The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Learners Access to Education Resources - Essay Example

The impact of Socioeconomic status on learner’s access to education resources/opportunities The impact of socioeconomic status on learner’s access to education resources and opportunities Following the standards-based education reform movement in the United States, there has been a considerable development of new standards for students (Darling-Hammond, 2005). To achieve the standards required, curriculum frameworks, testing systems and accountability mechanisms were implemented at schools in all states. Many schools also introduced a system of rewards and sanctions to students’ performance on standardized state tests. However, many students from low-income backgrounds, especially minority children and youth, are unable to meet state requirements. The report conducted by The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research reveals that in 1998 the national graduation rate was only 56% for African-American students and 54% for Latino students, in comparison with 78% for white students. Due to extremely low graduation rates for Latino and African-American students in several states( Georgia-31%, Alabama-33% of Latino students; Wisconsin – 40%, Minnesota-43% of African American students), it was suggested that the new educational policies increased inequality. In some states, like Minnesota, a disparity between the graduation rates for African-Americans and white students reached 50% (Greene, 2001). Thus, the conclusion is that educational opportunities cannot be created only with standards and tests; it is necessary to provide appropriate learning resources and opportunities to all students (Darling-Hammond, 2005). Lack of proper educational materials and qualified teachers, due to a shortage of funds, is a common problem in many urban and rural minority schools, which results in poor academic performance. Consequently, school failure reduces students’ access to future education and employment, thus leading to crime and welfare dependency. Thus, it is necessary to implement adequate policies for equality, involving equalization of financial resources, changes in curriculum and teaching methods, and, finally, access to highly qualifies teachers for all students (Darling-Hammond,2005). As funds for education in the United States are raised and spent on an inter-state basis, through a system of local property taxes and state grants-in-aid, there are great disparities in resources for education between poor and wealthy districts. There are two factors that determine the amount of money spent per pupil: the general education tax capacity rate, which is determined by state law, and the property wealth of the district (Minnesota House Fiscal Analysis Department on Government Finance Issues, 1997). Due to high concentrations of valuable commercial, industrial, public utility, or lake shore properties, school districts with high property wealth are able to provide students with smaller classes, greater educational resources, better facilities and modern equipment. In contrast, over-crowded, high poverty districts, usually have the fewest resources. Consequently, poor children who cannot access educational materials at home, cannot obtain them at school, either. The report of the National Center for Education Statistics reveals that the highest disparity in spending per pupil between the wealthiest and the poorest districts of New York is $ 2.152. For two schools of 400 students each, this disparity grows to $ 860.800 (Books, 2004). Such factors as socioeconomic status, residential location and, increasingly, language, influence the students’ segregation into rich and poor schools. Since the 1970s, due to the mass middle-class movement to suburbs and small cities, there has been a large concentration of low income families, with a vast majority of African Americans and Latinos, in large metropolitan centers (Orfield and Lee, 2005). The share of students from these two ethnic groups living in big cities increased from 38% to 54% African Americans and from 20% to 39% Latino students from 1973 to 1994. It is estimated that approximately 70% of students in the USA 55 largest city school systems are African-American or Latinos. Around 75% of all Latino and African-American students are enrolled in majority minority schools, in many of which over 99% children belonged to minority groups (Books, 2007). Educational performance of these children is severely affected by all kinds of childhood deficiency: unstable home environments, gross malnutrition, untreated health problems, emotional and physical abuse, violence in form of crime and gangs, and, finally, lack of mentoring and positive adult role models (Arrighi and Maume, 2007; Orfield and Lee, 2005). As a result of housing discrimination, even middle income minority families often live in poor neighborhoods and, consequently, are forced to enroll their children in high poverty schools (Orfield and Lee, 2005). It is estimated that over 85% of schools in big cities have disproportionately high percentages of students with limited English proficiency, which deepens their isolation and further affects their educational performance (Books, 2004). Children in decaying and inadequately funded schools lack appropriate educational resources, involving appropriate facilities, instructional materials, appropriate facilities and modern equipment. According to the report of the American Society of Civil Engineers (2001), 75% of school buildings in the USA are inadequate to student’s needs (Books, 2004). Many schools have such defects as rotting window frames, leaking roofs, inadequate toilet facilities, small storage space, old furniture and lacking decor, which severely affects teachers’ and students’ motivation and morale. Furthermore, in poor schools pupils’ achievements are hardly ever displayed, which further discourages children from learning (James and Connolly, 2000). Lack of adequate instructional equipment, materials and textbooks affects the curriculum and, consequently, students’ academic performance. Many poor children, whose parents cannot afford to purchase textbooks, cannot access them at school, either. High poverty schools lack specialist facilities for such subjects as science, technology, music, art, and physical education , and do not provide students with any extracurricular activities. Another serious problem faced by high poverty schools is lack of qualified teachers (Whitmore, 2005). In California, the share of unqualified teachers is 6.75 higher in poor, minority schools than in low-minority schools (Orfield and Lee, 2005). Due to funding inequities, distributions of local power, conditions of labor market, and dysfunctional hiring practices, minority and low-income students in poor schools are often taught by unqualified and underprepared teachers, who are not acquainted with subject taught and effective teaching techniques. Teachers in high poverty schools are faced with several problems, such as lack of resources, students’ problematic behavior, learning difficulties, and low motivation to work. Thus, many of them get discouraged and leave the system. As experienced and qualified educators try to transfer into more attractive placements in wealthier districts, due to shortages poor schools have to employ substitutes, assign teacher outside of their fields of qualification, or cancel some courses. As a result, the quality of instruction significantly declines, thus leading students to academic failure and, in many cases, drop out (Whitmore, 2005). High poverty schools usually offer fewer advanced and more remedial courses. Students in minority and low-income schools hardly ever learn foreign languages and very few of them are provided with college preparatory courses. While youth in wealthier schools can study algebra, chemistry, history, and other subjects that enable them to apply to colleges and universities, students in low-income schools follow education programs that will prepare them for low-skilled jobs. Consequently, hardly any low-income and minority students manage to continue their education beyond the secondary level (Darling-Hammond, 2005). The study conducted by Robert Dreeben with 300 black and white first graders from Chicago area reveals that despite good learning skills, minority and low-income students perform worse than middle-class children due to a poor quality of instruction (Darling-Hammond, 2005). While the highest ability group in the study comprised children from a low-income Afro American neighborhood, they were significantly outperformed by their peers from wealthier districts, who received high-quality teaching. Another study shows that several at-risk Afro American students, placed in wealthy, suburban schools and provided with additional academic help and more challenging courses have achieved satisfactory academic outcomes across many dimensions (Freeman, 2005). Unfortunately, most minority and low-income students are left without help they need. Due to poor teaching quality, they are not able to meet federal and state requirements on standardized tests. As a result of the standards-based education reform movement in the United States, nearly half of all states use standardized tests to determine grade promotion and high school graduation (Books, 2004). Test scores are also used to classify students to different instructional groups and programs. Thus, only few children and youth who score well on the tests are provided with rich, challenging curricula for “gifted and talented students”. As low-income and minority students fail to meet the test standards, they are often held back in grade or enrolled in inadequate, restrictive special education programs (Books, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2005). Furthermore, as in many states dropout rates are used along with norm-referenced test scores to evaluate school instructional quality, many schools try to hide drop out rates in order to avoid state sanctions for poor performance. Thus, school administrators in many cases falsified data on children who should have been attending their schools, simply removing their names from enrollment lists in case of drop out. In 2003, The New York Times revealed fraud committed by high school administrators in Houston, who falsified data on 700 African American and Latino students, disappeared from school before graduation. Even though only 300 out of 1000 students managed to graduate, the school did not report any drop out and, thus, gained bonuses from $5.000 to $20.000 for high graduation rates (Books, 2004). Unfortunately, this is a common practice in many states. Moreover, in many cases schools pushed out problematic and low-achieving students, suspending them for different types of misbehavior, including truancy, insubordination, and even lack of homework. As a result of “zero tolerance” policy, which involved automatic punishments for certain school infractions, the number of suspensions has grown dramatically in recent years. Consequently, there was a significant increase in suspension rates for minority and low-income students, who were most likely to engage in misbehaviors. In numerous schools in Flint City, Michigan, over 50% of African American and Latino students were suspended during a school year. Since the early 1970s, the disparity between Afro American and white students who were suspended has increased from 2.9% to 8.17%, thus further raising educational inequality (Books, 2004). School failure has devastating consequences for students’ future. It is a common fact that students who drop out of high schools are more likely to be unemployed, engage in criminal activity or rely on welfare programs. It is estimated that 75% of juvenile delinquents sentenced to adult prisons have not completed high school, 70% are diagnosed with learning disabilities and 33% have reading skills below the 4th grade level (Books, 2004). Teenage girls who have been held back, expelled or suspended in middle school are particularly prone to engage in criminal activity (Books, 2004). Given an extremely low graduation rate among minority and low-income students, it comes as no surprise that these groups represent the majority of the juvenile justice population. Afro-American and Latino youth, who make up one third of the adolescent population, comprise two thirds of all young people sentenced to juvenile halls and prisons (Books, 2004). In today’s knowledge-based society, education is essential to survive. Due to massive automation of factories and outsourcing factory jobs overseas, most of low-skilled workers have lost their source of income during the last 20 years (Darling-Hammond, 2005). The 2000 Census revealed that only 52 percent of high school drop outs were employed and made 35% less than the national average income. In contrast, college graduates, 83% of whom were employed, contributed with 131% of national income. It is estimated that before the end of 21st century only 10% of all jobs will require the basic levels of knowledge and skills, thus further increasing unemployment and welfare dependency among low-educated workers. Extremely high drop rates have dramatic consequences not only for the students themselves, but also for the whole society. It is estimated that each juvenile offender costs the society from $ 1.7 to $ 2.3 million, not to mention great economic, medical, physical, and psychological consequences for the victims. A 1% annual increase in graduation rates would enable the United States to reduce the number of crimes by 100.000 annually and, thus, save $ 1.4 billion every year. Thus, it is a crucial issue to provide all students, no matter their race and social status, with adequate educational resources and opportunities. The policies necessary to achieve this goal include equalization of funds, changes in curriculum and standardized testing policies, and, finally, access to highly qualified, experienced teachers for all students (Darling-Hammond, 2005). School finance lawsuits play an important role in the funding equalization process as they have led to court-ordered legalization in several states (Hill, 1996). Lawsuits produced court orders, which required state governments to equalize school funding by providing poorer areas with disproportionate sums of money. As a result, since the 1960s state funding has increased from 20% to over 50% of total school spending in the whole country. In some states, school finance lawsuits have also enabled the implementation of the reforms concerning nonfinancial aspects of state educational policy, such as curriculum, training, and testing. However, litigators and researchers paid little attention to within-district spending inequalities. Due to the policy that enables senior teachers to choose freely their teaching placements, in wealthier schools, staffed by well-paid, experienced teachers, per pupil spending can be twice higher than in high poverty schools (Hill, 1996). As data on within-district spending are less accessible than those concerning inter-district spending, it is more difficult to initiate litigation of these cases. However, focus on within-district spending may bring several educational benefits for students from underprivileged neighborhoods (Hill, 1996). When it comes to educational policies, it is necessary to develop strategies that improve the basic state and district educational policies and practices (Darling-Hammond, 2005). Special programs and initiatives for underprivileged students, such as summer school programs or compensatory education will not be successful as long as they are layered on faulty foundations; thus, it is important to implement adequate educational policies, on which additional services can be based (Darling-Hammond, 2005). Furthermore, the National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST) argues that student performance standards need to be followed with policies that provide all students with appropriate educational materials and highly-qualified teachers. Before using test scores for grade promotion, high school graduation, or other important decisions, states need to collect evidence regarding the schools’ ability to provide students with knowledge and skills implied by standards. The idea of Opportunity-to-learn-standards would definitely increase the graduation rate among many low-income and minority students, who fail to meet the test standards due to poor quality of instructions in their schools(Darling-Hammond, 2005). Finally, to improve educational performance in high poverty schools, it is important to provide them with access to experienced, high-qualified teachers. Under the No Child Left Behind Act from 2001, school divisions need to ensure that low-income and minority students are taught by highly-qualified teachers (Virginia Department of Education, 2001). Such outcome can be achieved by raising standards for teacher education and licensing, increasing the recruitment of high-need teachers through scholarships and forgivable loans, helping new teachers with monitoring and assessing programs and, finally, investing money in professional development. With equalization of funds, implementation of adequate educational policies and access to highly-qualified teachers, underprivileged children and youth would result in several benefits not only for underprivileged students themselves, but also for the whole society. References: Arrighi, B. and Maume, D. (Eds.). (2007). Child poverty in America today: children and the state. Pittsburgh, Whitmore Publishing Company. Books, S. (2004). Poverty and schooling in the U.S: contexts and consequences. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Books, S. (Ed.). (2007). Invisible children in the society and its schools. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc (Original work published 1998). Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). New standards and old inequalities: school reform and the education of African-American students. In J.E. King (Ed), Black education: a transformative research and action agenda for the new century. Washington, the American Education Research Association. Freeman, K. (2005). Black populations globally: the costs of the underutilization of blacks in education. In J.E. King (Ed.), Black education: a transformative research and action agenda for the new century. Washington, the American Education Research Association. Greene, J.P. (2001). Civic Report; High School Graduation Rates in the United States. Manhattan, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Hill, P. (1996) Education. In Galster, G. (Ed.) (1996). Reality and research: social science and urban U.S. policy since 1960. Washington, the Urban Institute Press James, G. and Connolly, U. (2000). Effective change in schools. London, RoutledgeFalmer The Minnesota House Fiscal Analysis Department on Government Finance Issues (1997) Money Matters, State Property Tax and Education Finding. Orfield, G. and Lee, Ch. (2005). Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/Why_Segreg_Matters.pdf on December 2, 2009. Virginia Department of Education (2001), Highly Qualified Teachers and Paraprofessionals Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/nclb/HQTeachers8-1-05.ppt#256,1, Highly Qualified Teachers and Paraprofessionals Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Whitmore, J. (2005). Education Inequality in the U.S. and the Effects of Income. Rockhurst, Rockhurst University. Read More