After Michael Harrington's revelation that the poor had expeditiously increased in the 1950's, Lyndon B. Johnson took it upon himself to create a "war on poverty" and complete Kennedy's legacy. His following actions - he would term himself as the Great Society - would be a resurgence in economic and educational prowess. LBJ could kill multiple birds with one stone for his Great Society. He could fight back against the oppression of poverty, bridge the educational gap between minorities and social classes, and improve the economy all at once. (Frazer 308). As a poor farmer and teacher once in his life, LBJ directly understood poverty and how to fight it; and as president, he had the powers to fight it. A few reasons LBJ wanted to press for school reform were because classroom and college size would keep increasing, unemployment would continue to rise from dropouts, and he envisioned helping a disadvantaged youth.
I would support LBJ and his plan around 80%. I would support his acts signed in 64` and 65` because those undoubtedly advanced school referendum and brought needed change to American society. Those signed acts brought VISTA, the Job Corps, Head Start, and funding from ESEA into reality (Urban 296). All these programs benefitted various school programs and battled against poverty for inner city kids until their eventual demises. Urban communities discontinued the Job Corps and VISTA locations in their area, and LBJ chose funding for Vietnam war efforts over ESEA. It's a shame that his Great Society failed this way, and by the Nixonite and Reagan eras the War on Poverty was over. The 20% I disagree with is I would have sent more money to rural school districts. I first hand came from a rural school district that had a lack of funding. These problems still continue today and I feel like rural peoples like myself are forgotten sometimes.
0 Comments
During the early 1950's, the NAACP used their political power to file lawsuits in four different states. Their goal was the end of segregation which was keeping black children from white public schools. Eventually, the lawsuits reached the Supreme Court and were titled under the court case Brown v. Board of Education. Before the court case reached its decision, Chief Justice Fred M. was killed from a heart attack and replaced by new Chief Justice Ed Warren. Chief Justice Warren led the other justices in voting unanimously on the landmark court case. The Supreme Court ruled that "Separate but equal" was unconstitutional because the segregated schools themselves were unequal. Despite the progression of education, there was heavy resistance among the South. The Court realized it would ultimately depend upon the "compliance of whites to comply" as they had no guarantee to enforce the new rulings at a local level (Urban 270).
The Supreme Court unanimously voted to end segregation for a few reasons. The justices saw the most important function of state and local governments to educate citizens. The justices cited the importance education holds in awakening cultural values and in developing children for professional training. The black schools would continue to lack proper academic resources to assist successful life training which the justices identified as unequal treatment. (Frazer 279) The Supreme Court also realized the psychological effect the segregation was holding on black children. To accept laws that enforced the placing of colored peoples in segregated schools based solely on the blackness of their skin denoted the inferiority of them as a race. To uphold a the past Plessy v Ferguson court case would keep in place this sense of inferiority. Inferiority of any kind is unequal. In 1957, The Soviet Union launched the Sputnik satellite which drove a drastic fear into Americans. For the first time in the Cold War, the nation realized it had lost technological and scientific advancements of the Soviet Union, and the realization caused fear of nuclear annihilation (Urban 260.) During this time, new thinkers developed ways upon how to motivate students for better results in the classroom - as education was now being seen as the way to win the space race. One thinker, however, did not believe reforming schools would not solve the nation's learning problem. This man was John Holt. Holt believed that the regular school curriculum should be ditched instead for a type of learning that peaked the curiosity and interests of the child. He beleived students would not retain knowledge if it was not interesting to them. Basically, he pushed for a more individualistic style for learning.
Holt first believed schools were a nervous place. He believed homeschooling or alternative schooling would be more likely to teach succesful students (Frazer 264.) While I do agree school can be a nerve-racking setting, I do believe alternative schooling is weaker to normal schooling. Fear of school may disrupt some studies, yet the curriculum at normal school will be relevant to most future learning. Learning about something individualisticly at home may not actually have a real world application, and alternative schooling lacks the real socialztion of public schools. Will homeschool children be able to carry themselves in a conversation once in the real world? Holt then goes on to state that schools should teach students what they want to be taught. I agree with this statement whole heartedly. Teaching students what they want will help them succeed, yet make sure classes are actually relevant to real world applications and learning. |
AuthorI'm a learner of new things and a thinker of new ideas. Archives
April 2019
Categories |