The Real Problem With Waiting for "Superman"

[Hannah Bell]

Waiting for "Superman", in case you haven't heard, is the hot new film from Inconvenient Truth director Davis Guggenheim..."Teaching should be easy," Guggenheim declares as we watch a cartoon teacher rip open his students' skulls and pour what looks like blue Spaghetti-O's inside...This is about as close as the film gets to depicting actual teaching...

Despite repeatedly insisting poor kids just need better teachers, the film never says what it is that better teachers actually do...."When you see a great teacher, you are seeing a work of art," Geoffrey Canada tells us, but this is something Guggenheim would rather tell than show.

The film has other flaws. It insists all of America's problems would be solved if only poor kids would memorize more: Pittsburgh is falling apart not because of deindustrialization, but because its schools are filled with bad teachers. American inequality isn't caused by decades of Reaganite tax cuts and deregulation, but because of too many failing schools. Our trade deficit isn't a result of structural economic factors but simply because Chinese kids get a better education.

Make no mistake, I desperately want every kid to go to a school they love, but it seems far-fetched to claim this would solve all our country's other problems. At the end of the day, we have an economy that works for the rich by cheating the poor, and unequal schools are the result of that, not the cause...

http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/2010/10/aaron-swartz-at-huffington-on-wfs-if.html

http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/2010/10/aaron-swartz-at-huffington-on-wfs-if.html

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Hannah Bell]

2. k

[bobbolink]

3. Liberals absolutely REFUSE to face the fact that poverty is a societal rather than a personal

"problem".

It's beginning to look like it will take a revolution to get that fact through the thick, unwilling and uncaring skulls of "liberals".

[bobbolink]

4. Thank you, unreccers, for taking away my recommend.

Why do you hate poor children?

[Hissyspit]

8. K&R

[hfojvt]

5. "every kid to goto a school they love"?

Does any kid really love school? I was a straight A student and I hated school and stressed over school.

That is an American myth though, not just one that Guggenheim made up - that education will solve poverty. As if there is not, in reality, a limited number of good paying jobs. Somehow, even if there are only 1 million good paying jobs, if we just send 20 million kids to college those other 19 million good paying jobs will just magically appear, as if by an invisible hand.

Of course, Superman is not about college, but the education myth is still the same, except that the jobs don't pay as well.

[SoCalDem]

6. Poor kid's day

(obviously not ALL poor kids have days like this, but many probably do)

A poor kid's "day" probably started the night before, when neighbors were making all kinds of noise, and he.she could not sleep. There were probably bedbugs nipping at him/her while trying to sleep. Sirens may have awakened him/her multiple times during the night. It may have been hot/cold, due to poorly fit windows or a negligent landlord.

Dinner the night before may have been Kraft mac & cheese, some Doritos & a Coke.

A domestic squabble between older siblings/Mom/Mom's boyfriend/husband/Dad/Dad's girlfriend/etc could have prevented much "homeworking" from happening.

Morning may come with no one waking them up on time, so they race through their ppost-wake up time, looking for something to wear (laundry may not have been done in a while)..there's probably no time for breakfast..or maybe not even anything for breakfast.
The kid rushes off to school, and may arrive late..(or older ones may decide to not even GO to school).

Mom/Dad/Guardian may have left for work before time for the kid(s) to get up for school. (In bad-parenting homes, Mom/Dad may not even be home from "last night", or may be sleeping it off & kids dare not wake them up)

This (possibly) unwashed, tired, hungry, upset child arrives at school, sans homework..and maybe arrives late.. Is this kid ready to learn?

[bobbolink]

7. You are asserting that all poor children are neglected?

How... very .... aware.....

[SoCalDem]

9. (obviously not ALL poor kids have days like this, but many probably do)

:hi:

[bobbolink]

10. That wasn't the way you expressed it. This blaming of poor people MUST stop.

The kind of attitude that you put forth is ADDING to the problem.

I despair of what it will take to get "liberals" to understand that this is a societal problem, not a personal problem. Of course, I'm sure you also believe that there aren't muddleclass and rich kids who are neglected. :eyes:

That is why I expressed in my reply to this thread, and I thank you for illustrating the problem.

[AlecBGreen]

11. do you disagree with SoCals assessment

that children from poorer households are more likely to suffer from these specific problems than those of middle & upper class families?

I think its hard to argue against these assumptions:

poor children tend to have more unstable family situations

poor children tend to live in higher crime neighborhoods

poor children tend to eat lower quality food

poor children tend to live with less educated parents

[bobbolink]

12. I emphatically disagree, and further, that believing this shit is what is causing so much of the

problem.

Does it bother you at all to realize that you are throwing back the RW propaganda that you have bought???

DOes it?

[DeltaLitProf]

13. Really? You disagree that being poor makes it more likely you're going to suffer neglect?

There's such a thing as elementary logic. I like what you say about the causes of the problems G. Canada cites being systemic. But poverty most certainly correlates to high rates of unreadiness to learn. What are you thinking?

[bobbolink]

14. You can belittle me all you want. I no longer give a shit.

You COULD try actually doing some research and reading, but I suppose that would tax your brain too much, and poor people aren't worth it anyway, right?

I will repeat... you are PARROTING RW TALKING POINTS, and find that disgusting.

"With friends like that, who needs enemies?"

[AlecBGreen]

16. I dont see how this is controversial in the least

I am really failing to see how we cant agree on a simple point: that people who earn less money are more likely to eat lower quality food, live in higher crime areas and have less educated parents.

Do you agree with ANY of those statements?

If not, it logically means you believe one of the following: poor people are EQUALLY LIKELY as middle/upper income people to have lower quality food, live in high crime areas and have less educated parents, or poor people are LESS LIKELY to have lower quality food, live in high crime areas and have less educated parents.

There are only three choices when it come to math: LESS THAN, EQUAL TO, GREATER THAN. There is no fourth option.

How does it mean that I dont care about the poor of I think these are problems they face?

[bobbolink]

18. Apples and oranges.

You are lecturing me on "logic", when yours is failing.

The post I replied to, which you then inserted yourself into, was making the case that the problem was PERSONAL FAILINGS, rather than SYSTEMIC FAILINGS.

Can you grasp that distinction?

Is that beyond you?

Yeah, you want to belittle, you get it back.

[AlecBGreen]

19. This is the problem with the internet

we read words and our brains fills in the tone of voice. You are making the assumption I am trying to belittle you. I am not. I am trying to see how, where, and on what specifically we disagree.

Let me boil down how I perceived this thread to go. Point out where you and I disagree.

SoCalDem said (with the caveat that "obviously not ALL poor kids have days like this, but many probably do") that many poor children suffer due to their socioeconomic status. As a direct result of having less income, they eat poor quality food, live in lower quality housing, live in higher crime areas, and are more likely to have parents who suffer domestic problems.

You apprently took that to mean SoCal was blaming the childrens parents of neglect. You said that "blaming of poor people must STOP" (I agree, in most cases we shouldnt blame people for their economic situation).

I was confused because I thought you were disagreeing with my belief that poor people are more likely to suffer from low quality food, housing, etc.

You said you disagreed.

I replied that I cant really understand how someone would believe that poor people DONT suffer from these things. If you DONT think they are more likely to suffer from these things, you must then believe they are EQUALLY or LESS LIKELY than middle/upper class people to suffer from these things.

Anyway, long story short, it is my belief that poor people are more likely than middle/upper class people to have lower quality food, housing, and less educated people. Again, I dont see how that is hard to believe.

Friends are here for dinner. Feel free to reply, Ill get back to you after they leave. My wife is making dumplings *nom nom nom*

:hi:
Alec

edit spelling

[bobbolink]

26. The problem with *this* one is that you didn't check which reply I was responding to, and made the

assumption it was you.

If you check again who I was responding to about belittling, you can see that you took offense that was intended for the one who *was* belittling.

[ThomCat]

23. Unreadiness to learn isn't the name thing as parental neglect.

:wtf:

Coming from a family that is in dire poverty may mean that the parents cannot afford to give thier kids breakfast and depend on the school breakfast program. And that may mean that the kids have to get up earlier and get to school earlier to eat it, and therefore get let sleep.

But that is hardly parental neglect. Those parents may love their kids every bit as much as the parents of richer kids, and may pay every bit as much attention to their kids.

This idea that being poor means that parents neglect their kids is ridiculous and offensive!

[mntleo2]

29. Not true poor kids are not as likely to suffer neglect ...

As a matter of fact, I have heard the saddest stories from kids and adults who've been taken by CPS from their birth parents and put into upper income homes thru foster care or adoption and they suffer much more abuse and neglect than the poverty they were taken from. They are 3 X more likely to be neglected or abused in these situations than if left in their parents' care. http://www.nccpr.org/reports/11Work.pdf">See this study to see why. http://www.nccpr.org/reports/6Poverty.pdf">Then see this study to see why as well

Poverty is not a "fault" of the parent, it is an institutionalized System based on racism, classism, ageism, and sexism. It is proven to be a situation where upper income people enjoy far more privileges BECAUSE of the poverty that happens before their very eyes that they deny.

For example, the next time you go to a Walmart, try not to realize that the backs of all that "cheap" stuff you buy is because not only that the company exploits the worker by doing things they've been convicted of such as locking them in after shifts and making them work for free, but it has taken the very lives of the people (mostly women) here and in other countries who make their products. But the Waltons of the world depend on YOUR need for cheap things so you exploit the very people they employ and pay little due to this ageism, classism racism and sexism ~ and therefore they do not feel so guilty with the billions they hoard and can blame their customers for continuing the practice.

Just remember the woman who checks you out and realize for all the hard work she does, she has no time to see or care for her own children because we think she "does nothing" while caring for her kids or doing the traditional "woman's work", but "does something useful" when she is making the Waltons even richer, and herself and kids are left homeless because they are so cheap and greedy they won't even pay her a decent wage.

WHO are the abusers here? Not the low income parent who cannot get any support for raising the next generation to take care of YOU when you are too old to do it, because we think she is "dong nothing" to raise this generation, but "does something" to work for the Waltons to make them and you richer off her back.

See?

My 2 cents

Cat in Seattle

[bobbolink]

31. Thank you so much, Cat, for your reasoned response! You are the DUer with the expertise in this

subject, and it is time for DU to recognize you as such.

I hope that you will keep bringing this up over and over and over. Maybe with repetition, some of it will begin to sink in, and maybe, *maybe*, some will be willing to give up their stereotypes.

:yourock: :hug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Just last week,

one of my students was gone all week because he had moved and it takes a week for the bus route to change. The family has no transportation. So moving means no school for a week. That would't happen in a family that isn't poor and can afford a car.

Another student was sick and laid in the nurse's office all day because no one could contact her mother, who had no cell phone. That would probably not happen in a family that isn't poor.

Let's be honest here. Poor children do present different challenges to schools that impact their education.

[bobbolink]

17. What you are talking about is real, and proves my point. The problem isn't personal failings of the

individuals involved.. IT IS SOCIETAL.

The absent child didn't miss school because the mother was negligent, as the other poster asserted. the child missed school because the SOCIETY doesn't see to it that ALL children can get to school.

And, as far as that goes, there are muddleclass and affluent children who miss school, because parents ARE negligent... drunk, drugged, spending their time in bars, etc. Would you deny that?

Are you asserting that the mother who can't afford a cell phone is negligent? Would you take that further and say that if a mother can't afford a cell phone that she is negligent, and the children should be taken away?

Because that is the result of these kinds of allegations... Children. Are. Being. Taken. Away. Because. Of. Poverty.

I will repeat..... the problem is societal, and when you make it personal, you cause that much more suffering and pain.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. I didn't claim any of the parents were negligent

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Just pointing out, as I believe SoCalDem was trying to do, that poor children present different challenges. Yes middle class children can be victims of neglect. I've seen that many times. In upper class kids also. But since many teachers are NOT poor (and let's face it, most have NEVER been) there is also a culture gap that impacts these children in school. That makes their challenges even more apparent and harder to overcome.

The solution, IMO, is to provide services currently lacking in low income communities to children of poverty. Schools serving the poor should have health clinics, dental services, food banks, social services, adult education, public libraries . . . all those things we know we need to help children grow up healthy and with a greater chance of not living in poverty as adults. In the situations I described, a school transportation system that processes address changes within 24 hours would help. I'd also like to be able to provide the other parent with an inexpensive cell phone. (I'd like to see Bill Gates spend his money on these kinds of programs instead of on 'improving' teaching, but that's a whole nuther discussion. LOL)

[bobbolink]

27. You know, when things get this tangled, it becomes just about impossible to deal with.

I resent being told "don't put words in my mouth", when what I was responding to was a different post, which you then came in on.

If you don't see that SoCalDem's post was repeating stereotypes, and missing the difference between personal fault and societal fault, then you need to know that it is damaging to the poor people involved, who are always subject to being "fixed" by those in power.

I wish that you would take the opportunity to learn what these stereotypes do to peoples' lives. Its so interesting that we no longer use the stereotypes of blacks, or Jews, or women... or any other group, in fact, but cling to the stereotypes about poor folk.

[maryf]

22. Hi, I know you mean well...

but this post does seem to be a huge generalization? Much of what you write is true in all classes. The poor kids I have often have less time as they have to help more with their siblings, or have to work (meaning they can't be in clubs or sports as much), but poor parents are as good as any other parents...and sure do love their kids. Just sayin!

[ThomCat]

25. Domestic squables are not something that comes from being poor.

They can happen in any household, with no correlation to income.

If a kid's laundry has not been done in a while? Really? That is usually a sign of parental neglect, or depression in the parent, not poverty. Poverty alone rarely (if ever) prevents anyone from having clean clothing.

Millions of poor families manage to get to the laundromat to keep their kids in clean clothing, or in a pinch manage to wash a day's worth of clothing by hand in the sink (and then iron them crisp) so that a kid has nice, clean presentable clothes for school the next day until they can get to the laundromat.

I have done a lot of babysitting in my time, and it always involved helping with housework, and often laundry. I've even helped wash some laundry in a sink a few times when it was necessary. I know poverty. And I know damned well that parents don't lets their kids go to school in dirty clothes just because they are poor.

Implying that poverty means that kids are filthy at school is a stereotype.

Poor kids often have older, hand-me-down clothes. They are often worn and a bit tattered around the edges. They may have to wear clothes that have some stains in them, because they can't afford to replace clothes just because of a stain. Their clothes don't look knew. Yes, it sucks being poor. But that doesn't mean they aren't clean.

You really should think twice before implying that poor kids are wearing dirty cloths. :(

[mntleo2]

30. Or that upper income parents "love" their kids more ...

...the neglect that low income parents give is because THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED. "Support" meaning decent wages, the ability and time to BE a parent, and the realization we all need housing, medical care and decent food. The attitude that, "I should not have to support other people's kids" is short sighted and stooopid because who the HELL will take care of YOU, take care of the infrastructure, or fight in your wars when you can no longer do it? Hint: THE NEXT GENERATIONS whether or not you chose to have kids, THEY will be your caregivers.

Food stamps at this time allow $1.19 per person per meal. Dinner for a family of three is allowed $3.57. What kind of healthy much less filling meal can they eat with that?

Childcare is expensive and affordable, available childcare nonexistant. Why? In NYC and in this nation most low income jobs are off hours and days when there is no childcare. If there is childcare at the hours you have to work, believe me you PAY.

WHY is is "better" that someone else raise your kid, rather than you when God gave this child to the parent, not to a babysitter?

Housing is expensive and out of reach for a low income worker. Why do we not consider housing a right?

Who cares for the children who often get medical coverage, but their parents do not but get sick, most often because of the work they perform where bad and unsafe conditions abound? When are we going to realize that if the parent gets sick, who the HELL will take care of their kids?

It is downright dumb to be short sighted and not support people who raise the next generation and consider this more than a hobby but actual WORK that deserves our support because someday we WiLL need that generation to support us.

To pretend poverty is about a parent being "neglectful" is beyond stupid, it is just a lame an excuse not to support them. But boy watch us yell murder when these kids grow up to be illiterate and without nurturing since they never got such things themselves, when their children have to take care of us when we can no longer do it ourselves.

But, but, but their mom worked her ass off at Walmart because we thought that work was SO much more important than her kids!

Cat in Seattle

[eilen]

28. I was a poor kid

I guess, we did get AFDC-- mostly because my Dad disappeared and stopped sending child support. For those Republicans trolling the boards-- don't worry, the nice government got their money back when my Mom sold our house, they had a lien. This was in the mid-1970's.

Anyway, my neighborhood was nice. It was in one of the nicer areas of the city. I went to Catholic school for 2 years and then the public. I had to wear uniforms to Catholic school and I had 3 of them. When I went to public school I didn't have to wear them. I often had to search the laundry pile for something to wear. We had a laundry chute so there was a huge pile at the bottom in the basement. My mother worked 2 jobs. Once she offered a room to a friend in need, the laundry problem was resolved. Her friend kept the house in exchange for rent.

Breakfast was cereal. When money was really tight, hot cereal-- we had colored sugar to put in it. We had dinner every night and got in trouble for being late. We did buy lunch tickets weekly for reduced lunch.

One time my stepsister had us go to all the neighbor's houses and ask to borrow an egg --then she made us all scrambled eggs.

My clothes came 2 x a year. School time and summer. One year I had to wear my older step brother's hand-me-down toughskins and the kids made fun of me for wearing highwaters. One girl challenged me to a fight because of them. In spring they were cut for shorts.

I didn't know I was poor. We only had 3 channels on tv and weren't allowed to watch it all day (there wasn't anything to watch anyway-- Saturday cartoons, Sunday afternoon monster movies or Kung Fu, Disney movies at night if we were allowed to stay up that late-- We watched tv together--the whole family---Happy Days, Six Million Dollar Man, All in the Family, MASH, Mork & Mindy, Sanford & Son, Starsky & Hutch, Kojack, Emergency, Adam 12-- we had one tv and a stereo console that my parents played records on. I thought I was better off than the kids who had to take the bus to school. Me and the kid who started fights and go in trouble all the time had the best attendance. My mother left for work before I left for school but we were woken up in time. We were not in any clubs or activities because my Mom didn't have the kind of schedule to take us anywhere. Plus, we probably didn't have the money. When I got home from school, we were told to go out and play and keep an eye on little brothers/sisters. I only had 2 below me. When my mother's friend moved in and later after she moved out and our cousin stayed with us while she was going to college-- they kept an eye on my younger sister or sometimes she went to a daycare.


No one bothered about checking my homework or even asked what I was doing in school-- parent wise. Their job was work -- supporting the family, us kid's job was going to school, staying out of trouble and making passing grades. I was really behind in math d/t Catholic school. Because I was poor or in public school or both, I was given a tutor, a speech therapist, and a big sister from the Big Brother/Big Sister program. I was sent home once because I lost my glasses and told not to return without them. My stepfather was home and I felt very stressed about this. He helped me find them and brought me back to school. This was 5th grade, my teacher really didn't like me. All I did was read-- it was my escape but I'd get in trouble for skulking around the house too long-- my stepfather would hit me in the head with his finger as though he were playing paper football and tell me to go outside and play. Through elementary school, I would clearly totally forget about doing homework--once I got home, I didn't think about school. It wasn't until Middle School that I actually would remember having homework and projects when I got home.


My parents didn't fight during this time. They were working a lot. They seemed to really be in love during this time (my mom and step-father). There was a bunch of kids living in my house then as my step dad had 5 (but one lived with her mother).

One thing, I moved a lot. I went to about 10 different schools from elementary through high school. I was shy, and pretty quiet. It was easy to be invisible. My parents were divorced so I often moved back and forth between them and they would move. I had some really good teachers and some horrible ones. The worst ones were in Catholic school. In retrospect, I feel kind of bad for them trying to teach me. I was a daydreamer and didn't pay much attention. I had one teacher in 6th grade who let us work at our own pace and I jumped 8 Math levels in about 3 months.

[maryf]

21. K&Rnt

[Dr Morbius]

24. Here we go again.

America's public education system, trying to teach our children despite both parents working, much of the time; despite a multi-billion-dollar entertainment industry established to distract the kids (hey, there's money to be made!) and the very latest in gadgets and toys to also distract them; despite ever-growing class sizes; despite under-funding for decades; despite micromanagement from every level of government...

...it's all failing because of the BAD TEACHERS.

Yeah. Uh-huh. Here we fucking go again.