Running head: IMPACT OF POVERTY ON THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN 1.

The Impact of Poverty on the Academic Achievement of

Michigan Public School Children

Joanie M. Wiersma

Central Michigan University EDL 775

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

students of poverty as possible solutions to decrease the impact of poverty on academic

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

transmits to teaching and learning.

Keywords: poverty, school funding, early education, mindset

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 abilities. In a research study conducted by University of Pennsylvania Center for

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

evident in Michigan as well as the nation.

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,

continue to be the lowest achieving sub-group. Incidentally, creating a significant achievement

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

poverty has on academic achievement.

Possible Solution: School Funding

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

disadvantaged students, compared to students of low-income in districts with a low percentage of

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

that service a majority of economically disadvantaged students has potential to significantly

narrow the achievement gap.

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

state provided a more equitable per-pupil funding system.

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

practice (Hollenbeck, 2015).

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

(DeGrow & Hoang, 2016).

In addition to advocacy groups and local administrators, Michigans Department of

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

quality educational opportunities (2017, p.4). Finally, in an attempt to resurface as a political

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.

Possible Solution: High-Quality Early Childhood Education

IMPACT OF POVERTY 9

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

engagement in educational activities as those children from non-low-income families. Peletti et

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

to high-quality early childhood education in order to equalize opportunities for all.

IMPACT OF POVERTY 10

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 providing access and high-quality early childhood education in Michigan.

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.

Additionally, Michigans 10 in 10 plan includes "expanding access to quality publicly funded

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

message of their commitment to ECE.

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:

Developing the Conditions of Instruction and Learning through Neural Interventions

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

important functions (Metzler et.al., 2016). Additional studies on the neurocognitive

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

cognition due to SES.

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

achievement the teacher.

Policy Report & Recommendations

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

economy which in turn creates ongoing social classism.

Decreasing poverty, as well as its impact on academic achievement and educational

outcomes, continue to be a politically charged topic. The ever-persistent question: Whose

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.

When approaching the challenge of poverty from an educational perspective, actors

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

achievement (DeFour & Marzano, 2011).

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

the learning protocols for maximizing neuroplasticity" (2016, p.373).

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:

Ensure effective district and school leadership;

engage parents, communities, and schools to work as partners;
understand and hold high expectations for poor and culturally diverse students;
target low-performing students and schools, start with reading;
align, monitor and manage the curriculum;
create a culture of data and assessment literacy;
build and sustain instructional capacity and
IMPACT OF POVERTY 16

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

remainder of this discussion.

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

households. This professional learning capacity building approach is rooted in teachers

understanding of poverty, mindset changes and implementing classroom instructional strategies

that target teaching to students who have suffered adverse childhood experiences.

The primary approach to building collective capacity among educators is through a

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

teachers to participate in job-embedded professional development through collaborative teaching

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

focus on a particular strategy to observe and later discuss (Houk, 2010).

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

providing job-embedded professional learning opportunities that invite interdependence and

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

which is a direct result of Michigan compiled laws 380.1277, is identified according to

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

cannot produce sufficient evidence of strategies, funding can be revoked.

The indicators of School Improvement Framework 2.0 that relate to the proposed solution

of building collective capacity include Standard 2 of Strand I: Effective Instructional Practices

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

certification renewal is also connected to evaluation ratings. As evidenced, high-stakes decisions

are made using teacher evaluations.

This type of mandate brings to the discussion reciprocal accountability. If administrators

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

all learners. The proposed solution addresses those exact needs.

Capacity Building: Capacity building is a policy instrument described by McDonnell

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

accountability earlier mentioned.

Barriers and Opportunities

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

teacher actions are the greatest challenges.

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

"viewing the problem of underachievement as a lack of school responsiveness to the unique

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:

Poverty is an issue that solely affects people of color.

With government assistance, people can get out of poverty.
People of poverty abuse drugs and alcohol more than people of wealth.
People of poverty do not work or have a poor work ethic.
Education, as a way out of poverty, is readily accessible to everyone.
Parents of a student who live in poverty are uninvolved in their children's
education because they do not value it. (Parrett & Budge, 2012, p. 43)

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

learning to teacher actions.

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

responsibility of an educator to effectively address it in the classroom, has potential to bring

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

to offset the impact of poverty through instructional transformation.

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

another first-order change initiative. Steps 1 through 5 could be implemented in an academic

year while step 6 and 7 are ongoing substantive processes that implement and monitor the action

plan over subsequent years.

Step 1: Create a Sense of Urgency

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.

Step 2: Form Coalition

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

with school improvement efforts and be evident in the strategic plan.

Step 3: Create, Share and Embed a Vision

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

with the newly created vision.

Step 4: Remove Obstacles

Removing obstacles includes dealing with resistance, allocation of resource,

compensating people, examining infrastructure, and promoting innovation in the classrooms.

Step 5: Celebrate Success

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,

parent involvement, or achievement data.

Step 6: Build on Change

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

the following system changes were embedded:

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).

Step 7: Anchor the Change

IMPACT OF POVERTY 25

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

shifts teaching practices to meet the needs of all learners.

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

experience success in the classroom ultimately leading to success as vibrant contributing

members of our society.

IMPACT OF POVERTY 26

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

Hattie, J. C. (2009). Visible Learning. New York: Routledge.

Hollenbeck, K, Bartik, T. J., Eberts, R. W., Hershbein, B. J., Miller-Adams,

M. (2015). The road to toward k-12 excellence in Michigan: How an upgraded financing
system can better support enhanced student achievement. Retrieved from W.E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.17848/rpt215

Houk, L. (2010, June). Demonstrating teaching in a classroom lab [Electronic

version]. Educational Leadership, 67.

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

Lang, Mary. Personal conversation, March 24, 2017

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.

Michigan Department of Education (MDE) (2017). Top Ten in Ten Years

Retrieved from
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/_MDE_Goals_and_Strategies_2-8-
16_514042_7.pdf

SIP Framework 2.0. (2016) Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved from:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/SIF_Overview_10-13-14_473385_7.pdf

Nation Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2017). State Profiles. Retrieved from.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/

Noble, K. G., Norman, F. M., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Neurocognitive correlates of

socioeconomic kindergarten children. Developmental Science, 8(1), 74-87.
IMPACT OF POVERTY 28

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.

Rep. State Representative, personal communication, April 24, 2017

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.