| SEARCH OnWEAC |
|---|
The correlation between a family’s socio-economic condition and children’s success in school, as measured by scores on standardized achievement tests, grades given by teachers, graduation rates, and the like, is well documented. This does not mean that poor children are incapable of achieving in school. In fact, it is erroneous to maintain that schools can do little or nothing to compensate for the factors that lead to low levels of achievement. However, it does remind us that low family income, along with the variety of negative factors associated with poverty, has profound and significant effects on how well students do in school, and it calls for ways that schools can address this issue.
Research Findings
Gallagher (1998) states that as we focus on developing standards and raising expectations, we need to face the “. . . unpleasant reality that education, by itself, is a weak treatment.” He further notes that “It is clear that there are variables within the family, within the culture, and within the physical environment, plus limitations within the genetic makeup of the individual, which will have a greater influence on student achievement than our ‘improved educational program’ for that student.”
In an analysis of the impact of family structure on student achievement done in 1994, the Rand Corporation reported that parents’ level of education was the most important factor affecting student achievement. Thus, students with parents who were both college-educated tended to achieve at the highest levels (Grissmer, et al., 1994).
This study found that income, family size, and the mother’s age when the child was born were modestly related to achievement. Interestingly, single-parent status was by itself not significantly related to achievement levels. The authors of the study suggest that the performance gap that exists between one- and two-parent families is a result of other factors, including family income, family size, and/or the parents’ education levels.
|
Many others have reported the effect of poverty on student success in school, including the following:
|
Relationship Between Poverty and Student Achievement Is Not Direct
The relationship that exists between poverty and student achievement is not simple and direct. A 1996 study by the U.S. Department of Education (Location, Poverty and Schools) concluded that poverty is an important factor in accounting for differences in achievement across urban, rural, and suburban school districts (e.g., the higher the levels of poverty, the lower the levels of achievement). However, this study concludes that poverty alone does not account for all the differences among urban, rural, and suburban schools.
For example:
Lack of Social Capital Among Poor Children
Many (see Maeroff, 1998) discuss the effects of poverty within the context of social capital. These authors remind us that poor children often are lacking in four types of social capital:
Importance of Connectedness
Maeroff also talks about the importance of connectedness, which many poor, urban children lack.
Connectedness is part of the support system that most students need to succeed in education. Of all the riches denied to disadvantaged children, perhaps the most important is a network that would allow them to thrive in school and give them a sense of belonging. The lack of this support, and of the norms and values that underpin it, places their education at risk from the day they walk into a classroom. More than that, their minds and hearts are not filled with the hopes, dreams, and aspirations from which to fashion academic success. They know neither what they are missing nor where to get it, an affliction apt to continue throughout the duration of their schooling. They have been denied the experiences that form the foundation on which formal education is constructed. They have not become parts of the networks that add to the intellectual enrichment of even small children (Maeroff, 1998, p. 418).
Benefits of Smaller Classes and Smaller Schools for Poor, Urban Children
Smaller classes and smaller schools can have a positive effect on student achievement because they address the serious social and economic problems which define so much of urban education. Smaller classes and smaller schools provide environments in which the elements of personal success, a student’s social capital, are given the opportunity to grow and flourish. In such environments, students are less likely to remain isolated and anonymous. See the papers on Reduced Class Sizes and The Benefits of Smaller Schools for additional information.
Data on Poverty
The remainder of this paper provides selective data on poverty and related measures of child distress. Official figures on U. S. poverty come from two sources: the decennial census, which collects information every ten years, and an annual population survey. The data that follow are based on these sources.
|
||||||||||||||||
Nine counties in Wisconsin contain at least one “severely distressed” census tract, defined as having at least four of the following five characteristics in 1990: More than 27.5 percent of individuals had incomes below the poverty line; more than 39.6 percent of families with children were “female-headed;” more than 23.3 percent of persons aged 16-19 were high school dropouts; more than 46.5 percent of out-of-school males aged 16 to 65 worked less than 26 weeks in the previous year; and more than 17.0 percent of families received public assistance income (p. 7).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
—WEAC Division for Instruction and Professional Development
Conclusion
In 1998, the U.S. Department of Education released another report reminding us that there is a significant gap in student achievement between high and low poverty schools (See School Poverty and Academic Performance: NAEP Achievement in High-Poverty Schools at www.ed.gov.). In general, students do less well if they attend schools where the majority of students are poor. This pattern has existed from the time students were first tested.
Students from poor families are less likely to succeed in school for a variety of reasons: there are fewer resources at home (often because the parents themselves were not particularly successful in school); many adults have lower expectations for these children; students often feel alienated from the school and community; and most students lack adult role models who were good students.
The relationship between poverty and student achievement should not be perceived as an excuse or justification for the poor performance of many students on achievement tests and other measures of school success. But, it should remind us that to ignore poverty in any discussion of improving student learning is disingenuous, and it does nothing to improve learning.
Sources
Five Million Children: A Statistical Profile of Our Poorest Young Citizens. New York, New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University, 1990.
James J. Gallagher. “Education, Alone, Is a Weak Treatment.” Education Week (July 8, 1998). Available at the following Internet address: www.edweek.org/
Grissmer, David W. et al. Student Achievement and the Changing American Family. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1994.
Location, Poverty and Schools. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1996. Available at the following internet address: www.ed.gov/PressReleases/08-1996/urbansch.html.
Maeroff, Gene I. “Altered Destinies: Making Life Better for Children in Need.” Phi Delta Kappan (February 1998); 424-32.
Orland, Martin E. “Demographics of Disadvantage: Intensity of Childhood Poverty and Its Relationship to Educational Achievement.” In Access to Knowledge: An Agenda for Our Nation’s Schools. Edited by John Goodlad and Pamela Keating. New York, NY: The College Board, 1990 (43-58).
The State of America’s Children. Washington, D.C.: Children’s Defense Fund, 1997.
WISKIDS COUNT DATA BOOK 1995: A Portrait of Child Well-Being in Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, 1995.
back
to issue papers