Edl 775 Final
Edl 775 Final
Edl 775 Final
Joanie M. Wiersma
Abstract
IMPACT OF POVERTY 2
This paper analyzes how current and potential future educational policy agenda offsets the
impact that poverty has on academic achievement for Michigan public school children in grades
K through 12. This paper continues by providing research to support early childhood education,
school funding and changing the mindset and practice of education professionals regarding
achievement. The paper concludes by recommending school leaders create systems and school
improvement efforts that increase the collective capacity of teachers through development
around knowledge of neural interventions that supports an understanding of poverty and how it
The Impact of Poverty on the Academic Achievement of Michigan Public School Children
IMPACT OF POVERTY 3
Education then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the
conditions of men, balance-wheel of the social machinery. Horace Mann, 1894
The early principles of public education were rooted in the belief that all children have
access to and receive an education in order to strengthen our countrys workforce and inevitably
our democracy. Our early founders believed education would create an opportunity for success
regardless of ones socioeconomic status and in essence level the playing field between poor and
non-poor citizens. Unfortunately, over a century later, public education in our country remains
largely economically segregated. The data indicate, the achievement gap between the
economically disadvantage and advantage is larger than any other marginalized subgroup (Coley
& Baker, 2013). Given the impact poverty has on academic achievement and outcomes,
educational policy ought to continue focusing on methods to overcome these effects. The
purpose of this paper is to address the impact poverty has on the academic achievement of public
school children and the role educational policy has in addressing the educational effect of
poverty.
Although the United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and spends
billions of dollars creating scores of programs to assist economically disadvantaged citizens, the
fact remains more than half of United States K-12 public school students currently come from
low-income households (Suitts, 2016). The data indicate our countrys public school system now
service more lower income families than ever before in recent history. Suitts writes that in 1989
less than 32 percent of U.S. public school students were from low-income families and over
several decades that number has increased to 52 percent. Furthermore, when compared to other
wealthy countries, only Romania has a higher number of children living in poverty than the US.
In spite of decades of reform efforts to eliminate or at best diminish poverty rates among U.S.
IMPACT OF POVERTY 4
families, the reality is poverty and its impact on equitable educational opportunities continues in
an upward trend.
Possibly the most alarming and detrimental consequence of recent U.S. children poverty
statistics is the impact poverty has on educational achievement and outcomes for U.S. citizens.
Studies confirm that what takes place outside the school environment greatly influences the
amount of success within the school environment and beyond. Children from poverty endure
adverse childhood experiences creating stress which impacts health and life opportunities.
Literature reveals that exposure to chronic stress can induce changes in the architecture of
different regions of the developing brain, which can impact important functions such as
learning new skills (Metzler et al., 2016, p. 142). Additionally, studies conducted by
neuroscientists have revealed a strong correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and
Cognitive Neuroscience, Noble et al. reports that SES effects language, executive functioning
skills, visual cognition, visuospatial skills and memory (2005). Literature repeatedly supports
the strong relationship between SES and cognitive ability during childhood.
Michigan data does not contradict the national scene regarding the adverse effects
poverty has on educational achievement. According to Kids Count, in 2015 twenty-two percent
of all children in Michigan are living in poverty (2017). The U.S. Census bureau states in 2015,
the median household income had been declining for the past five years while those living in
poverty increase in two-thirds of Michigan communities (US Census, 2017). With more children
coming from low-income families, the impact is apparent through educational achievement and
outcome data. Michigans educational snapshot appears inept and falls well below the national
averages. When comparing Michigan students that participated in the National Assessment of
IMPACT OF POVERTY 5
Educational Progress (NAEP) to other states, Michigan ranks 41st in reading (NAEP, 2017). In
fact, 2015 NAEP results indicate that Michigan scores fell below the national average in reading
for both grade 4 and grade 8 in math while test results indicated only grade 8 reading scores
merely equaled the national average (NAEP, 2017). Finally, NEAP 2015 scores show that the
percentage of students scoring proficient or above fell below the national percentages in all
grades in both math and reading. The connection between the grim educational achievement
data and poverty in Michigan is evident in the statistics for children living in poverty. According
to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2017), students receiving free and reduced
lunch (an indicator of low-income), scored an average of 24.5 points lower than students who
were not eligible. The connection between low-income and low academic achievement is indeed
Thus far, it has been discussed that Americas public school system was established with
the intent of providing equal opportunity and access to education regardless of ones
socioeconomic status. Furthermore, in spite of being one of the wealthiest nations in the world,
we continue to have an increase in the number of people living in poverty. Of those living in
poverty, research indicates that children from low-income families attending public schools,
gap based on income. Evidence indicates that Michigan continues to perpetuate the national
trend of the disparity between low-income and non-low-income achievement by public school
children. The next step is to determine possible solutions for decreasing the negative impact
poverty has on academic achievement through educational policy and truly promote a system
that offers equity in education. The remainder of this section will focus on presenting three
IMPACT OF POVERTY 6
possible solutions for Michigan and the related policy implications that address the impact
The first and most obvious possible solution is to allocate more money to K-12 public
education. The correlation between the amount of money spent and level of achievement is
blaring. Data from Papke (2005) indicate that when per pupil funding is increased there is an
increase in test scores. Papke used MEAP results and schools who received additional revenue
to compare achievement. Her results showed an average 2.9 percent increase in math scores for
fourth grade students (Papke, 2005). Furthermore, Hollenbeck et al., writes cost differentials are
not the only factor but data indicates Michigan students of low income are in double jeopardy
(2015, p. 6). The authors explain that economically disadvantaged students experience an even
larger achievement gap when attending a school that has a majority of economically
low-income students. Another word, students are double likely to fall victim to the achievement
gap if they attend a school with the majority of other students who also are disadvantaged
(Hollenbeck et al., 2015). Research indicates introducing additional money into school districts
Fortunately, Michigan initially addressed the funding disparity in the mid-1990s with the
adoption of Proposal A: a policy change that redistributed wealth more evenly. School funding
shifted from a system that emphasized local property taxation to a state-led funding system. This
proposal is based on foundational and categorical grants funded by revenue generated through an
increase in sales tax and state levied mils (Cullen, 2003). Furthermore, Hollenbeck et al. (2015)
IMPACT OF POVERTY 7
remind us that Proposal A was not intended to be a school improvement reform nor did it come
with any "regulations, incentives or sanctions directed at teaching and learning (p. 4). Instead,
Proposal A changed the property tax burdens and through the redistribution of local funds the
Although Proposition A took school funding in the right direction, twenty years later
there is a criticism of the system mostly due to a less than robust state economy and ongoing
disparities in school funding resulting in continual low student achievement among certain
subgroups. Indeed, Michigan has made incremental increases in school funding but has failed to
keep up with other states allocation of resources. Hollenbeck et.al. (2015), states that Michigan
is losing ground to its competitor states in terms of educational system investment (p. 2). As
was previously established, data indicate there is a direct correlation between funding inequities
and low student achievement in Michigan. This disparity is evident when comparing U.S. NAEP
data and Michigan NAEP scores. Since about 2005, Michigan has fallen below the state
averages as indicated by NEAP scores (NCES, 2017) and has fallen below U.S. total revenue per
pupil (Hollenbeck et al., 2015). The W.E. Upjohn Institute 2015 research report also took into
consideration exemplary states that demonstrate high achievement scores from both students of
low and non-low income on the NAEP and per pupil funding. After analyzing the successes
experienced by other states the W.E. Upjohn Institute report recommends increasing 31a;
categorical funding for at-risk students, and participating in an adequacy study to identify best
The State of Michigan indeed had an adequacy study conducted in June 2016 by
Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates. The Michigan Educational Finance Study confirmed
claims of critics on current school funding policy that funding is becoming increasingly unequal
IMPACT OF POVERTY 8
and successful schools spend more money on educating students (Augenblick, Palaich and
Associattes, 2016). The 2016 report also notes as does the Upjohn report that successful schools
on average spend an additional $1,000 per student. Contrary to the Upjohn Report is a study
conducted by the Mackinaw Center for Public Policy which disputes the impact school funding
has on student achievement. The researched from this report does not support the correlation
between standardized test results and graduation rates to school funding. It does, however,
acknowledge that additional resources are necessary to provide a quality education. They
continue to advocate for more incentives and punitive actions as a method of improving test
scores and graduation rates. It concludes with the assertion that how resources are distributed
and the way spending is prescribed might interfere with how money is allocated at a local level
Education is contributing to the discussion of narrowing the funding gap. Michigans ESSA
draft, Top Ten in Ten Years aims to reduce the impact of high-risk factors, including poverty, and
provide equitable resources to meet the needs of all student to ensure that they have access to
figure but yet adhere to conservative principles, Michigans governor has proposed a budget that
would increase funding by $50 per secondary student, de-fund cyber schools, deal with declining
enrollments and increase at-risk funding by 40%. Unfortunately, these reforms were killed in
both the House and Senate. Clearly, there are multiple stakeholders in the ongoing discussion for
and against school funding as a possible solution to poverty and student achievement but as
always when funding is being discussed it becomes highly political and polarized by party lines.
When considering solutions that have the potential of minimizing the impact of poverty
on academic achievement, early childhood education (ECE) takes priority. Research indicates
evidence of substantial readiness gaps when students from low SES enter kindergarten. The
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) highlights statistics from the National Center for Educational
Statics which indicate in areas of math, reading and the non-cognitive skill; persistence,
achievement and school readiness rise steadily as socioeconomic status rises (Bivens et al.,
2016, p.6). The reason; children from low-income families rarely receive the amount of
al. present clear research that states "children raised in low-income householdshave limited
exposure to diverse language and communicative acts" (2016, p. 830). Furthermore, Garcia in
2015, states in a report put out by EPI, students who participate in development activities with
parents show greater academic achievement in kindergarten (Bivens, 2016). One might question
the significance of starting kindergarten lacking the necessary cognitive and non-cognitive skills
of more advantaged peers. That initial readiness gap compounds over time putting students at
risk of special education placement, retention and dropping out (Barnett, 2008). Subsequently,
this has an adverse effect our society as a whole. Students with better educational opportunities
and success are less likely to enter the criminal justice system, earn higher wages, and enjoy
better health (Barnett, 2008). Research and literature suggest social class has the greatest
influence on academic success which in turn determines potential success in school and life. The
research is clear that students from low-income households lack the kindergarten readiness
necessary for academic success which leads to success in life creating the need for equal access
Michigan has two government funded ECE options. The federally funded Head Start
program and the state-funded Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP). For this discussion, the
focus will be on Michigans GSRP as a tool to provide access and a high-quality ECE for
Michigan public school students from low-income households. GSRP was established in 1985
with the goal of providing high-quality preschool as a means of mitigating risk factors and
support school readiness (Wakabayashi, Lower, Xiang & Hardin, 2016). There is an eligibility
criterion families must meet to enter into the program. The most prominent factor is extremely
low or low family income and two additional risk factors (Office of Great Start, 2015). A
longitudinal student done by High Scope highlighting data from 1995-2011found students who
attended GSRP had higher academic achievement throughout school, lower graduation dropout
rates, earned higher wages, and lower incarceration rates than those who did not attend preschool
(Schweinhart, 2012). Total state funding for GRRP is over 300 million dollars including a
transportation fund. The number of students being serviced is 37,500 up from 694 in 1985
(Wakabayashi, Lower, Xiang & Hardin, 2016). There are ongoing investment and commitment
In 2011 Governor Snyder created the Office of Great Start (which expanded GSRP) with
the goal of coordinating, integrating and collaborating with all stakeholders and agencies in ECE
action planning. Input from parents, early childhood educators, day care providers, policy
makers, grandparents and others were taken into account when creating the vision to integrate
state and federal early childhood programs (Office of Great Start, 2015). Governor Snyder has
continued to increase spending and increase the number of student slots for GSRP since 2011.
preschool for all four-year-olds by 2020: three-year-olds by 2025" (MDE, 2017). Michigan
IMPACT OF POVERTY 11
lawmakers and even labor unions who support the Governors expansion are sending a clear
There are however critics of the GSRP and the amount of funding that is allocated
towards ECE. Michael Van Beek, Director of Education Policy for the Mackinac Center,
believes policymakers should be looking at creating more programs instead of expanding just
one (Gongwer, 2013). He argued that spending more money on a program does not necessarily
mean it will yield better results (Gongwer, 2013). Other conservative lawmakers have concerns
that the program is too far reaching and should concentrate solely on extremely low-income
households. During a recent interview with a State Representative on March 21, 2017, it became
apparent that legislatures see ECE as a viable solution to moving towards increasing student
achievement but caution such a large allocation of funds in one concentrated area. His concern
was limiting parental choice and the need for a variation of compensatory services (Rep. State
Representative, personal communication, April 24, 2017). Clearly, the debate continues over the
allocation of funds while polarization of party lines and ideology continue to steer the
discussions over ECE and its impact on minimizing the readiness gap for children of low-income
households.
Possible Solution:
A third possible solution to offset the impact poverty has on academic achievement in our
public schools is to attend to the conditions of instruction and learning. This solution is less
politically charged due to the challenges of connecting it to actual policy making and
implementation. There is a collective understanding that children living in poverty are exposed
to adverse childhood experiences. Those traumatic events create stress and induce changes in
IMPACT OF POVERTY 12
the architecture of different regions of the developing brain which can impact a range of
correlations and socioeconomic status by Nobel et.al., also reveal a strong association between
SES and language performance and executive functioning skills (2005). However, as they
research continues to show that in spite of the disparities, educational interventions can actually
narrow the gap created by SES. Carol Dweck, author of The Growth Mindset argues that
intelligence can be developed through structured programs (Dweck, 2015). It does, however, go
beyond merely having a growth mindset but must include educators being provided with
necessary tools and knowledge to implement the types of practices and programs to develop low
When looking at this approach through the lens of policy it becomes blurred. Most
school reform efforts over the past several decades have been rooted in outside incentives or
punitive outcomes with the assumption that with the right stimuli teachers and leaders will begin
to put forth an increased effort that will raise student achievement (DeFour & Marzano, 2011).
The remainder of this paper will attempt to uncover possible policy implications for using the
neuroscience regarding the impact poverty has on learning to suggest sustainable school reform
beginning with building the collective capacity of those with the most impact on student
Introduction
As was previously stated, the number of U.S. children living in poverty continues to rise.
Currently, 52 percent of American school children qualify for free and reduced lunch (Suitts,
2016). The reality, however, is socioeconomic status (SES) ultimately affects all citizens and
IMPACT OF POVERTY 13
continues to create inequities for those coming from low SES households. Not only do students
from low-income households enter school cognitively behind due to stress created by adverse
childhood experiences, but also continue to suffer the impact of poverty throughout academia
resulting in fewer career opportunities as adults (Suitts, 2016). With fewer opportunities in the
broader society, less advantaged citizens are not able to contribute to the capitalistic driven
responsibility is it to eradicate or at least diminish the problem of poverty? America has long
been proud of the belief that success is attainable for everyone who is willing to pull themselves
up by their bootstraps'. But as Martin Luther King Jr. once replied, "it is cruel to say to a
bootless man". Therein lies the controversy for lawmakers, advocacy groups, organizations,
and educators. Kati Haycock during a keynote address in 2010 at Educational Trust Dispelling
the Myth Conference, states: "Some say we can't fix education until we fix poverty. It's exactly
the opposite; we can't fix poverty until we fix education" (Parrett & Budge, 2012, p. 48). In
reality, it takes reform efforts from all sides to decrease the number of citizens suffering the
effects of living in poverty and minimize the impact poverty has on educational achievement and
outcomes.
including policy makers, citizens, educators and educational leaders all play a critical role in
minimizing its impact on achievement through continuous school reform efforts. School reform
initiatives and related policies have historically focused primarily on creating system dependent
transformations similar to previously discussed school funding and early childhood education.
IMPACT OF POVERTY 14
DuFour and Marzano point out that school reform efforts have been centered around incentives
and punitive sanctions as a way of creating change (2011). School reform efforts such as No
Child Left Behind used standardized test scores for accountability, Race to the Tops merit pay
incentives, school of choice, and teacher evaluations that incorporate student achievement as a
metric of good teaching all relying on incentives and sanctions to create change. The assumption
is these actions will motivate greater effort by educators thus improving student achievement
(DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Incidentally, very little evidence or data indicate any real
substantive change has occurred as a result of these school reform efforts. Michael Fullan in
2010 shares that in spite of reform efforts, the country continues to fall behind other countries in
An alternative approach to school reform is one that focuses on building the collective
capacity of the educators and education leaders. This type of policy is directed towards
improving people. DuFour and Marzano state, "schools must use professional development
strategies that are specifically designed to develop the collective capacity of educators to meet
the needs of students" (2011, p.21). Building collective capacity provides educators with the
tools and resources needed but doesn't currently exist in order to reach the learning needs of all
students. Hattie reminds us that the teacher has the biggest influence on student achievement
(2009). It is obvious that the quality of instruction students receive from teachers is critical in
closing the achievement gap among students from low-income households. The remainder of
this discussion will relate to school policy creating a shift in teaching practices to meet the needs
of all learners.
IMPACT OF POVERTY 15
Approach
Within the last several decades, the field of neuroscience has exploded with new evidence on
how the stress of poverty affects the brain and the manner in which individuals learn. Discussed
earlier was evidence of how adverse childhood experiences created disparities between language,
executive functioning skills, visual understanding, and memory (Nobel, Norman & Farah, 2005).
The next step is understanding that in spite of these disparities, the neuroplasticity of the brain
allows for overcoming these cognitive gaps. Eric Jensen, Author of Poor Students Rich
Teaching: Mindset for Change, writes neuroplasticity "allows the brain to make new
connections, develop whole new networks, and even remap itself so that more physical space in
the brain is used for a particular purpose" (2016, p. 360). What this means for educators is that
regardless the stress-induced cognitive gaps caused by the effects of poverty, students are still
capable of learning provided educators know how to deliver the necessary instructional neural
interventions. Jensen defines this teaching approach as "brain-based ways - strategies that match
Education Trust, Just for Kids, and the National Center for Educational Accountability
among various other researchers, universities, and authors have presented and studied high
poverty and high performing school (HP/HP) and identified various antecedents of success that
they all demonstrate. Later, Barr and Parrett examined all the different outcomes of this research
and synthesized the results to produce the following list of key practices:
reorganize time, space, and transitions (Parrett & Budge, 2009, p. 22).
Obviously, all practices must be implemented and delivered with fidelity to experience the
results of HP/HP schools, however, for the purpose of this paper only those practices that directly
relate to building and sustaining instructional capacity will be addressed with the understanding
of course that effective leadership and collaboration are precursors to these key practices. Hattie
addresses the importance of instructional capacity in his achievement synthesis of over 800
meta-analyses by showing that superior teaching has a greater effect on students learning and
achievement than the impact of poverty (2009). Furthermore, Parrett and Budge go as far as
saying organizations are composed of people, and people have to change before systems
change (2009, p.72). Therefore, improving the quality of teaching and learning through using
neural interventions to minimize the impact poverty has on achievement will be the focus of the
Neural interventions are brain-based strategies that have been identified as specific
activities that narrow the cognitive gap of low SES students. Research studies conducted by
Noble, Norman and Farah (2005), found "educational interventions had the potential to narrow
the performance gap across SES" (p. 84). Eric Jensen and other educators and scholars in the
field of psychology have identified "highly effective and research driven tools" for educators in
order to become more successful when teaching students that come from low-income
that target teaching to students who have suffered adverse childhood experiences.
collaborative effort that delivers professional development and coaching of neural interventions
IMPACT OF POVERTY 17
by means of Classroom Learning Labs (CLL). Classroom Learning Labs are opportunities for
and lesson modeling. Lisa Houk (2010) explains CLL promote consistency and are rooted in
active learning through peer observations and pre/post debriefing sessions. CLL involve a host
teacher that demonstrates the strategy, a coach who facilitates the process and guest teachers that
DeFour and Marzano (2011) remind educators that effective professional development
must be "ongoing and sustained rather than episodic" (p. 20). CLL create an ongoing
environment for teachers to share expertise, discuss best practice and problem solve versus
professional learning that is presented through a one-time sit and get' format. Finally, by
shared responsibility, the collective capacity of all educators increases. The CLL approach is a
structure that teachers can follow to build collective capacity around specific neural interventions
and brain-based activities that offset the impact poverty has on academic achievement.
Policy Instruments
The proposed policy is not a federal, state or even district level but instead, is developed
and implemented at the school level. The policy is a shift in teaching practices to meet the needs
of all learners. DeFour & Marzano, 2011 remind us that "no policy can mandate a teacher to
teach better, nor will threats or incentives grant them better teaching skills (p. 17). Knowing
that teachers have the biggest impact on student achievement, building and sustaining capacity
among teachers is the best direction for school improvement (Hattie, 2009). In spite the fact this
possible solution cannot be mandated it is connected to policy instruments that are both
mandated and builds capacity. The follow policy instruments apply to the proposed solution:
IMPACT OF POVERTY 18
Mandates: Fowler states that mandates have two components: they provide explicit
communication of expected behavior and penalties associated with failure to comply (2013). A
major policy actor, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), has the responsibility of
developing the detailed rules and regulations associated with new laws and policies mandated by
the state legislature (Fowler, 2013, p.133). The Office of Education Improvement and
Innovation is a division of MDE that provides leadership, guidance, and support over areas that
include continuous school improvement. The Michigan School Improvement Framework 2.0
McDonnell and Elmore as a mandate. As part of the school improvement process, schools must
review systems including Strand I Teaching for Learning and Strand III Professional Learning as
explained in the School Improvement Framework Overview (SIP Framework 2.0, 2016). The
state identifies best practices to guide future strategic planning and suggests evidence to help
identify the schools current status. The state conducts random audits and if it is discovered that
a school receiving title funds is not in compliance with school improvement requirements or
The indicators of School Improvement Framework 2.0 that relate to the proposed solution
and Strand III, Standards 7 and 8: Professional Learning Cultures and Systems. Schools must
answer to how they create a culture of reflective practices that result in student success and
define collective responsibility for learning and the actions needed to support it (SIP Framework
2.0, 2016). Because there are clear guidelines for school improvement and funding is associated
IMPACT OF POVERTY 19
with compliance, this policy instrument falls under the definition according to McDonnell and
Elmore as a mandate.
The proposed solution also ties directly into the teacher evaluation policy currently being
mandated in Michigan. Section 380.1249 of the Revised School Code requires all school
teachers and administrators undergo annual evaluations. If schools fail to report teacher
evaluation results, it is reflected on the school's report card and eventually could have
accreditation implications. The law goes into great detail describing the process and acceptable
tools to conduct evaluations. Teachers are evaluated on both classroom observations and the
amount of academic growth made by students according to assessment data. If a teacher receives
an ineffective rating two years in a row that teacher can be relieved of duties. Teacher
are going to evaluate teachers and expect certain criterion to be met, it is the responsibility of the
administration to "provide educators with the clarity, structures, resources, and ongoing support
essential to their success" (DeFour & Marzano, 2011, p. 70). Evaluation tools include criteria
relating to instruction and/or pedagogy if teachers are to obtain an effective rating as well as
reach students in a way that will raise student achievement, the leadership must ensure that
professional learning is provided to develop the necessary tools needed to address the needs of
and Elmore in 1987 and shared by Fowler (2013) as "the transfer of money for the purpose of
investing in material, intellectual, or human resources" (p.226). This includes allocating funds
IMPACT OF POVERTY 20
for the purpose of offering professional learning. School improvement plans are blueprints for
what data indicates as being areas of need and where funds should be directed. Teacher
evaluations are intended to be used to help improve the craft of teaching over a period of time,
therefore, both teacher evaluation and school improvement can be additionally classified as
capacity building policy instruments. Both policies require evidence of high-quality teaching
and student achievement requiring substantial investment in people and building their collective
capacity. In order to obtain both of these, schools; particularly one servicing a large at-risk
population must provide the necessary tools and resources and engage in that reciprocal
The greatest barrier to moving towards building the collective capacity of teachers as a
possible solution to the impact poverty has on achievement, is defying the status quo of low-
performing high poverty schools. This includes addressing the mindset related to poverty on the
part of the educators. Most teachers come from middle-class backgrounds and might not
understand or empathize with the dynamics of poverty in our society nor understand the impacts
that it has on brain development. Dispelling the myths about poverty and changing the mindset
that encompasses a shared vision of the immediate connection between student results and
The belief system of educators towards poverty in our society impacts the way teachers
treat and instruct student who come from low-income families. Valencia in 1997 described this
as "deficit theory" which places the blame for poverty on the student's family rather than
needs of these students." (Parrett & Budge, 2012, p. 42). The assumptions of people from
IMPACT OF POVERTY 21
middle-class backgrounds regarding poverty are explained by Parrett & Budge as common
myths:
The two authors continue to explain that these assumptions create mental maps or
mindsets that unintentionally, direct our behavior. That is why building the collective capacity of
educators regarding their impact on the success of at-risk students must first begin with a change
in behaviors. Parrett & Budge write "changes in behavior must often come before changes in
beliefs" (2012, p. 63). The biggest challenge is eliminating the excuse mentality and blaming
parents, as a reason for low achievement. Instead, teachers might need begin connecting student
Opportunities for this proposed solution include the prospect for school leaders to create
second-order change. Marzano explains that second-order change as oppose to first order change
is "dramatic and departs from the expected both in defining a problem and finding a solution."
(Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005). By attacking the ongoing challenges created by poverty
through creating a culture that is grounded in a shared belief of what poverty is and the
about systematic change. Previously mentioned was the significance of Parrett & Budge's
statement that changing a school culture begins with challenging the behaviors and norms of an
organization to bring about a shift in beliefs (2012). Using job-embedded professional learning
to transform the instructional approaches will include challenging assumptions first and then
IMPACT OF POVERTY 22
providing brain based learning tools and resources to educators that will move both student and
teacher toward success. This type of change will intentionally effect and inevitably flow into a
systematic change due to the implications of sustainability. As the implementation plan will
demonstrate, this is merely the first step in a larger reform effort to change the systems and
culture of a school. The ripple effect induced by these actions will include changes to the hiring
process, calendar considerations, parent and community involvement, and other areas such as
infrastructure adaptations. There is tremendous potential associated with the proposed solution
Implementation
To implement the proposed solution will entail following an intentional change process.
John Kotter introduced a change model for organizations to follow to ensure the necessary
commitment to carry out an organizational shift in culture. A change process versus a strategic
plan appeals to participants through data and emotion resulting in an increased commitment and
investment rather than merely stating beliefs, values, and objectives that eventually becomes
year while step 6 and 7 are ongoing substantive processes that implement and monitor the action
Perhaps the most important step when proposing a change to an organization is to offer
the initial hook for why people should commit and take part in the transformation. This step
involves appealing to participants through emotional tactics and providing statistical data. Kotter
(2008) states that without motivation, people wont help and efforts go nowhere. (p. 2). For
this proposal, the sense of urgency includes examining the current reality through student
IMPACT OF POVERTY 23
achievement data and appealing to the emotions through a book study using Eric Jensens 2016
book Poor Students, Rich Teaching: Mindset for Change. The school would also share data,
invite guest speakers and visit HP/HP schools. Finally, the staff would participate in a readiness
survey to provide additional data as to the willingness of the staff to take action. Parrett and
Budge (2011) write "assessing willingness helps leaders tailor their actions to the needs of those
whom they lead" (p. 8). If rolled out well, this step can be a proactive step that addresses possible
future resistance.
This step Kotter suggests creating a team that can work together and has enough power to
lead the change effort (1995). The team might have similar dynamics of a school improvement
team or could be the school improvement team with the exception of intentionally inviting
potential resistors to join the team. Kotter states the advantage of naysayer participation and
involvement is the natural commitment for a process they actively took part in creating (2008).
By using the school improvement team as the coalition, the change initiative would be aligned
During this step, the team facilitates a conversation with the entire staff creating a shared
vision. This might be accomplished through discussing the myths of poverty and truly
examining and identifying the relationship between student achievement and adult actions. Using
the Michigan School Improvement Framework 2.0 as a guide on how to embed and share a
vision the team and staff would proceed to develop strategies to achieve the vision (Kotter,
2008). Embedding the vision will include participating in Classroom Learning Labs and
IMPACT OF POVERTY 24
transforming instructional approaches. It is during this time that evidence of behaviors will align
Identifying results indicators to work towards during this process will be crucial for
celebrating small successes. Results indicators are actions that will be evident if the vision
indeed is being shared and embedded. One such example might be relationship success stories,
Certainly, the opportunity to embed systematic change can be the accomplished by building
on the transformation that takes place in the classroom. When interviewing Mary Lang,
principal of a Michigan HP/HP school, it was evident that once the mindset shift took place other
Change in hiring processfocus on hiring people with a growth mindset and experience
with poverty
Instruction focused on Tier I
In-house professional learning
Weekly professional learning communities
Strict criteria for intervention services
Caseworker on staff (Lang, Personal conversation, March 24, 2017):
Professional learning was all aligned with the teaching strategies for teaching students
from poverty
Increase in yearly professional learning opportunities
Increase in wrap around services (Lang, Personal conversation, March 24, 2017).
Anchoring the change will include alignment with school improvement plans, allocation
of funds and keeping all stakeholders informed on the successes experienced by students and
staff. Also, being able to make the necessary changes to infrastructures such as scheduling and
teacher placement will support anchoring the changes set into motion due to a school policy that
Kotter states that following a strategic option like the aforementioned that is slower
paced, has a less clear plan, and involves many participants an effective design to reduce
resistance (2008). Through large participation, an organization can ensure that change is not
forced on any participants due to the negative effects it can create in the future
Conclusion
In conclusion, reducing the impact poverty has on academic achievement of our public-
school children requires a multifaceted approach that involves all citizens. In addition to the
various compensatory services available to student from low-income households and the
allocation of state resources, teachers possess the power to change the current realities of poverty
and low student achievement provided they are supported with adequate resources and tools.
Educators can minimize the cognitive effects brought on by living in poverty by confronting the
myths of poverty, connecting student achievement with teacher actions, and receiving job-
embedded professional learning associated with neural interventions and classroom instruction.
It will take a collective effort on the part of our country to lead underperforming students to
References
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates. (2016). Michigan Education Finance Study. Retrieved from
Michigan Department of Education website:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/budget/Michigan_Education_Finance_Study_5278
06_7.pdf
Bivens, J., Garcia, E., Gould, E., Weiss, E., Wilson, V. (2016). Its time for an ambitious
national investment in Americas children. Retrieved from Economic Policy Institute
website: http://www.epi.org/101151
Cullen, J.B., & Loeb, S. (2003). K-12 education in Michigan. In C. Ballard, P. N. Courant, D. C.
Drake, R. Fischer & E. R. Gerber (Eds.), Michigan at the Millennium: A Benchmark and
Analysis of its Fiscal and Economic Structure.
Coley, R. J., & Baker, B. (2013, July). Poverty and education: Finding the way forward. In ETS
Center for Research on Human Capital and Education. Retrieved from,
www.ets.org/research
DeGrow, B & Hoang, E. (2016). School spending and student achievement in Michigan:
Whats the relationship? Retrieved from Mackinaw Center for Public Policy.
https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2016/s2016-02.pdf
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of Learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Press.
Dweck, C. (2015, September 23). Revisiting growth mindset. Education Weekly, 35(5), 20-24.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/09/23/carol-dweck-revisits-the-
growth-mindset.html
Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Gonwer News Service (2013). Great start expansion still needs some selling. (Report No. 45
Vol. 52). Retrieved from Mackinac Center for Public Policy website:
http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2013/030613GNS-great.pdf
IMPACT OF POVERTY 27
Jensen, E. (2016). Poor students, rich teaching: Mindsets for change. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.
Jensen, E. (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership, 70 (8),
24-30. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/may13/vol70/num08/How-Poverty-affects-Classroom-Engagement.aspx
Kotter, J. P. (1995, March). Leading change why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from
https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/resources/marketing/docs/95204f2.pdf
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. (2008, April). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from
file:///Users/joanbeadle/Documents/ChoosingStrategiesForChange.pdf
Marzano, R., Walters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School Leadership That Works: From
Research to Results. Aurora, CO: Mid Continent Research for Education.
Metzler, M., Merrick, M. T., Klevens, J.,Ports, K. A., Derek C. F. (2017). Children and youth
services review. 72 141149.
Nation Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2017). State Profiles. Retrieved from.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
Office of Great Start State of Michigan (2015). Early childhood program inventory. Retrieved
from: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/2015_Program_Inventory_519917_7.pdf
Papke, L. E. (2005). The effects of spending on test pass rates: evidence from Michigan.
Journal of Public Economics 89, 821-839
Parrett, W. H., & Budge, K. M. (2012). Turning High Poverty Schools into High Performing
Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Pelatti, C. Y., Dynia, J. M., Logan, J. A., Justice, L. M., & Kaaderavek, J. (2016). Examining
quality in two preschools settings. Child and Youth Care Forum, 45(6), 829-849.
Schweinhart, L., Xiang, Z., Daniel-Echos, M., Browning, K., Wakabayashi, T. (2012). Michigan
great start readiness program evaluation 2012:High school graduation and grade
retention rates. HighScope Education Research Foundation Retrieved from:
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/GSRP_Evaluation_397470_7.pdf
Suitts, S. (2016, November). Students facing poverty the new majority [Electronic
version]. Educational Leadership, 36-40.
Wakabayashi, T., Lower, R., Xiang, Z., & Hardin, B. (April 14, 2016). Michigan Great Start to
Readiness Program Evaluation: 20 Years of Collaboration. Presented at the 21st Annual
Conference of the Michigan Association for Evaluation, Lansing, MI.