Various studies show that early language acquisition plays a major role in setting the stage for a child’s future achievement course.
By the age of 24 months, one can already gauge by the size of the child’s vocabulary, how smoothly the child’s cognitive development will unfold and whether the child may face a challenging learning and growth trajectory. As early as 18 months of age, a lag may already become apparent between children of the same age in terms of their information processing capacities. From there – the gap either grows or remains proportionately consistent. How well the child’s processing skills and vocabulary are established as babies and toddlers, in turn plays a detrimental role in whether or not the child will reach its full potential at adulthood.
What causes a child’s processing skills and acquired vocabulary to be underdeveloped? The direct answer would be: How much a child is being talked to and the range of vocabulary used when being talked to. However, the condition that rules this variable (how much one is being talked to and what range of words) is the socio-economic environment that the child finds itself within.
Parents from mid to higher levels of socioeconomic status generally have more time to spend with their children and they themselves possess a richer vocabulary than parents of lower socioeconomic status.
Parents coming from a lower economic status may be working several jobs to make ends meet and have a more limited vocabulary. Having to cope with more stress and anxiety due to every day struggles can lead one to be more taciturn. All of this adds up to less words from a limited range being spoken towards the child(ren).
Besides being externally disadvantaged due to lower economic status limiting future opportunities, children are also internally disadvantaged in how well they will be able to exploit the opportunities that will be available to them because of stunted vocabulary acquisition and cognitive skills.
“By 2 years of age, these disparities are equivalent to a six-month gap between infants from rich and poor families in both language processing skills and vocabulary knowledge,” Fernald said. “What we’re seeing here is the beginning of a developmental cascade, a growing disparity between kids that has enormous implications for their later educational success and career opportunities.”
As discussed in other blogs (Living Income Guaranteed and Raising Children, The Self-Perpetuating Cycle of Homelessness and Living Income Guaranteed), the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed will provide an opportunity for parents to stay at home and take care of their children, or have financial security knowing that any job would at least provide an income at double the Living Income rate.
In fact, a survey polling to find out how many mothers would want to stay at home ‘if money was not an object’, shows that 75% of new mothers would want to stay at home, 12% would not want to be a full-time mother and 13% did not know what they would do. Of those mother who did go back to work, just over half indicated that the reason for doing so was because money was tight, and 3% indicated that they had to go back because pregnancy had left them in serious debt.
With the implementation of a Living Income Guaranteed we can raise the conditions necessary to stimulate, enhance and foster our children’s development and utmost potential. By creating a financially stable environment, parents are able to tend to both a child’s physical and mental needs to ensure optimal growth and well-being. Financial worries put aside with a Living Income safety net, promotes peace of mind for parents which leads to better parent-child relationships and reducing the incidence of conflict at home .
By having this foundation in place, we set the stage for success in our children’s education and future careers.
For more information on what the Living Income Guaranteed entails, read the Living Income Guaranteed Proposal.
Evolving Humanity through Education
Parents Need a Living Income Now
Should You Send Your Child to Preschool?
Why Do We Go To School?
The Skills We Need to Change the World
Where Will Following China’s Example Lead Us?
Are Longer School Days in the Best Interest of Our Children?
A Political Awakening of the Young Generation or a Return to 1950′s Survival Strategies?
As a new mother and while I was still in my pregnancy-phase, I spent a lot of time reading about all there is to know about babies. One of these topics is child safety.
By law one is not allowed to leave the hospital by car after you have given birth, unless you have the correct rear-facing baby car seat installed. I read all about the ‘why’s’ and ‘how’s’ and found myself being quite impressed with how they had taken physical science into consideration to make sure one would be traveling safely with one’s baby – because of course, we don’t want any babies to die!
But just as quickly as I found myself impressed with this legislation, the hypocrisy of such a legislation within having ‘child safety’ at its heart; hit me just as fast. At first glance, it gives the ruling structures of the day a caring glow, one that says “I care about your child’s safety and future”. Yet, this legislation is only relevant to the segment of the population that actually owns a car. In South Africa, a substantial segment of the population does not own a car, not because they’re environmentalists, but because they do not have the financial means to acquire one.
These women don’t leave the hospital by car, thoroughly checked by the nurse for a car seat. No, these women carry their babies for miles into rural areas or townships where child safety and well-being are problematic. Are these women asked: “Do you have the means necessary to provide adequate care to your baby?” What law, what legislation is looking after their well-being?
What significance does car seat legislation bear when basic considerations in society are missing towards the well-being and safety of children; and the ability of parents to provide this for them? This ability does not come forward from a mother’s love to her child, but from the mother’s financial capacity. This financial capacity is a necessity to enable the obtainment of those resources and services necessary to ensure a dignified life and upbringing for the child.
The importance of proper childcare is not a trivial matter – as the first years of a child’s life determine to the greatest extent that child’s future physical and mental well-being. These years cannot just receive a ‘do-over’ later and are difficult to remediate.
“The first five years are the most important in a child’s life. A number of critical physical, psychological, cognitive and emotional developmental milestones are rapidly achieved during this period. Indeed the first 1000 days- from pregnancy through a child’s second year of life have been identified as crucial. “Whether a child has experienced chronic nutritional deficiencies and frequent bouts of illness, early in life is best indicated by the infant’s growth, in length and the child’s growth in height. Day-to-day nutritional deficiencies over a period of time lead to diminished, or stunted growth. Once children are stunted, it is difficult for them to catch up in height later on …”*
It is apparent that to have the child’s best interest at heart, is to have proper support available from the beginning. How did car seat legislation come into being? It was noticed that a lot of children were dying in car accidents, which could have been prevented had they been seated differently. Still now, these legislations are updated from time to time according to the flow of information coming in regarding child mortality in car accidents and how they were seated.
So why have we not, after all this time, after witnessing over and over that countless people and children are living in less-than-adequate living conditions and the mortality rates connected to this – adjusted our legislation in such a way that these outcomes are minimized? Isn’t that the most logical step?
Are we not bound to address this issue the same way as we addressed the child safety during transport?
These deaths are preventable and as such it should be our duty to ensure that they are prevented. We get outraged when we read stories about children dying in hospitals, because not all measures were taken to ensure the child’s well-being – negligence it’s called.
We should be outraged about this as well, because it is large-scale negligence.
Providing a Living Income Guaranteed is a logical move forward to address child mortality stemming from any form of lack which could have been prevented if the necessary means had been present in a household.
This is the most pro-active approach within which we as a society can promote child safety and well-being.
For more information visit:
To read the Living Income Guaranteed proposal: