Paying student for good grades is an issue because it doesn't do any motives in learning, only trying. Learning is the student job, not the parent to bride their children to do well. Paying student for good grades can give pressure to inflate their grades, external motivators that may be affective and well intended, and kids should be satisfied with their own accomplishment to success. Many parents bribe their children to do well in school by paying them. Bridging children should be illegal and banned in every country.
Children in poverty isolate themselves from students at school in have nobody to lean on but themselves. They are more likely to be bullied because of their grades. Middle class students are able to afford tutors in receive that extra help. Something needs to be done with children in poverty. Children in poverty deserves to be treated differently because of their financial stability.
Children from disadvantaged families usually do not have the same opportunities as those children from wealthier families to receive quality education; and public funding never fully levels the playing field since rich families are able to invest more in their children’s education by buying into neighbourhoods with better schools or better extracurricular activities (Adomait & Maranta, 2012, p. 114). Because of the less fortunate children’s minimal education, they will find badly paid jobs and earn less as adults. As badly educated citizens, they will not have much power in the political process, and will not be able to influence spending decisions to improve public schools for their children. Therefore, governments must seek to broaden the opportunities of those citizens who are disadvantaged. According to the aforementioned publication by Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the realisation of an efficiency and equity trade-off in education could be obtained through several ways.
For example, if a male does not have a father to discipline him, he may turn into a kid that fights at school, because he does not have that discipline that he would get from a father. However, just because they only have a mother does not mean they will end up violent. As long as their mother raises them correctly, they will be a well adjusted citizen. It is also stated that if a single mom has a child they may become poor. Robert Franklin, author of the article “Children Need Both Parents, Even after Divorce” , implies, “single mothers with children living with them are far more likely to live in poverty than is any other segment of society”.
In comparison to middle-class children being entitled, working class children are “viewed as subordinate to adults” (Lareau, 2002; 773). Working class parents do not decide a course of action based on the children’s wishes as much as middle-class children. Poor and working-class mothers talk less and when they do talk, they tend to be more authoritarian, using directives and do not probe for more details or opinions. There are differences between parents from different classes, and within the same class. For example, in some working class families physical discipline is used.
Lowered motivation creates low performance, which discourages the students even more. When there is no encouragement, the teenagers often don’t show up to school. The lack of effort correlates to teachers because it could dispirit them from doing work they want to assign in class. Changing to a four day school week can give additional benefits to all parties involved including students, teachers, and the school settings. If a four-day school week was implemented in American school districts, the performance plus achievement for students will increase along with a higher attendance.
Gladwell explains a theory called the Matthew Effect, sociologist Robert Merton creates the theory that people who are most likely to be given special opportunities leads to further success. Gladwell relates this to his hockey theory by saying, “The professional hockey player starts out a little but better than his peers. And that little difference leads to an opportunity that makes that difference a but bigger, and that edge in turn lead to another opportunity, which makes the initially small difference bigger still”(Gladwell 31). Gladwell says the professional hockey player starts out a little better than his peers not older not bigger but better. The better players are the ones who get special opportunities that do lead to future success but a players birthday is not something that can give opportunities to further a person's success.
They understand the sacrifices their parents have made for their children and to support their family. But, upper classmen might not be able to understand why inequality causes consequences because they do not experience the same situations. Those who earn more do not need to work more hours and sacrifice little things, such as vacations, in order for their children to go to school. They may not even notice any changes to their lives because they make more than enough to live stress-free, while low income families spend most of their time struggling to make ends meet. Although this essay was written about 11 years ago, I believe it is still just as effective as when it was first written because the economy is constantly changing and always leads to consequences because of the inequality present in society.
I believe college education should be free, if someone is committed and wants to attend school to help them go far in life, I believe no money is needed. This is a real life problem today, families save generous amounts of money for there child to go to college. Every parent wants their child to succeed, and money can be a very wide obstacle to get over. Imagine someone growing up with little support from family members, and is not as fortunate as others, but very intelligent, they have no way of going too college, unless with a scholarship. Scholarships don't always pay for everything but a small or large chunk, depending on the area of success.
As seen with the video titled “The Race of Life” students who have both parents in their home are automatically given an advantage in school than those who are raised by single parent households (Section 2/14/18). This inhibits how many students receive education about how to participate in democracy, leaving them unable to engage in even the simplest civics related discussions. Students who are not wealthy receive unfair education to those who are. This inherent inequality is best stated in Richard Rothstein’s piece where he describes the different reasons students can be performing badly in school simply because of the socioeconomic status they were born into. He says “The individual predictors of low achievement are well documented… With fewer family resources, their college ambitions are constrained (Johnson, In Progress)” (Rothstein 2).
According to the survey, poor children regularly have access to these resources to help them learn. The issue with the government 's survey is the researchers only looked at individuals who are privileged rather than individuals who are living poor. It makes it unclear to figure out whether poverty affects children development or Americans defining poverty wrong this whole time. From experiences, I can say that poverty can influence your performance and ability to progress normally. I experienced not being able to attend school, missing meals, not having electricity to complete homework, and not getting enough rest it not only delayed my development but my ability to gain knowledge just like an average child.
White seems to be too dependent on the education system to help boys become well - rounded individuals. Does White also realize to an certain extent, the parents are literally handing over their precious kids to strangers and then happen to wonder why most tend to have a hard time at school? White tends to only visit one