Why Education Reform is Probably Not The Best Way to Fight Poverty
Doug Lemov is skeptical that I’m right about education being a (relatively) ineffective way of fighting poverty. His response is thoughtful and deserves a response of its own.First, it’s worth being clear that the only claim I’m prepared to advance and defend is that education reform is not the bestway to fight poverty in the United States today. This is entirely compatible with the ideas that (1) education might be modestly effective at fighting poverty, even if only indirectly, and (2) improving education is worthwhile for reasons entirely unrelated to poverty. In fact, I believe both of those things.
The problem I have is with the contention – made by many prominent reformers – that education is the best way to fight poverty. And yes, this is often what they say.
Consider, for example Michelle Rhee, who claims that when it comes to poverty, “teachers can be the answer for so many kids”; otherwise you are going to “write a generation of children off”. Arne Duncan apparently thinks that “the only way to end poverty is through education.” Mike Petrilli claims that “schools are the indispensable anti-poverty program”. He also, curiously, thinks that poverty is “(mostly) not about money”, which is both (mostly) false by definition and an implicit dismissal of money-based methods of fighting poverty.
It’s that denigration (implicit or otherwise) of other poverty-fighting programs Why Education Reform is Probably Not The Best Way to Fight Poverty | Paul Bruno:
