Socioeconomic Status of Family and Its Influence on Child It is widely known and indisputable that the family is the most important factor affecting a child, participating to a significant degree in the formation of his personality. In essence, most characteristics, opinions and, ultimately, lifestyle are influenced by family and family upbringing. We agree with E. Frýdková (2013, p. 81), according to which "a child is a product of the family, which is reflected in his characteristics, behavior, and values." The family environment is generally considered to be the primary environment for socialization and education of a child and the most important factor in shaping human behavior. With its determinants, it significantly influences the development of the child's personality. We mean: relationships within the family, the culture of its members, what kind of role model they are for their children, how they take care of their children, what are the expressions of mutual respect, how do they approach solving problems, what are their values, how do they treat other people, their property and that of others, what is their attitude towards their surroundings, etc. The influence of the family of orientation is primary, everyday and very broad, permanently positively or negatively marking the child's life. The quality of the educational and socializing influence on the child is the result of the action of several conditions of the family environment.

Based on the works of the authors Z. Bakošová (1994), Hroncová, J. (1996), S. Strelec (2007), who state similar conditions of the family environment (demographic, material, psychological, cultural), the main aspects of the family environment appear to be influences and factors arising from the demographic-psychological, material-economic and cultural-pedagogical aspects of family life. Demographic and psychological conditions of the family environment include:

  • family size, age of parents, age of children, type of employment of parents,
  • the natural structure of the family and aspects arising from the influence of father, mother, sibling and grandparent,
  • the internal stability of the family as the basis of the emotional atmosphere of the family environment.

Cultural-pedagogical conditions of the family environment include:

  • value orientation and education of parents, spending free time,
  • degree of pedagogy of the family environment (application of pedagogical tools in raising children),
  • the way of family life, which reflects the relationship of the family to various issues of social life, the relationship to work, to the profession, to dressing, to housing, how family members behave at home, how they relate to each other, to their own development.

The material and economic conditions of the family environment include:

  • the issue of parents' employment,
  • income, expenses, family consumption, number of unemployed in the family, presence of a member with a disability,
  • the impact of technology and technical means on family life, material conditions for hobbies, preparing children for school, etc.

The family environment, determined by the above-mentioned conditions, can fundamentally influence the further direction of children, either positively or negatively, and permanently mark their lives. One of such determinants can be precisely the socioeconomic status of the family, created by the level of education of the parents, the profession of the parents and the economic situation of the family, which are generally closely related (although there are exceptions).

Family socioeconomic status and family capital

Socioeconomic status is significantly correlated with a number of indicators of personality, performance, career self-assertion and success in life (including school). Its basis is the social class to which the individual belongs, mainly on the basis of: the prestige of his profession, income (wealth), education (Helus, Z., 2007, p. 167). The position of a person in the economic and social structure of society determines his economic resources, social status, lifestyle, as well as the educational path of the individual (Průcha, J. et al., 1995, p. 167). In addition to income, socioeconomic status also includes other factors, such as parents' education and their employment. Sociologist I. Možný (2006, p. 103-104) points out the differences in the quality of the family environment - in its cultural level, property conditions and social capital of the family, who lists three important family factors influencing the life chances of individuals. First of all, it is the cultural capital of the family (parents' education and sophistication), which is manifested in the ability of parents to stimulate and support children in preparing for school and in the overall development of their abilities. The second is economic capital, consisting in the fact that a rich family has the opportunity to buy stimulating toys for children, will treat them to interesting and horizon-widening holidays and free time, provide them with better eating habits (and thus the basis for better health), better living conditions and an environment for studying. The last factor is social capital, which consists of contacts, acquaintances or friendships, i.e. resources that the family has stored in its connections and relationships, or in advantageous acquaintances.

The theory of cultural capital, formulated by the French sociologist P.F. Bourdieu, corresponds to the issue of the family's social and cultural capital. According to him, cultural capital is represented by sets of cultural knowledge and language skills of individuals, which they acquired as part of belonging to a certain social stratum, i.e. to the family. Bourdieu also introduces the concept of social capital, by which he refers to the sum of social contacts and acquaintances. These partly stem from the position of the family in the social structure and allow to achieve material success, wealth, or immaterial success, i.e. recognition, prestige (Kopecký, M., 2002).

The theory about the influence of the family belonging to a certain social class on the development of the child's personality sounds interesting. According to the concept of the English sociologist and sociolinguist B.B. The Bernstein family creates the so-called language code, which an individual carries from his family to his life as a certain inheritance, by which the author indicates that the ways of communication in different social strata differ to a certain extent. The belonging of the family to the social class facilitates or, on the contrary, complicates the prerequisites for the student's school success and for his adaptation (Kozma, B., 2001). Bernstein tries to explain the processes in which the social stratification of society is reflected in the environment of institutional education and education in school, and thus of course also in the school results of the individual. The results of an extensive study carried out in New Zealand correspond to his opinion, according to which command of the mother tongue is a prerequisite for better performance in school. It has been confirmed that children from English-speaking family backgrounds achieved better results in schools where English was used as a communication tool (Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J., Biddulph, Ch., 2003). Similar are the findings of authors N. L. Aikens and O. A. Barbarin (2008), according to which children from low-income backgrounds acquire language skills much more slowly, show delayed letter recognition and phonological awareness, and are at risk for reading difficulties. Even though both Bernstein's theory and P. Bourdie's theory originated in the 1970s, it is still a living topic of contradictions between the environment of the family and the school, between equality and inequality of educational opportunities. Although in connection with both theories we can come across various comments and protests in the literature, we must understand both phenomena, the language code as well as cultural and social capital, as significant and specific determinants of a student's school success.

Socioeconomic status of the family and influence on the child

In the Slovak Republic, after socio-political changes in the 1990s, there were also changes in the economic conditions of many families. The fact that the so-called opening of scissors in family incomes, we can also see it in school, where it is possible to recognize children from richer and children from poorer families. We can say that the property differences between individual families and thus also between individual students in the school environment are becoming increasingly apparent.

In connection with the socioeconomic status of the family, the main problem appears to be poverty. Its source is generally unemployment, low income from employment, low education and insufficient level of owned resources. In the context of poverty, J.C. Gersten (1993, In Vajda, Zs. – Kósa, E., 2005, p. 210) clarifies its impact on the child in several areas:

  • Risk factors may be present before the child is born. Mothers from poorer neighborhoods have worse health care, smoking and alcoholism are more common among them, cramped living conditions increase the risk of stress and interpersonal conflicts. According to health statistics, their children have a lower birth weight.
  • In poorer families, there is a higher incidence of single, teenage mothers, with lower education, who became pregnant unplanned, were left without help and support from their partner, or, in the worst case, without the help of an orientation family. As a result of the absence of emotional and social support during pregnancy, they are often unable to adequately care for the child, the consequence of which is often the rejection of their own child.
  • Eating habits are a particular problem in poorer families, or absence of some food components (e.g. protein, fruit). In addition to material shortages, a serious problem is calorie-unhealthy eating (e.g. in fast food establishments).
  • The educational practices of parents from marginal subcultures are less favorable for the development of the child's personality (compared to families from the middle classes). Parents are less sensitive to the special abilities of their children, they consider it less important to support them in their development (even if the objective conditions are not always suitable).
  • In the field of raising children, conformity and authoritarian upbringing are more common, families are more often hierarchically organized (compared to families with a higher socioeconomic status). The emotional coldness of parents, traditional role division of tasks, higher incidence of punishments and emotional deprivation are common.

Similar findings are reported by O. Matoušek – H. Pazlarová (2010), according to which poverty brings increased risks to children not only in terms of their physical and mental development, but also in terms of their future inclusion in society. Based on foreign sources, the authors point out risks in the field of physical health. For example children from poorer families have complications from intrauterine development, they are often born with low birth weight, with health complications, they have more frequent injuries in childhood, they are more often hospitalized than children from families with a higher socioeconomic status.

The fact that one of the parents is missing often has an impact on the family's economic situation. Increasing the share of single-parent families with dependent children, or single-parent families bring with them the necessity to solve the issue of their standard of living. As Tydlitátová (2011) points out, the expenses of these families are covered from one income and, as a rule, it is the income of women, who on average have lower working incomes compared to men. It is also not rare that the maintenance obligation on the part of the ex-partner (most often a man) towards his children is neglected. Therefore, most single-parent families are exposed to a higher risk of poverty than ordinary families.

Empirical findings confirm that a child's life chances are not independent of his social (sociocultural) origin. So one of the basic questions is: how does the socioeconomic status of the host family affect the child's educational path? Socioeconomic factors are positively correlated with parental investment in children's future. There is a higher probability that families with a higher socioeconomic status will invest more time, money, and energy in their children, they will make higher demands on the academic success of their children, they will create a stimulating environment that is positively reflected in the school success of the child, in the amount of education achieved (Conger, R. - Donnellan, M. B, 2007, In Bomba, L. - Zemančíková, V., 2011). According to a New Zealand study (Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J., Biddulph, Ch., 2003), families with a higher level of educational expectations have the most positive effect on children's performance in the second grade of elementary school. Children from families with a lower socioeconomic status, attending schools with a predominant number of students with a higher socioeconomic status, achieved results at a higher level than if they attended a school in their neighborhood (with the corresponding socioeconomic status). It is necessary to emphasize that an important role is played by the teacher and his expectations from the student, not only the level of socioeconomic status of the locality and the school. According to many researches, there is a high correlation between the socioeconomic status of the family and the school success of the child. The socioeconomic status of the family and the education of the parents has a very significant influence on the success of children in school. Those children who are born into a poorer family have a lower chance of achieving higher education, and therefore higher incomes. "What is important is whether parents perceive education as important and how much they support their children in acquiring it - and this is more often done by those who already have a higher education themselves. In many countries of the world, the financial situation of the family also plays a role, which affects what quality schools the child can go to, what technologies and books he will have access to, whether someone will tutor him in case of problems, etc." (Burns, J., 2011). Parents' education also affects the quality of time spent with the child. According to authors M. S. Hill and W. J. Yeung (2000), parents with higher education spend more time with their children in activities that develop them because they are aware of their developmental needs. However, their research showed only a small effect of time spent together on the child. Nevertheless, the interaction between parents and children plays a more significant role in school performance than e.g. ethnicity, occupation, income and level of education of parents. In general, children from higher-income families have a more supportive learning environment at home than children from lower-income families. But if a child from such a family (with low status) has an emotionally supportive family environment oriented towards school success, then his academic performance improves significantly. Parents' time spent directly in learning activities with children, time spent together by siblings, friends and relatives is perceived as a supportive environment.

T. Nechyba et al. (1999) report that parents' income is often correlated with a child's school performance. It has been confirmed that the lower performance of children from low-status families is evident at the beginning of schooling, which can subsequently affect their school performance throughout the entire education. It is also proven that children with good educational prerequisites, from families with low socioeconomic status, who reached the level of children with medium or high status at the age of five, slipped from good performances to worse by the eighth year of life. It can be concluded that the socioeconomic status highly influences the student's results, even though other family factors (emotional climate, interactions in the family, experiences and literacy) can significantly influence his results in school. According to the study, income can play a role only in conditions of extreme poverty, under special conditions and at a tender age of the child.

The financial possibilities of individual families are reflected in various signs among pupils in the school environment. During the year, the school organizes events that affect the family budget: swimming, theater performance, school trip, outdoor school or ski course, etc. In the past, it used to be a matter of course that all children participated in joint cultural events organized by the school. The entrance fee was rather symbolic, participation was understood as mandatory. We can discuss the reasons why it was so. The fact remains that children even from the least stimulating socio-cultural environment have heard a serious music concert, viewed some architectural monument, etc. Financially motivated non-participation of a child in larger joint school events, such as outdoor school or a ski course, is sad. These stays strengthen the class and give even less prominent personalities in the group of students the opportunity to express themselves even where regular teaching does not create enough space (Prokop, J., 2001).

An important factor resulting from the socioeconomic status of the family is also the level of parental support for the child's home preparation for school. A number of sociological or socio-psychological studies have confirmed the existence of differences in parents' approach to school based on their social class. T. Katrňák (2004) states that parents from higher classes are more active in supporting the child in home preparation, they emphasize the development of children's knowledge and skills more than parents from lower classes. Together with their children, they prepare more for school, more often enroll them in libraries and interest groups, attend school events with them more regularly, and themselves take a greater interest in what is happening in the school environment. Parents from lower classes also do the above, but not to the same extent, intensity and with such regularity. It does not mean that parents from lower social classes do not want their child to do well in school, but rather they expect that the child will show interest and apply for help on his own. Parental help for parents from lower social classes is more in the nature of supervision and control over the completion of homework, their interest is more focused on formally expressed grades. Parents do not explain to children how to master the subject matter, what is the meaning of learning - they do not mediate learning. We could conclude that the social origin of the child becomes a defining moment of educational paths.

In the context of families with low socioeconomic status (especially low income), the presence of stress in the family is an important factor. Parents show an increased risk of emotional stress (they experience depression, anxiety, anger, etc. more often) and behavioral problems (use of addictive substances, antisocial behavior, etc.) appear more often. Difficulties tend to result in tensions and frequent conflicts between spouses, who are consequently unable to provide mutual support. Parents who experience tension of a given nature are not sensitive enough to the needs of children, the tension between them will have a negative impact on their upbringing and care - parents are more often irritable, rude, less consistent in disciplinary procedures towards children. According to E. Hoff (2002, In Matoušek, O.- Pazlarová, H., 2010, p. 82), these parents do not appreciate the developmental achievements of their children, they communicate little with them, mothers with a lower socioeconomic status are more directive, more restrictive, stricter and punish their children more often.

Conclusion

If we look at the characteristics used to determine socioeconomic status separately, according to E. Hoff (2002, In Matoušek, O. – Pazlarová, H., 2010, p. 83), income alone has the weakest influence on parental behavior. Parents' education and employment appear to be much more important. At the same time, we can state that it is not easy to separate the socioeconomic status of the family itself from other influences that enter the children's lives. The belonging of the family to the social stratum, created by the education and employment of the parents, is a sign that can be related to the personal competences of the parents, their behavior outside the family, as well as in it, it can also influence the choice of educational style, the way of resolving conflicts, etc. It is indisputable that the family plays a significant role in an individual's chances. It affects his performance in school, determines his success in exams, and thereby opens or closes the door to higher education and through it to certain professions and social status.

When dealing with educational situations, the teacher must first of all be based on knowledge of the student's personality. As stated by A. Dombi (2007, p. 38), the teacher's task is to know his students. One of the ways that leads to the knowledge of the student, his characteristics, individual peculiarities, is the orientation of the teacher in the conditions of the family environment (social, cultural and economic) in which the student lives. Information about the family environment can contribute to the establishment of correct diagnoses and to the determination of optimal educational procedures.

Authors: PaedDr. Eleonóra Mendelová, PhD., PaedDr. Soňa Grofčíková, PhD. The authors work at the Department of Pedagogy at the Faculty of Education, Faculty of Economics and Business in Nitra. Literature:

AIKENS, N. L. - BARBARIN, O. 2008. Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. In Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 235-251. Available online: http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-education.aspx

BIDDULPH, F.- BIDDULPH, J.- BIDDULPH, CH. 2003. The Complexity of Community and Family Influences on Children's Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis. Web ISBN 0-478-27291-X. Available online: www.minedu.govt.nz

BAKOŠOVÁ, Z. 1994. Socio-pedagogical aspect of the family environment. In Pedagogic revue, Vol. 46, no. 5-6, p. 213-220. BURNS, J. 2011. Rich children start school 'five months ahead'. Available online: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-16177406

BOMBA, L. – ZEMANČÍKOVÁ, V. 2011. The influence of the socioeconomic status of the family on the student's performance in school - the current situation in Liptov. In PEDAGOGIKA.SK, 2011, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 145-171. Available online: http://www.casopispedagogika.sk/rocnik-2/cislo-3/bomba-zemancikova.pdf

DOMBI, A. 2007. Együtt és mörer - az iskola sömtäte. In Dombi, A. – Oláh, J. – Varga, I. (eds): A naveleveselmélét alapkérdései. II. kötet. Gyula: APC-studio, p. 34-39, ISBN 978-963-9135-95-6.

FRÝDKOVÁ, E. 2013. The family and its influence on the value orientation of children and youth. In DANEK, J. – SIROTOVÁ, M. – FRÝDKOVÁ, E.: Value orientation in the process of upbringing and education. Brno: Tribune, p. 81-111, ISBN 978-80-263-0514-9.

HELUS, Z. 2007. Social psychology for teachers. Prague: Grada. ISBN 978-80-247-1168-3.

HILL, M.S.– YEUNG, W.J. 2000. Behavior and Status of Children, Adolescents and Young Adults. Available online: www.minedu.govt.nz

HRONCOVÁ, J. 1996. Sociology of education. Banská Bystrica: PF UMB, ISBN 80-88825-37-7.

KATRŇÁK, T. 2004. Condemned to manual labor: Educational reproduction in a working-class family. Prague: Elephant. 190 p. ISBN 80-86429-29-6.

KOPECKÝ, M. 2002. Sociology of adult education. Prague: UK, ISBN 80-86284-25-5.

KOZMA, B. 2001. Pedagogy II. Pécs: Comenius Bt. ISBN 9638671165.

MATOUŠEK, O. – PAZLAROVÁ, H. 2010. Evaluation of the endangered child and family. Prague: Portal. ISBN 978-80-7367-739-8.

MOŽNÝ, I. 2006. Family and society. Prague: Elephant. ISBN 80-86429-58-X.

NECHYBA, T., MCEWAN, P., OLDER-AGUILAR, D. 1999. The impact of family and community resources on student outcomes: strategic research initiative literature review. Wellington: Ministry of education. Available online: http://www.minedu.govt.nz

PROKOP, J. 2001. Sociology of education and schools. Liberec: Technical University. ISBN 80-7083-535-4.

PRÚCHA, J. et. al. 1995. Pedagogical dictionary. Prague: Portal. ISBN 80-7178-029-4. STRŘELEC, S. 2007. The family as an educational factor. In STŘELEC, S. (ed.): Studies in the theory and methodology of education II. Brno: MU, p. 109-124, ISBN 80-210-3687-7.

TYDLITÁTOVÁ, G. 2011. Pluralization of family forms in Slovakia as a subject of demographic analysis from a regional perspective. Sociology, Vol. 43, No. 1, p. 28-56. ISSN 1336-8613.

VAJDA, ZS.- KÓSA, E. Neveléslélectan. Budapest: Osiris, 2005. ISBN 963-389-728-9.