Tom R. Davis has spent his entire career in public education: first as classroom teacher, later in administration, and currently as a consultant and executive coach to educational leaders.
CHILDREN LIVING IN poverty face greater challenges than their socioeconomically advantaged peers in their ability to learn in school. It affects their attention span in class, their ability to complete homework, their interactions with fellow students and staff—in general, their ability to absorb the material presented to them in class. In turn, chartered schools and traditional public schools alike are challenged to respond to this situation so all students have equal opportunity to benefit from their academic environment.
Like many Americans today, I grew up in an urban setting. Most of my nine brothers and sisters were out of the nest and involved in the workforce, college, or the military by age eighteen. This could not be further from the scarcity my past relatives faced; even though their roots were deep in the Midwest wheat bowl, they made the tough decision to migrate to the West Coast for work. Unsure of how long they would have resources or even mobility, my entire family relocated for fear of what many Americans still struggle with: poverty.
Unfortunately, for countless Americans today, simply relocating is not enough to keep them out of the mire of poverty. For most of us, our perspective on poverty is often largely influenced by our experience with it. If you have ever lived under impoverished circumstances, such as homelessness, your understanding of poverty is likely to be different from the understanding an observer of poverty might have.
In my case, I have only been an observer. I cannot recall ever missing a meal, not having a bed to sleep in, or not having clothes to wear. I cannot pretend to understand a life of poverty. Certainly, growing up, I knew people struggled with it. I knew my family gave to charities, as did I. But the signs of poverty were not visible in my neighborhood.
I recall driving to graduate school at Pepperdine University in downtown Los Angeles and observing people on the streets. I took the same route at the same time three days per week for two years. The neighborhoods could be described as rundown and in disrepair. Some people pushed shopping carts holding all their worldly possessions, while others sat on old furniture watching the day go by. I had been accustomed to the notion that most working-age adults spent their afternoons at a job or school, so in the case of these out-of-work adults, I wondered what their backgrounds were and what opportunities these adults had, if any.
My observations became an unscientific study of the snail’s pace of progress in a poor community and the unchanging lack of opportunity that existed on the streets. I saw the same people in the same place at the same time, week after week with no job, no money, and no future. This commute brought me to terms with the face of poverty. I will never forget seeing the same five or six young men in front of a small neighborhood market, smoking and drinking from a paper bag in the middle of the day … every time I drove past it. They were not alone: People of all ages waited, wished, and despaired nearby. They did not have much available to them, other than an endless parade of cars to watch. And I, in the traffic, watched back.
The information I gleaned from this ongoing observation later informed my work as an educator. Certainly, I worked with hundreds of students born into poverty. The conclusion I drew was that we, as a society, do know that education relieves poverty; it is key in the fight to move communities forward both economically and socially.
Our society has this knowledge, and yet, why has our country not made greater, more lasting strides to eradicate poverty?
Solutions are often short-term and therefore unsustainable; programs designed to support growth and remove individuals from the ranks of the poor will last only as long as the funding does. A looming contributing factor is the lack of recognition and funding for the need to make quality education accessible for every American. Successful short-term programs never seem to become long-term programs. Therefore, education and those support systems designed by communities never endure long enough to make a difference.
During our research, we visited over a dozen major American cities. Poverty appeared in every one of them: St. Louis, Detroit, New York, Los Angeles, Memphis, Cleveland, Phoenix, Santa Fe, Chicago; the list goes on. We saw people living outdoors, rain or shine, snowstorm or heat wave. Poverty was disparagingly consistent.
Poverty was repeatedly a concern in schools, districts, cities, and states. Many citizens believe large-scale poverty holds us back from becoming a truly prosperous nation. Granted, so-called wars have been waged on poverty, and social programs have been designed to support those living at the poverty level. In the meantime, the gap between the haves and have-nots increases with successive generations.
Endless research has been compiled, and numerous programs have been signed into being, yet poverty remains a fixture of society. The fact that students have only a specific window of time to make the most of their school-age years makes the battle against poverty especially crucial. We have much left to explore when it comes to finding weapons that will finally defeat poverty for good.
Since humans shifted from hunting and gathering to agriculture, a segment of the population has always lived in poverty. At one time, to be in poverty meant no food, shelter, job, or clothes. Most people agree impoverished living conditions could and should be improved. Depending on the geographic location in question, a person or family can be identified as impoverished based on their income, size, housing, medical care, nutrition, and more. The complexity of data is so rampant and indistinguishable that the awfulness of poverty has been lost in rhetoric and multiple definitions. The bottom line is identifying poverty is not as complicated as some may contend. In the case of chartered schools, many have identified poverty in a community. They have taken timely, direct, and pragmatic action that has provided academic and social support. This includes health, wellness, nutrition, social awareness, and self-sufficiency for young people living in impoverished communities.
Much of the data relating to poverty seems to be developed and supported by a variety of special interests. Some data collected by interest groups show a downward trend in the number of people living in poverty, while other data show an uptick in the population living under poverty. Other groups seek to define policies and laws that govern issues or conditions relating to poverty. Regardless of the definition, level, or type of poverty, a child living in challenging conditions is less likely to obtain a satisfactory level of education necessary to become a productive adult than is a child living without those challenges.
What remains clear is poverty is a local and national concern. During our discussions, when we asked about poverty and its ramifications, answers generally fell under two categories. One group said, “We cannot improve children’s education issues and learning until we reduce the level of poverty.” The second group maintained, “We cannot wait until poverty is fixed to begin effective education of students.”
Humanity and decency demand we care for our fellow citizens and provide for their well-being. Unfortunately, ineffective poverty-reducing programs have put a fiscal strain on local, state, and national budgets without any significant improvement to the lives of millions still living in poverty.
Poverty has less or nothing to do with choices and more to do with the socioeconomic conditions of one’s environment. Without the resources and opportunities necessary to grow and thrive, a person will face multiple setbacks that will thwart any effort to reach a level of success as defined by any societal metric.
A review of the literature on the subject of poverty would lead the reader to believe a portion of the population will inevitably find its way to the poverty level. Some have found it reasonable to accept that 4–6 percent of the population will be identified as living in poverty, chronically unemployable, or homeless. Because the degree of poverty is also relative to the measure of a society’s prosperity, the identified standard of poverty varies from region to region.
The causes of poverty for most are not clear but, instead, are complicated. Regardless of the uncertain sources of poverty, the question remains unchanged: What responsibility does society have to provide for a person or an entire family living in poverty? Apparently, not enough people believe we have a duty or responsibility to implement caring, long-term or short-term programs to eradicate poverty.
The cycle of poverty not only ensnares individuals; it also can trap families and communities. Men and women may have the desire to break out of poverty, but without the resources to do so, they have few chances to elevate their standard of living. For example, the massive industrial decrease in steel, shipping, manufacturing, and support services that reduced cities to shells of their formerly prosperous days threw people out of work and left buildings standing empty and decaying. Attempts at redirection, retraining, and relocation did not return people to prosperity. After the failure of these programs, poverty found a stronger foothold that has remained for decades.
Unfortunately, it appears a sense of urgency does not exist within government to solve the problem of poverty. Steps taken by government agencies have fallen miserably short. This fact reinforces the belief that poverty is a result of society’s neglect. While people do control their own choices, the conditions placed on them by external forces will likely cause poverty to continue, unless education and educational options become a true priority for those responsible for creating policy.
How Does Public Education Connect to Poverty?
The thoughts presented above are an interesting academic and philosophical discussion but do not address the basic problem of how a teacher can help impoverished students learn. Research tells us a child who comes to school hungry (perhaps even malnourished) and lacking a night of restful sleep, which are common aspects of living under the stress of poverty, is less likely to perform well academically.
Teachers are limited in how they can address poverty inside or outside their classroom. The student has limited time to learn; each year is critical to the student’s academic growth. While society deals with community poverty, the teacher must provide high-quality learning each day. Efforts to resolve issues of poverty must be addressed at the same time children are being moved forward in their learning. This clearly poses a great challenge to educators. So what exactly is wrong with public education?
What used to be a respected system is being singled out for attacks from many sides for its inability to combat this great societal issue: poverty. Is it too much to expect that a high-quality education should improve the quality of life for students, their families, and the community at large?
Today, a public education is extended to all students. Mass communication has helped inform people about the lack of equity within the many neighborhoods that make up a city. As noted before, communities have found their voice; they want to see change. The expectation is that, because public schools are the main vehicle for educating our nation’s youth, schools must be able to deliver strong instruction. This instruction must reflect an assurance that the best education possible in one part of the community is accessible to all other communities. Those within public education know they are being held responsible for the delivery of results that will demonstrate their institution is the great equalizer. The classroom may not be responsible for removing poverty in a city; it is, however, responsible for creating opportunity.
Poverty affects educational outcomes. Business owners complain schools are not preparing young people for the workforce. Some students cannot even read, write, or complete basic mathematical computations. Political organizers, urban clergy, community-based organizations, and parents are frustrated about inequity, injustice, lack of access, and poor-quality education—and rightfully so.
Legislators are trying to pass laws that play up to well-funded special interest groups in hopes of currying a large volume of voter support. However, nothing actually seems to be reducing the level of poverty in most of the suffering communities. These communities are disproportionately represented by ethnic minorities. Career educators have consistently advocated for the need to improve the welfare of students while at school. Unfortunately, forces beyond the classroom are preventing a large-scale reversal of the downward spiral of poverty and low student performance.
While the simple cure to poverty is yet unknown, unless society provides reasonable, equitable economic opportunities and a basic level of education, there will be little to no progress made for these children. Thus, the poverty cycle will continue.
The traditional education system has been called out to reduce the poor performance of children in poverty in urban, suburban, and rural communities. Educators ask how they can be responsible for turning around a societal malady over which they have no control. It seems educators are underfunded, overworked, and underappreciated. Many feel they are shouldering blame for the poverty of their students, which they feel powerless to improve.
Research tells us relatively low poverty levels in a given population will have minimal impact on the socioeconomic development of a geographic location. Conversely, a significantly high poverty level will have dire consequences for the socioeconomic viability of a region and not only will negatively affect a community’s stability but will also increase the potential for more poverty. The United States must fight to keep its poverty levels from rising to this level and above, and even though it is a challenge, educating underprivileged youth could be one of the only ways to prevent this scale of negative impact. The task becomes even more difficult, unfortunately, when faced with the influx of students who are not only impoverished but also homeless.
Federal law describes a homeless student as having no stable place to call home and living at an identified level of poverty. If a student is “doubled up,” it means he or she is residing with another family or group of persons in a single house. This places students of poverty at greater risk of falling behind academically or of quitting school altogether.
To better understand poverty as it relates to homelessness and learning, we researched schools in and around St. Louis, Missouri, and other urban cities. The number of homeless students in the state has doubled over the past five years. Michele Shumpert, homeless coordinator, began addressing the problem with a change in terminology. She tossed out “homeless” and refers to these students as “in transition,” which gives them hope for moving out of that situation. Her goal is to give in-transition kids the belief that they have something to work for, that there is light at the end of the tunnel. In St. Louis Public Schools in 2017, more than five thousand students have been identified as homeless.
Over one million students in America are without a permanent home. Their problems multiply as they grow from elementary school to high school. Lack of confidence, direction, basic needs, adult role models, and more all contribute to an uncertainty that drains students of time and energy, both of which are essential to learning.
The fact that US society has allowed poverty to reach such a point where so many children and young adults have lost sight of any path to the future is an alarm calling for immediate change. And data show the number of students living in poverty will continue to increase. The impact of recent local recessions unfortunately cannot be ignored.
Definitions and Data: Not Enough
Throughout our research, we saw public and private sector organizations attempting to curb poverty and its impact on schools and communities. Unfortunately, their efforts have not kept up with poverty’s changing face. From the start of our investigation, poverty continuously appeared as a factor of importance but not the headline.
Every city we researched demonstrated some degree of poverty. Where we saw poverty, we saw hopelessness and depression. The reality is poverty is massive, continuing to increase, and those best equipped to address it seem to have directed their attention elsewhere.
Society has learned how to make some effective inroads, connections, and improvements: all short-term. These inroads might focus on temporary housing, meals, health services, employment, and relocation. While these efforts to decrease poverty have benefitted our nation’s most vulnerable populations, it often seems as if poverty is so pervasive, widespread, and lasting that society does not know how to stop it or even reduce its growth.
We cannot justify society failing to direct more energy toward eradicating this condition, especially for the children so greatly affected by poverty. What greater way not only to improve the safety and happiness of millions of people but also to contribute to the overall economic prosperity of our country? Perhaps it is because, consciously or unconsciously, society has the belief that poverty has always existed and will continue to exist to some degree, as though poverty is a natural condition of humankind. We cannot support this concept.
Chartered Schools and Poverty: Replacing Inequality with Hope
When we began our research, we thought we would find a profile of characteristics that would make it easy for us to paint a national portrait of how America was responding to change. Instead, we learned very quickly that profiles for change vary according to regions. In general, the political setting and demographics of a region strongly influence how satisfied or dissatisfied the public is with its schools. These politics and demographics are critically important in terms of how charter laws are formed and develop over time.
In some states, students and their families were able to migrate in droves from the traditional to the newly formed learning communities found in chartered schools in hopes of escaping poverty. The new schools offered parents and students a viable promise of change and an end to harmful conditions in their neighborhoods.
Regardless of location, however, we were also deeply aware that the intersection of race and poverty desperately needed vocal agents of change. Even so, we were not entirely prepared for the visceral response we had when we witnessed ravaged neighborhoods across the nation. We cannot stress enough the need for change.
The decline of municipal infrastructures due to a shrinking tax base was shocking and painful to see in many cities. Traveling through blocks and blocks of what looked like burned-out and deserted war zones created a ghastly reminder of what happens when schools are closed. On occasion where a school remained open, we happened on what we considered benign neglect. By this we mean the tools for instruction were available, but there also seemed to be a lack of will in terms of a school’s need to connect to students, their families, and the community. Whether this is motivated by race, we cannot say for certain, but we do know that benign neglect and its negative impact on all residents’ access to quality education cannot be ignored.
We saw cities and towns teetering on a precipice of failure, going the way of those struggling urban communities we observed. The impact on our nation’s educational profile has been devastating.
It would be wrong to ignore the plight of chartered school authorizers who are struggling to not only revisit their responsibilities in regard to providing policy and regulation that govern oversight of chartered schools but also create policy that best enables a chartered school to meet the needs of underprivileged children. If chartered schools have problematic issues to deal with, so too do the structures within the educational establishment that are responsible for chartered schools.
Anti-chartered Pushback Will Not Stop Our Fight against Poverty
Volumes have been written about how education and poverty have a deep connection to family, employment, quality of life, health, and more. The consensus is that education is one of the keys to breaking the cycle of poverty.
Even though chartered schools strive to elevate communities out of poverty, they have been heavily criticized for supposedly making poverty worse. Educational reform critics say chartered schools that focus on poor communities only increase segregation. Unfortunately, even the NAACP has spoken out against chartered schools in general. The educational reform movement must take strides to show that chartered schools aim to help, not harm, and are doing their best to actively adjust to the needs of struggling populations around the country. Although some chartered schools may have contributed to segregation, any such outcome is indirect and by no means part of any widespread, intentional, and nefarious tactic to promote it, which is the position maintained by the educational reform movement’s harshest critics.
Such an extreme position is narrow-minded. As Alan Greenblatt’s February 2018 article points out, “Unlike many public schools prior to the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, segregated charters are not the result of deliberate public decision.” Most often, such seeming segregation is a result of location. Patrick Wolf, education professor at the University of Arkansas, says, “‘Most charter schools intentionally locate in inner-city neighborhoods that are highly minority and are designed to appeal to racial minority parents.’”
Chartered schools are in affluent communities and socioeconomically distressed ones alike. They serve a wide range of communities. Furthermore, if chartered schools are guilty of segregation, traditional public schools are complicit as well. If one believes that either or both types of public school reinforce segregation, one can find multiple instances to support this perspective. This accusation distracts from the greater, nationwide issues that countless chartered schools fight to counter daily in their classrooms. All of us seek solutions to societal strife and to end the cycle of poverty.
Those engaging in pushback attack chartered schools for worsening poverty when, in fact, the opposite is true. Chartered school leaders across the country have intentionally established schools where student need is most apparent and where the educational establishment has fallen appallingly short. For decades, traditional public schools have been the only free option for a community’s children. Unfortunately, subpar student outcomes in urban areas leave parents desperate for better options.
An extraordinary amount of chartered school resources has been poured into some of America’s poorest urban communities. These areas comprise families living under adverse socioeconomic conditions or large populations of ethnic minorities or both. And their success has been remarkable. According to the Press-Enterprise, California chartered schools with student populations comprising a majority of low-income students are accepted to the state’s flagship university system, the University of California, at a rate twice as high (21 percent) as traditional public schools with a similar student population. Furthermore, “more than one-third of charter school students are finishing college preparatory classes in high school, compared to about one-fourth of their traditional public school peers.”
Chartered schools have provided priceless hope for parents in such communities with failing traditional public schools.
Parents throughout urban centers have craved safe, welcoming, educationally stimulating schools for their children. Time and time again, chartered schools have come to the rescue and provided a market-driven education for families seeking better options for their sons and daughters. Chartered schools have applied the resources and cutting-edge, personalized educational techniques necessary to take students’ eyes away from the hopelessness of poverty and turn them instead toward a world of possibility. The fight against poverty is far from won, but countless American parents can rest assured the battle is being fought in the right arena: putting student needs first and empowering parents with a market-driven model of public education.