My Papa Bob credited me with having some solid writing skills the other day after reading a blog entry, but he’s not so sure about the content of the material.
“I don’t think there are many people who want to read about the cancer inflicting the inner cities,” he wrote in an email.
And he’s right. There aren’t many people who want to get involved in the inner cities either. I’ve been interviewing for new teaching jobs in this city for the past few weeks because my school is being shut down for failure in June. The interviewers all ask the same question: “Why would you want to work in this city?”
I’ve been here two years now, I say, and having seen this, I know there will never be another more important job for me anywhere. Here, I am needed.
Yes, I could transfer to a county school or a prep school, but what’s the point? Those kids are going to succeed with or without me. The kids in this city need me, so that’s why.
I’m always asked by interviewers if I’m tough enough to teach in their school and what I think the definition of an “at risk child” is, as so many of their students are considered to be.
I proceed to demonstrate, through my endless bank of horrible memories of “at risk” student behavior, that I’m entirely aware of the way many inner city students will behave until they are made aware that the teacher in front of them knows exactly what they are doing and is whole-heartedly committed to their education. I always emphatically say that students, even the hardest of them, will act as you expect them to.
Then they ask me what my motto or philosophy on teaching in the inner city is: “That all my students will learn. That it’s my honor to teach them and their honor to learn from me.”
The interview typically ends with this question: “Do you believe these students can learn and succeed in public school?”
My answer, and this I’m sure would make Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve and Real Education, books that scientifically argue that there is a huge population of students who can’t learn intellectually what others can, cringe: “100% absolutely.” And I believe this; sure, most aren’t future Rhodes Scholars. But they can learn and they want to. And who am I to write them off?
It’s well and good for conservatives to argue for the D.C. voucher program that sends 1,700 low-income students on scholarships to elite D.C. prep and private schools. That’s awesome and I’m all for school choice. But 1,700 students is not very many. I’ve visited and worked in a bunch of D.C.’s roughest schools – Anacostia, Ballou – and those are the kids I’m most concerned about.
I find it amazing that on a daily basis so many students in inner cities wake up and go to these crappy and undervalued and under resourced schools – this is all over the country too. These are schools that look like prisons, have torn up books, no computer labs, bathrooms that smell worse than state park outhouses and many teachers either brand new to the profession or to the country – here on some sort of residency program that shows them the worst America has to offer.
Most of these students are not, contrary to the belief of Senator Jim DeMint, going to schools to join gangs. They are going because they don’t want to be consigned to that life forever. If we have nothing better to offer them in the public schools, sure, many will end up struggling for the rest of their lives. It’s really up to us – we’re the adults.
These are the places I’m interested in helping to fix. These are places where conservative voices lack. For all the bickering about Rush Limbaugh, it would serve us well to get our voices and ideas and values into the places where liberal policies have failed the most – inner cities. Having frank discussions about failed schools and urban areas won’t make the headlines of partisan beltway bickering and won’t win many slots on Sunday talk shows. These schools are failing day after day and the problem is long-term – they aren’t good fodder for the 24-hour news cycle, I guess.
Some people want to know what my policy suggestions are: First and foremost, get involved with inner city issues or issues that affect the underclass. Our policies don’t have clout if they’re only ideas – we need action – young conservatives should especially make their voices heard in areas of public and national service.
Yes, it will be hard to break into these areas and harder then to express what we’ve seen. But if we really want to be a party that seems inclusive and diverse and modern, it would serve us well to go outside our comfort zones to the places that need us most.
Mr.Joe // Mar 9, 2009 at 9:55 pm
The answer to better public schools is competition and choice. Charter schools, vouchers, and other options will force public schools to be competative. We don’t do it because teachers unions oppose it. They know it would result in the dead wood being let go. Better the kids suffer instead.
danbmil99 // Mar 10, 2009 at 12:06 am
Mr Joe: competition is a part of the problem, but hardly the whole picture. Even with vouchers, the schools that service poor people will continue to be under-resourced. I am a free-market, libertarian-leaning fiscal conservative. However, I have slowly come to the realization that absolutist ideology is usually wrong. The government does exist for a reason, and providing education to poor people is one area where I have come to agree with liberals. The problem is that the next generation did not choose their parents, their neighborhood, or their social and economic standing. They need to be shown that individualism and economic empowerment equal opportunity, not government hand-outs. They certainly aren’t learning that from their schools; the closest they get to an education in capitalism is by watching the local drug dealer get rich supplying a product in high demand.
Dan Crank // Mar 10, 2009 at 6:56 am
The truth with these intercity schools is probably a little more than you all can handle. The truth is that regardless of the best intentions of gifted dedicated teachers they can only reach few individuals and as a whole the schools themselves will never get better. The reason is the parents. Good teaching can not over ride bad parenting across the board, only in single instances. Not all but most of these parents just do not care and there is nothing that can be done for that. Talk to a police officer that makes domestic calls in these neighborhoods and sees what happens in the homes of some of these people. I think you would be shocked. I find it amazing that on a daily basis so many students in inner cities wake up and go to these crappy and undervalued and under resourced schools this is all over the country too. If the people in these communities really cared as a whole then these schools would not be in the shape they are in. If you took these kids and switched them as a unit to a new brand new school how long until it will be run down? Some times reality is a hard pill to swallow, not unlike this administration.
Cforchange // Mar 10, 2009 at 7:12 am
Well now you are on to the big frontier! While I do not reside in the city I am very inolved in my urban neighborhood. I am the only Republican at the table, we all volunteer and those in it for the long haul revitilization prospect are far from self serving. School choice is one level of the problem – it’s more complex than that. There are so many children that are living in plainly unsuitable circumstances that they are in absolutely no shape to be educated period. Some of these children are working the streets to feed many younger siblings even though a “parent” is compensated to care for them. We have left hundreds of children behind because this problem has not been addressed. Further complicating the situation we have excused hundreds of adults from mental institutions so not only are these children neglected in their own homes, the streets are just crawling with opportunistic crazies. If you work the circuit of community organizing(another insulting pi$$off from the last election) you will find that most of the grief eminates from the drug trade – abuse of seniors, animals, women and children overwhelmingly (over 90%) have crack and heroin behind the scenes. I blame Republicans for being too heartless and geographically remote from the problems that hurt everyone. Either too naive to understand why a community needs reorganized(and that doesn’t mean labor) or too cowardly to confront personal flaws that connect them as a contributor to the problem. I would aleast have some respect for Rushbo if he could show up at the urban narcotics buffet available in any city close by and learn why this is the problem that is bringing us to our knees.
sinz54 // Mar 10, 2009 at 7:27 am
Cforchange: The urban narcotics problem was exacerbated by Clinton’s “three strikes and you’re out” law, and all the politicians of BOTH parties who pander to fear by raising penalties for drug use and drug dealing. “Three strikes and you’re out” has turned into a conveyor belt to transport young black men to 10 years in prison, from where they emerge as hardened convicts. What happens is that the first time a guy is caught in the drug trade, a public defender gets him a plea-bargained suspended sentence, and of course the guy takes it–and he’s immediately back out on the streets without counseling or help. This happens a second time. The third time, the guy is out, up the river for years. Over a million young black men have done hard time in this way. Their lives have been, for the most part, ruined.
Cforchange // Mar 10, 2009 at 8:46 am
Sinz – no matter where the problem started, we just sat through a decade of Republican leadership and I watched this problem implode before my very eyes. Few in the party reconized nor acted. Drug business and addiction is a huge huge problem – why has this not been a Rush endorsed topic? In general the Republican’s mostly moved to the xburbs, where dreams of prospering danced through their heads. At the same time, many contributed to the drug problem by venturing into the city to purchase their piece of the action -usually sending the local contractor for them who proudly displays his address on the truck! Ha, I’ve seen it all – Viagra and $10 tricks, really paternity testing is in order. But back to the child, children convicted of a felony can no longer receive help from the state so they are forced right there into a life of crime. I know a woman who has dedicated her life to informing of this problem – she gets little traction. For these children maybe working at 12 was a necessity because their household was lead by a parent who was mostly out on their 2+ week crack binge. There are no schools left in the neighborhood and certainly there aren’t any businesses to employ anyone legally. CamdenNJ style communities are taking hold everywhere. Back to the child one more time: for the sake of keeping a “family” together we are devastating the child. The mantra of no child left behind totally overlooked this segment and their plight is just heartbreaking that is until they start shooting back. Also ownership of this phrase but lacking action for the unwanted or poorly parented and exploited child has not been beneficial for our cause.
mriebling // Mar 10, 2009 at 10:16 am
Gibbon is right. A major investment in teachers and money is necessary to counteract the troubling circumstances of inner-city education. But how do you inspire millions of Republicans to take over a cause that they have been oblivious to for generations? Are we to believe that Republicans are so desperate for a new agenda, a new movement, dare I say, a new majority that they are going to take ownership of this issue because it can help them win future elections? Not likely.
In a party that doesn’t believe in government solving problems, education will always fall by the wayside because it requires a community effort.
midcon // Mar 10, 2009 at 3:07 pm
The President of the University of DC (UDC) has been soundly chatized by the students, faculty, and others for having the gall to want to upgrade the university by raising standards, creating a 2 yr community college, and improving the infrastructure, etc. What he wants to change is the laughable 16% graduation rate. Apparently is a voice in the wilderness because the rest don’t seem to care. I believe Washington DC almost tops the list in spending per student ($16K +). Their graduation rate from high schools is a depressing 59%. Do you think more money is the answer? If the teachers care, and the students care, and the parents care, you can learn in almost any environment. More money for schools is a recipe for more depressing statistics. While such data for voucher students is not available, at least I know that the parents of the voucher student care about their child’s education. It’s not Republicans you have to inspire it’s the people!