Do we train low-income students, and so limit their potential - Essay Example

Lecturer: Do we "train" low-income and so limit their potential? Even though the main challenge experienced in today’s schools is the achievement gap that can be seen between the advantaged and the low income students, the manner in which this issue has been addressed has stagnated academic growth among the students who are most able, increased boredom among the students and elicited a public dissatisfaction with the prevailing system of education (Renzulli 1). Stagnant and decreasing wages for the workers who are less educated, along with newer requirements and time limits that have forced low income families to depend on work rather than welfare have made the policies that upgrade the options in the job market for workers earning low wages become a priority.

The main part played by engagement cannot be over-emphasized for the students whose achievements have been hurdled by limited experiences, resources as well as support and the conventional instructional practices have been identified as the main causes of increased risk of delays in students. Critical dissimilarities in achievement outcomes also favor the engaged students more than their disengaged counterparts who have the same level of ability. As the number of low-income students continues to increase, the number of low income students who complete their college their college education is significantly lower than those who come from high income families.

“One explanation is simply that the rich have clearly gotten richer” (DeParle)Even though there are numerous challenges faced by the students who hail from low income families in regard to enrolment to colleges, the financial challenges they face can be mitigated through creation of policies that will reduce the costs these students have to incur. Decreased costs may reverse the fact that the low-income students are averse to debts and will try their best to avoid borrowing to go to college.

High loans as well as the abhorrence to amass debts develop consequences that affect increased production in education. The students who have large loans have lower levels of persistence as compared with the ones who have considerably lower loans or no financial aid. Even the students who attend the less expensive community colleges are affected by the same phenomenon, as those who have loans are not as persistent in their education when compared to those who do not have loans. The low-income students also experience “under-matching, choosing a close or familiar school instead of the best they can attend” (DeParle).

When the needs of the students are not meant through grant aid, the only solution that is available to the students is borrowing. Student borrowing has considerably increased in the last decade even though there is a notion that particular ethnic groups have a higher degree of aversion to taking loans than others. There is a negative connection between increased tuition and the degree of enrolment even though financial aid has considerably improved the odds for enrolment as both the state and federal aid have influenced the increase in enrolment (Lassila 27).

The educational attainments of parents also have a connection with the choices their children will make when they are done with their secondary education.Work citedDeParle, Jason. Poor Students Struggle As Class Plays A Greater Role In Success. Nytimes.com. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.Lassila, Nathan E. Effects Of Tuition Price, Grant Aid, And Institutional Revenue On Low-Income Student Enrollment. Journal of Student Financial Aid 41.3 (2011): 2. Print.Renzulli, Joseph S. The Achievement Gap, The Education Conspiracy Against Low Income Children, And How This Conspiracy Has Dragged Down The Achievement Of All Students.

National Society for the Gifted and Talented (2008): n. pag. Print.