View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1 Poverty and Education
SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS ON EDUCATION
By
ARMAND CARR
Submitted to
Educational Leadership Faculty
Northwest Missouri State University
Department of Educational Leadership
College of Education and Human Services
Maryville, Missouri 64468
Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirments for
61-683 Action Research Paper
Summer 2012
September 8, 2013
2 Poverty and Education
ABSTRACT
The issue of poverty in the area of education is well documented and much criticized.
The issue creates much controversy and the implications are said to have a direct impact on
education. Research shows that there is a connection between the effects of poverty and the
negative influence it presents to the educational process.This study was performed to find if there
is a relationship between low socioeconomic status (SES) and education. With poverty as a low
SES indicator the basis of poverty will be addressed and how it impairs the entire social
structure. Specifically, the effects of poverty on the graduation and dropout rates of high school
students will be the focus. Using free or reduced priced lunch as the poverty indicator, the study
will look at the impact of poverty in the area of education. The focus of the study will look at
dropout, graduation, and free or reduced priced lunch data from thirty high schools in the state of
Missouri. Ten of the high schools are located in urban areas. Ten of the high schools are located
in suburban communities, and ten are located within rural counties. This paper will seek to
determine if the role of poverty affects dropout rates. It will also seek to determine if poverty
interferes with the graduation rates. Poverty was classified into three groups The findings show a
connection between poverty and dropout rates. Poverty poses a negative effect towards the
dropout rates, while hurting the outcome of the graduation rates. In the schools with the highest
level of poverty the dropout rates were the highest while graduation rates were the lowest.
Schools located within the middle level of SES also had high cases of student dropout rates
compared to low graduation rates. The comparison between the lowest classification of poverty
with the middle classification results were similar with both groups displaying similar results.
The highest level of SES presented low dropout rates and high graduation rates.
3 Poverty and Education
INTRODUCTION
Background issues and concerns.
The concerns of low graduation rates and elevated dropout percentages in high schools
within areas of poverty presents a difficult challenge for school districts. In order to stay aligned
with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) local education agencies must maintain satisfactory
levels of student graduation rates. School districts within the state of Missouri must achieve
proficient levels of educational performance as well. In order to sustain adequate educational
performance and meet both state and local education guidelines, school districts must utilize
interventions to increase graduation rates which will automatically counter dropout rates
decreasing the level of student dropouts. School personell within the education realm are aware
of the influence poverty presents to the education process. Many observe the negative
connotations associated with poverty while recognizing the challenges it poses to student
academic achievement.
Poverty is a global epidemic that does not discriminate against race, color, or
background. Poverty is not bias towards any person male, female, boy, girl, young, or old.
However, it does leave a fingerprint throughout all areas of life. The origins of poverty are not
new, nor is it’s specific to one era, but the origins can be traced back throughout many
generations. Damages from the impact caused by poverty hurts every area of life with negative
consequences that influences all facets of society and the people exposed to it. This problem
plagues millions of individuals in the United States. The specifics of poverty are not limited to or
confined to one area, but it produces a widespread catastrophy covering every part of the
individual(s) social, emotional, and physical life.
4 Poverty and Education
Furthermore, studies have linked the effects of poverty to other things such as poor health
and nutrition, child development, and overall cognitive abilities and behaviors. Additional factors
such as crime, unemployment, lack of resources, poor access to resources, poor neighborhoods
and high amounts of single parent homes are common place in low socioeconomic communities.
These are the many pathways through which poverty operates, thus producing the combination
forming the condition of low SES. These factors are said to have a profound effect in various
areas with poverty being a key indicator and contributer within the matrix of SES.
In discussing SES, the areas that are consistent with it must be taken into consideration;
along with the impact is has on the individual(s) that reside in these areas. The highest
populations of low SES are covered with high rates of poverty and the factors are endemic to
these communities. The areas impacted the greatest form of low SES are typical to urban and
rural areas. The majority of these areas produce the highest concentration of high unemployment
rates, crime, single parent households, poor neighborhoods, and lack of resources.
The issue produces much room for criticism from all who believe there is an undeniable
link between poverty versus those that oppose that poverty and low SES status poses no threat to
student educational achievement. From the time a child enters the world; characteristics of the
childs environment will play a role in structuring the life of a an individual. If the association of
poverty are existent throughout the life of children from birth the risks of the cycle repeating
itself is prevalent.
5 Poverty and Education
In families where extreme cases of poverty are at the forefront, the indicators that
produce low SES are exhibited within these family structures. Single parent dominated
households where the parent has not obtained a high school diploma, General Education
Diploma, or the parents are unable to find adequate employment to provide for their families are
situations that breed the conditions of poverty.
The connection between parent education levels and children educational obtainment run
parallel with each other. Children who are exposed to conditions where the parent has not
attained adequate education are normally replicated by the child the connection can be made
between parent education levels and child educational attainment as an indicator of future
graduation rates within children. Educational obtainment of the parent(s) has a very significant
role in determing if a child will remain in school and not leave school early. Parental education is
taken into consideration in connection with the educational outcomes of the child.
Poverty that presents a constant presence during pivotal years in the growth of children
severly stunts the overall development of a child. Children are shaped to the contours of what
surrounds them. If poverty is prevelant than the chance that children associated with it will
absorb what surrounds them and the contents will spill out into different categories of life.
6 Poverty and Education
Poverty is said to account for a variety of cognitive delays. In children who are exposed
to poverty from birth the complications are observed in several areas. Low SES harms every
capacity of life for children exposed to high levels of poverty. However, low SES presents its
biggest challenges during the early stages of the childs life. As children grow into adolescent
stages the complications of poverty can be seen within the social, emotional, and physical areas
of the childs life. Also as a child progresses through the educational system; the harmful effects
of poverty also transitions into the educational domain. Graduation and dropout rates are at risk
before children enter high school if they are confronted with the negative conditions at an early
age.
According to the United States Department of Education, the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB) is a United States Act of Congress that is a reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, which included Title I, the government's flagship aid program for
disadvantaged students. NCLB supports standards-based education reform based on the premise
that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in
education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. States must give these
assessments to all students at select grade levels in order to receive federal school funding. The
Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.
NCLB expanded the federal role in public education through annual testing, annual academic
progress, report cards, teacher qualifications, and funding changes.
Meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty
schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian
children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance;
closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the
7 Poverty and Education
achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged
children and their more advantaged peers; holding schools, local educational agencies, and states
accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning
around low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high-quality education to their
students, while providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable the students to receive
a high-quality education.
Low SES filters into the educational arena of children who are exposed to conditions of
poor SES. Commonly the highest population of children who are face with the impact of poverty
are minority students. Many are of African American and Hispanic descent the two groups are
hit hardest by the adverse effects of living in low SES. They reside in underperforming
communities which conditions are the opposition to education. "Across all socioeconomic
groups, parents face major challenges when it comes to providing optimal care and education for
their children. According to North Central Regional Educational Laboratory” (1993). “For
families in poverty, these challenges can be formidable. Sometimes, when basic necessities are
lacking, parents must place top priority on housing, food, clothing, and health care” (1993). This
is true for the families who are immersed in these conditions. Populations associated with
poverty are hit the hardest by low SES.
There are many reasons why this relationship between education and low socioecomnic
status (SES) might exist. Looking specifically at a low SES Hispanic community, and found that
basic developmental needs were not being met, due for instance to inadequate nutrition, poor
access to basic medical care, and disadvantages in terms of early education programs. In
addition, these problems were often amplified by deficient school systems linked to inadequate
school facilities low quality teachers and a high turnover of principals. What is more prevalent,
8 Poverty and Education
poverty has an indirect influence on educational outcomes through weakened family structures,
higher mobility, less access to books and computers, and a higher crime rate found in low-
income neighborhoods.
According to the statistics the average income for a high school dropout places
the would position an individual exactly $910 above the first level of the federal poverty line for
a single individual which is set at $11,400. This leaves little margin and scratches the surface of
the classification of being labeled under the classification of being in poverty.
Practice under investigation.
The practice under investigation will look at the difference between free or reduced-
priced lunch and graduation and dropout rates. Inquiry data from the Missouri Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) from selected high schools from the state of
Missouri will be collected and used for the study.
School policy to be informed by the study.
School districts desire to keep their graduation rates at a high percentage. Districts that
have the problem of poor graduation rates encounter the challenges of raising there graduation
rates. In order for school districts to prevent elevated dropout rates, the issues that contribute
to high dropout rates must be identify and appropriate action must be taken to ensure that
graduation rates are not effected. Areas inflicted with poverty present a problematic situation for
school district located in the area. If there is a significant relationship between poverty and
education and low SES plays a role in the interference of obtaining educational attainment than
9 Poverty and Education
what interventions must be taken to offset high dropout rates and to permanently elevate and
maintain adequate graduation rates.
Conceptual underpinning.
It has been observed that low SES factors prohibit student education. Factors such as
poverty, crime, unemployment, family structure, family education, and family employment
present damaging effects within the arena of education. The influence of poverty damages the
social structure of ones life producing challenges that may prove to difficult to overcome. The
relationship between poverty and education is well documented. The condition of poverty’s
existence within education are caused to interfere with the education process weakening its
structure and the effect it has on academic performance.
Children who are exposed to low SES typically carry the weight of its factors as they
transistion through the educational system. The results of poverty within the walls of education
manifest itself in the form of low student academic performance, low test scores, and high
dropout rates.
Statement of the Problem.
If there is a difference between students who are eligible to receive free or reduced priced
lunch and the graduation and dropout rates, then the implementation of strategies and
interventions must be taken from all personnel involved to ensure that students and school
districts exposed to poverty remain academically proficient.
Purpose of the study
To find if there is a difference between free or reduced priced lunch and the graduation and drop-
out rates.
10 Poverty and Education
Research questions.
RQ 1: Is there a difference in dropout rates between schools with higher, middle, and lower socioeconomic levels?
RQ 2: Is there a difference in graduation rates between schools with higher, middle, and lower socioeconomic levels?
Null Hypothesis.
Ho 1: There is no difference in dropout rates between schools with higher, middle, and lower socioeconomic levels.
Ho 2: There is no difference in graduation rates between schools with higher, middle, and lower socioeconomic levels.
Anticipated benefits of the study
If there is a connection with poverty as a low socioeconomic indicator and
dropout/graduation rates, than what strategies/interventions need to be implemented to decrease
high dropout rates of students from low SES,thus increasing graduation rates.
Definition of Terms
Socioeconomic: of, relating to, or involving a combination of social and economic factors.
Poverty: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially amount of money or material possessions.
Poverty threshold: dollar amounts the Census Bureau uses to determine poverty status
Dropout: one who drops out of school.
Graduation: the award or acceptance of an academic degree or diploma.
Urban: of, relating to, characteristics of, or constituting a city.
Rural: open land, of or relating to the country.
Suburban: an outlying part of the city or town; a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of the city.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): is a United States Act of Congress that is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which included Title I, the government's flagship aid
11 Poverty and Education
program for disadvantaged students. NCLB supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE): is the administrative arm of the State Board of Education. It is primarily a service agency that works with educators, legislators, government agencies, community leaders and citizens to maintain a strong public education system.
Summary.
A study was conducted to see if there was a significant difference in students that qualify
for free or reduced priced lunch and dropout and graduation rates. Students that reside within
areas of high poverty are exposed to poor social structures. With education taken the brunt of the
conditions. This is indicated within communities with the lowest socioeconomic structures, and
is oftened reflected in school systems. Poor socioeconomic effects trickle into school systems
with the negative outcomes manifesting in the form of high dropout rates and unsatisfactory
graduation rates.
The benefits of study will focus on interventions to improve education within the lowest
socioeconomic areas thus improving the graduation rates and decreasing the dropout rates. Data
was collected from the DESE and it shows free and reduced priced lunch, dropout, and
graduation rates from 30 high schools within three classifications of SES with poverty as the
indicator of poor educational performance. The relationship between the negative connotations
of poverty within the educational domain presents severe challenges for educators to work
through the barriers in education that causes underachievement in many forms in low test scores,
subpar graduation rates, and high volume dropouts.
12 Poverty and Education
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Individuals exposed to extreme levels of poverty are inflicted the most by the adverse
conditions which no one apart of it reaps any positive benefits. This paper will identify the
structure of poverty, how it effects the individuals who are engrossed in it, and all of the areas
that are disjointed by the numerous complications it poses. The topic of poverty and education is
the primary focus and the challenges poverty presents within the academic domain.
What is poverty? According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary; poverty is defined
as “the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material
possessions. “Income poverty is the condition of not having enough income to meet basic needs
for food, clothing, and shelter.” (Gunn & Duncan, 1997, p.55). For individuals or families of low
socioeconomic status (SES) the constant of not possessing money proves to be a common
occurrence that disrupts the way of life for many. Normal daily life routines are altered for lack
of resources and capital needed to purchase items necessary for daily life.
People afflicted by poverty are faced with challenges that are considered routine for
families that are not classified as being low SES. Survival becomes the main focus for families
that are faced with the responsibilities of trying to provide a quality way of life for their families.
According to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 1993. “A family's
socioeconomic status is based on family income, parental education level, parental occupation,
and social status in the community (such as contacts within the community, group associations,
and the community's perception of the family).” North Central Regional Educational Laboratory
(1993).
13 Poverty and Education
The map below of the United States provides a breakdown of all of the counties
percentages of poverty. The chart displays data collected by the United States Census Bureau.
Highlighted in the chart is the poverty statistics for the state of Missouri. Poverty percentages for
each state are listed. Notice as the total population of the state increased the poverty rate
increased as well over the 10 year time frame from the years 2000 to 2010. Notice the
breakdown of poverty per county throughout the United States. Observe the poverty breakdown
of the counties in the state of Missouri.
Below is a map of the counties in the US by poverty status.
GeoLytics, Incorporated. United States Census Bureau Demographic Data Poverty Statistics.
14 Poverty and Education
State
Total Population - 2000
Population in Poverty - 2000
% of Population in Poverty -2000
Total Population - 2010
Population in Poverty - 2010
% of Population in Poverty – 2010
Percent Change from 2000 to 2010
Alabama 4 334 919 698 097 16,1% 4 596 836 786 544 17,1% 1,0%
Alaska 612 961 57 602 9,4% 674 801 64 245 9,5% 0,1%
Arizona 5 021 238 698 669 13,9% 6 110 304 933 113 15,3% 1,4%
Arkansas 2 600 117 411 777 15,8% 2 790 794 502 684 18,0% 2,2%
California 33 100 044 4 706 130 14,2% 35 877 036 4 919 945 13,7% -0,5%
Colorado 4 202 140 388 952 9,3% 4 773 303 584 184 12,2% 3,0%
Connecticut 3 300 416 259 514 7,9% 3 434 901 314 306 9,2% 1,3%
Delaware 759 117 69 901 9,2% 856 004 93 857 11,0% 1,8%
District of Columbia
541 657 109 500 20,2% 551 331 101 767 18,5% -1,8%
Florida 15 605 367 1 952 629 12,5% 18 107 049 2 502 365 13,8% 1,3%
Georgia 7 959 649 1 033 793 13,0% 9 204 793 1 445 752 15,7% 2,7%
Hawaii 1 178 795 126 154 10,7% 1 298 918 124 627 9,6% -1,1%
Idaho 1 263 205 148 732 11,8% 1 496 581 203 177 13,6% 1,8%
Illinois 12 095 961 1 291 958 10,7% 12 439 981 1 572 048 12,6% 2,0%
Indiana 5 894 295 559 484 9,5% 6 219 801 842 540 13,5% 4,1%
Iowa 2 824 435 258 008 9,1% 2 916 252 338 263 11,6% 2,5%
Kansas 2 605 429 257 829 9,9% 2 725 175 338 792 12,4% 2,5%
Kentucky 3 927 047 621 096 15,8% 4 157 077 735 782 17,7% 1,9%
Louisiana 4 334 094 851 113 19,6% 4 302 475 780 359 18,1% -1,5%
Maine 1 240 893 135 501 10,9% 1 291 988 162 358 12,6% 1,6%
Maryland 5 164 376 438 676 8,5% 5 557 115 476 732 8,6% 0,1%
Massachusetts 6 138 444 573 421 9,3% 6 253 462 658 391 10,5% 1,2%
Michigan 9 700 622 1 021 605 10,5% 9 726 785 1 444 004 14,8% 4,3%
Minnesota 4 794 144 380 476 7,9% 5 119 104 542 133 10,6% 2,7%
Mississippi 2 750 677 548 079 19,9% 2 845 365 604 272 21,2% 1,3%
Missouri 5 433 293 637 891 11,7% 5 744 590 802 596 14,0% 2,2%
Montana 878 789 128 355 14,6% 949 414 138 109 14,5% -0,1%
Nebraska 1 660 527 161 269 9,7% 1 744 704 206 227 11,8% 2,1%
Nevada 1 962 948 205 685 10,5% 2 594 953 308 426 11,9% 1,4%
15 Poverty and Education
New Hampshire
1 199 322
78 530
6,5%
1 273 957
99 527
7,8%
1,3%
New Jersey 8 232 588 699 668 8,5% 8 544 303 777 968 9,1% 0,6%
New Mexico 1 783 907 328 933 18,4% 1 970 838 361 771 18,4% -0,1%
New York
18 449 899
2 692 202
14,6%
18 710 113
2 650 166
14,2%
-0,4%
North Carolina
7 805 328 958 667 12,3% 9 013 443 1 399 945 15,5% 3,2%
North Dakota 619 197 73 457 11,9% 636 048 78 405 12,3% 0,5%
Ohio 11 046 987 1 170 698 10,6% 11 199 642 1 586 292 14,2% 3,6%
Oklahoma 3 336 224 491 235 14,7% 3 559 437 577 247 16,2% 1,5%
Oregon 3 347 667 388 740 11,6% 3 688 745 516 271 14,0% 2,4%
Pennsylvania 11 879 950 1 304 117 11,0% 12 199 544 1 509 858 12,4% 1,4%
Rhode Island 1 010 000 120 548 11,9% 1 014 029 123 396 12,2% 0,2%
South Carolina
3 883 329 547 869 14,1% 4 369 147 716 537 16,4% 2,3%
South Dakota 727 425 95 900 13,2% 771 100 105 819 13,7% 0,5%
Tennessee 5 539 896 746 789 13,5% 6 075 066 1 002 467 16,5% 3,0%
Texas 20 287 300 3 117 609 15,4% 23 707 679 3 972 054 16,8% 1,4%
Utah 2 195 034 206 328 9,4% 2 613 440 283 536 10,8% 1,4%
Vermont 588 053 55 506 9,4% 600 114 66 726 11,1% 1,7%
Virginia 6 844 372 656 641 9,6% 7 595 386 781 516 10,3% 0,7%
Washington 5 765 201 612 370 10,6% 6 430 231 780 009 12,1% 1,5%
West Virginia 1 763 866 315 794 17,9% 1 789 092 310 495 17,4% -0,5%
Wisconsin 5 211 603 451 538 8,7% 5 486 658 637 613 11,6% 3,0%
Wyoming 479 485 54 777 11,4% 532 245 52 297 9,8% -1,6%
Whole US 14 373 439 1 584 805 11,0% 15 814 709 1 872 020 11,8% 0,8%
Poverty Statistics
“According to the US Census Bureau (USCB) there were 1,872,020 people in the US
living in poverty – that is nearly 12% of the American population. Poverty affects every state
and there is no county in the country that doesn’t have some poverty living within it.”
(GeoLytics Incorporated, n.d.)
16 Poverty and Education
The Census Bureau conducts a national census every ten years where they count every
person. Additionally they have an ongoing survey, the America Community Survey (ACS),
which is released annually with the new updated figures. One of the vital sections of this
questionnaire deals with poverty. These numbers are used to set policy for the years to come.
High poverty environments include individuals or families that meet the criteria of
poverty under the federal poverty guidelines, where the household income falls below the
national average for families that do not meet the criteria for low SES.
Another important contributer of family income is a crucial point of focus as the presence
of poverty also determines children’s educational achievement. Household income is an
indicator of SES. It is also a intrical part of the general life outcomes and educational outcome of
children.
17 Poverty and Education
The chart from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation provides
the 2013 poverty guidelines. The chart is used to measure federal poverty within the United
States. The chart can also be used to get an basis of how individual(s) fit into the poverty scope.
2013 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Persons in family/household Poverty guideline
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,020 for each additional person.
1 $11,490
2 15,510
3 19,530
4 23,550
5 27,570
6 31,590
7 35,610
8 39,630
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 16, January 24, 2013, pp. 5182-5183
“Programs using the guidelines (or percentage multiples of the guidelines — for instance,
125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines) in determining eligibility include Head Start, the
Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Note that in general, cash
public assistance programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental
Security Income) do NOT use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility. The Earned
Income Tax Credit program also does NOT use the poverty guidelines to determine eligibility”.
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Services.
18 Poverty and Education
It has been studied that low income has a dynamic effect in determining educational
outcomes of children. “For low-income children, a $10,000 increase in mean family income
between birth and age 5 was associated with nearly a full-year increase in completed schooling”
(Gunn & Duncan, 1997 p. 62). This information is helpful information considering that there is a
direct connection between education and income. Education translates into higher income, the
more household income, children are more likely to advance through the educational ranks.
Socioeconomic status (SES) when mentioned with education opens the door for much
discussion, and produces much controversy. “Hundreds of studies, books, and reports have
examined the detrimental effects of poverty on the well-being of children.”(Gunn & Duncan,
1997 p. 56).
Children unprotected by the onslaught of poverty are hit the hardest as critical
foundational areas are hampered by the consequences of poverty. When looking at the impact
poverty has on child development the facts must be taken into consideration. “In recent years,
about one in five American children-some 12 to 14 million have lived in families in which cash
income failed to exceed official poverty thresholds. Another one-fifth lived in families whose
incomes were no more than twice the poverty threshold. For a small minority of children 4.8% of
all children and 15% of children who ever became poor – childhood poverty lasted 10 years or
more.” (Gunn & Duncan, 1997 p. 55). This has a critical impact on children, because the years
are critical developmental years in a child. This causes the greatest damage in the foundational
years which are pivotal in the growth of a child.
19 Poverty and Education
“School readiness reflects a child’s ability to succeed both academically and socially in a
school environment. It requires physical well-being and appropriate motor development,
emotional health and positive approach to new experiences, age-appropriate social knowledge
and competence, age appropriate language skills, and age-appropriate general knowledge and
cognitive skills. It is well-documented that poverty decreases a child’s readiness for school
through aspects of health, home life, schooling and neighborhoods” (Ferguson, Bovaird, &
Mueller 2007 p.701). Children that are emersed in poverty experience these negative
circumstances. “Six poverty-related factors are known to impact child development in general
and school readiness in particular. They are the incidence of poverty, the depth of poverty, the
duration of poverty, and the timing of poverty (eg, age of child).” (Ferguson, Bovaid, & Mueller,
2007, p.701).
20 Poverty and Education
The map below provides a breakdown of children under 18 with poverty levels for each
county within the state of Missouri.
The breakdown looks at the specific percentages in the state for the year 2000. In
comparison to the United States Census Bureau map of poverty the total percentage of poverty
for the state of Missouri for the year 2000 was 11. 7% compared to 15.3% total for the
percentage of children statewide that were below the poverty level. This is a 3.6 difference with
more children being classified in the poverty area than the total poverty population percentage
for the state. Observe the counties within the state that fall into the highest percentage of
poverty. Children that reside in these areas are exposed to heightened amounts of poverty.
21 Poverty and Education
A fact that must be taken into consideration is the fact that minority children are
generally overrepresented in high-poverty urban schools. This fact may also have a negative
impact on education, as it can cause cultural adaptation issues, marginalization and
discrimination. In contrast those children that reside in high SES communities are presented with
the directly opposite. The likelihood of the towns experiencing high levels of poverty are
practically non existence. Suburban towns are less likely to be affected with the socioeconomic
factors that are prevalent within these communities (Cuhat, 2011)
Greater opportunites for success are prominent in areas of high SES and register positive
social outcomes. “Families with high socioeconomic status often have more success in preparing
their young children for school because they typically have access to a wide range of resources to
promote and support young children's development” (North Central Regional Education
Laboratory 193).
The federal poverty guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free or reduced priced
lunch. Individuals that qualify for free or reduced priced lunch are typical to impoverished
communities. The free and reduced-price lunch program is a federally funded effort to ensure
that children who might experience food instability have access to nutritious food, which is
essential to their growth and learning. Households that are at 130 percent of the federal poverty
level or lower qualify for free lunch, Nationally, the number of students qualifying for free or
reduced-price lunch continues to increase. According to the most recent comparison by the
National Center for Education Statistics, “free and reduced-price lunch eligibility rose from 38.3
percent during the 2000-01 school year to 48.1 percent during 2010-11” (Jester, 2013, para # 2).
22 Poverty and Education
Qualifications for free and reduced priced lunch are based on the federal poverty
guidelines. The poverty guidelines determine which students are eligible to receive free or
reduced lunch. The chart below displays the reduced and free lunch breakdown.
Highlited in blue are the federal poverty guidelines.
Rural towns also replicate the negative faces of poverty. Some are so badly damaged by
the effects of persistent poverty that the entire community structure is disabled. High levels of
unemployment dominate some of these areas, along with few to no resources available, the
towns provide limited to no opportunities for growth or advancement. The educational systems
within these areas suffer tremendously as well. “Locating the Dropout Crisis first drew attention
to list of about 2,000 high schools that researchers considered to be dropout factories – an
instruction that does a good job systematically producing dropouts” (Zehr, 2010 p.2). Graduation
rates are severly low as the properties of poverty infiltrate the education system.
23 Poverty and Education
“Despite the importance of graduating from high school, the high school dropout rate has
remained relatively stable over the past 30 years currently at 10.9% However, accurately
determing dropout rates across states and school districts has been complicated by differences in
data collection policies and practices. Moreover, there is no national standardized operational
definition of dropout” (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson 2007 p.325). “Dropping out of school is a
complex social problem from which there is no simple solution (p. 334). “Since the 1970s, there
has been a growing effort to improve high school gradution rates. In 1983, the National
Commision on Excellence in Education sounded the alarm because U.S. educational standards
had fallen behind other major industrialized countries” (Suh, 2007 p.298).
“Dropping out of school has is a serious problem, not only for the individual, the school
system, and the community, but also for society. Students who drop out of high school have
fewer options for employment and, if employed, usually end up working in low-skilled, low
paying positions with fewer possibilities for advancement. According to a report on high school
graduates in 2000, 56% of high school dropouts were unemployed, compared to 16% of high
school graduates. Census Bureau estimates have placed the average income of a dropout in 2000
at $12,400 compared to $21,000 for a high school graduate” (Christle, Jolivette, & Nelson 2007,
p. 325).
According to the United States Department of Education “Dropping out of high school is
related to a number of negative outcomes. For example, the median income of persons ages 18
through 67 who had not completed high school was roughly $25,000 in 2009.1 By comparison,
the median income of persons ages 18 through 67 who completed their education with at least a
24 Poverty and Education
high school credential, including a General Educational Development (GED) certificate, was
approximately $43,000. Over a person’s lifetime, this translates into a loss of approximately
$630,000 in income for a person who did not complete high school compared to a person with at
least a high school credential. Among adults age 25 and older, a lower percentage of dropouts are
in the labor force than are adults who earned a high school credential. Similarly, among adults in
the labor force, a higher percentage of dropouts are unemployed than are adults who earned a
high school credential (U.S. Department of Education, pg. 1).
“Furthermore, dropouts age 25 and older reported being in worse health than adults who
are not dropouts, regardless of income. Dropouts also make up disproportionately higher
percentages of the nation’s institutionalized population. Comparing those who drop out of high
school with those who complete high school, the average high school dropout costs the economy
approximately $240,000 over his or her lifetime in terms of lower tax contributions, higher
reliance on Medicaid and Medicare, higher rates of criminal activity, and higher reliance on
welfare.” (United States Department of Education, pg. 1).
25 Poverty and Education
RESEARCH METHODS
Research design.
A quantitative study was conducted to determine if there is a relationship with low
socioeconomic factors and education, and if low SES negatively impairs education. With poverty
as the indicator the independent variable to be tested was free or reduced priced lunch
percentages, while the dependent variables tested were dropout and graduation percentages. If
the difference is significant then school personnel must implement interventions and strategies to
combat high school dropouts among students from low socioeconomic status. The utilization of
effective interventions to decrease the number of high dropout rates in low socioeconomic areas
will automatically offset the dropout rates thus higher graduation rates will be achieved.
Study group description.
Thirty high schools were selected from urban, suburban and rural school districts within
the state of Missouri. The total percentage of students eligible to receive free or reduced priced
lunch, as well as, the total graduation and dropout percentages of ninth through twelve grade
students from the thirty high schools were selected as the study group to be evaluated.
Data Collection and Instrument.
Archived inquiry data from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education (DESE) was collected from each identified school respectively to identify percentages
of students who received free or reduced price lunch. Graduation and dropout percentages were
obtained from DESE from the conclusion of the 2011 year data was selected as the year for the
identified schools.
26 Poverty and Education
Statistical analysis methods
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if there is a significant
difference in the free or reduced priced lunch and graduation/dropout rates. The categories used
were free and reduced priced lunch and graduation and dropout rates. The sum of squares, the
degrees of freedom, mean squares, the Fischer score, and p-values were concluded from this test.
The Alpha level was set at 0.25 to test the null hypothesis; there is no difference in free or
reduced priced lunch and graduation/dropout rates. In addition to, utilization of Microsoft Excel
program was used in the analyzing segments of the data.
27 Poverty and Education
FINDINGS
A ANOVA test was conducted to determine whether there was a difference in students
that receive free and reduced priced lunch, graduation, and dropout rates. performance on the
2011. The following tables graphs will show the findings based on the statistical inquiry data
found on the state of Missouri DESE website from the conclusion of the 2011 school year.
Variable F/R FRQ. CUM % CUM Frequency Plot
x < 8.1 0 0 0 0
x = 8.1 1 1 3.3 3.3 ************************
x = 13.8 1 2 3.3 6.7 ************************
x = 14.9 1 3 3.3 10 ************************
x = 16 1 4 3.3 13.3 ************************
x = 16.8 1 5 3.3 16.7 ************************
x = 18.5 1 6 3.3 20 ************************
x = 19.8 1 7 3.3 23.3 ************************
x = 21.3 1 8 3.3 26.7 ************************
x = 22.9 1 9 3.3 30 ************************
x = 27 1 10 3.3 33.3 ************************
x = 30.3 1 11 3.3 36.7 ************************
x = 32.4 1 12 3.3 40 ************************
x = 34.1 1 13 3.3 43.3 ************************
28 Poverty and Education
x = 37 1 14 3.3 46.7 ************************
x = 43.2 1 15 3.3 50 ************************
x = 43.8 1 16 3.3 53.3 ************************
x = 45.7 1 17 3.3 56.7 ************************
x = 46.9 1 18 3.3 60 ************************
x = 48.3 1 19 3.3 63.3 ************************
x = 51 1 20 3.3 66.7 ************************
x = 56.8 1 21 3.3 70 ************************
x = 69.5 1 22 3.3 73.3 ************************
x = 75.3 1 23 3.3 76.7 ************************
x = 76.2 1 24 3.3 80 ************************
x = 76.9 1 25 3.3 83.3 ************************
x = 80.3 1 26 3.3 86.7 ************************
x = 82.7 1 27 3.3 90 ************************
x = 84.6 1 28 3.3 93.3 ************************
x = 86.2 1 29 3.3 96.7 ************************
x = 89 1 30 3.3 100 ************************
x > 89 0 30 0 100
TOTAL 30 100
29 Poverty and Education
ANOVA analysis results for the 2011 dropout percentages.
Summary of Decriptive Statistics for Dropout Rates (Table 1)
Free or Reduced N Mean Variance
1 10 1.57 16.6111
2 10 2.26 16.6111
3 10 24.39 16.6111
As shown in table 1 thirty high schools were selected for the study to determine if there is
a difference between free or reduced price lunch and dropout rates. According to the data, there
are a total of 30 schools, each school has been recoded into the highest 33.3% , middle 33.3%,
and lower 33.3% groups for dropout rates. F/Reduced priced lunch group one mean score is
1.57. Group two’s mean score is 2.26. Group three mean score is 24.39. There is a .69 difference
between f/reduced priced groups one and two. There is a mean difference of 22.13 between
groups two and three. Group three has a 24.39 mean score. The standard deviation for all three
groups is constant at 16.6111.
30 Poverty and Education
(Table 2) Summary of ANOVA Test of Significance Results for 2010 – 2011 dropout percentages. Dependent Variable: Dropout percentages ______________________________________________________________________________ Source SS df MS f p-value ______________________________________________________________________________ F/RLunch 3369.88 2 1684.94 10.1435 0.000518086 Dropout 4484.99 27 166.111 ______________________________________________________________________________ Significance p-value = < 0.25
According to the data in table 2 for dropout the sum of squares is 4485. The degrees of
freedom is 27, and the mean squared is 166. For free or reduced priced lunch the sum of squares
are 3370, the degrees of freedom is 2, the means squared is 1685. The Fischer score is 10.14. The
null hypothesis states that there is not a significant difference in free or reduced priced lunch and
dropout. The null was rejected because the p-value of 0.00052 is lower than the alpha level 0.25
and the null was rejected null is there a significant difference between free and reduced priced
lunch and dropout rates.
Summary of Post Hoc Analysis Results for Dropout and Free or Reduced Price Lunch (Table 3) P-values for pairwise comparison of dropout and free or reduced priced lunch Free & Reduced Free & Reduced Mean D Std.Error p-value ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 -0.69 5.76387 0.905598 1 3 -22.82 5.76387 0.000493032 2 3 -22.13 5.76387 0.000675764 __________________________________________________________________________ Note: Significance when p-value = < 0.25
31 Poverty and Education
As shown in table 3 the greatest mean difference was found between F/Reduced Lunch
group 1 and F/Reduced group 3 with a mean difference of -22.82. The smallest mean difference
was observed between F/Reduced groups 1 and 2. The second highest mean difference was
observed between groups 2 and 3 with a difference of -22.13. There was not a significant
difference between groups one and two.
The comparison of the p-value for F/Reduced lunch for the group 1 with group 2
compares F/Reduced lunch lowest socioeconomic group 1 with the middle socioeconomic group
2. The p-value of .90 is higher than the p-value of .25. There is not a significant dropout rate
between groups 1 and 2. However, there were significant differences between groups one and
three and two and three. The p-value of 0.000493032 that compares group 1 and group 3 is lower
than the alpha level 0.25. The null hypothesis states that there is a significant difference in
dropout and Free or Reduced priced lunch. The null was rejected because the p-value was less
than the alpha level. This shows that free or reduced priced lunch as indicator of poverty
significantly impacts dropout rates and the results of poverty are reflected in education. The
lowest socioeconomic group compared to group two the middle socioeconomic shows that there
is also a significant difference in free and reduced priced lunch and the dropout rate.
Results of group 2 and 3 shows a p-value score of 0.00067 which indicates a significant
difference in free and reduced priced lunch and dropout rates. In comparison the middle
socioeconomic group that has poverty compared to the highest socioeconomic group group 3 that
poses the highest SES shows that the affects of poverty pose a negative challenge to dropout
rates in areas where low SES may not be as intense but still presents a major obstacle.
32 Poverty and Education
The data shows that there is a higher percentage of student dropouts within the lowest
socioeconomic classification compared to the highest socioeconomic group. Schools within the
highest level of SES produce the lowest level of student dropouts. And the graduation rates are
higher in these areas compared to the lowest SES. Schools located within the highest SES have
the lowest amount of student dropouts.
However, it is the exact opposite for the lowest socioeconomic area. Students within
these areas are exposed to increased amounts of poverty and poor socioeconomic structures.
Education is effected with high dropout rates within these areas. The schools located within
areas of high poverty and low SES produce the highest levels of student dropouts. Comparison
of the lowest socioeconomic level group 1 with the highest socioeconomic level group 3 shows a
significant difference in dropout rates with a p-value of 0.00067. The p-value of 0.00067 is lower
than the p-value of 0.25. Thus, the null is rejected and there is a great difference with free-and
reduced lunch and dropout rates. The conclusion shows that students with free and reduced
priced lunch in the middle socioeconomic groups have extremely high dropout rates versus the
highest socioeconomic group.
33 Poverty and Education
Table 1 Summary of Decriptive Statistics for Graduation
Free or Reduced N Mean Variance
1 10 93.69 10.6395
2 10 88.81 10.6395
3 10 69.28 10.6395
As shown in table 1 thirty high schools from the state of Missouri were chosen to
determine if there is a differnce between free or reduced and graduation rates. According to the
data there are three groups. Each group is classified into free or reduced price lunch from
lowest to greatest. Group one mean is 94, the students in the second group mean is 89, Whereas,
students classified in groups three mean is 69. The variance is 10.63.
Summary of ANOVA Test of Significance Results for 2010 – 2011 graduation. Dependent Variable: Graduation percentages ______________________________________________________________________________ Source SS df MS f p-value ______________________________________________________________________________ F/RLunch 3336.94 2 1668.47 16.0903 0.000025061 Graduation 2799.75 27 103.695 ______________________________________________________________________________ Note: Significance = < 0.25
34 Poverty and Education
According to the data in table 2 the sum of squares for graduation is 2800, the degrees of
freedom is 27, and the mean squared is 104. The sum of squares for free or reduced lunch is
3337, the degrees of freedom is 2, the mean squared is 1668, the Fischer score is 16.0903. The
null of is there a difference significant difference between free or reduced priced lunch and
graduation is rejected. The p-value of 0.000025 is lower than the alpha level of 0.25. There was a
significant difference between free lunch and graduation.
Summary of Post Hoc Analysis Results for Graduation and Free or Reduced Price Lunch P-values for pairwise comparison of graduation and free or reduced priced lunch Free & Reduced Free & Reduced Mean D Std.Error p-value ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 4.88 4.554 0.293392 1 3 24.41 4.554 0.0000115899 2 3 19.53 4.554 0.0002055 __________________________________________________________________________ Note: Significance = < 0.25
As shown in table three the highest mean difference was shown in between Free or
reduced groups one and three with a mean difference of 24.41. Groups two and three has the
second highest mean difference of 19.53. Whereas, the smallest mean difference is between
groups one and two with a 4.9 difference. The p-value of group one compared to group two of
0.293392 is higher than the alpha level of 0.25 the null is accepted. The p-value shows that
Group 1 representing the lowest socioeconomic group indicates that there is no significant
decrepancy between graduation rates compared to group 2 the middle socioeconomic group.
35 Poverty and Education
However, groups 2 and 3 show a extremely significant difference in graduation rates with a p-
value score of 0.0002055. The score of .00020 is lower than the p-value 0.25.
The middle socioeconomic group 2 compared to group 3 the highest socioeconomic
group shows that schools classified within the middle socioeconomic classification produces the
lowest graduation rates versus schools that are located within the lowest socioeconomic group
with the highest SES. The p-value score of 0.0002055 shows a significant difference in free and
reduced priced lunch and graduation. The null is rejected being less that the p-value score of
0.25. Group 1 versus group 3 shows a p-value score of 0.000011, which is lower than the alpha
level of 0.25. This shows that the lowest socioeconomic group graduation rates are significantly
lower than the highest socioeconomic group.
Graduation rates between group 1 and group 2 that receive free and reduced priced lunch
shows a p-value score of 0.29. The null is rejected being less than the 0.25 alpha level. This
indicates that poverty within the two groups is not a major factor that affects the graduation rates
between the two groups. The lowest socioeconomic group, group 1 compared to the highest
socioeconomic group shows a great discrepancy in graduation rates among the two groups. The
p-value score of 0.000011 is below the alpha level of 0.25 thus there is a significant difference
in free and reduced priced lunch and graduation rates. The null is rejected, showing that the
graduation rates between the lowest socioeconomic group and the middle group that poverty
does not have a big effect on graduation rates. The lowest socioeconomic group 1 and group 3
shows a significant discrepancy among the lowest socioeconomic group and the highest and that
students receiving free and reduced priced lunch in the lowest socioeconomic group have a low
percentage of graduating. This is indicated with the p-value score of 0.000011, which is below
the alpha level 0.25. However, the highest socioeconomic group that received free and reduced
36 Poverty and Education
priced lunch had the highest graduation totals compared to the lowest socioeconomic group that
had free and reducaed priced lunch had low gradution rates. Groups with the highest SES had
the highest graduation rates and the lowest dropout rates.
37 Poverty and Education
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The outcomes reported from this study show that dropout rates are effected by poverty
(free or reduced priced lunch). The findings show that there is a significant difference between
free and reduced priced lunch and dropout rates. ANOVA test results the 2011 school year
indicated that the p-value for dropout was 0.00051 and graduation 0.000025, both much lower
than the alpha level set at 0.25; therefore, the null hypothesis tested is rejected with confidence.
There is a difference between dropout and graduation rates. Dropout rates where the highest
within the lowest socioeconomic group. Group 2 being the middle socioeconomic group had
high dropout rates that were not as high as group 1, but they were still significantly high. Group
3 the highest socioeconomic area with the least amount of poverty has the highest graduation
rates and the lowest dropout rates out of the three group. Schools located within the lowest
socioeconomic group produced the highest levels of dropout and the lowest graduation rates.
This indicates that areas with high poverty are at risk of having high number of dropouts and low
graduation. Graduation rates are lowest amongst located within the Group 1 the lowest level of
poverty. In both categories the highest socioeconomic group had the least amount of dropouts
and the highest number of graduates. Poverty had a limited effect in the highest socioeconomic
areas the graduation were consistently high, while dropout rates where low.
38 Poverty and Education
In order to counter the dropout rates there must be an all hands on deck approach to
increasing the graduation rate. First, the structure of poverty must be destroyed before it
addressed before citation?
The effects of poverty have a lasting impression on children who have been a part of it
for a decade or more. Children who experience poverty or members of a low income
householdare more at risk to repeat the cycle of poverty when they become adults.
The incident of poverty is uncontrolled by the child. It’s presence within a childs life is
not determined based on the child, but rather the child was unvoluntarely placed in the situation
into circumstances that they are not able to change. The duration of poverty is broken down into
two classifications, short term poverty and long term poverty. Children who are emersed in short
periods of poverty are more accepatable of breaking through its hold. However, long-term
poverty has long-range consequences. Many children that are in positions where poverty is
consistent poverty assumes a long-term place. Long-term poverty conditions can initiate
situations of the cycle of poverty repeating producing generational poverty.
The ramifications of poverty are also observed within school districts were the dropout
out is equivalent to the graduation rate. With that being said whenever the dropout rate is greater
than or equal to the graduation rate then raises the level of concern and the focus becomes what
actions need to be implemented to increase the graduation rate. The graduation rates are often hit
the hardest. for the increasing of the graduation there is a major problem that The relation this
has with schools that are in urban school districts that house the highest areas of minorities,
which are predominantly composed of African American and Hispanic students.
39 Poverty and Education
School districts located in high areas of poverty reap the harmful manifestation of
poverty. In many areas where there are extreme cases of poverty the educational systems are hurt
as the influences of low SES enter into the school environment. The ramifications of poverty are
infused within the educational system as school districts located in these high poverty areas are
pulled in by the undertow of poor SES. Low SES negative translation into the educational
process is seen as it presents itself within high school students that reside in areas of poverty.
Areas that are engrossed with high percentages of dropout rates with decreasing graduation
percentages are typical to urban school districts.
Students exposed to these conditions are at a disadvantage Urban communities lie in the
heart of these cities and the communities have a noticeable impact. The damaging affect this has
from an educational standpoint is critical because both rural and urban communities are the areas
that suffer the most in regards to high dropout and low graduation rates.
Meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty
schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian
children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance;
closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the
achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged
children and their more advantaged peers; holding schools, local educational agencies, and states
accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning
around low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high-quality education to their
students, while providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable the students to receive
a high-quality education.
40 Poverty and Education
Areas that suffer from poverty are at a disadvantage and the children that attend schools
within these locations. Although NCLB mission is to advance children academically the weight
of poverty remains a stumbling block. Many students associated with these areas come to the
conclusion that the only choice is to dropout.
The incident of poverty is uncontrolled by the child. It’s presence within a childs life is
not determined based on the child, but rather the child was unvoluntarely placed in the situation
into circumstances that they are not able to change. The duration of poverty is broken down into
two classifications, short term poverty and long term poverty. Children who are emersed in short
periods of poverty are more accepatable of breaking through its hold. However, long-term
poverty has long-range consequences. Many children that are in positions where poverty is
consistent poverty assumes a long-term place. Long-term poverty conditions can initiate
situations of the cycle of poverty repeating producing generational poverty.
The conceptual underpinning is supported by these research findings. Dropout and
graduation rates are negatively effected by lower socioeconomic status. Lower Socioeconomic
status does play a negative role in the graduation and dropout rates. The implementation of
interventions and strategies to enhance student academic performance. Effective explicit
instruction infused into the curriculum tailored to the specific needs of the students is key. This
research could be used in developing additional ways to bridge the gap between dropout and
graduation rates. In order to counter the dropout rates there must be an all hands on deck
approach to increasing the graduation rate.
Different ways to help both the community and students build a educational foundation
that builds community involvement and establishes alternative programs that are designed to
help promote academic achievement are key. Programs such as credit recovery progams and
41 Poverty and Education
programs that allow student to obtain college credits during high school are needed. The
utilization of mentoring programs are also beneficial in the overall assistance of helping children
overcome the effects of poverty. These are a few of the vast interventions that can incorporated
that will help decrease the dropout rates and increase the graduation rates.
The ramifications of poverty are also observed within school districts were the dropout
out is equivalent to the graduation rate. With that being said whenever the dropout rate is greater
than or equal to the graduation rate then raises the level of concern and the focus becomes what
actions need to be implemented to increase the graduation rate. The graduation rates are often hit
the hardest. for the increasing of the graduation there is a major problem that The relation this
has with schools that are in urban school districts that house the highest areas of minorities,
which are predominantly composed of African American and Hispanic students. Areas that
suffer from poverty are at a disadvantage and the children that attend schools within these
locations. Although NCLB mission is to advance children academically the weight of poverty
remains a stumbling block. Many students associated with these areas come to the conclusion
that the only choice is to dropout.
42 Poverty and Education
REFERENCES
Bradshaw, C. P., O’Brennan, L. M., & McNeely, C. A. (2008). Core competencies and the
prevention of school failure and early school leaving: Core competencies to prevent
problem behaviors and promote positive youth development. New Directions for
Children Adolescent Development, (122), 19-32.
Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2007). School characteristics related to high
school dropout rates. Remedial and Special Education, 28,(6), 325-339.
Cuhat, G. O., (2011). Learner factors in a high poverty urban middle school. Urbanedjournal,
Vol 9(1) Retrieved July 18, 2012 from http://www.urbanedjournal.org/current
Ferguson, H. B., Bovaird, S. & Mueller, M. P. (2007). The impact of poverty on educational
outcomes for children. Pediatrics and Child Health, (12), 8, 701-706, Retrieved May 15,
2013 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/
Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effect of poverty on children: The future of children.
Children and Poverty, (7), 55-65.
Jester, E. (2013, June 16). More students getting free or reduced priced lunch. The Gainsville
Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130616/ARTICLES/130619692/-
1/search10?template=printart
Knesting, K. (2008). Students at risk for school dropout: Supporting their persistence. Heldref
Publications, (52), 4, 3-9.
43 Poverty and Education
Suh, S. & Suh, S. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high school dropouts. Professional
School Counseling, 10, (3), 297-306, Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=8046c7d5-9064-41b6-a4d6-
5a8db549a67a%
Zehr, M. (2010). Rural Dropout Factories Often Overshadowed. Education Week, (29), 27,
Retrieved June 22, 2013 from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/delivery?sid=707ba1d3-
347c-43d3-a96e-e6db6d7b9c80%
United States Department of Agriculture. Food and nutrition services: Income eligibility
guidelines. Federal Register, March 29, 2013, Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEG_Table-032913.pdf
United States Census Bureau. Percent children of poverty under the age of 18 below poverty in
Missouri. Retrieved from odelia.missouri.edu
United States Census Bureau. Demographic poverty data: Retrieved from
http://www.geolytics.com/censusdata/povertystatistics.asp
United States Department of Education (2001). No Child Left Behind Act 2001, full text.
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
United States Department of Education. Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in
the United States: 1972 – 2009. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf
United States Department of Health and Human Services (2013). Poverty guidelines, Retrieved
from http://aspe.hhs.gov/images/logo1.png
44 Poverty and Education
United States Income Eligibility Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 16, January 24, 2013, pp. 5182-
5183 Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEG_Table-
032913.pdf
Woolf, H. B., (1977). Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts, G. & C
Merriam Company.
45 Poverty and Education
Recommended