Posts (page 2)
background: As everyone pretty much knows at this point, I'm doing my final project on the Mississippi Innocence Project. I first heard about the Innocence Project (the New England one) as a freshman in college. I was immediately drawn to it. Anyone who has heard a story about the Innocence Project would probably feel the same. It is extremely powerful. There are Innocence Projects all over the nation (although they are not connected--like all the alternate route teaching programs around the nation. Keep this point in mind, it will come back later). Every group attempts to exonerate wrongfully convicted people. Most of the projects use DNA evidence to free people who were unjustly served. Many cases were decided 20 or so years ago, before DNA testing was a sure science. Mississippi, on the other hand, does not have laws about the preservation of evidence. This gives makes the MIP's job a heck of a lot harder. In a lot of cases, they must use old-fashioned methods to help free those who were wrongfully served (i.e. go back to the scene of the crime, watch videos, measure distances, etc.) However, the project has proven successful with two exonerated last year.
how the innocence project works: Prisoners write to the Innocence Project in their area requesting help for their case. The staff then sends the prisoner an application. The applications then get screened (which undoubtedly takes a very long time, especially with small staffs) and if the case can potentially be worked on, they begin investigation. This is no walk in the park though--I saw the drawers upon drawers of applications waiting to be screened at the Law School at OleMiss. However, I was not surprised. There were only three other ladies working alongside Tucker while I was there, and at least 1 was a student taking classes at the same time.
This brings me to my project. The need for funds immediately made me think about the need for money in education. Schools need money, teachers and administrators need to get paid more, etc. Money truly does make a difference. I think Tucker would vouch for this--he joked that out of all the thank-you cards we sent after his talk, not one made a donation :) Money is also a common thread when discussing the demographic of the two programs (Teacher Corps and the Innocence Project). It's no secret that many of the kids that are in the tough schools and that can't read come from households living in poverty. They don't have resources and many of their parents are uneducated. The same holds true for many of the prisoners. Lastly, there is education--the children who can't read at a 4th grade level in high school have a slim chance of making it. An suspect who can't read his rights has a very slim chance of winning in court. It's just how the systems work. It's a vicious cycle. The two programs serve similar kinds of people and have similar needs. However, in my mind, there is one glaring difference. Hearing about convictions of the innocent or the innocent of death row is A LOT more powerful than hearing about the inequalities in education. However, the injustice done to these young children, who just happen to be born into a certain lifestyle and in a certain region are just as strong. That's why I would like to create an ad campaign comparing the two programs in an attempt to highlight the importance or both. Most of my information will be statistical, coming mainly from websites. However, I will also use Tucker and the other interns I worked with at the Innocence Project to get more details and stories in order to make the ad more compelling. As always, I have Ben, the staff, and the second years to help me with the MTC portion. It's kind of hard to explain, but I promise I have a vision.
"90% of first years and interns play volleyball below grade level.
mississippi volley corps: working to reduce this achievement gap."
-robert bland, my friends.
you have 30 students in your classroom. 8 of which read above grade level, 15 of which read at just about grade level, and 7 of which read below grade level (3 read significantly below grade level). which group do you tailor your lesson to?
Ben asked us this hypothetical yesterday. He told us that it was the dilemma that most all teacher corps teachers run into at some point in their careers. If you direct your lesson to the top half, you lose everyone else. If you direct it to the middle, the top get bored and the bottom get lost. If you direct it to the bottom, everyone else is bored. Now, I've never taught before, but I figure there has to be some way to tailor a lesson to everyone--no matter what level each student is at. Would it be possible to pair students up? Put the 8 top kids with 8 of the middle kids and have the more advanced students in some way help out the middle students. They would be learning by teaching and it would give them some power, which may keep the engaged. Also, the middle students would be learning in a different way, from a peer, someone who they may respect, trust, etc. Kids tend to be witty--They may be able to explain something in a unique way. The teacher would do the same with the 7 other "middle" students and the 7 lower students.
This is a completely random thought. I figure it's probably not plausible that kids would actually help each other out, rather than goof around, but maybe I'm not giving them enough credit. Students may also feel inferior and have problems with receiving help from fellow classmates. Especially because the lowest group does not get to experience the "teaching" aspect. They are simply taught. I also really haven't thought about how it would logically work. Would the students help teach each other the lesson? Or would they just work on activities together? The more advanced students might then just do the work and not concern themselves with the others. There are a lot of problems with this approach, but it was the first thing that came into my head. Basically, in my opinion, what it comes down to is there needs to be some sort of restructuring to the classroom in order to accomodate this dilemma. It could even mean that some schools/classes should teach by reading level, not by grade level. Who knows? I just wanted to put my thoughts down into writing.
tucker carrington: It all comes back to poverty. Sandra said it in her discussion of the media. Claiborne Barksdale said it in his discussion of literacy. We've heard it time and time again from Ben and Dr. Mullins. Tucker only reiterated this point during his talk on the Innocence Project. Money Matters. Money (or a lack thereof) is the reason many people don't follow news and distrust the media. Money is the reason many children don't have books or other learning tools in their homes. Money is the reason programs like the Mississippi Teaching Corps have to exist. Money is the reason people are wrongfully convicted. Now, money may not be the only reason, but it sure seems to be a root of all these causes; a very big root, at that. As Tucker pointed out, poverty leads to uneducated people. Uneducated people may not fully understand their rights. They also may not be able to afford decent attornies. They may be targetted (as Tucker points out, you don't see police with dogs checking airlines, but you do see them checking trailways) or, by nature, they may just fall easily into the criminal justice system. Either way, poverty is a key factor. Money also affects the other end--the lawyers, the judges--the system in general. "You get what you pay for", Tucker says, as he describes the shitty (excuse my language) job many defense attornies and judges do when dealing with the law. You ask someone if they want the easy way out, even someone dealing with a potentially innocent citizen, and at a salary of $40,000 or less, you would probably be surprised at the answer.
Criminal justice system sound like the United States educational system, anyone?
Exactly what my project will focus on. About a week ago I was really reading into the Innocence Project online and I noticed some striking similarities between MTC and the Innocence Project. First of all, the demographic of the wrongfully convicted: poverty, illiteracy--many of the same characteristics of the children struggling in school. Secondly, the program itself. There is a lack of funds, plus a shortage of good defense lawyers willing to work on these cases--like the lack of teachers and funds within our educational system. Ineffective policy is another key factor that resonates in both cases.
So no one wants to kill the innocent, right? Of course not--that's shocking, that's immoral, that's just plain wrong. That's also the reason the Innocence Project gets the recognition and publicity Tucker mentioned. Well, don't we in a way "kill" the innocent (the children) every day that we can't provide them the proper education: the proper resources to give them a chance at life? At least a life that's worth living. I know this analogy is a little strong, but I think it has to be that powerful. Everyone understands that convicting someone who is innocent, sending someone to death who didn't commit a crime, is wrong. However, not everyone understands the reality of the educational inequity that exists today. Not everyone understands the injustice being done to some kids.
My project is going to be an advertisment, somewhat like a PSA, that likens the Mississippi Teacher Corps to the Innocence Project. My hope is that it will make a powerful statement, as well as serve as an educational tool to teach other people what you all already know as teachers here in Mississippi. What you all are doing is an Innocence Project in and of itself.
empathy: most basically, the ability to put oneself in another's shoes.
While I'm not a teacher, and I've got a long way to go before I become one, if I so choose to become one, I'd say empathy is the key advice I would take from Claiborne Barksdale's talk. Mr. Barksdale mentioned four factors: mother's level of education (high school or above), money (or at least not poverty), presence of a father (or a father figure), and English as the primary language. He said, that the chances of a child getting a good education, or "making it", are a lot slimmer if the child is missing two of these four factors. So, that struggling student in the classroom is not having a tough time because s/he was born stupid-- it's not that at all. Chances are that child is lacking something in his/her life; something you probably had, and something that you most likely didn't even realize had a huge impact on your own ability to learn. It's hard, because learning is very individualized: You get what you put in, but what if a student doesn't even have the most basic resources to put into his/her education. Even if that student has a strong desire to learn, it might be near impossible without any help. That's where the empathy from the teachers must come in. They must first understand what each child is working with, and then work with them to make progress. Empathy is also the reason I found the Barksdale Reading Institute's procedure so interesting. It has a great method because it truly gets at the foundation of learning: literacy. The institute essentially acts as the teacher trying to be on both sides of the desk--it has found where the problem lies, and is now trying to alleviate that problem in a differentiated manner. Mr. Barksdale said, "you learn to read, then you read to learn". This can be a scary thought for the student in 3rd grade who has still not properly learned how to comprehend words. The institute, though, is working to change that. The only real question I have about the program deals with resources, or a lack thereof. In order for the program to work, each classroom needs at least one assistant teacher, if not two. However, we hear over and over again that there is a shortage of teachers, so I'm just not sure how far this initiative could expand with that problem lurking over our heads. Does the institute find these assistants? Or are they already a part of the school system down here? I was a little unclear on this fact. Other than that, Mr. Barksdale was a great speaker, with a lot of helpful information. The institute is truly doing a great thing and I look forward to hearing about how effective the newest changes will be. I hope, and believe, that the program will be very successful.
sandra knispel: First of all, extremely engaging speaker. I was truly interested in what Sandra was saying at all points during her talk. She was very personable--which is probably why she is such a great reporter. As for what I learned, I didn't realize how tough of a job a journalist has. I never really thought about the economic aspect of it all--with free internet nowadays, it's no wonder journalists are getting laid off and investigatory and international reporting are getting shut out as professions. Also, there is the toughness that comes along with getting honest stories. When Sandra first asked us whether or not we would talk to her if she called asking for her a story, my first reaction was, sure. However, once I put myself in context, I realized that with my job, etc. on the line, the chances of me actually agreeing to talk were slim. This mindset is problematic, though, because media and the honest stories are very important to public change. I don't necessarily agree with the quote that Sandra read, stating that free press is the main reason for all social change, but I think that the media and press are the sparks that start the fire. The circulation of the information, if done correctly and truthfully, will elicit good ideas, and eventually affect great change.
One thing I started thinking about as a result of Sandra's talk is the lack of classes dealing with current events, news, etc. --at least at Amherst and the public high school I attended. We talk about this a lot in the CEL (Community Engagement Leader) program that I'm a part of. It involves a lot of doing (physical volunteering), recruiting, and logistics, but not a lot of policy and research work. I believe that every educated person should be on top of the news and I've always felt like I fall short in this department. It was just so easy to get stuck in Maine, especially because I rarely traveled, but that's no excuse. I have gotten better since I got out and went to college, but it's still not something I do regularly. Sometimes I just get too caught up in the here-and-now kind of things to take the time out to simply read and watch what's going on outside of my world. After Sandra's talk, though, I'm going to make an honest effort to stay on top of my stuff :0)
professor winkle: Professor Winkle's talk was right up my alley, major wise. I just recently took a class that dealt with Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, etc. I knew a lot about the case and the history of it (the desire for a unanimous vote, etc), but Professor Winkle really put the case in the context of Mississippi and the south, a completely different region from where I read and discuss the case. He mentioned that the Brown ruling prompted White Citizens' Councils, white supremacist groups that were opposed to segregation. I have never heard of these groups, but I personally feel that they are an important aspect to the implications of the case. Ater all, the group posted signs outside many Southern towns that read "The White Citizens' Council of __________ Welcomes You". It is these little pieces of history that are left out which keep people like me ignorant to the customs, views, etc. of the south. I'm in disbelief sometimes of the things I see/hear down here, but I have to keep in mind that the history of one region isn't necessarily the history of another.
