February 2, 2015 - 20:12
It struck me today that the No Child Left Behind Act was based on poverty. Having grown up with it in existence I did not realize that the NCLB act was supposed to prevent poverty. Thinking about it now, I question whether or not forcing people to be in an enviroment that they do not want to be in is even the right way to go about things.
On one note, I do not see how lack of an education can improve matters of poverty but on another note, having read this article, the benefits of a higher education seem not to exist.
The only path I see is having to create more jobs; an entirely new work force, but where exactly does that lie?
Comments
'NCLB was supposed to prevent poverty'
Submitted by jccohen on February 8, 2015 - 10:50 Permalink
evelynnicte,
When you say that "the NCLB act was supposed to prevent poverty," are you talking about the Anyon and Green claim that this act implicitly presents itself that way and that, as A & G say, it operates as a kind of decoy distracting us from finding real ways to prevent poverty? I agree with your point that the lack of an education can't help, and I'm not quite to the point of thinking that "the benefits of higher education don't seem to exist"; I think this is one of those situations where we have to hold contradictory perspectives at the same time - so yes, we need more jobs, and still education is helping some so we should continue to promote this for young people even as we also work to create equity on other fronts...