|
Dialogue Groups
Dialogue
Groups
are one-hour facilitated sessions of diverse individuals that
last at least 5 weeks where individuals from corporations, institutions,
and neighborhoods can create sessions for democratic dialogue among
themselves toward learning more about one another.
To register as a participant in a Dialogue Group,
click here.
For more information about Dialogue Groups and facilitators,
click here
We
are in the process of adding the notes for each dialogue group,
we thank you for your patience. Please check often for the latest
updates and additions.
2010
Summary of Dialogue Group 10-02-6
On Tuesday evening, January 11, the One Columbus Dialogue Group
continued its second series of the year with session six on the
topic, "Is Education the Solution to Poverty?" Our presenter was
Dr. Jose Villavicencio of the College of Education at Columbus
State University. He began the discussion with a presentation on
what is needed for an effective teaching environment in primary
and secondary school. After recognizing that the public
educational system in America is largely failing the poor, he
sought to discover the reasons for this failure. While the
schools are failing, so is the family and the community. For
learning to be effective, a strong support system for the
student must be in place.
Where is the student to find such a support system? The first
and most important place is in the family. For many reasons the
families of the poor are often unable to provide the support
needed. Dr. Villavicencio then suggested that it is most
important that the school, and primarily the teachers have a
responsibility to make concentrated efforts to engage the
families of poor students in the educational process. This often
calls for ingenuity and inventiveness to find effective ways to
accomplish this. Some discussion followed regarding the efficacy
of the various steps which have been used in the experience of
the participants to get the parents of guardians involved.
Providing snacks or even dinners seemed to get them to school
functions and meetings with teachers, but without food most of
the attempts with which the participants were not effective, at
least over the long haul.
But, Dr. Villavicencio pointed out, family support is not the
only measure that needs to be addressed. There is also to issue
of student support from the community. Unfortunately, in poor
neighborhoods it is often next to impossible to foster community
support. The struggle for survival occupies the attention of the
residents as well as fears for their own safety, especially in
high crime areas.
Research shows that increased support, either from the family or
from the community, does indeed lead to improved performance and
greater success in school. Within the family even relatively
unsophisticated support is helpful, such as, checking on whether
the student has completed assignments or working with the
teacher to establish processes like signing off on homework. The
community can render support by providing tutoring services or
other support activities within or outside of school hours.
Dr. Villavicencio's presentation was followed by a lively
discussion as many of the participants were or had been teachers
or had spouses who were in the teaching profession. One of the
concerns expressed was that the burdens on teachers for
bolstering family and community support would seem to be quite
large. With this responsibility to motivate families and
communities teachers might "burn out" in short order, even if
they see this as a proper responsibility.
Dr. Villavicencio acknowledged that schools in this country are
geared to the middle or upper middle classes and largely assume
that the students have grown up in stimulating family
environments. Thus, they have not been successful in creating an
environment rich enough to motivate the student who has grown up
in poverty. Although not directly discussed in this session, the
discussion does tend to indicate that education by itself is not
capable of bringing students much less their parents or
guardians out of poverty.
The current dialogue group has completed its topic and thus will
not meet next week to prepare for the next series. The subject
look more deeply into potential solutions for poverty based on
steps taken in other countries. Some of these solutions we have
looked at during our discussion on health care. We will begin
with a review of a portion of the "Second Bill of Rights"
address given by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the occasion
of his 1944 State of the Union (selection attached).
The next meeting to begin our discussion of the new dialogue
group topic will be Tuesday, Jan. 25. Please bring your ideas
and come meet with us. The dialogue group will again meet at the
CVEM House at 1120 Lockwood Avenue from 6:30 to 7:30. All are
welcome.
Summary of Dialogue Group
10-02-5
On Tuesday evening, December 14, the One Columbus Dialogue Group
10-02 continued its series with session five on the topic, "Is
Education the Solution to Poverty?" The group met at the mail
library in the auditorium as the CVEM House was not available
that evening.
The dialogue began with the introduction of our presenter for
the evening. Dr. Evelyn Blalock, College of Education professor
at C.S.U. on her topic, "Birth to Five: The Link Between School
Success and Growing Up Poor." Although after much effort we were
unable to get the projector to operate, Dr. Blalock continued
with her presentation using a print out of the slides.
She noted that the topic of this series of dialogue groups is,
"Education: Is it the Solution to Poverty," and immediately
proposed that the answer to that question is "NO." Dr. Blalock
first reviewed several statistics, including the fact that 43%
of all of the children in the United States live in poverty.
That figure astonished most of the persons in attendance at the
session. She then pointed out that studies show that the most
reliable predictor of childhood failure in school is poverty.
Additionally, she said, an "achievement gap" begins early in the
educational process between poor children and those who grow up
with a measure of affluence.
The data further indicate that a significant number of children
entering school for the first time (37%) are unprepared to
learn, that is they do not have the skills necessary to learn
effectively or even to meet the minimum expectations for
beginning students. An achievement gap between students from
poverty and other students starts building immediately upon
entering school. Sadly, of the children who have trouble reading
in kindergarten, 44 out of 50 will still be having trouble in
the third grade. This pattern tends to repeat itself throughout
their school careers. As Dr. Blalock puts it, "Kids who start
school behind, stay behind." This lagging behind pattern seems
to be traceable primarily to the poverty milieu of these
children. Indeed, almost half of the children who come from
low-income communities begin primary school as much as two years
behind their classmates.
Other disturbing statistics show that nationwide approximately
10 million children experience difficulty learning to read. Of
these some 10 to 15 per cent will drop out of school before
graduation from high school. When we look at persons in prison,
we find that one-half of them have reading problems and, of
those with substance abuse issues, one-half have difficulty
reading.
What are some of the major elements in poverty surroundings
which militate against learning to read? In average
socio-economic settings (SES)children are exposed to around 1200
words an hour with exposures in college-educated settings of
2100 words per hour. In low SES (poverty) children are exposed
to only 600 words per hour. Children from average SES hear 22
million words addressed directly to them by age 3; in low SES
they will only hear 12 million such words. This same pattern of
verbal exposures is reflected in many other common settings in
which children find themselves.
As a result the vocabulary of their average SES classmates is
twice as extensive as the vocabulary of the lower SES students
in the first grade! Studies have found that book reading is
significantly lower for low SES children with 61% having no
age-appropriate books at all in their homes.
Dr. Blalock maintains in closing her presentation that this
situation is preventable. Changes in the home are possible.
Reading is improved by several factors which can be identified.
Some examples are more reading at home, teaching the sounds of
the different letters in the alphabet and the like. The
presentation was followed by a question and answer period. One
of the key questions raised was how to accomplish these changes
while still in poverty?
I am attaching the slides that Dr. Blalock distributed to the
participants plus a flyer on a program to promote early reading
for children before kindergarten. The program is co-sponsored by
C.S.U. and Enrichment Services Program. I commend it to anyone
who wishes to assist in supporting this program.
The current series of dialogues ends with this session. The next
meeting of the dialogue group will be on Tuesday, Jan. 11, from
6:30 to 7:30 back at the CVEM House at 1120 Lockwood Avenue. We
will begin a new series on that date which will be announced via
e-mail at the beginning of January. I look forward to embarking
on a new adventure in dialogue with you at that time.
Notes from the 2010 series of Dialogue
Groups
Summary of Dialogue Group
10-02-3
On Tuesday evening, November 30, the One
Columbus Dialogue Group 10-02 continued its second
series of the year with session three on the topic, "Is
Education the Solution to Poverty?" After a Thanksgiving
holiday, we again met at the CVEM House on Lockwood
Avenue on a rainy evening. The number of participants
remained at a good level with the participation of three
persons who had not previously been with us during this
series.
We began the discussion with a summary of the previous
sessions' discussions to bring the new participants up
to date, including a reminder of our understanding of
poverty as "lacking the wherewithal to purchase the
things necessary for living in dignity--things such as
adequate food and clear water, decent housing,
sufficient clothing to protect oneself from the elements
and the like.
The discussion then picked up at the point where our
last session ended, namely, that the dialogue group
participants had generally concluded that the
educational system in the United States has largely
failed those citizens who come from poverty. This
conclusion appeared to indicate the group consensus that
education (understood as formal education conducted by
local school systems) by itself is not capable of
bringing students, much less their parents or guardians,
out of poverty. Elimination of poverty or even the rise
of an individual out of poverty is much more complicated
and admits of no single solution. The participants
certainly did not intend to mean that education has no
value but rather that it is not the "key" to getting out
of poverty which it is often asserted to be.
The discussion last time had ended with a question--"Why
has the educational system in the United States failed
so badly in addressing the issue of poverty,
particularly with respect to those students who come to
the school from a background of poverty? Why does a
country which can send people to the moon not overcome
this fundamental challenge?"
The dialogue group on Tuesday evening picked up at this
point with a large variety of opinions on the defects of
the educational system in the United States, including
parental/guardian failures of various kinds, loss of
discipline, over-emphasis on punishment in the schools,
particularly toward the "misbehavior" of Afro-American
male students, lack of motivation to learn on the part
of the students, absence of support from the family or
the community, lack of self-discipline, inappropriate
dress, adverse peer pressure, and the like. It was
difficult for the participants to stay focused on the
function of education during the discussion due to the
high level of concern within the group regarding social
or cultural issues which appear to militate against
student success in school. The question raised in the
last session, consequently, was not directly addressed.
That question, however, was somewhat reformulated to a
different question, namely, "Is the failure of education
with regard to the poor student primarily the fault of
the student and his/her environment or of the school
system?"
The next meeting will be on Tuesday, Dec. 7. We will
continue the discussion of education and poverty. Please
bring your ideas and come meet with us. The dialogue
group will again meet at the CVEM House at 1120 Lockwood
Avenue from 6:30 to 7:30. All are welcome.
Summary of Dialogue Group 10-02-2
On Tuesday evening, November 16, the One
Columbus Dialogue Group continued its second series of
the year with session two on the topic, "Is Education
the Solution to Poverty?" Our presenter was Dr. Jose
Villavicencio of the College of Education at Columbus
State University. He began the discussion with an
overview of poverty. Poverty is often a concept
subjective in nature meaning different things to
different persons. Dr. Villavicencio put the question to
the participants for their definition or description of
what each one believed was the meaning of "poverty."
After a variety of proposals a general consensus emerged
that povery means "lacking the wherewithall to purchase
the things necessary for living in dignity--things such
as adequate food and clear water, decent housing,
sufficient clothing to protect oneself from the elements
and the like.
Dr. Villavicencio then distinguished among several types
of poverty:
a) situational poverty--poverty (often temporary) which
comes about because of a particular situation, such as a
large medical bill or a business failure.
b) generational poverty--poverty which has existed in a
family for at least two generations and tends to be
permanent.
c) absolute poverty--poverty which is so grave as make
it impossible for a person to survive and which
ultimately leads to severe malnutrition and death,
particularly among the young and the old.
d) relative poverty--poverty which is on the lowest end
of the economic scale in one's own social environment.
After having explained these concepts Dr. Villavicencio
turned to some of the effects of poverty, so called risk
factors. One is that the support systems within a poor
person's close relationships deteriorate and cannot
assist the person to grow and mature. A second effect is
that the poor person is surrounded by greater chaos and
confusion in his or her daily living environment. A
third is that life becomes more and more simply a
struggle to survive. From a life skills perspective
another effect is the inability to develop one's
intellectual talents and thus demonstrates a lower
Intelligence Quotient. Such a person is also much less
effective at solving problems which inevitably come up
in the course of living one's daily life. Thus he or she
is likely to be subjected to increased violence on the
one hand and to attempt to solve problems with the use
of violence.
Turning to education, poverty tends to lower one's
ability to learn, partly because of the chaos in the
student's life, partly because of the lack of support at
home, partly because of the depression that tend to
result from a lack of self-esteem, partly from a
depreciation of the value of education based on the poor
persons own experience of the ineffectiveness of
education among his peers and often among his elders. As
a consequence of the lack of education the poor tend to
pass on the "culture of poverty." Oftentimes the poor do
not have the means to succeed in school largely because
the school systems in this country are ill-equipped to
deal with students from poverty backgrounds and often
address these students with discipline rather than
support.
While there obviously have been individual examples of
students in poverty taking advantage of the support
offered to them, by and large the educational system in
the United States have failed these students. Statistics
clearly demonstrate this fact. Some have pointed out
that, in general, schools in this country are geared to
middle class "culture" and more highly motivated
students who have grown up in stimulating family
environments.
The schools have not been successful in creating an
environment rich enough to motivate the student who has
grown up in poverty.
In the discussion that followed, the participants
generally concluded that the educational system in the
United States has failed those citizens who have come
from poverty. This conclusion tends to indicate that
education by itself is not capable of bringing students
much less their parents or guardians out of poverty. The
discussion ended with a question--"Why has the
educational system in the United States failed so badly
in addressing the issue of poverty, particularly with
respect to those students who come to the school from a
background of poverty? Why can a country who can send a
person to the moon not overcome this fundamental
challenge?
The dialogue group will not meet next week because of
the Thanksgiving holiday. The next meeting will be on
Tuesday, Nov. 30. We will continue the discussion of
education and poverty with a continuation of our
discussion stimulated by the presentation given by Dr.
Jose Villavicencio. Please bring your ideas and come
meet with us. The dialogue group will again meet at the
CVEM House at 1120 Lockwood Avenue from 6:30 to 7:30.
All are welcome.
Summary of
Dialogue Group 10-02-1
On Tuesday evening, November 9, the
One Columbus Dialogue Group began its second series of
the year with session one of the topic, "Is Education
the Solution to Poverty?" Our presenter was Dr. John
Studstill of the Sociology Department at Columbus
State University. He began the discussion with a
handout with a chart depicting the enormous and
increasing difference between the income of the
super-rich and the rest of the U.S. population with
particular reference to the disparity between the
lowest quintile of the population and the highest
quintile. That was followed by a brief look at an
op-ed article from the New York Times by Bob Herbert.
That article was based on a recent book authored by a
pair of university political scientists who argued
that "the economic well-being of ordinary Americans"
is due primarily to "policy changes in government that
overwhelmingly favor the very rich."
Professor Studstill next developed an outline of his
position that it is, at best, an oversimplification
that education is the way out of poverty. The class
structure, poverty wages, and lack of jobs at the
bottom, are what create poverty in the first place;
poverty causes low education, not the other way
around. Since poor education doesn't cause poverty,
better education cannot alleviate it. If we eliminated
poverty by paying decent wages at the low end of the
scale, the children of the lower middle class which
would be thus created could be more easily educated.
THIS would improve the quality of life for us all.
It is a false and elitist idea that lack of education
causes poverty; in truth low or no wages cause
poverty. This seems evident so why can't we see it?
Because the ideology that we can all become rich and
our need to blame the victim and not ourselves, blinds
us to the evidence that is right in front of us. No
amount of education will justify higher wages if the
elite don't want to pay them but instead want to keep
their own excessive share of the nation's wealth.
Besides, low levels of education do not prevent the
rich from paying at least a living wage to their
workers if they wanted to or if elected governments
decided to require them to do so.
This argument is not about paying everyone the same
wage; it is about paying decent (living) wages for
decent work, which in the U.S. today should be at
least $20 an hour. If employers did that, the U.S.
would be like Sweden or Germany or Switzerland or
Japan--nations where today there is virtually no
poverty. That is probably the best kept secret in the
world today--best kept, at least, from the U.S.
public. It is thus intentional to continually
brain-wash our electorate to believe that ours is the
greatest and most prosperous nation in history and at
the same time convince them that poverty is inevitable
and that poverty is the fault of the poor.
Moreover, the overall educational level in those more
egalitarian nations is also superior to our own, but
that came about AFTER they changed the income
structure, not before. So again, what is the biggest
difference between the U.S and its economic peers?
They pay $20 an hour for the work that we pay $7 for.
This lower wage simply creates a new form of servitude
since it brings an income of $14,000 a year per
person, when the poverty level has been recognized by
the U.S. government as around $20,000 a year. Is it
any surprise that the U.S. is ranked as the most
unequal, exploitative, and unhealthy of all modern
industrialized nations? As a not irrelevant aside, the
U.S. is also the most undemocratic of those nations
since it is mainly the rich who elect our rulers.
The 20th century began with the U.S. at the top of the
heap on these quality-of-life comparisons, but the
election of more representative governments together
with strong labor unions in Europe and Japan have
carried them to the economic forefront. While the U.S.
currently has the greatest total wealth of any nation
in the world, this nation has the worst distribution
of wealth with lower income per capita and a lower
standard of living for its citizens.
How do these countries afford their prosperity in the
face of such attention to the common good of their
citizens? Their systems are maintained, not by higher
taxes on the middle classes, but by higher taxes on
the wealthy elite. Consequently, those at the bottom
of the economic pyramid have higher income and the
extraordinary disparity of income found in this
country among the classes is significantly reduced.
All this must be understood to see why more investment
in education will not solve the problem of poverty in
the U.S. In fact, educational investment alone in
poverty-stricken children and their communities is a
waste of money and effort; poverty-stricken
communities will destroy lives, schools, communities
and teachers. Numerous studies and research have
demonstrated this.
In summary, Professor Studstill argues that the poor
are poor, not because of a lack of education but
because they either do not have any income at all or
at least a sufficient income to live a decent life.
This lack of income can be traced to systemic or
structural elements built into our (white) society.
Certainly, a lack of education is not a benefit to the
poor, nor are they likely to escape from poverty
without an education. But that is not the same thing
as saying that education is the key to getting out of
poverty.
Much animated discussion followed reflecting a variety
of viewpoints, including those which differed from the
viewpoint summarized above. Some pointed to cases
where individuals have escaped from poverty and
suggested that education got them there. However, such
cases cannot be proved to have been the consequence of
education as opposed to support of others outside the
community. Statistics show that today education itself
is failing the poor. Much of this is due to the fact
that just over a generation ago education was not
available on an equal basis for all Americans. That
situation and its consequences persist even today in
spite of progress made over the last forty years.
In particular, to say without qualification that
"education is the key" is to overlook the obstacles
that are faced every day by the poor. Growing up in
poverty is itself a sociological impediment to
education, even if the best educational system were
offered. As suggested earlier in the discussion
summary, not to recognize this is essentially to say
that the failure to rise out of poverty is the fault
of the victim and, thereby, to excuse the larger
society from any responsibility.
Next Tuesday, Nov. 16, we will continue the discussion
of education and poverty with a presentation to be
given by Dr. Jose Villavicencio of the CSU College of
Education. The dialogue group will again meet at the
CVEM House at 1120 Lockwood Avenue from 6:30 to 7:30.
All are welcome.
Summary of Dialogue Group
1002-1
On the evening of September 21, the new One
Columbus Dialogue Group met for its second session at
the Chattahoochee Valley Episcopal Ministry (CVEM)
house in Midtown, located at 1120 Lockwood Avenue,
from 6:30 to nearly 8:30. The presenter for the,
again, was Dr. John Studstill, an anthropologist with
the CSU sociology department.
Our second session addressed this question: "Why not
divide people into different races?" That question was
explored by means of "The Difference Between Us," the
first hour of a three part PBS video series entitled
"Race: The Power of an Illusion." This episode
demonstrates that, despite what many of us have always
believed, the world's peoples cannot be separated into
distinct biological groups. The film began by
following a dozen students, including U.S. African
athletes and U.S. Asian string players, as they
compared their own DNA to see who is more genetically
similar. Surprisingly, the students found that their
closest genetic matches were often people from other
"races" than their own. Through their own studies, the
students discovered what science has discovered, viz.,
that human beings cannot be subdivided into races or
subspecies, and there is not a single characteristic
or trait - or even one gene - that can be used to
distinguish all members of one race from all members
of another.
The video went on to explain that all modern humans
emerged in Africa about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Bands of humans gradually began to migrate out of
Africa about 70,000 years ago. As they spread across
the globe, different bands bumped into one another and
mated with a consequent mingling of genes.
Consequently, there are no separate races or
subspecies within homo sapiens; instead, we all
generally share the same genes with slight genetic
variations among individuals.
So what about the obvious physical differences we see
among people? The video pointed out that a closer look
will help us understand patterns of human variation:
• If we were to take a "walk" from the equator to
northern Europe, we would see that visual
characteristics vary gradually and continuously from
one population to the next. There are no boundaries,
so how can we draw a line between where one race ends
and another begins?
• We also learn that most traits - whether skin color,
hair texture, blood group, mental capacity - are
influenced by different genes which are passed down
independently from one another. Having one trait does
not imply the possession of any other. Thus, racial
profiling is as inaccurate and as invalid on the
genetic level as it is on our city streets.
• We also learn that many of the characteristics we
can see, like different skin colors, appear to have
evolved recently, after we left Africa, but the traits
we care about - intelligence, musical ability,
physical aptitude - are much older, and thus common to
all populations. Geneticists have discovered that 85%
of all of the existing genetic variations can be found
within any given local population, whatever its
"race." Skin color really is only skin deep. Beneath
the skin, we are one of the most similar of all
species.
While it is clear that a few gene forms are more
common in some populations than others, such as those
controlling skin color and certain inherited diseases
like Tay Sachs and sickle cell. But these are not
markers of "race"; rather they reflect ancestral
heritage which is not the same thing as race. The
mutation that causes sickle cell, for example, was
passed on because it conferred resistance to malaria.
It is found among people whose ancestors came from
parts of the world where malaria was common: central
and western Africa, Turkey, India, Greece, Sicily and
even Portugal - but not southern Africa.
In the United States there is a long history of
searching for innate differences to "explain"
disparities in group outcomes - not just for inherited
diseases, but also for differences in SAT scores and
in athletic performance. In contrast to today's myth
of innate Black athletic superiority, a hundred years
ago many U.S. Euros felt that people with "black" skin
were inherently sickly and that the whole "race" was
destined to die out. That myth was justified because
of the observation that disease and mortality rates
were high among U.S. Afros, whereas the actual cause
was poor health care as a result of poverty and "Jim
Crow" segregation. For the dominant culture, however,
it was less threatening for most people to believe it
was a result of "natural" infirmity, a view
popularized by an influential 19th century
statistician named Frederick Hoffman in his 1896
study, Race Traits and Tendencies of the American
Negro.
Racial beliefs have always been used to support social
ideas and policies. After all, it is said, if
differences between groups are natural, then nothing
can or should be done to correct for unequal outcomes.
Scientific literature of the late 19th and early 20th
century explicitly championed such a view, and many
prominent scientists devoted countless hours to
documenting racial differences and promoting a natural
hierarchy among human beings.
Although today such ideas are theoretically outmoded
and socially out of favor, the belief in innate racial
traits still remains popular rather than looking
elsewhere for an explanation of group differences. Are
the "racial" myths and stereotypes really true on a
biological level? If not, why do we continue to
believe them? Race may not be biological, but it is
still a powerful social idea with real consequences
for people's lives. Next week we will look into the
history of "race" and what purposes it may have
served.
Summary of Dialogue Group DG1001-4
On Tuesday, February 2, the First Presbyterian/One
Columbus Dialogue Group continued its discussion of
the "White Experience of Race" at the Church Museum.
This week the group decided to focus its discussion on
a recent series of articles published in the
Ledger-Enquirer on the decision of the school board
relating to handling students who wish to transfer
from "Needs Improvement" (NI) schools to better
performing schools in the Muscogee County School
District. There are only two such schools, viz.,
Hardaway and Northside. The dialogue centered on the
two articles which had been published by the time of
the meeting. The consensus of the participants from
the beginning seemed to be that the school board's
plan was fundamentally racist and may even have been
designed to discourage parents from transferring their
students from "failing" schools to "better" schools.
The participants debated long and hard to try and
identify what would be improved for the students under
this proposed plan. All recognized, of course, that
the "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) law recognized the
right of any student in a "needs improvement" school
to transfer to another school where the test scores
demonstrated "adequate yearly progress" in that
school.
The consensus of the group was that it seemed quite
odd that the "annex" classrooms would not be located
on the campuses of the schools to which they belonged
but rather on another campus. The annex for Hardaway
would be located at Jordan (a NI school) while the
annex for Northside would be located at Kendrick (also
a NI school). All recognized the already overcrowded
situation at both Hardaway and Northside which seems
to provide the rationale for the currently proposed
solution of locating the annexes at less crowded
schools. This solution, however, places a burden on
both the students who will not really be a part of the
school which they are attending and the teachers who
will have to travel to another school to teach their
school's students. In addition, several of the
participants observed, none of the students would have
to be integrated into the student population of the
target schools. No one need be upset except perhaps
the parents and their transferring students.
The further fact that everything depends on an
"adequate" number of transfers presents yet another
complication. Apparently, students (and their parents)
will only be able to exercise their right to attend a
"successful" school if there is an adequate number of
students who wish to transfer. Participation in
extra-curricular activities seems to be governed by
the same "rule." Busing is promised for such
extra-curricular activities (band, athletics, etc.)
but only if there is a sufficient number of students
who wish to participate in such activities. Otherwise,
it seems, busing will not be available.
The group judged all of this as placing a definite
damper on any parent's or student's motivation to
exercise the right to change schools for presumed
educational improvement as intended by the law.
Indeed, as already mentioned, the suspicion of the
group was that this might well be the purpose of this
rather convoluted system conceived by the school
board.
Of course, the group noted that this whole problem
resulted from the egregious failure of the Muscogee
County School District and the School Board to address
and plan for the many problems that a number of our
participants felt have been on the horizon for a long
time. Although no one expressed the opinion that this
problem was unique to this county's school system, we
did recognize that the county's schools have gradually
become re-segregated with all of the five NI high
schools being over 90% black. The school populations
in those schools are the result of a policy decision
to go with neighborhood schools in the face of
segregated and predominately poor neighborhoods. All
other things being equal, such schools generally do
not have the resources of schools in wealthier
neighborhoods or in neighborhoods which hold a higher
percentage of white students. Of course, this dialogue
group has long recognized that housing patterns in
Columbus are the heritage of past segregation; and,
while the law prohibits such segregation now, little
to nothing has been done to enable the victims of
those patterns to escape their consequences. From the
condition of the schools in the neighborhoods
suffering from those patterns of the past (which
continue into the present), it appeared to us that the
educational system has also failed to provide an
escape.
Finally, the discussion was more divided when the
placing of more specific blame for school failure was
raised. The group was divided almost evenly among
holding teachers, parents or the students themselves
primarily responsible. No one explicitly faulted the
NCLB process itself for these failures (as mentioned
earlier). All of the participants recognized a
systemic failure at some level of the educational
system.
The next dialogue group meeting will be held on
Tuesday evening, February 9, from 6:30 to 7:30 pm in
the First Presbyterian Church Museum. The Museum is
the room up the ramp and across the foyer area as you
enter the fellowship building, located on First
Avenue, immediately to the north of the main church
(toward 12th Street). There is limited parking in the
lot in front of the entrance with more parking on the
street. Everyone with an interest in the subject
matter is welcome and encouraged to join us. I hope to
see you there.
|
