Beware outside consultants? – Part 2, Ruby Payne
December 27, 2008
62 Comments
As America becomes increasingly diverse, many school districts are experiencing changes in their traditional student populations. When districts have significant increases in the number of students of color and/or students in poverty, they often try to increase the cultural competence of their teaching and administrative staff. And that means that many of them turn to Dr. Ruby Payne. Dr. Payne’s seminal book, A Framework for Understanding Poverty, has sold over a million copies and has resulted in many regarding her as an expert on poverty.
Many academics (and others) have expressed grave concerns about Payne’s work, however. For example, here is an excerpt from a 2006 article in Teachers College Record by Dr. Paul Gorski (now an Assistant Professor at George Mason University):
A casual flip-through of A Framework uncovers dozens of deficit-laden statements. According to Payne (2001), people in poverty are bad parents: “The typical pattern in poverty for discipline is to verbally chastise the child, or physically beat the child, then forgive and feed him/her” (p. 37). They are also criminals: “Also, individuals in poverty are seldom going to call the police, for two reasons: First the police may be looking for them. . . . ” (pp. 37-38). They are disloyal: “Allegiances may change overnight; favoritism is a way of life” (p. 74). They are violent and “on the streets”: “If students in poverty don’t know how to fight physically, they are going to be in danger on the streets” (p. 100). And, according to Payne, people in poverty are unmotivated addicts: “And for some, alcoholism, laziness, lack of motivation, drug addition, etc., in effect make the choices for the individual” (p. 148). Although research indicates some differences in child discipline practices and levels of day-to-day physical violence between economically deprived communities and middle or upper class communities, the fact remains that most people in poverty are responsible, hard working, drug and alcohol free, and not “on the streets” (a phrase that may also cycle the stereotype that all poor people live in urban communities, when many live in rural communities). These people – the average, hard working, employed, drug free people in poverty – are largely invisible in A Framework and Payne’s other books.
And here’s an excerpt from another 2006 article in Teachers College Record, this one by Drs. Jennifer Ng, Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas, and John Rury, Professor at DePaul University:
[In Payne's] descriptive scenarios, the poor are generally depicted as having a weak work ethic, little sense of internal discipline or future orientation, and leading lives characterized to one extent or another by disorder and violence. In making these characterizations, Payne seems to be unaware of the many studies dating from the late 1960s that challenged the culture of poverty thesis, in many instances directly testing the extent to which traits such as these were more prevalent among the poor than other groups. By and large, these studies found that such characteristics were not more likely to be evident in poor individuals or households. Indeed, people in poverty valued work, saving money, behaving properly, maintaining stable families, and a number of other “middle-class” attributes as much as their counterparts in higher social and economic strata. These results, moreover, held across groups with experiences of differing duration in poverty and across racial and ethnic lines (Roach & Gursslin, 1967; Irelan, Moles, & O’Shea, 1969; Coward, Feagin, & Williams, 1974; Davidson & Gaitz, 1974; Abell & Lyon, 1979; Carmon, 1985; Jones & Luo, 1999). . . . Most educators . . . are unfamiliar with the extensive research literature on poverty and its effects on children, and if Payne’s citations seem to support their own views about the poor, they would hardly be in a position to challenge the interpretation of research that Payne offers. If they are predisposed to believing that the poor are lazy and impulsive as well as unreliable and temperamental, they are more likely to agree with Payne’s analysis than to question it. In short, Payne may be popular simply because she echoes commonplace assumptions about why some individuals appear to succeed in American society while others do not.
And here’s what may be the only criticism of a famous educational consultant by a 14–year-old:
Is this how schools should be spending their scarce professional development time and monies?
So, like my post yesterday about Dr. Willard Daggett, the information gathered for this post raises some important questions.
First, should districts be spending their monies on a consultant whose work has been accused of being riddled with hundreds of unproven assertions? Whose emphasis on students’ need to change is allegedly so reductionist that it basically ignores the school, neighborhood, societal, political, and other contextual factors that influence the life success of students in poverty?
If the poor are poor simply because they do not know how to behave as if they were not poor, then the middle class and the wealthy should not be taxed to provide public assistance, public health, public schooling, or a public sphere in which the poor might participate. According to such a perspective, neither structural inequality, nor public policy, nor barriers to good jobs, nor lack of money cause the plight of the poor; they just don't have the right story structure, or tone of voice, or register, or cognitive strategies. (Bomer, Dworin, May, & Semingson, 2008)
Who self-describes her foundational work as “the findings of a 30-year longitudinal case study of one neighborhood of poverty” when that actually means that “her expertise on poverty resulted primarily from being married for over 30 years to her husband, Frank, who grew up in ‘situational’ (or temporary) poverty, but lived for several years with others who were in ‘generational’ (or long-term) poverty” (Gorski, 2006; Payne, 1995)? Whose seminal book was admittedly inspired by financial "spirit guides" and written in a single week so that she might “fulfill her dream of ‘a life without financial constraints?’" (Bohn, 2007; Tough, 2007).
Second, are most districts that hire Dr. Payne aware of the criticisms that have been leveled against her work? And, third, even if so, should districts’ professional development work involve a consultant/speaker that’s this controversial, no matter how famous or widespread her message is?
This is important, not trivial, stuff. As Bomer et al. (2008) note:
It is well-established . . . that teacher beliefs have an impact on the ways they teach and on their students’ learning (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996; Nespor, 1987). Since teachers do make decisions and plans on the basis of their beliefs or conceptualizations of their students, students' daily lives are strongly affected by the influences on their teachers' thinking. We have demonstrated through our analysis that teachers may be misinformed by Payne's claims. Poverty in Payne's work is marked only as a negative, only as a divergence from a middle-class norm, and students who are "of poverty" need to be fixed. This way of regarding the children of poor parents has predictable and undesirable consequences in US education (Brophy & Good, 1974; Rist, 1970; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). As a consequence of low teacher expectations, poor students are more likely to be in lower tracks or lower ability groups (Ansalone, 2001, 2003; Connor & Boskin, 2001; Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Oakes, 1985), and their educational experience is more often dominated by rote drill and practice (Anyon, 1980, 1997; Dudley-Marling & Paugh, 2005; Moll, 1988; Moll & Ruiz, 2002; Valenzuela, 1999).
How accountable should we be holding outside consultants (and the people who hire them)?
Blog Dangerously Irrelevant
Twitter mcleod
Facebook Scott McLeod
Google+ Scott McLeod
LinkedIn scottmcleod
Flickr mcleod
YouTube drscottmcleod
Vimeo mcleod
Delicious scottmcleod
Gmail Scott McLeod
Skype dr.scott.mcleod
coComment mcleod
Technorati mcleod
Wikipedia castledirector
I understand that we do not need to accept everything that Ruby Payne states as fact in her Framework for Understanding Poverty. She does make generalizations to explain cultural differences among the classes. Isnt that what we do with research? Find data to support our ideas and make generalizations.
I did not find most of Payne’s book to be eye-opening in that I have been working with students of poverty for 12 years, and have observed many of the same issues that she discusses. Critics who say because her research is anecdotal that she is not worthy of merit is silly, to be kind.
I had never seen nor heard of the Hidden Rules of Poverty prior to reading this book, but I did find it interesting. I liked the way she compared the classes using the chart to identify major differences. And for the most part, I had to agree with what she wrote.
I had to laugh in disbelief at some of Payne’s dissenters in regard to deficit theory. Yes, maybe some of what Payne has witnessed has led her to the belief that many people stay in poverty because they choose. But she also notes that many people in poverty lack resources, quality education, quality jobs and healthcare, and are exposed to violence, teen pregnancy, and drug abuse/trafficking that significantly hinder their ability to move out of their life of poverty.
I believe that Payne’s intentions are good in that she is trying to help teachers give all students the tools they need to be successful in life. Does that make her a bad person?
It is my opinion that Ruby Payne’s critics have merit. I believe that Payne reinforces stereotypes and sells these stereotypes to teachers as an effective way to help their students. Payne encourages teachers to seek to understand their students and encourage them to learn alternate behaviors that will allow them to succeed in school. Researchers would further argue that Payne provides no concrete evidence to support her conclusions. They are merely observations and insights. Although they may offer a glimpse into the world of poverty, I think that Payne’s insights must be presented cautiously in a manner that emphasizes that these characteristics are not always present among people living in poverty. Teachers need to be empowered to believe that they have the ability to form meaningful relationships with students and that all students are capable of achieving.
I have had the pleasure of working for the last 12 years in a school district that has a student population of approx. 50% free and reduced lunch. I realize Payne has received much criticism regarding her work in A Framework for Understand Poverty but I found much of the information presented in her book helpful in understanding many of the behaviors I witness on a daily basis in my school. I believe any reading used as a research source needs to be accepted with caution as also needs to be done with Paynes writing. I’ve read that many of the criticizers of Paynes work feels that her research actually increases prejudice. I can understand that train of thought but for myself, I think her research lessened my bias in that I now feel I understand the reason behind the behaviors I’m seeing. It does not mean I will tolerate the behaviors any more than I did before but I may use more of a teaching mode to try to change the behavior, rather than an authoritative approach to controlling the behavior. I found Gorski difficult to read only in the fact that his comments were so extremely critical that he lost validity with me. Certainly, some value can be found in any learned persons research. I for one am glad I read Payne’s book as it also reinforced for me the need for schools to not underestimate the value of the teacher – student relationship.
I am currently working on class called “In the Face of Poverty.” The school I teach at is 75% Free and Reduced. The class has been a real eye opener for me. It did a great job of scaffolding my learning and in helping me come to my own conclusions about Ruby Payne’s work. The class had me read Payne’s book first and really digest it. I must admit I had several Aha! moments myself and it was intriguing to say the least. Then I had to read Eric Jensen’s book “Teaching with Poverty in Mind.” I was completely blown away. What a great book! The research behind it and the practical classroom applications are far superior to Payne’s work. After 20 years of people trying to get her to rethink her stereotypes and generalizations, she has done nothing but continue to rake in millions as a consultant peddling her outdated theories. Unless educators dig deeper into this issue, she will continue to resonate with teachers who see her as the guru of the poverty issue. Many teachers at my school subscribe to Payne’s ideas and I can see the evidence of the deficit theory seeping out of their every pore. I am presenting my finding to our staff in March. I hope I can sway a few of the Payne followers to get a different perspective on the issue of poverty…our student’s lives depend on it.
I feel that a lot of the critics of Payne’s work view her as a commonplace, stereotypical, close-minded thinker. I feel that she chose to focus her work on her strengths. I feel that Payne wrote her book from the knowledge and experiences that she has learned and had throughout her life. That is why so many people in education can relate to her books. What Payne writes can be observed in almost any classroom in an urban setting. In my eyes, she writes from the background of working with students who come from the urban generational poverty class.
She mentioned in the Framework text, situational poverty and generational poverty. Whereas Jenkins, breaks the idea of different types of poverty into the classes of situational, generational, absolute, relative, urban and rural. Her critics claim not everything she writes of is true for all people living in poverty and I say that yes, they are correct. I feel that if Payne wants acceptance from her critics, she must have more of a position on why others in poverty act as they do. What about the people living in the rural areas of Appalachia or on the barren farmlands of the mid & south west? They too suffer from generational poverty, but their belief systems may be completely different from the urban poverty cases. I feel for total acceptance, different viewpoints must be taken, by Payne, on the matter of all people living in poverty.
In reading Payne’s book a “framework for Understanding Poverty” I did have some “Aha” moments. Payne’s belief that children in poverty need to be fixed does not sit well with me. It sends a message that “you can’t” which tends to promote dependency. Not all children of poverty are the same or have the same behaviors. We cannot generalize people, we are all individuals.
In reading Jensen’s book “Teaching with Poverty in Mind” he shares school wide success factors to use in the classrooms and the school. His thought “life experiences can change students for the better really hits home to me. I believe that teachers and school personnel are looking for good instructional and management skills that can effectively educate all students. Schools and staff should work with all family members in order to succeed.
In reading Payne, Jensen, and Gorski I have gathered key resources to help students in my position as a school nurse.
I enjoyed reading from Ruby Payne’s book. I have been teaching in a Title 1 school for the past 6 years. More often than not my students come from a life in poverty. I have seen first hand the “outcomes” from such an upbringing as described in Payne’s writings. While at the same time, there are plenty of critics to her ideas which do have merit. Payne’s writing focuses on the students’ faults that which will create issues in succeeding in education and life in general. Some critics claim that her work is in fact an assault on those students. Payne’s critics also claim her work to be extremely stereotypical.
I would have to say that in the early years of my teaching I felt more “understanding” towards my students living in poverty but found that I almost shortchanged them by feeling this way. I would accept many excuses as to why assignments were not being completed or studying was not happening at home. While today, I set my expectations high no matter where my students come from. I keep the bar raised high and try to support my students as much as possible when needed. I also make more of an effort to build meaningful relationships with my students. I believe that there should be more of a push to fix the education system in America and not blame students because of where they came from or still live.