More By Author
February 14, 2011
February 18, 2011
March 07, 2011
Every time I see a “poverty and education” story I think of
the famous line from the New Testament in which Jesus says, “The poor you will
always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.”
So, with education. Want a convenient scapegoat for our
problems? Poverty. It’s there, it’s handy.
I sat through an hour meeting of our small school district’s
budget committee last week, most of it devoted to bemoaning our fate as a “poor
district” (over 60 percent of our kids qualify for free and reduced-price
lunch, the standard definition of “poor” for schools) in these recessionary
times. State aid has been nearly flat and the Governor punched through a two
percent local property tax cap. Woe is us. There goes sports. Not mentioned was
the fact that we spend over $22,000 per student!
Ravitch has been hitting the poverty gong for some time, most recently in Cleveland, where, she
says, “the level of urban decay is alarming.” I was just in Cleveland and, while I can appreciate the
sentiment, I fail to understand how she gets to the next sentence: “Yet its
municipal leaders have decided that their chief problem is bad teachers.”
I visited a couple of successful Cleveland public schools during
my visit—successful in educating poor children—and while principals in each of
those schools said they could use more money, neither said that money—or their
students’ lack of it—was their major challenge. Getting good teachers was. In
fact, at one of those schools both the principal and the assistant, in separate
interviews, said that having to employ less than competent teachers was the
biggest drag on the school’s continuing success.
Poverty is a hard thing. I have seen my share of it and
written about it, as have others
at Fordham. And one thing is certain: poverty’s connection to education is
largely in the eye of the beholder and that eye is often shielded by some kind
of rose-tinted (or magic mirror) glass.
It was this feeling I had while mulling how to react to
Sabrina Tavernise’s front-page New York
Times story from last week, “Education
Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor,” a story which generated a great deal of
attention. As Tavernise pointed out,
That the rich do better than the poor in school is a
compelling comment. But to turn an effect into a cause—at least, to offer
up a delicious non sequitur—is what
so often bedevils the discussion. Bad educational practices, such as the
poverty of pedagogy or misshapen human resource policies in inner city schools,
does not enter into the discussion.
Tavernise does allow a quick dissent by University of
Chicago economist James Heckman, who argues, she writes, that “parenting
matters as much as, if not more than, income in forming a child’s cognitive
ability and personality, particularly in the years before children start
This was the point made by Tavernise colleague David Brooks,
in his “Materialist
Fallacy” column yesterday. It’s
not the lack of money that is causing the deterioration of the social fabric,
Brooks argues, it’s “disrupted communities” where citizens “lack the social
capital to enact…values.”
As has been pointed out often enough, and as Tavernise’s
opening sentence says,
So why have we given up on the idea that education can be
the “great equalizer”? The answer, I believe, is that we have accepted the "materialistic fallacy." We have taken
results of our education ineptitudes—more poverty—and made them the cause
As I suggested the other day, in discussing E.D.
Hirsch and reading, insights about cognitive, knowledge, and community
deficiencies in early childhood, if recognized, can be compensated for.
That Tavernise ends her story quoting think tanker Douglas
Besharov, saying that "No one has the slightest idea what will work. The
cupboard is bare” is indeed bizarre.
Shouted Whitney Tilson:
Let’s resolve to quit blaming the poor for the poor
education they are receiving.