1. 1
Macrosystem
Solutions to Poverty Project- Macrosystem
Jamie Wright, Samantha Yahnke, Samantha Gleason, Danielle Kast, Bonita
McFarlin
University of Wisconsin- Stout
Family Resource Management
December 13, 2015
Dr, Julie Zaloudek

2. 2
Macrosystem
Solutions to Poverty Project- Macrosystem
Family Ecological Theory helps us understand individuals and families within their
environments. Families that are struggling with poverty have environmental factors that potentially
limit their academic success and access to education. The needs of families in poverty may be so
basic (e.g. housing, food, childcare) that they obscure the goal of academic success. Families who
may have valued education must shift their priorities to attend to basic security and stability. Even
families who do value education and have educational goals may have limited resources such as
access to quality K-12 education, knowledge of what is needed to prepare for college, and funding
to support educational success. Decision making in impoverished families may also be difficult,
such as the ability to “recognize needs, identify alternatives to fulfill identified needs, evaluate
identified alternatives, select and implement alternative and reflect and evaluate”(Moore, 2013,
p.58). This is because reflecting and evaluating is challenging in situations of crisis and
disorganization, which is often the living experience of families in poverty. Lacking the ability to
go through the decision process noted above can limit a family’s ability to make decisions about
continuing education or what educational path is best, leaving a family in a cycle of poverty. This
paper will look at connections between education and poverty at one system level and suggest a
solution, based on research.
The macrosystem is the fourth level of the ecological system. This includes the cultural
environment in which the person lives and all other systems that affect them. In other words, it
describes the culture an individual lives in. A few cultural contexts within the macrosystem
includes the economy, socioeconomic status, poverty, cultural values, developing and
industrialized countries, and political systems. The macrosystem can have a positive or negative
effect on an individual’s development (Bronfenbrenner,1994). There are many things in the

3. 3
Macrosystem
macrosystem that contribute to the success of education for individuals in poverty such as media’s
influence on who should and should not continue their education, students’ socioeconomic status,
and the individual’s culture. Katherine Baird (2012) found that a large portion of the achievement
gap can be attributed to children who come from a family of low socioeconomic status. Media also
plays a large part in shaping cultural attitudes regarding poverty, and often portrays those in
poverty as lazy, violent or criminal in nature. Media affects cultural attitudes and beliefs about
race (Mastro, 2015). According to McCormack & Boske, even within classrooms, movies shown
to students often contain hidden messages that show both racism and bullying, and non-white
minorities are shown in stereotypical environments of poverty (2008). In addition, United States
schools are structured to serve only students who speak fluent English. Many children living in
poverty do not speak English as their first language (Chu, 2011). In this paper we will examine
research and potential solutions to poverty from the macrosystem: specifically, how
socioeconomic status, school culture, and media impacts the educational achievement of low
income students as well as a promising solution.
Poverty is an enormous problem for children in the United States. A recent report by
UNICEF states that 23 percent of U. S. children live in poverty (Berliner, 2006). The only Western
industrialized nation with a higher poverty rate than the United States is Romania (Ravitch 2013).
Ravitch goes on to note that poverty affects every aspect of children’s lives: emotions, attention
span, motivation, attendance, and ability to concentrate on anything other than survival. Moreover,
in our wealthy society, poverty is degrading and humiliating, especially for children (2013, 93-
94). Cultural attitudes often drive educational policies for better or for worse. For example, recent
policies have emphasized school reform, but there have been no improvements in the achievement
gap between low SES students and middle or high-SES students (Lee, 2006, qt.in Fram, Miller-

4. 4
Macrosystem
Cribbs & Van Horn, 2007). Although education is seen as a means of providing equal opportunity
to all, a significant body of research refutes this belief. In the United States, schooling does not
equalize opportunities, skills or resources; instead, the gap between poor and non-poor children is
disturbingly high (Braswell, et al., 2001; Ferguson, 1998; Miller-Cribbs, Cronen, Davis &
Johnson, 2002).
Why is our educational system in America unable to close the gap in achievement and
opportunity between socioeconomic levels? Perhaps the cultural views toward those in poverty
and the culture of those in poverty is a problem left unsolved decade after decade. There may be
cultural or attitudinal differences. A “culture of poverty” inhibits and discourages academic
success in poor ethnic minority communities. Youths may choose not to succeed in school when
they are living in a culture that stigmatizes achievement. There may not be enough material reward
to make it worth the stigma (Murray, 1994: Ogbu, 1986). Cultural attitudes about poverty and bias
among non-poor Americans influence how poor students are viewed and treated in schools
(Stanton-Salazar & Dornbush, 1995; Fernandez-Kelly,1994). There may be great emotional and
social obstacles interfering with student efforts to achieve academically,if it means opposing the
multigenerational family or community norms of poverty.
Impoverished environments lack numerous conditions such as security, stability, access to
basic resources, positive time together, and a strong shared belief system. Students that reside in
economically disadvantaged neighborhoods are exposed to behaviors and values that hinder their
academic progress much more than a child that comes from an advantaged neighborhood (Rowley
and Wright 2011). Studies have also shown that parental involvement and support are rare among
poor families (The Effects of Poverty on Relationships, 2012). Some might think this means the
parents do not care, but this is typically not the case. Low income families often do not have the

5. 5
Macrosystem
time or availability due to work shifts and/or working multiple jobs, affordability of childcare,
transportation, as well as possible negative personal experience with schools (The Effects of
Poverty on Relationships (2012). In a rare occurrence, if a parent does not care - this attitude may
reflect upon their child as, “If my parents don’t care, why should I?” In other cases, parent
involvement may be limited due to not owning a phone, or communication barriers such a not
speaking English (The Effects of Poverty on Relationships, 2012). The number of culturally and
linguistically diverse students in The United States public school system has risen to about 40%.
Why is this a problem? Because schools in the United States are mostly structured to serve English
speaking students. These culturally diverse students struggle in school and are then placed in
special education classes, have poor grades, and even higher dropout rates. With the growing
number of culturally diverse students, lack of support for them, and extremely high dropout rates,
this will be a major political concern (Chu, 2011). Parents in low-income households often have
limited education, resulting in a lack of positive academic role models. When a positive mentor is
not available or involved in a child’s life, he or she is at risk of falling through the cracks (Carter,
2013). Better educated and/or involved parents are more likely to value education and help their
children with academic skills at an early age (Salas, n.d.). In addition if parents or caregivers are
overstressed or overworked, they may become authoritarian and perhaps use the same harsh
discipline their own parents used. Sensitivity and warmth decreases as unhealthy and unbalanced
relationships are formed (Jensen, 2009).
Acute and chronic stressors along with the body’s natural reaction have an effect within
poverty and education. Impoverished families have a higher percentage of teen motherhood,
inadequate healthcare, and depression. All of these factors decrease sensitivity towards a child and
reflect on the child’s academic performance and behaviour. Research also has noted that as income

6. 6
Macrosystem
decreases, disciplinary strategies became harsher (Jensen, 2009). A common emotion in children
of poverty is fear. Brain research has concluded that when a child is in a constant state of fear, it
affects learning. When a child is scared or threatened, downshifting occurs. This means the brain
shuts down and solely addresses survival needs making learning impossible (The Effectsof Poverty
on Relationships, 2012). Another connection to the brain is poor nutrition as carbs produce
serotonin. Depression and low self-esteem has been linked low serotonin levels. A body can also
produce its own serotonin however success in problem solved, completing tasks, and experiencing
positive self-esteem accomplishes this. Thus children of poverty are more prone to depression and
low self-esteem (The Effects of Poverty on Relationships, 2012). It has been shown that chronic
stress:
 increases the chance of depression
 decreases effort and motivation
 reduces social skills and social judgement
 decreases memory, cognition, and creativity
 limits concentration and attention
 is connected to over 50% of all absences (Jensen, 2009).
Children of poverty tend to channel all this stress into disruptive behaviour at school. An
example of this would be impulsivity. Because of the stress in a low-income child’s life, he or she
has a higher chance of giving up or becoming passive. This adaptive response is known as learned
helplessness and usually leads to dropping out of school or teen pregnancy (Jensen, 2009).
A common and well known problem among low-income families is access to basic
resources. For example, reading material is scarce among low-income students. There is one book
per every 300 children in low-income neighborhoods compared to one book per one child in

7. 7
Macrosystem
middle-income neighborhoods. Children of poverty do not have the same opportunities as other
kids, such as after- school programs, volunteering, reading books, playing instruments, and
summer learning experiences. Low-income families are also more likely to be uninsured, meaning
health problems for their families (Carter, 2013). Students from middle to high income families
are more likely to have access to more and better resources such as computers or educational toys
(Salas, n.d.). Families in poverty may not be able to afford these luxuries or even have
transportation to community buildings that house such resources as the public library.
Due to lack of funding in schools, the standards to provide students with adequate teaching
are not being met .The adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is now the required
standard for academic achievement., and has been fully implemented by states in the 2014-2015
school year. These standards for academic achievement K-12 grades are comparable with
standards of the rest of the world. 45 states have adopted Common Core Standards in the United
States (about education.com). Sadly, children in poverty may not have equal access to
achievement of these standards. A study found that out of 40 states asked, they all believe the
standards for teaching Common Core information leading to better math and English skills are not
being met (Bidwell, 2013). Though they believe that teaching Common Core standards is a great
thing and helps to improve skills, there are not enough resources available to teach the instructors,
teachers, and other staff what they need to be able to provide these skills to the students. In many
states, they have had to stop buying computers and other technology that is used for assessing
students due to lack of funding. Not only are teachers not properly trained to teach Common Core,
they also lack the technology to do it and to track the progress of the students. "Finding adequate
resources is the main challenge looming over states' efforts to prepare districts, schools, principals
and teachers for the Common Core," said Diane Stark Rentner, deputy director of national

8. 8
Macrosystem
programs for CEP, in a statement. Though the Common Core assessments are around the corner,
Rentner said "funding problems will likely hamper states' efforts to make sure that principals and
teachers are prepared to help students master the standards. (Rentner, D., qt. in Bidwell, A. (2013,
August 7).
In urban areas, low-income families and students face harsh reality when there are not
enough resources in schools. ln addition to lack of funding, schools in urban areas have large class
sizes. Most of the students are considered to be at-risk students. In classrooms with an average of
35 students in the urban area versus an average of 20 students in a classroom at a private school,
the students in urban areas suffer as they are not getting the same education and resources as those
who are in private school. The high poverty schools do not have enough supplies and materials for
the children, especially if they were wanting to take something home; it simply is not possible.
Some teachers are even having to purchase supplies and personal care items for their classrooms,
since there is not funding to provide it. These classrooms in areas of severe poverty are not only
lacking supplies but, they lack quality teachers and teachers who want to stay working in that type
of environment. It is also noted that students in these areas lack more than just resources. Quality
mental health services, resources for students and teachers, as well as money can help make a big
difference in the schools. (Amato, N. (2015, March 26)).
Many individuals think that schools have the most influence on students and their
education. However, when Dewey's experiential philosophies are considered; the idea that learning
does not happen in the vacuum of school, but that children develop understanding of the world
through societal influences- it is difficult to dispute media impact on what children learn
(McCormack, 2008). Students are now spending more hours reading Facebook, watching TV and
reading the internet(Stack and Kelly, 2006). Media often misrepresents race and cultures, by only

9. 9
Macrosystem
sharing one side of the story. Media misrepresents by telling the dominant side, often teaching
students from the non-dominant side that they are not good enough members of society. Negative
images aimed at marginal groups can become self-images for school-aged children who do not
possess the tools to confront or challenge the status quo (McCormack, 2008). If a child lacks
confidence, they will have difficulties continuing their education beyond college.
To reduce poverty, individuals need to take a look at the information they are putting out
on the media, when it is the one thing that children are viewing on a daily basis. Media needs to
equally represent each side of a story, so that individuals know the truth about the different cultures
and ethnicities. This is especially true in today’s world where a child can log onto a social media
site and be bombarded by negative views of cultural diversity. The need for culturally- responsive
teaching in the United States is great. Creating programs for culturally diverse students allows
them to learn from each other and help each other out more. Building learning communities in
diverse educational settings is achieved when educators encourage multiple perspectives in
approaches to everyday pedagogical proceedings (McCormack, 2008).
Academic and future success can stem from access to books, summer learning experiences,
after school programs, volunteer opportunities, and positive mentors. All of these prospects can be
provided after school, at libraries, community facilities, and at numerous housing projects where
low-income families reside (Carter, 2013). Specific trainings and seminars ought to be provided
to faculty so they are aware of appropriate responses and actions to take when working with low-
income students who may experience social conduct behaviours. Children in poverty are more
likely to exhibit:
· little empathy
· limited range of behavioural responses

10. 10
Macrosystem
· inappropriate emotional responses
· impatience and impulsivity
· lack of manners
· “acting out” behaviour (Jenson, 2009)
Eric Jenson, author of Teaching with Poverty in Mind, states it is “easier to condemn a
student for their behaviour rather than help them change it.” Instead of demanding respect, school
staff should embody respect instead. For example, avoiding demeaning sarcasm and authoritarian
directives (Do this now!), discipline through positive relationships, and modeling the process of
adult thinking. Being inclusive with low-income students and embedding social skills into daily
learning are additional action steps that could be taken (Jenson, 2009). Celebrating effort as well
as achievement will likely boost morale of the class. A study has shown that when students are
taught coping skills and stress-relieving techniques there was a decrease in hostility in the
classroom. Empowering impoverished children is a crucial step school staff tend to overlook
(Jenson, 2009). Mailings and notices can be sent home or with students to keep parents informed
about what is going on in the classroom. In addition, these mailings can include free activities
hosted at libraries that boost literacy development and technical skills (The Effects of Poverty on
Relationships, 2012). When teachers go the extra mile and keep in mind that there is no one size
fits all learning style, it will make a big difference to the students and their academic success.
Children in poverty are more likely to face a range of health issues that affects their home
and school life. An increase of health-related services can enrich the lives of these students.
Support and accommodations may include:
· educating parents and caregivers about school resources
· having tutors available

11. 11
Macrosystem
· providing an on-site physician on a regular basis
· teaming up with a local pharmacy to arrange for easy access to medications
· increasing awareness among faculty about health-related issues
· arranging a dentist visit to the school (Jenson, 2009)
Offering and maintaining positive support for impoverished children is incredibly
significant to their social and emotional development (Jenson, 2009).
Studies have shown that higher education leads to higher income. For the last decade,
federal resources for higher education has favoured higher-income families. By increasing access
to financial aid for low-income families, it can reduce financial barriers for schooling and increase
opportunities among students in poverty. Low-income parents also struggle with their financials
and it affects their decisions to remain in college because affordable child care does not exist in
their world. An increase in funding for childcare subsidies and expanding eligibility criteria will
lessen the burden for low-income families (Douglas-Hall & Chau, 2007).
Lastly, society as a whole needs to change its perspective about poverty. Our understanding
and attitudes play a huge role in how we see and treat low-income students and families. The first
step is to address the biases, stereotypes, and assumptions society has about low-income families.
Common stereotypes are people in poverty don’t value education, are lazy, use drugs and alcohol,
have poor communication skills, and are bad parents (Strauss, 2013). Multiple studies have proven
that these stereotypes for wealthier families than they do poor families. It has been shown that low-
income parents work harder by logging 2,500 hours per year (equal to 1.5 full time jobs) as well
as various part time jobs to support their families. Low SES parents engage in home-based
involvement strategies because they may not be able to be more involved at school. Drug and
alcohol abuse tends to be stamped on low-income families because they do not have the resources

12. 12
Macrosystem
to prevent and treat dependence like higher SES families do. Even though students of poverty may
be a step behind their peers regarding reading skills, there has been no evidence that this is
connected to language deficiency (Strauss, 2013). It has been concluded that low-income parents
are no less committed to their children’s education and well-being than wealthier parents.
In conclusion, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory identifies the various levels that affects
and influences one’s life. This can play a role in how society can provide assistance to families in
poverty and achieving academic success. Even though scholarly achievement can provide a vast
improvement to the parents as well as the children, it may not be considered a priority because
basic needs are not being met. As discussed, multiple aspects such as media, socioeconomic status,
and school culture within the macrosystem can hinder or facilitate a family’s decision or opinion
about education. Barriers to appropriate resources, negative portrayal through the media, and
limited knowledge or acknowledge within the school impacts how society treats low-income
families. Although change can be stressful, it can be purposeful. It is well past time to meet
impoverished families where they are, rather than expecting immediate success.
.

13. 13
Macrosystem
References
Amato, N. (2015, March 26). A Lack of Resources for Many Classrooms. Retrieved October 18,
2015
Berliner, D. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational reform. Teachers College Record 108
(6): 949-95.
Bidwell, A. (2013, August 7). States Lack Resources, Funds to Implement Common
Core.U.S.News.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International
Encyclopedia of Education, 3(2). Oxford: Elsevier. Reprinted in: Gauvain, M. & Cole, M.
(Eds.), Readings on the development of children, 2nd Ed. (1993, pp. 37-43). NY: Freeman
Chu, S. (2011). Perspectives in understanding the schooling and achievement of students from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Journal Of Instructional Psychology,
38(3/4), 201-209
Fram, M. S., Miller-Cribbs, J., & Van Horn, L. Poverty, race, and the contexts of achievement:
Examining educational experiences of children in the U.S. south. Social Work. 52(4), 309-
319.
Meador,Derrik.(2013).Common core state standards.About Education

14. 14
Macrosystem
www.teaching.about.com/od/assess/a/Transitioning-To-The-Common-Core.htm
McCormack, S., & Boske, C. (2008). So Deeply Embedded: Using Inquiry to Understand the
Influence of Popular Media in the Classroom. Educational Considerations, 36(1), 6-10.
Rowley, R.L. & Wright. D.W. (2011). No “white” child left behind: The academic achievement
gap between black and white students. Journal of Negro Education, 80(2). 93-107
Stack, M.. & Kelly, D. M.. (2006). Popular Media, Education, and Resistance. Canadian
Journal of Education of Education/ Revue Canadienne De L’education, 29(1), 5-26.
http://doi.org/10.2307/20055144
Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dornbush, S. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of of inequality:
Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68,
116-135.
Wexler, A. (2014). Reaching higher? The impact of the common core state standards on the visual
arts,poverty, and disabilities. Arts Education Policy Review. 115(52-61). 2014.
DOI: 10.1080/10632913.2014.883897