The Core Issue: Poverty

The recent frenzy around increasing standardized tests, demonizing teacher unions, and promoting business practices like merit pay completely ignores the core issue of poverty and how it impacts our children.  The frenzy itself is largely a response to poor overall U.S. performance on international tests like the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study and the Trends in International Math and Science Study.  A closer look at these tests reveals that one does not have to take the overall performance at face value.  The PIRLS and TIMSS both disaggregate data according to the poverty rate in each school.  According to the scores, U.S. students in areas of low poverty rank at the top.  Not surprisingly, U.S. students in areas of high poverty rank at the bottom. Journalist Joanne Barkan broke it down this way: “students in U.S. schools where the poverty rate was less than 10 percent ranked first in reading, first in science, and third in math. When the poverty rate was 10 percent to 25 percent, U.S. students still ranked first in reading and science. But as the poverty rate rose still higher, students ranked lower and lower. Twenty percent of all U.S. schools have poverty rates over 75 percent. The average ranking of American students reflects this. The problem is not public schools; it is poverty.” 

Stephen Krashen summarizes the research on the impact of poverty with regard to education in his article “Children need food, health care, and books. Not new standards and tests.”  He describes the negative influence of prolonged hunger on language development; the realities of low access to medical care; the effects of increased exposure to toxins and pollutants on health and behavior; and lack of books and other reading material.  Full service models of education like the Harlem Children’s Zone and Neighborhood House Charter School are a step in the right direction.  These schools house many social and community services like healthcare, dental care, and even parent training programs.  Unfortunately, these models rely on many private sources of funding and it is currently unclear how they could be scaled to reach a greater number of children.

Teachers are not, nor should they be, Superman.  We cannot solve these problems on our own and should not be blamed when we fail in our attempts to do so.  How exactly do we expect children to focus and be enthusiastic about learning when they arrive at school hungry, sleep deprived, and without having ever been to a doctor or dentist?  How exactly do we believe students who regularly bury their friends and neighbors from violence on their streets will automatically trust teachers and be inspired to learn new things?  How exactly does increased testing provide an accurate measure of student or teacher performance in classrooms where student turnover is so high due to homelessness that a teacher might end the school year with only a small portion of her original group?  Any one of these problems on their own could be a significant barrier to effective teaching and learning.  The combined impact of these issues makes cultivating healthy, positive, and confident students like “growing roses in the concrete” (Duncan-Andrade*, 2009).  It can be done, but it requires a significant amount of hope.  I want more than just hope for our students in poverty.  I want food, healthcare, and books.

* Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade is both an associate professor at San Francisco State University and an Oakland high school teacher.  He explored the impact of poverty on our students eloquently and viscerally in his 2009 speech “Note to Educators:  Hope Required When Growing Roses in Concrete”.  I highly recommend anyone with a strong interest to watch the complete video of his speech here.