Inequalities in Education

There's no question as to whether education is equal or not. It's definitely not. There are many areas where these inequalities exist:
Class: Just take an area like Mountain Brook versus a school in downtown Birmingham. These schools are no where near equal. The parents of students at Mountain Brook have plenty of money to give to the school to better educate their children. They are able to hire better teachers, have more extracurricular activities,  etc. The parents are also able to buy their children things like SAT prep courses that will help them get into college. Most lower income parents can't do this. That's just high school. College is even worse. Unless a lower income student gets a scholarship, it's highly unlikely they will be able to attend college.
Race: Education is also unequal when it comes to race. Whites, Asian Americans and African Americans are much more likely to finish high school when compared to Mexican Americans. Why is this? Studies show that in elementary schools, standard achievement test scores were pretty equal for all races. The difference came in after summer. High SES children were being exposed to educational opportunities when school was out and low SES children weren't.
Gender: Boys tend to do better on exams than girls; however, girls are doing better in other aspects like they are more likely to graduate high school and go to college(and graduate college.)
These are just a few of the inequalities in education. The question is will there ever really be any sort of solution and if so, what will it be?

 2008. Conley. You May Ask Yourself.

Megachurches and their "high"

Megachurches are definitely on the rise in America. They bring in tons of people every service and have multiple services on Sundays. Why are these huge churches becoming so popular? Is it because of a so called "high" people get when they are there?

I thought about this in two different ways. First, you could think of the feeling you get when you're worshipping as a "high". You get caught up in worshipping and really forget everything else that might've been weighing on you. The other way I thought about this was more like an actual high though. I think some people go to these megachurches and churces in general for the atmosphere rather than really getting anything out of it. Close to where I'm from, there is a huge thing at a local church called Dexter every Halloween. It's about a guy named Dexter who committed suicide. I know so many people that have gone to the program and gotten saved that night then never say another word about it after it. I think they just get so caught up in the moment, they really have no idea what they are doing or committing themselves to.

I don't see anything wrong with megachurches. I think it's great that they draw such large crowds. They also draw people that probably wouldn't go anywhere else, but go there because it is exciting. The problem comes in when those people are only there for fun and not to get the full experience.

2012. Lisee. Does Megachurch High Explain Their Success?

The Affect of Parents' Choices on Children

I'm a family studies major and to be honest I could go on all day about the topic of family. I'm just interested in how families work and what makes a successful family versus an unsuccessful family. The thing I want to focus on in this blog is the affect our parents' choices have on our choices. I think parents have a huge influence on our lives whether we want to admit it or not. Most of us don't really choose what religion or denomination we associate with. We just are what are parents are. The same goes for political affiliation and in some cases (especially in the state of Alabama) things like football. If you were to ask most football fans in Alabama, I would be willing to bet that the majority of them pull for the team they do because one or both of their parents raised them that way OR because their parents go for the rival and they wanted to be different. Our parents' affect our lives with their decisions before we are ever born. Our mothers can decide to smoke or hopefully not smoke while pregnant. They can swear off alcohol which ensures their child won't have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. There are so many decisions a mother makes while pregnant that will no doubt affect their child once he or she is born. Our parents influence our decisions greatly, sometimes without even knowing. A mother or father can tell their child something is bad for them all they want but if the child sees them doing it, it's hard for them to take their parent seriously. For example, most parents tell their kids early on that smoking is bad and they should never even try it; however, if that same parent is holding a cigarette in their hand while explaining how harmful smoking is, what good is being done? If a child is around someone who smokes their whole life, they are likely to just think it is normal and okay. I do think the opposite of this is also true, though. My grandfather smoked his whole life and eventually died of lung cancer. My mom always talks about how she hated smoking growing up because he would always smoke in their house. She says that when she went to school or when friends came over she would be self conscious because she always felt that she smelled like smoke. So my mom actually benefited in the long run from my grandfather smoking because it made her never want to try it. Basically, our parents don't really have an option. They influence us whether they want to or not. They need to remember that everything they do affects us in one way or another; but we also need to remember that nobody is perfect and everyone will eventually make a mistake or two. Most of us will be parents one day and we will hope for that same forgiveness and understanding.

2011. Bird. How Do Parents' Lifestyles Affect Their Children? Livestrong.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/501079-how-do-parents-lifestyles-affect-their-children/

Racial Health Inequalities

In the United States the average life expectancy for whites is 78.9 years; for African Americans average life expectancy is 73.8 years in the U.S. This major gap proves there is a problem when it comes to racial inequality in health. Even birth rate is unequal for different races. Someone is a middle class household who is African American is still more likely to have a baby with a low birth weight than a white woman in a similar income home. What are the reasons for these discrepancies? Our book says the high correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and race. However, even when the social status is the same for both races, African Americans still have worse average health than whites. Our book also says that African Americans in every social class tend to be more stressed than white people because of racism in our nation. African Americans are unequally poor when compared to whites. The stress of being poor can cause health issues. Middle class and upper class African Americans can be subject to racism and stereotyping which leads to stress which in turn leads to health issues. In conclusion, stress from racism or stereotyping seems to be a reason for the gap in life expectancy between whites and African Americans in the United States.


2009. Cooley. You May Ask Yourself.

The Cross-Race Effect



Eye witness testimony is more heavily relied on in the United States court system than in several other countries. Most people think if something happened to them like rape or robbery, they would be able to pick that person out of a lineup. But what if that person isn't the same race as you? The cross race effect is a phenomenon that shows that people of a certain race have a much harder time distinguishing characteristics between people of another race. The crazy thing about it is, when we are babies, we DO have the ability to discriminate between people of another race. Babies 3-6 months have been tested and are able to see differences in not only another race, but in monkeys. Around 6-9 months, babies start to lose this identifying ability. Jennifer Thompson-Cannino(a white woman) was raped by a black male. She memorized everything she could about his face and had the police make a sketch of him. She was then asked to choose a man out of a lineup. She chose one named Ronald Cotton. She was absolutely sure he was the one who had raped her and no one was convincing her otherwise. Mr. Cotton was convicted based on Ms. Thompson-Cannino's eyewitness testimony. Mr. Cotton spent 11 years in prison before DNA evidence proved that he was innocent and it was actually a black male named Bobby Poole who had raped Ms. Thompson-Cannino. Here are the two men side by side:



To me and obviously to Ms. Thompson-Cannino, these two men look a lot alike. However, Mr. Cotton said that he thinks he and Mr. Poole share no similarities. Although Ms. Thompson-Cannino did make a very big mistake that took 11 years of Mr. Cotton's life away from him, is she really at fault? How much should eyewitness testimony be relied on, especially in cross race situations like this one? Ms. Thompson-Cannino and Mr. Cotton are actually friends now and they have a book together on the cross race effect entitled Picking Cotton.This story had a positive outcome. Of the first 279 people that were exonerated when DNA testing came about, 3/4 of them been convicted based on incorrect eyewitness testimony. 4/10 of those were cross race cases. In my opinion eyewitness testimony should not be so heavily relied on considering how inaccurate it can be.



(2012). Roth. Looking across the racial divide: How eyewitness testimony can cause problems. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/science/looking-across-the-racial-divide-how-eyewitness-testimony-can-cause-problems-279237/

The Glass Ceiling

The Glass Ceiling is a term used to describe the barrier that keeps women from climbing up the occupational ladder. On average, men earn 23% more than women. There are two main reasons for this. First of all, men are more likely to get hired than women. Men do not come with the stigma attached to them that they might have to take time off of work to have and care for children. Secondly, men make more on average than women doing the exact same job as them. I understand that there are some instances where a man would be better qualified for a job than a woman also interviewing for the same job. I also understand that women taking off work a lot might be a concern for someone. I do not, however, understand why men are paid more to do the same job that a woman would get paid less to do. If two people have the same qualifications then there should be no discrepancy. I cannot think of any reason at all that a man with a Doctorate would be paid more than a woman with a Doctorate at the same job. Our book also describes what is called the glass escalator. This is when a normally female dominated job (nurse, teacher, paralegal) is done by a man and that man has a better chance at getting a raise or leadership position than a woman at the same job. The example that our book uses, which I find very true but have never thought about, is teachers. 75% of teachers are female but only 50% of principals are female. Most of my teachers in elementary school were female, but our principal and vice principal were both male. In my opinion men are more likely to get leadership roles because they are taken more seriously than women. I think equality is important. I don't think that women should start getting more opportunities than men because there have been inequalities in the past. I think it should just be equal. People who do the same job and have the same qualifications should get paid the same regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc. I think the gender gap is getting better, but there is still a long way to go.

2005. Toussaint. The Glass Ceiling. Feminism and Women's Studies. http://feminism.eserver.org/the-glass-ceiling.txt

Relative Poverty

I know when some people think of poverty they think of rural areas like in the documentary we watched (Brother's Keeper). My idea of poverty is a little bit different. I am from a very rural area. We have one traffic light and it's just a caution light. We have one store and it's run by my grandfather's first cousin, E.L. and everyone that ever went to my high school would always stop at "E.L's" after school to get a drink or get gas since it was the only place within about 10-15 miles to do so. My neighbor to the right is a farmer and his family, and my neighbor to the left is my cousin living in what used to be my grandmother and grandfather's house before they passed away. I had lived in the same place my entire life until I came to Samford. So when I think of a rural area, I don't think of poverty. I think of my neighbor who is more wealthy than anyone would ever know by talking to him. I think about E.L. who has more money saved up than I could ever even imagine, yet still drives the same truck he has had since I can remember.

E.L.'s store

View from my front yard into my neighbor's farm (and my adorable puppy Charlie)

Basically I think it all comes down to relative poverty. Two people from two different areas could have the same income but one could be in poverty and the other one not in poverty. There are several reasons for this. First of all, the cost of living is lower in rural areas so they are not going to have to pay as much for bills, a house, etc. Second, the rural person could possibly have other advantages like being able to get food from their garden or eggs from the chickens they raise. This helps them save a lot of money. The cost of living isn't the only thing that poverty depends on. There is also the factor of what sort of things people in a certain area value. For example, in the city, someone could live without a car. They could use public transportation which can get expensive if you have to use it everyday. In rural areas, that's not really an option. If you or your family doesn't have a car, you just sit at home. So while the two people may have the same income, it doesn't necessarily mean they are at the same place on the poverty scale. With the cost of living being so radically different in different areas, it's hard for me to believe there is a perfect measure of absolute poverty. It's not that I think there aren't people in rural areas that are in poverty. I know there are a lot. I just think that while some people may be under the poverty line, they very well might be living off what they grow/raise and not be as bad off as they seem.



 

 

2008. Lindsey. Absolute Poverty Vs. Relative Poverty: The Search for Survival. http://voices.yahoo.com/absolute-poverty-vs-relative-poverty-search-for-909253.html

Recidivism

About 40% of people on probation or parole right now will return to prison in the future for another crime they commit. Why is this? Don't they get enough of it the first time? It's like once they commit one crime, they are stuck in a continuous loop they can never get out of.

There are several reasons why people become repeat offenders. First of all, for some, prison is better than any sort of life they could have outside in the real world. Prison offers a place to sleep, 3 meals a day, and recreational activities like television, basketball, and reading. For someone who has been in prison their whole life, getting released might seem scary. They will no doubt have a stigma attached to them and probably have a hard time finding a job. This might eventually lead to homelessness and could be a reason for them to commit another crime because their life in prison was better than what they have now.

Another reason for recidivism is that for some people, a life of crime is all they have ever known. I work in the Electronic Monitoring Program for Family Court of Jefferson County. I see tons of kids that are on house arrest for months go straight back to detention once they have been released because they commit another crime. Most of them have had to fend for themselves their entire lives. A lot of them also have parents who are also criminals. They just don't know what it's like to live life without being a criminal.

Recidivism is a huge problem because it proves that our prisons are not really doing anything to rehabilitate people. They are just punishing them and then releasing them. We need a system that not only punishes people but also helps them to improve themselves. I don't know if or when the system will ever be improved, but if something doesn't change the statistics will just stay the same or possibly get worse.


2011. Repeat Offenders. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022703275.html

How are social networking sites affecting our relationships?

Social networking sites became popular several years ago and ever since then they have stayed an important part of our everyday lives. We had MySpace in middle school, moved to Facebook in high school, and now we're all pinning things that we will probably never do to Pinterest. Regardless of which site we are using, we are constantly checking our phones or computers to see what our friends are up to or to post a witty status. A website I found says that Facebook users worldwide spend around 10.5 billion minutes on Facebook per day(that's on a computer-not including mobile devices). That is equivalent to almost 20,000 years. Social networking sites can be a huge benefit to us. They definitely widen our networks because they allow for people across the world that we have never even met to be in our lives. The question is, how is all of this social networking affecting our relationships with people in real life?

As far as I am concerned, I have a love-hate relationship when it comes to social sites like Facebook.

 There are some people that are my friends on Facebook that make me thankful that I have an easy way to keep in touch with them. For example, I have people that I graduated with that I was friends with, but not good enough friends to still hang out together after we have moved on from high school. Through Facebook, I am able to know how they are doing, keep up with what they are doing in school, etc. If it wasn't for social networking, I probably wouldn't see or hear from them again until our high school reunion, even though we maintained a good friendship all throughout high school. Then there are people like my best friend. We did everything together in high school. She went on my family vacations with me, we stayed at each others' houses all the time, and we finished each others' sentences constantly. We ended up going to different schools but promised we would stay as close as we were in high school. While we definitely are still close and still see each other when we are both home at the same time, sometimes I find myself letting Facebook be my only contact with her and I have to remind myself to actually call her or visit her. I read her statuses and feel like she's telling me what's new in her life but then I realize that I haven't actually spoken to her in a few weeks.

While social networking sites do allow for a lot of ties, I think it lessens the amount of strong ties in our lives. We are less embedded in our relationships with people even though we have more of them. I also think that, like me, a lot of people forget that Facebook or Twitter or any site shouldn't replace an actual real life relationship with someone. We get lazy and before we know it, it has been a month since we have spoken to someone even though it feels like we just spoke to them today because they updated their status. Our relationships with people are important. Face to face talks are important and are something that Facebook and even Skype can't replace. I'm adding a few pictures below that I found really interesting.

 

Laird. 2012. Is Social Media Destroying Real World Relationships?          http://mashable.com/2012/06/14/social-media-real-world-infographic/

Nature vs Nurture

Nature vs nurture has long been debated and many are coming to the conclusion now that it is more nature AND nurture that affect us equally rather than one or the other. Our book describes the case of Anna, a little girl who was kept in an attic her whole life and never had any personal interaction whatsoever. Anna was not able to communicate and did not develop how she should have. She eventually died and her caregivers concluded that her death was a direct effect of not being socialized. I am very interested in the whole nature vs. nurture debate and there was one case that I learned about a couple of years ago that really sparked my interest. This case is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to the Anna case. In Anna's case nurture was what she lacked, where in this case nurture is what causes harm.




Brian and 'Brenda' Reimer

 

David Reimer

That is the case of David Reimer. A little background info:
David was a twin. He was born as Bruce and his twin's name was Brian. The twins had a urinary problem and were recommended for a circumcision at 8 months old. Bruce went first and there was a big complication. His reproductive body parts were damaged beyond repair. The parents decided not to have the surgery on Brian and his urinary problem eventually cleared on its own. The parents worried about Bruce not being able to have sexual satisfaction down the road. They took Bruce to  Dr. Money at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Money was a psychologist whose speciality was gender identity. He believed that through social learning(nurture) that Bruce could have gender reassignment surgery and could live happily as a female. Bruce had the surgery to remove what remained of his male parts when he was 22 months old. This was the perfect experiment for Dr. Money. He had done the surgery and studied children before but it had been on children that had had some sort of deformity at birth. Bruce was a good candidate for new research because he had no deformity at birth and his twin brother Brian would be the perfect control for the experiment. As the experiment went on, Bruce-now Brenda- was forced to do things that would be considered torture today. He was forced to rehearse sexual acts with his brother where he was the "female part" and his brother was the "male part". One example- Bruce was forced to lay down with his legs spread while Brian was on top of him. The family continued to take Bruce to Dr. Money over the years. Dr. Money wrote about his findings and said that Bruce aka Brenda was clearly a little girl and was so different from her twin brother. The parents later claimed that they often lied about the success of the procedure. Bruce did not identify with his female gender. When he was forced to wear dresses, he felt completely embarrassed. He was given estrogen and developed breasts yet still in no way felt like a girl. He eventually told his parents that he would commit suicide if they made him see Dr. Money again. His parents told him of the surgery and how he was originally born a boy. Bruce decided to begin living as a male at age 14 and changed his name from Brenda to David. He eventually got married and became a stepfather.

"You're always going to see people that are going to say well the Dave Reimer case could have been successful. I'm living proof, and if you're not going to take my word as gospel, because I have lived through it, who else are you going to listen to? Who else is there? I've lived through it. Like, is it going to take somebody to wind up killing themselves, shooting themselves in the head for people to listen?"- David Reimer

At age 38, David shot himself in a grocery store parking lot. His brother Brian had committed suicide 2 years earlier.

I find this case to be beyond sad. David never had a chance to live a normal life. He spend his entire childhood feeling like he couldn't be who he was born to be - and he was right. Obviously nurture is important. Anna was never nurtured and did not have the socialization she needed to survive. David, on the other hand, was forced to depend solely on nurture and none on nature. Nature is also important. Nature is who we are. We are born with certain characteristics that no amount of nurture will get rid of. Dr. Money and David's parents assumed that as long as David was dressed in pink and forced to play with dolls that he would identify as a girl. As our book describes, gender roles play a big part in kids learning what is acceptable for their gender. A commercial for a baby doll will most likely have a girl playing with the doll, while a commercial for toy cars will have a boy. We learn by seeing these types of things what we should like. However, nurture can't account for everything. We have some things ingrained in us when we are born. David knew that even though he was expected to like dolls but he didn't and there was a reason why. No matter how much his parents and doctors told him he liked dolls it wasn't going to change the fact that he didn't. That's just not how it works and I'm sure his family found that out the hard way after both of their children killed themselves. I agree with most current psychologists and sociologists when they say that a balance of nature and nurture is key. Both are important, but one can't overpower the other.

Schillo, Keith. 2011. Nature or Nurture: The Case of the Boy Who Became a Girl. National Center  for Case Study Teaching in Science. University of Buffalo, State University of New York.

         http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/gender_reassignment.pdf

2005. Dr. Money and the Boy with No Penis. BBC. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml 



Advertising to Children





Advertising has a big impact on our lives whether we want it to or not. Even as adults, we tend to gravitate towards products that are more colorful or catch our attention. This is even more true for children. Advertising to children has been a very controversial issue. Kids are extremely influential and they want anything and everything that is presented to them in a way that is exciting or appealing to the senses.

 

Just look at the two cereals pictured above. They are both made by Kellogg's but one has much more nutritional value than the other. Mini-Wheats contains no sugar, while Froot Loops' sugar content is 41%. I can't speak for all kids but I know for a fact which one the 2 year old and 4 year old I babysit would choose while standing in the cereal aisle at Publix. Companies know who their audience is and they know exactly how to appeal to them. The bad thing is, while the companies are just trying to make money, they are really one of the reasons childhood obesity is so high. 15% of children ages 5-11 are obese. That number is obviously way too high. Advertising is not the only thing that is making kids overweight, but a change needs to be made as far as making children want things that are bad for their health. Disney recently made an announcement and said that they would only start showing advertisements that meet their nutritional requirements. This is a really big step forward. Kids watch a lot of TV these days and most of the advertisements they see are going to be on TV. By changing these ads to healthy items, Disney is really going to help change kids' eating habits who watch their channel, listen to their radio station, or visit their website.

 

Food isn't the only place where advertising is affecting kids. Commercials on TV and displays in stores of toys make children want things they don't need. Not only does advertising instill in them a craving for material items, it also makes them feel inferior if they can't have those items. We've all seen that one kid in the toy aisle that is having a meltdown because their parents won't buy them something. Parents need to teach their kids that they can't always have everything they want. It's a necessary quality to have, but it's not the easiest thing to teach when every commercial on Nickelodeon or Disney has 4 or 5 kids playing with the newest toy. I'm not going to act like my parents didn't spoil me as a child. They probably did. But I also got told "no" plenty. I knew that I couldn't have every single thing I wanted. These days, kids' "toys" are starting to include things like iPads, iPods, Wiis, etc. So, not only are kids' interests in these items growing from advertisements of cool games and apps, but their parents have to dish out a whole lot more money if they decide to buy an iPad instead of a Barbie doll like when we were kids.

 

Companies are never going to stop advertising. It's what they have to do to make money and that's completely understandable. However, they do need to change some of the ways in which they go about it. They need to be more honest with their ads. Also, as far as food items go, they should make healthier items that are directed towards children. Parents also need to start telling their kids "no" more. It's hard now because they are so innocent and cute and sweet but one day they will be adults, and let's face it- we all have met someone(most likely more than one) who had never been told "no" until they were out in the real world and they still expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. No one wants that to be their kid, so starting while they are young will benefit them in the long run. As adults, we should watch out for these advertising ploys and try not to let them pull us in and accomplish exactly what they want.

 

http://www.aef.com/on_campus/classroom/speaker_pres/data/3005

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/story/2012-06-05/disney-advertising-to-kids/55385470/1

 



Development

This semester I am taking a class called Infant and Child Development. One of the big things we are doing for the class is training to administer the Denver 2 assessment to children. The Denver 2 is a test that essentially measures the development of kids from infancy to 6 years of age. While it is not an IQ test, it can detect areas that a child may have a delay in or that they might be advanced in.

Our class will be administering the test at the Children's Learning Center (CLC). We will first visit the CLC 10 different days for observation. We will watch the children, see how they communicate with others, try to guage what "normal" is for them, and let them get used to being around us. After these observation days, we will start testing. Our class will be testing the infant-3 year old age group.

We will be testing the child's motor skills, speech, cognition and other aspects of their development. If the child fails or refuses to do any item on the list that is to the left of their "age line" (a line drawn on the test document that shows where 75-90 percent of children the same age are developmentally) it is considered a delay. If the child refuses or fails an item that falls on the age line, it is considered a caution. The test continues until the child fails 3 items in a row. Any item the child passes to the right of the age line is an area in which the child will be considered advanced.

Once we are done testing, we will write up a report on the child's development. The parent as well as the CLC will receive a copy. It is going to be a lot of work, but I have already learned a lot. I'm excited to start testing and see how it goes!