November 18

#ContextMatters

A recent Tweet by Ohio Doorsteps stated, “Sixteen #schooldistricts reported having at least 200 students experiencing #homelessness; among these are urban, suburban and rural districts” (@ohiodoorsteps, November 16, 2018). At a time of the season in which so many focus on family, food, and festivities, this social media message – along with its shared graphic (above) – is a sobering reminder of the effects of poverty educators in Ohio – and throughout the nation – encounter on a daily basis.

These effects are put into perspective by several educators who teach in districts from southwest Ohio that encounter generational poverty on a daily basis. Allie, a third year high school teacher,  described her district, “They’re in the second generation of poverty right now because of factories that have closed.  And if you talk to people that have been there for a while, there’s been huge changes in the attitude about school” (Interview, May 1, 2017).  Hailee, an 11-year veteran, added, “That whole mindset of poverty thing.  Like the Ruby Payne stuff” (Interview, May 1, 2017).  It was this poverty mindset that Allie alluded to when stating:

I feel like hard work means something different to them . . . it doesn’t have to do with school and homework but it does have to do with their actual work job.  It’s just a different set of priorities that if you don’t value in them, they’re not going to respect you back for that.  (Interview, May 1, 2017)

It was Payne (2013) who stated, “An understanding of the culture and values of poverty will lessen the anger and frustration that educators may periodically feel when dealing with these students and parents” (p. 58). That understanding of the culture and values can only come through building relationships – the foundational mental model, according to Payne (2013), that those living within poverty approach situations (pp. 43-44). However, the context, setting, and personal experiences matter in the how one approaches building such an understanding.

As noted by J.H. Flowers in a recent Tweet, “Context influences leadership approaches. There are distinctions between rural leadership and urban leadership” (@jhflowers40, November 16, 2018). Although there are deep similarities among those in poverty from rural, suburban, and urban communities, context and setting will influence the needed leadership within each. Although there exists no universal definition for rural, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) provided one for rural education when it revised its definitions in 2006 of schools based on new classification system that relies less on population size and county boundaries than proximity to urbanized areas (NCES, n.d.).  Accordingly, the NCES defined rural schools into three subcategories (fringe, distant, remote) based on their location to centers of urban areas (NCES, n.d.).

The state of Ohio, with the 2013 School Districts Typology, defined rural education school districts to be “High Student Poverty & Small Student Population [or] Average Student Poverty & Very Small Student Population” (Ohio Department of Education, 2014; Ohio Department of Education, 2015).  Based on the NCES definition, there are close to 10 million students enrolled in rural school districts, comprising over 20% of all public schools (Johnson, Showalter, Klein, & Lester, 2014).  Within the state of Ohio, the rural student population is the fourth highest among the 50 states, with more than one in four Ohio students enrolled in a rural school (Johnson et al., 2014).  Moreover, the rural school enrollment continues to outgrow non-rural enrollment (Johnson et al., 2014).  As such, the call for relevant research targeting the rural influence in education is well justified.

As I have noted before, the rural influence is a distinct environment that brings with it an intensity that can only be found in the rural experience. Rural schools are typically the centerpiece of the community in which they serve, an institution connecting generations of families – and thus connecting generations of poverty. It takes someone with the proper perspective and experiences to lead in such a situation.

References

@jhflowers40. (November 16, 2018) . As I’m reading this report [Twitter post]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/jhflowers40/status/1063651182625910784?s=20

@ohiodoorsteps. (November 16, 2018) . Sixteen #schooldistricts reported [Twitter post]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/ohiodoorsteps/status/1063422694547496968?s=20

Johnson, J., Showalter, D., Klein, R., & Lester, C., (2014). Why rural matters 2013-2014: The condition of rural education in the 50 states. A report of the Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved from http://www.ruraledu.org/user_uploads/file/2013-14-Why-Rural-Matters.pdf

National Center of Education Statistics. (n.d.). Rural Education in America – Definitions. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/definitions.asp

Ohio Department of Education (2014). 2013 School District Typology Overview. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Data/Frequently-Requested-Data/Typology-of-Ohio-School-Districts/One-Page-Overview-of-2013-School-District-Typology.docx.aspx

Ohio Department of Education (2015). Typology of Ohio school districts. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Accountability-Resources/Ohio-Report-Cards/Typology-of-Ohio-School-Districts

Payne, R. K. (2013). A framework for understanding poverty: A cognitive approach. (5th ed). Highlands, TX: Aha! Process, Inc.


Posted November 18, 2018 by drnate in category Dr. Nate Intro

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*