Case Study Analysis: Cases on Socioeconomic Status

Master of Science in Education, Walden University

EDUC 6616: Enhancing Learning for Diverse Populations

Naseer Alomari

November 21, 2021

Case Study Analysis: Cases on Socioeconomic Status

Case 3.1: Chocolate Bar Fundraiser (Gorski & Pothini, 2018).

Background:

Broadway school’s PTA organizes fundraising events such as students selling chocolate bars to help cover the budget cuts and sometimes to raise funds for students to participate in out-of-town events. The students who sold the most goods received recognition such as passes to theme parks and acknowledgement at the school’s assembly for their hard work. The first Parents Teachers Association (PTA) meeting of the year, Ms. Alexander raised concern about such a fundraiser and the President of the PTA, Ms. Torrence responded that nobody has ever had a problem with it and facilitated her concerns. The two parents that were at the lowest socio-economic class out of the twenty parents at the PTA meeting voiced their concerns about the children participating in the fundraisers with the school’s low-socio economic population increased. There concern was that some of the students would not be able to afford to buy boxes of candy bars like the others. Ms. Torrence being aware of the situation would send postcards and place calls to parents among the lower-income parents to increase their PTA involvement. Before Ms. Torrence could respond to the concern parents, Ms. Plumlee pointed out that the money is needed for programs that will benefit all students and since the initiative has worked in the past why cancel because a few students may feel bad. Mr. Winterstein concurred and stated that his son worked hard last year and sold the most chocolate bars and if other students work harder, they could sell as many chocolate bars as his son did. Ms. Plumlee uttered that if this were an issue for lower-income families they would have been at the meeting. However, Ms. Alexander and Mr. Cuertas were outnumbered by the majority who voted in support of the fundraisers.

Problems: 1.

• The fundraising event even though with good intentions isolate students experiencing poverty.
• The school budget is cut and students compete with each other to make up for it.
• Majority of the lower-income families are not attending parents’ meetings Various

Perspectives:

• The school wants to raise funds to raise the effects of budget cuts.
• The fundraiser was bias to low-income families.
• Mr. Winterstein disregarded the inability for economically challenged families to afford the purchase of chocolate bars, a term referred to as “deficit ideology”.
• Parents experiencing poverty may have to work multiple jobs as opposed to their affluent peers and may not get the chance to be involved in fundraising activities. This does not mean that “they don’t care” as suggested by Ms. Plumlee (Gorski & Pothini, 2010, p.21).

Challenges:

One of the challenges in this case study is the shortage of parental involvement among low-income families (Gorski &Pothini, p.22). Low-income families often do not participate in school activities because they have to work extensive hours and/or multiple jobs to provide for their families. Boethel and SEDL National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools(2003) mentions that low-income parents that do not participate in their children’s school life is a typically a result of the lack of essential resources like time, money, and transportation. This is true for many schools in the United States and other countries. At my school, each year, we have two big fundraisers, chocolate sale and a moon pie sale. For both sales, parents are willing to participate collect the chocolate from the front. There are typically parents who do not have the means to help their child with the fundraisers.

Another challenge that presented itself in the case was the decision to continue or discontinue the fundraiser. Parents from the higher socio-economic status believed that the fundraiser should continue so the school could receive the money that was needed for the programs that benefit all students. They stated that the fundraiser has worked in the past while not everyone was able to participate. However, Ms. Alexander and Mr. Cuertas which were the low-income parents, communicated their reasoning for wanting the fundraiser to stop. This led to the PTA to do a vote. Voting did not help the situation, because there were only two lowerincome parents.

An opportunity posed by the study is, Ms. Alexander and Mr. Cuertas received a chance to voice their concerns even though they were the minority within the group. For Ms. Torrence and the higher income parents, were able to become aware of the impact fundraising can have on students.

The ethical paradigm was the ethic of care. The ethics of care requires leaders to consider multiple voices in the decision-making process (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011). The ethics of care also involves empathy and compassion for others (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011). Parents from both socio-economic standings were involved in the decision process even though the minority was outnumbered. Ms. Torrence did show empathy to the low-income families and she tried to get them to take part in the PTA by offering dinner, sending them postcards, and by calling them.

The ethic of critique focus deals with social class and inequities (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011). Ms. Alexander and Mr. Cuertas were neglected because of their inability to participate. The schools dedicated to equity must face the brutal truth of fundraising because there are students with access to have opportunities and resources that other children do not have. Many schools use fundraising to raise and collect money for numerous purposes, like improving their school building or providing the students with incentives for good grades. Many students attend underfunded schools; thus, the schools, parents, and students are responsible for raising money to reduce deficits in countless areas. While there are many benefits to fundraising, there is also a inequality in services between schools based on their ability to raise funds and the actual amounts raised by students from various socio-economic statuses.

The equitable outcome arising from the case is the ethic of injustice. Strike (1991, as cited in (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011) defined the ethic of justice as a “commitment to human freedom,” and the democratic aspect implies “procedures for making decisions that respect the equal sovereignty of the people” (p.11). In this case, voting to decide if the fundraiser should continue was not sufficient enough because there were more parents from the higher socioeconomic status. There probably were more parents for the low socio-economics class that were at work instead of coming to the PTA meeting. This process should be considered unfair and unjust to the minority group.

To prevent unjust, the school should sent out a survey to all parents to ask them to vote on the matter, which would show the ethics of care and justice (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011). Another way the PTA could help is to take away the competition aspect of the fundraiser. The students who would not be able to sell many chocolates would not feel as embarrassed if they could not compete with the higher class students whose parents have the means to help them sell chocolates.

References

Boethel, M., & SEDL National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools.

(2003). Diversity: School, Family, & Community Connections. Annual Synthesis 2003. In National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools.

Gorski, P. C., & Pothini, S. G. (2018). Case studies on diversity and social justice education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Routledge

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)