Payne vs. Paul Gorski the Differences Between

Payne vs. Paul Gorski

The differences between Ruby Payne's and Paul Gorski's Ideologies or school of thought seem to draw intense discussion thereby creating a divide between them. Ruby Payne has a positive perspective that seem to well-intended for the education sector, she is an accomplished educational consultant, self-published author and a writer who describes herself as "The Leading U.S. Expert on the Mindsets of Poverty, Middle Class, and Wealth." She has a long experience in the education sector including research on poverty. She offers a "framework" for working with students in poverty and claims that there exist a hidden caste system in America, she notes that for one to move from one socio-economic level to another, it is imperative that there be mentoring and meaningful relationships. However, despite all these qualifications and experience, her school of thought is questionable. It is no doubt that many of Payne's points will be helpful in one way of another with certain issues, it is evident that her data collection and fact gathering are bias and from a stereotypical perspective.

Paul Gorski (2008 ), in The Myth of the "Culture of Poverty" challenges many of Payne's assertions and findings by claiming that instead of accepting myths that harm low-income students, it is critical to eradicate the system wide inequities that stand in their way. This is a sure positive approach towards tackling this age long problem other than dwelling on research-based stereotypes more so when referring to "poor" minorities.

Payne

After a close examination of her background, it is easy to identify Payne with her school of thought. The kind of ideology she sells is well suited for those who can afford it. She appears to be well convinced of these ideas and believes in them. To one who is in poverty and struggling out of it, her way is the long or wrong one out. She seems to cast poverty and wealth in stone and that these two economic statuses are meant for certain type of people or rather they are lifelong conditions synonymous to the Indian caste system (Callaham & Roxanna, 1998). One of her most outrageous beliefs is that students of poverty live by different rules than their counterparts from the middle class and that they need to be taught to act, "middle class." The question is, are their people who still believe in the American dream? Are they taught how to act? Is there a school that teaches one how to act middle class? This assertion raises many questions than answers. In addition, she believes that students of poverty are facing inequality in schools because they are unprepared for school, she bases this belief in the fact that these students are unable to pay for books, educational tools and so on due to lack of enough money. Nonetheless, she believes that students of poverty are lazy and go by a different set of, "hidden rules." She claims that these rules are prohibitive and hold them from going up into the middle or upper classes. Payne believes that unless these hidden rules are gotten rid of students from poorer backgrounds are bound to fail not only in school, but also in life. Payne appears to be a self-made god, one who has the answer to poverty and one who herself has conquered poverty. There seems to be no natural upward mobility or rags to riches in her perspective of life. She seems to have designed a school of 'poverty to riches' one that is far-fetched.

Gorski

Despite the fact that Gorski seems to have established his principles negating Payne's research and findings, his school of thought is more realistic and straight forward. His approach to issues is more like "the work is much, but we got to do it" there are no short cuts. In The Myth of the "Culture of Poverty," Gorski demystifies some of the myths created by Payne by offering an in depth analysis of the issues in question. He argues that although according to Payne, poor people are said to be lazy, statistics reveal that 83% of children from low-income families have at least one employed parent there by demystifying Payne's assertions as stereotypical.