Nowadays, I think that's the case for a lot of schools in the U.S.. Many parents aren't involved in school affairs as back in the day. parents actually cared about their children's education and the material they're being taught, but now parents just send kids to these schools and are not involved whatsoever.

I like this quote because it tells people the drawback of having a school with lots of opportunities. kids don't have time to be kids and that's something that they can't get back. they work hard to compete against one another, striving to be better than on another that they forget to be themselves and do the things that they want to do. In another class that i was in, we talked about how competition has a certain limit and eventually everyone will be trying to reach goals that are impossible for someone to achieve. If every kid have these good grades and extracurricular activities, the disparity between people from these students and everyone else competing for top school admission will continue to grow.

As a first generation student, I think that it was harder for my parents to adjust to life here and that caused a lot of shortcomings in their lives. latino families that have been here are more likely to be successful because they have adjusted to life here and can make a decent living compared to first generation families.

low-income students that have their natural skills recognized and affirmed, are often able to produce favorable academic results—that is, pass tests or graduate—like their high income counterparts. But for children from poor families especially, the educational system sometimes ignores and undervalues their strengths in favor of compliance and conformity. The author's own experience of being called one of the "good ones" due of conformity shows how frequently schools reward behavior that conforms with dominant standards. This hinders the ability of other low income student because they aren't promoting intellect or creativity.

I agree with this. In low income households, kids don't have access to books generally because they can't afford them or the parents have poor reading skills. this negatively affects the children and hinders their ability to improve their reading skills.

I can relate to this as I was also raised by my mother and I adopted her values and motivations. she worked many hours and I would be alone with my brother a lot. I understood from a young age that we had to be good and work hard if we wanted to be successful in life. I think that is what drove me to come to college and get a higher education

I feel like this is common among low income students. As a low income student as well, I feel pride in knowing I am studying here and proving that anyone can get an education.

The approach benefits those with more resources like college-bound kids from richer home, and disparaging lower-income students by letting students choose their own courses with little or no assistance from counselors. Often advised by informed and involved parents, the children from wealthy homes are better able to negotiate the process and select challenging and interesting courses with tough teachers. Poorer students, especially those from underprivileged "flatland" neighborhoods, are more prone to choose simpler courses or teachers with less demands, therefore reducing their academic development and future possibilities.

I've experienced self-scheduling to a lesser extent. we were allowed to choose elective courses for our next year but we still had our GE courses assigned to us. This process seems unfair to students who have no guidance.

The chapter asks an important question regarding the dichotomy between Berkeley High's progressive values and their contribution in growing the racial achievement gap. The school's structural policies still reflect racial disparities despite the fact it is in a community that values diversity and provides courses in African American studies and ethnic studies. Could it be due to to systematic racism? Or could it be due to cultural and social expectations?

I can relate to this because for the first couple of years growing up, my mother was the only parent in my life. me and my brother watched our mother struggle on her own to provide for us. their would be moments where my brother and i were home alone for most of the day because my mother would be working late. when my mother married my step-father, her burden was reduced and she was more happy.

This is a great point! Family dynamics and academic success are strongly related; children who grow up in a stable, encouraging home often show better behavioral and emotional control, which helps them to succeed academically. Parent-child relationships can become tense regardless of their socio-economic background. Under such circumstances, parents could find it difficult to keep warmth and patience, which would result in more severe methods of raising children. These dynamics might compromise children's well-being, therefore affecting their ability to focus and thrive in the classroom.

This makes sense to me. Families who are financially well-off may afford to make investments in healthy food, better child care, and better learning conditions. Lower-income households sometimes lack these tools, which lays a solid foundation for academic achievement. Having access to safe environments and great early childhood education will help a child be ready for school and succeed academically in the long run. Families experiencing financial difficulties may cause parents to be more prone to suffer with stress, sadness, or exhaustion, which may impact their interactions with their children and reduce the time available for assistance, educational involvement, and nurturing. Children from low-income homes suffer a doubled strain from these emotional dynamics and lack of financial means, which limits their school performance relative to their higher-income counterparts.

This chapter raises a quite interesting subject. The success of a child in school depends on many variables. The example of Alexander and Anthony provides an excellent illustration of the students' socioeconomic background as well as their parents' educational history, which helps to influence the academic success of the children.

This shows how greatly family income and socioeconomic background affect school results. From access to better schools to lots of resources for extracurricular activities, Alexander's family wealth and suburban surroundings give him major benefits that help him succeed in his academics and in life. Anthony's family, on the other hand, battles lower educational achievement and financial uncertainty, which reduces chances for academic excellence and parental participation in his schooling. The disparity in family structure is also quite important since Alexander gains from the presence of both parents, which not only raises household income but also improves the availability of parental time and support.

This is a good statement. Multicultural education is teaching students about diversity and making all feel welcome. It is a great way to make education equal for everyone and giving people the tools they need to exceed in life.

I agree with this statement. Making an environment that makes everyone feel like they can contribute is the ideal setting for every teacher. It not only makes the students feel more welcome and invites them to think critically, but it also helps them think collaboratively. This promotes the American Dream as stated in our previous readings.

I think that in primary education, these topics are very much avoided or talked about minimally. In universities, there is a healthy amount of discourse and discussion about these topics. Many people challenge these ideas and I believe that this is a good thing. We need to challenge the ideas and not fear talking about them

This is interesting to hear. A lot of these systems work in the world today are inherently racism because of the people who made them. We need to take these systems apart and put them back together in a way that is open to everyone if we want multicultural education to work.

I've never heard of legacy admits until i actually came to UCI. I discovered this and realized that universities like having legacy admits. I feel like this increasing your chances of being admitted is unfair because there are students that have worked hard to get into this university and have probably been rejected due to their spot being taken by a legacy admit.

People oblivious to the reality that not everybody can do this always amazes me. Many Americans barely have any money to save; they are living in poverty. More than 1/4th of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings. Being from a low income background, I had to work to afford the items I have right now, and I still work to pay my groceries and rent.

By looking at our nations history, we can see the many times we have dehumanized and discriminated minorities. Blacks and Native Americans are the minorities that have been affected the most in our nation and the generational trauma is still seen in today's society as Native and African americans make up a majority of our nations poverty.

Looking at our countries' past reveals the several times we have disregarded and oppressed minorities. The minorities most impacted in our country are Blacks and Native Americans; generational trauma still exists in modern society since Native and African Americans have greater rates of poverty than other minorities. Also, it has prevented Black and Native Americans from generational wealth and better opportunities because of the denial of property ownership rights to minorities.

This makes sense to me. Many students from underprivileged families perform differently depending on many elements outside the classroom. Poverty frequently corresponds with restricted access to resources, like stable housing, healthy food, healthcare, and parental support—factors that greatly affect a child's capacity to achieve academically.

I agree with Mann's argument. His argument was founded on the theory that public education may act as "the great equalizer," a tool to close economic gaps and lower class-based discrimination. Mann thought that public education was essential for creating social harmony and democracy as much as for intellectual development. He wanted to establish environments where students from various social origins could learn together, foster mutual understanding, and have equal chances to achieve in life, independent of their financial background.

This line shows us the double-edged sword that public schools play in American society. On one hand, the American Dream depends on public schooling. They are establishments meant to give every child, from all backgrounds, the knowledge and tools they need to follow equitable opportunities, upward mobility, and success. On the other hand, many Americans find failure in this very system. Some students suffer or are left behind for a variety of reasons, including systematic inequality, unfair access to resources, and different quality of education.

Being Hispanic, I really believe this to be a real issue. From a personal standpoint, I have seen this as just a small number of my graduating class members attended college. Additionally, I was the first person in my family to start college. Funding and people in these areas not being able to put greater resources because of their financial discrepancies define the issue: lack of resources to provide us what we need to succeed.

This makes sense to me. The discrepancy compromises the concept of equal opportunity since everyone begins from different political or financial standpoint. The "circle cannot be squared" since the system lets parents offer their children benefits while simultaneously supporting education as a means for equality, rather than leveling the playing field.

In this quote by the former president, he describes the main idea of this reading. The American Dream is what drives people to pursue success and makes people want an education to become a better American citizen