U.S.A., Land of Limitations?
Nicholas Kristof
Argument
Kristof argues that in today’s
society, people are more likely to end up in the same kind of life that they
started in.
Throughout generations,
people have tried to change the outcome of their lives, whether it is gaining a
higher education than their parents, getting out of poverty, or anything else. Of
course, some people are successful. For those who grow up in poverty and go on
to become rich, life is great. However, this is not usually the case. Kristof
said, “Yet I fear that by 2015 we’ve become the socially rigid society our
forebears fled, replicating the barriers and class gaps that drove them away”. These
days people who were born poor are still poor, and people who were born rich
are still rich.
Not being able to grow out
of poverty is more than just not having a lot of money. Children in poverty
have worries that go beyond where the money is coming from. As Kristof points
out, “The best metrics of child poverty aren’t monetary, but rather how often a
child is read to or hugged”, children need much more than money. Children will
never feel they have left poverty without love and support, even if they do go
on to become rich.
As Kristof argues, you can
work as hard as you can, and think you are making all of the right choices in
life, but in the end, there’s a greater chance that you’ll grow up to be in the
same class position you were as a child.
Point to Share:
Kristof points out that in
test scores, the class gap is almost twice that of the race gap. Schools need
to pay more attention to the low-income students who may be going home to life
in poverty. A student from a high-income family and a student from a low-income
family can spend an entire day together at school, but what happens when the
day is over and both those students go home to completely different lifestyles?
What can teachers do to help that student from a low-income family who is
predicted to stay in that class for the rest of his life?
Your picture truly does show the income levels of U.S. public schools. Mississippi has the highest percentage (71%) and New Hampshire has the lowest percentage (27%). What is New Hampshire doing that makes their percentage so low and vice versa, what is Mississippi doing to have such a high percentage of low-income students in their public schools. Notice how this is only public schools, not private or any other type of school. If private or other schools were added to this chart, percentages would be very different.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you when you say a child needs more than just money. They need support and someone to love them, and for some families that is hard because of the culture of that family. Kristof's arguments soul purpose is to state that the way you are raised is the way you will live when you grow up- I do agree with that statement but there is so much more to that statement. Is there someone in that persons life that is pushing them to be better or vise versa - is there someone who is badgering them saying they will go nowhere in life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarlene, you brought up really good points about the need for schools/ educators to pay more attention to the serious effects of poverty on students. Far too often teachers fail to recognize that not all students go home to the same environment. Especially in schools with higher numbers of students from middle class families as opposed to working, or low class families. In schools like that it is definitely more likely that the impoverished childrens' needs will go unrecognized, or be mis-interpreted. I think society needs more advocates for these children. Educators should be required to complete some type of training to learn how to accommodate these student. After all aren't teachers supposed to do their best to help their children succeed? Great post! Thanks for the insight :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that people who are born rich, are still rich and people who are born poor are still poor. It's a sad thought but its completely true. It's almost like there's no room for a poor person in a rich persons life. I think people are stuck on the idea that someone born into a poor household can make it or deserve to be in a rich world. That makes it so they feel like they don't belong, or can't work hard enough for all that money and whatever comes with it. If roles reversed, people who are born into rich households did nothing to get there, they just fell into it where as, people of lower class have to work so hard and get no where because of where they started.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the quote you pulled out about children having a disadvantage not just in a monetary sense. Children like to be told that they're doing a good job and that people are there for them; as every age does. If they are not being given that support, they won't try as hard and may fail. This includes children who are rich as well as poor. They could have all the money in the world, but if they are not getting an abundance of love from their family, it doesn't matter their finical standing they still have a harder time finding success.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy the picture that you chose to support your argument. It really solidified the fact that this really is a pressing situation that every single state has to deal with! Also I liked the fact that you talked about how the wealth in a family doesn't really mean the amount of money they have, but the amount of support shown by the people who love them. Without that support, especially in the lower class, it would be hard to do anything with your live, and I think it was a very valid point for your argument.
ReplyDeleteHi Carlene !
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post! I especially loved the quote you chose to highlight the fact that the effects of poverty go beyond monetary, and materialistic needs not being met.
I also appreciated your selection for a photo! That map was very interesting to look at, and I was also struck with the question of what different teaching strategies are used in these regions to accommodate the less advantaged students in the lower class.