When we consider the issue of mass, concentrated poverty like that seen in the South Side of Chicago, the complexity is almost paralyzing. Any reasonable solution to the problem of violence and unemployment must pull from economics, reformed urban planning, sociology, psychology, and sincere education reform, among many disciplines. That may go without saying, but it becomes significant when one realizes that American society has bred a culture of individuals largely unwilling to learn about situations other than their own. Additionally, Americans lack the attention span needed to fully realize the complexity of this problem, hindering any real, long-term, solution oriented dialogue.
An issue central to this discussion is the fact that many African-Americans living on the South Side feel entirely removed from it. Throughout the book, Our America- a documentation of the lives of two teenage boys growing up on the South Side of Chicago in the 1990's- it’s hard to ignore the number of instances where people sincerely attempt to use the boys, LeAlan and Lloyd’s , work as a means to communicate their message to the public. One of the more interesting example of this is when Lloyd describes how his father, Chill, came into the house, took his tape recorder, and began speaking about his struggle with alcoholism and his intentions to raise Lloyd to the best of his ability.
Regardless of the perceptions of the wider public, many of these individuals feel they aren’t truly understood; at least not enough to create a proper response to their situation. Toward the end of Our America, Lloyd writes that, “And now most of us are just doing what society wants us to do—contributing to the jail population, selling drugs, having babies, living on welfare” (171). Society as created its own mythos about the ghetto to replace a legitimate understanding of it, and have placed negative expectations on those who live there. Also, the language of that passage triggers a feeling of animosity towards larger society for their ignorance. The people who could be working to improve life for those living in the projects have actually contributed to the barriers preventing assistance.
In a Washington Post article, Susan Jacoby summarizes key arguments in her new book, The Age of American Unreason, and provides some insight into contemporary American culture that can be applied to an analysis of our treatment of violence and concentrated poverty. Jacoby describes how:
People accustomed to hearing their president explain complicated policy choices by snapping "I'm the decider" may find it almost impossible to imagine the pains that Franklin D. Roosevelt took, in the grim months after Pearl Harbor, to explain why U.S. armed forces were suffering one defeat after another in the Pacific. In February 1942, Roosevelt urged Americans to spread out a map during his radio "fireside chat" so that they might better understand the geography of battle. In stores throughout the country, maps sold out; about 80 percent of American adults tuned in to hear the president. FDR had told his speechwriters that he was certain that if Americans understood the immensity of the distances over which supplies had to travel to the armed forces, "they can take any kind of bad news right on the chin."
This provides an incredible contrast to our contemporary approach to complicated issues. As opposed to digging into them and striving for a better understanding of one of the most tragic situations in our country, our attention span continues to decrease. Jacoby also cites information from two Harvard University studies which found that between 1968 and 1988, the average sound bite of presidential candidates on the news dropped from 42.3 seconds to 9.8 seconds. By 2000, sound bites had decreased to an average of 7.8 seconds. There are interesting theories into the reasons behind this phenomenon, but the more important point is that just as the situation in the South Side was gradually worsening, American’s attention span was decreasing at a similar pace.
So, how can we pull from a large handful of different disciplines to offer preventative tools and solutions for the disastrous conditions on the South Side of Chicago when the majority of the population is unwilling or possibly incapable of understanding the complexity of the issue? Anyone with any sense knows the solution to these problems will never fit into an 8 second sound bite.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Paradox of Freedom in Education
*Just to clairify, I am a wholehearted supporter of any policy giving parents and individuals more control over their education. This is merely a comment on the possible illusion of individual control...an illusion continually present in a state-run society*
According to the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, “A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another… it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body[1].” This idea relates to many different discussions about the purpose of education within a democracy and education reform, but seems most interesting when applied to some of the evolutions within the “school choice” education reform movement. The rapid creation of specialized programs within conventional public schools, charter schools, and magnet schools as result of increased competition within the education sector, we are faced with the contradiction that more “choices” for schooling appeal to our desire for individualism and self-determination, but effectively mold us for one specific career path or another.
I am only qualified to speak on matters of schooling within the state of Michigan, but know that these ideas and trends are resonating throughout the nation. Although the idea of applying the capitalistic tradition of competition to the nation’s educational systems originated in the 1950s, it has only been gaining in popularity since the early 1990s with the enactment of state laws allowing the creation of public charter schools throughout the country. The need for such reforms spurred from a sense that America’s state education system was not holding ground with other nations. This created an atmosphere where schools had to compete for students, and therefore, lure them in with the best possible programs. Furthermore, it gave parents the most choice as to where to send their child for an education- a sign that this reform tapped into some of the simplest, idealized desires of American people.
Now, despite that brief overview, it has come to pass that in attempt to give parents the best options for their children’s education, both public and independent schools are increasingly developing programs that will, as early as elementary school, put students on a track for science and math education, or will offer an engineering track in middle schools. Recently, there has also been talk of adding environmental science-based high school academies within larger school districts. This is all for the sake of attracting more students through this sort of specialization.
Interestingly enough, much of the rhetoric surrounding the school choice movement is also filled with an anti-state education sentiment. The idea, as expressed to some extent by Charles Mann, to use education as a means of socialization is frightening to these typically staunch individualists. They believe that parents should be free to educate their child how they see fit, but are so caught up in that ideal that they fail to recognize they are creating even more finely tuned machines for the state through these new, cutting edge educational programs.
Additionally, although the parents may choose to set their child on a strict math and science intensive program as early as elementary school, it is denying the child the right to determining his or her own future.
This paradox parallels Jean Anyon’s work on Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work. For one, many of these new opportunities are still relatively unavailable to rural lower-class students (although many of these programs have been piloted in the inner city school systems). And although these new programs reflect a sharp change in the nature of our economy since the book was written in 1980, it still mirrors the idea that very little “choice” even within a “choice”-based movement actually exists. Really, education, whether public or private, directly or indirectly works to serve the interests of the state by finding ways to “produce” the sorts of citizens it needs to sustain itself.
[1] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, 1869. http://www.bartleby.com/130/5.html
According to the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, “A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another… it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body[1].” This idea relates to many different discussions about the purpose of education within a democracy and education reform, but seems most interesting when applied to some of the evolutions within the “school choice” education reform movement. The rapid creation of specialized programs within conventional public schools, charter schools, and magnet schools as result of increased competition within the education sector, we are faced with the contradiction that more “choices” for schooling appeal to our desire for individualism and self-determination, but effectively mold us for one specific career path or another.
I am only qualified to speak on matters of schooling within the state of Michigan, but know that these ideas and trends are resonating throughout the nation. Although the idea of applying the capitalistic tradition of competition to the nation’s educational systems originated in the 1950s, it has only been gaining in popularity since the early 1990s with the enactment of state laws allowing the creation of public charter schools throughout the country. The need for such reforms spurred from a sense that America’s state education system was not holding ground with other nations. This created an atmosphere where schools had to compete for students, and therefore, lure them in with the best possible programs. Furthermore, it gave parents the most choice as to where to send their child for an education- a sign that this reform tapped into some of the simplest, idealized desires of American people.
Now, despite that brief overview, it has come to pass that in attempt to give parents the best options for their children’s education, both public and independent schools are increasingly developing programs that will, as early as elementary school, put students on a track for science and math education, or will offer an engineering track in middle schools. Recently, there has also been talk of adding environmental science-based high school academies within larger school districts. This is all for the sake of attracting more students through this sort of specialization.
Interestingly enough, much of the rhetoric surrounding the school choice movement is also filled with an anti-state education sentiment. The idea, as expressed to some extent by Charles Mann, to use education as a means of socialization is frightening to these typically staunch individualists. They believe that parents should be free to educate their child how they see fit, but are so caught up in that ideal that they fail to recognize they are creating even more finely tuned machines for the state through these new, cutting edge educational programs.
Additionally, although the parents may choose to set their child on a strict math and science intensive program as early as elementary school, it is denying the child the right to determining his or her own future.
This paradox parallels Jean Anyon’s work on Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work. For one, many of these new opportunities are still relatively unavailable to rural lower-class students (although many of these programs have been piloted in the inner city school systems). And although these new programs reflect a sharp change in the nature of our economy since the book was written in 1980, it still mirrors the idea that very little “choice” even within a “choice”-based movement actually exists. Really, education, whether public or private, directly or indirectly works to serve the interests of the state by finding ways to “produce” the sorts of citizens it needs to sustain itself.
[1] Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, 1869. http://www.bartleby.com/130/5.html
Welcome
Welcome to my blog. This is a just a place where I'll post links to things I find culturally or politically relevant, as well as using the space to post more developed thoughts and short essays. Comments are always appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
