Ha Jessica C 201506 MT MTRP - University of Toronto T-Space · 2015-05-12 ·...

LITERACY GAP IN LOW SES

1

The Literacy Gap Experienced by Intermediate

Students of Low Socioeconomic Status

A research paper submitted in conformity with the requirements

For the degree of Master of Teaching

Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

Copyright by Jessica Cassandra Ha, April 2015


2

Abstract

This study explored the roles and responsibilities of intermediate Language teachers and their subsequent intervention strategies for latent literacy development. The purpose of this study was to develop a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by students of low-‐socioeconomic status, as they continue to develop literacy skills in middle school. It examined the ideas of basic and advanced literacy and how specified learning targets can develop higher order thinking in spite of a lack of basic fluency. Two intermediate Language teachers were interviewed on their strategies and respective effectiveness. Both teachers revealed the importance of understanding their students holistically before being able to make a difference in their Language development using specified strategies. Teachers must continually adapt to the development of their students and continue to challenge them while maintaining their self-‐esteem by making them feel successful. Ultimately however, a student’s success in latent literacy development is dependent on the degree of involvement and support of the parent.

Key Words: Literacy, reading, writing, teaching, strategies, low socioeconomic status, intermediate, higher-‐order thinking, challenges, fluency, social capital, material capital, cultural capital, motivation, self-‐esteem


3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like express gratitude to my doting parents, An Long Ha and

Hao Khai Ha, for giving me the love and support to achieve everything I have done. Thank

you to all of my professors at OISE for imparting their wisdom and knowledge and

providing me with the skills to complete my research. I appreciate all the time that Dr.

Shelley Stagg Peterson spent to help me grow with my research. I would never have made

it this far without Jayson Johnson – thank you for always being my light and my inspiration.

Finally, I attribute the chronic genius of Mary Jane to have kept me motivated through

many sleepless nights.


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 6

INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH STUDY ........................................................................................................................... 6

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................................................................... 8

RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCHER ................................................................................................................................... 11

OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................................ 12

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 13

LITERACY/SES GAP ............................................................................................................................................................... 13

ACADEMIC/LITERACY SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 17

In-‐school support ................................................................................................................................................................ 17

Out-‐of-‐school support ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

CAPITAL .................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Material capital ................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Cultural Capital ................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Social capital ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 29

PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 29

PARTICIPANTS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................... 30

ETHICAL REVIEW PROCEDURES .......................................................................................................................................... 31

LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 34

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TEACHER ............................................................................................................ 35

Getting to Know the Students ....................................................................................................................................... 35


5

Building Self-‐Esteem ......................................................................................................................................................... 38

Relationships with the Parents ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Teaching Strategies ........................................................................................................................................................... 41

Activities, Assignments and Resources ...................................................................................................................... 44

Teacher Challenges ............................................................................................................................................................ 46

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARENT ............................................................................................................... 48

Parental Attitudes .............................................................................................................................................................. 49

Parental Competence and Support ............................................................................................................................. 50

Material Capital and Out-‐of-‐school Support .......................................................................................................... 51

Summer Slide ........................................................................................................................................................................ 53

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SCHOOL ............................................................................................................... 53

In-‐school support and resources .................................................................................................................................. 54

Social Capital ........................................................................................................................................................................ 55

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................ 57

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TEACHER ............................................................................................................ 57

Teaching Strategies ........................................................................................................................................................... 59

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARENT ............................................................................................................... 60

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SCHOOL ............................................................................................................... 63

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 64

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ................................................................................................ 65

IMPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 65

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 68

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................ 72

APPENDIX A: LETTER OF CONSENT FOR INTERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 72

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 74


6

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH STUDY This study will aim to look at the literacy gap experienced by Canadian students of

low-‐socioeconomic status (SES) at the intermediate level, and how teachers of those

students manage their progress. For the purposes of this study, “intermediate” will be

defined as those that fall between grades 6-‐8. It is difficult enough for students to overcome

the barriers of inadequate material capital intrinsic with low SES, but further, these

students also lack certain benefits of cultural and social capital that contribute to academic

success.

Five main factors that contribute to literacy success for middle school students will

be used as lenses in this study. These include: 1) in-‐school support, 2) out-‐of-‐school

support, 3) material capital, 4) cultural capital, and 5) social capital. In-‐school support

includes, but is not limited to, the support that the students’ teacher provides within the

classroom. It can also include extra-‐curricular programs, such as a book club, that

reinforces the language curriculum. Out-‐of-‐school support is conventionally the

responsibility of the parent. However, teachers acting in loco parentis must assume that

responsibility if it cannot be fulfilled by the parents or caregivers. Teachers are able to have

an influence in this respect most simply by maintaining a strong relationship with the

parents and developing parallel goals for their child’s success.

Due to the financial burdens of families with low-‐socioeconomic status, material

capital that supports a student’s reading understanding is scarce and it is a barrier difficult

to overcome. This is an area that teachers can potentially greatly impact for this

demographic. Conversely, teachers cannot easily influence or change the cultural and social


7

capital of learners. Cultural capital refers to the embodied skills, habits, and attitudes that

serve students directly in their scholastic tasks (Gripsrud, Hovden, Moe, 2011, p. 508). A

type of cultural capital that can be harmful towards students is when parents do not value

education or literacy. As an example, immigrant parents that have been trained as skilled

professionals will reasonably value education highly, and coincidentally have the learning

skills necessary to achieve academic success to teach to their children. However, if the

parents themselves have never been taught to value education, then they will oftentimes

not have the skills available to them that help their children succeed. Thus, these families

are potentially bound to perpetuate this cycle if left without teacher intervention. This

study will examine the cultural capital of low SES families in order to see if there is a

common ideology that aligns with either of the two aforementioned, or one that diverges

from both. A child’s academic success is greatly influenced by a teacher’s open

communication with a parent about their child’s progress. A certain level of social capital is

necessary for the students’ parents to hold in order to benefit from important

relationships, with not only the students’ teachers, but also the principal and the school

culture as well. Consequently, the social, cultural, and material capital necessary to support

a student’s success is reliant on the teacher’s support.

It is not a new phenomenon in education that students with low socioeconomic

status often suffer lower academic standing than their high SES counterparts. This study

will look however, from the teacher’s point of view and the tactics or strategies they use to

overcome this gap in a classroom setting.


8

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this phenomenological case study will be to develop a deeper

understanding of the challenges faced by students of low-‐socioeconomic status, as they

continue to develop literacy skills in middle school. The literacy gap will be generally

defined as the proficiency and fluency gap between students with low-‐socioeconomic

status and high-‐socioeconomic status.

I believe that all teachers, regardless of their grade designation, are all working

towards the same purpose of helping their students develop the skills necessary to become

responsible and active members of society. The ability to effectively communicate orally,

and through reading and writing is necessary for students to reach this goal. Teachers

require the knowledge and skills to help students overcome the barriers they face both

inside and outside of the classroom. This study will examine current in-‐service teachers

familiar with the aforementioned demographic and juxtapose their expertise with relevant

and reliable published research.

There has been substantial research on low literacy in primary students with low

SES (Borgemenke, 2001; Bowers, 2012; Duncan, Seymour, 2000; Spencer, 1925, Mills 1988;

Zammit, 2011) however, the subject of literacy at the intermediate level is one that is far

less explored. Much of the current research (within the past 20 years) that addresses the

issue of illiteracy pertains to the attainment of the actual skill. I would like to argue

however, that there are multiple levels of literacy, that of which skill acquirement is its first

step (Hauser, National Research Council (U.S.), 2005). After the primary level when

students master grapho-‐phonic recognition and reproducing basic morphology in simple

semantic form, there must come a second level of literacy where junior students begin to


9

learn how to read and write with a purpose of communication and understanding (Ontario

Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 5). Once students reach the intermediate level, it becomes

increasingly difficult to reduce the deficiency to be within reach of middle-‐ and high-‐

socioeconomic status counterpart students (Caro, 2009).

Atop low SES families’ typical financial responsibilities, parents must also find time

to manage child supervision, and necessary household and parental responsibilities.

Students of low-‐socioeconomic status have far less academic support and resources

available to them than would a child of middle-‐ or high-‐socioeconomic status. The

responsibility to ensure these students’ learning is displaced onto the teacher. The purpose

of this study is to help teachers develop practical strategies and developmental compassion

for students that lack material, cultural, and social capital to achieve success in literacy at

an intermediate level.

It is important for both the tranquility of a teacher’s classroom and overall student

success to be aware of the challenges a student may face. Teachers require both the ability

for empathy and the understanding of an omniscient perspective to guarantee student

success. To perpetuate a society with utilitarian capacity, it is important to learn more

about how teachers can influence the success of its future members.


10

RESEARCH QUESTIONS The goal of this study is to understand how middle school teachers of students living

in poverty manage and support their progress in learning to read and write, and learning

higher-‐order thinking skills for literary analysis.

The main research question for this study follows:

• What strategies do middle school teachers report using to support their students

from low SES homes as they continue on their literacy learning journey?

• What role do teachers, parents, and the school play in the acquisition and

development of reading and writing?

My sub-‐questions include:

• How do middle school teachers perceive their roles and responsibilities toward this

group of students?

• How do middle school teachers perceive/describe the strengths of students from

low SES families and the challenges they face in terms of developing “grade level”

literacy skills?

• How do middle school teachers perceive/describe the role of parents or caregivers

in contributing to the literacy development of their children?

• What in-‐class strategies do middle school teachers report using to support literacy

development among their low SES students?

• What supports or services are middle school teachers aware of that can help with

low SES literacy outside of the classroom?

• How does the ‘summer slide’ affect intermediate low SES students’ reading and


11

writing?

BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCHER Prior to registering for the Master of Teaching program at the Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education, I had been working for the children’s program in a women’s shelter

for three years. All the students I had worked with there were coming from a single-‐parent

home with low-‐socioeconomic status. Working with these students is what inspired me to

register for the Masters program to understand and influence the needs of these students.

Many of the intermediate students I worked with at the shelter lacked basic fluency

in reading. Many also lacked an adequate grasp of writing the English language, oftentimes

struggling with grammar, spelling, and syntax. I found that the work they were given

required a certain level of higher-‐order thinking for literary analysis. However, when the

students were struggling with basic reading and writing, it was far more difficult for them

to embark on analysing a text without my aid. The students were not incapable of having

complex thoughts necessary for literary analysis, but they were hindered by their inability

to satisfactorily express their ideas both in oral and written form. Their deficit in basic

skills served as a distraction for producing a final product and habitually left them

frustrated and defeated. I wondered how teachers would be able to teach these students

the grade level concepts, as well as helping students reach grade level competency in

reading, writing, and speaking.

My Bachelors degree was awarded on the basis of an English major, and a

Linguistics and Sociology minor. My background in English both developed a growing


12

passion for English and ensured me of the importance it holds in everyday life.

Communication is a highly important asset to have regardless of status or profession. Thus,

it was remarkably concerning for me to see latent progress and dwindling future success

for students without adequate literacy skills. This subject of study is in the interest of not

only pre-‐service and in-‐service teachers, but of personal benefit to my future aspirations as

an influential teacher.

OVERVIEW Chapter 1 includes the introduction and purpose of the study, the research

questions, as well as how I came to be involved in this topic and study. Chapter 2 contains a

review of the literature. Chapter 3 provides the methodology and procedure used in this

study including information about the sample participants and data collection instruments.

Chapter 4 identifies the participants in the study and describes the data as it addresses the

research question. Chapter 5 includes limitations of the study, conclusions,

recommendations for practice, and further reading and study. References and a list of

appendixes follow at the end.


13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERACY/SES GAP There are many elements of a child’s life that can possibly contribute to his/her

academic underachievement. Social capital theory, as defined by Bourdieu (1984),

proposes that families in poor communities do not have access to material resources

(material capital), the experience or knowledge of schooling through higher levels (cultural

capital), or political influences, alliances or privileges (social capital) necessary for

successful schooling. This study will look specifically at the academic underachievement in

literacy for intermediate students of low-‐socioeconomic status. Loosely defined, the

literacy gap is the difference in proficiency between those of low-‐socioeconomic status and

those of middle-‐ and high-‐socioeconomic status. Cumulative advantage theory explains that

educational disparities associated with family background increase as students advance

into higher grades at school (Bast, Reitsma, 1998; DiPrete, Eirich, 2006; Jensen, 1966,

1974). Teachers can help students overcome this obstacle by gaining a better

understanding of the phenomenon itself.

Aside from various types of support and capital, the literacy gap is also largely

influenced by the time students spend outside of the school’s academic year, specifically in

regards to the summer break – the ‘summer slide’ (Vale, Weaven, Anne, Davies, Hooley,

Davidson, Loton, 2013). According to Vale et al. (2013), the ‘summer slide’ “account[s] for

as much as 80% of the difference in achievement for students between low and high socio-‐

economic families over their elementary school” (p. 1). Vale et al.’s research is based on


14

American research that is being applied to Australian schooling in order to understand the

similarities to help students of low-‐socioeconomic status achieve greater results in literacy

and numeracy.

The ‘summer slide’ is a phenomenon established by many studies as students of low

SES experience a loss in reading and mathematics achievement over the summer holiday

(Alexander , Entwisle, & Olson, 2007; Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996;

Vale et al., 2013). The ‘summer slide’ is only clearly evident in the USA (Vale et Al., 2013, p.

4). Vale et al.’s study however, focuses on the students of Australia and witnessed no such

phenomenon, at least to the sharp degree to which it exists in the United States. This study

will examine the perceptions of teachers in regards to the ‘summer slide’ to recognize how

our education system differs from either the United States or Australia. There has not been

very much research in the Canadian context in regards to the outcomes of the ‘summer

slide’. However, it will be more likely that Canadian students follow the patterns of

American students because the former’s summer break is similar to that of the latter’s, as

opposed to the Australian 5-‐week extended break (Vale et al., 2013, p. 4). This study will

attempt to understand the effects of the ‘summer slide’ in Canadian schools through the

perceptions of in-‐service teachers. It will also explore the out-‐of-‐school options accessible

for teachers that will help bridge the gap for students over the summer break.

In Caro’s (2009) study – “Socio-‐economic status and academic achievement

trajectories from childhood to adolescence” – he focuses on the detriment to intermediate

students’ success in mathematics if prior knowledge is not attained in previous grades. The

relationship between family socioeconomic status and academic achievement is referred to


15

in the literature as the ‘socioeconomic gap’ because “it implies a gap between students of

high and low SES families” (Caro, 2009, p. 2). Caro uses a single-‐parent family as a

theoretically relevant control for measuring the trajectory of the SES gap (Caro, 2009, 10-‐

11). ‘Single-‐parent families’ is a significant population affected by the SES gap because Caro

recognizes its presence in the low SES demographic to use as a constant in his study.

Although this is a quantitative study using standardized mathematics tests to gage

delay, Caro (2009) hypothesizes that the SES gap may be even higher in reading at the

intermediate level because it involves tasks that require higher-‐order thinking (p. 23).

According to Campbell, Donahue, Reese, & Phillips (1996), less than 5% of students

surveyed in grades 4, 8, and 12 perform at a level in which they can examine, extend, and

elaborate meaning of literary and information texts (p. 47). Furthermore, Applebee, Langer,

Mullis, Latham, & Gentile (1994) report that the results of the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) in Writing shows that all students up to and including grade

12 have considerable difficulty moving beyond minimal performance to more elaborate

writing tasks where a higher level of coherence and detail is necessary to support

arguments made when writing (p. 4). Caro explains that “achievement differences among

students of varying socio-‐economic backgrounds remain invariant during elementary

school and sharply widen in the transition from elementary school to middle school.

Furthermore, throughout middle school years and up to the beginning of high school, the

gap widens at an increasing rate of change” (Caro, 2009, p. 20). Caro reaches this

conclusion pertaining to the SES gap in the subject of mathematics. If Caro suspects that the


16

SES gap may be even higher in reading, then it is absolutely necessary that we not only

understand that relationship, but also develop methods for teachers to overcome it.

Fenwick and Cooper’s (2012) study focuses on successful pedagogies for low SES

students. Fenwick and Cooper however, only observe primary classrooms and thus, the

resultant popular pedagogies may yield different results if used with intermediate

students. Nevertheless, the wide success of these pedagogies used on a fraction of this

study’s demographic characteristics has given a context to frame teaching strategies for

students of low SES. Therefore, my study’s focus has an additional factor to consider when

choosing effective teaching strategies – appropriateness for intermediate students.

Furthermore, my study will look specifically at strategies cohesive with the language

curriculum, which promotes ‘higher-‐order thinking.’ Fenwick and Cooper explain, through

the context of Gamaron and Oakes, how teachers’ academic expectation can potentially

disservice the students that most need help: “Over a number of decades, studies have

demonstrated that students from low SES backgrounds and ethnic minorities are often

placed within classrooms and schools that are defined by low expectations, simplified

curricula and a focus on behaviour management rather than challenging learning”

(Fenwick, Cooper, 2012, p. 3). Reduced expectations and a focus on behaviour management

will inevitably harm the students’ learning and do them a disservice. This study will

explore the ways teachers maintain grade level expectations despite an increasing SES gap

at an intermediate level, and scaffold their learning successfully.


17

ACADEMIC/LITERACY SUPPORT IN-‐SCHOOL SUPPORT The most effective and impactful way to influence a student’s academic progress is

through in-‐school support (Fraser, Walberg, 2005). This is the area most easily governed

and influenced by teachers. Vale et al. (2013) suggests that it is the responsibility of the

teachers to interpret student work through their assessment data and determine the next

steps of their learning to plan teaching and student intervention programs that most

productively targets the students’ needs (p. 3). Teachers should be using the achievement

standards in the curriculum to plan teaching and learning activities to observe and track

progress of individual students (Fenwick, Cooper, 2012, p. 2). This study will look

specifically at assessment strategies that apply to critical hierarchical thinking in analyzing

literature. It will also address students that have not reached the preliminary level of

literacy – the ability to read with conventionally accepted fluency. These two areas of

improvement both apply to acquiring acceptable literacy skills, however, they drastically

differ in their achievement goals. This study will look at assessment data for intermediate

literacy at different levels and how teachers manage the whole class next steps when

addressing such large ranges in performance goals. Intervention programs can provide

both in-‐school support and out-‐of-‐school support.

Fenwick and Cooper (2012) suggest that in-‐school support should be guided by

standards-‐based reform and respective pedagogies that support amelioration (p. 3).

Curriculum reformers aim to generate teaching practices to improve the learning outcomes

for students from low SES by associating specific goals with individual years of schooling

(Fenwick, Cooper, 2012, p. 4). Teachers can influence student outcomes if they are able to


18

accurately identify students’ prior learning and clearly define practical learning goals with

a variety of strategies for all students to achieve a common standard (Terwel, 2005;

McGarvey, Marriott, Morgan, Abott, 1997). Conversely, Fenwick and Cooper (2012) do not

believe that teaching strategies such as defining explicit and shared learning goals,

persistent and individualized feedback on learning, developing student metacognition,

connecting new content to prior learning, co-‐operative learning, and scaffolding are

essential practices for supporting students with gaps in their understanding and skills (p.

9). Fenwick and Cooper (2012) however, are regarding the Australian curriculum and a

more broad demographic than this study. This study will consider these studies as it

applies to literacy in the Canadian context for low SES students in single-‐parent families;

there has yet to be substantial research that supports or refutes the success of these

strategies in regards to this demographic. These learning skills may be effective for

Canadian teachers when working with this focus group.

Contrary to the argument for maintaining high expectations for all students

regardless of background, all of the teachers in Fenwick and Cooper’s (2012) study believe

that strategies and exercises need to be altered for students to work at their own ability

level. Some teachers explain that matching tasks to students’ specific learning styles

support the learning and engagement by appealing to their current levels of skill and

understanding, rather than attempting to extend those underdeveloped skills. Only when

thinking of high achieving students did the teachers diverge from this belief (p. 10). There

seems to be a discontinuity between the beliefs in the literature and the practical

experiences of in-‐service teachers of the most effective measures when dealing with


19

differentiation and underperforming student. Similarly, the teachers involved in this study

found that unit plans written by pre-‐service teachers to be effective, but ultimately

responded negatively to having common standards for all students. The new ideas and

strategies presented within these plans did not change the teachers’ beliefs about catering

to struggling students in order to reach expected levels (Fenwick, Cooper, 2012, p. 10).

Despite the evidence Fenwick and Cooper (2012) present that support standards-‐based

national curriculum with supportive pedagogies, they resolve that curriculum expectations

will likely continue to be altered by teachers to suit their students’ capacity (p. 10).

Notwithstanding the context, Fenwick and Cooper’s study is based on the Australian

curriculum and is not proven to be reflective of the opinions of Canadian teachers.

In-‐school support is not limited to assessment evaluation and feedback. The

methods by which students learn can also be heavily influenced by a teacher’s grouping

practices. Kerckhoff (1993) argues that socioeconomically biased group arrangements

create contrastive educational outcomes for students with low-‐socioeconomic status (p.

15). Low SES students that are continually placed in homogenous low ability groups

perpetuate the SES gap. Caro (2009) hypothesizes that the lack of neutrality in school

practices with students of diversified socioeconomic backgrounds contributes to, and

subsequently causes the SES gap when pertaining to mathematics (p. 22). Since grouping

practices are applicable to multiple subjects, it stands tenable that a similar pattern will

exist in literacy. Teachers should strive towards grouping practices that reduce the SES gap

without jeopardizing the progress of higher ability groups (Caro, 2009, p. 23). In Fenwick

and Cooper’s (2012) study involving the Australian curriculum, they also believe that


20

students should have access to quality curriculum, regardless of their socioeconomic

background. Thus, teachers must continue to hold high expectations despite disparaging

student backgrounds (p. 2). In order to effectively implement these practices, all

educational actors (e.g. other teachers and principals) concerned with the definition of

grouping practices should learn and understand the effect of grouping and make

consequent decisions based on that knowledge (Caro, 2009, p. 23). The exact consequence

of homogenous ability groups is not fully explored in literacy – this study will look at the

grouping practices of in-‐service teachers that both help the demographic in question whilst

still maintaining the integrity of servicing higher level students.

As previously mentioned, much of the literature available for literacy attainment

pertains to primary and/or junior students and very little is available for intermediate

language development. Vacca (1998) explains the difficulty for intermediate students with

low SES to get the adequate amount of support in language to become competent:

Middle and high school reading and English teachers are the last instructional front in an adolescent’s development as a competent and proficient user of language and literacy. Yet reading teachers and specialists are an endangered species in middle and high schools, except in situations where their positions are mandated by state law. The first academic teaching position cut from a school district’s budget is usually that of the middle or high school reading teacher or specialist. With the exception of students who struggle as readers, few if any curricula provisions are made for the majority of adolescents (p. 7)

Intermediate learners that are not proficient in language by the time they reach

middle and high school already have an immense hurdle to overcome in order to reach

grade level standard. Students with low-‐socioeconomic status have the added challenge of

not having enough access to remediation or resources to reduce the SES gap.


21

OUT-‐OF-‐SCHOOL SUPPORT Students only spend a marginal amount of time in the classroom compared to the

amount of time they spend outside of school (Caro, 2009, p. 23). Students require an outlet

of out-‐of-‐school support to buffer the learning that takes place inside the classroom.

Students of low SES groups experience increasing disparities in the out-‐of-‐school context

(Caro, 2009, p. 23). Especially during the summer months, as Vale et al. (2013) has

described the depreciation of knowledge at this time as the ‘summer slide,’ it is imperative

that students have support for the learning they have done during the school year. A

common observation by the teachers in Vale et al.’s (2013) study was that “kids don’t read

over the holidays” (p. 17). This can be especially problematic for at-‐risk youths because

they will lose momentum and essential reading skills may deteriorate (Vale et al., 2013, p.

17). Teachers need to reach out to people and resources to help students that do not have

such a support system already established. Teachers ending the school year with their

students must ascertain and understand the reading difficulties their students have prior to

the summer months. The difficulties and challenges the students have should be conveyed

to the students’ future teacher in the next grade level to build a trusting relationship

between teachers and facilitate student transition (Vale et al., 2013, p. 22).

Responses to addressing the ‘summer slide’ achievement gap between the

economically advantaged and disadvantaged students are to focus on fostering productive

relationships both within the school culture and between the schools and surrounding

communities (Vale. et al., 2013, p. 4). Some of the teachers interviewed in Vale et al.’s study

revealed that many of the parents encountered in low SES either did not want to or were

not able to support their children’s literacy over the summer months (p. 21). The results


22

from Caro’s (2009) study indicate that students would benefit from intervention programs

in the intermediate stages, just as much as they would from programs implemented in early

childhood (p. 19). Schools serve as an equalizer for reducing disparities, although they may

not do so in an absolute sense, the SES gap increases less during the school months (Caro,

2009, p. 23). Teachers need to ensure students are receiving support throughout the

summer months by researching their students’ out-‐of-‐school options for developing

learning and cultural knowledge so that they may better connect and build on current

understandings (Vale et al., 2013, p. 22).

Arguments have been made that the out-‐of-‐school context – including mainly the

family environment – creates divergent achievement trajectories for high-‐ and low-‐

socioeconomic status students (Alexander et al., 2001, 2007; Downey, von Hippel, Broh,

2004). The family environment can be predicted by the amount of at-‐home academic

support students receive. This can be described as the contact parents have with their child

that is focused on their child’s schooling (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 21). A common form of

at-‐home academic involvement could be identified as parental monitoring and assistance

with their child’s homework (Bakers, Stevenson, 1986; Eccles, Harold, 1996; Yap, Enoki,

1995). The difficulty with quality out-‐of-‐school support is that the parents of these students

may not be effective tutors for homework content (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 21). Families

of middle-‐ and high-‐socioeconomic status have the option of hiring out-‐of-‐school support in

private tutors, however low SES families do not have this option because the financial

precedence for basic needs of necessity. The results of Desimone’s (1999) study indicate


23

that the effects of student-‐reported discussions also differ systematically based on

particular family characteristics that have not yet been defined (p. 13).

Teachers should focus on helping improve the family environment for low SES

children and increasing their exposure to schooling outside of the classroom through

summer and after-‐school programs targeted towards students in low SES families (Caro,

2009, p. 23). Some working-‐class parents are unable to pronounce words in books or

complete simple calculations when helping primary grade children with homework

(Lareau, 1996; Shumow, 1998). If some parents are already having difficulty with primary

grade homework, it will become increasingly difficult for intermediate students to get at-‐

home academic support. Teachers must be sensitive to less educated parents’ reticence and

avoid immediately assuming a lack of interest (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 21). Shumow and

Miller’s (2001) study focuses on the effects of parents’ at home and at-‐school academic

involvement as it pertains to adolescents’ success. Despite the sizeable amount of research

available relating to parental involvement and student achievement, a clear understanding

of how patterns and the effects of parental involvement are not established across income

groups (Desimone, 1999, p. 3).

CAPITAL MATERIAL CAPITAL Students of this proposed study with low-‐socioeconomic status are especially

vulnerable to lacking material capital because of the financial strain of acquiring necessary

resources. Furthermore, in comparison to primary and junior students, the amount of


24

money federal and state agencies set aside for adolescent literacy intervention programs

and research is miniscule (Vacca, 1998, p. 3). Caro (2009) argues that educational policies

that increase access to books for students with low SES and those that need material capital

assistance can have a significant impact on academic achievement (p. 23). Teachers in Vale

et al.’s (2013) study acknowledged the importance of volume reading and how having easy

access to reading materials in classroom libraries can benefit fluency for primary students.

To continue this benefit and prevent the ‘summer slide,’ teachers in Victorian schools have

ensured that students are allowed to continue borrowing books through the holidays (p.

21). Since the ‘summer slide’ would presumably be a larger issue in the Canadian context

given that the Canadian summer break is longer than the Australian, the effects of school

library access during the holidays cannot be equally mirrored and must be further

explored. The effects of a wealthy classroom library and access for intermediate students

however, have yet to be discovered in either Australian or Canadian context.

CULTURAL CAPITAL Some scholars believe that adopting a ‘scholarly culture’ as a precept of principle,

rather than economic or social capital, is far more effective on educational attainment

notwithstanding economic and social background (Evans, Kelley, Sikora, Treiman, 2010).

Desimone (1999) compares families where students reported their day in family

discussions and found that it was a significant predictor for middle-‐income student

achievement than for low-‐income students (p. 13). It is suspected that family discussion

has a stronger relationship with academic achievement for middle-‐income students

because the nature of discussions may differ; the former may review the school day or ask


25

specific questions about their child’s learning, whereas low-‐income families may focus on

sharing information about homework assignments or behaviour and safety issues

(Desimone, 1999, p.14). Furthermore, another facet of the effects of discussion on a child’s

academic growth and behaviour is that disadvantaged families may differ systematically in

communication styles than advantaged families (Desimone, 1999, p. 14).

According to Shumow and Miller (2001), the parents’ education level is a main effect

and acts as a moderator. Measures of socioeconomic status such as parent educational level

has frequently been linked to parental academic involvement (Kellaghan, Sloane, Alvarez,

Bloom, 1993, p.6). Parents who graduated from high school assisted their children with

their homework far more than parents who were not high school graduates (Shumow,

Miller, 2001, p. 1). Lareau (1996) further states that college educated parents were more

likely to hold their children’s education as a shared responsibility with their child,

therefore, they were far more likely to be involved with their students’ work in general.

Young adolescent students that endorse the importance of learning and doing well in

school were reported to have parents that assisted them with homework and had strong

out-‐of-‐school support (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 21). Although at-‐home parental assistance

was not as strongly associated with student performance than at-‐school involvement,

assistance may have served to impart values about the importance of school (Shumow,

Miller, 2001, p. 22), and therefore increase cultural capital. This study will look at how

developing low SES students’ cultural capital contributes to holistically developing the

students’ academic skills and resiliency.


26

SOCIAL CAPITAL Bourdieu defines social capital as consisting of two essential elements: “the social

relationship itself, that allows individuals to claim access to resources possessed by their

associates” (Jong, 2010, p. 20) and “the amount and quality of resources” (Jong, 2010, p.

20). According to McNeal (1999), a parent’s involvement in their child’s school goings-‐on

functions as social capital. Researchers have consistently found that parents with more

formal education are far more involved in their children’s schools than parents with less

formal education (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 20). When students are struggling

academically, parents with 12 years or more of education were more likely to be involved

in the schools than less-‐educated parents (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 21). When problems

arise with the children in school, less formally educated parents will distance themselves

from the school. In comparison, when in a similar circumstance, more-‐educated parents

will go to the school and advocate for their children (Lareau, 1996, p. 59).

Despite Evans et al. (2010) advocating for the importance of cultural capital, Vale et

al. (2013) believes that social capital – income and parental education – has a much

stronger effect on academic standing (Vale et al., 2013, p. 4). However, at-‐school

involvement typically requires parents to initiate contact, or at the very least be available

for contact with school personnel (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 3). The mean SES level

surrounding a school is an good predictor on the amount of volunteering or attendance to

PTO meetings for parents of intermediate students; the SES level of the population versus

individual SES level is an independent factor for school involvement (Sui-‐Chu, Willms,

1996). On an individual SES level, a parent volunteering at their child’s school is a better

predictor of achievement for White and middle-‐income students far more than it is for low-‐


27

income students; parental school involvement is a predictor for academic standing for low-‐

income students. (Desimone, 1999, p. 11). Hoover-‐Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie (1992)

believe that school volunteering for White and middle-‐income students – compared to

other racial-‐ethnicity and income groups – is associated with other variables that can be

connected to achievement; for example, a parent’s sense of efficacy in contributing to their

child’s education and school culture (Desimone, 1999, p. 11). PTO meeting attendance,

school involvement, and parent volunteering is not a significant factor for academic

achievement for low-‐income students. However, attending meetings with teachers was

predictive for grades and therefore, school-‐family relations may mitigate the negative

effects of financial disparity associated with the disadvantaged (Devaney, Ellwood, Love,

1997; Lewit, Terman, Behrman 1997).

On the other hand, Desimone (1999) finds that school contact for low-‐ and middle-‐

income parents are negatively associated with all types of achievement (p. 12). Parental

school involvement is a less predictive factor for achievement outcomes for traditionally

disadvantaged students than for advantaged students because “organizational or macro-‐

level influences” that often affect disadvantaged groups more than advantaged groups

(Desimone, 1999, p. 10). Organizational and macro-‐level factors that can possibly affect

disadvantaged groups include, but are not limited to school organization, social structure,

school tracking systems, peer group influences, and macro-‐level factors such as

discrimination (Pallas, 1993; Gamoran, Nystrand, Berends, Lepore, 1995; Schunk, Hanson,

1985; Ogbu, 1978). Parental school involvement was only predictive of grade, and not of

test scores (Desimone, 1999; Shumow, Miller, 2001); standardized test achievement for


28

children of all income groups was unaffected. Therefore, if grades are easily manipulated

by parental involvement than test scores, schools will be doing a disservice to their

students by changing tests scores from the main evaluation criterion (Desimone, 1999, p.

10).

Shumow and Miller (2001) assert that mothers and fathers are both crucial to

understanding family processes (p. 4). Although Evans et al. (2010) present at-‐home

involvement in children’s studies as beneficial to a student’s grades, parents of successful

students are involved more at school than the parents of struggling students, which are

more involved in homework assistance (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 1). Similarly, parents that

are high school graduates helped their children with homework whereas parents that are

college graduates were more involved in the schools (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 1).

Furthermore, since college-‐educated parents feel a shared responsibility for their

children’s academic welfare, they assert a right to voice their concerns to the school

(Lareau, 1996). Conversely, working-‐class parents regard the professional expertise of the

school with respect and faith in regards to educating their children. Low-‐socioeconomic

parents’ deference to institutional authority transform to anxiety of being judged as unfit if

things went wrong for their children, consequently creating an avoidance of their child’s

school when problems arise (Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 7). This study will examine in-‐

service teachers’ experience with low SES parents and how strong or weak relationships

affect intermediate student achievement in both basic and higher-‐order literacy.


29

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

PROCEDURE This study involved in-‐service teachers of intermediate students working in areas of

low-‐socioeconomic. This qualitative study examined the experiences of these teachers and

the degree of their impact on those students’ literacy education given the difficulties they

face intrinsic of this demographic. More specifically, the research focused on the teachers’

perception of the influence of students’ in-‐school and out-‐of-‐school support, and how they

can supplement the disparities students face with low material, cultural, and social capital.

In this research, I have investigated the current research on the various factors that

influence students’ learning when influenced by disparaging factors such as low-‐

socioeconomic status, poor material capital, poor cultural capital, poor social capital, a lack

of in-‐ and out-‐of-‐school support, and the negative and exponential trajectory of student

achievement in intermediate levels. I have identified certain gaps in the literature in which

this study will aim to address. I conducted face-‐to-‐face private interviews with 2 in-‐service

teachers that have experience with the population this study examines, which are

intermediate students with low SES. The teachers interviewed in this study have a high

degree of experience and expertise with literacy and reading education, thus having the

knowledge to provide students with effective feedback for all levels of literacy.

Consequently, this study interviewed teachers with at least five years of experience

teaching English.


30

PARTICIPANTS Two teachers from the Toronto District School Board were recruited through

contacts in publicly funded schools in the Greater Toronto Area. The teachers have a

background in teaching Language to intermediate students and have a personal familiarity

with the demographic of intermediate students with low SES. The teachers have at least

five years experience teaching Language/English.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Multiple interviews with participants were conducted, recorded using Quicktime,

and later transcribed for close analysis. I conducted 45-‐minute interviews at their home

school at the time of the Vice-‐Principal’s request. The teacher’s attitudes and responses to

questions regarding influence on intermediate literacy were analyzed alongside their

experiences with low-‐socioeconomic status intermediate students. I looked at teachers’

influence on the amount and types of support students receive both in-‐ and out-‐of-‐school.

The in-‐school context was not limited to the teachers’ classroom, but rather regarded the

school as a community and how those resources available helped students’ with acquiring

basic literacy and higher-‐order thinking involved in the intermediate Language curriculum.

I also regarded the teachers’ thoughts on the potential of how they can help influence

struggling students of the aforementioned demographic improve their literacy through

resources and strategies they have not yet implemented or experimented with.

Teachers’ experience with influencing students’ social, material, and cultural capital

will also be regarded in the ways in which their intervention have impacted their students’


31

literacy. I looked at teachers’ recollection of their success or foundering with prior attempts

to alleviate capital deficiency. Further, I examined the teachers’ description and reflection

of the specific strategies they used in such attempts.

ETHICAL REVIEW PROCEDURES The University of Toronto Ontario Institute of Studies in Education submitted a

blanket ethics review protocol on behalf of the faculty, specifically in regards to the Master

of Teaching program research paper. This ethics review protocol falls under the

Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning department under the Master of Teaching Program.

Interviews conducted in a public school setting will be followed up with an administrative

consent letter. No parties related to the researcher and/or her immediate family members

received any personal benefits as a result of or in connection with this study.

As per the Ethical Review Procedures with the Ontario Institute of Studies in

Education at the University of Toronto, a consent form was given to each participant prior

to the beginning of the interview. Each interviewee was required to read and sign the

consent form prior to answering any questions or proceeding with conversation that was

used in this study. All interviews were confidential and interviewees were briefed

beforehand of the interview’s nature and discourse, including but not limited to the topic

and purpose of the research project. The names of the interviewees were not disclosed and

instead, replaced by a pseudonym; the same applied to any students the interviewees

mentioned during the interview. Participant confidentiality was held with great pertinence.

Participants were willing participants and were not offered any monetary compensation


32

for their time. Consequently, participants were allowed to opt-‐out of individual questions

or the project as a whole at any time without consequence.

The interviews were conducted at a time and location chosen by the participant, and

in a manner that will be mutually agreed upon by all parties. All interviews were recorded

using a recording device prior to being transcribed by the interviewer. The interviewees

were offered access to the voice recordings, completed transcripts and may request for any

data they feel do not reflect their educational ideologies to be omitted. The participants

were informed upon the project’s completion and were able to request a copy of the project

if they so wish.

LIMITATIONS This study was limited by the nature of its execution. I only interviewed a small

sample, and therefore, the study’s results were not generalizable for the entire teaching

community. However, it provided insight on an issue that has yet to be fully explored and

perhaps inspire future studies that can be generalizable. Further, since this study dealt with

the trajectory of literacy success in intermediate students, it stands that the inability to

conduct a longitudinal study was a setback that cannot fully explore the effects of teacher

intervention.

Since this study was a case study, examining the experiences of specific teachers, the

study was limited by its inability to achieve a full perspective from all possible parties

affected by the study. For example, this study focused on improving the learning

environment of intermediate students in low-‐socioeconomic statuses, however, the


33

students’ actual perspective is absent. It was difficult to fully understand the breadth of

their difficulty without speaking to them directly to decipher exactly what they need help

with in bridging the literacy gap. Further, the parents' voice was absent in this study. The

study addressed out-‐of-‐school support, material capital, cultural capital, and social capital,

which are by definition, the product of parent capacity. Thus, to fully understand the

parents’ role in affecting student literacy, it would be important to understand the parents’

perspective.


34

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

Two intermediate Language teachers working in a school of low socioeconomic

status were interviewed for this study. All names used in this chapter are pseudonyms.

Nahla has taught in low SES schools for six years, the entirety of her career as a TDSB

teacher. Two of those years she has spent teaching intermediate Language. Hilary has also

been teaching in low SES schools for her entire career, spanning seven years. She began

teaching the behavioural class for her first two years as a teacher and thereafter

transitioned into an intermediate Language teacher for the remaining five years.

The participants revealed a number of strategies they have experienced to be

successful as possible methods to support their low SES students’ achievements to match

that of their high SES counterparts. Both participants expressed similar attitudes and

ideologies when working with students struggling with literacy that have low

socioeconomic status. The participants also explained how the students’ parents’ actions

and attitudes of these students affect their literacy learning. Further, the participants

revealed how the school’s involvement can affect students’ ability to maintain grade level

expectations in regards to literacy. The students of this study’s participants seemed to have

similar challenges, but with varying needs. Awareness of these challenges as potential

hurdles for teachers of low SES students was relevant to the prospective actions that

thereafter followed. Both participants, especially in regards to literacy, did not consistently

experience a significant summer slide.


35

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TEACHER

Teacher’s responsibilities stretch far beyond their classroom to sufficiently support

their students of low SES’s literacy. The teachers implicitly described acting in loco parentis,

considering the students holistically, rather than exclusively in regards to academics. Both

teachers expressed the importance of knowing their students personally and building their

self-‐esteem through assessments that offered choice. It was also beneficial to build a strong

and mutually respectful relationship with the students’ parents and to be persistent despite

any barriers that may stand between such relationships. Alongside the many successful

strategies described by the two participants, both expressed a number of challenges when

working with intermediate students of low SES struggling with literacy.

GETTING TO KNOW THE STUDENTS

It was truly important the teachers internalize the responsibility of acting in loco

parentis, especially in regards to working with students in low SES. Both Hilary and Nahla

iterated the significance of knowing the students holistically, from their academic capacity

to their personal interests and challenges. Teachers need to build a genuine relationship

with their students and in order to do so, it is necessary that teachers are authentic when

interacting with their students. They needed to cultivate a “caring and nurturing”

environment and act as “role model[s].” Nahla explained that oftentimes the smallest of

gestures could have a huge impact. For example, Nahla provided an anecdote from when

she had contributed to the inclusive tone of her classroom:

So we won’t make them feel like, ‘do you want extra snack?’ ‘are you hungry?’ because at this age, grade 7, 8, that can make them feel ostracized. So it’s kind of there, ‘oh, can I have extra snack.’ So many people are asking so it doesn’t make them feel, but


36

sometimes if they’re in a bad mood or something like that, if there’s some extra we’ll say ‘oh, do you want some extra snack?’ as they’re leaving for recess. And then they’ll take it and that little gesture can have such a huge impact.

When students know that their teacher genuinely care about their wellbeing – socially,

emotionally, and academically – they will find reason to put in comparable effort. Hilary

demonstrated acting in loco parentis in this following example:

…because of his situation at home he didn’t have anything to help him. So, what I normally do is I’ll keep the kids after school or I’ll keep kids in at lunchtime. So what we did was sign him up for the breakfast program, the lunch program, and I think food helps nourish your brain as well. We hooked him up with social workers to get clothing so just to make him feel better overall and that seemed to change his attitude towards school as well. It was more like everybody’s trying to help me and I think now that let’s help myself kind of thing.

Hilary was able to change her student’s attitude and motivate him to care for his own

wellbeing. Both Hilary and Nahla considered factors, such as hunger and clothing, to their

students’ attitude that would conventionally fall under the parents’ responsibility. By

considering the students’ holistic needs first, the classroom will consequently become an

inclusive domain for all students in the classroom regardless of socioeconomic status.

When teachers know their students well, they are able to cater their lessons to those

interests and motivate their students’ active participation. Another advantage of knowing

one’s students holistically is the ability to motivate them through assessments. Both Nahla

and Hilary expressed their preference for using the strategy of choice to motivate their

students. This strategy however, was dependent on their knowledge of their students’

interests. Hilary exercised the strategy of choice and catered to one of her student’s

interests in the following:

I have one student that only wants to talk about basketball and he is lower, I wouldn’t say that he’s at the lowest end of the SES but he also has a large literacy gap. So as long as you hand something in to me and you are proud of, then I’m okay with that. So we’re writing persuasive essays on–they had to pick a social justice


37

issue but that was a little bit above him so he just said, ‘well I want to write about how it’s unfair of how kids get into basketball.’ Well, that’s kind of talking about the injustice and you go right ahead and he actually succeeded in it, so he did really well.

Hilary adapted the assignment she had created to accommodate for her student’s interest

because she knew by doing so it would help him be successful. When students have a

personal interest and stake in what they are writing because it is a genuine expression of

their ideas and beliefs, they will put forth more effort than something that is forced upon

them artificially. To maintain authentic pedagogy and practice, teachers need to know their

students on a personal level to help them connect to the material being taught.

When teachers are able to see their students holistically and understand what they

are passionate about, they are building a far more meaningful relationship with the

students. Teachers will be able to link topics that are authentic to the students to “reel

them in” and help students “buy into” what they are doing in class. When teachers use

authentic topics that interests students: “If they’re interested in something, they’re more

likely to understand it better and because they have prior knowledge, they’re able to

comprehend it better, and think bigger. So making sure they have prior knowledge, and

making sure they’re interested in it,” according to Hilary. Hilary made a connection

between interest, prior knowledge, and the capacity for advanced literacy that required

higher-‐order thinking. Choosing topics that interested students was an advantage for both

their motivation and their literary competence of interpretation. Students take pride in

their work if it is meaningful to them.


38

BUILDING SELF-‐ESTEEM

Nahla and Hilary recognized negative outcomes in behaviour when students had

low self-‐esteem of their academic capability. Students react overtly negatively when self-‐

perceived competence is low. Nahla found that the students’ behaviour manifested in

antagonistic, defensive, destructive and disruptive ways. On the other hand, Nahla

described a difficulty to acquire adequate school support when the student’s needs were

both psychological and behavioural in nature. It was important that teachers make the

students feel comfortable and appreciated to reduce negative behaviour outbursts.

Both teachers had similar outlooks to “[make] a positive impact on [their] students”:

they provided their students opportunities to be successful. It was especially important for

struggling students to feel moments of achievement. One of Hilary’s strategies for building

her students’ self-‐esteem is to prepare them for her lessons beforehand by meeting with

them outside of classroom hours:

“I set up whatever we were about to read or write or we were about to do, I’d set up a word list for her and I’d give it to her ahead of time and sit and talk to her about it. So she came after school two or three times a week after school because she realized there was a gap so I still [pause] I gave her what the other students were doing because I didn’t want her to feel ostracized in order to feel [pause] quote unquote stupid, because that’s what she said she would have felt like. So when I met with her after school, I would guide her for whatever was happening so she was prepared for it and then I gave her homework that was at her level so she could read with her mom…”

Hilary holistically considered what benefits both her students’ academic success and social

reputation. Thus, Hilary was looking beyond what is conventionally considered requisite

responsibilities of a teacher.


39

Additionally, both teachers saw the importance of genuine praise for their students

when they accomplished something, no matter how minor. It was important that teachers

build an inclusive environment in their classroom where no student felt singled out. There

were negative consequences to publicly isolating a student in front of his/her peers that

affected the trust between student and teacher. Conversely, there were significantly more

positive effects to a student’s behaviour and academic success when they believed they

were capable. Nahla found that students became less antagonistic and defensive when they

felt triumphant.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PARENTS

Nahla and Hilary were both optimistic about the potential to have a positive

relationship with all the parents of their students. Although many of the negative

experiences with parents were highlighted in the interviews, both explicitly stated that

poor parental support among students of low SES should not be generalized, as they are

simply the situations that are so poignantly remembered. On the other hand, both teachers

also expressed that there is always prospect to turn a previously negative and tainted

relationship with the school and previous teachers to a positive one.

Hilary expressed that teaching is a “partnership between parent and teacher.” A

teacher can only influence his/her students so much until the student’s success falls into

the hands of the parent and his/her cooperation with the teacher’s practices. Thus, it is

pertinent to create and maintain a good relationship with parents. Both teachers

experienced difficulties contacting parents in regards to their children’s academic

wellbeing. Hilary felt that there are occasions where acting with extreme measures is


40

warranted for the sake of building a good rapport with parents: “…we have a lot of parents

that we can’t get them to come in for interviews. They may not want to talk about

academics, but as soon as it’s a sports game and their child is involved in it, they’re there.

And so that’s why I say, “here we go, come on over here, let’s talk about how he’s doing in

math.”Once again, Hilary moved beyond the confines of the classroom to ensure her

students’ success. To build a trusting relationship with parents, the first step was to make

contact, which can sometimes be the most difficult part. On the other hand, Hilary

explained that when the students reach a level of maturity where they can be independent,

it was then “sometimes easier to get past what goes on at home.” Regardless of the degree

of its impact though, the relationship with the parent was nevertheless a salient factor to

student success.

It was important to show the parents that the teacher cares about the students and

was working together with the parents. Hilary’s strategy was to always make time to call

home with positive feedback:

Then there are some parents that have a negative relationship with the school because anytime anybody has called them, it’s been negative…I try to call all parents every couple of months for positive things. I always – and if there’s that student that’s always causing problems, as soon as there’s something positive I can say or that they’ve done, then I call home. And even if I only get voicemail and leave a message, I always try to be positive.

Hilary had an optimistic outlook for her students and tried to maintain that same outlook

when regarding their parents. Sustaining a positive attitude with parents gave them

incentive to interact with the school and teacher, breaking an invisible wall of indifference

and absence. Nahla also reassured:


41

…when you have the evidence, ‘okay this is where your child is at,’ and you have the proof in front of you and you tell them what their child needs to work on, they will accept what you say… if they really care for their child and they see that you really care for their child, then they’re open to seeing that, then they will kind of warm to it.

One key element to maintaining a good relationship with the students’ parents was candor.

A teacher’s genuine investment in the students must shine through. It was not only enough

to show the parents that the teacher cared but also provided evidence and support for the

next steps in the students’ learning. The teacher must work with parents to determine a

realistic course of action based on what the teacher has noticed and recorded in their

assessments. Ultimately, it was important to be persistent and positive when interacting

with parents to ensure a welcoming relationship that will ultimately benefit the students.

TEACHING STRATEGIES

Nahla and Hilary described several teaching strategies they have found to be

successful when working with low SES students in intermediate Language. Although many

strategies were described, both teachers explicitly mentioned that they cannot be used in

every circumstance and a strategy’s success was dependent on how well it fit with the

student’s needs. Consequently, it is necessary that teachers know their students and their

academic history well. Nevertheless, both teachers clearly expressed that despite having

failed with a particular strategy, one should never give up and continue to try alternative

methods.


42

The most common strategy both teachers used was accommodation. Making

accommodations varied from student to student; nevertheless, the teachers listed many

methods of accommodations and modifications that can be made within the classroom:

1. Using the same topic but at a different reading level

2. Giving simplified worksheets so the students could get to the bottom of the

worksheet and feel successful

3. Reading the material to the students so they can understand the ideas presented

and understand “the bigger picture”

4. Preparing students for lesson content beforehand

5. Repetition

6. Allowing extra time

7. Giving students different ways to express themselves (multiple intelligences)

8. Placing pertinent information in a visible space within the classroom

9. Giving acronyms for easy memorization (e.g. RAISE model = restate, answer,

include, support, extend)

10. Creating an after school or lunchtime homework club

11. Considering the lesson’s learning goals (if basic literacy is what is being assessed, or

advanced literacy)

With all these strategies, the teachers felt it important that the students not feel singled out.

It was important that students feel genuine success and if their success was diminished by

a blatant accommodation. Therefore, it was important that students “do not know that

[they] are doing anything different than everyone else.”


43

Teachers will not only have to consider making time outside of the classroom to

prepare for the lesson’s accommodations and modifications, but also to “build time into the

lesson” to work one-‐on-‐one with a student. Hilary described how she manages to spend

more one-‐on-‐one time with students in her class that needed the extra attention:

I’ll tell them that I’ll get a chance to work with everybody. Don’t worry, and so I might take you, and another student and another student, and I’ll go back to you, and they don’t really realize. They don’t pay much attention, and I’ve never had students make fun of them for spending more, or I’ve never really had that student say why am I spending more time with you than other people.

Although Hilary was spending one-‐on-‐one time with one particular student, her method

was not transparent enough that the particular student or his/her peers were able to

ascertain her intention. The importance of individual attention is equity; “some students

need one-‐on-‐one.”

Both teachers also experimented with homogenous and heterogeneous pairing

strategies. They considered social and academic proficiencies when creating groups or

partners. In regards to heterogeneous groups, students that may be struggling

academically can be paired with students that are academically stronger to help support

the former student. Nahla and Hilary both used heterogeneous pairing strategies in peer

mentoring. Conversely, in regards to homogenous pairs, a student may get along well with

another student socially and so their bond may work to the advantage of the teacher as the

students may motivate one another to work on the task at hand. Either way, both teachers

said that pairings should have a positive influence on the students’ work or work ethic.


44

ACTIVITIES, ASSIGNMENTS AND RESOURCES

Nahla and Hilary gave several examples of assignments and activities they used that

were effective and conducive for making accommodations and modifications. Nahla

chooses to start her year with an open assignment she calls a “Choice Board”:

…we did at the beginning of the year was an all about me Choice Board. So there was a Choice Board of about twelve different choices. Basically the idea here was to convey something, you know tell us something about you. At the middle of the choice board there was something that they all had to do. But then they had to choose one of the other options, and there were assessment criteria to go with each of those options and they got to pick. So the one was like, write a paragraph about something. And the other choices were all across the board and they each tapped into each of the intelligences and the different types of words.

In this assignment, Nahla was accomplishing a number of things that will help her through

the year. First, she was getting to know her students through an assignment that provided

students with many choices in method and an open subject about themselves. Nahla was

able to learn about the things that were most important to the students. Nahla often

assessed her students using multiple intelligences to give them an alternative to

conventional assessment methods. In addition to Choice Boards, Nahla also allowed

students to present their learning from book reports in an “oral book talk”: “so I did oral

book talks. So it’s kind of like an oral book report, but they get to pick their own books. And

it can be whatever genre they want. So those usually go very well because they have an

element of choice.”Nahla often combined her assignments with the element of choice to

motivate her students’ interests and assess them in a fair and authentic way.

Hilary used activities such as KWL charts to assess her student’s prior knowledge.

She used this as a diagnostic to find out what they already know and where there are gaps

of knowledge she could fill. She also used an activity called Milling to Music to contribute to


45

her classroom culture and her student’s comfort within the classroom and among their

peers.

‘Milling to Music’ … allows the kids that might not understand a topic, to talk to other people that do. And that’s just more in a safe environment. I shout something out about the book we’re reading and they have no idea what I’m talking about, but at least the can talk about it. So I think at least building up their prior knowledge, they’re going to do a task that’s really important.

Hilary used this strategy to build on prior knowledge, but to also add to her classroom

culture’s inclusivity. “Milling to music” allowed her students that may be more timid to hide

among their peers but still benefit from the interaction.

Both teachers also expressed the incomparable benefit of technology. Technology

allowed for exposure to different types of media to help comprehend an idea or topic.

There were many websites for homework help that were accessible to students at home or

in the school. Hilary described a particularly useful website she uses to buffer her low SES

students that are below grade level: “…we have computer programs. If there’s an article

that they’re reading, they can just click on which level they find the easiest. They can read it

since they’re still getting the same content and can still talk to their peers about it.” The

program Hilary described is a website www.newsela.com. She used this website to

accommodate her students when she was not assessing basic literacy and fluency. This

resource allowed her students to still participate in higher-‐order thinking activities while

building their self-‐esteem.

Nahla also found the web-‐based forum Edmodo a helpful technology tool for

providing her students with additional help:


46

“So you sign up, teachers create classrooms and you provide the code to each of the students and they set up an account and that’s there so I can support them when they’re doing their homework, or if they have any question about anything, they post it. They can send me a direct message or they can post it to the class. They can’t message each other because that brings up things such as bullying and things like that. And they really used it a lot. And even the ones that don’t have maybe a computer at home, they have phones a lot of them. So they’ll use that, there’s an app for it. And I find it really helps in terms of supporting them at home because not all of them have like parents at home to help them, or older siblings that are going to help them, or even the motivation. But now, instead of coming to school and saying, ‘Oh, I didn’t understand.’ I can say ‘well, why didn’t you ask on Edmodo.’

Nahla turned to technology to help her bridge the gap between home and school support.

She has not experienced a lapse in access because of the range of accessibility Edmodo

provides through mobile devices. By having access to Edmodo, Nahla was also building

accountability in her students, as they could not fall back on excuses of lacking remote

access. Nahla had a system in place that allowed her to use the resource effectively without

impeding on the amount of time she spent on it outside of class. She told her students that

she will check her messages at 8:00p.m. and so they have until that time to pose their

questions. Nahla described the use of this technology as a transformative experience.

TEACHER CHALLENGES

Among the many reported successful teaching strategies, both Nahla and Hilary

reported a number of challenges intrinsic to teaching students literacy with low

socioeconomic status. The most taxing of their responsibilities was the extra time they

needed to prepare for accommodations and to develop and maintain the relationship with

these students’ parents.

If the teacher does not make a concerted effort to help these students reach the

achievement levels of their peers, the students will fall even further. Both teachers

recognized that there was “only so much time in a day” and there was not enough time to


47

make up for all the previous years of nonintervention. Nevertheless, teachers must still

make every effort and take every chance to help their students feel successful and motivate

them to improve independently.

It is also important that teachers are flexible with their long term planning. Nahla

explained the necessity of flexibility:

It’s a lot more work and it’s different than creating your unit and administering your unit. Instead, you’re going for every week, or every two weeks, week by week, and sometimes the day of, something changes and you have to change it. It’s a lot more time consuming but I think the results are much better than what you would get otherwise.

The needs of a student were always changing. Their learning pace may not be constant and

so it is important to adjust one’s lessons to mirror their pace. It was far more effective to

administer lessons that are presently relevant to the students’ interests and learning goals.

Another crucial challenge for the two teachers was the relationship with the parents

of these students. Both teachers described multiple cases where the parents would not

cooperate with the teacher or the school to get their children additional support. The

support existed but the students could not access these resources unless the parents were

compliant. Nahla and Hilary both described incidences where the parents had been overtly

antagonizing. Hilary said that their role as a teacher “can be draining when parents aren’t

involved.” There is only so much a teacher can influence students when the parents are not

cooperative.

Although neither Nahla nor Hilary mentioned student behaviour as a challenge

intrinsic of working with students in low socioeconomic status, both said that it was a

common obstacle for teachers at the intermediate level where literacy was inadequate.


48

Nahla and Hilary experienced some other student challenges such as laziness,

disinterest, intimidation, support refusal, vandalism, and attention seeking. These

behaviours were less debilitating than the two aforementioned. They said that when

teachers are required to invest so much time and effort to successfully scaffold their

students’ learning, it makes the process even more wearying when the class sizes are so

large. Nahla has had classes as large as 34 students and it was difficult to give every student

the attention they needed and deserved. Secondly, all students did not always have the

same access to technology. And finally, it could sometimes be difficult to motivate students

because of a lack of interest.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARENT

Nahla and Hilary disclaimed that the experiences and anecdotes described during

the interview were not generalizable to all parents of low SES, but were simply the ones

that are the most memorable. There were certain factors of low socioeconomic status that

may characterize some of the parents’ behaviours, however this could not be assumed for

every parent with low SES. For example, many of the parents of the children described

during interviews were single parents, and usually young parents as well. Some parents

had multiple teenage pregnancies, and so were themselves immature because they had not

had a chance to grow up themselves. Because these parents had many children and “their

time [was] usually spent with the younger ones,” it left struggling intermediate students at

a disadvantage. This segment of the study’s findings concentrates on the teacher’s


49

perceptions of parents and how their attitudes and actions support or disservice their

children.

PARENTAL ATTITUDES

Parents motivate their children and students need them as role models. The parents’

attitudes had a significant effect on students’ attitudes and motivation. Parental attitudes

were heavily influenced by their standing relationship with the teacher and the school.

Nahla explained that “[parents] think that we are stigmatizing them because of their

situation. So they’re very defensive.” If parents feel disparaged, they may avoid schools.

Nahla and Hilary talked about parents who avoided calls when they attempted to discuss

their children. However, Hilary explained that their resistance was possibly caused by their

history with the school and previous teachers. “…they don’t respond to notes because

everything they’ve ever heard is negative. So I think in some cases it can be a positive

experience for [teachers] that reach out. But it can be negative if it’s only been negative

things when we call home about and only ever negative situations that were discussed.”

Hilary empathized with the parents and tried to understand and justify their opposition. As

aforementioned, teachers can improve the parents’ relationship by calling home with

positive news and feedback to discharge their hesitancy.

The students’ attitudes were a certain “reflection of how their parents’ think.”

Parental attitudes had so much potential to either positively or negatively affect their

children. There is only so much time in a day that is spent with a teacher before they are

passed back to their parents. The time they spend with their parent is incomparably longer

and so it is only natural that the parents’ attitudes influence the students’ attitudes. Parents


50

had the potential to motivate their children far more than their teachers. On the other

hand, if the parents lacked interest in their children’s homework and learning, the students

ultimately suffered motivationally and academically. For example, Hilary found that when

the parent has difficulty with commitments (e.g. picking up their child, attending meetings,

getting their child ready for school on time), the child was likely to mimic that behaviour

and have difficulty committing to completing an assignment.

Parental attitudes were strongly linked to the success of students with low

socioeconomic status. Because these attitudes were a partial reflection of their relationship

with the school and teacher, it is critical that both teachers and administrators do their best

to maintain a good and working relationship to the parents for the benefit of the students.

Teachers need to work with parents as a team with the wellbeing of the students in mind.

Parental attitudes have such great potential to both positively or negatively influence their

children’s attitudes and performances.

PARENTAL COMPETENCE AND SUPPORT

The parents’ support, or lack there of, greatly affected student Language learning.

Unfortunately, Nahla and Hilary experienced low SES parents to not be involved with the

school or their children’s learning. Of course, this did not apply to all parents, but Nahla and

Hilary had experienced this pattern with many of the low SES parents. The parents were

disinterested in the content of their children’s homework as well as the idea of having

homework. Some of the parents were also struggling with proficiency themselves and so

the two participants felt it was understandable that the parents were not as interested in

their children’s learning as their involvement in sports for example. Sometimes, the parents


51

were so resistant to supporting their children’s academics that they did not cooperate

when the teacher, principal, school and board were making an effort for intervention and

greater support. Nahla described an instance where CAS involvement was required to get

parental support:

It took us the entire year to get mom to come in. And finally we got him the support that he needed and he’s in a section 23 program, which is for intensive behaviour support. But, it took a whole year. And eventually even when the mom did come in, she was with a CAS caseworker. It was difficult to get mom to come in. Sometimes it’s just the teacher and the school that’s just trying and trying and it doesn’t really get very far.

There is only so much a teacher can do to influence the amount of support the parent is

willing to give their children. Nahla and Hilary persisted to work with the parents to

support the students’ best possible outcome, however parental support was integral to that

goal’s success.

Nahla explained that in her experience, some parents felt reluctant to take her

advice on certain issues regarding their children because they saw that she was younger

than they were. In these situations, it was very difficult to help the students when they

stepped outside of the teacher’s reach. On the other hand though, if the parents were

willing to heed the advice of the teacher, they had the opportunity to learn with their

children and improve on their own knowledge and learning. Ultimately, the parents’

support was dependent on their attitude and their willingness to put forth effort in

supporting their children.

MATERIAL CAPITAL AND OUT-‐OF-‐SCHOOL SUPPORT

Parents were expected to support their children with necessary material capital and

out-‐of-‐school support to foster their children’s success. Unfortunately however, the parents


52

often lacked sufficient material capital to support their children’s learning. There were

after-‐school programs available to these families, however they were not accessible

because tutoring agencies often come with hefty invoices.

Hilary and Nahla had observed that their students sometimes came to school hungry

or not properly dressed, which affected their learning attitude and aptitude. Further, low

SES parents could not afford appropriate babysitting arrangements and so the older

siblings, usually from the intermediate grades, were expected to care for their younger

siblings. Teachers need to consider the responsibilities that intermediate students may

have in their personal lives. Heather explained an epiphany she had regarding students’

responsibility at home:

…sometimes I think we have to remember as educators that they have a life outside of school and sometimes that life is very hard for them. So we can’t expect them to go home and finish their homework all the time. We have to provide ways in schools for them to be successful. So that was something I had to realize, like no you need to go home and do it, you need to finish that, and what are you doing, and so I think that was a challenge that I faced but I got–I realized that.

There were consequential effects of inadequate material capital for the students’ learning.

It is a teacher’s folly to assume malicious intention behind a student’s actions without

considering the student holistically.

Another consequence of insufficient material capital is in sufficient access to

technology. Nahla described two sides of this predicament:

…there are some that don’t have access to computers, but I think – and this is also strange – but they all have phones. But then again that’s also part of the parenting. Like I said, some of them are very young parents who don’t have much education themselves so in terms of budgeting, you know the money goes in certain places. But in a way, it’s kind of good because they can connect with like through that app or through the [Edmodo] website. And they do. Even a lot of the low socioeconomic status families, the students will respond. They actually do use the tools. It’s actually amazing.


53

Even though the parents’ lack of maturity results in unjustifiable distribution of income, it

ultimately resulted in the benefit of the student. Smartphones are so ubiquitous that access

to adequate technology may not be guaranteed, but they are at least guaranteed enough

access to networking and technology that they can still access some out-‐of-‐school support.

SUMMER SLIDE

Both participants established the summer slide as a gap students experience after a

summer break. However, only one of the participants recognized its presence in her

intermediate Language students. Nevertheless, Heather explained how she combats the

repercussions of a summer without academic opportunity: “I think in June, giving them

packages kind of, to review what work they have, especially the kids going into high school,

and just they’re more motivated to do it because they are going to high school.” Hilary

appealed to the autonomy and personal responsibility of intermediate students to maintain

their learning.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SCHOOL

The school may not be as immediately influential as a teacher or a parent to student

Language learning, however the school nevertheless plays an integral role. It is the school’s

responsibility to level the playing field for all students of all socioeconomic statuses. Nahla

described working previously in a model school, which automatically got funding for

technology, resources, and tools that would otherwise be unavailable to students of low

SES. Furthermore, the school is also responsible for providing in-‐school support to the


54

students where needed. This section will also look at how the school manages and

maintains relationships with parents of students with low SES (social capital).

IN-‐SCHOOL SUPPORT AND RESOURCES

There are two types of in-‐school supports: the first being support mandated by the

board and the second being initiatives made by individual schools. The former can be

difficult when a lack of parental support is so prevalent within the low SES community. In

order to receive specialized assistance from IST (in-‐school support team) and SST, the

school requires an initial meeting with the parent to request for additional support. There

is also a second meeting with board officials where the parents must also be present to take

advantage of the implementation of extra support. Conversely, there are also section

schools that are specially designed to provide behavioural support.

Nahla and Hilary gave examples from the low SES schools in which they have

worked. Nahla describes a book room open to all classes in the school that had both junior

and intermediate books in the same area:

“…we also have a book room at the school. So there’s lots of different types of reading material and then the junior and intermediate books are all in the same room. So, sometimes the student, the struggling student, is like ‘oh, I can’t think of what I should read’ but really what I feel like what they’re asking me is, ‘there’s nothing here that I can read.’ So, I mean, I’ll just pick one up from the grade six shelf or the grade five shelf, and it’s not labelled for them, they don’t know. We know. I’ll say, ‘Oh, this might be something that you’d be interested in.’ And they feel included because other students have taken books from the book room as well.”

Having a book room without obvious designation of difficulty level promoted an inclusive

learning environment and allowed for intermediate students that may be struggling to

build their self-‐esteem. The school invested in a variety of reading material and the library

looked at the records of what was being checked out to see what students were interested


55

in. With this information, the library ordered a variety of reading materials that will be of

interest to the students of the school. The librarian and teachers worked as a divisional

team to provide an accommodating and inclusive environment for the students that was

conducive to successful language learning.

Hilary also described a program her school principal developed to help struggling

intermediate students catch up with their peers: “…there is something we do at school that

we do and it’s a homework program. So kids who are low, low in literacy and numeracy. So

they can be involved in this program. So teachers sign them up and its free but they have to

be at a certain level. We just have to recognize that they’re lower. And it’s a separate

program for them.” The school recognized that a significant number of students needed

additional support in literacy. This was a program the school developed to meet the needs

of their school demographic. It is important that the school is aware of the educational gaps

so that they can address them in a timely manner and prevent a greater gap.

SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social capital and the impact of the school community were ultimately dependent on

the willingness of parental involvement. Possessing adequate social capital in relation to

the school resulted in positive outcomes for student learning. Maintaining relevant

communication with parents about in-‐school support options was one of the benefits.

However, the students also benefited from the range and number of connections the school

made with parents. Some events that Nahla and Hilary’s schools hosted to reach out to

parents were Curriculum Night, Asian Heritage Night, Talent Shows, and Sports Games. The

school often offered free food at the events to entice parents’ participation. Schools can do


56

their part to reach out to parents by hosting events, but it is ultimately the parent’s decision

whether or not to participate.

The benefit of social capital was also the resources and outside agencies that the

school introduced to parents. In Nahla and Hilary’s experiences, they had seen the school

introduce parents to social workers, outside agencies, camps (Tropicana), libraries, and

community centres. Hilary described an instance where the school was able to introduce a

speech and language therapist to work with a student once a month with reading:

“…she didn’t get up to grade level, but she got to at least grade 7, grade 6, grade 7 before she left which was really, really good. She worked really, really hard ‘cause she wanted that. We also got social—it wasn’t social work, it was speech and language involved and a speech and language therapist also worked with her one time a month to help her with what she was reading.”

With the cooperation of this student’s mother and the school’s connections, they were able

to prevent this student from falling behind and almost entirely bring her up to speed with

her peers. Social capital can provide incredible outcomes for students with low SES and

link them to outside agencies that serve as out-‐of-‐school support.


57

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

The discussion was organized according to the following research questions: What

strategies do middle-‐school teachers report using to support their students from low SES

homes as they continue on their literacy learning journey? and What role do teachers,

parents, and the school play in the acquisition and development of reading and writing?

This chapter was divided into three main sections: Roles and Responsibilities of the

Teacher, Roles and Responsibilities of the Parent, and Roles and Responsibilities of the

School. The former addressed the first research question and touched on the second, and

the latter two aimed to answer the second main research question.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TEACHER

It is the role of the teacher to get to know the students, build on their self-‐esteem

with that knowledge, and build and maintain relationships with parents. The purpose of

teachers knowing their students’ needs holistically benefited greatly to their ability to

determine the next steps for their students’ literacy development. According to Vale et al.

(2013), it is the teacher’s responsibility to assess and respond to the students’ needs. When

considering low socioeconomic status students that already struggle with intermediate

literacy, these extenuating factors begot numerous other factors that influence students’

development.

Simons, Irwin and Drinnien (1987) explained that it is difficult for students to focus

on academic tasks when the most basic of needs are not met. In the case of Hilary and


58

Nahla’s students, they lacked satisfaction in all five levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:

physiological; safety; love, affection, and belongingness; esteem; and self-‐actualization.

Typically, the former four levels fall under the responsibility of the parent and Simons et al.

focused on the level of self-‐actualization as a factor immediately influenced by a teacher’s

role. However, teachers of low SES students must take on a more dominant role in loco

parentis and consequently must concern themselves with all levels of Maslow’s hierarchy.

Hilary and Nahla ensured that their students’ most basic physiological needs were met in

order to hold their attention in class. It was important for the progress and development of

intermediate students’ language learning that teachers understood their students’ needs

holistically in loco parentis.

In order to fulfill Maslow’s fourth level of hierarchical need, the need for esteem

(Simons et al., 1987, p. 2), Nahla and Hilary ensured that their classroom environments

were both inclusive and nurturing and that their students felt comfortable and appreciated

in order to reduce negative behaviour outcomes. Desimone (1999) explained that

communication styles of those of low socioeconomic status might differ from those

typically experienced in a classroom (p. 14). Thus, Nahla and Hilary’s approach to create an

inclusive learning environment lends well to the different communication styles that may

potentially categorize behaviour as defiant. Rather than focusing on behaviour, Nahla and

Hilary prioritized making their students feel successful, thereby building their self-‐esteem

and their motivation to improve.

Both teachers expressed the necessity and influence on students’ language success

for developing a positive relationship with parents. Shumow and Miller’s (2001) prediction

that low socioeconomic status parents are reluctant to participate in their children’s


59

academics (p. 7) rang true in Hilary’s testimony. She was thus forced to take extreme

measures to contact her students’ parents because of the instrumental role of parent-‐

teacher relationships. Knowing the significance of creating or maintaining positive

relationships with parents, both Nahla and Hilary persistently tried to build relationships

despite past failures.

TEACHING STRATEGIES

Both teachers drew heavily on students’ prior knowledge to guide their short-‐term

language curriculum planning. For example, Hilary modified the process of a task by

offering an alternative level text so that her student understood the literary content. There

had been competing theories for standards and expectations between Fenwick and Cooper

(2012) and Terwel (2005) and McGarvey, Marriott, Morgan, Abott (1997). The latter

believed that teachers are able to influence student outcomes if they are able to accurately

identify students’ prior learning and clearly define practical learning goals with a variety of

strategies for all students to achieve a common standard. The former on the other hand,

believed that standards and expectations, if lowered, are to the detriment to students’

learning. Nahla and Hilary’s experiences side closer with Terwel (2005), McGarvey,

Marriot, Morgan, and Abott (1997). Both Hilary and Nahla identify students’ prior learning

and clearly define practical learning goals (Terwel, 2005 p. 655 & McGarvey, Marriott,

Morgan, Abott, 1997, p. 356).

The most common strategy for the two teachers was accommodation. Fenwick and

Cooper’s (2012) study reported that teachers responded negatively to having common

standards for all students (p. 10). Likewise, Hilary and Nahla agreed that it is necessary for

student progress and success in higher-‐order thinking tasks to modify “common standards”


60

of developmental expectation. Technology seemed to be the most effective and relatively

accessible tool for Hilary to make content accommodations and help students overcome

roadblocks. If a student had not yet developed basic fluency and literary competence, it did

not impede their potential for advanced literacy. However, the student’s need for esteem

(Simons et al., 1987) could also be nurtured if the accommodation was camouflaged.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARENT

The parent’s role is to support the student and the teacher and to provide their

children with sufficient material capital. The extent of parental support however was often

influenced by the parent’s academic competence. The attitudes of low SES parents greatly

affected the attitudes and proficiency of their intermediate children. When parents help

students with homework, it imparts values about the importance of school to their children

(Shumow, Miller, 2001, p. 22). Nahla and Hilary’s past experiences coincided with Shumow

and Miller (2001) description of cultural capital. Nahla described her students’ attitudes

towards reading “a reflection of how their parents’ think.”

When students were not meeting grade level expectation, Nahla and Hilary accepted

the personal responsibility to help the students minimize the literacy gap. Desimone

(1999) found that family discussions were a significant predictor for middle-‐income

student achievement (p. 13). Family discussions build stronger relationships with parents

and their children’s academic achievement. Middle-‐income students’ discussions often


61

differed from those of low-‐income families that focused on sharing information about

homework assignments or behaviour and safety issues (Desimone, 1999, p. 13).

Furthermore, it was difficult for Nahla and Hilary to contact the parents of their

students struggling in literacy. For example, further in-‐school support could have been

provided gratuitously for one of Nahla’s students if the parent had not “avoided” contact.

Shumow and Miller (2001) predicted that low socioeconomic parents’ deference to

institutional authority transform to anxiety of being judged as unfit, consequently avoiding

their child’s school when problems arise (p. 7). Nahla confirmed the prediction by

describing how a student’s mother would not answer calls starting with “396,” but would

answer calls from her cell phone.

Hilary explained that “some of the parents are also struggling with proficiency

themselves” which resulted in the parents to be seemingly more interested in their

children’s sports involvement over their language learning. Hellaghan, Sloane, Alvarex, and

Bloom (1993) explained that measures of socioeconomic status such as parent educational

level has frequently been linked to parental academic involvement (p. 6).

According to Shumow and Miller (2001), young students that endorsed the

importance of learning and doing well in school were reported to have parents that

assisted them with homework and had strong out-‐of-‐school support (p. 21). Further,

Lareau (1996) claimed that college educated parents were more likely to hold their

children’s education as a shared responsibility with their child and so therefore were more

likely to be involved with their students’ work in general. Nahla described the parents of

her students to be mostly only high school educated, if not lower. Consequently, they did

not participate in their children’s progress when latent in functional literacy. Although


62

Nahla and Hilary tried their best to influence the amount of support the parent provides

their children through free resources and suggestions, the ultimate determiner for students

to reduce their literacy gap is the parents’ willingness to support both the teacher and

learner.

Caro (2009) argued that educational policies that increase access to books for

students with low SES and those that need material capital assistance can have a significant

impact on academic achievement (p. 23). Hilary and Nahla relied on their school’s book

room in their planning to accommodate student reading level. Fortunately, the school’s

book room is publicly funded and seems to make a positive impact in Hilary and Nahla’s

planning. Therefore, Caro’s (2009) assumption on American schools was applicable to the

condition in Canadian schools.

Nahla explained that although her school served a significant number of low

socioeconomic students, it was not recognized as a model school. For that reason, the

amount of resources and in-‐school support were not accessible to her students that needed

it. According to Vacca (1998), federal and state agencies set aside more money for primary

and junior students than their intermediate counterparts (p.3). However, Vacca’s (1998)

study is based on American schools and so a factor for inequitable division of funds may be

dependent on socioeconomic status in the Canadian context. Consequently, parents must

rely on costly out-‐of-‐school support to develop functional literacy competence to meet

grade level expectations. Nahla and Hilary described that such options are not accessible or

realistic for the struggling students with low SES.


63

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SCHOOL

The school had the responsibility of providing in-‐school support and resources for

students and teachers. It also supplemented material capital and out-‐of-‐school support

wherever possible. Most importantly, the school had the role to develop and maintain

parents’ social capital. Access to in-‐school supports and resources in Nahla and Hilary’s

school seemed to be directly correlated with the parents’ involvement with the school.

Therefore, parents that have high cultural capital would benefit from the supports

provided by the school (Jong, 2010, p. 20). Hilary had a student whose mother completely

refused support from the school because the assumption that this support stemmed from

pity and stigma towards her son. This parent actively rejected the potential to grow social

capital. Lareau (1996) explains that when problems arise with the children in school, less

formally educated parents will distance themselves from the school (p. 21).

Although the participants mentioned that the school provides sufficient material

capital for the students while in school, Nahla and Hilary both expressed their concern for

an adequate variety of reading material for students over the summer. Low SES families

have precedence for their necessary basic needs (Simons et al., 1987; Desimone, 1999) and

therefore, reading materials and out-‐of-‐school support are not a priority.

Desimone (1999) predicted that parents of low socioeconomic status are reluctant

to participate in school events and meetings because their sense of efficacy in contributing

to their child’s education and school culture (p. 11). Hilary and Nahla however, found that

the parents did not feel impotent but were simply disinterested in building social capital.

Lareau (1996) compares low SES parents with middle and high SES parents that are more


64

likely contact the school to advocate for their children (p. 59). In Nahla’s descriptions of her

interactions with parents, it seemed that parents were more defensive than supportive.

However, it seemed that positive teacher-‐parent relationships slightly improved parents’

social capital. Therefore, the theories of Davaney, Ellwood, Love (1997) and Lewit, Terman,

Behrman (1997) that school-‐family relations may mitigate the negative effects of financial

disparity associated with the disadvantaged reigned true.

CONCLUSION

The middle school teachers reported using a variety of strategies to support their

students from low SES homes as they continued on their literacy learning journey. Most

importantly, the teachers found it impactful to make accommodations and modifications

based on the student’s current progress. More specifically, teachers should isolate tasks’

learning targets of basic and advanced literacy for those that lack the skills necessary for

functional literacy such as fluency. Teachers should be continually using diagnostic and

formative assessments to identify next steps. Teachers must consequently be flexible in

their short and long term planning. The role of the teacher in supporting latent functional

literacy is to use both formal and informal information to identify appropriate intervention

strategies.

More broadly, the teacher’s role in the acquisition and development of reading and

writing required that they know their students holistically, not only in an academic sense.

They must constantly work towards building students’ self-‐esteem by creating

opportunities in which they can be successful. They will inevitably face many challenges,


65

but it was critical that they remained optimistic and did not relent in trying new strategies

when others failed. The parents’ role in student development was to be involved in their

children’s academics and support the teacher’s efforts in literacy growth. Finally, the

school’s role was to support the teacher by providing in-‐school support and supplementary

resources. The school also supplemented material capital and out-‐of-‐school support for the

parents by developing their social capital.

LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although many useful and effective strategies emerged from the study’s discourse,

they ultimately cannot be applied to all teachers. However, as mentioned earlier in this

study, the research conducted here is meant to serve as a preface for greater issues in

equity and literacy. Furthermore, parent and student voices were absent in this study’s

considerations. To truly explore the effectiveness of teaching strategies, all vantages must

be examined.

IMPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Within the findings of this study there seemed to be many implications of equity and

social justice that could be expanded to other subjects beyond literacy. Although this study

focused on how in-‐service teachers influence their intermediate students struggling with

literacy, both teachers iterated a correlation between poor literacy and overall academic

performance. Many of the challenges and causes the teachers described are factors that go


66

beyond the Language curriculum. Their strategies such as choice and differentiation can be

adapted to other subjects. Therefore, teachers and researchers alike should consider the

factors of inequity that follows students of low socioeconomic status.

This study shows that the most important value of a teacher should be patience,

understanding and persistence. Both Hilary and Nahla’s teaching styles were adaptive to

their students’ needs and understanding of their circumstances to create opportunities

where the students could feel successful. Teachers must scaffold their students’ learning

from wherever they are in development and build on their prior knowledge to foster

enduring understandings. Although Nahla and Hilary both described the consistent

difficulties associated with teacher low SES students at the intermediate level with latent

reading ability, they always tried new strategies that would suit the specific student’s

learning style.

Nahla and Hilary were both very well versed in the possible resources and supports

available to them. It would be beneficial in pre-‐service education to help pre-‐service

teachers learn of their options and where they may seek additional information about

potential resources. It would also be beneficial for pre-‐service teachers to explore the

culture of poverty (Gorski, 2008) and misconceptions that guide false assumptions.

This study has raised questions about the issues in social justice, student

motivation, the effects of inclusion, teacher-‐student relationships’ influence on student

wellbeing, the influence of strong teacher-‐parent relationships, practical intervention

methods of the summer slide, and the reach and benefits of technology. It would be


67

interesting to explore how, and to what extent, these issues affect the overall development

of learners of low socioeconomic status.


68

REFERENCES Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Rolson, L. S. (2001). Schools achievement and inequality: A seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 171-‐191. Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Olson, L. (2007). Summer learning and its implications: Insights from the beginning school study. New Directions for Youth Development, 2007(114), 11–32. Applebee, A., Langer, J., Mullis, I., Latham, A., & Gentile, C. (1994). NAEP 1992 writing report card. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Baker, D., & Stevenson, D. (1986). Mothers’ strategies for children’s school achievement: Man- aging the transition to high school. Sociology of Education, 59, 156-166. Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1373-‐1399. Borgemenke, A. J. (2001). Placement of minority and low socio-‐economic status students in special education self-‐contained settings. (Dissertation, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing). Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bowers, L. D. (2012). Improving literacy through instruction and community experiences: The effect of a summer program on literacy outcomes of students from low SES homes. (Dissertation, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing). Campbell, J., Donahue, P., Reese, C., & Phillips, G. (1996). NAEP 1994 reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington DC : U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Caro, D. H. (2009). Socio-‐economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 558-‐590. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/215376532?accountid=14771 Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-‐analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66, 227–268.


69

Desimone, L. (1999). Linking parent involvement with student achievement: Do race and income matter? The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 11-‐30. Devaney, B. L., Ellwood, M. R., & Love, J. M. (1997). Programs that mitigate the effects of poverty on children. The Future of Children, 7, 88-‐112. DiPrete, T., & Eirich, G. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271-‐297. Downey, D. B., von Hippel, P. T., & Broh, B. A. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer? Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 613-‐635. Duncan, L. G., & Seymour, P. H. (2000). Socio-‐economic differences in foundation-‐level literacy. British Journal of Psychology (London, England : 1953), 91 ( Pt 2), 145. Eccles, J., & Harold, A. (1996). Family involvement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-‐school links: How do they affect educational outcomes? (pp. 3-‐34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Evans, M. D. R., Kelley, J., Sikora, J., & Treiman, D. J. (2010). Family scholarly culture and educational success: Books and schooling in 27 nations. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 28, 171–197. Fenwick, L., & Cooper, M. (2012). Prevailing pedagogies for classes in low SES contexts and the implications for standards-‐based reform in australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(3), 349-‐361. Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (2005). Research on teacher–student relationships and learning environments: Context, retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1), 103-‐109. Gamoran, A., Nystrand, M., Berends, M., & LePore, P. C. (1995). An organizational analysis of the effects of ability grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 687-‐715

Gorski, P. (2008). The Myth of the “Culture of Poverty”. Educational Leadership, 65 (7), 32-‐36.

Gripsrud, J., Hovden, J. F., & Moe, H. (2011). Changing relations: Class, education and cultural capital Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2011.09.007 Hauser, R. M., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2005). Measuring literacy: Performance levels for adults. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.


70

Hoffman, L., & Kloska, D. (1995). Parents’ gender-‐based attitudes toward marital roles and child rearing: Development and validation of new measures. Sex Roles, 32, 273-‐295. Hoover-‐Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent-‐school relations. The Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287-‐294. Jensen, A. R. (1966). Cumulative deficit in compensatory education. Journal of School Psychology, 4, 37-‐47. Jensen, A. R. (1974). Cumulative deficit : A testable hypothesis ? Developmental Psychology, 10(6), 996-‐1019. Jong, Tjip de. (2010). Linking social capital to knowledge productivity : An explorative study on the relationship between social capital and learning in knowledge-‐productive networks. Houten : Springer. Kellaghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., & Bloom, B. (1993). The home environment and school learning. San Francisco: Jossey-‐Bass. Kerckhoff, A. C. (1993). Diverging pathways : Social structure and career deflections. Cambridge, England ; New York : Cambridge University Press. Lareau, A. (1996). Assessing parent involvement in schooling: A critical analysis. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Family-‐school links: How do they affect educational outcomes (pp. 57-‐64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lewit, E. M., Terman, D. L., & Behrman, R. E. (1997). Children and poverty : Analysis and recommandations. The Future of Children, 2, 4-‐24. McGarvey, B., Marriott, S., Morgan, V., & Abbott, L. (1997). Planning for differentiation: The experience of teachers in Northern Ireland primary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(3), 351–363. McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out (*) [Electronic version]. Social Forces, 75(1), p. 117. Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-‐cultural perspectives. New York: Academic Press. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2006). The Ontario curriculum grades 1-‐8: Language. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/language18currb.pdf.


71

Pallas, A. M. (1993). Schooling in the course of human lives: The social context of education and the transition to adulthood in industrial society. Review of Educational Research, 63, 409-‐447. Schunk, D. H., & Hanson, A. R. (1985). Peer models: Influence on children’s self-‐efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 313-‐322. Shumow, L. (1998). Promoting parental attunement to children’s mathematical reasoning through parent education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 109-‐127. Shumow, L., & Miller, J. D. (2001). Parents' at-‐home and at-‐school involvement with young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 68-‐91. Simons, J., Irwin, D. B., Drinnien, B. A. (1987). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Psychology – The Search for Understanding. New York: West Publishing Company.

Spencer, M. M., 1925, & Mills, C. (1988). Language and literacy in the primary school. New York: Falmer Press. Sui-‐Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parent involvement on eighth-‐grade achievement. Sociology of Education, (69(2), 126-‐141. Terwel, J. (2005). Curriculum differentiation: Multiple perspectives and developments in education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 653–670. Vacca, R. T. (1998). Literacy issues in focus: Let's not marginalize adolescent literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,41(8), 604-‐609. Vale, C., Weaven, M., Davies, A., Hooley, N., Davidson, K., & Loton, D. (2013). Growth in literacy and numeracy achievement: Evidence and explanations of a summer slowdown in low socio-‐economic schools. The Australian Educational Researcher, 40(1), 1-‐25. Yap, K., & Enoki, D. (1995). In search of the elusive magic bullet: Parental involvement and student outcomes. School Community Journal, 5, 97-‐106. Zammit, K. P. (2011). Connecting multiliteracies and engagement of students from low socio-‐economic backgrounds: Using bernstein's pedagogic discourse as a bridge. Language and Education, 25(3), 203-‐220.


72

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: LETTER OF CONSENT FOR INTERVIEW

Date: ___________________ Dear ___________________, I am a graduate student at OISE, University of Toronto, and am currently enrolled as a Master of Teaching candidate. I am studying the literacy of low-socioeconomic intermediate students for the purposes of a investigating an educational topic as a major assignment for our program. I think that your knowledge and experience will provide insights into this topic. I am writing a report on this study as a requirement of the Master of Teaching Program. My course instructor who is providing support for the process this year is Dr. Antoinette Gagné. My research supervisor is Dr. Shelley Stagg Peterson. The purpose of this requirement is to allow us to become familiar with a variety of ways to do research. My data collection consists of a 40 minute interview that will be tape-recorded. I would be grateful if you would allow me to interview you at a place and time convenient to you. I can conduct the interview at your office or workplace, in a public place, or anywhere else that you might prefer. The contents of this interview will be used for my assignment, which will include a final paper, as well as informal presentations to my classmates and/or potentially at a conference or publication. I will not use your name or anything else that might identify you in my written work, oral presentations, or publications. This information remains confidential. The only people who will have access to my assignment work will be my research supervisor and my course instructor. You are free to change your mind at any time, and to withdraw even after you have consented to participate. You may decline to answer any specific questions. I will destroy the tape recording after the paper has been presented and/or published which may take up to five years after the data has been collected. There are no known risks or benefits to you for assisting in the project, and I will share with you a copy of my notes to ensure accuracy. Please sign the attached form, if you agree to be interviewed. The second copy is for your records. Thank you very much for your help. Yours sincerely, Jessica Ha Researcher name: Jessica Ha


73

Phone number, email: (416) 846-5248, [email protected] Instructor’s Name: Dr. Antoinette Gagné Email: [email protected] Research Supervisor’s Name: Dr. Shelley Stagg Peterson Email: [email protected] Consent Form I acknowledge that the topic of this interview has been explained to me and that any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I can withdraw at any time without penalty. I have read the letter provided to me by Jessica Ha and agree to participate in an interview for the purposes described. Signature: ________________________________________ Name (printed): ___________________________________ Date: ______________________


74

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

• How would you define literacy?

o Can you share an example where you worked with a student in your class

that you would consider illiterate or was struggling with reading and

writing?

• Current American and Australian research claims there is a literacy gap between

students in high SES and low SES because families in poor communities do not have

access to material resources (material capital), the experience or knowledge of

schooling through higher levels (cultural capital), or political influences, alliances or

privileges (social capital) necessary for successful schooling. How would you

describe a possible literacy gap between those of high and low SES on the basis of

your experience with your students?

• Can you share a story of a specific student of low SES where you felt that you made a

difference in the life of that student?

o How is this experience the same or different from scaffolding other low SES

students’ learning?

o Are you able to maintain grade level expectations for these students?

• Can you describe some of the challenges you may have faced with low SES students

and their literacy gap when they do not meet grade level expectations?


75

• How can you support your intermediate students’ understanding of higher-‐order

thinking in reading and writing when the students lack proficiency in

comprehension and fluency?

o How do you accommodate their learning in order to scaffold successfully?

• What are some strategies (i.e. practices or resources) that you use to help struggling

students catch up with their stronger peers?

• Research has defined ‘summer slide’ as a phenomenon where students of low SES

experience a loss in reading achievement over the summer holiday. Do you notice

this pattern in your students?

o How do you support your students that do experience the ‘summer slide’?

• How would you describe the support that students receive at home, from their

parents or otherwise?

o What do you do to support students who have little at-‐home support?

• Are there programs available in or outside of school that are accessible to all

students and help them with reading and writing?

o Do these programs exclusively deal with functional literacy or do they also

support higher-‐order thinking (i.e. analyzing and interpreting a text)?

• What resources (i.e. school supplies, reading material) do you consider necessary

for your students to be successful in your language curriculum?

o Do low SES students have the access to the necessary resources to be able to

independently improve their reading and writing skills?

o As a teacher, how can you help ensure low SES students have access to the

resources they require?


76

• Have you noticed a common attitude towards reading and writing with the parents

of low SES students?

o How do you think the beliefs of low SES parents towards reading and writing

contribute to or harm students’ progress in your classroom?

• Are you able to frequently or easily communicate with the parents of low SES?

o Are there any barriers you may encounter when trying to connect with the

parents of low SES students?

o How does your relationship with the parents affect your students’ language

learning?

• To the best of your knowledge, how would you describe these parents’ relationship

with the school?

o How do you think these parents’ relationship with the school affects their

children’s learning in reading and writing?

o Is there anything your school does to help teachers reach out to parents?

Ha Jessica C 201506 MT MTRP - University of Toronto T-Space · 2015-05-12 ·...

Documents

Transcript of Ha Jessica C 201506 MT MTRP - University of Toronto T-Space · 2015-05-12 ·...