The United States public educational system is built on inequality. Minority students or students of a lower class status receive an inferior education relative to students who live in areas with well-funded public schools or whose parents can afford private school education. “The wealthiest 10 percent of school districts in the United States spend nearly ten times more than the poorest 10 percent, and spending ratios of three to one are common within states. Poor and minority students are concentrated in the less well funded schools, most of them located in central cities and funded at levels substantially below those of neighboring suburban districts. In addition, policies associated with school funding, resource allocations, and
…show more content…
Throughout his book he gives a voice to children about how they feel about their underserved education. He critiques education and shows how the problem underprivileged students face is an effect of an unequal system. Many of these underprivileged students would fall under American anthropologist Oscar Lewis’ definition of being a part of the “culture of poverty.” Lewis presents the “culture of poverty” as a socialized habit; he victim blames the poor for their habits, when in fact there are structural and institutional factors that shape the lives of those in poverty. Kozol’s Savage Inequalities dispels Lewis’ “culture of poverty” because it reveals the structural factors that keep the poor in a stagnant position in society. Many teachers who educate students of low income backgrounds believe in Lewis’ “culture of poverty,” but teachers need to develop a deeper understanding of these structural factors to better educate their students, rather than blame their habitus on being …show more content…
Lewis’ characteristics of the poor include lack of effective participation and integration in larger societal institutions (banks, hospitals), the poor having middle class values, but not living by them, poor housing conditions, crowding, “gangs”, and living with nuclear and extended family. Other characteristics include early predisposal to sex, absence of childhood, female-centered households and strong feelings of marginality, helplessness, dependence, and inferiority (Lewis, 176). Lewis claims that the “culture of poverty” is perpetuated because by the time children reach about six or seven they have absorbed the basic values and attitudes of their subculture and are not psychologically geared to take full advantage of changing conditions of increased opportunities. He considered the “culture of poverty” to be fixed, which is similar to how the education system views children in poverty. The poor do not have different values from society but rather have a harder time realizing that they can attain them because of their systematic exclusion. Kozol presents the disparities in education funding and resources between the wealthy and the poor. The failures of the system historically to educate these groups of marginalized identities does not mean they suffer from the
Throughout his book he gives a voice to children about how they feel about their underserved education. He critiques education and shows how the problem underprivileged students face is an effect of an unequal system. Many of these underprivileged students would fall under American anthropologist Oscar Lewis’ definition of being a part of the “culture of poverty.” Lewis presents the “culture of poverty” as a socialized habit; he victim blames the poor for their habits, when in fact there are structural and institutional factors that shape the lives of those in poverty. Kozol’s Savage Inequalities dispels Lewis’ “culture of poverty” because it reveals the structural factors that keep the poor in a stagnant position in society. Many teachers who educate students of low income backgrounds believe in Lewis’ “culture of poverty,” but teachers need to develop a deeper understanding of these structural factors to better educate their students, rather than blame their habitus on being …show more content…
Lewis’ characteristics of the poor include lack of effective participation and integration in larger societal institutions (banks, hospitals), the poor having middle class values, but not living by them, poor housing conditions, crowding, “gangs”, and living with nuclear and extended family. Other characteristics include early predisposal to sex, absence of childhood, female-centered households and strong feelings of marginality, helplessness, dependence, and inferiority (Lewis, 176). Lewis claims that the “culture of poverty” is perpetuated because by the time children reach about six or seven they have absorbed the basic values and attitudes of their subculture and are not psychologically geared to take full advantage of changing conditions of increased opportunities. He considered the “culture of poverty” to be fixed, which is similar to how the education system views children in poverty. The poor do not have different values from society but rather have a harder time realizing that they can attain them because of their systematic exclusion. Kozol presents the disparities in education funding and resources between the wealthy and the poor. The failures of the system historically to educate these groups of marginalized identities does not mean they suffer from the