While the study of sociology focuses on groups, or society as a whole, it should not exclude an emphasis on individuals because individuals forms groups and groups produce individuals....
The emergence of these ideals temporarily displaced social disorganization theory, which stresses a rapidly changing environment as the cause of deviant behavior.
But it’s not just about money. Poverty is associated with a host of other social ills that have a negative impact on learning. For instance, children in poverty are much more likely to be living in single-parent families headed by young, poorly educated mothers. Poverty is also associated with higher rates of alcoholism and other substance abuse in the home; greater incidence of child abuse and neglect; and heightened family involvement in the criminal justice system. All of these are well-known “risk factors” that are associated with lower test scores as well as with a greater likelihood of dropping out of high school.
Global poverty in this essay can be defined as having no or very limited access to fresh water, medical facilities, and education (Sumner, 2011, internet)....
The next question is whether U.S. students from low-income families are lower-scoring than those in other countries. To explore this question, we’re obliged to wrestle with measurement issues. The problem is complicated because no international data set contains both good measures of family income and good measures of student test-score performance.
Sociology is a study of society social life, social change, and social causes and consequences of human behaviour and allows us to gain an understanding of the structure and dynamics of today’s society, looking at the interlinking links patterns of human behaviour.
What does Berger mean when he refers to sociologists as "Professional Peeping Toms?" When Berger refers to sociologists as "Professional Peeping Toms", he means to "unmask the pretensions and the propaganda by which men cloak their actions with each other." An example would be: observing how a family really interacts with each other, responds to their environment, etc., behind closed doors without them knowing so that they cannot fake the way they reall...
What it does show is that poverty can’t explain away America’s lackluster academic performance. That excuse, however soothing it may be to educators, politicians, and social critics, turns out to be a crutch that’s unfounded in evidence. We need to stop using it and start getting serious about improving the achievement of all the nation’s students.
The way that an anthropologist approaches a problem and attempts to solve it is different than a sociologist because of the discerning basis of their knowledge.
In short, relative poverty rates, which are only weakly related to student achievement both in the U.S. and abroad, are erroneously used to explain America’s academic struggles. They seem to indicate that the U.S. has an unusually large population of low-income individuals, but in fact they simply demonstrate an unusually high degree of income inequality. Using absolute poverty rates—which are related to student achievement within the U.S.—we see that the proportion of Americans who are poor is quite typical by international standards.
It’s important to note that the absolute poverty rates shown in Figure 3 are for the general population, not for children. It’s possible that absolute child-poverty rates would look quite different. But we have no way of knowing, because the data to calculate those rates across a large number of countries do not currently exist.
What we can say definitively is that relative poverty rates can be highly misleading. We ran a regression analysis to estimate the relationship between states’ absolute and relative poverty levels and student achievement, and the result was clear: absolute poverty is a powerful predictor of achievement, while the relationship between relative poverty and test scores in the U.S. is weak and not statistically significant (see Figure 5).
Using 2010 data, Timothy Smeeding, founder of the Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg, reports absolute poverty using a methodology that takes into account all forms of income, including social welfare benefits (see Figure 3). By this measure, the U.S. absolute poverty rate is lower than the United Kingdom’s, virtually the same as Germany’s, and just barely higher than Finland’s. To be sure, the U.S. still has too much poverty. But once social welfare benefits are included, and we look at absolute instead of relative poverty, the U.S. is hardly an outlier.
Education plays an important role in the cause of poverty as a poor
education can often lead to unemployment or a low paid job, this can
result in poverty as insufficient funds will not support the family.