The Inequity of Poverty in Education:

Natalie Knott

University of South Carolina

The School in Modern Society

Spring 2012

1

Abstract

“Students from low-income school districts in Massachusetts are about twice as likely to be placed in special

education than those in more affluent districts in the state, a new report shows”.(Swasey, 2012)

The above quote is from a new story on 90.9, WBUR’s website on April 23, 2012. The following

quote is from L.M. Dunn in 1968:

"In my best judgment, about 60 to 80 percent of

the pupils taught by these teachers are children

from low-status background-including African-

Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, and

Puerto Rican Americans; those from non-

standard English speaking broken, disorganized

and inadequate homes; and children from other

non-middle class environments" (p. 5).

These two quotes show the persistence of the issue of the over representation of minority

students who live in poverty in special education. There has been substantial research on the

causes and solutions of this issue. Despite interventions and laws such as IDEA and NCLB, the

problem persists. Moreover, this issue is more critical today than it was in 1968, considering the

growth of the number of children in poverty. Nearly half of all public school students qualify

for free and reduced lunches. Why are minority children and those in low income and poverty

over represented in special education? Dunn’s quote reveals several main reasons for this

longstanding issue. Dunn refers to children as being from a “low-status background.”(p.5) He

2

describes their homes as “broken, disorganized and inadequate” and “non-English speaking.”

He describes the children as being from “non-middle class environments.” (p.5) He also

describes children as “non-English speaking.” (p.5) Spanish and other foreign languages are

not the only non-English language that Dunn’s comment encompasses. It also includes African-

American Vernacular English. Standard English is the only acceptable language in the

classroom. Classroom materials, assessment, and curriculum, are directed toward white, middle

class students. Even teachers are white and middle class. There is a clash of cultures in the

school classroom. The white, middle to upper class values, language, and culture provide the

standards that everyone else is measured against. Dunn’s statement reveals a prevalent bias in

our educational system against groups outside of white, middle class. This bias is perpetuated

though teacher education programs such as Ruby Payne’s “aha! Process (Payne, 2005) and the

Theory of Compromised Human Development. (O'Connor & Fernandez, 2006) I examine how

teacher attitude affects the way they teach and interact with the students. I discuss how these

cultural differences lead to placement in special education or placement in lower tracks.

Placement in special education or in lower tracks results in the inequity of educational

opportunities. The purpose of this paper is to explain how cultural differences and bias lead to

the inequity of education for minority students in poverty.

3

Introduction

Special education classes, especially for those with mild to moderate intellectual

disabilities, contain a prevalence of minority students who live in poverty. There are

several reasons for this over representation, however, in this paper; I will examine how

teacher attitudes toward culture and poverty affect student performance and placement.

Culture includes the students’ family, language, and values. The students’ culture affects

the context in which they learn. Current education practices are targeted toward white,

middle-class students and are successful in increasing these students’ achievement.

However, these practices have not been successful with minority students living in

poverty. School, for these students, is irrelevant and socially isolating. This results in poor

academic performance. Minority children are tracked into lower academic groups or

placed in special education. The process of assessment and placement in classes for

students with mild to moderate intellectual disability class is subjective. This results in

misidentification. (Harry & Klingner, 2006) The over representation of minority students

in poverty is problematic, not only for ethical reasons, but due to the increasing numbers

of public school children living in poverty. There are substantial economic and

educational implications.

4

Economic Implications

A research report by the Southern Education Foundation shows that the number of

students in poverty is increasing. (Suitts, 2007) Nationwide, 41% of public education students

qualify for free or reduced price lunches. The South led the nation with 46% of public school

students living in poverty. This figure increased to 54% by 2007. The West is the second highest

region with over 40%. This is a striking trend with significant implications. Children unlucky

enough to be born in poverty have little hope of changing their circumstances. This is a crucial

concern for the economic future of the South and other areas with high poverty rates. In, One

Nation Underprivileged, Mark Rank (2005, p. 110) quotes a report by the Children’s Defense

Fund:

The children who suffer poverty’s effects are not its only victims.

When children do not succeed as adults, all of society pays the

price: businesses are able to find fewer good workers; consumers

pay more for the goods, hospitals and health insurers spend more

for treating preventable illnesses, teachers spend more time on

remediation and special education, private citizens feel less safe on

the streets, governors hire more prison guards, mayors must pay to

shelter more homeless families… taxpayers pay for more problems

that could have been prevented, fire and medical workers must

respond to emergencies that never should have happened, and

funeral directors must bury children who never should of died.

(Sherman,1994.p. 99)

5

Educational Implications

Current educational practices are not effective with minority students in poverty. The

achievement gap between students of high to/middle income and low income is well researched.

(Ladson-Billings, 2006) Minority children in poverty do not receive an equitable education.

These students are mis-identified as needing special education services. Educators place these

students in classes for students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, learning

disabilities and emotional disabilities. These are referred to as “judgmental” categories because

these students do not come to school diagnosed with a disability. Rather, when these students do

not succeed in regular education, they are placed in special education classes. Placement is

based on professional judgment not a clinical diagnosis. (O'Connor & Fernandez, 2006) This

professional judgment is based on incorrect, at best, and racist, as worst, judgment of families

who live in poverty. Harry states:

The process of determining children’s eligibility for

special education is anything but a science. Rather, it

is a result of social forces that intertwine to construct

an identity of “disability” for which the regular-

education system finds too difficult to serve.” (Harry,

2006, p. 9)

6

Inequitable Educational Opportunities

Minority students in poverty do not receive equitable educational opportunities. This is

the result of teacher attitudes toward poverty and culture. An example is the Theory of

Compromised Human Development (O'Connor & Fernandez, 2006) This theory states that

poverty results in children being exposed to risk factors that affect their education. O’Connor

summarizes the TCHD theory as:

1 Minorities are more likely to be poor.

2. “Being” poor increases exposure to risk factors that compromise early

development.

3. Compromised early development impinges on school preparedness and

suppresses academic achievement, heightening the need for special education.

4. Thus minorities are more likely to warrant special education. (O'Connor &

Fernandez, 2006, p. 7)

. O’Connor accuses this theory as being oversimplified and using white, middle class performance

as the normative standard for all students. This educational outlook devalues the students’

culture which results in inequitable educational opportunities.

Furthermore, school administrators use non-researched based theories to educate teachers

on poverty. An example is Ruby Payne’s “aha! Processes Inc.” Ruby Payne is a “self-

proclaimed expert on poverty and poor children.”(Ng & Rury, 2006) Payne states that her

book, A Framework for Understanding Poverty

Has guided hundreds of thousands of educators and other

professionals through the pitfalls and barriers faced… (by) the

poor… Carefully researched and packed with charts, tables, and

7

questionnaires, Framework, not only documents the facts of

poverty, it provides practical and compassionate strategies for

addressing its impact on people’s lives. (Payne, 2005)

Payne’s book and seminars are very influential in educating teachers on the characteristics of the

poor and related teaching strategies. Most teachers are white, female, and middle class. They are

not educated on the cultural differences of minority students. Ruby Payne is also female and

white; however, she is not middle class anymore after the success of her book and seminars. She

describes a culture of poverty with definable characteristics. These characteristics include “lives

for the moment,” ”lack of order/organization,” “identity tied to the rescuer/martyr for women,”

“mating dance,” “casual register is used for everything,” identity tied to lover/fighter role for

men”-(is the reason mean are unstable and frequently leave their family). (Payne, 2005, pp. 51-

53) She goes on to describe how these characteristics play out in the schools. She describes

these students as “very disorganized, “bring many reasons why something is missing, or the

paper is gone,” “don’t do homework,” “are physically aggressive,” “cannot monitor their own

behavior,” “tell stories in the casual-register structure,” “don’t know or use middle-class

courtesies,” and “dislikes authority.”(Payne, 2005, pp. 60-61) These are all negative

characteristics that misinform teachers about their students. This perpetuates cultural

misunderstandings and bias that result in the misplacement of students in special education and

lower tracks which leads to the inequity of educational opportunities. Moreover, Bomer et al.

conducted research that questioned the veracity of Payne’s claims and methodology. (Bomer et

al., 2007) Bomer et al. found that:

Her work represents a classic example of what has been identified

as deficit thinking. We find that her truth claims, offered without

8

any supporting evidence, are contradicted by anthropological,

sociological, and other research on poverty. We have

demonstrated through our analysis that teachers may be

misinformed by Payne’s claims. As a consequence of lower

expectations, poor students are more likely to be in lower tracks

or lower ability groups. (Bomer et al., 2008)

Teachers have a negative view of the culture of minority students. As a result, they have lower

expectations for their students and tend to place them in lower ability tracks and special

education. Rubin and Rend a (2009) state that there is a “disproportionate representation of

students of color and low-income students in both special education and low-track classes.” (p.

437) Students who are placed in these classes fail to make substantial progress. (Abu El-Haj &

Rubin, 2009) Tracking leads to inequity of educational opportunities. Students are not given the

opportunities to succeed. Skiba et al. explains: “One of the most consistent findings in

educational research is that students achieve in direct proportion to their opportunity to learn. It

might well be expected that students whose educational opportunities are limited will be more

likely to be referred for special education services.”(Skiba et al., 2008) He references a study by

Kozol (2005) and Peske and Haycock, (2006) which explains that “Differential access to

education resources has been consistently demonstrated for some minority groups in a number of

areas.” (Skiba et al. p. 274) Moreover, once a student is referred to special education, especially

in the area of mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, it is very unlikely that this placement will

change. Likewise, students placed in lower tracks remain there through out their educational

years. Skiba et al. (2008) further explains that these inequities are caused by cultural differences

between the students and their white teachers. He points out that when African American

9

teachers taught minority students, the number of referrals to special education decreased. (Skiba

et al. 2008) These cultural differences involve the students’ family, values, and language.

Teacher responses to cultural differences play an important role in the success of minority

students in poverty.

Cultural Language Differences

One of the ways in which students and teachers are different involves language. Payne

refers to students in poverty as only using the informal register. (Payne, 2005) The implication of

Payne’s statement is that these students’ language is inferior to white, middle class speech. Many

teachers project this same attitude with their educational practices in the classroom. Linda

Christensen states that this “air of superiority and smugness ...silences many students in our

classrooms when we value how they speak more than what they say.” (Christensen, 2008, p. 19)

Christensen further explains that teachers have the capability to make diverse students successful

by accepting their linguistic differences. (Christensen, 2008) On the other hand, teachers also

have the ability to create a classroom environment which results in student discouragement and

failure. Wheeler and Swords (2004) states that. “When an urban teacher tells her minority

students that their language is error-filled, she creates a seriously deleterious effect in the

classroom.” (p. 471) Teachers are not just correcting grammar. Teachers “remove the link that

could bring relevance to the classroom lives of the children. (She) assails the child’s family and

home community, thus contributing to a barrier between the values of home and

school.”(Wheeler & Swords, 2004, p. 471) Again, teacher perspectives on student language and

dialects influence student learning and performance. Teachers have low expectations for these

students which affect their .performance. Teachers may perceive these students who speak

10

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) as not being as intelligent or educated as their

white counterparts.. Teachers change their behavior towards students they perceive as having a

language deficit. They give the students less attention and communicate with them less than

other students. (Delpit & Dowdy (2002, 2008) Hilliard asserts that “it is this behavior and not

the language of the child, no matter how different that creates the problems for learners.” (p.

101) Hilliard recounts the story of how Septima Clark, in her freedom schools, taught 12 million

potential voters who were illiterate how to read. Illiteracy in the South decreased from 12

million to 12,000. As a result, voter patterns in the South changed. Hilliard relays the

conversation with Clark when he asked her how she accomplished such an impressive

achievement. Clark stated that she tried not to use professional teachers. She added that “often

people, who saw themselves as highly educated, projected the idea to her students that they

regarded themselves as better than the students. Their education got in the way.” (p102) Lisa

Delpit asked a group of low income, minority students who attended a summer program through

her Center for Urban Education and Innovation, their perceptions about the issue of language in

their schools. Here are some of the responses:

“They classify black people as loud and ignorant. If you be out in the street with

your family, they say, “These people so ghetto.”

“If you don’t speak proper English, then they don’t want you in their little world.”

“When you take a part of a child’s culture away, it’s wrong. It makes you feel like

your parents and communities are wrong.”

You shouldn’t crush a child’s spirit. They will just want to stop participating, to

stop speaking.”

11

“No one should ever judge another soul. It can destroy someone.”(Delpit (2002,

2008)

Cultural Differences and Assessment

Assessment is another area of educational inequity related to language. Assessments are

biased against minority students. Asa Hilliard states,” For many years now, there are those of us

who have charged that mass produced standardized professional tests and materials are ill suited

to the needs of most African American children and their culture.”(Delpit & Dowdy (2002, 2008,

pp. 91-92) Hilliard proposes that the main cause of this inequity is the incorrect beliefs that

“African American children are nothing more than incomplete copies of Western European white

children.” (p 92) Hilliard states that even when educators recognize that African American

children have a unique culture, they view their culture as inferior to Western European culture.

As a result of these incorrect beliefs, assessments contain major errors. (Delpit & Dowdy (2002,

2008, p. 92) Hilliard further states that assessments and scientific studies should be understood

through the context of history and culture. He argues that “valid assessment” must be seen “in

terms of total context.”(p. 90) Hilliard argues that “Language culture, history, and oppression are

all inextricably linked together where African American children are concerned.” (p 90)

Assessments further the oppression of African American students. Hilliard gives four areas

where educators make the greatest mistakes. These include mistakes in the testing of IQ,

speech, language, and reading ability, (p.92) Low performance in these areas result in students

being referred to special education. This demonstrates how minority students are mislabeled as

needing special education.

12

Hilliard explains that the creators of standardized tests assume that there is one correct

answer to a given question. If this is not true, the validity of the tests is put into question. Hilliard

charges that standardized testing favors white, upper to middle class students who share not only

familiar language but also familiar cultural experiences. Hilliard goes on to say that “Since the

“right children, ”upper class and wealthy-tend to get the top scores, it is assumed that the I.Q.,

reading, speech, language acquisition, and other tests are valid.” (p.98) He questions whether the

students’ test performance indicates intelligence and superior achievement or does it reflect

student testing performance in a familiar culture and language? (p.98)

Hilliard further questions selection of the components of assessments. These

include basic word lists, word difficulty, vocabulary, and comprehension. He charges that the

context in which certain items are selected above others is “ambiguous” and “arbitrary.” (p.100)

He asks questions such as; “is there more than one list of basic words? If so, what are the criteria

for selecting the words? Are they words that most Americans should know? “Is one list better

than another?” “Is a child smarter because he or she knows one list but not another? In short, the

meaning of basic word list is ambiguous, with fatal results for standardized testing. To treat a

single basic word list as universally valid is absurd.” (p.99) Hilliard uses this same logic for

word difficulty, comprehension, and beginning and ending word sounds. He charges the test

designers with “rampant, unbridled ethnocentrism among the designers of standardized tests and

assessment procedures for use with populations of diverse culture groups.” (p.100) Hilliard

explains that the rectification of the inequities of these assessments is especially critical. (p100)

As stated previously, these assessments determine which ability group a child is placed in as well

as whether a child has a disability and needs special education. These assessments should be

considered very carefully before essentially determining a child’s trajectory.

13

Furthermore, Wheeler and Swords (2004) explain that “beyond linguistic structure,

cultural conflict lies at the heart of why schools fail African Americans.”(p. 472) School and

home culture are opposing each other when teachers do not respect and value the students’

culture. Children do not feel connected with and valued in a school classroom or system that

devalues their culture and family. This impacts the child’s motivation to learn. (Tileston &

Darling, 2009)

Additional Cultural Considerations

Tileston and Darling examine other effects of culture on student learning. As stated

before, our educational system is very effective in educating white, middle class students.

However, minority students in poverty are underserved. One of the reasons is that the learners’

culture is not considered when developing and implementing educational strategies. It is culture

that determines “what is valued in education … what is motivating to the learner… and the

conditions under which the learner best acquires information.” (Tileston & Darling, 2009, p. 12)

There are two main ways in which teachers are not considering culture in their educational

practices.

First, teachers should consider that the differences in cultural backgrounds. The majority

of the world’s population is part of a collectivist culture. Importance is placed on social

relationships. Moreover, relationship must be established before learning can occur. This goes

counter to the white, middle class mind-set of some teachers. They want to cover material for

high stakes testing first, which is understandable. However, teachers need to establish

relationship and rapport first. In addition, students in a collectivist culture learn in relation to

their family relationships. Their success is determined by how well they perform as part of the

14

family or group. Likewise, the student will answer questions from the teacher in the context of

their family. For example, the teacher may ask the child what food groups his/her breakfast came

from. The student will answer in regards to their family relationship first then the content of the

question. The student may talk about cooking breakfast with his/her mother first then identify

which food group the items came from. The teacher who is not aware of collectivist culture may

judge the answer as incorrect and move on to another student. This misconception results in

lower teacher expectations for the student and less student educational opportunity. (Tileston &

Darling, 2009)

The second way that the inequity of education occurs is when the teacher does not

include diverse culture when planning the classroom. The teacher should include books and

music that reflect the students’ culture. Lessons should also involve the student’s culture. This

provides the students with a point of reference to learn. Children learn in context of their

environment Therefore, educational inequity occurs when classrooms are not culturally relevant.

(Tileston & Darling, 2009)

Conclusion:

In conclusion, current educational practices for minority students in poverty are

inequitable and lead to misplacement in special education. One of the main reasons is negative

teacher attitudes and misconceptions toward the students’ culture. The attitudes and

misconceptions result in lower teacher expectations. This, in turn, leads to placing the students in

lower ability groups or in special education. The main disability categories that teachers refer

students to are mild/moderate intellectual disabilities, behavior, emotional disabilities and

15

learning disabilities. Another important area of the students’ culture that results in inequity is

language. Students who use anything other than Standard English are judged as less intelligent.

Again, teacher responses to these students result in lower teacher expectations and decreased

educational opportunities. These misconceptions are perpetuated through teacher in service

programs such as Ruby Payne’s, aha! The inequity of education is a relevant issue given the

increase in the numbers of students in low income and poverty. This is a population that has not

been given access to the same educational opportunities as white, middle class students. This is

an issue that needs to be rectified. Inequity in poverty is not only ethically wrong but has

economic implications. An uneducated populace results in an insufficient work force that are not

qualified to fill higher level employment positions. (Suitts, 2007) Finally, resolution of the

inequity of education for minority students in poverty is an economic, moral, ethical, and

educational issue related to addressing entrenched racial and cultural bias in our educational

system. Interventions and reforms are crucial to providing an equitable education to all students.

“What will be the result be if the majority of our children are not able to get a job with earnings

they can live on?” “What will the political and social ramifications be?” If the trend of the

growing educational and economic gap between classes continues, what will the political and

social implications be?

16

References

Abu El-Haj, Tr, & Rubin, TC (2009). Realizing the equity-minded aspirations of detracking and

inclusion: Toward a capacity-oriented framework for teacher education. Curriculum

Inquiry, 39, 435-463.

Bomer, R., Dworin, J., May, L., & Semingson, P. (2008, December). Miseducating teachers

about the Poor: A Critical Analysis of Ruby Payne's Claims about Poverty. Retrieved

April 21, 2012, from http://www.trecord.org ID number 14591

Christensen, L. (2008). Putting Out the Linguistic Welcome Mat: Honoring students' home

language builds and inclusive classroom. Rethinking Schools, 23(1), 19-23.

Delpit, L. (2002, 2008). Preface. In L. Delpit ,J.K. Dowdy (Ed.), The Skin that We Speak (2 ed.,

Rev., p. ). New York, NY: The New Press.

Dunn, L.M. (1968). Special Education for the mildly mentally retarded-Is Much of it justifiable?

Exceptional Children, 35, 5-32.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Why Are So Many Minority Students in Special Education?

New York, NY: Teacher's College Press, Columbia University.

Hillard, Asa (2002, 2008). Language, Culture, and the Assessment of American Children. In L.

Delpit , J.K. Dowdy (Ed.), The Skin That We Speak (2 ed., Rev., pp. 91-92). New York,

NY: New Press.

Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: the restoration of apartheid schooling in America.

New York, NY: Crown.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding

Achievement in US Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.

17

Ng, J., & Rury, J. (2006, July 18). Poverty and Education: A Critical Analysis of the Ruby Payne

Phenomenon. Retrieved April 21, 2012, from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?

contentid=12596

O'Connor, C., & Fernandez, S. (2006). Race,Class,and Disproportionality; Reevaluating the

Relationship Between Poverty and Special Education Placement. Educational

Researcher, 35(6), 6-11.

Payne, R. (2005). A Framework for Understanding Poverty (4 ed., Rev.). Highlands, TX: aha!

Process,Inc.

Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequity: How poor and minority students are

shortchanged on teacher quality.. Washington DC: Education Trust.

Rank, M. R. (2005). One Nation, Underprivileged: Why American Poverty Affects Us All. p 110.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sherman, Arloc (1994). Wasting America's Future: The Children's Defense Fund Report on the

Costs of Child Poverty. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C.

(2008). Achieving Equity in Special Education:History,Status,and Current Challenges.

Council for Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.

Suitts, S. (2007). A New Majority. Southern Education Foundation Research Report, , 1-17.

Swasey, B. (2012, April 23). Retrieved April 23, 2012, from

http://www.wbur.org/2012/04/23/special-education-study

Tileston, D., & Darling, S. (2009). Closing the Poverty and Culture Gap. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin, A SAGE Publisher.

18

Wheeler, R. S., & Swords, R. (2004). Codeswitching: Tools of Language and Culture Transform

the Dialectally Diverse Classroom. Language Arts, 81(6), 470-480.

Zeichner, K. (2003). Pedagogy, Knowledge, and Teacher Preparation. In B. Williams (Ed.),

Closing the Achievement Gap; A Vision for Changing Beliefs and Practices (2 ed., pp.

99-114). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

19

REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF THE FINAL RESEARCH PAPER FOR EDFN 749

BROWN, SPRING 2012

Your final research paper for EDFN 749 must include the following components:

xxx Title & name: The Inequity of Poverty in Education Natalie KnottNHK

Statement of purpose or primary question guiding your paperNHK

The guiding question of my paper is the reasons for the over representation of minority students in poverty who are placed in special education. What is the link between SES and student achievement? How does culture influence learning? Are our educational practices biased toward children of other cultures? The purpose of my paper is to examine how teacher bias and cultural differences between the school and diverse students result in the inequity of education for minority students who live in poverty.

Explicit statement about the way your topic connects with one or more of the NHK course’s core uniting themes of opportunity,equity,and equality.

My paper examines the educational inequities for minority students in poverty. These students are not provided with equal educational opportunities due to the practice of tracking and bias toward any language other than Standard English. The reason that I propose in my paper is the longstanding racial and social bias of our educational system.

Paper must be at least 15 pages (this includes your reference sheet). Use Times New NHK Roman font, size 12, and number all pages.

Thoughtful reference to at least two class-related articles, chapters NHK or books.

. 1. Abu El-Haj, Tr, & Rubin, TC (2009). Realizing the equity-minded aspirations of

detracking and inclusion: Toward a capacity-oriented framework for teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 39, 435-463.

20

2. Christensen, L. (2008). Putting Out the Linguistic Welcome Mat: Honoring students' home language builds and inclusive classroom. Rethinking Schools, 23(1), 19-23.

3. O'Connor, C., & Fernandez, S. (2006). Race,Class,and Disproportionality; Reevaluating the Relationship Between Poverty and Special Education Placement. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 6-11.

4. Suitts, S. (2007). A New Majority. Southern Education Foundation Research Report, 1-17

Thoughtful reference to at least five sources (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, books, chapters and/or films) not included in the common class reader. Please note that at least one of these articles must be from the top peer-reviewed journals in education—Teachers College Record, Educational Researcher—or one of the top journals in your subject area. Please include the name of this journal here _____________, if you opt for this possibility.

1. Bomer, R., Dworin, J., May, L., & Semingson, P. (2008, December). Miseducating teachers about the Poor: A Critical Analysis of Ruby Payne's Claims about Poverty. Retrieved April 21, 2012, from http://www.trecord.org ID number 14591

2. Ng, J., & Rury, J. (2006, July 18). Poverty and Education: A Critical Analysis of the Ruby Payne Phenomenon. Retrieved April 21, 2012, from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=12596

3. O'Connor, C., & Fernandez, S. (2006). Race, Class, and Disproportionality; Reevaluating the Relationship Between Poverty and Special Education Placement. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 6-11.

4. Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. (2008). Achieving Equity in Special Education:History,Status,and Current Challenges. Council for Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.

5. Tileston, D., & Darling, S. (2009). Closing the Poverty and Culture Gap. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, A SAGE Publisher.

Correct style for in-text citation (for all quotes)

NHK My favorite site for a quick guide to APA style is Purdue University’s OWL site (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/1/). Please consult the orange

21

menu on the left of the site for details.

Final reference sheet with correct styleNHK

Again, the OWL site is your best go-to site for correct formatting of your reference sheet. Here’s the link to the final reference guidelines— http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/05/

Submit paper in word (non-pdf) format on Safe Assignment or to Dr. Brown’s e-mail NHK (I will submit any papers sent to my e-mail directly to Safe Assignment)

This completed checklist must be submitted along with your final paper.NHK

Paper due by 11:59pm on Sunday, April 29 th . No flex days may be used for the final paper.

22