Unearthing Myths about Urban Education, Unveiling The Power of the Family

-- By AbiolaFasehun - 13 June 2012

Introduction

There is a myth surrounding urban education- that through self-reliance and determination all children can grow up to be successful in this nation. The myth allows the social injustice of inequality to perpetuate and inhibit social progress. There is no shortage of opinions as to how to remedy urban education. These supposed solutions distract from the problems that loom over education, and are often inapplicable to a community's unique structure. To improve education, we must improve the home- a concept that can be applied to all communities regardless of race, wealth, or status, but is most needed in urban America.

The Myth of American Success

The power of a myth is that it lays dormant within individuals, groups, and societies. A myth addresses societies unconscious fears, while helping individuals to ignore what is going on in the world around them. When Forbes Online ran an article about how to educate poor black children, the author's notions illustrated a pervasive problem in American education- the fallacy that if anyone put forth enough effort they too can grow up to be Horatio Alger. The article provided an interesting perspective in which to view technology as a source of empowerment, but fell prey to the idea that receiving a quality education is simple and accessible to all Americans. If a person of privilege can succeed, then why can't a person who is unprivileged or marginalized?

The failure of the urban education myth is that it masks a social failure, a form of hereditary determinism that lays dormant in the minds of the educated and elite- urban education has failed because minorities have failed. Through this myth we can choose to remain ignorant of the world we live in by not acknowledging that issues of social injustice, politics, and policy have furthered, if not endorsed the failure of urban communities, the failure of being black.

Newark as a Case Study

I have a deep rooted connection to Newark. When I was a child my mother owned a soul food restaurant in Newark, where I often spent days and nights hiding under tables and observing my mother's patrons. The city served as an interesting contrast to the town where I grew up. About twenty minutes away from Newark, my family occupied a one story home on a tree lined street. Each tidy aluminum sided homes confined, like a space on a checkerboard. In my hometown I was the only African American among my peers, until high school when that number increased to five. Five out of three hundred and fifty students. The black students attended the black schools in communities like Newark, East Orange, and Irvington. At an early age I learned a great lesson- no two communities are treated equally.

After graduating from college, I chose to return to Newark to teach and try to remain engaged in the community that once provided a refuge. I accepted my position dreaming up my own notions of what problems impeded progress in urban education: lack of funding and little opportunity. As an Abbott district, Newark Public Schools spent around $20,000 on students when I was a teacher. There was no want of money from the teachers, but mismanagement of funds prevailed in Newark's education bureaucracy. Was I surprised to realize that what was happening in the homes of my students stood at the root of many problems facing urban education? Perhaps not. But I took my time in opening my eyes as if awakening from a deep sleep.

It Takes a Village

At the age of ten, my students were dealing with problems that most adults in America will never face. Don't you know? Henry's father was shot dead in front of him when he was seven. Didn't you hear? Amanda's mother made her sleep on the front porch last night. Though you would never find this information in a file, a new teacher would learn from pressing previous instructors as to why the child refused to engage in class, why the child could only read and write at a kindergarten level, or why the child was always sleeping in class. These are the problems that face urban education. They are problems that start at home, then bleed into the fibers of a community. They are problems that are rooted historically, taking their time to become an evolutionary product of our nations tragic past. Now these problems have become a part of the war stories told from stakeholders in urban education. So what is the solution?

The idea that it takes a village is nothing new, but more than one village, I would argue that it takes a collective of villages, working together to protect the best interests of children. A village of educators, a village of advocates, but most importantly, a village of family. By allowing parents to be disengaged in the process, a great disservice is done to a child. Although a child may spend the day at school, at the end of the day and at the end of the academic year that child will go home. Our society has become sick with the concept that teachers can and should be expected to do it all. Parents need to regain their position of power in the home by providing a stable environment from which a child can build their foundation.

But urban families in America are in need of assistance. According to statistics from Newark Kids Count, child poverty in Newark continues to rise. The number of families on food assistance has increased to 33% and nearly half of Newark children grow up in families that do not make enough income to meet their basic needs. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the systems at play which have created a perfect storm to trap individuals into a defeatist position. The prison system, education system, even zoning laws and community planning have contributed to the disruption that urban communities face. Children are force fed defeat from the moment they are born. Until we acknowledge the flaws that exist at the most basic levels of society, no meaningful change can ever come.

Where shall we go from here- chaos or community? I choose community, I choose to disrupt the myth.

---

Abiola,

Thank you for this personal and insightful piece. I am curious as to your thoughts regarding the role of community in not only child development, but in parenting itself. As i discuss with colleagues and friends about children and ideas for improving the social bonds that form the basis of communities, I regularly come across a mentality that parenting is a "natural right," and that the best thing that society can do is provide basic support and step back to allow parents to "fulfill their role" as the guides of their children's lives. For me, this idea that every person (or couple) is naturally born with the all skills required to parent is as equally flawed as the idea that children can be lifted out of their conditions by education alone. But how can we expect parents to reach out an ask for help when they need it if society is simultaneously telling them that good parents should be able to do it without any help? When state child services only become involved in cases of abuse and neglect, what incentive does any parent have to reach out for help to any public system? The fear of being labelled "negligent" or losing one's child after reporting an problem at home is hardly unjustified when ACS and/or DHS devote their services almost exclusively to responding to allegations of poor parenting, rather than developing an ongoing dialogue with parents of all demographics and competencies.

Rohan,

You raised interesting questions regarding the complexity of the issue. Talking about what happens in the home or how one culture raises their children verses another remains taboo. But I wonder how much of the idea, that it is a parent's natural right to raise a child, has been hijacked by American idealism? There are some things that a decent human being (let alone a parent) should never allow another to go through (for example, the reference I made above to a student that was forced to sleep outside). As your comment alludes to, there is no excuse for this type of parenting. I believe that a cultural change needs to happen in homes and can occur without taking the right to parent away, but could work to enhance parenting. For example, if a parent is not able to be at home when a child arrives from school, what kind of mechanisms can be put in place to ensure that the child is completing his or her homework? When a teacher attempts to create a plan to get a student back on track, how can a parent support a teacher as opposed to challenging why any help is needed? Such ideas may sound so simple (I dare say even silly to some), but so many of the kids that I worked with were unsupervised at home and would come to school everyday having completed none of their assignments. If this ritual occurs for a majority of the school year, for most children, no academic growth can be achieved. For a cultural change to happen members of the community can and should get involved in helping others where they may fall short, while encouraging parents to take ownership.

A few years ago Bill Cosby publicly addressed what he viewed to be the ills of education in black America. His words were greeted with a backlash. Many African-Americans believed he was a traitor and unqualified to speak of a type of life he knew nothing about, others believed his comments were an example of a double standard. Bill Cosby's ultimate message was that African-Americans needed to "take the neighborhood back", an interesting concept that extends to your point. Bill Cosby's call for action was a call to a collective, not to individuals. I believe we begin a dangerous game when a community remains silent and allows parents to feign ignorance. Although so much of parenting and a communities culture is learned behavior (i.e. fear in the system), at what point does the cycle end?

Hi Abiola,

I really like this idea: "For a cultural change to happen members of the community can and should get involved in helping others where they may fall short, while encouraging parents to take ownership." - I think this perfectly sums up the right approach, however I'm not sure you can resolve it with your earlier point that "There are some things that a decent human being (let alone a parent) should never allow another to go through" without stepping outside the realm of inherent and unconditional rights (which is probably a more accurate phrasing of what I meant by "natural rights"). The messy question at the bottom of this, in my view, is whether we should assume parents are absolutely competent until they prove otherwise, or initially approach them as participants in a team of child-raisers who are entitled to take the dominant decision-making role whenever they are able to. I think the rhetorical similarity between the first position and the criminal law doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" explains much of social resistance to the latter position - we tend to view an assumption of weakness or finite competence as equivalent to an assumption of fault, when as every educator knows it's really the start of a dialogue rather than the end.

I envisage a policy similar to drivers licenses, albeit with a "bundle of sticks" approach to defining competency rather than the more binary system of license/no-license. We set the starting position at assumption of incompetence, but simultaneously acknowledge the desirability of self-autonomy and construct a supportive (rather than judgmental) educational-licensing scheme that strives to ensure everyone who wants to and is able achieves competence. This is the very essence of paternalism ("maternalism," perhaps?), but most accept its wisdom in the context of restricting access to public roads to those who have already passed minimum competency standards. Presumably, this is due to the high levels of risk involved in driving, to others as well as one's self. But why is this risk greater than in the case of child-rearing? One ton metal boxes that can move at 100mph can be dangerous, but hardly more so than eighteen years of neglectful parenting. I fail to see why we protect victims of the latter less than the former simply because the victim and perpetrator come from the same bloodline.

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:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AbiolaFasehun
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.