Educational Achievement free essay sample

People fail to realized that the educational system has the greatest impact on the lives of American citizens. Although low income students despair about the rising cost of education and if it is truly worth the investment, given the current socioeconomic conditions, education still offers the best opportunity for upward mobility. Low income students lose interest in learning during their early teens. Their families do not have the income to provide for extracurricular activities such as music, performing arts, or sports clubs. As a result, teens stay at home where they are heavily influenced by the computer and television. American mainstream culture deters students’ interests in learning. Hip Hop culture targets young teens, influencing them to be rebels and introducing them to drugs and parties. Students are held back in school, failing to complete their education. In Hip Hop culture, success is not determined by education. This view undermines the importance of the public school education system. Successful hip hop artists and entertainers are considered successful primarily because of their ethnic and economic background. Tupac Shakur, the Notorious BIG, and 50 Cent, are known for their gang related activity while growing up in the hood. Many low income students are able to relate to these artists. They are influenced to rebel against society and the education system. Students are disillusioned in the importance of education and success. Education is necessary for upward mobility, though American mainstream culture does not support this interest. Low income families struggle with the basic necessities of living, making education a low priority. Students from low income families who successfully complete high school are not able to afford college. They end up working minimum wage jobs, saving endlessly to receive a college education. The value of education is lost on many students; most lose the ambition of investing in an education. They become trapped, struggling with daily responsibilities. Education is important because it can be the deciding factor which changes their circumstances. As John Marsh asserts, â€Å"While education will not put food on your table, it can be the beginning of a better life. † (Marsh 1). Marsh’s view exemplifies why education is necessary for upward mobility. Education must remain a priority, even for low income class families who struggle with daily expenses. Most individuals who work minimum wage jobs become entrapped. They do not have the time or energy to pursue an education. Their jobs often require long hours for little pay. Minimum wage workers become a slave to their job, unable to quit, and unable to achieve upward mobility. According to the United States Department of Labor, â€Å"minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up of about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. † This shows that many younger people end up working minimum wage jobs, instead of being in school. The need for money in higher education has driven many students to take a minimum wage jobs to pay expenses. They become burdened with responsibility of paying for everyday expenses. Many students go into debt trying to pursue an education. In order to obtain an education, money becomes the determining factor. Loans provide an opportunity for individuals who wish to acquire an education. Statistics by the American Student Assistance present, â€Å"In each school year between 2000-2001 and 2006-2007, an estimated 60% of bachelor’s degree recipients borrowed to fund their education. Average debt per borrower rose 18%, from $19,300 to $22,700 over this time period. † Low income students, who decide to take out loans, find themselves in dire situations than before they left their neighborhood. Individuals who choose to go to college question the overbearing cost of a college education and if it is worth the investment. However, money is necessary in education, and hopefully will lead to upward mobility. Qualified low income students lose out on an opportunity for an education because of lack of money. Individuals who seek an education should be provided with an affordable education. Low income students should have access to grants and student aid. Contrarily, underachieving students from wealthy families tend to succeed over qualified low in come students. Kati Haycock concludes, Top achieving high school graduates from low income families now head immediately off to college at the same rate as the lowest achieving students from high income families. By age 24, 75 percent of young people from families earning more than $80,000 a year earn a bachelor’s degree, while the corresponding figure for those from families earning less than $25,000 a year is 9 percent (Haycock 1). These statistics show that there is a flaw in the educational system. Low income students are losing out, not because of their ability, but because of money, making it more difficult to achieve upward mobility. The government should provide grants and scholarships specifically for low income students. Low income students should not be denied an education due to financial hardship. However, over the past 30 years, our government has failed low income students. Kati Haycock stresses the fact, â€Å"The federal government’s principal aid program for low-income students-the Pell Grant- went from covering 75 percent of college costs in 1979 to only 33 percent in 2005, while federal spending on aid for higher-income students soared. † The government has a responsibility to those who are less fortunate. The average institution grant aids to low income students were awarded $3,691 while high income students were awarded $3823 (Haycock). These startling statistics show the deprivation of low-income students and favorable grants toward high-income students. The education system is a tool of the masses to secure education only amongst the wealthy, making upward mobility a dream of the lower class. Since the cutbacks of affirmative action, low income students have a difficult time pursuing an education. Affirmative action began in the mid 1960s: policies required that active measures be taken to ensure that blacks and other minorities enjoyed the same opportunities for promotions, salary increases, career advancement, school admissions, scholarships, and financial aid that had been nearly the exclusive province of whites (Brunner). However, well intended, the 1960’s affirmative action does not apply to today’s low income students. In 1996, California voters passed the California Civil Rights Initiative, also known as Proposition 209, which addressed that race could no longer be a factor in university admissions. Also in 2003, the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies were tried in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate program, â€Å"which uses a point system that rate students and awards additional points to minorities had to be modified†(Brunner 3). Because of these two acts, low income students have a difficult time pursuing an education. Although affirmative action needed to be amended to address color biased admissions, wealthy students need not be given a leg up to higher education. Those who suffered the most from these amendments are those most in need, low income students. Top universities are not designed to assist low income students. Although racial diversity is touted in college settings, low-income students receive no assistance. In â€Å"The New Affirmative Action,† David Leonhardt emphasizes, There is almost an iron law of higher education: the more selective a schools is, the fewer low-income students it has. At Harvard and Yale, only about 10 percent of undergraduates receive Pell Grants. (Typically, students from the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution are eligible for the Pell. ) Even at top public universities, the share is often 15 percent of less†(Leonhardt 4). The education system needs to be amended in order to truly have diversity. Without it, lower income students have little chance of reaching upward mobility. The main goal in achieving success and escaping poverty is education. In 1954, the Brown vs. Board of Education court decision articulated the fundamental idea that equality could be achieved through the schools and that all children were entitled to equality in the educational experience† (Ansalone and Biafora 1). Affirmative action policies have made a grand change in the inequality in education, however policies must also address the inequality of wealth amongst student background. Michelle Rhee, former Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools, suggests, â€Å"By building on models of success, society can dramatically improve public education and turn the tide of generational poverty. Education must become a priority to give children the tools they need to overcome poverty†(Rhee 1). America’s future relies on its younger generation. To eradicate poverty, low income students must have an opportunity to seek education in order to gain upward mobility. In order for low income students to gain an education, they need assistance. These students need to see positive representations of education through media. They should not have to worry about the overwhelming cost of education. Nor should they have to labor away working a minimum wage job to pursue an education. Education should be affordable to the masses. The government should provide grants and scholarships to those most in need. Although affirmative action has been considered biased, some forms of affirmative action must be in place, to assist those who desperately want an education, but can not afford it. Top universities must do their part, otherwise Brown Vs. Board of Education will have been in vain. Works Cited Ansalone, Georg, and Frank Biafora. â€Å"Elementary School Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes to the Educational Structure of Tracking. Education 125. 2 (2004): 249+. AcademicOneFile. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. Barnett, W. S. â€Å"Effectiveness of Early Educational Intervention. † Science 333. 6045 (2011): 975+. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 29. Nov. 2011. Bernstein, Jared. â€Å"Is Education the Cure for Poverty? † Opposing Viewpoints: How Can the Poor Be Helped. Ed. Jennifer Dorman. Greenhaven Press, 22 Apr. 2007:1-6. Opposing Viewpoints Resourc e Center. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. Brunner, Borgna. â€Å"Affirmative Action History. † infoplease. com. Information Please, 2007. Web. 30 Nov. 2011