Part 1: What We Say About Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 1 Talking About Underserved Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Students in Poverty

Unfortunately, this thought—that we could be an amazing school, if it were not for a certain subgroup of students—is a common one on many campuses. In plain or coded language, educators blame underserved segments of the student population for the school’s low test scores or out-of-control behavior. Based on little more than stereotypes or generalizations, they assume that some students can, while others probably won’t.

Limiting language directed at subgroups is a particular problem in schools because it attacks the equity of opportunity that a district or school provides for its students. This foundational issue acts in direct opposition to every mission and vision statement that proclaims the educational organization is dedicated to success for all students. The characteristics that place students in these subgroups—a learning disability, socioeconomic status, the color of their skin—are beyond their control, and all students deserve a high-quality education. Furthermore, all students can learn and achieve when they have the opportunity. Racial achievement gaps, for example, while persistent, have been shrinking over time and are explained by disparate educational opportunities (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2021; Reardon, 2019).

Attitudes and biases reveal themselves in the words leaders and staff choose. Words used on a daily basis more clearly define the culture of a learning organization than any presentation to the governing board or written statement. How successfully schools support students of traditionally underserved subgroups largely depends on those attitudes and biases.

Here are examples of some subgroups that are often victims of limiting language.

Students in Poverty

Childhood poverty is a significant and enduring problem. In the United States and Canada, about 20 percent of all children live below the poverty line (Canada Without Poverty, 2022; Center for Poverty and Inequality, 2022). For both countries, rates are higher for historically marginalized ethnic groups: Black and Indigenous children in the United States (34 percent; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2019) and First Nations children in Canada (50 percent; Canada Without Poverty, 2022). In Australia, the overall child poverty rate is around 16 percent (Research Into Poverty and Inequality in Australia, 2021). Regardless of country, students who live in poverty have traditionally lagged behind the academic progress of their peers in both reading and mathematics (Canada Without Poverty, 2022; Hattie, 2009; Redmond, 2022).

Limiting Language

“Poor students fall behind from birth, so we can’t expect them to catch up.”

In almost every school, there are students growing up in poverty. These students might arrive at school with ill-fitting clothes or unkempt hair, without basic school supplies or adequate food, or with family responsibilities that supersede homework assignments. The educator’s brain makes subconscious connections to previous negative experiences with students who looked similarly or came from a similar socioeconomic background (Newberg & Waldman, 2013). That is not to say that teachers do not love these students and want what is best for them, but they will have lower academic expectations for these students. “After all,” teachers might think, “these students arrive at school already behind in reading, mathematics, and nutrition, so it does not seem fair to expect them to learn as much as the students who arrive prepared.”

When working in schools with high numbers of students living below the poverty line, I often hear references to Betty Hart and Todd Risley’s (1995) research that says students of low socioeconomic status are behind before they start school because they are exposed to thirty million fewer words than their more affluent peers during early childhood. This study has had an enormous impact on discussions about early childhood education and methods of educating poor students, but it may also serve as an excuse to lower expectations for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

However, the Hart and Risley (1995) findings have come under reexamination. For example, Douglas Sperry, Linda Sperry, and Peggy Miller published a study in April of 2018 that finds there are many factors that contribute to a child’s exposure to language in the first forty-eight months of life. To rely only on number of utterances, they assert, gives a wholly incomplete picture of early childhood language development. Sperry and colleagues (2018) note that many variables affect early language development and that children from low socioeconomic households arrive at school behind their peers for reasons other than the utterances they have been exposed to. While we can argue the merits and methods of such studies, early childhood researchers and educators know that children who live below the poverty line arrive at school less prepared (Kamenetz, 2018; Pondiscio, 2019; Purpura, 2020; Williams, 2020). The important question is not “Why is the gap there?” but “What are we going to do to support these students?”

As long as educators continue to refer to students from impoverished backgrounds as “behind,” the students will remain so. Other limiting language like