Monday, November 11, 2019
Poverty and Education Essay
Poverty has been defined by many authors as the total absence of opportunities that go with high levels of illiteracy, hunger, malnourishment, lack of education, physical and mental ailments, social and emotional instability.            Poverty is characterized by chronic shortage of political, economic and social participation, leading individuals to feel socially excluded preventing access to the benefits of social and economic developments and hence limiting cultural development and diversification (UN Chronicle, Dec 2000 by Ramon Osiris Blanco). Reasons for poverty are diverse with main factors being social and individual conditions. The social conditions is tied intrinsically to the political and economic realms as it is the administrator of power who regulates the distribution of resources and services, creating controls which bring about inequalities that are some times found in land distribution capital infrastructure, markets, and information or consulting services or any other fields that bring about differences inhuman development. In the individual conditions inequality translates to limitations in access to services such as portable water, education recreation, public hygiene and health.            In United States of America just like any other part of the world, poverty has contributed to poor levels of education among poor students. For instance poor students end up attending sub standard schools where the pupil – teacher ratio is not ideal, these s schools have poorly trained teachers thereby compromising the standards of education.            Poverty in education has historically been an issue in relation to American schools. In the 1980s it was known that impoverished children were less likely to succeed in education and that something had to be done to alter this situation for the poor. It is as a result of this that many political leaders and other administrators, both in the past and presently came up with policies aimed at addressing the problem of poverty in relation to education. Hillary Clinton in her contribution suggests that changes in policies for poor children must include changes in the educational system: something she claims to have been struggling to accomplish for the past 35 years. Change of system would not achieve much if those policies already in place are not fully implemented. As National Ministries agrees with Clinton’s ideas, stating that the elimination of No Child Left behind (NCLB) Act would be an asset to achieving this goal. It is actually a matter of good will and seriousness by the leaders in addressing this issue rather than changing the systems. Although NCLB act has been in place for quite some time it has not achieved its objectives: the country has the highest number of young poor citizens’ compared to other developed nations.           Barrack Obama on his part, believes that changing education for the poor must begin with changing financial aid for college students in order to provide assistance for impoverished students in need of higher education. This is practical, and this view is supported by Hillman, who also contends that the current administration has done nothing to alter life for the impoverished and that education should be President Bush’s main focus as president. Obama’s view is also supported by the fact that poverty stricken students in poor states have been faced with unequal distribution of resources such federal aids. A report released in 2006 on this issue revealed that the poorest states were being shortchanged by policies aimed at distributing federal aid to public schools. It further reveals that wealthier states were receiving more federal aids (http://technocrat.net/d/2006/12/27/12662).  Other than distributing resources to poor students as supported by Obama, there is also further need to consider who is actually needy and able to excel in academics.            Kotlowitz suggests, through his research, that the young children struggling to succeed in school must be the target of social concern because in the early years it is when children will determine whether or not education is of value in their lives. This viewpoint makes it clear that each of the candidates and researchers that have presented ideas about poverty and education have completely failed to understand that it is not that further educational reform is needed; it is that support for current reform policies must be supported if impoverished children are to realize the benefits of education. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argues that children living in poverty in the United States is a â€Å"moral outrage†(para. 2). Clinton focuses on the issue of poverty in her campaign through several different perspectives, to include education, health care, housing, hunger and abuse. In relation to education Clinton states: [In Arkansas] I started a special program for mothers of pre-scholars to get their kids ready for kindergarten, and also worked on reforming the state’s rural health care system, which helped many poor families and their children. As First Lady, I pushed the effort to expand Head Start and help create Early Head Start. (para. 5)            National Ministries agrees with Clinton that the issue of poverty must be addressed through several avenues in order to assist impoverished youth. In 2005 National Ministries elected to narrow down their focus, however, on education and the unfair standardized testing program created through the federal No Child Left Behind Act due to their belief that NCLB does not consider that impoverished children traditionally score lower on tests that other youths (â€Å"Advisory†para. 6). Consequently, according to National Ministries, NCLB is an ineffective program that hinders the educational success of the poor and action is needed through state and federal governments to end the negative impact that NCLB has on children.            The history of NCLB begins with a report commissioned by President Ronald Reagan on the state of American schools. The report, entitled â€Å"A Nation at Risk,†concluded that the American educational system was in horrendous shape, impacted by inadequate learning programs, ineffective teachers and low expectations for students (â€Å"Nation†). The panel producing the report called on federal and state authorities to address these issues because of the declining test scores of students in order to ensure that students of today were prepared to be productive members of society tomorrow. Despite the federal monies that were then placed into education the educational systems of the nation did not heed the advice of the panel and no significant effort was made to reform public education completely throughout the ’90s and the presidency of Bill Clinton. It was not until 2001 that George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act that mandated educational reform and provided for consequences if all children were not equally educated despite their socioeconomic class (â€Å"No Child†). The legislation forced teachers and administrators to realize that lowering standards for any students meant lowering expectations, goals and opportunities and that impoverished students were being overlooked and cast aside. It is interesting to note, however, that Clinton speaks of her massive progress in educational reform while first lady and that National Ministries argues that standardized testing does not take into account the inabilities of poor children. The fact remains that massive educational reform was not realized until the Clinton’s left office and that standardized testing completely opposes the notion that poor students cannot learn, as indicated in the report â€Å"A Nation at Risk†, which states: Our recommendations are based on the beliefs that everyone can learn, that everyone is born with an urge to learn which can be nurtured, that a solid high school education is within the reach of virtually all, and that life-long learning will equip people with the skills required for new careers and for citizenship. (â€Å"Nation†)            Nevertheless, despite the passage of NCLB into law in 2001 Lazarus contends that President Bush, speaking at the United Nations in 2005, discussed poverty and the need to create a global environment in which â€Å"the burden of poverty†¦is lifted†¦permanently†from the poor (para. 1-2). Bush was speaking of economic change and the need for nations to come together to address the concern for the impoverished. However, according to Lazarus, Bush should have been considering how he could alter the nation’s educational system in order to ensure that children in the United States had the skills to be competitive in the globalized marketplace and potentially advance into higher education (para. 5). It is evident that the call of Lazarus for educational reform in 2005 completely missed the reality that NCLB was signed into law in 2001. Devarics discussed the appointment of Barack Obama to the Senate Education Committee, stressing that Obama appeared to have two chief concerns regarding education. These concerns included Obama’s focus on increasing Pell Grant funding provided by the federal government for college students and creating â€Å"innovative districts†that offered an alternative to traditional education (para. 7-12). Hillman supports the notion that methods must be altered by the government and society for aiding impoverished students in their pursuit of higher education (para. 3). Hillman begins his article by stating that of the 14 most impoverished states 11 of them are located in the South, meaning that southern children are more inclined to â€Å"be left behind†than their northern counterparts (para. 2). Yet, Hillman continues by stating that the most effective approach to assisting these students is to ensure that they have access to a college education and that funding, as well as programs, must be changed in order for a higher education to be a reality for the impoverished. The argument for equality in higher education is important, however, Kotlowitz contends that by the age of ten the identities and beliefs of children are being formed, which will influence every aspect of the child’s interaction with education and the social order (ix). The view of Kotlowitz is significant because he spent two years investigating the lives of two male youths at the age of 10 that were struggling with poverty and the impact that poverty had on their lives and decisions. The journalistic evidence of Kotlowitz, therefore, provides evidence that changing education must begin for youth is those children are even to consider the possibility of advancing on to college. Conclusion It is evident in the research that multiple ideas exist regarding poverty and education in the United States. Clinton, Lazarus and the National Ministries speak as though no reform related to education has occurred in the past few decades and that this issue must be addressed. Obama and Hillman conclude that in order to assist the poor with education increases in federal Pell Grants should be created. Yet, what each of these arguments fails to realize is that federal mandates on educational reform were created in 2001 through NCLB. These mandates are being called unfair and unsuccessful by some and ignored by many others.  Additionally, these mandates force those within the educational system to alter their educational programs specifically for the poor, including young children who are just beginning to make decisions about the rest of their lives. There is no question that the views expressed in the research completely overlook the fact that no program for addressing the needs of the poor in education will ever be successful if those in authority fail to support it, or even attempt to try it for the benefit of those concerned. Consequently the viewpoints expressed by all but Kotlowitz do not fully concentrate on the issue of poverty and education; rather they misrepresent this concern to the American people intentionally and with only political gain in mind. It is clear that there have been good policies in regard to education in the US, but such have always not been implemented. There have also been programs on grants to both rich and poor states in support of educational institutions, but distribution of them has for long been clouded in controversy. The only way that education among the poor citizens in the US can be uplifted is through outright implementation of all policies relating to education in good will. Works Cited â€Å"Advisory Group Meeting Refines Public Education Emphasis for Children in Poverty Initiative.†National Ministries. 2005. 23 Mar. 2008 . Clinton, Hillary. â€Å"Hillary Clinton: Child Poverty†. Care 2. 2008. 23 Mar. 2008 . Dervarics, Charles. â€Å"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama Joins Education Committee.†Diverse Education. 2006. 23 Mar. 2008 . Hillman, Nick. â€Å"Majority of Southern Public School Children Live in Poverty.†Sharing Witness. 2007. 23 Mar. 2008 .Kotlowitz, Alex. There Are No Children Here. New York: Doubleday. Lazarus, David. â€Å"Education Can Crush Poverty†. San Francisco Chronicle. 2005. 23 Mar. 2008 . â€Å"Nation at Risk: An Imperative for Educational Reform, A†. U.S. Department of Education. 1983. 23 Mar. 2008 . â€Å"No Child Left Behind†. United States Department of Education. 2008. 23 Mar. 2008 . UN Chronicle, Dec 2000 by Ramon Osiris Blanco Poverty biggest factor in unequal education in United States, available at: http://technocrat.net/d/2006/12/27/12662, assessed on April 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.