What are the answers to the conundrum posed in my prior post? Poverty and educational inequality. How about if we start with not tearing down (and demonizing) middle or upper income folks as some in our government viciously promote.
How about providing education on varied levels – family dynamic; health; nutrition; learning; reading; interacting; socialization; drug or substance rehab as needed; etc. Opportunity for everyone should be mandatory (though outcome cannot be guaranteed). More charter schools; more vouchers; more magnet schools; more tutors and mentors; etc. Unions are destructive to education and should be forced out of the way. Let’s not spend more money (Chicago spends more on primary and secondary school education per capita than any other city and yet has among the worst results). Let’s spend the money wisely.
There is, however, a pivotal question: how do you encourage welfare families to get on board? How do you encourage family involvement in education which is so very crucial to a child’s learning process? Would it be unreasonable to mandate some quid pro quo? You want welfare? Then attend neighborhood classes. You will be involved in your children’s education. Learn about nutrition. If you’re pregnant, you don’t take drugs. Or smoke. And you get prenatal counseling. And your children will get private tutoring. Mentoring. Opportunity.
Is it unreasonable to have at least some expectation that in exchange for welfare, people ought receive some inspiration and education for getting off welfare. And for stimulating their children with the opportunity that all of us want to give them. The problem is many of our politicians insist that welfare recipients are “victims.” And they want to keep the poor – poor – by bribing them with money to get votes. Result – According to the U.S. Census Bureau, poverty rates are rising. Wouldn’t it be a higher moral objective if we strive to make these people and their children productive members of society. Where am I going wrong here?