This is just a little writing assignment I did for my social change class... It's pretty simplistic due to space constraints but I thought it might be a good topic to stick here.
Economic inequality has a profound influence on the success of students from a very early age. Although much has been made of the idea that the poor have lower IQ scores, the disadvantages many face, often beginning before they are even born, have a negative impact on their ability to learn. Inadequate nutrition, stress, exposure to chemical contaminants from their environment, and insufficient nurturing due to overworked parents all may have a significant impact on both a child's development and on their access to educational support. Lower scholastic aptitude doesn't cause poverty; poverty causes lower scholastic aptitude.
Children who are impoverished are often categorized as "troubled" at school and fail to receive sufficient educational support. A poor black or brown-skinned child who acts out is likely to receive a much more severe punishment than a well-to-do white child who performs exactly the same actions, even to the extent of having a fairly innocuous act turn into a police record. Once so categorized, children may be punished harshly for minor behavioral infractions that would not even be considered a misdeed by a "good" child.
Parents who themselves did not receive a good education may feel that education is very important, even crucial to breaking the cycle of poverty, but lack the time, experience, or skills to support their child through the bureaucratic nightmare of the school system. A struggling child without a strong advocate in the schools is a victim waiting to happen, and in our society these child victims all too often become fodder for the machine of the correctional system.
The internet is a tremendous advantage in the lives of students who are fortunate enough to have it at home. The ease of accessing information that once required a trip to the library and hours of combing through books or old newspapers is a revolution in researching for school projects. There are also disadvantages; a child may accept the first piece of information about a subject that he or she finds, and it may be erroneous or biased. Because of that, it's important to teach children who are using internet sources to use critical thinking and fact-checking skills when determining the credibility and value of information found on the internet.
Due to the high number of projects my children are bringing home that require or are greatly simplified by access to the internet and a printer, I think that children who don't have access to the internet at home are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to completing their schoolwork. Not only does that lack place a greater burden on them in terms of completing their schoolwork, but if the reasons they don't have internet at home are economic, their parents are also less likely to have the time and resources to assist and support them through completing projects and assignments, making it a real double-whammy in practical terms.
Quote from: Nigel on May 01, 2012, 06:10:53 PM
This is just a little writing assignment I did for my social change class... It's pretty simplistic due to space constraints but I thought it might be a good topic to stick here.
Economic inequality has a profound influence on the success of students from a very early age. Although much has been made of the idea that the poor have lower IQ scores, the disadvantages many face, often beginning before they are even born, have a negative impact on their ability to learn. Inadequate nutrition, stress, exposure to chemical contaminants from their environment, and insufficient nurturing due to overworked parents all may have a significant impact on both a child's development and on their access to educational support. Lower scholastic aptitude doesn't cause poverty; poverty causes lower scholastic aptitude.
Children who are impoverished are often categorized as "troubled" at school and fail to receive sufficient educational support. A poor black or brown-skinned child who acts out is likely to receive a much more severe punishment than a well-to-do white child who performs exactly the same actions, even to the extent of having a fairly innocuous act turn into a police record. Once so categorized, children may be punished harshly for minor behavioral infractions that would not even be considered a misdeed by a "good" child.
Parents who themselves did not receive a good education may feel that education is very important, even crucial to breaking the cycle of poverty, but lack the time, experience, or skills to support their child through the bureaucratic nightmare of the school system. A struggling child without a strong advocate in the schools is a victim waiting to happen, and in our society these child victims all too often become fodder for the machine of the correctional system.
The internet is a tremendous advantage in the lives of students who are fortunate enough to have it at home. The ease of accessing information that once required a trip to the library and hours of combing through books or old newspapers is a revolution in researching for school projects. There are also disadvantages; a child may accept the first piece of information about a subject that he or she finds, and it may be erroneous or biased. Because of that, it's important to teach children who are using internet sources to use critical thinking and fact-checking skills when determining the credibility and value of information found on the internet.
Due to the high number of projects my children are bringing home that require or are greatly simplified by access to the internet and a printer, I think that children who don't have access to the internet at home are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to completing their schoolwork. Not only does that lack place a greater burden on them in terms of completing their schoolwork, but if the reasons they don't have internet at home are economic, their parents are also less likely to have the time and resources to assist and support them through completing projects and assignments, making it a real double-whammy in practical terms.
i think a big part of what you adress is discrimination, and unfortunately, the internet access cant do much about it for it depends on others perceptions and actions
how people are marked/categorized as "trouble" that is
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on May 01, 2012, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 01, 2012, 06:10:53 PM
This is just a little writing assignment I did for my social change class... It's pretty simplistic due to space constraints but I thought it might be a good topic to stick here.
Economic inequality has a profound influence on the success of students from a very early age. Although much has been made of the idea that the poor have lower IQ scores, the disadvantages many face, often beginning before they are even born, have a negative impact on their ability to learn. Inadequate nutrition, stress, exposure to chemical contaminants from their environment, and insufficient nurturing due to overworked parents all may have a significant impact on both a child's development and on their access to educational support. Lower scholastic aptitude doesn't cause poverty; poverty causes lower scholastic aptitude.
Children who are impoverished are often categorized as "troubled" at school and fail to receive sufficient educational support. A poor black or brown-skinned child who acts out is likely to receive a much more severe punishment than a well-to-do white child who performs exactly the same actions, even to the extent of having a fairly innocuous act turn into a police record. Once so categorized, children may be punished harshly for minor behavioral infractions that would not even be considered a misdeed by a "good" child.
Parents who themselves did not receive a good education may feel that education is very important, even crucial to breaking the cycle of poverty, but lack the time, experience, or skills to support their child through the bureaucratic nightmare of the school system. A struggling child without a strong advocate in the schools is a victim waiting to happen, and in our society these child victims all too often become fodder for the machine of the correctional system.
The internet is a tremendous advantage in the lives of students who are fortunate enough to have it at home. The ease of accessing information that once required a trip to the library and hours of combing through books or old newspapers is a revolution in researching for school projects. There are also disadvantages; a child may accept the first piece of information about a subject that he or she finds, and it may be erroneous or biased. Because of that, it's important to teach children who are using internet sources to use critical thinking and fact-checking skills when determining the credibility and value of information found on the internet.
Due to the high number of projects my children are bringing home that require or are greatly simplified by access to the internet and a printer, I think that children who don't have access to the internet at home are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to completing their schoolwork. Not only does that lack place a greater burden on them in terms of completing their schoolwork, but if the reasons they don't have internet at home are economic, their parents are also less likely to have the time and resources to assist and support them through completing projects and assignments, making it a real double-whammy in practical terms.
i think a big part of what you adress is discrimination, and unfortunately, the internet access cant do much about it for it depends on others perceptions and actions
how people are marked/categorized as "trouble" that is
Those are two different topics. The internet access (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the practice of tracking, it's just another deleterious consequence of poverty.
Quote from: Nigel on May 01, 2012, 06:10:53 PM
Due to the high number of projects my children are bringing home that require or are greatly simplified by access to the internet and a printer, I think that children who don't have access to the internet at home are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to completing their schoolwork.
Not to mention the fact that they aren't learning or keeping current with information technology which is itself a crippling disadvantage. Not just the homework, but the means by which to access information, now or in the future.
I've noticed in our area even people who are struggling to get by make sure they have some kind of internet access, even if it means leeching wifi from a consenting neighbor. I don't know if that's related to living in the northeast specifically or the proximity to a major metropolitan area, or the fact that Massachusetts has a serious hardon for education.
i concur with your piece nigel.
Also it seems more and more like they are building schools (especially in inner-city areas) to be like prisons. Large windowless concrete structures patrolled by police are no place to learn. And the kicker is that having police there actually does little to increase "security" however it does mean that what might get you detention or even nothing in a rich white school will probably end up on inner-city kids' criminal record.
Quote from: Nigel on May 01, 2012, 06:10:53 PM
A struggling child without a strong advocate in the schools is a victim waiting to happen, and in our society these child victims all too often become fodder for The Machine's Correctional System™.
Fixed.
Thanks guys!
Yeah, one of the things that I'm gleaning from my sociology readings is that everything is fucked and nobody (who wants it stopped) knows how to stop it.
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 12:27:00 AM
Thanks guys!
Yeah, one of the things that I'm gleaning from my sociology readings is that everything is fucked and nobody (who wants it stopped) knows how to stop it.
This actually zinged into my mind something I had half-formed, and that is that the internet should be treated like a public utility, but then again I think that all public utilities should be state run, and not by subsidized monopolies. DAMNIT NIGEL I AM BLAMIGN YUO FIOR MAKING A COMMUNIST!!!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :lulz: :lulz:
Not really.
Quote from: I am a Guru named Coyote on May 02, 2012, 05:21:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 12:27:00 AM
Thanks guys!
Yeah, one of the things that I'm gleaning from my sociology readings is that everything is fucked and nobody (who wants it stopped) knows how to stop it.
This actually zinged into my mind something I had half-formed, and that is that the internet should be treated like a public utility, but then again I think that all public utilities should be state run, and not by subsidized monopolies. DAMNIT NIGEL I AM BLAMIGN YUO FIOR MAKING A COMMUNIST!!!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :lulz: :lulz:
Not really.
A SOCIALIST, COYOTE! COMMUNISIM IS DIFFIRINT!!!!!
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:25:08 AM
Quote from: I am a Guru named Coyote on May 02, 2012, 05:21:41 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 12:27:00 AM
Thanks guys!
Yeah, one of the things that I'm gleaning from my sociology readings is that everything is fucked and nobody (who wants it stopped) knows how to stop it.
This actually zinged into my mind something I had half-formed, and that is that the internet should be treated like a public utility, but then again I think that all public utilities should be state run, and not by subsidized monopolies. DAMNIT NIGEL I AM BLAMIGN YUO FIOR MAKING A COMMUNIST!!!!! :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :argh!: :lulz: :lulz:
Not really.
A SOCIALIST, COYOTE! COMMUNISIM IS DIFFIRINT!!!!!
NOT IN MURKIA!!!!!!! :lulz:
I know. I know. But yes socialist.
My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.
"murkia". :lulz:
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:27:30 AM
My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.
Is it because of the cheap corn that is used as a filler in all it's glorious and "nutritious" forms in American "food"?
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:27:55 AM
"murkia". :lulz:
:thanks:
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:27:30 AM
My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.
Sounds like someone shat in his high-fructose corn syrup based punch bowl.
Quote from: I am a Guru named Coyote on May 02, 2012, 05:29:23 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:27:30 AM
My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.
Is it because of the cheap corn that is used as a filler in all it's glorious and "nutritious" forms in American "food"?
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:27:55 AM
"murkia". :lulz:
:thanks:
Yes, it's to do with all the high-calorie low-nutrient processed forms of subsidized foods which farms grow at artificially elevated rates thanks to subsidies, which are sold at below-market rates to be used as filler in processed foods which are then sold at below-market prices, which poor Americans then disproportionately consume using subsidized income, leading to long-term health problems that are treated using subsidized funding.
Quote from: NewSpag on May 02, 2012, 05:30:21 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:27:30 AM
My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.
Sounds like someone shat in his high-fructose corn syrup based punch bowl.
Her. Both my program director and the epidemiologist are women.
And you are showing an infantile naivete about epidemiological method.
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 06:03:56 AM
Quote from: NewSpag on May 02, 2012, 05:30:21 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:27:30 AM
My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.
Sounds like someone shat in his high-fructose corn syrup based punch bowl.
Her. Both my program director and the epidemiologist are women.
And you are showing an infantile naivete about epidemiological method.
:oops: Sorry. "Its" tends to offend people and "his/her" is too much work so I tend to go with "his" by default. That was supposed to be a joke. But on the bright side you pointing out my infantile naivete about epidemiological method actually spurred me to start reading the epidemiology wikipedia page. Shame can be a powerful motivator.
Quote from: NewSpag on May 02, 2012, 06:20:30 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 06:03:56 AM
Quote from: NewSpag on May 02, 2012, 05:30:21 AM
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 05:27:30 AM
My program director told me about an awesome study today; about an epidemiologist with an economy degree who recently proved that farm subsidies cost the US more in healthcare than it generates in economic benefits.
Sounds like someone shat in his high-fructose corn syrup based punch bowl.
Her. Both my program director and the epidemiologist are women.
And you are showing an infantile naivete about epidemiological method.
:oops: Sorry. "Its" tends to offend people and "his/her" is too much work so I tend to go with "his" by default. That was supposed to be a joke. But on the bright side you pointing out my infantile naivete about epidemiological method actually spurred me to start reading the epidemiology wikipedia page. Shame can be a powerful motivator.
Silver lining FTW!
Quote from: Nigel on May 02, 2012, 06:00:47 AMYes, it's to do with all the high-calorie low-nutrient processed forms of subsidized foods which farms grow at artificially elevated rates thanks to subsidies, which are sold at below-market rates to be used as filler in processed foods which are then sold at below-market prices, which poor Americans then disproportionately consume using subsidized income, leading to long-term health problems that are treated using subsidized funding.
Hmmm. Qui bono?
Everyone except those who eat the food.
It's cheap to produce, thanks to subsidies, its not very filling (so people buy more of it), if it's high in sugar it can be addictive, so it becomes habit forming.
I've been paying closer attention to calorie content in supermarkets of late, and it is amazing to see the differences between certain kinds of food and others. A pre-made wrap, for example, can be up to 550 calories, whereas a whole can of soup can be around 120-200, depending on exact content (obviously, more vegetable orientated soups, like minestrone or leek and potato are lower than cream of chicken). They cost around the same, too.
It's also interesting to note how they present the calories. By law, UK products have to show how much of a product makes up the daily recommended calorie intake (which itself is on the high end of the scale - 2500 for an adult male? If he works a physical job, maybe...I get by on around 700-1000 quite happily). But especially on junk food, made to appeal to children, they are presented in a misleading way. Example: fried chicken straws, basically breaded chicken pieces, are show as 2% on the label on the front. You have to look quite closely to see that 2% applies to each stick. Of which there are about 20+. Some yoghurts show you a calorie value for 1/5 of a pot. And so on and so forth.
Anyway, that digression took place because, for a long time, I've suspected there is a fairly obvious link between low-income families, poor diet and poor learning. I don't have statistics, but I know from personal experience of spending long hours studying and concentrating on complex texts how not only how much I've eaten, but what I've eaten can affect my ability to internalize and recall information. I also know from my time teaching at primary school how "bad behaviour" (being unsettled, calling out etc) was more present among children lower income backgrounds (our school was in a fairly prosperous region, so these students were in the minority), and their particular kinds of behaviour suggested an excess of energy, followed by "sugar crashes" and a loss of motivation.
I could also see what they were having for snacks and break and what their lunches were. Which does help.
Of course, there are other factors which can explain such behaviour, and do not have to do with diet (the skills normally associated with better income - personal discipline, for example, may be less observable some lower income family, and so the child does not place a high value on behaving in class, speaking out of turn etc). But honestly, diet seems a more likely culprit, based on personal experience.
Healthy body = healthy mind. If their diet makes them fat and weak or skinny and weak, there's no reason to assume it's affecting their brain any differently. Not always easy to tell, tho, lot of "bookie" types have shit physical condition, too, on account of they sit around reading all day and not getting up off their arses and exercising.
Yes. I keep in mind the example of the Russian Chess Team - in addition to being chess experts, they are also trained physically very hard, to be in peak physical condition. The logic is fairly obvious, chess matches can take a huge amount of time, and if your concentration is wavering due to poor physical condition, then you are likely to lose. Their training is almost military in style - up at 6am, morning runs, drills, a carefully monitored diet...
This is the other reason why PE is done at schools too, of course. Only problem being that it is often taught so badly it ends up putting students off exercising for life.
Quote from: Cain on May 02, 2012, 11:46:40 AM
Yes. I keep in mind the example of the Russian Chess Team - in addition to being chess experts, they are also trained physically very hard, to be in peak physical condition. The logic is fairly obvious, chess matches can take a huge amount of time, and if your concentration is wavering due to poor physical condition, then you are likely to lose. Their training is almost military in style - up at 6am, morning runs, drills, a carefully monitored diet...
This is the other reason why PE is done at schools too, of course. Only problem being that it is often taught so badly it ends up putting students off exercising for life.
That same problem also applies to learning. If i didn't have a pathological escapism driven need to read EVERYTHING i wouldn't have learned anything in the first eight years after highschool.