More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Andrew Gall

Andrew Gall

Posted: July 27, 2010 12:35 PM

Left, or right, one thing that every politician -- at least rhetorically -- can agree upon is that we should improve our schools. America used to have the best primary school system in the world; unfortunately, this is no longer the case. While both sides of the aisle can agree that we should strive to re-capture our status as number one in the world, there is broad disagreement over how to accomplish this large and incredibly important task.

Much of the debate has focused on issues such as charter schools, school vouchers, teacher performance pay, and standardized tests, but I feel that missing from the debate is the central issue that divides good schools from bad. There are schools in this state where students are not only expected to go to college, but also are expected to graduate from high school with extra-curricular activities and numerous AP credits, and there are schools in this state where students aren't even expected to graduate. Why do we have such disparities? Why do we have so many schools and school systems failing to live up to the promise of free, equitable schooling for the good of our nation? At the crux of it, the answer is money (and I'm not talking about in the schools, but, rather, in the homes).

This is not to suggest that I am against charter schools. In fact, I believe they can play pivotal roles in improving our public school system by serving as incubators for innovation in the classroom. However, they are not an answer in and of themselves. Simply turning public schools into private schools, may benefit certain entrepreneurs, but, unfortunately, will not solve our nation's education woes. Similarly I think that improving testing standards (particularly to include survey data on things such as student happiness and motivation) can have positive impacts on education and that teacher performance pay is an idea, at least, worth exploring. However, one key variable (that every education study for the past 40 years has demonstrated to be highly correlated to student achievement) is missing from this equation: household income.

Should we continue to fiddle at the edges of reform? Absolutely, improving education is never finished. But, we, as a nation, need to recognize and address the role poverty has on student performance. If a student's development is stunted by a lack of nutritional health because the parent(s) can't afford healthy food, this has a negative impact in the classroom. If a parent has to decide between keeping the lights on and going to the doctors office, the stress of this decision will have a negative impact on school performance. If a lack of money causes a mom to leave a child with his alcoholic uncle instead of enrolling him in a pre-school with a positive learning environment, this will have a negative impact on student achievement. If a child has to traverse dangerous streets to go to the library in order to access the internet, instead of going to her bedroom -- this will have a negative impact on education outcomes. I could go on, but I think the point is clear: poverty hurts educational development. If we want to see America regain its status as having the best classrooms in the world, we need to focus on reducing poverty.

Before I lay out my vision for addressing poverty, let me add why it is important that our education system improves. This may seem obvious, but beyond education being an end in and of itself, an investment in education is an investment in our nation's future. This is particularly true as our nation has moved away from a natural resource dependent (i.e., manufacturing) economy and toward a human capital (i.e., service industry) economy. If we have a more educated workforce, we will have a stronger economy.

So, what is the best way to address poverty (thus, ensuring a more educated populace and stronger economy)? In my estimation, there are two main ways. One is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. This makes each paycheck more valuable by adding additional value through an annual tax refund. To expand it, we can increase the means test and raise the credit limit. Second, we can invest in holistic community development programs that aim to increase the health of entire communities. President Obama deserves plaudits for beginning down this road with his Promise Neighborhoods initiative; however, a few million dollars is not nearly enough to uplift every impoverished community in America. If we are to truly address poverty, we need to be willing to take bold steps. Thirdly, I would like to add that there are myriad other ways to address poverty and I would encourage input on the subject from experts and interested parties from all sides of the political spectrum, but that first we -- as a society -- have to agree that, to address our faltering education system, we need to invest in poverty alleviation.

I feel obligated to point out that following my recommendations (particularly regarding increasing and expanding the EITC) would likely result in significant positive effects for our economy. Getting more money into the hands of our most needy citizens has a multiplying effect. Because poor people spend higher percentages of their incomes, such a policy initiative would have a stimulatory effect on economic growth.

There will be those that say such a task is too big and too impractical. Others may say that only a naive idealist would suggest such an outlandish step to improve our school system. They may suggest that if we just abolished teachers unions, or we just ended standardized testing, or we just made this small tweak here, or that one there, that everything would come together, our school systems would improve, and all would be right in the world of education. Personally, I think short-sighted approaches to education reform show true naivety. I care too much about this country's economic health, and too much about equal opportunity, to watch another generation of kids raised without the opportunity to gain a quality education. My personal philosophy of governance is that every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into, should have as close to an equal opportunity in life to succeed as possible. To turn this vision into reality, let's end poverty.

Andrew Gall
Democratic Candidate for Congress (MD-05)
www.andrewforcongress.org

 

Follow Andrew Gall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndrewGall_2010

 
 
  • Comments
  • 4
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:44 PM on 07/29/2010
To help our schools lets stop the corruption and greed associated with school districts. We have in the USA State School Superintendents like Arizona's Tom Horne who has never worked as a teacher (not surprising his term is up and he is running for State Attorney General) We have some throughout the USA that make more than the governor. Let fix our public schools take the Diane Ravitch point of view. Charter schools is just an outsource of our schools and there is much fiscal mismanagement there as well. Private management of charter schools has not proven to work.
http:///www.charterschoolwatchdog.com
09:01 PM on 07/27/2010
Yes, improve our schools,,,,,get rid of the leftist teachers and their teaching plans. They have worked so well for the past 30ish years.
02:14 PM on 07/27/2010
I completely agree that addressing poverty is absolutely necessary to addressing the failing education system. In any socioeconomic class, when children and families are worrying about other issues and/or involved in many other activities, they are less able - and have less time - to devote to homework and education after school, which is crucial. It's just a fact. In families with low income, they typically have to worry about many immediate issues - jobs, transportation, childcare, food, housing, physical/mental/substance health issues. So, by necessity, education takes a back seat. As such, expanding the EITC is promising, and improving health infrastructure at the community level is an absolute necessity for sure. In addition, it will be important to address the other factors that greatly detract from familial emphasis on education in lower-income communities where so many of the schools are failing. Such a holistic, non-piecemeal approach is necessary, because all of these factors amplify one another to cause people to remain in poverty.

I agree that the link between poverty and education should be a major priority in any education policy and "comprehensive" reform - and not just at the federal level, but at the community level, where ultimately all of these improvements need to be implemented to be successful. As it stands, it is not a priority, and I believe we need a champion so that it is.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dnalpahs
01:45 PM on 07/27/2010
Poverty is a problem for the individual. The role of government is to get out of the way and allow individuals to provide enough value to get out of poverty.

People should be allowed to make the widest possible range of choices save for the limitations on choices for another. Individual freedom demands it. Government should not be involved.

In order for choices to be truly free, one must be able to suffer the consequences of poor choices.

We don't regulate to eliminate poor choices or bad luck, we regulate to prevent irreversible consequences. No amount of legislation can prevent anyone from making poor choices.
I think that the ability to succeed AND the ability to fail creates initiative and drives economic growth. Socialist countries fail because it stifles initiative by inhibiting individual effort by limiting consequences.

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

Benjamin Franklin