Assignment for Education
Sep 30th 2011 11:07
The following is a draft for Educational diversity class.
I understand there is an absolute lack of the original reading materials, but I hope you take a look and offer me corrections and/or suggestions.
(both in grammar and content)
[QUESTION]
Drawing on ideas and examples from your readings and lecture notes, explain issues related to socioeconomic status and gifted education.
[MY RESPONSE]
How socioeconomic status (SES) influences a child's academic achievement in various ways. Here, I would like to focus on children's achievement in normal education and according eligibility for gifted education, rather than how they progress in a gifted/talented (G/T) education program after selection. I classify the influencing factors into two categories, concerted cultivation and other environmental issues, and then explain about them respectively. Quantitative figures in the following are cited from McBee, 2006.
The quality and quantity of concerted cultivation (parental activities at home, leisure activities, parental school environment, number of children's book at home), which help children's academic achievement, is known to be limited in a family of which SES is low (Levin-Rasky, 2008). Naturally, the population of gifted education eligible children shall be influenced as well. This plausible assumption is consistent with the facts that the automatic referral rate for a G/T education program is much lower in low SES families compared to their high SES counterparts (1.93% vs 8.49% as a whole). Furthermore, such tendency does exist within each race as well. It should be noted that the automatic referral and it rate are determined by standardized test results, and thus can be considered as one objective and valid index for academic screenings.
Other environmental issues would involve non-material subjectivity. One issue McBee points out is that other forms of referrals can be problematic. Particularly, teachers' biased views might be leading to overlooking eligible students and consequent low teacher referral rates for minorities. It also should be emphasized that the racial contrasts among the nominees' success rates in screening process are obvious when they are referred by teachers (Black: 56.47%, Hispanic: 63.99% vs White: 80.32%) while the rates are relatively constant for automatic referral nominees (Black: 82.25%, Hispanic: 76.14% vs White: 88.06%). As a result, referrals by teachers, though virtually being the only option other than automatic referrals, can be vulnerable to skepticism.
The contrast between the first and second categories are obvious. While the first category is more about general issues in education as a whole, the second category is specific in a G/T education program and teachers' responsibility is obvious. As teachers' judgment arbitrariness and unreliability are clear in the presented figures, possible negative factors should be addressed and then minimized. Providing each student equal chances for better education is a duty of teachers, and not only specific tactics to help individual students to success in class, but also unbiased views, values and consequent judgment as prerequisite are must.
Reference:
Levine-Rasky, C. (2009). Dynamics of parent involvement at a multicultural school. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 331–344.
McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification
screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
13(2), 103–111.
I understand there is an absolute lack of the original reading materials, but I hope you take a look and offer me corrections and/or suggestions.
(both in grammar and content)
[QUESTION]
Drawing on ideas and examples from your readings and lecture notes, explain issues related to socioeconomic status and gifted education.
[MY RESPONSE]
How socioeconomic status (SES) influences a child's academic achievement in various ways. Here, I would like to focus on children's achievement in normal education and according eligibility for gifted education, rather than how they progress in a gifted/talented (G/T) education program after selection. I classify the influencing factors into two categories, concerted cultivation and other environmental issues, and then explain about them respectively. Quantitative figures in the following are cited from McBee, 2006.
The quality and quantity of concerted cultivation (parental activities at home, leisure activities, parental school environment, number of children's book at home), which help children's academic achievement, is known to be limited in a family of which SES is low (Levin-Rasky, 2008). Naturally, the population of gifted education eligible children shall be influenced as well. This plausible assumption is consistent with the facts that the automatic referral rate for a G/T education program is much lower in low SES families compared to their high SES counterparts (1.93% vs 8.49% as a whole). Furthermore, such tendency does exist within each race as well. It should be noted that the automatic referral and it rate are determined by standardized test results, and thus can be considered as one objective and valid index for academic screenings.
Other environmental issues would involve non-material subjectivity. One issue McBee points out is that other forms of referrals can be problematic. Particularly, teachers' biased views might be leading to overlooking eligible students and consequent low teacher referral rates for minorities. It also should be emphasized that the racial contrasts among the nominees' success rates in screening process are obvious when they are referred by teachers (Black: 56.47%, Hispanic: 63.99% vs White: 80.32%) while the rates are relatively constant for automatic referral nominees (Black: 82.25%, Hispanic: 76.14% vs White: 88.06%). As a result, referrals by teachers, though virtually being the only option other than automatic referrals, can be vulnerable to skepticism.
The contrast between the first and second categories are obvious. While the first category is more about general issues in education as a whole, the second category is specific in a G/T education program and teachers' responsibility is obvious. As teachers' judgment arbitrariness and unreliability are clear in the presented figures, possible negative factors should be addressed and then minimized. Providing each student equal chances for better education is a duty of teachers, and not only specific tactics to help individual students to success in class, but also unbiased views, values and consequent judgment as prerequisite are must.
Reference:
Levine-Rasky, C. (2009). Dynamics of parent involvement at a multicultural school. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 331–344.
McBee, M. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification
screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
13(2), 103–111.
- 5
- 3
- 2
Journals Statistics
| Total | 41 entries |
|---|---|
| This Month | 0 entries |
| This week | 0 enrties |
Latest entry
| Re-editing please!! (2) |
| Assignment for Education 2011/10/19 (0) |
| Assignment for Education 2011/10/15 (0) |
| Assignment for Education 2011年10月8日 (2) |
| Assignment for Education (5) |
Latest comments
| Oct 09th Edward |
| Oct 04th Trailsend |
| Sep 30th Remy |
| Dec 06th KalenXI |
| Dec 06th KalenXI |
Entries by Month
| 2011 |
|---|
| - December (1) |
| - October (3) |
| - September (1) |
| - April (3) |
| 2010 |
| - December (1) |
| - November (7) |
| - October (3) |
| - May (1) |
| - April (4) |
| - March (7) |
| - February (3) |
| - January (2) |
| 2009 |
| - December (2) |
| - October (1) |
| - July (1) |
| 2008 |
| - October (1) |
I classify the influencing factors into two categories: concerted cultivation and other environmental issues, and then explain about them respectively.
I understand there is an absolute lack of the original reading materials, but I hope you will take a look and offer me corrections and/or suggestions.
...offer me corrections and/or suggestions (both in grammar and content).
If this is the title of your draft, then it would be better phrased: The influence of socioeconomic status on children's academic achievement. Otherwise: Socioeconomic status (SES) influences a child's academic achievement in various ways.
I wouldn't use a colon unless you split the last phrase ("and then explain...") into a separate sentence. Either way, "explain about them respectively" should be either "explain them respectively" or "discuss them respectively." The latter sounds just slightly more natural to me.
"a family of which SES is low" sounds a little strange to me. I think it's acceptable, but I would prefer "a family in which SES is low" or "a family where SES is low".
Naturally, the population of gifted education eligible children should be influenced as well. (You could also use "will," but "shall" sounds a little dated.)
Such a tendency exists within each race as well. (Or, "Furthermore, such a tendency exists within each race." I wouldn't use both "Furthermore" and "as well.")
It should be noted that the automatic referral and it rate (what is an "it rate"? is "it" an acronym?) are determined by standardized test results, and thus can be considered as one objective and a valid index for academic screenings. (Some grammar teachers would tell you that there should not be a comma after "test results." I think it sounds fine.)
Particularly, teachers' biased views might be leading to overlooking eligible students and, consequently, low teacher referral rates for minorities.
It also should be emphasized that the racial contrasts among the nominees' success rates in the screening process are obvious
As a result, referrals by teachers, though virtually the only option other than automatic referrals, can be vulnerable to skepticism.
The contrast between the first and second categories is obvious. (The subject of the sentence is "contrast," which is singular, so you should use "is" instead of "are.")
While the first category is more about general issues in education as a whole, the second category is specific to G/T education programs, and teachers' responsibility is obvious.
As the arbitrariness and unreliability of teachers' judgments are clear in the presented figures, possible negative factors should be addressed and then minimized.
Providing each student equal chances for better education is a duty of teachers, and not only specific tactics to help individual students to success in class, but also a prerequisite of unbiased views, values and consequent judgment are a must.