A correlation between providing resources to students and the failure to implement effective strategies in classrooms consisting of predominantly low socio-economic students
Abstract
This study will attempt to show that resources used in the classroom primarily to increase the equity of low socio-economic students and others have no significant bearing on positive educational outcomes unless tied to specific and directed strategies. For at least the past twenty years, the educational literature has cited volumes of work showing that low-socioeconomic families are less likely to provide educational success for their children (Ramsey and Ramsey, 1984). On the surface, these findings definitely have their place in scientific forums. It is my contention that the full story has yet to be told. Resources without strategy mean nothing. The hypothesis is simply that if a student were given a viable resource, such as a computer, without structure and clear direction, then the finances spent on these kinds of resources not only lead to a worse condition, but contribute to the waste of educational funds. The literature also notes that the high drop out rate has a direct link to a family’s financial status. (Demarest, et. al., 1993). Improving intrinsic motivation will be one of the proposed solutions. If the traditional literature is correct, then our schools should not be failing. There is something else going on. Targeted strategies are the complete answer.
Background
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, socioeconomic status (SES) is defined as an economic and sociological combined total measure of a person's work experience and of an individual's or family’s economic and social position relative to others, based on income, education, and occupation. When analyzing a family’s SES, the household income earners' education and occupation are examined, as well as combined income, versus with an individual, when their own attributes are assessed. Does a high quality education necessarily equate to a high price education? Low socioeconomic families have been categorized as not being able to provide their children for school “readiness.” In this category, families find themselves stagnated to the degree that they become dependent on government resources for an unlimited amount of time. The Gini coefficient (Gini, C. 1912) mathematically describes economic inequality. Zero corresponds to perfect equality and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality. Our nation’s score is increasingly reaching 1.
G: Gini coefficient
X: cumulated proportion of the population variable
Y: cumulated proportion of the income variable
Gini indices for the United States at various times (US Census Bureau)
- 1929: 45.0 (estimated)
- 1947: 37.6 (estimated)
- 1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
- 1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
- 1970: 39.4
- 1980: 40.3
- 1990: 42.8
- 2000: 46.2 (Note that the calculation of the index for the United States was changed in 1992, resulting in \an upwards shift of about 2.)
- 2005: 46.9
- 2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
- 2007: 46.3
- 2008: 46.6
Contrary to popular belief, this dependence should not be viewed and labeled as mentally lacking or lackadaisical, but rather a result of extenuating circumstances. Too often, low-socioeconomic people are doomed before coming out of the gate because of the “convenience” of placing people into particular spaces in society. Income is used to determine socioeconomic status because it is relatively easy to obtain data. (However, it has morphed into the tool that separates the haves from the have not’s and leaves some out in the cold completely. The thought that “some fit and some don’t” has stifled our thinking for too long. Schools should not be in the practice of “boxing” children into a category. For decades, some researchers have been fighting the uphill battle of changing the way we think about how financial status connects to mental ability or accessibility to standard resources. Normal neuronal development takes place the same way in all humans from the beginning. There is no conclusive evidence relating intelligence to a lack of adequate finances, only theory. Of course, the person with the fastest car may win the race; however, that does not prevent the next driver from arriving to his destination.
In 1966, William Sewell and Vimal Shan (University of Wisconsin) presented their findings regarding the sociology of education. These investigators proposed that external influences played a key role in understanding if a student went to college compared to his
desire to attend college. They cite a 1959 article by Parsons which dealt with schools as a class system where students, through attending school, “discovered” the path to take into adulthood. Considering the Gini coefficient about two years after the Sewell findings, it is interesting to note that the United States was enjoying it’s lowest index rating since 1929 (estimation). Sewell notes: Both socioeconomic status and intelligence have direct effects on planning to attend college, on the level of educational attainment through their effects on college plans and college attendance. In using these findings throughout the years, schools have not separated finances from intelligence or rather finances from expectations. It was incorrectly assumed that persons with little or no money automatically had a severe disadvantage before even entering school. This connection has led to labels such as “at-risk” and “economically disadvantaged.” He concluded that socioeconomics had a direct impact in determining who would attend college. I plan to not only disprove this notion, but to offer a new philosophy setting us on the path toward intrinsic motivation, increasing respect for schooling, and encouraging the thirst for knowledge. Ironically, it has been noted in the literature that the students from a higher economic standing tended to disengage more during group work than the “less fortunate” because the students perceive their futures filled with opportunity and something they less likely have to work toward. On the contrary, the less fortunate students tend to give more eye contact. Head nods, and signs of happiness (Kraus, M.W., Keitner, D.).
Hypothesis
Educational resources plus directed strategies will produce effective teachers, increase critically thinking students, and reduce poverty. I am proposing that the abundance of resources omitting strong directive strategy reduces intrinsic motivation, which leads to devaluing education. This study will show how (irregardless of gender) the role educational resources (namely technology) play an integral part with strategy and how the combination of both skills is crucial to the development of inquiry and research-based teaching practices.
Method
Low socio-economic students will be identified by traditional methods (free and reduced lunch status). Approximately 100 students will be chosen to participate. The initial investigation will be conducted without preference to gender or learning styles. Students are of a diverse population and a range of academic abilities. Extensive rubrics will be developed for optimal production. These rubrics will be shared with students prior to the task. Students will have a great deal of liberty to create, design models, and deduce conclusions from their work as well as work from their peers. Students will use technology such as computers and flip video cameras. This investigation is different from handing students guidelines on production expectations. In this case, the students will have to create a model that proposes a method to answering a question. We are not concerned with the answer. So, this project deviates from most models in this respect. We are primarily concerned in using the technology as a tool to “see” how the students think, process information, and what they expect from the school environment. This project differs in past literature findings in that the way students think was obtained by an outside observer – someone watching the students work. This project will actually show us a more objective perspective, directly from the child’s mind. Teachers will act as facilitators. The job of the teachers will be to set the framework and provide background, as well as any technical assistance. For most teachers, this is a novel way of teaching since most of the lessons taught are “lesson plan” driven. This model is not. The method proposed fro this project will actually, for the first time, use technology are a measurable tool (the mind’s eye, if you will) to determine which concepts students need to learn. The usual method has been formal assessments. Formal assessments have been used as the sole tools for scope and sequence, tracking students, and overall school structuring. It is one of my assumptions that the ordinary school instruction is not truly meeting the needs of the student. Another assumption is that students know more than what they let on to know. The basic culture of the public school classroom does not “permit” a student who excels to have “formal” acceptance into the group, unless the student can overcome these forces. This project places everyone on the same level playing field and removes barriers of successful achievement. The generalized view of the project is as follows:
- Each student will have access to a computer
- Each student will document work onto a compact disc
- Students will record videos of group projects/submit a hypothesis and evaluate data for conclusions
- Students will create and maintain a portfolio on a CD
- Each CD will be examined for:
- how students present work (creativity/completeness)
- how students make use of technology to maximize their grades (Excel programs for graphing/reference websites)
- how students from low socioeconomic backgrounds fair against their counterparts (is there a difference in deliverables?)
Intrinsic Model
The use of technology will give insight as to what works for students. Traditional models rely heavily on formal assessments that give no return on the investment. The statistics generated from score analysis is akin to a wheel spinning in the mud. Sure, the wheel is turning, but the vehicle is essentially motionless. Millions of dollars go into evaluating test score. Test score run the economy of schools. But, what if test scores are leading the schools into the ditch. I think we are missing the real problem. It is imperative that we dive into how the new millennium students process information. Older models are not answering the problems. Without much preparation, students have left teachers and schools behind. Unless school leaders take a deeper look at “intrinsic” instruction, schools are bound to failure. How do schools implement the Intrinsic Model? To do this would take a complete overhaul in how teachers are trained. To do this would take a broader inclusion of new thinking. To do this would do the ultimate – removing leaders who cannot embrace futuristic forward thinking. In some cases, students are held back by leaders who do not understand the true need of students. Intrinsic means “to look inward.” This approach is novel to the more acceptable model of accessing data through “after the fact” methods. Tests are given after unit instruction. Suppose assessments are made as students explore? Can teachers observe a student and predict if the student understand the lesson? Are teachers in tune enough to cater and tailor instruction to maximize results? The Intrinsic Model encourages students to think for themselves no matter what the outcome. The research does tell us that students are too concerned with getting the “right” answer. As a result of this typical teaching method, students have become like robots and these same students cannot compete on a global level because of the serious lack of innovation strategies. To include the Intrinsic Model would mean that formal assessments incorporate long reading passages that require students to generate viable solutions to a situation given certain “truths.” This model means that teachers have to be sharp and ready to discuss possibilities with students. This model will lay the foundation in which students feel free to create, instead of mimicking outdated methods. Teachers can use the digital portfolios to analyze for patterns in how a student thinks. After just a few assignments, a teacher should be able to design a plan which would meet the student’s individual needs. If a student recognizes that she is being evaluated as an individual (instead of as part of a whole), then productivity will increase greatly. One goal of this proposal is to create learning communities – places where students can openly discuss solutions to problems and places where students gather information from others’ life experiences. This goal will help to close the gap of students being able to transfer school skills to real world experiences.
Data Analysis
(TBD)
Conclusion
(pending data)
It is important to note that extensive rubrics will be written for each phase of the project. The validity of the results rests with at least 98% participation. What I hope this will help prove is that students need to understand the value of educational resources, how these resources improve their everyday lives, and how technology allows them a window to the future. Young researchers have to be groomed. The students’ intrinsic motivation will naturally catapult them into eagerly coming to class, having a total elimination of any behavioral issues, and a sincere thirst for knowledge.
Traditional tactics of using resources in the classroom have fallen short to innovation. Students use computers and other technology all the time. Most schools are light years behind the student. Strategies must include ownership if they are to be effective and life-changing. Low socio-economic students lack the exposure to connect resources to value. Key strategies fill those gaps. So, money is truly not the issue. Being a poor person is truly not the issue. If this were the case, we would not have over 300 uses of the peanut (thanks to a poor man named George Washington Carver). There are too many examples to cite that would deflate the notion that a lack of money stands in the way of school readiness or of the notion that poor parents cannot “afford” to speak to their children about a better life. If this were the case then many of us would never have made it. Once the schools catches up with the students, we stand a better chance at carving a future based in science and engineering.
It is time to refute the science of 1969 (and earlier) regarding the effect finances have on children in school. It is also time to reduce the waste, to increase productivity, and to maximize efficiency using operational and directed strategies.
References cited
Demarest, E.J., Reisner, E.R., Anderson, L.M., Humphrey, D.C., Farquhar, E., & Stein, S.E. (1993). Review of research on achieving the nation's readiness goal. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Kraus, M.W.; Keltner, D. (2008), "Signs of Socioeconomic Status: A Thin-Slicing Approach", Psychological Science 20 (1): 99–106, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02251.x, PMID 19076316
National Center for Educational Statistics. 31 March 2008. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/s.asp
Parsons, T., The School Class as a Social System: Some of its Functions in American Society, Harvard Educational Review, 29 (1959), pp. 297 – 318.
Ramey, S.L., & Ramey, C. T. (1994, November). The transition to school: Why the first few years matter for a lifetime. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(30), 194-198.
Sorokin, P. A., Social Mobility, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927, ch. 9.
Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008. United States Census Bureau. p. 17. http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf.
No comments:
Post a Comment