E CONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS

When talking about the economic aspects of a disadvantaged situation, the main issue is child poverty. There are two basic factors according to statistics (Éltetı and Havasi, 2006) that influence child poverty to a great extent. One is the family life cycle (Campos, 2007) which means that families with young children have more costs and less income than others since the livelihood of children mostly depends on the labour income of their parents. The other factor draws on the fact that impoverished families with low educational levels and in underdeveloped regions tend to have more children than families with average educational levels. Consequently, demographic factors, labour market situation and the parents’ education are the most decisive factors.

Obviously, these factors are correlated and have an effect on poverty simultaneously. In 2007, 18.9% of children lived in poverty in Hungary. This level of child poverty was close to the OECD average (19.1%), despite the fact that the general poverty rate (12.3%) was lower than the European poverty rate (16.3%) (TARKI, 2010). The poverty threshold defined in this study is 60 % of per capita median income.

Child poverty in Hungary is strongly influenced by geographical factors and ethnic factors: it is more intense in rural regions (especially in small villages) and among Roma children. Child poverty in the countryside is more than double of what it is in the capital (Gábos and Szívós, 2010). More than half of poor people live in villages, while only one third of the total population lives in villages. Rural income-poverty is mainly caused by low labour- market prospects and deficient infrastructure.

As a result of low infrastructure the access to transport facilities and services (mainly childcare and schooling) in rural areas is often also inappropriate (Darvas and Tausz, 2007).

Hardships which are direct consequences of low economic status are seen in several areas: poor housing (without comfort or security), and consequently bad health conditions and more disabilities, undernourishment, also deficits in cognition and verbal ability, frequent school change because of migration as well as severe behaviour and social problems in school (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2001; Ferge and Darvas, 2011).

However, research indicates that a family’s financial problems predict strongly the children’s ability and achievement. Behaviour, physical or mental health seem to be less strongly linked to these financial problems (Duncan, Yeaung, Brooks-Gunn and Smith, 1998).

There is no doubt that poverty seems to be one of the most influential risk factors for school failure as “the multiple stressors of poverty limit children’s readiness for and ability to succeed” (Knitzer and Koball, 2007, p. 686). There are two explanations given in research literature for the effects of poverty on school failure (Conley, 2005). The first explanation concentrates on the material deprivation aspect. If a family lacks basic financial resources, the basic necessities of food, living conditions, clothes and health care are given priority while education appears to be neglected as

schooling involves costs. In addition to the usual expenses of schooling, successful education may cause extra financial costs, for instance extracurricular activities, activities outside the home or providing rich learning environments by buying motivating materials (books, audio or visual materials). Poverty-stricken parents may not have any extra time and/or energy to invest in promoting their children’s development and have limited access to opportunities and resources. However, Marks (2005) warned that although income and wealth of the family relate to students’ school achievement, the effects are weak or moderate, and the parents’ educational level seems to be more strongly related to their children’s achievement.

It should be stressed here that social class and income are different (although in some cases overlapping) categories. Unemployment or divorce may cause serious and long-lasting income poverty. Ranschburg (2001) investigated the effects of the family’s financial situation on the children behaviour problems and found that in contemporary Hungary, the parenting effect and methods do not actually depend on the socioeconomic status of the family. This is because the connections between parents’ educational level, occupation and income have become extremely confused in recent years; therefore income appears to be a more sensitive indicator.

Financial circumstances influence educational success or failure from an early age. There is a strong connection between preschool education and later success in school. Costs of new clothes, food, transport or additional charges may deter parents from sending their children to nursery school. Preschool education plays an important role in intellectual and social development in childhood and influences later school performance (Barnett and Belfield, 2006). Duncan, Ludwig and Magnuson (2007) investigated the effects of intensive, education-focused intervention programmes and concluded that “increased investments in prenatal and infant health and in high-quality

preschool education programs will improve children's life chances and generate benefits to society that can easily cover the costs of these government programs” (p.143). This is the underlying assumption of recent Hungarian initiatives aimed at expanding access to nursery schools for disadvantaged families (Vojnitsné and Zilahyné, 2008).

In later years, statistics indicate that poverty has a permanent negative effect on school performance: children in low-income families more frequently repeat a grade or drop out of school, and perform poorly on standardized tests (OECD, 2009; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2001; Furlong, Stadler and Azzopardi, 2000; Lacour and Tissington, 2011). Students with low academic performance resulting in low levels of educational achievement are more likely to be unemployed and poor when adults.

The long term effects of poverty have been investigated by Duncan, Yeaung, Brooks-Gunn and Smith (1998). They concluded that early childhood seems to be the period in which family economic conditions play the most significant role. The depth and the duration of poverty are also important as children who are exposed to prolonged spells of poverty or severe poverty have more serious deficits in cognitive ability and socio-emotional development.

A low level of parental education is a crucial factor of low income as the level of education that has been completed correlates strongly with income. Ferge and Darvas (2011) observed the continued and escalating devaluation of people with low education levels in the contemporary Hungarian labour market. However, employment does not prevent low incomes among parents with low education levels. As far as both parents’

education level is concerned, Lacour and Tissington (2011) argue that the mother’s education level has a more significant effect on children’s school performance than the father’s and, more interestingly, it indicates a stronger effect than income.

The material deprivation approach is severely criticized by Mayer (1997). She cautions that income itself cannot control consumption choices; a higher income does not definitely mean that cognitively facilitating material items (e.g. books, educational toys, educational outings, visits to a museum etc.) are purchased. She argues that the cost of these items is not so high; therefore, their distribution is influenced by parental preferences rather than income. She found that the parents’ characteristics became more significant than any supplementary money, independent of its source (increased salary or welfare assistance). Obviously, it is true only if children’s basic needs have been satisfied. Ranschburg (2001) also found that negative conditions often persist even if a family’s income increases. This assumption leads us to the next explanation.

The second explanation given for the effects of poverty on school failure is called the parenting stress hypothesis and “sees low income, variable employment, a lack of cultural resources and a feeling of inferiority from relative social class comparisons as exacerbating household stress levels which, in turn, lead to detrimental parenting practices such as yelling, shouting and hitting” (Conley, 2005, p. 334). The key issue that emerges from Ranschburg (2001) is that living in poverty results in economic stress or depression caused by unemployment or economic insecurity. This may lead to family tensions and conflicts which frequently cause emotional and behavioural problems in children. Children in depressed families are likely to suffer from depression, low self-confidence, and even their social development seems to be disturbed as they have poor relationships with peers and friends. These problems severely affect school performance. The problem with this explanation lies in the fact that the factors used in this concept are difficult to operationalize or measure (for instance, mental health or parental capabilities).

The legal definitions of disadvantage are usually based on economic criteria. In social research studies, easily measurable and available variables are preferred to determine the target group. In several studies conducted in the United States, students who are defined as economically at-risk, are students whose family incomes qualify them to receive either free or reduced price lunches (Rojewski, 1994; Bailey, 2006).

The criteria are based on government established poverty guidelines and are set forth by federal vocational legislation in the United States Department of Agriculture’s School Lunch Program. From a methodological point of view, the most important advantage of it is that this data is available to school personnel, therefore it is easy to classify children as at-risk.

The definition of the Hungarian education policy takes two main aspects into account: economic circumstances and parents educational level. The 2003 amendment of the Public Education Act gives the precise definition of a socially challenged and multiply disadvantaged child saying that a disadvantaged child/student is:

a child/student whose entitlement to a regular child protection allowance on the basis of their social background is established by the public administration officer; within this group, multi-disadvantaged are those children/students, whose parents exercising parental right, completed successfully at most eighth grade of primary school at the age of three of the child in case of kindergarten pupils or at the time of the commencement of compulsory education in case of students, as they stated voluntarily in the course of the procedure regulated by the Act on Child Protection and Guardianship Administration; a child / student taken into long term foster care is also multi-disadvantaged. (Act No. LXXIX of 1993 on Public Education, Article 121 (1) n.)

It must be noted here that this is a colour blind definition which means that ethnicity is not referred to in the description.

Regular child protection allowance is given to children in low-income families (income per capita must not go above 140% of the minimum pension) on condition that family possessions are also below a certain threshold. This type of allowance is only a relatively small amount of money two times a year, however, it is a passport-type benefit (Darvas and Tausz, 2007) that entitles the children to take advantage of other allowances, for instance free meals or free school-books. The law also specifies that other services should be provided to these pupils, such as day care and supervision or access to a dormitory.

This section of theoretical overview emphasizes the negative effects of economic hardships on school performance, on the later life chances of poor children, and subsequently on the structure of society. The results have implications for the intergenerational transmission of poverty (Conley, 2005) as children who grow up in low-income families have poorer academic outcomes and poorer economic prospects.

The question is which measures or programmes are successful in breaking cycles of poverty and promoting social mobility. Research shows that receiving welfare assistance cannot solve the situation (Lacour and Tissington, 2011; Ferge and Darvas, 2011). Programmes which aim to change not only the families’ financial situations, but also other characteristics (e.g. parents’ involvement in the labour market or promoting their school completion) appear to have more persistent effects (Duncan et al., 1998).

Caro, McDonald and Willms (2009) drew attention to the fact that schools play an important compensatory role in mitigating the negative effect of families’ financial difficulties on children’s school performance.

Low socioeconomic status does not inevitably cause poor school performance in every case. Hallam and Rogers (2008) emphasized that “high quality teaching is the key to breaking the cycle with well trained teachers working within an appropriate policy

framework and institutional context including formulating educational goals and standards, monitoring the extent to which they are being met, feeding back information to schools and teachers, and establishing rewards and support systems as appropriate”

(p. 280). The 2009 PISA study also indicated that the most important means of improving general school performance is helping poorly performing students and schools (OECD, 2009).