PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF POVERTY: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH
This paper presents preservice teachers' perceptions and ideological underpinnings regarding children and families from poverty. Using a phenomenological approach, thirteen undergraduate preservice teachers from a small, liberal arts university in Northeast US were interviewed. Participants' perceptions of indigent children and families revealed five themes. Perceptions were multifaceted, with intimate connections to their own experiences. This paper aims to generate scholarly interest in exploring preservice teachers' perceptions about indigent children and families that live in poverty. Exploring preservice teachers' instructional ideologies may help in designing teacher preparation programs that result in improved classroom instruction and a decrease in in-service teacher attrition from high-poverty schools.
INTRODUCTION
POVERTY, A PERVASIVE social issue in the United States (US), has a profound influence on students' school experiences (Milner, 2013). Low socioeconomic status is a strong predictor of student achievement, especially in the nation's most underperforming schools (Dell'Angelo, 2016). The number of children living in poverty in the US is increasing. Latest census data indicate children under 18 years represent 23% of the population, yet comprise 32% of all people in poverty. One out of every five children under 18 years lives in an indigent family (Ekono, Yang, & Smith, 2016). 11% of young children, below nine years, live in households with incomes below 50% of the federal poverty line (FPL), an increase from 9% in 2008 (Ekono, Yang, & Smith, 2016). Ullucci and Howard (2015) report that the US, when compared to other industrialized nations, has a higher proportion of the population that remains in poverty (Berliner, 2006).
America's future teaching force, predominantly middle-class White females does not match the racial or economic diversity of the student population they serve (Wright, Gottfried, & Le, 2017). Pre-service teachers' lives rarely intersect with low-income students until they enter undergraduate clinical field experiences. Preservice teachers often struggle to understand and discuss issues surrounding students and families in poverty since it is outside their frame of reference (Bennett, 2008). Prior to beginning their teaching careers, preservice teachers rarely attend school with, or live in neighborhoods with, people from different ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic status (Bennett, 2008; Milner, 2013).
Teacher beliefs are connected to their instruction and influence instructional quality (Kim, 2013; Pogodzinski, Youngs, & Frank, 2013; Vartuli, and Rohs, 2009). Decades of research show teachers' beliefs play a powerful role in influencing instructional practices (Aronson, 2004; Dell'Angelo, 2016). Teachers' prejudice and prior experiences negatively influence student performance (Castro, 2010). Negative stereotypes about students based on their socioeconomic backgrounds reaffirm teachers' beliefs (Garcia & Chun, 2016; Garmon, 2005). Low teacher expectations result in some students being treated differentially, even if unknowingly (Cox, Watts, & Horton, 2012). It is not uncommon for teacher candidates who are White, middle-class, and from monolingual backgrounds to have stereotypical beliefs toward children from diverse backgrounds. Kumar and Hamer (2013) suggested 25% of preservice teachers they analyzed explicitly endorsed stereotypic beliefs about minority students. Feelings of discomfort, coupled with deficiencies in understanding, might be responsible for negative first impressions that some preservice teachers have of racially and economically diverse neighborhoods and schools. Yet, teachers' preconceived beliefs and stereotypes might not impede learning if the teachers are willing to dispel faulty notions and cultivate improved understanding and empathy for marginalized students through culturally-responsive training (Garcia & Chun, 2016; Mahatmya, Lohman, Brown, & Conway-Turner, 2016).
To understand preservice teacher values and perceptions of children and families from poverty it is worthwhile to examine both macro (societal) and micro (individual) perspectives (Silverman, 2010). Ensuring that classrooms, especially in the most disadvantaged areas, are all staffed with qualified teachers is a challenge (Ingersoll, 2004). High-poverty public schools, especially those in urban communities, lose on average one-fifth of their faculty each year (Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005). It is possible that an entire staff could change within a relatively short time. Teacher turnover takes a heavy toll on the overall functioning of a school and irrefutably on the school's ability to provide high-quality instruction to students. Policy response has historically been to boost the number of teachers supplied; not necessarily the quality of preservice teacher preparation programming that might ultimately mediate attrition.
Pre-service teachers who hold biased beliefs about indigent and minority students are reportedly uncomfortable interacting with them (Kumar & Hamer, 2013; Pogodzinski, Youngs, & Frank, 2013). Teachers who express difficulty in creating rapport with students from diverse backgrounds indicate they would adopt performance-focused instructional goals as opposed to mastery-focused achievement goals for the students in their classrooms. Mastery goals focus on increasing competence, whereas performance goals focus on demonstrating student skill and ability. Attempts to close the achievement gap for low-income students have been met with limited success (Miller, Duffy, Rohr, Gasparello, & Mercier, 2005). This could be due to a different gap – the gap between the skills needed to teach disadvantaged students and the preparation preservice teachers receive before they enter the profession.
Schools with disadvantaged student populations need empathic and highly skilled teachers. Ironically, low performing schools are not where most teachers choose to teach and consequently the best available teachers opt for better performing schools (Garcia & Chun, 2016). Students from higher income families have educational advantages, due to more access to resources and better support (Duncan & Murnane, 2014). For low income students, improving teacher-student interactions can improve student performance (Mahatmya, Lohman, Brown, & Conway-Turner, 2016). Moreover, if teachers can raise their academic expectations for the students, student performance can be improved (Mahatmya et al., 2016).
Education enables students to reach their true potential. Early stages in a student's academic life are crucial – a student from poverty with resource scarcity can be easily caught in a vicious cycle that makes it difficult for them to attain higher education (Lee & Bierman, 2015). Therefore, early childhood teachers have an onus of fostering a supportive teacher-student relationship that enables student success. Some students may need more support than others (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) but teachers can benefit by gaining insight on students' past learning experiences. This can be invaluable when designing class instruction (Cox, Watts, & Horton, 2012; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Teachers who focus on designing their instruction to make it more relevant, and thus applicable, to disadvantaged students can improve student engagement (Garmon, 2005; Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
SIGNIFICANCE AND PURPOSE
A disproportionate percentage of children diagnosed with learning disabilities in the US live in families in which incomes fall below $25,000 per year (Blair & Scott, 2002). This disproportionality confirms that school is not a great equalizer for children who are indigent. Rather, schooling sorts children by their class and racial status eventually preparing children for a job market commensurate to their social standing (Ullucci & Howard, 2014). The interactivity between instructional ideology and preservice teachers' perceptions of the indigent has received inadequate attention from researchers. Previous research has explored this phenomenon with teachers who have graduated from baccalaureate programs and are teaching in their own classrooms. Whereas, the purpose of this study was to identify preservice teachers' perceptions of children who are indigent and identify ideological underpinnings for why they believe people and families live in poverty.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study's theoretical framework is predominately informed by the educability myth and deficit ideology described below.
Educability Myth and Deficit Ideology
The educability myth hypothesizes that children who are indigent are less intelligent than non-indigent students and are generally seen as not “school-ready” (Ullucci & Howard, 2014). Children from poverty are often seen as broken when it comes to schooling and are frequently defined by what they cannot do or what they do not have (Rose,1995). Brophy and Good (1974) found that teachers communicate differential performance expectations for children in their classrooms. The teachers expected better performance from children for whom the teachers had higher expectations. In contrast, teachers were more likely to accept lower performance from students for whom they held low expectations. Many students who underperform on traditional standardized assessments become victims of their teachers' deficit perception regarding what they are capable of achieving academically. Because of this deficit perception, teachers think towards remediation rather than education for students who come from poverty (Howard, Dresser, & Dunklee, 2009).
More than four decades of research on teacher perception and expectation indicate teacher beliefs influence their instruction (Aragon, Culpepper, McKee, & Perkins, 2014; Brophy & Good 1974; Bryan & Atwater 2002; Good & Nichols 2001; Rist, 1970; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). This is significant since poverty correlates with student performance (Clayton, 2011; Ladd, 2012). Teacher backgrounds combined with student characteristics account for about half of the variation in teacher attitudes (Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1992). Teacher attitudes about their students' abilities influence instruction in the classroom (Halvorsen, Lee, & Andrade, 2009). Teachers who believe certain children are incapable of learning are less likely to provide robust stimulating tasks to improve learning (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Some in-service teachers believe that families are poor because of the parents' inability to obtain, and attitude towards, work. This ideology where poor people are perceived as lazy and careless is characterized as “deficit ideology.” This ideology posits that conditions and circumstances of those in poverty are created by their own behavior and deficit ideology is responsible for the notion of a “culture of poverty.” This ultimately generates low expectations for indigent children (Thompson, McNicholl, & Menter, 2016).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The powerful influence of teacher perception was first shown in the Pygmalion study by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968). In 1965, Rosenthal and Jacobson conducted an experiment in a public elementary school where they informed classroom teachers that certain children (“growth spurters”) could be expected to make significant academic gains, based on students' results on an intelligence test. The Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition was, in fact, not an actual test and those children designated as “growth spurters” were chosen at random. All students were given an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test at the beginning and end of the school year. Results indicated that those students labeled as “growth spurters” showed a significantly greater gain in IQ than the other students.
Rosenthal and Jacobson were hoping to determine the degree to which changes in teacher expectation produced changes in student achievement. Results of the Pygmalion study provided evidence for an educational self-fulfilling prophecy; when the teacher expected high performance from a student, they received it, and vice versa. Researchers continue to confirm the “expectancy effects” in the Oak School seminal experiment described in Pygmalion (Brophy, 1983).
Considering a social constructivist perspective of analyzing how beliefs can create reality, Brophy and Good (1974) questioned whether children “become” what teachers expect them to become. Results indicated teachers not only develop expectations for their students early on in the school year, but also seek to confirm these expectations during the academic year. Teachers demanded high-quality performance from students for whom they had higher expectations and were more likely to praise worthy performance. In contrast, teachers were more likely to accept sub-average performance from students for whom they held low expectations and were less likely to praise good performance from these students when it was exhibited, even though it occurred at a lower frequency. This research confirmed that teachers form differential expectations for student performance.
Subsequent research teased out whether teachers were proficient at judging students' ability or whether expectations influenced student achievement (Jussim, 1991). Results indicated that teachers' evaluation of students was biased and teacher expectations changed student achievement through self-fulfilling prophecies. Research also confirmed that teacher expectations have the power to influence student performance more strongly than student performance influences teachers' perceptions (Miller & Turnbull, 1986).
Pre-service teachers should understand and examine their own positioning as a starting point for reflection. It is not uncommon for White, middle-class preservice teachers to lack cultural awareness (Schmidt, 1999). Since preservice teachers have spent little time in communities unlike their own, they have not developed cross-cultural consciousness for viewing another community as a cultural site (Taylor & Sobel, 2001). Thus, preservice teachers continue to use their own unexamined frameworks to judge students, students' families, and their communities (Sleeter, 2001). Teachers have an onus to students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds since current institutional structures and practices are biased against them (Thompson, McNicholl, & Menter, 2016). Recognizing individual differences among students from disadvantaged backgrounds is important; however, conceptualizing indigent students as a homogenous group is one of the most common mistakes that teachers make (Garmon, 2005; Thompson, McNicholl, & Menter, 2016).
METHODS
This section outlines the research methods. The first author, referred to as Primary Researcher (PR), was responsible for data collection and initial analysis. Subsequent analysis and write up was done in collaboration with the second author.
Sampling
This study included participants who: (a) had not yet participated in the Capstone Clinical experience (student teaching); and (b) did not participate in a study abroad outreach where students worked with families and children in extreme poverty. Both of these experiences would have given the preservice teacher an outlying perception of children who are indigent and families who live in poverty. Additional considerations to balance both student demographics and experiences were employed. These included: academic class standing, sex, racial category, and self-reported socioeconomic status. The addition of criterion sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2017) helped to further support the likelihood of participant and poverty interactivity. Criterion sampling helped focus study population and expand scope to reach participants who have had diverse experiences with children from poverty and families who are indigent. Table 1 presents participants' demographic details.
Data Collection
After obtaining approval from the University Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, we selected preservice teachers who were willing to share their experiences. The PR conducted face-to-face interviews with 13 undergraduate preservice teachers from a private, Catholic, liberal arts University in Northeast US. Interviews were audio recorded for later transcription and analysis. Interviews were scheduled in 90-minute time slots in a secure, mutually convenient on-campus location for the participants and the researchers. All participant identifiers and responses were protected. Data collected from individual participants was reported either in summary format or using their pseudonyms if applied as a direct quote.
Participant Details
Three male and 10 female students from freshman to senior class standing offered a demographically representative blend commonly seen in in-service teaching and the selected teacher training program. All 13 participants were monolingual English speakers. None of the participants were enrolled in or taking courses within the Teaching English Language Learners certification program at the university. 10 of the 13 participants indicated they have taken a required three-credit education course entitled, “Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners.” The goal of this course is to enable students to identify challenges in participation in the educational process by diverse cultural and ethnic groups. This course is typically taken during a student's freshman or sophomore year and is the only course currently required in the sequence of this particular preservice teacher preparation program that analyzes the issues of race, racism, and culture in historical and contemporary perspectives.
Data Analysis
Hycner's (1985) phenomenology data analysis model was chosen. Before transcription, the researchers listened to each participant's interview in entirety. Interviews were listened to again, participant-by-participant, as they were transcribed verbatim. The primary researcher reviewed field notes made during each face-to-face interview. Field notes assisted in later data categorization (Morse & Field, 2002).
Following review of field notes and transcription, the PR became intimately familiar with the data. The PR read each transcript, one participant at a time, reread each transcript, and analyzed data following Colaizzi's (1978) recommendation to identify significant statements pertaining on the proposed phenomenon. Hycner (1985) refers to this step as delineating units of general meaning. At this point, notes were made in the margins of the transcripts themselves and the PR began to develop each significant statement's interpretative meaning. Once the units of meaning were denoted for each participant, the research questions and the units of general meaning were considered. During this phase of analysis, the PR validated the themes, avoided the repetitive themes, and noted any discrepancies.
In the next stage, interpretative meanings were arranged into clusters. This allowed for categories to emerge (Colaizzi, 1978). Transcripts were read through again and a second round of coding began. The design of this study called for a top-down approach to development of categories or themes using the six factors identified by Blair, Brown, Schoepflin, and Taylor (2014). Overarching categories with subcategories nested within the broad category were considered as participants' perceptions and experiences developed. This final stage required deep thinking about the categories and searching for alternative understanding prior to converting the categories into thematic units and using the themes to compose the descriptive report. Creswell (2009) recommends researchers search for patterns by “pulling the data apart and putting them back together in more meaningful ways” (p. 163). Through this strategic puzzling and with the guidance by Blair, Brown, Schoepflin, and Taylor (2014) the researchers discovered how preservice teachers perceive children from poverty and families who are indigent as well as discovered the ideological underpinnings that guide those perceptions.
Credibility and Consistency
During the interview phase, the PR engaged in “prolonged engagement” with the participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This allowed extended time with respondents to reduce social desirability responses – data that are based on what the participants view as socially desirable responses (Kirk & Miller, 1986). Prolonged engagement assisted in detecting response sets where participants consistently agreed or disagreed with the interview questions. Peer examination and analysis occurred concurrently during the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Discussion and resulting commentary from colleagues in higher education were documented and compiled for reflection. Insights were discussed and problems presented for debriefing. This process contributed to deeper reflective analysis and was followed by bracketing and phenomenological reduction (Hycner, 1985). This meant suspending (bracketing) PR's own meanings and interpretations of the phenomenon. This is a critical aspect of phenomenology since it involves using the participants' worldview to understand what the person is saying, rather than what the researcher expects. To ascertain whether we were able to bracket the primary researchers' own presuppositions, the primary researcher wrote down her conscious assumptions and reflected on them.
Limitations
The participant selection was limited to undergraduate students enrolled in one private, Catholic, liberal arts university in the Northeast region of the United States. This sample is not meant to be representative of the entire population of the nation's preservice teacher force. Increased diversity among study participants would have allowed for investigations of similarities and differences in participant perception across different field experiences and volunteer/service experiences.
FINDINGS
Before the interview, participants were asked their subjective status, which is an individual's perception of their socioeconomic standing. Participants relegated class narrowly to their parents' economic and financial sphere. It was revealed that participants had minimal direct experiences with poverty prior to college. Due to this limited exposure, pre-existing attitudes and biased perceptions informed their understanding. For most participants, clinical experiences associated with college coursework, along with work in the before-school enrichment program affiliated with the university were the only opportunities they had with children who are indigent. Out of the 13 participants, two participants were on welfare during their childhood, while two other participants had extended family members who received support through government assistance. The following sections present themes from the data analysis. Tables 2 and 3 present a few examples.
Societal and Sociopolitical Barriers
Participants indicated there is a stigma attached to those in poverty. Melanie shared, “It's easy to stereotype those who are indigent, almost to the extent that we no longer see them as human beings.” Sophia added, “I think the way our society is built, it makes it harder for them. They don't always feel welcomed.” Systemic oppression makes success more difficult for those outside of society's accepted sphere of normality. According to the participants, this includes those who are indigent. “I almost feel like they are set up to fail, in a way,” said Samuel. He added:
It would be very, very difficult for them to get to that point. Just because of how society is set up. In America, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That's just how America was built. People in poverty are almost being forced to stay below those who are well-off.
Isabel shared the above sentiment, “Poor people are in an endless cycle of never being enough for society.” She believed indigent are often belittled. “A lot of people are trying to make it out but they can't because society won't let them.” The sociopolitical barriers thus transcend into education. Samuel described the oppression is visible in schools today.
Poor children are told they are bad. They are almost treated like criminals before they do anything wrong. They can have the same opportunity for success as everyone else, but we don't let them. We don't…we almost don't want them to.
Several participants identified societal apathy towards the indigent as an obstacle faced by indigent. Many participants indicated that the non-indigent in the United States don't care about helping others. “There's so much hate towards those who are poor,” said Samantha. Poor people are often shunned because of their physical appearance. According to Sophia, “their appearance sets them apart so even if they are making that effort to find a job, it puts them back because you aren't able to present yourself as well as you could as others can.”
Samantha indicated for the indigent who are unemployed, obtaining employment may not be easy. “It may be possible for the unemployed to find jobs but it's just as likely that they don't know where to look or how to find a job.” According to many participants, institutional racism and systemic bias are the most significant obstacles indigent face in the United States. Participants believed this oppression is evident in schools, employment, health care, housing, and our judicial system. Samuel commented, “Society is set up to basically not allow for them [poor] to have access to the same opportunities.” Samuel believed people often view indigent children differently. “They aren't seen as kids with opportunity and a full life ahead of them. All they see is the poverty.” Several participants believed the criminal justice system targets the indigent. And once a person has a criminal record, employment options dwindle. Peter reflected, “A lot of indigent people have criminal records and if you have a criminal record, it's hard to get a job period.” Nearly all the participants agreed on both invisible and visible barriers preventing indigent from obtaining middle-class status or beyond.
Parental Attitude Towards Education
Participants believed in the sociocultural context for student learning, with many indicating that parents serve as a child's first teacher. Thus, children's learning is naturally linked to cultural and familial norms for behavior and interpersonal styles. Almost all participants believed that children from poverty and their parents do not value education. Evelyn explained,
Poor children may lack motivation to be successful because their parents are not showing them how to be successful. Kids who are born into families of poverty, they see their parents wake up and maybe just stay home all day.
Cassandra reflected on her experiences in the university-affiliated enrichment program, “I have minimal interactions with parents. They kind of just drop them off.” When asked if these parents value education, she indicated, “I think some parents do. But then there are some parents that don't…who don't even bring their kids to the door and it makes me feel like maybe they have not had positive interactions at school for themselves.” She believed parents purposely do this so they don't have to engage with school personnel. Of the families that do come into the classroom, many seem to “rather not be there if they didn't have to.”
A significant portion of Samantha's interview was spent discussing the implications of parental attitude toward school, teachers, and the ultimate success of indigent children. In her experience, parents from poverty do not appreciate teachers. She described a university-affiliated enrichment program student's parent, “I got the vibe from her that she didn't appreciate what we were doing as teachers and she didn't appreciate school.” Samantha indicated that a particular student's mother was “really tough. She would call yelling at us.” Upon further explanation of the parent-school relationship, Samantha believed the child's mother didn't like school and was angry with teachers. “I don't know the dad situation. But I think the mom doesn't like school because she's very salty with us, all of the time. I don't think she was nice to us once.”
Participants indicated parents from poverty do not support their children academically, nor are they able to provide them with the resources needed to be successful in school. This lack of parental support can lead to lower student academic performance. Educational expectation was cited as lacking in indigent families. “I feel like some indigent people didn't go to college and graduate college and I feel like they don't expect a lot out of their children,” said Lauren. “There's no standards held within their household.” The belief that indigent parents do not motivate their children to succeed in school and thus indigent children do not attain as much in life was expressed by many participants. Cassandra asserted, “Parents are your first teachers so if they don't have a strong view on education, that'll set their child's mindset, as well.” She feels as though children who are indigent are conditioned to believe that education, especially higher education, is unattainable. “A lot of my kids in the before-school program say, ‘Oh, I'm not gonna go to college or I can't go to college.' You're in second grade! You shouldn't think that way already!”
Participants believed parents may be hesitant towards engaging in communication or participation in school events due to their own historically negative experiences in school. Samantha commented, “I think that parents who have had bad experiences in school are gonna have that effect on their kids and talk badly about school.” Teachers' false expectations may unintentionally encourage discrimination and inequality in the educational process. Missing from their awareness are the multiple explanations, both in and because of historical or systemic contexts for this hesitancy.
Minimal Assistance at Home Affects Indigent Students' Academic Skills
Participants suggested that parental influence is responsible for lowered expectation for success. Many indicated that there is no pressure to succeed for indigent students and parents don't seem to care about the children's academic progress. Cassandra attributed lowered academic achievement of children who are indigent to parent inability to provide enrichment activities at home. “Maybe they don't get homework help at home or the parents don't have beyond a high school background so they don't know how to do the homework.” Melanie believed, “sometimes it's difficult to work with students from poverty. Academically, their skills aren't as developed as they should be for their grade level.” She believed indigent children often lag academically behind those who are not indigent. “This year I'm in first grade and a lot of them are struggling with things that should have been learned in Kindergarten.” She believed that she can tell which children come from more financially stable homes. “Working with other first graders, who you can tell come from more financially stable homes, they are at grade level and maybe slightly above.”
Besides lack of assistance with homework or academic assignments, many participants believe parents from poverty aren't able to give their children supplies they need to do well academically. Myra identified not being able to afford school supplies as an obstacle. “The list of school supplies these days is ridiculous. If you're poor and you can't put food on the table, there's no way you can buy the ridiculous amount of stuff that classrooms need.” Lack of school supplies, not having Wi-Fi to complete assignments, and parental absence from home were identified by participants as obstacles that indigent children face that preclude them from doing as well academically as their non-indigent peers.
Many participants opined that parents from poverty were physically absent from their child's life. Dominic reflected, “Poor kids' parents probably aren't around as much and so kids might be responsible for getting themselves to school.” Evelyn felt similarly, “Parents from poverty are just not home and also aren't the best parents around.” Dominic believed this makes indigent children more susceptible to “freedom and drugs.” If children are responsible for getting themselves to school, Dominic added, “high schoolers skip school…and then a lot of them end up getting into drugs.” He believed out-of-school time meant the children are “walking the streets, running around. Basically, bouncing from house to house.”
Lack of education, specifically the opportunity to attend college, separates families who are indigent from those who are not. Cassandra said, “Some poor people may be able to break that barrier but it gets really challenging. I've always known I was going to college. For many children and people who are poor, this isn't a family expectation.” Samuel believed that families or parents who are indigent and lack education may struggle to offer their children a chance at being educated and this can be a significant challenge they face as a family. He also indicated that this perpetuates the cycle of poverty in families.
They were put into a situation where they weren't really…they didn't have a chance to get that education. So obviously once they get out of school without an education they aren't going to be able to get their kids into a situation where they can be educated. So the kids just go through the same cycle.
Olivia felt similarly. “Poor mothers and fathers are so busy working late that they don't have the time to read to their children or give them attention.” She also stated that these homes lack “books and games that some other kids have that teach lessons that help children. This is unfair. It's an uneven system. Unequal.” The participants unequivocally shared similar beliefs on disparate opportunities for children who are indigent when compared to their non-indigent counterparts both in and out of school.
Teaching Indigent Children is Different
Study participants indicated they believe teaching indigent students is significantly different than teaching non-indigent children. The participants shared feelings of intimidation, nervousness, and anxiety in anticipation of working in underfunded schools and with families from poverty. While most preservice teachers have little experience learning from a community different from their own, they need to do so to implement culturally and contextually relevant pedagogy for students from poverty (Sleeter, 2001). To compound the problem even further, many participants indicated in-service teachers simply don't care about students who are indigent. Peter commented, “I personally experienced that teachers really didn't care about these kids.” Samantha believed that teachers are often unwilling to give children who are indigent the extra help that they may need. When questioned why she believes it to be true, she said, “Teaching that group of children is much different than teaching in a school like [redacted], where it's mostly White children coming from, I guess, more wealthy backgrounds of middle-class.” Myra had an especially poignant statement affirming the belief: “Good teachers don't want to teach in poor schools.”
The majority of participants, despite limited exposure to teaching in disadvantaged schools, believed teaching children from poverty is different than teaching non-indigent children. Common claims about poverty and stereotyped beliefs about the behavior of indigent children in the classroom undergird participants' rationale. Despite never attending a school that is considered disadvantaged, many participants indicated it is necessary for teachers teaching indigent children to spend a significant amount of time on nonacademic priorities. Food and feeding children were mentioned as priorities. Cassandra believed teaching students who are indigent may need to occur in a different way than teaching those from financially stable environments. “I think they all…I think that everybody can learn but for these kids, it might need to happen in a different way. Food is a big part…making sure they're fed is almost an academic priority.” Sophia was surprised to see that while at her teaching practicum in the local city school, the children ate all of their meals at school. “That is one thing I definitely found interesting. I had never seen that before.”
This lack of focus on academic instruction was mentioned by Evelyn, as well. “When you teach in an inner-city, poor school, you aren't teaching. You're becoming more of like a missionary. It has really nothing to do with the content; you're really just trying to get them to be better people.” The majority of participants indicated they believe children from poverty have exorbitant amounts of stress and challenge in their lives and bring these burdens to school with them.
The mythological viewpoint of Individual Faults was further evidenced in responses by participants who indicated teaching children who are indigent is “more challenging” than teaching non-indigent children, as well as “more disappointing”, “frustrating”, and “intimidating.” These beliefs indicate participants view students from poverty as behaviorally and academically taxing on a teacher. Participants believed that indigent children do not want to be in school and lack the desire to learn.
Despite the perceived challenges, study participants exhibited a strong will to do more. All but two participants indicated a belief they can individually make a difference in the lives of the indigent. Cassandra and Isabel feel they are “too small to make a difference” in the lives of the indigent and that “you can never do enough” to individually affect the lives of people in poverty. Isabel elaborated, “It's important to me. But I just don't know if I can ever do enough. Obviously, I want to do everything I can but I'll never…I'll never be able to do enough.” She believed it is the pervasiveness of poverty that runs so deep within the person that it ends up affecting the majority of their life. Drawing from her own experiences growing up in a family from poverty she highlighted, “It's something they think about all of the time. Even in moments you don't realize.”
Many participants recognized connecting with children from poverty might take extra effort. Dominic conveyed similar feelings about the emotional toll teaching children from poverty takes on a teacher.
You have to be able to take on the responsibility of being able to help the children. You need to be able to take on the fact that it's not all sunshine and rainbows and the kids aren't gonna come in and be smiles all the time.
He indicated children from poverty may break down emotionally once they get to school. “And you need to be able to know how to handle that correctly. Otherwise, you're not gonna be happy with your job.” We asked him if he believed he has the desire for teaching the indigent. He indicated, yes. “Because I think that those kids need love the most.”
Building Connections with Students to Foster Learning
Participants described their role as: teacher, role model, resource, guide, motivator, advocate, consistent presence, inspiration, supporter, influencer, and helper. Participants believe in the power of good teaching (and in effective teachers) and the positive effects both can have on all students, regardless of their background.
Participants indicated a belief in holding all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, to high academic standards. Melanie commented,
I don't think that I would go about teaching any differently no matter what setting I'm placed in. My resources may be different but the ways in which I interact with my students and the way I conduct my lessons and such would be the same across the board.
Samuel indicated a similar confidence.
I feel like I am equipped, spiritually and mentally to teach the indigent. First of all, it's something I want to do. A lot of people don't even want to do that. I want to do it. I feel like the way I was raised in my family basically shaped me to be able to do this. I'm confident I will be able to.
Olivia was just as optimistic.
I like the genuine bond between a person and another person. I think that can get people out of poverty, too. Teachers definitely have an impact on that. I truly believe that if you have a really great teacher, they can inspire you to do anything.
Lauren believed teachers play an essential role in supporting children who are indigent and their families. “I think teachers play a really important role in inspiring kids and motivating them to not only be the best student they can be, but motivating them to be the best person they can be.” She believed if children do not have parents or caregivers at home that motivate them, it's the teacher's job to do so. Sophia suggested teachers can show students from poverty that “education is important and learning is fun.”
Cassandra recognized listening is an important skill needed when teaching this population of students. “I'm interested…not that I enjoy hearing their tough experiences but I like to listen to them and what they have to say. You can listen to your students. Sometimes that's all they need.”
Samantha indicated very strong intentions for connecting to indigent families. Because she already witnessed negative interactions between teachers and indigent children's parents, she has been reflecting about how to best communicate with them, especially during typically stressful events like parent-teacher conferences. “I want it to be conversation-based. Letting them know that I care for their child and that this child is loved in my classroom.” She indicated that conveying care and love for the student might be the best way to reach parents who may be resistive to school interactions, and emphasizing that “we are on the same team.”
Dominic believed in getting to know indigent children's families at all costs. “I will try to connect to them through mail, through calling them. If I can't get hold of them, I'll appear on their doorstep and try to talk to them and try to get to know their situation.” It is important to him that families see him as a resource that can help. The next section presents a discussion of the findings.
DISCUSSION
Pre-service teachers in this study exhibited at least some understanding of how class and socioeconomic privilege and opportunity manifest. Most participants correctly identified their own socioeconomic class. When compared to broad neighborhood and community socioeconomic data, all participants identified the socioeconomic class that accurately situates them within their communities. Those that identified as wealthy are from wealthy neighborhoods and communities. The same is true for middle-class and low-income participants, as well. The recognition of “I'm a privileged, White woman”, “I grew up in an area with a bunch of rich White girls”, and attending a “very, very White Conservative” school may be an interesting starting point for reflection for preservice teachers as they develop understanding and insights about themselves in relation to others.
Study participants recognized that children from poverty do not have equal opportunities for success as everyone else. For this sample of preservice teachers, collective empathy for children in poverty is high while compassion for adults in poverty is low. At some point in the trajectory of an indigent person's life, blame seems to turn inward on the individual person and what they haven't done or don't have. While participants recognize the inequality many indigent children face, they don't feel that they possess the skills yet necessary to enact any change or action.
Silverman (2010) concluded that teacher training on multicultural awareness can develop teachers' overall sense of responsibility, in addition to evoking positive understanding about diversity-related issues. As evident in this study's participant beliefs and in the published literature, there is a perception that children who are indigent are so riddled with burden from their home environments that academic instruction should take a back seat to behavior issues and emotional manifestations seen as symptomatic of their poverty.
For all students, but especially for those coming from poverty, high academic and behavioral expectations coupled with achievable goals matter. This is the sustenance needed for long-term educational change for students from poverty and other marginalized groups. It is imperative that teacher training programs aim to disrupt deficit discourse frequently expressed by preservice and in-service teachers.
Study participants indicated a strong desire for teaching students who are indigent and who attend disadvantaged and underfunded schools, though they recognize resources may be different than what they are used to. They recognize that interacting with families may take additional skills for collaboration that they do not have. This authentic desire is the first step in serving indigent children and their families. Teachers' belief of making a difference in indigent children's lives may be a deciding factor in whether change is ever actually created (Dell'Angelo, 2016). The participants' willingness is hopeful since their experiences in high poverty schools working with in-service teachers thus far have been dismal, at best.
Variation in teacher expectation is a strong predictor of student underachievement (Dell'Angelo, 2016). The current study revealed that teaching indigent children is different and indigent children are held to lower academic standards. Participants subscribe to deficit ideology and adhere to the educability myth when describing the type of instruction and teaching pedagogy frequently used with children from poverty. Children from poverty are often seen as broken when it comes to schooling and are frequently defined by what they cannot do or what they do not have (Rose, 1995). A majority of the respondents indicated they believe children who are indigent lack the supplies and resources to do well academically. Many participants believe a lack of supplies, uninvolved home life, and parents who do not support education are among the biggest barriers to equitable academic opportunity for children who are indigent. This worldview sets up a particularly difficult boundary for preservice teachers when distinguishing between indigent and non-indigent children (Ullucci & Howard, 2015).
Despite having limited experience teaching in classrooms thus far, about half of the participants indicate teaching children from poverty is significantly different than teaching children who are not indigent. Teaching children who are indigent was described as: frustrating, intimidating, more stressful, more challenging, and disappointing. One participant indicated good teachers don't want to teach in disadvantaged schools because students are more difficult to work with. A teacher's role was compared to a missionary, as children were perceived to be more concerned with hunger than learning. These hidden biases may unintentionally encourage discrimination and educational inequality for children who are indigent.
Pre-service teachers believe families in poverty lack interest and involvement in their child's education (Jacobbe, Ross, & Hensberry, 2012). Participants feel that indigent children's parents are disinterested in their child's education and that parents' own negative experiences within formal schooling can lead to minimal involvement in their child's education. While the notion that families from poverty are to be blamed for their students' lack of success in schools is a common misconception among preservice and in-service teachers alike, research indicates that parents and caregivers experiencing poverty are just as likely as their wealthier peers to be engaged in their child's at-home learning (Williams & Sánchez, 2012). In fact, parents experiencing poverty share similar attitudes about education with wealthier parents (Compton-Lilly 2004; Lareau & Horvat, 1999). While it is true that parents from poverty attend fewer school functions and volunteer less often in their children's classrooms (Jacobbe, Ross, & Hensberry, 2012), it is not because they value education less, rather this could be because the indigent children's parents are working multiple jobs, have no transportation or childcare, have a job with punitive consequences for missing work, or work evenings.
Study participants believed inequitable academic opportunity exists for children who are indigent. Attending underperforming or underfunded schools and being taught by untrained or ineffective teachers are significant barriers. Academic opportunities not afforded to indigent children include: access to tutors, sports, school clubs, private education, supplies and resources, access to field trips, music lessons, and college. Participants indicated a belief that children who are indigent often have home lives that do not support academic success. This includes: homes that are chaotic, housing insecurity, inability to complete homework due to lack of needed help or space, and resource scarcity.
Practice Implications
The current study investigated perceptions and practices of preservice teachers as they relate to children in poverty and families who are indigent. At the organizational level, these results have implications for teacher preparation programs, as preservice teachers should be encouraged to address hidden assumptions, refine their knowledge and beliefs, and adopt more optimistic, realistic views of children and families in poverty. Teacher preparation programs should consider awareness training and opportunities to reflect on congruency, as well as disparities, between students' individual beliefs and teacher education content related to children from poverty. This can support teacher candidates in formulating and revising their assumptions and beliefs. The results of this study have implications at the societal level as the quality of teachers coming from more effective teacher preparation programs may mediate the attrition of teachers that typically exists in high poverty schools.
Schools and teachers cannot raise a community out of poverty and so it is important for teacher preparation programs to unpack the nexus of race, culture and poverty. As in the case of most teacher preparation programs, one three-credit, decontextualized course in culturally diverse learners is not sufficient. Embedding these constructs into teacher training programs is necessary (Wright, Gottfried, & Le, 2017). Context-specific information should be taught to preservice teachers so they recognize the nuances that are present in underfunded and disadvantaged communities.
Research Implications
Although this study was guided by systematic considerations including existing theory and empirical research, different methodological approaches should be considered to extend the study. For example, the perceptions were studied using a phenomenological approach. Perhaps a grounded theory approach or a case study exploration might provide further insights into how preservice teachers' beliefs influence instruction in classrooms with children who are indigent. A goal of this study is to encourage further investigation and analysis of preservice teachers' perceptions of diverse populations that will ultimately lead to deeper understanding and better policy and practice in supporting all of our nation's diverse children and their families.
CONCLUSION
Poverty is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon. As we strive to educate all children, we must seek to break the systemic inequality that exists for indigent children. Many teacher education programs in the US may unintentionally reinforce the traditional hierarchical role that teachers play as expert authority and the notion that low-income or ethnic minority students are deficient when they do not meet school expectations. This study's aim was to investigate the ways in which preservice teachers derive their understanding of indigent children and their families. By labelling students from poverty, teachers impede progress instead of providing students a platform to grow and succeed. Analyzing and reflecting upon individual knowledge and understanding regarding educational outcome disparities and poverty should be encouraged in preservice teacher preparation programs in order to mitigate the negative effects arising from future teachers' misconceptions and biases.
Contributor Notes
SUSAN D. JOHNSON, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Special Education at Mercyhurst University. She specializes in the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders and emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth. Her scholarly interests include instructional design and development of pedagogical best practices for students with severe disabilities, in addition to investigating educational equity opportunities in rural and urban communities.
Dr. Johnson's primary teaching areas are in Low Incidence Disabilities, Autism Spectrum Disorders, and Family/Community Relationships in Education. Prior to teaching at Mercyhurst, Dr. Johnson spent 15 years in NY and VA working as a public school and private agency speech/language therapist and special education teacher. She has been at Mercyhurst since 2010.
VISHAL ARGHODE, Ph.D is a faculty member in the Organisational Behaviour and Human Resources Management area at IIM Nagpur. Before joining IIM Nagpur, he was a faculty member at Organizational Learning and Leadership Doctoral program at Gannon University, Pennsylvania, for six years, where he served as a chair and committee member in doctoral committees besides teaching and researching in Organizational studies, Human Resources, and allied areas. Dr. Arghode has published in reputed peer reviewed journals and has presented at leading international conferences. He is also a two-time recipient of Emerald Literati Award for Highly Commendable paper in 2018 and 2021. His research interests include change leadership, organizational culture and performance management, and emerging issues in organizations.
