Positive Impact On Education

903 Words2 Pages

Most people would agree that education is the foundation of society. A solid education generally leads to a better life. Numerous studies have proven that college graduates earn significantly more than those without a degree. Aristotle refers to an educated mind as able to entertain thoughts without accepting them, meaning educated minds think independently. In the modern educational setting, how difficult is it for students to successfully succeed to that next level described by Aristotle? Education is a vital tool for lifelong success but there are many areas of concern in the current system of public education. Education reform has been a constant occurrence since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Every year, specialists develop …show more content…

A 2006 nationwide study revealed that students enrolled in Title I Programs had lower levels of engagement than students who didn’t attend lower income institution (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007). Poverty has a direct effect on students’ behavior and emotions. It also has an impact on their perception of education. The causes of poverty include divorce, substance abuse, lack of education or being born into low income culture. Other factors include declining job markets or simple misfortune. Regardless of the cause, students tend to bring these burdens into the classrooms. Negative behavior is often the initial sign of poverty’s influence. These are the students who often “act-out.” Lower income students also seem to be hardwired, impatient, angry and resentful. Inexperienced teachers often make the mistake of labeling and demeaning these students because the behavior is often perceived as inappropriate. Jensen (2009) explains that this behavior is learned from somewhere. This is perhaps the reason that schools located in poorer neighborhoods tend to be more difficult to staff. A high level of patience is necessary to be successful when dealing with these challenging …show more content…

During the 2014-2015 school year, I observed first-hand different performing groups representing two campuses. Both campuses were located in the same district and had similar demographics with the exception of Title I status. Ironically, the groups were taught by spouses. The husband taught at a campus located in a better neighborhood where programs with a high level of student engagement. The wife’s campus was Title I, with a lower level of student involvement in activities. Both groups performed the same literature, had similar practice schedules and were taught in the same manner. The students from the lower income neighborhood did not see much value in extra practice and preparation for the competition. The results of the District Competition for these two groups, taught by spouses, showed that that group from the higher income neighborhood, scored significantly higher than the campus with the higher percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunch. Unfortunately the teacher of the Title I campus’s group left the campus at the year’s end because the students simply didn’t have a desire to produce higher

Open Document