Lots of research talks about what happens in the first few years of a kid's life and how poor children don't get the support and input — things as simple as language or as complicated as an outlook on life, self - esteem, and how you interact with institutions — that middle -
class kids tend to get.
Not exact matches
Mommy stereotypes bug me, but they also
tend to make me feel less alone when I'm sitting in my yoga pants that have never seen an actual yoga
class, hiding in the bathroom from my
kids, drinking a glass of wine and lamenting about my huge receipt from Target.
And of course it
tended to perpetuate
class divisions, as better - off
kids with better - educated parents were much more apt to make it into (and want to enter) the grammar schools.
There are very good reasons to be skeptical of GT programs — the fact that their participants
tend not to achieve any more academically or socially than non-GT students, the dilution of NON-GT education by pulling the brightest
kids out of those
classes, and the promotion of homogeneity in an increasingly heterogenous community are chief among them.
The
kids who end up in such programs
tend to get reduced schedules and smaller, lower - level
classes, which are sold to their parents as more «appropriate» options better suited to their needs than regular
classes.
They found that small group teaching was more effective than whole
class instruction — that is, if one compares 30 minutes of small group teaching versus 30 minutes of whole
class teaching, the
kids in the small group
tend to make larger learning gains.
Meanwhile, the moderates and conservatives working / middle
class tend to have
kids, and especially in flyover America, read, and have the money to buy books.
Kids who were engaged in school
tended to participate in
class and succeed academically.