How Poverty Effects the Classroom

It’s easy to understand why underfunded schools perform poorly—there’s not enough money for books and supplies, not enough money to attract the best teachers, and not enough money to give students the support they need. Seems simple, right? Not exactly. All of those things are often true, but they don’t tell the whole story. 

What makes me so sure? Because even in affluent school districts like in my hometown of Plano, TX—districts with enough money to provide engaging curricula, supply the latest technology, attract top teachers, and provide generous amounts of student support—even in these districts, schools with high numbers of economically disadvantaged students struggle with academic performance and classroom culture. It’s taboo to say so—I understand. And, like so many taboo subjects, poverty’s effects on classrooms is also too important to ignore.

Before I worked as teacher in Plano public schools, my wife and I lived and worked as Houseparents at the Milton Hershey School (MHS) in Hershey, Pennsylvania.  MHS is a private boarding school for kids coming from economically disadvantaged homes, and, at enormous financial expense, it strives to cover every possible need its students might have. The classrooms at MHS have the latest technology, and talented teachers are attracted with generous salaries. All of the students’ medical bills are covered, all food and clothing are provided, spacious 12,000 sqft. homes shelter twelve students at a time, and each student home is supervised by a married houseparent couple to help provide mentorship, structure, and love. On top of everything provided at the school, every MHS graduate in good standing is given a scholarship that covers most, if not all, of college tuition. 

Over our three years at MHS, my wife and I worked and lived with thirty middle school girls who came from both urban and rural communities. The school provided for much of their material wants, and they had our unending support for their academic, social, and emotional needs. We helped with homework and we worked through fights between friends. We were there to be a sympathetic ear and a tireless motivator. And we were only part of the team, with counselors and teachers playing huge roles and giving the best of themselves, too. If money and a supportive environment were the only things keeping MHS students from succeeding before they arrived on campus, then the MHS model would have helped every one of its students to become a resounding academic success story.

Only it often didn’t work out that way. We realized quickly that most of the girls were missing key ingredients for success. Sadly, the generational poverty in which they were raised had left indelible imprints on most of the girls in our home. Most did not trust that hard work would pay off in the long run, and few had developed enough self-discipline or self-confidence to try. ‘YOLO’ (you only live once) was the unofficial creed of most students; you need to take what you can get while you can, since tomorrow is never guaranteed. Most of the girls did not take advantage of all they had been given at MHS—some because they did not trust that hard work would be enough to succeed, others because they did not believe they were talented enough to succeed, and others still because they did not think they were worthy enough to succeed. It was tragic to helplessly watch as years of poor conditioning kept many of these girls from believing in themselves and from believing that others would want to help them. 

My experience at MHS has been observed by numerous researchers who have looked at poverty’s impact on academic performance and student behavior in the U.S. Studies have shown that the stressors of poverty can have negative effects on the development of children’s brains. Students who live in poverty are much more likely to experience stress in their home life—with evictions, lack of electricity, hunger, and physical abuse all being more prevalent in low-income households. In the face of such significant stressors, children do not develop as fully as they otherwise would. Memory, creativity, impulse control, and concentration have all been shown to decrease in the presence of many challenges regularly faced by economically disadvantaged students. The net result is that economically disadvantaged students in the U.S., on average, are more likely to act out in class and underperform academically. (Teaching with Poverty in Mind, pp. 24-26)

A particularly significant stressor related to poverty is transience. Eric Jensen, author of Teaching with Poverty in Mind, writes, “stress resulting from transience—frequent short distance, poverty-related moves… impairs students’ ability to succeed in school and engage in positive social interactions.” (p. 27) All of that moving is incredibly hard on students, as they have to navigate new peer groups, new curricula, and new classroom expectations with each move. These challenges spill directly onto teachers and classrooms, as significant time and energy is often needed to help new students acclimate to their new school. One measure of transience is a school’s mobility rate, and it is not surprising that schools with high mobility rates often struggle with academic performance and student behavior.

Poverty in the U.S. is a complicated issue and, understandably, it can bring up strong feelings. What is undeniable, however, is that life presents more challenges for families living in poverty. These real and legitimate struggles have been well documented. For a variety of reasons, economically disadvantaged children face more stress at home. As a result of this stress, they come to school less prepared to meet academic demands and more likely to have social or emotional conflict. Teachers like me often have a hard time making this admission, even though we see it play it out in classrooms each year. Of course, these are just the averages. There are many children and families who are able to rise above the challenges of poverty, and every child has the capacity to excel.