1 discussion issues on the disparities in achievement of students (rural urban, cultural influences etc). (1)

1. Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences
Mathematics Department
Trends And Issues
In Education For Mathematical Sciences
(SME3023)
ASSIGNMENT : Issues on the disparities in achievement of students (rural- urban, cultural influences etc).
Group Members:-
1) Paul Vosko Anak Ranged (D20121059016)
2) Nor Azila Binti Razak (D20112052105)
3) Dg Norhayati Binti Mahamad (D20112052103)
LECTURER : Dr. Mohd Faizal Nizam Lee bin Abdullah

2. 1.0 Introduction of Urban and Rural.
An urban area is the region surrounding a city. Most inhabitants of urban areas have non agricultural jobs. Urban areas are very developed, meaning there is a density of human structures such as houses, commercial buildings, roads, bridges, and railways. "Urban area" can refer to towns, cities, and suburbs. An urban area includes the city itself, as well as the surrounding areas. Many urban areas are called metropolitan areas, or "greater," as in Greater Kuala Lumpur. When two or more metropolitan areas grow until they combine, the result may be known as a megalopolis.
Rural areas are the opposite of urban areas. Rural areas, often called "the country," have low population density and large amounts of undeveloped land. Usually, the difference between a rural area and an urban area is clear. But in developed countries with large populations, such as Japan, the difference is becoming less clear. In the United States, settlements with 2,500 inhabitants or more are defined as urban. In Japan, which is far more densely populated than the U.S., only settlements with 30,000 people or more are considered urban. Throughout the world, the dominant pattern of migration within countries has been from rural to urban areas. This is partly because improved technology has decreased the need for agricultural workers and partly because cities are seen as offering greater economic opportunities. Most of the worlds people, however, still live in rural areas.

3. 1.1 Differences Between Student’s Rural-Urban Achievement.
A comparison of the performance on standardized achievement tests of students from small, usually rural, schools with those form larger, often urban, institutions has not produced definitive results. Several studies have not found any significant differences between the two groups. In research completed in the state of New York, Monk and Haller (1986) found that students from smaller (often rural) schools achieved as well as students from larger schools. Kleinfeld and others (1985), in their Alaska study, did not find that high school size determined the quality of a student's education, experience, or achievement on standardized tests. Moreover, in one New Mexico study, which looked at factors affecting performance of selected high school students, those attending schools in rural areas performed as well as those in urban locales (Ward and Murray, 1985).
Other scholars have found, however, that rural-urban differences do exist. One study in Kansas found that the ACT scores of rural students were two points lower than scores of urban students in each of the categories on the ACT (Downey, 1980). Another examination of student performance in Hawaii public schools found sub-standard achievement to be a pattern in rural areas (McCleery, 1979). Other research on achievement in social studies for 13-year- olds pointed out that rural students, comparatively speaking, did well on objective tests focusing on skills, but not as well on objective tests that focused on factual learning (Easton and Ellerbruch, 1985).
1.2 The effect of parents and community in on the Attainment of Rural Students.
One of the negative aspects found in most accounts is that rural communities possess a much more limited view of existing occupational roles for rural youth, who then understandably restrict themselves when going on the job market and on to higher education (Downey, 1980). Kleinfeld and others (1985) have come to a contrary conclusion, proposing that schools that achieve the best results do exhibit a strong teacher/ administration/community partnership and school-community agreement on educational programs. They also have reported that there is a direct relationship between quality education programs and the ability of the staff to work toward an educational partnership with the community. Smaller communities do tend to generate more community support for the school, with the school becoming a center for community activity. This, in turn, theoretically provides the students with a greater feeling of belonging to something in which they can participate, and thus enables them to develop a better self-concept.

4. 1.3 Student Achievement in Rural Schools.
As stated previously, student achievement is greatly affected by the area in which a student lives. The National Education Association said that the low performing youth are in public rural schools (Brown & Swanson, 2001). Historically, rural areas have lagged behind urban and suburban schools in educational achievement, although some improvements have been made between 1990 and 2000. Although rural schools typically achieve less than other schools, variations exist between states. For example, there is a large math achievement gap between rural and non rural areas, but some rural areas are above average and others are just average (Brown & Swanson, 2001). Typically, the rural areas in the southern states have the lowest achievement due to their racially diverse atmosphere (Brown & Swanson, 2001).
In both 1996 and 2000, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math scores of students in rural schools revealed a few differences from the national average at the grade levels assessed. The researchers found a positive relationship between the number of students enrolled in more advanced classes and success levels. The difficulty with rural schools is that they vary greatly by geographic location, economy, and resources. In rural areas where both the schools and students have access to high quality instruction, safe atmosphere, and communal support, achievement tends to be better than in states where the students do not have access to these crucial resources (Lee & McIntire, 2000).
As we learned in class, technology today is starting to become more user friendly and less expensive, so educators tend to use the Internet and other technological advancements to educate students in novel and interesting ways (Slavin, 2004). Distance education is also becoming more popular, which significantly aids rural schools. Rural Americans today have attained historically high levels of education despite the challenges they face on a daily basis (Brown & Swanson, 2001). Raising academic achievement levels and the quality of education are a start towards a successful strategy for advancing rural populations.

5. 1.4 Student Achievement in Urban Schools.
Urban students are faced with many extraneous factors that other; specifically the majority of suburban students do not need to worry about on a daily basis. Students in urban schools are expected to focus on acquiring skills to help them lead a more prosperous life, while at the same time they are faced with many distractions. The horrendous conditions of the school, such as leaking roofs and sewage problems, are not conducive to learning. Also, urban students live in crime-infested neighborhoods with violence on the streets. Problems outside the classroom which affects students learning tends to have a great impact in the classroom in urban schools (Leland, 2005). These problems directly affect student’s motivation which then has an unequivocal effect on their achievement. Therefore, unlike suburban students who attend schools in a safe and pleasant environment, where learning is the only priority; learning is not the primary concern for urban students. The majority of students that attend urban schools are from minority families who live below the poverty line. Most often they are from single-parent families where the parent is usually holding more then one job to support the family and so little attention is given to the child.
In addition, the child’s safety is compromised by living in crime-infested neighborhoods filled with violence. Due to the lack of the child’s basic needs being met, more children who attend urban schools start school with a major disadvantage. Whereas, students of suburban schools, with their basic needs already have been met, are able to focus on learning and satisfying their growth needs. Many urban students are less concerned with learning and achieving a positive self-image then they are about obtaining food or safety. This has a large and lasting affect on their student achievement. Some students feel that they receive no encouragement and only end up meeting resistance when they try to advance their education.

6. 1.5 Effect of Ethnicity.
According to Lim and Saleh (2003). In Malaysia, studies on mathematics learning and achievement have dominated the research. While their methods vary, these studies tend to conclude that non-Malays tend to perform better in mathematics because of the different ways students and parents valued mathematics learning. However, most of these studies were exploratory in nature, employing mostly classroom observations and in depth interviews. Therefore, their findings were far from conclusive and this dictates caution in generalizing these findings to the larger Malaysian society. In addition, the literature has not paid sufficient attention to science learning and achievement among Malaysian students. To the best of our knowledge, only one research (i.e.Mokshein 2002) has done to identify the factors that influence science achievement. Unlike other studies which employed mostly ethnographic studies and in depth interviews, Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 1999 for Malaysia were employed in the studies of Mokshein (2002). Mokshein (2002)’s study found, among other things, that self-concept in science, awareness of the social implications of science, gender, and home educational resources were significantly related to achievement.

7. 1.6 Parental Effect for Student Achievement.
Parental and peer influences, perceived usefulness of science and shadow education, were not examined fully in Mokshein’s study. Using the same data Mokshein (2002), this study attempts to fill the gap, by investigating the impact of students’ background characteristics (age, gender, parental education, family socioeconomic status), significant others’ influences (SOI), student’s attitudes and educational expectations and shadow schooling on mathematics and science achievement.
This report covers 66 studies, reviews, reports, analyses, and books. Of these 39 are new; 27 have been carried over from previous editions. An ERIC search was conducted to identify relevant studies. Noting that the most accurate predictor of student achievement is the extent to which the family is involved in his or her education, this report presents a collection of research papers on the function and importance of family to a student's achievement and education in school and the community.
The research is divided into two categories:
(1) studies on programs and interventions from early childhood through high school, including school policy.
(2) studies on family processes. The first category presents studies that evaluate or assess the effects of programs and other interventions, including early childhood and preschool programs and home visits for families with infants and toddlers, programs to help elementary and middle schools work more closely with families, and high school programs and community efforts to support families in providing wider opportunities for young people. The second category presents studies on the way that families behave and interact with their children, including the relationship between parent involvement and student achievement from the family perspective, characteristics of families as learning environments and their effects on student performance, and class and cultural mismatch. Two pages are devoted to each study. Each study is summarized; key elements of the program and important findings are presented. Major findings indicate that the family makes critical contributions to student achievement from the earliest childhood years through high school, and efforts to improve children's outcomes are much more effective when the family is actively involved. (AP)

8. 1.7 Conclusion
From the situation that we have discuss, we found that the main reason rural- urban students have achievement gap is because their family socioeconomic and the invironment of their schools. The issues surrounding efforts to assess the achievement of rural students or urban students, for that matter on standardized tests are by no means simple. The old rural deficit model must, however, be discarded as educators take a new, more objective look at the performance of the many different types of rural students. It is time to dispose of monolithic assumptions about rural America. To really assess the small, rural schools' impact on students, comparisons must be made among students who are matched by origin, background, and access to information before any meaningful conclusions about rural achievement can be rendered. Recent composite results prove quite suggestive, however, since many observers have found little difference in the academic achievement of rural and urban students, or in their desire to attend college. A rural deficit model could quite easily be replaced by a rural strength model. Such a model is suggested by the fact that rural students do wish to attend college and make adequate grades, even though--if Barker's curriculum comparisons hold up for the nation at large--rural high school students have less total access to educational information. It could be argued that these students are therefore, in terms of their overall progress, achieving more, not less. Scholars of the future may well find this to be true.
 1.8 Bibliography
 Edington, E. D.-K. (1987, 12 12). Rural Student Achievement: Elements for Consideration. ERIC Digest. . Retrieved 11 20, 2014, from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-927/rural.htm
 Brown, D. L. (2003). Challenges for Rural America in the 21st Century. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
 Lee, P.W. (1999). In Their Own Voices: An Ethnographic Study of Low-Achieving Students Within the Context of School Reform. Urban Education, 34(2), 214-244.
 Leland, C.H., Harste J.C. (2005). Doing What We Want To Become: Preparing New Urban Teachers. Urban Education, 40(1), 60-77.
 Baumert, M.(2001).Gender -Related Difference in Exposure to and use of computers: A result of a survey of secondary school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(3),269-272
 Crosnoe, R. (2011a). K-12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. Future of Children, 21(1), 129-152.