This is a big influence on student’s educational achievement as they do not have enough money to buy the necessary equipment for school such as revision guides. Also, if a student comes from a poor background, the house is more likely to be overcrowded. This means that they do not have a quiet place to study and do their homework which puts them at a disadvantage. Thay may not be able to afford educational trips etc. this is known as cultural deprivation.
(Powers & Camara). In other studies, the pre-test to the coaching is not even an actual operational form of the SAT or PSAT. Students are less likely to be motivated to take these tests and due well on them. Thus, after their coaching there will be inaccurately high estimates of score increases. Sometimes, coaching firms don’t consider the average growth for students like maturation, educational experiences both in and out of school, increased familiarity with the test, and error when measuring before and after coaching changes.
Payne states that impoverished students face inequality at school, insinuating that the school should be responsible for helping to provide for these students so that they can have a better education. Gorski sees that responsibility lies most likely with us, who can aid teachers in offering a hand, as they are underpaid and are not able to do much on their own. The two authors have clashing ideas as to why students are in poverty: Payne believes that the impoverished students are lazy and have their own set of
There are social class, gender and ethnic differences in how pupils succeed in education. There has been debate about the reason for these differences. I will assess the views that factors and processes within schools is the main reason for the differences. A self fulfilling prophecy would cause achievement differences between the two social classes, as teachers would label middle class children as smart, will do well etc and working class kids as unruly, lazy etc. then the teacher treats the pupil accordingly eg gives them more attention and work, ignores them.
Despite the fact that girls do better than boys at school, boys have higher expectations and higher self esteem than girls, a gap that continues with each year of schooling. Does this finding conform with your own experience? How would you explain this? 4. Make up two lists—what women can do to prevent rape and what men can do.
Academic achievement is devalued because of its association with the dominant and oppressive white culture. A contrary view notes that while both black and white adolescents may sometimes exert (or experience) peer pressure against being "nerdy" and working hard in school, this anti-intellectual norm is not usually racialized. Fordham and Ogbu reported on their observations from a single school. Several studies based on representative national surveys of high-school students have reached contrary findings. These have demonstrated that the differences between black and white students are negligible with respect to the value placed on education.
In a smaller class in addition to more individualized student attention, there are fewer workloads for the teachers also. When it comes to common sense considering a class that has around 40 students to one teacher, of course, it is very hard for the teacher to control that particular class perfectly. Students who do not want to pay any attention to the lectures can sit at the end of the class and start chatting with their peers. Moreover, it is very easy for these students to go unnoticed till the end of the class. On the other hand, if a class is composed of fewer students it is very easy for a teacher to control that class and none of the students will be able to do disruptive work and go unnoticed till the end of the class.
Although tracking lets high achievers move rapidly and gives low achievers more help and easier goals, it is unfair to low achievers. Tracking is unfair because it provides poor peer models, teachers have low expectations, and minorities are conveniently concentrated in lower tracks, and low achievers are locked into the lower tracks because of a slow instructional pace that doesn't begin to keep up with other tracks. Tracking also increases the likelihood of failure for low achievers where the least is expected, and increases racial isolation as minority students are systematically placed into lower tracks (Meyers). “According to Rob Meyers, “When low achieving students are isolated from high achieving peers, they have little opportunity to acquire the high achievement norms and abilities required for future success”. According to the article “Tracking”, “Opponents of tracking trace the practice to the turn of the century when most children attending public schools were from upper-middle-class families, but large numbers of black and working-class students were starting to enter the schools as the result of compulsory schooling laws and rising immigration.” In response, a Separate curriculum was developed for the relatively small percentage of students destined for higher education and for the masses that went on to unskilled industrial jobs.
Rather than focusing on more imperative and valuable affairs such as academic activities, students as of current prefer to accomplish other matters of trivial significance. In many cases, students attribute their poor performance in school to lack of studying rather than pinpointing the lack of intelligence; on other hand, if they perform well, students assume to possessing an exceptional ability because they can perform well without studying (Urdan, 2004). Accordingly, a myriad of research has aimed focus on gender differences in various areas of intellectual achievement (Halpern, 2012; Ang, 2014). As a result, such research paves way in the conduct of policy decisions such as financing sex-segregated education (Lindberg, Hyde, Petersen, & Linn, 2010; Ang, 2014). Learned helplessness has been defined by Vasta, Haith and Miller (1995) as a feeling of incompetence and lack of ability that accumulate from often episodes of failure experience.
Based on the recent ubiquity of standardized tests, it is clear that schools have promoted the former more than the latter. This push for conformity has been detrimental to students, who have suffered because of the lack of outlets to develop and express their individuality and creativity. Conformity in and of itself is not harmful to students. In fact, if applied correctly, it can be very helpful to their development. Some conformity — things like basic rules and an organized classroom — is helpful to students because it creates an environment conducive to