How We Talk About Education and PovertyJanuary 1, 1970 2022-03-17 19:10
How We Talk About Education and Poverty
How We Talk About Education and Poverty
In the past two or three years the popular rhetoric of “education reform” has, on more than one occasion, rubbed me the wrong way. The words we use, particularly those of us who had the privilege of top-notch educations, often seem discordant with the actual experiences of people living the struggle on a daily basis.
“Speak your own truth,” I learned in college. Yet, as education reform leaders, we do not always speak our own truths—rather, we profess to speak the truth for people whose backgrounds we do not share.
A recent example: Democrats for Education Reform, whose D.C. chapter I lead, tweeted yesterday the following quote from LBJ.
“is the only valid passport from poverty” – . Celebrate 50th anniversary.
— DFER (@DFER_News)
“Education is the only valid passport from poverty.” I read those words, and, as someone who benefited from a rigorous (and expensive) K-12 and college education, they sounded inspiring.
And yet…something didn’t feel right.
I mulled it over for a few minutes before rememberingI’d seen—with another quote about a passport from poverty. This article, though, was written by a woman who had moved from poverty to the middle class. She speaks her own truth:
I essentially married into the middle class. I could never have made it to college, to work, or anywhere without help.
In the essay, the author, Elizabeth Waterhouse, talks about how her husband’s financial resources and what we might call the knowledge of “privilege”—of navigating financial forms and documents, of applying to college, of finding a therapist and appropriate health care—helped her graduate from college at 26.
Reading this story as an “education reformer” made me think—and made me question LBJ’s words. Is education the only passport from poverty? For Waterhouse, accessing both financial and knowledge resources was the passport from poverty.
And that second word: valid. Is education the only valid passport from poverty? As in: Do we in the middle and upper-middle classes judge moving out of poverty via any other vehicle as invalid? (A caveat: Here I am using LBJ’s words as an example of a broader trend in education reform rhetoric. The quote is not indicative of either LBJ’s or DFER’s views.)
We with privilege like to think that those in poverty can work, learn, and simply strive out of poverty. It’s the American dream. But it’s also what I think of as the “bootstrap myth.”
A good friend of mine, Lelac Almagor, is a teacher at a public charter school in Washington, D.C., with outstanding academic results. About a year ago she wrotefor the Boston Review about the perils of viewing character education and “grit” as a magic wand to lift poor—and often black and brown—children out of poverty. She writes:
It is tempting to see the successes of our students as triumphs of personal responsibility. If our kids—most of whom are non-white, most of whom grow up in poverty—can study hard, do well on standardized tests, graduate from college, and get decent jobs, they seem to falsify the argument that larger systems of racial and economic oppression are responsible for the inequalities that persist in other kids’ lives. In other words, if some children can succeed within the system, then what’s wrong isn’t the system; it is the kids who fail.
This line of thinking, as Almagor points out, is more traditionally the “conservative” view. In her piece, she goes on to highlight the more “liberal” view among social justice-motivated ed reformers—certainly the circles I often find myself in here in Washington. And yet I worry that the conservative view may be prevalent among many of my privileged education reform peers, particularly at the right-wing think tanks such as AEI and the Fordham Institute that we find ourselves heralding as “our” policy wonks. Especially if we might be saying, or even thinking without saying, that education is the only valid passport from poverty.
So: What about other creative approaches to combating poverty? Social innovators in a variety of sectors are developing rigorous, research-backed approaches to alleviating poverty and providing pathways to the middle class. I personally find(and ) cash transfers very compelling.
And a few months ago, John Sutter at CNN suggestedto addressing child poverty in Silicon Valley. He calls for:
- Expanding housing subsidies
- Raising the minimum wage
- High-quality early childhood education and child care subsidies
- Direct cash transfers
In education reform, we like rigor. We like data. We like the econometric analyses done by labor economists like Eric Hanushek, Caroline Hoxby, Jonah Rockoff and Roland Fryer. And just as I hope that policymakers and electeds consider the evidence as they make education policy, I hope we as education policy wonks and advocates (and when I say “we” I largely mean white, privileged education wonks) consider the evidence that education may not be the only valid passport from poverty.
This is not to say that we should not improve our schools. We can be fierce, compassionate, loud advocates for high-quality education, for parental choice, for increasing access to college preparatory classes, for rigorous academic standards like the Common Core. And we can hold all those thoughts in our minds at the same time that we believe that education is part of the solution, that education is a passport out of poverty—and a powerful one at that—but not the only one.