The Poverty Factor

Throughout my blog, I've discussed the importance of equal access to education - a value that isn't unique to just me. I believe wholeheartedly that if every student in the United States is enrolled in a high-performing school (whether it is public, charter, or private), then we will be able to close the achievement gap. However, there is a catch. For every school to be high-performing, this means that all of the students enrolled in that school are performing on an equal level - and this isn't the case today.

Take East High School, for example. East is categorized as a blue school by its Median Growth Percentile (MGP), meaning that it is "high-performing," as reflected by its high standardized test scores. MGP is a district-wide practice used to evaluate DPS schools; it measures student growth over time, comparing students who start at similar levels of performance in an effort to maintain fairness. Overall, East performs highly on its MGP. But when we break down its performance by race and socioeconomic status, we see an appalling amount of inequity. According to Alyssa Whitehead-Bust, Chief Academic and Innovations Officer at DPS, white, middle-to-upper-class students account for almost all of East's MGP success. When it comes to students of color, lower-class, and other marginalized groups, East fails to perform. As long as it continues to fall in the "blue" area overall, however, East has no stipulations to change its practices.

This is just a complicated way of saying that the "achievement gap" is very real, very pressing, and not properly addressed by DPS. While MGP does evaluate schools in a "fair and transparent manner" (Whitehead-Bust, 2014), something that is extremely difficult to do, it does not reach to a deep enough level.

In her book Reign of Error (2013), Diane Ravitch devotes a chapter to understanding the role that poverty plays in education. Teacher effectiveness, she claims, is not the solution to closing the achievement gap, as many reformers believe. Many schools have a "no excuses" policy when it comes to student growth: they "assert that every child, no matter how poor she is, no matter what her home circumstances, can succeed" (Ravitch, 2013, p. 92). However, Ravitch refutes this claim. She asserts that "poverty affects [students'] motivation and their ability to concentrate on anything other than day-to-day survival" (Ravitch, 2013, p. 94). She goes on to list, page after page, student resources that poverty diminishes: prenatal care, leading to more learning disorders; medical care; nutrition; sound housing; neighborhood safety; extra-curricular experiences; family dynamics; diagnosis of hearing and vision problems--the list goes on. Overall, her point is clear: no matter how good the teacher is, students will never be on a level playing field until poverty is addressed.

Dr. Donna Beegle, who trains professionals and students in a workshop called "Poverty 101," comes to a similar conclusion as Ravitch. She teaches methods of supporting children living in poverty across the country, suggesting tools to understand and support students coming from impoverished backgrounds. Although Beegle teaches that, with certain techniques and approaches, children living in poverty can benefit tremendously from education, she still asserts that addressing the issue of poverty is the first step in which to give children equal access to education.

It's hard to disagree with Ravitch and Beegle - poverty is one of the biggest issues facing the United States today. According to Ravitch, who cites UNICEF, 23% of children in the U.S. are currently living in poverty (Ravitch, 2013, p. 94). But what is the role of schools in all of this? While teacher effectiveness does not address poverty, it is the largest variant factor within schools themselves - other important factors reside within the home and family (Ravitch, 2013). So, the question remains: what is the boundary for school responsibility, and where do other responsible parties come into play? Originally, schools were expected to provide students with academics, no more and no less. Today, however, they play a much larger role in student development.

We know that poverty is an imperative issue that needs to be addressed, and there are institutions within the nation whose sole responsibility is to address it. But in the meantime, what does this mean for schools? What is, and isn't, their responsibility? And should the issues of education and poverty, topics which are extremely interrelated, really lie in the hands of different institutions?

Percent of DPS students who qualified for free and reduced lunch prices from 2003-2013. In the 2013-2014 school year, 71.7% of DPS students qualified for free and reduced lunch. Chart taken from DPS fact sheet published by the City of Denver.

Literature Cited:

Colorado Department of Education. (2014). Pupil Membership for 2013-District Data; Pupil Membership by District and Grade Level. Retrieved January 2014, from Colorado Department of Education: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/pupilcurrentdistrict.

Ravitch, Diane. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools. NYC: Vintage Books.