Barriers to Teaching Students from Low Socioeconomic

Backgrounds
After teaching at P.A.S.S., an alternative secondary school in Windsor, I
learned a lot about what it means for students to struggle with academics,
but also to struggle with food, with home security, and finding peace of
mind. Below is a paper I wrote to present to the teachers at P.A.S.S., in
regards to the challenges of teaching students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds.
___________________
Students are not created equally. Inequality is built into the fabric of
Canadian society, and this oppressive social dynamic demonstrably finds its
way into the Canadian classroom. Socioeconomic differences are a reality,
but teachers rarely approach the various needs of their students based on
socioeconomic considerations. In terms of students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds, they have a series of disadvantages that impede successful
learning outcomes and positive integration into learning communities. The
invisibility of the barriers are in fact the fundamental problem. How can we
address something that many people dont perceive as an issue? However,
the forces that exclude and oppress students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds are both pervasive and destructive. This paper will investigate
how poverty affects student success in school, how social class and value
systems lead to conflict between teachers and students, and finally
suggesting some strategies to build positive relationships with students from
low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Children raised in poverty rarely choose to behave differently, but

they are faced daily with overwhelming challenges that affluent children
never have to confront, and their brains have adapted to suboptimal
conditions in ways that undermine good school academic performance
(Jensen, 2009, Risk Factors of Poverty, 4). Teachers often completely fail to
even consider these differences, allowing students of low socioeconomic
backgrounds to fall through the crack. Once they predictably fail, teachers
inevitably place the blame for the failure squarely on the students
shoulders, even though teachers themselves are complicit in this failure. Eric
Jensen has looked extensively at the link between poverty, brain
development, and later school performance. He argues that the attachment
formed between parents and children in early childhood is the bedrock on
which the quality of future social relationships with peers and teachers will
be determined (Jensen, 2009). He finds that children growing up in poverty
are often provided with less supportive and interactive environments that
impede their emotional and cognitive development. These low stimulus
environments have serious and ongoing consequences that directly affect
performance in school (Jensen, 2009). On top of which, students from low
socioeconomic background homes tend to have a greater degree of stressors
in their life. Poor children were also exposed to chronic sources of stress like
violence and family turmoil, or crowded and low-quality housing. Those kinds
of stressorshelp explain the link between income status in childhood and
how well the brain functions later on (Badger, 2013, 6). Long term Studies

on stress are demonstrating key links between stress hormones and effects
on the brain, in particular the functioning of working memory, making
concern for students growing up in poverty magnified (Keim, 2009).

(Jensen, 2009, Effects on School Behavior and Performance, 2)

This chart above effectively illustrates one of the key issues when
working with children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. As Jensens
chart illustrates, children growing up in poverty have a limited emotional
range, having more privileged students playing all emotional notes relatively
effortlessly, while others struggle to hit the right notes when navigating the
complex social world of school. One can speculate how this could play out in
the classroom. A teacher may be outraged when a student doesnt display
gratitude. However, some students (particularly those from low
socioeconomic backgrounds) may not have had this modelled for them.
Hence, a teacher from a middle class background may not fully understand

why a student might lack this emotional response. This incident could in fact
begin to weaken the relationship between student and teacher, thereby
hindering the teacher student relationship. Teachers may consciously or
unconsciously begin to treat students worse based on their social
interactions with that student. Teachers expect certain behaviours
(potentially as a part of their class value system), and when they dont
receive it they may begin to resent or disengage from the student. This is
particularly concerning when keeping in mind that a positive relationship
between student and teacher is one of the biggest indicators of students
success and achievement (Jones & Jones, 2007).
Ruby Payne explores these issues quite deeply. She looks at particular
behaviours of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds that may cause
considerable frustration in the classroom. She argues that there are a series
of behaviours that reflect class value systems. These values systems may
come into conflict with middle class values that teachers are often trained
and engrained with (Payne, 2003). She states that those who live in poverty
have a distrust of authority, viewing society as unfair. In the classroom this
can be reflected in a distrust of the teacher as the authority figure, arguing
loudly with the teacher. Even the use of vulgar language or an overtly casual
tone may be a reflection of students inability to effortlessly switch between
what she calls the casual register and the formal one (Payne, 2003). What
about that student who is persistently disorganized and losing their
homework? Surely a teacher can blame this on personal responsibility! Payne

would argue against this, her findings suggest that sequence is not valued in
low socioeconomic homes; they are often places of extreme disorder, where
prioritization, order, procedure, and structure are often absent (Payne, 2003).
Many children from low socioeconomic backgrounds often do not even have
a designated place within the home for their things (Payne, 2003).
What are the implications of this? One could imagine a teacher who is
perpetually annoyed with a student who seems overly familiar or using
inappropriate language from time to time. A student who seems resistant to
all forms of control. A student who is perpetually late, has disorganized
notes, and seems to be forever misplacing everything. This frustration will
often result in a poisoned relationship between the student and the teacher,
resulting in bad grades and increased student feelings of failure, futility, and
frustration. The student will probably be literally confused as to what exactly
they are doing wrong. While the teacher dumbfounded by the students lack
of what they view as normal skill sets. However, one can speculate that
what is unfolding here is a conflict of social class values between low
socioeconomic students and their teachers, value systems that potentially
neither is aware of.
However, a teacher who recognizes certain patterns could hopefully
use their empathy and specific tools to help manage the situation and help
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to thrive. Jensen argues that
educators working with students from low socioeconomic backgrounds must

embody respect, share in decision making, avoid directives and give choice,
provide inclusivity through a familiar atmosphere, avoid sarcasm, and
celebrate all efforts (2009). Payne argues for the avoidance of arguing,
suggesting appropriate behaviours, generating words that are considered
more appropriate, allowing drawing or doodling, modelling colour coded
methods of organization, and breaking down tasks into smaller parts (2003).
Teachers need to find ways to serve and engage all of their students.
Students who grow up in poverty or in low socioeconomic backgrounds can
prove to be particularly challenging in the classroom. However, awareness of
ourselves, our students, and the value systems that lock us into prescribed
roles, is the beginning of real social and educational justice for all.

References
Badger, E. (2013). The Lasting Impacts of Poverty on the Brain. Retrieved
From: Citylab http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/10/lasting-impactspoverty-brain/7377/

Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with Poverty in Mind: What Being Poor Does to
Kids Brains and What Schools Can Do About It. Retrieved From: ASCD
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/109074.aspx
Jones, V., Jones L. (2007). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating
communities of support and solving problems. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Keim, Brandon. (2009). Poverty Goes Straight to the Brain. Retrieved From:
Wired http://www.wired.com/2009/03/poordevelopment/
Payne, Ruby. (2003). Understanding and Working With Students and Adults
from Poverty.

Retrieved From: aha! Process, Inc.

https://www.usd253.org/respect/documents/PovSeriesPartsI-IV.pdf