The Southern Education Foundation (SEF) reported earlier this year that more than half of U.S. public school children now come from low-income families. Since the percentage of children in poverty has grown steadily from 32 to 51 percent over the past 25 years, the increase is not a surprise to those who pay attention to demographic shifts. However, in the shadow of the 50-year anniversary of the United States' War on Poverty, these numbers compel us to pause and ask a hard question.
First, the Facts
According to Census data, 14.7 million U.S. children were living in poverty in 2013. A UNICEF report issued a year earlier places the United States second-highest among developed countries for its childhood poverty rate.
Although low-income students reside across the country, the highest concentrations are in western and southern states, according to SEF. Of the 21 states with the largest low-income student populations in 2013, 13 are in the South. Mississippi leads the nation with 71 percent of its children living in poverty.
We know the adverse effects of poverty. As Charles Blow explains in his New York Times article "Reducing Our Obscene Level of Child Poverty," the "corrosive cruelties of childhood poverty" lead to diminished health and educational outcomes, impaired cognitive development, emotional problems, and higher rates of under- and unemployment.
In the United States, an increasing number of children arrive at school significantly behind their middle-class schoolmates, and the odds of them catching up are slim. Poverty is not unique to the United States, however; it is an individual, national, and global story. In developing nations, poverty is extreme and access to educational opportunities is often highly inequitable.
How Should We Respond?
As a nation, we've said that every child will be proficient in reading and math by an arbitrary deadline and, more recently, that your zip code should not determine your quality of education. Although this is admirable rhetoric, somehow in the translation annual testing became a poor proxy for educating kids who walked through the door with very different needs.
Saying that all kids can learn is far better than channeling some kids away from challenging coursework. But saying that all kids can reach high standards without providing comprehensive support for the students who need it most is a cruel hoax.
Ignoring poverty in our schools is not the answer. Paying attention to resources and services for the whole child—and families and communities—is the only way to counteract poverty's devastating effects on children.
In addition to impoverished individuals' lost potential, the nation—particularly those states with the highest concentrations of poor children—faces a bleak economic future. Today's global economy demands workers with more specialized skills. While families in poverty face limited options and greater instability, those regions with higher populations of impoverished citizens also have a reduced chance of sustained economic growth without an educated workforce. Unable to attract and retain quality businesses, these locations are at risk for high unemployment rates and unending economic instability.
We must recognize the responsibility of our society and the critical role of our schools in educating each child for a productive future. Given that more than half of our nation's children are poor when they enter school, we have to ask if our current approach to school improvement is truly focused on nurturing the whole child.