Using qualitative research to contest stereotypes

Originally posted at www.21stcenturyscholar.org

How are black men portrayed? After Freddie Gray’s death due to the brutality of six Baltimore police officers, newscasts focused on Gray’s criminal record and suspect behavior. When city residents protested, the media became more interested. Reporters searched for provocative stories and trolled for increased viewership. They showed dehumanizing videos of wild mobs looting and rioting.

Mainstream media ignored the peaceful protests of informed residents who understand the intricate factors that contribute to distressed neighborhoods in the city; a city where one out of four individuals live below the poverty line; a city where more than three out of four low-income households are headed by single women; and, a city where nearly one out of three children live below the poverty level. Of course, we know these figures underestimate poverty. Federal poverty lines are notoriously unrealistic. The qualifying amount for a one-person household is $11,770. The amount for a three-person household is $20,090.

I could go on. I could mention that, while most research indicates the multiple benefits of homeownership—from health to upward mobility—nearly eight out of ten low-income families rent, not own. I could talk about the failure to provide living wages, the lack of food security, the disproportionate number of dismal public schools, and a robust school-to-prison pipeline. I could criticize reports about exorbitant amounts of money spent on failed public policies to revitalize Baltimore neighborhoods, reports that imply residents somehow refuse to improve their economic standing despite the good deeds of politicians.

We know that healthy neighborhoods rely on five pillars—quality health, safety, education, employment, and institutions. One-dimensional reforms rarely account for interconnected factors that reproduce concentrated and generational poverty. They disregard a history of corrupt institutions and prejudiced politics, facts that have significant implications for policy implementation. When politicians do introduce comprehensive reforms—think of Promise Neighborhoods—they are woefully under-funded. When they fail, critics use them as evidence to quell future anti-poverty efforts.

Distorted media coverage has wide-ranging effects. It informs public discourse and policy discussions. It’s also divisive. How do reactions while watching the nightly news differ between a middle-class 50-year-old in Loveland, Colorado versus a low-income teenager in Baltimore? I imagine the two might have drastically different interpretations. No one likes to be misrepresented. In this case, news organizations misrepresent entire groups on a national stage.

So, what’s the function of qualitative research? Thoughtful research has the potential to contest negative stereotypes, to show why poverty is rarely a choice, to illustrate how living in poverty is not the same thing as being poor. Skilled ethnographers, for example, have the ability to present the complexities of local conditions and connect them to overarching social and economic conditions. Such insights are critical to creating more productive public dialogue and designing more just social policy.

Katy Perry, you’re awesome; Tom Jefferson, you need a makeover.

I originally posted this blog on September 21, 2010.

High school students know who Katy Perry is. She’s a socialite. She has a song, “I Kissed a Girl.” She dated the tattooed guy from Gym Class Heroes and now is engaged to  the funny guy from Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Teenagers could, I’m sure, also fill-in-the-blanks for numerous other pop culture figures: T-Pain, Rihanna, Justin Bieber, etc., etc…

And yet, in spite of a mandatory civics class, most students don’t know who Thomas Jefferson is. Sure, some could tell me he was a president or signed the Declaration, but they don’t know about his political beliefs; they don’t know about inalienable rights. The same goes for most other political thinkers, like Thomas Hobbes or Aristotle or John Locke or John Rawls.

The fact that they are all white old guys who belong to a traditional Western canon is important, but isn’t my purpose for today. I am certainly not a Great Books fan, but I do see value in most of these authors’ texts. After all, many African American writers and activists learned about concepts such as inalienable rights and social justice from the classics. My purpose for today is what we ask teachers and students to do or not to do in schools.

The government will announce this morning the winners of the Promise Neighborhood planning grant competition. I have been clear from the start about my hopes and reservations for the initiative, which is modeled after Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), as well as community-based reform. Such a “holistic” policy perspective, using acclaimed sociologist William Julius Wilson’s words, importantly targets both structural and cultural factors.

And yet, reforms in education seldom last. It seems short-sighted that policy-makers frequently place so much stress on structural changes with little discussion of cultural factors. HCZ is largely successful because of the parent academy, which provides parenting skills and knowledge to the fathers and mothers of the students in the schools. Such reform, hopefully, creates sustainable change.

The next logical step is raising a generation of learners as well as politically engaged citizens. Some readers may argue that perhaps we should first focus on getting a student to read a book or pass a test. I agree, but also think raising good human beings isn’t a zero-sum game; we can encourage multiple purposes of education. Others may worry that I am advocating for jingoism or inculcation. That is absolutely not the case. I am arguing for students who will question, problemetize, and contest.

In some classroom in Los Angeles, a teacher is creating a dialogue with her students about Thomas Jefferson, civil rights, and social movements like the Justice for Janitors campaign or the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union. That teacher is empowering her students by asking them to envision a better society. Hopefully, the Promise Neighborhood winners will dare to create the necessary conditions for lasting change too.

The promise (and peril) of Promise Neighborhoods

I originally posted this blog on June 28, 2010.

Geoff Canada has quickly become a popular example of the charismatic, transformational leader necessary for positive educational change. His vision of the potential of one neighborhood is nonpareil and extraordinary. His non-profit organization, the Harlem’s Children Zone, which provides a comprehensive suite of services to children and families within a 100 city block radius in Harlem, is ending generational poverty. Over the past several years, Canada has been featured in multiple newspapers, in a book written by Paul Tough, on segments for 60 Minutes and CNN, and even in an American Express commercial.  In fact, Canada and HCZ have been so successful that President Obama, using non-profits and higher education institutions as local implementers, wants to replicate the model in communities across the United States.

The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods Program is to improve the outcomes of children through a continuum of “cradle-through-college-to-career” services. Of note, applications for the first stage, the planning grant, which provides a year of funding in order to develop an implementation plan, were due yesterday.

Promise Neighborhoods provides an opportunity to catalyze sustainable place-based reform; however, tremendous obstacles exist. Canada, for instance, estimates a program similar to HCZ will cost approximately $35 million. Even with matched funding from philanthropic organizations, organizations are not likely to achieve that amount. Other challenges include the politics of policy design, implementation, and evaluation, as well as the involvement of community stakeholders. Yet, the trend to fund community-specific  initiatives, while not new (see the Community Action Agencies established with the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as part of President Johnson’s Great Society), is essential to improving the lives of historically marginalized populations. Even though limitations certainly exist, Promise Neighborhoods represents an acknowledgment of the multidimensional aspects of education and community building. It may also represent, I hope and believe, an important shift in policy design.