Both Paul Gorski and Evie Blad address the need for a change in socioeconomic ideology concerning student achievement, and their ideas very much overlap each other. Both Gorski and Blad demonize the use of deficit ideology, the belief system which asserts that poverty is a result of laziness and/or other deficits in the individual.  The differences in the two articles come from the explorations of both grit ideology and growth mindset, two educational belief systems that attribute academic failure to the impoverished party. It is the exploration of these two ideologies that I found most interesting. The growth mindset referenced in Blad’s article very much seems like Gorski’s grit ideology, inferring the same beliefs while using positive language instead of negative. The term “growth” can be applied universally; it is the goal of all educators for their students to grow. It is language that people want to more readily accept than a seemingly negative term like “grit”. Despite the positive language, both ideologies do not address the systemic inconsistencies in our society that lead to poverty. The main point of both articles seem to be that without an ideological mindset that acknowledges the true nature of poverty, educators cannot effectively attempt to address the gaps that exist in their classroom. Deficit ideologies are always an attempt to justify the status quo, and thus take the responsibility for social inequalities away from those in power. Teachers can use their subscription to a deficit ideology to rationalize not attempting to coordinate with local social services, or otherwise attempt to alter their practice to address the reality of low-S.E.S. life.