Effects of povety on education
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Effects of povety on education






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Chp 7 meaning of moral still applies/ hidden curriculum . Over generalization when it comes to funding/testing etc.
  • Lewis was highly criticized for CofP by Valentine
  • Beginning course details and/or books/materials needed for a class/project.
  • Example graph/chart.
  • Conclusion to course, lecture, et al.

Effects of povety on education Presentation Transcript

  • 2. Introduction:  When speaking of poverty, it will in the context of and terms of economics and/or socio-economics.  Public education system’s social structure that generally has not changed over time.  Effects of poverty on children and family and, ultimately education.  How the Culture of Poverty myth supports the policy debate.
  • 3. Terms to Know Social Structure/Structure  What it is not:  Not synonymous with culture  Although all cultures have social structure to varies degrees.  What it is:  Social Structure is the relationships between different entities or groups in relatively stable patterns of relationship … grouped into structurally related groups or sets of roles, with different functions, meanings, or purposes. Child Poverty  Families or orphans being raised with limited, or in some cases absent, state resources. Children that fail to meet the minimum acceptable standard of life for the nation where that child lives are said to be poor. Culture of Poverty  The view that the poor have a different value system that contribute to their poverty.  Coined by Oscar Lewis, 196. It is said that later in his life he recanted, but died before he republished his work. Supported by Ruby Payne (Aha)
  • 4. Structural Causes of Poverty Geographers, sociologists, [anthropologists]and historians have studied and uncovered structural causes of poverty and related discrimination and segregation:  Suburban sprawl as a means to avoid residential and school integration; federal public policies that encouraged suburbanization [contributing to] structural causes of discrimination, segregation, and the concentration of poverty (Lassiter).  Racial inequality in employment: local labor markets affecting blacks and whites differently, differing rates of participation and thus income. Structural factors affecting labor market participation, such as ethnic/racial divisions of labor and discrimination in employment, wages, and occupational structure (Ellis and Odland).  Racial and ethnic segregation interact with structural socioeconomic changes: urban decentralization, the shift from manufacturing to service industries, and growing income inequality) to determine “the spatial concentration of poverty” … isolating the poor “ … especially severe for African Americans already highly segregated by race (Massey and Fischer). Segregation and socioeconomic status strongly determined Academic preparation.  Discrimination in the housing market and other structural changes in social and economic conditions prevents access economic, social, and educational opportunities (Ellis, Wright, and Parks).  High levels of segregation leads to concentrated poverty, results in higher levels of family stress because of the violence and disorder in segregated neighborhoods. Students often respond by devoting more time to family; thus, their academic achievement suffers (Charles, Dinwiddie, and Massey).
  • 5. Years a Child can live inPoverty
  • 6. Groski’s speaks with TeacherJanet Teacher Janet: "I love these kids. I adore them. But my hope is fading." Groski:"Whys that?" Teacher Janet: "Theyre smart. I know theyre smart, but . . . They dont care about school. Theyre unmotivated. And their parents—Im lucky if two or three of them show up for conferences. No wonder the kids are unprepared to learn."
  • 7. Gorski’s and Rogalsky’sAnalysis Teacher Janet is determined to create an environment in which each student reaches his or her full potential. Despite overflowing with good intentions, Janet has bought into the most common and dangerous myths about poverty. The "culture of poverty" myth—the idea that poor people share more or less monolithic and predictable beliefs, values, and behaviors. The educational system will not improve if there are still millions of teachers and administrators buying into the idea of the culture of poverty. Ruby Payne (Aha) claims to want to eradicate class inequalities that pervade U.S. schools [by] by “fixing” the poor … teaching them the “hidden rules” of the middle class, rather than focusing on systemic economic, political, and social issues (Gorski 2006). Educators need to be informed about the structural causes of poverty … (Rogalsky, Jennifer). [Teachers] need reach a deeper understanding of class and poverty (Grosky).
  • 8. Quote by Stephen Krashen There is no evidence that school itself needs to change dramatically. There is no evidence that teachers these days are worse than they were in the past, that parents these days are more irresponsible than they were in the past, or that students these days are lazier than they were in the past.
  • 9. From KrashenPoverty Stressors / AProposal  Its never a good idea to make a proposal in education without More likely to suffer from "food insecurity," talking about how to pay for it and Krashen has a suggestion: which means slower language  Drop all standardized testing, with the exception of one test, an improved NAEP. For those who argue that we need development as well as behavioral. national standardized tests, we already have an instrument for this, the NAEP. More likely to lack medical insurance or  The available evidence indicates that the massive amount of standardized testing currently done does not do any good have high co-payments, which means less and may be doing real harm. medical care, and more childhood illness  Increased testing does not improve achievement. and absenteeism, which of course  The NAEP is administered to small groups who each take a portion of the test every few years. Results are extrapolated negatively impacts school achievement. to estimate how the larger groups would score. No "test prep" is done, as the tests are zero stakes. Our efforts should be to improve the NAEP, not start all over again, and Poor schools are more likely to have no go through years of expensive fine-tuning with new instruments. school nurse or have a high ratio of nurses  If we are interested in a general picture of how children are to students. doing, this is the way to do it. If we are interested in finding out about a patients health, we only need to look at a small sample of their blood, not all of it. More likely to live in high-pollution  High school grades were a better predictor of college success and areas, with more exposure to that adding SAT scores did not improve the odds of college success. mercury, lead, PCBs (polychlorinated  The judgments of professionals who are with children every day is biphenyls) and smog, all of which influence more valid than a test created by distant strangers. health and learning, and often impact  Moreover, teacher evaluations are "multiple measures," are closely aligned with the curriculum, cover a variety of subjects, and behavior. are "value-added," that is, they take improvement into consideration. Have little access to books at home and in  Finally, the money saved by vastly reducing standardized testing can be invested in improving libraries in high poverty areas: If we their communities, with less access to do this, we will be investing in solving the problem, not just measuring it. good public libraries and bookstores. More likely to attend schools with poorly
  • 10. U.S.A vs. Everyone Else The main evidence that our schools have failed is the fact that American students have not done especially well on international tests of math and science. Studies show, however, that American students from well-funded schools who come from high income families outscore nearly all other countries on these kinds of tests. The mediocre overall scores are because the United States has a very high percentage of children in poverty, over 20%, compared to Denmarks 3%
  • 11. College AttendanceUS Americans comparatively have more access andopportunities to attend college.
  • 12. Conclusion If given a choice, one would be hard pressed to find any parent how would choose to raise their children in poverty and all that entails. In the United States, all children from 6-19 (21 if disabled) have a right to a free public education. All students have due process of the law. No child can be denied an education based on any criteria.  This cannot be said for other “competitive” countries!
  • 13.  http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_So ciology/Social_Structure http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00 221340903344953 www.questia.com Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_chi_p oveconomy-child-poverty http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ice.