quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Studies have also shown that tall people have the advantage over short people not just in height but in income. And less attractive children are regarded as less intelligent than cuter children. Maybe we should give the short ugly kids a break too.

---

I recall some time back in the early 1990's, while waiting impatiently in a tire shop, a sociologist was being interviewed by... hmm, I can’t remember the talk show but think it was Oprah Winfrey. But sitting on a nearby chair was Joan Collins. The sociologist was noting a study she had conducted and that she observed that less attractive people have much more interesting lives than people who have not had the same struggles as attractive people.

The sociologist went on to describe social struggles as an intellectual stimulant in life. What stuck in my mind was the absolutely shocked look on Collins’ face upon hearing this. It was quite a hilarious moment.

Forgot to mention the tire shop had a TV... sorry.

[ 12 May 2006: Message edited by: sknguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by charlieM:

So, should income be a factor when children are being graded in schools?

---

Seriously???

How would this even work? The grading guidelines would go something like this I suppose: super rich kids: A = 95%; upper middle class: A = 88%; middle class: A = 82%; lower middle class: A = 77%; low income: A = 73%; below poverty line: A = 60%. This is offensive. It suggests that your intelligence/capabilities are related to your family's income.

Perhaps I misunderstood your question. If you are suggesting that resources be made available to lower income children (who often come from single-parent - usually single-mother - households, meaning the parents work long hours and do not have as much time to help with homework), then I completely agree. Not everyone can afford private tutoring or to send their kids to Kumon or Sylvan learning Centre. Schools should have mentoring programs and after school homework help available to all students. Hot lunch and/or breakfast should also be provided in certain cases.

But grading on a different scale according to income - ridiculous.

ETA: link to StatsCan report and data on which the article was written. Maybe a Babbler with a good head for stats can give us their interpretation of it.
Note that students in the lowest income bracket are less likely to read for pleasure and also less likely to finish homework on time or do homework at all. I don't think a different grading scale is the solution here. Instead, schools must determine why students aren't doing the work at home. Like I said above, after school homework help is a step in the right direction.

[ 13 May 2006: Message edited by: Summer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
Family income is quite relevant to determining if there are nutritional needs that might not be getting met in poorer families which plays into learning abilities.

---

It's a good point, though. When I was in kindergarten in southern Maryland (not exactly a liberal heartland) every student got a small carton of milk and a snack in the morning before we did anything.

[ 14 May 2006: Message edited by: charlieM ]

quote:

---

"There is nothing more unequal than treating unequals equally."

---

Support in seeking and achieving good grades should definitely be available for those who need it. That can be in the form of services provided to everyone - i.e. healthy meals in school for breakfast and lunch.