Is Ruby Payne's Framework for Poverty still relevant?

Many of us have heard of Ruby Payne's framework for addressing the impact of generational poverty on students development in the classroom. Yet, her framework has come under scrutiny. She spends a great deal of time discussing her Hidden Rules of Poverty, demonstrating - in a way to support her ideas - that it is difficult to move from one socio-economic status to another due to lacking the awarenss of hidden cultural rules. She believes that by explaining these rules, teachers can better connect with students.

I'd like to invite you to reflect on the critiques of the Framework for Poverty.  Some critiques include the following: 

  1. They focus on individual interventions and ignore the systems that cause, worsen and perpetuate poverty.
  2. They overgeneralize about people living in poverty and rely upon stereotypes.
  3. They focus on perceived weaknesses (or deficits) of children and families living in poverty.
  4. They are theoretically ungrounded and offer little evidence that they work.
  5. aha! Process workshops—and their price tags—capitalize on the needs of children in poverty.

What are your thoughts? Is this Framework for Poverty still relevant? If we shift from this framework, how do we develop equity in our classrooms?  

I'm looking forward to your thoughts. 

Kathy 

Comments

I really have no set opinion on the matter, but I would caution not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water.  Although idealistically I would like to think that every child born into poverty (as were my own parents, and where most of my extended family continue to live) is equally capable to achieve, the child's environment, including systems or patterns of thinking, will impact educational outcomes without intentional intervention in most cases.

A recent article in Scientific American Mind reports that several studies have shown a connection between SES and brain development, and the news is not good. 45% of people who spend half of their childhood below the poverty line continue to live in poverty when they are 35.  The most interesting piece of this article to me was the physical difference that can (and I emphasize "can" and not "will") occur in brain development. Children from lower SES had less cortical gray matter.  Now, these are not cause-and-effect studies, so there could be another reason why this occurs (genetics, nutrition, exposure to toxins, etc.), but we know the first 5 years of a child's life is when the brain is most being developed. One study showed differences as early as one month of age!  

Programs for family literacy, such as the now defunded Even Start program, really helped with early interventions, and I'm concerned under the new political climate and the push on "jobs," that this opportunity to provide a different start for children in poverty will continue to shrink. The article reported on one study that showed interventions at age 4 made a difference, but not at age 8.  We need to start early with education as a poverty intervention.

Again, as a family with a long history of mind-numbing poverty in the US (my grandmother's house had neither running water nor electricity - and 13 kids in 2 rooms), I know that poverty is not the only determinant of outcomes.  And all brains, including adult brains, learn and grow. 

But we can't ignore poverty as a factor or say that it is "stereotyping" when we look at descriptive statistics that indicate trends. On the other hand, we can't ignore that many of our adult students are "outliers" to those trends.  

My bottom line? We need to treat all students as individuals, with particular strengths and knowledge and skills gaps, with dignity and respect, if we hope to make a difference in their lives and the lives of their families and communities. We need to spend one-on-one time setting goals, action steps, and establishing relationships that will foster trust and promote student success - on the student's terms.

 

I don't know if you can access the article without a subscription, but here is the link to the article I referenced: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-poverty-shape-the-brain/ 

Glenda and all, 

Your comments are a very important reminder that individuals living in poverty cannot be placed in a stereotype. Some of the  major opposition to the Framework of Poverty is that “The strategies that were learned within that particular framework didn’t lead to scaffolding students as individuals....It created that idea that everybody living in poverty reacted, responded and did things the same way.”

We know that the instructional strategies that support students of poverty include holding all students to high expectations, focusing on cultural assest rather than deficits, including culturally rich curriculum, understanding the families and their environment, creating safe spaces for students to explore their culture. It appears these ideas are far apart.    I'd love to hear more thoughts...  Kathy                 

 

 

 

It seems to be really hard for scientists (especially social scientists) to adequately communicate the difference between average or typical behavior/characteristics/etc and individual behavior/characteristics/etc. This confusion gets passed down through casual language and word-of-mouth until statements of fact ("Many people who grew up in poverty do xyz.") become stereotypes or worse ("Poor people always do xyz." or "Poor people always do xyz and it's bad for them in the long term."). I sat in one presentation on the culture of poverty that seriously offended some people in the audience who had lived in poverty and felt that they were being belittled and oversimplified.

I have no concrete evidence to back this up, but I suspect that some people giving this type of presentation find it to be a politically correct way to deal with the  differences between (middle-class) white culture and (poor) black culture. Essentially: let's not talk about race because class is easier. Then "we" can talk about "them" and we'll all know what's going on without having to say it. Obviously, this use of the framework is unacceptable.

People who grow up in different circumstances are different. A person's body, mind, and emotional and social habits can all be influenced by their situation. I think it's appropriate for teachers to know about potential differences between their cultural expectations and their students' (realizing that students are different from each other, too). Teachers need to be able to observe, communicate, and adapt, and it's often helpful for them to know what they might encounter. But overgeneralizations will bite you back!

I have reflected at length on whether poverty represents characteristics that we can specifically and effectively address through instruction in Adult Education. What do we do with the poor in our programs?

I found some of Payne's practices to be too general and unwieldy to be applied among adults. In researching whether there is such a thing as a "culture of poverty" a few years back, starting with Oscar Lewis' descriptions in 1967, which are now widely challenged and criticized, I came to develop my own views on the subject, based more on my experiences than research on the topic.

I don't think that any adult educator would argue that children raised in poverty, like all children, tend to perpetuate the values and lifestyles handed down by adults in their lives unless something happens to intervene. Modeling is critical. Edward Hall's work describes cultures going from High Context to Low Context. In my observations, students raised in poverty show many of the characteristics described as high-context by Hall. Recognizing those characteristics and evaluating them in terms of our own cultural preferences provides instructors, in my opinion, valuable keys to reaching underserved poor populations, especially, but not exclusively, those in large urban environments.

Among Pyne's recommended practices, I find the following to be helpful:

  • "Providing curricular “mirrors” so students can see themselves in classroom materials." Most literature in schools told stories about White boys. I believe that if we model reading content that allows learners to identify with characters is a big step in the right direction.
  • "Encouraging educators to continually examine their own power, privilege and bias—and to include discussions of power, privilege and bias in their teaching." I include this process in all of my teacher-training. It is a powerful, self-reflective process.
  • Finding and focusing on students’ cultural assets rather than their perceived deficits." This is not an easy thing to do if the behavior in question pushes deep cultural prejudices and attitudes. However, with practice....

Leecy

Mia Birdsong's Ted Talk, The Story We Tell About Poverty Isn't True, states that hard work does not equal success and that narrative is not true. In her powerful speach, she says,

"I have worked with and learned from people just like them for more than 20 years. I have organized against the prison system, which impacts poor folks, especially black, indigenous and Latino folks, at an alarming rate. I have worked with young people who manifest hope and promise, despite being at the effect of racist discipline practices in their schools, and police violence in their communities. I have learned from families who are unleashing their ingenuity and tenacity to collectively create their own solutions. And they're not just focused on money. They're addressing education, housing, health, community — the things that we all care about. Everywhere I go, I see people who are broke but not broken. I see people who are struggling to realize their good ideas, so that they can create a better life for themselves, their families, their communities." 

I encourage everyone to listen to her talk. Then, share your ideas about what adjustments, if any, we may need to make in our classroom to make a more equitable society through education. 

Sincerely, 

Kathy Tracey