“America spends $5.7 billion on incarcerating juveniles, billions more on the entire juvenile justice system, and gets nothing but tragedy in return,” writes RiShawn Biddle on his Dropout Nation website. Just 45 percent of incarcerated juveniles spend six hours or more in school while they are in custody; only 51 percent of juvenile prisoners think they are getting a quality education. Just 12 percent of former juvenile prison inmates have ever graduated from high school (or received a GED). “And for poor black and Latino kids, juvenile justice is a particular misnomer,” writes Biddle. “For example, blacks make up 41 percent of all detention caseloads in juvenile delinquency cases (even though they account for 30 percent of all juvenile delinquency cases).” For school reformers, Biddle says addressing the problems of the juvenile justice system is almost as important in stemming the nation’s dropout crisis as addressing literacy. Yet reformers shy away from the topic, perhaps understandably: The juvenile justice system can be as complex as American public education; many of its defendants deserve some form of punishment for their crimes; and the majority of high school dropouts aren’t likely to have spent time in a juvenile courtroom. But the juvenile justice system is also scary: Its complex behavioral and psychological issues are harder to grapple with than issues of teacher quality (and most school reform activists have never gone through a juvenile court). But reformers must not look away: “Far too many kids are landing in court for problems that have as much to do with the failures of American public education as they do with bad parenting and a fraying civic society.”
Read more: http://dropoutnation.net/2010/11/23/dropout-nation-high-cost-juvenile-justice/

“In all the fighting over education we are simply saying that we are not yet satisfied- after about a million years of struggling to become human- that we have mastered the fundamental human task, learning.  It must also be clear that we will never quite learn how to learn, for since Home sapiens is self-changing, and since the more culture changes the faster it changes, man’ methods and rate of learning will never quite keep pace with his need to learn (Henry, 2000).

Most of us are familiar with formal educational settings. Schools, colleges, large brick buildings, desks in rows, content to be memorized and skills to be learned.  These are the images conjured in my mind’s eye when education is discussed.  Formal education is the learning that happens within formally constituted educational institutions such as public schools, colleges or universities.  Formal education generally follows a prescribed curriculum that dictates very specific outcomes (Hager & Halliday, 2008).  The material to be learned may or may not be relevant to the learner and often is not authentic. Dewey (1966) recognized the tension that current society is sufficiently complicated that without formal learning far too many people would miss out on what might be regarded as key societal practices for harmonious and productive living. On the other hand, formal learning within institutions brings with it the danger with such teaching that it becomes disconnected from the day to day practicalities of everyday life (Dewey, 1966; Hager & Halliday, 2008).

In contrast, informal education is the teaching and learning that happens in daily life.   Long before systems of public education, every day people were teachers in a variety of settings and roles, such as a family member, as a community member and in social life (Jeffs & Smith, 1999).    Many view informal education as the learning that flows from the conversations and activities involved in being members of youth and community groups and the like.  In other instances parents teach their children how to throw a ball, read words or tie their shoes and later how to drive and manage a checking account.  Informal learning is often authentic and relevant to the time and place in which the learning happens and can happen as individual learning, or as a group of individuals learning together and from each other.   The family system a learning setting in which the family encounters significant challenges that they must overcome through rapid, targeted, informal learning.  While some of the learning may be independent, much of the learning is inter-related and inter-dependent.  Often barriers to learning are present as a result of race, power differentials or social class.

I am most interested in the learning and education that happens through informal and nonformal settings and pathways.

Families as learners

What is a Family? Craft and Willadsen (Craft & Willadsen, 1992) define family as a social context consisting of at least two persons characterized by caring, mutual attachment, long-term commitment and responsibility with family member responsibilities that include supportive relationships and attending to the health of members and the family unit.  This definition assumes that the family is more than the sum of its individuals and is characterized by caring, mutual attachment and long-term commitment.  Alternative definitions of family place different emphasis on the roles of families, importance of certain structures and the functions that families play.  Seligman and Darling identify eight functions: economic; daily care/ health care; recreation; socialization; self-identity; affection; educational/vocational; and spiritual.

Families are so diverse that there are many types of families as there are families in this word.  Families are often multigenerational with various educational backgrounds, experiences, and personal interests, even within a single family group. They are found in all geographic locations and speak different languages and live by different cultural norms.  They differ by structure, roles, functions, religious affiliation and income.  They also differ in the ways in which they learn both as individuals and as a family system.  Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is an important theory to understand because he theorizes that all individuals have different sets of strengths, intelligences and preferred modes of learning (Gardner, 1993).   Family members, and thereby families, are diverse in their strengths and abilities, and that the ways in which they learn is diverse as well, with intelligences including interpersonal, intra-persona, kinesthetic, spatial, logical and linguistic.   Given this diversity, the use of the Family Systems Theory and Socio-ecological model help find commonalities between the ways families interact with each other and with the world, providing a framework with which to think about families as learning systems.

Barriers to Informal Learning

At this point it may be evident that family members and family systems must do a great deal of informal learning and self-education.   The need is authentic and intense and usually the amount of time they have with which to learn is quite small.   If one assumes that the formal education system in the United States is often not prepared to teach the types of skills necessary for self-directed learning, family members are likely at a loss.  When you layer this against possible disadvantages due to race, ethnicity, geographic location or social class, the situation can seem overwhelming.

I am white and educated.  I have certain privilege that come along with these attributes.   But because of life changes I have made as a result of my son’s rare disease I also made below the poverty line last year, my children are on Medicaid and I’m a single mom.  These are attribute that put me squarely in the “have- not” category in the world of privilege and power transactions.   I think about this a lot in health care.  Every ‘strike’ against you makes it that much harder for you to get your child the best care, to learn what you need to learn.  There is no easy path.  Anything that makes the fight harder, anything that put barriers in your way, is not only unfortunate but there can be dire consequences.  The following quote is written by an anthropologist who accompanies families to doctor visits and videotapes the interactions.

Not surprisingly, a key issue for families concerns whether or not they can trust their clinicians. The most minute nuances and gestures of health professionals (esp. doctors) are routinely scrutinized, becoming a subject of storytelling and puzzling. What are they trying to tell me? parents wonder. What are they hiding? Do they treat me this way because I’m black? A man without a job? A single mother? Do they think I’m a “ghetto mom”? Do they think I’m abusing my child? Are they experimenting on my child? Are they ignoring me because I’m on Medicaid? Do they think I’m not strong enough, bright enough, educated enough, to hear the truth? These are the sorts of questions asked by families in our research, and they are asked again and again. (Mattingly, 2006)

The call for disruptive changes

During the 1980s, the development of a vigorous family movement in wraparound approaches began to stimulate changes in service delivery and agency culture that were more family friends.   But many of the changes stopped at ‘family focused’, short of ‘family driven’. Family-driven describes service delivery that is grounded in the experiences, expertise, strengths, hopes, dreams, desires, and needs of the individual children, youth, and families that are being served.  Osher states that during this transition:

“The failure to recognize the distinction between being family-focused and family-driven in the system of care literature has led to ambiguous policy, as well as to unfulfilled expectations on the part of families and service providers alike due to confusion of distinct approaches at a rhetorical and a conceptual level (Osher & Osher, 2002).”

But, as Friedman (2007) stated, “this platform enables individuals, groups, companies,  and universities anywhere in the world to collaborate—for the purposes of innovation,

production, education, research, entertainment, and alas, war-making—like no creative  platform ever before (p. 205)”.  In this flattening world, the opportunity exists for patients to have more access to learning materials and informal education opportunities, and more opportunities to find the information that they need to be able to advocate for a family-driven health care experience.

In order for this shift to move beyond the experience of individual families and begin to change what happens at the societal level, families will need to work together towards a shared vision.  Social innovation  is a process of collaboration and joint discovery and is not based on a sole individual’s  epiphany (Berkun, 2007).  Innovation is a cultural process (Robinson, 2007) and research evidence suggests a need for a balanced role between individuals and groups during the creative process.

The shift will likely be messy as families learn to self-education and advocate, as community members and organizations learn to become better members of an informal learning process, and as health care professionals learn to value the needs, wishes and individual experiences of families.   Clayton Christianson calls this messy phase a time of disruption.  Disruption is “a powerful body of theory that describes how people interact and react, how behavior is shaped, how organizational culture form and influence decision (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008).

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.

Berkun, S. (2007). The myths of innovation O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design Harvard University Pr.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.

Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach, , 419-448.

Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns McGraw-Hill Professional.

Cohen, M. S. (1999). Families coping with childhood chronic illness: A research review. Families Systems and Health, 17, 149-164.

Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline Belknap Press.

Constantine, L. L. (1986). Systems in general: Basic general systems theory. Family Paradigms: The Practice of Theory in Family Therapy, , 45-67.

Craft, M. J., & Willadsen, J. A. (1992). Interventions related to family. The Nursing Clinics of North America, 27(2), 517-540.

Davenport, R. (2010). The boy who loved tornadoes. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

Dellve, L., Samuelsson, L., Tallborn, A., Fasth, A., & Hallberg, L. R. M. (2006). Stress and well-being among parents of children with rare diseases: A prospective intervention study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(4), 392-402.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press.

Fisher, H. (2001). The needs of parents with chronically sick children: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36(4), 600-607.

Fox S., P. K. (2010). Chronic disease and the internet. The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.

Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences Basic books.

Garwick, A. W., Kohrman, C., Wolman, C., & Blum, R. W. (1998). Families’ recommendations for improving services for children with chronic conditions. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 152(5), 440.

Grey, M., Knafl, K., & McCorkle, R. (2006). A framework for the study of self-and family management of chronic conditions. Nursing Outlook, 54(5), 278-286.

Hager, P., & Halliday, J. (2008). Recovering informal learning: Wisdom, judgement and community Springer Verlag.

Hallström, I., & Elander, G. (2007). Families’ needs when a child is long-term ill: A literature review with reference to nursing research. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 13(3), 193-200.

Henry, J. (2000). Education and the human condition. Schooling the symbolic animal: Social and cultural dimension of education (pp. 53-56)

Hill, L., McGuire, J., Parker, L., & Sage, R.4-H healthy living literature review summer, 2008

Ireys, H. T., Sills, E. M., Kolodner, K. B., & Walsh, B. B. (1996). A social support intervention for parents of children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis: Results of a randomized trial. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 21(5), 633.

Ireys, H. T., & Silver, E. J. (1996). Perception of the impact of a child’s chronic illness: Does it predict maternal mental health? Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 17(2), 77.

Jeffs, T., & Smith, M. (1999). Informal education: Conversation, democracy and learning Education Now Publishing Cooperative Ltd.

Knafl, K. A., & Gilliss, C. L. (2002). Families and chronic illness: A synthesis of current research. Journal of Family Nursing, 8(3), 178.

Mattingly, C. (2006). Pocahontas goes to the clinic: Popular culture as lingua franca in a cultural borderland. American Anthropologist, 108(3), 494.

Osher, T. W., & Osher, D. M. (2002). The paradigm shift to true collaboration with families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(1), 47-60.

Palisano, R. J., Almarsi, N., Chiarello, L. A., Orlin, M. N., Bagley, A., & Maggs, J. (2009). Family needs of parents of children and youth with cerebral palsy. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(1), 85-92.

Power, P. W., & Orto, A. E. D. (2003). The resilient family: Living with your child’s illness or disability. Sorin Books.

Price, B. (1996). Illness careers: The chronic illness experience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(2), 275-279.

Robinson, K. (2007). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative Wiley-India.

Sciberras, E., Iyer, S., Efron, D., & Green, J. (2010). Information needs of parents of children with attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity disorder. Clinical Pediatrics, 49(2), 150.

Seligman, M., & Darling, R. B. (2007). Ordinary families, special children: A systems approach to childhood disability The Guilford Press.

Soubhi, H. (2007). Toward an ecosystemic approach to chronic care design and practice in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 5(3), 263.

Here’s a permalink to the post that I’ve included below.

May 11, 2010 | Posted At: 11:42 AM | Author: Alexander Russo | Category: Media Watch , Teachers & Teaching

There are lots of folks already teaching The Wire in college and (some) high school classrooms, but little of it I’ve read about so far focused specifically on the education issues raised in the series and particularly in Season Four.  That’s why I was excited when my tocayo, Catholic University communications study professor Alexander Russo, emailed to ask what I’d suggest as background reading focused on that part of the show.  He’s teaching a broad-based course this summer and was looking for ideas about Season Four. And I, unused to being asked to do anything, desperate to be helpful, and to avoid doing what I should be doing, spent too much time asking around and thinking up what I would include in a reading list. The results — including many ideas from friends and colleagues — is included below.  Take a look, and be sure to weigh in with any ideas or disagreements you might have.  Maybe we can get someone to teach The Wire at an ed school, which to my knowledge hasn’t happened yet.

ACADEMIC PAPERS, ARTICLES

Jukin’ the Stats: Education and Inequality in the Fourth Season of The Wire Jonathan Gayles, Assistant Professor of African American Studies, Georgia State University

POPULAR COVERAGE AND COMMENTARY

Breaking Down The Wire Alex Kotlowitz, Steve James, and David Mills discuss Season 4 (Slate)

Why The Wire: Season Four Wasn’t As Good As Everyone Says It Was (More Than Fine)

“These Are Not Your Children” The Wire’s 8th graders and their fate at Tillman Middle School (darkmatter.com 2009)

Ed Burns:  Burning Man Teacher Magazine

Ed Burns, Now Wired Enough to Move On to Battles Beyond the Streets NYT

The Bleakness of The Wire American Scene

The Angriest Man In Television The Atlantic

What Barack Obama Could Learn From The Wire Hufffington Post

Nice White Lady (Mad TV)*

*There’s also a radio segment from Chicago Public Radio’s “Vocalo” in which Bill Ayers analyzes the skit, along with other movies like Stand And Deliver (Part One, Part Two)

Kevin Carey has a series of blog posts that I think include Season Four

NONFICTION DEPICTIONS OF URBAN EDUCATION

something from There Are No Children Here?

something from random family?

something from Jonathan Kozol, Savage Inequalities (Harper Perennial, 1992)?

A Hope in the Unseen from Ron Suskind

Test Of Their Lives Los Angeles Magazine Jesse Katz 2007

Saga Of Rayola Carwell Chicago Tribune Stephanie Banchero 2004

What It Takes to Make a Student NYT Sunday Magazine Paul Tough

ACADEMIC BACKGROUND READING

Posing Problems and Picking Fights:  Critical Pedagogy and the Corner Boys Potter, Beliveau and Bolf-Beliveau

Risk and protective factors for urban African-American youth American Journal of Community Psychology 39: 21 Tinsley Li, S., K.M. Nussbaum and M.H. Richards (2007).

Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle social development project, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36: 300-322. Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., and Battin-Pearson, S.R. (1999).

They wear the mask: Hypermasculinity and hypervulnerability among African American males in an urban remedial disciplinary school, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 11, 53–74. Cassidy, E.F. and H.C. Stevenson (2005).

Psychological mediators of violence in urban youth,” in McCord, J. Violence and children in the inner city. Slaby, R. (1997).

Something from Ralph Payne or Pedro Noguera?

“Thomas Kuhn wrote 50 years ago that confusion and contradiction are the norm during this descriptive phase. As studies comparing the efficacy of chartered versus traditional public schools or smalls schools versus large schools illustrate, Kuhn’s wisdom is still with us. This phase is often characterized by a plethora of categorization schemes because the phenomena generally have many different attributes. Often in this phase no model is irrefutably superior: each seems able to explain anomalies to other modes, but suffers from anomalies of its own. This is the zone in which so many education studies get stuck (Christensen, C.M., 2008, pg. 168).”

Any thoughts?  Or inside information?

Click here to read the article.

I particularly enjoyed a recent post titled “‘Baffling’ Link between Autism and Vinyl Floors”.  In fact I loved it so much that I sent the link to all of my nerdy statistics loving friends.  At first, it seems like an amazing break through… Scientific America writes that:

“Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit chemicals called phthalates, are more likely to have autism, according to research by Swedish and U.S. scientists published Monday.

The study of Swedish children is among the first to find an apparent connection between an environmental chemical and autism.”

Wow!  What a break though, right?  Maybe, but maybe not.  Seth points out some real weaknesses in the study’s methodology, including the often incorrect assumption that a large sample size is both necessary, and the most important aspect of research design.

So if you took statistics or research methods years ago, this is a great reminder about sound research methodology, and that even journals as prominent as Scientific America sometimes don’t get it 100% correct.

Wish #5, posted yesterday, wished for “Education Policy Based on Averages, Not Outliers“.  Essentially, just because there are some amazingly successful schools, like Kipp or Noble Street, that doesn’t mean that all school are able to achieve such greatness, that if all schools don’t that there is something wrong with teachers, etc. and that poverty is a real issue that can not be addressed by replicating these minority model schools.  I encourage you to read the post, as it articulated much of the uneasiness I have felt working in the charter community.

I was particularly struck by this paragraph in today’s post, “Wish #4: Better Alignment of Accountability Systems to School”.

“The story is not that different for the general public. Asked to allocate a total of 100 points across eight goals of public education, a sample of adults divided them up relatively evenly: basic academic skills (19%); critical thinking (15%); social skills and work ethic (14%); physical health (12%); preparation for skilled work (11%); emotional health (11%); citizenship (10%); and the arts and literature (8%).”

I am incredibly dedicated to a public education that focus on critical thinking and emotional health, along with issues of social justice, but had no idea that I was in the majority.  This is exciting and given me renewed hope.

I also am frustrated by NCLB and the mess, confusion and wasted resources that it has caused.  But I do not believe that it’s 100% wrong, and appreciate that it has brought attention to the disparity in performance between different races, ethnicities, socio-economic classes, and geographic locations.  But I too wish we were talking about, and focusing on, a wider range of competencies than reading and math.

I look forward to reading whishes #3, #2 and #1!

Nora

All the best,

Nora