On other hand, the most places in university reserved for service-class children. Service - class has much more privileges. 'Diversion thesis ' which was suggested by Muller and Pollak and extended by Hillmer and Jacob, approves written above. In most cases working-class children less likely have prospective success in University education, so most of them refrain from it. The main problem of this research is: Social inequality, people from lower-class cannot afford good education for their children, while people from upper-class can get best education for their children.
“Single-sex education, common in the United States until the 19th century, when it fell into deep disfavor except in private or parochial schools, is on the rise again in public schools as educators seek ways to improve academic performance, especially among the poor.”( Rich, Motoko - New York Times) “The majority of single-sex schools are private or independent, which means parents are paying fees to educate their children, because they believe single-sex schools provide an academic advantage co-ed schools don’t. (Tasovac, Brooke - Child)” This shows that the poor people aren’t getting a good enough education because they don’t have the money for the single-sex
Unequal Childhoods is an ethnography outlining the study done by Annette Lareau which researched how socioeconomic classes impact parenting among both white and African American families. She used both participant observation and interviewing. 12 families participated in this study where she came to conclusions on whether they displayed parenting styles of concerted cultivation or natural growth based of their socioeconomic status. Concerted cultivation is a parenting style where the parent(s) are fully invested in creating as much opportunity for their child as possible, but results in a child with a sense of entitlement. An example of this would be a parent who places their children in a wide array of extracurricular activities and/or actively speaks to educators about the accommodations their child needs to effectively learn.
As well as the success rate of an average student from a public school. The children, unfortunately have no other choice but to live in a low income area. Not only does that result in having issues at home, but also in the classroom. According to Alexander’s study, students living in lower income areas will have a slighter chance of reaching
Compared to other schools, tests and homework are basically nonexistent. Students' intelligence aren't measured at all for the first sixed years, so they can focus more on learning, collaboration, and personal needs rather than competing with other students for an "A". The difference between the "weakest" and "strongest" is the smallest in the world. About two thirds of students attend college, and that is the highest rate in all of Europe. They also have longer breaks compared with other schools, and teachers only spend four hours a day in the class room and two hours for extra help.
Although measures are constantly being taken in order to help fill in the gap between student achievement and socioeconomic status, kids are consistently falling through the system in school after school. Sociologists define social class, or socioeconomic status (SES), in terms of an individual’s income, occupation, education, and prestige in society” (Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 2010; Thompson & Hickey, 2008). These different factors are surprisingly closely correlated with one another. A low socioeconomic status family is typically generational. Low socioeconomic statuses are often times categorized by low income, little if any education, and a job that requires little education.
Although most public schools have lower teacher-student ratio than private schools, there is a developing trend of decrease in the number of students who have enrolled into elementary, middle and high schools, while the number of staff stagnates. As a general rule, public education has affordable tuition. This does not always mean that the quality of the classes is affected. Due to the effort of Parent-Teacher Associations,
The “numbers people” or those intelligent enough to contribute to technology make up the elite class which are housed in luxury compounds that were safe, quiet, and desirous. Those lacking in the intelligence required to advance technology were less fortunate and therefore lived outside the compounds, the “pleeblands” which were marked by disease and poverty. Jimmy the protagonist was of the lucky few that belonged to the compound life due to his parents that worked there. The class difference is seen when Jimmy a “words person” graduates and ends up at the less desirable school, Martha Graham, whereas Crake a “numbers person” gets to go to the more fancier schools,
Parents like me have to move near semi-basement flats or roof-top houses that are cheap, but those are also scarce.’ (Samuel Kim)". Many parents and students, despite their lack of finance, are stuck in Gangnam because of their schools and private
However, not every student who took the developmental courses gets success in their majors. One research shows that around 60 percent of community college students have to take developmental courses, but only one third of the student completed their major class in six years (Bailey, Jeong, & Cho, 2010). Therefore, some students think developmental education is useless and a wasting of their time. There are three different reasons why developmental courses are not targeted, efficient and have short-term effects. First of all, developmental education is not targeted.
This meant the only access to jobs and schools were low due to the lack of mobility. Another point is how the Section 8 program segregates African-Americans and other minority groups to low-poverty neighborhoods. Due to the socioeconomic status of Section 8 housing applicants, vouchers are commonly needed. Since the vouchers are too small to rent in middle-class areas, the only way to take advantage of the voucher is to move to an even more segregated neighborhood than the one they were already living in. As a result, minorities are clustered once again, in neighborhoods with no diversity.
Research showed that wealthier kids were not only doing better in school, but they were improving on their own during the summers because of the access to outside sources of learning that the wealthier family had granted them. The poorer students would fall back over the summers because they did not focus on learning. They were more focused on taking care of the family and surviving.
There was of course a difference among genders, as more males were educated than females. Males also stayed in secondary education longer than females, since the probability of getting a job was slim. Despite those difficult times, there were signs of hope. For example, North Carolina did not forsake the education for its children or youth, as not a single school in the state shut down due to the Great Depression.
There were times when some African Americans lived their lives in poverty. According to the article, students who lived in poverty were often left behind in school because they could not get the support due to weak services (Fram, Miller-Cribbs, Van-Horn p. 309). This shows how students were treated based on what they could and could not afford. These students did not have much support so it was harder for them. Classrooms for students of the lower minority were not properly fortified, and most of the students that were in these classrooms were not that efficient in reading as described in the article.
One can assume that when a child is raised in poverty they often do not have access to food and proper clothing these items can make it hard for children to focus in school. Lack of focus in school will lead to a lack of success, which contributes to the lack of poverty, and it becomes an ongoing cycle. In a research done by John Hopkins it was concluded that “They found that a child 's fate is in many ways fixed at birth — determined by family strength and the parents ' financial status.The kids who got a better start — because their parents were married and working — ended up better off. Most of the poor kids from single-parent families stayed poor.”