Ruby Payne’s A Framework for Understanding Poverty

Terrific? Trendy? or

Tragic?

Background Info A Framework for Understanding Poverty is……

• “a cognitive study that looks at the thinking or mindsets created by environments.  It is a naturalistic inquiry based upon a convenience sample. The inquiry occurred from being involved for 32 years with a neighborhood in generational poverty.  This neighborhood comprised 50-70 people......mostly white.  From that, an in-depth disciplinary analysis of the research was undertaken to explain the behaviors. It does not qualify as ‘research’ against university standards because it does not have a clean methodology.” (http://preview.ahaprocess.com/files/RnD_School/ResearchBase_Explanation_Framework.pdf)

Consider Payne’s own background, since we are all aware that ones

own culture, values, and morals shape our opinions and belief system

• Unsuccessful finding info on her own upbringing or background.

• Married a man who lived in situational poverty. This, according to an expert on poverty is her “only claim to fame”. (Gorski, 2011)

Love it or Hate it

• Sold over a million copies.

• Lectures, motivational speaking.

• Written numerous books on the topic.

• Own publishing company ahaprocess, inc.

• Impressive and admirable undertaking.

Welcome to the Dark Side

• Payne has quite a few scholars who dispute almost every claim she makes.

• Has been called Racist.• Has been accused of Classism.• Research is unfounded.• Methodology is questionable, at best.• Her expertise in the field is nonexistent. • Book is an opinion piece, not a study of

documented research.

Sampling

• The work is based upon a sampling of 50-70 Caucasian people….in the same neighborhood….

• This is hardly an adequate representation of POVERTY.

My findings

• Poverty is quite a complex and multifaceted issue. 

• Why set out to prepare a framework for understanding a phenomenon such as POVERTY if no clean methodology is being used? 

• Speaks often of the “culture of poverty”. There IS NO culture of poverty. In fact, this notion has been dismissed by intellectuals since the 1960’s.

• Tends to prejudge certain ethnic groups. Racist• Again, proceed with caution.

Ignores the facts……..

• admirably points out that wealthy students she taught had no more native intelligence than the poor. However, she neglects to include information and documented research to support the fact that students living in poverty tend to go to schools that are sub par, and often have teachers who are NOT qualified to teach the subjects that they teach.

• Many conclusions seem to be merely Payne's opinion of the 50-70 families she refers to as her research. For example, she states that  The poor simply see jail as a part of life and not  necessarily always bad.

• Quite the blanket statement, and again, where is the documentation?

Assumptions

• One of the hidden rules of poverty is that any extra money is shared.

•  Does this statement come from surveys that Payne had given?

• Statistical research? One can not tell. 

Moses and the Israelites….Payne and Assimilation

• Payne’s view is that in order for poor students to succeed they must learn the norms and “hidden rules” of the middle class, AND give up relationships for achievement. (pg 11)

• Why is it important to Ruby Payne for students to assimilate into middle class culture and give up relationships? A. She provides no research to support that giving up relationships is effective. In fact, she believes that support systems are paramount to poverty stricken students. Why does she ask them to give up their current support systems? B. It sounds more of an opinion than intellectual discourse on understanding poverty and developing techniques to educate the poor.

• Her ideas on leading poor students in an “exodus” out of poverty and into the middle class rules are not only contradictory, but are offensive.

Meet Dr. Paul Gorski• Founded Edchange-team of professionals dedicated to develop resources

that promote progressive change in schools and communities. • Holds doctorate in Educational Evaluation from University of Virginia. • Wrote 14 page essay in opposition of Payne’s work in 2005. • Spoke directly with Dr. Gorski via email on his opinion about the problems

with Payne’s book. (more on this later)• Areas of specialty include:

• Poverty, class, and anti-poverty education and activism • The connection between self-transformation and institutional transformation • School and community reform for the elimination of racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other

inequities • The digital divide and educational technology • Multicultural curriculum transformation • Leadership development and the training of trainers for equity and diversity in education

Dr. Gorski’s Email

• From:gorski <gorski@edchange.org>To:teach9798 <teach9798@aol.com>Subject:Re: Ruby PayneDate:Mon, Nov 7, 2011 4:59 pm

• Hi Laura, Thanks for writing. I think by calling what Payne did a "study" you're giving her too much credit. She wasn't collecting data. If she did a "study" you should be able to email her and request her data, even if they're qualitative. She didn't do a study. She wrote, she suggests, based on a "case study" she never actually did. All she did was marry a man who had a low-income family, then reflect back on that experience. I think we do a disservice to people who are actually doing studies on poverty to call what she did a "study." The three biggest problems with her work in my view:. (1) She starts with a hypthesis or model, the "culture of poverty," that was debunked in the social sciences by the late 1960s. There is no evidence that a "culture" or "mindset" of poverty exists, and anybody who has tried to find such a culture or mindset in any organized way has failed to do so. There is nothing we can assume about anybody based on a single dimension of her or his identity, and that's what Payne does through her book(2) She has a lot of blatant inaccuracies throughout her book. She suggests that poor people don't value education, but there is no research that supports that claim. She suggests in her case studies about poor families that poor families tend to abuse drugs and alcohol, but wealthy people are more likely than poor peole to do so. Her whole discussion of language registers is completely counter to what linguists have been saying since the 1960s about language. In other words, her book is just plain inaccurate. (3) She fails to put any of her observations in a larger context of economic injustice and inequality, so that her work contributes to deficit ideologies. I struggle to understand how a framework for "understanding poverty" can omit the causes of poverty, a discussion of who profits from poverty, an exploration of how people in poverty are denied basic rights, or even a mention of how poor people are sent, on average, to vastly different kinds of schools than their wealthy peers. You can find a couple other things I've written more recently about Payne, summarizing the critiques, here: http://www.edchange.org/publications.html Best of luck! Paul

Gorski’s First Criticism

• (1) She starts with a hypthesis or model, the "culture of poverty," that was debunked in the social sciences by the late 1960s. There is no evidence that a "culture" or "mindset" of poverty exists, and anybody who has tried to find such a culture or mindset in any organized way has failed to do so. There is nothing we can assume about anybody based on a single dimension of her or his identity, and that's what Payne does through her book

Gorski’s 2nd Criticism

• (2) She has a lot of blatant inaccuracies throughout her book. She suggests that poor people don't value education, but there is no research that supports that claim. She suggests in her case studies about poor families that poor families tend to abuse drugs and alcohol, but wealthy people are more likely than poor peole to do so. Her whole discussion of language registers is completely counter to what linguists have been saying since the 1960s about language. In other words, her book is just plain inaccurate.

Gorski’s 3rd and final criticism

• (3) She fails to put any of her observations in a larger context of economic injustice and inequality, so that her work contributes to deficit ideologies. I struggle to understand how a framework for "understanding poverty" can omit the causes of poverty, a discussion of who profits from poverty, an exploration of how people in poverty are denied basic rights, or even a mention of how poor people are sent, on average, to vastly different kinds of schools than their wealthy peers.

• Because Gorski’s holds a doctorate from UVA in Educational Evaluation, AND one of his areas of expertise is Poverty, class, and anti-poverty education and activism, AND he instructs classes on class and poverty, AND he has written over 35 articles in well respected publications, I am inclined to consider him more of an expert on poverty than Payne.