Poverty and all its related concerns require so much mental energy that the poor have less remaining brainpower to devote to other areas of life, according to research based at Princeton University. As a result, people of limited means are more likely to make mistakes and bad decisions that may be amplified by — and perpetuate — their financial woes.
Published in the journal Science, the study presents a unique perspective regarding the causes of persistent poverty. The researchers suggest that being poor may keep a person from concentrating on the very avenues that would lead them out of poverty. A person’s cognitive function is diminished by the constant and all-consuming effort of coping with the immediate effects of having little money, such as scrounging to pay bills and cut costs. Thusly, a person is left with fewer “mental resources” to focus on complicated, indirectly related matters such as education, job training and even managing their time.
In addition to the obvious toll on physical and emotional health, dating violence in adolescence tends to lead to less education and lower earnings later in life, according to a Michigan State University researcher.
For example, a partner’s actions such as destroying books or homework or causing injuries that prevent her from going to school can limit a woman’s academic achievement.
The findings, reported in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, reinforce the need for programs and efforts to support victims’ education and career development throughout their lives.
On Monday, the 21-state Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, announced how much it would cost for the Core-aligned test: $29.50 a student for summative math and reading tests. More than half of the states in the consortium now pay less for their current assessment tests. When officials in Georgia heard the numbers, they pulled out of the consortium, given that they now spend a total of $12 a student for math and reading tests. (They also cited concerns about having the technology to give all the tests to all students on computer.) Oklahoma left PARCC too.
The other consortium, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, had released funding information this past spring, offering two options: $22.50 per student for summative tests and $27.30 percent for summative as well as formative and interim tests. It said that two-thirds of the consortium states now pay more for testing. However, the two consortia — funded collectively by the Obama administration with some $350 million — are not offering identical services; for example, PARCC promises to score the exams for each state, while Smarter Balanced would have states do it for themselves. There may be other costs associated with these exams, which are supposed to be ready for the 2014-15 school year.
States are grappling with how to build support for different tests, something that can be difficult even without a price increase. But for almost half the states in PARCC, and one-third in Smarter Balanced, that job is even tougher since the tests will cost more than what they’re currently spending.
Hendrickson, principal of St. Ann Interparochial School in Morganfield, Ky., says the school makes $20,000 a year selling garbage bags. And it’s not just parents of the school’s 230 students who buy them. Local businesses and government offices in Morganfield—population 3,500—buy garbage bags from the school as well.
The AJC reports that Georgia spends $8 to $9 per student on assessment, while the consortium developing Common Core-aligned tests has set a ceiling of $18.50 per student for the English test it’s developing and $18.50 per student for the math test it’s developing. Based on the 746,191 students who took the English/language arts CRCT this year and the 743,301 students who took the math CRCT, the new assessment would cost a combined $27.5 million.
So, you are 2.5x more likely to be a rich adult if you were born rich and never bothered to go to college than if you were born poor and, against all odds, went to college and graduated. The disparity in the outcomes of rich and poor kids persists, not only when you control for college attainment, but even when you compare non-degreed rich kids to degreed poor kids!
Therefore, the answer to the question in the title of his post is that you are better off being born rich regardless of whether you go to college than being born poor and getting a college degree.
Whenever policymakers argue over ways to lower the budget deficit, one of the most popular ideas on both sides of the aisle is “means testing” programs like Medicare or Social Security. Instead of cutting everybody’s benefits, the idea is to reduce them for the rich and middle classes while leaving them intact for the poor.
In theory, means-tested programs should be more efficient and progressive because they don’t spend money on those who can pay their own way. But one concern that dogs these proposals is that the programs will lose support and funding as soon as budgets get tight. As the saying often goes: “Programs for the poor are poor programs.”
Over the last several years, we’ve witnessed a high-profile example of that principle in action. Inadvertently, America’s higher education system has become a massive lab experiment, the results of which suggest that means testing social programs can ultimately hurt the very people it is meant to protect.
The point of an education conference is to not just see the Rolling Stones of education like Michael Fullan or Todd Whitaker. The point of education conferences is to catch a glimpse of educators who have a voice worth listening to and learning from. Unfortunately, as the costs of conferences go up, the chance of seeing these worthwhile presenters will be few and far between.
People. Don’t work for free. The structure in unpaid internships can be goofy and just not ideal as a bullet point on a resume.
I don’t mean to be overly analytical or looking something which isn’t there but Kanye West’s song “New Slave” comes to mind. In this context, I think about buying into the college system and what people try to do to be successful i.e. unpaid jobs as opposed to the vanity and wealth Kanye was talking about.
Because of a growing debate concerning spending on education technology, CAP decided to look closely at the issue of how students used technology and the return that educators were getting on their technology investment.
Among our findings are the following:
Students often use technology for basic skills.
States are not looking at what sort of outcomes they are getting for their technology spending.
Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to have access to more rigorous STEM-learning opportunities
Emerging research suggests that social cohesion across communities can help others cope better with crises, and improve happiness among individuals.
Economist Dr. John Helliwell and colleagues from the University of British Columbia in Canada believe this shows that part of the reason for this greater resilience is the fact that humans are more than simply social beings, they are so-called “pro-social” beings. In other words, they get happiness not just from doing things with others, but from doing things both with and for others.
Compare a plumber to going to Harvard College — being a plumber, actually for the average person, probably would be a better deal. You don’t spend … four years spending $40,000, $50,000 in tuition without earning income.