Monday, September 22, 2008
Unjust Generalization of the Urban School System
I’m appalled and irate after reading Mr. Haberman opinions on urban education system in his article “Unemployment Training.” Mr. Haberman makes bold statements about the urban education system without providing any genuine facts or evidence to his theories. Mr. Haberman states that “Schools promulgate the ideology (sliding through the school system) because it is easier to accede to students’ street values than it is to try to change them.” School system doesn’t promulgate the theory of minimal work and nowness but it’s the community, family structure and income, and the government. Through out the article Mr. Haberman fails to include any sense of responsibility from the community or the parents. He doesn’t mention the lack of funding from the government, and the social dynamics of the urban city. Most of the students in the urban society come from a single parents home in which their income will be far less from the average median family household income. In some cases students during their crucial years of learning and growing are malnourished and deprived of family stability. Education system doesn’t run on one wheel but in essence it’s a product of society, family, economy and the government. Mr. Haberman fails to realize the importance of government and community in the school system. He fails to realize that teachers in the urban environment have far less resources and assistance than the suburban environment. Mr. Haberman notices that students aren’t taking the books homes but he doesn’t notice that urban schools don’t have enough funding to provide books for all of the students. Students have to share books and other material in order to get the same education. How can you expect to get equal education and results without having equal amount of resources? How can you just blame the education system without observing all the aspects of the education system? Mr. Haberman talks about teaching mutual cooperation in order to teach students nonviolent options to their problems. Isn’t cooperation necessary from the community, government, and family life important in order to improve the education system? In order to improve the education system the society has whole needs to work together instead of playing the blame game like Mr. Haberman.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am usually surprised by how differently people can interpret the same situation. You have shown how Haberman and you view urban schools in very different ways. For my part, I read Haberman as an opportunity to encourage teachers to not let kids slide because they are "only" urban students. Not collecting homework, not expecting students to be on time, and other practices that are unique to urban schools create problems that we may not recognize in the moment. That was what I took from what he wrote.
Your points are very understandable. And I agree that his focus excluded societal issues. But if he intended to write to teachers and help them realize that being lax in rules and low in expectations, they may be fooling themselves into thinking they are being kind to students. Haberman suggests that such attitudes and actions may in reality be harming the students by not teaching them the "rules" of work -- whether at school or in a job.
You bring up good points about hoe Haberman only talks about the school factors, and not the other factors in the students' lives, like families, community, and government. It really bothers me how there is such a negative connotation whenever you hear "urban schools." I think that Haberman generalizes a little too much, because not everything he said was true in East Hartford, where I student taught.
Something else I was thinking- What is so bad about having street smarts??? One of my students was underachieving in the academics, but he definitely had street smarts and was very ingenious, which I thought was a strength.
Your post made me think about this article in a completely different way. I did not attend an urban school, therefore am only introduced to urban schools through clinic placements, classes and the media. From what I had seen in Hartford through one of my clinic placements, many of the points that Haberman brought up were attitudes that I experienced. For example, I noticed that many lessons that I observed seemed to stand alone and a lot of the information given day to day was in no way related. I also noticed teachers keeping students who didn't get along apart, rather than forcing them to work together and resolve their differences. Although I completely understand that these occurrences are not completely the teacher or school district's fault, I did encounter them while spending time in urban settings.
I was enlightened by your points and I agree that no one should be blamed for these issues in schools. There are a number of factors that contribute to the outcome of schools, such as family backgrounds, socioeconomic status, amount of resources, etc and I believe that this should have been addressed in the article as well. Although, I do think the author made some valid points and that the article was written in order to make teachers aware of some problems that might be going on, not to blame them or attack them for doing what they believe to be right.
I read the article the same way and completely agree with you. I did not feel that the author was pointing out facts and supporting them well. I checked the reference list at the end of the article and it did not give any insight into which school districts he was basing his research off of. I don't like it when people make blanket statements about groups of people. I think it discredits all those who do NOT function in the same manner. (ie. all those urban kids who do work hard)
Post a Comment