Poverty – under our own roof
As we enter the season of Lent, our Common Good Schools Project Leader, Jo Stow, encourages schools to take a more relational approach to charity and to notice hidden poverty in the classroom.
Scroll down for our free Lent resource for secondary schools.
Last week, I joined a friend who is a teacher at an after-school club. The children gather, enjoy snacks and go off to participate in the session’s activities. After snack time, I noticed that one boy, Michael (not his real name) hung back from the activities and was eating what was left over of the snacks. Michael is eleven. His teacher adds quietly, “he comes for the free food.”
This time of Lent is a busy one in church schools. Charities will be supported. Wonderfully creative, sponsored events will take place. Children and staff will be working hard to “give alms to the poor.” Perhaps donations will be made to local food banks. Many will be fasting – a spiritual discipline that points us to God by reminding us how it feels to be hungry, and that as well as being hungry for food, we hunger for many things – things that are good for us and things that are not. Fasting is also meant to draw our attention to the poor. But who are “the poor?”
The data
For a boy like Michael, fasting is not a choice. And his story is by no means isolated: in the UK, 14.3 million people are living in poverty, of whom 4.3 million are children – that is three in every ten children.[1] The percentage of children on Free School Meals (FSM) gives some perspective: in 2023/24, 24.6% of pupils were eligible, up from 23.8% in 2022. This represents 2.1 million pupils.[2]
Among our partner schools, the FSM percentage ranges from 10.2% in a school in the suburbs to 56.3% in a school in an inner-city location.
At an education conference I recently attended, data was shared about child poverty globally. A teacher spoke up. He said, “students at my school are part of that statistic.” I went to chat to him over lunch. He spoke about the stigma of poverty in schools. “These children become invisible because of the shame they feel. Somehow, they feel that poverty must be their own fault.” I was struck that stigma is still an issue after decades of campaigning on child poverty. These children are effectively hidden in plain sight. We have the data, but part of the story is missing.
Where are the poor?
When it comes to a school’s charitable efforts, it is worth reflecting on where the poor people we are supporting are located, where they live; nearby, in another district, or perhaps overseas.
Lately I’ve been doing some research among primary school teachers. It became evident that there are plenty of resources available to help school children engage with issues of global poverty, but there is a considerable lack when it comes to the local. Given this, what could we be missing? Perhaps our approach needs to pay closer attention to context. And when we support a local charity, we should be aware that some of those in need may be under our own roof.
Them and us
Let’s consider the full meaning of almsgiving. Traditionally, giving alms has been described as “a witness to fraternal charity”[3], indicating that it is about more than giving money or services. Christian love particularly involves the gift of time and personal connection. This is how the bonds of fraternity are formed.
Pope Francis is saying repeatedly calling for a culture of encounter, and not to allow charity to be a means of keeping poor people at arm’s length.[4]
In a busy school, “almsgiving” can sometimes become reductive and conflated with fundraising. What might this feel like for Michael? His ability to contribute is compromised, and his family’s situation can become a source of shame. He is faced with the confusion of being invisible in his own classroom.
If we fail to embrace the true spirit of almsgiving, we can inadvertently fall into a “them and us” dynamic. If we do not recognise who is under our roof, we create a false division between those who can afford to give and those who can’t, and risk removing agency of someone who is poor.
In its welfarist, reductive form, where charity is understood as volunteers doing charity for poor people (whether through fundraising or by delivering a service), the possibilities of true encounter are small. The transactional dynamic between active giver and passive recipient does not build fraternity, one of the signs of Christian love.
If our almsgiving is in our local area this opens up opportunities to go beyond the welfarist approach. A mark of the common good is reciprocity. This requires true relationship, where there is give and take, and the dignity of the person is upheld. Simply giving money to the poor may help temporarily but it does not uphold a person’s dignity – it is as if he or she has nothing to contribute.
Solidarity and Subsidiarity
Earlier this week a colleague shared with me some children’s responses to the question “do you think God cares about poverty?” Most assumed that God does care, and that kindness is the right response. But rather a lot of them took the view that poverty is a matter of fate or the result of poor choices. There was little awareness of the injustice of an economic model that relies on low wage, insecure jobs.
The Christian vision of justice derives from the Jewish tradition of right relationship, in which the response to poverty must be relational. We do not stand in solidarity with the poor by giving a handout and walking away.
The principle of Solidarity sees human beings as social beings designed to be interconnected by relationships of mutual concern and support. It is a determination to work for the good of all and of each person – so that in some way, all are responsible for all.
This means going through something with someone, giving time and building a relationship, helping them to get back on their feet. The Good Samaritan not only helped the man by the road and paid for his care; he came back the next day. A relationship was formed.
Charity that is truly Christian is not a one-way street: the giver must be open to receive, and the receiver must be able to give. This ensures a mutuality that goes beyond transaction. Everyone has something to contribute.
In Catholic Social Teaching Solidarity is always to be balanced with the principle of Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity holds that responsibility is taken at the most appropriate level and decisions should always be taken closest to those they effect – and, that a central authority should only do tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level. In this way, everyone fulfils their unique roles, and the integrity and agency of each person is upheld.
If not donations, what might this look like?
We often ask our partner schools ‘how can you make what you are already doing more common good?’ Small tweaks are where to begin. For example, fundraising should always be accompanied by something relational and reciprocal. Whatever your Lent action is, it should build relationships.
If you are open to a radical new way of almsgiving, consider these suggestions:
- A shared meal hosted by a local partner with a good kitchen, served by school children (both those on FSMs and those who are not), involving parents and staff, and where members of the community are invited too. Costs could be supported by a pay-as-you-feel or pay-it- forward model.
- A listening project where children research what sorts of foods are available locally – identifying whether fresh, healthy food (fruit, veg, meat and fish) is priced too high, finding out about the range of local suppliers including supermarkets, community food sources, co-ops, allotments and local farming produce.
What about Michael?
Michael, the boy who stays for the leftover snacks is not just hungry, he is isolated. He feels shame about having to keep his situation private and sometimes school charitable initiatives are confusing and embarrassing for him. Our approach to poor children in our schools needs to change. Beyond FSM statistics, Michael and others like him are people who deserve solidarity, friendship and accompaniment. Michael has important gifts to contribute within his school and community – precisely because of his situation.
This isolation may mean that Michael’s family and other families in similar circumstances are locked out of solidarity with the wider community. There is often a class divide here which must be bridged. Every school and church should be looking for creative ways to build relationships, where affluent and poor families can stand find common cause and stand in solidarity face to face. This is powerful. Ignorance can turn to empathy; shame can turn to confidence. There are mutual personal benefits as well as community gains.
Jo Stow, Common Good Schools Project Leader
***
Common Good Schools offers a programme of lessons, assemblies and guidance for community engagement. This equips staff and students to put reciprocal relationships at the heart of all they do, for the flourishing of the whole community. We offer ongoing support and CPD to participating teachers, chaplains and staff running the programme in their schools.
FREE LENT RESOURCE
During Lent, we invite secondary school staff to download our free resource A Common Good Lent
NOTES
[1] https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2025-the-essential-guide-to-understanding-poverty-in-the-uk
[2] https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics
[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2462).
[4] Pope Francis, World Day of the Poor Letter 2022 (#7)