Twilight Of The Elites Analysis

Income inequality plays a major role in the education disparity present in communities such as West Chelsea. The economic hardship several families experience affects the way a child grows up and the certain education they receive. As seen in Class Divide, more privileged children can attend schools such as The Avenues where they are given opportunities to grow and learn, while less privileged students are

The first determinant of one’s fate is their family’s background. Almost none of the children from low-income families made it through college. With the expenses of college today, I’m actually not surprised by that statistic. Of the children from low-income families, only 4 percent had a college degree at age 28, compared to 45 percent of the children from higher-income backgrounds. "That 's a shocking tenfold

Lareau, in Unequal Childhoods, focuses on socioeconomic status and how that affects outcomes in the education system and the workplace. While examining middle-class, working-class and poor families, Lareau witnessed differing logics of parenting, which could greatly determine a child’s future success. Working-class and poor families allow their children an accomplishment of natural growth, whereas middle-class parents prepare their children through concerted cultivation. The latter provides children with a sense of entitlement, as parents encourage them to negotiate and challenge those in authority. Parents almost overwhelm their children with organized activities, as we witnessed in the life of Garrett Tallinger. Due to his parents and their economic and cultural capital, Garrett was not only able to learn in an educational setting, but through differing activities, equipping him with several skills to be successful in the world. Lareau suggests these extra skills allow children to “think of themselves as special and as entitled to receive certain kinds of services from adults” (39). Adults in the school system are in favor of these skills through concerted cultivation, and Bourdieu seems to suggest that schools can often misrecognize these skills as natural talent/abilities when it’s merely cultivated through capital. This then leads to inequalities in the education system and academic attainments.

The educational system of the united states is not capitalizing on the full potential of its people. Jonathan Kozol in his article “Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid”, discusses the drastic difference in the quality of education based on a family’s income. Kozol discusses how economic disparities usually coincide with race, but focuses on the economic gap of education. Malcolm Gladwell’s podcast “Carlos doesn’t remember”, gives a story and a personal touch, to the issues low income students face. Kozol writing and Gladwell’s podcast, both show that the quality of a child’s education is pure chance. A lottery of being born into a high or low income family dictates the outcome and capitalization of a child’s future.

This demonstrates that if Sam’s school had got more funding then Sam may have received a proper education, and would have learned the intellectual skills that could help him to obtain a high paying job. Unlike many other people in richer parts of America who are able to achieve a lot in life due to their education, Sam’s lack of wealth ruins his future. Another example is one that hits closer to home- in terms of educational funding, the Illinois system is corrupt, and one of the districts that suffers most is that of Chicago Public Schools. In an interview with Ryan Young from CNN and an anonymous Chicago Public School teacher over the recent strike over budget cuts and the overall lack in school funding, the teacher states, “We care about the students. We want funding for our schools so our children can have supplies… gym, art, and PE., just like the kids in the suburbs do.” This is a direct representation of what is occurring in the Chicago Public School system today as a consequence of budget cuts and unequal funding. In general, the lack of school funding gives poorer children disadvantages when it comes to supplies that can help them to thrive. Also, budget cuts weaken the capacity of schools’ to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers. In fact,, funding cuts lessen the ability of the schools to help prepare children better for their future, such as improving teacher

The resources available to an urban, lower income school are to be equal to those available to a suburban, higher income school. Two schools in New York, one from a wealthy school district and one from a poor district, were given computers. The State provided the same number of computers to each school, therefore claiming to evenly supporting each school. However, the school with the poorer children had a larger number of students; the nicer school had twice the number of computers in proportion to the number of their students (Kozol 84). It seems that the biggest factor keeping the children of lower income homes behind is the school funding available. The poorer school district does not have the money to spend on the things a wealthier district may, but there is no real evidence that spending money makes much difference in the outcome of a child's education. In many cases, family and background have a greater influence on how well a child does in school (Kozol 176-77). Richard Kahlenberg, a member of the Century Foundation, says, "Research findings and common sense tell us that the people who make up a school—the students, parents, and teachers—matter more (Lewis 648)

. In the article “Public College Boosting Aid to Wealthy as Poor Are Left Behind,” by Marian Wand, the author shares a story of little girl, Shauniqua Epps, she is 19 years old. Epps family lives in subsidized housing in South Philadelphia. Epps’ father died when she was in the third grade, her mother lives on social security which provides $698 a month. She has a good GPA and is also good in sports. She applied for three colleges for higher education, but none of the colleges provided financial aid to her. She did not go to any of the colleges because she could not afford the tuition. No one in family can support her because Epps’ mother does not have enough knowledge to encourage her. This proves that the students from low socio-economic background were not encouraged by their

He then supports this by detailing that, “any affluent people were smart in 1907, but there were not enough jobs in which high intellectual ability brought high incomes or status to affect more than a fraction of really smart people” (Murray 46). As time went on, socioeconomic status and college education went hand in hand, but if the SAT helps only the students whose parents are affluent, than is the SAT really fair? What about students who have the potential, but do not have the resources? What about them? Do they not matter? He then persuasively gives a workable solution towards the problem, “Because upper-middle-class families produce most of the smartest kids, there is no way to reform the system to prevent their children from coming out on top. We can only make sure that high-ability students from disadvantaged backgrounds realize that the nation’s best colleges yearn for their applications and that their chance of breaking out of their disadvantaged situations has never been better—in short, that the system is not rigged” (Murray 51). Although his solution caters more to the wealthy (in a way where they can still somehow make it appear equal when it is not), I still believe it is great way to begin, only if someone can make sure disadvantaged students are not disregarded after a while, as history has shown time and time

Reading “Chapter XVI: The life of the peasants” from Harper and Brother’s Life on a Mediaeval Barony lead me to contemplate the work life and attitude toward the education of the less glamorous lifestyle that medieval peasants lived, “Their help is so important that many peasants look on large families as assets of so much unpaid labor, rather than as liabilities… Education is almost unknown” (Davis). I contemplated what this attitude towards education could mean in modern society and how it relates to the lifestyles of urban families of a lower income. In “A Letter to My Nephew” by James Baldwin, Baldwin addresses the socioeconomic education status of the early 20th century to his nephew, “The limits to your ambition were thus expected to be settled. You were born into a society which spelled out with brutal clarity [that]... You were not expected to aspire to excellence”(Baldwin). Baldwin is stating that students of a lower social standing are automatically assumed to not succeed in school due to limitations on resources. I found this to be a very applicable concept in the education system of urban schools because numerous students that attend urban schools are of a low social standing with limited opportunities for success. Students can only take full advantage of their education in respect to the circumstances that they are raised in. According to Torrey Marable, a recent graduate from Phelps High School, many students who attend urban schools have

This article says, “Too many of America’s most disadvantaged children grow up without the skills needed to thrive in the twenty-first century. Whether in educational attainment between income groups or racial/ethnic groups or across geographic locations—inequality persists.” This creates long-term problems within that community. Meaning people who start out with disadvantages, usually don’t have the skills that the upper class more privileged kids do which help them eventually get jobs and maintain this middle to upper class community. The disadvantages people receive bad jobs and

    In the paper by Malcolm Gladwell, Marita’s Bargain; he writes about a school in New York called the KIPP Academy in New York, where the circumstances of this school are bad. Gladwell gives his us a description telling us the scenario that helps us get the point that social class doesn’t describe the intellect of a student by stating, “ It is a squat, gray 1960s-era building across the street from a bleak-looking group of high-rises.”(Gladwell, 3)  and “ Roughly half of the students are African American; the rest are Hispanic. Three-quarters of the children come from single-parent homes. Ninety percent qualify for "free or reduced lunch," which is to say that their families earn so little that the federal government chips in so the children can eat properly at lunchtime.”(Gladwell, 3-4) These two quotes from page 3 describes the living conditions of the lower class people, they live in gray 1960 era looking building with a single parent home that doesn’t even get enough income to get their kids lunch to where ninety percent of the kids qualify for free or reduced lunch provided by the government.

If the education system relies most of their funding from taxes, where do they end up getting the rest of the money. The government and administration grant more money to wealthier areas than low -income areas. Wealthier communities are granted more money because they have a higher percentage of funding coming from property taxes. This leaves the low-income students at a disadvantage. People living in low income areas mainly rent and don’t own their own property. As a result of not having a house or owning property, they have little property taxes. If low -income students are not given enough money for funding a school, the students are suffering. With the lack of money causes students to miss out on college prep classes such as AP classes and Honors classes. These classes are pivotal to the students that want to pursue higher education and a road to success. For example students in the low-income areas are given a poor education. They are not given the resources, or quality teachers in order to achieve success. According to George Miller House Education and the Workforce committee, many students are not educationally ready to graduate and attend higher education (Minority 1). This is another reason why low income students should be provided the same classes as a middle class or a wealthier community. In a study, 2 million students in 7,300 schools had no access to all calculus classes, a staple in many high – achieving high schools (Minority 2). Low-income

Today in America, parental influence and money plays an immense part in the way children get educated and go on to become successful. There are parents in the United States that buy property in neighborhoods that have the best public school systems, and these properties are typically placed in extremely expensive neighborhoods. If wealthy parents do not want to move for a better public school, then no problem. They can spend $30,000 dollars for the best private school near their house. Once their child attends the best public or private school, then wealthy parents can further their child’s advantage to be successful by paying for private tutors and SAT tutors. Wealthy parents worried that their child does not have a chance to get into an Ivy League or a top university? No problem. Just use the internet and pay a hefty fee to buy a college application essay that will knock the socks off an admissions officer. If parents are not able to use money to obtain the best public or private school for their child, then simply having supportive and caring parents who can give a child basic necessities places a child above thousands of others in the competition for attractive market roles. The children in great position of the natural lottery typically obtain these high-salaries market roles.

This is since those who are wealthy don’t need the extra money that they will make from having a career, and will instead inherit money, as well as a company. In middle-class families, both parents, or just one is required to work hard to make a living and supply their family with all the basic needs, and then some. As I was growing up, both my parents worked, as well as my siblings. This enabled me to take a similar path so that I could eventually live in comfortable living standards. The class in which I am associated with has also caused me to have a productive high school experience and in return get me to where I am now. I attended a wealthy high school where I was provided many opportunities to succeed. In my school, I had the ability to take 6 AP courses (much more were provided to all students), and participate in various clubs and sports teams. This helped me to build up my resume and have a better chance to get in to a college. Because of my class, I also had the opportunity to hire tutors, and take classes where I could be taught to understand things I formally didn’t. Many people don’t have this opportunity, which enabled to me to do better in school and get my work done. Aside from all the help I could provide for myself, nearly 100% of students from+ my high school are attending a university after graduating. This statistic made it almost a

In last Tuesday’s class, the class in groups attempted to form the longest paper chain to obtain “extra credit points”. Every group had scissors, but some groups had tape, others had glue, and some had a stapler. Groups who used glue had shorter paper chains than people who used tape or stapler. This shows that having or not having certain resources affects the degree you obtain a goal, which contributes to inequality among different groups in society. For education, the amount of resources based on an individual’s economic status impacts his or her academic success. If a person has a large array of resources like private tutors and parents who are college graduates, he or she will be more likely to be more successful academically, such as