I find this quite ironic since most students who are presented as poor or are a part of the low socioeconomic status group are unable to afford to attend at a school. Whether it is due to the fact that their families cannot afford bringing their child to school, afford class materials, or afford supporting the well-being of their child, especially since even if they are able to attend school, does not mean they will benefit from it due to other obstacles they have to deal with.

I can very much see how public education is a big source of employment since education provides knowledge and experience to individuals. More specifically, education leads to more job opportunities that a person who does not have educational experiences cannot acquire, especially since most companies look for employers who have experience and are capable of comprehending what their roles are. This reminds me of how in my other classes, IQ is shown to be very important because it shows how people are capable of picking things up quickly and how critically they think when it comes to being a good worker.

I feel like this could be a reason why poor families do not have their children attend schooling since this creates a negative learning environment with them being placed in a certain category and divided from other groups of children. This also discourages the development of their social skills, which I could see that if they are treated completely different from their other peers, they would feel as if there is something wrong with them thus making them perform poorly in school or feel discourage to participate in classroom activities.

I could hardly imagine the impacts these factors have on children, especially since this creates more obstacles for the child to successfully participate in school. In other words, the child will struggle in focusing on their studies, understanding what is going on in class, or even miss classes due to illnesses they have to endure. Also, with living in poverty being another contributing factor for preventing the child from earning a high quality learning experience, this would prevent the child from attending school since the parents would want their child home so that they could care for them and treat their illnesses as best as they can without the support they can get compared to a child that is not in poverty.

I find this an important question to consider because not every child receives the same kind of early learning experience from their parents, caregiver, or teacher before they enter kindergarten. However, if children are given higher quality education at such a young age, which is Pre-K, their school readiness is boosted, their learning experience is enhanced, and they become more successful in the future due to the different skills they acquire at a very young age.

This reminded me of the extended investment model which shows how the resources that were possessed by families who are considered to be higher in socioeconomic status increases the parents' ability to promote the well-being of their children. In other words, they are capable of obtaining occupational status and providing their children higher quality education due to the amount of resources they have access to, such as living in a home with an environment that provide opportunities for their children to learn and socialize.

I find that really surprising that this is actually a statement that is being asked by people. It is like they are saying the reason they are poor is because they are not taking free schooling as a way to support them, well at least that is what I got from it. I do not think that school can easily shift a person from poor to not poor, especially since there could be reasons as to why students are unable to attend school or take advantage of the opportunities schools have to offer. They might not have the transportation to get to school, their parents may not have the time to engage with their students in school due to working so hard to earn more money, or they might not be able to afford materials and resources that are needed when attending the school.

So, what I am trying to grasp here, charter schools are mostly approved due to it having private management that are much more efficient, more flexible, and more effective? If that is what they are saying, I really do not see charter schools as effective or even flexible mainly due to experience as to how charter schools are very limited with the resources they provide, the classes they offer, and the specific students they enroll.

I remember learning that churches were mostly a main place for providing education during colonial times, especially since religion has a huge influence on why children are to be educated - which is for children to be able to read the scriptures - and how important it is for families to support that.

Teaching methods especially generate conflicts for both teachers and their students' parents, especially since they both have different methods on how they want children to learn. When it comes to being a teacher, teachers are to expect criticisms from parents due to the fact that they do not approve of the way their child is learning certain things in school or that they think the teacher is not properly educating their child. As teaching methods is expanded more and more over time, there would be rise in conflicting ideas on what is the "correct" teaching method that is needed to properly educate students.