Globalization
contextual essay Globalization is a process in which geographical
distance becomes a factor of diminishing importance in the
establishment and maintenance of cross border of economic, political and socio-cultural relation. Globalization as coming closer of different
countries of the world in the social, cultural and technological fields, especially in the economic field. The development of the internet has made
possible the organization of business on a global scale and as a result the idea of globalization came into existences. It has its positive aspects as
well as negative. It is considered an effective measure to control the prices. The more countries trade with each other, the more their standards of
living improves. Globalization makes it possible to establish and promote a shared set of core values in the areas of labor standards, human rights
and environmental practices between United States and the business community.The efficiency of public sector in the economy of the country has
been increased due to globalization. Poverty is a blot on the face of any nation. Globalization reduces it to a great extent. There is evidence to
show that among the poorest countries, those that trade with the other nations have achieved the highest rate of growth in Income per head and the
greatest decline in poverty. Inequality of Income is also caused by globalization. It is said that globalization has affected the environment greatly. It
has led to the depletion of natural resources, the production of harmful chemicals and the destruction of organic agriculture. Under globalization
countries depend more on a nation. Not only this, it is always a danger of loss of economic sovereignty. It is also said that globalization leads to a
lowering of wages and workplace standards because generally does not allow unions to defend their workers right.Agriculture is greatly affected
due to globalization, because it is given less importance. Hence, agriculture must be exempted from global trade rules so that poor countries may
pursue their own food security and sustain their farming policy. Whatever may be the disadvantages of globalization, but it a truth that it has
brought people close to each other, which is in favor of the growth of human personality. Now it has become easier to know and understand the
way of life of the other countries. We have now become the members of one big family. Industrialization required raw materials and industrialized
countries could not always supply all of those raw materials themselves. They therefore turned to other countries, including underdeveloped
countries, for raw materials. This created a pattern of every increasing globalization. As globalization produced a world economy in the 20th
centuries, local economies around the world changed the way they produced and distributed raw materials. They specialized in the things they
were best at, imported everything they needed to import, and shared ideas and technology. Increased trade led to ever increasing network
interdependency in the countries of the world. When Britain looked to other countries to satisfy their demand for coal, those countries began to
rely on the revenues they could gain by exporting coal. Those countries, in turn, could use those revenues to buy British goods or import raw
materials that they need for their own industrialization. As countries traded with each other more regularly and more extensively, they stopped
producing they things they could import more cheaply and concentrated on producing the things they made well. In time, individual countries lost
their abilities to produce certain goods completely, relying on other countries exclusively to meet that demand. That process of specialization also
had an important effect on the raw materials were produced. As countries specialized, they found that they actually produced more value of goods
than they had when they produced many different types of goods. Specialization also meant that countries known to be particularly skilled at
producing one or two products became world leaders in the manufacture of those products. As other countries wanted to branch out into
producing and producing those goods, they could use the technology and expertise developed by that country to help them. Even relatively
underdeveloped countries often found at least one important commodity they could offer the world. This connected them to the world economy
and pulled them away from subsistence agriculture.As trade between far-flung parts of the world produced a global economy, ideas and
technology were exported just as easily as raw materials. As countries had more and more contact with each other, they shared their cultures
including their political philosophy. Globalization meant that people could no longer think only in terms of their local area, they had to consider the
outside world as well. Some areas were more receptive to new ideas, but no area could shut out new ideas completely.Because of globalization,
most of the countries of the world no longer concentrated on local markets. Their focus became on regional or even world markets. It also
changed the way they produced goods domesticity including which goods they produced at all. Just because a country might have the resources
and ability to produce a particular commodity no longer meant that they would necessarily produce it. If someone else in the world could produce
it more cheaply and with a higher quality, they might just concentrate on what they were better at producing.When we begin to look at the world
as a business and we forget how the decision making of others can affect us as home and also our schools. We in the United States we are lucky
enough to be able to work sent our children to school and work to survive but are we getting the best education possible. We don’t always have
to look at other countries and see what the effects of globalization are in our lives because unfortunely we see it in our everyday lives for example
why is it that many are having discussions about how the economy is going bad and how there are a lot of gaps between the decision making
between the people and the government. Poverty is an issue that more and more of our nation's children are coming face to face with. The price
that children of poverty must pay is unbelievably high. Each year, increasing numbers of children are entering schools with needs from
circumstances, such as poverty, that schools are not prepared to meet. This paper will examine the effects of poverty on teaching and learning.
Poverty as a risk factor will be discussed as will a number of the many challenges that arise in teaching children of poverty. Implications of
brain-based research for curriculum reform and adaptation will be presented. Poverty often leads many students to be in danger of being a “at risk
student”. The term at-risk refers to children who are likely to fail in school or in life because of their life's social circumstances. It does not appear
that any one single factor places a child at-risk. Rather, when more than one factor is present, there is a compounding effect and the likelihood for
failure increases significantly. Poverty is considered a major at-risk factor (Leroy & Symes, 2001). Some of the factors related to poverty that may
place a child at-risk for academic failure are: very young, single or low educational level parents; unemployment; abuse and neglect; substance
abuse; dangerous neighborhoods; homelessness; mobility; and exposure to inadequate or inappropriate educational experiences.Being able to
identify and understand children who are at-risk is critical if we are to support their growth and development. In order to do this, warm and caring
relationships need to be developed between teachers and children. This will enable teachers to detect any warning signs that may place children
at-risk for failure, interfering with their chances for success in school and life. Academic and behavioral problems can be indicators of impending
failure for example the delay in language development, delay in reading development, aggression, violence, social withdrawal, substance abuse,
irregular attendance, and depression. Teachers may have difficulty reaching a student's parent or guardian. They may also find the student does not
complete assignments, does not study for tests, or does not come to school prepared to learn because of poverty related circumstances in the
home environment. These children may be unable to concentrate or focus. They may be unwilling or unable to interact with peers and/or adults in
school in an effective manner. These issues not only have an impact on the learning of the child of poverty but can also impact the learning of other
children.Recent studies indicate that the association between low income and poor health has its origins in early childhood. Case and colleagues
(2002) documented an inverse relationship between family income and health status among toddlers, and found that the income gradient in health
became steeper with age. They also found that chronic conditions play a crucial role in the income gradient, and that high family income buffers
children from the adverse health impact of chronic conditions. Parents' ability to manage successfully their childrens' chronic conditions is positively
related to family income (e.g., Thompson, Auslander, and White 2001; Snodgrass et al. 2001). Interestingly, although children and adolescents
with health insurance are healthier than their uninsured counterparts, insurance may not play an important role in creating the income gradient in
health (Case, Lubotsky, and Paxson 2002). The association between low income, on one hand, and reduced access to health care and worse
health, on the other, represents just one manifestation of the effect of socioeconomic status on the life chances of adolescents. The main settings
that influence the way children and adolescents grow up include families, neighborhoods, and schools. The quality of these settings, and whether
they are supportive and nurturing or dangerous and destructive, has a profound influence on adolescents' chances for leading successful adult lives.
Family income is perhaps the single most important factor in determining the quality of these settings (National Research Council 1995). Recent
changes in the structure of families, and the consequences for the family incomes of children and adolescents, have eroded the support that many
adolescents receive as they grow up. As single-parent families spread during the past four decades, the proportion of children in such families rose
from 10 percent in 1965 to 27 percent in 2001 (Ellwood and Jencks 2002). Single-parent families, especially those in which the parent is the
mother, are much more likely than two-parent families to have low incomes. In fact, the growth in single-parent families was a major reason for the
increase in the proportion of children living in poverty, from about 15 percent in 1970 to 23 percent in 1993 (Proctor and Dalaker 2002). The
childhood poverty rate fell to 16 percent in 2001 in the wake of the economic expansion, but now is rising again. The poverty rate is even higher
among children who belong to racial or ethnic minorities. Changes in the family have affected two-parent families as well. Higher rates of
participation in the labor force by mothers in two-parent families have helped to maintain family incomes, but they have also created stress for
families and difficulties in caring for and supervising children and adolescents.Although the strong correlation between single-parent families and
low income makes it difficult to disentangle their effects, both factors seem to influence adolescent outcomes (National Research Council 1995).
Economic stress may diminish the emotional well-being of parents, which has direct and indirect negative effects on children. Adolescents growing
up in families under economic stress or with a single parent may be poorly supervised and often gain autonomy too early (Dornbusch et al. 1985).
Unsupervised adolescents are more likely to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, use drugs, report depressed mood, and engage in risky behaviors
(Richardson et al., 1993). Low family income has been associated with early sexual activity, cigarette smoking, adolescent pregnancy, and
delinquency (National Research Council 1995; Blum et al. 2000). Family income also affects the quality of the neighborhoods in which children
and adolescents grow up. Compared with low-poverty neighborhoods, high-poverty neighborhoods havailability of high-quality public and private
services such as parks, child care centers and preschools, community centers, and health care providers, as well as fewer social supports and less
effective social networks (McLoyd 1998). Conversely, high-poverty neighborhoods are more likely to be physically deteriorated and to have
more crime and street violence, greater availability of illegal drugs, and more negative peer influences and adult role models (McLoyd 1998;
National Research Council 1995). These characteristics of high-poverty neighborhoods may have deleterious consequences for the cognitive
functioning, socialization, physical health, emotional functioning, and academic achievement of children and adolescents (e.g., Ellen and Turner
1997). Family income also has a profound influence on the educational opportunities available to adolescents and on their chances of educational
success. Due to residential stratification and segregation, low-income students usually attend schools with lower funding levels, which result in
reduced availability of textbooks and other instructional materials, laboratory equipment, library books, and other educational resources; low-level
curricula; and less-qualified teachers and administrators (e.g., Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990; Ingersoll 1999). The effects of concentrated poverty in
schools may include disciplinary problems and chaotic learning environments. These school characteristics, combined with limited parental
involvement in adolescents' education, have serious consequences. Not surprisingly, low-income adolescents have reduced achievement motivation
and much higher risk of educational failure (Schultz 1993). In particular, compared with their more affluent counterparts, low-income adolescents
receive lower grades, earn lower scores on standardized tests, and are much more likely to drop out of high school (e.g., Kao, Tienda, and
Schneider 1996; Hauser, Simmons, and Pager 2000). The cumulative effect of socioeconomic status on families, neighborhoods, schools, and
health care guarantees that poor and low-income adolescents arrive at young adulthood in worse health, engaging in riskier and more dangerous
behaviors, and with lower educational attainment and more limited career prospects than their more affluent counterparts. The repercussions of
low socioeconomic status in childhood and adolescence are often felt throughout the life cycle. Studies of intergenerational income mobility have
found a substantial correlation between the incomes of fathers and the incomes of their sons at corresponding points in their careers; the correlation
between family income and children's incomes after they reach adulthood is even higher (Solon 1992; Zimmerman 1992). McMurrer and
colleagues (1997) conclude that there remains a substantial component of income immobility across generations in the United States. Ironically, the
internationalization transmission of socioeconomic status is weakest for young adults who graduate from college, but low family income inchildhood
and adolescence markedly reduces the chances of obtaining a college degree. Improving the settings in which many low-income children and
adolescents grow up—that is, supporting their families, strengthening their neighborhoods, improving their schools, and making quality health care
and other services more accessible to them—should be a policy priority for government at all levels and a research priority for social scientists
from all disciplines. Ultimately, this is likely to be the only way to prevent the intergenerational transmission of poverty and exclusion from
meaningful and rewarding participation in our society. The fates of poor and low-income children and adolescents are inextricably linked to our
future as a nation.
establishment and maintenance of cross border of economic, political and socio-cultural relation. Globalization as coming closer of different
countries of the world in the social, cultural and technological fields, especially in the economic field. The development of the internet has made
possible the organization of business on a global scale and as a result the idea of globalization came into existences. It has its positive aspects as
well as negative. It is considered an effective measure to control the prices. The more countries trade with each other, the more their standards of
living improves. Globalization makes it possible to establish and promote a shared set of core values in the areas of labor standards, human rights
and environmental practices between United States and the business community.The efficiency of public sector in the economy of the country has
been increased due to globalization. Poverty is a blot on the face of any nation. Globalization reduces it to a great extent. There is evidence to
show that among the poorest countries, those that trade with the other nations have achieved the highest rate of growth in Income per head and the
greatest decline in poverty. Inequality of Income is also caused by globalization. It is said that globalization has affected the environment greatly. It
has led to the depletion of natural resources, the production of harmful chemicals and the destruction of organic agriculture. Under globalization
countries depend more on a nation. Not only this, it is always a danger of loss of economic sovereignty. It is also said that globalization leads to a
lowering of wages and workplace standards because generally does not allow unions to defend their workers right.Agriculture is greatly affected
due to globalization, because it is given less importance. Hence, agriculture must be exempted from global trade rules so that poor countries may
pursue their own food security and sustain their farming policy. Whatever may be the disadvantages of globalization, but it a truth that it has
brought people close to each other, which is in favor of the growth of human personality. Now it has become easier to know and understand the
way of life of the other countries. We have now become the members of one big family. Industrialization required raw materials and industrialized
countries could not always supply all of those raw materials themselves. They therefore turned to other countries, including underdeveloped
countries, for raw materials. This created a pattern of every increasing globalization. As globalization produced a world economy in the 20th
centuries, local economies around the world changed the way they produced and distributed raw materials. They specialized in the things they
were best at, imported everything they needed to import, and shared ideas and technology. Increased trade led to ever increasing network
interdependency in the countries of the world. When Britain looked to other countries to satisfy their demand for coal, those countries began to
rely on the revenues they could gain by exporting coal. Those countries, in turn, could use those revenues to buy British goods or import raw
materials that they need for their own industrialization. As countries traded with each other more regularly and more extensively, they stopped
producing they things they could import more cheaply and concentrated on producing the things they made well. In time, individual countries lost
their abilities to produce certain goods completely, relying on other countries exclusively to meet that demand. That process of specialization also
had an important effect on the raw materials were produced. As countries specialized, they found that they actually produced more value of goods
than they had when they produced many different types of goods. Specialization also meant that countries known to be particularly skilled at
producing one or two products became world leaders in the manufacture of those products. As other countries wanted to branch out into
producing and producing those goods, they could use the technology and expertise developed by that country to help them. Even relatively
underdeveloped countries often found at least one important commodity they could offer the world. This connected them to the world economy
and pulled them away from subsistence agriculture.As trade between far-flung parts of the world produced a global economy, ideas and
technology were exported just as easily as raw materials. As countries had more and more contact with each other, they shared their cultures
including their political philosophy. Globalization meant that people could no longer think only in terms of their local area, they had to consider the
outside world as well. Some areas were more receptive to new ideas, but no area could shut out new ideas completely.Because of globalization,
most of the countries of the world no longer concentrated on local markets. Their focus became on regional or even world markets. It also
changed the way they produced goods domesticity including which goods they produced at all. Just because a country might have the resources
and ability to produce a particular commodity no longer meant that they would necessarily produce it. If someone else in the world could produce
it more cheaply and with a higher quality, they might just concentrate on what they were better at producing.When we begin to look at the world
as a business and we forget how the decision making of others can affect us as home and also our schools. We in the United States we are lucky
enough to be able to work sent our children to school and work to survive but are we getting the best education possible. We don’t always have
to look at other countries and see what the effects of globalization are in our lives because unfortunely we see it in our everyday lives for example
why is it that many are having discussions about how the economy is going bad and how there are a lot of gaps between the decision making
between the people and the government. Poverty is an issue that more and more of our nation's children are coming face to face with. The price
that children of poverty must pay is unbelievably high. Each year, increasing numbers of children are entering schools with needs from
circumstances, such as poverty, that schools are not prepared to meet. This paper will examine the effects of poverty on teaching and learning.
Poverty as a risk factor will be discussed as will a number of the many challenges that arise in teaching children of poverty. Implications of
brain-based research for curriculum reform and adaptation will be presented. Poverty often leads many students to be in danger of being a “at risk
student”. The term at-risk refers to children who are likely to fail in school or in life because of their life's social circumstances. It does not appear
that any one single factor places a child at-risk. Rather, when more than one factor is present, there is a compounding effect and the likelihood for
failure increases significantly. Poverty is considered a major at-risk factor (Leroy & Symes, 2001). Some of the factors related to poverty that may
place a child at-risk for academic failure are: very young, single or low educational level parents; unemployment; abuse and neglect; substance
abuse; dangerous neighborhoods; homelessness; mobility; and exposure to inadequate or inappropriate educational experiences.Being able to
identify and understand children who are at-risk is critical if we are to support their growth and development. In order to do this, warm and caring
relationships need to be developed between teachers and children. This will enable teachers to detect any warning signs that may place children
at-risk for failure, interfering with their chances for success in school and life. Academic and behavioral problems can be indicators of impending
failure for example the delay in language development, delay in reading development, aggression, violence, social withdrawal, substance abuse,
irregular attendance, and depression. Teachers may have difficulty reaching a student's parent or guardian. They may also find the student does not
complete assignments, does not study for tests, or does not come to school prepared to learn because of poverty related circumstances in the
home environment. These children may be unable to concentrate or focus. They may be unwilling or unable to interact with peers and/or adults in
school in an effective manner. These issues not only have an impact on the learning of the child of poverty but can also impact the learning of other
children.Recent studies indicate that the association between low income and poor health has its origins in early childhood. Case and colleagues
(2002) documented an inverse relationship between family income and health status among toddlers, and found that the income gradient in health
became steeper with age. They also found that chronic conditions play a crucial role in the income gradient, and that high family income buffers
children from the adverse health impact of chronic conditions. Parents' ability to manage successfully their childrens' chronic conditions is positively
related to family income (e.g., Thompson, Auslander, and White 2001; Snodgrass et al. 2001). Interestingly, although children and adolescents
with health insurance are healthier than their uninsured counterparts, insurance may not play an important role in creating the income gradient in
health (Case, Lubotsky, and Paxson 2002). The association between low income, on one hand, and reduced access to health care and worse
health, on the other, represents just one manifestation of the effect of socioeconomic status on the life chances of adolescents. The main settings
that influence the way children and adolescents grow up include families, neighborhoods, and schools. The quality of these settings, and whether
they are supportive and nurturing or dangerous and destructive, has a profound influence on adolescents' chances for leading successful adult lives.
Family income is perhaps the single most important factor in determining the quality of these settings (National Research Council 1995). Recent
changes in the structure of families, and the consequences for the family incomes of children and adolescents, have eroded the support that many
adolescents receive as they grow up. As single-parent families spread during the past four decades, the proportion of children in such families rose
from 10 percent in 1965 to 27 percent in 2001 (Ellwood and Jencks 2002). Single-parent families, especially those in which the parent is the
mother, are much more likely than two-parent families to have low incomes. In fact, the growth in single-parent families was a major reason for the
increase in the proportion of children living in poverty, from about 15 percent in 1970 to 23 percent in 1993 (Proctor and Dalaker 2002). The
childhood poverty rate fell to 16 percent in 2001 in the wake of the economic expansion, but now is rising again. The poverty rate is even higher
among children who belong to racial or ethnic minorities. Changes in the family have affected two-parent families as well. Higher rates of
participation in the labor force by mothers in two-parent families have helped to maintain family incomes, but they have also created stress for
families and difficulties in caring for and supervising children and adolescents.Although the strong correlation between single-parent families and
low income makes it difficult to disentangle their effects, both factors seem to influence adolescent outcomes (National Research Council 1995).
Economic stress may diminish the emotional well-being of parents, which has direct and indirect negative effects on children. Adolescents growing
up in families under economic stress or with a single parent may be poorly supervised and often gain autonomy too early (Dornbusch et al. 1985).
Unsupervised adolescents are more likely to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, use drugs, report depressed mood, and engage in risky behaviors
(Richardson et al., 1993). Low family income has been associated with early sexual activity, cigarette smoking, adolescent pregnancy, and
delinquency (National Research Council 1995; Blum et al. 2000). Family income also affects the quality of the neighborhoods in which children
and adolescents grow up. Compared with low-poverty neighborhoods, high-poverty neighborhoods havailability of high-quality public and private
services such as parks, child care centers and preschools, community centers, and health care providers, as well as fewer social supports and less
effective social networks (McLoyd 1998). Conversely, high-poverty neighborhoods are more likely to be physically deteriorated and to have
more crime and street violence, greater availability of illegal drugs, and more negative peer influences and adult role models (McLoyd 1998;
National Research Council 1995). These characteristics of high-poverty neighborhoods may have deleterious consequences for the cognitive
functioning, socialization, physical health, emotional functioning, and academic achievement of children and adolescents (e.g., Ellen and Turner
1997). Family income also has a profound influence on the educational opportunities available to adolescents and on their chances of educational
success. Due to residential stratification and segregation, low-income students usually attend schools with lower funding levels, which result in
reduced availability of textbooks and other instructional materials, laboratory equipment, library books, and other educational resources; low-level
curricula; and less-qualified teachers and administrators (e.g., Kozol 1991; Oakes 1990; Ingersoll 1999). The effects of concentrated poverty in
schools may include disciplinary problems and chaotic learning environments. These school characteristics, combined with limited parental
involvement in adolescents' education, have serious consequences. Not surprisingly, low-income adolescents have reduced achievement motivation
and much higher risk of educational failure (Schultz 1993). In particular, compared with their more affluent counterparts, low-income adolescents
receive lower grades, earn lower scores on standardized tests, and are much more likely to drop out of high school (e.g., Kao, Tienda, and
Schneider 1996; Hauser, Simmons, and Pager 2000). The cumulative effect of socioeconomic status on families, neighborhoods, schools, and
health care guarantees that poor and low-income adolescents arrive at young adulthood in worse health, engaging in riskier and more dangerous
behaviors, and with lower educational attainment and more limited career prospects than their more affluent counterparts. The repercussions of
low socioeconomic status in childhood and adolescence are often felt throughout the life cycle. Studies of intergenerational income mobility have
found a substantial correlation between the incomes of fathers and the incomes of their sons at corresponding points in their careers; the correlation
between family income and children's incomes after they reach adulthood is even higher (Solon 1992; Zimmerman 1992). McMurrer and
colleagues (1997) conclude that there remains a substantial component of income immobility across generations in the United States. Ironically, the
internationalization transmission of socioeconomic status is weakest for young adults who graduate from college, but low family income inchildhood
and adolescence markedly reduces the chances of obtaining a college degree. Improving the settings in which many low-income children and
adolescents grow up—that is, supporting their families, strengthening their neighborhoods, improving their schools, and making quality health care
and other services more accessible to them—should be a policy priority for government at all levels and a research priority for social scientists
from all disciplines. Ultimately, this is likely to be the only way to prevent the intergenerational transmission of poverty and exclusion from
meaningful and rewarding participation in our society. The fates of poor and low-income children and adolescents are inextricably linked to our
future as a nation.