Inner-city Education

“Night schools and boot camp, oh my!”

“5 year high school programs”

“The Science of Lunch-Packing”

“Your Homework: Cook Dinner With Your Parents” 

“School Bans T-Shirt” 

“Possible Changes for Grand Rapids Public High Schools” 

“Nothing Better To Do…” 

“Field Trip!” 

“Encouraging Writing in Our Students” 

“Jambalaya” 

Filed under: Inner-city ED | No Comments »

This blog was a great experience. Not only was I able to learn from my fellow classmates about a wide array of educational topics, but also I learned a great deal about the utilization of RSS technology. Up until this class, I didn’t know much about RSS feeds. Scratch that, I had heard of it but I really had no idea what it was or how to use it. Once exposed to it, I was amazed at the capabilities of RSS, its organization, and its ability to focus news articles based on content. Almost immediately I created feeds other than those required for class. Sometimes new programs and forms of technology can be daunting, but the ease of use with RSS was very inviting. I created feeds for music, the election, the Iraq war, and various other topics. This tool has made my news reading much easier; instead of surfing website upon website looking for relevant information free from the mainstreamed pop-culture “news,” I was now able to find exactly what I wanted anywhere I wanted. I think teaching RSS to students younger than college age can be very useful. Whether keeping a blog such as this one or not, the use of modern technology such as RSS can lead to greater student involvement and participation by increasing their social awareness.

I want to thank everyone for their involvement with the creation of these blogs. All of your topics have been extremely insightful into issues that we as upcoming teachers must prepare ourselves for in the modern educational arena. Through all of your blogs I have learned a great deal about educational reforms, such as homework policies and grading practices, along with student life in general, from gang affiliation to diet and nutrition. Thank you all for your comments on my blog entries. Everyone’s comments offered a great deal of additional insight into the articles I covered and aided in my knowledge of how others viewed the issues I was covering. Thank you.

Filed under: Inner-city ED | No Comments »

There are a lot of different things that I want to say about this conference so I’ll try to stick to the basics. Overall, I enjoyed the conference. It was very interesting and for the most part helpful. It was a great experience to hear multiple professionals present different ideas, information, and theories covering so many different areas of English education. Taking part in activities with many seasoned teachers and preservice teachers alike, I was able to see many ways in which different people view the educational process.

Let’s begin with Chris Crutcher.  The keynote speaker of this conference, as cliché as it may sound, was truly an inspiration. I was definitely surprised at how funny he is. Both his opening and keynote speeches were driven by personal anecdotes and comedy that made my Bright Ideas experience. His discussion of censorship, though comedic, was still eloquent and deeply thought out. After being on the top 10 banned book list for multiple years running, Chris has become deeply involved in censorship issues in the classroom. Paraphrasing one of the most important points I believe he made, Chris stated that censorship is an injustice to truth, and is a disservice to someone’s story. Ultimately, to censor is to cover up someone’s life, concealing what needs to be told. Also touching on No Child Left Behind, Chris said something I will never forget:

“No child is left behind because we’re not going anywhere.”

Plain and simple, he nailed it. Standardization, testing, and censorship: they all play a role in the regressive state our current educational system is stuck in, like a wagon wheel sunk in the mud.

As for the rest of my experience at Bright Ideas, my emotions are mixed. The first session I attended involved using multi-voiced literature to connect student lives through reading and writing in the classroom.  The presenter had been an English teacher at an alternative education high school 5 years previous to her now current position of teaching at MSU. She presented us with a multi-voiced novel titled “The Brimstone Journals” which was composed of diary-like entries all written form the point-of-view/voice of a different character. We discussed how the multiple voices have the chance of appealing to a wider array of students and how it can better present a story. This is definitely a book I can see myself using as I enter an inner-city high school.

Here’s where my feelings begin to move from positive to skeptical. Another session I attended involved the “best practices for new and preservice teachers.”   This presentation was somewhat useful. I was able to hear a few good ideas such as “think-pair-shares,” which is basically students getting into pairs in order to discuss and work together. Yet I also heard how rubrics are amazing. I, personally, believe in the concept that rubrics are too confining and prescriptive, hindering student creativity and conforming to the concept of standardization. One student currently finishing up her semester of student teaching said that rubrics are great because it removes so much strain and stress from the teacher and makes the job of grading easier because you know exactly what to look for and if a student complains about a grade you simply tell them, “Well did you look at your rubric?” After our conversations in class, I could only shake my head, especially because the presenter reinforced this idea of using rubrics.

Also, in this session the idea came up about how dress is a large factor in “earning respect” from and in “controlling” your classroom. One male student-teacher commented on how his class is better behaved when he wears a tie because they know it’s a “more serious day.” The presenter jokingly asked me if I was going to be a shirt-and-tie kind of teacher and responded that I probably wouldn’t. I believe my dress to be superfluous in earning respect from my students. Besides, do you really think that students really respect their teachers based on how they dress? Anyways, after the presenter asked me this question, an elementary school teacher sitting next to me raised her hand and went on to explain how her and her colleagues were thoroughly impressed by a student-teacher in their building because of the way he dressed so professional and the respect the children had for him. I wasn’t exactly sure what to think of what she was saying. Her story went on for minutes, constantly reemphasizing the student-teacher’s professional clothing and apparent success because of it. In a way, I felt insulted and attacked because it felt as if she was saying that because of how I look, I wouldn’t be a successful teacher or earn respect from my students. Now I already know I’m not going to wear my everyday clothes in the classroom, but it felt as if she was judging me based on my mohawk and attire, prophesizing my lack of success because of how I look.

Overall, I’m glad I went, I learned a lot, and through Chris Crutcher’s speeches I was able to come away from the conference feeling confident knowing that there are still those out there willing to tell the truth that aren’t afraid to take the chance.

Filed under: Inner-city ED | 2 Comments »

Jay Matthews, educational columnist for The Washington Post, in a recent article entitled “10 Signs of What Is Not a Crummy Poor-Kid School” responded to the recently published book “‘It’s Being Done’: Academic Success in Unexpected Schools” by Karin Chenoweth. This book takes a critical look at urban education, testing, and the standardization of curricula. Upon writing this book, Chenoweth visited many schools, including urban, suburban, and rural settings. While visiting one particularly bad school which served as a perfect model of the “crummy poor-kid” school, Chenoweth was motivated to write up a list of characteristics found in schools that exceeded educational expectations, based on what she saw in schools that didn’t meet these expectations. In his article, Matthews takes the 10 points from Chenoweth’s list that he believes to be most important and suggests that they can be used as vital tools in identifying schools, such as the one Chenoweth visited, that are in dire need of aid.

The 10 points are as follows:

“1. They have high expectations for their students.

2. They expand the time students–particularly struggling students–have in school.

3. They embrace and use all the data they can get their hands on.

4. They teach their students.

5. They constantly reexamine what they do.

6. They do not spend a lot of time disciplining students, in the sense of punishing them.

7. They assume that they will have to train new teachers more or less from scratch and carefully acculturate all newly hired teachers.

8. They provide teachers with the time to meet to plan and work collaboratively.

9. Principals are a constant presence.

10. They make decisions on what is good for kids, not what is good for adults.”

Now typically what we see when we read reports about what is wrong with urban/inner-city school systems we come across drawn out descriptions of the horrid students that plague the hallways. Students are portrayed as gang-members along with their warfare, dramatized on television and in movies leaving in impression of the rotten lifestyles of inner-city kids. But every point that Matthews lists from Chenoweth’s observations do not involve problems with the students at all. All the problems listed revolve around the teachers and the administration.

A portion of these problems with the faculty and administration have to do with the ICSS (inner-city student stereotype) I’ve discussed in multiple posts past. Points 1, 4, and 10 all have to do with what the faculty expectations of the students in these settings. The “poor-kids” are expected to be the ones misbehaving, taking part in illegal activities, being stupid, and not caring. By giving into the ICSS teachers perpetuate the cycle that these kids are already stuck in and they will have no chance of moving beyond the station they have been born and forced into.

The other portion of these characteristics (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) have something to do with the poor quality of the faculty and how they run the school. Why is quality so low? Because of a lack of experience with the high numbers of new teachers? The under-qualified teachers that were emergency certified to fill the position? Or has all hope been given up on attempting to give these students a chance at a real and meaningful education?

If teachers can give into stereotypes so easily, they should find a new profession. If teachers can give up hope so easily, they should find a new profession. It’s up to teachers to give the underprivileged a chance to reach their full potential. And believe it or not, their full potential is not tightening bolts on the assembly line downtown.

“10 Signs of What Is Not a Crummy Poor-Kid School” by Jay Matthews of The Washington Post. March 17, 2008. Full article

Filed under: Inner-city ED | 10 Comments »

It’s impossible to know with 100% certainty what someone other than yourself is like, to know exactly how someone else feels, to know how someone else views the world, and to know the experiences someone else goes through. This lack of certainty can lead to great controversy, disagreement, and struggle, especially in educational settings. Multiple school districts in Colorado are faced with such problems. In the article “Racism at home is hard to measure and correct” by Perry Swanson and Shari Chaney Griffin of The Gazette, the issue of racism in multiple school districts is analyzed and discussed based upon previous events and claims from parents and students. The article began describing one such event:

“Two boys taunted one another with racial slurs, including the N-word. Then one threatened the other…[Felicia Wingo] said it’s one of numerous incidents spanning nearly eight years in which her six children, who are black, have been attacked verbally and physically because of their race.”

So according to these incidents, racism is present in the school district. The fact that these events have been spanning 8 years for just this one family supports the claims that there are strains of racism thriving in the schools. But the school district seems to think differently…
“A spokesman for Widefield School District 3 said the 2005 episode was an isolated case and that racial discrimination is not a problem in the district. Other area districts also said such incidents are not indicative of widespread racism.”

OK…well maybe those were isolated incidents. I mean, the school districts should have the best point-of-view concerning these events, right? Maybe not…

“Wingo and other parents of minority students across the Pikes Peak region disagree. Even if taunts and other behavior come from misguided, childish rambunctiousness, rather than deep-seated racism, downplaying or ignoring such behavior enables dangerous hatred to fester and grow, they say.”

The rest of the article goes on to describe how the issue of racism in schools tends to become a game of “he said, she said” between the school districts and the parents/students. Unlike events involving direct violence, drugs, or weapons, schools do not keep track of comments and remarks made by students so it’s much harder to keep track of how strong and prevalent racism actually is within a student body. The school districts in question in this particular article are taking certain measures to help combat any racist tensions that may exist, mainly by increasing levels of diversity within the schools’ staff members.

While changes within the school systems are very important in combating racism and increasing tolerance, we as English teachers have the special opportunity to work with students one-on-one and present them with ways of increasing their own knowledge and acceptance of their fellow classmates. By delving into critical pedagogy, English teachers can help aid in the battle against racism by having their students take part in point-of-view exercises and writing. Whether it’s through poetry, fiction, non-fiction, and any literary genre, students can learn how to read, write, and convey information from the points-of-view of people and characters that are unlike themselves. By first practicing interpreting information written from different viewpoints, students will soon be able to write from p.o.v.s other than their own. If we as English teachers can teach students how to read and write in such ways, we can teach them to see and experience the world in new ways; we can teach them tolerance and empathy, and remove racism and apathy.

 ”Racism at school is hard to measure and correct” by Perry Swanson & Shari Chaney Griffin of The Gazette. March 22, 2008. Full article

Filed under: Inner-city ED | 4 Comments »

It’s always an interesting scenario when the public wants to get its two-cents in. If you’re lucky, it’s possible to get a wide array of opinions and positions from the most ignorant to the most highly educated of citizens. In a recent Washington Post article by Jay Matthews entitled “How to Fix Coolidge High,” Matthews asked readers to submit their opinions on what should be done in order to reform Coolidge High School, an inner-city high school in Washington, D.C. This outreach into public perspective was in response to previous articles published in the paper that detailed the story of Jonathan Lewis, a senior at Coolidge who told the heartbreaking story of, despite a brilliant mindset, was coming close to not graduating because of a lack of motivation. After hearing from the public, Matthews deciphered seven steps that could be taken to reform Coolidge and ultimately, all inner-city schools that face similar problems such as lack of motivation and high dropout rates. In this post I will discuss three of the seven steps that I found most relevant and interesting.

1. Train teachers better. Greg Prudich, president of the Mercer County (W.Va.) Board of Education, said training must be “intense, disciplined, research-based, and result-directed. Require it, and a lot of it.”

This idea relates in part to a topic I touched upon in my last post. It’s not always the students who are to blame. In many inner-city schools there is an extreme shortage of teachers and those that a school district does hire often come into the position under “emergency-certification.” In areas such as Coolidge that demand such high levels of discipline and training, it’s a great idea to have teachers, after receiving proper training at the university level to continue to further their education by attending seminars, lectures, and programs to help them adjust to the type of classroom environment they are in. This way they can further their understanding of coping methods, behavioral strategies, and so forth. If something is found to work, teachers should use it, even if it is a new or “radical” idea. Just because a teacher has seniority doesn’t mean their classic methods still yield the best results.

3. Remove disruptive students.

I have a few issues with this step. This step doesn’t suggest that all the disruptive or underachieving students should be removed from school entirely, but many readers agreed that advanced students and disruptive students should be placed in separate classes. This is basically the same concept of tracking. As Linda Christensen states in her book Reading, Writing, and Rising Up, “Tracking helps create and legitimate a social hierarchy within a school based on perceived differences in student ability” (pg. 170). Remember that perpetual cycle I mentioned few posts back? This is the epitome of it. I couldn’t agree more with Christensen’s words. I don’t think removing the disruptive students would be best. Instead we need to find better ways to incorporate all students together into one homogeneous classroom environment that gives, shares, and grows as a whole.

5. Get parents more involved…More communication is essential, AND  7. Involve the community. Julie Gordon, a 1978 Coolidge graduate, said she would like to have community experts “come into the school on a regular basis to discuss the nuts and bolts of life in expensive Washington, D.C., about different career paths, and what has to be done to achieve their goals.” Many D.C. schools have partnerships with community groups, but communication is often difficult because educators are busy with students most of the day. Only the best-organized schools seem to have good access to community resources.

These two steps are all about expanding the classroom beyond the educational and into the social realm. Student motivation will rise if they are told WHY they are being taught what they are and more importantly, how it relates to their lives. By having speakers come in as suggested, students would be more apt to see the relevance and practical application of what they learn in school. Now the question lies in how can schools other than the “best-organized” ones gain this “good access to community resources?”

I’m coming closer and closer to the conclusion that things have been performed out of order.

We can’t expect to reshape education in order to then reform society.

We need to reshape society and then education will follow suit.

How to Fix Coolidge High by Jay Matthews of The Washington Post. December 25, 2007.

Filed under: Inner-city ED | 1 Comment »

I’ve been reading many articles lately about violence that occurs in schools. Especially with the latest school and campus shootings that have occurred at Louisiana Technical College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana - February 8, 2008; Mitchell High School, Memphis, Tennessee - February 11, 2008; E.O. Green Junior High School, Oxnard, California - February 12, 2008; and Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois - February 14, 2008, there has been a large influx of articles concerning school violence. As I’ve been starting to narrow the topic of my inner-city blog to more specific topics such as inner-city student stereotypes (ICSS) and the social ramifications they entail, along with reform/alternative education programs, I was interested in finding articles that discussed how this violence was possible affecting the social atmosphere and/or any new reform/education programs that would be instated in inner-city schools. I almost hit the nail on the head when I came upon an article about relating to a teacher being assaulted by one of his students, but instead found myself reading yet another story about the widely accepted ICSS held by so many.

In this article by Abbie Wightwick, the teacher who was attacked stated:

“I can remember an incident when I was physically attacked by a Year 9 pupil (aged 12 or 13),” and later told “how being attacked by a pupil permanently changed his attitude to his job.”

OK, so this is an understandable statement to make. Any teacher that gets attacked by a student, even if it’s just one punch by a 12 year old (the article never states what the attack actually entailed), will have differing attitudes concerning their students and line of work. But here’s the part of the article that stuck out to me and is really the only reason why I am now choosing to write about it:

“The school where he worked…had become more like an inner city secondary than a small rural one, he said.”

There it is! Do you see it?! Can you smell the stereotype oozing it’s way through your screen?! This small rural school, because of one act of violent aggression, has turned into “an inner city secondary” school! (Take a deep breath with me before we continue…) Inner-city students are associated with gangs, with violence, with aggressive and malignant behavior. Comments like these are what perpetuate the ongoing cycle of social class separation based upon the inequalities that result from a lower socioeconomic station and the struggles that this station entails!

Yet here’s the kicker: the point of this article was NOT simply telling another story of school violence, but instead to detail the fact that this teacher that was attacked is being FIRED FOR PROFESSIONAL INCOMPETENCY.

Perhaps it’s not always the students’ faults. Instead of reforming the students, let’s reform the social spiderweb in which they’re tangled.

It’s time to stop blaming those forced into a position of judgment. Maybe it’s time to start blaming the judges.

Teacher tells of attack by pupil by Abbie Wightwick of Western Mail Newspaper. February 21, 2008. Full article

Filed under: Inner-city ED | No Comments »

The inner-city student stereotype is one of many stereotypes that is well known in American culture. With images of gang members from minority backgrounds (typically Blacks and Hispanics) dressed in baggy jeans and hoodies, skipping class, slinging drugs, getting pregnant at 15-years-old, packing guns, getting into fights, robbing liquor stores, and most of all being uneducated, the inner-city student stereotype (ICSS) is perpetuated by pop-culture, movies, and television commercials. These adolescents about whom this stereotype is formed are just as aware of it as all the residents of middle-class suburbia who sit at home on a Sunday night and watch Dangerous Minds feeling all warm and tingly inside as Michelle Pfeiffer embarks on battling the inner-city youth. This ICSS is placed upon the mindsets of these students and therefore they view themselves as not being able to cut it in the educational arena.

In a recent article, Polly Curtis, education editor of The Guardian, discussed the economic obstacles that inner-city families face in relation to their children both graduating from high school and then seeking a higher education if they are able to achieve a secondary degree. The article states:

“…Pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have fewer options…many students from poor backgrounds are being put off [by universities] because they are afraid of getting into debt…very few of them know about bursaries or maintenance grants on offer.”

Inner-city students are no less intelligent than suburban, rural, or private school students. The low numbers from their testing scores is a result of the system into which they are trapped. As the excerpt states, students are ill-informed to bursaries (scholarships) and grants. This is due to a lack of resources in both the environment they live and the schools they attend.

“Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, said: “Young people need better information on the complex system of bursaries and grants, and this needs to be provided before they have made their higher education choices.”

Gemma Tumelty, president of the National Union of Students, said: “If the trend continues, prestigious universities will only be accessible to the rich. “

Unfortunately, it is the trend in inner-city schools above all public school systems to “teach to the test.” This system carries the same stereotype that the media portrays. There is no optimism and hope held for these students. These educators concentrate on “skill and drill” tactics thinking that these students need to know all the core basics in order to have a chance in a higher education environment. However, when students can’t pay attention in class because they just got off working 3rd shift in order to help pay for this weeks groceries, it’s not hard to see why they believe that universities are only “accessible to the rich.”

As educators, not just for inner-city schools, we need to teach our students to be able to look on society with a critical eye. Students need to learn how to criticize the system they are in, to criticize the ICSS label that has been placed upon them, in an educated manner, so that they too can rise above the position they were forced into. Unequal social systems are what further perpetuates students to an unequal education and further more, to an unequal life beyond school.

Tuition fees favor the rick-new study by Polly Curtis, education editor of The Guardian. February 14, 2008. Full article

Filed under: Inner-city ED | No Comments »

In my last post I discussed alternative education programs such as the extremely successful From Boyhood to Manhood in Southwark, London, and their lack of funding.

With the 2008 presidential election right around the corner, candidates are beginning to reinforce their stances on issues ranging from the war in the Middle East, the state of the economy, and education. This week I found an article on NPR’s website in which Barack Obama was interviewed in a piece entitled “Obama on Education, Faith, Race.” During the education portion of the interview, Obama was requested to break down his plans into simple and specific terms. He responded with a 3-step process that he believes will help reform “troubled” schools if he were elected president.

Step No. 1 included the following:
“…we would start investing in early childhood education at a much more significant level all across the country […] One of the most important things to closing the achievement gap, I believe, is making sure that children are prepared when they start school.”

“Step No. 2 would be to pay teachers more but also give them more professional training and support so that they are able to work with kids more effectively in the classroom.”

“Step No. 3 would be to invest in after-school programs and summer-school programs that are particularly important for low-income students because they may not have supplementary activities during the summer. […] That would all cost about $18 billion a year — a significant increase in federal funding, focused on schools all across the country, but with a great emphasis on poor urban and rural school districts that really need resources.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I find that many of these aspects can be beneficial to education, that is, if they work. Also, some details I have a hard time wrapping my head around. One gap that I’ve found in reading this article and others about his 3-step reform policy concerns increased pay for teachers and their professional training. Step No. 3 states that the increased funding would be $18 billion a year for after-school/summer-school programs and the pre-school education programs; this $18 billion does not include the increased pay for teachers. I would like to know how he plans on covering this increase. Does that entail an increase in taxes? Perhaps a larger appeal once he actually becomes president? Or maybe another broken promise?

I think that the after-school and summer-school programs would be a great idea. I plan on doing more research to find out exactly what these programs entail. Are they simply for tutoring/schoolwork like most after-school programs? Or would they entail many aspects like the From Boyhood To Manhood program that offers job-training, social skills, and various other activities.

Also I’m not sure about the part of Step No. 2 that concerns increasing teachers pay. Now don’t freak out on me here, I’m just as much for increasing the wages of teachers as the next guy, but hear me out. The increase in pay Obama offers is specifically for inner city and poorly achieving school districts. I feel that by offering any teacher who would come teach in these areas higher pay is too much like a bribe. It seems like it would attract those educators who are more concerned about their pay than truly teaching in an area that needed special attention.

All of these 3 steps are great ideas and they all could do a great deal to bring the toppling educational system of this country off of its feet. I would just like some gaps filled and details clarified.
“Obama Talks Education, Faith, Race” by Farai Chideya of NPR, January 24, 2008. Full Article

Filed under: Inner-city ED | 5 Comments »

One central issue concerning inner-city school districts is that of presenting children with alternative education programs so that instead of simply dropping out of the public schooling system, these students may still have a chance of earning their high school diploma and even continuing on the path towards college. Unfortunately it is the general stereotype that most if not all students that require and/or desire an alternative education program are “bad” and those who remain in public or private schools are “good.” School districts, being already concerned with funding for their public education systems, what with keeping up with No Child Left Behind and constantly changing educational requirements, are often hesitant to provide extra money students who were unable to make it in their school. Therefore, most alternative education programs, especially in inner-city areas rely on minimal governmental funding and heavily upon private donations.

Regrettably, even if an alternative education program is proven effective and efficient, it is still subject to closing at any moment because of lacking funding.

One such alternative education program is the From Boyhood to Manhood Foundation (FBMF) located in the London borough of Southwark, an inner portion of London south of Thames. The primary focus of this group is to remove teenagers from “a nasty future dominated by guns and gangs” along with a vast amount of drugs and violence. Uanu Seshmi, cofounder and director of FBMF, runs the program out of an old church hall and revolves the program around a “mixture of education, counseling, exercise, one-on-one mentoring, and advice about self-control and self-esteem.” Aside from the general education, physical activities, and workshop/work training programs, FBMF focuses heavily on drawing youth out of the still increasing “gun and gang culture” reinforced by the fact that over 20 teenagers in London have been murdered in just the last year alone.

“Yet it is precisely at this delicate time that funding to the group has dried up. Staff have been laid off, the kids informed that as of January they will have to make alternative arrangements. Seshmi hopes the group will be able to reopen a few months down the line, but that will depend on getting new backers. “It doesn’t make sense in the current climate with all the gun crime that is going on,” says Seshmi, bemoaning the paucity of funding. “It’s ironic, really.”

Even though in the past 10 years FBMF has been able to pass thousands of teenagers through its doors with, as stated by Seshmi, a stunning 90% success rate, it is currently under threat of closing due to lack of funds.

“The crux of the problem is that FBMF has been a victim of its own success. When children started flocking to its programs, not all brought state funding with them. Those referred by their schools generally did, but the increasing number who enrolled on their own after having fallen out of the system came with no public money.”

The fact of the matter is that an increasing number of students who enroll in alternate education programs are those who are not referred by their public schools and therefore bring no money with them. Is it fair that successful programs such as FBMF be shut down resulting in a lack of education for all of these students? Especially in the United States, dropout rates are at an all-time high. The term dropout factory has now been coined by Bob Balfanz to describe such schools with high dropout rates.

We must admit that there’s a problem.

We must admit that we need to put more money into inner city and alternative education programs. If these programs can achieve such high success rates, just like FBMF, why not give them the funding they need? Just because certain students do not fit the standardized mold of No Child Left Behind, they are shunned and excommunicated depriving them of their right to an education. What’s more important, that new gymnasium and athletic field, or the education of thousands of children?

Most say that inner-city kids are in gangs, partake in violence, do drugs, and dropout because they like to cause trouble, because they are naturally no good, because they don’t care about education or their futures.

Maybe it’s you that don’t care about them.

“A London Program Teaches Inner-city Kids Reading, Writing, and Reformation” by Mark Rice-Oxley of The Christian Science Monitor from the December 17, 2007 edition. Full article

Filed under: Inner-city ED | 4 Comments »