A critical view of "Bridges Out of Poverty"
Ruby K. Payne’s aha! Process workshops are being presented by Rural Solutions in northeast Colorado to give services providers “a better sense of understanding how people who live in poverty think and react to everyday activities.”
The brochure explains that the workshop will provide “a new paradigm for understanding poverty and the mindsets of different economic classes.”
A critical view of Bridges Out of Poverty and of Ruby K. Payne can be found in Paul Gorski’s “Savage Unrealities: Uncovering Classism in Ruby Payne’s Framework.”
I believe the Ruby Payne phenomenon illustrates the temptation of the path of least resistance. Her work allows us to content ourselves by learning a set of cultural rules and helping a dominated group fit into a dominating system. She never insists that we secure social justice or eliminate educational inequities. She never challenges us to confront classism. In today’s anxiety-ridden education milieu, many of us may experience [Payne's book] A Framework [for Understanding Poverty] as a reprieve from the difficult reflective and transformative work called for by Kozol (1992), hooks (2000), and others. Their work challenges us to be part of institutional reform. Payne’s demands shallow awareness and no commitment to authentic reform.
Gorski also says,
Payne argues that her work is not about race but about class. … why does she paint such racist portraits of the African-American and Latino families in her scenarios? Payne identifies violent tendencies, whether in the form of gang violence or child abuse, in three of the four families of color depicted in the vignettes, but not in any of the three white families. Each of the families of color, but only one of three white families, features at least one unemployed or sporadically employed working-age adult. Whereas two of the three white children have at least one stable caretaker, three of the four children of color — Otis, who is beaten by his mother; Opie, who is left in the care of her “senile” grandmother; and Juan, who is being raised by his gang-leader, drug-dealer uncle — appear to have none.
Another quote from Gorski:
It’s all too easy, for even the most well-meaning of us, to help perpetuate classism by buying into that mindset, implementing activities and strategies for “working with parents in poverty” or “teaching students in poverty” that, however subtly, suggest we must fix poor people instead of eliminating the inequities that oppress them.
Another critique of Payne’s Bridges out of Poverty:
Payne’s skill at self-promotion has been a convenient fit for educators eager for a quick fix in dealing with poverty, and her popularity has rapidly surged with little or no honest investigation of her competence. In fairness, it is flashes a beacon of hope to those who sincerely seek educational equality for their students from low-income families. Confidence in Payne’s methods, like Payne’s thesis, is based on collegial gossip and unsubstantiated and rather rare anecdotes of success.
The fundamental problem with Payne’s thesis is that she doesn’t know anything about poverty, let alone the culture of poverty, either through direct experience or scholarly research.
Anita Perna Bohn, an assistant professor at Illinois State University, examined Payne’s scholarship and discovered that her work didn’t meet any of the academic standards of research. I.e. There is no documentation that Payne has ever been a serious scholar of poverty or the impoverished either through academic or self-education. The “findings” in her self-published book are not verifiable, reproducible or valid. Bohn goes on to say that Payne’s methods are not only incompetent but “downright dangerous” and states:
“On my first read-through of the [Payne's] “rules” I didn’t know whether to laugh at the sheer stupidity of some of them or to rage at the offensive stereotyping of people in poverty and the thinly veiled bigotry reflected in others. I am still hard pressed to understand why ideas like this have made Payne the hottest speaker/trainer on poverty on the public school circuit today. One thing is certain, though: Ruby Payne has flown under the radar far too long. It’s time for teachers and administrators to take a critical look at her immensely popular message.”
. . . . . .Her bibliography consists entirely of authors with a right-wing, conservative, and economically laissez faire perspective on issues of which only a few are even vaguely related to poverty.
It’s not only that Payne is a white, affluent, woman with no direct experience of poverty; she regurgitates and reinforces the most vicious stereotypes of those who live in poverty. Payne contends that people in poverty never plan, are slothful and undisciplined, talk funny, and don’t care about their children.
Payne’s theory is far from new and basically an unimaginative rehashing of the bigotry that blames poverty on those who are poor. She maintains that if “you people” would learn to talk, walk, and dress like “us,” you’d be fine. . . .
Payne denies the interlocking connections between class and race and gender. This has led to a teaching manual specifically addressing the inherent racism in Payne’s approach. In An African Centered Response to Ruby Payne’s Poverty Theory, by educational consultant, Jawanza Kunjufu, Dr. Kunjufu asserts that “to provide an adequate education to students in poor communities requires teaching students how to eliminate poverty” rather than meaningless middle-class mimicry. The case he makes is solid and has led to several educational consultantships to debunk and/or clean up after Payne’s work.
Tags: classism, gender, gorski, northeast colorado, payne, poverty, racism, service providers, workshops
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.