ABSTRACT.
Poverty is in its own a culture and a socio-economic class, which traps individuals in a vicious cycle that are hard to break. Education plays a crucial role in breaking this cycle, but under normal circumstances achieving while faced with this calamity is a challenge. Teachers working with students from low economic backgrounds face the consequences of the culture of poverty, which goes to the extent of failing their state tests. Working with such students needs an understanding of poverty, and what they can do to address their literacy needs. This study provides a review on education achievements and poverty in order to examine the relationships that exist between the two variables, the relationship type, and its effects on the future of students. The study also explains the failure of state tests by teachers in most urban community schools. A mapping framework to synthesize the research literature on the relationship has also been presented. The framework sets out examples and illustrations of findings of other related studies, their assumptions, and results. A planned research methodology to conduct the survey has also been presented, and the means of analyzing the data in coming up with the findings and conclusion.
Chapter 1
Introduction.
Over the past few decades, the income gap between most families, in America, has widened bringing the unfortunate reality of income differences in the country. Among the key segments affected by these differences is education; children from low income families start schooling behind their peers from high ranked status families. They school in public schools, which lack facilities while their counterparts enjoy available facilities in private schools. Some drop out of school due to lack of school fees or other schooling materials while their peers continue with their curriculum.
The rise in the number of children from poverty stricken backgrounds has contributed into diversity of needs in classrooms (Mervis, 2011). This makes learning and teaching challenging as opposed to being a problem. Despite being bright, most of these children result to being low performers due to the sufferings and the heart breaks that they experience as a result of their background situations. The effects of these are teachers from these communities failing to meet the state test criteria as they focus on how to solve the situations. Teachers become sensitive to the variety of needs that these children carry along to classes, and be tuned to the culture of poverty. Poverty comes with high-mobility where the families may live on the streets or rent temporary residents as parents struggle to search for work. Such conditions affect learning as children drop out of school regularly. Combining issues of multitude faced by homelessness, hunger and mobility to the impacts that such situations have on emotional, cognitive and social development becomes overwhelming (Danesty, 2004).
This implies that choices have to be made either to drop out of school or give some children in the family a priority over the others (Foersterling and Morgenstern, 2002). In most circumstances, girls’ education becomes vulnerable to be overlooked to the boy child education. Most girls leave school to give priority to the boys. The results are early marriages, which determine the future of these children. Dropping out of school guarantees continuation of the poverty cycle since the potential to earn is reduced. It also diminishes the capacity to improve one’s quality of life and productivity function. Poverty elimination is, therefore, directly related to quality of education. Getting such quality education to eradicate poverty, among urban communities remains a significant challenge to most families rendering a continuation of the culture of poverty, which adversely impacts a student’s achievements.
Hypothesis of the study.
The study has two hypotheses: first, there exists a direct relationship between poverty and child academic performance, in urban communities. Secondly, there is a significant difference in student achievement between poverty related factors, and other environmentally related factors that influence class performance and achievement.
Significance of the study / importance of the problem.
The findings revealed by this study may provide significant assistance to school administrators in the urban community based schools. They will have the background understanding on the culture of poverty and how it affects learning. This will lay a foundation in developing policies, which would assist in coming up with solutions to poverty related problems, and how such problems can be solved to boost achievement.
The study also targets teachers in making them understand the issues related to poverty, and the relationship that exists between poverty and performance. Parents will also realize the roles that they play on their children’s achievements. Students will also know the factors that contribute to their low performances, and assist them in managing their situations. The study will act as a motivation in making these students realize the need to work hard in the elimination of poverty (Mervis, 2011). Above all, the study acts as a solution to the puzzle of low performance and children achievement in urban communities. This will boost awareness to policy makers in determining the possible solutions to the challenge and in solving future experiences related to poverty.
Definition of terms.
Income gap- this is the difference in per capita income.
Per capita income - this is a measure of the amount of money earned by an individual.
Culture of poverty – this is the view that the poor have a varied value system, which contributes to their poverty.
Chapter 2- Literature Review.
In its broadest meaning, education is any process where an individual gains knowledge, skills or develops attitude, which determines future achievements. It is an experience which has a formative effect on character, mind and physical ability. In a technical sense, education can be described as a process in which society transmits its accumulated values, knowledge, and skills from a generation to another. The functions of education are both individual and social (Marzano, 2003). In an individual perspective, education determines one’s future achievements. Most of the renowned businessmen, politicians, sociologists, engineers, etc, achieve their status from education. Its social function is to make every individual in a community to become effective and productive. With the help of teachers, students accumulate knowledge, which serves as a bridge to overcome life’s obstacles and circumstances, and eventually become effective members of a community.
Poverty, on the other hand, exists when an individual fails to attain or achieve an economic well being level deemed sufficient to constitute a minimum standard in a society. It associates with hunger, lack of clothing and shelter, illness as well as low literacy levels. The implication is exposure to vulnerabilities beyond the affected individuals’ control. Poverty determines societal relationships, i.e. whom one can relate with. In most cases, the poor are segregated from societies, and tend to live on their own. They do not take part in decision making processes on developmental projects, and their voices and power are secluded by their communities, and state.
Some researchers (Marzano 2003, Danesty 2004) view academic achievement as a key instrument in reduction of poverty. Education provides skilled labor, which manages resources, increases levels of innovation, and leads to economic expansion. Scholars like Chansakar and Mischaeloudis (2001) view education as a crucial element in shaping a society and an individual’s future. They believe that a successful future can only be founded under skills gained from education.
Education relates to reduction of poverty by creating employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. It enhances the potential to earn for both the poor and rich, and this brings about growth and development. For instance, the current world job market has been facing stiff competition on high ranked jobs as a result of massive degrees attained by different scholars around the world. By contrast low skilled scholars are less likely to compete with these qualified personnel. This implies that they are ruled out of the job market, and can either go for business without the expected managerial skills, or remain poor.
Different empirical studies have been carried out in determining the factors that affect academic performance among students. Most of the research reviews support the role of socio-economic status, environmental and psychological factors in a student’s achievements. Poverty is one of the factors accounting for variations in performance and achievement across urban, rural and sub-urban communities. The United States Department of Education cites poverty as a factor that has contributed to low performances among most urban communities, despite the Government’s efforts in the No Child Left Behind initiative (Dee and Jacobs, 2011).
Most researchers have come into a consensus that achievement is a function of the socio-economic background of a child. Despite the high expectations from urban based communities, the performance from these communities continues deteriorating as a result of unemployment and instabilities in income. Most of the people living in such communities live under the poverty line (Marzano, 2003). As a result, their children struggle through the academic life, and eventually do not make it.
Reardon (2011) elaborates that student’s achievements is extensively dependent on the socio-economic status of their families. The scholar indicates that a Student’s level of performance differs statistically while linked to gender, year level, school and location and type, and socio-economic background. Chansakar and Mischaeloudis (2001) explain that the academic performances among students are not influenced by factors such as gender, age, or place of resident; rather they are related to qualifications to quantitative subjects.
Contemporary sociologists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber and Sigmund Freud have contributed significantly on the relationship that exists between social status and esteem. They argued that social status determines one’s achievements and position in a society. Their theoretical concept explained that social status determines the quality of education that one gets, position in society and overall achievements (Marzano, 2003). Researchers also agree that children who come from poverty ridden homes face the challenges of books, food, transport, and other essentials that facilitate learning.
In most cases, teachers are forced to intervene and assist (Danesty, 2004). The teachers shift from their role as educators and become aids. They focus on upbringing of potential in children rather than building on their knowledge. They have to cope with absenteeism, regular transfers and drop outs. They have to cope with pressures from the ministry of education in providing the best while at the same time deal with the problem on the grounds. Most of these teachers fail the state test, some end up losing their jobs while others give up in search for better jobs (Foersterling and Morgenstern, 2002).
While poverty results to low educational achievements, low educational levels also lead to increased poverty levels. Low levels of education lead to a situation referred by Simpson (2003) as education poverty. This refers to the deprivation of an opportunity to obtain adequate education levels leading to lack of skills. The state of education poverty dictates a student’s future achievements as most of them fail to obtain other means of survival or even engage in crime to sustain their livelihoods.
It is thus evident that the level of education may determine one’s economic status, and also insufficiencies in finances may also lead to failure to achieve satisfactory levels of education. The UK for instance is amongst nations that have experienced the effects that poverty has on education. Reports released by OECD in 2001 indicate that children from disadvantaged backgrounds perform worse than their counterparts in advantaged backgrounds. Reports released by the Scottish Executive Publications in 2006 indicated that in Scotland, being from a poor background is a qualification to have free meals at school. However, even with the free meals provision, only a third if not less of students from poverty stricken backgrounds get to stage 4 (9-11 years of secondary school).
The implication is that someone who has grown up in a financial challenged background is disadvantaged even through adulthood. This is to a large extent because getting proper education is close to impossible. There also exists a separate correlation between success in mid-life and poverty. In mid thirty’s people from poor backgrounds experience financial challenges as a result of lack of qualifications required in the labor market. At this age, every individual shapes his/her future, and that of his/her family from the level of income, savings, and investments. If this fails, therefore, the likelihood of the cycle of poverty becomes extremely high. Thus, the relationship existing between poverty and low educational performance is a function of a wider cycle where family financial disadvantage is passed from one generation to another.
Chapter 3.
Research problem.
The objective of the study is to determine the factors that affects student learning in urban communities, and the effects that this has on the teachers’ state expectations. The study purports to answer the following questions: Does the socio-economic status of a student affect performance, and what relationship exists between poverty and achievement. In addition, do the socio-economic factors of student affect the performance and state expectations of teachers?
Research design.
The study will utilize the descriptive survey approach of research. This approach will be used as much as the key rationale of the survey will be to figure out the situations or problems, which affect academic performance, and teachers’ expectations. Students from different years will fill out a survey questionnaire (Appendix B) on the circumstances that have led to their current conditions be it dropping out, transfers or early marriages among others. To determine the factors affecting a student’s achievements, the quantitative research techniques will be applied in a Likert scale.
The survey will have 50 respondents, 10 from each year level who will rate the problems or situations indicated under the factors in the questionnaire. School records will be used in identifying students whose academic achievements have been affected by their economic backgrounds. A foreseen challenge will be on tracing will be on tracing the whereabouts of the respondents. However, due to lack of qualifications, most of these students spend their time doing manual work in the neighborhood; therefore, tracing them will not impose a massive limitation. The respondents will be deliberately chosen but this will only apply if they are willing to participate in the study. This will be formalized by use of a release form (Appendix A), which will mark the respondents consent.
This will enhance finding out which factor affects academic performance most. The use of the questionnaire will also reveal the socio-economic backgrounds of the affected children, and this will enhance the determination of the hypothesized relationship. All appropriately filled questionnaires will then be retrieved, organized and complied for data analysis. Cases with incomplete work will be considered spoilt the same way with those samples, which will not be returned. In such scenarios, there will be need to find respondents who will act as substitutes so that a sample of 50 appropriately filled questionnaires is filed.
Limitations of the study.
The key limitation in this survey is on the willingness of the student’s in providing the information. The students might not be willing to reveal the information required or might think that it is of no benefit; since it is based on explaining the reason behind the failure of state tests by teachers. The response rate may also be a threat to the findings as some students may not be willing to take part in the survey. In addition, some students may prefer handouts or incentives to respond, and this may bias the whole process. Though limited in the questionnaire, potential misunderstandings on some questions may be experienced prompting incorrect answers. Some students may shy away from revealing their economic backgrounds thereby providing incorrect information. This would interfere with the analysis and hypothesis tests thereby provision of non-reliable findings.
Analyzing this data may also pose a challenge as the responses are not quantified. This implies that there will be use of quantitative and qualitative data analysis procedures. The use of mixed procedural analysis may be time and energy consuming but will provide accurate and reliable results.
Criteria that needs to be established.
Random sampling may not apply in this case while looking for respondents. There is the need to establish criteria to which respondents will be chosen. First and foremost, the respondent should be from an urban community school. Secondly, the respondent’s academic life should be interrupted from reasons such as economic status. Those who might have finished the curriculum are also eligible to fill the questionnaires provided they can provide the information required. The subjects may be found from their homes, which may be a challenge as most of them have already shifted in search of jobs. However, most of them provide manual labor in the neighborhoods, so this might not be a challenge after all.
There is also need to quantify the responses so that their implied meanings can be determined. The criteria used should match with the established Likert scale, say 1 to 3. The challenge here is on the determination on how to measure the responses to fit in the scale. To solve this puzzle, the responses can be ranged from a scale of 1 to 3 such that ‘Yes’ is valued as the highest compared to ‘No’ rated as 2, and ‘Somehow’ rated as 1. For instance, if a respondent prefers choice (a) in question viii, then this should be quantified as 3. The same applies to the other questions, which require quantification.
Data analysis.
Since questionnaires are the only means of data collection in this study, analyzing the data will not be a difficult task as compared to other data analysis methods like use of charts, SPSS, or graphs. The summations of the responses to each question will be determined. The mean values of each question will then be determined from the responses. Such that every question achieves a mean value; this will be determined by summing up individual responses in particular questions, then dividing them with the number of respondents. This will lead to a situation where the final questionnaire will have the averaged means, and the relationship of the variables will be determined from these means. For example, if the mean value of question (IV) is 2 the implication will be that there is no relationship between poverty and achievement. If the mean value rates at 3, the implication will be that there exists a direct relationship between poverty and achievement.
These means will then be aggregated and divided by the number of questions in the questionnaire to find the averaged mean of the data. The results will then be displayed in a Likert scale (Appendix C).
The advantage of using this method to present and analyze this data is that it saves time to construct as compared to other data presentation techniques like graphs. The information provided by the scale is straightforward and reliable. The quantification of the responses will be displayed so that if there is a relationship, the direction of the relationship will be indicated. It will also display the neutral feelings of the responses, and this will create a platform for development of a new study for further research. The only limitation that may arise in the use of a Likert scale in this study is on showing the direction of the relationship i.e. if it is direct, indirect or inverse. However, with the set criteria, the problem will be solved. The determined criteria holds that the relationship determined will be direct, holding all other factors constant.
Chapter 4.
In general terms, the measure of poverty is income and consumption. In most poverty stricken families, consumption is preferred over any other basic need. In such families, education is considered a luxury or the last choice on their budgets. Those who take advantage of the Governments initiatives to cater for education end up acquiring low grades due to the interruptions associated with their backgrounds. Ironically, students from poor families display high levels of IQ when taken to school as opposed to their counterparts in wealthy families.
The expected results of this study may relate directly to the hypothesis. As indicated in the review, most researches done on this issue are more skewed to a direct causal relationship between poverty and low grades than the opposite. The limitations of this survey may not affect the findings as they are solvable. Before one is provided with the questionnaire, it would be crucial to explain the importance of the process so that the respondents understand the details. However, the findings will be based on the responses provided from the questionnaires. Nevertheless, literature has it that children become aware of their social and economic backgrounds at their early ages (Foersterling and Morgenstern, 2002). They grow becoming increasingly aware of both their individual social and economic status as well as those of their peers (Simpson, 2003). Sometimes this affects their development in an emotional perspective especially if their peers come from economically established families.
The expectations from this survey are that, for children who come from challenged economic backgrounds, affording shelter is a significant challenge not to mention quality education. The little that their parents secure goes to essentials such as food and rent. The implication is that the children can only go to school if all the basic needs are catered for and some money is left (Danesty, 2004). The roles of a teacher are to educate and motivate the students to work hard. It becomes a challenge for a teacher to solve financial situations whilst executing the expected duties. This disorients their syllabuses as they try to fix the needs of every child (Marzano, 2003).
Future research is, however, crucial in determining the mental, spiritual, emotional and physical influence that a teacher may have on a child despite the family’s economic resources. Research is required in determining if it is possible for a child to break a generational cycle of poverty despite undergoing harsh academic conditions. There is also need to find out if the proposed pay-based policies on the teachers in hardship areas are effective in boosting teacher’s performances.
Reference.
Chansarkar, B.A. and Michaealuodis A. (2001). Student profiles and factors affecting performance. International journal of mathematics, education, science and technology, 2001, vol.32(1).
Danesty, A.H. (2004) "Psychological Determinants of Academic Performance and Vocational Learning of Students with Disabilities in Oyo State. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Ibadan.
Dee, T. & Jacobs, B. (2011). The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418 – 446.
Duncan, G. and Murnane, R. (ed) Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain Life Chances of Low-Income Children. New York City: Russell Sage, 359-376,
Foersterling, F. & Morgenstern, M. (2002). Accuracy of self-assessment and task performance: Does it pay to know the truth? Journal of education psychology, Vol. 94(3)
Haycock, K. (2001). Dispelling the myth, revisited. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in school: Translating research into action? Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mervis, J. (August 19, 2011). Giving children a head start is possible – But it’s not easy. Science, Vol. 333(6045)
Simpson, J. O. (2003). Beating the odds. American school Board Journal, Vol. 190
Reardon, S. (2011). The Widening Achievement Gap between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations. In G. J. Duncan and R.J. Murnane, eds. Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality,
Appendix A.
I
Voluntarily agree to participate in this survey in evaluation of the relationship that exists between economic factors and student’s achievements. I understand that this evaluation is being conducted in an attempt to find a sustainable solution towards improving performance in urban community schools. I also understand that the interviewer has used evaluation methods, which may involve me. Such are:
- Observation
- My completion of survey questionnaire, and
- My participation in answering the questions.
I grant the permission for my responses to be used in the analysis and contribute to the findings. I also consent to the publishing of the data in coming up with the intended results of the survey.
I understand that any information identifiable under my name may only be listed or mentioned in this evaluation study, and will not be listed in the dissertation or any further publication(s).
Research Participant.
Appendix B.
Questionnaire.
- Are all teachers in the urban community based schools professionals?
(a)Yes (b) No (c) Some are.
- Are all teachers in urban community schools qualified?
- Yes (b) No (c) Some are.
- Does your family’s financial situation motivate you to achieve academically?
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Partly.
- Has your parent’s efforts in seeing your academic success been fruitful?
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Partly.
- Do you think your background’s socio-economic factors contributed significantly to your academic performance?
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Partly.
- Do you think that your academic life was interrupted as a result of the above factors?
(a) Yes (b) No (c) Partly.
- Do you think that academic achievement is related in any way with poverty or socio-economic backgrounds?
- Yes (b) No (c) Partly.
- Do you think you could have performed better if there were no challenges such as those related to family economic factors?
- Yes (b) No (c) Somewhat.
Appendix C.
3 2 1
Yes No Partly/somewhat/some are.
