riverside school

I have really enjoyed the films that we have watched for the past two classes. Earlier in the course, many of the texts that we read dealt primarily with theory. However, watching these documentaries which explore the struggles of schools in contexts of various historical, political, economic, and social factors really challenged me to ground all of the theory by examining a real life situation.

How can this school continue to educate its students while navigating the conflict between the Maoists and the government? For the riverside school, there is no clear cut answer. I was especially disturbed by the threatening letter of questions sent to the school by the Maoists. Based on the information presented by the film, the government, which is run by an aristocracy that does not care about the people’s welfare, creates schools that are severely inadequate. The Maoists voice legitimate demands, but use violence to rebel and abduct children to increase their numbers. Neither party truly cares about the well-being and development of Nepal’s youth. They see the children as a tool that will help them actualize their own objectives. Even the children’s’ parents are often forced to use the labor of the young ones to support the family. The society expects the kids to pay back a debt to their parents and grandparents. Rather, I think that a community should view this issue in terms of investing in their children’s future rather than demanding a return of payment.

I respect the work of the Riverside school and the teachers and principal who are courageously working for their students. The riverside school seems to be a type of free school of Nepal. The film doesn’t present a lot of information about the teaching methodology at the school. However, it does show the attitude of the administrators, especially Ingo the founder, toward the students. I was impressed by his story of rescuing a group of students from a child brothel. As many authors we have read have argued, more than any specific practices, a teachers’ attitude toward the student and compassionate engagement is one of the most important factors in education.

A school of their own

The people of the Riverside school in Nepal rely heavily on the presence of the school to bring about change for the children. Throughout the movie it was made pretty clear that students who don’t attend school have little chance of transcending the caste system that still exists. On top of that is the fact that even if children attend government schools instead of private schools they still do not have a good chance. The people working at the school realize that the battle they are fighting is uphill as conflict and poverty threaten the children constantly. I think this battle is not unlike the one at Stanton elementary. The corruption caused by poverty around the school is constantly a threat to the children that may one day give in to it or, hopefully they will use school to escape that fate. I actually think that even though the children of the two schools live in completely different parts of the world, the likelihood of them escaping poverty is about the same, but both hold onto the school as the only hope for that. When the man running the Riverside school found out about the child brothel his first reaction was to bring them to the school. Not to find them foster care or call police or involve the government in any way, I don’t think he saw that as a viable option, he thought the best place for them would be at the school.


Like, “I am a Promise”, the documentary was not entirely focused on what exactly the children were learning at the school, but more about the things they had struggled with up to that point. It is just shocking to watch the film and see just how bad things can be, what the children have gone through is literally unbelievable. Throughout my life I never saw going to school as a way of survival, as a means to a good career yes, but not as a way to avoid a fate of certain suffering. I was astounded to learn about how many children work in Nepal and never have or will attend school, especially compared with the U.S. where it is required that children attend school and it is illegal for them to work.

Riverside School in Nepal

In Nepal, it is very difficult for children to pursue education due to various factors, such as poverty, political condition, and caste system.

In Nepal, government schools have been proved to be failure because they cannot provide good educational facilities for students and because there's no qualifcation system to select teachers.

Poverty prevents parents from sending students to school. They need children to support family. The abandonment of children is common in Nepal too. In addition, the discrimination against lower caste classes and the tradition to have servants are still pervalent and therefore prevents them from learning.

Riverside School was created to give opportunities for children to rereive education regardless of their social status, gender, and financial situation. Many students in the school look very satisfied and eager to learn. They have big dreams and hope to help poor kids in the future.

This film does not provide details about what teachers teach or how they teach.The only information that I got from this film was that the teacher was against the old colonial British style education, where students are the empty cups to just receive whatever provided by teachers. The teachers are trying to take care of students as their children, and they have a few rules in school.

I am not sure whether education at Riverside School has influenced students to be motivated to study because I don't know the details of their education. However, I think the social context and historical factors have a lot to do with their motivation. Because it is so obvious that lack of education causes the viscious cycle of the problems of Nepal, many people see hope in education. Also, they hope to end the misfortune of people so eagarly that they seem to feel responsible for the future of their country.

Many students and teachers mentioned the importance of education, or 'good education.' I wonder what they meant by 'good education.'

I also saw that school is an institution where power structure is carried on to the next generation and the social norms are passed down to the next generation as Burger and Luckman argue. However, I also thought that school like Riverside School can be an institution that can make a change in social norms and structure by empowering students.

A School of Their Own is a documentary about the Riverside School and its poor, low-caste children. Even though the film mainly portrays the children’s struggle to learn it alluded over and over again to Nepal’s struggle for democracy. My thoughts about the movie are two-sided. The white immigrant built a school based on progressive education that was born in the West. It promotes values such as equality and democracy. In Western eyes however, Nepal’s society and education is outdated and full of inequities, totally neglecting cultural relativism and hundreds of years of history. As a result, the white principle establishes certain rules (50% of the students have to be female and teachers in the school are not allowed to refer to a child’s caste) to enforce what is ‘right’ in eyes of an outsider from the West. Education becomes ‘Westernization’ or ‘Americanization. ’

So far, we discussed different pedagogies such as critical and progressive education in a Western context. But what is good for the American society is not necessarily good for very poor countries and the rest of the world, even in terms of education. Considering cultural relativism, is it even possible to find a universal pedagogy that can be implemented internationally?

Poverty and Education

The documentary made me think a lot about the weight of poverty on people's lives.
In both Stanton and Riverside school, the situation was that children were from poor families. In Stanton, children's family situation, in which poverty, drugs, and abuse were everyday occurrence, influenced children negatively, making them tired just to survive each day. In Riverside, children's family situation, in which poverty was the main issue, influenced children to work instead of go to school. I think this environmental factor (poverty) prevent children from what the adults (teachers/adults/government) want them to learn. If this is true, then does it mean that some condition needs to be met in order for children to learn?
Another question I had was what "good education" means. Children learn, even without teachers. What works and what doesn't in each society and culture is also different so we cannot say that one way of educating children is better than the other. I would have liked to see what the classroom was like at Riverside.
Moreover, what kind of knowledge do these children need? I think the necessity is also different according to culture and society. Some children needs to learn how to deal with everyday situations, like how Mr. Coats was teaching his students in Stanton.
Writing this blog, it lead me to think about the purpose of education... If the purpose of education is happiness of the learners, then what should be taught how?

Nepali schools

My ideas about the documentary “A School of Their Own” are probably very controversial. First of all, I think that it is very hard to comment on a kind of culture that is completely different from what we were raised up in. The documentary was done from an American point of view. Although most of the people who talked on support of American ideas were locals, they did not get those ideas from their own context, environment or reality, they got them after being taught an American perspective. From an American point of view, democracy is always going to be the best form of government, as well as secularization, “freedom”, etc. The principal of one of the schools that they were documenting repeated quite a few times the word “outdated.” Personally, I felt it was so disrespectful and very ignorant to say that one of the greatest religions of the history of humanity such as Hinduism had almost no validity because it was 5000 years old and “outdated.” “Education” or outsider “educators” cannot pretend to change the history of a culture which is 5000 years old, just because it is not democratic. It cannot pretend to change it because women have a different status in Nepal than they have in America. They cannot pretend to change it because they believe that democracy is better than feudalism, or because they disagree with the cast system. I cannot say more because I know very little or almost nothing about Hinduism, and Nepali culture, history and traditions –and I doubt that all the people that talked in that documentary did either. But what I just said above is based on my belief in historical and traditional culture, because I can say that I have one, because my culture has a history of 5000 years old too, and although it has not remained the same it has evolved and maybe in a different way than the Nepali one. I said all of this because I don’t blindly believe in democracy -which was the worst kind of government after tyranny, according to Plato–and my culture and religion has a history and tradition which is more than 4500 years older than the American one, the one which proclaims to bring culture everywhere, where I cannot find any culture other than Protestantism, democracy, liberty and the pursuit of property, I mean, happiness.

Whit this comment I don’t intend to deny the obvious social problems of Nepal, but again, I don’t think that a denial of their own religion and set of beliefs is the best alternative. It is like taking away one’s identity to replace it for an American one. It was depressing for me to see the kids at the end of the movie comparing themselves or their reality with the American one, in which the later one was of course the point to achieve. I don’t think I can give an alternative to education because I think that is the job of the Nepalese themselves –just as we discussed the difference between traditional intellectuals and organic intellectuals. Another thing that we also talked about during last class was the difference between school, education, and system. I know that children labor is seen as a bad thing, but what if working in the fields, for instance, is also a way of learning, why does learning have to come only from books?

Nepal

Watching this video reminded me a lot of my trip to India. Just like they say in the film, there was a child following us down the street asking for money. Our guide turned and asked him why he wasn't in school and began to tell him why he should get an education.
All of the reasons to get an education in India are the same as in Nepal. The reasons are the same everywhere. Many families try to just survive and need their children to work, but education provides a means for those children to grow into people that can not only look out for their own survival, but help others as well. As they say in the film, what all the children have in common is poverty and dreams.
Yet the children of the Stanton school also live in poverty, but it's a very different world. I think that one of the main differences is that children are viewed differently. In the community around Stanton, children are a liability. Other than the education aspect, they're pretty much supposed to stay out of the way of adults. In Nepal, they are extra hands for work. The are around Stanton is largely consumerist. Yes, the parents do work, but their work is unstable and nearly every family has issues with consuming drugs. In Nepal, it seems to me that substance abuse doesn't play a part at all-the way they survive is by working-and resources are much closer to home.
The Riverside School also reminded me of the Free School in its more relaxed approach to education. The students all seem to be very motivated, recognizing that education is such a great privelage, so it doesn't look like there are ever many issues with discipline and behavior like in Stanton and City Springs. They said that education was the key to pretty much everything, and defined education as, "educate in the true sense-where people start questioning and analyzing." (which is very significant in their political situation)

an update on stanton?

http://faculty.weber.edu/tlday/3640/Stanton%20elementary/Stanton-update2.html

I Am a Promise

I Am a Promise: The Children of Stanton Elementary School is a unflinching documentary of the interactions of principal, teachers, students, and parents in a inner-city elementary school in North Philadelphia. A minimum of directorial intervention introduces the viewer into the (almost) unmediated reality of a school where 90% of the students live below the poverty line and grow up outside the American dream.

Many connections can be drawn between the educational attempts at Stanton and themes we discussed in class. The behavior of the devoted principal Deanna Burney and the energetic teacher Mr. Coates echoes the concepts of “other-mothering” and "going above and beyond” as they take over the role of a mother. For example, by saying that "Before they [the children] are able to learn, they want someone to understand them…they want someone to show that they care, and they love them" Mr. Coates identifies a deficit of love and care as the main problem in educating poor African American children. Most of the children come from broken families where the parents are overwhelmed and desperate due to their economic situation. As a result, parents turn to drugs, especially crack, and become alienated and emotionally detached from their children. Thus, they fail to raise their children with care and love. Through wild and aggressive behavior children try to get attention from other children and authoritarian figures in the school. To a certain extent, people like Coates and Burney try to compensate the lack of love and care by taking over the role of a mother or father figure, similar to the concept of other-mothering. You can see the principles’ empathy and compassion for the children when she gets very emotional in the interview about the future of her students. Based on love and care they try to moderate the children’s behavior. Further, the educational focus is on raising the students’ self-esteem by constantly reminding them that they can achieve any goal they have in mind. This approach reminded me of Makiguchian pedagogy which always aims at bringing out the infinite, inherent potential in children. As Burney recognizes, however, a lack of funds to train teachers makes this undertaking almost impossible. Most children who come to Stanton already experienced 6 years of adverse childhood in which they are exposed to drugs, violence, and poverty. Although people like the principle try educate to children by encouraging and empowering them, the children’s disobedient behavior makes an educational environment impossible. Out of desperation they have to enforce discipline through fear (threatening the children to call their parents if they don’t behave). This is very similar to the reaction of the parents who, because there are overwhelmed and desperate, also use fear by threatening their children with a beating to control their behavior. In terms of enforcing discipline it would be interesting to compare all three documentaries we have seen so far: Albany Free School, City Springs, and I Am a Promise.

The fact that the principle quits her job in the end made me wonder whether heroic leadership is enough. It raised the questions: What's the major cause of the failure of inner-city schools? Is it a lack of character and leadership, or political and economic inequality?

Stanton Elementary

As I watched this film, I realized that I will never know even half of the experiences that the children who attend Stanton Elementary have had.  I went to a top school in a top school district, located in a well-off, fairly safe, white, suburban area in California.  I had a very emotional response to this film, as a result.  

The list of things that bothered me about this film are too numerous to count, but there were several that stood out to me.  I was curious as to why, if the principal makes the students recite how they are, "talented, intelligent, and gifted," she would put "problem" students in special education classes and/or see that they are dispensed medication such as Ritalin.  The narrator stated that only 2% of minority students ever return to regular classes from special ed.  Why is this? Do these students become so lost in the cracks that they never find a way out? Do they begin to believe they are incapable? The fact that Cornelius' mother said that she was going to "punch [him] in the face" because he had been acting out, shows, alongside the scene where a young girl picks up a syringe filled with a narcotic, what a terrible neighborhood this school is located in.  The filmmaker didn't provide many interviews with parents which leads me to believe that either the parents tend not to be present in their child(ren)'s life or the effect was to make the school seem as though they were doing the parenting.

I was particularly struck by the scene in which the male teacher in the all-male class begins a discussion of racial tension and stereotypes.  The adults at the school seem to be very honest with the children about their environment, and the children are portrayed as being extremely aware of the conditions in which they live.  Does this honesty help kids cope with these types of situations? Have any of these children been able to escape their living conditions, and if so, did Stanton help them succeed at all?

There was a scene in which the flag is waving in the background and the children are reciting the pledge of allegiance, and I was reminded of how ironic the wording is.  These kids have no liberty or justice by living in a neighborhood such as this one.

the necessity of experimentation

The school’s experimentation with an all male first grade class is very interesting. The first thing that strikes me is that the class is designed only for boys. I believe there is a lot of value in that, particularly when it comes to discussing and learning life issues and matters related to their experience and environment. If many of these young men come from single parent homes, which I assume for the majority of the cases is a single mother, having a role model and mentor, one that you stick with for several years as these children will do, is incredibly value. Also, males often act different among females and I think this is true even at a young age. As we see, the class takes on a Freirian critical pedagogy when a comment that a student makes is turned into a discussion and probing of the tenets of racism and behavior, of being black in a white America. Rather than taking the experiences of these kids and shunning them or blowing them off, these issues become the central concern of the class for a segment and the teacher guides and facilitates a discussion. For some reason, this class is well-behaved in both segments of the film in which they appear. Is this skillful editing or is there an incredible respect for the teacher, a black man from the community (I assume this from when he says he group up with one of the child’s family) who shows them love and helps build their self-esteem. When it is stated that this class had some of the best test scores, I wonder why such an experiment is not expanded and more classrooms take on such a design. I don’t think that the real issue is a lack of financial assistance as much as being stuck in a schooling structure that waits for no one, that leaves many children behind with no hope. If we take an approach to learning from Vygotsky and Berger and Luckman, we could say that these students are bringing a wealth of habits and experiences that shape their reality into the schools for which they are punished for. A useful education demands a new structure if we view learning from this angle and schooling not as a place to instill discipline in the manner Foucault describes.

the hardships of stanton school

I really enjoyed this film. As I reflected on the immense problems afflicting this neighborhood, it helped my reconfirm for myself the central importance of education in helping empower individuals and communities. The interviews with the children’s families demonstrated that many of the problems that the students face have been problems for their parents too. The boy Anthony had been in foster care for 7 years just as his mother had. When Cornelius doesn’t take his medication, his mom flies into a rage and yells, “I haven’t taken my medication today either!” This community is trapped in a cycle of suffering that is passed down from generation to generation. What then can break this cycle? In my opinion, the only solution is the self-transformation of individuals. And education is one of the most important tools in this effort. Thus, watching the painful hardships of the community further deepened my conviction in the central importance of education in effecting social change.

Of all the scenes, the all male classroom with the male teacher interested me most. In this class, the teacher is talking about drug addicts, alcoholics, theft, murder, prejudice, and other very heavy topics. Some educators might argue that this is inappropriate for elementary-aged students. However, as the last article by McClaren argued, in the future these students will definitely have to deal with – no, rather, these students are already definitely dealing with these problems. To avoid engaging with these issues would be doing a horrible disservice to these kids and leaving them frighteningly unprepared to deal with the problems of their immediate environment. As Freire suggested, education must help individuals confront the problems of their own community.

This male teacher argued that all students have the ability to learn. However, before they can learn, they must first develop self-confidence and have somebody that truly believes in them. I agree with this claim, as it seems that even the parents of many of these children have already given up on them. At the end of the film, I was saddened to learn that Principal Bernie left the schools because she felt it was impossible to continue with such insufficient funding. After watching scenes when Mrs. Bernie answered questions and became distressed, I really believed that she was fighting her hardest for these kids. However, she had to leave as it seems that the school district of Philadelphia has given up on these kids as well.

Stanton School

Being a principal of a school in an impoverished area, where drugs and abuses are part of every day life, must require a lot of strength. Principal Berny committed a lot of her time and compassion to the children attending the Stanton School. She arrived at school around 6 in the morning on weekdays and even on weekends to work. What impressed me was that she was working on making birthday cards for the students.

One of the phrases which she used a couple of times during the film was "taking responsibility for your own actions." This was when two boys were invited to the principal's office and another time was during a lecture in a fourth grade classroom about a conflict in the lunch room. I am not sure what she means by "taking responsibility." In the first scene, at first she was listening to the two boys and was clarifying what happened. Then the scene is cut off and in the next scene, a boy (victim in the conflict) was crying and Ms Berny talks about what he should have done and that he and the other boy needs to take responsibility for their own actions. By responsibility, did she mean that the boys needed to talk to the teachers as soon as the conflict broke out, that they should find ways to resolve the conflict themselves, or both?

Ms Berny interacts with students with warmth but at the same time demands from the students what needs to be done. When thinking about what kind of interaction best suits children's development, cultural and social context has to be examined. In the community like Stanton, I think teachers, as well as parents, needs to be controlling the students in order to protect them from harm. On the other hand, in a community where there are less harm, I think parents and teachers can be less controlling of the children. In both context, what is important is that the care and compassion that adults have towards the children is expressed in some way.

Othermothers and Fathers?

In “I am a Promise” we are exposed to the raw problems that inner-city public schools face as a result of their location and lack of resources to effectively engage in educating children. The socio-historical context of this neighborhood in north Philadelphia is one of the most interesting aspects of this documentary. The presence of drugs in the community, especially, crack is overwhelming. It appears that almost every child’s parents are connected to the drugs in some way. Almost every situation that the principal and children must act within is connected directly to the drug. Whether it is because the parents are missing and the children must be raised by their grandparents (even when they are not really grandparents as in the case of Nadia) or a worried father comes in on the day there is a narcotics bust right next to the school because his daughter does not come home and he was worried that she may have been kidnapped. There is a sense of fear that pervades the lives of people in the community even when they have the most genuine intentions and goals.

We can also see this in the way that the principal seeks to run the school. In the beginning we are introduced to her using very positive rhetoric, which attempts to compassionately deal with empowering the students in their context. She uses phrases such as “talented, intelligent, and gifted” and “genius children” as anthem for the children to live their lives by. By having such high and positive expectations of the children she hopes to facilitate their success. She expresses her lament at the end of the film that many of these children are just written off because of their circumstances. That most people are “afraid of these kids when they become adolescents.” However, even though she has a fundamentally sound source of compassion for these children she is constantly battling against and even engaging with the fear that these kids experience by being children of the street. It seems that the principal know the fear of their parents that many of these children have and the most ultimate form of punishment will by that “families will be called”. We can see this is how Cornelius responds to the principal after his mother is brought in and she threatens to hit him in the face. Even though the principal seems to play into this contrast of fear and compassion, it seems that it ultimately has an effect on some of the children. She seems to have a great deal of influence over them and they respect her. It reminds me of what Ryan discussed in his blog post and something that Nieto said was very important: the fact that teachers must really have the lives and goals of the students at heart. Even when the principal seems to have a flawed sort of disciplinary pedagogy, her compassion comes through in a way that compensates for any sort of hinderance caused by the way they are punished.

I also feel like this movie has overwhelming examples of what it means to be a good teacher or educator for minorities. We have been constantly exposed to readings where minority students have been allowed to give their opinions on why they have been successful in education and what it means to be a good teacher. We have also been shown by Guiffrida how the African-American concept of Othermothering creates a more successful academic environment for minority students. We can see these two things in the movie through not only the examples of the principal, who steps in as a mother figure, but also through the black, male teacher of the all male first grade class. His presence is very significant in the lives of these boys who mostly live without a positive male role model in his life. I thought his presence was so significant because he grew up with many of the families of these boys and lived in the same neighborhood. He shared many of the same experiences and knew what it was like for these boys outside of the classroom. That can probably not be said for many of the other teachers in the school. Because of this, he was able to really directly relate to the personal experience of their lives, and deal with very real concepts, such as what they should do in dangerous situations. He became more than just a teacher, but also a role model and mentor, which is fundamental is the success of African- American students according to Wiggan. This is also a reflection of what Nieto says is important in the classroom. Teachers must be able to connect with the lived culture of students outside of the classroom, and even more importantly that sympathize, they must be able to empathize. He did have a lot of success in his classroom as shown by 9 of the 20 boys in the class making the honor roll.

However, it seems like the message of the movie was objectively to show the difficulties faced by inner-city educators. One of my biggest concerns was that the principal of the school left shortly after because she was not receiving enough support from the school district. Is it fair for her to do this if she has so much love and compassion for the children? I almost felt like she was abandoning them to the wolves, and it was very disheartening to conclude the documentary with the fact that she was leaving. Do you think that her reasons were good enough or that she was just giving up? Just a side-note of a thought I suppose.

Life and School

What I really appreciate about this documentary is the minimal narrative replaced more with personal questions that the filmmakers asked the principal and other people that, at least I as an audience member, would have liked to ask. One of the most touching and memorable shots was when Principal Bernie was asked whether the students will be able to overcome the great obstacle of their environment to ultimately become successful people, she was so saddened by the answer that she had a hard time saying it without tearing up. It angers her that these kids are not even given a chance, they are assumed to be stuck in a culture of poverty, that they will never overcome, and written off. And the documentarians do a great job to show this environment; we witness children picking up syringes, a situation requiring 15 police men at school dismissal time, and the state of the city in general (90% of the people in that neighborhood population lives in poverty.) Not only that, we see how this affects the children: drugs and violence are a regular part of their lives and they know all about it, and when the parents come in to meet with Ms. Bernie we are better able to understand where the problems some of these children exhibit come from. It is the school that tries to ameliorate these problems, teaching children the effects of drugs and to run for cover when a drug-related situation gets dangerous. The school is also a parent to these children whose parents are most often not present in a role of responsibility in their lives. It is up to principal Bernie and her staff to be the ones that show these children love, support, and inculcate a sense of belonging and pride in their abilities. But the children seem too much to handle for many of the teachers who have dealt with too many of them acting out. Many of the teachers also think that the children, lacking attention at home, bring that need to the classroom, and the good students, whose attention time is taken up by the disruptive students, act in ways that they can get that.

Mr. Cohtz does that believe that to be true, he fees that the students are not asking to be pampered but to be loved, respected, and understood. Mr. Cohtz is part of a strategic human experiment that came out of a need expressed by the experience of these children. He is assigned an all-boys class of disgruntled learners who lack a male role model or father figure in their lives. Mr. Cohtz believes that in order for his students to learn anything, they must first be able to feel a strong sense of pride for who they are. Mr. Cohtz class seems to be a lot more cooperative than any other class there was, discussing issues in a surprisingly mature way, not only in the manner in which they participate respectfully, but also in the impressive depth of their understanding. It seems that Mr. Cohtz’s class is a success, but we do not get to see more of it. This small pocket of success (the class) thrives within a larger island(the school) struggling for similar success, but while this class has Mr. Cohtz, the rest of the school seems to depend primarily on Ms. Bernie who obviously can not be as effective due to the number of students. The school is an island then, trying to stay afloat above the poverty that surrounds it.

The school struggles, but in the end, it loses its most valued believers, Principal Bernie, who could not continue to be effective at the school due to a lack of funding. In a way, although, it is no ones fault, the environment of poverty has been successful in keeping this school from becoming the transcendental tool that it can be for the children. It shows how complex an environment can be, that learning does not happen exclusively, that each student has a history and a life that comes with him wherever he/she goes. And to create a curriculum based on an understanding that school is separate from life and all its social factors is to doom the students and rob them of their promise. Stanton elementary tried, through principal Bernie and Mr. Cohtz, but to get funding, it still had to oblige to whatever standard education guidelines existed for that area. The documentary, although enlightening, was tragic and it really saddened me.

I am a Promise

I finish this film relating to the overwhelming sense of unease and sadness and weight Mrs. Bernie discusses in her last interview on the graduation day of her fifth graders. The future of her kids' lives that she looks into is bleak--she recognizes that their graduation all too often comes to equate a step out of the space of learning and academic pursuit provided in the school, and a step into world of the drugs and violence that lives in constant proximity to the school. Mrs. Bernie recognizes the structural violence affecting the lives of her children and of their families. The "inequity" she refers to limits her ability to transform the school into an environment which can likely overcome and pervade the world which waits for them at dismissal.

Mrs. Bernie, like the principle at City Springs, recognizes that her students must be armed with certain tools to enable them to survive in their world. However, fundamentally the schools approach this task at two different points. City Springs felt that in order for children to learn and pursue academic success, they must first be "instructed" in foundational learning "skills"--they must know how to read before they can begin to learn beyond that and change their communities. With the Stanton school however, the practice of teaching the children is encompassed by an belief that, "The children want to learn, they can learn; but first they want to know that someone understands them and loves them." As Nieto discusses, the narratives of the children themselves are given central value to their learning experience. In the all boys class taught by Mr. Coax, the class discussion centered around the students' experiences growing up in abusive families or communities. They discussed how to deal with the violence around them once they left the classroom.

Documentary about Stanton Elementary School

This documentary demostrated various environmental and social factors that may be affecting students' learning. The neighborhood is not safe; many of them only have a single parent or parents who cannot financially and physically support students; the school is in need of funds etc.

We've discussed what different thinkers say about ideal curriculum, structures, and teaching methods, but seeing this document, I felt that it seems really difficult to figure out the ways to improve students' academic achievement (here I mean academic achievement as in test scores) due to complex, multiple factors.

Aside from the conditional, external difficulties that the school have, the teachers were still trying to improve students' academci achievement and behavior. One method that they used was that they made students repeat who they were; they were 'talented, intelligent, and gifted students.' The students were told what to do when they had problems. They were told how they should sit in class etc. These diciplinal codes were taught to students over and over to the extent that students can recite. The students were actually able to recite, but they weren't necesarily behaving as they were taught. This resonates with the point that we discussed in class that messages sent are not always received. In this case especially, students seemed to have memorized the codes; it seemed that they weren't thinking the meaning of what they said. I think this means forcing students to follow rules do not always help them internalize the rules or improve their behavior.

Another thing that I thought was that one reason why traditional ways of teaching remain is that teachers' instructions were based on their values, which were traditional. For example, the male teacher with megaphone was complaining how current students do not respect teachers and how they were not deciplined. If this teacher saw a school like Albany school in NY, he might have opposition to such education because the students are not controled by behavioral norms or schedule. He believes in the education given to him in the past and is criticizing current education as becoming worse. I think this is happening in Japan as well. Parents look at the current disappointing status of academic achievement of students, and they conclude that the education that they received in the past was better and it's becoming worse and worse. As long as they're comparing the current education with the past one, they cannot be flexible to make changes in education. I think this shows how what is taught at school has been influeced over time. That's why , it's hard to make an abrupt change in educational system.

self-esteem without individuality

While I was watching the video, it reminded me of Battle of City Springs. The environments in which each school was dealing with were very similar to each other. Also, the each principle of the schools had a common in their passion for education; education will empower students to be successful through acquiring basic skills such as reading and writing and overcoming the problems generated from environment. However, these two films also have differences. The Battle of City Springs focused more on how the school and teachers were trying to implement the practical methods of instruction, DI, and to make students make good results in their academics which can prove that they can also do things well, thus, they improve self-esteem. I AM A PROMISE show how the principal (and the other male professor) were trying to help students to have self-esteem through showing sense of care for students but did not discuss its specific pedagogical method. However, I was not sure what I AM A PROMISE was trying to say. It is very moving to see the principle and other teacher try hard to show the great care for students so that the students can also realize that they are important people who have great potential. However, the films were not able to show me what kind of result the principle and the other teacher have made through “care.” Also, it seemed to me, through emphasizing they the teachers care, they lead students to think and behave in a way that they are “expected.” Thus, having self-esteem is listening to the teachers and making good results as others, which ironically neglect individuality of each student. Students are “talented, intelligent, and gifted,” but the film failed to show me that how the school respect the diversity in students’ talents. It seemed to me certain talents are respected and admired but other talents are neglected.
What both schools in Battle of City Springs and I AM A PROMISE lack is the aspect of critical education. Although both principles aspire that the students can overcome their environment but both did not educate students to be able to see how the power structure works in family, at school, and in community, and how these reflect each other. Also, in both, school is a separated space from the community. School is a space which should not have anything that can reflect the surroundings because the surroundings are so dangerous. The school and the students do not want to be connected to their community. One thing I thought interesting was when the male teacher was having a discussion on race with the students. He was trying to teach the danger of generalization. However, the environment that they children are in is so frustrating which it is hard for the children to be able to apply what they learn in the class. Then, I wonder how Makiguchi would define community when they are ready to see the bond between and school, community and themselves.

self-esteem without individuality

While I was watching the video, it reminded me of Battle of City Springs. The environments in which each school was dealing with were very similar to each other. Also, the each principle of the schools had a common in their passion for education; education will empower students to be successful through acquiring basic skills such as reading and writing and overcoming the problems generated from environment. However, these two films also have differences. The Battle of City Springs focused more on how the school and teachers were trying to implement the practical methods of instruction, DI, and to make students make good results in their academics which can prove that they can also do things well, thus, they improve self-esteem. I AM A PROMISE show how the principal (and the other male professor) were trying to help students to have self-esteem through showing sense of care for students but did not discuss its specific pedagogical method. However, I was not sure what I AM A PROMISE was trying to say. It is very moving to see the principle and other teacher try hard to show the great care for students so that the students can also realize that they are important people who have great potential. However, the films were not able to show me what kind of result the principle and the other teacher have made through “care.” Also, it seemed to me, through emphasizing they the teachers care, they lead students to think and behave in a way that they are “expected.” Thus, having self-esteem is listening to the teachers and making good results as others, which ironically neglect individuality of each student. Students are “talented, intelligent, and gifted,” but the film failed to show me that how the school respect the diversity in students’ talents. It seemed to me certain talents are respected and admired but other talents are neglected.
What both schools in Battle of City Springs and I AM A PROMISE lack is the aspect of critical education. Although both principles aspire that the students can overcome their environment but both did not educate students to be able to see how the power structure works in family, at school, and in community, and how these reflect each other. Also, in both, school is a separated space from the community. School is a space which should not have anything that can reflect the surroundings because the surroundings are so dangerous. The school and the students do not want to be connected to their community. One thing I thought interesting was when the male teacher was having a discussion on race with the students. He was trying to teach the danger of generalization. However, the environment that they children are in is so frustrating which it is hard for the children to be able to apply what they learn in the class. Then, I wonder how Makiguchi would define community when they are ready to see the bond between and school, community and themselves.

Stanton

I was really saddened when, in the end, Ms. Bernie left the school. Though at first I questioned her influence as a white superior in this all black school, I grew to really respect her as the film progressed...and then I questioned why I would be taken aback that she was racially different and a superior in the first place...and I think that has a lot to do with environment.
Ms. Bernie got upset when the camera woman asked her (at about an hour) if these students can overcome their environment, commenting that many people don't think it's possible. Ms. Bernie's reaction was almost tearful, and quite memorable. I felt that you can see that she knows that the environment that the children are in is a huge issue, but that she is also so angry that these kids are written off by others. She actually does not give a direct response to the question and, not to slander her in any way, because I thought that she was an amazing woman, but the fact that she left this school because she did not think that there were enough resources available is a testament to how formidable a force environment is.
One thing that struck me was how perceptive the children were. They may mistakenly pick up a syringe not knowing what it is, but they know about drugs and violence and the absence of parents and it greatly affects how they view the world, as well as their behavior. We meet Cornelius's mother and we understand why he acts out the way he does-his mother's behavior is almost worse than his. We meet Andrew's father and we have hope because he seems that he really wants to try, but he never comes back to the school and Andrew ends up living with his grandmother. These adults, it seems, have already settled on their life paths and to break out of them and start fresh would require them to be in a new environment, but that is mostly unrealistic. They're stuck. The children can change their environment to some extent, and they do. Nadia moved in with an older man that she adopted as her grandfather. The school itself is a different environment, but overall, they cannot escape the influence of the world right outside their doors...and so I was glad that they addressed this within the school. It is sad that the children have to be tought what to do in dangerous situations or not to hate a certain race because of what they've seen people from that race to, but these are very important lessons for them. I think this school did a good job with what it had...that is, to say, that I really really admired Ms. Bernie and her individual efforts...I'm not really sure about the most of the other educators (I definitely had reservations about Mr.-Drill-Sergeant-line-nazi with the megaphone) ...but, I was really moved by this documentary.

Stanton School

I thought that the documentary on Stanton School was very interesting in many aspects. First of all, I noticed that unlike City Springs, the Principal was a white lady. I thought that image could play an important role in the surveillance that black students and their parents may have related to the Principal because of the labels that both races have in society. However, I changed my mind when I saw that there were teachers of both white and black race. The case of this study was interesting because it did not focus on the teaching method but rather on the way the institution dealt with the students’ behavior. I think that an important message that both the Principal and the self-esteem teacher talk about is how important it is for a student to feel loved and to build their own confidence in order to be able to learn at school. In that sense, this reminds me of Makiguchi’s ideas on education -the teacher as a facilitator for the students to help them realize their own potential and mission. Also, another thing that came to my mind when watching this documentary is the idea of discipline. Discipline can be a very important and good influential factor in education in cases like the Stanton School. If the students were to find things by themselves they were going to find all the bad things that surrounded them such as drugs, they find that bad influence even at their own homes. In this case, I thought that discipline was being applied not as something negative or a form of domination but as a path for the students to be better. Another aspect of the documentary that reminded me of something that we discussed in class several times is when the Principal and the teachers were discussing the bad results of the standardized tests. One of the teachers said: “We do our best when we teach but they can’t acquire what we are teaching them.” When I heard that I remembered Vigotsky the child doesn’t necessarily understand the same message that the mother is trying to give him. Overall, I think that this documentary was a great way of showing how different theories that we’ve been discussing in class are applied in real life school situations.

Before the Bleach Gets Us All

Michelle Fine discusses the differences of performance in classroom on black and white students. She notices that there is an a priori belief that white students have to do better than black students, and this belief causes poor participation in class for black students. The experiment they do is a very interesting one, because they discuss situations in different stories that do not have to do with race, but with more universal concepts such as life-death. From the discussion about this situation, however, she notices that there are some patterns that are usually seen in either in black and white students specifically. For instance, in the native American story about the old woman, black students tend to talk about hope, whereas white students talk about goals/ambitions. Fine explains that It is seen in this society that white people are more likely to achieve their dreams than black people are, thus the later ones have more a sense of hope than ambition. Towards the end of the experiment, Fine notices that some black students that were usually shy in class changed and would speak out more. They have learned to use their voices and opinions to empower themselves. I think it is great that Michel used universal concepts to demonstrate the equality of the capability of students regardless their race or ethnic background. By discussing stories that refer to universals, the students’ thinking goes beyond the social limitations or prejudices and gets into their humanity.

The kids in our films school are forced to deal with a number of serious environmental problems. At the age of 6, they are actively faced with the consequences of a drug, violence, and poverty ridden community. The children's school faces the consequences of a low income community, by itself being a low funded school. The series of vignetes presented in our film show us a dynamic between teachers who care about thier students but do not know how to help them in an atmosphere they are constantly fighting with. A number of wise words are articulated by the teachers. In the end of the film, the all-boys class room teacher articulates that the children need utmost and formost, love. Once they receive love, and know they are loved, they can go onto the task of loving and improving themselves. The other statement regarding students needing to first feel good about themselves, also rings true. The teachers facing the modern problems of urban Philidelipia poverty are constantly facing new problems. As one taecher articulated, in their age of growing up students listened to their teachers. Now, he explains, students dont respond to the discipline of teachers. Is it the students who are wrong to not listen or is it the school system that expects submission under discipline to be at fault? There is an old idiom stating that fear should not be used as a means of control, for when the submissive are no longer afraid, there is no source of power. The school system's use of discipline seems to be at the end of its rope. When faced with economic stress, societal problems and the lack of individual family structures, what are teachers supposed to do? This film was made in the 90's but it makes me think about what social issues I am not aware of in my immediate surrounding. I know the Los Angeles school system is fiscally struggling and our national educational system is constantly undergoing cuts. As the pricipal noted, the schools are not being properlly funded. It is not money that will make a school run, but the appropriate funding is necessary to make an institution function. Looking at my own elementary school experience, I was very fortunate to be in a city environment, but receive a good education. By education, I mean the necessary attention, art and music opportunities, and sense of safety within my community. I can not say the same for these children who are being supported by the passionate champions, such as the principal in the video, but the negatives currently outweigh the possibilities for success.

Learning at Stanton Elementary

The lessons that took place in the documentary about Stanton Elementary School did not appear to focus on teaching the children basic subjects. Instead, what these children learned were ways to survive before they even got to middle school. In one class, a teacher had a discussion with his students about where they can go if they feel unsafe. He was literally telling them where to go and hide if they felt that they were in danger. They did not even talk about going to their parents, since in the example the parents were the ones fighting, apparently not an unusual scenario. Out of the classroom there were other lessons to be learned, such as, do not pick up used the syringes that litter the perimeter of the school. Another lesson was that since the school is in a neighborhood with a high crime rate they had to tell the children to walk together and go straight home. When I was in elementary school we were told to beware of strangers and to yell and run away if we thought someone was trying to kidnap us, I’m pretty sure every kid in America is told to do that. However, the fact that they had to be told not to pick up used syringes on their school campus is just about the most disturbing thing I have ever heard. How are these children ever going to be able to do well in school if they are in constant fear for their safety? How are they supposed to do their homework if they have to hide from their fighting parents? I think above all else it is these unfair factors that contribute to the fact that these students do not do as well in school as people who don’t face these huge obstacles. I never once feared for my safety at home or at school, I never had to walk past drug abusers on the street or be told to stay away from the abandoned houses. I think that there is this idea that the students who make it to high school graduation or college are the smart ones, that is nonsense, they are the lucky ones who had all other worries taken away so they could focus on school instead of surviving. I also feel that the school has become a way to teach them these lesson and perhaps these will be what they remember when they have left the school. The lessons of survival are the ones they learn and can see the relation to their life, so according to Vygotsky these should be the ones that are better understood. I think the administrators and teachers were trying so hard to get past this and just teach the children, but they knew they could not ignore the fact that they had to give the students the necessary tools to just remain safe.