Dion Ginanto
The notion of
which impact is stronger, the effect of social
economy backgrounds on education, or the effect of education on social economy, still remains debatable. Some
researchers claim, on the one hand, that schools are preparing students for the
emerging adult labor markets. Others argue that the adult labor markets and
family income influences students’ performances and attainments in schools.
This paper, however, does not answer which one has more influence. Rather, it
focuses on the first notion, in which adult labors plays an important role for
students to perform better in schools. The paper addresses some important
trends in how family background contributes to students’ opportunity to excel
in school, and how students from low social economic status differ from
students whose parents hold professional jobs, in term of their achievement at
schools. I also connect my argument to the Indonesian context in addressing
these issues.
Family Background
Impacts Students’ Performance
Rothstein (2004)
asserted that children who are raised by parents who hold professional jobs
have more positive attitudes toward the material presented by their teachers
than students who are raised by working-class parents. In line with Rothstein,
Lareau (1987) and Reardon (2011) argued that parental involvement in education
for students from high-level income family is more positive compared to
parental involvement for those who are from low-income families. Other issues
that may have significant effects on students’ outcomes are housing and health
(Rothstein, 2004), social relations (Bowles & Gintis, 1976), family
investments in their kids’ education (Reardon, 2011), and cultural
characteristics (Rothstein, 2004).
How They Differ?
To answer the
question of how students from different family backgrounds may experience
different school achievement, I identified two factors: 1) cultural capital,
and 2) resources capital.
Cultural backgrounds from different social classes have
substantial influence on students’ performances in school. This includes how
they motivate their kids to do homework, how they read books to their kids
before sleeping, their willingness to support education, and how they engage in
the school’s activities. For the working class, or the low level social classes,
parents will have less time to discuss with their kids, to help kids with their
homework, to encourage the kids to read, or simply to read books for their
kids. Further, parents from advantaged families tend to have more parental
involvement. Lareau (1987) mentioned why parents from high-income families have
more participation in schooling is because of their awareness on education, as
well as their resources to supports their kids’ education.
Culture
from the surrounding environment also matters. Students from low social
economic status usually live in poor neighborhoods. In Indonesia, for example,
peer groups in neighborhoods often have negative impacts on an individual. The
minimum degree of parental supervision in co-mingling with their peers will
indirectly affect school performance in a negative way, such as bullying,
smoking, sexual abuse, and other juvenile delinquency.
Another
factor that contributes to the school performance gaps among students of
different social economic status is their family
resources. Indonesia, which is predominantly farmers (38%), with a 6.6%
unemployment rate and 11.7% below poverty[1],
obviously experiences achievement gaps among students with different social
economic status. Students from rich
families have extra classes after school, more books, and more facilities
(laptop, calculator, access to the internet at home, etc). These extra resources
provide more achievement gaps from their peers who are from disadvantage
families.
Health,
housing, and nutrition also matter in creating performance gaps among students
with different economic backgrounds. In Indonesia, most students from poor
families live far away from schools. They need to walk extra miles, with less
nutrition. This condition obviously contributes to the students’ performance,
compared to students who live in a nice house, with sufficient nutrition, and
who do not need to walk to school; these differences evidently create more
holes of inequality and inequity.
Rothstein (2004) stressed that poor nutrition and less family
investments on education also directly contribute to an achievement gaps between
lower- and middle-class children.
Finally,
parents’ awareness on education has significant impact on students’ performance
in schools. The more professional jobs parents’ hold, the more aware they are
on education, and the more resources they invest in their kids’ education. As a
result, the more likely students from high social economic status will perform better. Therefore, to
create a better and more equitable social economic status in the society in the
future, it is imperative to improve education quality and quantity in society.
References:
Annette Lareau,
“Social Class Differences in Family School Relationships: The Importance of
Cultural Capital,” Sociology of Education
60 (1987), pp. 73-85.
Richard Rothstein,
“Social Class, Student Achievement, and the Black-White Achievement Gap.” In Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic
and Educational Reform to Close the Black-White Achievement Gap, pp 13-65.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, 2004.
Samuel Bowles and
Herbert Gintis, “Education and Personal Development: The Long Shadow of Work,”
In Bowles and Gintis, Schooling in
Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life,
pp. 125-48. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
Sean
Reardon, The Widening Academic Achievement Gap between the Rich and Poor: New
Evidence and Possible Explanations. In R. Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.), Whither
Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press, 2011.
Internet Sources:
The World Fact
Book, Indonesia:
Comments