Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Poverty on Instruction and Support with Elementary Students Experiencing Rural Poverty in a Rural Title I Elementary School

Columbus State University Columbus State University

CSU ePress CSU ePress

Theses and Dissertations Student Publications

2023

Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Poverty on Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Poverty on

Instruction and Support with Elementary Students Experiencing Instruction and Support with Elementary Students Experiencing

Rural Poverty in a Rural Title I Elementary School Rural Poverty in a Rural Title I Elementary School

Mitzi McCann Jackson

Follow this and additional works at: https://csuepress.columbusstate.edu/theses_dissertations

Part of the Early Childhood Education Commons, Education Economics Commons, and the

Elementary Education Commons

Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Poverty on Instruction

and Support with Elementary Students Experiencing Rural Poverty

in a Rural Title I Elementary School

Mitzi McCann Jackson

A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Doctor of Education

In Curriculum and Leadership

Curriculum and Instruction Track

Keywords:

Columbus State University

Columbus, GA

Dr. Deirdre Greer, Chair, Dean (Retired) College of Education and Health Professions

Dr. Andrea Dawn Frazier, Methodologist, College of Education and Health Professions

Dr. Jennifer Lovelace, Committee Member, College of Education and Health Professions

iii

Dedication

This study is dedicated to my mother, Stephanie Ann Huckleberry. She never received a

formal post-secondary degree, but she taught me both in words and actions that learning is a

lifetime commitment. Now that she’s in heaven, I know she would tell me “keep going, don’t

stop, you can do it.” She believed in staying active physically and mentally and demonstrated

that in the best way she could. She loved to read the Bible and told us there is nothing we can’t

accomplish. She is now in heaven smiling down on my accomplishments and obtainment of this

degree. She was my biggest cheerleader. Not a day goes by that I don’t think of her. So, to you,

mom!

May this body of work be of service to someone else, making their lives better (rather it

be preservice teachers, teachers, or parents) to encourage, motivate and inspire children. Finally,

I dedicate this dissertation to children who have never had opportunities to explore, learn, and

discover education, and the fascinating topics that inspire and create excitement in their lives due

to the perils of poverty.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee. To begin, Drs. Greer, Frazier,

and Lovelace. I am especially thankful to my chair, Dr. Greer, whom, even in retirement,

continued to support and guide me through this rigorous process.

I want to thank my two colleagues, Dr. Jimmi Simmons and Dr. Johnny Freeman, who

encouraged me to start this program by providing support and recommendations along the way.

I want to acknowledge my children, Aiden and Andrew. Thank you for being okay with

losing quality time with your mother as I studied, read, and wrote this dissertation. I pray my

dedication to this work will be an example of hard work and commitment to whatever you start

as you begin your adult lives.

And most importantly, I acknowledge my Creator, to whom I accredit everything good in

my life, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is through His power that I have the strength and

wisdom to prevail.

Mitzi Jackson

Atlanta, GA 30339 • mitzilmj@gmail.com

Qualification Summary

Result-oriented and determined professional with experience of over two decades in propelling

academic excellence, improving students’ learning experiences, and driving market impact and

expansion. Accelerate career record of directing all facets of staff leadership and development,

contributing to students’ career development, and spearheading curriculum establishment.

Demonstrated proficient in formulating robust corporate curriculum strategy, maximizing

workforce performance, and accelerating company sales. Adept at a range of progressive teaching

methods and able to establish clear objectives for classrooms. Competent to thrive in fast-paced

environment with ability to meet stringent deadlines and change. Creative thinker and decision

maker with ability to work collaboratively along with commitment to achieve corporate goals.

Proven expertise in:

• Academic Growth & Success

• Student Learning & Development

• Sales & Revenue Optimization

• Strategic Planning & Control

• Process & Performance Improvement

•

Curriculum Development &

Management

• Team Building & Leadership

• Marketing Operations Management

KEY CONTRIBUTION

• Amplified graduation rate and decreased student retention for school district by executing

effective individual intervention and prevention approaches and training programs.

• Realized academic and post-secondary objectives by formulating high-level graduation and

achievement procedure.

• Recognized trends and future directions of SEL by accumulating and thoroughly evaluating

result data for schools and implementing remarkable SEL initiatives or school culture

initiatives.

• Played an integral role in maximizing graduation rate from 86-90 in four years by

implementing graduation rate approaches across numerous schools within district.

• Enhanced students’ grades and retained students in school by building student support group

and delivering mentoring services. Supported students in securing scores on summative

exams and attaining certifications.

• Accomplished 25% increase in sales from multicultural markets by providing professional

development trainings and excellent consulting with sales leaders across the US.

• Expanded multicultural market department from two individuals to five by providing

progressive training to corporate executive leadership on relevancy and significance of

diverse markets.

• Propelled sales and branding within markets by increasing companies’ presence in

multicultural community, such as Black congressional caucus, Black print media outlets, and

Hispanic associations.

• Implemented cutting-edge marketing strategies and branding across product by coordinating

product full life-cycle.

• Developed and delivered marketing plan to senior leadership while presenting outline and

purpose of marketing department within whole corporation.

• Earned appreciation by winning Gold Star Excellence in Education Award by Muscogee

County School District 2021 through demonstrating utmost dedication towards work

excellence.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Fulton County Schools (FCS), Atlanta, GA

Instructional Leadership Support -Transition Services, 2022 to Present

Aid with the development and coordination of career preparation opportunities.

Support all SEC students by working to identify post-secondary options, coordinating with

community agencies and services, and monitoring the IEP transition services. Collaborate with

community service providers to develop an interagency alliance to create materials and training

about local resources. Engage families, community members and civic organizations as active

partners in the transition planning process. Evaluate transition planning by assessing school and

student transition-related data and facilitating strategic planning for transition program

improvements. Support Fulton County Schools Strategic Plan 2022 and SEC Department

Strategic Plan 2024 to work with school staff, students, and families to identify positive post-

school options, to review transcripts and transition service plans for services and activities that

will lead to the selected post-school option, to devise and monitor a plan to ensure SEC students

are on track to graduate. Conduct transition assessments and advise students on academic and

career issues; identify the educational and career options appropriate for each student and

analyze each option, including possible outcomes and their implications. Monitor attendance,

discipline, and credits for SEC students. Track current and previous school year SEC graduates

for post-secondary outcome reporting to Georgia Department of Education. Support with

development of transition plans for students with disabilities to assist with building the capacity

of all SEC teachers in assigned school(s). Collaborate with parents/guardians and parent mentors

to promote family engagement in all aspects of the student’s transition process to adulthood.

Collaborate with instructional staff to support with tracking student’s progress for academic,

career, and personal growth. Serve as a district liaison with area businesses, advisory groups,

and agencies to initiate the further development of school-to-work opportunities.

Muscogee County School District (MCSD), Columbus, GA

Central Office: Regional Graduation Consultant (All grade levels PK-12), 2014 to Present

Enhanced students’ academic growth by tracking students’ performance towards promotion,

grade recovery opportunities, and promotion or retention administration.

Fulfilled students’ requirements by providing academic curriculum and instructions while liaising

with faculty and administrators. Oversaw objectives of high school graduation initiative by

cultivating and maintaining positive partnerships with community organizations. Performed

detailed assessments of current formative and summative evaluation data of programs. Leveraged

technological tools, such as ConnectEd, MyBigCampus, and school website to connect with

parents and students. Generated and submitted reports with high-level accuracy from Infinite

Campus student information system as scheduled and conducted middle and high school transition

workshops for teachers and administrators. Contributed to SST and RTI processes and acted as a

district committee member of MTSS planning committee. Attained optimal outcomes by

vii

developing and monitoring class schedules related to graduation requirements and devising data

for multiple data staff. Identified high school and middle school students with greater possibility

of not graduating by leveraging characteristics profile of potential dropouts.

Key Contributions:

 Facilitated students by leading graduation staff for each identified student, including

administrator, teachers, counselor, school social worker, school psychologist, and

representative from local support or mentoring agency.

 Minimized risk of youth not graduating by connecting most suitable area social agencies

with youth and parents.

 Coordinated challenges resolution by conducting parental communications, conferences,

and consultations.

Muscogee County School District, Columbus, GA

CTAE High School Teacher and CTSO Sponsor, 2007 to 2014

Boosted students’ efficiency by assessing student's performance and informing students,

colleagues and parents about students’ progress and requirements.

Assisted active learning by planning, developing, and providing effective lesson plans, curriculum,

and instructional materials. Ensured stringent adherence to stipulated procedures while devising

schemes of work, lesson plans and tests. Maintained and monitored students’ behavior in

classroom by developing and ensuring the execution of rules and processes. Created required

reports on students’ academic activities and conducted, and participated in department, school,

district, and parent meetings. Formulated clear goals for all learning activities and delivered a wide

range of learning materials and resources for use in educational activities.

Key Contribution:

 Derived desired results by encouraging students in utilization of interactive learning

materials and equipment and delivering best-in-class instructions while leveraging

technology.

Aflac, Columbus, GA

Manager, Diversity and Multicultural Market Development, 2006 to 2007

Propelled company sales and achieved marketing targets by understanding market trends and

customer demands and leading strategic market development in targeted market segment.

Ensured determination of strategic synergies throughout all targeted market segments by

cooperating with market development managers. Met existing requirements and planned future

development by maintaining availability of skilled staff while establishing strong organization

framework and delivering professional leadership.

Aflac, Columbus, GA

Supervisor, Recruiting/Market Development (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), 2001 to

2006

Acquired new consumers and sales recruits by drafting tactical facets of optimal company’s

efforts while producing top-notch Aflac’s strategy for diversification of market segments.

Devised all company’s advertising, marketing and internal communications by serving as an

advocate for the field force. Led market competitiveness and potential new market segments while

reporting company performance to executive management. Promoted sales and recruiting between

field force by overseeing top-level sales and marketing strategies. Built creative sales marketing

viii

initiatives and addressed operational gaps in areas facilitating emerging markets. Conducted

comprehensive evaluation of sales performance and patterns, market penetration, and relevant

performance data by devising metrics. Determined demands of specific targeted segment by

devising robust sales and recruiting materials.

Key Contributions:

• Delivered hands-on assistance in overseeing the integration process of multiple media

outlets with company’s’ programs for general market print, electronics, outdoor, and

emerging media

• Incorporated emerging markets into company’s approaches by coordinating with field

force and executive management, human resources staff, the Diversity Council, and

multiple levels of field force

• Spearheaded the development and execution of growth-focused company’s field force

diversity strategic partnerships, affiliations, recruiting, sales and training initiatives.

• Augmented consumer awareness by designing ground breaking marketing and

communication campaigns and creating innovative branding and positioning strategies.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Educational Doctoral Degree in Curriculum and Leadership (Ed.D) | Columbus State University,

Columbus, Georgia, expected ending year: Dec 2023

Master of Business Administration (MBA) | Troy University, Troy, Alabama, 2006

Bachelors of Business Administration (BBA Marketing) | Georgia State University, Atlanta,

Georgia, 2001

Business and Marketing Education and Special Education General Ed Certification | Georgia

Assessments for Certification of Educators (GACE) | Professional Teaching Certificates in

Economics | Curriculum & Instruction Add-On Certificate in Educational Leadership

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Strengthening Families Georgia (SFG) Certified Trainer

GA Alliance to End Homelessness Conference Participant

Dave Weber Series: Sticks and Stones Exposed the Power of Words Training

WorkWinWow Workshop

Industry Certification for Business and Marketing Education

You Want Me to Teach What?

Engaging Students through Differentiated Learning

Georgia Association for Career & Technical Education Annual Conference

Flip your Classroom Office Mix Classroom Management Elementary MCSD Workshop

Office 365 School Share Drives

Family Consumer Best Practices

Education of Children with Special Needs

Dave Weber Series: Leadership Redefined

Youth Mental Health First Aid

PESI | MCSD Course Scheduling Workshop

MCSD Introduction to Threat Assessment Workshop, Canvas® Training

Positive Behavior Intervention Strategies (PBIS)

MEMBERSHIPS & OTHER INVOLVEMENTS

Former Board member/Alumna of Junior League of Columbus

Leadership Georgia Participant

MTSS, School Improvement Plan committee at Hardaway, Spencer, Kendrick, and Centennial

High School’s

District level committee member for Behavioral and Emotional Screening Systems

MindSet® Training Curriculum |Muscogee County Attendance Panel Member

TECHNICAL SKILLS

Microsoft Office Suite (PowerPoint, Movie Maker, Access, Excel, Word, Publisher, Teams)

Infinite Campus

Abstract

Nearly 30 million people in the United States live in households with an annual income of less

than @25,962 for a family of four. To the United States Census Bureau, this income threshold

constitutes a family (or individuals in a family) as being in poverty. Poverty is not solely about

income thresholds; rather, how much income levels impact learning, education, and teachers is a

greater area of concern. The purpose of this study was to explore how teachers’ perceptions of

poverty impact how they instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty,

what differences exist in instruction and support between elementary teachers with high and low

poverty awareness in a rural elementary school, and to what extent does the teachers’ perception

of poverty influence instruction and support for elementary students experiencing rural poverty.

This study provided a better understanding of how elementary teachers, with more than five

years of experience in a rural community, perceive poverty’s impact on instruction and support

for elementary students experiencing rural poverty. I conducted a qualitative generic study that

seeks to understand how teachers’ perceptions of poverty impact how they instruct and support

between elementary students experiencing rural poverty, the differences that exist in instruction

and support between elementary teachers with high and low poverty awareness, and the extent to

which teachers’ perceptions of poverty influence instruction and support for elementary students

experiencing rural poverty.

From six participants, I was able to conduct a Poverty Attribution Survey, six classroom

observations, two non-classroom observations, and six one-on-one interviews. All participants

were teachers were Caucasian females with an average age of 41who taught a core academic

course(s) in grades Kindergarten through 5

grade. I began the analysis by coding and using a

thematic map from the interviews, classroom and non-classroom observations. Thematic

mapping was used to identify themes such as:

1. Teachers’ perceived family structure has a greater impact on students’ achievement for

students experiencing poverty.

2. Teachers describe poverty as a “challenging situation” that students face.

3. Poverty is a difficult lifestyle to live so teachers must instruct and support with this in

mind.

4. Teachers expressed how they show and their care for the students’ different manners.

5. Teachers attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support based upon their personal

viewpoints, character traits, and family backgrounds.

xii

Table of Contents

Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... iv

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... x

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xvi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xvii

Chapter I: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Background of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................................... 6

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................ 8

Research Questions .................................................................................................................. 9

Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................ 9

Methodology Overview ......................................................................................................... 10

Delimitations and Limitations................................................................................................ 16

Definition of Terms................................................................................................................ 18

Significance of the Study ....................................................................................................... 19

Chapter II: Review of the Literature ............................................................................................ 22

Historical Overview ............................................................................................................... 22

Understanding Poverty........................................................................................................... 23

What is poverty and how is it defined in education? ....................................................... 23

Poverty role in the root cause of underachievement ........................................................ 26

xiii

Socioeconomic achievement gap .................................................................................... 28

Teachers’ Perceptions ............................................................................................................ 34

General student perceptions impact on achievement in early childhood ......................... 34

Teachers’ background, social practices, and learning ..................................................... 37

Teachers’ instructional methods for students experiencing ............................................. 40

Effective instructional practices targeted students experiencing ..................................... 41

Contrary opinion to the negative impact to learning ....................................................... 45

Pedagogy of poverty in rural Title I schools meaning and relevance .............................. 46

Summary ................................................................................................................................ 48

Chapter III: Methodology ............................................................................................................ 50

Research Design ..................................................................................................................... 52

Role of the Researcher ........................................................................................................... 54

Setting and Participants .......................................................................................................... 56

Instrumentation ...................................................................................................................... 62

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................................ 68

Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 69

Classroom Observations .................................................................................................. 72

Non-classroom Observations ........................................................................................... 74

Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 75

Interviews ......................................................................................................................... 77

Classroom and Non-Classroom Observations ................................................................. 79

Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 81

xiv

Chapter IV: Findings.................................................................................................................... 88

PAS ........................................................................................................................................ 89

Five Major Themes ................................................................................................................ 93

Theme #1: Teachers perceived family structure has a greater impact on students’

achievement for students experiencing poverty ............................................................... 93

Family structures’ influence on student achievement ................................................ 93

Teachers’ preconceived notions about the student performance ............................... 95

Theme #2: Teachers describe poverty as a “challenging situation” that students face ... 97

Poverty circumstances include multiple experiences at one time for students

experiencing poverty ................................................................................................ 100

Families manage their circumstances differently .................................................... 102

Theme #3: Poverty is a difficult lifestyle to live so teachers must support and instruct

with this in mind ............................................................................................................ 104

Teachers are unaware of a poverty lifestyle ............................................................ 105

Exposure and relationships are solutions to life’s challenges .................................. 107

Theme #4: Teachers expressed how they show their care for their students in different

manners .......................................................................................................................... 109

Care expressed in classroom values and teachers’ personal beliefs ....................... 109

Care expressed in physical touch ............................................................................. 111

Theme #5: Teachers attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support based upon their

personal viewpoints, character traits, and family backgrounds ..................................... 113

Teacher who had a low poverty awareness score and were from middle income

communities taught with empathy ........................................................................... 114

Teachers from lower income communities’ taught with compassion ..................... 116

Research Questions and Themes Alignment ....................................................................... 118

Research Question #1 .................................................................................................... 119

Research Question #2 .................................................................................................... 122

Research Question #3 .................................................................................................... 127

Chapter V: Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 132

Summary of the Study ......................................................................................................... 132

Discussion of the Salient Findings ....................................................................................... 132

Knowledge is Power ...................................................................................................... 132

Teachers Find Ways to Solve Perception Challenges .................................................... 141

Teachers Manage Situations, While Students and Families .......................................... 142

Implications.......................................................................................................................... 145

Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 146

Recommendations for Future Study .................................................................................... 149

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 151

References .................................................................................................................................. 157

Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 170

Appendix A. Interview Protocol and Interview Questions .................................................. 171

Appendix B. PAS ................................................................................................................. 175

xvi

Appendix C. Google Meet Transcript .................................................................................. 179

Appendix D. SHARE ........................................................................................................... 181

Appendix E. Classroom Observation Form ......................................................................... 183

Appendix F. Classroom Observation Protocol .................................................................... 189

Appendix G. Reflexive Journal for Non-Classroom............................................................ 191

Appendix H. Research Timeline .......................................................................................... 193

Appendix I. Email Initial Involvement ................................................................................ 195

Appendix J. Email Requesting Involvement ....................................................................... 197

Appendix K. Informed Consent Agreement Form .............................................................. 199

Appendix L. Thick Descriptions .......................................................................................... 202

xvii

List of Tables

Table 1. District School Improvement Plan by Overall Score..................................................... 58

Table 2. Participants Demographics with Findings ..................................................................... 59

Table 3. Interview Research Questions and Interview Questions Alignment ............................. 72

Table 4. Participants’ Responses Summary ................................................................................. 78

Table 5. Codes ............................................................................................................................. 82

Table 6. Themes and Subthemes ................................................................................................. 85

Table 7. Hierarchy ....................................................................................................................... 86

Table 8. PAS Results ................................................................................................................... 92

Table 9. Research Questions and Theme Alignment ................................................................. 119

xviii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Ratio of proportions in poverty relative to total populations by race and age ............... 2

Figure 2. Poverty percentages by family type and metro/non-metro in 2018 ............................. 24

Figure 3. Poverty percentages in the State of Georgia urban/rural communities ........................ 25

Figure 4. Level of education in persons 25 and older in rural/urban Georgia ............................. 32

Chapter I: Introduction

Background of the Problem

Nearly 200 years ago in 1800, 81% of people worldwide were in poverty. Amid global

fear and concerns of various world wars, poverty has continued to plague communities. On the

other hand, poverty rates have improved with steady periods of decrease between 1850 and 1990.

Global society did experience drastic decreases in poverty rates of more than 34 percentage

points within this period. As of 1990, only 44% of people worldwide were in poverty (Rosnick,

2020).

Since 1990, the rate of poverty in the United States, defined as income of no more than

$1.90 per day, fell by more than 1.2 percentage points per year to less than 10% (Rosnick, 2020).

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, in 2018, 11.9 million children were considered poor,

while 5 million children live in extreme poverty at less than half of the general poverty line. The

probability of a child living in poverty is nearly 9%; this statistic is even worse for minority

children, 73% of impoverished children are children of color (Children’s Defense Fund, 2023).

Poverty can be a chronic and debilitating condition that results from multiple adverse,

synergistic risk factors and affects the mind, body, and soul (Jensen, 2009). Extreme poverty is

defined as living with an annual income of less than $7,870 for a family of three (Cuthrell,

Stapleton, & Ledford, 2010). The figure below shows the ratio of people in poverty by race or

Hispanic origin group to each group’s share of the total population.

Figure 1

The 2020 ratio or proportion in poverty relative to total population by race and age

Note. Proportions of poverty in relation to race and age.

As Figure 1 indicates, in 2020, African-American and Hispanic children under the age of

18 are more than double the ratio proportion to White and Asian children. This is the case for

African-American and/or Hispanic population segments within the entire poverty population.

African-Americans are 13.2% of the total population in the United States yet represent 23.8% of

the poverty population (Creamer, 2020).

Researchers have studied the effects of poverty on several factors such as low birth

weight, infant mortality, growth stunting, lead poisoning, learning disabilities, and

developmental delays (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). In addition, researchers have found

adults or parents of children experiencing poverty had challenges with performing emotional

regulation tasks such as trouble responding to stressful situations. Parents and/or adults who

grew up in low-income environments showed an inability to regulate their emotions, and

different brain functioning in the prefrontal cortex. Researchers found this inability to regulate is

a result of early exposure to stress (Chang, 2021). Children who grew up in low-income

environments had a higher risk of mental health challenges and psychological challenges

(Chang, 2021). According to Payne, cognitive research indicates that early memory is linked to

the predominant story structure that students understand. Stories are retained in the mind longer

than many other memory patterns for individuals. As a result, for students who do not have

access to a story structure that includes cause and effect, consequences in an environment where

routine and structure are not available, foresight and planning can become very difficult (Payne,

2013).

As poverty increases, its impacts and effects continue to permeate classrooms and school

buildings every school year. Many times, it becomes difficult for students experiencing poverty

to catch up academically with their peers resulting in 12 years of formal education behind the

majority (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997).

Poverty impacts minority communities at a higher rate or proportion than White

communities. Since the proportion of poverty is greater in such communities, poverty awareness

will be even more relevant in learning and instructing students in these communities (Cuthrell et

al., 2010). Poverty’s influence on teachers, pre-service teachers, administrators, students, and

parents requires better preparation of teachers and preservice teachers to address the unique

needs of students experiencing poverty. Not only is there a need to address children’s needs but

also to identify strategies that effectively work with students and families from the culture of

poverty, and supporting teachers with instruction and managing the entire educational process in

their classrooms is critical (Cuthrell et al., 2010).

Teachers also have a role in how they attribute poverty to the lives of their students and

families. How they attribute poverty to their students can impact or influence their likelihood of

establishing relationships and supporting students later resulting in what and how they attribute

poverty and the type and level of relationship they establish with children. Teachers can attribute

poverty to one or more types of measurements including individual, structural, and cultural

(Bennett, Raiz, & Davis, 2016).

As we examine the background of poverty in education, we must also consider the

complexity of diverse students’ needs in the classroom. In the past, researchers assumed that

classroom environments were homogenous groups of students with similar learning styles,

cultures, and backgrounds (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). As researchers and observers

continued to study classrooms, they discovered this was not the case. Student populations are

complex and heterogeneous, and this same issue or experience occurs with the teacher

population. Teachers also come from different cultures and backgrounds including different

levels of socio-economics. These diverse groups of students and teachers result in a new

challenge. The challenge now becomes how to connect teachers and students from different

backgrounds and complexities. Connections are a necessity for effective teaching and

instruction to occur. It seems plausible that this connection, or lack thereof, demonstrates the

importance for teachers to identify and relate to a diverse group of students (Brown-Jeffy &

Cooper, 2011). Regarding the achievement of students, identifying and being aware of students’

family or home environment can enhance the teacher’s planning for instructing students

experiencing poverty. Most times, children living in poverty start their formal education

academically behind due to their home environment not providing adequate linguistic exposure,

the promotion of literacy, and reading readiness (Strickland, 2001). As such, this deficit results

in an achievement gap between these students and their peers who do not live in poverty.

In response to this widening gap, the United States put into effect Public Law #107-110,

the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB, a reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, was signed into law in January 2002, nearly 20 years ago. The

premise of NCLB was to ensure that all students were literate and can understand mathematics at

grade level or above by 2014 (United States Department of Education, Office of Planning,

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies, 2007). The Act mandated the

measurement of the academic progress of all students in reading, mathematics, and science. As a

result, schools had to raise the achievement of students annually and remove the achievement

gap by race, ethnicity, language, and special education status or face severe sanctions.

In 2011, the United States Department of Education had to award waivers from parts of

the law to qualified states. As a result, states later adopted college and career-ready expectations

for all students and created accountability systems that target the lowest-performing schools with

the largest achievement gaps, and other schools that did not meet targets for at-risk students. In

addition to changes to student expectations, revisions were made to teacher and principal

evaluation and support systems NCLB’s vision has caused an examination that attempts to

understand how diverse students in impoverished environments relate to their teachers (United

States Department of Education et. al., 2007).

The 2017-2018 National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) reported that 79% of public

school teachers were White and non-Hispanic, 9% of public school teachers were Hispanic and

7% of public school teachers were Black and non-Hispanic, 2% of public school teachers were

two or more races and non-Hispanic, and less than 1% identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific

Islander, non-Hispanic (United States Department of Education et. al, 2007). Although data show

the majority of teachers are White; nearly 52 % of students enrolled in public education identify

as non-White. In 2017, 50.7 million students were enrolled in public elementary and/or

secondary schools. Of the 50.7 million, 24.1 million identified as White, 7.7 million Black, 13.6

million Hispanic, 2.8 million Asian/Pacific Islander, 500,000 were American Indian/Alaska

Native, and two million were of two or more races (National Center for Education Statistics,

2020a). Student and teacher demographics will be discussed later in the study.

Statement of the Problem

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2015, 13.5% of the population lived in poverty.

The United States Department of Education projects that in 2021, private schools will enroll

about 9% of K-12 students while public schools will enroll 91%. In 2020, about 49.4 million

students attended public schools in prekindergarten to grade 12. As such, the majority of

children living in poverty are enrolled in public schools. Provided the majority of students are

enrolled in a public school, public schools should address the impact of poverty on students and

teachers (United States Department of Education, 2020). Also, population shifts have created

more diverse student demographics regarding poverty, race, and gender, and there is a greater

need for a diverse teacher and staff workforce to meet the unique educational and health needs of

a changing population (Szucs et al., 2019).

The rural poverty rate is growing faster. The rate of poverty is a social indicator of

America’s poor. It is also a helpful measurement in developing and establishing Federal policies

and targeting programs that benefit those in need. Rural areas are also considered a nonmetro

area, which includes counties with less than 50,000 residents and/or less than 100,000 residents

in the total population (United States Department of Agriculture, 2004). Metro areas are defined

to include counties with one or more cities of at least 50,000 residents or with an urbanized area

of 50,000 or more and a total area population of 100,000 (United States Department of

Agriculture, 2004).

Understanding how teachers’ perceptions impact their instruction is a challenge that

should be addressed. Many times, teachers are not aware of how their perceptions impact their

instruction and subsequently impact overall student achievement (Carothers, Aydin, &

Houdyshell, 2019). As administrators and leaders within districts and schools work to address

this challenge, they are also faced with a shortage of qualified teachers (Carothers et al., 2019).

Although the research will not study teacher shortages specifically, it is important to note that not

only are leaders managing the unique needs of students living in poverty but hiring qualified

teachers who understand the unique needs of students experiencing poverty can be challenging.

Leaders are often forced to hire non-qualified teachers who are then disproportionately assigned

to disadvantaged students (Carothers et al., 2019). As the demographic landscape changes,

racial/ethnic and cultural differences look different between the teachers and the students they

serve, thus presenting another educational problem (Carothers et al., 2019).

Data collected for this study will include individual semi-structured interviews, one classroom

observation with the interview participant, and two non-classroom observations in the media

center and cafeteria with teachers who currently work in rural Title 1 elementary schools in a

southeastern state.

This study will contribute to the body of knowledge needed to:

● assist educators and policymakers in identifying specifically what areas in education,

instruction, or learning are most impacted by teachers’ perceptions of students.

● understand what influences elementary teachers’ perceptions of poverty.

● identify how teachers, who work in Title 1 rural schools, instruct and support students

experiencing poverty.

● identify how differences in instruction can be found between high poverty awareness and

low poverty awareness in elementary teachers’ perceptions of their students.

● characterize the extent to which a teacher's perceptions or understanding of and attitude

toward poverty changes or develops instruction and support in economically

disadvantaged children.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to explore how do teachers' perceptions of poverty impact

how they instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty, what differences

exist in instruction and support between elementary teachers with high and low poverty

awareness in a rural elementary school and to what extent does the teachers’ perception of

poverty influence instruction and support for elementary students experiencing rural poverty?

This study provided a better understanding of how elementary teachers, with more than five

years of experience in a rural community, perceive poverty’s impact on instruction and support

for elementary students experiencing rural poverty. From the research and study, hopefully

additional information would how teachers working with students experiencing poverty can

ensure students receive the support and instruction necessary to achieve as well as reduce the

achievement gap. Therefore, I sought to understand the instructional methods and perceptions of

elementary teachers for students living in poverty in selected Title 1 rural schools and what

differences exist in instruction and support between elementary teachers with high and low

poverty awareness. Finally, this study identified to what extent teacher perceptions of poverty

influence instruction and support for elementary students experiencing rural poverty.

Research Questions

This study’s primary objective is to investigate teachers’ perceptions about students

experiencing poverty. The following research questions were explored:

1. How do teachers’ perceptions of poverty impact how they instruct and support

elementary students experiencing rural poverty?

2. What differences exist in instruction and support between elementary teachers with high

and low poverty awareness in a rural elementary school?

3. To what extent does the teachers’ perception of poverty influence instruction and support

for elementary students experiencing rural poverty?

Conceptual Framework

The study used Jensen’s concept, SHARE (Jensen, 2009) to serve as the conceptual

framework that bridges theory and the study’s foundation together. Jensen’s established five

classroom-based factors represent how teachers can effectively support students living in

poverty. Jensen entitled the concept, SHARE to include support of the whole child, hard data,

accountability, relationship building, and enrichment mindset. Teachers have a role in each

factor but particularly in supporting the whole child and relationship building (Jensen, 2009).

Jensen’s concept, SHARE (Jensen, 2009) guided the research by incorporating each

principle or component of SHARE into the interview questions and the Classroom Observation

Form created for the observations. Also, I used the SHARE concept to guide the classroom and

non-classroom observations to identify qualities of the teacher that address or acknowledge what

Jensen states are critical for students experiencing poverty’s achievement and support. During

the original design of the interview questionnaire, Jensen’s SHARE concept was used as the

conceptual framework. SHARE concept includes five components: the whole child,

accountability, hard data, relationship building, and enrichment mindset. I developed interview

questions related to four overarching topics – poverty awareness, perceptions, teacher instruction

and support, and rural poverty. The SHARE concept correlates with the four overarching topics

of the study. The SHARE concept is used specifically in creating the Classroom Observation

Form for the classroom and non-classroom observations.

Methodology Overview

I conducted a generic qualitative inquiry research study. This research method was

selected because understanding what teachers’ perceptions are and how their perceptions impact

students are foundational concepts to understanding the overall research questions (Eddles-

Hirsch, 2015). Their first-hand descriptions of these experiences drove the direction of the

research. I was not attempting to resolve or remedy the issue or experience (Eddles-Hirsch,

2015). Also, I wanted to discover and describe the experience by encompassing not only what

they experienced but how they experienced it (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

To begin, participants were not randomly selected to ensure teachers were currently

working in the classroom with students experiencing poverty. Instead, participants were

selected using purposive sampling. Purposive sampling provides context-rich and detailed data

of the specific population the researcher is seeking to obtain (Suri, 2011). Individuals are

purposefully chosen to participate for reasons outlined by the researcher (Ravitch & Carl, 2021).

Participants completed the Poverty Attribution Survey (PAS). PAS was used for sample

selection purposes only. Through PAS, I hoped to better understand participants’ levels of

poverty attributions via correlating their responses to a poverty attribution scale. The instrument

measured three attributions of poverty: individual, structural, and cultural. The PAS assessed the

significance of poverty attributions of the teachers. This was accomplished by transferring

learning or translating certain indicators from the PAS (laziness, anti-work, etc.) to a poverty

awareness scale (Krishna, Menzies, & Fu, 2016). Through bellwether transfer techniques, I took

PAS responses related to the three attributions (individual, structural, and cultural) and

transformed responses into a poverty awareness score. Teachers who attribute poverty to terms

such as laziness, anti-work, or loose morals (attributions described in questions 3, 9, 13, and 33)

received a lower attribution score due to limited awareness or knowledge of poverty. This was

determined due to the significate amount of research discussed in Chapter 2 that affirms such

factors are not attributed to poverty.

Attributions have been found by researchers to influence teachers’ likelihood of helping students,

resulting in a relationship between attributions and helping behaviors by teachers (Bennett et al.,

2016). Heider (1958) developed an attribution concept to help people understand behaviors and

the society in which they live. The PAS and the informed consent form was administered to all

teachers (approximately 80) currently teaching at the selected Title 1 elementary school. In

addition, the PAS and an informed consent form were distributed to two schools (in the same

school district) to increase the number of potential participants. The survey was shared via

electronic mail. Teachers who completed the survey and met specific poverty awareness scores

was asked to continue their participation in the study. The purpose was to obtain participants

with varying levels of poverty awareness. Through the use of the PAS, the participants with the

highest (3 teachers) and lowest (3 teachers) scores were extended an invitation to participate in

the one-on-one interviews and, later, one classroom observation and one non-classroom

observation.

I collected data using a one-on-one, semi-structured interview, one classroom observation

and a non-classroom observation in a location outside of the classroom. I conducted individual

one-on-one interviews with each participant while recording responses on a word-for-word

audio-recorded transcript. Participants were provided interview protocol guidelines (see

Appendix A) to review before the interview to reduce discomfort/unease from the personal

nature of some interview questions. The use of a semi-structured interview allowed the

participants to ask questions at the end of the interview and provided flexibility to preserve the

essence of the experience and shape the content of the interview (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). I

sought to develop questions that are not biased or leading in any way by carefully crafting

questions that did not support my personal views or opinions. To preserve the credibility and

avoid negatively affecting the objectivity of the study, all questions were phrased with terms that

most teachers are familiar with and did not require additional explanations that cause additional

insight or opinions from myself.

In addition, I established a panel of educators to pilot the interview questions by

evaluating the observation form effectiveness (before conducting the actual study). The piloting

of the interview questions was conducted separately from the piloting of the classroom

observations. For the interview questions, I conferred with three educators who work in a Title 1

school to ensure the interview questions are aligned with the research questions and would

provide data necessary to answer the research questions. The group consisted of a teacher with

research experience, a Professional School Guidance Counselor (also with classroom

experience), and an administrator (former classroom teacher) from a Title 1 School. The

participants were chosen for their expertise in instruction, knowledge, and daily application of

emotional and social learning support strategies, and leading teachers at a Title 1 elementary

school. Secondly, I conducted a classroom trial run by observing a randomly selected classroom

from a Title 1 school to ensure the Classroom Observation Form is reliable and questions on the

form can be answered.

Upon completion of the interviews, I conducted a classroom observation followed by a

non-classroom observation (in the media center and school cafeteria). While conducting the

classroom observations with interview participants, I used a document entitled, Classroom

Observation Form, to capture what I was observing. The Classroom Observation Form was

shared before to protect the participant’s welfare and encourage ease and comfort during the

observation.

I selected three standards (derived from Jensen’s SHARE conceptual framework) and

listed each standard on the Classroom Observation Form. The three standards were aligned with

the conceptual framework and include a rubric rating. I conducted one 45-minute classroom

observation with the participants in their classroom during a total of two school days from 7:45

am to 3:00 pm. I did not consider the time of day or specific grade levels during this study.

Classroom observations with study participants occurred one week after the one-on-one semi-

structured interviews. Non-classroom observations were conducted in the media center and the

school cafeteria lasting 45 minutes as well and conducted on the same day as the classroom

observations.

In addition to the Classroom Observation Form, a reflexive journal was used to include

data such as course materials and student products/classwork displayed on classroom walls, rules

(already set before my study), and classroom physical setting or any other items that speak to the

teacher’s experiences in the classroom (Colorado State University, 2021). I was aware that

biases do exist in the research and tracked in the journaling anytime or situation that personal

bias may arise. During this time, I attempted to obtain a deeper understanding of how the

teachers perceived poverty, the instructional methods used, and what levels of student support

existed in their classrooms.

I conducted a second observation in a non-classroom setting ( media center and cafeteria)

to observe interactions between the students and teacher. Interview participants were present

during the non-classroom observations in which I observed how the teachers communicated with

students while in the cafeteria and media center. I used a non-classroom setting to observe

factors related to relationship building, one-on-one communication between the student and

teacher, and other factors that may not be as easy to observe in classroom settings. Field notes in

the reflexive journal were recorded during this phase of the study.

I analyzed using thick descriptions and thematic analysis (Appendix L). This was

accomplished by describing situations and scenarios in great detail (Terrell, 2016). I focused on

the actual words and terms used by the participants and less on how to personally interpret or

ensure data fits with other data shared (Leavy, 2017). By providing greater detail, data was

clearer and easier to understand, and important phrases or messages by the participants were

outlined in the results (Leavy, 2017). While writing thick descriptions of events, I attempted to

demonstrate or show rather than tell by using evocative language. The purpose is to select words

that help the reader see what was being described (Vanderbilt University, 2012).

Thick descriptions are more than just a collection of data and information. Thick

descriptions can show themes of possible social actions or experiences that are revealed through

the recording of circumstances, meanings, intentions, strategies, motivations that characterize a

particular episode. It is this interpretive characteristic of description rather than the detail that

makes it thick (Schwandt, 2001).

I sought to address creditability, transferability, dependability, and confirmability from

the analysis and results reported as possible (Terrell, 2016). To begin, I used triangulation to

improve credibility and confirmability by using more than one data source (Terrell, 2016). Data

results were compared between each source to support consistency and validate the information

shared. By triangulating the data, data from each source were reviewed carefully (Terrell, 2016).

Some researchers use triangulation to capture the fullness and diversity of perspectives on an

issue or experience rather than for homing in on one valid representation of it (Flick, 2002).

I provided thick descriptions of the results to address transferability (Appendix L). This

was accomplished by describing situations and scenarios in great detail (Terrell, 2016). I was

focused on the actual words and terms used by the participants. By providing greater detail, data

will be clear, and easy to understand, and important phrases or messages by the participants were

outlined in the results (Leavy, 2017).

Next, I established dependability in the data by recording, transcribing data and using

consistent methods throughout the study. Data should be easy to understand and replicable to

other researchers in the end. This was accomplished by being transparent in describing the

analysis of data. The purpose was to confirm neutrality in the study and ensure results reflect the

teacher participants’ viewpoints and not the researchers’ or any other outside influences,

opinions, or preconceptions (Terrell, 2016).

I addressed confirmability by using reflexivity techniques by internally reflecting on the

research process in a separate journal. Reflexive journal records were collected from viewing

documents such as plans, newsletters displayed on walls, course materials and student

products/classwork, rules, and classroom physical setting, or any other items that speak to the

teacher’s experiences in the classroom (Colorado State University, 2021). In addition,

maintaining a reflexive journal for bracketing, composed of pre-reflexive preparation and

reflection, will enhance bracketing techniques (Wall, Glenn, Mitchinson, & Poole, 2004).

Therefore, a personal reflection journal by the researcher helped remove some of the subjective

nature of the research design (Finlay, 1998). Bracketing data during the analysis addressed

presumptions, previous knowledge, and beliefs of which the interviewer may not be aware are

occurring (Dörfler & Stierand, 2020). This was important to reduce biasing ideas, opening one’s

mind or personal thoughts while conducting the study (Vagle, 2014). Fischer (2009) concluded

that reevaluating data and selecting the appropriate type of language for presenting findings is a

crucial aspect of bracketing.

Third, I also presented assumptions, values, and reasons in a positionality statement that

was included in the findings. The intention of the statement is for the researcher to provide

readers an opportunity to consider the researcher’s stance on the final analysis (Clark & Veale,

2018).

Delimitations and Limitations

There were numerous factors outside of my control. Delimitations found in this study

include sample size. Although sample sizes are typically smaller in qualitative research, the

research wants to obtain as much new and/or relevant information that will enhance or add

to the study. At times, obtaining additional data from a large number of individuals does

not lead to additional information or information that cannot be found with a smaller

sample in qualitative research (Boddy, 2016).

Delimitations for this study included the target population to include sampling only

teachers who have more than five years of experience. I set this boundary in the study by using

participant exclusion criteria. The purpose was to remove or reduce the probability that the

teachers may have challenges with instruction and support due to lack of experience or number

of years in the classroom. PAS was also used for sampling purposes to determine which teachers

will continue in the study based on their responses. PAS will indicate higher and/or lower

poverty awareness levels among participants to ensure teachers with both higher and lower levels

of poverty awareness are included.

I conducted the study with those who agree to participate in the classroom observation

and interview. Therefore, a purposive sampling method allowed me to conduct the study with

teachers who meet certain criteria and are willing and available to participate. This delimitation

resulted in teachers who felt (before taking the study) that they have a strong level of poverty

awareness. Based upon their belief of having a strong level of poverty awareness gave them a

level of comfort with their involvement because they felt knowledgeable and comfortable. They

were even interested in sharing their philosophy as it relates to poverty awareness.

A limitation of the study is an inability to indicate if high poverty awareness results in

improved student achievement. I did not collect data related to student achievement such as

formative or summative assessments, and classroom grades. So, I will not be able to observe if

high or low levels of poverty awareness directly impact student achievement, support, or

instruction. For example, the research will not show if students in classrooms with teachers with

low poverty awareness do not perform well in the class overall. Although support and

instruction may be impacted by poverty awareness levels, the research will not indicate if this

directly helps students perform better on assessments and classroom assignments.

In addition, qualitative research by nature can present additional limitations such as a reliance on

the individual prowess of myself, being easily altered by my personal biases and idiosyncrasies,

and my existence during data gathering can be unavoidable in qualitative research, possibly

affecting the participant's responses (Anderson, 2010). Therefore, I cannot verify with complete

certainty that their comments were honest and accurate. Perhaps respondents were reluctant to

share their honest opinions on poverty and/or concerned of the researcher’s response to their

comments. Although participants were asked to be honest and reminded of their confidentiality I

cannot say participants comments shared during the interviews were 100 percent true and

authentic.

Definition of Terms

For this study, the following definitions were applied:

• Curriculum: “Specific, tangible subject that is always tied to decision-making within

institutions, whether they are schools, churches, nonprofit agencies, or governmental

agencies” (Null, 2011, p. 1).

• Poverty: “Chronic and debilitating condition that results from multiple adverse

synergistic risk factors and affects the mind, body, and soul” (Jensen, 2009, p. 6).

• Socioeconomic status (SES): “The social standing or class of an individual or group. It is

often measured as a combination of education, income, and occupation” (American

Psychological Association Socioeconomic Status Office, 2019, para. 10).

• Achievement gap: “This occurs when one group of students (students grouped by

race/ethnicity, gender) outperforms another group and the difference in average scores for

the two groups is statistically significant (larger than the margin of error)” (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2020a, para. 1).

• Maintenance gap: “A systematic pattern whereby socioeconomically disadvantaged and

higher status subgroups are more likely than others to retain resourceful ties in their close

networks. The variation in the retention of specific resourceful social ties in the process

of personal network turnover” (Schafer & Vargas, 2016, p.1796).

• Perceptions: “The process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing or things in general;

the state of being aware; consciousness; understanding” (Perception. Merriam-Webster’s

Dictionary, 2007, para. 1).

• Extreme poverty: “Living with an annual income of less than $7,870 for a family of three”

(Cuthrell et al., 2010, p. 104).

• Situational poverty: “Type of poverty caused by specific circumstances, such as illness or

loss of employment, and generally lasts for a shorter period” (Cuthrell et al., 2010, p. 105).

• Generational poverty: “An ongoing cycle of poverty in which two or more generations of

families experience limited resources. Type of poverty is described as having its own

culture, with hidden rules and belief systems” (Cuthrell et al., 2010, p. 105).

• Absolute poverty: “Type of poverty that equates to a focus on sustenance and the bare

essentials for living with no extra resources for social and cultural expenditures” (Cuthrell

et al., 2010, p. 105).

• Rural poverty: “Individuals of non-urbanized areas or non-urban clusters who earn below

the income threshold” (United States Census, 2017, para. 1).

Significance of the Study

This study provided a better understanding of how elementary teachers, with more than

five years of experience in a rural community, perceive poverty’s impact on instruction and

support for elementary students experiencing rural poverty. Existing research on teachers'

perceptions and attitudes toward poverty in the classroom suggests that educators rely on middle-

class perspectives that lack a perspective on the reality of living in poverty (Thompson,

McNicholl, & Menter, 2016). Although students have a range of backgrounds and experiences,

most teachers will encounter students from impoverished communities and must learn to manage

classrooms with socio-economic diversity (Thompson et al., 2016).

Scientists and other researchers continue to explore outcomes related to poverty. For

example, researchers have attributed poverty to issues related to low birth weight, infant

mortality, growth stunting, lead poisoning, learning disabilities, and developmental delays

(Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Students who live in impoverished conditions and have a

learning disability and other health challenges from poverty conditions experience the impact of

such conditions on education before their first year of school. Yet limited research exists that

connects teachers’ perceptions, rural poverty, and types of poverty.

This study contributed to research by focusing specifically on how teachers' (specifically

those in Title 1 rural schools) perceptions impact instruction and support for students

experiencing rural poverty. Teachers who are not aware of how their perceptions of student’s

impact instruction and support may not be willing to provide the added levels of support needed

for students experiencing poverty. This study provided observations and research that bridge

together three separate but important aspects of supporting students, instructing students,

understanding the impact of teacher’s perceptions as it relates to students experiencing rural

poverty.

There is a gap in the literature between rural poverty and teacher perceptions. Research

does exist related to each topic individually or separately, but little is available that combines

both topics. Additionally, administrators who understand how teachers perceive and/or instruct

and support with low and high levels of poverty awareness can create school climates and

cultures that support them and encourage teacher professional development opportunities within

their buildings.

Chapter II: Review of Literature

The term poverty can be a vague and ambiguous term used commonly throughout

schools every day. Although poverty has different definitions, the World Bank defines it as a

pronounced deprivation of well-being. It can be defined specifically or more generally,

depending on how well-being is implied (Haughton & Khandker, 2009). The World Bank goes

further to segment poverty into various categories or types. “Poverty can also represent a form of

human deprivation that raises the question of where low levels of stimulation and relative

psychosocial neglect associated with poverty have a similar negative effect on human brain

development” (Ludy et al., 2013, p. 1136). In a study conducted by the Washington University

School of Medicine in St. Louis in 2013, researchers found exposure to poverty in early

childhood did impact brain development. Their findings indicated that exposure to poverty

especially during pre-adolescent years reflected smaller than normal white matter, cortical gray

matter, and hippocampal and amygdala volumes in their brain.

Historical Overview

In 1962, Michael Harrington wrote The Other America, which explained life as an

American impoverished. Harrington goes on to describe impoverished individuals as the

“invisible poor.” He believes the “invisible poor” are individuals who lived in rural areas where

tourists did not visit or in miserable slums in isolated parts of cities or those that were

inexpensive. He even cites well-dressed individuals who could be considered poor due to not

having enough money for other necessities. These statements alone changed how Americans

view improvised individuals and brought attention to such individuals (Laine, 2016). Now, 60

years later, identifying who is considered impoverished or what life looks like for these

individuals has developed into much more.

Specifically, the location of poverty has evolved from the 1970s, in which most of the

nation’s poor lived in rural areas. Three decades later the shift included poor populations

increasing in cities and surrounding areas. Then, between 2000 and 2010, the number of poor

people in suburbs increased by twice as much as those living in cities. By 2010, the suburbs were

home to the largest and fastest-growing poor population in the United States. The suburban poor

had greater challenges due to the distance between affordable housing and job opportunities.

Many workers spend considerable time and money commuting to their jobs. In a study of large

metropolitan areas, low-income households spent as much on transportation as housing (Laine,

2016).

Understanding Poverty

What is Poverty and How is it Defined in Education?

Jensen described poverty as being complex and intricate due to the complexities within

and believes there are six types: situational poverty, generational poverty, absolute poverty,

relative poverty, urban poverty, and rural poverty (Jensen, 2009). Rural poverty exists within a

nonmetropolitan area with a population of less than 50,000. Typically, rural poverty includes a

single guardian household. In fact, in 2018, 33.6% of rural households headed by a single

female were considered poor. Figure 2 below shows the difference between rural and non-rural

communities by family type (United States Department of Agriculture, 2020a). For this study, I

will focus on rural poverty due to the location of the study.

Figure 2

Poverty percentages by family type and non-metro/rural residence

Note. Adapted from the United States Department of Agriculture, 2020a.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service,

the rural poverty rate in the state of Georgia in 2018 was 20.9%, or 377,108 individuals of the

total rural population. The urban poverty rate in the state of Georgia in 2018 was 13.2% or

1,163,326 individuals of the total urban population. Over the last 40 years, the poverty rate in

Georgia’s rural and urban communities has ranged from 11.7% to 22.5%. Figure 3 below

displays rural poverty rates are significantly higher every 10 years.

Figure 3

Poverty percentages in the State of Georgia’s urban and rural communities

Also, rural communities have higher rates of poverty in comparison to urban

communities. The prevalence of rural poverty is more common in certain parts of the United

States. This prevalence is highly concentrated in the South. Historically poor areas, including the

Mississippi Delta and Appalachia, as well as on Native American properties, have higher rates of

rural poverty than others. Regarding Hispanic communities, over the last decade, states such as

California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and Georgia have seen significant

growth in rural poverty (United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,

2020b). Within certain states, the prevalence of poverty is higher among low-income

racial/ethnic minorities. In 2018, rural communities of African American individuals

experienced the highest incidence of poverty at 31%. (United States Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, 2020b).

Poverty’s Role in the Root Cause of Underachievement

Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) concluded that family income is strongly correlated to

achievement in comparison to emotions. But children who live in extreme poverty or persistent

poverty fared worse than those in non-persistent poverty. The actual time or point in the

children’s lives when poverty is experienced also impacted their outcome.

Children who lived in impoverished homes during preschool and K-5 grades had lower

rates of completing school versus those who experienced poverty later in life. Brooks-Gunn and

Duncan found establishing interventions that address poverty earlier in life versus later may have

a greater impact on reducing poverty and the impact it has on students (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan,

1997).

“Poverty can also impact individual communities or neighborhoods within communities.

The neighborhoods in which schools are located also affect the supply of teachers.

Neighborhood characteristics such as surroundings can predict teachers' choices to work within

communities” (Duncan & Murnane, 2011, p. 378).

The ramifications of neighborhood characteristics differ between urban areas with

relatively low- and high population densities.

In lower-density areas, teachers are more likely to travel further distances; therefore, the

actual surroundings of the school are less relevant. Teachers favor

communities/neighborhoods with higher median family income and less violent crime. In

higher-density areas, teachers also prefer neighborhoods with more local amenities,

particularly for functional (grocery stores, hardware stores, drugstores) and recreational

(bars, fitness centers, coffee shops, movie theaters) purposes. The effects of

neighborhoods may add to the effects of school characteristics in that schools in low-

income neighborhoods tend to lose teachers more promptly than schools in higher-

income neighborhoods and have fewer applicants for teaching positions (Duncan &

Murnane, 2011, p. 378).

Reform to address challenges that derive from poverty has not evolved much over the last

50 years. Politicians agree that poverty should be addressed, and the government should

guarantee every citizen has enough to eat and a place to sleep, although how to address this

challenge is yet to be solved. Provided this inability to unite on how to address poverty at the

climax of the War on Poverty, the poverty rate was just under 15%. Ten years later in 2010, the

rate had increased to 15.1%. Moreover, the child poverty rate is higher now.

Poverty has merged with education. This merger also termed the education-reform

movement, is what most researchers now term the achievement gap. Similarly, this merger

derived from the substantial number of children who grew up in impoverished communities in

the United States and the underachievement between rich and poor students in the schools. The

achievement gap caused poverty issues to become more important due to the impact it has on

education (Tough, 2012). This merger caused many new theories to evolve, but one of the more

significant occurrences was the development of the No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) in 2001.

NCLB required schools to collect information and data on how each child performed based on

their subgroup. Subgroups of NCLB were derived from ethnicities, socio-economic status,

language proficiencies, and students with disabilities. Once students were separated into specific

subgroups, educational leaders, teachers, and stakeholders could see the difference, or the

achievement gap, that existed between and within subgroups (Tough, 2012).

Underachievement and Poverty

Peter Tough, author of How Children Succeed believes there are three reasons for

underachievement due to poverty. First, individuals lack knowledge around brain development

and/or the brain science of poverty. Due to the complexity of the brain and the concept of

poverty, independent of each other, many are not willing to explore this concept related to brain

development. Second, the topic is uncomfortable. Most professional individuals or teachers

who do not live in or will never live in an impoverished household are not comfortable or fluid

on such topics related to poverty.

Also, when ethnicity/minority aspects are added to the discussion, non- impoverished,

non-minority individuals may find such topics difficult. Provided this discomfort, teachers and

other school leaders may choose not to discuss or address the issue. Finally, political beliefs that

infer one’s character are the reason for poverty or lack thereof. Assuming one’s character is

what causes impoverished individuals not to be impoverished, then Tough believes political

factors and governmental systems cannot control one’s character. As a result, there is a shift

from a governmental responsibility to an individual responsibility (Tough, 2012). Students in

impoverished schools may underachieve because they are forced to address a combination of

problematic influences within the classroom environment and the school culture. Students

experiencing poverty have several hurdles to address that non-impoverished students do not.

This is different from their peers who may live in communities that do not lack basic resources

(Danhier, 2016).

Socioeconomic Achievement Gap

“Socioeconomic status encompasses income as well as educational attainment, and

subjective perceptions of social status, and social class. Socioeconomic status can encompass

quality of life attributes as well as the opportunities and privileges afforded to people within

society” (American Psychological Association Socioeconomic Status Office, 2019, para. 1).

“Poverty is not a single factor, but rather it is characterized by multiple physical and

psychosocial stressors. Further, socioeconomic status is a consistent and reliable predictor of a

vast array of outcomes across the lifespan, including physical and psychological health”

(American Psychological Association Socioeconomic Status Office, 2019, para. 1).

Researchers have found a connection between poverty and the development of self-

regulation during childhood (Lipina & Evers, 2017). Students’ cognitive, emotional, and stress

self-regulation are specifically most impacted by poverty. Lipina and Evers (2017) continue to

explore in more depth a list of protective and risk factors most commonly associated with

poverty:

• prenatal maternal health and perinatal health

• quality of early attachment

• level of stress at home and school

• quality of parenting and early cognitive and learning stimulation at home and in

educational contexts

• the mental health of parents and teachers

• developmental disorders and financial stressors on the family

• access to health and social services, lack of social mobility, social, political, and

financial stress

• family, social, and cultural expectations about child development

• natural disasters (Lipina & Evers, 2017, para. 6).

It is also noted adversity related to poverty had some connection with the format and

function of the neural systems including cognitive and emotional regulation, speech, and learning

skills. Secondly, at what point in a student’s life adversity is encountered plays a factor.

Finally, the quality of language environments, cognitive stimulation, and emotional support at

home and in educational contexts can alter neurocognitive functioning (Lipina & Evers, 2017).

Teachers can greatly impact students’ academic growth regardless of their socioeconomic

status. As research has shown, students from impoverished communities start and many times

finish school with fewer resources than middle-class students. Many times, schools with

predominant numbers of low-income students also have less qualified teachers with fewer years

of experience. In recent years, teacher quality has become a top priority of national education

policy. Wenglinsky’s (2002) research indicates that the relationship between teacher

effectiveness and student achievement is stronger than the relationship between a student’s

socioeconomic status, other cultural characteristics, and attainment. Teacher excellence,

therefore, must include not only knowledge of content and pedagogy, but cultural capacity

(Wenglinsky, 2002). The National Education Association (2015) defines cultural competence:

as the ability to successfully teach students who come from cultures other than our own.

It entails developing certain personal and interpersonal awareness and sensitivities,

developing certain bodies of cultural knowledge, and mastering a set of skills that, taken

together, underlie effective cross-cultural teaching (Szucs et al., 2019, p. 69).

Culture shows a significant role in teaching and learning, compelling teachers to become

conscious and well versed in different cultural tendencies, history, attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors (Szucs et al., 2019).

Former President Obama, established reform to address the student achievement gap,

entitled Race to the Top (RTTT) as an initiative worth over $4 billion to 19 states. The reform

plan addressed:

Four key areas of K-12 education reform such as the development of rigorous

standards and better assessments, adoption of better data systems to provide

schools, teachers, and parents with information about student progress, support

for teachers and school leaders to become more effective, and an increased

emphasis and resources for the rigorous interventions for the lowest-performing

schools. These 19 states represent 22 million students and employ 1.5 million

teachers in 42,000 schools. (para. 2)

The policy was intended to stimulate reform and assist with the student achievement gap

in grades K-12. States/districts/schools were awarded grants to implement policies and business

practices that encouraged the use of student data and common standards. RTTT was designed to

address improvements in teacher effectiveness and a more fair and equitable distribution of

qualified teachers for all students especially high needs students (Dragoset et al., 2016). All such

factors are a few of many that educators must consider with student achievement in high-needs

communities.

The socio-economic achievement gap is the difference in academic achievement gaps

between students from high- and low- socioeconomic backgrounds (Chmielewski, 2019). The

socioeconomic achievement gap can be characterized as a disparity in scores on assessments

between students from high- and low-income communities. Also, low-socioeconomic children

do not receive an equal experience in and/or outside of the school environment in comparison to

their high-income counterparts (Jackson, 2013).

There are various explanations for why a socio-economic achievement gap exists.

Various researchers attribute the growth of the socio-economic achievement gap to rising income

inequity, increasing school choice, and inequalities in parental education, occupations, or

investments in children (Reardon & Bischoff, 2011). Inequalities in parental education can be

further examined by considering disparities that exist between rural and urban communities. In

Figure 4, the level of education of persons 25 and older who completed high school only is

significantly lower in rural communities. Since 1980, the number of persons 25 and older who

completed high school only in rural Georgia communities has increased by 12.5%. While

persons 25 and older who completed high school only in urban Georgia communities have

decreased by 2.7%.

Figure 4

Education of persons 25 and older completing high school only

Note. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2020b

Other research shows there are three main reasons for the socio-economic achievement

gap. First, the population of students enrolled in schools is more diversified. Primary and lower

secondary school enrollment has become a common practice for students not only in the United

States but across the globe. Provided SES achievement gaps measure how students perform on

national and state assessments, the current assessments include students who are currently

enrolled in school. While some countries are beginning to experience increases in enrollment

resulting in more students with which to compare assessment scores. The gap could appear to be

improving or not due to the growing number of students enrolled and taking tests and/or students

who were formerly not enrolled at any school and now attend. This new inclusion of formerly

non-enrolled students could cause some changes in the gap as well (Chmielewski, 2019).

Second, the level of economic development is increasing within most countries,

increasing living standards. The rise results in an improvement to current public and private

resource allocation to education and students’ overall well-being as well as increased numbers of

participation in international and national educational assessments. Since research is lacking on

this, it is not clear if higher levels of living standards always lead to higher SES achievement

gaps (Chmielewski, 2019).

Finally, SES achievement gaps disparities may also be attributed to parental investments.

As competitive college admissions increase, the need for private household expenditures is

becoming more important. Private household expenditures include childcare, school tuition, and

private tutoring. Families with higher levels of economic status may be able and willing to

afford such expenditures while lower SES levels may find this challenging and unaffordable

(Chmielewski, 2019).

In summary, there are various explanations for why a socio-economic achievement gap

exists. Various researchers attribute the growth of the socio-economic achievement gap to rising

income inequity, increasing school choice, and inequalities in parental education, occupations, or

investments in children (Reardon & Bischoff, 2011). Other research shows there are three main

reasons for the socio-economic achievement gap. First, the population of students enrolled in

schools is more diversified. Second, the level of economic development is increasing within

most countries increasing living standards and lastly, SES achievement gaps disparities may also

be attributed to parental investments.

Teachers’ Perceptions

General Perceptions’ Impact on Achievement on Early Childhood

Perception is defined as “the process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing or things

in general; the state of being aware; consciousness; understanding” (Perception. In Oxford English

Dictionary, 2007, para. 1). There is literature that states teacher perceptions of students affect how

they connect, teach, and assess the student’s ability and behavior. Besides research states that

teachers’ perceptions of the student are based upon specific descriptive characteristics of them

including race, gender, and socioeconomic background. Such factors are used by the teacher to

determine the student’s academic abilities in the classroom (Hansen, 2016). For example, in a

qualitative study of 21 teachers interviewed after their early childhood/ESL teacher education

program, teachers enter the education field with many misconceptions about children and families

experiencing poverty. The purpose of this study is to explore how teachers’ perceptions and the

extent of their perceptions, impact how they instruct and support elementary students experiencing

rural poverty.

Another researcher, Kim (2013), found that narrow or incomplete understandings of

homelessness and poverty influenced how:

Teachers believed that the populations experiencing homelessness are adults, and to limit

the notion of homelessness to those who are at least physically visible to the public. Their

knowledge of homelessness was very limited and inaccurate, such that children

experiencing homelessness and their families were initially interpreted as being

dysfunctional and abnormal (Kim, 2013, p. 303).

To begin, teachers initially perceived and interacted with the impoverished children

during their initial field placements. Teachers with limited context on diverse demographics and

basic understandings of poverty resulted in a perspective with negative characteristics for

individuals experiencing poverty (Kim, 2013). Provided their basic definition of poverty,

teachers also had a guarded perspective of the needs of children who did not conform to their

stereotypes. As a result, students may not receive the level of support necessary. In this same

study, I found personal experiences and relationships matter (Wright, Nankin, Boonstra, & Blair,

2019). This study is one of many that substantiate the relevancy and weight perceptions have on

teachers’ effectiveness and ability to empathize, understand, and relate to students experiencing

poverty.

Teachers make a significant difference in the lives and academic achievement of

students. This difference is exacerbated based on whether teachers work in rural or non-rural

communities. Many rural schools suffer from a major teacher shortage. Reasons such as lower

salaries, benefits, and underfunding impact teachers’ decisions to work in rural schools. In

addition, a lack of access to high quality, relevant professional development opportunities,

schools being located in remote areas that require extensive travel to and from the school

location, and smaller staff within rural school’s place added duties and responsibilities on

teachers resulting in a reluctance to work in rural schools (Public Schools First, 2021).

In a study conducted by John Hattie (2003) at the Australian Council for Educational

Research, Hattie dissects several influences on learning to include the contributions of students,

curriculum, policy, principal, school climate, teacher, and various teaching strategies and the

home. From the study I found 50% of achievement was from the student’s contribution, 5-10%

accounted for home influences, and 30% from the teacher. Students' behaviors predict

achievement more than any other variable while home effects related to the levels of expectation,

parental encouragement, and involvement affect the student (Hattie, 2003). The study revealed

teachers were the greatest resource that educational systems can control to make a more

significant impact on learning.

Hattie (2003) showed teachers had a major influence on students as it related to learning.

Teachers have the greatest amount of control due to learning factors of influence that included

feedback, students’ prior cognitive ability, direct instruction, mastery learning, homework, peer

effects, testing, instructional media, finances, team teaching, and several others. Besides, what

teachers know, do, and are concerned about contributed to 30% of the student’s achievement

(Hattie, 2003).

Finally, after teachers develop perceptions or their personal beliefs on poverty,

attributions are impacted by their perceptions. Teachers’ attributions describe how and why they

believe in a particular phenomenon. Heider (1958) states the level of attribution one possesses is

a theoretical process resulting in helping people understand their behaviors and society at large.

Jensen in Poor Students, Rich Teaching: Mindsets for Change and Poor Students, Richer

Teaching: Mindsets for Change, believes it is the teacher’s responsibility to enrich their teaching

to develop hidden talents of all students rather than placing blame or attributing poverty to the

student’s lack of achievement or individual efforts (Jensen, 2016).

Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, and Tagler (2001) researched a phenomenon with undergraduate

students on their attributions to poverty. During their research, they found some students

attributed poverty to individual causes (those within one’s control) other students attributed

poverty to structural causes (those outside the individual and beyond his or her control). The

researchers found that students holding individual attributions were more likely to have a

negative view of the poor and believe negative stereotypes about them (Cozzarelli, et al., 2001,

p. 217).

Teachers’ Background, Social Practices, and Learning

In 1998, E. Wenger established a concept of learning that assumes teachers’ social

practices are how they learn and become who they are. Due to their social practices, neither

individual characteristics nor the school/district culture had an influence, they were influenced

by "communities of practice" that they acquire from life experiences (Wenger, 1998). It seems

reasonable that Wenger’s concept of how one’s identity, especially the way they experience life,

community associations, personal learning experiences, and future goals related, can begin to

explain who teachers are as individuals thus resulting in teachers becoming positive contributors

to student’s overall academic achievements (Munns et al., 2013).

R. Collins (1991), an American sociologist stated that personal and cultural biographies

are significant sources of knowledge for teachers who become “insiders.” Wenger (1998)

describes “insiders” as teachers with shared social and cultural backgrounds in their school

communities. These teachers may have an inside advantage in comparison to teachers who do

not share such backgrounds. Teachers who have worked on establishing relationships, engaged

with community leaders, and believe that pedagogy and curriculum should be designed around

what is important to the learner are more effective (Munns et al., 2013).

Finally, this study demonstrated another aspect of teachers' backgrounds including what

personal family and/or cultural influences shaped their lives and later developed how they use

and interpret pedagogy. Principals, colleagues, family, and former teaching experiences were

among several factors that influenced the teacher’s background (Munns et al., 2013). Research

literature has shown that the teacher’s ability to improve a learning situation can be developed by

the structural and cultural features of society and the school culture in which they work (Lasky,

2005).

Teacher background is a major factor in how teachers perceive poverty, but teachers also

have the responsibility to be aware of stereotypes and preconceived notions. Many times, in the

United States teachers and preservice teachers not only conclude individuals are poor because of

their failings but also hold other stereotypical views about pupils and their families (Gorski,

2012). Gorski (2012) encourages educators to consider “common sense” when forming opinions

of students and suggests this common sense should be informed and not derived from stereotypes

and hegemony. Gorski believed the improved way of thinking is to offer the best possible

educational experience for students and families in poverty by rejecting stereotypes and

prejudices. This rejection requires a commitment to understanding the disenfranchisements and

repressions of the poor—conditions of which these stereotypes are symptoms. If educators can

commit to a personal examination of themselves, consisting of attitudes and conditions that drive

how teaching practices are employed, then progress can be made. Also, educators must take

time to reflect not only on the individual or the group deficits of people in poverty; but on the

social deficiency of economic injustice (Gorski, 2012).

Teacher perceptions can impact how they evaluate high, average, and low-performing

students. In a research study conducted by Irizarry (2015), he found teachers were less likely to

recommend upper level performing groups of Black and non-White Latino students into gifted

and other specialized programs. How they perceived the students made a difference. The

teachers who had a less positive perception of higher-performing minority students set

expectations and/or their interactions with them according to their perception. This limited

interaction resulted in the students not performing to their fullest potential. I suggested deficit

thinking could have a role in this ideology but the students who received poorer ratings did

closely align with the members of specific racial/ethnic groups.

Nonetheless, their test scores did not reflect a deficit; in fact, racial/ethnic groups' test

performances indicated a strong level of proficiency. On the contrary, this study also found low

performing Asian, non-White Hispanic, and Black students had positive teacher perceptions in

comparison to similarly performing White students. Teachers did demonstrate higher

expectations of White students yet showed some indifference or a separate set of lower

expectations for poor-performing White students (Irizarry, 2015).

Regarding early childhood learning, students are not as aware and engaged with

understanding their socioeconomic status; therefore, such factors may not play a role in their

daily interactions with their teachers. But the research did suggest socio-economic factors play a

role in how the teachers perceive the student. This influence impacts student-teacher

interactions, academic placements, and student learning growth. It is important for early

interventions that are focused on improving how teachers assess student knowledge to improve

minority student success. Developing teachers’ assessment skills is just the start in removing

bias or negative teacher perceptions. Addressing deficient thinking and assessment styles can

encourage teachers to acknowledge that biases exist, and new behaviors can start to form.

Personal reflection is another tool teachers can use to evaluate their assumptions that impact their

actions, and decision-making within the classroom (Irizarry, 2015).

Teachers must also be aware of factors (that are more relevant in impoverished

communities) that may impact how they perceive students and their families. Family influence

can have a greater role with younger students, which also impacts the level of influence by the

teachers. How well teachers know a family and how well the parents know the teacher is another

factor that impacts learning and instruction in students experiencing poverty. This is particularly

important for students experiencing poverty as well as being a challenge for highly transient and

mobile students. Several recent studies evaluated the importance of teachers and the relationship

they have with families and students (Qureshi & Ost, 2019).

Gorski believes educators can form a “deficit ideology” based upon their personal beliefs

or perceptions that students and their caregivers are poor because of their deficiencies. As such,

this assumption implies that parents do not value education and students are lazy. Due to this

“deficit ideology" educators are forced to assume low achievement in poor students is derived

from their own doing versus the many barriers that affect achievement. The outcome is

educators who set low expectations for students experiencing poverty and begin their

teacher/student relationship with false notions (Gorski, 2012).

Teachers’ Instructional Methods for Students Experiencing Poverty

Establishing a positive environment within classrooms is a simple and basic tool teachers

must use to create a sense of belongingness for all students, especially children living in poverty.

Therefore, by establishing a positive classroom environment students will have an improved

sense of belonging resulting in a better learning experience for a child in poverty. Children in

poverty are more likely to drop out of school. Consistent with this behavior, teachers also are

more likely to set low expectations and give up on teaching children from impoverished

households. Teachers often believe such students do not try, resulting in behavior issues and low

effort (Cuthrell et al., 2010).

Research has found one person, or one teacher can have influence on a student’s learning

outcomes. This is exacerbated with children in poverty because of their greater need for

someone in their lives that can and wants to have an influence (Cuthrell et al., 2010).

Effective Instructional Methods for Students Experiencing Poverty

Provided the additional challenges poverty places on schools, high achieving schools

have identified several characteristics that positively affect achievement. These characteristics

include the availability of instructional resources, kind staff and faculty, clearer curriculum

choices, joint decision making, high expectations, regular assessment of student progress

combined with feedback and remediation, regular teacher-parent communication, support for

teacher influence, strong focus on student achievement, structure, and teachers’ acceptance of the

role they play in student success or failure (Jensen, 2009).

Additionally, Eric Jensen in Teaching with Poverty in Mind has established five

additional factors acronym, SHARE. Jensen believes these five classroom-based factors include

support of the whole child (S), hard data (H), accountability (A), relationship building(R), and an

enrichment mindset (E). Teachers have a role in each factor but particularly in supporting the

whole child and relationship building (Jensen, 2009). Jensen argues students must have support

for the whole child, but this support should come with high expectations and high levels of

support from administrators and teachers. By establishing wraparound support, students can

transition from worry and fear of the various limitations and problems due to poverty and

redirect their attention to academics. Students in poverty are more likely to have mental health

challenges and cognitive disabilities; therefore, educators should discover ways to support such

learners. Strategies include creating accommodations that provide quiet places in which learners

can work in. Some additional common support services impoverished students need include

academic tutoring, academic and career counseling, access to medications, dental care, life skills,

medical care, childcare, and many more. Educators who are initiative-taking and provide the

right levels and types of support to students experiencing poverty can expect to see improved

outcomes (Jensen, 2009).

Second, hard data should be quality, useful, consistent, and provide feedback on student

achievement to both students and parents regularly. Data-friendly schools convince teachers of

the value of data, create cultures that use data to improve instruction, and emphasize the

importance of the relevancy of data to improve student achievement.

Third, Jensen believes school-level factors, such as accountability, support students

experiencing poverty more so than not. Teachers must exhibit a sense of responsibility that they

must choose to display. This is followed by being accountable for their responsibility to the

instruction of all students (their jobs). By creating collaborative goals and appropriate

assessments that are useful and specific to the data, improvement will occur. Teachers must

commit to the process and be willing to adjust to meet their goals. Jensen recommends teachers

should acquire passion by pursuing a keen sense of responsibility toward their job expectations

and accountability to their job responsibilities.

Fourth, establishing secure attachments and consistent classroom culture and the

environment is what Jensen calls "relationship building." Poverty impacts the formation of

positive student-teacher relationships. These relationships should include those between student

and teacher; teacher and parent; teacher to teacher; and student’s relationships with their peers

(Jensen, 2009).

A study by Moen, Sheridan, Schumacher, and Cheng (2019) found classroom emotional

support from the teacher in early childhood classrooms is a predictor of a positive teacher-

student relationship. Classroom-based emotional support is an environmental component of the

classroom's climate that directly supports the development of early relationships for young K-5

students. This is significant enough for classrooms with high levels of emotional support to

experience better relationships between teachers and students resulting in decreases in conflict in

comparison to those that do not. This same study also revealed classroom organization and

instructional practices were not effective in the teacher-student relationship (Moen et al., 2019).

Finally, Jensen stresses the importance of a shift in the mindset of teachers. He

encourages teachers and school leaders to reshape how they define students from low socio-

economic households. He suggests creating an enrichment mindset that allows students not just

to be "poor kids" students in need of enrichment. Moreover, this new mindset allows teachers to

raise their levels of expectations. Teachers must be engaging and paced at a speed that meets

their needs. Collaborative assessments should be used to guide professional decisions and

teachers should work to create and expect a caring environment every day for every student

(Jensen, 2009).

Contrary to Jensen (2009), some researchers have suggested opinions quite opposite of

Jensen (2009). For example, Reeves (2003) established five strategies for schools to use when

working with students and families living in poverty. These five characteristics included a focus

on academic achievement that emphasized improvement. According to Reeves, academic

achievement should be the priority and providing visual representations of such achievement

within the building is one method to do so. The focus on improvement is vital in environments

where students experiencing poverty start school behind. Due to their deficits, teachers should

focus on encouraging students by providing feedback that is honest and accurate yet provides

hope and areas of improvement. Finally, this is critical because their lack of reading and writing

will also impact other subject areas (Reeves, 2003).

Second, clear curriculum choices focused on reading, writing, mathematics, and less time

on other subjects. The choice to focus on what matters the most to learning provides

opportunities for success in other subject areas later. It is a clear curriculum choice to focus on

the basics. With a direct focus on foundational skills, career education, arts, technology, and

other non-content-based subject matter improve (Reeves, 2003).

Third, frequent testing and assessments to provide constant feedback and continual

encouragement throughout the learning process. When students do not perform to certain

standards, multiple opportunities to improve are available. Reeves (2003) believes assessments

created by classroom teachers to avoid the pressures of state and district assessments are tools

necessary to encourage and motivate high-risk students.

Fourth, focus on nonfiction writing that helps teachers to obtain improved diagnostic

information about students. As such, this supports students by allowing them to demonstrate the

learning process through problem-solving. Students can process information when they have to

write verses, read or listen. Once students can demonstrate learning and critical thinking skills,

teachers can once again identify gaps. After learning gaps are identified, teachers have

additional information about the student’s learning deficits to create new strategies for improved

learning (Reeves, 2003).

Finally, collaborative assessment evaluations from teachers and cross-functional teams.

Collaboration with assessments allows teachers and school leaders to exchange information on

students’ work. When applied within cross-functional teams, different disciplines can provide

perspectives that single content areas lack. Therefore, comprehensive feedback to the student is

provided and prepares them for other disciplines. Many times, having the opportunities to hear

from colleagues on student work assessments and compare their assessment style with others

offers added professional development as well as removes bias and misconceptions (Reeves,

2003).

In summary, some researchers have suggested opinions quite opposite of Jensen (2009).

Reeves (2003) established five strategies for schools to use when working with students and

families living in poverty. These five characteristics included a focus on academic achievement

that emphasized improvement. According to Reeves, first academic achievement should be the

priority and providing visual representations of such achievement within the building is one

method to do so. Second, clear curriculum choices focused on reading, writing, mathematics,

and less time on other subjects. The choice to focus on what matters the most to learning

provides opportunities for success in other subject areas later. Third, frequent testing and

assessments to provide constant feedback and continual encouragement throughout the learning

process. Fourth, focus on nonfiction writing that helps teachers to obtain improved diagnostic

information about students. Finally, collaborative assessment evaluations from teachers and

cross-functional teams. Collaboration with assessments allows teachers and school leaders to

exchange information on students’ work (Reeves, 2003).

Contrary Opinion to the Negative Impact on Learning

While poverty has been proven to have an impact on learning and brain development,

Yosso proposed a concept that factors in the socio-economic background yet does not solely

attribute low achievement to it. He believes although perceptions do attribute low performance

to low family socioeconomic background, more significant forms of cultural capital exist

(Cramer, Pellegrini-Lafont, & Gonzalez, 2014). Yosso asserted that people’s social standing

which does not always include the level of status of which one is a member, and related

experiences can help them achieve.

Specifically, Yosso’s concept states each individual or student can possess:

(a) aspirational capital-maintaining dreams and aspirations; (b) linguistic capital –the

intellectual skills that result from bilingualism or multilingualism; (c) familial capital-

knowledge communicated via family history or personal stories; (d) social capital-

networking and community resources; (e) navigational capital-ability to understand how

societal institutions function; and (e) resistance capital-challenging and mobilizing

against injustice (as cited in Cramer et al., 2014, p. 111).

Yosso’s model focuses on the importance of community cultural capital. The importance

of community cultural capital uses each student’s unique experience rather it be from

socioeconomics, poverty, race/ethnicity, or disability in the learning environment. Community

cultural capital disapproves of the mainstream and enhances it into individual and communal

cultural relevancy (Cramer et al., 2014).

Pedagogy of Poverty in a Rural Title I Schools’ Meaning and Relevancy

In 1991, Haberman coined the term, Pedagogy of Poverty, suggesting students living in

poverty have a unique or different type of instructional pedagogy. This different type of

instructional pedagogy consists of learning that gives information, asks questions, makes

assignments, reviews homework, and other core functions of urban teaching. Furthermore, such

remedial functions and basic tasks define what teachers do, what students, parents, the

community, and the public expect teachers who teach the poor to do.

The Pedagogy of Poverty is commonly found and implemented by individuals who also

did not perform well in school, those who believe common sense is enough to learn and not

higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, and those who do not work well with minorities. Such

individuals are concerned with how to manage the poor and set low expectations for poor

students before understanding the needs of the student.

Pedagogy of Poverty is undergirded in an assumption that teachers and students perform

as the teacher specifically instructs; teachers are in charge of learning and all others should

follow accordingly; students are different therefore their differences will naturally sort them

according to their levels of achievement, and all students must have basic skills and without such

skills, no additional learning can occur. Haberman believes Pedagogy of Poverty requires

preservice teachers to transform their learning styles and purpose from helpers, models, and

guides to directive authoritarians for poor students to perform well.

Finally, the Pedagogy of Poverty limits learning and teaching. Teachers are responsible

for engaging students in a particular set of skills and behavior. This results in students who can

simply comply with what they have been exposed to. Pedagogy of Poverty does not consider

broad, global concepts but focuses on the basics and what is needed to meet fundamental

requirements (Haberman, 1991).

This pedagogy is consistent with Bernstein's concept in 2000, the conceptualization of

performative pedagogy. Bernstein's concept, which parallels Haberman's suggests children's

behaviors and social conduct, as well as the style of teaching used in the classroom, have control

over pedagogy and well-defined boundaries are in place. Consequently, giving a new focus on

accountability and high-stakes assessments (Hempel-Jorgensen, Cremin, Harris, & Chamberlain,

2018).

Summary

In 2020, The Urban Institute indicated 29.3 million people live in poverty. The annual

poverty rate for Blacks/Non-Hispanic people is estimated to be 15.2% and for Hispanic people

the estimate is at 13.7% (Giannarelli, Wheaton, & Acs, 2020). Children in poverty represent one

in six children in public schools in America. This statistic has been a problem for federal, state,

and local school districts for decades. Poverty's size and impact on learning are vast and must be

studied, evaluated, and solutions to addressing the challenge are critical for schools to be

effective. The federal government, over the last 50 years, has established various programs and

policies to address the issue; yet a real workable and agreed-upon solution has yet to be obtained.

As a result, local schools, leaders, and teachers must find quick solutions to face an ever-growing

and invasive challenge.

It is important to consider that although research does support poverty’s impact on the

brain some scholars reject such ideas. Numerous scholars, theorists, and researchers share an

opinion through data and research that states other variables can also alter learning and

perceptions therefore assuming poverty is the only variable is not realistic. Researchers

encourage educators to be aware of the Pedagogy of Poverty that provides instruction differently.

Pedagogy of Poverty assumes students experiencing poverty need extra care and support;

therefore, low expectations are set, and high levels of authoritarian style leadership are required.

Although such students do need extra levels of care, Pedagogy of Poverty limits exploration,

discovery, and student-led initiative that inspires and stimulates students emotionally.

Poverty impacts students physically, emotionally, and cognitively from birth. Students

with longer periods of exposure to adversity and stress due to poverty suffer more than others,

resulting in students who start first grade with deficits from the very beginning (Blair & Raver,

2016). This study is specific to how teachers perceive poverty (as a subject in general) and how

that perception influences how they instruct and support students experiencing poverty. The

majority of preservice teachers do not physically, emotionally or socioeconomically relate to the

student body. This does not imply that teachers are not capable to work effectively with diverse

students, but there should be some focus on acknowledging the difference. This study examined

how rural poverty can impact learning in comparison to other communities and found rural

poverty can add additional constraints and challenges for students due to the lack of resources

within the communities. Students can have additional difficulties in life when rural poverty

(compounded with persistent poverty) during a child’s formative adolescent years is experienced.

The purpose of the study is to explore how does teachers' perceptions of poverty impact how

they instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty, what differences exist

in instruction and support between elementary teachers with high and low poverty awareness in a

rural elementary school, and to what extent does the teachers’ perception of poverty influence

instruction and support for elementary students experiencing rural poverty.

Chapter III: Methodology

I implemented a generic qualitative, inquiry-based, research study regarding the

experiences of elementary school teachers who teach elementary students currently experiencing

poverty. The purpose of the study was to explore how do teachers' perceptions of poverty impact

how they instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty, what differences

exist in instruction and support between elementary teachers with high and low poverty

awareness in a rural elementary school, and to what extent does the teachers’ perception of

poverty influence instruction and support for elementary students experiencing rural poverty.

This study provided a better understanding of how elementary teachers, with more than five

years of experience in a rural community, perceive poverty’s impact on instruction and support

for elementary students experiencing rural poverty. I was seeking to understand what

perceptions of poverty existed from teachers and how this perception could shape how the

instruct and support students living in poverty in selected Title 1 rural schools.' Additionally

what differences exist in instruction and support between elementary teachers with high and low

poverty awareness was discovered from the research and study. Finally, this study identified to

what extent teacher perceptions of poverty influence instruction and support for elementary

students experiencing rural poverty.

Using a generic qualitative inquiry, the study focused on detailed and analytical

descriptions of teachers' attitudes, opinions, or beliefs about an issue or experiences. This

qualitative research study included records of the participants through in-depth, semi-structured,

one-on-one interviews, one classroom observation with each interview participant or a total of

six, and two non-classroom observations (in media center and cafeteria). The focus was on

teachers experiences in their current and former roles as classroom teachers. I wanted to collect

data on their human feelings, experiences, and values during the interviews (Ravitch & Carl,

2021).

The problem statement of the research study is that as population demographic shift there

becomes a greater need for a diverse teacher and staff workforce that has the ability to meet

unique educational and social emotional needs of such change in demographics (Szucs et al.,

2019). To explain, the rural poverty rate is growing faster than non-rural poverty; therefore,

teachers who work within rural school districts and serve students experiencing poverty have a

greater need to understand how their perceptions of student’s impact instruction and support

(Carothers, et al., 2019). Many times, teachers are not aware of how their perceptions impact

their instruction and subsequently impact overall student achievement (Carothers, et al., 2019).

The central experience is to understand how teachers’ perceptions of poverty impact how they

instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty.

The following research questions were derived from the purpose statement. The

questions are clear and focused and were used to collect and analyze the data (Terrell, 2016).

Research questions were designed to be ethical to ensure the overall research study is well

planned, well adjusted, appropriately designed, and ethically approved (Committee on

Publication Ethics, 2005).

The questions are listed here:

1. How do teachers' perceptions of poverty impact how they instruct and support elementary

students experiencing rural poverty?

2. What differences exist in instruction and support between elementary teachers with high

and low poverty awareness in a rural elementary school?

3. To what extent does the teachers’ perception of poverty influence instruction and support

for elementary students experiencing rural poverty?

Research Design

I chose a generic qualitative inquiry research design that began by defining the research

problem. According to Munck 1998, in “The Research Cycle and Methodological Rules for

Qualitative Analysis,” I defined the research problem by posing a question that is relevant to the

world, how do teachers who work in Title 1 rural schools instruct and support elementary

students experiencing rural poverty? I sought to establish validity in the research. The first

level was to merge the conceptual framework, generic qualitative inquiry, and validation

processes. By effectively integrating each component, I can improve the study's validity (Madill,

Jordan, & Shirley, 2000). I designed the study to also contribute to other scholarly literature in

this field.

Validity standards were adhered to by establishing research that is credible, consistent,

replicable, transferable, and confirmable (Toma, 2011). The study sought to understand the

complexities that arise from participants' responses (Toma, 2011). Triangulation and thick

descriptions were useful strategies used by the researcher to improve credibility (Nightingale,

2020). A method to ensure transferability was to provide thick descriptions that are context

relevant (Toma, 2011). The researcher provided thick descriptions to ensure transferable results.

This was accomplished by describing situations and scenarios in detail during the non-classroom

observations (Terrell, 2016). I sought to obtain logical consistency during data analysis by

looking for themes and contradictory information collected (Munns et al., 2013). Also, I avoided

omitting variable biases by reporting and sharing all information presented, yet carefully

removing data that is inconsistent with common themes (Munns et al., 2013). From the analysis,

five major themes and corresponding subthemes were established from the data.

Additionally, while gathering data, I sought to investigate if evidence of teachers’

attitudes, opinions, or beliefs about poverty exists (Morrow, 2005). I compared and contrasted

data taken from each data collection method to ensure validity and remove redundancy between

themes. By comparing and contrasting data, I sought to make connections between texts or

ideas, engage in critical thinking, and exceeding basic descriptions to provide enriched analysis.

By identifying similarities and differences, I gained a deeper understanding between participants

and their relationship (or lack thereof) with each other (The University of North Carolina The

Writing Center, n.d.).

When analyzing data from the interviews, I referred to the transcriptions from the Google

Meet website feature. In addition, I recorded some notes along with the transcription and later

used it to cross-reference the transcription data. I began by reading, reviewing, and becoming

familiar with data collected, color coding and highlighting data, and using research questions to

decide which highlighted data is related to the research questions. I also compared and

contrasted themes to see how each theme related to one another or did not relate. I wanted to

ensure themes were not the same and each theme enriched the overall data results and was not

redundant. Next, I removed all data that was not related, coded each item that was related, and

provided a descriptor (Morrow, 2005).

The reflexive journal was a written record and used throughout the non-classroom observations.

In the reflexive journal, I recorded what was completed, thoughts or feelings or precepts, and any

additional notes that cannot be explained or recorded during the non-classroom observations

(Russell & Kelly, 2002). This strategy facilitated reflexivity by using the researcher’s journal to

examine personal assumptions and goals and to clarify individual belief systems and

subjectivities (Russell & Kelly, 2002).

Role of the Researcher

This study was chosen due to my experiences related to poverty’s impact observed at

various Title 1 schools. My work requires travel between seven schools, grade levels 6

through

in which six of the seven schools are Title 1 schools. I have been involved in conversations

related to poverty awareness, attribution concept, and the socioeconomic achievement gap with

teachers and administrators at each school. These conversations have included teachers’

viewpoints or perceptions about the lack of effort in some students. The majority of the

conversations at some schools include tenured teachers who have stated low achievement is

related to poverty and a “lack of effort from the children.” These conversations imply students

from impoverished communities cannot learn and at times are not willing to learn. In addition,

my current work role includes working exclusively with students experiencing poverty,

homelessness, teen pregnancy, language barriers, and many other situations that can impede their

learning experience. From the seven years I have served in this capacity, I have seen every

student is unique, and regardless of what experience or situation they may live in currently,

education is vital for their future.

This experience led me to the study because I was seeking to investigate how teachers'

perceptions or viewpoints impact instruction and support as well as what differences exist in

instruction and support between elementary teachers with high and low poverty awareness.

Students experiencing poverty who do not receive the support and instruction needed are

typically students who fail to complete high school within the allocated period. Although this

study will not track student’s performance or achievement into high school and post-secondary, I

will seek to investigate how perceptions impact how teachers instruct and support students

experiencing poverty prior to high school.

Due to the nature of qualitative studies, I guided the study through direct involvement

and collaboration between the participants and myself. This is also considered an emic

perspective in which the researcher studies behaviors as an “insider” or from inside the system

(Olive, 2014). This was important because I am a highly qualified secondary education teacher

and bring experiences and perspectives to the research that a non-educator cannot. Thus, the

analysis will be enriched because I have relevant practical experiences with teachers,

administrators, parents, and students who are experiencing poverty or are impacted indirectly by

poverty.

Due to the nature of my experiences at work (currently working with students

experiencing rural poverty), the researcher is aware that her opinion (developed from work

experiences) could interfere with data analysis and interpretation as well as ensuring biases are

eliminated (Clark & Veale, 2018). I also presented assumptions, values, and reasons in a

positionality statement that were included in the findings. The positionality statement was

established to provide readers an opportunity to consider the researcher’s stance on the final

analysis (Clark & Veale, 2018). I addressed any bias’ by first understanding that it exists and

addressing how it could impact the research. I started specifically by learning the subject or

content, demographics, and perspectives of each participant, and finally the research context and

process. I reviewed the findings of each participant, provided opportunities for participants to

respond and review their transcripts, and considered alternative explanations for each question

asked during the interviews.

Finally, my role as the researcher was to investigate the attitudes, opinions, or beliefs of

the participants. This was accomplished by maintaining a reflexive journal throughout the entire

study. The reflexive journal was used by recording details of what I did, thought, and felt while

analyzing the data. For example, by viewing documents such as plans, newsletters (displayed on

walls in the classroom), course materials and student products, rules, classroom physical setting

or any other items that speak to the teacher’s experiences in the classroom (Colorado State

University, 2021). I obtained added information not verbally communicated during the

observations. By using a reflexive journal, I was able to maintain a record of such situations

from the classroom/setting.

Setting and Participants

ABC

Elementary School and DEF Elementary School are located in a small rural town

in the Southeastern region of the United States and serves grades pre-kindergarten through fourth

grade. The town in which ABC and DEF Elementary School resides has a population of 1,550

people, the median age of 33.8, and a median household income of $73,581. The town has seen

some growth in population from 1,110 to 1,549, a 39.5% increase between 2017 and 2018. The

city’s median household income has also increased from $58,036 to $73,581, a 26.8% increase

(Data USA, 2018). I was interested in these schools because they are the only Title 1 School’s in

the district and may have a unique perspective on how rural poverty can impact support and

instruction.

In 2017, ABC Elementary’s overall content standardized test score was 65.2 points out of

100 points possible. ABC Elementary enrolls 466 students, 30.7% Black, 58.2% White, and

59.9% economically disadvantaged. ABC received a 40-point score on the Closing Gaps

(component of a state readiness assessment) rating, which measures achievement rates between

all students and all students’ subgroups. Closing Gaps is a component of CCRPI (a state

readiness assessment or the College and Career Readiness Performance Index) that sets an

expectation for all students and all subgroups within the study body. The expectation is for

schools to continue to make improvements and once a certain threshold is attained, sustain high

levels of achievement resulting in continuous improvement (Georgia Department of Education,

2019).

Each year, schools are expected to meet the improvement targets based on the prior

year’s performance. Each subgroup in each school and district has its target (Georgia Department

of Education, 2019). Table 1 displays ABC’s content mastery, overall CCRPI score, and Closing

Gaps scores in comparison to other elementary schools in the district (ABC Elementary School

Improvement Plan, 2020).

In 2017, DEF Elementary’s overall content standardized test score was 73.2 points out of

100 points possible. DEF Elementary enrolls 487 students, 25.7% Black, 69.2% White, and

59.9% economically disadvantaged. DEF received a 10-point score on the Closing Gaps

(component of a state readiness assessment) rating, which measures achievement rates between

all students and all students’ subgroups. Closing Gaps is a component of CCRPI (a state

readiness assessment or the College and Career Readiness Performance Index) that sets an

expectation for all students and all subgroups within the study body. The expectation is for

schools to continue to make improvements and once a certain threshold is attained, sustain high

levels of achievement resulting in continuous improvement (Georgia Department of Education,

2019). As shown in Table 1, ABC Elementary School received the lowest overall CCRPI score,

Closing Gaps, and Content Mastery scores in comparison to all other elementary schools in the

district.

Table 1

District school improvement plan by overall score, content mastery, and closing gaps scores

School Name

Overall Score

Content Mastery

Closing Gaps

XYZ Elementary School

77.5 74.9 50

DEF Elementary School

70.1 73.2 10

GHI Elementary School

88.5 83.7 100

ABC Elementary School

65.2 62.1 40

DEF Elementary School receive the second lowest overall CCRPI score in comparison to

the other elementary schools in this district. The overall CCPRI score measures various

indicators such as assessment scores, graduation rates, the performance of student subgroups,

school climate and financial efficiency status, and other data measuring students’ readiness for

the next level of education and progress towards graduation (Georgia Department of Education,

2021). Table 2 lists each participant’s demographics, such as age, gender, race, and years of

experience.

Table 2

Participants’ demographics with findings

Note. N = 6. Participants were, on average, 41 years old.

In generic qualitative inquiry design, the researcher is investigating the teacher’s

attitudes, opinions, or beliefs about a particular issue or experience (Percy, Kostere, & Kostere,

2015). Research shows in many qualitative studies, the sample used is often a convenience

sample of people who are easily accessed (Ellis, 2016b). As a result, six elementary teachers,

currently employed at ABC Elementary School

and DEF Elementary School participated in

both data collection methods. Participants were not randomly selected because I wanted to

establish a sample that meets specific criteria, such as specific levels of poverty awareness and

the ability to respond to the research questions.

I contacted 80 individuals to participate in the study, 6 actually participated in the study.

The six participants consented to participate by completing an informed consent form and

scheduling a time and day for the interview and classroom observation. Participants were

Characteristics

Sample (n)

Gender

Female

100

Male

Age

18-30

31-50

100

Over 50

Years of teaching experience

3-13

14-20

More than 20

Race

Black or African American

White

100

Highest degree obtained

Bachelor’s

Master’s

Doctoral

Caucasian and on average 41years of age. The study inquired on the following factors: age, race,

gender, years of experience at ABC Elementary and/or DEF Elementary School, years of

experience at any school, and teachers’ levels of education. Participants were White, female and

between the ages of 31-50. The majority of the participants had 3-15 years of experience, while

one participant had more than 20 years of experience, and the majority of the participants held

Master’s degree.

Participants were given pseudo names to be used to conceal and protect their participant’s

identities. The first participant, Sally is a Caucasian female teacher with five years of experience

in education. She has only worked at rural Title 1 schools. She teaches 3

, 4

and 5

grades.

She stated relationships are a critical component to teaching and seeks to demonstrate this by

“treating all students the same.” She stated she loves to hug students and addresses any needs

they may have by providing snacks and/or clothing when needed. She stated nurturing students

is also critical to student support. Her poverty attribution score was 18, the total sum of her

responses to the four questions. Sally received 5 of 12 points from the classroom observation

rubric. Sally had the lowest poverty awareness due to receiving one of the highest poverty

awareness score.

The second participant, Amy, is a Caucasian female teacher with five years of

experience. She teaches computer classes and holds a Master’s degree in Educational

Leadership. She stated, “not all classes are created equal,” so she creates diversified groups

within the classes to address each child’s unique needs. She stated, “the PAS did make me think

about my belief system and poverty perceptions.” She noticed poverty in the “car line” and

outside of the classroom environment versus within the “walls of the classroom.” Her poverty

attribution score was 18 total sum of her responses to the four questions. Amy received 4 of 12

points from the classroom observation rubric. Amy had the lowest poverty awareness due to

receiving one of the highest poverty awareness score.

The third participant, Nancy is a Caucasian female special education teacher for grades

pre-K, 3rd, and 4th. She has 12 years of classroom experience and holds a Master’s degree. She

stated, “knowledge and exposure are power” and tries to demonstrate and teach powerful lessons

that expose her students to new and interesting things. She appeared to teach values and

encourages the students to “not quit.” She says she enjoys doing fun interactive lessons that

expose students to new things such as a “Easter Egg Hunt.” Her poverty attribution score was 18,

the total sum of her responses to the four questions. Nancy received 6 of 12 points from the

classroom observation rubric. Nancy had the lowest poverty awareness due to receiving the

highest poverty awareness score.

The fourth participant, Jane is a Caucasian female, 45 years of age. She talked about her

start in education as different from most. She has eight years of education experience. She was

not sure what differences exist between students experiencing poverty and students who do not.

She believed some teachers can experience “culture shock” upon entering the school due to the

diverse group of students that she sees. She thought it is important to set high expectations for

each student and to not lower the expectations she sets for students. Her poverty attribution

score was 12, total sum of her responses to the four questions. Jane received 4 of 12 points from

the classroom observation rubric. Jane had one of the highest poverty awareness due to receiving

the lowest poverty awareness score.

The fifth participant, Teresa, is a Caucasian female teacher with 25 years of experience.

She teaches English Language Arts and writing. She is the oldest, has the most experience, and

holds the highest level of education of the six participants in this study. She is well-versed with

the definition of poverty and illustrates that by “having an open mind, setting expectations, goals,

and serving as a role model” for her students. She enjoys demonstrating most lessons and allows

time for the students to read, listen, and comprehend what is occurring in the demonstration. She

says she believes in each student and says toward the end of the interview, “it’s okay to fail, you

can learn from failure.” Her poverty attribution score was 12, total sum of her responses to the

four questions. Teresa received 6 of 12 points from the classroom observation rubric. Teresa had

one of the highest poverty awareness due to receiving the lowest poverty awareness score.

The sixth participant, Cindy, is a Caucasian female teacher and is 31 years of age. She is

the youngest participant in this study. She has 10 years of experience and holds a Specialist

degree. She provided extensive, thoughtful answers to each interview question. She defined

poverty as a “lifestyle and whether students live in a big or small city.” She thought

impoverished individuals must work hard. She stated, “kids are kids,” so teachers should

remove misconceptions and preconceptions because it’s not “fair” to the students to treat them

differently. She used her personal experience as a mother of small children to guide how she

speaks and responds to students. Her poverty attribution score was 9, the total sum of her

responses to the four questions. Cindy received 4 of 12 points from the classroom observation

rubric. Cindy had the highest poverty awareness due to receiving the lowest poverty awareness

score out of all participants.

Instrumentation

Three different instruments were used in this study. The Poverty Attribution Survey

(PAS), one-on-one, in-depth semi-structured interviews, and observations (one classroom with

interview participants and two non-classroom observation in the media center and cafeteria). The

PAS was used to better understand the poverty attributions of the teachers for sampling purposes

only (see Appendix B). The PAS (Bennett et al., 2016) is an adaptation of items from Bullock,

Williams, and Limbert’s (2003) Attribution for Poverty Survey; Bullock, Williams, and

Limbert’s (2003) Attribution for Poverty Questionnaire; and Weiss and Gal’s (2007)

Questionnaire on the Perceived Causes of Poverty (Bennett et al., 2016). The PAS is a modified

version and used in research to differentiate and organize poverty attributions (Bennett et al.,

2016).

In 1958, Heider created the attribution concept in which Heider describes how and why

individuals form attributions or their belief in what causes situations or events to occur. Heider

goes on to outline how changes in one’s life can be imagined and manifested based upon their

wants and attempts at trying to obtain certain aspirations, resulting in a false reality (Bennett et

al., 2016). The PAS was developed from Heider’s attribution concept, with the purpose being to

better understand the poverty attributions of individuals practicing social work and individuals

training to become social workers. As it relates to teachers, having a better understanding of

teachers’ attitudes, poverty attributions (why students live in poverty), and level of social

comfort can add to the body of research on educational issues and poverty. This includes

consideration of how teachers can be aware of their own potential bias and how they can be more

effective when addressing issues related to poverty in education (Wille, McFarland, &

Archwamety, 2009).

The instrument measures three attributions of poverty: individuals, structural, and

cultural. Individual attributions, as used in PAS, of poverty are defined as:

behaviors and characteristics of the individual. The source of these behaviors and

characteristics is attributed to the person (i.e., internal) and is believed to be controllable

by the person. The individual attributions identified by previous researchers include a

lack of effort or laziness, alcohol and drug abuse, an inability to manage money or a lack

of thrift, and sexual promiscuity” (Bennett et al., 2016, p. 347).

Cozzarelli et al. 2001 found that participants who endorse individual attributions about

poverty were more likely to have a negative perspective of the poor and infer negative

stereotypes about them. As it relates to this study, individual attributions for teachers who

instruct students experiencing poverty are factors that are within the student’s control such as:

anti-work mentality, an unwillingness to work at the competitive level that is necessary to

make it in the world, a lack of motivation that results from being on public assistance,

loose morals, a lack of drive and perseverance, laziness and a lack of motivation, and a

lack of effort to improve (Bennett et al., 2016, p. 349).

Structural attribution, as used in PAS, is considered an “external factor to an individual

that is outside of the individual and/or beyond his or her control. The structural attribution for

poverty consists of overarching social institutions and processes that influence individuals and

groups” (Bennett et al., 2016, p. 350). Structural attributions can include employment rights,

welfare benefits, and other governmental supports; although individuals do have some levels of

control over structural attributions (Bennett et al., 2016). For example, individuals can, and do,

influence structures and processes through the electoral system and by civil action such as public

protests. These structures as they relate to the United States include a pyramidal hierarchy.

Within the hierarchy, a single individual serves as the leader and maintains exclusive power

within the organization and for the individuals that it serves (Bennett et al., 2016). As it relates

to this study, questions on the PAS related to the following and were used to understand

structural attributions:

inequalities which don’t give all people an equal chance, a capitalist society in which the

wealth of some is contingent on the poverty of others, discrimination against minorities

and the poor, an economic system that fosters competition over cooperation, the poor

being taken advantage of by the rich, and low wages some businesses pay (Bennett et al.,

2016, p. 350).

The cultural attribution, as used in PAS, is derived from anthropologist Oscar Lewis’s

concept entitled the “culture of poverty” (Lewis, 1966, p. 19). While conducting his research,

Lewis developed and defined a cultural understanding of poverty, he states:

there is a tendency to focus study and attention on the personality of the individual victim

of poverty rather than on the impoverished communities and families and from the

consequent failure to distinguish between poverty and what I have called the culture of

poverty (Lewis, 1966, p. 19).

The culture of poverty consists of four domains that include the relationship between the

members of underserved communities and the larger society, the nature of the impoverished

community in which many live, family structure, and the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are

inherent within it, and the individual’s character (Lewis, 1966). Although Lewis believes there

are four domains in which are different from Bennett’s three attributions. As it relates to this

study, “cultural attributions for teachers who teach students experiencing poverty are factors that

are internal and uncontrollable, internal because acculturation is an internalizing of norms and

values, and uncontrollable because of the inability to choose the culture of one’s birth and the

timing of acculturation” (Bennett et al., 2016, p. 350). For example, a culture that perpetuates

poor work habits, welfare dependence, and laziness, living in a family with a parent(s)

who has a poor work ethic, not having positive role models to teach children about drive

and ambition, a culture which does not frown upon mothers having children outside of

marriage, living in a family with a parent(s) who is on welfare, a culture which does not

teach children to save, spend, or manage money, and parent(s) who glorify living on

welfare can be identified as culture attribution specific factors (Bennett et al., 2016, p.

352).

PAS was used for sampling purposes only yet provided a poverty awareness score that

helped determine which teachers to extend an invitation to continue with the study. The PAS

(Bennett et al., 2016) was distributed to all classroom teachers at ABC and DEF Elementary

School’s. With PAS, I assessed the poverty attributions of the selected teachers. Assessing

teachers’ attributions was accomplished by transferring learning or translating certain indicators

from the PAS (laziness, anti-work) to a poverty awareness scale (Krishna et al., 2016). I used

the PAS to identify the teacher’s level of poverty awareness. Through a six-point Likert-type

scale, a total score was obtained for each participant. Participants were asked to provide their

level of agreement with each statement using a six-point Likert-type scale (6 = strongly agree, 5

= agree, 4 = moderately agree, 3 = moderately disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree)

(Bennett et al., 2016).

The PAS included 33 questions, but I used four questions to determine their level of

poverty awareness based on their combined score. I identified questions 3, 9, 13, and 33 to serve

as bellwether questions. Question number three stated “poverty is the result of a culture which

perpetuates poor work habits, welfare dependence, and laziness” and was attributed to cultural

attributions (Bennett et al., 2016). Question number nine stated “poverty is the result of living in

a family with a parent who has a poor work ethics” and was attributed to cultural attributions

(Bennett et al., 2016). Question number13 stated “poverty is the result of laziness and a lack of

motivation” and was attributed to individual attributions (Bennett et al., 2016) because Bennett

believed individual attributions of poverty are defined by the behaviors and characteristics of the

individual. The source of these behaviors and characteristics is attributed to the person (i.e.,

internal) and is believed to be controllable by the person. The individual attributions identified

by previous researchers include a lack of effort or laziness, alcohol and drug abuse, an inability

to manage money or a lack of thrift, and sexual promiscuity” (Bennett et al., 2016, p.347).

Question number 33 stated “poverty is the result of not having middle-class values” and

was attributed to structural attributions (Bennett et al., 2016). Each question identified is rooted

in one of the three attributions – cultural, individual, and structural. The responses to the

bellwether questions were scored on the six-point Likert type scale. The maximum response is a

total of 24 points (strongly agree with all questions); while the minimum response or score

would represent 4 points (strongly disagree with all four bellwether questions).

Based upon the total PAS score from the bellwether questions only, I was able to identify

low and high poverty awareness based upon their scores from the survey. Once again, through a

six-point Likert-type scale, participants were asked to provide their level of agreement with each

statement using a six-point Likert-type scale (6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = moderately

agree, 3 = moderately disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree) (Bennett et al., 2016).

Teachers with high poverty awareness received a lower score due to moderately or strongly

disagreeing with each question and were separated from teachers with higher scores. Teachers

who agreed or strongly agreed were assigned 5 or 6 points to each question, which indicated

poverty is the result of individuals, cultural or individual attributions; therefore, they were later

categorized into a low poverty awareness classification.

The PAS was distributed to teachers who met the following criteria. The PAS required initials,

school email address, and contact telephone number to ensure answers are recorded accurately if

questions arise. The PAS was administered using a Google Survey document and shared via

electronic mail. Participants were given three weeks to respond to the survey. All surveys were

saved and stored on a password-protected computer hard drive. I wanted to ensure the

participants had the ability to provide a response; therefore, the sample included individuals who

currently teach students experiencing rural poverty, teach a core academic course, use

instructional strategies in the classroom, and have at least three years of experience in a rural

Title 1 school. I used the PAS to identify the teacher’s level of poverty awareness. I assessed the

poverty attributions of the selected teachers. Attributions have been found by researchers to

influence teachers’ likelihood of helping students (Bennett et al., 2016).

Pilot Study

Before conducting the interviews, I completed a content validity check with a group of

experts in the subject matter to ensure the interview questions were aligned with the research

question. I wanted to ensure interview questions could be answered and were fitting to the nature

of the study. The group consisted of a teacher with research experience, a Professional School

Guidance Counselor, and an administrator from a Title 1 School. The participants for the panel

were chosen for their expertise in instruction, knowledge, daily application of emotional and

social learning support strategies, and experience leading teachers at a Title 1 elementary school.

I began by asking each of the panel members each interview question and obtained their

responses. I conducted one-on-one interviews with a committee of individuals to uncover and

bring into awareness preconceptions and biases (Rolls & Relf, 2006) from the questions and

responses. I read their responses carefully and asked each member of the panel to review my

written notes. They reviewed my notes. The data collected from the panel is confidential and

was not disclosed to others. The data from the panel was used to refine the interview protocol

guidelines. I conducted three pilot interviews with the educators and administrators before the

actual data collection phase. The interviews lasted 20 minutes. I asked each interview question,

recorded their responses, and engaged in an open discussion with the pilot participants to better

understand how they felt about each question. If they agreed with what I wrote I then used that

data to analyze how or if I was going to make any changes to the interview questions.

Based on the pilot participants’ responses, I discovered several questions were redundant,

lacked depth, and were hard to understand. In response, I revised questions that needed further

explanation by the pilot participant to make the questions clearer, more engaging, and easy to

understand. This applied to three specific interview questions that used terms such as “factors”

and “learning,” these terms were unclear to the pilot participants. I revised questions to include

specific terms such as “tell me a time” and/or “can you provide an example of?” I was able to

uncover ambiguity that could hinder the actual participants’ ability to listen and/or respond.

Interviews

I started by creating interview protocol (see Appendix A). Interview protocol was

interview protocol guidelines to review with participants prior to the interview to reduce

discomfort/unease from the personal nature of some interview questions (see Appendix A). I

included interview protocol at the top of the instrument that also had the interview questions.

This was established with questions about specific information related to the aims of a study and

shared with the participants prior to the interviews. The purpose was to establish some level of

comfort between myself and the participants. I focused on listening to information shared

particularly with the open-ended questions as well as probing to ensure answers were clear,

detailed, and relatable to the questions (Galletta, 2012).

The number of actual interviews started was six (out of 80) constituting a 10% response

rate. I contacted 80 individuals to participate in the study, six were in the study. Interviews were

held on Google Meet with password-protected meeting space to prevent unauthorized access.

Features of Google Meet such as attendance tracking were turned off. Participants had the

option to turn off their camera for the interview. The interviews were conducted using Google

Meet and transcribed initially using Google Meet Transcripts (see Appendix C for a transcript

excerpt) but later refined through listening to the audio and cross-referencing the Google Meet

Transcripts. Any video recording was converted to audio recordings and stored in a password-

protected Google Drive. I selected a setting that provides limited distractions and is free from

background noises during the interviews. The Google Meet interview instrument included

interview questions by specific domain. I read each section aloud to the participant during the

Google Meet interviews.

Each participant was identified by a fictious name throughout the study. In addition to

the interview questions, the interviews started by collecting demographic data (i.e., gender, age,

race, years of teaching experience in Title I school/rural Title I school, years of teaching

experience at any school, general education course(s) taught, highest degree obtained). Upon

collection of said data, I began questioning with open-ended and theoretically driven questions

derived from the SHARE concept. I elicited data taken from their experiences. I focused

specifically on aspects of SHARE that relate to the type of instruction and levels of support

provided by the teacher. Jensen’s SHARE concept includes five components, the whole child,

accountability, hard data, relationship building, and enrichment mindset (see Appendix D).

Since teachers have a role in each factor, I developed interview questions related to four

overarching topics – poverty awareness, perceptions, teacher instruction and support, and rural

poverty. The SHARE concept correlates with the four overarching topics of the study in the

following manner:

1. Poverty awareness

2. Teacher instruction and support

a. SHARE concept’s hard data (information or numbers and facts that can be

proven) and accountability components mostly correlate with teacher instruction

and support.

3. Rural Poverty

a. SHARE concept’s relationship-building component most correlates with rural

poverty.

4. Perceptions

a. SHARE concept’s relationship building and whole child component most

correlates with perceptions. For example, teacher perceptions can positively or

negatively impact student/teacher relationships as well as how they perceive and

then act upon the support of the whole child.

Table 3 displays how each interview question was aligned with a research question. Key

concepts were identified from the SHARE concept and used to create questions that would help

ensure research questions can be answered.

Table 3

Interview-Research Question and Interview Questions Alignment

Research question

Key concepts from

SHARE concept

Interview questions

Research question #1 How

do teachers’ perceptions of

poverty impact how they

instruct and support

elementary students

experiencing rural poverty?

the whole child,

accountability, hard data,

relationship building, and

enrichment mindset

Do you think rural poverty impacts learning? Please

explain.

How would you define rural poverty?

Tell me about a time when the term “poverty” was

discussed or mentioned in the classroom.

In your experience at a Title 1 school, what factors

influence learning?

In your experience at any school, what factors

influence teachers’ perceptions of students

experiencing poverty?

How do you handle students with disciplinary

issues?

How do you handle parents who are challenging to

work with?

What is your relationship like with your students?

How would they describe it to you?

Tell me about a time when you had a challenge in

the classroom that impeded instruction.

How do you respond to students who cause

disruptions or distractions while you are instructing?

Research question #2

What differences exist in

instruction and support

between elementary

teachers with high and low

poverty awareness in a

rural elementary school?

the whole child,

accountability, hard data,

relationship building, and

enrichment mindset

Tell me about a time when your instructional

delivery did not work, how did you modify it and

why?

What is the nature of your decision-making process

as it relates to institutional methods for students

experiencing poverty?

What factors are important to you when determining

what instructional methods to use for students

experiencing poverty?

How do you include student needs in your

instructional planning?

Research question #3

To what extent does the

teachers’ perception of

poverty influence

instruction and support for

elementary students

experiencing rural poverty?

the whole child,

accountability, hard data,

relationship building, and

enrichment mindset

How do you make instructional decisions?

What is important to you when creating instructional

methods such as lesson plans, visuals, assignments,

and journaling?

How do you include student needs into your

instructional planning?

Classroom Observations

During Phase II classroom observations were carried out in the teacher’s classroom. In

addition, non-classroom observations were conducted in the media center and cafeteria with

participants as well. Regarding the classroom observation, qualitative data findings were

organized by items found on the Classroom Observation Form (see Appendix E) and aligned

with a research question.

I began by using the classroom observation protocol (see Appendix F) to identify flaws

in the Classroom Observation Form (see Appendix E). The questions found on the observation

protocol helped to identify what challenges or concerns to focus on. Some of the questions from

the observation protocol included do teachers understand why the study is being conducted, is

this classroom observation feasible and realistic to the study, can I effectively assess the

usefulness of the study based upon the form used, and are there conditions that might impact the

usefulness of this Classroom Observation Form?

I conducted pilot classroom observations. Data was analyzed from the pilot classroom

observation. I read through each question again, reviewed comments, and notations from the

pilot study. While reading questions and revisions, I found the original Classroom Observation

Form failed to provide space for observational techniques that combine structured questions with

observations. Some observations did address a specific question while other questions needed

further explanation, such as adding information related to non-verbal expressions of the teachers.

By using the analysis, the form was adjusted to include more space.

I created the Classroom Observation Form to address the aspects of the SHARE concept

strategies used in classrooms. Most of the features recorded were directly related to the

application of these techniques and emerged from the literature review. I established a

Classroom Observation Form that includes items to be marked at any instance in which the

teachers used or verbally stated a specific function. In addition, the rubric (found on the

Classroom Observation Form) was also revised to align with the Form’s revisions. The rubric

included three categories. Each category could receive a score (based upon the researcher’s

opinion) from 1-4 on each category to include relationship building, hard data, and enrichment

mindset. 4 is the highest score and a description of what would be required to obtain such a

score is included on the rubric. For example, the first category, relationship building is “almost

always indicates: the teacher’s statement or command that could foster positive relationships

with students such as “thank you” or “I appreciate you” or “I’m glad to see you.” Participants

could receive as low as 3 (or 1 score on each category) to 12 (or a 4 score on each category).

Although the rubric provided a quantifiable method as well as indicated how well or how often

the teacher addressed the meaning of the category, there were areas of the observation that did

not need quantifying. As a result, I revised the rubric to include space for comments and

observations. The revisions to the rubric included clearer categories for scoring, removing some

criteria on the rubric yet provided open space on the Form to notate without an aligned scoring

component, and instructions were included on the rubric for replication. After appropriate

amendments were made, the form became more effective and useful in the study (Hassan,

Schattner, & Mazza, 2006). Each component, from the Classroom Observation Form was scaled

on a six-point Likert type scale.

Non-Classroom Observations

Non-classroom observations were conducted in the media center and cafeteria with

participants from the study. I observed interactions between adults/teachers and students. The

Classroom Observation Form was not used during the non-classroom observations in the media

center and cafeteria; rather the role of the researcher was to access the thoughts and feelings of

the participants in a reflexive journal. In addition, the journal assisted with a personal record of

the process, key decisions and feelings experienced, and an opportunity to learn from the

research process (Thorpe, 2010) and recall how events and situations occurred (Thorpe, 2010).

I used a reflexive journal to record what was being observed (see Appendix G). As a

result, I was able to triangulate data between the interview and observations. The reflexive

journal was a written record from myself and was used throughout the study. In the reflexive

journal, I recorded details of my thoughts and feelings while analyzing the data. This allowed her

to address any biases (Russell & Kelly, 2002). The reflexive practice provided a method to

communicate via journal presuppositions, experiences, actions, and rationales behind the

research process. This strategy facilitated reflexivity by using my journal to examine personal

assumptions and goals and to clarify individual belief systems and subjectivities (Russell &

Kelly, 2002).

Additionally, the reflexive practice encouraged the researcher to address experiences and

actions behind the research process (Russell & Kelly, 2002). Another purpose was to provide a

rigorous research process. Reflexive journal writing can contribute to establishing legitimacy to

the data as well as understanding the researcher’s role (refrained from preconceptions and bias)

in the research process (Jasper, 2005).

Data Collection

I collected data from three different sources to triangulate the data. With method

triangulation, I used multiple methods of data collection related to the same phenomenon (Polit

& Beck, 2012). Some researchers use triangulation to capture the fullness and diversity of

perspectives on a phenomenon rather than for homing in on one valid representation of it (Flick,

2002). To begin the current study, I established and managed an appropriate timeline throughout

the study (see Appendix H). The timeline includes sending via electronic mail an email

requesting their involvement and follow up after their initial involvement (see Appendix I and J)

followed by a Google survey/PAS document and an informed consent form.

To establish ethical research, I used an informed consent form (see Appendix K) which

was distributed to all 80 individuals. Six of the 80 teachers at ABC and DEF Elementary School

agreed to participate. The informed consent form was used to verify participants are aware of

the following:

• The purpose of the research and objectives.

• Procedures and data collection involved in the study.

• Participation is voluntary.

• Any risks and/or benefits for the participants for participating.

• Strictly confidential data collection and reporting.

The agreement was distributed as a hard copy in the mail as well as electronically to each

participant’s school email address one week before the PAS. Their involvement was strictly

voluntary. All participants showed agreement to the procedures by reading and signing the

document. A signed copy of the informed consent form was returned to me and stored in a secure

location. I ensured all necessary signatures were completed and teacher's names (if applicable)

were removed from data sources such as data that was not relevant and/or identified the

participants identity. All data will be stored and kept for one year and then destroyed. I had sole

access to the document and did not provide access to the data to anyone other than committee

members from Columbus State University (University of California Irvine (UCI), 2021).

In the next week, I replied and responded to any questions and/or follow-up information

from the respondents. Based on the results of the PAS, I asked selected teachers to continue their

involvement in a scheduled one-on-one interview. Teachers received a final notice indicating the

completion of the study. They had a deadline of April 8, 2022, to make any amendments or

changes to their responses.

Interviews

All interviews were audio-recorded via Google Meet with the informed consent form (see

Appendix K.) Interviews occurred on different days based upon when the participants were

available yet were within a two-week time. Interviews occurred at different times, some teachers

preferred after school or after 3 pm while others requested a time before school or prior to 7 am.

The interviews lasted 20 minutes. The interviews were conducted using Google Meet and

transcribed using Google Meet Transcripts, but later refined through listening to the audio and

cross-referencing the Google Meet Transcripts to personal notes I recorded.

To address confidentiality for the participants, I used indirect coding of participant

identities. I selected a setting within my personal residence that provided no distractions and was

free from background noises and/or distractions during the interviews held on Google Meet. I

created a unique code for identifying participants that had no relationship with the participant.

For example, participant number one was given a random name, for example Sally, which

corresponded with their real name. Also, a letter was placed next to the participant’s number to

represent which method was used. The Co-Principal investigators were the only individuals to

have access to the code sheet showing the identity of each participant and their code. The code

sheet was stored on a password-protected laptop device and password-protected meeting space.

Table 4 represents a summary of each participant’s responses and observations taken during the

study. Their assigned number and the final collection results for each instrument are recorded.

Although the interview was transcribed word for word, I did record nonverbal cues or

signals from the participants during the one-on-one interviews as well as items viewed during the

classroom observations such as photos of the teacher at her desk, educational standards posted

near the student’s desk, and/or calendar with highlights or markings to indicate a significant

event or occurrence. For example, during the interviews some participants were answering the

interview questions while speaking to someone else during the interview or referring to their

cellular devices after answering questions. This was recorded in the journal.

I recorded several comments not related to the interview itself rather outside conditions

that impact the teacher. A participant noted an issue with childcare. Her issue was related to her

children and her need to “pick them up from school or daycare.” Due to this need, this

participant was only able to interview during certain times of the day, on certain days, and had

limited time. I recorded this observation in the reflexive journal while not assuming that because

the participants were women that a need for childcare would be a problem resulting in limited

time, availability to the study, and rushed responses. Table 4 is a summary of names and

corresponding initials listed in the journal and other instruments to identify whom the citation

came from.

Table 4

Participant Responses Summary

Participant

Initials

Assigned

Data method:

Classroom

Observation (a)

Data method:

Non-

Classroom

Observation (b)

Data method:

Interview (c)

Participant #1

Sally

Sallya

Sallyb

Sallyc

Participant #2

Amy

Amya

Amyb

Amyc

Participant #3

Nancy

Nancya

Nancyb

Nancyc

Participant #4

Jane

Janea

Janeb

Janec

Participant #5

Teresa

Teresaa

Teresab

Teresac

Participant #6

Cindy

Cindya

Cindyb

Cindyc

Classroom and Non-Classroom Observations

The Classroom Observation Form was shared to protect the participants’ welfare and

encourage added ease and comfort during the observation. The observations occurred during a

school day between 7:45 am to 3:00 pm to observe factors related to the SHARE concept.

Teachers were asked if a specific time was better for the classroom observations. Participants

provided their preferred day and time based upon the date options provided by the researcher. I

sat in the back of the classroom during all classroom observations. I did not interact with anyone

during the classroom observations other than greeting the classroom teacher/participant at the

start of the observation. I established the Classroom Observation Form with items to be marked

at any instance in which the teachers used or verbally stated a specific function.

In addition, I conducted additional observations (45 minutes each) in two non-classroom

settings, to include the media center and the school cafeteria to observe interactions between the

students and the teacher. Non-classroom observations occurred on the same day as the

classroom observations prior to and after the classroom observations based upon when the

classroom observation occurred. Non-classroom observations were 45 minutes as well and

consisted of two different settings. I used the non-classroom settings to observe factors related to

support and non-instruction as should be evident in the classroom settings. I observed teachers

from the classroom observations in the media center and/or cafeteria at this time. Not all

participants were in both locations at the same time. I sat at the front of the school cafeteria in a

chair by the door and in the back of the media center during the non-classroom observations. I

did not interact with anyone during the non-classroom observations other than greeting the

classroom teacher/participant at the start of the observation. I did not greet or interact with

anyone while observing in the school cafeteria.

The reflexive journal served as a written observation record during and immediately

following my observations in the field which were important to understanding the qualitative

inquiry encountered in the non-classroom environment. My field notes included observations of

documents, pictures, videos, and pamphlets on display in the classroom (Allen, 2017). These

notes were recorded in the reflexive journal to recorded observation between the teacher’s and

the students in the media center and/or cafeteria. I also took field notes in the reflexive journal to

record what was observed during the non-classroom observations. I did not interact with anyone.

I was an observer.

During the non-classroom observation in the cafeteria, I observed from a chair located in

the front of the cafeteria closer to the exit door. I did not interact with anyone; I was an observer.

While observing the environment in the non-classroom environments I was looking for any

expressions of nurturing or support as it relates to Jensen’s SHARE concept. This could be

evident by how the teachers served each child in the lines, communicated with them directly, or

provided emotional support to students who might be confused and/or unclear as to which line to

enter or where to go during lunch.

The non-classroom observations (in the media center and cafeteria) allowed me to

observe more expressions of relationship building by how teachers and students communicated

together. This was not as evident in the classroom during instruction. I also discovered the non-

classroom observations (in the cafeteria and media center) showed more examples of supporting

the whole child (a component of the Jensen’s theory) in comparison to the classroom observation

that had some evidence of enrichment activities.

Data Analysis

In generic qualitative inquiry design, I was investigating the teacher’s attitudes, opinions,

or beliefs about a particular issue or experience (Percy, et al., 2015). Transparency addresses

rigor and validity, so I sought to make my interpretation as accurate as possible (Ravitch & Carl,

2021). As I combined transparency and intentionality into each phase of the research, I

continually considered how the development of the questions could affect the responses made.

For example, I evaluated how each interview question could have influenced how the teacher

participants responded (Ravitch & Carl, 2021).

During the one-on-one interviews, data was collected using Goole Meet. Upon collecting

the words on the transcript, I analyzed and interpreted the information to obtain a better

understanding of the teacher’s lived experiences. Interviews were recorded using Google Meet.

Upon completion of each recorded interview, Google Meet provided a transcription service.

Interviews are transcribed from the Google Meet feature. Each transcription was reviewed by

myself for accuracy by cross-referencing the transcription with personal notes I recorded by hand

during the interview.

After reading, reviewing, and familiarizing myself with the data collected, I re-read the

documents and highlighted sentences, phrases or terms that seemed meaningful. Upon collecting

the words on the transcript and observations, I analyzed and interpreted the information to obtain

a better understanding of the teacher’s experiences. Through the use of thematic content

analysis, I started by removing biases and identifying an overarching impression of the data, and

identifying common themes and patterns (Canary, 2019).

I annotated the transcripts by labeling relevant words, phrases, sentences, or sections with

codes and colors. These codes helped to identify important qualitative data types and patterns. I

highlighted by color codes on the actual reflexive journal entry (used during the non-classroom

observations) and/or Google Meet transcripts (used during the interviews) (Table 5). For

example, data was analyzed by comparing data between high and low poverty awareness

teachers who participate in the interviews and classroom and non- classroom observations. Data

collected during the interviews and observations was compared between participants to find any

differences or similarities that exist between participants. I also considered the difference and/or

similarities within the same set of data collected from the interviews. For example, the

participant may indicate a certain set of values or beliefs during the interview and then later

contradict those values during the observations. I searched for contradictions in the data by

examining the analysis with this in mind to ensure data was presented accurately and without

error.

Each participant’s information was reviewed individually, and then I used the research

questions to decide if the highlighted data was relevant. Information that was not relevant was

removed. Table 5 lists codes found while reviewing the Google Meet transcripts. Codes were

also color coded to organize terms and start to create commonality and themes. The table below

indicates the number of times each term was used.

Table 5

Codes Used

Code term

Number of times used

Family

Situations

Relationships

Worked so long

Care

Hard

Attention

Love

Small group

From the commonly used codes, I grouped codes into groups. As I grouped codes,

themes began to emerge. Upon identifying the code, I later aligned each code with a theme and

research question. For example, codes such as family and relationships were identified after I

reviewed and became familiar with the data. These codes were collected and counted (Table 5),

upon the completion, I found the major five themes. For example, I aligned supportive quotes or

key phrases as well as which participants most often used such quotes with the themes. The codes

came from the data to form the major themes

Once codes were determined, the thematic map was established (Harrie, 2021). Codes

were refined and names were assigned to themes. Themes were identified based upon how well

they answered the research question and/or were aligned with the overall purpose of the study.

Some terms were identified but removed due to lack of relevancy to the study (University of

Northern Iowa, 2023). Using a thematic map to help organize the terms, themes were identified

and color-coded (Harrie, 2021). Upon creating my final list of themes, several re-organizations

and re-categorizations occurred. Table 6 aligns each theme with the research question. Below is

a list of the final themes by number as well as color that was assigned to each code that was later

grouped into a theme.

• Themes #1 or red: Teachers perceived family structure has a greater impact on students

achievement for students experiencing poverty.

• Themes #2 or blue: Teachers describe poverty as a “challenging situation” that students

face.

• Themes #3 or purple: Poverty is a difficult lifestyle to live so students so teachers must

support and instruct with this in mind.

• Themes #4 or yellow: Teachers expressed how they show their care for the students in

different manners.

• Themes #5 or white: Teacher attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support based

upon their personal viewpoints, character traits, and family backgrounds.

Table 6 is a list to easily view how the analysis was conducted and terms were matched. Table 6

was created to organize detailed data which is described further in the text.

Table 6

Themes and Subthemes

Theme

Research

question

alignment

Subtheme terms Subtheme terms Subtheme terms

#1 Teachers perceived

family structure has a

greater impact on

students achievement

for students

experiencing poverty

#1 - 5

Family-a group of

one or more

parents and their

children living

together as a unit

(Oxford English

Dictionary, 2022).

Cousins, mother,

and father, siblings

Relationships- between

teachers and students.

#2 Teachers describe

poverty as a

“challenging situation”

that students face.

Situations-a set of

circumstances in

which one finds

itself; a state of

affairs (Oxford

English

Dictionary, 2022).

Worked so long,

life-families lifestyle

can be different

from non-

impoverished

students causing

parents

work/employment to

be critical to

survival.

“Walk into”-students life

experiences can be

different to some teachers;

therefore, these

experiences can require a

new perspective for

teachers to understand and

relate.

#3 Poverty is a difficult

lifestyle to live so

teachers must support

and instruct with this in

mind.

Hard-terms used

commonly to

describe

difficulties or

challenges.

Attention, issues,

challenges- students

require additional

attention, family

issues and

challenges can

impede on learning

Internet/Resources-internet

use and/or lack of this

resource.

#4 Teachers expressed

how they show their

care for the students in

different manners.

#1 - 4

Love their teacher

Hugs, love,

affection

Cleanliness – families

value cleanliness as a result

students are clean in

school.

#5 Teacher attribute

poverty’s impact on

learning and support

based upon their

personal viewpoints,

character traits, and

family backgrounds.

#1-5

Family and

Situations-term

used conjunctively

and/or at the same

time.

Consciousness –

students are aware

of their environment

and at times this

awareness can be a

challenge to learn.

Small group and love

I wanted to determine if certain themes which are more commonly used in order to

reduce redundancies and researcher bias’. Therefore, I created a hierarchy or ranking among the

themes (Canary, 2019). On Table 7, I highlighted if one theme was more commonly used in

comparison to the others. Table 7 shows Theme #2 was more commonly found in the data.

While Theme #5 was least commonly used.

Table 7

Hierarchy Themes

Theme and ranking

# of times theme

is noted

% of total times

theme is noted

Theme #2 Teachers describe poverty as a

“challenging situation” that students face.

32 27%

Theme #1 Teachers perceived family structure has a

greater impact on students achievement for students

experiencing poverty.

26 22%

Theme #3 Poverty is a difficult lifestyle so teachers

must support and instruct with this in mind.

25 21%

Themes #4 Teachers expressed how they show their

care for the students in different manners.

14%

Theme #5 Teacher attribute poverty’s impact on

learning and support based upon their personal

viewpoints, character traits, and family.

15 13%

Secondly, I provided thick descriptions through the recording of circumstances that

characterize a particular moment in the classroom. It is through providing analytical

characteristics of descriptions rather than the specifics that made it thick (Schwandt, 2001). This

was accomplished by describing situations and scenarios in detail (Terrell, 2016). I focused on

the actual words and terms used by the participants and less on how to personally interpret or

ensure data fits with other data shared (Leavy, 2017). While writing thick descriptions of events,

I attempted to demonstrate or show rather than tell by using evocative language. The purpose

was to select words that help the reader see what is being described (Vanderbilt University,

2012).

Thirdly, bracketing data during the analysis addressed presumptions, previous knowledge, and

beliefs of which the interviewer may not be aware are occurring (Dörfler & Stierand, 2020). I

maintained a reflexive journal for bracketing, composed of pre-reflexive preparation and

reflection, which was used during the non-classroom observations (Wall et al., 2004).

Chapter IV: Findings

This generic qualitative inquiry study was established to investigate how teachers’

perceptions of rural poverty impact their instruction and influence their relationships with

students. This study provided a better understanding of how elementary teachers, with more than

three years of experience in a rural community, perceive poverty’s impact on instruction and

support for elementary students experiencing rural poverty. Findings were organized and

reported by the Poverty Attribution Score (PAS) score rankings and followed by discussion on

the relevancy of their categorizations into low and high poverty awareness categories. I then

presented five major themes from the data collected. The third section of this chapter discusses

how the research questions are aligned with themes.

To begin, I presented my experiences, assumptions, values, and reasons in a positionality

statement. The positionality statement acknowledges that I have a personal viewpoint on poverty

grounded in my background as an educator with more than 15 years of experience in K-12

education, middle class, educated African American woman. The intention of the statement was

to provide readers an opportunity to consider my stance on the final analysis (Clark & Veale,

2018). I acknowledged that I have never lived or spent extended periods of time in impoverished

communities personally, but I have worked full time in K-12 settings at five different Title 1

schools for 15 years. I have worked with students and their families daily and supported them

with career exploration opportunities, educational opportunities, health and wellbeing challenges

and many other occurrences commonly seen within families and children experiencing poverty.

I am interested in understanding how poverty impacts learning and how to overcome

such challenges. There have been occasions and situations that occurred within the school with

impoverished students that I have not always been clear on how to proceed or support the child

(based upon challenge and barriers from poverty). I have consulted and collaborated with

colleagues and other professionals who possess more personal experience in local community

resources and support for students experiencing poverty. Although my personal and local

experience with poverty is limited that does not negate the fact that I have worked full-time in

impoverished communities and sat side-by-side with families seeking support for 15 years. As a

professional it is my responsibility to provide the highest level of support to families, so in areas

that I may be lacking, I have consulted and collaborated with individuals who may have more

information in this geographical area and especially in my local community in which I currently

serve. This does not indicate that I have do not have knowledge on poverty and how to support.

It is simply an experience that I have not had personally. Although my personal experience with

poverty is limited, I acknowledge that positionality can influence this study to a certain extent.

My experience, observations from the participants, and readings from the literature review have

helped make meaning of the text.

Poverty Attribution Survey (PAS)

During the original design of the PAS, I used Jensen’s SHARE concept as the conceptual

framework. SHARE concept includes five components: the whole child, accountability, hard

data, relationship building, and enrichment mindset. The SHARE concept was embedded in the

design of the Classroom Observation Form. The Classroom Observation Form was used during

each participants classroom. The first level was to merge the conceptual framework, generic

qualitative inquiry, and validation processes.

Table 8 displays each participant’s PAS score as well as where their poverty awareness

score ranks in comparison to the other participants. Sally, Amy and Nancy indicated 4

(moderately agree) and 5 (agree) on the four questions evaluated. Each of these participants had

a total score of 18, which indicated a lower level of poverty awareness because of their

viewpoints on poverty or their indication that individuals position in life is due to laziness or lack

of personal responsibility. According to Jensen’s SHARE concept the whole child,

accountability, hard data, relationship building, and enrichment mindset are what supports

students experiencing poverty. For example, Sally indicated she agreed with the statement that

“poverty is attributed to laziness and a lack of motivation.” Sally’s statement made during the

interviews describes how she felt poverty was attributed to laziness. She stated:

Teachers who deal with kids experiencing poverty and have poor behaviors stem from

nature. I mean, nurture versus nature. It is the environment that they are in. So

regardless of how knowledgeable teachers are on poverty, they cannot influence

poverty’s impact. You must know how important nurture is for kids. Teachers are just

trying to get them to follow the rules and trying to get them to learn the materials.

Poverty situations are not great situations at home for kids. So that stems from their

behaviors. That also comes from a lack of social interactions and lack of nurture.

Amy indicated she somewhat agreed with the statement that “poverty is attributed to

laziness and a lack of motivation” to which she assigned a score of 4. Amy did not indicate that

students are lazy, rather she believes poverty is a “vicious cycle” that is difficult to escape from.

So instead of attempting to make a change or be motivated to do more, families experiencing

poverty just concede to it. Families were not assertive or aggressive in seeing a change rather

they just complied and were accepting of their lives in their current state. Amy’s statement, made

during the interviews, describes how she felt poverty was attributed to this concession. Amy

stated:

There is such a fine line between poverty and just what people know. I say this because

my husband has worked with foster care, and it is just a vicious cycle. Poverty is all they

have ever known and even if they do not have to live that way it is still a vicious cycle.

Nancy indicated she somewhat agreed with the statement on question #33, “poverty is attributed

to not having middle class values” to which she assigned a score of 4. Nancy’s statement made

during the interview aligned with her response from the PAS. Nancy stated:

I would describe poverty as basically people or communities who are not able to provide

for themselves. Or would take jobs that need supervision for themselves. That sounds

good.

On the other hand, Jane, Teresa, and Cindy, indicated scores of 2, 3, and 4, respectively

on the four questions evaluated. Due to their response, Jane and Teresa received a total score of

12, of the four questions evaluated. Cindy received a total score 9, of the four questions

evaluated. Scores of 9 and 12 indicated a higher level of poverty awareness (see Table 8).

According to Jensen’s SHARE concept, the whole child, accountability, hard data, relationship

building, and enrichment mindset are what supports students experiencing poverty. The higher

level of poverty awareness teachers’ responses were more aligned with Jensen’s theory because

their responses addressed or spoke to one of the five factors from the SHARE concept. For

example, Cindy indicated that she disagreed or a point value of 2 with the statement that

“poverty is attributed to laziness and a lack of motivation.” Aligning her PAS response to the

interview, Cindy stated:

Rural poverty describes a lifestyle that students live in. Rural poverty could be country

living while urban poverty is a big city. I think poverty can be different in the city versus

the country because of the type of lifestyle they live. I do not think of subsidized housing

with rural poverty. It is working hard but barely making ends meet. If that makes sense.

Teresa moderately disagreed with the statement that “poverty is attributed to living in a family

with a parent who has a poor work ethic” which she assigned a three. Aligning her PAS

response to the interview, she stated:

If the family values education, the students will value it as well. But if the family does

not value education, they will not either.

Jane moderately disagreed with the statement that “poverty is a culture which perpetuates poor

work habits, welfare, and dependence”. She stated:

From my experience, it is hard to learn when you cannot sit down, read a book or

chapters of a book. You are focused on how you are going to eat, make ends meet, how

what and where your next meal will be. So, I do not think that transitions between rural

and urban poverty because if you must watch your baby sister or babysit a family

member rural and urban do not mean anything.

Table 8 below shows each participant’s name, the score they indicated on each bellwether

question and the sum of each question indicting a “PAS Score.”

Table 8

PAS Score Results

Participant Question #3

Question

#13

Question

#33

PAS Score

Sally

Amy

Nancy

Jane

Teresa

Cindy

Additionally, PAS provided new insight with teachers. Teachers indicated after taking

the PAS they had to self-reflect on their personal viewpoints and perceptions of poverty. It was

simply a topic that they had not considered or thought about prior to completing the PAS. In

fact, one participant stated, "after completing the study, I sat and thought about how my answers

related to the classroom and if I truly understood poverty." Others made comments related to

how they were not certain that their knowledge of poverty was in-depth enough to speak on the

topic in a manner that was pleasing to them.

Five Major Themes

Five major themes were identified from the research. I used triangulation to improve

credibility and confirmability by using more than one data source (Terrell, 2016). Data results

were triangulated by comparing data between the interviews and both observations to ensure

consistency and to corroborate the information shared. Five major themes and corresponding

subthemes were established from the data. These themes were discovered based on situations

and scenarios discussed in detail from the interviews and classroom observations of study

participants.

Theme #1: Teachers perceived family structure has a greater impact on students’ achievement

for students experiencing poverty

Family structure’s influence on student’s achievement. The first theme for discussion

was how teachers perceived the family structure has a greater impact on student’s achievement in

comparison to students who are not experiencing poverty. The family support system includes

married or unmarried adult individuals who provide care and stability for their children. What

the family structure in impoverished communities looks like can be an opportunity for teachers

to expand upon when instructing and supporting students because students who have engaged

parents are more likely to converse with teachers and seek an understanding of what is occurring

in the classroom with their child (. To begin discussion, Teresa stated:

If the family value education, the students will value it as well. But if the family does not

value education, they will not either.

She felt students experiencing poverty rely more on their families and how the families

view education as a major part of learning. Jane discussed when family members have higher

levels of education this sets an expectation for others in the family. For example, Jane believes

“if the mother has a college degree, then she will set expectations that her children will

accomplish the same and/or more levels of education. On the other hand, if the mother does not

have higher levels of education or even a high school diploma, then she will also set that

expectation to her children.” This idea can support students if family expectations are set, while

it can work conversely for families that do not have such levels of education. Jane stated:

You may have a sister four or five years apart, but an older sister who went to college.

The parents also went to college. These expectations are passed throughout the family.

They might even be the first to graduate from high school. Students who do not have

anyone in the house with higher levels of education cannot set the expectations for

younger students. I think deep down there is a desire to be successful that drives them for

better. They want to be the first from their family to graduate high school or even the

first to attend a college.

Cindy elaborated by indicating not only is the family structure important but how the families

perceive themselves as impoverished changes every school year. Cindy stated “poverty changes

every year within a school year. Every family experiences poverty in a different way. Every kid

is different, and every kid feels poverty in a unique way.”

In addition to Cindy, Jane felt a student’s experience with poverty is different and

experienced later in life. Jane felt that younger students cannot understand how poverty impacts

learning and their lives because they have nothing to compare it to. They simply see their

families and education as non-impoverished or normal. Jane stated:

People do not understand that they are in poverty until they get a little bit older. When

they think back on their younger years, they just think about having fun with family and

friends. I do think that some students who are in or below that poverty line, do not really

understand it. And may not until they get out of school and life starts to creep up on them.

Then they really understand how or what they did not have when they were younger.

Participants Jane, Cindy, and Teresa focused on what the student’s family structure consisted of

to include reflecting on the families’ levels of education, how much families value education and

what expectations are set accordingly, and how families perceive themselves as impoverished.

Teachers preconceived notions about the students’ performance. Subtheme #2:

Techers have established preconceived opinions about students performance based upon their

experiences from students family members who they previously taught in years past.

Participants noted situations where current students were children or cousins of their former

students. And at times, these “former students” may have had behavior problems and/or

attendance issues. As a result, comments indicated how they used this knowledge of family

members to make assumptions about their current students. Participants formed their opinions of

how well the current student would do in their classroom based upon what their mother, father

and/or siblings did previously. To begin, participant Cindy stated:

A teacher can have a prior misconception of a kid. It could absolutely influence them. So,

with that, we see their siblings. We have situations. I am teaching you right now, but

their sister a couple of years or their mom. Families are all in a situation. So sometimes

we see teachers walk into a situation because they know their family and it has that

negative connotation on it. When we see that, it tends to be more of our impoverished

students or our lower SES families that have that reputation. I think that can influence a

teacher's perception of a student as well.

In adverse situations, teachers’ former knowledge of the families caused them to have

concern about the current student prior to establishing their own relationships with them. They

felt that the experiences of the past would happen again, and they should prepare themselves for

a new adverse situation with the current student. Cindy later stated:

I know this family and it is kind of hard to work with them. Many times, there is a phone

connectivity issue, or the parents are just not available. I already know what to expect

before they even enter the room.

Provided that background information, she “already knew what types of behaviors to expect”

from the current student because she knew the siblings had behaviors that concerned her. Based

upon these kinds of assumptions, they felt students may act similar to their family members.

Nancy did not indicate she specifically taught a family member; however, she felt the

way in which a student’s mother communicated determined how well the child will perform.

She stated:

I used to teach pre-K in a regular education setting, which is when they still loved their

teacher. And, at times, you can tell how the student will act based upon the language they

speak. Sometimes you can tell the language that is used at home and what they bring to

school with them. To me, these are key factors to consider when conversing with

students. I have to say to these students, “we don't say those things at school.” Like other

teachers have said, we should not take the way they look personally. For example, we

should not base it on what they are wearing. But sometimes it is an indicator! But again,

if I ever knew a family was struggling, I would send clothes home or a backpack or a

lunch box. I had this student one time who absolutely wanted to bring his lunch. They

did not ever bring him a lunch box. I decided to help.

In this passage, she predetermined that children with a “different language” determined

“how the student will be.” She believed that “based upon their language they speak” will

determine how they perform in the classroom. She goes onto extend her support for the

language discrepancy (between what she deems as appropriate language and language used in

their home) by offering clothes, and other resources to remedy this difference.

As the two subthemes of Theme #1 explained (teachers perceived family structure has a greater

impact on students’ achievement for students experiencing poverty) teachers’ perceptions of

poverty inadvertently impact how they instruct and support because teachers perceived poverty

not as an economic issue or something that impacts learning from birth (based upon research).

Rather their dirty vehicle, absences, their personal upbringing and values taught at home were

what really challenge students experiencing poverty. There was never a mention of research or

information of poverty impact per research discussed or noted. It was simply their personal ideas

and values.

Theme #2: Teachers describe poverty as a “challenging situation” that students face

For theme two, teachers describe poverty as a “challenging situation” that students face.

Teachers defined poverty as “a challenging situation,” this was how they described poverty

throughout most interviews when asked to explain how poverty could impact life. This was

evident because teachers had limited knowledge of the formal definitions of poverty. Teachers

used their own terms to define poverty. They did not have a formal definition. I am not

indicating teachers did not understand what poverty is or a potential impact rather, they could not

properly define poverty. For example, instead of identifying, attempting to define, and/or

aligning their opinions with the formal definition of poverty, poverty was described as a

“situation.” The term “situation” was used to indicate that poverty was just an occurrence that

impoverished children must deal with. To begin, participant Cindy stated, “situations are

common throughout their lives”:

A teacher has a prior misconception of a kid. It could absolutely influence them. We see

siblings of our current students. Guess you could say, we have situations like this. In

fact, I am teaching one right now. I had a sister, and a mom. I taught them all and they

were all in this type of situation.

Jane states on numerous occasions that students have situations. She does not refer to

experiences with poverty by a formal definition or component of it; rather, Jane believes each

occurrence she experiences in the classroom with her students is a situation:

I tell students, it is time to do your work. If not, I will take points off. I will give them a

zero or whatever. But sometimes we do not think to ask, how are you doing? It seems

simple, but we overlook that from an academic side. I try to be understanding of a

student in this situation, because our students have different situations.

In this context above, I am referring to the term “situations” itself. Teachers did believe that

poverty was an issue and a challenge, yet they were not able to capture the full essence of what

poverty is and how it impacts learning. Once again, teachers knew the term and did not question

it, rather it was an issue but was not able to fully explain and provide research-based strategies

related to learning and support due to poverty. As Jane repeatedly believes, poverty is defined as

a situation. She addresses the impact of poverty differently but aligning with this theme, I am

referring to the term itself. Jane considers poverty as a situation and does not elaborate or

address the formal true definition of poverty.

Cindy later said:

We will be more nurturing if you personally have experienced those situations that these

kids who are in poverty deal with. You cannot love how you need to unless you've

experienced kids in those situations. Poverty situations are not great situations at home

for kids and so would that stem from how they behave? They come from the lack of

social interactions, the lack of nurture. And that influences the way the teachers teach.

In addition to Cindy and Jane, Sally’s statement made during the interviews describes how she

felt students experiencing poverty have situations from a lack of nurturing and social interactions

in their households. She stated:

Teachers are just trying to get them to follow the rules and trying to get them to learn the

materials. Poverty situations are not great situations at home for kids. So that stems

from their behaviors. That also comes from a lack of social interactions and lack of

nurture.

Sally believed occurrences that she has seen in her classroom with students experiencing

poverty are situations that families must deal with. She went on to explain why these situations

are occurring by stating there is a lack of nurture and social interactions between family

members. She acknowledged that she is aware of the problems and believes students

experiencing poverty bring these situations in the classroom and can become issues for teachers

to address or deal with. Teachers did believe that poverty was an issue and a challenge, yet they

were not able to capture the full essence of what poverty is and how it impacts learning.

100

Additionally, Teresa stated:

Get your head up is what I tell my students. It's time to do your work or I will take points

off. But sometimes we forget to ask, how are you doing? It seems simple, but I think that

for me I don't want to overlook the academic side, but I will. Kids have situations and

things they must do. I will be understanding of a student in a situation. I have a lot of

students in a lot of different situations.

Teresa cares about her students. She understood that students are people and have lives that

include more than just academic information. She stated what steps she will take to address their

challenges but ultimately and, in this passage, describes poverty as situations that students

encounter. She may not be able to articulate the formal definition of poverty, but she does know

how to address her students and support them by asking them how they are doing and showing

compassion.

Poverty circumstances include multiple experiences at one time for students

experiencing poverty. Teachers seemed to believe that poverty consisted of a set (grouping of)

of experiences or situations that students experiencing poverty must deal with. Participants

shared various challenges due to poverty when answering interview questions. There was never

a time when just one experience occurred. It was always multipole challenges that students

encountered. For example, the teachers who were interviewed indicated these experiences range

from lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable

transportation. Many times, participants would provide examples of how they had to

acknowledge these circumstances existed and find ways to work with students who are

experiencing these circumstances. Sally, Teresa, and Nancy commonly referred to these types of

101

circumstances and Nancy attempted to find a solution to the students’ problems. To begin,

participant Sally stated:

Because we still have things that they cannot do if they are in a poverty situation, like

Internet and activity for things, some of them may have extra resources at home but they

do not have those things. It could be a computer that they needed at home they are still

not going to have those devices.

Teresa also referred to the lack of internet access and computer use due to situations that students

live in. She stated:

I would just say students with limited resources at schools such as access to laptops. And

laptops have been out for a while. They were still using desktops. The Internet was

limited in these areas that I have taught.

Nancy attempts to address negative circumstances from poverty by exposing the children to

different things. She believed:

Knowledge is power and exposure is power. Our job is to expose children to different

things that they may not be exposed to at home due to their situations. I remember I

taught the first grade one year and those kids would have never seen an Easter egg

before. But by being exposed to it they would never be in shock again. That is power to

me. Knowledge is power.

Participants felt circumstances are present and typically included more than just one instance or

occurrence rather multiple issues at one time. Due to the multipole experiences at one time,

students experiencing poverty had various challenges to deal with and manage in their lives.

Families manage circumstances differently. All six participants referred to students

experiencing poverty as a situation or circumstance. The teachers who were interviewed

102

indicated families who deal with poverty-related challenges such as lack of internet access, lack

of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation, seemed to differ from

family to family. Families respond to poverty-related challenges by setting expectations, while

others are okay with students misbehaving and do not require students to behave differently.

Each student had different experiences with poverty based upon their family culture.

Participants felt families experiencing poverty yet who value education have students who are

more interested in learning. On the other hand, similar families who experience poverty yet lack

a value in education have students who are not interested in learning.

For example, Teresa addresses challenging situations students are facing by creating a

solution. She indicated regardless of how the family operates or if the family is not doing

anything to support learning at home; it is her job to engage students in learning. Teresa says:

Motivation has to do with it. Many students are not motivated. I think the teacher’s

demeanor, setting good expectations, or being a good role model are important.

Regardless of the family environment, the situation they live in means they need to be

continually motivated and encouraged. I like character education. That plays a great

factor in helping the students learn. For example, showing different videos of people

who have once lived.

Jane states she had seen instances where the student came from a family who does not value

education and the students’ behaviors were different from others based upon how the students

entered the classroom. Jane had to dispel whatever misconception the child had about learning

and reteach him/her on the value of learning. Students who experience poverty yet have a strong

family that supports and encourages education are much easier to work with. Jane stated:

103

We had a situation come up this year with a young man, he was in trouble. He was

getting in trouble, so we had an IEP meeting. His father came to the meeting. We were

talking to his father about certain things we were seeing with the student. And it turned

into a situation where we were teaching the father about parenting. Like certain ways that

he can handle or improve his relationship with his son. He was mentioning how he could

not talk to him or could not relate with them. And we were trying to give him strategies

or ways that that he could. I do think in these situations, or a poverty situation, this

occurs. I would not say that all parents could benefit from this type of discussion but [I]

do think a parenting class would help. Those teachers and these parents do not have the

tools to help their children in school.

Nancy and Teresa both indicated families who value education play a key role in guiding the

students. As a result, how they communicate with teachers and respond to challenges in the

classroom is different. Nancy stated:

If you're in a household with parents or members of your family who cannot hold down

jobs, they can’t teach that kind of value. Values like we do not give up, we do not quit,

we keep going, you are in school to learn so you can read. And I feel like those things

play a big part in education and in children's lives.

Teresa stated:

If the family value education the students will value it as well, but if the family does not

value education, they won't either.

104

Theme #3: Poverty is a difficult lifestyle to live so teachers must support and instruct with this

in mind

For theme three, teachers describe poverty as a difficult lifestyle to live so teachers must

support and instruct with this in mind. Teacher participants recognized that poverty can be

challenging and difficult to navigate through as a child. They also acknowledged that at times

the children do not know they live in impoverished communities and consider their lives as

normal. It is their responsibility to expose children to new experiences because they may not

have such experiences at home due to the impoverished communities they reside in. To begin,

participant Cindy felt students experience more absences and can be difficult to retain resulting

in a need to create a sense of safety by the teacher to support their difficult lifestyle. She stated:

We noticed more absences, so we finally sat down. It was myself and one of my co-

teachers and the student. We are at a spot where you could be in trouble for retention.

And we want to figure out what is going on and because we had built that relationship

with him and built that rapport with him. He felt open to communicating his challenge

with us. He felt safe enough to be open with us and express that his mom and dad work

weird hours. So, when they’re not home, my student said, “I must get myself up and get

myself on the bus in the morning.” I thought that's a lot of responsibility for an 11-year-

old kid. We were able to share tips and techniques for them and talk to him about what it

takes to wake up in the morning. We were able to brainstorm ideas and we have seen a

huge improvement in his attendance as well as his efforts at school. The effort that he is

putting in is because he knows his teachers care.

Amy believed students’ lifestyle poses different challenges related to hygiene, social and peer

interaction, and transportation. She discusses how she does not form an opinion of them because

105

their lifestyle is different and has challenges. Yet she lists each challenge that she sees in the

classroom and later relates it back to her personal experience/family life. Amy stated:

I see the hoarding. I see things falling out of their vehicle when I am getting the kid out of

the vehicle or placing them in the vehicle. I look more at that because I am an extra. My

personality is extra, and my position is extra so I'm extra. Most kids are excited to come

to see me and so I want every child to have technology in our school. We are one-to-one

in Harris County all the way down to kindergarten. What I do see is the children who do

not come back to school with a charged Chromebook or do not come back with the

Chromebook period.

I do not have good boundaries with students, so this usually leads to consequences or my

perception I would say. I am more geared towards loving them and nurturing them

compared to anything else. And I do not know what will happen next year, but I want

every child to have access to meals in our school. I do not look at kids that way even

though I know what I saw in the car line. I feel like there is always another side to the

story. And on a personal note, I grew up in a very wealthy family, but my dad was

abusive.

Teachers are unaware of a poverty lifestyle. To examine this theme more closely,

participants indicated at times that poverty does have challenges such as lack of internet access,

lack of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation can impact

learning or the classroom environment, but many times students are not aware of this. Students

are young and only know what they can see. Their lives are normal to them. They cannot see

the differences in their lives compared to non-impoverished communities. In fact, their

classmates can be in a similar environment outside of the classroom so what they see around

106

them (within and outside of their families) are the same experiences. Teachers who do not live in

such communities or have never seen poverty challenges such as lack of internet access, lack of

proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation in their personal lives

have a challenging time understanding how to best serve and support the students. As an

example, participant Amy felt students consider challenges normal, so they do not recognize

when challenges related to poverty such as lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and

access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation are unique in comparison to other children.

Amy said:

I had a little girl I would not really say was impoverished but she just had a momma. Her

momma put shoes on her that were too small. Their shoes were rubbing against her feet

the wrong way. So, I texted the nurse and asked for an extra pair of socks to protect her

feet. I was the only person to notice this. I’ve other times when the kids are so tired in

the class; instead of making a big deal about it I just tell them, “Just put your head down.”

Sally provided multiple examples of poverty challenges such as lack of internet access, lack of

proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation in her classroom. Sally

sought to resolve classroom problems by finding solutions for the students. She stated:

I have noticed they lack things that other kids have whether it's the same amount of food

or the proper clothes to wear during certain seasons or not being able to dress up when

everybody else dressed up. This is because they didn't have a chance to get something. I

try to meet them in the middle and provide for them. I would provide for my own

children because they need the same thing. I would buy Nike or Gap not just things from

Goodwill. So, they felt like they had the same things that the other kids had, and it made

them feel good about themselves. It would show in their attitude and work. I have sent

107

food home for kids, that I know may not have food. I got snacks for the kids. For

example, on Saint Patrick's Day when everybody has something green to wear, I would

buy Saint Patrick's Day stickers. This way everyone has something green to wear. I did

not want them to feel singled out.

On the other hand, Cindy makes a contradictory statement from Sally’s by stating students are

aware of difference in students experiencing poverty and those that do not. She thinks the

students are old enough and can see how they have less. She stated:

I do think it can impact learning and education because at this age group kids are old

enough to pick up on things going on. These kids are starting to become more aware of

their financial situations and I think it can impact their learning because they become

more focused on that. We always see supply issues in the classroom. If they do not have

the supplies, we never punish them for not having it. If they do not, we just provide it.

But sometimes kids are embarrassed to ask for pens or paper because they must ask every

single time and it becomes obvious.

Exposure and relationships are solutions to life’s challenges. Next, participants shared

various challenging situations that occurred in the classroom with students. On occasions the

participants indicated the challenges such as lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and

access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation and began to share their solutions.

Participants indicated exposure to new experiences and establishing a healthy relationship with

the students and their families can solve the challenges such as lack of internet access, lack of

proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation students face due to

poverty. Teresa, Jane, and Sally all shared stories about how relationship building can support

students experiencing poverty. Teresa stated:

108

When it comes to relationships, what triggered a student I was working with was when I

told him I was going to give him a chance. I told him I was not giving him anything. But

I would give him advice as a mother. He was expecting the teacher’s advice, but I

wanted to do more than that and offer motherly advice.

Jane stated:

I had a student, a young lady whose grandmother passed away. She was down so instead

of my first reaction being, why aren't you doing your work? I asked her how she was

doing or what’s going on. That is when I found out. Teachers just come in with demands

and complaints. If you see a student with their head down, support them.

Sally stated, “relationships influence learning. And that is one of the biggest keys of learning to

me. You must show them that you care.” In addition, Jane also believed in the importance of

exposing students to new people. Seeing and hearing real stories of people and how they live

will provide a unique perspective on life. She says, “I bring people into the classroom because

they listen to me all the time, they hear my experiences, and they understand. But sometimes

when somebody new comes in, they see things differently.”

Conversely, Cindy did not discuss relationship building as much as the other participants

but did regularly share lessons that expose students to new things or experiences that were vital.

She felt it was a priority to expose them to new experiences to combat challenges from poverty.

Nancy also did not discuss relationship building but focused on exposure. She stated:

Knowledge is power, exposure is power…it is our job to expose children to different

things that they may not be exposed to at home. Again, exposure is power. If a child has

never been exposed to it then how can they possibly know anything about it? We expect a

child to read a question about farming or something on a test and they do not even know

109

what farming means. Or what kind of process is going to occur in farming. If the kids are

exposed to it then maybe somewhere down the line, they will understand something.

Both Nancy and Cindy felt exposure to new experiences helped students learn and achieve in the

classroom. Nancy stated if the student is not exposed to new things, then they cannot learn or

understand what the topic is about. She makes attempts to expose students to new things in the

classroom.

Theme #4: Teachers expressed how they show their care for their students in different

manners

For the fourth theme, participants expressed how they show their care for the students in

different manners. This was stated throughout the interviews with all six participants who

indicated they care for each child and want what is best for them. Teachers expressed how they

show their care for the students in different manners. Participants felt setting high expectations

displayed how much they care, while others felt a hug and/or giving kind words would help with

the challenges such as lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and

lack of reliable transportation they currently face.

Care expressed in classroom values and teachers’ personal beliefs. Teresa, Jane,

Nancy, and Cindy referred to how their classroom values and beliefs about of honesty, integrity,

and worth guided how they care about students. The manner in which participants displayed

care was different yet aligned with their classroom values and beliefs. Provided their classroom

values, they showed how they care by setting high expectations and requiring students to give

their best regularly. As an example, Jane did not use hugs and physical touch to show her care

(in comparison to her colleagues who did indicate this) because she felt setting high expectations

and requiring students to perform to their best ability every day was the priority. She wanted

110

them to expect important things and as a result she did not state hugging or physical touch would

solve the challenges they encountered. Jane said:

I keep and set high expectations because I have students who are impoverished, or they

have other issues going on. I do not think that we should lower those expectations. I go

into it with the same thoughts as I do for all students. I set the same high expectations as I

would if I were working elsewhere.

Teresa expresses her care for students by acknowledging that students do have challenges

from poverty such as lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and

lack of reliable transportation so teachers must be aware of their triggers. As a result, she

focuses on how she responds, she considers her personal value system to include what

perceptions she has and turns the focus back on herself. She reflects on her own viewpoint or

perception. She wants to refrain from spending time complaining about what the child is or is

not doing. She does this by evaluating herself and communicating with them differently:

Sometimes it is not about you as the teacher, the classroom environment, or performance

standards. It is about that student. You never know what the student may be dealing with

at home. There can be triggers such as the student seeing something they have seen

before or dealt with. So being able to communicate with that student, get to know that

student and find out what you can do to help makes a difference. I ask myself, what can I

do to embellish open-mindedness within the students in the classroom? To be a good

resource, a team player to help that student along the way.

Teresa continued by explaining how she also sets good expectations by being a role model. She

believes:

111

The teacher’s demeanor, setting good expectations, and being a good role model are

important. Regardless of their home environment, we should continue to motivate and

encourage them. I like character education. That plays a great factor in helping the

students learn.

Cindy does not mention if she sets expectations for the students, but she has a belief

system or core values that she embeds in how to works with students. She shares a personal

situation related to also having small children and the importance of being patient with them.

She begins by the statement, “kids are kids.” She later stated:

They are asked to sit at a desk all day long. I am a big believer in progressive steps. I will

talk to a kid before I do anything. Maybe give them a couple of warnings and then if it

continues to escalate, then I may require a little five-minute time out during recess. Or if

that continues to escalate, we may make a parent phone call. But I always have three or

four interventions before I ever take it to the parent because I want to try to keep that

rapport with the student. Kids deserve a second chance.

Lastly, Nancy also expresses her personal core values as a classroom teacher. She does care for

each child and wants to respect them as individuals, but she sets boundaries and rules around

how the respect is given and received. She stated:

Overall, we expect the same amount of respect out of them. They are not going to get

respect from their teachers if they’re disrespectful or say ugly things to their classmates

and expect the same amount of respect back. I think that's a general thing in my

classroom.

Care expressed in physical touch. Some participants reiterated that students

experiencing poverty had a greater need for care from their teachers. They showed how much

112

they cared for them by providing physical touch. This was expressed, during the non-classroom

and the classroom observations, between the teacher and student by how often the teacher would

grab their hands, gently touch their shoulder, or gently usher them into the classroom. For

example, this sentiment was expressed various times when the teacher would refer to the

students as “their just kids,” but “they need a little extra love and attention.”

During the interviews, Amy shared a situation in the classroom with a child that she

describes as “smelling like cat urine.” She continues to elaborate and ponders if she also smells

like cat urine. After she does this, she later reminds the listener that she still loves children.

After sharing the story about the child smelling like cat urine. She ends her statement but saying,

“the student needs a hug.” She believes the child just needs a hug because she smells like cat

urine.

Sally believes in the importance of sharing hugs. Sally, similar to Amy, believes a hug

will help as the child transitions from work assignment/activities and/or locations in the building.

She shares how she can feel uncomfortable providing hugs because it can be inconvenient for her

but since the hug helps, she is willing to provide it for the students.

She stated:

I have a student that likes to get a hug every time that he transitions. It helps him

transition and sometimes it might not be convenient to get a hug right then, but if you just

get a little hug, and let them go, it does so much. I would say some things that may seem

inconvenient to you, but they are simple and quick. Hugs can help those kids in those

situations. Although it may be uncomfortable for you.

In addition, Sally continues to share examples of how physical touch (holding hands and rubbing

their back) can help children deal with their poor behaviors. She provides an example of a

113

situation during a school assembly program where she had to touch a child to address their

inappropriate behavior during the program. She later stated:

Another thing that I might do if the behavior is something inappropriate, I would have

them sit beside me, rub their back, keep them calm. There might be another instance

where we're walking in the hallway, the child cannot walk in the hallway so I will just

hold their hand and walk with them. It becomes a chain reaction to the other children.

Theme #5: Teachers attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support based upon their

personal viewpoints, character traits, and family backgrounds

Theme number five is teachers attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support based

upon their personal viewpoints, character traits, and family backgrounds. All participants shared

information about their upbringings and/or viewpoints on poverty. In fact, one participant stated,

"after completing the study, I sat and thought about how my answers related to the classroom and

if I truly understood poverty." Others made comments related to how they were not certain that

their knowledge of poverty was in-depth enough to speak on the topic in a manner that was

pleasing to them. Some teachers felt more comfortable expressing their opinion about the

impact of poverty. Participants naturally divided into two socioeconomic levels, which was

consistent with the poverty awareness scores they received. Three of the six participants who had

higher poverty awareness scores considered themselves from low-income communities while the

other three participants who had lower poverty awareness scores considered themselves from

higher income communities. These two groups were also aligned with the poverty awareness

scores – the teachers who considered themselves from low-income socioeconomic communities

had high poverty awareness scores, while the teachers who considered themselves from higher

income socioeconomic communities had lower poverty awareness scores. This division formed

114

two separate ways in which they responded to students. One group showed more empathy and

had low poverty awareness scores; the other group showed more compassion and had high

poverty awareness scores.

To continue, empathy refers to the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Provided empathy teachers who had low poverty awareness scores, would place themselves in

someone else’s position or made an effort to see the world from the other person’s perspective,

and felt the emotions that students feel. Teachers who received a low poverty awareness score

made an effort to see the worth from the student’s perspective yet failed to go further with

support and care. Conversely, the other group showed more compassion more commonly found

with teachers who had high poverty awareness scores. Compassion is different from empathy

because compassion:

[I]s a multi-textured response to pain, sorrow and anguish. It includes kindness, empathy,

generosity and acceptance. The strands of courage, tolerance, and equanimity are equally

woven into the cloth of compassion. Above all, compassion is the capacity to open to the

reality of suffering and to aspire to its healing (Feldman & Kuyken, 2011).

Empathy feels a desire to help students; while compassion includes empathy yet takes it a step

further and seeks to aspire to finding healing and a connection for students. Empathy is essential

for connection, yet individuals stay empathic and are unable to move forward into showing

levels of compassion (Bloom, 2017).

Teachers who had a low poverty awareness score and were from middle income

communities taught with empathy. Teachers who had low poverty awareness scores

considered themselves as growing up in middle-income communities supported students by

showing empathy (low poverty awareness). They were sensitive to the students’ feelings or

115

experiences with poverty. They recognized that it existed but showed more empathy in

comparison to compassion. Empathy is essential for connection, yet individuals stay empathic

and are unable to move forward into showing levels of compassion (Bloom, 2017). In Chapter 5,

I will analyze how empathy impacted students and teachers.

Amy expressed how her family background played a factor in how she made decisions.

Her background helped set the foundation of her perspectives. Amy says:

I do not look at kids that way, even though I know what I know in the car line because I

feel like there's always another side to the story. On a personal note, I grew up in a very

wealthy family, but my dad was abusive. We were very wealthy and so my dad was able

to hide it. Someone would never have thought it would have been my family. I have

learned from my own personal experience in life you should not judge a book by its

cover.

Amy discussed a traumatic experience that she was exposed to by family members. She related

it to situations of family violence or emotional neglect. As a result, she felt a greater need to

show empathy and understand how the students experiencing poverty may have added

responsibilities or challenges in life that others may not.

In addition, participant Nancy stated:

I lived an easy life. My family did well and both parents were educated. So learning was

not a big deal to us. It was just something you did. I did not understand how people

could not see the relevancy of it. It is automatic for me. Guess I could see how this

might be different for different people.

116

Nancy’s statement also showed empathy (the ability to see things from someone’s position or

viewpoint) because Nancy stated, “I could see how this might be different.” She tries to see

things from someone else’s shoes. She has her opinion and shares her position as someone

whose family values education but also states she can see how it might be different. She agreed

that how she was raised did impact her viewpoint. She felt learning was commonplace, it was

something that everyone does. She admits to feeling as though everyone should value education

and understand the relevancy based upon her experiences with education and family background.

Yet she contradicts herself later in the statement by indicating that although she understood the

value of education, she could see how others do not. She did not indicate if she continued to

have to viewpoint later in life or at a different point in her life. But she did indicate that her

education was important to her and even a reason for her desire to become an elementary school

teacher. She did not speak again of it during the interview, but she acknowledged that it existed,

and it could have an impact.

Teachers from lower income communities taught with compassion. Participants who

considered themselves as growing up in low-income communities supported students by

showing compassion. They cared about what the child was experiencing and had a desire to fix

the problem or create a solution. In Chapter 5, I will analyze how compassion impacted students

and teachers.

Jane, Cindy, and Teresa shared information about their childhood upbringings. Their

stories were different from the other participants because they indicate their background was

from a family with less means or potentially lower income socioeconomic classifications.

Provided their low-income classifications, this caused them to start later in college due to limited

resources, and they shared how they were exposed to family members who also lived in lower

117

income communities. Based upon their personal experiences, they showed more compassion and

a desire to help students in comparison to the other group of participants. They acknowledged

that challenges exist with students such as lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and

access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation but wanted to do more about the issue. Their

desire to do more is what makes their responses different from the teachers from higher income

backgrounds. They didn’t just feel sad about students’ challenges, they wanted to fix the issues

some students experienced due to poverty. They did not want to just acknowledge the disparities,

rather they wanted to fix the problem.

To begin, Jane had the opposite experience from other participants. She was raised

“below the poverty line.” She shared examples of how her difficult upbringing helped shape her

perspective and caused her to have compassion for the students because she had also experienced

similar challenges. She said:

I was not perfect. As I got older, I realized how much we didn't have. We were below the

poverty line when I was coming up. I have been in it personally, experienced it and have

family members, who have experienced it. Some of our students are in bad places, like

ten times worse than I've ever been in. I don't want to say I understand it completely, but

I think I do have a decent understanding.

In addition, Jane later stated how her troubling past played an integral part in her personal

growth and development. She was implying that her personal growth helped form her

perceptions on how to support students experiencing poverty. She said:

I went to school yet went to college late. I did not have it all figured out. When I was

young, I made my mistakes. I had to figure things out.

118

Teresa stated:

There was a time when a student did not have much. It was obvious. Or at least it was

obvious to me. He still comes to my mind to this day. His clothes didn’t fit him. Life

was tough. I was not alone in seeing it, and I’ve been there, done that before. I have seen

the hard times. Even the cafeteria lady could see it. We would try to help him.

On another instance, participant Cindy stated:

These kids are starting to become more aware of their financial situations and I think it

can impact their learning. They can become more focused on that. We always see

students with supply issues. If they don't have the supplies, I never punish a kid for not

having their supplies. If they don't have it, we provide it. Kids are embarrassed to ask for

help. They’re embarrassed to ask for paper because they must ask every single time.

Cindy believes students are aware of the financial challenges their families may have.

So, students are not willing to ask for help because it can be embarrassing to them. Students

want to fit in and not stand out. So, Cindy is aware of students being embarrassed and addresses

this challenge by providing what the child needs. Cindy is showing compassion because she is

aware of their embarrassment and is empathic to it yet takes an additional step to support the

students by meeting their needs or finding a solution. She does not support them with kind

words or physical expression such as a hug; yet provides what they need at that time.

Research Questions and Themes Alignment

Table 9 outlines each research question and identifies which themes most align prior to

the analysis.

119

Table 9

Research Questions and Themes Alignment

Research question Aligned theme(s)

#1 -How do teachers’ perceptions of poverty

impact how they instruct and support?

Themes #1 and 2

#2-What differences exist in instruction and supp

high and low poverty awareness teachers?

Theme #5

#3 – To what extent does teacher perception of

poverty influence instruction and support?

Themes #2, 3, and 4

Research Question #1

The first research question, how do teachers' perceptions of poverty impact how they

instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty? As noted in Table 9 above,

themes #1 and #2 most aligned with the first research questions. Theme #1 is aligned with

research question #1 because it addresses how teachers’ perceptions of poverty impact how they

instruct and support. To further explain how teachers perceive poverty, each teacher’s

perception was subjective and based upon several factors. Teachers used factors such as the

vehicle the parents drove, how often students were absent or not present in class, their own

personal traits or characteristics, their personal past experiences with students, and their

upbringing to form perceptions of each student.

Theme #1 addresses how teachers’ perception of poverty impacts how the teachers

instruct. This impact from their perception is based upon their knowledge of student’s family

members. As a result, their knowledge of family members caused the teacher to pre-determine

that the current student would behave similarly and potentially share similar challenges and/or

issues as their family member displayed. They assumed both the current student and their family

would show the same behaviors. Theme #2, teachers describe poverty as a “challenging

120

situation” that students face is also aligned with this research question because teachers felt

poverty was nothing more than a situation that students must face. They had limited knowledge

of poverty’s real definition. Teachers recognized that poverty could create limitations for

students.

For example, teachers used factors such as the vehicle in which parents drove, how often

students were absent or not present in class, teacher personal traits or characteristics, their

personal past experiences with students, and how they were raised to form how they perceived

each student. Teachers’ perceptions of poverty can impact how they instruct and support

students because they felt a need to provide more love and support, more structure when

instructing, and allowed preconceived notions about their families to determine how they would

communicate and treat these students. Based upon these factors above and the SHARE

characteristics, participants Sally and Amy, who also had a lower poverty awareness score (see

Table 8 for the PAS scores), did indicate the importance of setting high expectations, and

communication with parents in an open and honest manner. Sally and Amy indicated rural

poverty could be defined as students “not having internet access or computers at home.” They

also felt travel time to and from school could be an issue for individuals who are experiencing

poverty.

The participants’ definitions of poverty were not clearly defined. All participant’s stated

poverty does exist yet felt students have additional constraints and impediments that can interfere

with learning. Instead, they used descriptions such as “poverty can cause families to have

difficulties with walking from place to place and living in seclusion from others.” Jane and

Teresa who had high poverty awareness scores also commented that rural poverty impacts well

water access, the ability to “make ends meet”, they may have to “watch a baby or sister” and a

121

close connection to grandparents because many times it is grandparents in these communities

that serve as caregivers/guardians.

Regarding parents and handling issues, participants Sally and Amy did not differentiate

how they manage issues and parents based upon poverty. They stated refraining from judgment

and creating preconceived notions of the students and their parents are one way to work more

effectively with families. They also felt being open-minded, communicating and showing

kindness goes a long way with families. Amy stressed how knowing the family impacts learning

because she was aware of other family members who attended the school. And teachers with a

negative experience with students’ siblings can alter how they respond and relate to the child.

Amy indicated briefly during the interview the importance of setting high expectations for all

students regardless of their previous academic performance, as well as helping all students feel

like a part of the school and educational community to improve their sense of school belonging.

Cindy and Teresa, who had high poverty awareness scores or participants who had a

better understanding of poverty, focused on learning and expectations as a remedy to address

needs of students experiencing poverty; while Sally and Nancy felt kindness and concern were

sufficient. The distinction between Cindy and Teresa and Sally and Nancy is Cindy and Teresa

supported students experiencing poverty by setting high expectations while Sally and Nancy felt

kindness and concern would be enough support for students experiencing poverty. Cindy and

Teresa also managed how they communicate with families/parents differently based upon their

level of poverty understanding. Jane provided a separate set of support such as classroom

newsletters, willingness to support them after the initial telephone calls, educational weblinks

and supplemental materials to families. This appeared different from Sally and Nancy with

lower poverty awareness.

122

Jensen’s SHARE concept supported the need for kind and caring staff and faculty. This

was also evident from how participant Amy addressed each child upon entering the room and

displayed signs and posters with the school colors/names throughout the room. I also observed

learning environments particularly with high poverty awareness teachers such as Cindy and

Teresa that reinforced academic success by establishing a positive relationship with students,

encouraging questions and class discussions, and displaying a positive attitude/mindset to the

students. On the other hand, participant Nancy, teachers who had a low poverty awareness

score, asked students, “are there any questions or comments? It’s important for you each to ask

questions and let me know how you feel now. Please do not wait till later to ask me.” Nancy

would go on to walk around the room and encourage further information and questioning

between the teacher and students. It was during this time I noticed the smiles on students’ faces

as she walked around the room. The students were excited about talking one-on-one with the

teacher and appeared to be engaged and interested in speaking to her. This could be attributed to

the positive relationships she has established prior to today with the students. Jane supported

the need for kind and caring staff and faculty yet showed their support by setting high

expectations for students.

Research Question #2

The second research question was, what differences exist in instruction and support

between elementary teachers who had high and low poverty awareness in a rural elementary

school? As noted in Table 9 above, theme #5 most aligned with the second research question.

Theme #5, teachers attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support based upon their personal

viewpoints, character traits, and family backgrounds aligned with research question #2 because

elementary teachers who had high poverty awareness in a rural elementary school instruct and

123

support by providing compassion. While elementary teachers who had low poverty awareness in

a rural elementary school instruct and support by providing empathy. And their inclination to

instruct and support with empathy or compassion came from their personal viewpoints, character

traits, and family backgrounds. As an example, participants Sally, Amy, and Nancy, who had

low poverty awareness scores, more commonly felt hugs, attention, peace, and love are essential

to instruction and support. They wanted to support students with hugs. It was clear during the

observations that these teachers took time to hug and show signs of affection to the children

during instruction. Although physical affection may or may not address systematic poverty

specifically, these teachers felt such displays of affection were important by how often they

displayed such signs and how well students responded to such displays of affection. This

resulted in students entering the room quietly (after receiving a hug from the teacher upon

entering the room), students listening in class, and engaging in instruction when asked by the

teacher.

On the other hand, Jane and Cindy teachers who had a high poverty awareness score

regularly encouraged students to ask questions when they did not understand something or

needed further clarification. Music, singing, clapping, and other physical forms of reassurance

were very common during instruction. For example, Jane and Cindy, teachers who had high

poverty awareness while instructing, students responded well to physical forms of reassurance,

appeared to be pleased, and welcomed the attention. I observed Jane reminding students of their

responsibilities in the classroom and encouraged them to follow along. She did it gently using a

soft tone of voice and spent less time convincing students to follow along and more time

reassuring them that they can do it. As a result, the classroom environment felt safe and quiet.

Students wanted to follow along because not only had she established a relationship with them,

124

but most students were engaged and following along. Students did not appear to be hesitant

about raising their hands, this can be supported by how the teachers actively praised the students

throughout the instruction and asked them specifically, “are there any other questions?…no

question is not a good question.” Teachers’ ability to praise students throughout the learning

process seemed to motivate the children.

Teachers attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support to their personal viewpoints,

character traits, and family background aligns with this research question because teachers who

had a high poverty awareness score such as Cindy and Teresa understood the definition of

poverty (but could not accurately define it) and as a result felt poverty can cause issues or

challenges such as lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack

of reliable transportation in the classroom. Cindy and Teresa would elaborate and describe

situations in the classroom where their understanding of poverty caused them to instruct and

support differently. For example, I observed students feeling safe and secure by how they sat

comfortably in their seats and communicated easily with the teacher. Cindy and Teresa had

created an environment in the classroom that gave students experiencing poverty a sense of

safety. This was done by how the teachers spoke gently to the students using terms such as

“great job” and “your headed in the right direction.” Cindy, Teresa, and Jane, teachers who had

high poverty awareness understood the complexities that can come with poverty and addressed it

by creating a classroom environment that supported each student’s needs.

During the non-classroom observation in the cafeteria, Teresa, was speaking to another

teacher. During their discussion, an individual approached them that was later identified as a

parent. The parent was passing by and headed to another part of the building, but prior to her

departure, participant Teresa was speaking to the parent in an informal manner by laughing,

125

touching her shoulder, and actively engaging with the parent in a conversation. Although I could

not hear the entire conversation it was apparent that the teacher and parents knew each other.

And their relationship was positive enough to the point of laughter and familiarity with one

another. The parents spent several minutes laughing and conversing with the teacher. Several

other teachers were nearby but the parent did not communicate with them and neither did the

teacher seek out a conversation with this parent.

Jane and Cindy teachers who had high poverty awareness scores wanted to help and

support families and assist them with reducing barriers or challenges such as lack of internet

access, lack of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack of reliable transportation they may

have due to poverty. They also felt setting higher expectations for students, including counseling

and social-emotional learning training was important as well as working with the kids at

whatever level they are currently at. Jane and Cindy’s opinions align with Jensen’s, SHARE

because it stated there is a need for teachers to have a role in supporting the whole child and

establishing a relationship with students (Jensen, 2009). Teachers who had a high poverty

awareness scores did demonstrate support for the whole child. Additionally, Jane, Cindy, and

Teresa supported the whole child by instructing with research-based strategies, using new

curriculum and instructional strategies that have been proven to be effective with students

experiencing poverty.

As an example, teachers who had a lower poverty awareness score focused on providing

physical touch to the students to help support students. In comparison to teachers who had a

high poverty awareness score in which focused less on hugs and love; rather, instructional

learning and supporting parents were a priority. Teachers who had a low poverty awareness

score did not discuss unique ways to appeal to parents and support. They felt that all parents are

126

the same and there is not a different way to meet their needs. Teachers who had a high poverty

awareness score believed there were more effective ways to communicate with parents.

Teachers who had a high poverty awareness score offered more than just an update of their

child’s academic progress. This was also aligned with the SHARE concept that stated

addressing the needs of the whole child (social, emotional, physical aspects) are necessary. For

example, Jane stated “when I talk to parents, I try to use aspects of the response to intervention

(RTI) process that believes students can excel if they have the right tools and resources that fit

what they need. So, I use a version of RTI with the parents. They do not know what that looks

like, but I know not all parents need the same thing. So based upon what they need, I try to

address that.” She did not state this directly, but the teacher is using examples of the RTI process

by breaking down teaching and/or explanations to parents incrementally to provide a clearer

understanding.

Jane was using a research based educational strategy and applying it to the unique needs

of the parents. RTI is used for students who are struggling and/or having academic difficulties.

RTI is an early intervention tool that is designed to quickly identify students who need extra

help, to prevent long-term failures. With the RTI strategies, during tier 2, teachers use

interventions that offer more focused instruction than the typical classroom reading instruction. It

does so to remediate skill deficits, reteach and review skills for Tier 1 lessons, provide multiple

opportunities to practice, and provide immediate corrective feedback (IRIS Center, 2023). The

monitoring of students can provide teachers tools to identify the exact skill areas where students

need additional instruction that is targeted to a student’s individual needs. This teacher used a

version of this strategy for the parent.

127

In addition, teachers who had a high poverty awareness scores had higher levels of education

and more educational experience on average from teachers who had a low poverty awareness

score. Teachers who had a high poverty awareness score, Jane, Teresa, and Cindy all hold

master’s degree or higher and have on average 12 years of experience in comparison to teachers

who had a low poverty awareness score with bachelor’s degrees and have on average 10 years of

experience.

Research Question #3

The third research question was, to what extent does the teachers’ perception of poverty

influence instruction and support for elementary students experiencing rural poverty? As noted

in Table 9 above, themes #2, 3, and 4 most aligned with the third research question. To begin, I

wanted to first address how teachers who had a high and/or low poverty awareness score defined

poverty professionally. I discovered participants shared personal stories about poverty to explain

the term or definition. Understanding poverty was important because participants who do not

have a clear understanding of the term itself may have a tough time accurately addressing the

extent of poverty’s influence. This is also related to the conceptual framework which addresses

teachers being aware of their role in the learning process. Teachers who cannot clearly identify

what poverty is may have challenges addressing the unique needs of poverty. Sally who had a

low poverty awareness score stated, “my family did not do those things and I’ve always been

aware of poverty.” During the interview Sally was hesitant at moments with explaining poverty

and so to address it she spoke from what she knew and was comfortable with by stating “my

family did not do those things”. She was referring to students arriving late due to transportation

issues and/or students not listening in class. Provided her attempt to understand poverty by

sharing personal stories, the extent to which poverty impacts learning was limited because she

128

did not see the impact of poverty. She addresses the term and potential challenges from poverty

as “my family did not do those things.” This same observation was clear by how participant

Nancy (low poverty awareness score), stated “I try to be compassionate and understanding.” She

also did not see the impact poverty can have on students and rather than address it she responded

to student’s challenges such as lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-

Fi, and lack of reliable transportation by trying to be compassionate and understanding. She did

not state during the interview, classroom strategies she could use in the classroom to address the

needs of the students. The extent of poverty influence was limited again. This was evident by

how she showed compassion to students (this was not observed during the classroom observation

rather stated during the interview) but did not implement teaching strategies and/or adjust her

instructional strategies to address their unique needs or concerns. Nancy stated:

I think I’m flexible with instruction. I try to challenge them. But I don't want to

overwhelm them. I try to change the wordage. But I hear them say, I can't do that. I tell

them, yes, you can. I tell them, you are smarter at a computer than I was when I was your

age.

She did not adjust her instructional strategies because she continued to instruct as she

always had. She did not include additional teaching strategies or indicate she made additional

attempts to instruct and support students experiencing poverty any different from others.

On the other hand, Sally who had a low poverty awareness score, defined rural poverty

as an aspect of life that impacts internet usage and/or access. She also focused on transportation

and how it impacted families experiencing poverty. This was different from participants Jane

who had a high poverty awareness score and Teresa who had a high poverty awareness score

129

because they felt poverty can shape and change how the whole child functions, what is important

to them, and how they process information.

Secondly, as it relates to the extent of their perception, teachers did believe relationship

building, enrichment activities, care, and affection were important. Teachers also believed that

such support is common and should be used regardless of the student’s socioeconomic status.

To further explain, participants felt poverty may intensify the need for these things, but overall

children need and want such things. It is the teacher’s responsibility to create a “level playing

field” for each child and ensure such support is occurring for everyone. Cindy who had a high

poverty awareness score stated, “it is important to not single kids out. You cannot support and

hug certain students because you think they are impoverished. Each child should have the same

support such as a kind word, a hug or just a pat on the back.”

Poverty can make support more necessary, but the support is not necessarily exclusive to

students experiencing poverty only. For example, teachers who had a high poverty awareness

embedded supportive learning practices in the classroom, incorporated added structure in the

physical environment of the classroom and additional relational support to students daily.

During the classroom observation, high poverty awareness teachers took time to ask if students

had questions and used scaffolding while instructing. This was apparent in how they

communicated with each child, offered multiple times for hesitant students to ask questions

and/or raise their hands as well as made connections with students face-to-face.

In addition, a teacher would attempt to find out why students made certain comments or

asked questions. For example, Jane who had a high poverty awareness score asked the student

“so why do you feel this way, tell me a time when you had to communicate that.” Students were

interested in her questioning and began raising their hands to share their personal thoughts with

130

the classroom. Students who wanted to contribute their thoughts had not spoken in class until

that point. It was apparent the inquiry and exploration of “why” encouraged additional thoughts,

comments, and interest in the lesson.

On the other hand, teachers who had a low poverty awareness felt the best method to

manage these “situations” was easily fixed by affection and exposure. This was evident during

their interview and classroom observation. For example, Amy who had a low poverty

awareness score stated, “I’d rather spend time letting the kids know I care by talking to them or

just giving them a big hug. They have not had a hug today, so I will be the first person to do that

for them. That makes me feel good and like I am making an impact.” Although teachers who

had a low poverty awareness did instruct and offer time for questions (as noted above), there was

less focus on it. Most of the instruction was more about comforting and consoling kids rather

than instruction (as teachers who had a high poverty awareness demonstrated).

Amy, who had a low poverty awareness perceived poverty as a lack of reliable

transportation. She goes on to share a personal story about what she observed during school

dismissal while working in the car dismissal line. She shared cars arrived in poor conditions and

inside the vehicles was a lack of cleanliness. She noticed the loud music playing from the cars

upon their arrival onto campus. She felt these observations were an example of how poverty can

impact student’s lives. She personally felt students must be prepared and ready at the start of the

day therefore if students arrive late and/or distracted by transportation issues prior to the start of

the day, this can interfere indirectly with learning. She felt it was important to be aware of

factors that can impact learning such as transportation and potential issues that may arise due to

poverty.

131

During the classroom observation, I observed Sally who had a high poverty awareness

score actively talking to students one-on-one, while addressing the needs of the entire class. She

understood that children needed additional support and redirection, yet she still had to maintain

order and structure within the classroom. This was evident by how she gently spoke to students,

addressed their needs in the moment and redirected students who became distracted or not

engaged during the instruction. According to the SHARE concept, addressing the whole child’s

needs, be it physical, emotional, or social, is paramount to success. Sally did more than offer

love, she addresses what the whole child (social, emotional, physical aspects) needed now and in

whatever capacity that required.

132

Chapter V: Conclusion

Summary of the Study

The study’s primary objective is to investigate teachers’ perceptions about students

experiencing poverty. This chapter begins with a discussion of three salient findings, followed

by a discussion of the implications they hold for educational policy and practice. This study

adds to the current literature by focusing on rural poverty specifically, and teachers’ perception

of poverty. I discussed how and to what extent teachers' perceptions of poverty impact how they

instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty. Next, three limitations of

the study are presented here. Finally, recommendations for the study’s enhancement and how to

use this study to benefit teachers and implications of the study are explained.

Three findings emerged from the study. These three findings were discovered after the

five major themes emerged. The five major themes included: 1) teachers perceived family

structure has a greater impact on students experiencing poverty; 2) teachers describe poverty as a

“challenging situation” that students face; 3) teachers describe poverty as a difficult lifestyle to

live so teachers must support and instruct with this in mind; 4) teachers consistently expressed

how they care for the students in different manners, and 5) teachers attribute poverty’s impact on

learning and support based upon their personal viewpoints, character traits, and family

backgrounds. These five major themes were derived from thematic analysis. This chapter will

review each salient finding derived from the themes.

Discussion of Salient Findings

Knowledge is Power

The study’s conceptual framework, SHARE, identified several characteristics that

positively affect achievement with students experiencing poverty. These characteristics include

133

the availability of instructional resources, kind staff and faculty, clearer curriculum choices, joint

decision making, high expectations, regular assessment of student progress combined with

feedback and remediation, regular teacher-parent communication, support for teacher influence,

strong focus on student achievement, structure, and teachers’ acceptance of the role they play in

student success or failure (Jensen, 2009). I discovered Jensen's factors of relationship building,

communication, structure, kindness, and enrichment mindset factors were evident in the data

collected, but other factors were not suggested or noted at any point in the study to include hard

data and accountability. Teachers did not mention collecting assessments to determine progress

or how their personal influence can impact how they instruct. However, relationship building,

communication, structure, kindness, and enrichment mindset factors were evident in the data

collected and were important to the participants.

Teachers who had higher poverty awareness scores used more of Jensen’s theory in their

practice such as relationship building, structure, and improved communication with families. In

which research states that poverty is not solely about income thresholds or how much money a

family possesses; rather, understanding how income levels impact learning, education, and

teachers is a greater area of concern (Bishaw et al., 2020). Teachers with a high poverty

awareness scores seem to have a better understanding of how income levels impact learning,

education, and is a greater concern in the classroom. Individuals and families with greater

income or financial resources are exposed to improved learning environments. Teachers who

had higher poverty awareness scores seemed to understand the differences and demonstrated that

by how they concentrated more on creating a learning environment that addresses differences.

This is evident by how teachers who had higher poverty awareness scores did mention impacts

134

of learning on students from poverty more so than teachers who had low poverty awareness

scores.

Gorski (2016) believes the majority of the teachers have been conditioned to

misunderstand poverty and its impact on educational outcome disparities. Despite teachers’

intentions to treat students fairly and equitably, the strategies they were capable of thinking of

will address disparities are the causes of the disparities they so desperately want to fix. The

trouble is ideological. And derived from a faulty belief system. Gorski writes when it comes to

issues surrounding poverty and economic justice the preparation of teachers must be focused on

adjusting fundamental understandings not only about educational outcome disparities but also

about poverty itself (p. 379). In summary, Gorski believes the issues surrounding poverty and

economic justice are not fixed by creative and new teaching strategies but reshaping teachers

ideologies to establish a better fundamental understanding of poverty (Gorski, 2016).

Teachers who had higher poverty awareness scores seemed to understand the differences

and addressed issues related to poverty differently from teachers who had lower poverty

awareness scores. Teachers who had high poverty awareness scores were more so focused on

adjusting their fundamental understandings of poverty in order to support individuals

experiencing poverty. Teachers who had higher poverty awareness scores seemed to have a

clearer and more focused fundamental understanding of poverty in comparison to teachers who

had a lower poverty awareness score.

Teacher’s opinions or how they describe their poverty attributions must be considered.

How teachers attribute poverty can impact their likelihood of establishing relationships and

supporting students. Bennett believes teachers attribute poverty to one or more types of

attributions including individual, structural, and cultural (Bennett et al., 2016). And the National

135

Education Association believes in the importance of teachers being competent and

knowledgeable so much that cultural competence is a commonly used term in education.

National Education Association (NEA) (2004) defines cultural competence as:

The ability to successfully teach students who come from cultures other than our own. It

entails developing certain personal and interpersonal awareness and sensitivities,

developing certain bodies of cultural knowledge, and mastering a set of skills that, taken

together, underlie effective cross-cultural teaching (Szucs et al., 2019, p. 69).

Both NEA and Bennett indicate that attributions are complex and consist of various

categories and that teachers’ level of cultural competence impact learning. This study found

teachers who attribute poverty to non-research-based principles such as laziness or lack of

motivation lacked cultural competence by their limited knowledge of poverty and the impact of

poverty. Their understanding of poverty had little depth and appeared to just touch the surface of

the greater issue and need for additional support for students experiencing poverty.

High poverty awareness teachers had the longest tenure in the field of education and

highest educational attainment. High poverty awareness teachers focused more on family

achievements, structure, awareness of poverty and potential impacts and acknowledging that

teacher’s viewpoints and perceptions do impact how they instruct and support. As it relates to

teachers’ educational attainment, schools with predominant numbers of low-income students also

have less qualified teachers with fewer years of experience. Students in impoverished schools

may underachieve because they are forced to address a combination of problematic influences

within the classroom environment and the school culture.

In recent years, teacher quality and their level of cultural competence has become a top

priority of national education policy. Wenglinsky’s (2002) research indicates that the

136

relationship between teacher effectiveness and student achievement is stronger than the

relationship between a student’s socioeconomic status, cultural characteristics, and societal

attainment. Teacher excellence, therefore, must include not only knowledge of content and

pedagogy, but cultural capacity (Wenglinsky, 2002). As Wenglinsky stated, teacher quality, to

include teachers with higher levels of education and experience, can be less evident in schools

with a large low-income student population. In addition to teacher excellence, there is also a

need for greater cultural competence. The need for teachers to have greater cultural competence

has increased. Cultural competency entails developing certain personal and interpersonal

awareness and sensitivities, developing certain bodies of cultural knowledge, and mastering a set

of skills that, taken together, underlie effective cross-cultural teaching” (Szucs et al., 2019, p.

69).

The high poverty awareness teachers were confident and felt comfortable in answering

questions and expressing their viewpoints during the interview. They had a fervent desire to help

and support families by identifying and removing barriers that may impede learning. They were

proactive and logical. There were greater references to learning and support by these teachers,

and they were knowledgeable of aspects of poverty. High poverty awareness teachers regularly

encouraged students to ask questions when they did not understand something or need further

clarification. Students did not appear to be hesitant about raising their hands, this can be

supported by how the teachers actively praised the students throughout the instruction and asked

them specifically, “are there any other questions…no question is not a good question.”

Teachers’ ability to praise students throughout the learning process seemed to motivate the

children. Students felt safe and secure by how they were attentive and not interested in

conversing with other students during instruction. Research shows students’ cognitive,

137

emotional, and stress self-regulation are most impacted by poverty. Lipina and Evers (2017)

explored a depth list of protective and risk factors most associated with poverty such as the

mental health of parents and teachers and family, social, and cultural expectations about child

development (Lipina & Evers, 2017, para. 6). Students felt safe and secure in the classrooms

because protective and risk factors that can be challenges for students experiencing poverty are

addressed in the classroom by the teacher. Additionally, the quality of language environments,

cognitive stimulation, and emotional support at home and in educational contexts can alter

neurocognitive functioning (Lipina & Evers, 2017).

During the interview, Sally did have to gently redirect one student and correct their

wrong answer. Her response was gentle, and she answered by sensitively redirecting the child

and providing a correct answer. Teachers carefully praised the students’ efforts. Consistent with

research, Moen et al. (2019) found classroom emotional support from the teacher in early

childhood classrooms is a predictor of a positive teacher-student relationship. Classroom-based

emotional support is an environmental component of the classroom's climate that directly

supports the development of early relationships for young K-5 students. Classrooms with high

levels of emotional support experience better relationships between teachers and students

resulting in decreases in conflict in comparison to those that do not. This same study also

revealed classroom organization and instructional practices were not effective in the teacher-

student relationship (Moen et al., 2019).

On the other hand, participants Sally, Amy, and Nancy, teachers who had low poverty

awareness scores, more commonly felt hugs, attention, and love were essential to instruction and

support. The teachers’ beliefs and behavior are contrary to most research. Kim (2013) found

that a narrow or incomplete understanding of poverty influenced how teachers perceived

138

homelessness. In Kim’s study, teachers who had little to no knowledge of homelessness initially

interpreted such families as being dysfunctional and abnormal (Kim, 2013, p. 303). Teachers

initially perceived and interacted with the impoverished children during their initial field

placements. Teachers with limited context on diverse demographics and lacked a basic

understanding of poverty had a perspective that was negative toward such individuals

experiencing poverty (Kim, 2013). Provided their basic definition of poverty, teachers who had a

guarded perspective of students needs also had confirmed their own stereotypes of the students.

As a result, students may not receive the level of support necessary. As Kim found, low poverty

awareness participants from this study showed consistent results by how participants did not

have extensive knowledge of poverty and as a result resorted to supporting the students in the

best manner, they deemed necessary, which was hugging and showing love.

Little research indicates physical touch can be a way to address the impact of poverty on

students. Hattie (2003) showed teachers had a major influence on students as it related to

learning. Teachers have the greatest amount of control due to learning factors of influence that

included feedback, students’ prior cognitive ability, direct instruction, mastery learning,

homework, peer effects, testing, instructional media, finances, team teaching, and several others.

Besides, what teachers know, do, and are concerned about contributed to 30% of student

achievement (Hattie, 2003).

Secondly, regarding why knowledge is power, developing teachers’ assessment skills can

help remove bias or negative teacher perceptions. Addressing deficient thinking and assessment

styles can encourage teachers to acknowledge that biases exist, and new behaviors can start to

form (Hattie, 2003). Personal reflection is another tool teachers can use to evaluate their

assumptions that impact their actions, and decision-making within the classroom (Irizarry, 2015).

139

By addressing deficient thinking teachers can have more effective support and instruction

students experiencing poverty. Teachers did reflect on their opinion or definition of poverty

after completing this study.

Thirdly, regarding why knowledge is power, establishing a positive environment within

classrooms is a simple and basic tool teachers must use to create a sense of belongingness for all

students, especially children living in poverty. Teachers with high poverty awareness scores

wanted to ensure a positive environment existed in their classrooms. Therefore, by establishing a

positive classroom environment students will have an improved sense of belonging, resulting in a

better learning experience for a child in poverty. Children in poverty are more likely to drop out

of school (Cuthrell et al., 2010). Consistent with this behavior, teachers also are more likely to

set low expectations and give up on teaching children from impoverished households. Teachers

often believe such students do not try, resulting in behavior issues and low effort (Cuthrell et al.,

2010).

As an example, and along with this study’s conceptual framework, Jensen believes there

are five classroom-based factors to include support of the whole child, hard data, accountability,

relationship building, and an enrichment mindset. Jensen’s believes teachers have a role in each

factor but particularly in supporting the whole child and relationship building (Jensen, 2009).

Jensen argues students must have support for the whole child, but this support should come with

high expectations and high levels of support from administrators and teachers. Jensen suggests

strategies such as creating accommodations that provide quiet places in which learners can work

in, common support services for impoverished students with academic tutoring, academic and

career counseling, access to medications, dental care, life skills, medical care, childcare, and

many more were effective strategies teachers should use when instructing and supporting

140

students experiencing poverty. Educators who are initiative-taking and provide the right levels

and types of support to students experiencing poverty can expect to see improved outcomes

(Jensen, 2009).

Overall, there were some differences in low poverty awareness teachers approach to

learning and support in comparison to high poverty awareness teachers. The participants were

similar in some regards, but I have highlighted the more significate differences while

maintaining integrity in the research that showed teachers do have some similarity. For example,

teachers were not able to provide formal definitions of poverty. They used terms and examples

that best fit the formal definition of poverty according to their experiences. As an example, low

poverty awareness participants shared stories of how education was such an integral part of their

life as a child. Although one participant agreed that life was not always easy, she later admitted

to a much easier life than others. She admits to how she formed her opinions and perceptions of

education and student support based upon her personal upbringing. Such stories were shared

among low poverty awareness teachers. They understand and agree that there are differences in

students experiencing poverty and not; yet, there was no clear concise strategy used to address

the differences. There was a fervent desire to help every child, but they were still missing the

tools, resources, research-based educational strategies, and instructional strategies from their

practice.

Teacher’s personal background is a major factor in how teachers perceive poverty, but

teachers also have the responsibility to be aware of stereotypes and preconceived notions. Many

times, in the United States teachers and preservice teachers not only conclude individuals are

poor because of their failings but also hold other stereotypical views about pupils and their

families (Gorski, 2012). Gorski (2012) encourages educators to consider “common sense” when

141

forming opinions of students and suggests this common sense should be informed and not

derived from stereotypes and hegemony.

Consistent with research, Collins (1991), an American sociologist stated that personal

and cultural biographies are significant sources of knowledge for teachers who become

“insiders.” Wenger (1998) describes “insiders” as teachers with shared social and cultural

backgrounds as their school communities. These teachers may have an inside advantage in

comparison to teachers who do not share such backgrounds. Teachers who have worked on

establishing relationships, engaged with community leaders, and believe that pedagogy and

curriculum should be designed around what is important to the learner are more effective (Munns

et al., 2013). Low poverty awareness teachers who also had less experience and considered

themselves from high income communities in their upbring, responded to poverty’s challenges

such as lack of transportation, conditions of transportation, tardy and absences from school, lack

of clothing and other resources, language barriers, and nutrition in the best manner they knew

how. As Wenger stated above, these teachers would not be considered “insiders”, rather the

opposite.

Teachers find ways to solve perception challenges

Teachers had solutions to the negative impacts of poverty displayed. The solutions were

situations where the teacher would support students and families by how they communicate with

them, show compassion and empathy, and set expectations. Once again, teachers defined poverty

using their own terms. Their definitions were not formal or commonly found in secondary

research. Yet teachers did acknowledge that poverty exists, and poverty’s impacts exist. The

teacher attempted to address challenges such as lack of transportation, conditions of

transportation, tardy and absences from school, lack of clothing and other resources, language

142

barriers, and nutrition related to poverty in the best way possible based upon their personal

background, experiences, and personal perceptions. So even if their definitions were not clear

or accurate based upon poverty’s formal definition, teachers found ways to support their families

and students. Teachers felt they could support students by asking questions and/or talking to

students about what was going on at home. Once again, teachers defined poverty using their

own terms. Their definitions were not formal or commonly found in secondary research.

Teachers manage situations while students and families manage poverty’s impact

Teachers considered challenges such as lack of transportation, conditions of

transportation, tardy and absences from school, lack of clothing and other resources, language

barriers, and nutrition associated with poverty in the classroom as “situations” (as noted above)

and teachers managed these “situations” in a variety of ways. While students and their families

have unique experiences due to the impact of poverty, many times, these unique experiences

include additional barriers and challenges such as lack of transportation, conditions of

transportation, tardy and absences from school, lack of clothing and other resources, language

barriers, and nutrition that non-impoverished families do not have to manage. Unfortunately,

families must live lives impacted by poverty that looks different from non-impoverished

families. Teachers, on the other hand, simply consider these additional barriers and challenges

as “situations.” Teachers found ways to “manage situations” they saw daily in class based upon

their personal socioeconomic background.

Researchers assumed that classroom environments were homogenous groups of students

with similar learning styles, cultures, and backgrounds (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). As

researchers and observers continued to study classrooms, they discovered this was not the case.

Student populations are complex and heterogeneous, and this same issue or experience occurs

143

with the teacher population. Teachers also come from diverse cultures and backgrounds

including various levels of socioeconomics (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). These diverse

groups of students and teachers resulted in a new challenge. The challenge now becomes how

to connect teachers and students from diverse backgrounds and complexities. Connections are a

necessity for effective teaching and instruction to occur (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). It seems

plausible that this connection, or lack thereof, demonstrates the importance for teachers to

identify and relate to a diverse group of students (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).

The new challenge of establishing connections was evident in this study particularly

regarding socioeconomics. Teachers who identified as having an upbringing in a middle-

income community showed empathy. Empathy is essential for connection, yet individuals stay

empathic and are unable to move forward into showing levels of compassion (Bloom, 2017).

Paul Bloom, a professor of cognitive science and psychology at Yale University and author of

Against Empathy, discovered that can cloud one’s judgment, encourage bias, and make leaders

less effective at making wise decisions. Although Bloom, stated leaders without empathy do not

engage with students. Empathy is essential for connection, yet individuals stay empathic and are

unable to move forward into showing levels of compassion (Bloom, 2017). Additionally,

research shows empathy provides a desire to do what is right, but it can also motivate individuals

to make poor decisions. Teachers from middle-income communities in the study were empathic

by how they desired to connect with students but still showed bias in their comments and

responses.

On the other hand, teachers from low-income community’s showed compassion.

Compassion can be defined as:

144

a multi-textured response to pain, sorrow, and anguish. It includes kindness, empathy,

generosity, and acceptance. The strands of courage, tolerance, and equanimity are equally

woven into the cloth of compassion. Above all, compassion is the capacity to open to the

reality of suffering and to aspire to its healing (Feldman & Kuyken, 2011).

Teachers from low-income communities who showed compassion had a much easier time

establishing a real connection with the students based upon the variety of strategies they use to

support students and ability to easily provide answers to my questions during the interview.

Compassion is action oriented and makes individuals seek change (Feldman & Kuyken, 2011).

I am relating connections with the term relationship building (also a component of the

conceptual framework) as well because it is the relationships participants had with the students

that caused the students to obtain the support they needed. Connections are a necessity for

effective teaching and instruction to occur (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).

As teachers worked to manage student’s situations, most teachers did believe relationship

building, enrichment activities, care, and affection were important, but they also felt these

approaches are critical for all students regardless of their socio-economic status. Teachers who

had high poverty awareness scores did believe there was a greater need for support. Once again,

to a certain degree, all participants wanted to support and address the needs of children

regardless of their socioeconomic levels. But how they demonstrated their support was different

between teachers who had low and high poverty awareness scores. Poverty could make

additional support more necessary, but it is not necessarily exclusive to instructing children, in

general. To teachers who had low poverty awareness scores, poverty was simply a term used to

describe someone with limited technological access, unreliable transportation, and/or other

challenges.

145

On the other hand, families experiencing poverty do face additional challenges such as lack of

transportation, conditions of transportation, tardy and absences from school, lack of clothing and

other resources, language barriers, and nutrition that non- impoverished families do not

encounter. Poverty impacts students physically, emotionally, and cognitively from birth.

Students with longer periods of exposure to adversity and stress due to poverty suffer more than

others, resulting in students who start first grade with deficits from the very beginning (Blair &

Raver, 2016). And regardless of the teacher’s understanding of the complexities of this lifestyle,

challenges exist and impact the learning environment.

Peter Tough, author of How Children Succeed believes there are three reasons for

underachievement due to poverty. First, individuals lack knowledge around brain development

and/or the brain science of poverty. Due to the complexity of the brain and the concept of

poverty, independent of each other, many are not willing to explore this concept related to brain

development. Second, the topic is uncomfortable. Most professional individuals or teachers

who do not live in or will never live in an impoverished household are not comfortable or fluid

on such topics related to poverty. In the study, participants did indicate times when children had

challenges such as lack of internet access, lack of proper nutrition, and access to Wi-Fi, and lack

of reliable transportation, but participants also felt these challenges were consistent for all

students regardless of their socio-economic status.

Implications of the Study

To explain the usefulness of this study and its findings, I addressed how serving as a

participant in this study impacted their perceptions of poverty. Comments were made by the

participants regarding how the PAS made them think and inquire more about poverty.

Therefore, this study can be useful in inspiring participants and/or encouraging an initial

146

conversation among educators and administrators on a clear definition of poverty, impacts of

poverty, and teachers' perceptions on any topic sensitive to students’ needs.

The study’s second implication is the impact that the research may have on future

research or policy decisions. The study does highlight that all participants agreed that poverty

can impact learning and support. And although the extent of it varies by poverty awareness levels

of teachers, teachers do admit that poverty can add another negative element to learning.

Therefore, the implications of these findings address that opportunities exist to continue the

discussion on poverty. According to the United States Census (2017), “poverty statistics indicate

poverty is not decreasing nor does the impact of poverty on all individuals become less of a

problem as students graduate.” According to the United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service, the rural poverty rate in the state of Georgia in 2018 was 20.9%, or

377,108 individuals of the total rural population. The urban poverty rate in the state of Georgia

in 2018 was 13.2% or 1,163,326 individuals of the total urban population. Over the last 40

years, the poverty rate in Georgia’s rural and urban communities has ranged from 11.7% to

22.5%. Rural poverty rates are higher than urban poverty which indicates a greater need for

support and future research that addresses that sizable percentage of the population. In fact, what

occurs to students experiencing poverty after graduation and the long-term effect it has on their

lives and future would be important to examine.

Limitations of the Study

I was not able to capture a full picture of the students’ academic, behavioral, and

attendance records prior to the study. Although the study is about teacher’s perception of rural

poverty, additional data related to the student’s educational performance and goals could have

enhanced the study to capture a more comprehensive picture of what is occurring between the

147

student and the teacher in the classroom. As an example, during a classroom observation, the

teacher had to redirect a student during instruction. The student was looking around the room

attempting to find someone else to talk to or something else to focus on. Since the study did not

provide academic data or any social emotional data on the child, we do not know if other factors

could have caused the need for redirection, such as a disability. It is not accurate to assume

poverty is the only reason for the child not being interested in the instruction. We only know

that the teacher was instructing and attempting to provide an engaging lesson for the class. This

is important to note because there are many factors that impact student learning and teacher

support such as does the child attend school regularly, does the child feel safe at school, what

cognitive disabilities exist if any. Once again, this study examines specific criteria that addresses

a portion of what could be occurring with the child and teacher in the classroom.

As it relates to the high or low poverty awareness scores taken from the PAS, this score is

another example of missing information. Due to limited participation, participants who read and

completed the informed consent form and the PAS were selected to participate. Before the data

collection phase, I wanted to obtain enough surveys to screen and select specific low and high

awareness scores. This was not the case due to limited responses and participation. Six of the

eight individuals who met the criteria and completed the documents participated in the study.

I did not collect data related to student achievement such as formative or summative

assessments; therefore, I could not directly correlate teachers’ perceptions of poverty to student

support or instruction. Student achievement data such as summative assessment scores, grades,

and other formative assessments can show the student level of knowledge, skills, and

understanding, offer a clear understanding of the student and his or her interests, identify what

and how the student is thinking and learning, and assess the effectiveness of the environment on

148

the student's learning (National Research Council, 2001). Without such data, I could not

correlate support needed for students experiencing poverty and perceptions because the data is

missing, and a relationship cannot be established. This study focused more on the teacher’s

perceptions while student data would assess a student’s understanding of content subjects.

Although support and instruction can be impacted by poverty awareness levels, my study did not

indicate if this directly supports students’ overall academic achievements.

During the study, teachers did not mention or indicate the use of formative assessments.

Teachers did not indicate they used data from assessments to determine student’s progress or if

data collection would help teachers find more effective methods to instruct and support students

experiencing poverty. However, relationship building, communication, structure, kindness, and

enrichment mindset factors were evident in the data collected and important to the participants.

Teachers who had higher poverty awareness scores used more of Jensen’s theory in their

practice.

This study pertains to an assumption made regarding all students who are experiencing

rural poverty. The schools selected for the study are Title 1 schools which indicate, under Every

Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), such schools are provided financial assistance if they have high

numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families. But not every student in

Title 1 school may currently experience poverty. Nor do they all experience rural poverty (there

are parts of the school district that are not rural). But the school has the Title 1 distinction

because more than 50 percent of the study body do reside in a low-income community. There is

no way to validate which students from the classroom observation are currently living in rural

poverty.

149

In addition, I conducted one classroom observation. I was not able to observe throughout

the school year to see a fuller picture of how the teacher instructs. The observation was also

scheduled, and participants knew I would be in the classroom. They had time to prepare for my

observation and possibly modify how they instructed since they knew someone was going to be

in the classroom. Also, several factors of Jensen’s concept were not seen or evident during the

one classroom observation that I conducted. For example, hard data was not possible to observe

because teachers were instructing. I was not able to see how teachers used or evaluated hard data

such as state or district assessment scores and trends from prior school years.

Both schools had approximately 60 teachers who could have potentially participated in

the study, but my study only included six participants, or approximately 10 percent of the entire

teacher population applicable to the study’s criteria for participation. So information shared in

this study has limited generalizability. Teachers from this study were also homogeneous, to

include race, location, and gender. All participants identified as Caucasian women who worked

in a rural school which limits generalizability due to fact that the results from the study were

only included a female Caucasian subgroup and not the entire population. Participants were all

from a rural community as well. This limits generalizability because they do not have

perspectives from an urban community with poverty’s challenges such as lack of transportation,

conditions of transportation, tardy and absences from school, lack of clothing and other

resources, language barriers, and nutrition.

Recommendations for Future Study

This study contributes to current research by helping other researchers examine how

teachers’ perceptions of rural poverty impact their instruction and influence their relationships

with students. This study provided a better understanding of how elementary teachers, with

150

more than three years of experience in a rural community, perceive poverty’s impact on

instruction and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty. The findings are

grounded in the SHARE concept. Jensen’s (2009) SHARE concept was embedded in questions

and observation rubrics, yet teachers were not aware of the concept.

This research contributes to current research by helping researchers examine how

teachers’ perceptions of rural poverty impact their instruction and influence their relationships

with students. As a result, it will enable further discussion for schools and school leadership to

examine how well teachers within their buildings are instructing and supporting such students.

The study revealed five major themes to include: family structure has a greater impact on

students experiencing poverty; teachers describe poverty as a “challenging situation” that

students face; poverty is a difficult lifestyle to live so teachers must support and instruct with this

in mind; teachers consistently expressed care for the students in different manners; and, teachers

attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support based upon their personal viewpoints,

character traits, and family backgrounds. From these major themes, three salient findings were

discussed in Chapter 5. Provided these findings, it is recommended that a study seeking

comparable data should include student achievement data, such as state-wide summative

assessment scores, attendance rate, graduation rate, and other measurements. This data would

provide a better understanding of the whole child (as indicated in SHARE). Various hard data

measurements could correlate students' performance on assessments and assignments with

poverty awareness scores. The data could be analyzed and studied to discover if a relationship

even exists. For example, teachers with a high poverty awareness may instruct in a manner that

addresses challenges such as lack of transportation, conditions of transportation, tardy and

absences from school, lack of clothing and other resources, language barriers, and nutrition from

151

poverty. If teachers are addressing the needs and challenges of students, then students may be

more attentive in class, and have a stronger affinity or relationship with their teacher resulting in

improved test scores and overall classroom performance. At times student attendance can be

impacted by poverty due to lack of transportation from parents working long hours or late shifts

at work. As noted in the study by a participant, older children must care for younger siblings,

resulting in missed days of school. This is more evident in the upper grades as well. Therefore,

conducting a mixed-method study could address if attendance and poverty can be correlated to

student support and instruction by combining qualitative data with quantifiable data (attendance

rates). I would also recommend future research on a different location such as an urban

elementary school, exploring other conceptual frameworks such as Asselin and Dauphin’s

Poverty Measurement and/or Priorities for the Poor: A Conceptual Framework for Policy

Analysis by Pleskovic, B. and Sivitanides, P.

Conclusion

This qualitative study was established to explore how teachers’ perceptions of rural

poverty impact instruction and influence their relationships with students. This study provided a

better understanding of how elementary teachers, with more than three years of experience in a

rural community, perceive poverty’s impact on instruction and support for elementary students

experiencing rural poverty. The three research questions included how do teachers' perceptions

of poverty impact how they instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural poverty

(themes #1 and #2), what differences exist in instruction and support between elementary

teachers with high and low poverty awareness in a rural elementary school, (themes #5) and to

what extent does the teachers' perception of poverty influence instruction and support for

elementary students experiencing rural poverty (themes #2, #3, and #4). From the six

152

participants, I was able to administer the PAS and conduct six classroom observations, two non-

classroom observations in the media center and cafeteria, and six one-on-one interviews

transcribed on Google Meet. In addition, I maintained an extensive reflexive journal that

recorded classroom environment, teacher dress, non-verbal signals from teachers, and other

factors that truly described the environment and what students are seeing and exposed to every

day. Five major themes emerged, to include teachers perceived family structure has a greater

impact on students achievement for students experiencing poverty, teachers describe poverty as a

“challenging situation” that students face, poverty is a difficult lifestyle so students will have

issues in the classroom, teachers consistently expressed care for the students differently, and

teachers attribute poverty’s impact on learning and support to their personal viewpoints,

character traits, and family backgrounds.

Based upon Jensen's (2009) SHARE concept, three of Jensen's five factors were evident

in the classroom and discussed extensively among the participants during the interviews.

Unfortunately, hard data and accountability (two of Jensen's five factors) were not mentioned or

noted at any point in the study. The study revealed family structure, preconceived notions,

relationships, a description of poverty as "situations", and caring were more commonly used by

the participants.

The study explained from the three research questions that teachers' perceptions of

poverty can impact how they instruct and support elementary students experiencing rural

poverty. Based upon their personal belief of poverty and how they define it, the need for

instructional strategies that target student’s unique needs can vary. Participants who had a better

understanding of poverty focused on learning and expectations as a remedy to address needs of

students experiencing poverty; while others felt kindness and concern were sufficient.

153

Participants also managed how they communicate with families/parents differently based upon

their level of poverty understanding. Participants provided a separate set of support to families

that appeared different from other participants.

Secondly, there were differences between low and high poverty awareness teachers. I

discovered high poverty awareness teachers communicated and supported families by offering

academic and emotional support to families. High poverty awareness teachers focused on

learning, showing empathy, values, supporting families, and setting high expectations for every

student. On the other hand, low poverty awareness teachers felt maintaining order, showing

compassion, physical touch, and making students feel safe was the priority for learning and

support.

The study showed teachers with less experience and younger age also received a low

poverty awareness score and focused on expressing how they care by physical touch. They

shared stories of how they could see the impact of poverty yet accredited poverty to just a

situation that students face. Participants felt students experiencing poverty do not know they are

impoverished so it’s important to not focus on it and bring unnecessary attention to it. Low

poverty awareness teachers also considered themselves as middle income and used their

childhood experiences and values taught in their upbringings as the foundation for how they

formed perceptions of poverty. Low poverty awareness teachers felt empathy was important.

Empathy can be described as:

Empathy feels a desire to help students; while compassion includes empathy yet takes it a

step further and seeks to aspire to finding healing and a connection for students. Empathy

is essential for connection, yet individuals stay empathic and are unable to move forward

into showing levels of compassion (Bloom, 2017).

154

On the other hand, high poverty awareness teachers were more comfortable with

discussing poverty issues and impact. They were able to provide specific examples of

instructional strategies they use to address the needs of such students. They were more

experienced, more educated, and older in age from the sample. High poverty awareness teachers

also considered their upbringing as low income and used their childhood experiences and values

taught in their upbringings as the foundation to how they formed perceptions of poverty. High

poverty awareness teachers felt compassion was important. Compassion can be described as:

Compassion is different from empathy because compassion is a multi-textured response

to pain, sorrow and anguish. It includes kindness, empathy, generosity and acceptance.

The strands of courage, tolerance, and equanimity is equally woven into the cloth of

compassion. Above all compassion is the capacity to open to the reality of suffering and

to aspire to its healing (Feldman & Kuyken, 2011).

I wanted to identify what extent perception has on teachers and their instruction and

support. To begin, teachers were reluctant to define poverty. Participants were hesitant to define

it resulting in participants providing specific examples of how they believe poverty impacts

learning or even redefining the term and stating that poverty was similar to a situation in life. As

they struggled to define it, at the same time, it evoked some level of curiosity for them. They

began to wonder what poverty meant throughout the interview.

Teachers who were more comfortable with poverty felt students experiencing poverty

had a greater need for student support. They knew poverty had an impact on learning and

strategically created and implemented strategies that address this need. The extent was greater

with high poverty awareness teachers because it was evident in their classrooms and during the

155

interviews that they were familiar with the concept, had a plan to address it and felt it was

genuinely important to acknowledge poverty’s impact with instructing. Teachers believed

relationship building, enrichment activities, care, and affection were important but the extent to

which it is used, and as a part of instruction was different. In fact, low poverty awareness

participants felt care and affection were more important and should be something all teachers do

regularly and for all students. They did not suggest specific instructional strategies between

impoverished and non-impoverished students, all students should be treated the same.

In the end, teachers all agreed at a point in the study that students have unique needs

different from students who are not experiencing poverty. And based upon the teachers’

viewpoints, background, upbringing, age, and experience, there were a variety of responses as to

how to address their needs. The study evoked thought about poverty and the impact of poverty,

causing teachers to explore how they view poverty differently.

There was a clear distinction between low and high poverty awareness teachers. High

poverty awareness teachers who understood that poverty is a challenge for students had supports

in place to address it. The teachers who could not properly define poverty and/or had difficulty

with properly defining did not have specific plans or strategies in place. They used what they felt

was most effective and what they were familiar with from their upbringing. Three salient

findings emerged from the data: knowledge is power, teachers find ways to solve perception

challenges, and teachers manage situations, while students and families manage poverty’s

impact.

This study can shed light on a growing challenge that permeates most schools in the

United States. Poverty impacts learning and significant achievement gaps exist among diverse

groups of students. Various researchers attribute the growth of the socio-economic achievement

156

gap to rising income inequity, increasing school choice, and inequalities in parental education,

occupations, or investments in children (Reardon & Bischoff, 2011). Inequalities in parental

education can be further examined by considering disparities that exist between rural and urban

communities. Teachers must also be aware of the impact of poverty and find solutions that meet

each child’s needs with research-based strategies. Administrators must recruit and train teachers

who are willing to accommodate and have an open mind about poverty (D’Haem & Griswold,

2017).

There is literature that states teacher perceptions of students affect how they connect,

teach, and assess the student’s ability and behavior. Research stated that teachers’ perceptions of

the student are based upon specific descriptive characteristics of themselves including race,

gender, and socioeconomic background (D’Haem & Griswold, 2017). Teacher’s personal

demographic factors are used inherently by the teacher when assessing the student’s academic

abilities in the classroom (Hansen, 2016). In addition to the teacher’s demographics, teachers

also need training on poverty and perceptions. Many times, having the opportunities to hear

from colleagues on student work assessments and compare their assessment style with others

offers added professional development as well as removes bias and misconceptions (Reeves,

2003). It is up to the administrators, school officials, legislators, and other school leaders to

provide professional development that brings this topic to the forefront and requires teachers to

explore the meaning of poverty and how they instruct and support students experiencing poverty.

The most significant contribution of this study is that it sheds light on how poverty awareness

does impact instruction and support.

157

References

ABC Elementary School Improvement Plan (2020). Schoolwide Improvement Plan (SIP) and

Title I Schoolwide Program (SWP) Plan. September 29, 2020.

Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. SAMYE

Publications, 1. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.

American Psychological Association Socioeconomic Status Office (2019). Report of the APA

task force on Socioeconomic Status Office [Fact Sheet]. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses

Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of

Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), 141. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7408141.

Bennett, R., Raiz, L., & Davis, T. (2016). Development and validation of the poverty attributions

survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(3), 347-359.

Bishaw, A., Benson, C., Shrider, E., & Glassman, B. (2020). Changes in poverty rates and

poverty areas over time: 2005-2019. American Community Survey. US Census Bureau.

Boddy, C. R. (2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An

International Journal, 19, 426-432.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

concepts and methods. Pearson Education.

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2016). Poverty, stress, and brain development: New directions for

prevention and intervention. Academic Pediatrics, 16(3 Suppl), S30–S36.

Bloom, P. (2017). Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. ECCO.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. Future of Children,

7(2), 55-71.

158

Brown-Jeffy, S. & Cooper, J. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant

pedagogy: An overview of conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 65-83.

Bullock, H. E., Williams, W. R., & Limbert, W. M. (2003). Predicting support for welfare

policies: The impact of attributions and beliefs about inequality. Journal of Poverty, 7(3),

35–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v07n03_03.

Canary, A. (2019). How to analyze interview transcripts in qualitative research [Blog Post].

Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/blog/analyze-interview-transcripts-in-qualitative-

research

Carothers, D., Aydin, H., & Houdyshell, M. (2019). Teacher shortages and cultural mismatch:

District and university collaboration for recruiting. Journal of Social Studies Education

Research, 10(3), 39–63.

Children’s Defense Fund (2023). 2004 facts on child poverty in America. Children’s Defense

Fund: Leave No Child Behind.

Chang, A. (2021). Damaging effects of poverty on children. Cornell Research.

Chmielewski, A. K. (2019). The global increase in the socioeconomic achievement gap, 1964 to

2015. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 517-544.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419847165

Clark, K., & Veale, B. (2018). Strategies to enhance data collection and analysis in qualitative

research. Radiologic Technology, 89(5), 482-485.

Colorado State University (2021). Steps and methods used in qualitative observational research.

Writing@CSU. https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/page.cfm?pageid=1354&guideid=63

159

Committee on Publication Ethics (2005). Guidelines on good publication practice. Committee on

Publication Ethics.

Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A. V., & Tagler, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward the poor and

attributions of poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 207-227.

Cramer, E., Pellegrini-Lafont, C., & Gonzalez, L. (2014). Towards culturally responsive and

integrated instruction for all learners: The integrated learning model. Interdisciplinary

Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 110-124.

Creamer, J. (2020). Inequalities persist despite decline in poverty for all major race and Hispanic

origin groups. United States Census.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/09/poverty-rates-for-blacks-and-hispanics-

reached-historic-lows-in-2019.html

Creswell, J. & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. SAMYE Publications.

Cuthrell, K., Stapleton, J. & Ledford, C. (2020). Examining the culture of poverty: Promising

practices. Heldref Publications, 54(2), 105-109.

D’Haem, J. & Griswold, P. (2017). Teacher educators’ and student teachers’ beliefs about

preparation for working with families including those from diverse socioeconomic and

cultural backgrounds. Education and Urban Society, 49(1), 81-109.

Danhier, J. (2016). Teachers in schools with low socioeconomic composition: Are they really

that different? European Education, 48, 274-293.

Data USA. (2018). Data USA Hamilton, Georgia Census Place. Deloitte.

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/hamilton-ga.

160

Dorfler, V. & Stierand, M. (2020). Bracketing: A phenomenological concepts applied through

transpersonal reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Change Management.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCindo-12-2019-0393.

Dragoset, L. M., Thomas, J., Hermann, M. A., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., Graczewski, C., …

(2016). Race to the top: Implementation and relationship to student outcomes. NCEE

2017-4001. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Duncan, G. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2011). Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and

Children’s Life Chances. Russell Sage Foundation.

Eddles-Hirsch, K. (2015). Phenomenology and educational research. International Journal of

Advanced Research, 3(8), 251-260.

Ellis, P. (2016a). Understanding Research for Nursing Students (3

Ed). SAGE.

Ellis, P. (2016b). The language of research: Phenomenological research, decoding science.

Wounds UK, 12(1).

Feldman, C. & Kuyken, W. (2011). Contemporary Buddhism. Taylor & Francis, 12(1), 1476-

7953.

Finlay, L. (1998). Reflexivity: An essential component for all research? British Journal of

Occupational Therapy, 61(10), 453-456.

Fischer, C. T. (2009). Bracketing in qualitative research: Conceptual and practical matters.

Psychotherapy Research, 19(4-5), 483-590. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300902798375

Flick, U. (2002). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. SAMYE Publications.

Galletta, A. (2012). Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond: From Research

Design to Analysis and Publication. NYU Press.

161

Georgia Department of Education (2021). Georgia’s Annual School, District, and State

Accountability System: A Parent’s Guide to Georgia’s CCRPI. https://www.gadoe.org.

Giannarelli, L., Wheaton, L., & Acs, G. (2020). 2020 Poverty Projections. The Urban Institute:

Income and Benefits Policy Center.

Gorski, P.C. (2016). Poverty and the ideological imperative: A call to unhook from deficit and

grit ideology and to strive for structural ideology in teacher education. Journal of

Education for Teaching, 42(4), 378-386.

Gorski, P. C. (2012). Perceiving the problem of poverty and schooling: Deconstructing the class

stereotypes that mis-shape education practice and policy. Equity and Excellence in

Education, 45(2), 302-319.

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4),

290-294.

Hansen, K. (2016). The relationship between teacher perceptions of pupil attractiveness and

academic ability. Br Educ Res J, 42, 376-398. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3227

Harrie, L. (2021). Thematic mapping: 101 inspiring ways to visualize empirical data. The

Cartographic Journal, 58(4), 370-372.

Hassan, Z. A., Schattner, P., & Mazza, D. (2006). Doing a pilot study: Why is it essential?

Malaysian Family Physician: The Official Journal of the Academy of Family Physicians

for Malaysia, 1(2-3), 70-73.

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference, what is the research evidence? Australian Council

for Educational Research.

Haughton, J., & Khandker, S. R. (2009). Handbook on poverty and inequality. World Bank.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley Online Library.

162

Hempel-Jorgensen, A., Cremin, T., Harris, D. & Chamberlain, L., (2018). Pedagogy for reading

for pleasure in low socioeconomic primary schools: Beyond pedagogy of poverty?

Literacy UKLA.

Irizarry, Y. (2015). Selling students short: Racial differences in teachers’ evaluations of high,

average, and low performing students. Social Science Research, 52, 522-538.

IRIS Center (2023, July 4). Addressing Challenging Behaviors. IRIS Center at Vanderbilt

University. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti03/cresource/q4/p11/

Jackson, M. (2013). Determined to Succeed? Performance Versus Choice in Educational

Attainment. Stanford University Press.

Jasper, M. A. (2005). Using reflexive writing within research. Journal of Research in Nursing,

10(3), 247-260.

Jenson, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and

what school can do about it. ASCD.

Jenson, E. (2016). Poor Students, Rich Teaching: Mindsets for Change. Solution Tree Press.

Kim, J. (2013). Against the unchallenged discourse of homelessness: Examining the view of

early childhood preservice teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,

34(4), 291-307.

Krishna, R. Menzies, T., & Fu, W. (2016). Proceedings of the 31

IEEE/ACindy International

Conference on Automated Software Engineering. ASE 2016, pp. 122-13.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2970276.2970339.

Laine, C. (2016). The War on Poverty. Essential Library.

163

Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency, and

professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 21(8), 899-916.

Leavy, P. (2017). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-Based, and

Community-Based Participatory Research Approaches. The Guilford Press.

Lewis, O. (1966). The culture of poverty. Scientific American, 215(4), 19-25.

Lewis, O. (1969). The culture of poverty. In D. P. Moynihan (Ed.) On Understanding Poverty:

Perspectives from the Social Sciences. Basic Books.

Lipina, S. & Evans, K. (2017). Neuroscience of childhood poverty: Evidence of impacts and

mechanisms as vehicles of dialog with ethics. Frontiers of Psychology: Hypothesis and

Concept, 8(61).

Ludy, J., Belden, A., Botteron, K., Maarus, N., Harms, M., Babb, C., … (2013). The effects of

poverty on childhood brain development: The mediating effects of caregiving and

stressful life events. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(12). E1-E8.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis:

Realist, contextualist, and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of

Psychology, 91, 1-20.

Attitudes (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/attitude.

Perceptions (n.d.) In Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/perceptions.

164

Moen, A., Sheridan, S., Schumacher, R., & Cheng, K. (2019). Early childhood student teacher

relationships: What is the role of classroom climate for children who are disadvantaged?

Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 331-341.

Morrow, S. L., (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling

psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260.

Munns, G., Sawyer, W., & Cole, B. (Eds) (2013). Exemplary Teachers of Students in Poverty.

Routledge.

National Education Association (2004). Assessment of diversity in American’s teaching force.

National Education Association.

National Center for Education Statistics (2020a). Achievement Gaps. National Center for

Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/

National Center for Education Statistics (2020b). The Condition of Education: Racial/Ethnic

Enrollment in Public Schools. National Center for Education Statistics.

National Research Council (2001). Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education

Standards. The National Academies Press.

Nightingale, A. (2020). Triangulation. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (2

Ed). 477-480.

Null, W. (2011). Curriculum: From Concept to Practice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Olive, J. L. (2014). Reflecting on the tensions between emic and etic perspectives in life history

research: Life lessons learned. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative

Social Research, 15(2).

Payne, R. K. (2013). A Framework for Understanding Poverty (5

Rev. Ed.) Aha! Process.

165

Percy, W., Kostere, K. & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic qualitative research in psychology. The

Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76-85.

Polite, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for

Nursing Practice. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Public Schools First (2021). The facts on rural schools in NC.

http://www.publicschoolfirstnc.org.

Qureshi, J. & Ost, B. (2019). Does teacher family experience affect test scores? Contemporary

Economic Policy, 37(3), 509-523.

Ravitch, S., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical,

and Methodological (2

Ed). SAMYE Publications, Inc.

Reardon, S. F., & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income inequality and income segregation. American

Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1092-153.

Reeves, D. (2003). High performance in high poverty schools: 90/90/90 and beyond. Harvard

Graduate School of Education: Research Gate.

Rosnick, D. (2020). A history of poverty worldwide. Center for Economic and Policy Research.

https://cepr/shorthandstories.com/history-poverty/#group-the-historical-record-

It3Fi3Alis.

Rolls, L., & Relf, M. (2006). Bracketing interviews: Addressing methodological challenges in

qualitative interviewing in bereavement and palliative care. Mortality, 11(3), 286-305.

Russell, G., & Kelly, N. (2002). Research as interacting dialogic processes: Implications for

reflexivity. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research,

3(3).

166

Schafer, M. & Vargas, N. (2016). The dynamics of social support inequality: Maintenance gaps

by socioeconomic status and race? Social Forces: Network Maintenance Gaps, 94(4),

1795-1822.

Schwandt, T. A., (2001). Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry (2

Ed.). SAGE.

Strickland, D. S. (2001). Early intervention for African American children considered to be at

risk. Handbook of Early Literacy Research, 322-333.

Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research

Journal, 11(2), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063.

Szucs, L. E., Shipley, M., McNeill, E., Housman, J. & Vinal, C. (2019). Developing preservice

teachers’ cultural competency through urban immersion. American Journal of Health

Studies, 34(2), 69-79.

Terrell, S. (2016). Writing a Proposal for your Dissertation. The Guilford Press.

The White House President, Barak Obama (2021). Education: Knowledge and skills for the jobs

of the future. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/education/k-12/race-to-the-top

The University of North Carolina Writing Center (n.d.) Comparing and Contrasting.

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/comparing-and-contrasting.

Thompson, I., McNicholl, J., & Menter, I. (2016). Student teachers’ perceptions of poverty and

educational achievement. Oxford Review of Education, 42(2), 2314-229.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1164130.

Thorpe, K. (2010). Reflexive learning journals: From concept to practice, reflective practice.

International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 5(3), 327-343.

Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

167

Toma, J. D. (2011). Approaching rigor in applied qualitative research. In C. F. Conrad & R. C.

Serlin (Eds). The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: Pursuing Ideas as the

Keystone of Exemplary Inquiry, 263-280. SAGE.

United States Census (2017). Poverty rate lower in rural America versus urban centers.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/11/income-poverty-rural-america.html.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2020a). Rural poverty

and well-being. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-

well-being/

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2020b). State Data.

https://data.urs.usda.gov/reports.aspx?StateFIPS=13&StateName=Georgia&ID=17854

United States Department of Agriculture (2004). Rural poverty at a glance. Research report No.

100. https:

//www.ers.gov/webdocs/publications/47002/30445_rdrr100full_02.pdf?v=41479.

United States Department of Education. (2007). Building on Results: A Blueprint for

Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. United States Department of Education.

Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/nclb/factsheets/blueprint.html

United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development,

Policy and Program Studies. (2007). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left

Behind Act, Volume I—Title 1 School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and

Student Achievement. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/nclb-

choice-ses-final/index.html

United States Department of Education. (2014). Approves Extensions for States Granted

Flexibility from No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-

168

releases/us-department-education-approves-extensions-states-granted-flexibility-no-

child-left-behind.

United States Department of Education. (2020). National Center for Education Statistics,

Common Core of Data (CCD), State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary

Education. Retrieved September 10, 2021, from

https://www.dodea.edu/datacenter/enrollment.cfm

University of Northern Iowa. (2023). Chapter 5: Qualitative Data Research Methods. (n.d.).

Retrieved February 23, 2022, from https://researchmethods.uni.edu/chapter-5-qualitative-

data-part-2

Vagle, M. D. (2014). Crafting Phenomenological Research. Left Coast Press.

Vanderbilt University (2012). Tips for writing thick descriptions for ethnographies and case

studies. https://www.vanderbilt.edu/writing/wp-

content/uploads/sites/164/2016/10/Taking-Good-Notes-in-the-Field.pdf

Wall, C., Glenn, S., Mitchinson, S., & Poole, H. (2004). Using a reflexive diary to develop

bracketing skills during a phenomenological investigation. Nurse Researcher, 11(4), 20-

29.

Weiss, I., & Gal, J. (2007). Poverty in the Eyes of the Beholder: Social Workers Compared to Other

Middle-Class Professionals. The British Journal of Social Work, 37(5), 893–908.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23722538

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge

University Press.

169

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and

student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/

Wille, K. S., McFarland, M., & Archwamety, T. (2009). Factors related to school

psychologists’ comfort working with poverty: Are training institutions doing enough to

ensure competence in this area. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial

Approach/Tarptautinis Psichologijos Zurnalas: Biopsichosocialinis Poziuris, 3(2), 109-

118.

Wright, T., Nankin, I., Boonstra, K., Blair, E. (2019). Changing through relationships and

reflection: an exploratory investigation of pre-service teachers’ perceptions of young

children experiencing homelessness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47, 297–308.

170

Appendices

171

Appendix A

Interview Protocol and Interview Questions

172

Demographic data will be included on the following items:

1. Gender ____________________

2. Age ______________________

3. Race ______________________

4. Years of teaching experience in Title 1 School/rural Title 1 School ______________

5. Years of teaching experience at any school ____________________

6. General Education Course(s) taught ______________________

Interview protocol

Instructions: Use this protocol to prepare and assist you with the interview.

Abstract: The purpose of this study will be to explore how teachers’ perceptions of rural poverty

impact their instruction and influence their relationships with students. This study will provide a

better understanding of how elementary teachers, with more than five years of experience in a

rural community,

perceive poverty’s impact on instruction and support for elementary students

experiencing rural poverty.

INTRODUCTION

TITLE

INVESTIGATORS

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’

PERCEPTIONS OF THE

IMPACT OF POVERTY

ON INSTRUCTION AND

SUPPORT WITH

ELEMENTARY STUDENTS

EXPERIENCING RURAL

POVERTY IN A RURAL TITLE

1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Primary investigator:

Ms. Mitzi Jackson

Email:

[email protected]

Phone: 706-577-5702

Co-Principal investig

ator:

Dr. D. Greer

Email:

Greer_[email protected]

WELCOME

Script: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. You are

one of the 8 participants from within the school district. You were

selected to continue the study by contributing additional information on

the topic discussed. We will focus on understanding how perceptions of

poverty impact instruction and support.

DO YOU HAVE

ANY

QUESTIONS

REGARDING

THE STUDY?

Yes or No

173

7. Highest degree obtained _________________________

Google Meet One-on-One Interview Questions by Specific Domain:

A. Poverty Awareness:

1) How would you define rural poverty?

2) Do you think rural poverty impacts learning? Please explain.

3) Tell me about a time when the term “poverty” was discussed or mentioned in the

classroom.

B. Teacher Perceptions:

1) In your experience at a Title 1 school, what influence learning?

2) In your experience at any school, what influence teacher’s perceptions of

students?

3) How do you handle students with disciplinary issues?

4) How do you handle parents who are challenging to work with?

5) What is your professional relationship as it relates to supporting students,

communicating with students like with your students? How would they describe it to

you? Can you describe a situation when your professional relationship with them was

important?

C. Rural Poverty:

1) When did you see poverty in the classroom and how did you address it? Can you

tell me about a time when you had a challenge related to poverty that impeded

instruction?

2) How do you respond to students who cause disruptions or distractions while you

are instructing?

174

3) How would you rate yourself on a scale of 1- 10 (10 being perfect), on your level

of understanding of rural poverty?

D. Instruction and Support:

1) How do you make instructional decisions?

2) What is important to you when creating instructional methods such as lesson

plans, visuals, assignments, journaling?

3) How do you include student needs in your instructional planning?

4) Tell me about a time when your instructional delivery did not work, how did you modify

it and why?

175

Appendix B

Poverty Attribution Survey (PAS)

176

177

178

179

Appendix C

Google Meet Transcripts

180

181

Appendix D

SHARE/Conceptual Framework

182

183

Appendix E

Classroom Observation Form

184

Participant #

Grade/Subject

Date

Start time/End time

1. Relationship building

Indicate the number of times: the teacher’s statement or command that could foster positive

relationships with students such as “thank you” or “I appreciate you” or “I’m glad to see

you”. Student’s responses should also be recorded in the “specific example” box below.



Thank you ___________________________



I appreciate you ______________________



I’m glad to see you ___________________



Other:



Other:

Specific Examples:

_________________________________________________________________________

185

2. Hard data usage

Indicate the number of times: the number of times the teachers use hard data to include

verifiable facts and reliable sources such as data from the United States Department of Education

or Georgia Department of Education.



Formative assessments __________________________________



Comparative data __________________________________



Statistics _________________________________________



Other:



Other:

Specific Examples:

_________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

186

3. Enrichment

Indicate the number of times: the activity that occurred (i.e., independent work, small or large

group work, inside or outside free play, snack/lunch, transition, or other).



Gaming/electronic gaming such as coding ____________________________



One-on-one tutoring or assistance __________________________________



Board game, arts and crafts, sports __________________________________



Other:



Other:

• Relationship building and support of the whole child - the teacher’s statement or

command that could foster positive relationships with students such as “thank you” or “I

appreciate you” or “I’m glad to see you”.

• Enrichment activities - the activity that occurred (i.e., independent work, small or large

group work, inside or outside free play, snack/lunch, transition, or other).

• Relationship building and support of the whole child - the student’s response to the

teacher’s statement or command that fosters positive relationships such as “

Rubric

Specific Examples:

_________________________________________________________________________

187