Sentences with phrase «children in poor families who»

But they were surprised to find that children in poor families who benefitted from increased income scored about the same as children who were not poor to begin with.

Not exact matches

But it is a different story if we use the low income measure, which looks at the gap between poor children and the middle class, calculating the number of children who live in a family which has less than one half of the income of a comparable middle income family.

1 Corinthians 11:14 (Men should not have long hair) 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35 (Women should remain silent in church) Deuteronomy 13:6 - 16 (Death penalty for Apostasy) Deuteronomy 20:10 - 14 (Attack city, kill all men, keep women, children as spoils of war) Deuteronomy 21:18 - 21 (Death penalty for a rebellious son) Deuteronomy 22:19 - 25 (Kill non - virgin / kill adulterers / rapists) Ecclesiastes 1:18 (Knowledge is bad) Exodus 21:1 - 7 (Rules for buying slaves) Exodus 35:2 (Death for working on the Sabbath) Ezekiel 9:5 - 6 (Murder women / children) Genesis 1:3,4,5,11,12,16 (God creates light, night and day, plants grow, before creating sun) Genesis 3:16 (Man shall rule over woman) Jeremiah 19:9 (Cannibalism) John 3:18 (He who believes in Jesus is saved, he that doesn't is condemned) John 5:46 - 47 (Jesus references Old Testament) Leviticus 3:1 - 17 (Procedure for animal sacrifice) Leviticus 19:19 (No mixed fabrics in clothing) Leviticus 19:27 (Don't trim hair or beard) Leviticus 19:28 (No tattoos) Leviticus 20:9 (Death for cursing father or mother) Leviticus 20:10 (Death for adultery) Leviticus 20:13 (Death for gay men) Leviticus 21:17 - 23 (Ugly people, lame, dwarfs, not welcome on altar) Leviticus 25:45 (Strangers can be bought as slaves) Luke 12:33 (Sell your possessions, and give to the poor) Luke 14:26 (You must hate your family and yourself to follow Jesus) Mark 10:11 - 12 (Leaving your spouse for another is adultery) Mark 10:21 - 22 (Sell your possessions and give to the poor) Mark 10:24 - 25 (Next to impossible for rich to get into heaven) Mark 16:15 - 16 (Those who hear the gospel and don't believe go to hell) Matthew 5:17 - 19 (Jesus says he has come to enforce the laws of the Old Testament) Matthew 6:5 - 6 (Pray in secret) Matthew 6:18 (Fast for Lent in secret) Matthew 9:12 (The healthy don't need a doctor, the sick do) Matthew 10:34 - 37 (Jesus comes with sword, turns families against each other, those that love family more than him are not worthy) Matthew 12:30 (If you're not with Jesus, you're against him) Matthew 15:4 (Death for not honouring your father and mother) Matthew 22:29 (Jesus references Old Testament) Matthew 24:37 (Jesus references Old Testament) Numbers 14:18 (Following generations blamed for the sins of previous ones) Psalms 137:9 (Violence against children) Revelation 6:13 (The stars fell to earth like figs) Revelation 21:8 (Unbelievers, among others, go to hell) 1 Timothy 2:11 - 12 (Women subordinate and must remain silent) 1 Timothy 5:8 (If you don't provide for your family, you are an infidel)

Unlike the skid - row «derelicts» who seemed to be the typical homeless in the «60s, the street people today embrace the whole gamut of humanity: the «new poor,» the mentally disabled, evicted families, elderly single people, hoboes, alcoholics, drug addicts, abused spouses, abused young people and cast - off children.

They all belong in FEMA camps, except their poor abused children, who should be put in foster homes to protect the innocent from the lunacy of their dangerously deluded families.

And these days, unless children from poor families get a college degree, their economic mobility is severely restricted: Young people who grow up in families in the lowest income quintile (with household income below about $ 21,500) and don't obtain a B.A. now have just a one in two chance of escaping that bottom economic bracket as adults.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health)- Children who grow up in poor families may have smaller brains than their more well - off peers, says a new study.

I think it is important to point out that this isn't just an issue for middle class families who care deeply about their child's diet and are able to provide abundant healthy food choices but school menus have great impact on many, many poor children who, through no fault of their own and often with no agency to change the situation, end up being pawns in the lunch tray wars.

By facilitating their involvement in parenting programs, these families will have the opportunity to change some of their parenting behaviours and beliefs, which may ultimately buffer children who are at risk of poor developmental outcomes because of genetic vulnerability, low birth weight, low socio - economic status, or cumulative environmental risks, among others.

In far too many school districts, there are students who would qualify for free meals, except for the fact that their family never fills out the form, either because they forget, or they don't understand that it is important, or (more often) the child is too embarrassed to self - identify as poor in front of his classmates, and so he either doesn't give his parents the form or doesn't turn it in at schooIn far too many school districts, there are students who would qualify for free meals, except for the fact that their family never fills out the form, either because they forget, or they don't understand that it is important, or (more often) the child is too embarrassed to self - identify as poor in front of his classmates, and so he either doesn't give his parents the form or doesn't turn it in at schooin front of his classmates, and so he either doesn't give his parents the form or doesn't turn it in at schooin at school.

Some barriers include the negative attitudes of women and their partners and family members, as well as health care professionals, toward breastfeeding, whereas the main reasons that women do not start or give up breastfeeding are reported to be poor family and social support, perceived milk insufficiency, breast problems, maternal or infant illness, and return to outside employment.2 Several strategies have been used to promote breastfeeding, such as setting standards for maternity services3, 4 (eg, the joint World Health Organization — United Nations Children's Fund [WHO - UNICEF] Baby Friendly Initiative), public education through media campaigns, and health professionals and peer - led initiatives to support individual mothers.5 — 9 Support from the infant's father through active participation in the breastfeeding decision, together with a positive attitude and knowledge about the benefits of breastfeeding, has been shown to have a strong influence on the initiation and duration of breastfeeding in observational studies, 2,10 but scientific evidence is not available as to whether training fathers to manage the most common lactation difficulties can enhance breastfeeding rates.

Cahill says he wants to do more to protect children at Charter Schools, who often come from the poorest families in the state, and says he sees it as «the civil rights issue of our time».

At the centre of the story is child beauty pageant hopeful Olive Hoover (Abigail Breslin) who at the last minute has the opportunity to compete in the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant, providing that her cash - poor family can make the cross country trip and get her there in time.

Five lucky children, including Charlie (Highmore), a good - hearted boy from a poor family who lives in the shadow of Wonka's extraordinary factory, draw golden tickets from Wonka chocolate bars and win a guided tour of the legendary candy - making facility that no outsider has seen in 15 years.

«From these findings, we know that naturally occurring decreases in family income - to - needs were associated with worse developmental outcomes for children from poor families,» says Dearing, who coauthored the study with Kathleen McCartney, a professor at HGSE, and Beck Taylor, an economist at Baylor University.

Quality Preschool Benefits Poor and Affluent Kids, Study Finds NBC News, March 28, 2013 «While most previous studies had focused only on kids from underprivileged backgrounds, in the new study Harvard researchers found that regardless of family income children who got a year of quality prekindergarten did better in reading and math than kids who spent the year in daycare, with relatives, or in some other kind of preschool, according to the report which was published in Child Development.»

While public schools in New Orleans educate mainly children from poor families, «several new schools are attracting families who could afford private or parochial school, the same type of families who started leaving the school system 45 years ago,» writes Danielle Dreilinger on nola.com.

Meanwhile, advocates invoked the «hypocrisy» of voucher critics in Congress who were rich enough to send their own children to private schools but would deny that option to the city's poorer families.

As a result, it has been suggested that wealthy families who use private tutors for this purpose should be taxed in order to help poorer children have access to the same help.

«I honestly don't see how the mayor will narrow early disparities in children's learning until he focuses more directly on poor communities, lifting low - income families,» said Bruce Fuller, a UC Berkeley professor who has analyzed the city's universal pre-K program and provided ProPublica with his analysis of the newest numbers.

Kirp quotes researchers who report that «by the time they are four years old, children growing up in poor families have been exposed to 32 million fewer spoken words than those whose parents are professionals.

Both tests are designed to fail the vast majority of children and are particularly discriminatory to children who face challenges such as those who come from poorer families, those who are not fluent in the English language and those who need special education services.

More importantly, the most - successful efforts to expand school choice (including Virginia Walden Ford's work in Washington, D.C., Steve Barr's work with Latino communities in Los Angeles, and Parent Revolution's Parent Trigger efforts), have been ones led by poor and minority communities who explicitly made the case for helping their own children escape failure mills that damaged their families for generations.

Teachers and administrators who work with children from low - income families say one reason teachers struggle to help these students improve reading comprehension is that deficits start at such a young age: in the 1980s, the psychologists Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley found that by the time they are 4 years old, children from poor families have heard 32 million fewer words than children with professional parents.

Aren't there some fine lawyers who would, preferably with pro-bono work, support families who have children with disabilities, all kinds of disabilities, or children who have second language hurdles, or the really really poor children, to sue the charter operators and their rich donors for denying these students a slot in their elite charter schools?

When William Kremen, a psychologist at the University of California, San Diego, examined the reading ability of middle - aged twins in 2007, he found that, even half a century after childhood, family background still had a major effect — but only for children who grew up poor.

Only about 46 percent of children aged three through six in families below the federal poverty line are enrolled in center - based early childhood programming, compared to 72 percent of children in families above the federal poverty line.1 Poor children are about 25 percent less likely to be ready for school at age five than children who are not poor.2 Once in school, these children lag behind their better - off peers in reading and math, are less likely to be enrolled in college preparatory coursework, less likely to graduate, and over 10 percent more likely to require remediation if they attend a four - year post-secondary institution.3 All of these issues compound one another to create a cycle of low opportunity: children in poverty are less likely to achieve high educational attainment, and low educational attainment leads to lower median weekly earnings and higher rates of unemploymPoor children are about 25 percent less likely to be ready for school at age five than children who are not poor.2 Once in school, these children lag behind their better - off peers in reading and math, are less likely to be enrolled in college preparatory coursework, less likely to graduate, and over 10 percent more likely to require remediation if they attend a four - year post-secondary institution.3 All of these issues compound one another to create a cycle of low opportunity: children in poverty are less likely to achieve high educational attainment, and low educational attainment leads to lower median weekly earnings and higher rates of unemploympoor.2 Once in school, these children lag behind their better - off peers in reading and math, are less likely to be enrolled in college preparatory coursework, less likely to graduate, and over 10 percent more likely to require remediation if they attend a four - year post-secondary institution.3 All of these issues compound one another to create a cycle of low opportunity: children in poverty are less likely to achieve high educational attainment, and low educational attainment leads to lower median weekly earnings and higher rates of unemployment.

He goes to school with children who have parents that don't qualify for free or reduced lunch, however, this, in most cases, means that they are families who make enough to get by and NOT that they truly «less poor» as you call them.

Meanwhile, the expansion of school choice in DC encouraged more white and middle - class families to send their children to public schools, and provided an escape route to some poor children who would otherwise have attended failing neighborhood schools.

Early Head Start, which provides comprehensive services for infants and toddlers through home visiting, center - based care and family child care, was funded to serve only an estimated 4 percent of the 2.9 million poor children under age three who were eligible for the program on any given day in FY2012.

Ofsted's chief inspector had warned that children from poorer families who live in the countryside or on the coast in England, do worse at school than those who live in cities.

Goldie was found in very poor condition at a local animal shelter and adopted by a young military family with four children «who weren't really looking to adopt but did so anyway just to get her out of there».

They may be children with poor social skills, who do not fit in, who can't meet the expectations of their family or school.

Life and family events premigration and postmigration have been found to have a profound effect on the health and well - being of immigrant children.1, 2 Risk factors include trauma, separation from parents, nonvoluntary migration, obstacles in the acculturation process, 3 and children who immigrate in their mid - or late teens.1, 4 Research also shows that parents who have experienced or witnessed violence have poorer mental health, 2,5 which is likely to affect parent — child attachment and negatively impact child development and mental health.5 Transitioning to a new country may be beneficial for both parents and children, but it may render new and unexpected constraints in the parent — child relationship (eg, children tend to acculturate to the new country faster than their parents), cause disharmony and power conflicts, 6 — 8 and, subsequently, affect the child's mental health.9

The investigators chose schools for this study that serve substantial proportions of children from poor families who live in high - crime neighborhoods.

During the recovery of the Great Recession, income inequality in the United States accelerated, with 91 % of the gains going to the top 1 % of families.19 Left out of the recovery were African American families who, during the downturn, lost an average of 35 % of their accumulated wealth.20 African American unemployment increased, home ownership decreased, and child poverty deepened to approximately 46 % of children younger than 6 years.21 Because social mobility is lowest for people in the lowest income quartile, half of African American children who are poor as young children will remain poor as adults, approximately twice as many as white adults similarly exposed to poverty as children.22

A fifteen - year follow - up of the Prenatal / Early Infancy Project in Elmira, New York, showed that the nurse home visits significantly reduced child abuse and neglect in participating families, as well as arrest rates for the children and mothers.35 The women who received the program also spent much less time on welfare; those who were poor and unmarried had significantly fewer subsequent births.

News stories this fortnight have, for example, reported on poor people with diabetes being 10 times more likely to lose a limb than those who are better off, children with jailed family members experiencing poorer health in later life, and children who are intellectually stimulated being less likely to develop Alzheimer's.

Post hoc tests confirmed that, by age 18 years, children from poor families who had participated in the full intervention were significantly more attached to school than their control counterparts from poor families (P =.001).

An estimated 1,560 children died because of maltreatment, with the highest rates of victimization in the first year of life — 20.6 per 1,000 children.1 Research demonstrates that outcomes for children who survive child maltreatment (defined as neglect, abuse, or a combination of the two) are poor, with performance below national norms in a range of outcomes areas, including psychosocial and cognitive well - being and academic achievement.2, 3,4 The costs to society overall of these children not reaching their full potential and the lower than expected productivity of adult survivors of abuse are estimated at as much as $ 50 - 90 billion per year in the U.S. 5,6 These findings underscore the need for strategies to prevent child maltreatment in order to improve outcomes for children, families and communities.

Moreover, there are a host of negative social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes associated with children who live in poor single - parent families, especially when those families lack involved and supportive fathers.

This study found that in families who reported poor relationships, depressive symptoms in adolescent children were significantly higher than in families where relationships were reported as healthy.

Moreover, there is a host of negative social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes associated with children who live in poor, single - parent families — especially when those families lack involved and supportive fathers.

Individual and family counselling offering assessment, guidance and therapy to children, adolescents and their parents who are in conflict, uncertain about disciplinary approaches, concerned about poor school performance, or by the appearance of symptomatic behaviours.

The children who received care in family child care settings or who received kibbutz (collective community in Israel) home sleeping, both care types that likely supported closer caregiving relationships than the poor quality centers, were more likely to be securely attached to their mothers.

Many trials used volunteers or people selected by referrers as willing to take part in parenting projects, thus excluding many disorganised, unmotivated, or disadvantaged families, who have the most antisocial children.2 A review of meta - analyses of published trials of psychological treatments for childhood disorders found that in university settings the effect size was large, from 0.71 to 0.84 SD.12 In contrast, a review of six studies of outcome in regular service clinics since 1950 showed no significant effects, 12 and a large trial offering unrestricted access to outpatient services found no improvement.13 Reasons suggested for the poor outcome in clinic cases include that they have more severe problems, come from more distressed families, and receive less empirically supported interventions from staff with heavier caseloadin parenting projects, thus excluding many disorganised, unmotivated, or disadvantaged families, who have the most antisocial children.2 A review of meta - analyses of published trials of psychological treatments for childhood disorders found that in university settings the effect size was large, from 0.71 to 0.84 SD.12 In contrast, a review of six studies of outcome in regular service clinics since 1950 showed no significant effects, 12 and a large trial offering unrestricted access to outpatient services found no improvement.13 Reasons suggested for the poor outcome in clinic cases include that they have more severe problems, come from more distressed families, and receive less empirically supported interventions from staff with heavier caseloadin university settings the effect size was large, from 0.71 to 0.84 SD.12 In contrast, a review of six studies of outcome in regular service clinics since 1950 showed no significant effects, 12 and a large trial offering unrestricted access to outpatient services found no improvement.13 Reasons suggested for the poor outcome in clinic cases include that they have more severe problems, come from more distressed families, and receive less empirically supported interventions from staff with heavier caseloadIn contrast, a review of six studies of outcome in regular service clinics since 1950 showed no significant effects, 12 and a large trial offering unrestricted access to outpatient services found no improvement.13 Reasons suggested for the poor outcome in clinic cases include that they have more severe problems, come from more distressed families, and receive less empirically supported interventions from staff with heavier caseloadin regular service clinics since 1950 showed no significant effects, 12 and a large trial offering unrestricted access to outpatient services found no improvement.13 Reasons suggested for the poor outcome in clinic cases include that they have more severe problems, come from more distressed families, and receive less empirically supported interventions from staff with heavier caseloadin clinic cases include that they have more severe problems, come from more distressed families, and receive less empirically supported interventions from staff with heavier caseloads.

Albeit based on older children than in GUS, children aged 13 to 14 years who live in families with five or more problems (such as neither parent in work, poor housing conditions, parents with mental health problems) are 36 times more likely to be excluded from school than children in families with no problems and six times more likely to have been in care or to have contact with the police (HM Treasury and DFES, 2007).

This suggests that children in families who experience greater adversity may report poorer health outcomes, similar to findings in a large US study (Larson et al. 2008).

In families with a non-biological resident father figure, the finding that a relatively high proportion of children perceive poor levels of supportiveness suggests that men who find themselves in the position of being a father figure may have particular difficulties in defining their role, both within the family and in relation to the child's non-resident biological fatheIn families with a non-biological resident father figure, the finding that a relatively high proportion of children perceive poor levels of supportiveness suggests that men who find themselves in the position of being a father figure may have particular difficulties in defining their role, both within the family and in relation to the child's non-resident biological fathein the position of being a father figure may have particular difficulties in defining their role, both within the family and in relation to the child's non-resident biological fathein defining their role, both within the family and in relation to the child's non-resident biological fathein relation to the child's non-resident biological father.

In relation to conduct problems, the results of the revised model suggest that children who live in stable lone parent or repartnered lone parent families, those with poorer general health and those who have experienced harsh discipline are all at a greater risk of their conduct problems increasing in the pre-school to primary school perioIn relation to conduct problems, the results of the revised model suggest that children who live in stable lone parent or repartnered lone parent families, those with poorer general health and those who have experienced harsh discipline are all at a greater risk of their conduct problems increasing in the pre-school to primary school perioin stable lone parent or repartnered lone parent families, those with poorer general health and those who have experienced harsh discipline are all at a greater risk of their conduct problems increasing in the pre-school to primary school perioin the pre-school to primary school period.