Frequently Asked Questions:
What is a street college?
Typically a street colleges (or street academies) are grassroots attempts by organizations to bring specific curricular models to non-traditional urban learners; street academies founded in New York City by Bill Milliken targeted high school dropouts -- founded on the premise that deficiencies in the public schools system did not address the drop-out problem. A street college or academy is essentially a group of individuals that seek to educate at-risk populations through non-traditional methods. Such outreaches can be historically considered to be the predecessors of the current charter school movement. Our program is different in that it is for adults, 18 years old or older. We employ a different after-school strategy to bring Humanities education to the children of the public sector.
Why is your street college different?
We may not be -- street schools use a variety of eclectic methodologies worldwide. Our approach is to empower self-motivated curiosity by means of our unique holistic learning systems; we use co-authored community-based learning contracts called, I-Plans, to invest students in their own learning. We do not use the Internship model in the integration of our students to the greater community, but use a Journalistic approach, where students enter as skilled Observers. We are a college that utilizes basic science cores as thematic springboards for understanding Humanities. Other novel approaches include dual-role board membership; our board also serve as our college's academic heads, and, like our students, are invested in their own life explorations as life-long learners.
What is your target population?
Any disenfranchised or displaced learner over 18 years old qualifies for MC/YSC matriculation. These include school dropouts, homeless individuals, those with mental challenges, post-incarcerated adults -- who -- for whatever reason find it difficult to continue their education through conventional means. Our approach, based on Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Model is inclusive of all cognitive/affective learning styles. We therefore do not disqualify anyone due to prior-learning difficulties, all we require is a desire to learn. Likewise, we do not link our services to court ordered rehabilitation/reform strategies, as that goes against our belief that learning must be an individual non-coerced choice (inclusive of implied socioeconomic coercions which pin status-quo success to degree completion).
Are there risks in mixing such diverse learning populations?
Our college does not share (adult/child) events such as conferences or workshops, or any type of joint outreach. We are committed, however, to share our insights & knowledge with existing schools and organizations. This we do by creating/consulting (with) after-school programs; we strive to keep our adult learners separate from our after-school activities, even though both may share the vision of the college.
What exactly do your students learn?
Our students learn to understand complex realities around them by broadening their cognitive/affective horizons; the college's science cores: astronomy, geography, sociology, and psychology serve merely as springboards to our other, more practical cores: literacy, design, vocations, civics, and wellness. In short, our students learn to understand the broader picture of life by first understanding the scientific methods that serves as foundational elements to the creative social process. Only then, we believe, can the individual manipulate real-life factors effectively, and auto-identify options.
Given your differences, can you define your ideas regarding 'Education', 'Learning', and 'At-risk'?
For most living things to learn is a natural seamless effort to survive -- we have been learning through geologic time, ever increasing our cognitive tool sets (our biological processes), our physical & social environment, even our brain size. While learning is innate, or best stated, a process involving conscious and subconscious motivators, Education is a different type of animal. Education, at least in the Western modern context involves policy; it is not about individual survival but about the survival of broader sociopolitical systems, such as culture and ideology (sustaining and rationalizing our way of life, organizing our social structures [class], and dividing wealth). We believe that there is a juxtaposed distance between the two (learning and education) which, like the 'canary in the coal mine' warns us, by the absence of song, of harmful disharmony. In short, while it is our nature and desire to learn, policy often limits or re-directs learning towards system self-preservation, without first assessing the value of the system being preserved: our canary perhaps is our failed public education. We believe that the definition of learning needs to be isolated from the definition of education, despite the fact that, from a practical point of view, in actuality, they cannot be separated. Understanding why we learn (our prehistoric predispositions) will help us create wiser modern policy: a policy in harmony with ourselves. We define 'At-risk' anyone unable to differentiate Learning from Education regardless of reasons why, which range from objective/subjective assessment to philosophy.
