Are
Payne’s critics being fair?What did you
find that was useful or illuminating in Payne’s text? Comment on whether/how
deficit thinking has been present in your own thinking.
Ruby Payne's critics have some strong sentiments about her book and program. At the core of their argument, they claim that, She holds a deficit view of poverty. (Bomer et al.) Her views are unsupported by evidence and contradicted by basic research. (Bomer et al.) She has done no substantial research of her own. (Bomer et al. 3) She writes as authority on the sociology, psychology and broad issues with poverty. (Bomer et al.4) “Payne's views would simply be the factually inaccurate opinions of a self-published former principal, if so many thousands of educators were not influenced by her work...” (Bomer et al.36) That she gives no space, voice or thought to the issues of social justice other than pressing everyone into her view of what it means to be middle class. (Bomer et al. 38)
I would say they are being generous. The authors of “Miseducating teachers about the poor” are trying so hard, so very hard, to be fair in their assessment of Payne's work. They air their disputes with her book by addressing her truth claims. They worked as a team to meticulously identify, extract, and code each of the 607 truth claims. Finally, they used that coding to identify patterns in Payne's work and being to light her assumptions and lack of evidence. This is a painstakingly fair methodology. The authors are even careful with the descriptive language used to describe Payne and her work. However, their dislike of her work is still visible. When I read A Framework for Understanding Poverty, I could hardly concentrate on the factual part of her argument, so uncomfortable was I with her blithe, authoritative style and gross oversimplifications. Bomer, Dorwin, May and Semingson let that discomfort seethe just below the surface, as when they discuss their reasons for excluding Payne's case studies from their truth claim coding, “Though these are clearly intended to be taken as paradigmatic cases of people living in poverty, we did not interpret truth claims from them, because interpreting narratives would have involved a different analytic method than the one we used in the rest of the book.” (Bomer et al. 5) On the surface then this seems like a reasonable methodological decision to make. They accept that even their commendable attempts at even-handedness would founder when confronted with Payne's reductive, sneaky, fictional tales of poverty, but just below the surface lies their personal distaste for Payne's case study technique. In many cases, the authors take issue with Payne's startling lack of evidence, not her positions. They point out that Payne is writing as an authority on the matter of poverty which she views as a cultural condition and not situated geographically, nationally, ethnically, or even within a particular income range. Her broad claims in that regard however, are unsupported by any evidence in her book, or any that Bomer et al. could find. The authors of the article tear into her assertions but never do they attack her directly, or attribute intent to her work. However, they do imply that she is careless, concerned with her success, and to some degree morally flawed when she ignores the essential job teaching students how to question the structures in which they live. Overall I would say the authors of the article were fair, but occasionally let slip their distaste for her work and their exasperation with her continued success.
***Sorry for the double post, I ran out of space***
I found Payne's text to be illuminating in that it echoed a number of my unspoken or subconscious assumptions about poverty. Then when I was confronted with the direct refutation of her work, I was more aware of my own implicit beliefs. My heightened awareness from reading against Payne's text allowed me to confront my beliefs about poverty very productively. I think that my own deficit thinking comes from a belief that “I have something to offer” students that I have learned in my years of life. I realized that I believed poor students were just much further behind and need more of my wisdom. That they, as individuals as part of this “poor” group, just need some teaching to get “better” (read: more like me). Realizing that these beliefs had been lurking below the surface was unnerving. Fortunately, this exercise has provided a useful template for addressing outsider perspectives on poverty that I encounter in the future. But it also highlights a weird tension for me as a teacher. I want to teach because I feel that learning happens most effectively when assisted by knowledgeable others. Where do I draw the line between this mode of thought and deficit thinking blindly applied to all my students?
I do think the criticisms of Bomer and friends are fair to Payne and her work. They, as Connor said, painstakingly extract the 607 truth codes from the book and evaluate them based on prior studies and literature. I've never seen an academic study with such clear contempt for its subject matter as this one. I think it walks the line fairly and gives it a biting aspect that offers a respite from the sometimes unbearably dry academic world. I think Bomer's focus solely on Payne's claims rather than the educational hypotheticals ("If teachers and districts did this..." ) lends the paper more credence.
It's absolutely relevant to point out that Payne has not done any original research of her own. I got a bad feeling when her biography on the back of the book highlighted her CEO and entrepreneurial skills rather than her academic credentials. Her generalizations throughout the book (specifically within the language section, which Bomer addresses) made me nauseous. She very much espouses a pseudo-science, reminding me of a Malcolm Gladwell type of writer. (Whom i do like, for the record.) They both reach overarching and sweeping conclusions without any original research and the cherry-picking of research relevant to the subject (or completely misinterpreting it, as Payne did with Montano-Harmon's study on Chicano linguistic groups). While the right idea might be in the work, the intellectual rigor just is not.
However, i don't think all of her suggestions for education are necessarily problematic. It seems like a good idea (if blindingly obvious) that educational professionals should carry out actions such as providing support systems and building relationships for their students. I think that she genuinely wants educators to understand poverty and the impact on education. Her methodology and mindset are the issues.
And I agree with Connor's thoughts on my own assumptions. Coming from a predominantly white, middle-class background in which the pervasive economic belief is that hard work begets a higher income and standard of living means that i have viewed poverty as a lazy mindset and work ethic. In the past few years, i have attempted to understand just how privileged i am and the system in which i have operated has benefited me at the expense of others. I have tried my best to temper down my thoughts of being the White Knight who can save all of his students from the clutches of poverty and education inequality, but this deficit thinking has made it a difficult thought to rid. Teaching is inherently about inequality (the teacher holds knowledge that the students presumably do not) and i don't think there will be any way to expel my biases of experience and knowledge. However, i can and will work to eliminate my biases of wealth and race in the classroom.
In regards, to Ruby Payne's critics, I believe, as both Sean and Connor stated,that the critics were fair. However, Bomer.. et. al confuse me with their definition of deficit thinking. Bomer et al claim that "deficit thinking holds that students who struggle or fail in school do so because of their own internal deficits or deficiencies"(pg.35). The authors elaborate that within this perspective, the poor are seen as having limited intellectual abilities, linguistic shortcomings, lack of a motivation to learn, and immoral behavior. Instead, the authors of Misguided Education point to inequalities in school funding, policies, and the organization of schools for which Payne should direct her attention.
In Payne's defense, I believe that she made valid arguments about intellectual quotient scores and its inability to assess students in or out of poverty. She later brings to the table concepts that are understood and used in content area literacy. But, the authors of the critique claim that this data is not relative to their critique. "We also did not take as truth claims Payne's accounts of others' theoretical frameworks that did not relate to poverty or social class" (pg. 6). I believe that those later frameworks are important and should have been taken in consideration to her overarching framework of poverty.
In relation to my understanding of deficit perspective,unless one claims that discriminatory policies, lack of funding shape household perceptions around the culture of education, one cannot help but fall into a deficit perspective at some extent. It seems that social justice must deal with the structure of education, more than the cultural background that students bring from home. For example, the upliftment of literacy goes after the idea that students have unequal access to print culture. If the problem is with the schools instead of deficient resources at home, then are the literacy arguments justified? In other words, I feel that most educators committed to social justice have some sort of deficit perspective.
While Payne's critics bring up extremely relevant, and to a large extent, damning issues with Paine's book, I feel that the level of criticism moved beyond the realm of reasonable. By this I mean that while it is obvious that Payne's book lacks the background research to defend its validity, the critic's umbrage with the book moves beyond merely discrediting the theories presented into outright the mocking of Ruby Payne herself. Now this is not meant as a defense of Payne's work, as the critics did a more than admirable job at cutting down her arguments, but to question the tone in which the critics accomplished this. The constant emphasis on her lack of evidence becomes increasingly verbose and ridiculous. I realize that when a program, such as Payne's, is so widely accepted and valued that it needs to demonstrate hard facts and research to back up its claims. However, after the first few times it becomes understood that Payne conducted no real research, instead relying on a lifetime of firsthand accounts. To continue to mention this would be fine, if a little excessive, but the extremes that they go to in describing the constant lack of research trends towards mocking. Moreover, I do not feel Payne, nor her program deserve to be mocked. It may be a viewpoint for teachers to adopt, but Payne appears to have created this book to help people, not to hurt them. Unfortunately, her book, in this respect, is rather counterproductive. That being said, Payne did offer a different viewpoint on children in poverty. While this viewpoint was steeped in racism, stereotypes, and generalizations, it still hold value in that it presents another way to look at the student's home life. Payne's research, or lack thereof, and theories are each fundamentally flawed but they are based on real situations that she saw as a teacher and principal time and time again. To completely disregard that insight because of a lack of rigorous research would be to ignore all the firsthand accounts of people offering you advice. Her words just need to be read with a critical lens As for Payne's deficit thinking, I think everyone at times has looked at someone struggling to get by and assumed that they played some role in their fate. It is easier to rationalize when it comes to adults as they had their whole lives to stop from becoming the person that they are, or so the theory of deficit thinking holds. However, children have very little in the way of a say in how they are raised or their family, social, or economic situations. To blame a child for situations or behavioral traits that research and common sense dictate are beyond their control is not only wrong, but counterproductive. A program on poverty should work to reverse these kinds of stereotypes and instead focus on the underlying issues that arise out of living in poverty and how to manage them. This, I feel, is what Ruby Payne tried, and spectacularly failed, at doing. -Sean McFadden
I thought the Payne critique was as fair as it possibly could be. As Connor said, I also found it to be quite generous. Personally, it was difficult to see through Payne's views in order to see her truth claims. The way she sees poverty is shocking, in my opinion. Her research seemed to be based off of stereotypes about poverty. Like Boomer stated, she was self-published thus, not going through the rigorous reviews as that of a normal published work.
The chapter on "Hidden Rules Among Classes" really got to me. She generalizes, stereotypes, and just lumps people into categories. After reading that chapter, I had all but clocked out on Ruby Payne, as an author and individual.
My high school was very similar to what I've heard about RPS. Most of my friends lived in poverty and only ate twice a day and that was free breakfast and lunch at school. I've seen both sides of poverty. The kids who had parents that didn't work and just received benefits from the government. Also, the kids whose parents worked two jobs each and still couldn't afford to put food on their table. It offends me when both are lumped into one general category. Not all parents are going to work hard to get their families out of poverty, but not all parents sit on their asses and live off the government. I feel that it is unfair to generalize especially with a topic so personal. I also think that it is very difficult for an individual who has never experienced poverty to really know about it.
I feel that while Payne's critics have made valid points in their critique of her work, at times, their arguments seem to delve from professional to personal. Right from the beginning, I think that they should start with the title: it is "A" framework, not "THE" framework. The fact that so many schools have chosen to adopt it is not really the fault of Payne, but more of the school systems and so I felt that they should have directed more of their aggression there. At the very beginning, they say that she has conducted no research, and yet, pages 156-191 are nothing but her research notes, so I'm not sure what they are getting at?? In discussing Payne's treatment of class, they are relentless in her choice of using a three-tiered construct. The gist of their argument is that nobody uses that system and that they don't know of any sociologists who use that construct for the United States. Of course, Payne is not a sociologist, so her cursory analysis of class is somewhat to be expected. They could have presented their point better just highlighting that while a 3-tier system is "a" way, there are better, more robust techniques. Concerning Payne's treatment of race, the authors are much more on the mark, though. It's one thing to be careless in delineating class boundaries, it's another to arbitrarily assign attributes to people in a group. And don't get me started on the "hidden rules." If she saw that during her time in schools, then she should say that it's from personal experience. And I could go on, and on. Overall, I think that Payne's critics have valid points to make, but they could have better made their point at times with a more impartial dissection of her work. Especially early on, this came across as how I might imagine Rush Limbaugh reviewing an Obama book.
I feel that the critics of Payne's work were fair. They pointed out the lack of evidence that seemed to follow each point that Payne made within her work. I do agree with Sean that the critics may have taken their critiques a little far, pointing out some valid points none the less, but almost discounting her study as a whole.
Many of Payne's views on poverty were appalling to me. I agree with Kyle that it seems that she b ased her ideas and checklists from sterotypes. Her "Would you survive in..." was one of the points that shook me the most. Not just what she was generalizing poverty to be but also what she was generalizing middle class and wealth to be as well. Payne has lumped society into only three catergories, when within those three categories there are many sub-groups. Her hidden rules only continued to generalize within the classes and once again they seemed to be drawn from sterotypes with a lack of evidence and support. I feel like many of her statements and class generalizations are drawn from a priveledged, white, upper middle class upbringing, instead of evidence from a significant study. Going to a positive point, I did agree with Payne about her use of graphic organizers. I do believe that they are very helpful tool in the class when taught correctly.
On the idea of deficit thinking, I do believe that not every child will want to succeed or change their "norm" but that is a small even minute percentage of all children that teachers will experience. Most children will have lacking skills because of teachers who did not put in the effort to help them succeed or give that child the cofidence to continue or improve. Each child, I believe, has the ability and the desire to do great things with their life. These children just need the right teacher, role model and social influences to get them there. That is where a teacher comes in. The teacher should never be the one thinking that these children will never succeed or amount to anything, the teacher needs to be the one instilling the confidence in each child to succeed to do great things no matter their social class and especially when poverty is involved.
I agree with the basic sentiment of lot of the posts so far that Payne's critics were exhaustive about her book. In fact, I found reading this article, which might be a part of the fact that I wasn't hate-reading it for the most part unlike with Payne's text, that there's almost an undercurrent of attempting to show up Payne....sort of say, here's how you do it.
To that end, I also agree that their own discourse (Boom! Muth-Stemhagen synergy)comes through when they begin to get into the potential dangers of Payne's work. So for example, one line that I found accurate but professionally lacking was: "Payne's views would simply be the factually inaccurate opinions of a self-published former principal, if so many educators were not influenced by her work. However, reading her book and hearing Payne speak appears to influence the thinking of many teachers, or else one could not account for her popularity."
I thought this moment was particularly condescending. I thought that it was also an important, one I mirrored in my own reading, that Payne's text attacks the problem of people and not the systemic problems of poverty. To that end, I agree with Lester that without the ability to fix the problems contained within a framework of poverty, there is value in dealing with the symptoms/results and how they affect students' lives. I will not be able to fix poverty....sorry everybody....but I will be having to deal with students experiencing poverty and some set of frameworks would be necessary for me to get by. That said, I also agree with the critics' desire to have Payne at least acknowledge that this is a larger issue and not just one centered on the behavior of people.
So while I may want to "tone police" this critique, I think it serves a greater interest to say, like the authors, that Payne seems uninterested in how poverty works and more so to say "How do we solve a problem like POOR PEOPLE?"
Like Kyle, I found Payne's text infuriating in its condescension, its privilege, its audience appeal, the ways in which is animalizes the behaviors of poverty and creates middle-class behaviors are a moral center.
I think while the critics have a valid critique of the potential dangers of Payne's system, especially as its popularity indicates that it might also have great influence, I was not impressed with the mention of how much money she might have made of this venture. I think she might well be the inaccurate misguided principal poorly attacking a problem, but through her chapters on instruction, though not novel or profound, I do think it represented some good faith attempts to deal with an actual problem, and not simply a scam, as the implication seemed to be.
One point on which I think the authors of the article assigned are perhaps over-simplifying is their claim that Payne provides no evidence for her theories. Though the book does have a disconcertingly opinionated attitude, Payne cites a number of sources in the back of the book that I would like to think are at least somewhat reputable. Granted, I have not had time to go look them up, so in the end, I am inclined to wonder if any of them are in fact sources of substantial evidence. Another thing that struck me in an attempt to figure out what legitimate sources her claims might be coming from was that although the book repeatedly highlights that Payne has a Ph.D., I couldn’t find anywhere in the text what the doctorate is in. Well, according to Wikipedia, Payne has a Ph.D. in “educational leadership and policy studies.” I find the fact that the book clearly emphasizes her Ph.D. degree very troubling when it is not in a subject that qualifies her to make any sort of sweeping claims about psychology.
In Ruby Payne’s book, A framework for understanding poverty, I initially felt that she was presenting her argument well. In the introduction she gives the reader logical data and a logical list of resources which having the lack of may cause someone to be impoverished. These initial data and list was useful in forming my own understanding of deficit and poverty in my head before diving into reading the rest of the book. It even appeared logical it some aspects when comparing to people I know who are considered impoverished based on legal annual household income. Some of Payne’s data presented was useful, but she threw me for a complete loop when she describes the certain “hidden rules of poverty”. She says, “The noise level is high (the TV is always on and everyone may talk at once), the most important information is nonverbal…” Who is here source? To me this could be any family on a dysfunctional day. This was one of many stereotypes, as Payne’s critics would agree, presented by Payne. Though she gives examples of scenarios she claims to have encountered, her presentation and some supporting ideas of the information being presented was a bit ridiculous; for example, in the story about the African American female, Opie, whose mother name is Oprah, let’s be real who else in the black community is named Oprah besides Oprah Winfrey? It appeared to me like a hidden joke when discussing such an important and heartfelt topic to which she gave off as being somewhat passionate about. Like her critics, I disagree that a global workshop should’ve been created around her fact deprived stereotypes. Another illuminating comment made by Payne was some of the items on the check list to see if you could survive in poverty. That was bizarre, as an author why would you even present to your reader their likely hood of surviving in poverty or how unlikely they would fail in wealth. One of the items on the poverty checklist was “I know how to use a knife as scissors” another was “I know how to entertain a group of friends with my personality in story” Even for some odd reason the reader took the time to consider their survival in poverty and checked these two boxes what would be the connection between the two that classified them as survivors in poverty.
Despite Payne’s misrepresentation’s, I actually like some of her ideas to help these students in the classroom one in particular is helping students understand the difference of informal and formal register in the classroom. She explains this on pages 57-58. I disagree that informal register has to be taught every day along with formal register, but it is important that students make the connection between the two, understanding when it’s appropriate to use both.
One more point... Ruby Payne's critics are being fair I believe that the underlying fact is we as readers could have possibly considered her work less critically if there wasn't such a lack of citations to support the many stereotypes she brings to the table.
Ruby Payne's critics have some strong sentiments about her book and program. At the core of their argument, they claim that,
ReplyDeleteShe holds a deficit view of poverty. (Bomer et al.)
Her views are unsupported by evidence and contradicted by basic research. (Bomer et al.)
She has done no substantial research of her own. (Bomer et al. 3)
She writes as authority on the sociology, psychology and broad issues with poverty. (Bomer et al.4)
“Payne's views would simply be the factually inaccurate opinions of a self-published former principal, if so many thousands of educators were not influenced by her work...” (Bomer et al.36)
That she gives no space, voice or thought to the issues of social justice other than pressing everyone into her view of what it means to be middle class. (Bomer et al. 38)
I would say they are being generous. The authors of “Miseducating teachers about the poor” are trying so hard, so very hard, to be fair in their assessment of Payne's work. They air their disputes with her book by addressing her truth claims. They worked as a team to meticulously identify, extract, and code each of the 607 truth claims. Finally, they used that coding to identify patterns in Payne's work and being to light her assumptions and lack of evidence. This is a painstakingly fair methodology.
The authors are even careful with the descriptive language used to describe Payne and her work. However, their dislike of her work is still visible. When I read A Framework for Understanding Poverty, I could hardly concentrate on the factual part of her argument, so uncomfortable was I with her blithe, authoritative style and gross oversimplifications. Bomer, Dorwin, May and Semingson let that discomfort seethe just below the surface, as when they discuss their reasons for excluding Payne's case studies from their truth claim coding, “Though these are clearly intended to be taken as paradigmatic cases of people living in poverty, we did not interpret truth claims from them, because interpreting narratives would have involved a different analytic method than the one we used in the rest of the book.” (Bomer et al. 5) On the surface then this seems like a reasonable methodological decision to make. They accept that even their commendable attempts at even-handedness would founder when confronted with Payne's reductive, sneaky, fictional tales of poverty, but just below the surface lies their personal distaste for Payne's case study technique.
In many cases, the authors take issue with Payne's startling lack of evidence, not her positions. They point out that Payne is writing as an authority on the matter of poverty which she views as a cultural condition and not situated geographically, nationally, ethnically, or even within a particular income range. Her broad claims in that regard however, are unsupported by any evidence in her book, or any that Bomer et al. could find.
The authors of the article tear into her assertions but never do they attack her directly, or attribute intent to her work. However, they do imply that she is careless, concerned with her success, and to some degree morally flawed when she ignores the essential job teaching students how to question the structures in which they live.
Overall I would say the authors of the article were fair, but occasionally let slip their distaste for her work and their exasperation with her continued success.
***Sorry for the double post, I ran out of space***
ReplyDeleteI found Payne's text to be illuminating in that it echoed a number of my unspoken or subconscious assumptions about poverty. Then when I was confronted with the direct refutation of her work, I was more aware of my own implicit beliefs. My heightened awareness from reading against Payne's text allowed me to confront my beliefs about poverty very productively. I think that my own deficit thinking comes from a belief that “I have something to offer” students that I have learned in my years of life. I realized that I believed poor students were just much further behind and need more of my wisdom. That they, as individuals as part of this “poor” group, just need some teaching to get “better” (read: more like me). Realizing that these beliefs had been lurking below the surface was unnerving. Fortunately, this exercise has provided a useful template for addressing outsider perspectives on poverty that I encounter in the future. But it also highlights a weird tension for me as a teacher. I want to teach because I feel that learning happens most effectively when assisted by knowledgeable others. Where do I draw the line between this mode of thought and deficit thinking blindly applied to all my students?
I do think the criticisms of Bomer and friends are fair to Payne and her work. They, as Connor said, painstakingly extract the 607 truth codes from the book and evaluate them based on prior studies and literature. I've never seen an academic study with such clear contempt for its subject matter as this one. I think it walks the line fairly and gives it a biting aspect that offers a respite from the sometimes unbearably dry academic world. I think Bomer's focus solely on Payne's claims rather than the educational hypotheticals ("If teachers and districts did this..." ) lends the paper more credence.
ReplyDeleteIt's absolutely relevant to point out that Payne has not done any original research of her own. I got a bad feeling when her biography on the back of the book highlighted her CEO and entrepreneurial skills rather than her academic credentials. Her generalizations throughout the book (specifically within the language section, which Bomer addresses) made me nauseous. She very much espouses a pseudo-science, reminding me of a Malcolm Gladwell type of writer. (Whom i do like, for the record.) They both reach overarching and sweeping conclusions without any original research and the cherry-picking of research relevant to the subject (or completely misinterpreting it, as Payne did with Montano-Harmon's study on Chicano linguistic groups). While the right idea might be in the work, the intellectual rigor just is not.
However, i don't think all of her suggestions for education are necessarily problematic. It seems like a good idea (if blindingly obvious) that educational professionals should carry out actions such as providing support systems and building relationships for their students. I think that she genuinely wants educators to understand poverty and the impact on education. Her methodology and mindset are the issues.
And I agree with Connor's thoughts on my own assumptions. Coming from a predominantly white, middle-class background in which the pervasive economic belief is that hard work begets a higher income and standard of living means that i have viewed poverty as a lazy mindset and work ethic. In the past few years, i have attempted to understand just how privileged i am and the system in which i have operated has benefited me at the expense of others. I have tried my best to temper down my thoughts of being the White Knight who can save all of his students from the clutches of poverty and education inequality, but this deficit thinking has made it a difficult thought to rid. Teaching is inherently about inequality (the teacher holds knowledge that the students presumably do not) and i don't think there will be any way to expel my biases of experience and knowledge. However, i can and will work to eliminate my biases of wealth and race in the classroom.
In regards, to Ruby Payne's critics, I believe, as both Sean and Connor stated,that the critics were fair. However, Bomer.. et. al confuse me with their definition of deficit thinking. Bomer et al claim that "deficit thinking holds that students who struggle or fail in school do so because of their own internal deficits or deficiencies"(pg.35). The authors elaborate that within this perspective, the poor are seen as having limited intellectual abilities, linguistic shortcomings, lack of a motivation to learn, and immoral behavior. Instead, the authors of Misguided Education point to inequalities in school funding, policies, and the organization of schools for which Payne should direct her attention.
ReplyDeleteIn Payne's defense, I believe that she made valid arguments about intellectual quotient scores and its inability to assess students in or out of poverty. She later brings to the table concepts that are understood and used in content area literacy. But, the authors of the critique claim that this data is not relative to their critique. "We also did not take as truth claims Payne's
accounts of others' theoretical frameworks that did not relate to poverty or social class" (pg. 6). I believe that those later frameworks are important and should have been taken in consideration to her overarching framework of poverty.
In relation to my understanding of deficit perspective,unless one claims that discriminatory policies, lack of funding shape household perceptions around the culture of education, one cannot help but fall into a deficit perspective at some extent. It seems that social justice must deal with the structure of education, more than the cultural background that students bring from home. For example, the upliftment of literacy goes after the idea that students have unequal access to print culture. If the problem is with the schools instead of deficient resources at home, then are the literacy arguments justified? In other words, I feel that most educators committed to social justice have some sort of deficit perspective.
While Payne's critics bring up extremely relevant, and to a large extent, damning issues with Paine's book, I feel that the level of criticism moved beyond the realm of reasonable. By this I mean that while it is obvious that Payne's book lacks the background research to defend its validity, the critic's umbrage with the book moves beyond merely discrediting the theories presented into outright the mocking of Ruby Payne herself.
ReplyDeleteNow this is not meant as a defense of Payne's work, as the critics did a more than admirable job at cutting down her arguments, but to question the tone in which the critics accomplished this. The constant emphasis on her lack of evidence becomes increasingly verbose and ridiculous. I realize that when a program, such as Payne's, is so widely accepted and valued that it needs to demonstrate hard facts and research to back up its claims. However, after the first few times it becomes understood that Payne conducted no real research, instead relying on a lifetime of firsthand accounts. To continue to mention this would be fine, if a little excessive, but the extremes that they go to in describing the constant lack of research trends towards mocking. Moreover, I do not feel Payne, nor her program deserve to be mocked. It may be a viewpoint for teachers to adopt, but Payne appears to have created this book to help people, not to hurt them. Unfortunately, her book, in this respect, is rather counterproductive.
That being said, Payne did offer a different viewpoint on children in poverty. While this viewpoint was steeped in racism, stereotypes, and generalizations, it still hold value in that it presents another way to look at the student's home life. Payne's research, or lack thereof, and theories are each fundamentally flawed but they are based on real situations that she saw as a teacher and principal time and time again. To completely disregard that insight because of a lack of rigorous research would be to ignore all the firsthand accounts of people offering you advice. Her words just need to be read with a critical lens
As for Payne's deficit thinking, I think everyone at times has looked at someone struggling to get by and assumed that they played some role in their fate. It is easier to rationalize when it comes to adults as they had their whole lives to stop from becoming the person that they are, or so the theory of deficit thinking holds. However, children have very little in the way of a say in how they are raised or their family, social, or economic situations. To blame a child for situations or behavioral traits that research and common sense dictate are beyond their control is not only wrong, but counterproductive. A program on poverty should work to reverse these kinds of stereotypes and instead focus on the underlying issues that arise out of living in poverty and how to manage them. This, I feel, is what Ruby Payne tried, and spectacularly failed, at doing.
-Sean McFadden
I thought the Payne critique was as fair as it possibly could be. As Connor said, I also found it to be quite generous. Personally, it was difficult to see through Payne's views in order to see her truth claims. The way she sees poverty is shocking, in my opinion. Her research seemed to be based off of stereotypes about poverty. Like Boomer stated, she was self-published thus, not going through the rigorous reviews as that of a normal published work.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter on "Hidden Rules Among Classes" really got to me. She generalizes, stereotypes, and just lumps people into categories. After reading that chapter, I had all but clocked out on Ruby Payne, as an author and individual.
My high school was very similar to what I've heard about RPS. Most of my friends lived in poverty and only ate twice a day and that was free breakfast and lunch at school. I've seen both sides of poverty. The kids who had parents that didn't work and just received benefits from the government. Also, the kids whose parents worked two jobs each and still couldn't afford to put food on their table. It offends me when both are lumped into one general category. Not all parents are going to work hard to get their families out of poverty, but not all parents sit on their asses and live off the government. I feel that it is unfair to generalize especially with a topic so personal. I also think that it is very difficult for an individual who has never experienced poverty to really know about it.
Kyle
I feel that while Payne's critics have made valid points in their critique of her work, at times, their arguments seem to delve from professional to personal. Right from the beginning, I think that they should start with the title: it is "A" framework, not "THE" framework. The fact that so many schools have chosen to adopt it is not really the fault of Payne, but more of the school systems and so I felt that they should have directed more of their aggression there.
ReplyDeleteAt the very beginning, they say that she has conducted no research, and yet, pages 156-191 are nothing but her research notes, so I'm not sure what they are getting at??
In discussing Payne's treatment of class, they are relentless in her choice of using a three-tiered construct. The gist of their argument is that nobody uses that system and that they don't know of any sociologists who use that construct for the United States. Of course, Payne is not a sociologist, so her cursory analysis of class is somewhat to be expected. They could have presented their point better just highlighting that while a 3-tier system is "a" way, there are better, more robust techniques.
Concerning Payne's treatment of race, the authors are much more on the mark, though. It's one thing to be careless in delineating class boundaries, it's another to arbitrarily assign attributes to people in a group. And don't get me started on the "hidden rules." If she saw that during her time in schools, then she should say that it's from personal experience.
And I could go on, and on. Overall, I think that Payne's critics have valid points to make, but they could have better made their point at times with a more impartial dissection of her work. Especially early on, this came across as how I might imagine Rush Limbaugh reviewing an Obama book.
I feel that the critics of Payne's work were fair. They pointed out the lack of evidence that seemed to follow each point that Payne made within her work. I do agree with Sean that the critics may have taken their critiques a little far, pointing out some valid points none the less, but almost discounting her study as a whole.
ReplyDeleteMany of Payne's views on poverty were appalling to me. I agree with Kyle that it seems that she b ased her ideas and checklists from sterotypes. Her "Would you survive in..." was one of the points that shook me the most. Not just what she was generalizing poverty to be but also what she was generalizing middle class and wealth to be as well. Payne has lumped society into only three catergories, when within those three categories there are many sub-groups. Her hidden rules only continued to generalize within the classes and once again they seemed to be drawn from sterotypes with a lack of evidence and support. I feel like many of her statements and class generalizations are drawn from a priveledged, white, upper middle class upbringing, instead of evidence from a significant study. Going to a positive point, I did agree with Payne about her use of graphic organizers. I do believe that they are very helpful tool in the class when taught correctly.
On the idea of deficit thinking, I do believe that not every child will want to succeed or change their "norm" but that is a small even minute percentage of all children that teachers will experience. Most children will have lacking skills because of teachers who did not put in the effort to help them succeed or give that child the cofidence to continue or improve. Each child, I believe, has the ability and the desire to do great things with their life. These children just need the right teacher, role model and social influences to get them there. That is where a teacher comes in. The teacher should never be the one thinking that these children will never succeed or amount to anything, the teacher needs to be the one instilling the confidence in each child to succeed to do great things no matter their social class and especially when poverty is involved.
I agree with the basic sentiment of lot of the posts so far that Payne's critics were exhaustive about her book. In fact, I found reading this article, which might be a part of the fact that I wasn't hate-reading it for the most part unlike with Payne's text, that there's almost an undercurrent of attempting to show up Payne....sort of say, here's how you do it.
ReplyDeleteTo that end, I also agree that their own discourse (Boom! Muth-Stemhagen synergy)comes through when they begin to get into the potential dangers of Payne's work. So for example, one line that I found accurate but professionally lacking was: "Payne's views would simply be the factually inaccurate opinions of a self-published former principal, if so many educators were not influenced by her work. However, reading her book and hearing Payne speak appears to influence the thinking of many teachers, or else one could not account for her popularity."
I thought this moment was particularly condescending. I thought that it was also an important, one I mirrored in my own reading, that Payne's text attacks the problem of people and not the systemic problems of poverty. To that end, I agree with Lester that without the ability to fix the problems contained within a framework of poverty, there is value in dealing with the symptoms/results and how they affect students' lives. I will not be able to fix poverty....sorry everybody....but I will be having to deal with students experiencing poverty and some set of frameworks would be necessary for me to get by. That said, I also agree with the critics' desire to have Payne at least acknowledge that this is a larger issue and not just one centered on the behavior of people.
So while I may want to "tone police" this critique, I think it serves a greater interest to say, like the authors, that Payne seems uninterested in how poverty works and more so to say "How do we solve a problem like POOR PEOPLE?"
Like Kyle, I found Payne's text infuriating in its condescension, its privilege, its audience appeal, the ways in which is animalizes the behaviors of poverty and creates middle-class behaviors are a moral center.
I think while the critics have a valid critique of the potential dangers of Payne's system, especially as its popularity indicates that it might also have great influence, I was not impressed with the mention of how much money she might have made of this venture. I think she might well be the inaccurate misguided principal poorly attacking a problem, but through her chapters on instruction, though not novel or profound, I do think it represented some good faith attempts to deal with an actual problem, and not simply a scam, as the implication seemed to be.
One point on which I think the authors of the article assigned are perhaps over-simplifying is their claim that Payne provides no evidence for her theories. Though the book does have a disconcertingly opinionated attitude, Payne cites a number of sources in the back of the book that I would like to think are at least somewhat reputable. Granted, I have not had time to go look them up, so in the end, I am inclined to wonder if any of them are in fact sources of substantial evidence. Another thing that struck me in an attempt to figure out what legitimate sources her claims might be coming from was that although the book repeatedly highlights that Payne has a Ph.D., I couldn’t find anywhere in the text what the doctorate is in. Well, according to Wikipedia, Payne has a Ph.D. in “educational leadership and policy studies.” I find the fact that the book clearly emphasizes her Ph.D. degree very troubling when it is not in a subject that qualifies her to make any sort of sweeping claims about psychology.
ReplyDeleteIn Ruby Payne’s book, A framework for understanding poverty, I initially felt that she was presenting her argument well. In the introduction she gives the reader logical data and a logical list of resources which having the lack of may cause someone to be impoverished. These initial data and list was useful in forming my own understanding of deficit and poverty in my head before diving into reading the rest of the book. It even appeared logical it some aspects when comparing to people I know who are considered impoverished based on legal annual household income. Some of Payne’s data presented was useful, but she threw me for a complete loop when she describes the certain “hidden rules of poverty”. She says, “The noise level is high (the TV is always on and everyone may talk at once), the most important information is nonverbal…” Who is here source? To me this could be any family on a dysfunctional day. This was one of many stereotypes, as Payne’s critics would agree, presented by Payne. Though she gives examples of scenarios she claims to have encountered, her presentation and some supporting ideas of the information being presented was a bit ridiculous; for example, in the story about the African American female, Opie, whose mother name is Oprah, let’s be real who else in the black community is named Oprah besides Oprah Winfrey? It appeared to me like a hidden joke when discussing such an important and heartfelt topic to which she gave off as being somewhat passionate about. Like her critics, I disagree that a global workshop should’ve been created around her fact deprived stereotypes. Another illuminating comment made by Payne was some of the items on the check list to see if you could survive in poverty. That was bizarre, as an author why would you even present to your reader their likely hood of surviving in poverty or how unlikely they would fail in wealth. One of the items on the poverty checklist was “I know how to use a knife as scissors” another was “I know how to entertain a group of friends with my personality in story” Even for some odd reason the reader took the time to consider their survival in poverty and checked these two boxes what would be the connection between the two that classified them as survivors in poverty.
ReplyDeleteDespite Payne’s misrepresentation’s, I actually like some of her ideas to help these students in the classroom one in particular is helping students understand the difference of informal and formal register in the classroom. She explains this on pages 57-58. I disagree that informal register has to be taught every day along with formal register, but it is important that students make the connection between the two, understanding when it’s appropriate to use both.
One more point... Ruby Payne's critics are being fair I believe that the underlying fact is we as readers could have possibly considered her work less critically if there wasn't such a lack of citations to support the many stereotypes she brings to the table.
ReplyDelete