One of the biggest problems I see with the movie Freedom Writers is its acceptance of the systemic oppression which puts Erin Gruwell and her students into such a difficult situation in the first place. This oppression is touched upon through the characters Margaret Campbell (Imelda Staunton), who is the department head, and Brian Gelford (John Benjamin Hickey), the English teacher for upper grades. These two characters both make comments along the lines that 'these students can't be taught' or 'these students can't have textbooks' or 'these students will all be gone by junior year anyway.' Other than this manifestation, however, the idea of institutional racism is never really addressed within the movie.
The message that Miss Gruwell gives her students is "you can change your situation if you work hard and believe in yourself." This is in line with popular contemporary educational philosophy which suggests that setting high expectations for students is one of the most important steps a teacher can make because this will instill self efficacy in students. However, this philosophy only works for things that are in fact within the students' power to change. The film disregards the many issues which are outside of the students' power.
Don't misinterpret my meaning -- I think that. the Freedom Writers' story is admirable and inspirational. Erin Gruwell opened up many doors for these students to become successful against staggering odds. But I think the film lets audience members off the hook by disregarding the staggering odds that these students never deserved to face in the first place.
My brother, a second year teacher in the DC public schools, had a chat with me recently about his personal experience with some of the realities that complicate a Gruwell-type philosophy of education. One of the biggest challenges within his school is the high rate of turnover for teachers. Research has demonstrated that it takes between 5-10 years for teachers to fully develop their skills before reaching maximum potential. If teachers leave the school before fully developing that potential, their students are continually receiving less effective teaching than their peers in better schools. My brother himself has a math background and is in the process of getting his Master's in Education while teaching. Non-traditional licensure such as his is far more common in low-income and urban schools than other areas. Again, this contributes to the high concentration of novice teachers and less experience typically correlates with less effective teaching.
So one question we need to keep asking ourselves is why is the turnover rate for urban teachers so high?
The bigger question, of course, is how can we improve schools and the education system as a whole rather than making reform the problem of individuals with a sense of social responsibility?
The message that Miss Gruwell gives her students is "you can change your situation if you work hard and believe in yourself." This is in line with popular contemporary educational philosophy which suggests that setting high expectations for students is one of the most important steps a teacher can make because this will instill self efficacy in students. However, this philosophy only works for things that are in fact within the students' power to change. The film disregards the many issues which are outside of the students' power.
Don't misinterpret my meaning -- I think that. the Freedom Writers' story is admirable and inspirational. Erin Gruwell opened up many doors for these students to become successful against staggering odds. But I think the film lets audience members off the hook by disregarding the staggering odds that these students never deserved to face in the first place.
My brother, a second year teacher in the DC public schools, had a chat with me recently about his personal experience with some of the realities that complicate a Gruwell-type philosophy of education. One of the biggest challenges within his school is the high rate of turnover for teachers. Research has demonstrated that it takes between 5-10 years for teachers to fully develop their skills before reaching maximum potential. If teachers leave the school before fully developing that potential, their students are continually receiving less effective teaching than their peers in better schools. My brother himself has a math background and is in the process of getting his Master's in Education while teaching. Non-traditional licensure such as his is far more common in low-income and urban schools than other areas. Again, this contributes to the high concentration of novice teachers and less experience typically correlates with less effective teaching.
So one question we need to keep asking ourselves is why is the turnover rate for urban teachers so high?
The bigger question, of course, is how can we improve schools and the education system as a whole rather than making reform the problem of individuals with a sense of social responsibility?