Running Head: SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM

Curriculum to Accommodate Socioeconomically Challenged Students

Clair Cochran
Tarleton State University

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM

2
Purpose

Awareness of the impact curriculum can have on students faced with socioeconomic
challenges drive curriculum specialists, administrators, and educators to teach strategies to break
the cycle of poverty. Todays curriculum prepares students to remain in the broken system of
welfare and minimum wage. Curriculum designed to promote critical thinking skills, problem
solving skills, intrinsic motivation, and team collaboration instills a drive for success and lays a
foundation for students to become contributing citizens in society.
Problem
Lack of targeted career preparation instruction limits students' skills necessary for
successful transition from school to workplace. Current curriculum does not directly address
vital workplace skills such as team collaboration, critical thinking skills, and problem solving
skills. Without workplace skills, students leave school ill prepared to meet employment
expectations, particularly students experiencing impoverished environments. Families of
generational poverty raised in poverty often do not view education a priority, as income, food,
and health consume their worries (McKinney, 2015). Children raised in this environment
typically grow up with the mindset that attending college is not an option. Because
socioeconomically disadvantaged students are often less motivated to learn, teachers face
behavioral problems, lower test scores, and attendance rates . Thus, dropout rates increase; more
students directly enter the minimum wage workforce or find alternative ways of income (Payne,
2008). Teaching students to be lifelong learners and take responsibility for their learning improve
their chances of success, whether in a college classroom or job setting.

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM

3
Research Foundations

Theoretical Foundations
Philosophical Factors. Philosophy is the framework for curriculum. A schools
philosophy determines values, student learning strategies, the teaching methods and material, and
subjects taught. The pragmatist philosophy best addresses our societys value in education.
Pragmatism stresses the importance of teaching the student how to learn, rather than teaching
facts of a specific subject (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013). Curriculum should gear students toward
application of knowledge to prepare them for change and equip them with strategies to change
with curriculum (Cassel, 2005). Pragmatism is the only philosophy that addresses the need for
students to think critically and succeed beyond the basics of education.
Historical Factors.The Nineteenth-Century European Influence introduced security and
affection as the primary factor in the classroom, which addresses the push for intrinsic
motivation. Students take ownership and responsibility for their own learning that lasts a
lifetime. The European Influence teaches the whole child, striving to mold young minds into
moral citizens with a desire to better themselves and their future. Instruction is geared toward
experimentation, trial and error, and discovery for students to receive maximum exposure to real
life situations in a safe environment to foster success. The Transitional Period provided teachers
with standards to base instruction. Content of curriculum is a guide for teachers to plan and
achieve academic goals for students. The introduction to problem based learning occurred in this
era and set the stage for students to begin learning how to solve issues rather than memorizing
knowledge. Curriculum is continuously improving so students receive the highest quality
education to succeed in life. Teachers plan instruction according to life relevance, so students

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM
4
wonder, question, and criticize their surroundings with problem solving tools that nurture the
intrinsic motivation to learn (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013)
Psychological Factors. Psychology helps identify barriers to learning, such as cultural,
socio-economic factors, and special needs. Critical thinking skills, team collaboration, and
problem solving skills are imperative to successfully transition from school to workplace in our
society. Middle to privileged social class children develop these skills intrinsically. Level of
income directly influences childrens early exposure to these skills through parental interaction,
toys, life experiences, and other privileges. Children experiencing poverty most often do not
receive comparable experiences (National Institute of Child Health, 2005).The combination of
Cognitive Psychology and Humanistic Psychology best address the need for educators to focus
initially on the human aspect then move toward learning content. Students that live in poverty
often struggle with malnutrition, shame, trauma, worry, and lack of preparedness. School
districts must address these conditions before learning can occur (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013).
Sociological Factors. Sociology is the study of the development, structure, and functions
of human society. A societys specific beliefs, values, culture and lifestyle directly influence
curriculum theories and practices in schools. Teachers must use sociology to identify the best
teaching practices that meet the students personal and academic needs. The Culture of the
Classroom best addresses the curriculum problem to improve critical thinking, team
collaboration and problem solving skills. Classrooms include students of all backgrounds, socioeconomic statuses, values, cultures, and learning styles. Teachers must consider all differences
when developing curriculum plans, designing classroom management, and creating a positive
classroom atmosphere. Students with low socioeconomic status typically come to school without
the basic skills needed due to their lack of exposure to opportunities to develop those skills

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM
5
(Connell, 1994). The classroom provides a safe, positive environment for the students to learn
and master advanced critical thinking skills with confidence so they are prepared for a successful
future (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013).
Analysis of Research
Vaisley (2010) conducts research measuring the aspirations and expectations of higher
education between not poor and poor students between the ages of 13 and 18. In this research, he
asked the students, Where would you like to go? and Where do you think you will go?
(Vaisley). The findings of this research suggest that, as predicted, students of higher-income have
higher educational ideals and expectations of themselves. Students of lower economic statuses
shared aspirations of continuing their education beyond high school.
Sociological factors noted by Vaisley (2010) influence curriculum design in reference to
improving the success of low socioeconomic students. Curriculum that fosters intrinsic
motivation can directly influence the drive for success, thus increasing the aspirations and
expectations one has on his own future. If students confidently and successfully acquire skills
necessary to achieve higher level thinking problems throughout their early and intermediate
education, that confidence and self-motivation will follow them in transition to higher education
or into the workforce.
The article analyzes new teachers awareness of poverty, ability to recognize students in
poverty, approaches to teaching impoverished students and experience in creating positive homeschool partnerships (Cho, M., Convertino, C, & Khourey-Bowers, C., 2015). Preservice teachers
facing challenges of low income students lack preparation to address their needs because of
limited exposure. Awareness of social patterns and cultural influences greatly affect delivery of
content, student-teacher interaction, and classroom management.

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM
6
The case study gear modules towards the education of preservice teachers because the
results reflect the lack of knowledge regarding learning approaches for students in poverty.
Workshops, conferences, mentoring options and trainings help beginning teachers understand the
importance of differentiating curricula for socioeconomically challenged students simply because
they learn differently. Students raised in poverty lack the basic knowledge, support, and
motivation with which middle and upper class students enter the classroom. Successful transition
into the workplace starts with teacher awareness of socio economic culture and learning
differences, accommodating teaching strategies to meet student needs, and continuous
encouragement and exposure to a world outside of poverty.
Lastly, English and Kitsanta (2013) describe and break down the order in which teachers
build problem-based lessons. Students experiencing poverty often have a difficult time selfregulating and planning ahead due to living in a chaotic environment. Curricula may include
basic lessons to foster self-regulation and the value of planning as a foundation to problem-based
lessons.
Project-based learning with students in poverty must be relevant to their world. Students
experiencing poverty must have experiences that are applicable to their real life and then the
projects can build on that basic understanding. Students are less likely to become immersed in
the project and take away the intended content if they are unable to see a practical application to
the project (English & Kitsantas, 2013).
Implications and Conclusions:
Adequate teacher training, raised awareness of the impoverished culture and
understanding the drastic difference in learning styles of these students is the first step in

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM
7
improving their critical thinking skills. Building relationships and providing practical, relevant
content is the groundwork for teaching students raised in impoverished environments (Payne,
2008). Once this groundwork is established, teachers can begin developing a project-based
curriculum that addresses the higher order thinking gaps required in the workforce (Guang,
1998). Students then can become intrinsically motivated, think critically, and become receptive
to team collaboration that boost self-esteem, encourage them to raise their personal expectations,
and give them hope for a future outside of poverty (Vaisley, 2010).

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM

8
References

Agarwal, P. K. (2012). Advances in cognitive psychology relevant to education: Introduction to

the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 353-354. doi:10.1007/s10648012-9212-0
Cassel, R. N. (2001). Third force psychology and teacher education in relation to contiguity and
standards. Education, 122(1), 205.
Cho, M., Convertino, C, & Khourey-Bowers, C. (2015). Helping preservice teachers (PSTs)
understand the realities of poverty: Innovative curriculum modules. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 63(2), 303-324. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9366-9
Connell, R. W. (1994). Poverty and education. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 125-149.
English, M., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem- and
project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), 127150. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1339
Estes, M., Liu, J., Zha, S., & Reedy, K. (2014). Designing for problem-based learning in a
collaborative STEM lab: A case study. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To
Improve Learning, 58(6), 90-98. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0808-8
Guang, G. (1998). The timing of the influences of cumulative poverty on children's cognitive
ability and achievement. Social Forces, 77(1), 257-287.
Iannone, R. V., & Carline, J. L. (1971). A humanistic approach to teacher education. Journal Of
Teacher Education, 22(4), 429.

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM
9
Khatib, M., Sarem, S. N., & Hamidi, H. (2013). Humanistic education: Concerns, implications
and applications. Journal Of Language Teaching & Research, 4(1), 45-51.
doi:10.4304/jltr.4.1.45-51
Lee, J., Blackwell, S., Drake, J., & Moran, K. (2013). Taking a leap of faith: Redefining teaching
and learning in higher education through project- based learning. Interdisciplinary
Journal Of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2), 1-17.
Leonard, V. W. (1988). Education and poverty: Effective schooling in the United States and
Cuba. Latin American Research Review, (2), 234.
McKinney, S. (2014). The relationship of child poverty to school education. Improving Schools,
17(3), 203-216. doi:10.1177/1365480214553742
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network.
(2005). Duration and developmental timing of poverty and children's cognitive and social
development from birth through third grade. Child Development, 76(4), 795-810.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00878.x
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (6th
ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Payne, R. (2008). Nine powerful practices. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 48-52.
Roediger, H. I. (2013). Applying cognitive psychology to education: Translational educational
science. Psychological Science In The Public Interest, 14(1), 1-3.
doi:10.1177/1529100612454415
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). elearnspace.org. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

SPECIALIZED CURRICULUM
10
Stefanou, C., Stolk, J. D., Prince, M., Chen, J. C., & Lord, S. M. (2013). Self-regulation and
autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments. Active Learning In
Higher Education, 14(2), 109-122. doi:10.1177/1469787413481132
Tamim, S. R., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Definitions and uses: Case study of teachers
implementing project-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Problem-Based
Learning, 7(2), 71-101. doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1323
Vaisley, S. (2010). What people want: Rethinking poverty, culture, and educational attainment.
Annals Of The American Academy Of Political & Social Science, 62975-101.
doi:10.1177/0002716209357146
Zucca-Scott, L. (2010). Know thyself: The importance of Humanism in education. International
Education, 40(1), 32-38.