The effects of low socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic position is one of the cardinal factors act uponing pupil larning results. First to understand the ground ‘s why socio economic sciences position effects pupil accomplishment, it must be foremost defined. Many researches have defined socioeconomic position in many different ways nevertheless for the intent of this paper I will be utilizing the definition by Chapman and Ryan ( 2005, pp 497-498 ) ; “ In Australia socioeconomic position is measured on wealth defined by place postal reference, household wealth, personal assets and parents educational background ” . However this is equivocal as it does non take into history other variables such as existent place ownership, alternate ZIP code abode, full ownership of place and assets, portion portfolios, household heritage pecuniary liquid financess and personal pick. Cary ( 2011 ) states that there are two chief grounds why socioeconomic position influences pupils outcomes. This includes both educational and socio cultural grounds. Based on the literature this paper will analyze these factors and how they play a major function in act uponing pupils larning result in schools.

Does pupil ‘s place postal reference, household wealth, personal assets and parent ‘s educational background have an consequence on pupil larning results? The reply to this inquiry is rather ill-defined. This is because we have to take into history that non all people who reside in a low socioeconomic country are working category people. For illustration some people may take to populate in a low socioeconomic country but are really in-between category households. However it does influence pupils larning because societal category and socioeconomic position are correlated. We can non state nevertheless that all pupils populating in a low socioeconomic country are of working category nevertheless the literature argues that bulk of pupils who live in low socioeconomic countries do non make every bit good in school than pupils from a higher socioeconomic country.

With that in head, the first educational ground to why socioeconomic position may act upon pupil acquisition is that of support inequalities. There has been a monolithic argument as to whether increased support in schools really improves student results. The survey reported by Ryan and Watson ( 2004 ) concluded that increased authorities support for private schools have been used to better quality of larning experiences of pupils which was measured by improved pupil instructors ratios. This means that there was a immense displacement of parents directing their kids from public schools to private schools. This shows the inequality of support within authorities and private sectors.

For farther scrutiny of this factor, in the 2011 Australian Education Union Schools funding entry, it discusses how support within schools have an consequence on pupil larning results. The widening spreads between schools as proven by the turning unfairness in larning results and societal isolation between schools and pupils are a direct consequence of support agreements which have conveyed increasing sums of support to private schools over the last several decennaries, with immense rushs to the wealthier private schools instead than schools with legion deprived pupils, which is largely public schools ( Australian Education Union, 2011 ) .

Teacher outlook is another educational ground. Sadly many instructors in schools today lower their outlooks of pupils based on their socioeconomic position. They automatically assume that pupils who have low socioeconomic position wo n’t make good in school because many are absent from school or have behavioural jobs. This can be closely linked to pupil ‘s place life. Comber ( 1997 ) argues that instructors continue to keep shortage positions of some pupils. That is, some instructors hold lower outlooks for pupils from low socio-economic backgrounds, believing that these pupils have less larning possible than their more advantaged equals, or that background factors will needfully detain their acquisition ( Ruge, 1999 ) . Teachers need to be aware about pupil ‘s backgrounds and non automatically have a stereotyped position because this can impact their instruction which will hold an consequence on pupil ‘s acquisition.

There are besides socio cultural grounds as to why SES influences pupil results. The first ground is pupil ‘s place environment. Students who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds are normally said to be disadvantaged. These disadvantages are “ by and large associated with factors such as low-quality life environments, mobility, household unemployment or underemployment, deficiency of entree to resources that encourage larning such as books and pre-school plans and hapless wellness and societal favoritism ” ( Department of Education and Early on Childhood Development, 2006, p 1 ) . These fortunes are linked with “ hapless attending, lower keeping rates, less preparedness for schooling and poorer mean results at school ” ( Department of Education and Early on Childhood Development, 2006, pp 1 ) .

The section of instruction and early childhood development besides talks about the grounds why pupils from low socioeconomic backgrounds frequently have less successful outcomes. One result they focus on is literacy and numeracy. Research shows that pupils who come from low SES households normally do n’t make every bit good in literacy and numeracy. They may come to school less organised and come from a household who do n’t needfully take much involvement in their schooling or may non hold clip due to work committednesss ( Department of Education and Early on Childhood Development, 2006 ) . Therefore all of these factors play a function in finding how good pupils do in school.

Another factor which influences pupil result is parent educational background. Eagle ( 1989 ) argued that parental engagement in instruction is less frequent in households with low SES. Parental instruction has been said to hold been closely linked to pupils larning results. A low SES family may non supply kids with experiences which will assist them with verbal and written linguistic communication for illustration reading to them and besides numeracy which will help them with their acquisition ( Centre for Community Child Heath, 2002 ) .

Furthermore Baker and Stevenson ( 1986 ) suggest that overall ; parents from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to be involved in schooling than parents of lower socioeconomic position. A higher instruction degree of parents is positively associated with a greater inclination for them to recommend for their kids ‘s arrangement in higher instruction classs and actively pull off their kids ‘s instruction ( Baker & A ; Stevenson, 1986 ) . Whereas, parents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face many more barriers to involvement, including work state of affairss, deficiency of resources, transit troubles, and emphasis due to populating in deprived vicinities.

Besides from a socio cultural point of position mismatch between school and household can hold an consequence on pupil acquisition. This may include linguistic communication, values and certain behavior. This can by and large estrange kids and lead to take down ego regard and motive ; nevertheless this varies with each kid. Many jobs which pupils from low socioeconomic backgrounds face are normally because what the pupils learn in the schoolroom does non associate to their experiences outside of school. Students who are more privileged obtain learning attacks which come of course to them because of their normal mundane engagements. ( Department of Education and Early on Childhood Development, 2006 ) . Students from low socio-economic backgrounds frequently do n’t acquire this chance.

Furthermore statistics have shown that pupils from low socioeconomic backgrounds do non ever make their full potency in their acquisition. The Erebus Report conducted by the New South Wales Department of Education in 2005 comparisons findings and statistics of pupils larning results who come from a low socioeconomic background and pupils from a high socioeconomic background. One illustration they give is reading comprehension and mathematics. The findings revealed that within the same school, a pupil who comes from a higher socio-economic group will accomplish better trial consequences than a pupil from a lower socio-economic group ( NSW Department of Education and Training, 2005 ) . It besides provides comparings between both high and low SES with pupil ‘s absences from school and the survey showed that pupils with low SES had higher figure of yearss absent from school ( NSW Department of Education and Training, 2005 ) . This could besides be a ground why pupils are non making their full potency.

Ainley ( 2003 ) discusses farther analyses of the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth informations in footings of the factors that impact on Equivalent Tertiary Entrance Ranks. Ainley ( 2003 ) found that the 3rd most of import influence on third entryway public presentation was pupil ‘s socioeconomic background which was measured by parental instruction, wealth and occupational position. Students, whose parents are professionals, achieve higher third entryway tonss. The other two former variables were pupil ‘s anterior public presentation and school attended nevertheless it is non hard to see that socioeconomic factors besides impact these variables ( Ainley, 2003 ) .

In decision this paper has argued based on the literature that pupils from low socioeconomic are disadvantaged in facets of their acquisition due to certain factors act uponing these results. These factors include both educational and socio cultural grounds. Whereas research has shown that pupils from higher socioeconomic are inclined to make good in school because they have the appropriate financess to back up pupil larning. It is the schools duty to appreciate these state of affairss and the influences it may hold on pupils larning and pupils enthusiastic attack to stay learning and to turn to these issues consequently ( Department of Education and Early on Childhood Development, 2006 ) .


Ainley, J. ( 2003 ) . Early literacy and numeracy achievement influences ENTER tonss. ACER Research Highlights, 2003, p. 8-9.

Australian Education Union. ( 2011 ) . Schools Funding Review Submission. Retrieved on 20 March 2011 from: hypertext transfer protocol: //

Baker, D.P. , & A ; Stevenson, D.L. ( 1986 ) . Mothers ‘ schemes for kids ‘s school accomplishment: Pull offing the passage to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166.

Cary, L. ( 2011 ) . Social Class and Education. EDU231 Schools in context talk. Murdoch University. Perth: WA.

Centre for Community Child Heath. ( 2002 ) . A Reappraisal of the Early Childhood Literature. Retrieved on 20 March 2011 from: hypertext transfer protocol: //

Chapman, B. & A ; Ryan, C. ( 2005 ) . The entree deductions of income-contingent charges for higher instruction: lessons from Australia. Economicss of Education Review 24. Science Direct. National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. ( pp.491-512 ) .

Comber, B. ( 1997 ) . Literacy, poorness and schooling: Working against shortage equations. English in Australia.

Department of Education and Early on Childhood Development. ( 2006 ) . Understanding the Needs of Students from Low Socio-Economic Backgrounds. Retrieved on 20 February 2011 from hypertext transfer protocol: //

Eagle, E. ( 1989 ) . Socioeconomic position, household construction and parental engagement: the correlatives of accomplishment. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED307 332 ) .

NSW Department of Education and Training. ( 2005 ) . Review of the recent Literature on Socioeconomic Status and Learning. Retrieved on 20 February 2011 from: hypertext transfer protocol: //

Ruge, J. ( 1999 ) . Raising outlooks: Achieving quality instruction for all. Retrieved on 31 March 2011 from hypertext transfer protocol: // content/uploads/psp/file/Raising_Expectations.pdf

Ryan, C & A ; Watson, L. ( 2004 ) . The Drift Towards Private Schools in Australia: Understanding its characteristics. Discussion paper No. 479. Centre for Economic Policy and Research, The Australian National University.