I.

Introduction

Education is very important for all of us. As an individual we dream to have a

degree and have a permanent job that can sustain our daily needs. But in our society
we experienced inequality. Ever since people use status hierarchies to allocate
resources, leadership positions, and other forms of power.

In our society there are people that is under of what we call poverty, when we
say poverty it is a state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial
resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living. Poverty means that the
income level from employment is so low that basic human needs can't be met. Poverty-
stricken people and families might go without proper housing, clean water, healthy food,
and medical attention. There are also people in our society that are belong to affluence,
when we say affluence it is an abundant supply of money, goods or property.

That status in life determine who can and who cannot access education which is
for all very important. Socioeconomic status encompasses not just income but also
educational attainment, financial security, and subjective perceptions of social status
and social class.

II. Learning Outcomes

At the end of the lesson the students will be able to:
1. Know how poverty influence learning process of the students
2. Enumerate the poverty related factors that intervene in the students’ ability to
learn.
3. Know how affluence influence learning process of the students.

III. Activity Learning

Because we are experiencing the what we call “new normal” this activity can be
access through online or in a classroom setting. The motivational activity is entitled
“FOUR PICS ONE WORD”
 Instructions:

1. The teacher will present or flash 4 pictures

2. The teacher will give a clue letters to the correct answer that the students will
think by looking at the pictures
3. The student can type the answer in his/her gadgets
4. The first student to give the correct answer will be the winner.

IV. Content

Low-income children are more likely than their higher-income peers to be in

factory-like classrooms that allow little interaction and physical movement. As a result,
these children spend more time sitting, following directions and listening rather than
discussing, debating, solving problems and sharing ideas.

How poverty influence learning process of the students?

People in poverty are as diverse as people in any other socioeconomic class.

They present, like other groups, a wide array of values, beliefs, dispositions,
experiences, backgrounds, and life chances. As educators, in order to be responsive to
the needs of our students, it is helpful to consider the constraints that poverty often
places on people's lives, particularly children's, and how such conditions influence
learning and academic achievement. Poverty affects intervening factors that, in turn,
affect outcomes for people (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997).

These factors include students' health and well-being; literacy and language
development; access to physical and material resources; and level of mobility.

Health and Well-Being

These factors are interrelated, and one factor can compound another. For instance,
substandard housing, inadequate medical care, and poor nutrition can affect the rate of
childhood disease, premature births, and low birth weights, all of which affect a child's
physical and cognitive development. Such factors influence students' ability to benefit
from schooling. Living in daily economic hardship can also adversely affect students'
mental health (Winters & Cowie, 2009), self-efficacy (Conrath, 1988, 2001), self-image
(Ciaccio, 2000a, 2000b), and motivation to do well in school (Beegle, 2006).

Language and Literacy Development

Children who live in poverty often come to school behind their more affluent peers in
terms of literacy and language development. In Educating the Other America, Susan
Neuman (2008) states that more than 50 years of research indicate that "children who
are poor hear a smaller number of words with more limited syntactic complexity and
fewer conversation-eliciting questions, making it difficult for them to quickly acquire new
words and to discriminate among words" . A significant body of literature also points to
differences in access to reading materials by students from low-income families in
comparison to their more affluent peers (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2008).

Material Resources

Poverty often places constraints on the family's ability to provide other material
resources for their children as well. For example, they may have limited access to high-
quality day care, limited access to before- or after-school care, and limited physical
space in their homes to create private or quiet environments conducive to study. They
may not own a computer or have the fiscal resources necessary to complete out-of-
class projects.

Mobility

Poverty often places another kind of constraint on families -- the ability to provide stable
housing. Students often move from one location to another because their parents are in
search of work or are dealing with other issues that require them to move. Frequent
moves almost always have a negative academic and social impact on students.

How affluence influence learning process of the students?

Wealthier families are able to afford expensive private schools, or homes in

wealthy public school districts with more educational resources. It is a well-known fact
that children from affluent families tend to do better in school. Families with higher social
economic status can make use of their advantages to gain access to better education
opportunities for their children, to enhance their possibilities of obtaining higher
education (Li 2006; Liu 2008; Zhao and Hong 2012). Research shows that the parental
social economic status can affect their children’s schooling quality significantly. The
higher the social economic status of a family, the better schools their children attend
(Wen 2006; Chen and Fang 2007; Li 2008; Wu 2013b).

Parents with rich cultural capital are more aware of the rules of schools, invest
more cultural resources, pay more attention to cultivate the children’s educational
aspiration and interest, help children with school curriculum, and enable them to
perform in academics outstandingly (Bourdieu and Passeron 1990). Sewell and Hauser
(1993) showed that parents’ educational expectations have significant effects on junior
students’ academic performances. Social capital theory emphasizes the participation of
parents in education and children’s learning behaviors and achievement; parents with
higher social economic status usually participate in their children’s learning activities
more intensively, pay more attention to communication with teachers, manage the
children’s school absence and other risky

V. Evaluation

True or False: Write True if the statement is correct and False if the statement is
incorrect.

__________1. Poverty state or condition in which a person or community lacks the

financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living.

__________2. Affluence is an abundant supply of money, goods or property.

__________3. Poor families are able to afford expensive private schools, or homes in
wealthy public school districts with more educational resources
__________4. Families with higher social economic status can make use of their
advantages to gain access to better education opportunities for their children, to
enhance their possibilities of obtaining higher education

___________5. factors include students' health and well-being; literacy and language
development; access to physical and material resources; and level of mobility.

Enumeration (5 points each): Enumerate at least 3 poverty related factors that

intervene in the students’ ability to learn.

1.

2.

3.

VI. References

Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2008). "Got books?" Educational Leadership, 65(7),
pp.20-23.

Beegle, D. M. (2006). See poverty . . . be the difference! Discover the missing pieces for
helping people move out of poverty. Tigard, OR: Communication Across Barriers.

Ciaccio, J. (2000a). "Helping kids excel on state-mandated tests." Education Digest,

65(5), p.21.

Ciaccio, J. (2000b). "A teacher's chance for immortality." Education Digest, 65(6),
pp.44-48.

Conrath, J. (1988). Full-year prevention curriculum: Secondary dropout prevention. Gig

Harbor, WA: Author.

Conrath, J. (2001). "Changing the odds for young people: Next steps for alternative
education." Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), pp.585-587.

Duncan, G.J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Neuman, S. B. (2008). Educating the other America: Top experts tackle poverty,
literacy, and achievement in our schools. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Winters, V. E., & Cowie, B. (2009). "Cross-cultural communications: Implications for

social work practice and a departure from Payne." Journal of Educational Controversy.

Fang, Changchun, and Xiaotian Feng. 2008. Family background and academic
achievements: a study of stratum differences in compulsory education. Zhejiang Social
Science 24 (8): 47–55.