6 ms·

Why is it that poor students fail so much more at education?

by TwoBit 12y ago

baddox 12y ago
Probably because most schools are public schools which are funded by local taxes.
shawn-furyan 12y ago
I don't think there's a simple answer to that. There are a mind-boggling number of factors at play and no major study, to my knowledge, has isolated poverty's covariants in a way that would let us say which specific factors outside of poverty itself are the primary drivers of poor outcomes among the impoverished.
rayiner 12y ago
My wife was briefly a teacher on an Indian reservation. There were few jobs on the reservation and many of the kids' parents were unemployed, and even the ones that were rarely were in a position that required any education. That's a huge demotivator for kids--why sacrifice for education when you can't see in front of your face that education might yield any benefits? Then there was, of course, the social ills associated with poverty, which distracted kids from school: alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, domestic violence, and sexual abuse. I'm personally enormously skeptical of the idea that education is a solution to poverty,[1] at a large scale. There is a game theory problem in play. The fact is that it's unlikely that education will lift an individual inner city kid "out of the hood." A relatively excellent outcome for diligence and hard work would be going into debt to attend a third rate college, for the privilege of fighting for a low-paying service job. So it's totally rational for kids to be more preoccupied with whether joining the right gang will keep them from getting harassed on the way home from school. But if everyone worked hard and got educated, what might happen is that economic opportunities could be created "in the hood." That's the prisoners dilemma--the individually rational decision to devalue diligence and education leads to a globally worse outcome. This is where culture comes in. You see this with poor immigrant communities. They have little capital, but have cultural mores that create an incentive for education and hard work. A kid might not leave the neighborhood through education, but he'll get social standing in the community, among authority figures and peers. When everyone has that incentive, that creates economic opportunities within the neighborhood. After all, there are neighborhoods in Bangladesh far poorer on an objective scale than the worst ghettos of Chicago, that nonetheless have bustling local economies. [1] Poverty is, of course, relative. But I'm not talking about utopia, but just about raising the plight of the poor here in the U.S. up to that of some places in Western Europe.
- james1071 12y ago
  I am not sure what you are saying. Those who are able to learn will do so, given the right environment. Those who cannot, will not, whatever help you give them. Poverty has nothing to do with it, though those who lack the ability to learn may well also be poor.
  - pixl97 12y ago
    It's unfortunate you are incorrect, statistically speaking. In general giving people a stable, appropriate calorie diet is the best way to increase IQ over a population. Poverty has a whole lot to do with that. Next, after you lift people out of poverty you still have the education problem. Uneducated parents don't have educated kids, statistically speaking. The first few years of life, before kids are ever sent to school define a person's learning capacity hugely. Babies that have working parents and have less personal care, less emotional closeness, and less exposure to a wide range of language are going to be disadvantaged to those kids that do.
    - james1071 12y ago
      I am from London, in the UK. Pretty much everyone has enough calories (too many in most cases). As for schools-of course the rich people send their children to much better schools. Those who can't send their children to local schools. What happens there depends on how bright they are, how hard they work and how committed their parents are to education. In the case of some ethnic groups there is a strong aversion to educating their girls properly. None of this has much to do with poverty, emotional closeness or whatever else you claim.
      - barrkel 12y ago
        Pretty much everyone has enough calories (too many in most cases). Sure; foods high in sugar and fat have no effects on concentration levels versus healthier food, right? Those who can't send their children to local schools. What happens there depends on how bright they are, how hard they work and how committed their parents are to education. This is deeply ignorant. What happens when a smart kid is in the middle of a class filled with kids who have no interest in learning? Do you think the teacher will craft a whole special course specific to that kid? Or do you think the teacher will try to get something basic to stick at the lowest level, so almost all the kids get at least something from their education? What happens when a kid's peers mock the kid for being a swot? How socially integrated is the kid going to be, when all his friends do things in the evenings, and the kid's stuck doing homework and study? Ever heard of peer pressure? Gangs? Do you have any memories of growing up in a state school in a poor area, of the risk of being beaten up if you venture into the wrong area, wearing the wrong uniform?
ecopoesis 12y ago
Maybe because parents and home environment matter as much, if not more, then teachers? Middle-class and upper-class parents who work 9-5 jobs have the time to spend playing and teaching their kids on nights and weekends. They have the money to buy good, nutrious food. They have the knowledge (either from their own, self motivated research, or from their friends who do the research for them) to do things like limit screen time and not use a TV as a baby sitter. Poor people can do all this too (and many try and do), but being poor makes it harder, which is one of the reasons economic class is inherited.
- james1071 12y ago
  I don't think so. For example, I once had a mini cab ride where the driver was very poor indeed (a new immigrant from somewhere not so nice). He was teaching his very young daughter to play blindfold chess. I have not met him since, but would be surprised if he didn't do a great job in educating his daughter with very little in the way of money or time.
uncre4tive 12y ago
As a kid who wasn't so poor, but did have a few poor friends, I can point out some anecdotal differences: My parents had time to show interest in my school activities, discuss what we were learning, and find out if I needed help. When I couldn't understand centripetal force to my satisfaction for my 5th grade science fair project about the yoyo, they invited their NASA friend over for dinner so he could talk about it with me. I never wondered if my parents could afford to buy school items. I never worried about my parents being in a bad mood because they lost their jobs or couldn't afford to put food on the table and go to a relative's funeral. (I remember being at a friend's house while his parents were fighting about this.) I had a friend whose parents were very poor when her father lost his job, he was in a horrible mood for weeks and then turned to alcohol. Growing up in that kind of environment is incredibly stressful. I didn't understand it so much as a little kid, just later. For me, getting a B was a horribly stressful event. My parents might be disappointed and I might be stupid. For my friend being home was a horribly stressful event. Grades never mattered at all to her. Her parents didn't have time to pay attention to her schoolwork, they had other more important things to worry about.
analog31 12y ago
All I can do is offer hypotheses. I suspect it's death by a thousand cuts. Some broad categories: 1) What happens to kids before they ever reach school age, and the environment they experience when they are not in school. 2) Though teacher quality is only part of the equation, teachers compete to transfer out of the poorest districts. 3) Lower expectations from school leadership, parents, and community -- possibly inadvertent due to not even knowing what high expectations look like. My kids are in a public school system that's believed to be of very high quality. Parents bid blindly on houses to get their kids into this district. We probably have one of the highest percentages of parents with advanced degrees in the country. The "lucky" kids start kindergarten knowing how to read, are coached in math at home, may be learning more than one language, taking music lessons, eating right, playing outside, etc. Parents have time to volunteer at school, which is not just an added supply of labor, but also helps reinforce the kind of learning atmosphere that educated parents value.
adventured 12y ago
I grew up relatively poor (Appalachia 1980s/90s). What made the difference for me were two things. 1) Parents that were role models. My mother didn't earn much money, but she had a tremendous work ethic (she grew up on a farm), and was a very disciplined person in terms of morality. She was always present in my life, and was quite firm and consistent in terms of discipline (if you did something wrong, you were punished; and you listened or else). My father was an entrepreneur, very creative, very intelligent, high ingenuity, exposed me to a lot of amazing experiences growing up (traveling, ideas, technology, etc). Neither parent drank, had drug problems, or had ever been arrested. I had a consistent, safe home environment, where being smart was encouraged, independence and success were outcomes to strive for. 2) A tremendous public education system, with high quality teachers across the board. Almost all of which were older women interestingly, most were very firm, attentive, and persistent. The school itself might have had several hundred students, but from K through 5, I had one male teacher out of maybe 15 or 20, and only one younger female teacher. The kids that did the worst in school, almost universally had very bad home lives. They were not only extra poor, but they had terrible parents (or absentee parents); abusive, alcoholic, non-working, etc types.
- james1071 12y ago
  The issue is not poverty-it is intelligence (not saying that bad home lives are not a factor).
  - adventured 12y ago
    Well I had a lot of first hand experience with this stuff, growing up in one of the poorest places in the US. I would say that roughly half the unsuccessful students I knew of were in fact very intelligent, the other half did seem to have lower intelligence. I knew a bunch of them well. Their home lives effectively wrecked them, hampered their learning habits, and their educational stacking progress - in which your knowledge builds year after year, and to succeed each year you must have a consistent rolling forward of that knowledge base from prior years. The unsuccessful but intelligent students had poor habits, poor role models, and often a terrible outlook. Some had been taught very backwards notions about how the world works, or what values should be pursued in life. I don't think intelligence is a greater a factor than the others. I've known plenty of wildly unsuccessful, broken, smart people, that were crippled by a mediocre foundation at home. I've known successful low intelligence people, with discipline and a strong work ethic; people that can repeat patterns of success, while not having an especially great intellect.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Stefanrio 12y ago
- No value is placed on education. "You need to go to school so you can get a good job" doesn't mean anything to a kid that has obviously never had a job and most likely their parent(s) are unemployed as well. - No life management. Generally when I see someone who's been good at school, they get proper food with plenty of nutrition, they exercise and get enough sleep. A child cannot possibly do all these things for themselves and they shouldn't, it's the parents' job, but some parents are fucking losers and don't care as long as they get their welfare checks. - Social problems, such as bullying. Poor kids are especially easy to bully, they already have a low self-esteem from being "less than". As a child you are constantly reflecting yourself on other people and the differences in socioeconomic classes are really rubbed in your face constantly. So, from my experience/observations I guess it boils down to self-esteem.
rokhayakebe 12y ago
Because general education, not apprenticeship, is for someone who has their minimum met already. Education which is supposed to benefit you in 20 years is hard to appreciate when you are worried about tomorrow's meal, rent. Now of course someone will say "kids, whether rich or poor, do not think about 20 years down the line." They would be correct; however here the success of a kid's education depends significantly on their parents' contributions to it. If a parent is poor, and worried about their next meal, you cannot blame them for not having the energy to worry about the long term.
mattmcknight 12y ago
The things that keep parents poor also prevent them from helping educate their children. I spend more time looking at those that overcame poverty. We often see cases where it was parental pressure on the children to do well in school, and placed a value on educational achievement. In many cases, the ego of a parent who did not do well in school leads them to devalue educational achievement in order to feel better about themselves...
aidenn0 12y ago
The short answer is "We don't know for sure" The long answer is "We don't know for sure, but it's likely that all of the replies to your question have some effect"

Why is it that poor students fail so much more at education?

by TwoBit 12y ago

Why is it that poor students fail so much more at education?

baddox 12y ago

Probably because most schools are public schools which are funded by local taxes.

shawn-furyan 12y ago

I don't think there's a simple answer to that. There are a mind-boggling number of factors at play and no major study, to my knowledge, has isolated poverty's covariants in a way that would let us say which specific factors outside of poverty itself are the primary drivers of poor outcomes among the impoverished.

rayiner 12y ago

My wife was briefly a teacher on an Indian reservation. There were few jobs on the reservation and many of the kids' parents were unemployed, and even the ones that were rarely were in a position that required any education. That's a huge demotivator for kids--why sacrifice for education when you can't see in front of your face that education might yield any benefits? Then there was, of course, the social ills associated with poverty, which distracted kids from school: alcoholism, drug abuse, crime, domestic violence, and sexual abuse. I'm personally enormously skeptical of the idea that education is a solution to poverty,[1] at a large scale. There is a game theory problem in play. The fact is that it's unlikely that education will lift an individual inner city kid "out of the hood." A relatively excellent outcome for diligence and hard work would be going into debt to attend a third rate college, for the privilege of fighting for a low-paying service job. So it's totally rational for kids to be more preoccupied with whether joining the right gang will keep them from getting harassed on the way home from school. But if everyone worked hard and got educated, what might happen is that economic opportunities could be created "in the hood." That's the prisoners dilemma--the individually rational decision to devalue diligence and education leads to a globally worse outcome. This is where culture comes in. You see this with poor immigrant communities. They have little capital, but have cultural mores that create an incentive for education and hard work. A kid might not leave the neighborhood through education, but he'll get social standing in the community, among authority figures and peers. When everyone has that incentive, that creates economic opportunities within the neighborhood. After all, there are neighborhoods in Bangladesh far poorer on an objective scale than the worst ghettos of Chicago, that nonetheless have bustling local economies. [1] Poverty is, of course, relative. But I'm not talking about utopia, but just about raising the plight of the poor here in the U.S. up to that of some places in Western Europe.

james1071 12y ago
I am not sure what you are saying. Those who are able to learn will do so, given the right environment. Those who cannot, will not, whatever help you give them. Poverty has nothing to do with it, though those who lack the ability to learn may well also be poor.
- pixl97 12y ago
  It's unfortunate you are incorrect, statistically speaking. In general giving people a stable, appropriate calorie diet is the best way to increase IQ over a population. Poverty has a whole lot to do with that. Next, after you lift people out of poverty you still have the education problem. Uneducated parents don't have educated kids, statistically speaking. The first few years of life, before kids are ever sent to school define a person's learning capacity hugely. Babies that have working parents and have less personal care, less emotional closeness, and less exposure to a wide range of language are going to be disadvantaged to those kids that do.
  - james1071 12y ago
    I am from London, in the UK. Pretty much everyone has enough calories (too many in most cases). As for schools-of course the rich people send their children to much better schools. Those who can't send their children to local schools. What happens there depends on how bright they are, how hard they work and how committed their parents are to education. In the case of some ethnic groups there is a strong aversion to educating their girls properly. None of this has much to do with poverty, emotional closeness or whatever else you claim.
    - barrkel 12y ago
      Pretty much everyone has enough calories (too many in most cases). Sure; foods high in sugar and fat have no effects on concentration levels versus healthier food, right? Those who can't send their children to local schools. What happens there depends on how bright they are, how hard they work and how committed their parents are to education. This is deeply ignorant. What happens when a smart kid is in the middle of a class filled with kids who have no interest in learning? Do you think the teacher will craft a whole special course specific to that kid? Or do you think the teacher will try to get something basic to stick at the lowest level, so almost all the kids get at least something from their education? What happens when a kid's peers mock the kid for being a swot? How socially integrated is the kid going to be, when all his friends do things in the evenings, and the kid's stuck doing homework and study? Ever heard of peer pressure? Gangs? Do you have any memories of growing up in a state school in a poor area, of the risk of being beaten up if you venture into the wrong area, wearing the wrong uniform?

ecopoesis 12y ago

Maybe because parents and home environment matter as much, if not more, then teachers? Middle-class and upper-class parents who work 9-5 jobs have the time to spend playing and teaching their kids on nights and weekends. They have the money to buy good, nutrious food. They have the knowledge (either from their own, self motivated research, or from their friends who do the research for them) to do things like limit screen time and not use a TV as a baby sitter. Poor people can do all this too (and many try and do), but being poor makes it harder, which is one of the reasons economic class is inherited.

james1071 12y ago
I don't think so. For example, I once had a mini cab ride where the driver was very poor indeed (a new immigrant from somewhere not so nice). He was teaching his very young daughter to play blindfold chess. I have not met him since, but would be surprised if he didn't do a great job in educating his daughter with very little in the way of money or time.

uncre4tive 12y ago

As a kid who wasn't so poor, but did have a few poor friends, I can point out some anecdotal differences: My parents had time to show interest in my school activities, discuss what we were learning, and find out if I needed help. When I couldn't understand centripetal force to my satisfaction for my 5th grade science fair project about the yoyo, they invited their NASA friend over for dinner so he could talk about it with me. I never wondered if my parents could afford to buy school items. I never worried about my parents being in a bad mood because they lost their jobs or couldn't afford to put food on the table and go to a relative's funeral. (I remember being at a friend's house while his parents were fighting about this.) I had a friend whose parents were very poor when her father lost his job, he was in a horrible mood for weeks and then turned to alcohol. Growing up in that kind of environment is incredibly stressful. I didn't understand it so much as a little kid, just later. For me, getting a B was a horribly stressful event. My parents might be disappointed and I might be stupid. For my friend being home was a horribly stressful event. Grades never mattered at all to her. Her parents didn't have time to pay attention to her schoolwork, they had other more important things to worry about.

analog31 12y ago

All I can do is offer hypotheses. I suspect it's death by a thousand cuts. Some broad categories: 1) What happens to kids before they ever reach school age, and the environment they experience when they are not in school. 2) Though teacher quality is only part of the equation, teachers compete to transfer out of the poorest districts. 3) Lower expectations from school leadership, parents, and community -- possibly inadvertent due to not even knowing what high expectations look like. My kids are in a public school system that's believed to be of very high quality. Parents bid blindly on houses to get their kids into this district. We probably have one of the highest percentages of parents with advanced degrees in the country. The "lucky" kids start kindergarten knowing how to read, are coached in math at home, may be learning more than one language, taking music lessons, eating right, playing outside, etc. Parents have time to volunteer at school, which is not just an added supply of labor, but also helps reinforce the kind of learning atmosphere that educated parents value.

adventured 12y ago

I grew up relatively poor (Appalachia 1980s/90s). What made the difference for me were two things. 1) Parents that were role models. My mother didn't earn much money, but she had a tremendous work ethic (she grew up on a farm), and was a very disciplined person in terms of morality. She was always present in my life, and was quite firm and consistent in terms of discipline (if you did something wrong, you were punished; and you listened or else). My father was an entrepreneur, very creative, very intelligent, high ingenuity, exposed me to a lot of amazing experiences growing up (traveling, ideas, technology, etc). Neither parent drank, had drug problems, or had ever been arrested. I had a consistent, safe home environment, where being smart was encouraged, independence and success were outcomes to strive for. 2) A tremendous public education system, with high quality teachers across the board. Almost all of which were older women interestingly, most were very firm, attentive, and persistent. The school itself might have had several hundred students, but from K through 5, I had one male teacher out of maybe 15 or 20, and only one younger female teacher. The kids that did the worst in school, almost universally had very bad home lives. They were not only extra poor, but they had terrible parents (or absentee parents); abusive, alcoholic, non-working, etc types.

james1071 12y ago
The issue is not poverty-it is intelligence (not saying that bad home lives are not a factor).
- adventured 12y ago
  Well I had a lot of first hand experience with this stuff, growing up in one of the poorest places in the US. I would say that roughly half the unsuccessful students I knew of were in fact very intelligent, the other half did seem to have lower intelligence. I knew a bunch of them well. Their home lives effectively wrecked them, hampered their learning habits, and their educational stacking progress - in which your knowledge builds year after year, and to succeed each year you must have a consistent rolling forward of that knowledge base from prior years. The unsuccessful but intelligent students had poor habits, poor role models, and often a terrible outlook. Some had been taught very backwards notions about how the world works, or what values should be pursued in life. I don't think intelligence is a greater a factor than the others. I've known plenty of wildly unsuccessful, broken, smart people, that were crippled by a mediocre foundation at home. I've known successful low intelligence people, with discipline and a strong work ethic; people that can repeat patterns of success, while not having an especially great intellect.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Stefanrio 12y ago

- No value is placed on education. "You need to go to school so you can get a good job" doesn't mean anything to a kid that has obviously never had a job and most likely their parent(s) are unemployed as well. - No life management. Generally when I see someone who's been good at school, they get proper food with plenty of nutrition, they exercise and get enough sleep. A child cannot possibly do all these things for themselves and they shouldn't, it's the parents' job, but some parents are fucking losers and don't care as long as they get their welfare checks. - Social problems, such as bullying. Poor kids are especially easy to bully, they already have a low self-esteem from being "less than". As a child you are constantly reflecting yourself on other people and the differences in socioeconomic classes are really rubbed in your face constantly. So, from my experience/observations I guess it boils down to self-esteem.

rokhayakebe 12y ago

Because general education, not apprenticeship, is for someone who has their minimum met already. Education which is supposed to benefit you in 20 years is hard to appreciate when you are worried about tomorrow's meal, rent. Now of course someone will say "kids, whether rich or poor, do not think about 20 years down the line." They would be correct; however here the success of a kid's education depends significantly on their parents' contributions to it. If a parent is poor, and worried about their next meal, you cannot blame them for not having the energy to worry about the long term.

mattmcknight 12y ago

The things that keep parents poor also prevent them from helping educate their children. I spend more time looking at those that overcame poverty. We often see cases where it was parental pressure on the children to do well in school, and placed a value on educational achievement. In many cases, the ego of a parent who did not do well in school leads them to devalue educational achievement in order to feel better about themselves...

aidenn0 12y ago

The short answer is "We don't know for sure" The long answer is "We don't know for sure, but it's likely that all of the replies to your question have some effect"