Journal Entry #6

The main project of Shorris' writing is to show that when people are given the right tools, told the information being taught will actually be USEFUL, they start  becoming involved in what is going on in the classroom. Students become eager to learn to help themselves, and thus learn how to be successful. Shorris sees that those who are poor are like that for a reason. But it's Neicie who actually explains why, it's' because children don't have "...a moral alternative to the street." This moral alternative is a way to learn things that can actually help you get through life in an alternative fashion. Politics and morals and logic need  to be taught a little differently to properly induce the transference of information from teacher to student.

I don't really understand what the "limits" of his argument are, but his argument goes something like this: being poor, but uninformed gets you nowhere, being poor and informed can get you anywhere. Being a little more specific, knowing what's going on can get allow you to do anything or get anywhere.

In today's society there are the rich and the poor, the smart and the dumb, the famous and the non-famous. But those who are low on the ladder--the poor, the dumb, and the non-famous-- are on those rungs for a reason. It's because they are products of the environment they reside in. It's the fact that they have no way of alternatively learning how to be successful in a way that is actually productive to their lifestyle. Poor folks can't become well-off because they haven't been taught like the well-off. It's a difference in the teaching of children, rich or poor, that can keep them rich, or make them poor.

Now to attempt discussion questions.

1) What is stopping more of these alternative teaching programs from starting?

2) What could be the reasoning for a project like this to start?