Mastrorilli 1

Bridget Mastrorilli

Professor. Susan Strom

English 125

20 August 2017

Disadvantages of Low Socioeconomic School

When the “greatest country in the world” offers a separate but “equal” education; how

does education differ for those from poor socioeconomic backgrounds compared the those more

well off? The schools attended by those less well-off suffer from a variety of problems which re-

sult in a poorer education, with most programs meant to help failing to do so. For those with a

bad start, we give the path of most resistance.

Not only is there a gap in education between schools with focuses on different socioeco-

nomic backgrounds, but the gap is quite large. A study of “PISA” test scores in America showed

white students ranked second out of the thirty-two countries that took the test, while African

American and Hispanic students ranked twenty fifth out of the thirty two countries. This coin-

cides with similar results on state testing. In the Illinois “Standards Achievement Test”, sixty

percent of low-income third graders failed to meet the state's reading standards. This is in com-

parison to the twenty five percent who didn’t meet reading standards for those not disadvan-

taged. This coincides with other grade levels as well. (Morgan 292)

For this difference in testing one must wonder how the schools themselves differ. For

some issues, like a lack of resources, it is an issue of money. This can be solved fairly easily,

from a technical standpoint. Other issues are a bit more complicated; schools located in low in-
 Mastrorilli 2

come areas tend to have infrastructure that is worse off. Low resource schools have a compara-

tively high risk of sixteen percent for having a negative profile in regards to basic conditions of a

school building. (Poesen-Vandeputte 93) In Chicago children in inner city schools, as opposed to

children in more affluent schools, must deal with “overcrowded classrooms, run-down building,

and dilapidated textbooks.” (Morgan 294) While these are difficult issues to solve they are still

issues that can be solves impart through greater funding. Though for now, when some advan-

taged districts are able to spend over twice the amount per student that the poorer districts can,

solving these issues alone would make a huge difference.

While the issues above do play a big part in the substandard education at low income

schools, they don’t play near as key a role in the difference of teachers. Turnover rates for teach-

ers in low income schools are extremely high. Talented teachers tend to seek jobs at “better”

schools. So, teachers at low income schools come under qualified and by the time that experi-

ence and training can show results they tend to leave for jobs at more well off schools. (Holme

267) This gap is expressed clearly in the average ages of these sets of teachers in comparison.

Studies show that teachers at low resource schools were 10 years younger and less experienced

on average than those in high resource schools. This is alongside a similar difference for princi-

ples in age and experience at each school respectively. (Poesen-Vandeputte 95) While there are

of course teachers who stick around to less well of schools for moral reasons, this number is les-

soned as a result of the no child left behind policy. As a result of this policy teachers receive re-

percussions for poor testing scores of their students. As we punish teachers for taking on these

more difficult experiences and students, they are more likely seek out jobs at affluent schools.

For teachers, working at schools that are well of tends to be an easier job and tends to pay more.

This high turnover rate of teachers and leadership in low income schools can greatly effect even
 Mastrorilli 3

the teachers who stay. At one school studied, there were days when twenty five percent of teach-

ers were absent. (Holme 255) Beyond the obvious effect that these trends for the teachers has on

the education of the students there are more subtle effects as well. Students at these schools tend

to form a distrust of the teachers, and are more likely to become apathetic to their own education.

Another aspect of the diminished quality of education for those with poor socioeconomic

backgrounds is violence. Violence in and around schools is unfortunately common and ex-

tremely detrimental. When an already disadvantaged student has to face violence every day, it

can be difficult to focus on studies. Children in these schools can feel forced to focus on self-

preservation, figuring out how to appear “tough” and potentially joining gangs. This greatly

shapes a child’s educational experience. (Burdick-Will 345) Students will often be treated as “the

problem” as well. In their attempts to protect themselves they end up being viewed as the sources

of the violence which can result in mistreatment by teachers, furthering the divide students feel.

This divide is made even further in certain low income schools like those in Chicago were the

police are often involved in the violent conflicts at school around twice a week. (Burdick-Will

346) Beyond the obvious detriment of the time that this all takes up and distrusting attitudes gar-

nered, this violence has further detriment of causing great stress in students. Students under

stress have been shown to do worse on tests because of a decrease in working memory and other

issues.

Many of these issues are difficult to solve as the feed off each other. Bonds between

teachers and students have been shown to decrease violence, but bonds don’t form when the

teachers leave as soon as they can, and teachers don’t want to stick around when there’s vio-

lence, and principals don’t want to stay in a school that does so poorly, and neither teacher nor

student when even the principle is apathetic. Other attempts to fix the various issues seem to fall
 Mastrorilli 4

flat as well. The aforementioned no child left behind policy, while well intentioned, had a posi-

tive effect on few of the underprivileged schools. Because of the way the kids grades are taken

into account, the teachers are held responsible, causing them to want to leave, which result in

kids doing worse, which can cause the entire school to be shut down for its failure. The schools

will then be transferred to other schools which compounds the overcrowding issue. These now

overcrowded schools tend to also be underfunded and unable to deal with the tensions of stu-

dents who don’t get along, possibly even being members of rival groups (gangs) having to go to

the same school. (Burdick-Will 355) Similar effects come about with attempts to clean-up or

“gentrify” a poor socioeconomic area. While the area might become nicer, the people are unable

to live there with raised prices and are forced to move to areas where they’re education will

likely be the same as it was if not worse.

These disparities in American education are clearly a problem, and one that hasn’t been

solved yet. For a solution, we may look to countries with better ranked education but they too

still have similar issues. The Flemish government pursues a policy of equal opportunities in edu-

cation and will give additional resources to disadvantaged schools to accomplish this. While this

does help, the complicity of the issue means that it is not an easy fix. Aspects such as infrastruc-

ture are difficult to change, and even more difficult are the differences you can’t measure: expe-

rience of are and culture, knowledge such as skill and training from home life, time to read

books, opportunity for intercultural communication. (Poesen-Vandeputte 105) All these differ-

ences in “social capital” add up. The government can buy more books but they can’t easily give

the kids from less fortunate backgrounds more time to read, or create family connection and net-

working. While American disparity in education does stand out, it is not alone.
 Mastrorilli 5

America’s education is far from equal. Those from poor socioeconomic backgrounds re-

ceive subpar treatment. However, most people are already aware of this disparity. What stands

out is how great this disparity truly is, and how we’ve done so little to change it. While it may

not be possible to completely remove this disparity, we should at least work to be at the same

level as other developed nations. A more educated populace greatly benefits society, lowers

crime, and promotes progress. The least we can do is fix the policies we put in place that do not

work and give the same funding to these underprivileged schools that we give to others. And if

we teach the next generation right, they’ll help come up with even better solutions.
 Mastrorilli 6

Work Cited

Burdick-Will, Julia, I. "School Violent Crime and Academic Achievement in Chicago." Ameri-

can Sociological Association 86.4 (2013) : 343-361. Sage. Web. 2 Mar. 2017.

Holme, Jennifer Jellison. "Putting School Reform in Its Place: Social Geography, Organizational

Social Capital, and School Performance." American Educational Research Journal 49.2 (2012) :

257-283. Aera. Web. 2 Mar. 2017.

Morgan, Hani. “Poverty-Stricken Schools: What We Learn From the Rest Of the World and

From Successful Schools in Economically Disadvantaged Areas in the US. Project Innovation,

Inc. 133 (2011) : 291-296. Sage. Web. 2 Mar. 2017

Poesen-Vandeputte, Mayke, Ides Nicaise. “Rich Schools, Poor schools. Hidden Resource Ine-

qualities Between Primary Schools.” Educational Research. 57.1 (2015) : 91-109. Routledge.

Web. 2 Mar. 2017.