Introduction
Numerous things connect families and the concept of inequality. This study will, however, analyze the connection between social inequalities in education for different types of families based on income earned. It is important to note that there are studies that suggest that there is significant difference between cognitive ability of children raised in low income households compared to those in high income. Bernardi and Ballarino (2016) argue that there are research studies that support the argument that children in high income homes are often cognitively supported by access and ability to acquire anything money can buy. However, children brought up in hardship are projected to be more cognitively superior (Pfeffer, 2018). Regardless of what various studies have shown, one thing is clear, there are cognitive and social inequalities in different families based on their income.
Research Question(s)
The study will be guided by three research questions.
- Are social inequalities in education for different types of families based on income earned?
- Is there a relationship between family inequalities and future success of children based on quality of education received?
- Is privilege a determining factor in shaping perceptions on inequality among families of different incomes/wages?
Significance of Study
There are four main significances of the proposed study. One advantage is attached to the furthering of the discussion for academic purposes. It is expected that the researcher will not only be able to fill gaps that will be identified in the literature review, but also further the discussion to promote specific research in the future. Critically, as Mijs (2016) notes, one of the things one has to consider when doing an academic study is its impact in the progression of the field of study. It is, therefore, important to note this as a significance of the study.
Importantly, the study is significance as it will relay information that affects policies. It is prudent to mention that numerous policies appear to favour students who come from middle and high income families. Jacobs and Struyf (2015) argue that the education system favors students who do not have to worry about other things such as food and shelter. This argument is reinforced by the assumption that children from poorer backgrounds are less intelligent than those from more successful families.
Further, a key significance of the study is its projected impact in the field of education as a whole. Pfeffer (2018) notes that whereas policies are required to ensure all children have the same access to education, in numerous instances, the quality of learning is not the same due to the socio-economic status of the students’ families. The link between socio-economic status and low quality education can be tracked back to the era of slavery. The next section of the essay will focus on the background of families and inequality in regards to the topic selected.
Background
As stated previously, one can track the issue of families, inequality and education back to the slavery period. Pfeffer (2018) explains that after slavery was abolished, black Americans were still segregated. They had to go to different schools that were taught by their fellow black Americans. According to the scholar, the inequality started here (for these families) due to the fact that their race had not been exposed to quality education at that point. Therefore, whereas their teachers were learned, they were not as learned as tutors in schools that were attended by Caucasian children.
Additionally, the segregation of blacks led to lower quality of life, which further made education more difficult. Carolan and Wasserman (2015) explain that it is harder to teach a student who is hungry compared to one who is well fed. The hungry child will only think about food while the other child will have an easier time concentrating on his or her studies. Importantly, the government was keen to resolve the inequalities in schools (Tsai, Smith & Hauser, 2017). Interestingly, the solutions tried did not go down to family level. Carolan and Wasserman (2015) explain that policies and forced measures were used to ensure children of colored parents attended schools that were initially for Caucasians only. Despite this, the importance of pushing the agenda at familial level was overlooked. This meant that even though the policies sought to help students while in school, they did not do anything to alleviate their situation at home. The “circle of poverty” further ensured that the same poor children either got low quality education or dropped out of school due to the problems they faced at household level. It can be argued that this background further shows the relationship between families and inequality.
Literature Review
Two main concepts have to be discussed when thinking about family inequalities in the education sector. The first is the accessibility of education among families that are not equal in one way or the other. Carolan and Wasserman (2015) argue that inequalities among families can be measured by the ease of accessing quality education. The scholars argue that a significant number of families in the US can access some form of formal education. However, the quality, which is measured with regards to access to books and other resource materials, ratio of teacher to students, and availability of equipment needed for proper learning, differ. The difference is enhanced by the fact that even though accessibility for low income families might be harder, they are not fully supported by both the federal and state governments (Jacobs & Struyf, 2015). As stated previously, there are policies in place to help children in such situations, but they have not been properly linked with family support.
On the same note, the concern of accessibility is not only physical but also mental. Sneyers, Jacobs and Struyf (2016) explain that this is particularly important for students who come from vulnerable homes and are sponsored to attend schools that are mainly attended by students from wealthy families. Mijs (2016) argues that both culture and behavioral change affect children in such set-ups. According to the scholar, there are numerous ways tutors can help make the mental transition better for the learner. However, it is also important to note that cognitive dissonance plays a key role in the success of the student. It is important to note that whereas such a learner might be better off in the new (high income) school, his or her family is still in the same situation (low income).
Critically, the second aspect that has to be considered is the role of inequality in determination of quality of education expected among different families. Bodvin et al. (2018) argue that different families, depending on their social status, also have different expectations of education, and its ability to elevate their status. The scholars note that a significant number of parents in low income families push their children to study and excel in school due to the expectations that better grades are equal to a secure and better future. This argument is disputed by Tsai, Smith and Hauser (2017) who explains that due to the fact that a majority of students from low income families school together, their mindset towards what is takes to have a better future is similar.
Due to this, it is common to find that families that can be grouped in regards to an inequality chart, have the same beliefs in regards to both the concept of inequality and ways to resolve issues concerning the same. Mijs (2016) notes that inequality is also perceived differently based on privilege levels. For instance, whereas a low income family might feel the policies implemented enhance their inequalities, the wealthy would feel the opposite. This can be attributed to the impact of privilege, where the ones who are not negatively affected fail to properly put themselves in the shoes of those affected. Privilege does not only affect perception but also incorporates beliefs that can at times not be true (Tsai, Smith & Hauser, 2017). For example, the group of individuals not affected might believe that those affected want more than is necessary to solve the problem at hand.
Data and Measures
The study will adopt a combined approach for both data collection and data analysis. In regards to data collection, the research will use both secondary and primary data. Secondary data will be collected through previous academic and peer reviewed studies on the same topic. Further, the researcher will use a significant percentage of the secondary data to form the literature review. The primary data will be collected from an identified population. It is important to note that the population will be divided into two large categories. The two groups will be the high income and low income earners/families.
Critically, a sample of 600 participants will be drawn from the identified population. 300 participants will be from the high income bracket and the remaining 300 will be from the low income bracket. Participants will be selected through random stratified approach, which is the best option for the study. One of the reasons this is the best approach is the fact that it allows for the participants to not feel targeted due to their social status. This is particularly important for the low income families. To ensure that the right sample size is captured, the researcher will take samples from neighbors known as “ghettos” for low income earners and “suburbs” for high income earners. It is important to note that due to the fact that the study will not include children (under 18 years of age).
There is little risk of selection bias due to the approach selected. Critically, random stratified selection of the sample removes selection bias as the researcher does not have a chance to hand pick the participants. The approach works by selecting people of similar characteristics and randomly picking out the individuals. Whereas there are numerous ways in which this can be achieved, the researcher will use a computer based application to do the random selection, which will use house numbers/address to pick the participants.
The researcher will use a questionnaire to collect primary data from the selected sample. Importantly, the questionnaire will be developed before the study. The validity and reliability of the study will be tested with a small group of ideal participants. This will allow the researcher to customize the tool to capture the right information during the study. The participants used to test the research tool will not be included in the final sample identified for purposes of integrity of the study.
Analytic Plan
The researcher will use a combination of both qualitative and quantitative research analysis. Specifically, the researcher will use text analysis for the identified qualitative approach. Further, for quantitative approach, the researcher will use statistical analysis. The combination of the two approaches will allow the researcher to fully capture the data. It is also critical to note that for statistical analysis, the researcher will be test three variables based on the research questions. The independent variable will be education while the dependent variables will be the low income and high income aspects of the research study.
Conclusion
In conclusion, inequalities in families can manifest in various ways. One of the key ways in which such differences emerge is through an analysis of education levels among two differing groups. The proposed study looks into the social inequalities among low income and high income families in regards to the type and quality of education they get. The proposed study will use both secondary and primary data, with a sample of 600 participants. The sample size will be picked through a random stratified approach to lower the risk for bias during selection. Importantly, the researcher will also use a combined approach of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies.
References
Bernardi, F. & Ballarino, G. (Eds.) (2016). Education, occupation and social origin: A comparative analysis the transmission of socio-economic inequalities. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bodvin, K., Verschueren, K., De Haene, L., & Struyf, E. (2018). Social inequality in education and the use of extramural support services: access and parental experiences in disadvantaged families. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33, 215–233.
Carolan, B. V., & Wasserman, S. J. (2015). Does parenting style matter? Concerted cultivation, educational expectations, and the transmission of educational advantage. Sociological Perspectives, 58(2):168–86.
Jacobs, K., & Struyf, E. (2015). First step towards a comprehensive model on integrated socio-emotional guidance: investigating the effect of teachers’ task perception and a supportive network at school. Journal of Educational Research, 108(2), 95–111.
Mijs, J. J. B. (2016). Stratified failure: Educational Stratification and students’ attributions of their mathematics performance in 24 countries. Sociology of Education, 89(2):137–53.
Pfeffer, T. F. (2018). Growing wealth gaps in education. Demography, 55, 1033–1068.
Sneyers, E., Jacobs, K. & Struyf, E. (2016). Impact of an in-service training in neurocognitive insights on teacher stress, teacher professionalism and teacher student relationships. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–14.
Tsai, S., Smith, L. M., & Hauser, M. R. (2017). Families, schools, and student achievement inequality: A multilevel MIMIC model approach. Sociology of Education, 90(1), 1-7.