Poverty,citizenship

Keith Benson Civics, Citizenship and Social Education 10.16.2006 Dr. Beth Rubin Because suburban schools/wealthier schools have more resources, in general, do you believe teaching is easier for them, as opposed to lower income districts? Why does political apathy still exist in those areas? What are differences in functions between community based youth organizations and schools? In what ways may poverty enhance of depress civic engagement? How do you motivate children with lost hope? Jean Anyon’s essay, “Ghetto Schooling”, gives explanation to the visible plight in urban America by examining New Jersey’s largest city, Newark, as a microcosm of a broader occurrence. Systematically, Anyon provides depressing socioeconomic statistics and information that explains many of the negative issues present in urban areas, more specifically, Newark. In response to the question concerning difficulty levels teaching in poorer and wealthier districts, a bleak picture is painted in both “Ghetto Schooling” and in Hart and Atkins’ “Civic Competence in Urban Youth.” In regards to educational attainment, Anyon writes, “Less than half of the ninth graders entering high schools in our large city systems typically graduate in four years” (6). Hart and Atkins attempt to explain why urban schools, largely, are failing as educational institutions. About the hardships in urban schools they write, “Teachers feel threatened particularly by the substantial number of students who have been convicted of crimes and are monitored by a school-based parole officer” (223). Between these two readings, it is not difficult to develop a misunderstanding, if not negative biasness, of what urban education is about.

From my experience, a third year teacher in the urban district studied by Hart and Atkins, it is plausible to believe that teaching in a poorer area is not the same as teaching in a wealthier district. That notwithstanding, it is not as different as the articles lead on. There are vast differences exist in overall community environment, income and lifestyle. But in the classroom, however, where instruction takes place, the wide chasm between the differing districts closes in many respects. Methods and attitudes toward instruction that are successful in poor, urban areas would presumably be successful in wealthier districts. Similarly, methods and attitudes that breed failure in urban areas, would also presumably, breed failure in wealthier areas. In terms of the differences that do exist between the districts, it is obvious that students’ backgrounds are virtual opposites. Urban areas, according to Anyon, “Are more likely to reside in homes that are impoverished, female-led, and without a parent who graduated high school. In Newark, Anyon writes, twenty-two percent of residents have less than a ninth grade education, and only 51% have graduated high school” (6). As disheartening as this seems, effectiveness still permeates in classroom where teachers possess encouraging attitudes and employ effective teaching methods. Urban teachers, to be successful and effective, must expect and be willing to go the extra mile. They have to genuinely care and engage for their students; first for many urban students, as both essays suggest, positive environments and influences are less available. For male teachers especially, they ought to understand they may be the only embodiment of male responsibility, or discipline their students see. The teacher in urban districts must be more than simply a teacher in order to be successful. Similarly however, I also believe teachers in wealthier areas must be more than “just teachers” if they wish to optimize their

effectiveness. Students in both districts can recognize when teachers dedicate themselves to their job and to their students. Political apathy is readily present in areas where the collective education and income level is low. Isolation of urban minority populations is accompanied by the isolation of poorer urban residents from economic mainstream of middle-class jobs (4). Jennifer O’ Donoghue comments at length about the marginalization, real and interpreted, many urban minorities feel in the larger society. Political apathy, as evidenced in the reading primarily by voting patterns, show urban populations voluntarily choose not to participate. My speculation for the lack of political activity is that poorer, urban populations have not witnessed government work for, or on behalf of, them. No matter the political party in power, not much changes in the daily lives and struggles of these groups. Where there is no measurable change or progress, there is no motivation to participate. In addition, in urban education, the necessity for civic activity and participation is rarely taught or expressed. Donoghue notes, “Urban schools, for example, with an emphasis on hierarchical control and order, limited conceptions of citizenship, and “high stakes” accountability policies often fail to provide empowering civic learning” (229). Furthermore, residents of poorer, less educated areas are far less likely to vote than more affluent individuals in suburban areas. Urban youth, recognize their elders refraining from voting, and in turn, they themselves do not vote – even when able to. The major difference between schools and community based youth organizations (CYOBs) is two-fold. Public schools, by law, are mandated to serve every student. Also, the public school’s purpose is to educate student while stressing order and socialization. Schools also are fundamentally conservative institutions. CBYOs, on the other hand,

target specific groups of children, usually the isolated and marginalized. Through actively targeting these youth who feel out of place in mainstream society, youth begin to feel a sense of belonging and comfort in these organizations. CYOBs are public places in a community that allows marginalized people to learn a new self-respect, a deeper and more assertive group identity, public skills, and values of cooperation and civic virtue (230). In addition to including isolated youth, CBYOs promote civic activity and social change. As young individuals join CBYOs, as a group, they begin to be exposed to political and civic participation, duty and responsibility. I have taught children who have lost hope in their potential to achieve greatness for themselves in life. Unfortunately, by the time the child gets to me, they are not really children, but young adults. I have never taught children, but I have taught teenagers. Students who have lost hope are generally identifiable and difficult to engage. As a teacher, you sometimes hear horror stories about the lives of some students. The hopeless student, while a minority, is indeed a fact of life when it comes to being a teacher, especially in urban areas. From what I’ve witnessed, students who have given up hope while in high school usually drop out. But occasionally, there are some hopeless students who continue attending school; not for the education necessarily, but for the relative sanctuary they find within the school’s walls. These students need to be aware someone genuinely cares about their well-being and what occurs in their lives. It is important to recognize, these hopeless students may not be the best students in terms of grades, or behavior as learning information may not be their concern. Hopeless students, who continue to come to school, and to class, are there because they sense and feel something positive about being there.

Many times we teachers look at school in a linear fashion. It is our job to teach, and student’s job to learn and remember. Too often, we don’t take the time to familiarize ourselves with our students, and their lives. I would like to believe there is always hope in our young students, but sadly, that is not the case. Teachers must be examples and role models for all students; and aware of students who seem defeated to assist them in anyway possible. Sometimes we must be willing put our lessons plans aside to pursue the greater good of helping the student who needs it most.