I just read two articles expressing (seemingly) opposing viewpoints on the role of education in reducing inequality. The first is Nicholas Kristof’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times which Ben Adler then responded to on Newsweek’s blog. I’ll summarize both arguments below, and then draw my own conclusions. According to Kristof, education is the key to winning the war on poverty and social injustice. In his view, if Democrats would stand up to teachers’ unions and implement much needed reforms, disadvantaged children would not be subjected to inferior schools that perpetuate the cycle of poverty. His list of recommended reforms includes:
intensive preschool, charter schools with long hours, fewer certification requirements that limit entry to the teaching profession, higher compensation to attract and retain good teachers, objective measurement to see who is effective, more flexibility in removing those who are ineffective.
He ends his column with the following question:
Half a century after Brown v. Board of Education, isn’t it time to end our "separate but equal" school systems? Adler disagrees with Kristof. He argues that we have a tendency to overvalue public education and the role it should play in equalizing opportunity for American children, and thinks we ask too much of our schools. In his view, what goes on in children’s families (i.e. their housing, nutrition, physical and emotional health) has a greater impact on a child’s potential than whether or not they attend good schools. (Which explains why children from middle class homes tend to succeed regardless of the quality of their school, while children living in poverty tend to struggle.) He then agrees with most of Kristof’s recommendations for reform, but rather than focus on teacher quality as the answer to ending poverty, he suggests we focus on integration, and accuses Kristof of actually advocating for “separate but equal” schools. In Adler’s words: To integrate schools we must reverse federal tax and transportation policies that encourage suburban sprawl, regionalize urban and suburban school districts, and fund schools nationally instead of with local property taxes. Interesting arguments. But if you look a little deeper, I think these two gentlemen are actually standing on the same side. Does Adler really think Kristof is suggesting that integrating schools is a bad idea, or that privileged white children should be educated separately from black children living in poverty? Given Kristof’s (apparent) interest in improving educational opportunity for disadvantaged children, I have a hard time accusing him of being pro-segregation. Further, Adler clearly admits that most of Kristof’s recommended reforms are “sensible", and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't quibble with the fact that the American public school system is in need of much improvement. I think the issue lurking at the heart of this debate is one that I’ve discussed previously:
As I report every week in my posts, efforts are definitely underway to reform the American public school system, but how about efforts to end racial segregation? Isn’t it strange that [Orfield’s] UCLA study didn’t become big news when it was published? Has the current state of racism and segregation (educational, economic, and residential) become the elephant in the proverbial living room of America? I know that everyone sees it, but it seems like we would rather pretend it isn’t there.
Perhaps this is Adler’s point. It’s easy to pin all our hopes for remedying society’s ills on school reform, but poverty and social injustice need to be fought on more than just one front, including desegregating schools, and ultimately, entire communities. But these efforts can and should be waged concurrently, without having to be for one and against another. School reform alone may not be enough, but equality of opportunity will never be achieved without it. As I’ve written previously:
If you look at the faces of all the children currently attending public schools, you are literally seeing the face of our nation’s future. Pretty soon, every major institution in this country will be at the mercy of their leadership, and collectively we will amount to no more than the sum of their individual strengths and weaknesses. For America to even come close to achieving its fullest potential, all these children have to have a fair shot at achieving their own. We cannot afford to look the other way any longer.
Comments