S. Steinberg & J. Kincheloe. (Eds.). (2004). NY: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J. Why a Book on Urban Education? (pp. 1-27).
Kincheloe theorizes urban education, a neglected subject in reality but an overwhelming topic in hyperreality. He states that many Americans from suburban and rural areas know about urban youth and ethnic groups more through media than from real contact. He argues that a sociocultural chasm between pre-serivce teachers and their students produced through media even entails real obstacles to urban students' success in schools. Nevertheless research about urban educaiton is often done through its media representation. Henke argues that this frivolous form of study contributes little to the study of teaching and learning. (cited on p.4). Here are the unique features of urban education defined by Kincheloe:
- operates in areas with high population density.
- have more students.
- funtions in areas marked by profound economic disparity.
- have a higher rate of ethinic, racial, and religious diversity.
- less likely to have policy-level discussion over student success,etc.
- more likely to have health problems.
- have higher student/teacher mobility.
- higher immigrant populations.
- linguistic diversity.
- transportaion problems.
- teachers who don't belong to the community.
It seems not so common that urban students are described as dangerous criminals or savage animals. In emphasizing teacher education in urban context, Kincheloe stresses, "urban teacher education must work to help teachers avoid the prejudiced view of poor urabn students as dangerous criminals incapable of learning or, at the other extreme, as communicants who may be reformed bu the gospel of white culture as pedagogy" (p. 12).
S. Steinberg. What didn't We Ask? Keepin' It Real. (p. 281-286).
"Part of understanding urban schools is to keep it real; the only way to enlighten and empower ourselves and our students is to tell it like it is, analyze it; understand how power works to maintain conditions--and then change it" (p.284).
"Urban life is not gentle, yet it is not always rough. It is not spacious, yet it is not necessarily cramped; it is energetic, yet it can be lazy" (p. 282).
Showing posts with label urban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label urban. Show all posts
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Hollywood's Depiciton of Urban Schools: Documentary or Fiction?
Amanda M. Rudolph. (2006). In J. Kincheloe et al. (Eds.), The Praeger handbook of urban education Vol. 2. (pp. 421-429). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
The author emphasizes the importance of demystification of urban schools represented in Hollywood movies because this representation influences our perception of the schools strongly, thus affecting policies and regulations. In this article, she reviews three movies, Lean on Me, Dangerous Minds, and 187 in terms of demographic representation and Hollywood influences in the films.
First, the representations of ethnicity, poverty level, facilities and violence level are not correct, she argues.
"According to the U.S. Department of Education, minorities may comprise the majority of the student population in some larger schools. By no means are all large schools solely composed of Hispanic and black students. as Hollywood films may lead the audience to believe. " (p.425)
"Up to one-fourth of a school population could be poor based on the statistics, but in the films of Hollywood the majoirty of the students are depicted as living in poverty."(p.425)
"The representation that schools are forced to use portable building may be accurate, but it is not a problem exclusive to urban schools" (p. 425).
"The percentages of schools reporting less serious or nonviolent crimes were higher for the urban fringe and town schools than for the central city schools" (p.425).
Second, Rudolph analyzes 'the heroic individual teacher' and 'the domineering bureaucratic administraion' as Hollywood contributions to perpetuate the sterotype of urban schools. Bulman argues that this lone figure escapes the bureaucracy, speak directly to the hearts of the troubled youth and transforms them into studious and sincere students with middle-class aspirations; furthermore, these teachers succeed without training, any partnership or other necessary resources (cited on p.426). Rudolph underpins Bulman's argument by writing that problematic is that Hollywood signals only an untrained educator can make changes at school. With regard to uncaring bureaucracy, Rudolph asserts that Hollywood continues to emphasize the disconcertment between the faculty and administration to better urban education.
As for implications of these films for the general public, Rudolph argues that the urban school movie helps to maintain the sterotypes of minority groups and the urban school. Bulman contends that by simplyfing the phenomena of urban schools, Hollywood reflects middle-class anxiety about the problems of inner-city schools; simulataneously, implys that the problems can be solved through individual moral conversion of poor students, not involved with political commitment. (cited p.427).
The author emphasizes the importance of demystification of urban schools represented in Hollywood movies because this representation influences our perception of the schools strongly, thus affecting policies and regulations. In this article, she reviews three movies, Lean on Me, Dangerous Minds, and 187 in terms of demographic representation and Hollywood influences in the films.
First, the representations of ethnicity, poverty level, facilities and violence level are not correct, she argues.
"According to the U.S. Department of Education, minorities may comprise the majority of the student population in some larger schools. By no means are all large schools solely composed of Hispanic and black students. as Hollywood films may lead the audience to believe. " (p.425)
"Up to one-fourth of a school population could be poor based on the statistics, but in the films of Hollywood the majoirty of the students are depicted as living in poverty."(p.425)
"The representation that schools are forced to use portable building may be accurate, but it is not a problem exclusive to urban schools" (p. 425).
"The percentages of schools reporting less serious or nonviolent crimes were higher for the urban fringe and town schools than for the central city schools" (p.425).
Second, Rudolph analyzes 'the heroic individual teacher' and 'the domineering bureaucratic administraion' as Hollywood contributions to perpetuate the sterotype of urban schools. Bulman argues that this lone figure escapes the bureaucracy, speak directly to the hearts of the troubled youth and transforms them into studious and sincere students with middle-class aspirations; furthermore, these teachers succeed without training, any partnership or other necessary resources (cited on p.426). Rudolph underpins Bulman's argument by writing that problematic is that Hollywood signals only an untrained educator can make changes at school. With regard to uncaring bureaucracy, Rudolph asserts that Hollywood continues to emphasize the disconcertment between the faculty and administration to better urban education.
As for implications of these films for the general public, Rudolph argues that the urban school movie helps to maintain the sterotypes of minority groups and the urban school. Bulman contends that by simplyfing the phenomena of urban schools, Hollywood reflects middle-class anxiety about the problems of inner-city schools; simulataneously, implys that the problems can be solved through individual moral conversion of poor students, not involved with political commitment. (cited p.427).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
