Ain't No Makin' It

Today we ended up having a pretty good discussion, even though there were only 2 students in class. We talked a lot about social reproduction of inequality in schools and what that means. Basically, we have a situation where schools are seen as great equalizers -- where anyone can go and get the education they need to get a better job and a better life. However, as we all know, not everyone succeeds. The question is why not? The answer we are brought up believing is that school success is based on merit -- the harder you work and the smarter you are, the better you will do in school. The flip side of that is that is you don't do well in school, it must be because you did not work hard or you are not smart enough (or not "teachable"). This book offers some alternative explanations to that assumption.

But what I really want to write about today is my disappointment that there were only 2 students in class. What is that about? I can only speculate, but it makes me wonder if students in this class don't want to entertain challenges to the achievement ideology. That ideology has done well by most of the students at SLU, so why would we want to challenge it? I thinks Patrice said it nicely in her blog post today -- because it's not fair. It may serve us, but it's not fair to many others who could and should be taken seriously in their quest not only for a good education, but the rewards that are the end promise of that education.

But on days like today I feel like a Hallway Hanger. Why should I put in all the effort to prepare for a class that over half the students will not attend? Where is the reward in that?