In this chapter's discussion of the relationship between low socioeconomic status and school achievement, I was reminded of a group project that I was recently a part of for this course. The project followed two [fictitious] children's learning experiences in elementary school, and then in high school. One child came from a very low-income family with a single mother who had to work a lot. The other child came from a very wealthy family with two parents who were home every single night for dinner and spent lots of time reading with their child. The "achievement gap" between children from low-income families and other families is proven through research, and in the case of our project, there was hardly even a comparison. The child from the low-income family simply did not have enough exposure to have a chance at excelling in school, and social class prevented her from applying to university because of the need to work and support her family. This exact situation is mirrored in the text book.
Children in the low-income family situation tend to live in low-income neighbourhoods. Many factors hold these young people back from achieving their potential, which is of course very sad. It got me thinking about what we could possibly do to help the situation... and there is good news! There are already people doing something about it. The answer lies with The Tallman Foundation, a scholarship committee and student support group started up by my friend's family. They had the means to start this foundation because they own Princess Auto. Cathy Tallman, wife of PA owner Bob Tallman, used to be a teacher in the North End. When they started the foundation, they chose a few schools (St. John's and Churchill, I believe) where they saw potential. Kids who go to these schools have big dreams of having a professional career - they want to be teachers, doctors, lawyers, business owners - but they do not have the financial means or the resources to do so. The Tallman Foundation finds these promising students and grants them scholarships, full rides to the U of M and U of W, including books, support groups, and sometimes even living accommodations. They form deep relationships with these kids, who get the opportunity of a lifetime. I go to their golf event every summer, and it is so inspirational. It's amazing what we can do to perpetuate change in society if we try hard enough. Social mobility is possible through foundations like this one.
On another note, I found this chapter to be rather insensitive to the different kinds of families that exist. The author insinuates that in anything other than a "two-parent biological parent" family, the child is basically bound to have lower educational outcomes and do less well in school. I'm pretty sure that children who have single parents and children who are adopted or fostered often do very well in school. One cannot judge a family based on numbers and genes. (What is with the author's need to consistently use the word "biological?") I actually found this bias quite offensive, as well as the statement about rural schools being more likely to have rougher conditions in general. I've never been to a rural school, but that is a pretty general statement to make on the author's part.
Discussion Question: What can we do to give children of low-income families better schools, considering the limited financial resources of the "have not" provinces? How can we provide better access to positive role models for these kids?
No comments:
Post a Comment