Hidden Rules and Generational Poverty This lesson was a difficult one for me.

I am entrenched in middle-class culture, having been raised in an upper-middle-class home by two educated parents. Most of my friends were middle-class and while some were better-off than others, I cannot honestly say that any of them were living in poverty, much less generational poverty. I taught for eight years in a middle-class school where generational poverty was rare. It is only now, after three years at my current position, that I have had to meet true poverty head-on. I am willing to admit to my ignorance of what daily life must be like for these students. I understand that education is not the focus of them or their families. I do this because I find myself in an uncomfortable position after reading Overcoming the Silence of Generational Poverty by Donna Beegle (2003) and Understanding and Working with Students and Adults from Poverty by Rudy Payne (1996); while I can recognize the need to adjust my teaching style to benefit these students, I am unsure how to proceed. If only to make myself feel better, let me first point out the strategies in which I feel I excel. Beegle outlines several suggestions for engaging students such as creating strong relationships, ensuring students receive plenty of positive reinforcement, consistent confirmation of concept comprehension, differentiation of instruction, and creating a safe and inclusive classroom environment (2003). In interest of time, however, I will not go into detail on these strategies as I would like to spend the majority of this paper examining the areas in which I need to improve and ask difficult questions concerning said areas. The idea of hidden class rules was a major focus of both Beegle and Paynes articles. Payne, especially, outlined these rules in terms of generational poverty, middle-class, and wealth

(1996). Many of these hidden rules were obvious to me, but a few were highly illuminating. One that struck home was the generational poverty rule of laughing when disciplined: For example, if the rule a student brings to school is to laugh when disciplined and he does so, the teacher is most probably going to be offended. Yet, laughing is to him the appropriate way to deal with the situation. At the same time, we know that if an employee laughs at a boss when being disciplined, he will most probably be fired. So the student needs to know that this response does not bring success. (Payne, 1996) I never imagined that a student laughing at me when I am attempting to discipline him or her was the result of hidden class rules. I, like many teachers, assumed the student was being belligerent and increased the punishment. In the future, a simple explanation of the inappropriateness of this response will go much further than a gut reaction on my part. Beegle, on the other hand, offered many strategies that I find myself completely dismissing. Again, I recognize the need to adjust disciplinary and teaching styles for students from generational poverty and can understand Beegles overlying point. However, I cant help noticing that Beegle fails to offer suggestions on how to adjust two of her main issues with education: homework and tardiness. Tardiness is my biggest pet-peeve. It is distracting to the educational climate and is completely unacceptable in the business environment. If a worker consistently arrives late to his or her job, he or she will be fired. By holding students accountable for their timeliness, we are teaching them a life-lesson. Beegle explains that students from generational poverty do not find motivation in future employment (2003), but Payne points out that this middle-class hidden rule is never directly taught in schools or in businesses (Payne, 1996). But how else are we to teach it?

Beegle adds a rather incendiary comment to this argument: Schools, like many other institutions in America, focus on punishing students for their poverty. Students living in cars, motels, or even worse living conditions arrive at school late and are punished with tardy slips and detention (Beegle, 2003, p. 17). I find this comment not only incendiary, but offensive. Students must understand that timeliness carries huge import in adult society, and I cannot believe that by holding students accountable for arriving to class on time I am punishing them for their poverty. When I first began at Overland, there was no tardy policy in place; dealing with late students was completely left to the teacher. With no definite consequences, students had no motivation to arrive to class on time, resulting in a trickle of late students over the course of the entire class period. Please understand: we are not talking about a few students coming one or two or even five minutes late to class. There would be a steady stream throughout the whole 90minute period. On average, I would begin class with only five of my 35 students in attendance. The hallways were in chaos. My second year, tardy slips with specific consequences were introduced and students now run to class when the 2-minute bell rings. Tardiness among the general population is rare. I cannot imagine the same would be true had our administration implemented we are glad you are here slips (Beegle, 2003, p. 18) instead. Finally, Beegle also asks educators to rethink homework assignments. Homework is a middle-class construct that does not fit well in the world of generational poverty (Beegle, 2003, p. 19). Once more, I understand her aim. She postulates that learning for students from generational poverty is going to happen primarily during the school day unless supportive conditions are created to make it possible elsewhere (Beegle, 2003, p. 19) and I can follow that line of reasoning. However, the logistics and expense of incorporating after-school homework

areas coupled with the illogicality of doing away with homework all together make this strategy nothing more than an idyllic concept. Until education is reformed and refocused on something other than the regurgitation of knowledge, the practice of rote homework is going to continue unfettered. The idea that holding students accountable is a hidden, middle-class rule is ridiculous. Despite Beegles assumptions, I do not think that people from generational poverty are lazy, make bad choices, are not motivated, and are not intelligent (Beegle, 2003, p. 17-18). Quite to the contrary, holding some students to a higher standard than others is the worst sort of classism. Families and students from generational poverty need more resources to be educationally successful, not lower expectations. Of course, all my stances come from a complete middle-class indoctrination.

References Beegle, D. M. (2003). Overcoming the silence of generational poverty. Talking Points, 15(1), 1120. Retrieved from http://cup.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-394479-dt-content-rid8209005_1/courses/20142021998/resources/week2/Overcoming_the_Silence_of_Generat ional_Poverty-Week 2.pdf Payne, R. K. (1996). Understanding and working with students and adults from poverty. Instructional Leader, IX(2), Retrieved from http://cup.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid394479-dt-content-rid-8209005_1/courses/20142021998/resources/week2/ Understanding_Working_with_Students_Adults_from_Poverty-Week2.pdf