Synthesised GP Blog

Poor Kids = Poor Adults?

Had I place the equal sign there without the question mark, I'm sure I would have generated a major controversy. However, if we examine the issue critically, there seems to be some truth in the matter. I refer to the article entitled, "Is it harder for poor kids to shine in school?" from The Straits Times dated 15/4/06. The article gave a couple of noteworthy statistics:

"53 per cent of Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarship holders came from families earning at least $5,000 every month"

"47 per cent of PSC scholarship holders live in private homes, when just 15 per cent of all families here live in this more expensive housing option"

"[analysis of the] National Youth Survey (2002) found that parental background contributed about 36 to 39 per cent to the educational attainment"

The reason may be simple: Being rich is a head start. If you have extremely affluent parents, they would give you special enrichment classes in piano, ballet, golf, super memory courses, speech and drama, and many other kinds of luxurious training inaccessible to the poorer children. Not surprisingly, one who has received such an all-rounded education would be at an instant advantage over their peers who may have only been through some mediocre enrichment like swimming or abacus classes. Their exposure to so many of life's wonders would probably mould them into more positive and competitive people.

On the other hand, a poor child does not have as much luck. From young, he would have been revealed to problems of living. Some extreme ones may even have to share the worry of the next meal. Life like this would cause them to be disappointed with the environment they are in. Friends then become their sources of jealousy. They will grow up with much negativity and low self-esteem. That would be the perfect breeding ground for juvenile delinquents. To top it off, they start out in moderate pre-schools which may not exactly be the ideal way of starting their most important of school life which is ironically the very means to turn the tables.

Opponents may argue that our education system balances the situation very well due to meritocracy. It gives each child an equal opportunity to succeed, as long as they work hard. I do not disagree that there is equality in the system because every child has 10 years of compulsory education. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that richer parents have means to get their children into better schools (and hence better future). This can work through various methods involving diplomacy or excessive tuitioning. In short, they have ways other than being hardworking, which is the only tool for poorer children, and that gives them an edge in the supposedly fair system.

I dare not disagree with the other side of the coin. Being poor is not all bad and being rich is not all good. When one is poor, he/she appreciates more the virtue of frugality. He can not only empathise with other poorer peers but gain experiences from being less well-off - something their pleasantly-living peers will never receive. The disadvantage of being rich can be similarly explained. The richer children will grow up to be perfectionists and failures would irk them more than the poorer kids who have had enough stumps in their lives to manage these misfortunes.

With that understanding, alleviating poverty is not just helping the poor. Overall, it levels the playing field better than the meritocratic system. The poverty cycle is a continually repeating one and being a more developed country does not excuse us from it. I do not see a day where it everything is fair for it would take a communist state to do so but there is a serious need to help those less advantaged children so that the saying, "Everyone is born equal," will not be satirically joined with, "but some are born more equal than others."

posted by synthesis @ 12:44 AM