Spatial Factor in Educational Inequality at Schools

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Inequality of opportunity in schooling, i.e., the conditioning by factors beyond the control of the student, is one of the key topics in this field of research. However, the main attention is paid to the connection of the student’s educational achievements with his family background, characteristics of the class and school, as well as with the peculiarities of the national educational system (Stahl, et al., 2018). Meanwhile, the spatial aspect is one of the least studied factors that determine the educational achievements of students. Access to quality schooling is an essential component of basic capabilities that largely determines the ability to move to higher levels of education and the chances of success in almost any field. Accordingly, ensuring equality of opportunity in school education is classified as a high priority.

Discussion

The role of spatial factors in the inequality of educational opportunities and achievements is theoretically substantiated within the framework of a more general discussion in the problem field of poverty and inequality, known as ‘people versus place.’ The focus of this discussion is a stable correlation between individual and territorial characteristics. “Schools serving the lowest-income neighborhoods have the most disadvantaged student bodies, with, on average, 78% FRPL [free/reduced-price lunch], 21% LEP [Limited English Proficiency], and 7% GATE [Gifted and Talented] students, compared with 30% FRPL, 8% LEP, and 10% GATE in schools in the highest-income neighborhoods” (Owens & Candipan, 2019, p. 3185). Hence, in territorial entities with worse socioeconomic characteristics, the share of people with a low level of human capital is higher. On the contrary, relatively prosperous territories are inhabited by a population with better characteristics of human capital.

Actually, the discussion in the scholarly dimension revolves around the question, due to which this dependence is mainly ensured. One side gives priority to the role of the human factor. People with a low level of human capital segregate in less comfortable and, therefore, cheaper places of residence, while individuals with a high level of human capital, on the contrary, tend to have more comfortable living spaces. Due to this, spatial disproportions are mainly formed and maintained.

The other side, on the contrary, emphasizes the dominant role of territorial characteristics. Being born and living in a territory with a low level of socioeconomic development worsens the ‘starting conditions’ for the formation of human capital and reduces the chances of success in life (Boterman et al., 2019). On the contrary, a favorable living space contributes to the development and self-realization of individuals, which provides the best-aggregated characteristics of human capital.

The above arguments about the role of the territorial factor are well-refracted in relation to the inequality of opportunities and achievements in school education. Of great importance is the fact that in the early stages of life, mobility is minimal. A schoolchild is practically ‘doomed’ to live in a parental family, go to a school located not far from the parental home, and use the services of local medical and educational systems. It is suggested that spatial factors play a significant role in the inequality of educational achievements of American schoolchildren, being a significant component of inequality of opportunity. Both general socioeconomic factors and the peculiarities of regional educational systems contribute to the disparity in the educational results of American pupils.

In addition to the direct influence of the characteristics of the territory on the opportunities for the development of the children themselves (for example, through the level of medical care), territorial factors also act indirectly. This is manifested through the influence of family background factors and school characteristics (Owens & Candipan, 2019). The premium local labor market (as a rule, characteristic of large cities) allows the economically active population to earn decent money and, thus, provide their children with good conditions and resources for study and recreation. On the contrary, many local labor markets, characterized by a small number of quality jobs and low wages, create significant restrictions for parents in terms of the maintenance and development of their children.

The target population within the scope of the research will involve children attending schools in the United States. The pupils will be 4 to 18 years old, which implies the investigation coverage of preliminary, middle, and secondary school. The exclusion criterion is the attendance of institutions at the preschool level. It will be important to include pupils from high-, middle, and low-income families. This will ensure the identification of the correlation between children’s welfare and spatial issues in terms of addressing inequality at schools. Then, it is essential to include children of different races, which is likely to demonstrate the related existing gap in this vein. Such an approach will allow studying the problem at the national level, adding more relevance to the research.

Conclusion

The suggested solution to the existing issue may be formulated as the obligatory implementation of distance learning for schools. This may involve the formation of special groups without any racial or any other discrimination. Specific courses may be developed for such an option – with a greater emphasis on homework and self-development. Educational equality will be ensured, given that children will have the opportunity to be enrolled in the institution in, for instance, another state.

References

Boterman, W., Musterd, S., Pacci, C., & Ranci, C. (2019). School segregation in contemporary cities: Socio-spatial dynamics, institutional context and urban outcomes. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3055–3073.

Owens, A., & Candipan, J. (2019). Social and spatial inequalities of educational opportunity: A portrait of schools serving high- and low-income neighbourhoods in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3178–3197.

Stahl, J. F., Schober, P. S., & Spiess, C. K. (2018). Parental socio-economic status and childcare quality: Early inequalities in educational opportunity? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 304–317.

Click Here To Order Now!

Spatial Factor in Educational Inequality at Schools

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)