I am going to try to play devil's advocate and counter most of what I had initially thought, the fierce repulsions that instinctively came to mind when viewing the film. As we discussed in class last time, the pursuit of a critical mindset that seeks to deconstruct rather then categorically dismiss or destroy, is valuable, and for me at least, takes practice. So here we go.

Oscar Lewis observed marginal low income communities in the United States and observed the following patterns of behavior evident in all the communities: broken family structure, an vulnerability to incontrollable hedonistic behavior, dependency on drug use, "a capacity for spontaneity and adventure, for the enjoyment of the sensual, the indulgence of impulse," es: a preponderance to violence, low aspirations levels, and an acute awareness of their political, social, and economic exclusion from the rest of the "decent" world. He concluded that these behaviors constituted "a culture of poverty," a set of irrational pathologies marked by their indecency, passed down from generation to generation through socialization. The solution to poverty lies in dealing with the individual, pathological behavior that the poor exhibit, through rigorous social work and psychotherapy. To re-socailize, impose the morals of the decent larger community that exists outside of the culture of poverty, is to get rid of the indecent behavior the poor.

Judith Goode, among others (myself included) criticize this characterization of the poor as one that fundamentally misunderstands the "culture" of the poor. The characteristics common to poor communities, is not in fact, a culture of poverty, a pathology, but rather demonstrates logical, rational behavior that the poor have strategically used to survive within the conditions of poverty... their behavior is a rational response to the structural violence oppressing them. Perhaps women don't marry the father of their children, not because they are inclined to promiscuity, or are looking for ways of securing their eligibility for receiving welfare, but because economically it just doesn't make sense. Often, the men, as a result of a serious lack of job opportunity, don't bring in an income that can support the family, and instead become another mouth for the woman to feed. The misunderstanding perpetuated with this idea of a culture of poverty however, suggests, as one congressman stated: "Statistical evidence does not prove those suppositions [that welfare benefits are an incentive to bear children]; and yet even the most casual observer of public assistance programs understands there is indeed some relationship between the availability of welfare and the inclination of many young women to bear fatherless children." This vantage point exists, to this day, as an argument contrary to social programs which, (if they did not themselves impose structural violence), could help alleviate the burdens of poverty.

What is my point? Perhaps what we are seeing, the behavior of the City Springs school, is not pathological, not evidence of an indecent, morally corrupt outlook on education. Perhaps this school is rationally, and strategically, dealing with the structural violence imposed on them by the state--the standardized tests, the complications or double entendres of programs to fight the war on poverty, which in fact further institutionalize it. Take welfare housing for example. As Goode explains, the structural contradictions within the welfare program, enable Landlords to charge more for substandard housing. The welfare benefits for the poor are not enough to survive--as such, one strategic response of the poor is to depend on banned work in the underground economy. The Landlords, aware of this, exploits the situation to his advantage. He knows he can threaten his tenants, as they are vulnerable to charges of fraud, creating a situation in which they are often powerless against hiked up housing prices--further pushing them into their situations of economic strain.

A school, and its individuals, cannot live outside of the realities of their environment. What are the expectations and limitations imposed upon the school? The economic situation of the community, coupled with racial discrimination on a national level, compounded by the structural violence of standardized tests and welfare programs, leaves the teachers, the community and the students with no reasonable expectations of academic success (I'll get to their definition of academic success soon). This, in turn, perpetuates the conditions which validate expectations of failure. Perhaps the DI method at this school, is a rational, and effective means for dealing with this catch-22.

If the objective of education for their community and their definition of academic success is to empower students, use education and learning as a tool to lead a life in which they can contribute to their community, then maybe first, they need to actively disprove the expectation of their inevitable failure. Do we change the narrative to change the situation, or do we change the situation and internally disprove the narrative using the narrative's own language?

Must these students prove, to themselves and their community, as well as the nation that is watching, that they can succeed by their standards, before they change those standards?

As we saw in the video, many of the parents of the children had sub-par reading levels. Illiteracy was not dealt with in their schooling in an effective way; this failure of the school to cope with the conditions of poverty surrounding them, further perpetuated it. Perhaps these children are being provided with the tools they need to change what has been constructed around them to keep them in illiteracy. Perhaps the structure of the school is not evil, pathological, morally defunct, but coping, for now.

What is the cause, and what is the effect that leads to the conditions which cultivate a liberated mind? Are these causes and effects simultaneous?

By showing the students that they could succeed, are they enabling their success?

In response to the standardized exam

-“scary at first, but once I started, I realized it was easy, I could do it.”

-today the fifth graders feel good about themselves and are ready to blow off steam

-teachers and students dancing together

-“I don’t care about the results of those exams. They were focused, they were confident about what they were doing, they felt good about themselves, and that is the progress.”

Is a liberated education and liberated empowered learners the end point, or the means? First deal with the expectation of failure, disproving it by proving success according to the measurements of success at that moment, and thus prepare the stage for an evolution…?

Conclusion: the city spring is not pathological, but rather evidence and the product of structural violence.