Conley-Wilson+Film+Entry+4-+Poor+Kids

Film/Fieldnote 4 Word Count: 1095 The central narrative of the film was portraying how poverty in American children effect their lives and their potential future. This film follows the stories of three different families struggling with poverty, homelessness, and hunger. The argument is made by visualizing their struggle as the kids, parents, and narrator explain what is occurring to the family and why. Kaylie, Jasmine, and Brittney are all young girls trying to overcome poverty with the family in all different ways. These families have had to move into smaller houses, motels, and homeless shelters throughout the film. Kaylie does not attend school, however the rest of the children go to school regularly. The sustainability issues the film draws out is the issues of food security, human rights, resource efficiency, health and wellbeing, and community development. All of these issues are all interconnected and interdependent with the environment, society, and the economy. Food security is a huge issue in the US that is overlooked by many Americans, this film depicts how children and families struggle with finding food and money for food and other necessities of life. This is a human rights and a resource efficiency issue as well, in the blank amendment it states that American government is responsible for creating spaces that allow for prosperity in the nation. Because of this statement this is a human rights issues, however food security, housing, and clothing is also a resource efficiency issue because everyone in the country do not have access to this, depicted in the movie it is a resource issue as well. I found the parts of the film regarding the family relationships most compelling because in a study (I read in the novel //The Consumer Culture Reader)// gave the implication that people of lower classes had worse family relations. In the study people of high class when discussing a prized possession they told a story of families and others rather than the object itself. I found it compelling that two of the three families shown had fairly functional families even though they were facing really hard times. The parts of the film I was not compelled or convinced by was the husband and wife’s statement of disbelief of adoption or abortion. In my opinion this was a selfish statement and decision that would not make the life of their current and growing family any better. Although the adoption system, particularly the foster system needs much reform and restructuring, it could have provided a better life for their baby than they could. An abortion could have prevent additional stress, costs, and other negatives that occur with raising a child in extreme poverty. Saying they do not believe in abortion or adoption is closed minded because these resources exist and provide many families, children, and women assistance. Although this decision is ultimately theirs I was not convinced that they took into account everything that goes into raising a child in their decision. There were not many corrective actions suggested by the film. Action I can image being effective, is giving school and government more responsibility to provide students and their immediate family housing, food, and other resources. If the public education system gave students and their families resources they could use like free and reduced lunch (updating this annually to account for inflation and cost of living), along with other meals for the students and their families, the student could focus on education over worry about their home lives. The school could also provide alternative resources like providing names, directions, and locations to local food banks, ways to get food stamps, welfare assistance, and places to get free food (ie. An urband/local garden open to the public). Not only should they provide this information but also provide places where students and families get clothing for free or reduced prices. Housing is also something schools should be concerned about regarding their students and their families. Struggling families and students should see their school as a resource of social capital, information, and assistance. The types of literacy cultivated by the film, recognized by the children, were understand how their own actions have an array of proximate and fare off effect and understanding of their own health and well-being as shaped by an array of both proximate and far-off causes. Kaylie recognizes that she needs to go to school as soon as possible in order to achieve her dreams. She also recognizes that her mother must have done something wrong or messed up along the way to get where they are now. Although this may not be the exact reason she is living in poverty with her children, Kaylie recognizes that there is some sort of cause and effect that occurs in the world. Her statements also sees that well-being and health is effected by environment, privilege, and status. To improve the environmental educational value of the film, the addition of explicitly saying how the effects of the treatment of the environment effects the state of poverty in America. Poverty is typically seen as not relating to the environment but as a societal and economic issue. Pointing out the link to the environment and poverty would improve the educational value of the film. This film has compelled me to seek out the current rates of child poverty both in America and in other developed countries. The most recent studies done on child poverty in America was done on based on 2013 rates. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP), about 22% of all children, about 16 million children in the US live with families below the federal poverty level. The federal poverty level is “$23,550 a year for a family of four.1”About 45% of children live in low-income families. In the UNICEF IRC document titled a chart is shown that shows that best and worst of developed countries regarding child poverty. In this study it’s found that America is one of the worst in developed countries regarding poverty. Americans are relatively likely to not be able to not have enough money to buy food that your family or yourself needed in the last 12 months. This is significantly higher than most developed countries excluding Turkey, Cyprus, Greece, and Hungary. 1. http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html 2. “Ingraham, Christopher Child poverty in the U.S. is among the worst in the developed world” //The Washington Post// (October 29, 2014). http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/29/child-poverty-in-the-u-s-is-among-the-worst-in-the-developed-world/ 3. “Children of the Recession: The impact of the economic crisis on child well-being in rich countires” Innocenti Report Card 12 Gonzalo Fanjul UNICEF Office of Research September 2014 http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc12-eng-web.pdf
 * Title:** Poor Kids
 * Director:** Jezza Neumann
 * Release Year:** 2012
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * What sustainability issues does the film draw out?**
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**
 * What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe action that you can image being effective.**
 * What kinds of literacy are cultivated by the film?**
 * What would improve the environmental educational value of the film?**
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to see out? (Describe what you learned in a couple of sentences, providing at least two supporting references.)**