Running head: EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

Effects of Poverty and Pedagogy on Students

Grant D. Hall
Westminster College

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

Abstract
Poverty and pedagogy are two major issues which have a negative impact on students of color,
English-language learners, and low socioeconomic students in the current educational system.
Poverty impacts a higher percentage of low-SES students, and more of these students come from
a culturally diverse background. The cultural and ethnic diversity needs to be addressed by
educators in both the curriculum and methods of instruction. Increased funding through School
Improvement Grants (SIG) which focus on longevity of reform, and an infusion of funds into
early childhood education, will facilitate the improvement of education for students. Educators
need to have access to quality professional development, training courses, and changes in the
direction of current curriculum need to be addressed on local, state, and federal levels.

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

Effects of Poverty and Pedagogy on Students
Two major issues of education that have a negative impact on students of color, Englishlanguage learners, and low socioeconomic students are poverty, and the pedagogical approach to
the contemporary curriculum.
Poverty
Poverty in the United States of America encompassed more than 40 million people in
2009. Single-parent families and minorities make up 47% of this representation (U.S. Bureau of
Census, 2010).

Students socioeconomic status (SES), which represents parents income,

education level, and employment, is often a predictor of performance. Students from low-SES
families often exhibit lower test scores, grades, truancy, and dropout rates; in addition, over 50%
of students from the poorest families drop out of school, and have below basic level reading
skills (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2010).
The education of a student who comes from a low-SES status may lack basic survival
commodities, such as basic nutritional needs, healthy social experiences, parental involvement,
and cultural identity. When these areas are not fulfilled, students have difficulties achieving their
full potential. A child who comes to school without having nutritional and food needs met will
struggle to concentrate and focus in the classroom. Students who live in poverty may also lack a
safe and secure place to sleep, and resources to acquire supplies to complete their work (Friend
& Bursuck, 2012). These same students may be quite transient due to the employment of their
parents; in addition, students may be required to work evenings and weekends to help support
their family. Often times the parents in low-SES situations are working multiple jobs to provide
family financial support (Eggen & Kauchak, 2013).

This results in a reduced apparent

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

involvement in their childs education. It does not, however, reflect a lack of interest in what
their child is learning, only that their discretionary time is spent working.
Many students in poverty come from a culturally diverse background. According to the
2009 census, 37% of low-SES families are Asian, Hispanic, and African American (U.S. Bureau
of Census, 2009). Cultural background can influence students because different cultures will
have a unique perspective on the role of education. Parents may not be familiar with what is
expected of their children in school, and the opportunities available to them as a result of their
culture and personal experience.

Students also come to school with a different funds of

knowledge which, often times, does not mesh with the mainstream classroom. Educators should
not assume that students from a culturally diverse background lack the social and cultural capital
required for social mobility, or that they are deficient in the necessary knowledge, social skills,
and abilities to excel in the classroom (Valenzuela, A., 1999). Culture is an influence but should
not determine who the student is, and what they can accomplish in the classroom.
Pedagogy
Pedagogy is the structure or art of teaching, education, and instructional methods;
curriculum is the aggregate courses of study given in a school. Although these two structures are
separate, they work together within our school system. When they do not work together as a
whole, the negative results affect students performance; for example, students of color, minority
students, English as a second language students, and girls or boys can be negatively impacted by
curriculum and the method by which it is presented. Often times there is a cultural mismatch
when it comes to the way material is presented because core material used is not sensitive to a
culturally diverse classroom. While the cultural and ethnic gap increases between students and
teachers, there is a lag in the content of curriculum which is being taught. Banks et al.s (2001)

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

article argues that professional development is lacking to help educators narrow this gap relating
to racial, ethnic, language, and cultural groups; the histories of diverse groups; becoming
acquainted with differing cultural perceptions; and acquiring the skills to implement equity in
pedagogy.
Teaching methods have not diverted from the traditional methodology of lecturing,
memorizing, and regurgitating information.

With the advent of high stakes testing, many

educators become merely an agent for the examination; this results in little creativity or critical
thinking on the part of both the student and teacher. When students of low-SES families are
taken into consideration, this approach places them at a distinct disadvantage. There is no social
or cultural context to what they are being taught; furthermore there is an innate expectation of
lower performance from these students (Banks, J.A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W.D., Irvine,
J.J., Nieto, S. et al., 2001). The inability to effectively communicate and interact with students
from different ethnic and cultural groups is a direct reflection on the lack of professional
development being made available to educators. Many students of color, low-SES families, and
second language are also labeled early in their school years as slow learners, learning challenged,
or unable to learn (Nieto, S., & Bode, P., 2012). These become long term labels often remaining
attached to the student throughout their entire educational experience. Discrimination between
girls and boys is also evident in restricting traditionally male or female classes from the opposite
sex; testing for accelerated and advanced classes also restricts a students access to opportunity.
Stereotypical assumptions that certain students cannot excel in certain subjects is an observation
that prompts the need for change in pedagogical approach.

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

Educational Reforms for Poverty and Pedagogy
Educational reforms which impact students in poverty, children of color, Englishlanguage learners, and low socioeconomic students, overlap and are enhanced by reforms in the
area of pedagogy and curriculum.
Poverty
Education remains among one of the most important public policies of the United States
for raising children out of poverty. Children of color, English-language learners, and low
socioeconomic students enter schools with larger gaps in early math skills, attention span, and
reading skills, which gaps gradually increase over the years (Duncan & Magnuson, 2011). The
need for schooling to play an equalizing role in raising students achievement and later earnings,
has never been greater.
According to Heather Schwartz (2014), there are two primary educational innovations
that could help reduce the disparity of funding to schools and provide the most promising avenue
of reducing poverty. First, revise the federal Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grants
to focus on early childhood education quality, and measuring quality of learning prior to the
quantity of learning that needs to take place.

Second, restructure the federal School

Improvement Grants (SIG) so that the focus and reward is based on longevity of implementation
of programs and their effectiveness. Local and state boards of education need to encourage
schools to implement research based reforms for which there is evidence, and maintain that track
for a minimum of five to ten years to determine its effectiveness.
An infusion of funds to expand and improve early childhood education is needed before
new federal mandates under Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS), a report card like

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

grade that is given to states, become entrenched. It also remains probable that the current way of
assessing quality may not be as strong as quantitative measures of the classrooms academic
outcomes (Weiland, C., Ulvestad, K., Sachs, J., & Yoshikawa, H., 2013). Evidence from several
preschool interventions for at-risk children indicate long-term achievement gains, a reduction in
special education services, a decrease in dropout rates, reduction in criminal activity, and an
increase in adult educational achievement is obtained when an investment is made in early
childhood education (Blau & Currie, 2006). The idea of reform often comes in the form of a
quick fix. The incentive for schools to adopt a reform, implement that reform, become proficient
and make necessary adaptions to said reform, should be based on longevity regardless of
transitions in leadership, staffing, and other school changes. Reforms need to be implemented so
that the schools change and become learning organizations over a period of time, and SIGs,
federal grants to state educational agencies that demonstrate the greatest need for funds in low
performing schools, should provide that time frame to encourage schools to adjust, learn, refine,
and modify to become a stable school structure (Schwartz, 2014).
Research into students of color, English-language learners, and low socioeconomic status
never suggests that poor children are incapable of learning or that these students should be
perceived as having a disability. However, research does suggests that these students encounter
outside hurdles that affect their learning outcomes. Community reforms are needed, on the local,
federal, and state level, to counter the effects of poverty. Initiatives to increase the minimum
wage, subsidize housing for poor families, provide school-community health clinics, and to
expand after school and summer programs, are critical to diminish the impact of poverty on
students. Maintaining a schools alone are responsible attitude toward education is not a basis
for developing policies regarding education (Boykin & Noguera, 2011; Yeager & Walton, 2011).

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

The issue of funding needs to be addressed based on the data that demonstrates the problem in an
equitable manner, and in an intelligent and understandable form, allowing funding decisions to
be made with equality, and directed toward achieving the goal of educational reform (Smith,
R.G., Strand, P.J., Crawley, A., Cotman, T., Robinson, C. & Swaim, M., 2011).
Pedagogy
Educators can also consider pedagogies and their effectiveness when working with
children of color, English-learning students, and low socioeconomic status. Pedagogies need to
extend beyond the preparation of students to fit into existing social structures which are defined
by race, ethnic, and gender stratification. Educating students in acquiring basic skills should also
include enabling students to become effective agents for social change (Banks, 1994).
Implementation of strategies will require the dismantling of existing structures that foster
inequality. Educators need to transform students from passive to active learners, challenge the
existing concepts of transmitting facts, and dismantle the concept that the teacher is the only
source of knowledge.

These changes will also create an environment where students can

acquire, produce and envision new applications for that knowledge (Banks, 1994).
Equitable pedagogy requires that teachers develop knowledge in areas such as culture,
ethnic groups, and prejudice. Allowing teachers to develop these pedagogical skills through
professional development and training will enable them to recognize and develop an eclectic
approach toward education. This does not mean that students will be treated equally but with
equity, understanding that there is a need for teachers to be able to recognize and respond to
multiple student characteristics, including race, social class, and gender (Banks, 1993).

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

Curriculum content and textbooks are a direct reflection of the political and world view
of the person designing and instituting that curriculum (Nieto, 2012). This narrow view often
times excludes any person who does not conform to the European male perspective. Groups are
disenfranchised and diminished merely by being excluded from current curriculum. The result is
a monocultural curriculum that does not give a voice to opposing views, cultural diversity, and
provides a linear perspective to the world around them (Nieto, 2012). Funding for diverse
curriculum is challenged at almost every level. The United States views education primarily as a
private effort leading to individual good (Labaree, 1997). Students and teachers are the center of
this debate because of the individual focus and not concentrating on dealing with how to make
the system address different learners, individual differences, and social inequality. The highest
performing educational systems are those that combine quality with equity (Strauss, V., 2012).
In addition to curriculum, there needs to be a focus on rebuilding the pipeline into the
teaching profession with educators adequately trained to meet the demands of a multicultural,
and diverse student population.

Professional development and training needs to be made

available to current teachers who oppose increased testing, and are generally demoralized by
current educational policy (Goldstein, D., 2011). Propagating a new influx of educators who are
motivated not only by their love of teaching but also by a competitive wage and respect, and by
committed support from all levels of the educational pyramid, will facilitate change in
curriculum and pedagogy.

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

References
Banks, J.A. (1993). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education.
Educational Researcher.
Banks, J.A. (1994). An Introduction to Multicultural Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Banks, J.A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W.D., Irvine, J.J., Nieto, S., Schofield, J.W., Stephan,
W.G. (2001). Phi Delta Kappan: Nov 2001, Vol. 83 Issue 3, p196, 7p, 1c
Blau, D. and J. Currie. 2006. Pre-school, day care, and after-school care: Whos minding the
kids? Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Boykin, A. W. & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to
practice to close the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Duncan, G.J. and K. Magnuson. 2011. The Nature and impact of early achievement skills,
attention skills, and behavioral problems. In G.J. Duncan & R.J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither
opportunity: Rising inequality, schools, and children (pp. 47 - 70). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Eggen, P., & Kuchak, D. (2013). Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms. Boston,
MA: Pearson
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W.D. (2012). Including Students with Special Needs. Boston, MA:
Pearson
Goldstein, D. (2011, May 31). Is The U.S. Doing Teacher Reform All Wrong? Washington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/is-the-us-doingteacher-reform-all-wrong/2011/05/31/AGAErRFH_blog.html

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

Goodlad, J.I. (2004). A Place Called School (20th anniversary ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Labaree, D. (1997). Public Goods, Private Goods: The American Struggle Over Educational
Goals. American Educational Research Journal, Spring 1997, Vol. 34, No. 1 pp. 39-81.
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural
Education. Boston, MA: Pearson
Parkay, F.W. (2012). Becoming a Teacher (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Rothstein, R. (2006). Reforms That Could Help Narrow The Achievement Gap.

Policy

perspective. San Francisco: WestEd.

Schwartz, H. 2012. Housing policy is school policy: Economically integrative housing promotes
academic success in Montgomery County, Maryland. In The Future of School
Integration, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg. New York: Century Foundation.
Smith, R.G., Strand, P.J., Crawley, A., Cotman, T., Robinson, C. & Swaim, M. (2011). Gaining
on the gap: Changing hearts, minds and practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Strauss, V. (2012, April 17). What the U.S. Cant Learn From Finland About Ed. Reform.
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answersheet/post/what-the-us-cant-learn-from-finland-about-edreform/2012/04/16/gIQAGIvVMT_blog.html
U.S. Bureau of Census. (2009). The 2010 statistical abstract national data book: Education.
Retrieved July 15, 2010, from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/education.html

EFFECTS OF POVERTY AND PEDAGOGY

U.S. Bureau of Census. (2010). Table 232. Children who speak a language other than English
at home by region: 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Valenzuela, A. (1999) Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New
York, SUNY Press.
Weiland, C., Ulvestad, K., Sachs, J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Associations between classroom
quality and children's vocabulary and executive function skills in an urban public
prekindergarten program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 28 (2), 199-209.
Yosso, T. J. (1999). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 69-91.