I just read this thread and was jawdropped at your previous arrogance. There is nothing worse in teaching than trying to motivate a bunch of students whose parents and environment work against you at every turn, either deliberately or out of ignorance- and then being blamed when they fail because of their own lack of home preparation. The sad thing is that there are no consequences out there for the kind of student who can drop out in 9th or 10th grade out and do as well as his parents. They end up leading the lives they've always led and the school's outside community is not only accepting of that, they're downright hostile to people who suggest that there's something better... you know, the reason you're supposed to study hard to begin with. Then they go out and breed and the whole ugly cycle begins anew. This.
Yup, that is the research. That seems to be best practices. Add care and time given to the student and that is why she was successful. I would guess you mean to say that you teach in a lower income/transient population school. In a lot of conversations I've had with other teachers (and going though grad school), I think the problem falls back on the parents. Some is limited by economics, but some is simply not undertaken. At the least, by the time kids reach kindergarten, they should know basic addition and be able to identify all the letters of the alphabet. Research shows that if a student does not, that student will likely struggle through the entire educational system, and possibly drop out. This is something that parents, up front, can prevent.
I read that a bit different, and will look at the examples of two movies about teachers. One thing many of these students lack is a family structure, one of stability (this is a common theme running though my students' comments). On a regular basis, they have to learn to take care of themselves during their early teen years. Thus, they are doing what they do to make money and get food in their belly from an early age, an age when suburban children are starting to develop deeper and more critical thinking skills by analyzing the world around them. Often times, these suburban children will do this analysis on some vacation, apply what they learned in school to the environment in which they are vacationing. The inner-city kid, while possibly on vacation, will use that time to relax as a way of being away from the daily stress of having to survive. All of this translates back into priorities. The inner-city kids have to balance survival now with education now. And whether you take Maslow or Gardner, kids will find that they belong more comfortably with "gangs" or groups that tend towards gang-like behavior. Thus, by the time they reach high school, a teacher (adult) will need to work very hard to gain the trust of a student, making them believe they care. And often this means that the teacher will need to sacrifice their own personal life. Look at Erin Grewel (Freedom Writers) and Jamie Escelante (Stand and Deliver). I know a teacher at my own high school (white collar community) who was so focused on his students that he began to have trouble with his marriage. Yet most teachers are not like those three. Most teachers either will not or cannot adjust their lives in such a way as to put their marriage in jeopardy (as in the three examples I gave). Thus, the students are left to the groups and society that they grew up in. There is peer pressure to conform to a behavior, a life-style (just like in other age groups). Their society is one that is routinely ignored and deemed unimportant. Thus, the fear is that if somebody becomes successful, they will ignore those they grew up with and find them unimportant. Thus, this need to belong and for others to belong with is cyclical.
Understood and agreed. Sorry I didn't see this earlier, you probably won't see that I responded. That said... It's all cyclical. And it's 2012. The typical mother of this kind of student had plenty of time as a young girl to see the young man with the books under his arm, a serious expression on his face (there've been a few at every school I've taught at) and command of the English language. She probably didn't look, and when she did, she didn't like what she saw. So she went after the guy with the money, the car, the clothing, the gridiron acolades, whatever, and got exactly what she deserved when he left her with a baby or three and no child support. Problem is, every student in a classroom with her offspring is getting what she deserved. Sit down at a table supervising a bunch of 7th-grade girls during lunch and listen to them talk about the babies they're going to have. See if you hear anything about a husband. Anything at all. I didn't hear it, and when I diplomatically mentioned it, I was told, "Mr. Prottu, you know good and well we ain't gon' be married when we have kids". Instead of being deeply, deeply ashamed that she blew her chances and telling her daughter to be smarter than she was, that mother's telling her daughter that men are shit and her son that he ain't shit. I've sat in on six or seven dozen parent conferences, some of them to congratulate, most not. If I had a dollar for every time I've spoken to a father or even a married woman at these conferences, I couldn't buy a six-pack of PBR.
All true stuff, Protto. I want to follow an item that is off topic but which has always fascinated me -- the self destructive tendencies of young women and dating. As all men learn, young women have something of a death wish with young men. The worse the guy is as a long-term prospect, the better he does with girls. This is not about a dumb & handsome versus Woody Allen. I'm talking about two guys of equal looks, but one is cocky and lazy and self-centered and thoughtless, and one is as you describe, serious and respectful and ambitious. The first guy wins in a heartbeat with the 15 year olds. Or 20 year olds. Then another 15 years later, it's just the opposite. I don't get it. There must be something instinctual about this behavior. Maybe women of all ages are attracted to good providers (that would make genetic sense), and cocky thoughtless jerks come across as good providers to teens? Because they are confident and dominant? Then in the late 20s and 30s it's clear they are not good providers because they don't have shit for a career or income, so the women turn to the guys who they now view as good providers -- the quiet serious types? I know I know it's a stretch. But that is one aspect of women that has always puzzled me. And it never changes. My freshman college son comes back home and tells me with bewilderment about all these smart, attractive freshman girls who throw themselves at the most annoying guys at the college, the ones who get drunk and boast about how he made the girl blow him under the table. That type. It takes me back 30 years. I know those guys exactly.