural ghetto]] * [[Welfare]] * [[Working poor]] * [[Make Poverty History]] * [[Welfare State]] * [[Elite theory]] * [[Glass ceiling]] * [[Horatio alger myth]] * [[Tracking]] ==References== {{reflist}} [[Category:Poverty]] [[Category:Socioeconomics]] [[Category:Sociology]] [[Category:Urban decay]] [[Category:Economic problems]] [[sr:Циклус сиромаштвgtuj]] [[he:מעגל העוני]] [[sr:Циклус сиромаштва]]