Modern Myths About Poverty and Education

Manning, J.P. & Gaudelli, W. (2003). Modern Myths About Poverty and Education.
Social Studies and the Young Learner​, 16 (2), pp.27-29.

The article, ​Modern Myths About Poverty and Education​, by John P.

Manning and William Gaudelli is important, as the connection between

socioeconomic status and education has significant impacts on communities,

intergenerationally (Sawtschuk, p. 24). Manning and Gaudelli highlight the

mythical farce of nationalism’s roots in a romanticized history, intentionally

constructing and sustaining a feel-good narrative meant to simplify and

rationalize complex and horrific events (Sawtschuk, p. 24). I deeply appreciate

this analysis within a scholarly text about elementary Social Studies, as this

analysis was missing in my public school education. Many educators are working

to debunk widespread misunderstandings about poverty and education, that are

largely reinforced culturally, and through policy, within schools and districts.

Manning and William confront myths about poverty and public education;

their analysis and critical thought around these myths are frameworks that I

intend to mindfully work with as I begin my career as a teacher, fostering the

holistic development of each child I work with, within systems that don’t always

support their success. Manning and William write from an American perspective,

yet I believe their analysis is useful within the Canadian context as well. They

confront the myth that U.S. public schools are failures within the No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) Act; which requires improved test scores to receive federal
funding. There is an understood connection between socioeconomic status

(SES) and race, that can be reflected in test scores, and in turn places the

responsibility of lack of resources on test scores and their marginalized test

takers. It is important not to mask violent histories of negligence by the state, that

affect low SES communities, and the cycle of marginalization that this violence

perpetuates (Sawtschuk, p. 24). The next related myth that Manning and William

highlight is the belief that student test scores measure the quality of the school

they are associated with. This myth invisiblizes material realities of systemic

poverty and racism in the United States and Canada, and their effect on public

education. If federal funding of schools is dependent on student test scores, the

responsibility for increased resources related to education is placed on the

students. Districts are punished with reduced financial support, which is

counterproductive as those schools and districts with lower test scores are likely

in greater need for support and educational resources. Manning and William

propose that standardized testing should be used as a diagnostic tool; opposed

to the “teaching to test” system that currently exists in many places, which

unfortunately moves further away from experiences of meaningful learning for

students. Carrying these frameworks with me as I begin my teaching practice, is

useful for facilitating engaging, relevant, and meaningful learning experiences

that aim to foster critical thinking and responsible civic engagement (Sawtschuk,

p. 25).