> In a message dated 12/7/2001 4:08:25 PM Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Does naming a cluster of facts "the culture of poverty," > > automatically constitute using it as a "theory" to maintain > > the status quo? I cited 'culture of poverty' to identify one > > way in which kids fail to achieve. > > My pocket dictionary defines the term 'theory' as 1) a set of propositions > describing the operation and causes of natural phenomena, 2) a proposed but > unverified explanation...[The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary] This does not answer the question I asked. I think it might have been Andy Driscoll who said that some cancers have not been proven to be definitely caused by smoking, though it's well nigh impossible to deny the direct link by inference.
> An explanation for the link between poverty and education-related outcomes, > sometimes referred to as the 'culture of poverty' theory, was proposed by > James Coleman and others in a 1966 study entitled "Equality of Educational > Opportunity." I don't care whether it was proposed by Adam's off ox, the point is that this specific cluster of facts appear together in situations of poverty and illiteracy. Whether schools are to blame or parents or children or the forces of good and evil or SuperAmerica makes no difference. The question is how to break the Gordion knot of items entwined and change the sitution so as to change the predictable outcomes. The public schools have answered that they do not know or, if they know, they cnnot amend the situation as they are now constituted. According to Coleman et. al: > > "Schools bring little influence to bear on a child's achievement that is > independent of his background and general social context; and that this very > lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children > by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become > the inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end of school > [The Manufactured Crisis, 1995, Berliner and Biddle, page 71]" > > The conclusions of the 1966 Coleman were cited by school districts as > evidence that desegregating racially segregated school systems would >not benefit >black children. In itself, desegregation could do nothing unless the body politic was willing to desegregate it's attitude and all the niggling little and big infrastructural stuff that supports the status quo. Breaking down attitudes takes genertions, but they have to be broken down. WizardMarks, Central > > > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
