Following up our discussion of the excerpt from Kozol's Shame of the Nation last week, here are a few questions which were discussed by one or more of the small groups but that we didn't have time to address in much depth as a whole group. Feel free to weigh in on any or all.1) Kozol attempts to make the case that we have allowed a dual system of education to continue in the U.S., and that many schools that serve high-poverty urban children are in desperate need of improvement. One urban principal, surveying his school's deteriorating condition, told Kozol, "This would not happen to white children." The implication, of course, is that, to mainstream America, some children are worth more than others. Do you agree? If more white and/or middle-class children attended urban schools, would things be different?
2) In the final section of the excerpt we read, Kozol speaks with a several Los Angeles high school students about the physical condition of their school and the courses they are offered. When one student bitterly objects to the lack of college prep courses at her school (and being steered instead to a sewing class), another student says, sarcastically, "You're ghetto, so we send you to the factory....You're ghetto. So sew!" What does this exchange say about how these students perceive their schooling experience and, more importantly, what they see as the school's purpose for their education?
3) It is difficult to talk about equity in urban schools without addressing the issue of funding. Because of the way schools are funded in Illinois (relying heavily on property taxes), many suburban schools are funded at much higher levels than city and rural schools. How should schools be funded? What is fair? Should taxpayers "share the wealth" with others in the state, or should communities primarily fund their own schools, as is currently the case? Should all schools be funded with the same amount of dollars per child, or, as Ashanti suggested, does fair mean that "Everybody gets what they need?" -- in other words, schools in the most need would get the most funding?
7 comments:
Right now there is a referendum for Unit 5 (Normal IL) to expand and excel area schools to meet building upgrades and the expected student increase. I was looking at the disparegment in cost toward for a home owner of a 100,000. dollar home and that of a 300,000. home and what these people would end up paying for the school districts projected need.I was just thinking that a change across the board is what might be needed to fund public schools. Not all of public own homes and are taxed in this respect, yet most people have school age children in public schools. Would it not make more sense to tax wage earners with dependants across the board and have states delegate the funds where the population needs dictate and not economic status of being a property owner. Would this not promote a more equal division of resources while benefitting those who don't have the economic advantage of being homeowners as well as giving the homeowner a break from sucking up all the cost of improving school districts?
In response to question two: I think that it is sad that some students believe that their only option in life is to sew. By believing that "You're Ghetto, you sew," these kids have made the unconscious decision to become a product of their environment. They truly believe that their they cannot escape their destitute environments. In a sense, this notion makes these kids lose all hope of a better future. I think that the statement "You're ghetto, you sew," coincides with the idea of "learned helplessness." Some of these kids want to try extremely hard to become better, to have better lives, but everytime they attempt to do so, they are knocked down by society telling them that they will never be more than "ghetto."
This type of mentality saddens me, personally, because it makes me think that since because I "ghetto" does that mean that I should just give up the hope of graduating college. Even more importantly it makes me sad for my younger brother and sister because it sends them the message that they don't have to value their educations because they are just "ghetto," and that's all they'll ever be.
In response to topic 2, I was furious about the one student telling the other, "you are ghetto, so you sew". That student could have mentally used that comment two ways. SHe could have let the negative comment bring her down, or push her to get the college prep courses she wanted. In life, We can not let the comments people make about us, make our personal decisions in life. You have to follow your own heart, especially when others are trying to bring you down. Unfortunately, many students do this to eachother in the CPS system. For example, I sang choir in school which involved a lot of opera and baroque music. The neighborhood kids would say that the music I sang was "white" and not right for our people. Then I would tell them who Mahalia Jackson Leontine Price and Marian Anderson were. Basically, if I let those people tell me I am Black so I cannot sing opera, I would never have taken advantage of the opportunity.
As a future teacher, I plan to use examples like this to help my students push harder and strive for excellence. I will give my students pride in themselves and their culture minority or not...and I think I am a great example .
I'll have to separate these comments by number so I don't get myself confused...
1) I definitely think that if urban schools were more diverse and/or had a majority of white students, there would be more done about the disparities between the conditions in the schools. It's hard to explain why I am so sure, but I think it's just a matter of seeing how the students and those schools are treated now. When I observed a school in Chicago that was predominantly Latino and African-American students, I had a teacher tell me that it was "pretty much hopeless" to get through to most of the students, especially those who had limited English proficiency. Even some of the teachers in these schools don't think it's worth spending extra effort and attention in the schools because they've given up on them by age 10 or 11.
2) The discussion regarding "you're ghetto, you sew" was a big part of our group's time on Thursday. No one in the school seemed to care that this student was interested in social work or medical school, and the general idea seemed to be "don't fight it, it's what you're going to end up doing anyway."
Many people in our group felt that this atmosphere was akin to a new age slavery. By reinforcing over and over to these students that their dreams were overridden by their social class or school district, they were basically being told that they were destined to work in a service job and wait on somebody else. In our group, someone mentioned a comment they had heard: (something like) "If everyone gets the best education, who will work at McDonald's?" That seemed to us to mean, "We can't let black kids get out of the ghetto, because white kids aren't going to flip burgers."
Students will certainly perceive their schooling experience to be preparation for low-level jobs and as a place to keep them busy unless something changes.
3) I definitely agree that students in needier districts deserve and should get the money that they need, even if it ends up being more than a suburban school. Suburban schools have so many advantages and are already so far ahead. Those schools would not lose as much as others could gain from reforming funding.
Reform also seems sensible considering that standards and curriculum are being dictated from the state and national level. For those who are so confident in No Child Left Behind, it should be imperative to fund schools at least with equal funding in order to support all of the schools.
In response to #2 I think it is more of a gender social issue by how the children were brought up. I am not saying that because the children are going to an urban school that they were brought up to think that there are certain gender rolls. Attitudes like that can be found anywhere. I wasn't surprised by the comment. I believe that we all can do what we want as long as we put our minds to it, but that is not going to stop people from thinking that men are supposed to do one thing and women are supposed to do another. Unfortunately its just traditional thinking. I feel that I am faced with these types of issues all the time. They may not be as harshly said as the boy telling the girl that she is 'ghetto and to go and sew' but they can still either hurt or persuade to change the future. Either way, that sort of thinking is not going to change unless everyone one in the whole world has the opportunity to do whatever they want or desire
I want to respond to #3, the question of funding. I don't want to limit it to just Illinois, the United States as a whole needs to reform the way we fund schools. Urban schools need so much money to catch up with the high-tax areas, for example Lake County. My question is, why is the United States trying to rebuild the wheel? If you look at the model of education funding in Europe it is uniform and all students are given the opportunity to succeed.
"Compared to other countries, the United States spends the same amount per-student as France..." (www.pbs.org/newshour)
France like other European nations approaches education funding the same way as health care that it should be available to all citizens regardless of income and background. The U.S. doesn't believe in equal distribution of wealth to help all. Those with money take care of their own and are not concerned or barely concerned with the needs of the impoverished or lower/middle class. We as a nation need to approach all schools the same, and give money to bring all other schools to the level of the best schools. Spending only three thousand dollars per student in city A, while city B's property taxes are so high that they can spend nine thousand per student is ridiculous and unfair to the students.
If we think about it in the long run, the more we spend now, the more these students could make in the future and be able to pour more money into local economy, causing a continual growth in funding for in their community.
I do not know the best way to solve the huge funding issues that are happening in schools. I do know that the system that is in place now is not working. Relying heavily on property tax does not work for everyone. There are students who do just fine because their communities do not pass over referendums every year. There was a district by me which ever year I can remember there was a referendum to raise taxes so that things did not have to be cut from the school program. Just about every year it was shot down. The district always managed to find a little more money from somewhere but soon that will not be possible. I remember reading in the paper somebody’s comment about how they do not have students in the public schools so they did not want to have their taxes to go up. I could not understand that comment than and still cannot understand it now. I realize that property taxes are high and nobody wants to pay more, but it is for the education of children. Just because you do not have a child in the school system now does not mean that schools do not need funding. You may not have children there but what about your neighbors, friends, and family. I think that there needs to be a newer idea put out. Areas that have an abundance of money should be sharing a little bit of their wealth. I am not saying give 90% of it away but maybe share a little with schools who need a whole lot more money. Schools that make more money off of property taxes do not need the same amount of money from the government as the schools that do not have a good backing from property taxes. What Ashanti suggested about “Everybody [getting] what they need” is fair makes sense and is really the way it should be.
Post a Comment