EDU 462
Tuesday 5:15 pm – 10:45 pm
Behavior article
1
T.H.
Main
Body
Jensen
presents the case of how poverty is impacting student behaviors in the
classroom. He states: In
one study of 81,000 students across the United States, the students not in
Title I programs consistently reported higher levels of engagement than
students who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (Yazzie-Mintz,
2007). (Jensen 2013). He believes that this is fit evidence to suggest that
students are impacted greatly by economic status. Jensen has identified seven
key areas that impact student learners.
Health and
Nutrition is the first category mentioned. Jensen argues, “poor people are less
likely to exercise, get proper diagnoses, receive appropriate and prompt
medical attention, or be prescribed appropriate medications or interventions.” (Jensen 2013).
Vocabulary, the next category, is
often lower for socioeconomic students than middle class children. The
reasoning is that typically these students are exposed to fewer words than
middle class children.
Teacher often view effort as lower
in poor children and that lazy habits are learned from parents. This is often
not the case as parents of lower economic children work just as many hours if
not more than middle class ones. Researchers believe that the lower effort is
more likely due to stress or depression.
Hope and Growth Mind-Set is the 4th
category. Students from lower social economic status often view the future and
events in a negative manner. “being poor is associated with lowered
expectations about future outcomes.” (Jepsen 2013).
Cognition is the next category.
Jepsen states how poor children often have cognitive problems, short attention
span, distracted qualities and problems generating new solutions to problems.
Difference 6 is relationships.
Jepsen believes “When
children's early experiences are chaotic and one or both of the parents are
absent, the developing brain often becomes insecure and stressed. Three-quarters
of all children from poverty have a single-parent caregiver.” (Jepsen
2013). Poor children are also more
likely to be reprimanded due to parent stress. They also have higher school
failure and dropout rates.
Distress is
the final difference mentioned. Distress is a chronic stress, which tends to
lead to extremes in behaviors. “Distressed children typically exhibit one of
two behaviors: angry "in your face" assertiveness or disconnected
"leave me alone" passivity. To the uninformed, the student may appear
to be either out of control, showing an attitude, or lazy. But those behaviors
are actually symptoms of stress disorders—and distress influences many
behaviors that influence engagement.” (Jepsen 2013).
Jepson
provides sections for each of the differences to encourage educators to help
and assist poor students in learning.
I believe
the author presents each of the differences in a very clean and concise manner.
I also believe that low socio-economic students need a different type of instruction
and that teachers need to understand the environment that they are from. I
believe Jepsen offers great advice such as teaching students how to critically
think and offer strategies such as solving real world problems using “if this,
then that” strategies.
In terms of
cognition I agree with Jepsen that helping students focus on basic strategies
is very important. When students are organized and have the strategies that
they need they are in a much better place to be able to solve problems and
learn.
One final
thought is that teachers need to be encouragers of students of all background
types. Poor students are even more important as they may not get support at
home.
References
Jensen, E. (2013) How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement. Education Leadership, 70(8). Retrieved
from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may13/vol70/num08/How-Poverty-Affects-Classroom-Engagement.aspx
