Chapter 12- Federal Government Involvement (1900-1950)
Chapter 13-Federal Government Involvement in the 1960s and Beyond
Chapter 14- Native Americans
The Federal government has taken a proactive role in attempting to eradicate poverty and it's negative effects on children's development. What was the rationale behind the formation of programs for disadvantaged children? What positive function does poverty play in society and how can it be eradicated? Or can it?
My answer is in the comment box.
4 comments:
Many people believed poverty had negative effects on children, including their intellectual development. This, it was believed, could be changed through timely intervention. The Civil Rights Movement wanted quality integrated education.
Psychologists of the 1960s had advanced new information about the influences of the environment upon the intellectual development of young children. Health, malnutrition and parental neglect headed the list of problems with negative effects on young children. Lack of expectation of success and lack of appropriate experiences had also impacted the children.
The rationale for Head Start was that if children from disadvantaged homes could enter school on more even footing with the middle class children, they would be more ready to learn the things the school had to teach them.
This would lead to better job opportunities with higher earning power. They would have more material and cultural advantages, as well as an expectation for the success of their children. This then would break the cycle of poverty.
The impetus for attempting to eradicate poverty came through the venues of many programs, one such as Head Start. The notion was this: if a child comes to school prepared, has success, he/she will be able to contribute to society by not becoming a burden.
In a nutshell, eradicating poverty creates a better citizen and one in which the government has taken a very proactive role. However, I want to mention an article I read several years ago that might give you some food for thought.
In 1972 Herbert Gans wrote a seminal article that described the positive influences of poverty. Well, I know you are thinking, "How could there possibly be anything positive about being poor?"
Gans (1972) asserts a social phenomenon such as poverty may be too highly valued to be eliminated.
Gans was influenced by the work of Robert K. Merton's functional analysis. Functional analysis as applied to poverty attempts to explain how the poor perform
positive functions to serve within society.
Functionalism maintains society is a system of parts (e.g., the poor) who serve the whole
(e.g., social structure and culture). Analyzing poverty from Merton's theory, Gans identified 15
positive functions of poverty. However, while poverty may benefit the more affluent; it comes at a cost. As Merton (1949, as cited in Gans, 1972, p. 272) noted,
what ". . . might be functional for one group is dysfunctional for another."
According to Gans (1972), poverty has traditionally been viewed as dysfunctional by most Americans and the poor as an object of curiosity and scorn.Unfortunately, as Gans suggested the poor do serve a positive function.
First, the poor do menial labor, low-paid, physically dirty and dangerous jobs. The economy depends on a low-wage pool which many industries such as agriculture depend.
Second, low wages make certain
the poor never achieve wealth and domestic workers free up time for middle and upper class women to do
civic or volunteer work, continue a profession or socialize.
Third, poverty creates jobs which provide services to the poor such as social workers, ministers, non-profit organizations, policy makers, loan sharks, and the military which recruits most of its men from the poor.
Fourth, the poor buy the day old
bread and the used clothing and furniture.
Fifth, the poor balance the hierarchy of society.
In addition, the poor provide the rest of society a way to feel good emotionally and morally. Uplifting
the poor through charitable works makes us thankful we are not in poverty. The poor serve as a tool to measure our success. By labeling the poor as stupid and lazy, educational opportunities are fewer and others get the better jobs. Poor children are often on the political agenda as 12+ million children live below the poverty level (National Center
for Children in Poverty, 2006). The policy makers need the poor.
The poor have contributed to
civilizations culture. The poor helped to build the roads, dams, pyramids, and historical monuments. Navajo bead work is prized by the affluent as are
paintings, poetry, music, literature and folk-art.
In summary, poverty exists and serves many useful economic, moral and political functions. The
alternative to poverty would prove dysfunctional for the affluent (Gans). So although the Federal Governemtn has now and will continue to have many social programs to help families and children, I don't think we will ever see the complete eradication of poverty, no matter how many programs we have to help children.
Many children will come up from poverty, but it will always exist.
The article is in ref works, and although dated (1972), it really makes you put on the old thinking cap.And finally one less child in poverty is worth the millions it takes to do it.
References:
Gans, H. J. (1972). The positive functions of poverty.
American Journal of Sociology, 78(2), 275-289.
National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved
July 12, 2008 from: http://www.nccp.org
Gans, H. J. (1972). The positive functions of poverty. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(2), 275-289.
Since the turn of the 20th century, a scientific lens has been applied to child development. Piaget created the clinical model to study children. Binet set out to create a scientific way to separate out children disinclined to success in school. G. Stanley Hall started the Child Study movement while Dewey and Gesell started lab school to test experimental model of school. What emerged from this background was research showing how critical the early years are to development. With LBJ’s Great Society, the government looked for ways to aid society as a whole giving rise to the belief that the earlier intervention started with children, the better. Furthermore, Brofenbrenner’s ecological model espoused that the overall family system needed treatment, not only the child because the family is the vital influence in a youngster’s life. If we get kids young enough and keep them healthy, exposed to education as well as retrain the parents, then we are proactively decreases the negative impact on children and then society as a whole: less people on welfare and more with a stable job and family.
However, poverty will always exist as well as the rich. If life plays out like the bell curve, there will also be people one and two standard deviation from the middle. We can’t control people and make them achieve. Ruby Payne’s book about Poverty explains the whole culture of SES. There are distinct storytelling patterns and language registers as well as their rules to the culture. Just giving money or education to the problem does not fix it. A significant relationship and a will to move out of this culture must exist in a person. Some people may like their lot in life, and who are we to say they must change. We don’t want to make the other the same ☺
Payne, R. (1995). Poverty: A framework for understanding and working with students and adults from poverty. Baytown, TX: RFT Publishing.
Here is a link to a segment of NPR's Fresh Air.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89848686
I appreciate this author's perspective on poverty. He may help us to rethink our policies relating to this population.
Post a Comment