Children's Needs

This is the fourth of several articles on poverty and effective teaching. 

Teachers and schools provide an oasis of stability for children who live in poverty. Schools provide two, and in some places, all hot meals that these children get. Teachers may be the only adults these children have contact with that encourage them to read, learn and think. Yet often it is these impoverished children that wind up in an administrator’s office for some infraction or another (Jensen, 2009, p. 19).  Why? What can schools and teachers do to make learning something that these children strive for and expect from themselves? How can educators avoid losing these children to the streets where they are growing up?

This post focuses on the needs of children. 

                                                             Children's Needs

Children need people to believe in their ability to overcome adversity, prejudice and so-called societal norms.  Delpit (2012), though she was speaking specifically of African American students, says children need “warm demanders” teachers who have high expectations of their students; this is also true for any child that lives in a culture of poverty (p. 81). Children must be taught that failure is not acceptable. 

When children are small, if they have opportunities to expand their horizons beyond their current reality, it makes a difference to their academic achievement. Magnuson, et al., (2004) found that children who attended preschool entered kindergarten with higher reading and math skills, these skills stayed with them through first grade (p. 141). In addition they also found that students from low income families who attended these programs benefited the most because while in the programs they were exposed to more books and had a high quality of care giving (Magnuson, et al., 2004, p. 142). While their data is nearly ten years old, it still has relevance today because as Delpit (2012) stated: “There is no “achievement gap” at birth” (p. 5). As noted earlier in the literature reviewed for this blog, early intervention is essential for children who live in poverty.

Relationships need to be built between the school and parents as soon as possible. Prince, et al., (2006) argue that: “With the evidence available that indicates the relationship between poverty, child well-being, and high school success, it seems that taking care of the needs of our young citizens could possibly be a factor that would break this cycle of poverty” (p.26). Possible ways to build those relationships could include: family information nights, reaching out to pediatric care offices, touching base with family services officials, offering babysitting during voting, etc... These a just a few ways that schools can reach young, poor parents and their children. But, perhaps more importantly, how do we change the way that children see themselves?

Educators and parents need to partner in changing a child’s self-image. Children need to have their successes, even small ones, celebrated. Machtinger (2007) said that: “Low expectations and a deficit model — in which high-poverty students are judged incapable of meeting the demands of a challenging curriculum hinder efforts at improving achievement” (p. 4). Children need teachers to recognize and expect that all children can learn at high levels. Good differentiation takes into account that high levels are not the same for every child, but that does not mean that teachers should feel sorry for poor children.  These children need hope and aspirations. What else do children need to succeed?

Children and adolescents need to have content that is relevant to their interests and relates to their experience. Boykin and Noguera (2011) stated that: “…incorporating a child’s particular interests and background experiences in the problem context should result in a greater focus on relevant information, which in turn should enhance performance outcomes” (p. 93).  Delpit (2012) used student interest in hair design to create a curriculum that engaged students in science, history, math and art based on African American hair design (p. 21).  For students then, it is essential to be engaged in the learning process and that the content has contextual meaning.

In New England there is a booming immigrant population.  This is changing the way communities look and in some cases culture shock is causing friction. Boykin and Noguera (2011) state that while: “race, class and linguistic and cultural differences between students and teachers do not cause the achievement gap; however, they do contribute to its persistence and often complicate efforts to reduce or eliminate disparities in student learning outcomes” (p. 29). Could this be because immigrant parents have a different view of what schools do? Is it possible that they do not understand what their children need to be successful in an American school environment?  Or could this be because they do not have a firm grasp of the language, causing communication problems between themselves and their schools? Any of these could be reasons that success is difficult for children of immigrant families. Therefore children in districts with higher ethnic diversity and greater need for services also need teachers who understand what kind of gaps these conditions cause for teaching and learning.

 So what can teachers do to change the reality for these children? What is it that teachers need to know and do in order to create opportunities for success? What can schools and districts do to help teachers create these opportunities for children? These questions are considered in the next blog post.

References

Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Delpit, L. (2012). Multiplication is for white people:  Raising expectations for other people's children. New York, NY: the New Press.

Machtinger, H. (2007). What do we know about high poverty schools? Summary of the high poverty schools conference at UNC-chapel hill. High School Journal, 90(3), 1-8.

Magnuson, K. A., Meyers, M. K., Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Inequality in preschool education and school readiness. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 115-157.

Prince, D., Pepper, K., & Brocato, K. (2006). The importance of making the well-being of children in poverty a priority. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 21-28. doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0118-7

Poverty and Effective Teaching: Teacher Development

This is the third of several articles on poverty and effective teaching. 

Teachers and schools provide an oasis of stability for children who live in poverty. Schools provide two, and in some places, all hot meals that these children get. Teachers may be the only adults these children have contact with that encourage them to read, learn and think. Yet often it is these impoverished children that wind up in an administrator’s office for some infraction or another (Jensen, 2009, p. 19).  Why? What can schools and teachers do to make learning something that these children strive for and expect from themselves? How can educators avoid losing these children to the streets where they are growing up?

As a researcher, I delved into the literature and found that there are three areas where we need to focus: early intervention, culture & climate, and teacher development. 

                                                         Teacher Development

To be effective, learning that helps teachers must be relevant to the teacher’s reality. Understanding how young minds work, what their development entails and how teaching can be adjusted for stressors is essential for student success.  Given (2002) provides teachers with knowledge of brain mechanics and the different types of learning that naturally occur due to the make-up of the brain. “I believe that when teachers understand how the brain’s major learning systems function, they will teach more effectively while gaining more joy in teaching” (Given, 2002, p. 6). Every teacher at some point has asked: why did this child react that way? This book helps teachers to begin understanding what stress and challenges do to children. Jensen (2009) expands on this work, and suggests ways that teachers can mitigate the effect of stress in their classroom environment.  Both of these books look at brain function and add to a teacher’s awareness of children’s learning systems. But what is the most effective way to teach a teacher?

Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi and Gallagher (2007) examine the results of teacher professional development on curriculum implementation in a quantitative study. This study used data collected from 454 teachers, who were working on implementation of a scientific inquiry curriculum (Penuel, et al., 2007, p. 936). They found that teachers who were given help setting up new equipment, time to plan along with ways to integrate local context into curriculum and had ample support were more successful with learning and implementation outcomes (Penuel, et al., 2007, p. 951). These learning outcomes are transferable to other content areas.  Sato, Wei, and Darling-Hammond (2008) used a mixed methods study to examine changes in teacher assessment practices through professional development. This three year longitudinal study looked at teachers who were going for National Board Certification and a control group that were not.  Teachers that had the highest gains over a three year period also had the highest gains in student surveys. Students of these teachers were more likely to know the learning goals for their classes and have opportunities for self-assessment (Sato, et al., 2008, p. 684-685). From the literature then it is imperative that teachers have development that is relevant to their experience and there is specific evidence of students reporting better learning outcomes from teacher development.

For schools to close the achievement gap that exists between students who are white and students who are ethnically diverse, teachers must have dispositions that humanize education.  Murrell, Diez, Feiman-Nemser, and Schusssler, (2010) take from Nieto that teachers should have “a passion for social justice” (p. 149). With this in mind, how do teachers develop cultural competence and demand social justice for impoverished students in a state like New Hampshire where the racial diversity of populations in schools and districts are growing? 

If teachers are going to help students participate in democratic society and have the skills needed to be global citizens, they need to understand how to create classrooms that are culturally competent (Minow, Shweder, & Markus, 2008, p. 236-237).  Developing the skills to deal with children who are African American, Latino, Asian or Native American is addressed in some pre-service programs for prospective teachers. Gere, Buehler, Dalavis and Haviland (2009) used qualitative grounded theory to examine race consciousness in teacher preparation programs. From their cases they found that race consciousness affected the way that pre-service teachers presented themselves, how they acted in interviews, affected their ability to interact with students and each other. For both future and current teachers it will be important to have this information as they begin to reflect on their own practices. 

Delpit (2012) shares a startling fact that emphasizes the importance of good teaching: “The students who had good teachers performed fifty percentile points above those with weaker teachers!” (p. 9). She goes on to question what bearing that might have on an achievement gap. Bias, culture and student achievement has new meaning when looked at through the lens of case studies and social justice.  

Teachers need structured time for learning built into their day. During that time administrators need to create opportunities to expand teacher's (and their own) cultural knowledge, provide in depth learning on the effect of poverty on students, and have teachers create evidence of their learning.  Teachers need to avoid working alone on these things! Working in a professional learning community is important for improving their own practice. 

Evidence of the professional learning community work might include: lesson plans that are culturally relevant, changed structure or classroom environment, documentation of changes, discipline logs, or a journal of their learning.  

So what specifically do impoverished children need to be successful? In the next installment of these blog posts, we'll look at what their needs are and how schools and teachers can effectively help them achieve academic success.  

                                                 References

Delpit, L. (2012). Multiplication is for white people:  Raising expectations for other people's children. New York, NY: the New Press.

Gere, A. R., Buehler, J., Dallavis, C., & Haviland, V. S. (2009). A visibility project: Learning to see how preservice teachers take up culturally responsive pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 816-852.

Given, B. K. (2002). Teaching to the brain's natural learning systems. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Minow, M., Shweder, R. A., & Markus, H. R. (2008). Just schools: Pursuing equality in societies of difference. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Murrell, P.C., Diez, M.E., Feiman-Nemser, S., & Schusssler, D.L. (2010). Teaching as a moral practice. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

Sato, M., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers' assessment practices through professional development: The case of national board certification. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 669-700.

Poverty and Effective Teaching: Culture and Climate

This is the second of several articles on poverty and effective teaching. 

Teachers and schools provide an oasis of stability for children who live in poverty. Schools provide two, and in some places, all hot meals that these children get. Teachers may be the only adults these children have contact with that encourage them to read, learn and think. Yet often it is these impoverished children that wind up in an administrator’s office for some infraction or another (Jensen, 2009, p. 19).  Why? What can schools and teachers do to make learning something that these children strive for and expect from themselves? How can educators avoid losing these children to the streets where they are growing up?

As a researcher, I delved into the literature and found that there are three areas where we need to focus: early intervention, culture & climate, and teacher development. 

Culture and Climate

First, a learning community needs to examine the best way to change the culture from passive to active. Literature on school transformation and school culture far exceeds the limits of a blog post. To help focus on transformative work this blogger sought one of the leading minds on change in education, Dr. Michael Fullan.  Fullan (2001) states that while “moral purpose is job one, relationships are job two because you can’t get anywhere without them” (p. 51).  Developing collaborative and trusting relationships is essential for students, parents and teachers, when a school is trying to create a strong learning community. There are many things that can hinder positive changes to schools. Ten years ago, Hinde (2004) examined school culture and determined factors for and against change in school culture.

Factors that drive success include: sharing of responsibility, willingness to experiment, believing that success will happen, being able to trust the people you work with, having support that is both intrinsic and extrinsic, involvement in decision making and transparency of process (Hinde, 2004, p. 7).  Boykin and Noguera (2011) provide an example of believing success will happen showcasing the work of University Park Campus School in Worcester Massachusetts, “the school is steadfast in its mission to prepare every student for college” (p.161). Support that is both intrinsic and extrinsic, with extra academic support being provided internally and working in partnership with a local college makes a difference for UPCS students (Boykin &Noguera, 2011, p. 162-163).  However change is not always successful.

Factors that work against changing culture, in areas where poverty is a problem include: leaders failing to develop the relationships necessary to support change, or trying to pursue change in isolation (Hinde, 2004, p. 8-9). Machtinger (2007) highlighted other factors in his summary of the High Poverty Schooling in America conference at UNC-Chapel Hill in 2006. Factors that undermine success include: adverse social policy, lack of economic opportunity, poor teacher quality, insufficient teaching resources and a lack of good leadership in schools where poverty is contributing to the achievement gap for students (Machtinger, 2007, p. 3-4).  

From the literature then, good leadership includes: making community connections, developing economic opportunity, driving change in social policy, all of these are factors that help to develop culture and meaning in a learning community.  Students who live in poverty often feel that no one cares about them. Disenfranchisement from their community is an additional stress inducer for children. People (especially young people) need to feel connected. From the summit, teacher quality is addressed as an issue for children who live in poverty.  Effective teaching is the focus of the next installment in this blog. 

References

Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to practice to close the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hinde, E. (2004). School culture and change: An examination of the effects of school culture on the process of change. Retrieved November 30, 2013, from http://usca.edu/essays/vol122004/hinde.pdf

Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Machtinger, H. (2007). What do we know about high poverty schools? Summary of the high poverty schools conference at UNC-chapel hill. High School Journal, 90(3), 1-8.

Brain Research Video by Eric Jensen

One of the resources I used for this work, is Teaching With Poverty in Mind by Eric Jensen.
He has a series of videos that support teaching students who have impoverished backgrounds.
Start with this video and search Eric Jensen on YouTube.

Poverty and Effective Teaching : Early Intervention

This is the first of several articles on poverty and effective teaching. 

Teachers and schools provide an oasis of stability for children who live in poverty. Schools provide two, and in some places, all hot meals that these children get. Teachers may be the only adults these children have contact with that encourage them to read, learn and think. Yet often it is these impoverished children that wind up in an administrator’s office for some infraction or another (Jensen, 2009, p. 19).  Why? What can schools and teachers do to make learning something that these children strive for and expect from themselves? How can educators avoid losing these children to the streets where they are growing up?

As a researcher, I delved into the literature and found that there are three areas where we need to focus: early intervention, culture & climate, and teacher development. 

                                                             Early Intervention

The literature focused on children who are economically disadvantaged, the selected studies suggest intervention at an early age. Andrews and Slate (2002) conducted a quantitative study on the effect of private and public kindergartens to see if there was a difference in the level of readiness between these two types of programs.  They found that there were no statistically significant differences between the private and public prekindergarten type, but they did see a significant difference based on ethnicity.  The authors could not ascertain whether that was because of race or socioeconomic status. Two years later, Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm and Waldfogel (2004) conducted a quantitative study on the inequity of preschool and school readiness using data from the 1998-1999 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Looking for answers to the questions:

First, do children who experience center-based care (including prekindergarten programs and preschool) have higher levels of reading and math skills during kindergarten and first grade, and are they less likely to be retained in kindergarten? Second, are the effects particularly large for children from disadvantaged groups? Finally, are some types of center-based child care more beneficial than others? (Magnuson, et al., 2004, p.124).   

Their findings suggested that children who attended Head Start programs had reduced rates of grade retention, and that children from disadvantaged families showed greater benefit from attending prekindergarten programs than students who were not socioeconomically disadvantaged. Their studies show a direct correlation between early intervention and student academic achievement. From the literature it is clear that early intervention programming is essential for families that live in poverty.

Further evidence of this was gathered in Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina.  Prince, Pepper and Brocato (2006) put together relevant statistical data on the effect of poverty on children.  They found that there were ten significant factors that affected the well-being of children including: low birth weight, infant mortality rates, child death rates, teen death and birth rates, high school dropouts, teen employment, parent employment, and single parent households.  Poverty is defined as “a family with income below the federally defined poverty line” (Prince, et al., 2006, p. 23).  With this in mind, then it is important that intervention for these children begin before birth. These authors suggest investing in training for prospective parents. This is reiterated in Jensen (2009) when he suggests the formation of community partnerships that develop knowledge in “nutrition, parenting and study skill coaching for children” (p. 73).  Connecting parents to schools as soon as possible, helps to develop a culture where the school becomes a community resource. 

Building those connections is an important focus for Superintendents, School Boards, Principals, and Teachers.  Every person in the school should be doing what they can to build on and create a community that is supportive of learners, one that focuses on the whole child.  

In the next installment, I will share the literature on Culture and Climate and pull together some suggestions for ways this aspect of schooling can help children in poverty. 

                                              References

Andrews, S. P., & Slate, J. R. (2002). Public and private prekindergarten programs: A comparison of student readiness. Educational Research Quarterly, 25(3), 59.

Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Magnuson, K. A., Meyers, M. K., Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Inequality in preschool education and school readiness. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 115-157.

Prince, D., Pepper, K., & Brocato, K. (2006). The importance of making the well-being of children in poverty a priority. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 21-28. doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0118-7