|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Social Magic: Societal Myths about Educating Children Living in Poverty-- By AbiolaFasehun - 16 Feb 2012Modern social magicOn December 12, 2011, Forbes magazine published an online opinion editorial by Gene Marks titled, If I Were a Poor Black Kid. The article was written in response to a speech President Obama made about inequality and working to expand America’s middle class. Marks turned Obama's platform into an introspective piece on how poor black children can rise up from their unfortunate lives. Marks declared, "I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed... Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia." In Marks view, the key to breaking socio-economic barriers is for the poor black children of America to try their hardest in school and use technology to their advantage, "If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently." Marks' article begins with well-meaning intentions, but ends with misguided advice that could be termed social magic. In Courts on Trial, Jerome Franks describes the concept of magic as a control mechanism that man uses when he is "terrified by uncertainty, or baffled, or trapped". When faced with a concept or problem not easily explainable, as a society, we cling to magic. Instead of approaching the problem by utilizing economics or statistics, magic allows mankind to draw inaccurate conclusions and create defective rules to remedy problems. The title of Marks' article alone serves as an indication of the primitive lens from which the author views poverty. Of the over 13 million children living in poverty in America, 1 in 3 of these children are African American while 1 in 4 are Latino. Though minorities may be more readily affected by poverty, America's economic downturn has shown that poverty can no longer simply be categorized by race. When Marks penned what he believed was an accurate portrayal of what it takes to lift black children out of poverty, he failed to acknowledge the external factors that affect access to quality education and technology in America, thus making his formula one of social magic.When the desire to learn isn't enoughMarks' first premise is that for poor black kids to succeed they must simply make education their number one priority. Marks urges that this can be done by the students aspiring to become the best readers they can possibly be. What appears to be sound advice for any child reveals itself to be grounded in misconceptions about what the author believes the reality is for students living in poverty. According to the American Physcological Association, African American students that grow up in poor communities face burdens such as being deprived of valuable resources, being exposed to less rigorous curriculum, and having teachers who expect less of them academically than they expect of similarly situated Caucasian students. Children living in poverty, regardless of their race, often face cognitive and non-cognitive developmental gaps that persist into adulthood if not addressed early. Marks comments, "If I was a poor black kid I'd use the free technology available to help me study. I'd become [an] expert at Google Scholar. I'd visit study sites like Spark Notes to help me understand books." Although technology can be a valuable portal of information for students, there are external factors that affect consistent access to technology. Marks remedy for poor black students, fails because he does not understand or does not seek to understand the factors that limit his proposition. Marks is correct in surmising that now it is easier than before to access computers whether at home, school, or a library, but the fact that a computer is within close proximity does not make it easier for a child to be able to interact with the technology in a meaningful manner. Inherent in poverty are factors which may limit the depth of interaction that children can gain from technology. Such factors include a child's role and responsibilities at home. Marks aggrandizes the access that students have to computers at home and in public institutions.Technology as a tool, but not the solutionMarks does raise a valid proposal: that technology can be used as an invaluable tool to expose students to resources that can help them succeed. Perhaps the truth in Marks' article is that once a student in America can obtain access to technology outside discriminatory factors that can impede on the amount of knowledge one can consume are limited. It would be a stretch to call that access or the path to that access equal. In a nation in which we are just to the poor and kind to the rich, Marks does make an attempt to acknowledge societies preference for the rich when he briefly mentions that not everything about success is under the control of poor black kids, "It takes a little luck. And a little help from others." In Courts on Trial, Franks discusses Bernard Shaw's differentiation between false and true ideals. False ideals are existing realities with their masks on. While true ideals are "the future possibilities which the masks depict." Only by tearing off the mask and the thing that is masked under, can future possibilities be revealed. As Shaw's theory on false and true ideals can be applied to the American legal system, so too can it be applied to prejudices about the American education system. Through his own form of magic, Marks fails to give a just analysis of the social and economic impediments that society must first deal with before poor black students across the nation can relish in the freedom of open information. Before dispensing advice to poor black kids, it would be a just exercise if Marks were to take off his own mask.I don't understand why you want to spend 1,000 words arguing with someone who from your point of view has little to say. And I don't understand why you do so with so little actual effect. The position taken in this eminently unimportant editorial is that education is a key to escaping poverty, and that if the writer were a poor child, he—being evidently a pretty good learner—would devote himself to studying his way out of poverty. Surely this is not only good advice for the writer, but also good advice, given by hundreds of millions of parents around the world, to hundreds of millions of poor children. Evidence accruing over generations, at both the individual and societal level, tends to confirm its value. People lift themselves out of poverty by getting good educations, and efforts to universalize primary, then secondary, and now post-secondary education have shown their value for societies as a whole from the eighteenth century onward. Moreover, given the general level of helplessness to affect most of their other circumstances, one of the few things children can do for themselves to improve their prospects in life is to succeed at educating themselves for skilled work. So the essay is trite. Equally, of course, it means absolutely nothing to people who aren't able to go to school, or who once there turn out to be cognitively impaired, too hungry, too beaten, too frightened or too withdrawn to learn. One can say that in a sentence, as I just did. Though you go on a good deal about "factors which may limit the depth of interaction that children can gain from technology," in similarly abstruse language, you don't say anything concrete, provide a fact, offer a reference, or in any other way actually engage with the proposition you are advancing with odd implicitness. Nor do you engage with the underlying social problem pointed at, however superficially, by the essay: in other societies around the world, children poorer and more culturally deprived than our country's poor work harder at studying, learn more, are better prepared for skilled work, and are beginning to compete very successfully for skilled knowledge-handling jobs in the globalized economy. What President Obama called "the Bangalore challenge" is very real, as practical acquaintance with Bangalore slum dwellers taught me, and would probably teach you too. Nor is poverty or white supremacy alone to blame: privileged American children too are surprisingly less effective learners than they should be, given all the "technology" of learning now available to them. For the columnist, given his narrow individualistic conception, this is irrelevant, but not for you. If what he has failed to mention is that poverty sets obstacles in the way of learning, it is for you, given your supposedly wider perspective, to acknowledge first that even more intense poverty than can be found in the US does not extinguish thirst to learn in other societies' poor, and that the failure of US Americans to benefit from the intellectual attainments of the their culture is not restricted to the poor. It seems to me that the best route to the improvement of this draft is to abandon the shallow object of your contention. If you have something you want to say about education policy, say it. Write a sentence or two that conveys the essence of your idea, then expand it to show some more of its bones and muscles, and consider some of the possible objections. Leave the callow to bury their own dead, and the clichés to take care of themselves. You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
