Today, The NY Times reports the following:
This month, the authorities reported that crimes in [Los Angeles] motivated by racial, religious or sexual orientation discrimination had increased 34 percent in 2005 over the previous year. Statistics for 2006 have not yet been compiled.
Rabbi Allen Freehling, executive director of the Los Angeles Human Relations Commission, a group created after the 1965 riots, said the recent growth in hate crimes reflected a failure by government and community leaders to prepare residents for socioeconomic changes in many neighborhoods, “and therefore people have a tendency to lash out, out of desperation.”
What can public schools do to quell this kind of tension? And what can racially segregated public schools be expected to accomplish, where low-income minorities are jammed together in appalling conditions, left to act out their frustation and desperation?
4 comments:
Blaming the black/hispanic racial violence on schools is a cop out.
Much of the violence is gang related and happens outside of schools.
Even well funded suburban schools such as Winston Churchill have problems with minority violence.
"What can public schools do to quell this kind of tension?"
The answer: provide a quality education that offers minority students a real chance to escape poverty.
I'm not blaming black/Hispanic racial violence on schools. I'm wondering what they can do to stop it.
I agree with you that the answer is to "provide a quality education that offers minority students a real chance to escape poverty."
But you and I will differ signifcantly on what is meant by "quality education."
Actually we probably don't differ to much on what we view as "quality education", just on how to get there.
Quality Education: Education that educates the vast majority of kids to grade level, prepares them for the job market, and provides the maximum opportunity for kids of all races and economic situations to qualify and suceed in Higher Education, while providing a safe, tolerant, and welcoming learning enviroment.
"Grade level" is an almost meaningless term. It actually means the average score of kids in a particular grade. So, by definition, "grade level" implies that there will be some kids who are average, some kids who are below average, and some kids who are above average. To be honest, my highest aspiration as a parent, educator, and activist is not that all kids will be average.
As for K-12 education being about prepping kids for the job market, let me just say this: I want my children's education to have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of job they can possibly imagine having today. I want my kids -- and all kids -- to have an educational experience that sets their minds on fire, not preps them to be some office drone living in a cube farm. You think Einstein's school did a good job of preparing him for the job market?
I work for an institution of higher ed. I spent far too many years as a student in institutions of higher ed. So, no, I don't think we should aspire to send all kids to college, esp. when so many colleges are so appallingly bad at educating students. I have several posts on my blog about this that you might enjoy -- here and here.
We do, however, agree that a "safe, tolerant, and welcoming learning enviroment" is important.
Post a Comment