Sociology

The American dream provides that every individual can succeed if he or she works hard. Education, the ultimate social equalizer, is the stuff that propels social mobility, from the working poor to the middle or upper class. However, the problem with education itself is that there are social limits to attaining or succeeding in education. These limits explain why the American education system today grapples with new challenges as it resolves problems of the past at the same time. At present, the disparities in the achievement gap remain among Whites and minority groups predominantly the African-Americans and Hispanics. At the high school level the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported in 2003 that in the nations high schools today, African-American and Hispanics twelfth grade students perform on an equal level with eighth grade White students. In higher education, poor student performance and dwindling competitiveness compared to international counterparts confront education policymakers today.

While there have been many reforms in education, poverty and racial discrimination limits the academic success of individuals. For instance, despite the passage of the landmark Brown decision which ended racial segregation in the schoolroom, disparities in educational achievement and competence is widening between Whites and minority students in the US today. Attrition rates in high school are high among minority students as well. Eitzen and Baca-Zinn (2000) propose that socioeconomic class is a limit to educational outcomes.  There is a stark difference in the schools situated in poor and rich communities in the country. Americans poor have long complained on the separate but unequal schools, characterized by poor classroom conditions and poor educational facilities (p. 143). Essentially, the traditional view that lack of education causes poverty is actually the other way around. Poverty is the cause, rather than the effect, of social problems (Eitzen  Baca-Zinn, 2000). Hence, educational reforms must be formulated with a definitive thrust on resolving inequalities between the rich and the poor. The poor performance of minority students compared to White students is also a result of the social inequalities that are institutionalized in the education system, a phenomenon Eitzen (2000) calls institutional discrimination.  This means that the American education system is structurally designed to limit the opportunities of the poor racial minorities. For instance, standardization and IQ tests that are used to evaluate academic competence possess a cultural bias because they are typically written by middle-class people and test knowledge of middle-class values (p. 171). Moreover, equal opportunity in higher education is defeated by the fact that college enrolment precludes the poor who are unable to afford the steep tuition costs. Essentially, poverty and race are limits in educational achievement. Simply put, educational achievement is limited simply because of  being born to the wrong parents, in the wrong section of town, in the wrong industry, or in the wrong racial or ethnic group (Eitzen  Baca-Zinn, 2000, p. 200).

Affordable Obesity Programs for the Poor, Anyone
A recent New York Times article written by Lesse Alderman (2010) suggests low-cost obesity intervention programs that low-income families can implement to addresses increasing incidence of obesity among poor American families. While the article is commendable, implementing, much less sustaining, such anti-obesity programs are unrealistic considering the fact that food consumption is structured in such a way that unhealthy products such as candy, junk food, chips, and high-calorie consumables are sold cheap while healthy products such as vegetables, fruits, and low-calories goods are less affordable. The article however, explores a very valid reality that poverty influences obesity. Essentially, the rich can afford to be healthy while the poor cannot. Children from low-income homes are more vulnerable to food insecurity because they have limited choices on the food they eat. Their parents income cannot afford to access nutritious fruits and vegetables that middle-class or upper-class homes can. Children belonging to poor homes are also vulnerable to illness and nutritional disorders because of food insecurity. Poor homes consume fewer dairy goods, making children more at risk for chronic diseases caused by calcium deficiency. Naturally, children from low-income homes can only consume products which are inexpensive but higher in fat or calorie content because these are the only ones their parents can afford. For instance, instead of buying whole-wheat bread and lean meat, low-income parents would opt for cheaper high-calorie white bread and high-fat meats.

Alderman (2010) states that Obesity is expensive because of the medical bills that would be paid for the diseases that it causes, but switching to healthy lifestyles is similarly expensive. Since obesity is driven by social deprivation, addressing it has to consider the question of income. Aldermans proposal may seem realistic but it does not address the social root of obesity. It follows the Culture of Poverty theory which states that the poor are qualitatively different in values and that these cultural differences explain continued poverty (Eitzen  Baca-Zinn, 2000, p. 173). Alderman enumerates that overcoming obesity requires only changes in behavior since behaviors from parents prompt unhealthy food choices for children, such as keeping two-liter bottles of Coke and Sprite in the refrigerator (2000), but this is missing the point. Aside from being able to afford only the cheap and unhealthy, low-income homes shoulder greater costs than well-off families. According to Timmer (1994), poor households pay more than middle-class homes in general. For instance, food costs are more expensive in poor communities since supermarkets, discount stores, outlet malls, and warehouse clubs bypass inner-city neighborhoods, gas and convenience stores charge more in inner-city neighborhoods, and the so-called Black Tax charges African-Americans more in rent, insurance, and security charges. While it makes complete sense that low-income families can change their behaviors and adopt more healthy eating behaviors, in the end, it will boil down to what kind of food the family can afford to eat. For this reason, it becomes highly unlikely that simply implementing behavioral interventions will be a sustainable solution to childhood obesity.