Reframing the Conversation

I am unashamedly a person of passion.  Fortunately my passion provides fuel for my purpose, which is to serve the marginalized and disenfranchised.  Not in a paternalistic/maternalistic, let me do it for you manner; but in a sincere effort to partner past an “us vs. them” mentality.  Paulo Freire stated it best, “Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.”  Neutrality ensures that the powerful “wins.”  Those with power dictate the interaction.  Whether the bully on the playground, the teacher in the classroom, or the dominant group that establishes laws and regulations, the powerful have control.  I wasn’t aware of how much control until I began to examine my thoughts regarding issues of homeless and academic attainment. 

 

I consider myself a critical thinker.  It is something in which I have always taken pride; however, I too fall victim to surface thinking.  In examining issues of academic achievement and access to a “brighter future” I have touched on societal structures that may impact educational achievement and access; however, upon closer examination my thoughts were still on “how do we ‘fix’ the child” as if the problem is situated with the child.  In domestic violence counseling it is said that the father has a hard day at work so he comes home and hits the mother, who then hits the older sibling, who then hits the younger sibling, who then kicks the dog.  The same can be said of the educational setting.  Colleges blame the high schools, who blame the middle schools, who blame the elementary schools, who blame the parents, who blame the child.  In both of these scenarios the weakest member in the link gets the brunt of the consequences.  The dog gets kicked because it is accessible and usually does not fight back.  The child receives the consequences of low test scores, failing grades, being held back, and any number of negative consequences.  No one else in the chain receives a consequence for their part in failing the child.

I liken the educational setting to that of domestic violence because the outcome is essentially the same; the helpless member receives a consequence for what is happening within the system.  Situating the problem with the child addresses the only member in the chain that has no power.  It would be the equivalent of telling the dog in the domestic violence scenario “you should have known that the dad had a bad day at work and therefore dog you should have changed your behavior.”

If, as a society, we truly believe that all children are endowed with the ability to learn and achieve, what is occurring within the educational system that allows for some to achieve at high level and others not?  If we believe that children experiencing homelessness have the same academic potential as children who are sheltered, what is the system doing to uncover and release that potential?  Are the answers to the question, “why are children affected by homelessness not achieving?” more complex than simply providing food, shelter, and clothing?

Operating on the surface is where the easy quick-fix remedy resides.  The answer to children affected by homelessness is complex; however, there are answers.  Thoughts?