in the instructions

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Reflective Reaction Paper
Summary
While most people seek to be rational, prejudice and discrimination cannot be avoided as human beings hold prejudgments and victimize others based on these biases. Prejudices are preconceived opinions about other people grounded on their social groups (Gorski 53). People often feel deeply insulted and hurt when informed that they have or show prejudice. It is critical to note that biases can either be positive or negative. Regardless of their grouping, they are always irrational as they are imposed on people based on notions regarding their background characteristics. Prejudice is a learning process whereby people acquire particular ideas on how to sort others into different categories such as poor/rich. As a process, bias is essential for learning. However, the society has socialized people to see and value these groups differently.
In critical social studies, the term discrimination implies actions towards others grounded on prejudices. Precisely, discrimination takes place when people act on their biases, and it encompasses exclusion, ridicule, ignoring, threats, slander, violence, and avoiding (Gorski 55). All people discriminate just like they possess prejudices learned from the process of socialization. Prejudice and discrimination are unavoidable. However, they can avoid discriminating against others only if they involve conscious efforts in their views. They can work to recognize their prejudices besides acquiring new information and ways of discerning, which will information more rational actions.

Challenging the social segregation by gaining more information about people from different backgrounds is a crucial aspect in tackling prejudices (Gorski 55). Rather than having prejudiced opinions towards those who are different in the educational real, people should focus on appreciating others and building authentic relationships.
Irrespective of the myriad efforts such as educator workshops desired to balance learning outcomes, students from poor economic backgrounds do not perform as well as their wealthier counterparts. Notably, educational achievement disparities continue to persist across socioeconomic status. Discussions regarding this outcome gap tend to be biased and associated with the prejudiced view that parents from disadvantaged backgrounds do not play a big part in activities at the schools where their children attend. Despite helping their children with learning activities while at home, their low participation in school engagements form part of the central reasons for academic gaps (Sensoy and DiAngelo 57). Several studies have designated that parents from economically deprived backgrounds do not participate in school-family activities like their equivalents from affluent families. Many stakeholders who have approached this phenomenon by trying to understand why these parents are unenthusiastic and do not value education have failed significantly.
Researchers and other stakeholders need to view this issue from the perspective of both a practice and policy intervention rather than concentrating only on the role of parents in academic outcomes (Sensoy and DiAngelo 58). Understanding the problem from different viewpoints will drive the development of practical solutions. For several years now, many stakeholders have believed in the deficit ideology that the low participation of parents from poor backgrounds in school activities plays a critical part in achievement disparities. Educators and related stakeholders should understand that educational gaps result from a continuum of factors pertaining to structural barriers, access to and out of school, and the logical/purposeful insinuation of biased distribution of opportunities. Contrary to associating achievement gaps to symptoms of economic justice, stakeholders in the educational domain should embrace ideological shifts essential to the recognition and confrontation of structural barriers.
Thoughtful Scholarly Reaction
Disparities in academic achievement are on the increase today, and students from disadvantaged economic background tend to lag behind their wealthier counterparts in relation to grades, school readiness, and test scores. Notably, these disparities can emerge as early as infancy. Preschool children living in poverty are less likely to possess early literacy-readiness and cognitive abilities when compared to those living above the poverty threshold. Differences in cognitive skills between children from rich and poor backgrounds are apparent when they join kindergarten. Typically, children from low-income households tend to enter school later than their wealthier peers and never catch up. There is a broad range of obstacles that hinder these children from having similar achievement as their peers. The belief that parents from economically disadvantages backgrounds do not fully participate in the school activities of their children is the most common one.
The perception that parents economically deprived families do not participate in school activities is bigoted. It is vital to note that this ideology has been tested in multiple ways and results have always been positive. The situation has resulted in various stakeholders and organizations working together to change disparity. Irrespective of their efforts, they are yet to achieve the desired result because they are trying to change something that is based on the prejudices that people hold towards parents from poor economic backgrounds. Some of the biased aspects that these stakeholders have been addressing unsuccessfully include evaluating why these parents do not value education and why they lack motivation and grit. Stakeholders should address the issue from the view of policy and practice since all these elements are prejudiced.
As suggested by Sensoy and DiAngelo, educators should rely on a structural ideology to understand and address educational outcome disparities. Structural thinking facilitates the understanding of fundamental obstacles, access to schools, and logical/purposeful impact of irrational distribution of opportunities. Undoubtedly, the variations in educational outcomes relate closely to symptoms of wealth and income inequality. Away from school, students from poor backgrounds put up with a myriad of unstable conditions. Besides inadequate access to basic needs such as food and housing, they also have insufficient access to technology and opportunities to participate in certain activities related to talent building. Irrespective of their extensiveness, obstacles have a mutual characteristic of being unconnected to the mentalities and grittiness of families from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
As long as these challenges exist, achievement disparities will occur, and there is just no way of tackling the gap problem by sidestepping these inequities. By contrast, parents from economically stable backgrounds spend more resources in ensuring that their children have an academically friendly and cognitively motivating atmosphere. Students from affluent backgrounds are exposed to a broader vocabulary as they read regularly. Importantly, their parents outspend those from deprived backgrounds on enrichment activities such as extracurricular programs, external tutoring, and summer camps. The gap will continue to exist as long as parents from low-income families cannot afford to pay for these activities.
Critical Questions
Does poverty threaten child development at more fundamental levels?
What is the association of poverty with differences in the brain structure of children?
Works Cited
Gorski, Paul C. Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap(2nd ed.). New York, NY. Teachers College Press, 2018.
Sensoy, Ozlem, and Robin DiAngelo. Is everyone really equal?: An introduction to key concepts in social justice education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2017.