Inclusive Learning: How Poverty Impacts Education - Term Paper Example

Please Read** I tried to contact you after receiving the revision. Under normal circumstances, once a paper has been accepted and the original guidelines have been followed, a revision is treated like a new order. However, if you will let me know what needs to be revised specifically, I’ll see what I can do to make it like you want. I’m assuming the summary needs to be longer but don’t know for certain. Thanks. Inclusive Learning: How poverty impacts on learning Student name Instructor name Course name Date Learning outcomes are determined primarily by a student’s particular economic and social circumstances in combination with the effectiveness of the school attended. While difficult to measure the comparative influence these factors play, research as well as simple observation clearly intimates that students from every rung on the economic ladder benefit from more inclusive and responsive learning environments. The reverse is also true. Neither rich nor poor students receive a superior education in a low-quality school. A school’s effectiveness, or lack of, affects all of its students regardless of background. The overall value of a school is another difficult factor to quantify as programmes vary widely in description and scope, specifically those catering to disadvantaged students. The correlations described relate to a school’s overall effectiveness when compared to other schools in a region. Because the overall quality of a particular school affects all its students relatively equally, observed inequalities involving learning outcomes must generate from outside sources. This discussion examines the many dynamics involving the relationship between living in impoverished conditions and difficulties in the learning process along with social and educational policies that address the inclusion of disadvantaged students. A student’s probability of being disadvantaged, educationally speaking, can be determined well before they ever begin school. “Poverty and social disadvantage are most strongly associated with deficits in children’s cognitive skills and educational achievements” (Department of Health, 1999). Another barrier to learning children of poverty face is that they have a greater likelihood of suffering from mental illnesses than those living above the poverty line. Children from poor households often have parents who are less educated than average and likely to be less knowledgeable of learning tactics designed for their children. Economically disadvantaged parents experience higher levels of stress due to a myriad of difficulties involving a lack of finances in addition to having to work at a mundane job to just barely exist. Not having the ability to provide as well as they would wish for their children is another great emotional factor. All of these factors combine to make a less than exceptional learning environment in the home, making the learning path these children take generally handicapped from the beginning. The frustration that young minds must contend with as a result of being behind others in their class acts to escalate feelings of self-doubt and furthers stress levels. “The class gap is profound. Poor children are still one third as likely to get good (marks) as their wealthier classmates. Young people from unskilled backgrounds are over five times less likely to enter higher education than those from professional backgrounds” (Clarke, 2002). The connection between poverty and education can be understood by examining two distinct concepts. Children of poverty live in a perpetual cycle of educational and monetary deficit. Many suggest that to break this succession of generation to generation circumstance of depravity, these children need supplemental learning opportunities designed to elevate them to the level other students enjoy. This would open up further educational opportunities leading to better employment opportunities and a good chance to break this unfortunate cycle of poverty. Students from impoverished conditions that continue on with their education beyond the compulsory age of 16 will probably enjoy a greater income than their parents did and achieve a standard of living which stops the legacy of poverty in their family. The second concept distinguishes between poverty’s limitation to learning success at both the micro-level (children living in impoverished conditions obtain less quality education) and at the macro-level (underprivileged nations commonly experience fewer educational advantages). It is an inescapable fact that the better educated students normally make more money and are thus less likely to become subject to poverty. It is equally as factual that poverty prevents students from receiving a proper education. A study examined the correlation between the socio-economic situation in childhood and how it relates to cognitive performance in adulthood. Not surprisingly, it concluded that “higher socio-economic position during childhood and greater educational attainment are both associated with cognitive function in adulthood, with mothers and fathers each contributing to their offspring’s formative cognitive development and later-life cognitive ability” (Kaplan et al, 2001). It went on to suggest that “improvements in both parental socio-economic circumstances and the educational attainment of their offspring could possibly enhance cognitive function and decrease the risk of dementia later in life” (Kaplan et al, 2001). Much empirical research has concluded that pre-school aged children of socially disadvantaged backgrounds display a great disparity in cognitive skills as compared to other children. The U.K. has recognized this as evidenced by the Sure Start programme which is intended to assist children from less fortunate families to compensate for this disadvantage. The inequality of educational skills can be traced to pre-school years. This lack of early cognitive aptitudes significantly affects later social and economic successes and leads to the conclusion that this stage in life is of primary importance when focusing on educational intervention. “Like it or not, the most important mental and behavioural patterns, once established, are difficult to change once children enter school” (Heckman & Wax, 2004, p. A14). Though intervention at any stage of education is better than none at all, children will be better served in the long term by being given supplemental tutoring early on in life. Debate remains high on the question of whether advantages received from interventions early on in the educational process continue or have a propensity to decline if supplemental measures cease in later school years. It is widely acknowledged, however, that there are sizeable disparities in cognitive skills of children who come from socially disadvantaged backgrounds which can be recognised prior to a child entering school and early intervention is a factor in leveling the playing field for students. Overwhelming evidence confirms that students from comparatively poor families generally do not attain acceptable levels of educational achievements either early on or throughout the remainder of the school years. This leads to a higher propensity to leave school early or to avoid an education following the compulsory age. These children also fare much worse in terms of education levels achieved at the compulsory school-leaving age. However, with the introduction of state sponsored interventions in early education, this trend has shown improvement. In 2001, approximately 75 percent of 16-18 year olds went on to venues of higher education whether it was at a university or vocational training facility following completion of secondary school. This was an increase among those who continued at least on a part time basis from 72 percent in 1991. Those involved in full-time education increased nine percent from 1991 figures to 56 percent in 2000. Those not employed or enrolled in a school of some type fell to nine percent in 2000 from its 12 percent figure in 1991 (Heyworth, 2004, p. 17). The disparity in the U.K. remains larger than in other industrialized nations however. In 2005, a comparison study of students in 54 countries demonstrated, nearly unanimously, that there are convincing associations between student successes and social background. In 53 of the 54 countries studied, the gap in academic successes in those students from poor families was statistically substantial. This margin, by percentage, was higher in England than in any other country studied. The U.S., Germany and Scotland faired little better than England while Kuwait experienced the smallest margin of disparity in learning skills between the poorer and higher social classes (Schuetz, Ursprung & Woessman, 2005). Education is a good investment for the individual as well as the nation. Positive or negative effects on the labour market are intrinsically tied to education. For the improvement of both social and economic conditions, an investment in education generates a significantly positive return (Mincer, 1974). Britain has not only the highest disparity of learning between social classes of student, it is also near the top of the list of countries for children living in poverty although it ranks as the fourth largest economic power in the world (Keep, 2003, p. 5). Recently, the government has expressed an interest in addressing the issue of child poverty. The solution though, is not simple regarding lack of income. This issue must be addressed in terms of educational outcomes for any long lasting and meaningful gain to be anticipated. Health, housing and educational assistance for impoverished families will help reverse the ongoing trend of unequal admission to services, diminished educational outcomes, lack of employment opportunities and their lowered expectations of an average lifestyle. Of course, being from an impoverished circumstance does not always relate to poor learning skills as many children who are poor do very well in their studies. Any measures taken by the government to intervene regarding either income or educational inequality will ultimately impact the other in a positive way. “We continue to have one of the greatest class divides in education in the industrialized world. A socio-economic attainment gap is evident as early as 22 months and widens as a child gets older. In English, schools with under eight per cent of pupils eligible for free school meals see nearly 81 per cent of their pupils achieve the expected level at key stage three. The equivalent figure for schools with over 50 per cent of disadvantaged pupils is 39 per cent” (Clarke, 2002). A study conducted in 2005 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) indicates a considerable wage disparity between people with a secondary education as compared to those possessing a university degree. This advantage has steadily increased over time. The study also found that the labour market returns of university graduates are also increasing. “Earnings differentials of persons aged 25 to 64 with tertiary education (relative to those of persons with upper secondary education) improved, on average, by around three percent in the four years to 2002, while earnings of persons with less than upper secondary education were stable or declining” (“Education at a Glance”, 2005). The research pertaining to an individual’s monetary return in relation to education level attained is abundant and inarguable. However, a critical issue surrounds the studies involving differentials in labour market and educational outcomes. It is imperative to comprehend the distinction between the ‘causal effect’ of education and other connections between wages and education levels. According to Blundell et al., there is a necessity to “distinguish between the higher earnings that are observed for better-educated workers being caused by their higher education and individuals with greater earning capacity choosing to acquire more education” (2005). Several varieties of empirical studies have been developed which distinguish the ‘causal impact’ of wages and education. This, along with techniques utilised in this research, are far more advanced than many other types of observed social sciences study. Evidence has been repeatedly presented which demonstrates that there indeed is a substantial earnings return to educational outcomes. This holds true for various studies whether they originate from differing periods of time, rich or poor nations or measures of different demographic classifications. This result continues to be similar when studies implement measures to guarantee that the course of ‘causality’ flows from educational advantages to wages. Furthermore, the variation between the causal and basic test results is of comparable degrees. In summation, the fact that education brings with it monetary gain is just that, irrefutable. A research project studied data collected from the British National Child Development Study (NCDS) to determine the relationship between fathers and sons and their relevant standing in the distribution of income. The study specifically focused on those at the bottom or top of the monetary scale and found that those at either end of this spectrum tend to stay there throughout the generations. It also found that while avenues to escape poverty were limited, there was a definite relationship between the test scores of seven year-olds from impoverished conditions and their chances to move up the economic ladder as an adult. This shows that the better the learning skills of economically disadvantaged children, the better their odds for prosperity (Johnson & Reed, 1996). Another international study has suggested that there are strong ties between the educational experience and chance of socioeconomic mobility over the generations in a family. Countries whose citizens experience an enhanced opportunity for economic mobility correlated to the countries whose educational practices were better at ensuring equalities in education system-wide. Scandinavian countries have the highest levels of social mobility, Germany falls in the middle of countries surveyed while the U.S. and UK were at the bottom. Children in these countries have little chance to break through the barriers of poverty because their respective educational systems provide unequal opportunities for those of unequal social positions (Solon, 2002). In an almost conspiratorial sense, children born into poverty, at least in America and Britain, will be sustained into that type of existence as will their children and grandchildren. The governments in both countries, by structuring the educational system that leans towards the haves and away from the have-nots instead of slicing the pie equally in the classroom, have assured this cause and effect action to the detriment of individuals, families and the nation’s economic health as a whole. “When education expansion favours individuals from richer family backgrounds, as in the United Kingdom, this acts to reinforce income persistence across generations and depress the prospects for social mobility. It is evident that this has strong implications for the design and implementation of social policy” (Blanden, Gregg & Machin, 2005). This study, along with others of a similar nature, shows the correlation between socioeconomic outcomes and educational input. It reinforces the concept of poverty leading to learning difficulties which leads back to poverty. “If social disadvantages can be mediated and offset by improved education, this can also generate wider benefits in terms of better health, crime and social capital outcomes, together with potential intergenerational effects that can temper the harmful effects resulting from cross-generational cycles of disadvantage” (Machin, 2006). Government instituted policies regarding education could be structured with the intent of counteracting the central characteristics of family’s social disadvantages which retard learning successes. The particular type of education assistance and at what age this should be offered is a question yet to be resolved. It is in the best interest of children, families and the economy as a whole to provide the economically disadvantaged access to better quality education at the pre-school level, during the compulsory education years and following graduation from secondary school. The evidence is clear. Achievement in the classroom is closely integrated with both non-cognitive and cognitive learning skills. This is in accordance with the perception that educational intercessions policies can improve the chances of individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds for more prosperous lives than their parents had. Governmental education policies should reflect, at least in part, those of countries in which social mobility is more prolific. In those countries, for example, schools are required to be inclusive by adopting and utilising equitable admissions regulations. The magnitude of the role schools play in the reversal of this type of educational discrimination is a much debated topic. However, the vast majority of studies examining the effectiveness of school conclude that which school a student attends does indeed have an impact on their quality of education. However, these studies also conclude that the socioeconomic health of the family carries more weight in determining their future earnings. Without equalisation of opportunities in the educational system, the chances of future economic success for students whose families or region of the country have had histories of little financial success is slim (Chevalier, Dolton & Levacic, 2005). Although the school system and government have interceded with the objective of assisting impoverished students recently, the studies regarding the effectiveness of such interventions remains sparse. The research has been based primarily upon isolated models and has proven deficient in accurate cost-benefit investigations and examination of evidence to the contrary. Predominantly significant is the need for additional data regarding the effectiveness of interventions in secondary schools. This is an important deficiency of research because of the questions relating to pre-school opposed to secondary school intercessions (Lavy & Schlosser, 2005). Lavy and Schlosser (2005) have conducted research that focuses directly on this problematic question. This study evaluated a remedial education programme put into practice since 1999 in Israel which focused on under-achieving secondary school students. This programme sought to enhance the graduation rate of students by increasing the amount of time in school by holding after-hours classes which were taught by the school’s regular teachers. Lavy and Schlosser (2005) compared this group of student’s performance before the programme was implemented and at its completion. They discovered that this very simple and easy to implement technique was very effective at a minimal cost to the school system. Lavy (2002) had earlier investigated another programme that involved grouping of students. This is a widely used programme which provides supplemental monies to schools so as to increase instruction time spent with at-risk students who were divided into small groups. After examining both programmes (Israel and group) Lavy found that generally, the ‘Israel’ programme for targeting disadvantaged youths is overall superior to the ‘group’ programme which cost twice as much and was not as cost effective (Lavy, 2002). This positive verification for the success of the programme in Israel contrasts markedly to a programme implemented in the U.S. designed to reduce the drop-out rate. The lions-share of federal money for the programme went to schools re-structuring and the influences, positive or negative, on learning outcomes was deemed insignificant. This is but one example of intervention programmes in the U.S. designed to assist underprivileged students that have failed the grade and the students. Students who live in poverty have the highest rate of truancy with those children who are excluded from school being the most at risk. The practice of excluding students has been shown to lead to an increased chance that the child will be involved in criminal activity while preventing them access to a proper education. Although recently enacted procedures have been effective in providing excluded students with an education that meets minimal standards, the relationship between this practice and illicit behaviour continues to be as valid. The majority of excluded students, to no one’s surprise, are from impoverished families. A glaring example of inequality in the British (and American) education systems are the prosperous private schools. These institutions supply the student with a superior academic knowledge base, but only provide it to those whose parents can afford the luxury thus perpetuating the generational class structure. This, combined with the discussed affects of poverty on learning outcomes, serve to strengthen the walls of inequality exclusion in the classroom and thus life in general. The negative impact of poverty on students goes far beyond hardships suffered at home and in the neighborhood, poor test scores and dreams of a higher social status. They also often suffer humiliations that can adversely alter their sense of self-value, a commodity harder to regain than money. Having to march through a separate ‘free lunch’ line, not having more than one uniform and not being able to participate in many off-school activities stigmitises children for life and selects for them their slotted position in life on a psychological level. In order to balance the inequality of education, emphasis must be placed in the schools located within the most disadvantaged regions. With recent governmental intervention, slight progress has been made in improved academic accomplishments for impoverished students. To attain pronounced progress, though, a larger percentage of education resources should be used in a coherent fashion to adjust the scales of inequality. In addition, services and community projects such as improved parks and public transport should be implemented in impoverished areas. Schools should employ more efficient methods of communicating with one another as some schools in even the poorest sectors have implemented policies that have proven effective. There should also be no selection systems allowed in maintained schools and furthermore, schools should adopt admission guidelines that endeavour to include rather than exclude. Financial enticements for private school attendance should be ended and the charitable status of a private school conditional on its mixture of differing social classes whether ethnic, economic or otherwise. Equality in the school system, it has been shown, promotes national and individual economic conditions as well as improves societal wellbeing. Poverty may be an inequality that is never fully remedied, but the school system should be one place that provides prosperity to not only those without hope but ultimately for all citizens of the nation. References Blanden, J.; Gregg, P. & Machin, S. (2005). “Educational Inequality and Intergenerational Mobility.” What’s the Good of Education? The Economics of Education in the United Kingdom. S. Machin & A. Vignoles (Eds.). Princeton University Press. Blundell, R. L.; Dearden, A. & Sianesi, B. (2005). “Measuring the Returns to Education.” What’s the Good of Education? The Economics of Education in the United Kingdom. S. Machin & A. Vignoles (Eds.). Princeton University Press. Chevalier, A.; Dolton, P. & Levacic, R. (2005). “School and Teacher Effectiveness.” What’s the Good of Education? The Economics of Education in the United Kingdom. S. Machin & A. Vignoles (Eds.). Princeton University Press. Clarke, Charles. (2002). “The Need for Reform.” The Future of Higher Education. Department for Education and Skills. Crown Copyright. Retrieved 1 August, 2006 from Department of Health. (1999). Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation. London: Stationery Office. Retrieved 1 August, 2006 from Education at a Glance. (2005). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Heckman, J. & Wax, A. (23 January 2004). “Home Alone.” Wall Street Journal. Heyworth, Anna. (18 July 2002). “Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16-18 Year Olds in England: 2000 and 2001.” National Statistics. Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved 2 August, 2006 from < http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000341/sfr16-2002.pdf> Johnson, P. & Reed H. (1996). “Intergenerational Mobility among the Rich and Poor: Results from the National Child Development Survey.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Vol. 12, pp. 127-42. Kaplan, G. A.; Turrell, G.; Lynch, J. W., et al. (2001). “Childhood Socioeconomic Position and Cognitive Function in Adulthood.” International Journal of Epidemiology. Vol.. 30, pp. 256–63. Keep, Gill. (2003). Making Britain Family Friendly. London: The National Family and Parenting Institute. Retrieved 2 August 2006 from Lavy, V. (2002). “Evaluating the Effect of Teachers’ Performance Incentives on Pupils’ Achievements.” Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 110, N. 6, pp. 1286-1317. Lavy, V. & Schlosser, A. (2005). “Targeted Remedial Education for Under-Performing Teenagers: Costs and Benefits.” Journal of Labour Economics. Machin, Stephen. “Social Disadvantage and Education Experiences.” OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, N. 32: Social Disadvantage and Education Experiences. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 2 August 2006 from “Making Britain Family Friendly” Report by: The National Family and Parenting Planning Institute 2003 Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, Experience and Earnings. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. Schuetz, G.; Ursprung, H. & Woessman, L. (2005). “Education Policy and Equality of Opportunity.” CESifo Working Paper 1518. cited in Machin, Stephen. (2006). OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, N. 32: Social Disadvantage and Education Experiences. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 2 August 2006 from Solon, G. (2002). “Cross-Country Differences in Intergenerational Earnings Mobility.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. Read More