Earlier this week, my class on social justice in Education discussed Jeffrey M. R. Duncan-Andrade’s article and video entitled, “Note to Educators: Hope Required When Growing Roses in Concrete” (found here). Jeffrey founded a wonderful school program called “Roses in Concrete” where children from urban areas are put into a classroom that will foster their many capabilities and help them succeed in school. In his article, Jeffrey discusses three types of false hopes that teachers give students who come from underprivileged backgrounds, which include (1) “hokey hope” (2) “mythical hope” and (3) “hope deferred.” After explaining the wrong kinds of hope, Jefferey provides us with his idea on the “right” kind of hope, which he entitles “critical hope.” I will go over each one a little further, so that we can all learn how to avoid these types of false hopes.
Hokey hope is probably the most prevalent type of false hope, at least in the opinions of me and my classmates, and it is basically the pick yourself “up-by-your-bootstraps” idea that if the urban youth would just work hard enough, “pay attention, and play by the rules, then they will go to college and live out the ‘American dream’.” Jefferey is quick to contend that he does not undermine the importance of hard work in order to produce change. However, he feels that this type of hope ignores all of the “inequities that impact the lives of urban youth” before they even get into the “under-resourced schools that reinforce an uneven playing field.”
Mythical hope is a type of false hope that recently intensified with the Obama administration. This type of false hope focuses on “celebrating individual exceptions” while denying the suffering of the majority of underprivileged communities. The idea is that by looking to powerful people, like Obama, we can inspire children by saying that if he can make it through the system, you can too. Jeffrey explained that ultimately, mythical hope “depends on luck and the law of averages to produce individual exceptions to the tyranny of injustice, and thus it denies the legitimacy of the suffering of the oppressed.”
Hope deferred is a type of hope that is built on a “progressive politics of despair” which Jeffrey claims is used for a “justification for poor teaching.” Many teachers who fall victim to using this type of hope are so overwhelmed by the challenges of helping urban youth succeed in the traditional school system, that they “consider themselves unequipped” to develop hope in this despair. Instead of blaming the students for their poor situations, they blame the “system” and they feel that the only hope we have is through a reformed school system and society.
Critical hope, according to Jeffrey, “rejects the despair of hopelessness” as well as the “cheap American optimism,” which is the base of many false hopes. In order to provide critical hope, teachers must demand commitment and active struggle against evidence ” in order to cut the “deadly tides of wealth inequality, group xenophobia, and personal despair.” There are three elements, which all must operate holistically, in order to make critical hope effective; these elements are material, Socratic, and audacious hope. Material hope basically means providing students with rigorous academic material that is related to the “harsh realities of poor, urban communities.” Socratic hope is basically the base of truly loving your students and caring for their lives outside of the classroom. In order to be a great teacher, you must take risks and accept challenges that will be uncomfortable for us, but beneficial for our students. If these urban students see their teachers constantly reflecting on their successes and failures, and struggling with how to best help their students, they will truly feel loved and cared for. Lastly, in order to critical hope to be successful, we must have some element of audacious hope, which is basically a willingness to share in these students’ struggles. This relates back to Socratic hope in that it fosters a loving relationship between the teachers and the students, and helps lead these students to trust their teachers.
Overall, I thought his article was very enlightening and impactful, and I found it especially important for teachers pursuing a classroom in an urban area. Although we may not be able to understand the struggle, we must get involved in it in some way, in order to help these students truly succeed. If you are interested, please watch the video below, where Jeffrey Duncan goes into much more detail about his ideas on critical hope.