1

RUNNING HEADER: POVERTY AND EDUCATION

Poverty and Education: Are All Schools Created Equal?

Ryan Wichtendahl
First Colonial High School
Legal Studies Academy

2
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
Abstract
This paper is a critical analysis of the relationship between poverty and education in the United
States. Introduction of this relationship begins with the introduction of issues of poverty with the
nation. Then the issue of poverty is related to early childhood development. The author then
explores the implications of poverty on early childhood focusing on education. The issue of
poverty is then explored throughout the legal scope. In this, the author looks at how the
relationship of poverty is relevant to law through the legislation and federal mandates
surrounding school funding, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Title I
appropriations, and the legislation maintaining equality between impoverished and affluent
schools. Lastly, in the legal analysis and conclusion the author makes recommendation for
amendment to current legislation and proposition for new legislation surrounding the funding of
impoverished schools and their equality.

3
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
Poverty and Education: Are All Schools Created Equal?
In 2013, approximately 21 percent of school-age children were in families living in
poverty (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). This translates into another shocking
statistic from the Southern Education Foundation, The latest data collected from the states by
the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), evidence that 51 percent of the students
across the nations public schools were low income in 2013 (Southern Education Foundation,
2015). These statistics are merely faceless facts, but around the nation right now, several students
are living this reality. When these students enter into public American schools across the nation,
they potentially face a crisis. The crisis these students may face in their public schools is
complex and frustrating. It is the fact that they unfortunately may not receive the same education
that their non-impoverished peers will receive due to their income. This crisis is a result of
flawed legislation which provides for disproportionate funding to the districts of impoverished
students. The United States Department of Education has just asserted through its recent research
that, more than 40% of low-income schools don't get a fair share of state and local funds (U.S.
Department of Education Press Release, 2011). This inequality due to the lack of equalized
funding can have serious implications on a students health and education. These effects range
from long term to short term with varying severity amongst them. A recent paper published by
California Polytechnic State University asserted that, In a direct effects model, poverty
influences childrens education and development by increasing risk factors and limiting
protective factors and opportunities for stimulation and enrichment (Engle & Black, n.d.).
Students living in poverty across the United States face an inadequate learning experience in
comparison to their peers who are non-impoverished. The inadequacy in public schools between

4
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
students living in poverty and education results from a lack of appropriate funding, lack of
successful supplemental programs, and flawed educational legislation.
The Extent of Poverty as an Issue
To fully understand the relationship between poverty and education, the meaning of
poverty as a national issue must first be defined. Poverty is defined by the United States
throughout a specific set of qualifications. Each household has a threshold that is determined
by number of family members and their ages within the household. If a family falls below this
threshold, they are identified as living in poverty (US Census Bureau, 2015.). This definition of
poverty certainly oversimplifies the issue. Poverty is a complex issue which has many other
defining characteristics.
Demographics of Impoverished
The demographics of those affected by poverty are extremely pertinent to understanding
poverty holistically as an issue. Poverty is not a selective issue in our nation, but it is widespread
and varies across our diverse nation. In 2012, according to the official measure, 46.5 million
people, or 15 percent of the total U.S. population, lived in poverty (Institute for Research on
Poverty, 2014). That number is larger than entire population of the country of Canada, a
shockingly large amount. As aforementioned, poverty is not selective, but it breaches all age
groups, minorities, and family backgrounds. One age group poverty breaches is children as
shown in a recent article by the Institute for Research on Poverty where they stated, Data
released in September 2011 by the Census Bureau indicate that 16.4 million children in the
United States, 22.0 percent of all children, lived in poverty in 2010. More than six million of
these children were under six years old (Institute for Research on Poverty, 2014). Poverty

5
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
targets children over many other age groups which makes them particularly vulnerable and
susceptible to many of the effects of such poverty.
Childrens Role in Poverty Demographics
While poverty is a widespread issue that breaches many diverse groups, it also targets a
specific group. That group is children. Americans under 18 years old have the largest poverty
rate of any group at 21.1% (Institute for Research on Poverty, 2014). This astounding fact is
evidence that poverty is clearly a universal issue, but it targets the nations youngest above all
others. Therefore, when addressing the issue of childhood poverty, we must utilize education as a
tool to fight it. Education is the one unifying factor of all our nations youth. During early
adolescence, education is not optional nor exclusive to only the qualified. This means, education
is our best weapon against poverty. Likewise, in 2001 former President of the United Republic of
Tanzania, Julius Nyerere said, Education is not a way to escape poverty - It is a way of fighting
it. Nyereres statement is extremely profound and important in order to understand how
education can be utilized to fight the effects of poverty.
The Relationship between Poverty and Education
Several public school teachers over the past decades have cited poverty being a direct
barrier to education inside of their classrooms. The phrase, barrier to education means that
poverty severely prohibits or prevents a childs full and complete access to education. In fact, a
recent national poll of over 700 teachers found that, 88 percent [of those teachers] described
poverty as a minor, moderate, or serious problem in their schools (Blad, 2015). Poverty can
directly and indirectly affect a childs education. These direct and indirect impacts can vary
across many different levels of severity including impacts on their physical health to impact on
their mental health.

6
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
Effects of Poverty on the Physical Health of Children
Many children living in poverty will be forced to combat many different health risks that
their non-impoverished peers may not. This is not to say that all children living in poverty will
have great health but as stated by the Connecticut Commission on Children, Poor children are at
an increased risk for low birth weight, asthma, anemia, growth stunting and lead poisoning
among many other health complications (Connecticut Commission on Children, 2004). As
poorer children are at an increased risk for low birth weight, they immediately face the risks of
poverty starting from the very moment they are born. The effects of low birth weight itself are
also extremely significant to childrens development. Having been born low birth weight can in
turn predict a range of negative outcomes across the life course, including increased infant
mortality and poor childhood health, and lower educational attainment and earnings (Strully,
Rehkopf, & Xuan, 2010). The implications of poverty on a childs health go far beyond just low
birth weight, as it was cited by the Connecticut Commission on Children the effects can translate
into serious health problems which take on their own entirety of implications. Poverty can
seriously harm a young childs health which can translate into life-long implications for our
nations children living in poverty. These health conditions and their effects translate into a
tougher experience within the classroom. These children begin their experience in public school
with a preexisting disadvantage due to their income and physical health in comparison to their
non-impoverished peers.
Effects of Poverty on the Mental Health of Children
Children who are living in poverty not only have to face severe impacts on their physical
health but also on their mental and emotional health. A recent article by the Urban Institute
stated that,

7
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
For children, the long-term mental health effects of poverty are even more alarming. In
addition to occupying cognitive resources needed for education (arguably the clearest
path out of poverty), poverty is toxic to children. Persistent stress and exposure to trauma
trigger harmful stress hormones that permanently affect childrens brain development and
even their genes (Jordan, 2013).
Poverty can potentially be extremely damaging to a childs mental health. Jordan stated that
poverty is toxic to children. A childs developmental stage is imperative as it is the time in which
they are the most formative. When a child in this developmental stage grows up surrounded by
poverty it can be extremely toxic to their overall development. The implications of poverty on a
childs mental health can be far more long lasting than many may assume. Recently the Chicago
Policy Review stated that, for the 25 percent of American children currently living in poverty,
the effects of low socioeconomic status will persist long into adulthood even if their financial
situation improves (Repka, 2013). Poverty is a long lasting issue with effects that saturate a
childs health, both physically and mentally. This effect on a childs health has implications for
that childs education both directly and indirectly.
Effect of Poverty on a Childs Education
Children living in poverty face severe effects on their education due to the barrier poverty
directly causes to their education. Poverty first attacks a childs education inside of their home. It
does this by limiting their access to educational resources and social interaction. Children living
in poverty first have fewer resources available to stimulate their learning. For example, more
than two-thirds of poverty-stricken households do not possess a single book developmentally
appropriate for a child under five (Rokosa, 2011). This is extremely problematic as early
childhood reading is essential for young childrens cognitive development. The upsetting reality

8
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
is that povertys effects generally tend to increase with age as the role they play in childrens
lives increases with time. From the youngest ages poverty affects a childs intellectual
development, social development, and physical development due to the lack of proper resources.
Povertys direct impact on education is severe and widespread. These effects of poverty are
numerous. The effects can range across a wide spectrum from minor risk factors to detrimental
impacts on a childs entire life. Povertys effects are not limited to a childs home. When
students enter their elementary schools they bring the effects of poverty along with them. The
presence of such effects become very evident within the classroom. The situation of poverty
cannot directly be changed by school board officials, but the impact of their effects can certainly
be lessened by teachers and other school officials throughout proper funding, legislation, and
programs to enhance these childrens learning experiences.
The Responsibility of the Law in Education of Students in Poverty
Lawmakers have a responsibility to protect their constituents, even those under the legal
voting age. Children are the most imperative group of society as they are the future of the nation.
They are also such a fundamental group as they are at such a shapeable age and in need of as
much guidance as possible during this developmental period of their lives. Unfortunately, the
need of these children is not met due to a lack of proper appropriation of funding to districts and
a decrease in overall spending on education.
Improper Appropriation of Funding to Schools
Funding is crucial for public schools to maintain fluidity necessary for effective
education of all students. This is especially crucial in public schools with a majority of its
students living in poverty or identified as low-income. In these situations it is especially critical

9
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
as these students require extra supplies and supplementary programs due to the lack of at home
resources available to them. Although it is necessary that these low-income and poverty
identified schools receive the appropriate funding, they often do not receive the proper amount
they need. Recently the United States Department of Education released a report stating that,
More than 40% of low-income schools don't get a fair share of state and local funds (U.S.
DOE, 2011). This stems from improper allocation of funding to schools which actually
significantly harm schools that serve a majority of students living in high poverty. Recently, the
Education Law Center released a national report card on the fairness of school funding across
the United States. This past year the national report card revealed that, only 14 states have
progressive funding systems, providing greater funding to high-poverty districts than to lowpoverty districts (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2010). It is shocking that only fourteen of all fifty
states are actually providing impoverished schools with the funding it needs. Many legislators
within these other states believe that these low-income schools do not need as much money since
they are receiving extra money from their Title I funds. Unfortunately, this is not the case. By
holding back the state and local funds, they are actually decreasing the available funds all
together, and thus increase disparity between wealthier schools and their impoverished
counterparts. The state of Pennsylvania far too often has seen this issue amongst its several
school districts, but it has started to cause conflict. Late in 2014 the Education Law Center began
its long process in attempting to challenge the disparity across several school districts in the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit was brought to represent six various school
districts for seven identified parents and two different statewide associations. Unfortunately, at
the time of the first lawsuit, the court of Pennsylvania stated that, Petitioners cannot
meaningfully distinguish the instant case from prior decisions in which the Pennsylvania

10
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
Supreme Court has emphatically rejected constitutional challenges to the Commonwealths
system for funding public education (William Penn School District, et al., v. Pennsylvania
Department of Education, et al.,). Consistently across the United States courts have made similar
decisions as the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania did. Currently the Education Law Center
has filed a new motion in reference to a new lawsuit dealing with the same school districts and
complainants. The issue has resurfaced as the legislation surrounding funding to these schools as
not changed just as the instance of poverty in these schools has also not changed.
Aforementioned, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dismissed the lawsuit because they
have, emphatically rejected constitutional challenges to the Commonwealths system for
funding public education. The flaw in this response is that education is in fact a constitutional
issue wholly and completely. Comparatively, West Virginia in the 1984 case of Pauley v. Kelly
stated that education is a fundamental right guaranteed by the federal and state constitution
(Pauley v. Bailey). Across the board, the legislation which has been directly put in place to
protect low income students has failed.
Funding of the nations low-income schools has also become flawed due to the lack of
transparency within the appropriation of Title I funds. This funding refers to the Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act which was enacted under President Lyndon B.
Johnson during his continuation of John F. Kennedys war on poverty. This section of the
ESEA requires that federal funding be provided to districts and schools with a high volume of
students living at or below the federal poverty line. The money provided throughout Title I
funding is intended to provide funding for resources which can aid in the decreasing of
disparities amongst schools with a high level of impoverished students versus those with a high
concentration of students living above the poverty line. The problem rises that Title I funding has

11
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
not been used in accordance with serving its original purpose at all. Majorly, the flaw is found
within the comparability provision of Title I of the ESEA which, requires that school districts
provide services to higher-poverty, Title I schools, from state and local funds, that are at least
comparable to services in lower-poverty, non-Title I schools (U.S. DOE, 2011). Originally it
would appear that this provision is effective and purposeful to the main goal of ESEA as a
whole. Yet instead of working towards the goal of ESEA, it directly defies it. The comparability
provision uses the term, services which has allowed for school districts to use their own
discretion to define the term to what they believe it should serve as within their district. Many
school districts have used this to mean actual services rather than monetary funding to schools,
some districts claim because their student to teacher ratio is the same across the board that this
means the services of wealthy schools and impoverished ones are the same (U.S. DOE, 2011).
This method of thinking is extremely flawed because this is not a good measure of equality. This
thought process would completely ignore the amount of resources within a school, number of
extracurricular activities available to students, and monetary funds available to school for
activities and resources. Secondly, a major flaw in the Title I funds pass through too many
different hands before actually ever landing upon the desks of impoverished students. There are
three major levels that Title I money flows through: federal to state, state to district, and district
to school (Roza & Lake, 2015). The biggest issue with this practice is quite obvious. Money
flows through too many levels before ever reaching the schools causing human nature to allow
for discrepancies to occur within the levels and thus damaging the funds. The major flaw occurs
within the district to school level as this is where the most personal choice occurs. Districts
often choose to allocate Title I funds to wealthier schools, not necessarily intentional but rather
habitual. Recently to actually back this assertion, researchers from the Center on Reinventing

12
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
Public Education looked into the money spent affluent schools versus those schools districts
poorer counterparts. The researchers discovered that the poorer schools within five major cities
in the United States received disproportionately less than their affluent counterparts.
The conclusion is inescapable. In four of the five districts, the central assumption
underlying Title I funds allocation is false. That is to say, the expectation that funds will
be equitably distributed between schools before federal monies are added is demonstrably
not being met. In four of these large cities, schools are unequally funded with state and
local resources, to the detriment of the schools and student populations most in need of
assistance (Miller, Hill, & Roza, 2015).
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been widely misinterpreted by school
officials and legislators. This legislative act has served begun to serve a motive much different
that the intended purpose. The solution to such issue is increased transparency within the usage
of Title I funds and more direct transportation from the Federal Governments hands to the desks
of impoverished students within high poverty schools.
Legislation on Funding for Schools
It is the responsibility of each individual state to provide its citizens with free and public
education. In recent years there have been significant budget cuts due to the 2007 recession.
Unfortunately, these budget cuts targeted education funding, and the cuts have still not been
reversed to fully restore funding to public schools. Recently this issue has sparked interest
amongst parents in various regions of the United States, specifically Kansas. In 2012 parents of
the state of Kansas who were especially concerned by the issue filed a lawsuit in the case of
Gannon v. State. This case asserted two specific claims about how the cuts to financing system

13
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
of the Kansas Education System is unconstitutional. First, the current financing system does not
provide constitutionally adequate education to the students of Kansas public education, and
secondly, certain school districts have received more or less cuts making the system
disproportionate (Education Law Center, 2015). Currently those lobbying against this
unconstitutional financing system and cuts are advocates for legislation that would require the
state to secure a specific amount of funding for education in order to provide the proper
education to all public school students across the state regardless of income. States like
California have enacted voter based legislation including Proposition 98. This proposition
allowed citizens in the 1980s to vote on minimum education funding levels for local public
schools. Annually proposition 98 is voted on to ensure that education budget minimums remain
appropriate for the current time. (California Department of Education, 2015). This ensures that
regardless of current economic situation, education will still be funded at a minimum level to
ensure the educational quality of students in public schools. Proposition 98 is a good starting
point for legislation across states as it provides a minimum standard to safeguard education
funding from unexpected economic situations.
In accordance with Californias attempts at providing a safeguard to education, New
Jersey has been mandated to do the same by the Supreme Court through the Abbott School
Districts. Starting in 1981 the Education Law Center began a long journey of fighting for the
appropriate funding to all New Jersey school districts regardless of income of the districts
students. The outcome of the series of Abbott cases to date have been tremendously significant to
the equalization of the New Jersey public education system. The Abbott case in 1990 determined
that there were 31 identified urban school districts with a significantly impoverished population
that it served. The court determined that the state of New Jersey had to enact legislation that

14
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
would ensure proper funding to those impoverished urban school districts. The legislation was
required to provide funding that would achieve two things, first it would be equal to that of
suburban non-impoverished counterpart school districts and second, it would be adequate
funding to provide specific programs that could supplement the losses these students faced due to
their urban impoverished state of education (Education Law Center, 2015). The Abbott cases and
the districts it set up as well as the precedent is put forth allows for an example of how the
disparity between impoverished and affluent school districts can be managed within states. New
Jersey and California provided models of states with both urban and suburban school districts as
well as poor and affluent districts.
Conclusion
Across the United States there are nearly 50 million students enrolled in public schools
(Institute of Education Services, 2015). It is the duty of the United States to protect all 50 million
of these childrens right to access a full and equal public education as they are all guaranteed to.
This duty is not made void simply because of a students or schools condition of poverty. In
fact, the burden of the duty to protect those students living in poverty is often increased due to
effects of the condition of poverty. As aforementioned, the condition of poverty has serious
implications on early childhood development. Conditions including the effects on early
childhood physical health, mental health, and early childhood education. All of which are
detrimental to early childhood development. When these three facets are impacted by poverty, it
can be overwhelming on the entire development of children in the early childhood stage. These
implications on development during the early childhood stage translates into other serious
intensified implications on development during the adolescence stage, thus furthering the entire
cycle of poverty. The break to the cycle of poverty comes from access to full public education.

15
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
The access to full and equal education is often not as simple as commonly conceived. The
common misconception is that education is equal across the board regardless of funding,
location, or student demographics of the school. Unfortunately, this is a misconception rather
than a reality due to the lack a proper appropriation of funds to schools. Specifically, this
misusage of funds and lack of transparency in usage is found within the funding provided
through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Secondly, it is found within the
lack of requirements for minimum funding. As there is not a consistent minimum funding for the
Department of Education across states in the nation, there is a lack of safeguard for education.
Through the minimum funding there is a safeguard created which protects against any necessity
for budget cuts in the government due to economic downfall. In this case regardless of the
significance of the economic downfall, educations funding will still be protected throughout the
minimum funding requirement to maintain proper educational stability regardless of the income
of students. Lastly, when specific provisions are instituted to provide education regardless of
income of the students of the school. When safeguards are put into place, then the education of
students living in poverty is protected. Meaning, when the law protects the education of students
regardless of their income, then the effects of that income status are also decreased. These are
simply proposed legislative safeguards to prevent against the harms of poverty on the children in
American public schools across the nation. Unfortunately, these safeguards that have been
proposed are only currently scarcely enacted amongst states in the nation. Currently, there is a
major inadequacy in American public schools between those students who are impoverished and
those are affluent. The effect of status, affluence or poverty on education results from a lack of
appropriate funding, decrease of successful supplemental programs, and flawed educational
legislation.

16
POVERTY AND EDUCATION

References
Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2010). Is school funding fair?: a national report card.
Newark, NJ: Education Law Center.
Blad, E. (2015, June 9). Poverty a barrier to learning: Communities in schools. Retrieved December
14, 2015, from
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/2015/06/poll_majority_of_teachers_say_po
verty_is_a_barrier_to_learning_in_their_schools.html
California Department of Education. (2015, July 1). Education Budget. Retrieved December 21, 2015,
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/eb/
Carey, K., & Roza, M. (2008). School funding's tragic flaw (pp. 9-24, Rep.). Seattle, WA: University
of Washington.
Connecticut Commission on Children. (2004, June). Children and the long-term effects of poverty.
Retrieved December 10, 2015, from
https://www.cga.ct.gov/coc/pdfs/poverty/2004_poverty_report.pdf
Education Law Center. (2015). The history of Abbott v. Burke. Retrieved from
http://www.edlawcenter.org/cases/abbott-v-burke/abbott-history.html
Education Law Center. (2015). Kansas litigation. Retrieved from
http://www.educationjustice.org/states/kansas.html
Engle, P. L., & Black, M. M. (n.d.). The effect of poverty on child development [Scholarly project].
In California Polytechnic State University. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=psycd_fac

17
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
Institute for Research on Poverty. (2014). How many children are poor? Retrieved December 9, 2015,
from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq6.htm
Institute for Research on Povery. (2014). Who is poor? Retrieved December 9, 2015, from
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm
Institute of Education Services. (2015, May). Public school enrollment. Retrieved December 21, 2015,
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cga.asp
Jordan, R. (2013, November 25). Poverty's toll on mental health. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from
http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/povertys-toll-mental-health
Mai, C., & Leachman, M. (2014, May 20). Most states funding schools less than before the recession.
Retrieved December 21, 2015, from http://www.cbpp.org/research/most-states-funding-schoolsless-than-before-the-recession
Miller, L., Hill, P., & Roza, M. (n.d.). Strengthening title I to help high-poverty schools [Abstract].
Retrieved December 21, 2015, from
http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/wp_crpe6_title1_aug05_0.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Children living in poverty. The Condition of
Educatio, 50-54. doi:10.4135/9781452276250.n43
Pauley v. Bailey, Justia (December 12, 1984).
Repka, M. (2013, November 27). Enduring damage: The effects of childhood poverty on adult health.
Retrieved December 14, 2015, from http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2013/11/27/enduringdamage-the-effects-of-childhood-poverty-on-adult-health/
Rokosa, J. (2011, October 20). Fighting the war on poverty with early childhood education. Retrieved
from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/news/2011/10/20/10547/fighting-thewar-on-poverty-with-early-childhood-education/

18
POVERTY AND EDUCATION
Roza, M., & Lake, R. (2015). Title I: Time to get it right. Retrieved December 21, 2015, from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556479.pdf
Southern Education Foundation. (2015). Low income students now a majority. Research Bulletin.
Retrieved December 2, 2015, from http://www.southerneducation.org/getattachment/4ac62e275260-47a5-9d02-14896ec3a531/A-New-Majority-2015-Update-Low-Income-StudentsNow.aspx
Strully, K. W., Rehkopf, D. H., & Xuan, Z. (2010, August 11). Retrieved December 10, 2015, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104729/
United States, Department of Education, Press Office. (2011, November 30). U.S. Department of
Education Press Release. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/more-40-low-income-schools-dont-get-fair-share-state-and-local-funds-departmenteducation-research-finds
US Census Bureau. (2015.). How the census bureau measures poverty. Retrieved December 9, 2015,
from https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html
U.S. DOE. (2011, November). The potential impact of revising the title I comparability requirement to
focus on school-level expenditures. Retrieved December 21, 2015, from
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/comparability-requirement/comparability-policybrief.pdf
U.S. DOE. (2011, November 30). More than 40% of low-income schools don't get... Retrieved
December 20, 2015, from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-40-low-income-schoolsdont-get-fair-share-state-and-local-funds-department-education-research-finds
William Penn School District, et al., v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, et al., (Commonwealth
Court of Pennsylvania March 3, 2015).

19
POVERTY AND EDUCATION

Wednesday 12/23 11:59:59

Entire thing: Title page, abstract, 15 pgs, citations (15), reference page (25)
Graded 200 points

Grading Rubric for Almost Final Graded Draft

Criterion

4 -- Advanced

3 Above

2 Proficient

1 -- Emerging

Average
Mechanics,
Grammar,

Zero to very few

errors

A few errors

Several errors

Many errors
inhibit the
reading of the
text

Academic
language used
throughout paper
Law is a major
presence

Academic
language used
through most of
paper Law is a
presence

Academic
language used for
some of paper
Lacking law

Paper lacks
academic
language
informal
throughout

Spelling

Academic Voice
and Law

Law is missing
entirely

Usage, Sentence

Zero to very few

Structure

errors

Title, Abstract,

All present and

correct

Body, Reference

A few errors

Several errors

Many errors
inhibit reading of
text

All present
needs to fix a
few errors

All present need

to fix several
errors or
somewhat
incomplete

Missing pieces

20
POVERTY AND EDUCATION

Uniform LSA Scoring convention

16 = 100

12 = 88

8 = 76

4 = 64

15 = 97

11 = 85

7 = 73

No submission = no score

14 = 94

10 = 82

6 = 70

13 = 91

9 = 79

5 = 67

Please do the following for final: Read all comments and make necessary corrections. They are very
minor fixes. Let me know if you have any questions.