High-achieving,low-income students’ perspectives of how schools can promote the academic achievement of students living in poverty

Abstract

Children and adolescents from low-income families now comprise a majority of public school students nationally. As the number of students from low-income backgrounds increases, so does the achievement gap between them and their wealthier peers. This phenomenological qualitative study examined a national sample of high-achieving, low-income middle school students’ (N = 24) perspectives on what schools can do to promote the academic achievement of students from low-income backgrounds. Three main themes and seven subthemes were identified: create a culture of hope, develop relational networks, and establish meaningful parent–school collaborations. Implications for counselors and educators serving youth living in poverty are discussed.

Keywords

Academic achievement adolescents poverty

Today, 51 percent of public school students in the United States between the ages of 5 and 17 live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level (Suitts, 2015). This percentage has steadily climbed from 32 percent in 1989 to 42 percent in 2006, and crossing the 50 percent threshold in 2013 (Suitts, 2015). Paralleling this rise in poverty has been a growing achievement gap between low-income students and their more financially well-off peers (e.g. DePaoli, Balfanz, & Bridgeland, 2016; National Association of Education Progress, 2015; Reardon, 2013). The shift to a majority-poor student population has generated much recent discussion among policy makers, education researchers, and school administrators about what schools can do to better support the academic achievement of students from low-income backgrounds (Suitts, 2015). Unfortunately, a very important stakeholder is often left out of the conversation and the decisions that follow – the students themselves (Williams, Bryan, Morrison, & Scott, 2017). This is unfortunate because students possess unique knowledge and perspectives about their schools and the causes of, and solutions to, poor academic performance (Mitra, 2006). Listening closely to what students from low-income backgrounds say about the challenges many of them face and how schools can help is critical for identifying and framing the problem and rethinking policies and practices (Mitra, 2006; Williams & Bryan, 2013).

As long as we exclude these perspectives from our conversations about schooling and how it needs to change, our efforts to promote achievement among low-income students whose circumstances place them at risk of school failure may be limited (Williams & Bryan, 2013). Therefore, the main purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand high-achieving, low-income middle school students’ perspectives on what schools can do to promote the academic achievement of students from low-income backgrounds. The research question established as the basis for this study was as follows:

Research Question 1: What are high-achieving, low-income middle school students’ perspectives on how schools can promote the academic achievement of students from low-income backgrounds?

Method

A qualitative, phenomenological study was utilized to gain an in-depth understanding of students’ perspectives and the meanings they attached to them. The researchers chose this approach because phenomenological methods have been shown to be effective at gathering the experiences and perceptions of individuals from their own perspectives in prior counseling and educational research (Hays & Singh, 2012). The present study used a multiple case study design to provide the authors with a systematic way of looking at events, collecting data, analyzing information, and reporting the results (Yin, 2013). We chose to focus on middle school students because most academic problems either begin or accelerate in middle school for many students from low-income households (e.g. Goldstein, Boxer, & Rudolph, 2015). The decision to select high-achieving, low-income middle school students offered a more defined perspective, given their success in school despite the presence of adverse conditions associated with living in poverty.

Participants

Stratified purposeful sampling was used to identify 24 out of 30 potential participants drawn from a national sample of applicants pursuing a foundation-funded scholarship program for academically successful low-income students. This number fell within the recommend size for phenomenological studies (Creswell, 2007). The strata were formed based on income, sex, race, and geographical locale. Participants represented diverse racial/ethnic groups, including White American (n = 5); African American or Black (n = 5); Hispanic or Latino/a (n = 5); Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander (n = 4); Multiracial (n = 4); and Middle Eastern (n = 1). Half of the participants were males (n = 12) and the other half females (n = 12). Participants lived and attended schools in diverse geographic locale, including urban areas (n = 8), suburban areas (n = 8), and rural areas (n = 8). Students were representative of the District of Columbia and 19 states across the four major US regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast). The participants were aged 13 (n = 13) and 12 (n = 11) at the time of the study. The average gross family income was below US$18,000 per year for the sample population as reported on their tax return.

Students met the following criteria for inclusion: (a) seventh graders enrolled in middle school; (b) evidence of academic success as indicated by grades earned (mostly As with no Cs in core academic subjects (English/language arts, math, science, social studies/history, foreign language) since sixth grade), and standardized test score (i.e. at or above the proficient level in reading, mathematics, and science in the state in which they resided); (c) students eligible for free or reduced price lunch; (d) students living in low-income households (i.e. students with Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-reported adjusted gross income of less than US$24,000 per year were classified as low income for the purposes of this report); and (e) applicants to the 2012 cohort of the Young Scholars program (www.jkcf.org/scholarship-programs/young-scholars). Masten and Reed (2002) state that academic achievement (i.e. grades and tests scores, staying in school, graduating from high school) is considered an appropriate indicator of academic competence and resilience for school-age children from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Procedures and data collection

The first author obtained institutional review board (IRB) approval before the study commenced. Participants were selected from a national sample of applicants pursuing a foundation-funded scholarship program, the Jack Kent Cooke Young Scholars Program, which provides high-achieving, low-income students with scholarships and educational support to maintain their academic success. We selected applicants from the Young Scholars program because they represented a diverse and representative group of students from low-income backgrounds who have excelled academically. Access to the applicant pool was granted to the first author for approved use and was governed by the director of research for the foundation. The Young Scholars program is selective: Only 65 students out of over 1000 applicants are selected each year. The Young Scholars selection criteria include academic measures and income indicators. We invited 30 applicants who made it to the penultimate round of selection for the Young Scholars program to participate in the study. Of the 30 applicants, 24 agreed to participate. This study draws upon two data sources: the Young Scholars application and semistructured qualitative interviews.

Applications

When applying to the Young Scholars program, students provide grades, test scores, student essays, letters of recommendation, and demographic information (e.g. age, family status, race/ethnicity, gender, residency information, and income). These data provided the researchers with student profiles and ensured that students met the study criteria.

Interviews

Once a list of potential candidates for the present study was generated, candidates were sent information in the mail with a description of the research study and parental consent and student assent forms. The candidates were also informed that they would receive a US$10 gift card as an incentive for their participation. Once the consent and assent documents were returned, students received a phone call from a member of the research team to coordinate a time for the phone interview. An interview protocol was developed and reviewed by a group of experts and included eight open-ended questions, such as, ‘What, if anything, can schools do to help students from low-income backgrounds do well in school?’ After each question was posed and the conversation progressed, respondents were asked probing questions to encourage participants to concentrate on specific points and check for more detail or clarification (Patton, 2015). The use of probing questions varied according to the interviewee’s response. For instance, an example of a probing question included ‘how does that help you to maintain your good grades?’ The phone interviews were conducted by one research team member and lasted 45 to 60 minutes (M = 52 minutes). Each research team member interviewed four student participants. After each interview, participants received a thank you statement prepared and delivered by the interviewer, along with the US$10 gift card via US mail in appreciation of their time.

To insure the accuracy of data collection, a digital audio recorder was used during each interview to tape responses (Patton, 2015). After the completion of each individual session, the established digital files were transcribed verbatim by a research team member (Patton, 2015). Once transcribed, the transcript was checked again against the taped interview, to make sure that nothing was missed. Each transcript was assigned a code number and participants’ names were deleted from the data to maintain confidentiality. Follow-up interviews to clarify and expand upon the participants’ responses during the analysis process were conducted with each of the 24 student participants via telephone 4 weeks after the conclusion of the semistructured interview. The follow-up interview questions were developed by the first author and varied according to the participants’ responses to the interview questions. Research team members conducted the follow-up interviews, which lasted, on average, 25 to 30 minutes. An example of questions posed during the follow-up interviews included ‘can you think of anything else that schools can do to help you to get good grades in school?’

Data analysis

Thematic analysis was used to analyze the phenomenological data acquired in this study. Thematic analysis is performed through the process of coding in six phases to identify patterns across data sets that are important to the description of a phenomenon and are associated to a specific research question (Braun & Clarke, 2006). It is important to note that thematic analysis is not wed to any preexisting theoretical framework, so it can be used with different theoretical frameworks such as phenomenology. Braun and Clarke (2006) offered six steps for conducting a thematic analysis: (a) familiarizing yourself with your data, (b) generating initial codes, (c) searching for themes, (d) reviewing and refining themes, (e) defining and naming themes, and (f) writing up the results.

Results

Middle school students’ perspective on how schools can promote the academic success of students living in poverty is presented below. These participants reflected three main themes: (a) create a culture of hope, (b) develop relational networks, and (c) establish meaningful parent–school collaborations. Each theme had corresponding subthemes and is described below. Direct excerpts from the transcripts are used to illustrate these themes.

Create a culture of hope

Student participants emphasized the importance of helping middle school students from low-income backgrounds cultivate hope that their futures will be promising and fulfilling. Otherwise, as students suggest, they will quickly lose their interest and/or motivation to do well in school. Students identified three specific ways schools can build a culture of hope: (a) demonstrate high expectations, (b) challenge fixed mind-sets, and (c) develop student aspirations.

Demonstrate high expectations

Most participants (n = 20, 83%) reported that to cultivate hope, middle school students from low-income backgrounds need adults in the school who do not merely tell students that they have high expectations for them but also model those high expectations by the way in which they teach and relate to students from low-income families. As one student remarked,

. . . when adults have low expectations for students, they tend to do poorly in school; when expectations are high, they do better – it’s simple, expectations are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Students must believe that they can achieve before they will risk trying. Teachers have to understand that, high expectations, is something you do, not just say or believe.

Similarly, a different student noted that ‘ . . . teachers who do not believe poor students can do better academically or behavior wise, don’t feel comfortable asking them to do so, and don’t demonstrate that they have high expectations for all students’.

Challenge deficit-oriented beliefs about students from low socioeconomic status (SES)

Over half of the participants (n = 15, 63%) suggest that it is important to challenge teachers’ perception of low-income students’ capacity for growth and success in their classrooms, which according to students, shapes how students think and feel about themselves and school. For instance, one student explained that ‘ . . . if there is one ounce of doubt that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds can succeed, they will sense it and start giving up on both the teacher and themselves’. Another student stated that ‘ . . . you can’t raise expectations without also raising your beliefs about a [student’s] ability to succeed in school’.

Develop students’ aspirations

A majority of the students (n = 19, 75%) recommended that schools build a culture where adults demand that students have high aspirations for themselves and support them in realizing those aspirations. According to students, schools should not only help students to see college as possible and advantageous but also spend time developing students’ sense of possibility about the career and life options available to them beyond college. The following excerpt illustrates this theme:

. . . a college degree doesn’t mean anything if you can’t see how it will help you dig yourself out of poverty or find a good paying job. Most of my friends don’t see college as a real possibility, but even more don’t see the benefits of a college degree. Are you really that much better off if you grow up poor and earn a college degree?

Develop relational networks

A second theme that emerged from the study was the importance of developing positive relationships with teachers and peers. According to participants, teachers must not only build trusting relationships with students but also help students cultivate peer friendship across class lines – since peers oftentimes serve as a valuable form of capital. Students identified two specific ways that schools can facilitate the development of positive relationships with teachers and peers: (a) promote cross-cultural peer networks and (b) practice cultural responsiveness.

Promote cross-cultural peer networks

Sixty-three percent (n = 15) of participants recommended that schools provide mentoring and coaching to help students become a part of resourceful peer networks and to negotiate or navigate cultural and class barriers. According to students, working-class students are less likely to profit from social capital networks unless such networks are intentionally created by the school. The response below illuminates this sentiment:

. . . being in a different income bracket from your peers can be tough. Trying to fit in with my friends with more money and hide the fact that we’re poor is draining. But, if it weren’t for my wealthier friends, I wouldn’t know about so many cool programs, activities, or camps that help you improve your grades and develop other skills. They learn about this stuff from their parents . . . Maybe schools can help students make connections and help poor students true to themselves.

Form cultural responsive relationships

More than half of the participants (n = 21, 88%) recommended that adults possess a wide range of skills, included my ability to learn from, relate respectfully to, and empathize with students from their own class background as well as others whose backgrounds and values differ from their own. The following excerpt illustrates this subtheme:

. . . you can’t build a strong connection with a student if you don’t understand what life is like for them outside of school or if you don’t understand the challenges that student faces on a day-to-day basis that impacts their grades . . . the more you know the better you will understand their strengths, needs, and real-life circumstances. [So] if a student doesn’t complete assignments, study for tests, or doesn’t come to school prepared to learn because of what’s going on at home, the teacher is aware of his or her needs and can respond in a way other than disciplining them.

Establish meaningful parent–school collaboration

A third theme that evolved from the study focused on the need of schools to collaborate with parents in ways that reflect the needs and interest of parents who are in low-income families. Students gave two suggestions of ways to make partnerships between parents and schools meaningful: (a) promote parent capacity building and (b) cultivate parent/family support networks.

Promote parent capacity building

Seventy-five percent (n = 18) of participants recommended that schools support programs that help parents who are in low-income families to build up their knowledge and skills for navigating school systems and accessing resources to meet their children’s needs. As one student put it,

. . . my mom would be more involved in my schooling if she knew where to begin, she doesn’t understand the subjects and assessments or how to work with teachers . . . I bet other moms feel the same way.

A different student noted that ‘ . . . schools should help parents do things for themselves and tell schools their ideas about what services families need to increase students’ grades’.

Cultivate parent/family support networks

More than half of the participants (n = 14, 58%) suggested that schools help parents cultivate new relationships and networks between parents and connect them to the school. According to participants, such networks provide support to low-income parents who are experiencing a time of crisis or are seeking support, resources, and information. For example, one student commented, ‘ . . . schools should provide support for parents that help them share information, ideas, and problem solving strategies with each other’. Another student explained that such support networks,

. . . allow parents to receive a practical advice and information from others in similar tight spots or life circumstances. This helps parents that their problems really are not so unexpected and that others with similar problems are working toward solutions.

Discussion

Create a culture of hope

The first theme that emerged from our study is the importance of creating a culture of hope. Hope includes a belief that one knows how to reach one’s goals (pathways) and a belief that one has the motivation to use those pathways to reach one’s goals (agency; Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2005). That is, hope involves both the will (agency) to pursue certain ends and the way (pathways) to do to so effectively (Bronk, Hill, Lapsley, Talib, & Finch, 2009). This ‘will and the way’ of hope suggests that schools can create a culture of hope when they help students know, in clear and concrete ways, how to be successful academically, and when they encourage students to believe that they have what it takes to be successful. In this way, academic motivation is contingent on beliefs about what is possible: beliefs about one’s academic goals and how to reach them, and beliefs about one’s ability to use available means successfully.

Demonstrate high expectations

Hope is a powerful thing. Our working definition of hope points out the importance of possessing high expectations, which are simply beliefs about what is possible and, by extension, not possible. For example, when academic expectations are high, the message sent to students is that they can reach these lofty goals (agency). By providing a clear pathway to academic success, schools instill in their students the ingredients for hope. Contrast this with a school with low expectations. Students at this school may have a clear pathway – to failure or perhaps mediocrity – but the message of the school culture is that they do not have the personal means or agency to go beyond this low bar. In this respect, expectations, whether high or low, become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There has been much written about the impact of expectations and their importance in promoting motivation and achievement (Alexander, Ryan, & Deci, 2000; Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). Expectations may be particularly crucial for students of color and students from poor families (Ferguson, 2002). Research suggests that lower SES is often associated with viewing the future as containing more negative events than positive ones (Robb, Simon, & Wardle, 2009). Low or no expectancy (‘helplessness’) is related to low SES (Odéen et al., 2013). In short, being poor is associated with lowered expectations about future outcomes. Taken together, hope – or the lack of hope – and mind-set – whether you believe that you are simply born smart or that you can grow in intelligence along the way – can be either significant assets or serious liabilities. If students think failure or low performance is likely, they’ll probably not bother to try. Similarly, if they think they are not smart enough and cannot succeed, they will probably not put out any effort. A student’s attitude about learning (a mind-set) is a moderately robust predictive factor (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007).

Challenge deficit-oriented beliefs about students from low SES

Contingent upon creating a culture of hope is the belief that growth is possible. After all, if one believes that basic qualities such as abilities, talents, and intelligence are simply fixed traits, then motivation to take efforts to improve these will naturally be diminished. All the expectations in the world will only be a source of discouragement if corresponding with them is a belief that ‘smarts’ are fixed. Important then to creating a culture of hope is instilling in students a more fluid perception of who they are and the degree to which change and growth is possible. Blackwell et al. (2007) referred to this as a growth mind-set. Contrasted with a fixed mind-set, a growth mind-set tells students that basic qualities can be developed through dedication and hard work. When schools embrace a growth mind-set, they support students’ high expectations by implying that development and growth are ongoing, and that through effort, students can acquire new skills and strengths. As a consequence, students are more likely to feel empowered and committed to their studies; they experience a natural love of learning and resilience in the face of setbacks. Schools that embody a growth mind-set are committed to the growth of every student, and they continually reinforce growth mind-set values with concrete policies.

It is important, therefore, to teach students that their brains can change and grow, that they can even raise their IQ. Similarly, telling students that they have a limited amount of focusing power is likely to disengage many of them (Miller et al., 2012). An alternative to saying, ‘Don’t feel bad that you didn’t finish. It’s late in the day, and we’ve all got brain drain’. Instead, say, ‘Stick with this just a bit longer. You can do this! Your mind is a powerful force to help you reach your goals’. Comforting phrases that imply that a student is not good at one thing but is at something else, such as ‘This isn’t your thing, but you have other strengths you can build on!’ sends the message once again that their qualities are fixed, and, thus, efforts to improve underdeveloped areas are a waste of time (Cooper, 2012).

Develop student aspirations

It is important to build on students’ aspirations for their futures by talking with them about their postgraduation options. Students with goals for after high school, including plans to enter college, are more likely to see value in their education, and correspondingly possess greater academic motivation (Destin & Oyserman, 2010). In a similar way to instilling hope, motivation is increased when one can perceive a clear pathway to reaching one’s goals – a pathway that is realistic and achievable (Seifert, 2004). According to achievement goal theory (Seifert, 2004), students’ academic motivation can be understood as attempts to achieve goals. Building students’ aspirations requires helping students clarify future-related goals; however, just setting goals is not enough, students must set the right goals for them.

Researchers at the University of Michigan (Destin & Oyserman, 2010) examined the influence of long-term goals on students’ current academic behavior. They discovered that only half of the eighth-grade students in the study who expected to go to college chose the courses or exerted the academic effort necessary to gain college admission. Although the students had set the goal, it did not influence their academic performance. To make sense of their findings, Destin and Oyserman (2010) also employed an identity-based motivation theory, which posits that people behave in ways that correspond to their established identity. As a result, they discovered that two factors are needed for future-related goals to influence academic behavior: The future identity students wish to achieve must require an education, and the identity must be relevant to them when they are making academic decisions. That is, the type of goal matters. Students with career goals that were education dependent spent more time on homework and had a higher grade point average (GPA) than those with professional goals that did not require an education. It is important, therefore, that students understand their career options and create educational goals that align with a future professional identity.

Develop relational networks

The second theme that emerged from our study is the importance of developing relationships with both teachers and peers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP; 2009) reports that students who feel connected to school are more likely to have a number of positive health and academic outcomes. School connectedness is the belief held by students that the adults and peers in their school care about their learning as well as about them as individuals. Research indicates that those students who report a high sense of school connectedness are less likely to use substances or engage in risky sexual behaviors, bring weapons to school, engage in violent or risk-taking behaviors, have mental health issues, suffer from eating disorders, or have suicidal thoughts (CDCP, 2009). In academic outcomes, students who feel connected to their schools are more likely to receive higher grades, achieve higher test scores, and graduate from high school, often because they are more engaged with their education, enjoy learning, and are motivated to perform well (Klem & Connell, 2004). By contrast, students who report feeling disconnected to their schools have higher truancy rates and are less likely to finish high school (Croninger & Lee, 2001).

School connectedness is composed of three key dimensions: teacher support, belonging, and engagement. Participants in our study emphasized the importance of two of these dimensions – students’ perceptions of teacher support and their sense of belonging with peers – but infused these relationships with the need for cultural responsiveness. Teacher support is based on the extent to which a student feels close to and valued by their teachers and other school staff. It comprises whether students report that their teachers like them, the extent to which they care what their teachers think, how comfortable they are talking to their teachers, and the frequency with which their teachers offer them praise (Resnick et al., 1997). Belonging encompasses the degree to which students feel respected and a part of their school, and how much they perceive that people care about them, including having friends at school (Voelkl, 1996). The participants in our study noted the importance of having positive relationships with peers, but the role of these friendships included the additional dimension of peer mentoring and support.

Promote cross-cultural peer networks

A sense of belongingness among students and the concerns and support they share with each other can be vital to students feeling connected to school (Karcher, 2009). Students often communicate their problems to their peers rather than to teachers, parents, or school counselors (Tanaka & Reid, 1997). Peer networks offer important resources for defining one’s values, and developing social and emotional competencies and prosocial behaviors (Varenhorst, 2004). Peer networks that cross from one social or cultural network to another can provide disadvantaged students with a valuable form of social capital: mentoring. The mentoring of one student to another opens up new opportunities for students to gain insights into knowledge areas they might otherwise know very little about. Thus, cross-cultural relationships can provide less advantaged students with social capital in the form of culturally relevant information. By not forming close friendships with students from different social classes, working-class students are, therefore, less likely to profit from social capital networks unless such networks are intentionally created by the school.

Form cultural responsive relationships

Over half of all children in public schools in the United States are now considered poor, according to a recent report by the Southern Education Foundation, which defined low income by the percentage of public school children receiving free or reduced-price lunches (Suitts, 2015). At the same time, approximately 80 percent of teachers are White and middle class, suggesting that most relationships among teachers and students in the United States are cross cultural. Because research indicates that teachers are one of the most important factors in promoting a positive school climate (Thapa, Cohen, Higgins-D’Alessandro, & Guffey, 2012), fostering meaningful dialogue in schools requires cross-cultural sensitivity and knowledge, and the willingness on behalf of teachers to check their biases and assumptions when communicating with students different from themselves. Ladson-Billings (2009), Noguera (2008), and other scholars have emphasized that teachers who have knowledge of children’s out-of-school lives and cultures are less likely to confuse cultural difference for cultural or intellectual disadvantage.

An important first step in the process toward becoming a culturally responsive school occurs when teachers and other school staff understand their own cultures (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Ladson-Billings (2009) points out that most young, White, middle-class teachers are oblivious to their own cultural practices. School counselors can work with teachers to increase the implementation of culturally responsive teacher–student interactions to facilitate the academic achievement and psychological well-being of marginalized students. This is no small matter because it requires that teachers transcend their own cultural biases and preferences to establish and develop patterns for learning and communicating that engage and sustain student participation and achievement. Becoming culturally responsive means that teachers as well as students have to negotiate new standards and norms that acknowledge the differences and the similarities among and between individuals and groups.

Establish meaningful parent–school collaboration

Research has consistently shown that family–school partnerships have been successful at reducing risk factors associated with school failure, building social capital, increasing academic achievement and attendance, decreasing behavioral issues, improving school-based programs, promoting career development, providing family support, increasing parents’ skills and involvement in school leadership, fostering student educational resilience, and enhancing school climate (e.g. Bryan, Williams, & Griffin, 2015; Bryan & Henry, 2008; Epstein, 2011). Such partnerships allow school and family stakeholders to work together to develop focused attention, innovative strategies, and valuable resources to explore areas of concern as well as to highlight helpful strategies (via parent education and advisement) and to formulate other types of support for the students (Bryan et al., 2015).

Promote parent capacity building

The results from this study suggest that schools should develop programs and initiatives that intentionally create opportunities for low-income families to build up their knowledge and skills for navigating the school system and accessing resources to meet their children’s needs and support their learning. For example, schools can offer parent education programs that demystify how school systems work by providing basic information on school programs, policies, and staff and on how to advocate effectively for one’s child (Ingram, Wolfe, & Lieberman, 2007). Parent education programs can also use small group discussions and exercises to address key topics such as grading and testing systems, school policies (e.g. grade promotion/retention, graduation, parent conferences), school and district resources (e.g. programs and personnel), parent involvement opportunities, and questions to ask teachers and counselors about their children’s academic progress and about suggestions for ways to support their children’s learning at home (Bryan et al., 2015).

Cultivate parent/family support networks

This study’s findings suggest that schools create avenues for parents to work together to influence change through their relationships and shared concerns (relational power). Parent or family support groups can serve many purposes, but one of their most important can be to introduce families to others like themselves. In particular, schools can promote parent networking by providing opportunities for parents to meet each other, learn each other’s names and stories, and build family networks. Research shows that parent support groups provide a forum for building supportive networks among families, sharing academic and college information, providing emotional support, and addressing income-related barriers to educational achievement that could help parents augment the support they provide to their children (e.g. Williams & Bryan, 2013; Sheldon, 2002).

Conclusion

While the number of students from low-income backgrounds is increasing, unfortunately so is the achievement gap between them and their wealthier peers. This study provides a missing point of view in the discussion about what schools can do to support the academic achievement of students from low-income backgrounds. Listening closely to them about the challenges they face and how schools can help is critical for identifying and framing the problem and rethinking policies and practices.

References

Alexander

Ryan

Deci

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

Blackwell

L. S.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Dweck

C. S.

(2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Bronk

K. C.

Hill

P. L.

Lapsley

D. K.

Talib

T. L.

Finch

(2009). Purpose, hope, and life satisfaction in three age groups. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 500–510.

Bryan

Henry

(2008). Strengths-based partnerships: A school-family-community partnership approach to empowering students. Professional School Counseling, 12, 149–156.

Bryan

Williams

J. M.

Griffin

(2015). Closing Opportunity Gaps for Black Male Students through School-Family-Community Partnerships. In Henfield

Washington

A. R.

(Eds.), Black Male Student Success in 21st Century Urban Schools: School Counseling for Equity, Access and Achievement. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School connectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors among youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Cooper

L. A.

(2012). Do ‘consoling’ messages hinder math achievement? Harvard Education Letter, 28(3).

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

10.

Croninger

R. G.

Lee

V. E.

(2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103, 548–581.

11.

DePaoli

J. L.

Balfanz

Bridgeland

(2016). Building a grad nation: Progress and challenge in raising high school graduation rates. Baltimore, MD: Everyone Graduates Center at the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved from http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-BGN-Report-vFINAL.pdf (accessed 19 December 2017).

12.

Destin

Oyserman

(2010). Incentivizing education: Seeing schoolwork as an investment, not a chore. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 846–849.

13.

Epstein

J. L.

(2011). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

14.

Ferguson

R. F.

(2002). What doesn’t meet the eye: Understanding and addressing racial disparities in high-achieving suburban schools (ED474390). Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

15.

Goldstein

S. E.

Boxer

Rudolph

(2015). Middle school transition stress: Links with academic performance, motivation, and school experiences. Contemporary School Psychology, 19, 21–29.

16.

Hays

D. G.

Singh

A. A.

(2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical educational settings. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

17.

Ingram

Wolfe

R. B.

Lieberman

J. M.

(2007). The role of parents in high-achieving schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and Urban Society, 39, 479–497.

18.

Karcher

M. J.

(2009). Increases in academic connectedness and self-esteem among high school students who serve as cross-age peer mentors. Professional School Counseling, 12, 292–299.

19.

Klem

Connell

(2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273.

20.

Ladson-Billings

(2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Masten

A. S.

Reed

M. J.

(2002). Resilience in development. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

22.

Meece

Anderman

E. M.

Anderman

L. H.

(2006). Structures and goals of educational settings: Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–504.

23.

Miller

E. M.

Walton

G. M.

Dweck

C. S.

Job

Trzesniewski

K. H.

McClure

S. M.

(2012). Theories of willpower affect sustained learning. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38680.

24.

Mitra

D. L.

(2006). Student voice from the inside and outside: The positioning of challengers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4, 315–329.

25.

National Association of Education Progress. (2015). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#?grade=4.

26.

Noguera

(2008). The trouble with black boys and other reflections on race, equity, and the future of public education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

27.

Odéen

Westerlund

Theorell

Leineweber

Eriksen

H. R.

Ursin

(2013). Expectancies, socioeconomic status, and self-rated health: Use of the simplified TOMCATS questionnaire. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 242–251.

28.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

29.

Reardon

S. F.

(2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70, 10–16.

30.

Resnick

M. D.

Bearman

P. S.

Blum

R. W.

Bauman

K. E.

Harris

K. M.

Jones

… Udry

J. R.

(1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823–832.

31.

Robb

K. A.

Simon

A. E.

Wardle

(2009). Socioeconomic disparities in optimism and pessimism. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 331–338.

32.

Seifert

T. L.

(2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46, 137–149.

33.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 301–316.

34.

Snyder

C. R.

Rand

K. L.

Sigmon

D. R.

(2005). Hope theory: A member of the positive psychology family. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–267). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

35.

Suitts

(2015). A new majority: Low income students now a majority in the nation’s public schools (SEF research report update). Southern Education Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.southerneducation.org/Our-Strategies/Research-and-Publications/New-Majority-Diverse-Majority-Report-Series/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-Income-Students-Now.

36.

Tanaka

Reid

(1997). Peer helpers: Encouraging kids to confide. Educational Leadership, 552, 29–31.

37.

Thapa

Cohen

Higgins-D’Alessandro

Guffey

(2012). School climate research study: August 2012 (School Climate Brief No. 3). National School Climate Center. Retrieved from https://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/policy/sc-brief-v3.pdf.

38.

Varenhorst

B. B.

(2004). Tapping the power of peer helping. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13, 130–133.

39.

Voelkl

K. E.

(1996). Measuring students’ identification with school. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 760–770.

40.

Williams

J. M.

Bryan

(2013). Overcoming adversity: High-achieving African American youth’s perspectives on educational resilience. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 291–300.

41.

Williams

J. M.

Bryan

Morrison

Scott

(2017). Protective factors and processes contributing to the academic success of students living in poverty: Implications for counselors. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development [Special Issue], 45, 183–200.

42.

Yin

R. K.

(2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.