Highland Park High School English Department Text Rationale for
The Working Poor by David K. Shipler (2004)
Revised April 2015
Rationale (including age/ability appropriateness and how text fits into the course’s philosophy
and enduring understanding):
Because Highland Park ISD prides itself in producing leaders for the future who are globally
competent on a wide variety of controversial social issues, the general AP III curricula surrounds core
problems facing humanity that require sophisticated and well-informed solutions. Our district hopes
to produce students with a diverse and knowledgeable worldview outside of their own, and through it
all, our students should leave district halls with cross-cultural sensitivity and adaptability.
For those initial reasons, the AP III team chose The Working Poor as a text to inform students of a
broad range of quantitative data by leading experts about the impoverished in America specifically;
throughout the first six-week study, the non-fiction work allows educators to introduce global poverty
and economic inequality issues with supplementary works. In January 2014, Oxfam reported in its
briefing paper “Working for the Few” that economic inequality is the number one issue facing the
global community. With that in mind, it seems that studying a work about monetary disparity in
America seems not only appropriate, but necessary: in this college preparatory class, teachers are to
arm students with knowledge and critical thinking skills so effective, reasonable, and informed debate
may take place.
And in order to craft intellectually curious, creative, and innovative thinkers, teachers may use either
selections or the whole text to spark discussions and projects over causes, effects, solutions, and
attendant issues surrounding poverty. Throughout, teachers will guide students in crafting wellreasoned responses, both written and verbal, to not only other students but even Shipler himself,
silent only to the degree words are mute. Opportunities to actively and respectfully engage others’
opinions and similarly accept constructive criticism easily produce themselves in the midst of
studying Shipler’s exposé.
Specifically, The Working Poor is lexically appropriate for an AP III student who should have an
equivalent reading level to a freshmen or sophomore at university. Even still, for those students not
quite to that reading level, the work is lucid and meticulous in detail of not only broad social
implications but also in its outlines of individuals suffering under economic disparity. Moreover, in
the words of a review from The Star-Ledger (Newark), “Shipler steers clear of diatribes, looking at
human frailty and a spectrum of bosses and social services. With moving understatement, he
develops a compassionate picture of the working poor.” I.e., Shipler remains as objective a
professional writer one can and should be, and he never sinks into easy “finger-pointing” of blame to
any one group, including the impoverished, bosses, social workers, corporations, government
services, or the government itself. Like any major social issue, the causes are as multifarious and
complex as any viable solution, and Shipler articulates such a balanced mien and tone throughout the
work. Therefore, the book not only supports but facilitates diversified viewpoints on poverty, giving
learners data on a “reality … [that] does not fit neatly into anyone’s political agenda” (Shipler,
preface, x). For these reasons, the AP III team finds the text appropriate for the AP English Language
and Composition course created by College Board, which seeks students who “[b]eyond their
academic lives … should be able to use the literacy skills practiced in the course for personal
satisfaction and responsible engagement in civil life” (ELA Lang Course Description, 11).
Summary:
Shipler structures the work as an exposé of how the working poor live in America writ large: “…in
black neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., and white town in New Hampshire, in factories and jobtraining centers in Cleveland and Chicago, in housing projects in Akron and Los Angeles, in
malnutrition clinics in Boston and Baltimore, in California sweatshops, and in North Carolina fields”
(Shipler, preface, ix). He wishes to share “the dynamics of poverty that are broadly shared across
racial lines” (preface, xi).
Introduction, “At the Edge of Poverty” – Shipler introduces a broad look at the problem of poverty
and economic inequality in America, never placing total blame on either personal environmental
factors or social systems.
Chapter One, “Money and Its Opposite” – Shipler gives a clear and fairly comprehensive overview
on tax benefits meant to aid the poor, and yet poor managerial leadership or poor decision-making by
the individual make money a difficult commodity to keep. As he will in the rest of the work, Shipler
intersperses critical, peer-reviewed data alongside short narratives of actual blue-collar workers.
Chapter Two, “Work Doesn’t Work” – Despite steady employment and good work habits, many
cannot rise above the tide of money-draining life events, including family illnesses, car repairs, house
repairs, or past decisions/behaviors having a continual toll. Good work habits are sometimes not
enough to raise an individual or family from poverty.
Chapter Three, “Importing the Third World” – The first sentence deftly summarizes the chapter:
“Luxury is produced by humble hands” (77). Shipler primarily analyzes how foreign immigrants
become the lifeblood of all manual, small-product, and service labors and goods.
Chapter Four, “Harvest of Shame” – Shipler outlines how many immigrants are trafficked into the
States like commodities: “Here, they were kept, warehoused, stored like seed and fertilizer” (99).
Shipler also spends time on the children of these migrant workers, whose “[s]evere disruptions in
their schooling do not contribute to the society’s well-being” (113).
Chapter Five, “The Daunting Workplace” – Shipler argues that many of the poor stay there because
they lack the encouragement and self-respect necessary to work through disruptions and setbacks. A
recent study by a UT-Austin researcher has discovered as much in a study on low socio-economic
students at university.
Chapter Six, “Sins of the Fathers” – This chapter examines sexual and drug abuse as large factors in
why many of the impoverished make poor decisions and maintain cyclically destructive family
patterns.
Chapter Seven, “Kinship” – As a concession to chapter six, “Kinship” delineates multiple stories and
data that show strong family ties can not only help the impoverished weather financial storms but
even remove themselves from the catastrophic effects of economic inequality.
Chapter Eight, “Body and Mind” – Shipler interviews many doctors, pediatricians, and other health
experts who all agree that education over healthy diet and exercise practices alongside knowledge of
rights for the insured help many escape poverty.
Chapter Nine, “Dreams” – This chapter examines children’s education, including (1) examples of
poor and exemplary teaching and its respective effects, (2) standardized questions with biased
information geared toward the affluent, and (3) the poor’s lack of opportunities.
Chapter Ten, “Work Works” – This chapter argues that those who have suffered failure perennially
cannot succeed until they learn that they are capable of success. Shipler tells inspirational stories of
workers who come under corporate-guided and sponsored programs that engender positive work
environments and habits.
Chapter Eleven, “Skill and Will” – As the final chapter, Shipler offers some cursory solutions to the
problems outlined in the previous ten chapters, including personal responsibility, strengthened
government programs, corporate programs, and empathy for the common man.
Merit Awards and Recognition:
The following is from David Shipler’s blog, The Shipler Report:
[David Shipler’s] book The Working Poor: Invisible in America, was a national best-seller in
2004 and 2005. It was a finalist for the 2005 National Book Critics Circle Award and the New
York Public Library Helen Bernstein Award. It won an Outstanding Book Award from The
Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights at Simmons College and led to
awards from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, the New York Labor
Communications Council, and the D.C. Employment Justice Center.
Benefit to Students:
The work offers students a grounded, researched, and limpid analysis of an issue touching every facet
of life locally, nationally, and internationally. While the work does primarily focus its attention to
poverty, Shipler’s analysis also covers tangential topics, such as the following: education,
psychology, family life, politics, globalization, economics, race relations, migration, and decisionmaking (in the contexts of career, lifestyle choices, etc.). Because the AP Language and Composition
exam expects test-takers to have a wide variety of knowledge on a similarly wide range of issues, The
Working Poor arms students with a panoply of knowledge and analysis needed to perform admirably
on the standardized exam. Similarly, the book provides teachers and students a variety of topics on
which they may debate, research, and discuss at any length appropriate to learning. Finally, Shipler’s
work has seen action in many collegiate curricula, which helps to validate the book’s placement in an
AP English III classroom, which is the equivalent of a freshmen rhetoric/composition course.
Brief description of proposed classroom activities generated by text:
Rhetorical analysis; grammar analysis (including parallelism, antithesis, anaphora, and anadiplosis);
Socratic class discussions; teacher-led or autonomous research opportunities; Pair & Share with
student-found supplementary articles; thesis and argument development exercises; Skype session
with the author.
List of the TEKS/STAAR/HPISD curricular objectives the proposed text supports:
TEKS
(1) Reading/Vocabulary Development. Students understand new vocabulary and use it when reading
and writing. Students are expected to:
(A) determine the meaning of grade-level technical academic English words in multiple
content areas (e.g., science, mathematics, social studies, the arts) derived from Latin,
Greek, or other linguistic roots and affixes;
(B) analyze textual context (within a sentence and in larger sections of text) to draw
conclusions about the nuance in word meanings;
(C) infer word meaning through the identification and analysis of analogies and other word
relationships;
(2) Reading/Comprehension of Literary Text/Theme and Genre. Students analyze, make inferences
and draw conclusions about theme and genre in different cultural, historical, and contemporary
contexts and provide evidence from the text to support their understanding. Students are expected to:
(A) analyze the way in which the theme or meaning of a selection represents a view or
comment on the human condition;
(C) relate the main ideas found in a literary work to primary source documents from its
historical and cultural setting.
(6) Reading/Comprehension of Literary Text/Literary Nonfiction. Students understand, make
inferences and draw conclusions about the varied structural patterns and features of literary
nonfiction and provide evidence from text to support their understanding. Students are expected to
analyze how rhetorical techniques (e.g., repetition, parallel structure, understatement, overstatement)
in literary essays, true life adventures, and historically important speeches influence the reader, evoke
emotions, and create meaning.
(9) Reading/Comprehension of Informational Text/Expository Text. Students analyze, make
inferences and draw conclusions about expository text and provide evidence from text to support
their understanding. Students are expected to:
(A) summarize a text in a manner that captures the author's viewpoint, its main ideas, and its
elements without taking a position or expressing an opinion;
(B) distinguish between inductive and deductive reasoning and analyze the elements of
deductively and inductively reasoned texts and the different ways conclusions are supported;
(C) make and defend subtle inferences and complex conclusions about the ideas in text and
their organizational patterns; and
(D) synthesize ideas and make logical connections (e.g., thematic links, author analyses)
between and among multiple texts representing similar or different genres and technical
sources and support those findings with textual evidence.
(13) Writing/Writing Process. Students use elements of the writing process (planning, drafting,
revising, editing, and publishing) to compose text. Students are expected to:
(A) plan a first draft by selecting the correct genre for conveying the intended meaning to
multiple audiences, determining appropriate topics through a range of strategies (e.g.,
discussion, background reading, personal interests, interviews), and developing a thesis or
controlling idea;
(B) structure ideas in a sustained and persuasive way (e.g., using outlines, note taking,
graphic organizers, lists) and develop drafts in timed and open-ended situations that include
transitions and rhetorical devices to convey meaning;
(C) revise drafts to clarify meaning and achieve specific rhetorical purposes, consistency of
tone, and logical organization by rearranging the words, sentences, and paragraphs to employ
tropes (e.g., metaphors, similes, analogies, hyperbole, understatement, rhetorical questions,
irony), schemes (e.g., parallelism, antithesis, inverted word order, repetition, reversed
structures), and by adding transitional words and phrases;
(D) edit drafts for grammar, mechanics, and spelling; and
(E) revise final draft in response to feedback from peers and teacher and publish written work
for appropriate audiences.
(16) Writing/Persuasive Texts. Students write persuasive texts to influence the attitudes or actions of
a specific audience on specific issues. Students are expected to write an argumentative essay (e.g.,
evaluative essays, proposals) to the appropriate audience that includes:
(A) a clear thesis or position based on logical reasons supported by precise and relevant
evidence, including facts, expert opinions, quotations, and/or expressions of commonly
accepted beliefs;
(B) accurate and honest representation of divergent views (i.e., in the author's own words and
not out of context);
(C) an organizing structure appropriate to the purpose, audience, and context;
(D) information on the complete range of relevant perspectives;
(E) demonstrated consideration of the validity and reliability of all primary and secondary
sources used; and
(F) language attentively crafted to move a disinterested or opposed audience, using specific
rhetorical devices to back up assertions (e.g., appeals to logic, emotions, ethical beliefs).
(20) Research/Research Plan. Students ask open-ended research questions and develop a plan for
answering them. Students are expected to:
(A) brainstorm, consult with others, decide upon a topic, and formulate a major research
question to address the major research topic; and
(B) formulate a plan for engaging in in-depth research on a complex, multi-faceted topic.
(21) Research/Gathering Sources. Students determine, locate, and explore the full range of relevant
sources addressing a research question and systematically record the information they gather.
Students are expected to:
(A) follow the research plan to gather evidence from experts on the topic and texts written for
informed audiences in the field, distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources and
avoiding over-reliance on one source;
(B) systematically organize relevant and accurate information to support central ideas,
concepts, and themes, outline ideas into conceptual maps/timelines, and separate factual data
from complex inferences; and
(C) paraphrase, summarize, quote, and accurately cite all researched information according to
a standard format (e.g., author, title, page number), differentiating among primary, secondary,
and other sources.
(22) Research/Synthesizing Information. Students clarify research questions and evaluate and
synthesize collected information. Students are expected to:
(A) modify the major research question as necessary to refocus the research plan;
(B) differentiate between theories and the evidence that supports them and determine whether
the evidence found is weak or strong and how that evidence helps create a cogent argument;
and
(C) critique the research process at each step to implement changes as the need occurs and is
identified.
(23) Research/Organizing and Presenting Ideas. Students organize and present their ideas and
information according to the purpose of the research and their audience. Students are expected to
synthesize the research into an extended written or oral presentation that:
(A) provides an analysis that supports and develops personal opinions, as opposed to simply
restating existing information;
(B) uses a variety of formats and rhetorical strategies to argue for the thesis;
(C) develops an argument that incorporates the complexities of and discrepancies in
information from multiple sources and perspectives while anticipating and refuting counterarguments;
(D) uses a style manual (e.g., Modern Language Association, Chicago Manual of Style) to
document sources and format written materials; and
(E) is of sufficient length and complexity to address the topic.
(24) Listening and Speaking/Listening. Students will use comprehension skills to listen attentively to
others in formal and informal settings. Students will continue to apply earlier standards with greater
complexity. Students are expected to:
(A) listen responsively to a speaker by framing inquiries that reflect an understanding of the
content and by identifying the positions taken and the evidence in support of those positions;
and
(B) evaluate the clarity and coherence of a speaker's message and critique the impact of a
speaker's diction and syntax on an audience.
(25) Listening and Speaking/Speaking. Students speak clearly and to the point, using the conventions
of language. Students will continue to apply earlier standards with greater complexity. Students are
expected to give a formal presentation that exhibits a logical structure, smooth transitions, accurate
evidence, well-chosen details, and rhetorical devices, and that employs eye contact, speaking rate
(e.g., pauses for effect), volume, enunciation, purposeful gestures, and conventions of language to
communicate ideas effectively.
(26) Listening and Speaking/Teamwork. Students work productively with others in teams. Students
will continue to apply earlier standards with greater complexity. Students are expected to participate
productively in teams, offering ideas or judgments that are purposeful in moving the team towards
goals, asking relevant and insightful questions, tolerating a range of positions and ambiguity in
decision-making, and evaluating the work of the group based on agreed-upon criteria.
College Board
All goals may be found on The English Language and Composition Course Description, Fall 2014,
pages 11, 15.
• Developing critical literacy
• Facilitating informed citizenship
• Analyze and interpret samples of purposeful writing
• Create and sustain original arguments based on information synthesized from readings,
research, and/or personal observation and experience
Clarification of any potentially controversial segments and why the text remains a suitable
choice, despite being potentially controversial:
As stated above, chapter six, entitled “Sins of the Fathers” (pages 142-173), contains personal and
quantitative data on how sexual abuse suffered by children and spouses engenders further financial,
ethical, health, and emotional decay. Further, drug abuse by mothers and fathers similarly fosters
further poor decisions by children, or at least great emotional, mental, and bodily damage for all
involved. Shipler’s real-life “characters” do expound on their experiences to a degree some may find
difficult to read, but Shiper, as a journalist by trade, simply “reports the facts” as they are and allows
the reader to form his own conclusions.
Because AP English III is a college-level course that seeks to understand global problems and create
meaningful solutions, the AP III team still finds this chapter worthwhile as a means to build students’
capacity for empathy and knowledge of an issue facing millions in America and millions more across
the world. Sexual abuse and human trafficking appears to be a problem of catastrophic proportions;
simply, Shipler focuses an entire chapter to this uncomfortable topic because it does have a catalytic
effect on people’s psychological and emotional well-beings. It is, then, a major root issue for why
poverty remains a cyclical process throughout many familial generations.
Indeed, Shipler places this chapter in the very center of his work with rhetorical intent: as many
students have pointed out, had he placed this analysis near the beginning, the work could very well
carry the label of salacity. On the other hand, were it held off until the end of the book, the chapter’s
exposé would likely lose its power. Placing chapter six near the exact middle allows the reader to
engage with characters previously introduced in a new way, and those forthcoming individuals
receive even more empathy. Moreover, since much of the latter half deals with solutions to the
problem of poverty, the reader thoroughly understands how much is at stake for the emotional,
psychological, and economical health of these individuals and the nation at large.
Perhaps a paragraph from Shipler may help finalize the point:
“At the extremes of the debate, liberals don’t want to see the dysfunctional family, and
conservatives want to see nothing else. Depending on the ideology, destructive parenting is
either not a cause or the only cause of poverty. I didn’t find many adults without troubled
childhoods, and I came to see those histories as both cause and effect, intertwined with the
myriad other difficulties of money, housing, schooling, health, job, and neighborhood that
reinforce one another.” (162)
Additional Comments: On March 18, 2015, the AP English III team hosted an after-school Skype
event with Mr. Shipler as an extra credit opportunity for students, of whom over 100 attended.
Students who chose not to participate for reasons regarding philosophical differences and/or different
reading had the opportunity to write a short paper on poverty for an equal amount of points.
First, Mr. Shipler gave a brief analysis of why and how he wrote his book. Later, he went into his
own past and drive as a reporter and writer before speaking about the organizational structure behind
a book. The talk illuminated to students how a writer—a Pulitzer Prize winner, nonetheless—must
research and organize a wide variety of information into a comprehensible whole. He finished the
talk by taking students’ questions on a variety of factors, which was, however, specifically limited in
regard to Highland Park itself or any controversy related to the district. Students’ questions primarily
focused on writing style, research, personal anecdotes on the “characters,” and his career as a news
journalist.
Students who participated voiced a positive assessment of the event. A detailed student-written
summary is within The Bagpipe, Issue 6, Volume 83. The student summarized the event in the
following way:
“The whole discussion verged on something almost inspirational itself, as well as factual. It
allowed both an in depth look on [sic] the mind behind the writing, and the real viewpoint
Shipler was attempting to convey, as well as providing time with a successful writer and
reporter, who was able to give first hand [sic] information to students interested in pursuing
writing.”
Similar Works:
Class Matters by The New York Times correspondents
Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich
How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis