Tag: poverty

Posted on

Report: Social programs keep child poverty rates from doubling

More children are living in poverty conditions in the U.S. than official numbers present, according to a new report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Measuring Access to Opportunity in the United States Report uses the Supplemental Poverty Measure, a standard first implemented by the U.S. Census in 2011 that measures the impact of important social programs like SNAP and the Earned Income Tax Credit on true poverty rates. It also accounts for rising costs and other changes that affect a family’s budget. Unlike the federal “poverty level” standard, the SPM takes geographical costs of living into account.

According to SPM measurements, without such social assistance programs, the child poverty rate would almost double — from 18 percent now to 33 percent. Not surprisingly, children of color are more likely to live in poverty than their white peers. The report found that both Latino and African-American children have a 29 percent rate based on the SPM, while white children sit at just 10 percent nationally.

A few other findings from the report include:

  • California has the highest child poverty rate, using the SPM, followed by Arizona and Nevada.
  •  States with some of the largest child populations, like Florida, New York and Texas, have among the highest child poverty rates using the SPM. Poverty rates among southeastern states are also higher than the national average.
  • The lowest rates are in the upper Midwest and northern New England.

So what do these findings mean for the children in our K-12 schools? Correlating a child’s poverty rate to success in life (and in school), The Annie E. Casey Foundation suggests the following steps:

  • More support of quality early childhood education opportunities.
  • Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit so families can keep more of their earnings.
  • More access to programs like SNAP and child care and housing subsidies.
  • Better job training and childcare support for parents.

You can read the full report here. 

I’ve long believed that educational assistance is the biggest step towards breaking the cycle of poverty for all children, especially minorities. When we look at our future generations, the key to eradicating poverty lies in the opportunities we provide kids in our K-12 schools, and the assistance we give their families to raise their quality of life.

Posted on

How do we give rural students more educational opportunities?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding a P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Sam Chaltain

In the small town of Hartsville, South Carolina, which sits just about two hours from anywhere you’ve ever heard of, Monay Parran and her two young sons – eight-year-old Ja’quez, and eleven-year-old Rashon – begin each day in the darkness of the pre-dawn hours.

Parran, a single parent who works two minimum-wage jobs in two towns that are almost an hour apart, must drop her boys off at the bus stop early enough to make it to her first job on time. By the time she sees her sons again, after her second shift wraps up, it will be almost midnight.

This is the daily cycle for scores of families, who must make ends meet while living below the poverty line. It’s a cycle that results in young people who are often overtired and undernourished. It’s also a widespread reality that is largely invisible to most Americans, and made more complex by the distances rural families must traverse to access foundational resources like a school, a hospital – or even a minimum-wage job.

The particular struggles – and successes – of families like Ms. Parran’s are given close attention via a new PBS documentary film, 180 Days: Hartsville (I am one of its producers), a project that was funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s American Graduate: Let’s Make it Happen initiative. Viewers will experience a year in the life of one small Southern town, two schools that work primarily with low-income children, and one family’s efforts to break the generational cycle of poverty.

What the film will also make visible, albeit indirectly, is our national preoccupation with the needs of cities, and the extent to which many of our most hotly debated national strategies for school reform – from charter schools to online learning – simply aren’t viable in towns like Hartsville, where transportation costs alone circumscribe the choices many rural families can make, and where many residents still have no Internet access. In places like these, if you want to transform the schools, you are going to have to do it from within the traditional systems and structures – from neighborhood schools to school boards to local politicians angling for re-election — no matter how change-averse those actors and institutions tend to be.

At this moment of intense national interest in public education, you would think that figuring out how to improve the systems we already have would matter a lot more than it does, if for no other reason than because renovating a house is more cost-efficient than razing it and starting from scratch. But the particular challenges and opportunities associated with reform in rural schools matter for another reason – those schools house nearly ten million American students, or slightly more than 20% of the nation’s total enrollment. And yet, as a recent report of the Rural School and Community Trust made clear, “the invisibility of rural education persists in many states. Many rural students are largely invisible to state policy makers because they live in states where education policy is dominated by highly visible urban problems.”

Consequently, it’s my hope that films like 180 Days: Hartsville can elevate the particular circumstances and needs of rural communities, poor families, and public school educators. After all, we can’t begin to reimagine American schools for the modern era if we remain fixed on merely one type of American school. And we can’t identify solutions that will work in the majority of American communities if we continue to disproportionately share the success stories of individual schools of choice.

The questions before us have wide-ranging implications: can a community like Hartsville really change the fortunes of a generation by doubling down on its neighborhood schools? Does the stark reality of the 21st century global economy outweigh the impact of one rural town’s efforts to prepare its children to compete in that economy?

I hope you’ll tune in to find out, and help us all widen the lens through which we see American public education.

This post originally appeared on Sam Chaltain’s personal blog, and was republished with permission.

_______________

Sam Chaltain (@samchaltain) is a DC-based writer, filmmaker, and strategic communications consultant. His work focuses on the changing nature of teaching and learning in America, and on how individuals and organizations can find and tell stories that capture the emotional center of an idea; build and sustain an audience of supporters over time (as opposed to merely generating awareness); and leverage both traditional and new media in order to expand an ideological base of support.

Posted on

Poverty and School Funding: Why Low-Income Students Often Suffer

By Matthew Lynch

While the current U.S. economy continues to improve, there is one area that is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school spending. Recently, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy.  In extreme cases, like in Philadelphia and Chicago, individual districts have had to tap into other money and reserves to cover the basics of public education in their areas.

Low-Income Students Hardest Hit

This is a particular blow to areas with high rates of poverty.  Students in these areas not only suffer from lack of resources at home, but their schools must also scrape by on the minimum. It’s not a secret that poverty is a major problem in the United States.  The middle class seems to be disappearing and the gap is widening between the upper class and the lower class sectors of society.  The socioeconomic status of children and their families has a profound effect on the children’s education, even in a country that prides itself on equal opportunity and fair treatment of all.  Funding to low-income Title I schools has decreased since 2010 and a number of states have cut pre-K educational per student funding in recent years and many have had to reduce enrollment numbers.

In practical terms, these findings make sense. Property taxes pay much of public education costs and that revenue source is still low. Overall, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that districts collected just over 2 percent lower on property taxes ending in March than in the year before. Furthering the problem is the fact that while states have been cut throat in reducing spending, they have not been as vigilant in raising revenue sources through taxes and fees.

Not Just a Student Problem

Less state spending on education certainly affects the learning experience but it also impacts other areas of the economy. Unemployed teachers and administrators have less to pump back into the economy and the viscous cycle of K-12 underfunding is furthered.  While unemployment is a factor in poverty for some, there are many who are employed and still live below the poverty line. A higher level of education is needed for high paying jobs that can support a family.  It is difficult to support a family with a minimum wage job, even when working full-time.  The conundrum is furthered when school funding is diminishing—removing one more source of hope for ending the cycle.

Children living in poverty often come to school without having had enough sleep, and without having had breakfast.  They often experience family violence, abuse, secondhand smoke, neglect, poor clothing and shoes.  Even though they have limited experiences in the world, they may not be able to pay for field trips and cannot pay for extracurricular activities of any kind, which could actually expand their experience base.  This is the frightening reality for millions of children, and teachers are very likely to have impoverished students in their class.  But, without the necessary resources to address these concerns, little improvement will be seen.

If we cannot fully fund our public schools how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy but now that we are in a more stable place, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.

What do you think?  Are our priorities in this country misguided?

photo credit: peasap via photopin cc

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

Posted on

5 Quick Facts You Should Know About Poverty and School Funding

The current U.S. economy continues to improve, but there is one area that is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school funding. Recently, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy.  In extreme cases, like in Philadelphia and Chicago, individual districts have had to tap into other money and reserves to cover the basics of public education in their areas.

These budget cuts have hit low-income schools the hardest. Here are five facts you should know about how the decrease in funding has affected low-income schools.

  1. 1. Funding to low-income Title I schools has decreased since 2010. A number of states have cut pre-K educational per student funding in recent years and many have even had to reduce enrollment numbers.
  2. Overall, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that districts collected just over 2 percent lower on property taxes ending in March than in the year before.

As we know, property taxes pay much of public education costs. While states have been cut throat in reducing spending, they have not been as vigilant in raising revenue sources through taxes and fees. This makes a dire problem even worse.

  1. In 23 states, state and local governments together spend less per student in the poorest districts than those that are more affluent, according to 2012 federal data and reported in The Washington Post.

The differences in funding are severe in some states. Pennsylvania spends 33 percent less on the poorest school districts per-pupil than on the wealthiest. In Missouri, the differential is 17 percent.

Across the United States, states and localities spend 15 percent less on average per pupil in the poorest districts than in the most affluent, according to the Washington Post.

  1. Poverty makes it more difficult for children to succeed in school. These students tend to have more needs than their middle-class and well-off peers.

Consider that children from poor families also are behind their counterparts on nearly every measure of academic achievement. Then look even deeper and note that children living in poverty often come to school without having had enough sleep, and without having had breakfast.  They often experience family violence, abuse, secondhand smoke, neglect, poor clothing and shoes.  Even though they have limited experiences in the world, they may not be able to pay for field trips and cannot pay for extracurricular activities of any kind, which could actually expand their experience base.  This is the frightening reality for millions of children, and teachers are very likely to have impoverished students in their class.

  1. Less state spending on education certainly affects the learning experience but it also impacts other areas of the economy. Unemployed teachers and administrators have less to pump back into the economy and the viscous cycle of K-12 underfunding is furthered.  While unemployment is a factor in poverty for some, there are many who are employed and still live below the poverty line. A higher level of education is needed for high paying jobs that can support a family.  It is difficult to support a family with a minimum wage job, even when working full-time.  The conundrum is furthered when school funding is diminishing—removing one more source of hope for ending the cycle.

If we cannot fully fund our public schools how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy but now that we are in a more stable place, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.

How do you think we can address the intersecting issues of poverty and school funding in our public school system?

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.