The Link Between Poverty and Education

While education is promoted as means of escaping poverty and moving up the social scale, poverty is still considered one of the main obstacles encountered by those who pursue a high education degree. Is there a link between education and poverty? 

The answer can only be "yes", and the numbers prove that, while poverty is indeed an impediment to education, the lack of education leads to poverty in most cases. Several studies show that children coming from poor families show lower school engagement and are more likely to obtain poor academic performances (Jensen, 2013). 

On the other hand, 86% of the children coming from poor families who obtained a college degree succeeded to move up the social scale, escaping the low-income level (Friedman, 2012). What does this mean? Simply that America needs to find a way to support and encourage its poor children to stay in school and study hard, so as to break the poverty cycle.

How Does Poverty Affect Education?

In a Huffington Post article, UN statistician and health economist and teacher at Columbia University, Howard Steve Friedman argues that the connection between education and poverty is obvious at every educational level. Poor American children begin their pre-primary education with a disadvantage. 

The enrollment rate for pre-primary education is 20% lower in children from families with an annual income under $15,000, compared to that in children from families with an annual income over $50,000. Unfortunately, this seemingly insignificant disadvantage has long-term consequences, since statistics show that those who do not attend pre-school are more likely to repeat grades, drop out of high school and break the law. 

Moving higher up the educational scale, things get worse. Due to the fact that school funding is ensured mostly by local and state governments, only 10 percent coming from the federal government, funding varies from one school to another and, most of the times, schools in poor regions are poorly funded. In fact, starting from 2006, schools in poor regions receive funding with up to $2,000/student lower than schools in developed regions (Friedman, 2012).

Thus, poor students face even more disadvantages. Additionally, the best teachers are always tempted to choose schools that pay better, offer better facilities, ensure a safer working environment and provide advanced learning conditions. It is not difficult to see how poor students are forced to learn, most of the times, from uncertified and inexperienced teachers, with insufficient resources, in substandard facilities.

It is one of the reasons why, in the second half of the 20^th century, several courts reached the conclusion that education public funding was unconstitutional. Those courts ordered changes in state funding that closed the achievement gap in the corresponding states, but the achievement gap is still a reason for concern in the states where such orders were not issued.

The disadvantage of the poor American students becomes obvious in cross-country exams like PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment). Compared to other similarly developed countries, the United States obtained average to below average results for disciplines like reading, math, and science. 

If the consequences of poverty are difficult to assess on a national level, they become clear when analyzing the results at state or regional level. For example, the reading scores in high-income schools were far better than the scores of similarly developed countries, while the scores obtained in low-income schools were much lower. 

Actually, the PISA exam scores were an accurate reflection of the socio-economical background of the students, more accurate than in any other OECD country. In the US, students from low-income families earned approximately 60 points less compared to students from higher-income families, while the difference was only 40 points in other countries (Friedman, 2012). While it may seem natural for wealthier students to outperform their less fortunate colleagues, this considerable difference is a serious reason for concern, since it reflects the low social mobility across the country.

The educational disparities between poor and rich American students go even further during college, where tuition fees have almost doubled throughout the last two decades. In 2008, for example, the average tuition fee for public colleges was of $14,000 a year, meaning approximately half the national average personal income (Friedman, 2012). 

In America, the tuition fees for public universities are considerably higher than those in developed countries in Europe. If the universities in France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal or Spain have minimal tuition fees, Greek and German universities are tuition-free. The high tuition fees in the American universities prevent the access of half of high school graduates to four-year educational programs and of one-fourth of them to any type of college education. 

You would think these figures will make the federal government react, but, if in the 80s the Pell grant program used to cover around 75% from the cost of four-year college education for students in need, it now covers around 30-35%. This means that even those who are eligible for these grants will have trouble paying their tuition fees and graduating from college.

Understanding and Breaking the Link between Poverty and Education

No matter the education level considered, the discrepancy between the results and future perspectives of students coming from low-income families and those coming from higher income families are overwhelming. Unfortunately, without proper measures in place, things will only get worse. These measures should follow two directions: on one hand, more opportunities should be created for poor students and their access to education should be ensured at all levels and, on the other hand, teachers should be better informed and prepared to deal with the needs of poor students.

As far as the latter direction is concerned, Eric Jensen shows that the poor students' low school performances are the direct result of seven major differences between children from middle and high-income families and children living in poverty. According to him, the engagement of the students in the latter category is negatively affected by their poorer health and nutrition, limited vocabulary, lack of motivation, lack of hope and confidence, lower cognitive capacity, troublesome relationships and distress. Briefly put, poor children are children who do not receive adequate health care and do not eat right, have trouble expressing themselves and understanding others, cannot focus on their activities, have no hope for a better life, do not receive the love and support they need and constantly live in fear and stress.

Jensen explains that all these factors inhibit the poor children's desire and ability to learn, especially when teachers are unknowing, unprepared, inexperienced or uncaring. He underlines that, just like the children's behavior is conditioned by their social and economic background, it can also be influenced by the attitude of their teachers, if the latter understand the link between poverty and education, what sets poor students apart from their more fortunate colleagues, and if they adjust their teaching methods to the needs of each student.

            In fact, the close link between poverty and education should be the starting point of any policy meant to improve access to education and allow poor students to pursue a college degree and improve their socio-economical status. The stronger this link is, the worse things are, so America should aim at breaking it, by accepting poverty as a reality and taking urgent and drastic measures to diminish if not completely eliminate its impact on education. 

References

Friedman, Howard Steven. 'America's Poverty-Education Link'. Huffington Post 2012. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

Jensen, Eric. 'How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement'. Faces of Poverty 70.8 (2013): 24-30. Print.

Rational Egoism and Altruism as the Foundation for a Better Future

Any discussion of a better, safer world involves, sooner or later the conflicting concepts of altruism and egoism. One of the best ways to understand this conflict is comparing the views of Ayn Rand in the "Ethics of Emergency" and Peter Singer in "The Singer Solution to World Poverty".

While both authors support their views with strong arguments and complex scenarios, it is difficult to take one side over the other. The two reduce the concepts or ethics to a matter of choosing between two goals: self-preservation (Ayn Rand) and species-preservation (Peter Singer). 

In real life, these two goals do not and should exclude one another. On the contrary, in most of the cases, they complement one another. Man should not have to choose between his life and those of others, but rather learn and focus on how to live his own life in such a way as to positively influence other lives.

Ayn Rand's Ethics of Emergency

"Ethics of Emergencies" was included in the 1964 collection of papers and essays belonging to Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. As its title suggests, it discusses the fact that man's ethical principles are based on emergency situations. The author uses the classic scenario of the "lifeboat" as representative for an emergency and promotes the survival of the fittest. 

According to Rand, in emergency situations, it is perfectly natural, moral for one person to sacrifice another one in order to save themselves. The scenario imposes that the person in question choose between their life and the life of someone else on the boat, reduces life to a matter of killing or being killed and man's condition to that of a murderer or a victim. Man is expected to learn a lesson and choose between becoming a murderer and sacrificing his life for a higher purpose.

The problem with Ayn Rand's theory is that daily life emergencies generally do not involve killing or being killed, nor do they involve a conflict of interests. Trying to create an analogy between the lifeboat scenario and real life is impossible, simply because there are numerous situations in which man can make choices that are beneficial for themselves and for the others at the same time. By accepting the idea of a life dominated by conflicts of interest, man will end up creating unnecessary conflicts, sacrificing himself unnecessarily or trampling on other people's interests even when he has nothing to gain.

The author describes emergencies as situations in which human life becomes impossible. The person that survives the lifeboat scenario does so only by removing themselves from the emergency situation. The shore equals water, food, medical help and, implicitly, an end of the emergency. During the emergency, however, people lives are in danger.

Then, what if all people found themselves in such emergency situations at least once in their life, and followed the moral path described be the author? What if the person one is supposed to sacrifice in order to reach shore is a surgeon, the member of a bomb squad that could save thousands of lives or the president of the country? Thousands of people would have to die. Saving those people would be ethical for them, but unethical for the person sacrificed.

The message the essay succeeds to send is not the one intended by the author, that, in case of emergency, people have right of life and death over others, but that emergencies should not be taken too seriously. People should focus not on surviving such situations, but on avoiding them or ending them sooner, they should work together to find solutions rather than sacrifice one another.

"The Singer Solution to World Poverty"

In "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", Peter Singer presents the hypothetical case of a man named Bob who has invested all his savings in an uninsured Bugatti, a car that he parks on the side of a railroad before going for a walk. He notices a child in the distance, playing on the tracks, in front of a runaway train. 

Bob has to choose between his car and the life of the child. He could use the nearby stitch and divert the incoming train onto the siding, but, since that would mean seeing his precious car damaged, he chooses to allow the death of the child.

The author makes it clear that Bob's choice was mistaken, and most people would probably agree that he should have saved the child. The car is a symbol of luxury, of the things that people work hard for but could and should live without, as they are less valuable than human life. 

People have the chance to save lives every day, by giving up on things they do not necessarily need and donating them or their value to charity. Many of them, however, just like the protagonist, treasure their own comfort and preferences more than they treasure the lives of starving or handicapped children, for example. According to the author, these people do not live up to their moral obligations.

While Peter Singer's illustration of an emergency situation and the alternatives he offers may seem closer to real life and more acceptable than those of Ayn Rand, there are still many details that leave room for debate. For example, Bob is the only person present at the scene, while anyone (millions of other people) can contribute to the salvation of starving or handicapped children, to name a cause.

The author accepts the possibility for others to have be present, but argues that their presence does not exempt the protagonist from responsibility. According to him, for man, knowing that others would not do anything to help those in need means being sure that his efforts will save lives, and having the moral obligation to actually save them.

Singer's perception of moral obligation is interesting and easy to agree with at first sight, but, in real life, situations like the one he describes are unlikely, even impossible. People will rarely or never invest their lifetime savings the way Bob did and neglect them. Also, they are and should never be forced to choose between their most valuable assets and saving a life. According to him, people should work hard, not for their own benefit, but to help others.

While the intention is, indeed, noble and laudable, where does it leave motivation? Would people be able to invest the same effort knowing that the results of their work would be enjoyed by someone else? Most of them struggle to offer their loved ones access to a better life. 

Would they be as motivated having to see their loved ones settle with the basics and giving the rest to charity? There is also the question of how one's donations will get to the children whose lives need to be saved. It is a well known fact that not all the money donated to charity actually ends up supporting the cause they were meant for.

While Peter Singer's perception of morality is easier to cope with than that of Ayn Rand, the situation he uses to support it is unrealistic and subjective. He uses children as the symbol of poverty, because they represent a cause that would impress anyone. However, poverty is often used in reference to people living on social welfare, often of their own choice. Would it be fair for the working class to support such people? Is it not fair for those who work harder to enjoy higher satisfaction?

Conclusion

The two theories presented are in obvious conflict. One argues in favor or self-preservation at all cost and entitles man to sacrifice others in order to save himself. The other one encourages man to sacrifice himself in order to save others. However, both visions stress the importance of making a decision and assuming it. Man is free to decide whether to sacrifice or be sacrificed, to kill or be killed, to save or to condemn. Whatever decision he makes, it is better than running away from responsibility.

However, both theories use extreme situations, unlikely to occur in real life, as examples, and they are extreme. Life is not a matter of killing or being killed, condemning or being condemned. People can work together to find solutions, they can enjoy the results of their work and still help others. 

Neither the rational egoism presented by Ayn Rand nor the altruism suggested by Singer as a solution to poverty is a viable ethic model. A balance between the two is the most desirable, as it would mean having the courage to fight for one's ideals and looking after the others at the same time, it would enable self-preservation and species-preservation altogether.