Are
Payne’s critics being fair?What did you
find that was useful or illuminating in Payne’s text? Comment on whether/how
deficit thinking has been present in your own thinking.
The critics of Payne’s book highlight many key flaws and I found it to an interesting read. I agreed with many of their points. Payne made it seem at though those in poverty were flawed and needed to be fixed. I think she painted a negative image of families in poverty and was extreme with the statements she made about their way of living. Reading her book, didn’t make me feel like I could now be more connected with my poor students, it made me feel sad for them. I think this book just created more of a divide and impresses upon teachers to expect less of their poor students. I enjoyed the sections on language from both Payne and the critics, though I liked the critics’ break down of this section more. When reading the critique on language, it revealed a take that I did not think of previously. To me they were saying that what Payne claims to be the language of poverty is actually a cultural distinction based on ancestral speech styles passed down through the generations and not a class distinction. By claiming this type of speech as the language of the poor she is failing to see the linguistic norms of other cultures.
There have been times when I have fallen prey to deficit thinking but I have seen the affect of this thinking on some of my family members where they were viewed having little intelligence and lacking in motivation as the reason for them not doing well in school, so I try hard not to fall into that way of thinking.
I think the critics gave her a bit of a hard time about her lack of citations. She had been studying this topic for many years and I got the impression that she was considering herself as the expert and did not need many citations. The book was based on her findings and the data she had collected over the years and she was writing from her experience.
Payne’s critics offer an interesting perspective on the ideas she presented. I do side with her critics and their attention the downsides of deficit thinking. Among the findings Bomer and his colleagues list, the lowering effect on the quality of education deficit thinking has seems to be most alarming. I do not feel those who think like Payne have ill intentions, but the long term effects of this way of thinking seem to outweigh the intended good.
I do think Payne had some strong points such as the organization and visuals she used to explain concepts. I also agree with her analysis of relationships and their importance to children in poverty. In my little experience with students, I found that making myself real to students often debunked the idea of teacher versus student. I cared about what they were doing inside and outside the classroom and it made it easier for me to relate to them. I do think Payne’s ideas of mentors could be extremely helpful. I wonder how things would have been different if I did not have that approach with my students.
Deficit thinking has been made popular in modern culture. It is indeed evident throughout the school system with the idea of the “have” and the “have not” mentality. I feel like it is often times an excuse for teachers not to employ more creative ways of instruction and learning. In education deficit thinking tends to result in “lowering the standard”. However this same line of thinking is practiced by people all time. I have used a deficit way of thinking when speaking to members of the death community, speaking with those I presume do not speak English as their first language, and even those outside of my field of study. I did so without even realizing my frame of thinking until now. I wonder if my ways of thinking had any longstanding effects.
Bomer et al. painstakingly dissect Payne’s book. They identify hundreds of “truth claims” made by Payne, and inspect each one for accuracy. A huge part of this investigation into the authenticity of Payne’s claims revolves around her lack of citations (and when citations are present, their lack of accuracy). As a student of science, I feel that citations are hugely important. I’m writing my thesis now and within that work I must cite virtually every statement that I make. Whether I cite my own data or the work of someone else, it’s important to allow the reader to see tangible support for each claim. If I were to try to defend my thesis without proper citation, my committee would most likely toss it into the garbage. Likewise if a scientist were to publish findings without any supportive data, or with inaccurate citations, it could possibly ruin their career.
The author’s point out Payne’s “deficit thinking”, by which she identifies poor people and their behavior as the problem to be addressed rather than poverty and social institutions. The authors also point out that Payne has had noteworthy success in influencing teaching strategies in the United States. I feel that in light of the claims Payne is making, and the people that her philosophy is reaching, she deserves the scrutiny offered by Bowman et al. If an author (Payne) makes outrageous claims, that author should be charged with properly citing those claims.
It was hard for me to find usefulness in Payne’s book, since it was held under a negative light upon introduction. There were times in reading it where it seemed like she was maybe on to something. I think she is justified in recognizing that there is a problem in the first place and that poverty and class play a role. However now, especially after reading the Bowman text, I find it hard to highlight anything that Payne said as illuminating. Some of her educational strategies seemed perfectly fine on their own (e.g. creating graphic organizers or making a character map). The issue at hand is that she framed these strategies in terms of being specifically designed for a “deficient” group of people.
Turning the microscope onto myself, I think at times I have also been guilty of this “deficit thinking”, in which people the victims are blamed for their circumstances. I grew up privileged in many ways, and like others it took me some years to come to grips with that fact. I still recognize that some people are in bad shape due to bad decisions. To me the biggest issue with Payne’s text is that she paints with such a broad brush. I try not to do that.
Before reading Payne’s book, I think we all had suspicions that we would disagree with her, and after reading the book, those suspicions were confirmed in my mind. But it wasn’t until I read Bomer et al’s critique of Payne’s book that I realized exactly why some of her words rubbed me the wrong way.
Namely, I take issue with the way that Payne ignores the intersectionality between class, race, and gender. Bomer points out that Payne’s observations about the speech of people in poverty align nicely with linguistic studies on African-American populations, but there is no indication that the same language patterns are present more broadly in poverty. In doing this, Payne effectively equates poverty with “blackness.” That is a powerful notion, and one that certainly needs to be challenged in our society.
In the description of “deficit thinking,” Bomer notes that typically those who engage in deficit thinking do not realize they are doing it. This must be the case for Ruby Payne and for the majority white, middle-class teachers who read her book and attend her workshops. The problem here is that Payne’s book is not one isolated example of thinking about poverty—it is a text that is used for mainstream professional development of thousands of public school teachers in America. Although Bomer’s critiques are exhaustive and harsh, they are warranted because of the far-reaching influence of Payne’s work.
I admit that I have engaged with deficit thinking, at times. I have always been academically competitive, and when comparing my grades with those of my classmates, I might have thought to myself, ‘Oh, that person just didn’t do well because they’re not as good as me.’ As I write that, I am disgusted with myself, but I cannot pretend that I haven’t thought it before. What’s so dangerous about deficit thinking, though, is that if you buy Payne’s argument that poverty is a lack of resources—emotional, relational, physical, linguistic, and also financial—then deficit thinking leads you to think that a person in poverty is not just deficient in money, but deficient in character and worth.
As a historian, I could never take seriously a work that is not created on concrete research, where applicable resources are not used. Likewise, in a work where so much sociology is used, it is quite surprising, if not amateurish, that Payne fails to use any oral interviews or a plethora of case studies to back her point. That being said, I suppose it becomes clear that I am fully aligned with the critiques proposed by Bromer et al. I think when an author decides to make such bold claims, without any backing, they leave themselves prey to harsh critiques, allowing for others to dissect their work until it unravels. Perhaps Payne’s ability to create such fanciful generalizations is what makes her work appealing to a broad audience, while simultaneously undermining her work. As the critics point out, her work is based on a series of dichotomies that not only lead to gross generalizations, but unfortunately, it oversimplifies the nature of poverty. As I could talk about the fallacies of this book for days, my point is that I think Payne’s critics are extremely accurate in their critiques of her book.
What did I find useful in Payne’s text? Hmm… honestly, this is a difficult question, as I find so many problems with Payne’s work. However, I do find that the notion of a book like this to be useful. Maybe this text has inspired people to actually write a meaningful work on poverty and its relation to education. As the critic’s suggested, “a curriculum that addresses class as a significant conceptual lens through which to view their lives, their society, and the texts they read is essential to the responsible education of all people in a social world divided by class, and it might be especially motivating and liberating to those oppressed by such a system”38). These ideals are important and should be talked about, but Payne does not help this conversation, she simply provides an example of how not talk about it.
Oh my gracious! I could write a whole dissertation on the ideas of deficit thinking and how rampantly it runs throughout our school systems. Unfortunately, I have been a victim of thinking this way as well. However I can’t help but wonder whether deficit thinking extends outside the classroom into the larger realm of everyday societal thinking. Since so many people exhibit deficit thinking without even realizing it, these types of ideas may be ingrained in our society.
The critique on Ruby Payne’s top seller was excellent and in no way unfair. I felt relieved while reading it, as it secured my belief that “A Framework for Understanding Poverty” is an incorrect, unsupported, opinion piece. Boomer, Dworin, May and Semingson expose, with consistently strong evidentiary support, Payne’s lack of research, evidence and knowledge of the area that her book discusses. The small amout of outside sourcing that she did have was out of context and not used in the way the author intended it.
The critique showed Payne’s flawed and negative perspective: “Payne’s unsupported assertions here, as is the case throughout the book, characterize the poor, without evidence, as deeply flawed human beings, whose personal failings make continued poverty - or worse conditions – inevitable”. The critique developed strong feelings of distrust towards Payne because she successfully pushed incorrect information and negative stereotypes on way too many people in the field of education. I can only hope that everyone who bought her book also reads the critique. My favorite part of the critique was when the authors shared their opinion on how to better the issues within society- and it does not involve Ruby Payne: “We believe that to discuss poverty among caring people obligates one to challenge others to do something about poverty itself – to give, to volunteer, to speak out, to hold politicians accountable – in short, to change a system that perpetuates poverty”. It’s been over a week since reading “A Framework for Understand Poverty” but I do believe she did not mention any solutions to working towards a solution.
As many of my classmates know, the one thing that I found enlightening in Ruby Payne’s work was the chart of how to use a person’s eye movements to tell what they are thinking about. I found it very interesting and intriguing. However, the rest of the (let’s call it a) novel was offensive to many and somewhat disturbing, in that, if this is the way that a majority of America thinks about poverty, then we certainly have larger problems on our hands.
Deficit thinking is a perspective that I don’t believe I share in cases of children and education. I have never placed blame on a child for their level of ability, as I am very aware of the many factors that are present and that affect ability levels of all children. I guess I am guilty of sharing this perspective occasionally when it comes to adults who continue to perpetuate their negative situations, such as cases of addiction, abuse, criminal acts, etc, however, I am always aware of the outside influences in all of these scenarios.
As I was reading this book written by Dr. Payne, I remembered the discussions I had with teachers at Boushall middle school. I found the book to be interesting as it addressed issues that I became familiar with as I was working at RPS, but I was not sure how much I can trust her explanations. After reading the critics, I came to conclusion that her writing carries stereotypic views. This book sounded as if this is the answer to understanding of the poverty, but I agree with Payne’s critics that she oversimplified very complex issues on poverty. Perhaps, she oversimplified it due to the fact that she had not conducted actual research, and her book was written based on her own personal experiences and data collection. Oversimplification led her to describe the poor as a homongenous group (10), and she failed to discuss relationship of poverty to race, ethnicity, and gender (12) in her reasoning. I found that “quiz” to self-assess whether one could live in poverty, middle class, or wealth to be very bothersome as critics mentioned. The questions seemed to be very condescending towards people in poverty. I believe critics made very strong points on her book.
I believe deficit thinking in education is very dangerous. I have met some teachers who would select only a few students who have potential to pass SOL to prepare them, thinking that other students are not educable whether it is due to cognitive or motivational limitations.
When my family first moved to America, we did not have much. Even though my parents did not know English, they worked hard. I learned to speak English after I came to America. It probably took less than 6 years for my family to move up from poverty to middle class. Sometimes, I have wondered why there are still people in poverty since my family started from the worst place. However, I am not sure if I have ever perceived my students with deficit thinking. When I work with students, I have a strong belief that they all have potential to succeed, and I do not blame them for their academic level as I understand many factors that contribute to their levels.
The term "deficit thinking" which Bomer et al refer to in their piece refers to the notion that students (particularly low income, minority students) fail in school because such students and their families experience deficiencies that obstruct the learning process (e.g. limited intelligence, lack of motivation and inadequate home socialization). That is the definition of the term as described by Richard R. Valencia in the Psychology Press in 1997. Ruby Payne uses this viewpoint in her book, and sometimes makes good points, sometimes not.
Taking that term into account, I can tell by their article that Bomer et al do NOT like Payne's book very much, at to a certain extent, neither do I. They even described how they had been to actual Payne workshops, so they certainly did their homework. I feel that Payne's book has certain merits, however small though. I think it is alright to identify certain aspects of social classes as long as one doesn't allow themselves to be clouded by judgement based on the overuse of generalities.
For instance, Bomer and company had a problem with Payne when made the claim that she believed there were three socioeconomic classes-- the poor, middle class, and wealthy (Payne 42-43). They went on to say, "Contrary to Payne's neat division, many scholars who have done work in social class have discussed multiple classes and substrata within those as compromising the U.S. class structure" (Bomer et al 7). To me, they are splitting hairs, and are kind of missing the point of Payne's book. The "three-class structure" model is something pretty much everyone uses. They seem to want to really burn her at the stake during points of their article.
I like to think in terms of shades of grey instead of black and white. Honestly, I think both Payne and her main detractors do just that sometimes. Is Payne's book a masterpiece? No, it does come off as too general and simplistic sometimes. Would I throw it into the garbage and never look at it again, though? No, it's worth having around as another asset in your toolbox. "Deficit thinking" is something to keep in mind as to why some low-income students may struggle. It's not a simple subject.
The critics of Payne’s book highlight many key flaws and I found it to an interesting read. I agreed with many of their points. Payne made it seem at though those in poverty were flawed and needed to be fixed. I think she painted a negative image of families in poverty and was extreme with the statements she made about their way of living. Reading her book, didn’t make me feel like I could now be more connected with my poor students, it made me feel sad for them. I think this book just created more of a divide and impresses upon teachers to expect less of their poor students.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the sections on language from both Payne and the critics, though I liked the critics’ break down of this section more. When reading the critique on language, it revealed a take that I did not think of previously. To me they were saying that what Payne claims to be the language of poverty is actually a cultural distinction based on ancestral speech styles passed down through the generations and not a class distinction. By claiming this type of speech as the language of the poor she is failing to see the linguistic norms of other cultures.
There have been times when I have fallen prey to deficit thinking but I have seen the affect of this thinking on some of my family members where they were viewed having little intelligence and lacking in motivation as the reason for them not doing well in school, so I try hard not to fall into that way of thinking.
I think the critics gave her a bit of a hard time about her lack of citations. She had been studying this topic for many years and I got the impression that she was considering herself as the expert and did not need many citations. The book was based on her findings and the data she had collected over the years and she was writing from her experience.
-Stevara
Payne’s critics offer an interesting perspective on the ideas she presented. I do side with her critics and their attention the downsides of deficit thinking. Among the findings Bomer and his colleagues list, the lowering effect on the quality of education deficit thinking has seems to be most alarming. I do not feel those who think like Payne have ill intentions, but the long term effects of this way of thinking seem to outweigh the intended good.
ReplyDeleteI do think Payne had some strong points such as the organization and visuals she used to explain concepts. I also agree with her analysis of relationships and their importance to children in poverty. In my little experience with students, I found that making myself real to students often debunked the idea of teacher versus student. I cared about what they were doing inside and outside the classroom and it made it easier for me to relate to them. I do think Payne’s ideas of mentors could be extremely helpful. I wonder how things would have been different if I did not have that approach with my students.
Deficit thinking has been made popular in modern culture. It is indeed evident throughout the school system with the idea of the “have” and the “have not” mentality. I feel like it is often times an excuse for teachers not to employ more creative ways of instruction and learning. In education deficit thinking tends to result in “lowering the standard”. However this same line of thinking is practiced by people all time. I have used a deficit way of thinking when speaking to members of the death community, speaking with those I presume do not speak English as their first language, and even those outside of my field of study. I did so without even realizing my frame of thinking until now. I wonder if my ways of thinking had any longstanding effects.
Brendan Says...
ReplyDeleteBomer et al. painstakingly dissect Payne’s book. They identify hundreds of “truth claims” made by Payne, and inspect each one for accuracy. A huge part of this investigation into the authenticity of Payne’s claims revolves around her lack of citations (and when citations are present, their lack of accuracy). As a student of science, I feel that citations are hugely important. I’m writing my thesis now and within that work I must cite virtually every statement that I make. Whether I cite my own data or the work of someone else, it’s important to allow the reader to see tangible support for each claim. If I were to try to defend my thesis without proper citation, my committee would most likely toss it into the garbage. Likewise if a scientist were to publish findings without any supportive data, or with inaccurate citations, it could possibly ruin their career.
The author’s point out Payne’s “deficit thinking”, by which she identifies poor people and their behavior as the problem to be addressed rather than poverty and social institutions. The authors also point out that Payne has had noteworthy success in influencing teaching strategies in the United States. I feel that in light of the claims Payne is making, and the people that her philosophy is reaching, she deserves the scrutiny offered by Bowman et al. If an author (Payne) makes outrageous claims, that author should be charged with properly citing those claims.
It was hard for me to find usefulness in Payne’s book, since it was held under a negative light upon introduction. There were times in reading it where it seemed like she was maybe on to something. I think she is justified in recognizing that there is a problem in the first place and that poverty and class play a role. However now, especially after reading the Bowman text, I find it hard to highlight anything that Payne said as illuminating. Some of her educational strategies seemed perfectly fine on their own (e.g. creating graphic organizers or making a character map). The issue at hand is that she framed these strategies in terms of being specifically designed for a “deficient” group of people.
Turning the microscope onto myself, I think at times I have also been guilty of this “deficit thinking”, in which people the victims are blamed for their circumstances. I grew up privileged in many ways, and like others it took me some years to come to grips with that fact. I still recognize that some people are in bad shape due to bad decisions. To me the biggest issue with Payne’s text is that she paints with such a broad brush. I try not to do that.
Before reading Payne’s book, I think we all had suspicions that we would disagree with her, and after reading the book, those suspicions were confirmed in my mind. But it wasn’t until I read Bomer et al’s critique of Payne’s book that I realized exactly why some of her words rubbed me the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteNamely, I take issue with the way that Payne ignores the intersectionality between class, race, and gender. Bomer points out that Payne’s observations about the speech of people in poverty align nicely with linguistic studies on African-American populations, but there is no indication that the same language patterns are present more broadly in poverty. In doing this, Payne effectively equates poverty with “blackness.” That is a powerful notion, and one that certainly needs to be challenged in our society.
In the description of “deficit thinking,” Bomer notes that typically those who engage in deficit thinking do not realize they are doing it. This must be the case for Ruby Payne and for the majority white, middle-class teachers who read her book and attend her workshops. The problem here is that Payne’s book is not one isolated example of thinking about poverty—it is a text that is used for mainstream professional development of thousands of public school teachers in America. Although Bomer’s critiques are exhaustive and harsh, they are warranted because of the far-reaching influence of Payne’s work.
I admit that I have engaged with deficit thinking, at times. I have always been academically competitive, and when comparing my grades with those of my classmates, I might have thought to myself, ‘Oh, that person just didn’t do well because they’re not as good as me.’ As I write that, I am disgusted with myself, but I cannot pretend that I haven’t thought it before. What’s so dangerous about deficit thinking, though, is that if you buy Payne’s argument that poverty is a lack of resources—emotional, relational, physical, linguistic, and also financial—then deficit thinking leads you to think that a person in poverty is not just deficient in money, but deficient in character and worth.
As a historian, I could never take seriously a work that is not created on concrete research, where applicable resources are not used. Likewise, in a work where so much sociology is used, it is quite surprising, if not amateurish, that Payne fails to use any oral interviews or a plethora of case studies to back her point. That being said, I suppose it becomes clear that I am fully aligned with the critiques proposed by Bromer et al. I think when an author decides to make such bold claims, without any backing, they leave themselves prey to harsh critiques, allowing for others to dissect their work until it unravels. Perhaps Payne’s ability to create such fanciful generalizations is what makes her work appealing to a broad audience, while simultaneously undermining her work. As the critics point out, her work is based on a series of dichotomies that not only lead to gross generalizations, but unfortunately, it oversimplifies the nature of poverty. As I could talk about the fallacies of this book for days, my point is that I think Payne’s critics are extremely accurate in their critiques of her book.
ReplyDeleteWhat did I find useful in Payne’s text? Hmm… honestly, this is a difficult question, as I find so many problems with Payne’s work. However, I do find that the notion of a book like this to be useful. Maybe this text has inspired people to actually write a meaningful work on poverty and its relation to education. As the critic’s suggested, “a curriculum that addresses class as a significant conceptual lens through which to view their lives, their society, and the texts they read is essential to the responsible education of all people in a social world divided by class, and it might be especially motivating and liberating to those oppressed by such a system”38). These ideals are important and should be talked about, but Payne does not help this conversation, she simply provides an example of how not talk about it.
Oh my gracious! I could write a whole dissertation on the ideas of deficit thinking and how rampantly it runs throughout our school systems. Unfortunately, I have been a victim of thinking this way as well. However I can’t help but wonder whether deficit thinking extends outside the classroom into the larger realm of everyday societal thinking. Since so many people exhibit deficit thinking without even realizing it, these types of ideas may be ingrained in our society.
The critique on Ruby Payne’s top seller was excellent and in no way unfair. I felt relieved while reading it, as it secured my belief that “A Framework for Understanding Poverty” is an incorrect, unsupported, opinion piece. Boomer, Dworin, May and Semingson expose, with consistently strong evidentiary support, Payne’s lack of research, evidence and knowledge of the area that her book discusses. The small amout of outside sourcing that she did have was out of context and not used in the way the author intended it.
ReplyDeleteThe critique showed Payne’s flawed and negative perspective: “Payne’s unsupported assertions here, as is the case throughout the book, characterize the poor, without evidence, as deeply flawed human beings, whose personal failings make continued poverty - or worse conditions – inevitable”. The critique developed strong feelings of distrust towards Payne because she successfully pushed incorrect information and negative stereotypes on way too many people in the field of education. I can only hope that everyone who bought her book also reads the critique. My favorite part of the critique was when the authors shared their opinion on how to better the issues within society- and it does not involve Ruby Payne: “We believe that to discuss poverty among caring people obligates one to challenge others to do something about poverty itself – to give, to volunteer, to speak out, to hold politicians accountable – in short, to change a system that perpetuates poverty”. It’s been over a week since reading “A Framework for Understand Poverty” but I do believe she did not mention any solutions to working towards a solution.
As many of my classmates know, the one thing that I found enlightening in Ruby Payne’s work was the chart of how to use a person’s eye movements to tell what they are thinking about. I found it very interesting and intriguing. However, the rest of the (let’s call it a) novel was offensive to many and somewhat disturbing, in that, if this is the way that a majority of America thinks about poverty, then we certainly have larger problems on our hands.
Deficit thinking is a perspective that I don’t believe I share in cases of children and education. I have never placed blame on a child for their level of ability, as I am very aware of the many factors that are present and that affect ability levels of all children. I guess I am guilty of sharing this perspective occasionally when it comes to adults who continue to perpetuate their negative situations, such as cases of addiction, abuse, criminal acts, etc, however, I am always aware of the outside influences in all of these scenarios.
Kendra
As I was reading this book written by Dr. Payne, I remembered the discussions I had with teachers at Boushall middle school. I found the book to be interesting as it addressed issues that I became familiar with as I was working at RPS, but I was not sure how much I can trust her explanations.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the critics, I came to conclusion that her writing carries stereotypic views. This book sounded as if this is the answer to understanding of the poverty, but I agree with Payne’s critics that she oversimplified very complex issues on poverty. Perhaps, she oversimplified it due to the fact that she had not conducted actual research, and her book was written based on her own personal experiences and data collection. Oversimplification led her to describe the poor as a homongenous group (10), and she failed to discuss relationship of poverty to race, ethnicity, and gender (12) in her reasoning.
I found that “quiz” to self-assess whether one could live in poverty, middle class, or wealth to be very bothersome as critics mentioned. The questions seemed to be very condescending towards people in poverty. I believe critics made very strong points on her book.
I believe deficit thinking in education is very dangerous. I have met some teachers who would select only a few students who have potential to pass SOL to prepare them, thinking that other students are not educable whether it is due to cognitive or motivational limitations.
When my family first moved to America, we did not have much. Even though my parents did not know English, they worked hard. I learned to speak English after I came to America. It probably took less than 6 years for my family to move up from poverty to middle class. Sometimes, I have wondered why there are still people in poverty since my family started from the worst place. However, I am not sure if I have ever perceived my students with deficit thinking. When I work with students, I have a strong belief that they all have potential to succeed, and I do not blame them for their academic level as I understand many factors that contribute to their levels.
Daisy
The term "deficit thinking" which Bomer et al refer to in their piece refers to the notion that students (particularly low income, minority students) fail in school because such students and their families experience deficiencies that obstruct the learning process (e.g. limited intelligence, lack of motivation and inadequate home socialization). That is the definition of the term as described by Richard R. Valencia in the Psychology Press in 1997. Ruby Payne uses this viewpoint in her book, and sometimes makes good points, sometimes not.
ReplyDeleteTaking that term into account, I can tell by their article that Bomer et al do NOT like Payne's book very much, at to a certain extent, neither do I. They even described how they had been to actual Payne workshops, so they certainly did their homework. I feel that Payne's book has certain merits, however small though. I think it is alright to identify certain aspects of social classes as long as one doesn't allow themselves to be clouded by judgement based on the overuse of generalities.
For instance, Bomer and company had a problem with Payne when made the claim that she believed there were three socioeconomic classes-- the poor, middle class, and wealthy (Payne 42-43). They went on to say, "Contrary to Payne's neat division, many scholars who have done work in social class have discussed multiple classes and substrata within those as compromising the U.S. class structure" (Bomer et al 7). To me, they are splitting hairs, and are kind of missing the point of Payne's book. The "three-class structure" model is something pretty much everyone uses. They seem to want to really burn her at the stake during points of their article.
I like to think in terms of shades of grey instead of black and white. Honestly, I think both Payne and her main detractors do just that sometimes. Is Payne's book a masterpiece? No, it does come off as too general and simplistic sometimes. Would I throw it into the garbage and never look at it again, though? No, it's worth having around as another asset in your toolbox. "Deficit thinking" is something to keep in mind as to why some low-income students may struggle. It's not a simple subject.