13
By Todd Prusator
Rochelle Elementary School District 231
Rochelle Elementary School District, like
many others, has seen an increase in students from
low-income families. Our percent of low-income
students has gone from 22.2 percent in 2000 to 62.2
percent in 2013. We have also had an increase in
our English Language Learners (ELL) population,
going from 4.7 percent to 21.1 percent over the same
time span, with many of the ELL students also being
low-income.
There is an obvious correlation between
academic achievement and social-economic status.
If one were to simply examine the relationship of
ISAT scores to percent of low-income students, it is
clear that a higher percentage of low-income
students results in a lower percentage of “meets” and
“exceeds.” This has even been amplified with the
new cut scores used in 2013.
I do not believe that the differences in
achievement levels are due to a lesser quality of
curriculum and instruction. Most districts and
teachers work extremely hard and do many of the
same interventions to meet the needs of students. I
would even make the general assertion that ISAT
scores are less of an indicator of the quality of
curriculum and instruction and more of an indicator of
the relative wealth of a district’s demographics.
However, this does not abdicate our responsibility
to look deeper and more intentionally at how we can
best serve all of our students. We have done what
most districts are doing regarding aligning our
curriculum to the Common Core Standards and
monitoring and improving our instruction through the
Danielson Framework. We have invested much time
and effort in the Response to Intervention (RtI)
process to identify deficiencies and provide the
necessary interventions. We have also developed a
bilingual program K-3. In addition, we applied for and
received a 21
st
Century Learning Community grant to
provide extensive after school opportunities.
Yet, if our circumstances are different and the
needs of our students are changing, then we felt
strongly that we needed to understand our students
better and how to address their needs. This led us to
the work of Eric Jensen and his book, “Teaching with
Poverty in Mind.”
The concepts and information resonated with us.
Each building did a book study on Jensen, who
provides the research and impact on students who
live in poverty. We also had all administrators, a
teacher from each building, and a board member
attend a four-day Jensen conference. This helped us
go beyond what we were doing and focus on why our
students have increased challenges when it comes to
school and achievement. By understanding the
“why’s,” it has helped us determine the “what’s” more
strategically, intentionally, and comprehensively.
Essentially from Jensen, we learned that “poverty
is not a culture, but a chronic condition affecting
mind, body, and soul resulting from multiple adverse
risk factors.”
The three main areas that impact students from
poverty more than middle or upper class students are
(Continued on page 14)
Todd Prusator has been
an educator for 27 years,
the
last
nine
as
Superintendent in Rochelle
after being a teacher,
assistant principal and
principal.
His family has a
distinguished heritage in
education as his two
brothers also are school
superintendents in Illinois, his father is a retired
superintendent, his mother is a retired school nurse
and his wife is a special education teacher.
As his column illustrates, he is using Eric
Jensen’s book “Teaching with Poverty in Mind” as a
tool for administrators, teachers and board
members in the Rochelle district where the poverty
level has grown to more than 60 percent.
Teaching with poverty in mind is
more than a book title in Rochelle
Todd Prusator
Poverty in the public education classroom
