I went to a job fair this weekend for charter schools. And at a majority of the tables, the recruiters asked questions similar to "Are you interested in urban education?" and "How would you handle teaching in an urban environment?". I wasn't really sure how to respond, at first. Then I got kind of pissed.
I find it somewhat odd that all schools in their philosophy of education/mission statement/whathaveyou state that they are working to ensure the success of the individual student. And I agree with this wholeheartedly. No child should be neglected or left to meet anything less than his/her highest potential. However, I feel herding them into this "urban" category really is a disservice, not to mention fueling the (albeit largely unfounded in any sort of truth) societal distaste for those "beneath" us. As educators, our job is not to be presumptuous, elitist pricks. When students enter the classroom on day one, it is our duty to get to know each individual. Lumping an entire school of students into the urban category doesn't seem beneficial.
It may be that the word "urban" itself is what's throwing me: it has such a stigma attached to it. I feel we should be moving away from these types of words, and instead hook on terms that have positive, promising meaning. Yes, these schools are generally located in cities and are therefore urban. However, are the students urban? Are we providing them an urban education? Does every student come from the same background and have the same experiences? I refuse to assume where my students have come from, especially with the state of the world right now. Who's to say any given child was not raised in an affluent household, ravaged by an unfortunate economy? Who's to say an African American student in an "urban" school does not have a father who makes more money than that of the Caucasian student in the neighboring "suburban" school? As a Caucasian American from a middle-class family, and having gone to school in what would most likely be considered a suburban school district, I perhaps have no authority to be speaking on such matters. I'm sure what I speak of would offend members of all races, classes, etc. I am not saying children of impoverished households and communities do not deserve a quality education and the occasional kick in the ass. That is, incidentally, the exact opposite of what I believe in. However, why don't students just attend....school? Why does it need to be classified in such a demeaning manner?
It would be foolish of me to say the information pertaining to a student's socioeconomic and cultural background is not a crucial motivator and instructional tool. I am also not so blind to assume every student in a given neighborhood is the same. Neighbors have different stories. Fraternal twins have had different experiences. Educators should not allow a generic, often baseless term overshadow what is critical in every single classroom: individualized instruction.
Students deserved to be acknowledged for their individuality- likes, dislikes, personal accomplishments. I don't care if you're purple and live in a box or are orange and wealthy. As a student in my classroom, he/she will be under the same set of expectations, no exceptions. Each student will be assessed and pushed according to what he/she WILL achieve (there are no assumptions here- potential is tangible, and achievable). Hardship is not an excuse, it's a motivator. I will be empathetic, but for the purposes of creating a success plan under which he/she will work for the duration of the school year. Ideally, this will instill a sense of duty, citizenship, and responsibility. It will also rework his/her moral and emotional fiber to overcome stigma. I will not allow a term like "urban education" define a life, nor will it be acceptable for anyone to group a child under such.
It is the right of every student to break free. Let us work together to make the task less arduous.
No comments:
Post a Comment