SINGAPORE – A local study has found that secondary school students from lower-income families are not a homogeneous group held back by a lack of resources.
Researchers from the National Institute of Education (NIE) found a more nuanced picture of such students, identifying five distinct profiles based on self-reported attributes.
Among a sample of about 600 students from the least affluent group, over 10 per cent thrived in several areas including their studies, well-being and adaptability.
About a third fared well academically, despite having mixed levels of emotional support and coping strengths.
The rest fell into three other groups: those functioning adequately in most areas; those coping despite constraints; and those experiencing the most risk to their overall development.
Azilawati Jamaludin, an NIE associate professor who led the study, told The Straits Times that existing research has consistently shown that socioeconomic disadvantage adversely affects a child’s overall development.
As a result, those from lower-income households are more likely to be seen as vulnerable and less likely to flourish, compared with their more affluent peers.
However, the study found more mixed outcomes among 1,600 student participants from the lowest income deciles.
Said Azilawati: “Our question became – if all these students are financially disadvantaged, why do some flourish while others struggle?”
These findings were drawn from a study of more than 6,700 Secondary 1 students from 28 schools, which aimed to examine how various factors shape the learning and wellness of financially disadvantaged adolescents.
The study, which started in 2023, is part of a larger research project by NIE called DREAMS: Drivers, Enablers And Pathways Of Adolescent Development In Singapore.
DREAMS was commissioned by the Ministry of Education, and follows over 7,000 adolescents throughout their four- or five-year journey in secondary school.
It consists of seven sub-studies, each investigating a key area of adolescent development, including special education needs, school and career aspirations.
Student participants completed yearly online surveys, responding to questions on a range of topics pertaining to student life, such as their ability to cope with changes and how they perceived others viewed them.
Azilawati, who is the assistant centre director at NIE’s Science of Learning in Education Centre, said the research team found that while financial disadvantage increases the risk of vulnerability, it does not determine overall outcomes with certainty.
“Socioeconomic disadvantage shifts the odds, but adolescents respond differently depending on a range of factors,” said Azilawati.
Among this group, key differences lie in how they respond to changes, their relationship with their parents, their sense of well-being, and confidence in their abilities.
The findings suggest that while financial disadvantage may shape access to opportunities, support and learning environments, students’ development is also influenced by how they adapt and feel supported, and their sense of continued engagement.
“The key message is that financial disadvantage matters, but it does not tell the whole story and it does not determine destiny,” said Azilawati. “Understanding this variation among students in the lowest income deciles is important for designing more targeted forms of support.”
Azilawati also noted that students with similar academic performance in the study differed greatly in aspects such as resilience, well-being and their ability to respond to changes.
For example, two students with similar Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) scores or school grades may have very different needs.
One student may be in good mental health, while another may be experiencing emotional struggles that are not immediately apparent from academic results alone.
This, she said, underscores the importance of looking beyond grades when understanding and supporting adolescent development.
Still, financial disadvantage hinders the benefits of students’ early academic success, the study showed.
While a high PSLE score gives students in the lowest income brackets a head start, the study shows it does not translate into the same gains in secondary school as it does for their higher-income peers in Secondary 1.
Azilawati said this finding may point to differences in access to resources.
Over time, more affluent students who started with lower PSLE scores may surpass their less affluent peers.
“This is a sobering insight, because it shows that the resources we provide for our financially disadvantaged students could potentially be matched up to allow them to achieve the same academic returns as their higher SES peers, who are more well resourced,” she said.
The study also found that intellectual curiosity was more strongly linked to academic achievement among higher-income students than among those from lower-income households.
Researchers said students who enjoy engaging in complex thinking are more likely to benefit academically when they have access to resource-rich learning environments – an advantage that higher-income students are more likely to have.
This was not the case for their less well-off peers.
Azilawati said this could be interpreted as lower-income students having to face additional barriers.
“Apart from being intellectually curious, there might be other factors they need to grapple with. They might have strong cognitive motivation and curiosity, yet they do not experience equivalent academic returns as compared to their higher SES peers,” she said.
Kenneth Poon, NIE’s dean of research and centre director of the Centre for Research in Child Development, who leads the DREAMS study, said the research team hopes to extend the study for another three years.
Data collection for the current study will end by late 2026, with analyses to be completed by end-2027.
As the study progresses, it will examine whether intellectual curiosity influences students’ thinking skills and development over time, said Azilawati.