Social Inequality in School by Keiandra Scott

            Believe it or not social status plays a big role in a student’s success. Student’s attitudes, grades, and futures all are depicted by their social class. I wanted to talk about this because as an education major I think I have talked about this topic in just about every education class I’ve had. I find it interesting how students view school depending on what class they come from or even how much money they have.

            Student’s coming from lower income backgrounds tends to have a negative view on school. They are usually placed in schools where education is not valued as highly as it would be if they had money and went to a better school. In my Teaching in Diverse classrooms course we talked about how hard it was to find teachers to commit to these “at risk” students. Teachers do not want to teach these students because they do not want to learn. It is often hard to find resources for these schools. Sometimes the neighborhoods are unsafe and the child feels as if their life is in danger by simply walking to school.

            Following this idea of teachers not willing to teach these students is the idea that these students from lower income backgrounds are perceived as being misbehaved. In a study that Jean Anyon, from the Department of Education at Rutgers University, concluded she said that these students were rewarded for their behaviors depending on what class they are from. For example if you were from upper class you were rewarded when you were obedient and if you were from the lower class you were rewarded for simply trying. I think that’s unfair because every student should be rewarded the same because then you start to seem like you are showing favoritism and that’s a completely different subject.

            Anyon did a study on the type of work the student completed in the classroom based on their school and socio-economic status. ( Anyon 1) There were five different schools. The first two being “working class school” and the parents were working class people like factory workers, unskilled or semi-skilled, and 85% of the families were white. In this school the students were taught the procedures not really much on the meaning or significance of the work. They were basically taught how to get the job done. The second school was very much alike. They were given rules and procedures to follow. This went along with their socio-economic status because this is how their parents made livings.

            The third school was a middle-class school. The parents of these children were in a mixture of social class. They were skilled in carpentry, plumbing, construction, etc. They all had a profession. These students were taught to get the right answer. If they get enough right answers this improves their chances of a better grade. These students are taught decision making and what directions to follow. These students are given choice. Like their parents they have to decide the correct route to take and make those decisions.

            Anyon’s fourth school was affluent professional school. The students in this system had parents who were pretty well off in the cardio industry or things like interior design. Students work involves creativity and its done on their own. They involve thought and expression. They are reflecting on many of their parents professions of design which expresses creativity and individuality.

            The fifth and final school was the executive elite school. Many of their parents were CEOs for companies like AT&T and American express. There were also no minority children. This work in these schools was based solely on how smart the children were. They had to be academically sound. Everything had to make sense logically.

      While reading this study I found that escaping your socio-economic status is hard to do. You see your parents working in these conditions, you are taught in these conditions, and it’s just hard to come across the means to jump classes. You have to be really motivated or even be willing to sacrifice to get to a point where you want to be. Students living in poverty often drop out and that poverty often follows you into emerging adulthood. Our adolescent psych book explains to us the many psychological effects this has on adolescents. “One the poor are often powerless. In jobs they are rarely the decision makers. Rules are often handed down to them in an authoritarian manner. Second they are often vulnerable to disaster. They usually do not receive a notice before being laid off and often they do not have anything to fall back on. Third, their ranges of alternatives are often limited. And fourth, because of inadequate education and inability to read well, being poor means having less prestige.” (Santrock 410)

            They are often looked down upon by their peers. They sometimes get bullied and that really does damage to the student. I think that as a society we should strive to give equal opportunity to all children and provide a safe environment in our classrooms. As a teacher it is your job to understand the student and let them know that you are there for them. They don’t have to be afraid to come and talk to you. I often talk about how we can do this in many of my classes but the reality is we don’t try. We talk all the time about what we can do but its very rare that you see a great teacher in a low income school. We need more committed people who are willing and ready to give these kids a chance. Often all these students need is a little push and they become aware of what they can accomplish. Goal setting can really help these students strive for better.

Works Cited

Anyon, Jean. "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum." Journal of Education 162.1 (Fall 1980): 1-15. Print.

Santrock, John W. "Chapter 12." Adolescence: John W. Santrock. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005. 410. Print.