I would like to build on my statement about education and poverty and to try to incorporate it into the larger economic discussion and system-thinking framework.
In my previous post, I alluded to my belief that the benefits of education are a catch-22 situation. I say this because, on the one hand, education is statistically the best way out of poverty, but, on the other hand, the conditions of poverty make taking advantage of an education nearly impossible. A number of studies seem to validate this, including the famous Terman study of genius which ultimately showed that childhood socio-economic status (SES) is a better predictor of lifetime achievement than IQ (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/the-truth-about-the-termites), and other studies demonstrating a correlation between parental income/educational attainment and that of their children (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/specialarticles/ecca239a.pdf). This very strong correlation between childhood SES and adulthood SES appears to be an example of a self reinforcing feedback loop. Just as success tends to lead to further success, failure seems to lead to further failure. Why this is the case, of course, is tremendously complex and controversial. There are many ingredients that go into success (as traditionally defined by SES, achievement and recognition) including: extraordinary circumstances (i.e. luck), the ability to leverage oneself in various social institutions (i.e. social intelligence), access to opportunity, access to resources and, to a far lesser extent, intrinsic qualities such as intelligence, work ethic and character. I recommend Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" for a more in depth discussion on success.
I therefore contend that our educational system is not the primary failure point in the cycle of poverty but rather our social and economic system. That being said, the solution to eradicating poverty is even more daunting than improving our educational system. If we are serious about eradicating poverty, we have to ask some very difficult questions:
- Do we need to mitigate access to resources and opportunity for some in order to increase it for others?
- How do we change destructive familial relationships that impede social development?
- What are the trade-offs for realizing an equal playing field?
- What are we actually willing to trade?
Hey Daryl,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for your insight. I like how you applied our systems thinking to your chosen topic - it really seems like a good way of envisioning the current economic/educational paradigm. Have you read any of Jonathon Kozol's books, which tend to focus on the South Bronx? Your thought-provoking question about mitigating access to resources and opportunity for some in order to increase it for others made me think of one of his books that I've read. It describes some of the NYC public schools. One of the best is Stuyvesant High, which you have to test into, and has amazing resources and high-performing students. Then, in another part of the city, students attend class in a converted bowling alley. Is it fair to have such inequity within one school system? It seems like the playing field should be a bit more even.
Perhaps you are looking at access and resources more broadly, though, which is even more of a controversial and thought-provoking question. Most Americans feel a strong sense of entitlement about their economic class, and middle-class Americans (and up) seem unlikely to "share" to increase opportunity for others, even if they pay lip service to valuing equal opportunity. Wow, what a systems challenge. I'm glad people like you are thinking about it!
DM
Hi Dorothy, Thanks for the comment. I hope you don't mind that I turn this into a discussion, and I appreciate your insights if you want to continue this as a discussion.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with schools like Stuyvesant High is that they select who attends based on a standardized test (Specialized High Schools Admissions Test - SHSAT). I contend that it's easy for any school to control its output when it tightly controls its input. While schools like Stuyvesant are valuable resources in their communities, I don't think they really address the problem that I'm considering. They take the SES disadvantaged children who would likely be successful anyway, in spite of their disadvantages. These types of children, however, are the exception rather than the rule, and I'm asking a broader question about how to make all children "the exception". My contention is that we need to address social and economic issues on a broader scale in order to have a level playing field.
I read or heard a story (probably either The Nation in print, or NPR in audio) that there is a cottage industry in helping kids to study for the SHSAT. So, ultimately, those with a better SES have a better chance of getting the tutoring that will help them to get the grade to be admitted.
DeleteDaryl, this topic is one of my very favorite ones. I am glad you are digging into it. The single word I've been using for my own blog (http://gbnewby.blogspot.com) is "opportunity." Lower SES leads to less opportunity.
DeleteDoes lower SES lead to lower intelligence? Less motivation? I dunno.
Less access to role models? Less access to books, music classes, art classes, gym classes? To a safe and rich outdoor environment? Nutritious foods? Yes, I'd say SES probably is (statistically) a cause. Bottom line is that the SES one is born into places a serious limit on opportunity.
There are counter-examples, just like there are people who win the lottery, get struck by lightning, and survive zombie attacks. The most important takeaway to me is that it's completely unfair to think that everyone has the same opportunity, if only they work hard enough. This fantasy (which is aligned with what is sometimes thought of as the "protestant work ethic") provides partial justification to the current social structure that makes it so difficult to go beyond one's SES. It also asks people to sacrifice today, because there is a better day in the future. Unfortunately, that day may never come.
One leg of the stool of continued poverty is SES which, as we are discussing, is a limit to opportunity. Another is the protestant work ethic, which falsely says there *is* opportunity, if only one works hard and is patient. A third leg is religion, which (in most mainstream religions) says that pain in the current life will be compensated for in the next life. It's no wonder there are so many churches in poorer areas. As Marx said (per Wikipedia), "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Boy, this is depressing. I think I'll cheer myself by watching one of those performance talent shows, where I can see that, in fact, ordinary people do have great opportunities. Especially if they work hard, praise the Lord, and don't talk about the hell-hole they grew up in.
Greg, thank you for throwing the cultural component into the discussion. I completely agree that the prevailing mental model of the "protestant work ethic" has a lot to do with creating a reinforcing feedback loop in this cycle - if I'm failing, I must be a lazy good-for-nothing who isn't favored by the deity. I contend that there is another mental model that we hold that also has a lot to do with reinforcing the cycle: the premium we place on convergent intelligence (IQ) over divergent intelligence (creativity). IQ is certainly not fixed in stone, but it does seem to have a strong genetic component, and, arguments about that aside, IQ is certainly less cultivatable than creativity. Creativity, however, seems to have a much greater impact on extraordinary achievement than IQ does (all other factors being equal).
ReplyDelete