EDUCATION NEEDS GENERATIONAL COMMITMENT
I typically agree with columnist David Cook’s perspectives, but I have to take exception with the column on the potential Hamilton County tax increase and its impact on the community through the school system (Sunday, page A2, “Better Schools won’t fix Hamilton County”). I disagree with the idea he put forward that schools are not the conduit to make an impact in low income communities.
From Cook’s column:
“Even the most thoughtful and well-intentioned school reform program can’t improve educational outcomes if it ignores the single greatest driver of student achievement: household income,” writes Nick Hanauer in The Atlantic’s “Better Schools Won’t Fix America.”
Hanauer believes that increasing entry level wages will be the driver for increased household income. I don’t disagree that entry level wages should be increased, but I do think education will be the driver for this if we do it right. Hanuaer asserts we have done it right and improved public education based on increased graduation rates nationally but without affecting economic mobility for students in poverty. However, I have three things for Hanuaer and Cook to consider.
First, increased high school graduation rates don’t mean graduates actually have the skills to go into the workforce or postsecondary pathways. It just means we are graduating more students and leaving them at a precipice without supports to a living wage career. A high school diploma does not have the market value it did even a decade ago. The majority of living wage jobs require a postsecondary credential of some kind, so graduating more high school students isn’t a metric of evidence that school support doesn’t affect economic mobility. The real metric is postsecondary attainment.
Second, I agree that entry level pay is too low, but Cook’s statement, “We assume that by remaking our schools — via a tax increase — we will create a more educated population, which leads to more jobs and money. That’s backward,”… is wrong because increasing access to postsecondary credentials fills the skills gap jobs that give access to upward economic mobility. By increasing the number of skilled workers filling living wage careers, it shrinks the talent pool for the entry-level jobs that are paying too low. This shrinking of the entry-level talent pool will force companies to increase wages to recruit workers in a more competitive market.
Third, I agree with Hanaeur that education reform hasn’t born the fruit we want. The reason for this is simple: We don’t sustain initiatives in a generational way. The approach and investments are typically aimed at one segment of the birth-to-career continuum, such as third-grade literacy. These strategies are usually “one off” investments that support a program for a few years and then move on to something else. Show me a community that has supported the birth-to-career continuum completely with a generational approach. This means supporting students in poverty from the time they are born until they obtain a postsecondary credential and a living wage career. This is a 22-year commitment, and I have not seen an example of this anywhere. Until we actually do this, we can’t say that improved education outcomes and access to postsecondary don’t have an impact on economic mobility and a positive impact on the community.
It’s fallible logic to say education doesn’t impact systemic community change and an increase in the middle class because we haven’t done it right yet with a 22-year commitment. The bottom line is access to economic prosperity is not found in a spontaneous increase in entry-level wages; the key lies in generational support in education that will drive the increase in entry-level wages as a result of refining the talent pool to require more competition in recruitment. The system won’t be fixed from the top down; it will be driven by the talent pool at the base, which will include credentialed workers and more competitive recruitment in entry-level workers.