In the beginning of this unit I didn’t have much thought about rhetorical choice. I was very set on my papers and work being formal and simple. Blue or black ink on a white background was how I learned schoolwork should be done. So it was in blue ink and a white background that I expected all our work to be done our blogs and websites. Never thinking what the look as a whole could do for the information.
Our first blog was pretty bland and boring. We had a black background with white font. I never thought anything of it until we switched around our blogs and were given a different background. The new background had lots of colors. Some even had images in the back such as a tree with a sky, or grass and some flowers. Others are less pretty and more formal, which worked just as well. These ones had bold colored backgrounds like our original blogs but are much more accepting to the eye in that the colors are softer and “happier”. It wasn’t until we switched to these layouts that thought of how much what our page looks like effects what the reader is reading. The old blog had much darker colors and I feel made the information that was on the page dark as well. With the bright colors and blue skies on our new site I feel the information can be seen from a different angle. The curiosity of what the other pages looked like brought me to seek out other groups and group member’s pages. This showed me how important a look is to its page.
The example in class with the girls website on deforestation also brought some important facts to my attention. Not only do the colors and the background of the site matter but the set up and layout as well. How the tabs on that student’s page switch positions and color after you click into the informational tabs of the site caused me to think of how I would set up mine. I decided to keep mine clear and simple as to not distract the reader’s attention away from the information. I keep them in the same positions on the page through out the website only changing the color scheme slightly on the open tab to allow the reader to see which one it is they are viewing. I feel having to bright of colors or too big of changes from page to page on the website adds distraction of the readers attention from what it is you want them to be focusing on. It is for this reason I keep my pages format very similar. I have the same tab layout from page to page, same picture and picture positioning and in the pages after the introduction the areas of information are organized the same with two columns for information.
It was brought to my attention in class while discussing each others sites with classmates that having something other than just one full paragraph on each page would benefit how the reader see’s your information. I think having just one long paragraph on each page discourages the reader from wanting to read it unless they are very interested. Originally I had all my information on each page gathered in one large intimidating paragraph. But now I’ve broken them up more, making it easier to read. I believe this will help to make the reader much more intrigued.
http://childbehavior.weebly.com/
Friday, March 25, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Annotated Bibliography 4
Casey A Holtz, "Screening of behavior problems in young children from low-income families: The development of a new assessment tool" (January 1, 2009). Dissertations (1962 - 2010) Access via Proquest Digital Dissertations. Paper AAI3375129.
Holtz mentions the start of behavioral problems in preschool years and how they lead to greater issues as they mature and grow. The author really presses the importance of catching the problem early so that it can be diagnosed and treated. The topic Holtz talks about is that of creating a "new parent-report screening tool"(Holtz). called the Early Childhood Behavior Screen. It is hoped that this test will help catch the problems at their prime and help fix them before they get too far out of hand. The author, Casey Holtz has this information classified under her dissertation paper at Marquette University. The screening tool will be used in places such as doctors offices, and educational settings in low-income neighborhoods to "aid in the identification of young children with challenging behaviors"(Holtz).
Holtz mentions the start of behavioral problems in preschool years and how they lead to greater issues as they mature and grow. The author really presses the importance of catching the problem early so that it can be diagnosed and treated. The topic Holtz talks about is that of creating a "new parent-report screening tool"(Holtz). called the Early Childhood Behavior Screen. It is hoped that this test will help catch the problems at their prime and help fix them before they get too far out of hand. The author, Casey Holtz has this information classified under her dissertation paper at Marquette University. The screening tool will be used in places such as doctors offices, and educational settings in low-income neighborhoods to "aid in the identification of young children with challenging behaviors"(Holtz).
Monday, March 14, 2011
Website/Audience Proposal
Alex Grealish
1 The audience for my topic are parents raising children on low-income salaries. Parents of any age, but with children ranging from preschool to middle school. It can be for parents having issues with their children behavior and not knowing where it is coming from. Teachers may also use this site. Teachers located in poorer communities who are trying to find information on why their students might be behaving badly.
2. My audience has a background of low income, children with behavior issues, or families with low incomes thinking of having children. I will need to include background information on the age and environments these children were tested in and what effects were shown.
3. My audience might be oriented towards my topic because they are having troubles with their children and are trying to find out why they are acting this way. It may also be teachers trying to help their troubled students. I envision my audience as being very interested in my research question. I expect my reader to be agreeable, and that they are finding where these bad behaviors are deriving from and can agree that this could be one of the reasons they are acting this way.
4. There are not many areas of disagreement or controversy in my topic. One might be that this reason of children in low-income homes having behavior issues isn't the specific reason a child is acting poorly. It could be for many other reasons.
5. To capture the attention of my audience and convince them to listen to me i will use lots of facts and information to back up and explain the facts. I will also cite the information by using legitament sources that they can trust.
6. My contribution is that of why children in low-income families may be behaving poorly.
1 The audience for my topic are parents raising children on low-income salaries. Parents of any age, but with children ranging from preschool to middle school. It can be for parents having issues with their children behavior and not knowing where it is coming from. Teachers may also use this site. Teachers located in poorer communities who are trying to find information on why their students might be behaving badly.
2. My audience has a background of low income, children with behavior issues, or families with low incomes thinking of having children. I will need to include background information on the age and environments these children were tested in and what effects were shown.
3. My audience might be oriented towards my topic because they are having troubles with their children and are trying to find out why they are acting this way. It may also be teachers trying to help their troubled students. I envision my audience as being very interested in my research question. I expect my reader to be agreeable, and that they are finding where these bad behaviors are deriving from and can agree that this could be one of the reasons they are acting this way.
4. There are not many areas of disagreement or controversy in my topic. One might be that this reason of children in low-income homes having behavior issues isn't the specific reason a child is acting poorly. It could be for many other reasons.
5. To capture the attention of my audience and convince them to listen to me i will use lots of facts and information to back up and explain the facts. I will also cite the information by using legitament sources that they can trust.
6. My contribution is that of why children in low-income families may be behaving poorly.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Annotated Bibliography 3
Shields, Margie K., and Richard E. Behrman. "How Low-Income Children Are Faring: Analysis and Recommendations." Children and Welfare Reform Winter/Spring 2002 12.1 (2002). Print.
Shields and Behrman mention the positives of poverty and how its numbers are decreasing and that fewer children are in single parented homes. They discuss how welfare reforms are benefitting families and child poverty is dropping as well. But that though all of this good the children are still lacking in positive child development. This article talks about the amount of singled parent families in these low-income homes that raise children who are effected by all these factors. The topic is more focused on single parent low-income families rather than low-income families as a whole. I do not know anything about the authors, they do mention facts and numbers in their journals which help to convince me of the legitimacy of their subjects. The results and conclusions of this writing is that of "increased involvement of males in single-mother households might be positive indicator for child well-being- with three important caveats". They go on to mention the presence of fathers, no conflict/domestic violence, and the connection of the relationship whether it be marriage or not, how this effect the contact with the child in the end if they relationship fails.
Shields and Behrman mention the positives of poverty and how its numbers are decreasing and that fewer children are in single parented homes. They discuss how welfare reforms are benefitting families and child poverty is dropping as well. But that though all of this good the children are still lacking in positive child development. This article talks about the amount of singled parent families in these low-income homes that raise children who are effected by all these factors. The topic is more focused on single parent low-income families rather than low-income families as a whole. I do not know anything about the authors, they do mention facts and numbers in their journals which help to convince me of the legitimacy of their subjects. The results and conclusions of this writing is that of "increased involvement of males in single-mother households might be positive indicator for child well-being- with three important caveats". They go on to mention the presence of fathers, no conflict/domestic violence, and the connection of the relationship whether it be marriage or not, how this effect the contact with the child in the end if they relationship fails.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Annotated Bibliography 1 & 2
Alex Grealish
1. Gross, D., Fogg, L., Garvey, C. and Julion, W. (2004), Behavior problems in young children: An analysis of cross-informant agreements and disagreements. Research in Nursing & Health, 27: 413–425. doi: 10.1002/nur.20040
Gross, Fogg, Garvey and Julion interviewed teachers and parents on the behavior problems in children from low income families. They found the connections of behavior problems, parenting styles, stress, depression and self efficiency. The backgrounds of authors seem legitimate. They are all part of the school nursing program, just taking surveys and compared results. These results are similar to other resources found. Stress in the household is a major recurring issue in the problems associated with the children's behaviors.
2. Society for Research in Child Development. "High-quality child care for low-income children: Long-term benefits." ScienceDaily 15 September 2010. 4 March 2011
Children who attend high quality preschools have less behavior problems like rule breaking and aggression when they grow compared to those who don't. The topic is behavior changes in those who "attended more responsive, stimulating, and well structured settings" had much better ratings. This author got all their sources from studies conducted by researches at University of Pittsburgh, Boston College, Universidad de Los Andes, Loyola University Chicago and Northwestern University. The conclusion of these researchers compare with the results from other studies because many of the behavior issues derive from those children who don't get the attention given at high quality schools in their early ages when it's needed most.
1. Gross, D., Fogg, L., Garvey, C. and Julion, W. (2004), Behavior problems in young children: An analysis of cross-informant agreements and disagreements. Research in Nursing & Health, 27: 413–425. doi: 10.1002/nur.20040
Gross, Fogg, Garvey and Julion interviewed teachers and parents on the behavior problems in children from low income families. They found the connections of behavior problems, parenting styles, stress, depression and self efficiency. The backgrounds of authors seem legitimate. They are all part of the school nursing program, just taking surveys and compared results. These results are similar to other resources found. Stress in the household is a major recurring issue in the problems associated with the children's behaviors.
2. Society for Research in Child Development. "High-quality child care for low-income children: Long-term benefits." ScienceDaily 15 September 2010. 4 March 2011
Children who attend high quality preschools have less behavior problems like rule breaking and aggression when they grow compared to those who don't. The topic is behavior changes in those who "attended more responsive, stimulating, and well structured settings" had much better ratings. This author got all their sources from studies conducted by researches at University of Pittsburgh, Boston College, Universidad de Los Andes, Loyola University Chicago and Northwestern University. The conclusion of these researchers compare with the results from other studies because many of the behavior issues derive from those children who don't get the attention given at high quality schools in their early ages when it's needed most.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Reflective Blog
Entry 1-
During babysteps we've sat in groups with the mothers and discussed topic of interest with raising the children. We talked about spoiling and worked with the mothers in buying items for they're children. The points they earn are from attending doctor appointments, counseling, breasts feeding and refraining from drug use. At the agency we don't work above or below anyone we work directly with and equally to the women there. We contribute to the discussions in the same ways they do and help them shop.
During babysteps we've sat in groups with the mothers and discussed topic of interest with raising the children. We talked about spoiling and worked with the mothers in buying items for they're children. The points they earn are from attending doctor appointments, counseling, breasts feeding and refraining from drug use. At the agency we don't work above or below anyone we work directly with and equally to the women there. We contribute to the discussions in the same ways they do and help them shop.
Discourse Analysis Final
Alex Grealish
English 102
Discourse Analysis
My experiences at babysteps have been very eye opening. My first day there my group member and I sat in the circle of mothers, and the church volunteer and discussed topics every mother should know. Spoiling your children was the topic of the day. Funny topic to be discussing in a group centered on low-income families with children ranging from unborn to toddlers, it worked though. The women brought up different situations within their own childhoods growing up, as some stroked their stomachs that carried their unborn children or stood up and swayed trying to ease the babies cradled in their arms. The mothers shared being spoiled by their absent fathers who only stopped by once every few months bearing gifts for forgiveness, where as others were told they couldn’t have gifts at all, that they needed to learn to work for what they wanted. These women all came together in the end, you can be spoiled with one thing and that is love. But not all of them had that in their lives. This session got me thinking. What are the behavioral effects and factors of children being raised in low-income families?
Looking at the mental health side as a factor, a study preformed on kids from 9 to 10 differencing in only their socioeconomic status using an electroencephalography helped to answer my question. An electroencephalography which "uses electrodes on the scalp and held in place by a cap to measure underlying brain activity" showed that these children from low-income families "have detectable differences in the response of their prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is critical for problem solving and creativity" then those who come from high socioeconomic incomes (University of California – Berkeley, 2008). The kids were to watch pictures on a screen and press a button in response to a change or realization of what it was they saw. The information gathered was a dramatic difference in those from low-income families. These results showed them that those from a low income have lower responses rates. Scientist’ believe this frontal lobe activity could have direct connections to behavioral differences with the kids as well. The outcomes of these children were frighteningly similar to those responses of "people who have had a portion of their frontal lobe destroyed by a stroke" (University of California – Berkeley, 2008). These 9 to 10 year old had troubles with behavioral control that the prefrontal cortex, or the area affected, is involved in regulating. It is believed that stress and environmental conditions are to blame for these problems. Being raised in “impoverished environments” limit the children from having as many reading tools, and learning activities for their brains to fully develop in these very important years of their lives (University of California – Berkeley, 2008).
The article is very unbiased. It mentions the facts and restates multiple times that the results don't apply to every situation. I don't believe it's it trying to sway my opinion one way or another. It wants to just give out the information found and try and help the children, and people affected. I believe it connects very well with what babysteps. The healthy growth of children is important to everyone there and this article helps show people ways these kids are affected and how to learn to fix the problem or stop it entirely.
An article written by Mike Broemmel talks about the "long-term negative effects" (Broemmel, 1) that children face growing up in low-income housing, the environmental factor of children’s behaviors. The limited educational opportunities they face living in such areas can then lead to employment difficulties as they move on. The health issues that children face is another problem. These people don't have the adequate amount of money to bring their kids to the doctor as often as needed. It is mentioned by Broemmel that the “cheap lead paints used in this housing if not treated efficiently and promptly can lead to long-term issues”. The last factor he brings up and the one I feel most closely connects with my question is that of the exposure to crime. The areas low-income housing are located in can bring about dangerous people and opportunities such as gangs and crime. Being surrounded and raised in environments that have such a negative influence can affect the behaviors of children. There is a lot of pressure to give in to the bad around them and do the wrong things. They have to adapt to their surroundings, and this can be done so in such a way that changes them for the worse.
I feel this article has much to do with babysteps in that the families in the programs cannot always afford the best neighborhoods. On such low incomes it’s hard to be picky and there are more important things such as food and shelter that come before location. These children are then more likely to be surrounded by these toxic environments and more susceptible to giving in to the bad behaviors they see. I don't think this article is being bias. There isn't any opinion stated, just facts and possibilities. The author’s ideas extended from mine when she states that these effects "follow children throughout their lives" (Broemmel, 1). This statement can definitely apply to the behavioral aspect of the children in these situations.
A study on the “Behavior problems of preschool children from low-income families” where authors Qi, and Kaiser, studied almost 3,000 preschool children and their problems with behavior, studied children from many areas of low-income such as community childcare centers, behavior clinics, and hospitals serving mainly low-income neighborhoods (Duncan, 4). They found that, "children from behavior clinics (Keenan & Watschlag, 2000) and children with adolescent mothers who were at risk for substance abuse (Elden, 1999) had (higher) rates of problem behavior" (Kaiser, 11). These issues are of much importance to the parents because, “preschoolers with early emergent behavior problems are likely to evince serious behavioral problems” (Duncan, 1).
A write up on negative behavior side effects of children in homes using on welfare using food stamps focused on the nutritional side of these effects. Wu finds that not only can the children’s self esteem issues with their experienced “food hardships” or insecurities lead to their poor behavior but factors such as “a minimal nutritional diet, race, birth order, mom’s education, and home cognitive stimulation score” (Wu, 2&5). Because these parents are not always able to purchase the adequate food needed for the development of their growing children the stress of this and that they get from meeting “working environments” can be picked up by the children themselves further changing their behaviors.
Eric Jensen brings up the theory that “behavior stems from a combination of genes and environment” (Jensen, 2). Creating a mnemonic devise, EACH, Emotional and Social Challenges, Acute and Chronic Stressors, Cognitive Lag, and, Health and Safety, Jensen show the most popular risk factors associated with the behavior of children being raised in low-income societies. These behavioral changes caused by their surrounding factors can then lead to other troubles in their lives and later to problems in relationships, such as “loneliness, aggression, isolation, and deviance in their peer relationships” (Jensen, 12).
The common factors of behavior issues among children raised in low-comes families derive from, both the people and environments they are surrounded in. Whether it be the lack in resources of the environment as the study University of California Berkely concluded, the housing and surrounding city Broemmel describes or lake of nutritional health as mentioned by Wu. These all play a role in the attitudes and behaviors of the children that can effect them from now and until the rest of their lives and the results of the electroencephalography test physically show. My hope is that with all the information and studies being conducted about this subject we can catch onto the side effects well before it does permanent damage to the children.
Works Cited-
Broemmel, Mike. “Long-Term Effects of Public Housing on Children” Livestrong.com.
Alden, Anton 23 August 2010. 20 February 2011.
Duncan, Brooks-Gunn & Klevanov, “Behavior problems of preschool children from
low-income families: review of the literature.” 1994; Stormont, 2002. 23 February 2011.
Jensen, Eric. “Teaching with Poverty in Mind: How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance” ASCD. 2009.
University of California - Berkeley. "Poor Children's Brain Activity Resembles That Of
Stroke Victims, EEG Shows." ScienceDaily 6 December 2008. 1 March 2011
Wu, Liyun. “Does Welfare Help or Hurt Children’s Socio-Emotional Well-being?: A
Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Food Stamps Recipients” Social Work and Economics. 20 September 2010.
English 102
Discourse Analysis
My experiences at babysteps have been very eye opening. My first day there my group member and I sat in the circle of mothers, and the church volunteer and discussed topics every mother should know. Spoiling your children was the topic of the day. Funny topic to be discussing in a group centered on low-income families with children ranging from unborn to toddlers, it worked though. The women brought up different situations within their own childhoods growing up, as some stroked their stomachs that carried their unborn children or stood up and swayed trying to ease the babies cradled in their arms. The mothers shared being spoiled by their absent fathers who only stopped by once every few months bearing gifts for forgiveness, where as others were told they couldn’t have gifts at all, that they needed to learn to work for what they wanted. These women all came together in the end, you can be spoiled with one thing and that is love. But not all of them had that in their lives. This session got me thinking. What are the behavioral effects and factors of children being raised in low-income families?
Looking at the mental health side as a factor, a study preformed on kids from 9 to 10 differencing in only their socioeconomic status using an electroencephalography helped to answer my question. An electroencephalography which "uses electrodes on the scalp and held in place by a cap to measure underlying brain activity" showed that these children from low-income families "have detectable differences in the response of their prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is critical for problem solving and creativity" then those who come from high socioeconomic incomes (University of California – Berkeley, 2008). The kids were to watch pictures on a screen and press a button in response to a change or realization of what it was they saw. The information gathered was a dramatic difference in those from low-income families. These results showed them that those from a low income have lower responses rates. Scientist’ believe this frontal lobe activity could have direct connections to behavioral differences with the kids as well. The outcomes of these children were frighteningly similar to those responses of "people who have had a portion of their frontal lobe destroyed by a stroke" (University of California – Berkeley, 2008). These 9 to 10 year old had troubles with behavioral control that the prefrontal cortex, or the area affected, is involved in regulating. It is believed that stress and environmental conditions are to blame for these problems. Being raised in “impoverished environments” limit the children from having as many reading tools, and learning activities for their brains to fully develop in these very important years of their lives (University of California – Berkeley, 2008).
The article is very unbiased. It mentions the facts and restates multiple times that the results don't apply to every situation. I don't believe it's it trying to sway my opinion one way or another. It wants to just give out the information found and try and help the children, and people affected. I believe it connects very well with what babysteps. The healthy growth of children is important to everyone there and this article helps show people ways these kids are affected and how to learn to fix the problem or stop it entirely.
An article written by Mike Broemmel talks about the "long-term negative effects" (Broemmel, 1) that children face growing up in low-income housing, the environmental factor of children’s behaviors. The limited educational opportunities they face living in such areas can then lead to employment difficulties as they move on. The health issues that children face is another problem. These people don't have the adequate amount of money to bring their kids to the doctor as often as needed. It is mentioned by Broemmel that the “cheap lead paints used in this housing if not treated efficiently and promptly can lead to long-term issues”. The last factor he brings up and the one I feel most closely connects with my question is that of the exposure to crime. The areas low-income housing are located in can bring about dangerous people and opportunities such as gangs and crime. Being surrounded and raised in environments that have such a negative influence can affect the behaviors of children. There is a lot of pressure to give in to the bad around them and do the wrong things. They have to adapt to their surroundings, and this can be done so in such a way that changes them for the worse.
I feel this article has much to do with babysteps in that the families in the programs cannot always afford the best neighborhoods. On such low incomes it’s hard to be picky and there are more important things such as food and shelter that come before location. These children are then more likely to be surrounded by these toxic environments and more susceptible to giving in to the bad behaviors they see. I don't think this article is being bias. There isn't any opinion stated, just facts and possibilities. The author’s ideas extended from mine when she states that these effects "follow children throughout their lives" (Broemmel, 1). This statement can definitely apply to the behavioral aspect of the children in these situations.
A study on the “Behavior problems of preschool children from low-income families” where authors Qi, and Kaiser, studied almost 3,000 preschool children and their problems with behavior, studied children from many areas of low-income such as community childcare centers, behavior clinics, and hospitals serving mainly low-income neighborhoods (Duncan, 4). They found that, "children from behavior clinics (Keenan & Watschlag, 2000) and children with adolescent mothers who were at risk for substance abuse (Elden, 1999) had (higher) rates of problem behavior" (Kaiser, 11). These issues are of much importance to the parents because, “preschoolers with early emergent behavior problems are likely to evince serious behavioral problems” (Duncan, 1).
A write up on negative behavior side effects of children in homes using on welfare using food stamps focused on the nutritional side of these effects. Wu finds that not only can the children’s self esteem issues with their experienced “food hardships” or insecurities lead to their poor behavior but factors such as “a minimal nutritional diet, race, birth order, mom’s education, and home cognitive stimulation score” (Wu, 2&5). Because these parents are not always able to purchase the adequate food needed for the development of their growing children the stress of this and that they get from meeting “working environments” can be picked up by the children themselves further changing their behaviors.
Eric Jensen brings up the theory that “behavior stems from a combination of genes and environment” (Jensen, 2). Creating a mnemonic devise, EACH, Emotional and Social Challenges, Acute and Chronic Stressors, Cognitive Lag, and, Health and Safety, Jensen show the most popular risk factors associated with the behavior of children being raised in low-income societies. These behavioral changes caused by their surrounding factors can then lead to other troubles in their lives and later to problems in relationships, such as “loneliness, aggression, isolation, and deviance in their peer relationships” (Jensen, 12).
The common factors of behavior issues among children raised in low-comes families derive from, both the people and environments they are surrounded in. Whether it be the lack in resources of the environment as the study University of California Berkely concluded, the housing and surrounding city Broemmel describes or lake of nutritional health as mentioned by Wu. These all play a role in the attitudes and behaviors of the children that can effect them from now and until the rest of their lives and the results of the electroencephalography test physically show. My hope is that with all the information and studies being conducted about this subject we can catch onto the side effects well before it does permanent damage to the children.
Works Cited-
Broemmel, Mike. “Long-Term Effects of Public Housing on Children” Livestrong.com.
Alden, Anton 23 August 2010. 20 February 2011.
Duncan, Brooks-Gunn & Klevanov, “Behavior problems of preschool children from
low-income families: review of the literature.” 1994; Stormont, 2002. 23 February 2011.
Jensen, Eric. “Teaching with Poverty in Mind: How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance” ASCD. 2009.
University of California - Berkeley. "Poor Children's Brain Activity Resembles That Of
Stroke Victims, EEG Shows." ScienceDaily 6 December 2008. 1 March 2011
Wu, Liyun. “Does Welfare Help or Hurt Children’s Socio-Emotional Well-being?: A
Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Food Stamps Recipients” Social Work and Economics. 20 September 2010.
Discourse (4)
Alex Grealish
Discourse
Wu, Liyun. “Does Welfare Help or Hurt Children’s Socio-Emotional Well-being?: A
Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Food Stamps Recipients” Social Work and Economics. 20 September 2010.
A write up on negative behavior side effects of children in homes using on welfare using food stamps focused on the nutritional side of these effects. Wu finds that not only can the children’s self esteem issues with their experienced “food hardships” or insecurities lead to their poor behavior but factors such as “a minimal nutritional diet, race, birth order, mom’s education, and home cognitive stimulation score” (Wu, 2&5). Because these parents are not always able to purchase the adequate food needed for the development of their growing children the stress of this and that they get from meeting “working environments” can be picked up by the children themselves further changing their behaviors.
This article can be a little bias. They mention only the negative side effects of nutrition in welfare. It is never mentioned how the benifits of welfare effect the childrens behaviors. I believe this is done so to more prove her point. It is important how ever that she writes her article this way because it emphasizes her point more strongly that it is a great deal worse for the children than it is good.
Discourse
Wu, Liyun. “Does Welfare Help or Hurt Children’s Socio-Emotional Well-being?: A
Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Food Stamps Recipients” Social Work and Economics. 20 September 2010.
A write up on negative behavior side effects of children in homes using on welfare using food stamps focused on the nutritional side of these effects. Wu finds that not only can the children’s self esteem issues with their experienced “food hardships” or insecurities lead to their poor behavior but factors such as “a minimal nutritional diet, race, birth order, mom’s education, and home cognitive stimulation score” (Wu, 2&5). Because these parents are not always able to purchase the adequate food needed for the development of their growing children the stress of this and that they get from meeting “working environments” can be picked up by the children themselves further changing their behaviors.
This article can be a little bias. They mention only the negative side effects of nutrition in welfare. It is never mentioned how the benifits of welfare effect the childrens behaviors. I believe this is done so to more prove her point. It is important how ever that she writes her article this way because it emphasizes her point more strongly that it is a great deal worse for the children than it is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)