This blog is written by Doris Walker-Dalhouse and Victoria Risko to advocate for strong literacy instruction that benefits all students, with a particular emphasis on literacy instruction for students living in poverty. When we think of strong literacy support for some of our most vulnerable students, we are keenly aware that initiatives to provide educators with professional development to support children living in poverty are being cancelled at the federal level even though progress with such programs indicate progress.
Stay tuned — registration information for their upcoming webinar will be coming soon, and we can’t wait to continue the conversation with you!
Literacy Instruction for our Most Vulnerable Students
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 1 in 7 school-age children lives in poverty, which has a major impact on their education. Approximately 16% of U.S. children (11.4 million) lived in poverty in 2022-2023, with a 13.4% poverty rate for school-age children (5-17). In 2026, there are indicators that the number of students living in poverty may be even greater with high, persistent child poverty rates paired with proposed or enacted federal funding cuts that threaten to reduce services for low-income students.
National and local statistics indicate that overall children living in poverty continue to perform poorly on class assignments and mandated tests and they often have low participation in class literacy activities. These children most frequently live in inner city and rural areas or they may be children living in homeless shelters. It is likely that these students are racially, linguistically, and culturally diverse (Najarro, 2022). And while poverty cannot be traced to singular causes (e.g., racism, low paying jobs, insufficient health coverage), we are keenly aware that income equality within the last decade — world-wide — has widened the gap between those families that are challenged for food and housing security and those that are benefitting from increased wealth (Desmond, 2023).
There is no doubt that educators who teach in high poverty areas face multiple challenges and these challenges include underfunded public schools where teacher tenure and retention are lowest, teacher turnover is high, and resources are limited. There is a long history associated with underfunded schools and resources in both rural and urban high poverty areas. As Gorski (2018) and others argue, “privilege begets privilege”. Students privileged to attend well-resourced schools with stability of educators in place long term are on a trajectory to receive continuous supports that are needed for all students, but frequently not available or sustained in high poverty schools.
Instructional Inequities
A “sameness” of instruction for all students conflates equality (e.g., belief that fairness requires same for all) with equity when diverse histories and experiences require differentiation. (Wells, 2011). Not only is instruction not differentiated for students’ capabilities and needs, but frequently there is a lack of culturally relevant materials (Smagorinsky, Lakly, & Johnson, 2002), most notably the use of texts and materials in which students do not see themselves or their communities (Ascenzi-Moreno & Quifiones, 2020). A “Null Curriculum” (Milner, 2017) developed in some states, with punitive actions against schools that address racism, racial histories, and cultural differences, denies explicit attention to students’ histories and identities. Milner (2018c) argues that students are not given a “fighting chance to maximize their capacity and humanity”. Additionally, intervention programs, such as Response to Intervention (RTI) that is widely implemented, have inadequate investigations of their effectiveness and response to inequities (Artiles, 2015).
Weak and Failed National Policies
There is a long history of disappointing outcomes of federal funding intended to support the learning of students living in poverty. A “deeply flawed policy legacy of overemphasizing standardized-test scores” (Najarro, 2022, p. 3) is the product of the dominant, White middle-class culture in the United States. Over-reliance on standardized tests fail to provide information about students’ interests, their feelings of belonging, how well the instruction represents students’ cultural backgrounds, and what additional resources and opportunities may be needed (Najarro, 2022).
Among weak or failed programs are the following. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001), with the associated Even Start Family Literacy Program, overall failed to improve K-3 literacy instruction for students living in poverty (St. Pierre, Ricciuti, & Rimdzius, 2005). Similarly, funding efforts (e.g., Gates Foundation, and Title 1) for high poverty schools have had virtually no impact (Noguera & Wells, 2011). The hard work required by national laws to address inequities—giving all students a level playing field with additional resources and opportunities as needed– has been “crumbling” (Najarro, 2022) for at least the last decade.
Addressing Inequities
Addressing inequities, especially as they relate to impoverished students and communities, is a world-wide issue and is met with different responses. One approach has been to provide equal input for all students, such as providing equal funds for schools or the same curriculum for all. Described as taking an equality approach, the emphasis is placed on giving all students the same opportunities to succeed. In contrast, an equity approach, is grounded in the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to differentiate instruction, provide additional resources and opportunities when needed, and build on students’ culture and traditions while expanding their knowledge and experiences.
Starting in 2016, there was an expansion of an equity focus—multiple districts in the United States, for example, reported heightened interest and proposed actions at the district level to address DEI (Najarro, 2022). Unfortunately, the word “equity” became a trigger for pushback as early as 2018 (Sawchuk, 2022). This pushback, both legislative and public, represented fears of losing “strong programs” for those who were already succeeding in schools.
Initiatives to provide educators with professional development in the areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are being stopped in their infancy (Illeana Najarro, Education Week, September 6, 2022) even though progress is reported. Added to the push to eliminate DEI initiatives are book bans that began to appear in March 2023 and were put in place in 86 school districts across the U. S. Specifically, these bans focus on books with LGBTQ characters, characters of color, and books that address inequities associated with diversity, race, and racism. Najarro (2022) argues that these initiatives represent legislators’ and special interest groups’ retaliation against apparent progress in meeting DEI goals.
This issue of providing curricula that is relevant – relevant to students’ culture, their histories, their interests, and their instructional needs – is crucial for teachers to address if we expect to stem “learning poverty”. Amid movements to abandon or lessen the impact of changes erasing diversity represented among our students, educators can either be overwhelmed or take these actions as an “urgent message to forge ahead”.
Goal for Instruction: Addressing Disciplinary Literacy and Teaching What is Relevant to Students’ Culture, Histories, Interests, and Instructional Needs
To meet this goal, we describe three instructional actions (a) that sustain students’ cultural histories, (b) while advancing their knowledge and literacy development, and (c) addressing their questions and needs. Each of these actions are developed more fully in our text, Equitable Literacy Instruction for Students in Poverty (Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2024).
1.Culturally Sustaining Disciplinary Literacy (Rachelle S. Savitz & Janelle Williams, 2024). In their 2024 example and through multiple other publications, Savitz and Williams describe methods for enhancing both disciplinary reading and writing, and positioning students as knowledgeable and active participants in their learning. Aligning with national and state standards, units of instruction focus on content that is both relevant to students’ prior knowledge and interests and that advances academic learning. For example, instruction might focus on “monitoring and minimizing human impact on the environment”.
Taking a problem-solving approach, students engage in generating questions about “equitable access to clean water in their community and globally”. The topic of clean water is particularly important in Michigan (where this instruction occurred) with its issue of problematic conditions related to water quality (e.g., Flint water crisis, infestation of zebra mussels, Nestle corporation’s use of water, etc.). Inquiry questions generated with students might include: How people are taking action on equitable access to clean water in my community and globally or How do we decide if information provided is trustworthy and credible on environmental issues such as clean water (Savitz and Janelle Williams in Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2024, pg. 33).
Texts are purposely selected to demonstrate a wide range of perspectives and evidence related to claims about clean water. Students examine scientific texts, analyzing claims and evidence provided, and consider what can be learned from a range of perspectives and challenges that scientists face. Disciplinary writing (that meets writing standards) engages students in taking up authentic perspective and problem-solving methods that address potential water hazards. Letters of advocacy with proposed methods of change or problem-solving methods are written to community agencies and community leaders. Class discussions expand students’ knowledge and abilities to express their understandings of the issue and potential problem-solving methods. Throughout these applications connections are made to students’ lives, their neighborhoods, and their decisions illustrating how science and technical advances related to clean water are connected to their lives.
2. Disciplinary Learning through Multimodal Story Telling (Blaine E. Smith, 2024). Blaine Smith demonstrates how story telling with digital multimodal composing supports science learning for middle school students. With Smith’s guidance, students generated ideas to integrate visuals, sounds, and text when composing a science narrative. Prior to composing their own texts, students read multiple texts, including web-based science texts, gaining scientific knowledge about selected topics and issues – issues that were relevant to the students and their communities. For example, learning about climate change and its effect on local farmers engaged students in robust conversations about changes, theories related to these changes, and their impact.
Students also examined published multimodal texts and then engaged in learning how to be intentional in their use of visuals, sounds, and annotations to convey important information. Students engaged with complex scientific issues while learning how to express their newly learned science knowledge in a variety of formats that were meaningful to them and their peers. Class discussions and added readings supported students’ knowledge development and perspective taking, enhancing their learning as they generated connections to issues that affected them and their communities.
3. Embedding Skills and Strategy Instruction within Authentic Contexts across the Grades for Multilingual Learners (Pacheco, McKee, and Lai, 2024). Pacheco, McKee, and Lai demonstrate how a text focusing on character education can engage multilingual students in thinking about the challenges they face as newcomers in a school and community and the actions they take to resolve their dilemmas. They describe how Ms. George (a sixth-grade teacher) whose students (from six different home countries) engages in text discussions. Asking students to reflect on difficult decisions in their everyday experiences and how their actions are similar to characters within the texts is a focus of their text discussions. And when holding these text discussions, students are encouraged to use their home languages as needed to represent their thinking.
One example shared by Pacheco and his colleagues focused on the text, Little Things are Big Things (Colon, 1961). Ms George and her students analyzed the text using a graphic organizer to identify “what makes a good decision” and “what are good actions” when facing conflicts. Connections to students’ personal lives and decision making and how individuals historically have worked toward goodness (even when faced with racism as in the Colon (1961) text supported the students’ personal growth in overcoming difficult environments in which they live while advancing their disciplinary knowledge and text comprehension.
Across the above examples of disciplinary instruction, these principles guide their implementation:
- Teaching actions are intentional and provide access to knowledge building in ways that honor students as individuals.
- Instruction is embedded in the view that school and curriculum provide access to equitable opportunities that support students’ comprehension as literacy and disciplinary learners.
Conclusion
As educators, we must dignify our economically marginalized students by making visible their multiple interests, histories and capabilities. Instruction described in this blog offers three examples that demonstrate a commitment to honor students’ culture and traditions while expanding their disciplinary knowledge and experiences.
Doris Walker-Dalhouse, PhD, professor emerita at both Marquette University and Minnesota State University Moorhead, is a former 4th -6th grade teacher in high-poverty schools including the Marva Collins Preparatory Program at Linlee School in Lexington, KY. She served for four years as the Director of the Sudanese community-based reading clinic for K-refugee students (Moorhead, MN) funded by the Otto Bremer Foundation and is a member of the Marquette University Autism Initiative. Her co-authored books include Be That Teacher! Breaking the cycle for struggling readers (Risko, 2012) and Equitable Literacy Instruction for Students in Poverty (Risko, 2024) and an edited book Culturally sustaining literacy pedagogies: Honoring students’ heritages, literacies, and language (Cantrell and Lazar, 2022). She is a past member of the Board of Directors of ALER, IRA, and LRA; past coeditor of the Research in the Classroom column (The Reading Teacher) and is President of the Reading Hall of Fame.
Victoria J. Risko, EdD, a professor emerita at Vanderbilt University, taught in the language, literacy and culture program within the Department of Teaching and Learning. A former 1st and 4th grade teacher, Dr. Risko collaborated with educators across the grade levels and in high poverty and racially diverse schools. A past president of the International Literacy Association and the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers, Dr. Risko has published in numerous journals and research handbooks. She is co-author of several books, including Be That Teacher!: Breaking the Cycle for Struggling Readers (with Walker-Dalhouse, 2012), Reading Assessment to Promote Equitable Learning (with Elish-Piper and Matthews, 2022), and Equitable Literacy Instruction for Students in Poverty (with Walker-Dalhouse, 2024). A recipient of several national and international awards for contributions to research and literacy education, Dr Risko is a member of the Reading Hall of Fame.
