23
A brief overview

Teaching students who live in poverty

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

This presentation contains a brief overview of the definition and theories underlying poverty in the U.S. as well as methods for teaching students who live in poverty.

Citation preview

Page 1: Teaching students who live in poverty

A brief overview

Page 2: Teaching students who live in poverty

• What is your definition of poverty in the U.S.?

• Basic Necessity Perspective: Lack of food, clothing, shelter, and medical care

• Cultural Perspective: Lack of access to quality education, enriching experiences, a healthy lifestyle (nutritious food, exercise, preventive medical care), a safe environment, fundamental life skills, effective socialization for achievement

Page 3: Teaching students who live in poverty

Poverty Threshold•Created in 1963 by Mollie Orshansky of the Dept. of Agriculture and was based on the cost of a modest diet (Bradshaw, 2007, p.9)•Does not vary geographically•Is adjusted for cost of living•Family of 4 with two kids under the age of 18= $21,756(U.S. Census Bureau, 2010)

Page 4: Teaching students who live in poverty
Page 5: Teaching students who live in poverty

“With no cushion of money, no training in the ways of the wider world, and too little defense against the threats and temptations of decaying communities, a poor man or woman gets sacked again and again-buffeted and bruised and defeated. When the exception breaks this cycle of failure, it is called the fulfillment of the American Dream.” -David K. Shipler

The Working Poor: Invisible in America

Page 6: Teaching students who live in poverty
Page 7: Teaching students who live in poverty

• Irresponsible and unstable individuals make poor life choices • Certain groups (women, minorities,disabled) are incapable of succeedingIn large numbers• Puritan work ethic and America’s value of

individualism

(Bradshaw, 2007, p. 13)

Page 8: Teaching students who live in poverty

• A culture of poverty entraps generation after generation because the values and beliefs embraced by that culture are antithetical to achievement and success.

• This type of culture can be viewed as “opportunistic” and “non-productive” (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 15)

• Two approaches to reverse the effects of this subculture: change the culture or utilize the strengths of the culture

Page 9: Teaching students who live in poverty

“Theorists in this tradition look not to the individual as a source of poverty but to the economic, political, and social system that causes people to have limited opportunities and resources with which to achieve income and well-being” (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 16).

•Failure of minimum wage to keep up with cost-of-living•Inadequately performing schools are ill-prepared to prepare students to reach or achieve in a higher education setting•Influence of money in the political sphere and the reticence of the poor to become politically involved •Discrimination against certain groups makes opportunities in the wider society less accessible.

Page 10: Teaching students who live in poverty

“…people, institutions, and cultures in certain geographic areas lack the objective resources needed to generate well-being and income…” (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 18).

•Was largely rural and urban before the most recent economic downturn which has affected the suburbs (The Economist, 2010)•Appropriation of the economic agglomeration theory (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 18)•Disinvestment (communities where businesses have left; ghost towns)•Proximity to natural resources •Lack of innovation (absence of successful thinkers and inventors)(Bradshaw, 2007, p. 18)

Page 11: Teaching students who live in poverty

“…builds on components of each of the other theories in that it looks at the individual and their community as caught in a spiral of opportunity and problems, and that once problems dominate they close other opportunities and create a cumulative set of problems that make any effective response nearly impossible” (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 19).Community Level•A major employer shuts down or leaves a community•Business is slow at retail shops which also close or leave•Tax-revenue declines•Schools are not properly funded•Students are not being adequately educated•Industries can’t don’t operate in that community because there is a lack of qualified workers

Individual Level•Lack of spending and saving•Lack of investment in education or training•Health issues due to poor diet, stress, and lack of access to preventive health care•Erosion of self-confidence and motivation  

Page 12: Teaching students who live in poverty

•Recognizes the interdependence of factors •Looks for an approach that works to mitigate poverty on multiple fronts•Seeks to foster the growth of self-sufficiency•Identifies the strengths of an impoverished community or population and works to build on those qualities. Bradshaw calls this asset-mapping (2007, p. 21).•Uses rooted community resources

Community Development Programs1. Comprehensive- “…include a variety of services that try to bridge individual and community needs” (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 22). 2. Collaboration- “…involves networks among participants, though the coordination can vary from formal to informal” (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 22).3. Community Organizing- “… a tool by which local people can participate to understand how their personal lives and the community well-being are intertwined” (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 22).

Page 13: Teaching students who live in poverty

• “FII families set and act on their own goals. Instead of providing services or direction, we create space for families to seek out the support or knowledge they want.

• FII’s staff is not allowed to lead or direct the families, thus the families feel ownership over the progress they make and the actions they take.

• Families must work together. This country has a long history of people working together to move their whole community up from poverty.

• FII focuses progress. Most other supports for low-income people focus on needs and deficits. FII identifies families’ strengths and then encourages, validates, and rewards their progress and accomplishments. “ –Family Independence Initiative

Page 14: Teaching students who live in poverty
Page 15: Teaching students who live in poverty

• Low birth weight• Physical developmental

delays (stunted growth)• Lead poisoning • Learning disabilities• Increased emotional and

behavioral problems• Decreased sense of self

worth• Poor peer relationships• Lack of shared, common

experiences (Cuthrell, Stapelton, Ledford, 2010, p. 105)

Page 16: Teaching students who live in poverty

• Teachers view themselves as being in charge of the classroom and of their students’ learning (Rogalsky, 2009).

• Students have little autonomy and are not trusted to think for themselves (Rogalsky, 2009).

• Students lack motivation and look to others to motivate them to learn (Rogalsky, 2009).

• Classrooms are student-centered and can also be student-led

• Students decide what topics they would like to delve into and map out their own plan for learning

• Teachers have high expectations for students and develop or encourage their innate curiosity

Page 17: Teaching students who live in poverty

• High Expectations• Culture of Academic Achievement• Constant Assessment• Collaboration• Creative Scheduling• Allocating money resourcefully and effectively • Positive Classroom Environment• Learn the hidden rules of the student’s culture

and teach the hidden rules of the school’s culture(Cuthrell, Stapleton, and Ledford, 2010, p.106).

Page 18: Teaching students who live in poverty

• asset-mapping • positive feedback• building relationships with students, parents, and

the community • maintaining high expectations • learn names quickly• establish positive relationships among students

(team building exercises)

(Cuthrell, Stapleton, and Ledford, 2010, p.106).

Page 19: Teaching students who live in poverty

• “(a) parents as the primary resource in education of

their children• (b) parents and community members as

supportersand advocates for the education of their children,• (c) parents and community members as

participants inthe education of all children” (Cuthrell, Stapleton, and Ledford, 2010, p.107).

Page 20: Teaching students who live in poverty

“Classrooms should be high in challenge and low in terms of threat. Activities and lessons that are neither appropriate nor meaningful can be highly threatening to a child” (Cuthrell, Stapleton, and Ledford, 2010, p.107).•Traditionally concentrates on language learning and is differentiated instruction designed for ELL learners•Emphasis on experiential learning and language skills is helpful for all students (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2010; Gibson, 2010). For more information visit: http://www.cal.org/siop/about/index.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907121.html?referrer=emailarticle

Page 21: Teaching students who live in poverty

• 2001-2007 study included 858 elementary school students. Approx. 50% went to schools with a 20% or less free and reduced lunch and approx. 50% went to schools with up to 60% free and reduced lunch (McCrummen, S., & Birnbaum, M., 2010).

• Montgomery County divides schools into green and red zones based on the number of students who live in poverty. Red zone schools receive an additional $2,000/per student (McCrummen, S., & Birnbaum, M., 2010).

• “After seven years, the children in the lower-poverty schools performed 8 percentage points higher on standardized math tests than their peers attending the higher-poverty schools” (McCrummen, S., & Birnbaum, M., 2010).

• Effective zoning translates into economically heterogeneous schools• More effective in wealthy environments where there are less

students living in poverty than middle-class students.

Page 22: Teaching students who live in poverty

• Do you have any additional information about how teachers can reach students who live in poverty or live on the cusp?

Page 23: Teaching students who live in poverty

•Bradshaw, T. (2007). Theories of poverty and anti-poverty programs in community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 38, No. 1 Retrieved from <Ahref="http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=25312011&site=ehost-live">Theories of Poverty and Anti-Poverty Programs in Community Development.</A>•Center for Applied Linguistics. (2010). Helping educators work effectively with english language learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/siop/about/index.html•Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J., Ledford, C. (2010). Examining the culture of poverty: Promising practices. Preventing School Failure. 54. 104-110. Retrieved at <A href="http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=44867909&site=ehost-live">Examining the Culture of Poverty: Promising Practices.</A>•Gibson, C. (2010, Oct. 21). At sugarland elementary, language lessons are key to all learning. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907121.html?referrer=emailarticl•McCrummen, S., & Birnbaum, M. (2010, October 15). Study of montgomery county schools shows benefits of economic integration. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407577.html?wprss=rss_metro/mde•Rogalsky, J. (2009). Mythbusters: dispelling the culture of poverty myth in the urban classroom. Journal of Geography. 108. 198-209 Retrieved from <Ahref="http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=46838045&site=ehost-live">“Mythbusters”: Dispelling the Culture of Poverty Myth in the Urban Classroom.</A>•Shipler, D. (2004). The working poor. Alfred A. Knopf: New York. •U.S. Census Bureau. (2010) Income, poverty and health insurance in the United States: 2009 tables and figures. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/tables.html