Join the conversation

"In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program is a world-class education." That sentence from the State of the Union address is bound to spark debate, and here's why:

We know too many well-educated people who are out of work. We can all name the well-educated people who helped plunge the nation into the deepest recession in many decades. Education alone guarantees nothing, and people in schools are right to get their backs up when others imply that schools manufacture poverty. There are just too many other culprits nowadays.

But we should face facts. High school dropouts barely stand a chance, even in good times. Children who can't clear even the lowest hurdles in state tests face a grim future if things don't turn around for them. Schools that lose more than half their students to the streets don't do much to promote social mobility in a nation where the only thing many young people will ever inherit is poverty.

If we didn't believe schools could change things for children in poverty, then why would we be in this business? We should be thankful that people are finally granting schools such a central role in the future of our country.

But we shouldn't paint schools as the only guardians of our economic success. That misreading actually fuels the wrong kind of bipartisan support for school reform. Those who have faith in government believe it can create big changes in schools. Those who don't are happy to see public attention shift from social programs in other areas. What remains is a focus on schools that leaves community largely out of account.

I agree with President Obama that education is our best anti-poverty program over the long haul. But I hope we don't use that as a reason to make schools the sole agencies for improving the lot of poor children. It's in the worst economic times that schools become the social service agencies of last resort. It's a much better idea to coordinate children's social and academic supports. 

Neither will do very well in isolation.