“Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men.” (358) Education is the power, which is destined to overthrow every species of hierarchy...it is destined to remove all artificial inequality.” (358) We all know this and the importance of being educated, but it seems today that a proper education is a privileged only some of us receive. The “more education and money a person have better schooling received.” (360)
There is a gap in the educational institute of the children in higher class versus the lower class. These bring out inequality among children when it comes to their education. The academic gap is due to the extreme gap in resources like money between the upper class and the lower class . The upper class students are increasingly entering high school or even middle scool much better prepared to succeed in school than lower class students. They are at an advantage because their parent may send them to a private school starting from kindergarten. There they have access to resources such as better teachers that provide them with the mean to surpass other children their own age academically. These disadvantages in preparation continues through middle school, high school and finally college. Less-advantaged children are left behind and increasingly at a disadvantage because they have no access to the same opportunities.
From the chart there is a significant difference in SAT test scores from the children in the lower income level. As the children parent income increase the SAT score of the children increases as well. This show that there is a correlation between the SAT scores and a child socioeconomic status.
According to the Bowles and Gintis reading, one of the reasons educational inequality exist, is due to the social class and family background of a person’s parents. “The number of years of schooling attained by an individual is strongly associated with parental socioeconomic status.” (360) A person living in a low socioeconomic neighborhood is at a disadvantage educationally from the moment they are born. The environment they are living in greatly affects the likelihood of a child to seek an education from a higher institution. Children growing up in low-income neighborhoods, for example, experience repeated stress from violence and crime that surrounds their life. Their time is more spent on whether they have to stay out the streets and the numerous other problems surrounding them. This is a drastic difference from the upper class children, who just have to worry about attending class. In the podcast for example the children of Harper high school are more worried on whether they are going to be safe from violence or whether they might hear another one of their friends name on the increasing list of those that have been targeted by violence.
instead of living my the education code, to come to school to get an education and better their life. Most come to school to escape violence, but their school have access to limited funds and resources. There is no stable school environment.
The access to limited resources reminded me of our discussion on moving up the mobility ladder. When a kid is already on the lower spectrum of receiving resources such as proper education because of their parents economic status and then further placed in the lower spectrum due to limited resources, When or how are they ever suppose to better themselves when there are no aid provided for them. Not even a proper and free education that everyone is entitled to?
I think that you are right. It is definitely a social pattern that lower class children are less successful in furthering their education as well as their performance. There are many reasons that can attribute to this trend. Like you said, where you are born and environmental factors add to this widening gap between upper class children and lower class children in the educational system.
ReplyDeleteThe parents of lower class children probably have not had as much schooling or access to schooling as upper class parents and their for do not encourage their children to further their education as much. Money and the availability of resources are two other main factors that contribute to this education gap. The more money you have the better quality education you can give to your children and that is just a fact. It's sad that all children do not get the same quality of education but that is how society is these days.
Honestly it is sad but definitely true. If we take a look around our society there is a major difference between private schools and public schools. In my opinion education is among the fields were equality for all was supposed to be a priority but our society has managed to make it into an inequality field. In a way it’s like they are providing educational opportunities but not equal educational opportunities. If the main goal of both private and public schools is to raise leaders and help these students plan for a better future then why can’t the government take drastic measures to make sure every school has the resources they need and also keep these students save in the schools and in their neighborhoods, like the students in Harper. If we the students are really the future leaders of this country then why measures can’t be taken to preserve our lives and our education?
ReplyDeleteAnother factor that comes to mind is that education is being used as a social tool to keep the hierarchy the way they are and keep the rich in power and poor on the lower level. These less privilege students probably have families who went to the exact same schools as they did and they therefor have no idea what it feels to have it all. In my opinion most of these students are probably smarter than students who attend private schools and they will never apply for the big colleges or Ivy league schools because they may feel they are not qualified enough for those schools
I think that people who go to private schools simply have better education because of the funding they get from the students paying tuition. I'm not saying that in all cases private school kids are more intelligent or smarter, but most private schools have the funding to give the children that attend that college better education.
ReplyDeleteMy best friend's girlfriend went to a private school. Where as my best friend did not. Not only does he believe that she is much smarter than she is but he knows for a fact that her vocabulary is impeccable compared to his. He told me that when he goes over her house to visit, even his girlfriend's little sister has better vocabulary. I'm not saying that vocab measures intelligence, but it does say something about how the private school system educates their kids differently from that of public schools where vocabulary is rarely part of the English class lesson plan.
It is confusing to me that even though we see the issue of inequality within education, strides aren't being taken to fix this problem. The same things that have taken place in recent years are continuing on. The kids who have always attended private school keep attending private school, while the kids are public school are continuing their education here.
ReplyDeleteThere was a private school that fed into my high school, and it was clearly evident who went to the private school because not only were they more apt to ask questions, they got better grades and scored better on their standardized tests. Is this due to the fact that public schools don't have the resources to further one's education, or that students attending private school understand the rigor they are about to encounter, therefore working harder and getting more out of their education?
You make a lot of great points in your blog post. I definitely agree with the part where you touched on climbing the ladder in social mobility for underprivileged students can be a much more challenging experience than a child that begins his life at the top of the spectrum. Education is a major factor in social mobility and access to power. I believe it was created to give everyone an equal chance to level the playing field in the workforce etc. but there are many underlying inequalities and oppressions within our education system that people can no longer say that education is equally effective for all races and socioeconomic statuses. Yes free education is offered to all students, but if there is incentive to pay for a better education than people who are fortunate to have the funds to do so are automatically given the upper hand. I'm not saying it a bad thing that private schools are available to well off people, but that doesn't mean public school should be degraded or ran in a different way just because not everyone can pay to have a private school education.
ReplyDeleteSholastica, I agree completely with a lot of the topics you touch on. Then you think of the time and effort a lower class student must put in compared to an upper class student to achieve the same things. Parent's of upper class are more likely to have a better education then the lower class parents, unfortunately that puts the lower class student at even a bigger dis advantage than just lack or resources at the school. The likelihood of the parents or family to be involved and surround their children in that atmosphere of intelligent conversation and current events. Just like that case by Larue we read a couple of days ago. This is of course leading to lower social mobility.
ReplyDeleteThe acceptance rate among public schools is very low compared to private schools, and that is obvious. However year to year public school students get admitted to say an ivy league based on the schools background and the number of students. That does not seem very far. Say for instance the public school had an extremely smart entire education and the students worked very hard to make it that way. Does that mean not more than 1 can get accepted into an ivy or known university? This seems unfair considering dozens of students from public universities get accepted each year. Given this is because the whole is of a higher education generally speaking, but what about the top of the class?
I also agree that children who grow up and go to school in low-income neighborhoods have a significantly less chance of social mobility. Also, when it comes to education, I don't believe that it's a public vs. private school issue, but more so an affluent vs. low-income neighborhood thing. Even public schools in suburban areas tend to better prepare its students than those in low-income or inner-city areas. I have a friend that's in high school right now and her parents weren't happy with the education she was receiving at an inner-city school. No, they didn't go to college but they wanted her to receive a much better education so that she could have opportunities that they didn't get to have. So, her mom went back to work and her dad obtained a second job in order to put her through a private school and I've definitely seen the change it has done for her. However, should lower-income parents have to work more hours or a second job just to give their children a better education? In my opinion, it's not fair that children have to suffer and receive a substandard education because of their parents income.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you on having the academic gap between classes. I had an old teammate that went to a private school and, from just listening to her, I could easily see the difference. Her school went from kindergarten to twelfth grade. One of the big differences I noticed was that they were already teaching a foreign language in the elementary section of the school. I am not sure if this is true in all schools, but, for me, foreign language wasn’t a class option until middle school began. This makes a difference because there has been research done saying that it is easier for us to learn a different language at a younger age and actually keep the knowledge later in life. For example, an 8-year-old has a better shot at speaking fluent Spanish continuously in life compared to a 30-year-old attempting to learn the new language. One of the other main differences I realized was the class size. In Florida, the law is that we can’t have more than 25 students in a core class at one time. This meant that if there were more signed up and we didn’t have enough teachers, than some students would have to switch classes to an elective or different available core class. Because of this law, my school was keep the 25 kids in the core classes and have PE classes with about 70-80 kids on their roster. At my teammate’s school, there were enough teachers and resources that this wasn’t a problem. They didn’t have to worry about whether or not the class was available to take or if classes were being taken out as a way to increase funds.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Scholastica that students from the lower class have less access to proper education than the students from the upper class. The direct correlation between the SAT scores and the student's socioeconomic status is one of the most important evidence.
ReplyDeleteMost prestigious universities take into account high SAT scores. However, children from upper class have better access to higher SAT scores regardless, even if there is a lower class child motivated to scoring high. Many people argue that SAT tests don't actually test intelligence, but rather, is about test-taking skills. There are many expensive SAT classes, tutors, and books that are there to prepare children for the test. However, children from the lower class don't have access to expensive SAT classes, tutors, and books. The children from the upper class have direct access to the best SAT classes, best tutors, and unlimited books.
Even if the children from the lower class were able to overcome the limited resources to education and actually receive goods grades, they will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to college admissions because of their lower SAT scores, and the public school they are attending.
This shows that education is actually more about inequality, than equality, and education may be one of the factors that make social mobility very difficult.
There are many things that I agree with in this post, and there are many things that I disagree with. I do agree that those with more wealth in the upper class can afford to provide their children with more resources for education. These would typically include utilization of the Kumon Learning Center, private schools, private tutors, and whatever else a student needed. If utilized to their fullest extent, a sharp student will be produced. But I do not think that having access to these resources automatically makes you a better student than somebody in the lower classes.
ReplyDeleteTake for example, my high school-there was a relatively sharp divide in class, with approximately half of the students coming from the upper middle class and the other half coming from the lower class (trailer park area or 'school of choice' student from Pontiac). Though there was a monetary barrier, it was not impossible for those from the lower class to be at the top of the graduating class without an abundance of resources laid at their feet. I was a student in the lower class and graduated at the top of my class over many others who had the extra resources and I was among the fifteen or so students from my class to go to this university. Being wealthier gives you an increased likelihood to succeed academically, but there is still the likelihood that you won't. An adage that can describe this situation is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.
I totally agree with what you said Scholastica. And it makes sense. Going back to the first week of class and dealing with geogaphic contingency and Gladwell, where you are born and who you are born to does truly make a difference.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I would have to disagree with is when you were talking about the upper class sending their kids to private schools, therefore, those students are more prepared for high school and further education. Demetre took the words right out of my mouth: "when it comes to education, I don't believe that it's a public vs. private school issue, but more so an affluent vs. low-income neighborhood thing. Even public schools in suburban areas tend to better prepare its students than those in low-income or inner-city areas." The only reason I know this is because I wouldn't consider myself upper class by any means, but rather middle class. And I went to a public school, that is continually ranked #1 or #2 in the state for academics. However, it is because I grew up in the suburbs of Ann Arbor and not the inner city streets of Detroit.