Disadvantaged Children

OCR Education Module

Reading

Banks, S,R & Thompson, C,L, Educational Psychology , West,1995. Ch 13, at least p391-398.

Language

Vygotsky believed very strongly that language is a social and cultural phenomenon that is centrally involved in the development of thinking.

Basil Bernstein investigated the language of the working class. Working class children do not do so well in school as middle class children. Bernstein wondered whether this was due to language deficiencies. His `linguistic deficit theory' proposed that working class children use a `Restricted code'. This is characterised by sentences of few words, and fewer subordinate clauses in the construction of the sentences. Middle class children use an elaborated code, using longer sentences, this enabled them to handle information more efficiently and thus do well at school. Bernstein also viewed working class children as being unable to defer gratification. Middle class children are prepared to put a lot of effort into their studies, in the knowledge that they will be able to get a decent job in the end. On the other hand, Bernstein felt that working class children would not be willing to work hard at school, because they would not be prepared to wait for a long term goal; They preferred short term goals. This would explain why many left school as soon as they could and went out to work.

Perhaps the problem lies with schools. Many schools use the middle class elaborated codes, so children who also use these codes would get more out of education. Jane French (1987) criticised Bernstein's work, saying that it caused teachers to view children who spoke in a restricted code as being un-educable, producing self-fulfilling prophecies. OFFSTED, the organisation responsible for inspecting schools in Britain, has criticised many schools as having low expectations of their pupils.

Even if Bernstein has not clearly established that language affects cognitive development, a highly restricted vocabulary means that a child would not be able to communicate very well with his teacher, and this would inevitably affect his educational performance.

Perhaps the problem lies with the parents. The parents would use a restricted code in the home, and would lack an interest in education. It would seem that working class children are caught in a cycle of deprivation.

John and Elizabeth Newson found evidence to suggest Bernstein's view of the working class was somewhat negative. The Newsons found that 80% of working class parents in Nottingham were actively helping their children with reading. Tizard and Wells also showed that working class homes offered children numerous opportunities for stimulation and interaction.

Similar work was carried out by Labov; he investigated the English of American Black children.

Labov (1972) - Larry- non-standard English - (black)

Charles - standard English - (white)

This goes against Bernstein's theory - Larry capable of constructing a sophisticated set of arguments about abstract concepts. [ To learn more about Black English, why not visit this site?]

However,Bernstein had not been saying restricted code users were stupid, it's more to do with social expectations by others, specially teachers.

CRITICISM

Labov, an American, unaware of power of British class system, ignored social factors. (Robinson 1991).

Cooper (1984) - Labov had been biased in interpreting Larry's answers.

Winch (1985) concluded that there is no relationship between dialect form and logical capacity.

Chay and Dodd (1976) Hawaiian children (11 years old) able to comprehend better in dialect than standard English, if they were non-standard English speakers. So if tests are matched for language, there is no intellectual advantage.

However, Teachers rated non-standard English children as lacking confidence, less eager, poorer academic performance, poor behaviour, poor job prospects and poor social relationships, poor marital prospects and future children of the children also thought to be poor on all these points as well.

Hughes (1989) Teachers rated non-standard English children as not properly socialised in the home. Thought to have little or no language, cognitively incapable. Teachers blamed family social problems and TV. Teachers not sure whether they could improve children's performances

However, Tape recordings of children's speech at home demonstrated that there was a wide disparity between the language used by working class children at home compared with school. Sample - 30 girls aged 3-4 years.

However, Asian children can have same problem, but seem not to be disadvantaged.

Lyons (1981) People are diglossial - capable of speaking more than one form of English - so teachers should not assume negative things about the non-standard English speaking child- the child could be using the standard form elsewhere. Demonstrated by asking 'non-standard English' child to act out role of someone using 'standard English'.

Locus of control

Jaspars and Lalljee (1982) compared inter-group images of public and comprehensive schoolboys. They looked at the attributions made for success or failure (locus of control). Firstly, they wrote about the differences and similarities between the two groups. They were in agreement about matters concerning future prospects, social background and intellectual ability. Secondly, they were asked to give reasons for these differences. Public schoolboys spoke about ability or skill (internal locus of control), whereas comprehensive schoolboys spoke of luck (external locus of control).

TOUGH an organisation working for the Schools Council's Communication Skills in Early Childhood Project have discovered seven uses of language.

• a) Self-maintaining: maintaining the rights and property of the self.
• b) Directing the activity of the child and others
• c) Reporting on present and past experiences
• d) Logical reasoning
• e) Predicting and anticipating possibilities
• f) Projecting with the experiences of others
• g) Building up an imaginative scene for play.

Advantaged children display all of these. Disadvantaged children only used language for the purposes a) and c).

The role of the family in developing an elaborated code, is to encourage two-way conversations. Families that use one way conversation, in the form of instructions, inhibit the child's developing an elaborated code.

Kolvin, I.; Miller, F. J. W.; Scott, D. M.; Gatzanis, S. R. M. & Fleeting, M. (1990). Continuities of Deprivation: The Newcastle 1000 family study.

Children at risk

1. Prenatal problems
2. maternal drug/alcohol use during pregnancy
3. birthing problems
4. environmental toxins
5. infant diseases
6. adverse socio-economic conditions

Stevens and Price (1992)

1. 350000 new-borns exposed prenatally to drugs, including alcohol
2. 15000 to 30000 are born HIV positive
3. 3 to 4 million children exposed to damaging levels of lead
4. 37000 significantly low birth rate

The above will mean many children have below normal levels of intelligence

Foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS)

3 characteristics

1. growth deficiency
2. certain specific facial and physical abnormalities
3. central nervous system dysfunctions

Foetal alcohol effect (FAE)

Only need one or two drinks a day during pregnancy to produce children with learning difficulties (Streissguth, Barr & Sampson, 1990)

FAS and FAE produce children who exhibit:

1. high levels of activity
2. impulsivity
3. distractibility
4. poor communication skills (Burgess and Streissguth 1992)

Average IQ scores between 65 and 70 (Burgess and Streissguth, 1992)

Early intervention necessary

1. Children taught communication skills
2. adaptive living skills.

Prenatal exposure to Cocaine

Crack babies

Griffith (1992) 3 erroneous perceptions

1. All cocaine-exposed children are severely affected
2. Little can be done for them
3. All medical, behavioural and learning problems exhibited by these children are caused by the cocaine

Confounding factors

1. mothers received no prenatal education
2. medical care
3. appropriate nutrition
4. multiple drug users (polydrug users)
5. Continued to use drugs after birth of child

Little long term research

Griffith (1992) reviewed ongoing longitudinal study by the National Association for Perinatal Addiction Research and Education.

1. No differences in intelligence compared with controls.
2. One third had poor language development and poor attention span
3. impulsivity and distractibility just like other drug exposed children

Children exposed to lead

Lead has been linked with neuro-behavioral problems since the 1890's (Needleman, 1992)

Lobbying from manufacturers prevented a ban on lead in USA until recently (Needleman, 1992)

1. Lead paint is a major problem
2. lead in petrol
3. soil
4. construction materials

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry estimates 16% of American children have dangerous levels of lead in their blood (Needleman, 1992)

1. Language functioning
2. Distractibility
3. Attention Span (Needleman 1992)

Lead could be a leading cause of learning disabilities

HIV children

Human Immunodeficiency Virus - HIV - AIDS
Found mainly in children from large cities

Children must not be treated as social outcasts
They are protected by American law
No teacher is allowed to divulge information about HIV children without the consent of the children's' parents.

Will not exhibit any symptoms until later on. It is then that intervention would start. (Seidel 1992)

1. HIV causes developmental delay (Seidel 1992)
2. Greater progressive deterioration of the CNS, unlike adults who normally are prone to respiratory infections.

Symptoms:

1. Motor control difficulty
2. Language loss
3. Decreased intellectual levels (Seidel 1992)

Children gain an ability through normal development and then lose it through the effects of HIV.

Early compensatory education programmes delay the loss of cognitive and motor functions, but the long term prognosis is as bleak as it is for adults with HIV. (Seidel 1992)

Other Causative Factors

1. Premature births
2. Low birth weight
3. labour and delivery difficulties

These factors are related to lower socio-economic status of parents (Birsch & Gussow, 1970).

Lower socio-economic status is a factor in itself
Such parents

1. participate less in prenatal education programs
2. have poorer nutrition
3. have less adequate health care (remember you pay or have insurance in the USA)

Low socio-economic status parents produce boys with:

1. low academic achievement
2. low academic aspirations
3. low vocational aspirations (Mckee & Banks 1994)

Such boys can become alienated from school and from society
More likely to be:

1. school drop outs
2. unemployed or casually employed
3. criminals

Head Start

USA government funded programme for low income pre-school children began in 1965.

Comprehensive intervention program covering

1. Education
2. Health
3. Parental involvement
4. Social services

Originally for 3 and 4 year olds By 1991 had served 12 million children and their families.

Most Head Start children show short term academic gains
Much of the academic gain fades by the third year of education

However the Perry pre-school project (Schweinhart & Weikart 1983) has found long term social gains:

1. employment higher
2. lower arrest records
3. lower dropout rate
4. lower number receiving special education.

Following this positive result new programs have been started:

1. Even start
2. Head start transition project
3. Early start - for children under 3

Breitmayer and Ramey (1986) studied children at risk.

Criteria

1. Family income
2. Apgar scores - a measure of neonatal responsiveness and physical
3. appearance at time of birth
4. Maternal IQ scores
5. Parental educational levels

Groups set at birth

1. Special compensatory education program
2. Control group

Tested at 4½ years
Greatest improvements found in those most at risk

Programmes are successful if:

1. good student/teacher ratio
2. frequent amount of quality instruction time

Return to OCEAC home page

Copyright © 1998 Gary Sturt
This Home Page was created by WebEdit,03 May 1998
Most recent revision 25 March 2001