Myths about poverty and hardship exist in our schools and could be holding back our work to support disadvantaged students. Sean Harris considers the most common of these myths and what we can do to dispel them
Image: Adobe Stock -

Poverty is on the radar of many schools, charities, and policy-makers. However, between the political rhetoric and most people’s limited lived experience of hardship, poverty can often be misunderstood. In this article I would like to bust some myths, drawing on my experience working in schools and also as a doctoral researcher investigating poverty and educational inequality in education.

 

Myth 1: “We just need to raise the aspirations of those in poverty”

Behind this statement sits a belief that low income equates to low aspiration. Yet there is limited evidence to suggest that families and students struggling in poverty have low ambitions or that they do not want to achieve academically.

Poverty and persistent hardship can exacerbate the sense of failure that individuals might have (Hoff & Sen, 2006; Dalton et al, 2016). However, it is important to stress that this is a consequence of poverty rather than a cause of it.

A problem with the “poverty of aspiration” myth is that it reinforces the idea that poverty is the fault of those in hardship. The Growing up in Scotland study (Treanor, 2017) suggests that poverty of aspiration is a myth that transfers responsibility for aspirations and achievement from governments (and schools) to parents and young people.

The research involved a multiple cohort longitudinal study, with several groups of children being followed over time. Researchers analysed parents’ responses to questions on the aspirations they held for their children and their confidence in their ability to influence their children’s schooling. Children’s experiences of education for different lengths of time spent living in poverty were also explored.

The conclusions suggest that all parents want the best for their children but that lower income parents are less likely to know what was possible or how to achieve it.

 

Tackling the myth

  • Improve and enhance the everyday experience of school for children living in poverty. Consider both the core and extra-curricular offer that disadvantaged students get.
  • Identify opportunities and learning experiences that are out of the reach of families locally. Begin by talking with families rather than making assumptions.
  • Families and students need knowledge of local opportunities and ways to access these.
  • Educate teachers and other school staff on the risks, causes and consequences of poverty, as these can often be conflated and misconstrued. Challenge the poverty aspiration myth.
  • When colleagues say that an initiative or project is designed to raise aspirations, challenge them to show how. Ask what evidence this is based on.

 

Myth 2: “Families in poverty just need to find a job”

This myth reinforces misconceptions that poverty is the fault of those in poverty and is caused simply by a lack of work and money.

Even before the pandemic and cost of living crisis, the North of England had some of the highest rates of child poverty in the country and last year recorded some of the highest levels of destitution too (Fitzpatrick et al, 2020; 2023).

National poverty figures show that 54% of adults living in poverty are in working families, as are 67% of children who are living in poverty (DWP, 2023). And in recent years, the number of North East children from working households growing up in poverty has increased by more than 50% (Stone, 2023).

Poverty is not just an experience faced by the unemployed. It is important for school and community leaders to understand that a multitude of different factors contribute to sustained poverty in communities.

The research data published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF, 2024) highlights that higher poverty rates in some areas of the UK are driven by comparatively lower earnings, with a higher proportion of adults working in lower income occupations. People in these regions are also disproportionately more likely to live in rented accommodation and renters in these regions have the highest poverty rates of renters across the UK.

 

Tackling the myth

  • Ensure that all those working in schools are poverty-informed (use data from organisations such as the Fair Education Alliance and Joseph Rowntree Foundation).
  • Signpost to support and low-cost activities that families and students can access locally (perhaps a newsletter or a page on your website). This reinforces the view that poverty is not simply a case of “not working hard enough”.
  • Plan for specific seasons in the academic calendar where hardship and poverty will likely be exacerbated – such as during winter when fuel bills rise. See my recent article in Headteacher Update (Harris, 2023).
  • Work with other local education providers and higher education institutions to make families aware of low-cost additional training and education pathways for adults.
  • Campaign for fair and equitable living wage conditions through the work of organisations such as the Living Wage Foundation.

 

Myth 3: “We have low Pupil Premium so poverty isn’t an issue in our community”

I have written extensively in Headteacher Update about the need for school leaders to think beyond the Pupil Premium as a means of understanding or measuring poverty in schools (Harris, 2021) – read this article to find out how extensive research tells us that the Pupil Premium is not an accurate or informed way of measuring disadvantage in schools.

Labels such as Pupil Premium and free school meals (FSM) are well used and a “convenient administrative proxy for a student from a disadvantaged background, who is more likely than average to struggle at school” (Gorard, 2016).

However, as Rowland (2021) shows us, students are not at risk of underachievement because of any particular label, such as Pupil Premium: “Rather, it is because of the impact of socio-economic disadvantage on their learning.”

Gorard (2016) is a useful starting point for school leaders wanting to understand why we need to think beyond the Pupil Premium strategy in response to understanding and tackling disadvantage. Gorard highlights what else needs to be considered when using Pupil Premium as a means of understanding poverty rates. His earlier work (Gorard, 2014), which highlights how FSM eligibility is linked to economic variables, is also useful.

 

Tackling the myth

  • Poverty-informed practice means understanding what students and families facing poverty are struggling with and adapting whole-school policies, processes and curriculum to meet their needs.
  • At Tees Valley Education, our mantra is that deep social justice requires deep social listening. Consider and identify those regular touch points where you can work in co-production with families, children and community representatives to understand and address local need.
  • Partner with organisations such as the Fair Education Alliance to understand recent and relevant trends in the hardship and poverty data and identify best-fit opportunities for your school to join with projects designed to support those facing poverty.
  • Change the school rhetoric of “a Pupil Premium strategy” to one that considers wider disadvantage and hardship. Consider the benefits of designing a Social Justice Charter/Strategy to tackle intersectional aspects of poverty specific to your context.

 

Myth 4: “It’s about high expectations: Talking about poverty leads to an excuses culture”

This myth is more common than you’d think and I find myself regularly biting my lip at education conferences.

I remember one education leader who applauded my research work but then proceeded to state that they didn’t agree with discussing educational disadvantage “too loudly” in their schools because it led to an “excuses culture” among both staff and students.

It is a misplaced notion. Imagine if we said that children with SEN “just need to work harder”.

Poverty and educational disadvantage are complex issues in schools that require domain-specific expertise. This has to be developed by leaders and teachers through engaging in the research, through collaboration and problem-solving specific to the poverty agenda in our schools. Poverty demands expertise if we are to both understand it and address it.

 

Tackling the myth

  • Engage leaders, teachers and other adults in your school in understanding what the research tells us about poverty, particularly in your local or regional context.
  • Be specific on the barriers to learning that poverty can create or exacerbate in your context. Make sure that all staff are aware of these and the roles they can play in helping students to overcome them.
  • Ensure that “zero tolerance” or “high expectation” narratives in schools consider the impact on disadvantaged students and families. For example, a clamp down on uniform standards might be needed, but what support can we give to those families who are struggling with the cost of uniform.
  • When introducing new ideas or initiatives, consider how these are implemented and how vulnerable and disadvantaged students are affected in particular. See the Putting Evidence to Work materials from the Education Endowment Foundation (see further information).

 

Myth 5: “High-quality teaching is the answer”

Teachers continue to be one of the greatest levers for change in our schools, especially for disadvantaged students (Harris & Sass, 2007; Hattie, 2003; Spada et al, 2023). However, it is important to stress that high-quality teaching alone is not a silver bullet when it comes to disadvantage.

High-quality teaching has to exist alongside many other interventions and strategies designed to reduce educational inequality through curriculum, classrooms, and communities.

Needless to say, effective school leadership sits alongside effective teaching. Research commissioned by the Education Policy Institute shows the impact of effective leadership in schools serving areas of disadvantage. Zuccollo et al (2023) found that students in schools led by the most effective headteachers are up to three months ahead in their academic progress, compared to those in schools led by struggling headteachers. That is equivalent to one extra GCSE grade in two subjects, which translates into an additional £16,000 in lifetime earnings.

Students facing hardship and disadvantage need support in overcoming the barriers to learning that poverty creates. No matter how expert the teacher in their classroom is, the child that has faced multiple traumas and hardship is going to struggle if we rely only on quality-first teaching.

 

Tackling the myth

  • Effective CPD ensures that teachers are equipped with research-informed strategies in their classrooms. Consider the extent to which current CPD provision is driven by these principles and is directed to specific barriers to learning that students face.
  • Ensure that pastoral and welfare teams don’t work in silos from teaching staff. Ensure timely and regular opportunities for both teams to consider the barriers to learning and what can take place at both a classroom and whole-school level to address them.
  • Work with multiple agencies and other partnerships to gain a forensic understanding of children and communities. Where possible, consider the extent to which teachers understand this and how to adapt learning and curriculum to address needs.
  • Ensure that leaders and teachers in your schools are engaging with research-informed strategies that help to understand and address educational disadvantage. Create deliberate opportunities to sense-check and scrutinise what will work in your context.
  • Invest in coaching and mentoring for new headteachers and system leaders who have not had recent bespoke CPD.

 

 

Further information & references


Related articles