Poverty and its impact on school performance

Poverty & School Perf.

Poverty and School Performance

There have been similarities determined between schools determined as successful that are true regardless of whether the educational institution is suburban, rural or urban, whether the school is large or small, and whether the majority of students attending the school are native English speakers or recent immigrants (Angelis & Wilcox, 2011). Despite the location or the specific circumstances, schools considered higher performing have generated conditions in which each student is supported to succeed. In those institutions of higher performance, administrators and teachers purportedly optimize the potential positive effects of their particular school ecologies on the performance of students. These vested individuals have created conditions, referred to as frog pond processes, wherein significant concentrations of students from frequently lower performing groups are able to benefit from the schools ability to address each student's particular needs and provide increased opportunity to achieve amidst their peer cohorts (Goldsmith, 2011). Angelis and Wilcox (2011) conducted an empirical study to look at how high performance schools mitigate issues of poverty and ways in which these educational institutions view "poverty as no excuse."

Impact of Poverty on Performance

Researchers Angelis and Wilcox (2011) conducted their study by identifying sets of schools matched according to demographics including the levels of poverty and expenditures per student that had various performance levels over three years on New York's mathematics and English language arts assessments. The researchers also considered the variables of racial and ethnic diversity within the school systems. Four studies were conducted from 2004 to 2009 at the elementary, middle and high school levels, with a particular emphasis placed on the performance of those students who live in poverty.

Educators and administrators in the schools that "beat the odds" attribute their success to meaningful collaboration (Wilcox & Angelis, 2009). School personnel report working in respectful and trusting environment where the schedule allows time to collaborate and informal collaboration is routine. They use scheduled time to plan for interdisciplinary meetings, to learn new pedagogy and instructional strategies from their peer cohorts, and to establish and develop common assessments and methodology to analyze them. When not participating in formal collaborative efforts, educators focus on the children's academic, social and emotional growth. Educators are required to and willingly serve on teams and committees to interview potential educators to add to the school, evaluate new programs that have been proposed, and to modify curriculum (Wilcox & Angelis, 2009).

Evidence-Based Decision Making

The schools that have been considered high performing do not rely on standardized annual test scores as a means of evaluation; rather they analyze data on a regular basis both formally and informally. The schools collect data from a number of sources including surveys of students, teachers, parents, and community stakeholders, daily student interaction, and from results of benchmarks and interim examinations created by the educators, departments and the school district (Wilcox & Angelis, 2011). The educators also reportedly share an attitude that it is never good enough and their position toward change is to respect it, expect it, and with continuous progress and monitoring, attempt to cause it. Everyone is attentive to high stakes examinations and ensuring that the students are as well prepared as possible; however, evidence of success is not limited to the results of high stakes or standardized examinations.

Conclusion