User:Alia Jiaying Li/sandbox

Education inequality in China
Education inequality in China exists on multiple levels, with significant disparities occurring along gender, geographical, and family income divides. More specifically, disparities exist in the distribution of educational resources nationwide, as well as the availability of education on levels ranging from basic to higher education.

Family Income Stratification
The impact of education from family income mainly displays on two things, one involves the physical environment for children, and the other one is the nonphysical influence to children’s growth. First of all, “under which poor households have fewer material resources and children who grow up in under‐resourced families tend to lag behind in education and other fields". Household expenditure on children’s education in China is different from other countries such as United States or United Kingdom. Chinese parents attach significant importance to their children’s private eduction investment, which includes private tutors, extracurricular classes, interest classes and so on. Parents with higher income can provide children more training and opportunities of going to more educational institutions. However, family with less financial support are less able to afford children’s extra educational investment. Moreover, poverty affects the ability of parents to monitor their children’s various need during growth and there is evidence indicating economic hardship can reduce the communication between parents and children. According to a 2011 survey, children growing under lower income family can face more challenges from economic hardship and this lead them more likely to drop school or have emotional problem such as tendency in violent and crime. In China, parental income is one of reasons that cause education inequality, and this can not be neglect based on its major influence on children’s growth.

One-child policy Effect
One-child Policy in China plays an important role in the inequality of education. The One-child policy was implemented in China in 1979 to slow down the country’s explosive population growth and was abolished in 2016. Before the one-child policy, parents were allowed to have more than one child and had the opportunity to display a preference toward male children; this so-called “son preference” has prevailed among most Chinese parents for centuries. However, after the One-child policy was enacted, the only-child girls were able to receive more educational opportunities because there was not as much competition for household resources as in multiple-child households. The gender inequality has improved by this One-child policy, and therefore female’s education opportunity has increased. The big issue on gender inequality has been improved through this policy.

Relevant to topic? Anything Distracted?
Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic “ Education Economics” and nothing is distractive for me.

Information out of date? Anything could be added?
The informations are a little out of date because the investment cost for education is counted with GDP in 2005, and the recent 5 years would be more convincing about the statement of the relationship between investment cost and returns on education. There is one thing that can be added in this article. When talking about the investment cost of education, the author used European countries as an example. As we all know, European countries are mostly developed countries, and the lacking of using developing and underdeveloped countries as examples would be really bias. Therefore, adding other countries as examples would make the argument more acceptable for readers.

What else could be improved?
There are some spelling mistakes that can be improved such as the word “ enrolment” under the topic Demand for VS. Supply of education, it is suppose to be “ enrollment”. The spelling mistake is a small problem but would affect how readers would perceive the article and they might think the statement is not precise.

Is the article neutral? Claims favoring another position?
This article mentions one thing which is more investment on education, more returns from it. I would say this article is neural because it is stating the undeniable fact about how much monetary investment people need on education, but this article might be a little offensive for those not wealthy family. For instance, there is a specific word I really don’t like in the sentence “ it may be that richer households are seeking out educational attainment as a symbol of status, rather than the relationship of education leading to wealth.” The “rich” word mentions in this sentence could be replaced by “ family who are better able to afford” or “ family with more financial support”, by replacing it readers would feel better and less offended.

Any viewpoints overrepresented or Underrepresented?
The viewpoints are really correct and fair, because under our society, education costs more than we thought than before and this article is just stating this truth.

Do the links work? Sources support claims?
The links works well and the sources such as the graph Average years of schooling versus GDP per capita is also helpful for stating the point. Each references reliable and neutral? At the end, each fact is referenced with a reliable reference and the informations mentioned by economists Eric A. Haushek and Richard Murnane are also supportive for the statement that there’s a high correlation between "adjusted growth rate" and "adjusted test scores”. The sources are all neutral because those sociologists and economists’ studies are really well known by people.

'''These are solid reflections, but work on more effective organization. (DB) 4/5'''

****Correction**** (DB) 5/5

Relevant to topic?
Based on the reading of Psychology of Education, I would believe that the article’s content is not relevant to the topic. Based on my opinion, Education Psychology is suppose to be related with the learning process which allows researchers to understand individuals intelligence, cognitive development, affect, motivation, self-regulation, and people’s role in learning. Psychology education is suppose to be a study of those things for individuals and based on that people can know how to cultivate students. However, the article I read was only about the relationship between intelligence and education, such as how education influence intelligence or whether intelligence has more effect on education. The topic of this article should be changed to intelligence of education instead of Psychology of education.

Is the article neutral?
I would believe this article is neutral because it is stating an opinion that education has more influence of intelligence and gives a lot of evidence to support this opinion. At the same time, in the research, there is clear evidence showing that the children who have never received education has lower IQ. The comparison of children who received education and who did not receive education let readers know the fact and makes his conclusion more neutral and unbiased.

Each claim has a citation? Citations reliable?
Each claim has a citation such as the study or tests’ citation are underlined and I can find them at the bottom of the article. The citations are also reliable because all of the researchers are well known by their researches and studies such as the Twin Study made by Matt McGue, William Iacono, and Kevin Haroian in University of Minnesota in 1979 in order to identify whether child raised by biological parents or the child raised by adopted parents has higher, this shows the relationship between the argument of nature or nurture.

'''These are solid reflections, but work on more effective organization. (DB) 4/5'''

****Correction**** (DB) 5/5

Who is impacted?
I would pick the topic about School Psychologist for my article. The mainly population that will be impacted are the teachers in school because school psychology is a subject they would like to learn, parents because all parents must really care about their children’s school life and learning condition in school, and students because they are the major population who’s going to be benefited from the good teachers who have good teaching techniques.

What aspect?
I am really interested in how psychology works on education, so my topic would be related with School Psychology. The theme I would like to focus on would be what’s the function of psychologist in schools, it is the category of both education and psychology. The education methods teachers have are really determinative because teaching is not that easy. Teaching students is not as easy as what people originally thought, based on my experience of being an assistant teacher during last summer, I found out it is really hard to teach students properly if some students may be unwilling to cooperate with what teachers assigned them to do. Therefore, having some basic knowing about school psychology knowledge is important.

When?
I am interested in the current education situation because students nowadays are harder to teach than several decades ago based on their employment of technology devices. Using of technology devices gives them greater chance to communicate with the outer world and get a lot of resources but at the same time they would rely on the devices too much and not listen to or ignore what teachers would teach in class.

Where?
I would like to give examples about how education and psychology combine together to influence students in America or China because those are the countries I am familiar with. American can be the example about how school psychology works in developed country and China can be an example about how it functions in the developing country.

'''These are good reflections--now just be sure that these are areas to be addressed. (DB) 5/5'''