EJ1338102
EJ1338102
EJ1338102
December 2021
Recommended Citation
Davis, L. (2021). Poverty and Middle Level Achievement in a Common Core State: What are we Missing?.
Middle Grades Review, 7(3). https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol7/iss3/6
This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education and Social Services at UVM
ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Middle Grades Review by an authorized editor of UVM
ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact donna.omalley@uvm.edu.
Davis: Poverty and Middle Level Achievement in a Common Core State
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a significant difference exists in academic
achievement between all students and economically disadvantaged students when compared by
socioeconomic levels in the North Carolina middle grades learner (as measured by reading and
mathematics standardized tests). It also sought to determine whether significant differences exist between
economically disadvantaged students in the various middle level grades (6-8). This article analyzes
proficiency data in state-level standardized assessments from a most recent testing year (2017) with North
Carolina middle level students. While student socioeconomic status and its impact on student
achievement are the focus of this article, this study also analyzes proficiency trends while delving into
inequity implications. A review of the literature establishes a long-term pattern of an achievement gap
with disadvantaged students. Recognizing the impact of poverty on student achievement as measured by
standardized tests, the author questions the explicit practices of the middle level educator to better
support economically disadvantaged middle level students. This study illuminates some evidence-based
best practices while also exploring the asset-based learning model and growth mindset as strategies to
support adolescent learners experiencing high poverty.
2018; Stjelja, 2013). For this quantitative study, Additionally, living in less-than-ideal
the phenomenon of a relationship between neighborhoods (in terms of access to resources,
student socioeconomic disparities and academic safety), also has a significant impact on a child’s
achievement is explored through a academic outcomes. A child’s environment is
nonexperimental quantitative research design said to affect 66% of his/her/their academic
(of North Carolina assessment and performance, while genetics only affects 34% of
socioeconomic data) (Tobin, 2010, as cited in academic functioning; moreover, low SES
Stjelja, 2013). children tend to have the same types of cognitive
disorders, the most common being stress,
Review of Relevant Literature attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning
delays, attachment issues, and dyslexia
Childhood Poverty (Pawloski, 2014). Children in poverty
consistently score six to nine points lower on
In the US today, more than 15.5 million children regulated examinations than their wealthier
are poverty-stricken according to the definition counterparts and between 6 and 13 points on
of poverty as a family of four living on less than standardized IQ tests, which is enough of a
$22,000 annually, which translates to one in five deviation to make the difference between a child
American children (“Achievement Gap,” 2004; being placed within a regular education or a
Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Poverty can also special education classroom. Only 1.1% of low-
reference a lack of time, important relationships income schools are cited as top performers
and models, proper nutrition, health, and sleep, within one’s state (Potter, 2013). The same
in addition to monetary resources (Pawloski, studies showed that low-income students score
2014). For the purposes of this study, poverty lower on measures of cognition, health, school
will relate specifically to a student’s achievement, and emotional well- being than
socioeconomic status as determined by North wealthier students.
Carolina Report Card standards for being
categorized as “economically disadvantaged” Socioeconomic Status and the
according to eligibility for free or reduced cost Achievement Gap
lunch.
A plethora of research exists regarding the
According to the article “Achievement Gap,” academic achievement gap between high poverty
2004, children in poverty have less access than students and wealthier students. Historically,
their wealthier counterparts to educational correlational studies show a strong relationship
enrichment prior to entry in public schools as between high poverty and poor academic
well as decreased language development, performance (Sirin, 2005; White, 1982; White et
resulting in smaller vocabularies and lower al., 1993). This correlation is evidenced at the
language skills. A 2012 study supports this beginning of a child’s academic career, and even
assertion in that its results found the gap before, in some cases; Pawloski (2014) states
between high SES and low SES students has that poverty is more influential to academic
grown more than 40% since the 1960s, and this performance than even gestational exposure to
gap is now more than twice the gap between cocaine. Correlations between SES and student
Caucasian and African American students achievement frequently range from .100 to .800
(Tavernise, 2012). (Tienken, 2010; White). In a meta-analysis of
research regarding economic status and
Furthermore, the downturn in our nation's achievement, Sirin found that the correlation
economy following the recession in 2008 has between these two variables increased
resulted in a greater income gap between our throughout the levels of schooling, climaxing in
schools' wealthy and disadvantaged children: the middle school, and plateauing at the high
school level. Caro and colleagues (2009) found
..the Great Recession wreaked havoc among similar findings to Sirin’s research. They found
working-class families' employment. This that the SES gap does not change dramatically
has led to greater residential segregation until the beginning of grade 7 until grade 10,
and homogeneously poor neighborhoods, which emphasizes the importance of quality
leading to a higher concentration of poor instruction at the middle grades level. This is
students in certain schools. (Neuman, 2013, also an important factor for why additional
p. 18) study on student achievement and SES at the
middle level is crucial as "the [cognitive] effects
https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol7/iss3/6 2
Davis: Poverty and Middle Level Achievement in a Common Core State
of wealth [are] indirect and must accrue over as to what actions the test administrator must
time" (Willingham, 2012, p. 34). These data also take if a student vomits on a test booklet,
support the cumulative advantage theory, which according to the 2002 edition of the Sacramento
posits that differences associated with one’s Bee (Ohanian, 2002). Stories like this add to the
socioeconomic status and educational public sentiment that these tests are inflicting
achievement increase as time progresses serious harm to children today both
through one’s academic career (Caro et al.). academically and emotionally, and these
assessments do not result in improved cognition
Further, on a national level, recent research (Horn, 2003; Popham, 2001).
shows continued economic disparities in
academic achievement among Common Core Teachers echo these feelings and frustrations as
state adopters (i.e., states that chose to adopt the well since their evaluations are often tied to
common core state standards); while the rigor of student performance. A 2014 study by Polikoff
state standards increased in difficulty in a and Porter evaluated standardized test scores of
curvilinear trajectory after the adoption of the high-quality teachers based on student surveys
Common Core State Standards, high poverty and principal observations. In their quantitative
states had lower proficiency levels on Common analysis they found little to no correlation
Core assessments than wealthier states over the between excellent teaching and student test
12-year period of the study (Lee & Wu, 2017). scores. Furthermore, this study determined that
Given this trend, a closer look at individual teachers only account for a maximum of 14%
states’ assessment scores and student variance in student test scores, supporting the
socioeconomic levels are indicated. stance that environmental factors far outweigh
teacher input when it comes to standardized test
Standardized Assessment and Student scores. Because of this study, some educational
Performance associations, like the Houston Federation of
Teachers, have filed federal lawsuits against
Typically, the academic achievement gap is using standardized assessments as evaluative
measured through standardized testing and instruments for teachers, arguing that this
national accountability measures, which is a violates educators’ rights.
hotly debated topic in today’s educational
environment; educators typically lie on either These studies underscore the impact of external
side of the fence for or against standardized influences and environmental factors on student
testing for various reasons. On the positive side achievement in standardized assessment
of standardized testing, because a great deal of measures. Just as a doctor cannot treat a
time and fiscal resources have been invested into patient’s symptoms without attacking the
the development of reliable assessments, infection, teachers cannot improve academic
generally the quality of standardized achievement in students without addressing the
assessments is relatively high; the questions are underlying economic issues that affect the
usually field tested, revised, and well-written, student and family.
and the questions are aligned with the
curriculum through various quality assurance Research Questions
processes that ensure reliability and validity
(Brown & Hattie, 2012). Research Question 1: Are there significant
differences in proficiency scores between all
However, there is a great deal of evidence middle level students and economically
against the validity and reliability of using disadvantaged middle level students in North
standardized assessments to measure student Carolina schools with varying poverty rates on
achievement and proficiency. Concerns the 2017 standardized achievement tests?
regarding standardized testing include placing
too much emphasis upon scores, student testing Research Question 2: Are there significant
anxiety, teaching to the test, skewed test results, differences in proficiency scores between only
cheating concerns, and socioeconomic and economically disadvantaged middle level
cultural bias (Brown & Hattie, 2012; Olson, students in North Carolina schools with varying
1999). Sadly, because stakes of standardized poverty rates on the 2017 standardized
tests are so high, test anxiety is now a common achievement tests?
ailment amongst students across the nation. The
Stanford-9 exam even comes with instructions
Research Question 3: Are there significant North Carolina School Report cards from the
differences in grade-level proficiency scores 2016-2017 school years; at the time of this
between economically disadvantaged middle manuscript preparation, these data were the
level students in North Carolina schools on the most recent available. These public data were
2017 standardized achievement tests? available online through the North Carolina
School Report Card website
Purpose and Population (http://www.ncschoolreportcard.org/src/),
which is the official website by which the North
This nonexperimental quantitative case study Carolina Department of Public Instruction,
with secondary data analysis was designed to which reports testing and other data from public
determine how socioeconomic status and schools on a yearly basis; these data were
student achievement on high-stakes assessments compiled and cleaned by a team of statisticians
are related in the 2016-2017 academic year and and psychometricians working for the North
is an expansion of the author’s previous study Carolina Department of Public Instruction and
from 2012-2013. The purpose of this study was were provided at the school level to protect
to determine whether a significant difference student confidentiality. Assessment data are
exists in academic achievement between all representative of norm-referenced, standardized
students as well as economically disadvantaged assessments that use multiple choice questions
students when compared by socioeconomic to ascertain student mastery against Common
levels in the North Carolina middle grades Core curriculum standards.
learner (as measured by reading and
mathematics standardized tests); it also sought In this case study, the level of socioeconomic
to determine whether significant differences status of the student and the grade of the
exist between economically disadvantaged student were the independent variables, and the
students in the various middle level grades (6-8) dependent variable was academic achievement
(based on percentage of students achieving as indicated by proficiency levels (percentage of
proficiency). students labeled as proficient) on standardized
assessments in the areas of reading and
The study analyzed assessment data from 3,573 mathematics in the middle grades (grades 6-8).
middle grades students in North Carolina public To address research questions 1-2, comparisons
schools for the 2017 end of grade state were made using independent samples t tests to
assessments. Charter schools, private schools, or determine whether significant differences exist
schools with a different grade level configuration between student achievement in each grade
(like K-8 schools) were not considered to reduce level, academic year, and tested subject area
potential variability. Additionally, economically (mathematics and reading) based on various
disadvantaged students were identified on the levels of socioeconomic status levels within the
state report card as a subgroup of students who school. For research question 3, a one-way
qualified for free and reduced cost lunch at analysis of variance tests (ANOVAs) was
North Carolina public schools. performed to determine if significant differences
exist between socioeconomic status levels and
Socioeconomic levels used for this study were student proficiency levels as compared by
divided into five levels as determined by the socioeconomic status on reading and
percentage of students receiving free or reduced- mathematics assessments. Minitab was used to
price lunch (these levels are pre-determined and quantitatively analyze data, all of which were
disaggregated by the North Carolina Department analyzed at the .05 level of significance.
of Public Instruction): 1%-40% of students on
free or reduced cost lunch, 41%-60% of students Results
on free or reduced cost lunch, 61%-80% of
students on free or reduced cost lunch, and 81%- Research Question 1: Are there significant
100% of students on free or reduced cost lunch. differences in proficiency scores between all
Levels 1%-20% and 21%-40% (the highest middle level students and economically
socioeconomic levels) were combined due to disadvantaged middle level students in North
inadequate sample size in each category. Carolina schools with varying poverty rates on
the 2017 standardized achievement tests?
Data Collection and Methodology
Independent-samples t tests were conducted to
The data used for this study were collected from evaluate the hypotheses that North Carolina
https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol7/iss3/6 4
Davis: Poverty and Middle Level Achievement in a Common Core State
middle grades students in schools with varying level except schools with 81-100% poverty rates,
poverty rates achieved similar proficiency in so the null hypotheses were rejected at these
both reading and math End of Grade levels but retained at the highest poverty middle
Assessments as “economically disadvantaged” schools. Students who were considered
middle grades students in schools with varying economically disadvantaged on average
poverty rates in 2017. The school poverty levels performed significantly lower on both reading
at which students were compared were schools and math standardized assessments than all
with 1-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, and 81-100% middle level students at each socioeconomic
poverty rates. Rates from 1-20% and 21-40% level except in the highest poverty schools (81-
were not compared because sample sizes were 100% poverty rates), where there was no
too small for statistical analysis so therefore significant difference in proficiency scores. For
were combined into one level (1-40%). The tests comparisons where statistical significance was
were significant when comparing differences indicated, Cohen’s d effect sizes ranged from
between all middle level students and medium (.47) to large (1.60). Table 1 outlines the
economically disadvantaged students at every results of these independent samples t tests.
Table 1
Independent Samples t Tests Comparing All North Carolina Middle Level Student Scores
to Economically Disadvantaged (ED) Middle Level Student Scores at Various School SES
Levels
1-40% (ED) 768 69.2 11.2 396 49.4 13.4 [18.12, 1.60 22.72 <.001*
21.55]*
41-60% ED 1266 53.9 12.6 630 43.3 12.1 [9.24, .86 15.30 <.001*
11.96]*
61-80% ED 1190 43.1 13.9 596 36.9 12.3 [4.67, .47 8.13 <.001*
7.65]*
81-100% ED 349 29.3 15.1 171 27.4 14.7 [-1.26, N/A 1.18 .240
5.01]
Research Question 2: Are there significant disadvantaged students were compared were
differences in proficiency scores between only schools with 1-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, and 81-
economically disadvantaged middle level 100% poverty rates. Rates from 1-20% and 21-
students in North Carolina schools with varying 40% were not compared because sample sizes
poverty rates on the 2017 standardized were too small for statistical analysis so
achievement tests? therefore were combined into one level (1-40%).
The tests were significant when comparing
Independent-samples t tests were conducted to differences of proficiency rates of economically
evaluate the hypotheses that North Carolina disadvantaged students at every level so the null
economically disadvantaged middle grades hypotheses were rejected. Students who were
students in schools with varying poverty rates considered economically disadvantaged at
achieved similar proficiency in both reading and schools with higher poverty rates on average
math End of Grade Assessments in 2017. The performed significantly lower on both reading
school poverty levels at which economically and math standardized assessments when
compared with economically disadvantaged Table 2 outlines the results of these tests.
schools at schools with lower poverty rates.
Table 2
Research Question 3: Are there significant Because the overall F test was significant, post
differences in grade-level proficiency scores hoc multiple comparisons were conducted to
between economically disadvantaged middle evaluate pairwise difference among the means of
level students in North Carolina schools on the the four groups. A Dunnett C procedure was
2017 standardized achievement tests? selected for the multiple comparisons because
equal variances were not assumed. There were
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was significant differences between the means of
performed to determine whether significant students passing both the reading and math
differences existed between economically standardized assessments at each grade level.
disadvantaged middle level students’ proficiency Economically disadvantaged students in grades
levels in both reading and mathematics 6 and 8 both performed statistically significantly
standardized assessments in 2017. The factor higher than economically disadvantaged
variable was the grade level descriptor of the students in grade 7 (p < .001 between grades 6
student population (6th, 7th, or 8th grade), and and 7 as well as between grades 7 and 8), but
the dependent variable was the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 6
economically disadvantaged students passing and 8 did not perform significantly different
both the reading and mathematics End of Grade than one another (p = .243). The circles on the
tests in 2017 at each grade level. The ANOVA box plots denote outliers that are further than
was significant, F(2, 1790) = 31.325, p < .001. 1.5 interquartile ranges (and closer than 3
Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. The interquartile ranges). The numbers next to the
strength of the relationship between circles indicate the case number of the outliers.
economically disadvantaged proficiency levels A box plot comparing the means between the
and the grade level as assessed by eta square was groups is reported in Figure 1.
small (.034).
https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol7/iss3/6 6
Davis: Poverty and Middle Level Achievement in a Common Core State
Figure 1
North Carolina Middle Level Reading Grades Significant differences were found in proficiency
by School Poverty Percentage (Courtesy of levels of each grade level and in each subject
North Carolina Department of Public area (both reading and math) in 2017. Schools
Instruction) with higher poverty levels scored significantly
lower than schools in a higher income bracket
(lower poverty levels). This relationship was
consistently found for each socioeconomic group
comparison (1-40% of students on free or
reduced cost lunch, 41-60% of students on free
or reduced cost lunch, 61-80% of students on
free or reduced cost lunch, and 81-100% of
students on free or reduced cost lunch). This
suggests that there may be a negative correlation
between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement.
https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol7/iss3/6 8
Davis: Poverty and Middle Level Achievement in a Common Core State
• Advocate (through legislators and Carol Dweck, the leading researcher in this field,
policymakers) for increased school funding asserts “when students learned through a
from local, state, and federal agencies in structured program that they could ‘grow their
order to provide financial supports that brains’ and increase their intellectual abilities,
support small school and class size (Brooks- they did better” in an educational setting (“Carol
Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Sirin, 2005). Dweck Revisits the ‘Growth Mindset,’ 2015).
Additional research supports this assertion;
While this list is certainly not all-inclusive, it Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, as cited in
provides a beneficial starting point for schools Dweck (2008) performed research on student
that have a large population of high poverty achievement in math and science after
students. categorizing students by self-determinations of
whether they had a fixed or growth mindset, and
Growth Mindset and a “Culture of Hope” the students with growth mindsets significantly
outperformed those with fixed mindsets in both
Additionally, viewing students in poverty using content areas.
an asset model rather than a deficit model can
provide a new perspective for teachers to view Further, developing a growth mindset mentality
their students (“The Gap: Poverty Has Different in a classroom breeds a culture of hope, which is
Meanings in America,” n.d., p. 5). Jensen (2009) often missing for the high poverty student. By
asserts “when educators believe students are using the word “not yet” when referencing
competent, students tend to perform better; student proficiency measures, it communicates
conversely, when educators believe students the expectation to the student that they will
have deficits, students tend to perform more achieve proficiency with further effort, inspiring
poorly” (p. 65). Furthermore, in identifying what hope and motivation. Dweck (2016) provides
kinds of discrete skills a student has, a teacher proof that this language and mindset works with
inevitably shifts to a strengths-based approach low socioeconomic status students; in her book
where one focuses on what the student performs Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, one
well rather than where their deficiencies lie; this example of the success of this mindset is
approach fosters “resilience, confidence, and evidenced in an under-resourced 4th grade class
flexibility in children” (Osher, as cited by in South Bronx, New York. In one year, this class
deBros, n.d.). By asking oneself what unique grew from being behind in academic proficiency
skills these students can bring to the table, it to the number one performing class in the entire
opens the middle level teacher’s mind to the state of New York (2016). By emphasizing that
theory of multiple intelligences and the students can improve their learning outcomes
possibilities of various learning modalities and with effort, it gives students in poverty an
entry points for accessing new knowledge. This avenue to escape their circumstances, giving
allows teachers to view impoverished students in them a chance at a better future for themselves.
a more open-minded, rather than “defiticized,” As Dweck states, “...when educators create
perspective, which emphasizes high expectations growth mindset classrooms steeped in ‘yet,
and learning possibilities for all. equality happens” (TED, 2016, 7:10).
https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol7/iss3/6 10
Davis: Poverty and Middle Level Achievement in a Common Core State
author asserts that focusing on evidence-based Child Poverty. (2018). National Center for
best practices for supporting economically Children in Poverty. Retrieved from
disadvantaged students and using a strengths- http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpovert
based/asset model approach, combined with a y.html
paradigmatic shift to the growth mindset for
students and teachers alike, is a way to help Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational
close this achievement gap. We want our middle opportunity. National Center for
level students to feel empowered to better their Educational Statistics. Retrieved from
lives through education so that students’ “hopes, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012
not [their] hurts, shape [their] future[s]” 275.pdf
(Schuller, n.d.).
Dotson, L., & Foley, V. (2016). Middle Grades
Student Achievement and Poverty
Levels. The Journal of Learning in
Higher Education.
Lee, J. (2016). The Anatomy of Achievement Pawloski, T. (2014, March). From F to A: Impact
Gaps: Why and how American of leadership and sustained
Education is Losing (but Can Still Win) professional development in high-
the War on Underachievement. New poverty schools. Speech presented at
York: Oxford University Press. North Carolina Association for School
Administrators Conference.
Lee, J., & Wu, Y. (2017). Is the Common Core
racing America to the top? Tracking Polikoff, M., & Porter, A. (2014). Instructional
changes in state standards, school alignment as a measure of teaching
practices, and student achievement. quality. Educational Evaluation and
Education Policy Analysis Archives, Policy Analysis, 20(10),
25(35). Retrieved from 1-18. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.283 http://epa.sagepub.com/content/early/
4 2014/04/11/0162373714531851.full.pdf
+html?ijkey=Uwvo4Eg6.hQHI&keytype
Marsella, N. (2018). Critical and creative =ref&siteid=spepa
thinking in general education: A
descriptive case study. Retrieved from Popham, J. (2001). Introduction: How we
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewc arrived at this unhappy place. Truth
ontent.cgi?article=6583&context=etd About Testing. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/book
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & s/101030/chapters/Introduction@-
Russ, J. (2009). Improving schools in How- WeArrived-at-This-Unhappy-
socioeconomically disadvantaged Place.aspx
areas—A review of research evidence.
School Effectiveness and School Potter, H. (2013). Boosting achievement by
Improvement, 15, 149-175. pursuing diversity. Faces of Poverty,
70(8), 38-43.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2018).
Child poverty. Retrieved from Reardon, S. (2013). The widening income
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpovert achievement gap. Educational
y.html Leadership, 70(8), 10-16.
National Middle School Association. (2010). Schuller, R. (n.d.). Quotes about hope. Retrieved
This we believe: Keys to educating from
young adolescents. Author. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/52
2234-let-your-hopes-not-your-hurts-
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction shape-your- future
(n.d.). School report cards. Retrieved
from Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status and
https://ncreportcards.ondemand.sas.co academic achievement: A meta analytic
m/src review of research. Review of
Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.
Neuman, S. (2013). The American dream:
Slipping away? Faces of Poverty, 70(8),
18-22.
https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/mgreview/vol7/iss3/6 12
Davis: Poverty and Middle Level Achievement in a Common Core State