Running Head: MPP
1
Multicultural Pedagogical Project: The Academic Effects of Stereotypes on Low Socioeconomic
Class Students
Andrew M. Loera
Equity and Excellence in Education: Teaching in a culturally pluralistic society
5100: 300, 003/004
Spring 2011
L. B. Darwich
April 20th, 2011
Abstract: The Achievement gap is an ever growing concern for educators everywhere. In this
paper I will explore the benefits of implementing a character education program to begin to close
this gap. The negative effects of stereotyping will be discussed as well as the positive effects of
using a character education piece to build self-efficacy in all students. Using character education
in the classroom will be explored as an avenue to level the playing field among students from all
socioeconomic walks of life.
Running Head: MPP
2
Introduction
A major problem facing schools in the United States today is the achievement gap.
Schools and law makers are trying to devise numerous plans to close the achievement gap.
Some people believe that the achievement gap can be attributed to the lack of resources for some
students, but others believe that character practices and stereotypes play a major role in the
achievement gap (Baker, 2010). High schools today can be a very diverse place for students and
teachers. It can be diverse in many ways; one is a diversity of socioeconomic status within the
student body.
My goal is to explore the major factor of socioeconomic status and how it relates to the
achievement gap. I believe increasing my knowledge in this area of education will increase my
awareness about the diversity of learners within my class. By gaining understanding about the
cultural diversity between families with a higher socioeconomic status and those families with a
lower socioeconomic status I will be able to create a cross-cultural character education plan that
will promote high academic achievement and help to develop students into successful members
of society. By creating a character education plan such as this I will have produced a highly
functional unit and will also increase my cultural knowledge about how the achievement gap
correlates with low socioeconomic status students.
Literature Review
According to Melissa Baker, a Masters in Education, and Pattie Johnson, a Doctorate in
Education, there is a correlation between student achievement on high-stakes testing and
socioeconomic status (Baker, 2010). Baker and Johnson’s findings suggest that in many cases
privileged students are expected to perform better by their parents than the parents of less
privileged students. Lower expectations from parents and others will have a negative effect on
Running Head: MPP
3
students’ beliefs about their own abilities. This leads to students performing at or below grade
level (Baker, 2010).
A deficiency of support from families of low socioeconomic status has a direct effect on
student achievement. Some of these factors such as, lack of technology, lower number of
academic experiences, and a smaller amount of financial support are impossible to substitute in
the classroom (Baker, 2010). With that being said, there is no real correlation between how
smart a person is and the amount of money he or she has. This leads researchers to believe that a
major problem in schools is that both teachers and parents of lower socioeconomic status
students expect less from these students, thereby accepting the stereotype that students who are
poor are also dumb. This simply is not true (Baker, 2010). Students who come from families of
low socioeconomic status may have to work harder because they have less support. In turn,
teachers will also need to work harder to help meet their needs, meaning as an educator I cannot
simply expect my underprivileged students to perform at lower levels.
In an article entitled, “Social Class is Dead. Long Live Social Class! Stereotype Threat
Among Low Socioeconomic Status Individuals,” authors Bettina Spencer and Emanuale Castano
point out the effects of stereotyping our students based on socioeconomic status. The authors
express how commonly low socioeconomic status people are stereotyped (Spencer, 2007). Some
common terms used were; trailer trash, redneck, hillbillies, thug, hoodlum, etc. If students are
exposed to these stereotypes it can be damaging to their self-efficacy. Spencer and Castano go
as far as to say that underperformance by low socioeconomic status students is caused by
stereotyping (Spencer, 2007). The students are exposed to stereotyping at a young age and these
stereotypes can easily be ingrained into their reasoning. In other words students begin to believe
that because they are not privileged they are dumb (Spencer, 2007).
Running Head: MPP
4
Spencer and Castano cite a social psychological research. The experiment was conducted
in order to determine whether or not people place bias on students depending solely on their
socioeconomic status. Participants in this study constantly rated students they believed to be on
higher socioeconomic background above grade level (Spencer, 2007). Those who believed the
same students were of a low socioeconomic background rated the students below grade level.
This study indicated that there was a clear bias in determining cognitive ability based on
socioeconomic status (Spencer, 2007). My concern is; if adults have these biases, and students
learn from adults, then many students will grow up to develop the same biases creating a never
ending cycle.
According to Spencer and Castano, research called, “stereotype threat,” has already been
conducted on stereotyping and its effects on academic achievement. “Stereotype threat occurs
when members of a stigmatized group perform poorly on a task because they fear confirming
negative stereotypes that are associated with their in-group” (Spencer, 2007). This claim can be
substantiated by a study conducted in which students from high and low socioeconomic
backgrounds were mixed together (Spencer, 2007). These students completed an intelligence
test. Low socioeconomic status students who were aware of their socioeconomic status scored
notably lower on the test than students of the same socioeconomic status, but were not aware of
their status. The latter group’s score was on par with the students of a higher socioeconomic
status that completed the test (Spencer, 2007).
How can educators develop students of various socioeconomic backgrounds into
successful adults when students of lower socioeconomic background are stereotyped into failure?
My answer to this question is, through a customized character education plan that will not only
teach all students about good character, it will also emphasize and promote students abilities.
Running Head: MPP
5
This program will combat stereotyping by proving that stereotyping is wrong. When students
begin to understand that stereotyping is wrong and also destructive towards students’
development, the effects of stereotyping will lessen and students, especially those of lower
socioeconomic background, will begin to achieve higher academically than before. A good
sense of self-efficacy is one of the most important characteristics of a successful student, and I
want all my students to have a good sense of self-efficacy.
Character education has long been a widely used technique to improve academic
achievement and help shape students into successful members of society. Character education is
an important tool used to bring a student body together by finding commonalities in character
values. Instead of focusing on how students are different from one another, they can focus on a
model in which all students can all strive towards. However, there are many variations of
character education, some more successful than others.
A brief history of character education is given in an article by Gary Skaggs and Nancy
Bodenhorn entitled, “Relationships Between Implementing Character Education, Student
Behavior, and Student Achievement” (Skaggs, 2006). According to Skaggs and Bodenhom,
character education was an important tool used in public education until the 1950’s. People
began to question whether morality could be taught without teaching religion. Thus, character
education was phased out of the public schools (Skaggs, 2006). By the 1980’s the general public
began to feel that there was a decline in public education. As a result, character education was
re-implemented into schools around the United States. The main goal of character education
today as we know it is teaching students good character practices and principles which they will
utilize throughout life (Skaggs, 2006).
Action Plan & Implementation Process
Running Head: MPP
6
My classroom character education plan consists of a few main guidelines. No additional
curriculum will be used in this plan in order to make it more customizable as well as keep costs
low. The character education plan will have a measurable system to promote good conduct.
This plan will be engaging and meaningful for the class, as well as effective. Most importantly,
students will raise their self-efficacy and academic achievement. I will use eight character
education words throughout the year; respect, cooperation, responsibility, encouragement,
determination, fairness, citizenship, trustworthiness. I feel that these character words best
illustrate the goal that I am seeking, to raise academic achievement through demonstrating how
stereotypes are wrong and raising students’ self-efficacy. The school year spans over about 10
months, with August and June only being partial school months. For this reason I will use
respect and determination twice during the school year. I feel that those two words are the two
most important words in the character education plan.
Implementation will be class-wide. I will incorporate the word of the month into my
lessons, making the ideas as meaningful as possible for students. Students will be encouraged to
perform the good character practices. I will be on the look-out for good character practices.
When students practice good character habits they will be awarded a credit for each act. Every
student will be required to participate in character education by performing at least one task for
each word of the month throughout the school year. As a class, we will participate in some
community service project to engage students. Role models of important figures in both current
events and throughout history will be used as character examples. These figures will be easily
associated with the diverse classroom.
Students will be awarded for their good character practices in various ways. Small
distinctions will be awarded to students based on a merit system. As students practice good
Running Head: MPP
7
character they will be rewarded. For 15 good character deeds a student will receive five bonus
points. Every 10 good character deeds after that will be worth five bonus points, up to 40 good
deeds. Once a student reaches 40 good deeds the student will receive an ice cream gift certificate
to a local ice cream shop. Students will submit good character deeds that they have done in the
classroom or at home. The students need to have a parent or guardian sign off on the good
character deed and then he or she will be awarded a point. The student with the most good deeds
at the end of each week will be acknowledged by the teacher. These awards will give students
some extra incentive to participate in the program. When students participate in this program
whether they are from a low socioeconomic background or not they will begin to see that every
person can make a difference and every person is capable of great achievement. This will help
all students break away from negative stereotypes.
Analysis & Conclusion
From analyzing data about socioeconomic status of students and how it relates to student
achievement I am able to better understand the diversity of students from a socioeconomic
standpoint. With this information I can focus on the reasons for the achievement gap with
reference to students of low socioeconomic status and how I can work to fix the problem. My
solution is through a customized classroom character education program which focuses on
eliminating stereotypes and showing students how to be model citizens, thus increasing their
self-efficacy. When self-efficacy is increased and students believe they can achieve at higher
levels they will begin to have more success in the classroom.
Personal Reflection
If I was to make any changes to this project I would allow my students to make
comments and suggestions about the program at the end of each grading period in order for me
Running Head: MPP
8
to customize the program to fit their exact needs. It would also give me new ideas to implement
in the classroom in the future. I think that this character education program would help many
students who do not achieve as highly as they should academically because of low self-efficacy.
It is my responsibility as an educator to make sure my students reach their full potential.
Running Head: MPP
9
References
Baker, M. (2010). The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on High Stakes Testing Reexamined.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 193-199 Retrieved from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790ebcbe3cd991
ac73969bb8e1559a93705728c24b0f99faa01a79dde5bb76acce04&fmt=H
Spencer, B. (2007). Social Class is Dead. Long Live Social Class! Stereotype Threat among Low
Socioeconomic Status Individuals. Social Justice Research, 20(4), 418-432 Retrieved from
http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Spencer_Bettina.pdf?issn=08857466&issue=v20i00
04&article=418_scidlltalssi
Skaggs, G. (2006). Relationships Between Implementing Character Education, Student Behavior,
and Student Achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(1), 82-114 Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c49b5203-c938-4da0-85a03bdf3005a81e<sessionmgr110&vid=2&hid=106