1

Kara Johnson
Dr. Lesley Raisor-Becker
CSD3050
November 20, 2018

Debate 2: Can we really fight poverty with just education? Debater Argument Paper

In 1964, President Richard Nixon boldly declared a “War on Poverty” where his

administration rolled out various programs aimed at reducing, preventing, and eventually ending

poverty (Matthews). Over fifty years later, the U.S. is still working towards this goal. Many of

the programs launched during Nixon’s term have been successful at reducing and preventing

poverty and still exist today, however fully ending poverty has remained elusive as these original

programs have been altered through the years and people work to come up with new solutions.

Currently, two schools of thought for the best way to address poverty are the school-only

approach and the community-based approach. In the schools-only approach concentrating

resources on creating and supporting high-quality schools that serve children in poverty can

boost children’s academic achievement and ultimately attack poverty. In the community or

neighborhood-based approach, quality community programs are needed along with quality

schools to get the best results for children and end poverty. Though there have been examples of

innovative schools successfully boosting achievement, the schools-only approach offers a

narrow, incomplete solution to poverty. The community approach offers a more robust solution

that can incorporate the value of good schools with other programs to address poverty in both the

short and long-term for a larger portion of the impoverished population.

Neighborhood approaches to poverty offer opportunities to community members of all

ages for short and long-term change. Poverty is defined by income thresholds for families of a
 2

given size so of course programs designed to improve job prospects and income are important

(US Census Bureau). This is accomplished through several avenues including education, job and

skill training, and availability and knowledge of quality jobs (Bernstein). Studies have shown

that a multidimensional approach gets the best results with one Oregon program leading to a “25

percent increase in earnings, a 21 percent increase in employment, and a 22 percent reduction of

time spent on welfare” compared to the 7 percent increase in earnings seen per year of schooling

completed (Bernstein). Efforts to provide affordable housing, social services, or small business

assistance can help lessen the financial burden of families and encourage efforts to better their

circumstances. Community efforts like health fairs, farmers markets, and home visit programs

can be effective and improve the health and wellness in the neighborhood. School-based anti-

smoking or drug messages even work better when students are exposed to prevention messages

in the community and media as well (Brannon et al. 303; ch. 12). Addressing health conditions

that disproportionally plague low-income communities like asthma, heart disease, or low

birthweight births means the population misses less school or work and avoids costly hospital

encounters. These efforts can leave families with more money in their immediate future and

better able to continue working towards their goals in the long term.

The empowerment of the community that is achieved through this approach ensure that

the changes made and programs developed are sustainable and targeted toward the unique needs

of the population. Taking the time to learn about the neighborhood and hear from residents

provides a measure of the “distinct stages of socioeconomic development, cultural assimilation,

and civic capacity” of an area so plans can be tailored to its wants and needs (Hopkins). There

may be reforms that are generalizable to helping vast groups of people living in poverty, like

health care coverage, but there is no one way to fix concentrated areas of poverty. Giving
 3

community members a seat at the table at the beginning helps formulate relevant, realistic plans

and maintaining them as key players in carrying out plans brings an “authentic desire for

change” and “ownership of challenges” that lead to accountability and sustainable change in

concentrated areas of poverty (White House 5). This approach gives people new knowledge,

skills, and resources and promotes them giving it back to their community. With the

neighborhood approach, the goal isn't people being able to leave the area to access opportunities

and capital but to promote economic development, improve community quality of life, and

ensure through “place conscious” policy and local action that a community can offer

opportunities to its residents (Hopkins).

Diverse strategies implemented in a coordinated community approach attract diverse

investors and bring access to a larger pool of funds for the community. Funding can change

quickly and public funds especially tend to come with narrow scopes for allowable use (White

House 11). Any effort that is going to have a significant, widespread, and lasting impact is going

to require significant time, money, and energy from all involved. Every effort might not go

smoothly, and it can be difficult to maintain enthusiasm for a project the longer it takes to see

results. In a comprehensive community approach, projects and funding addressing multiple

needs can be coordinated so that they are being worked on simultaneously. Bringing in various

resources to a targeted area at one time leads to a “critical mass” of effort and positive change

that boost confidence in the chosen strategies for all involved and attracts further investment

(White House 9). The Olneyville Housing Corporation did just that. The organization was

originally funded through federal, state, and corporate funds and engaged a network of

community members and organizations in “community safety, affordable housing, quality parks

and recreational opportunities, employment and training supports, and early childhood education
 4

services” (White House 8). Over the course of five years, the organization and community

engagement thrived, new initiatives were developed, and the community “received a Choice

Neighborhoods planning grant and attracted other projects eager to build on the neighborhood

changes in Olneyville” (White House 8). Broad community and outside investor interests keep

programs running and capital flowing to revitalize an impoverished community.

Proponents of the schools-only approach may point to cases like the Harlem Children’s

Zone to argue that having the additional community programs available to children from poverty

does not confer additional advantages towards achievement. While it is not possible to

completely randomize the study to control for other factors, the data shows that students who are

eligible for receiving services from the community programs in the Harlem Children's Zone have

not performed significantly better than other students from similar backgrounds attending charter

schools without access to such programs (Dobbie and Fryer 179). These students fell towards the

middle of the pack with about half of other charter schools serving similar populations getting

better academic results (Croft and Whitehurst). Whether or not this analysis of New York public

and charter schools is generalizable to students living in poverty across the nation is called into

question by organizations like Indiana’s Evansville Vanderburgh School, which have seen

notable improvement in school performance after working with the city and community

members to make improvements across the district (White House 15). But even if they are, can

test scores alone predict long-term results? Is doing well in school alone enough to guarantee

these kids can make it out of poverty? Yes, educational attainment is linked to income and

socioeconomic status, but using a standardized eighth-grade math score to say that one group of

kids is as well or better off than another seems to be a gross oversimplification of the path to
 5

escaping poverty at best. At worst it is a dangerous argument that could mean the loss of funding

or support for other valuable programs.

Children can perform well in school, graduate, and get a college acceptance but still be

left “all dressed up with nowhere nice to go” if there aren’t other resources in place (Bernstein).

High performing charters like the KIPP schools may boast 90% of students getting into college,

but only 33% end up with a 4-year degree after six years (KIPP Foundation 8). These rates are

above the average for low-income students, but they could be even better if factors outside of

just achievement are addressed. The average cost for full-time college students is over $20,000

and aid like the Pell Grant designed to help low-income students has not kept up with the

skyrocketing cost of college (Dwyer). After all the grants and scholarships come through a low-

income student may still be faced with a bill totaling thousands of dollars. Can they get all the

supplies they need for their dorm and class? Can they afford to go home for breaks? Can their

family afford for them not to be there? Not to mention social challenges like being prepared to be

in a whole new place and having family and friends who can offer help and support through this

time. These are all factors in success in school and beyond that need to be addressed outside of

the school with the community programs discussed.

Innovation and reform in our education system can give children living in poverty

valuable tools in securing a brighter future, but, as the challenges they face are “interconnected

and mutually reinforcing,” so must be viable solutions (White House 5). To escape poverty, one

must have opportunity. Access to a quality education is an opportunity that can and should be

afforded to those in poverty, but it’s just one opportunity. By implementing a community or

neighborhood approach to poverty many more opportunities can be offered—and not just to

students, but to their family, friends, and neighbors. By supporting a wide range of opportunities
 6

everyone can take advantage of the ones they specifically need to improve their circumstances as

they see fit. The community is empowered as it is revitalized giving residents the drive to

continue to push for change and growth in their neighborhood. As initial efforts are successful,

and enthusiasm grows funding and investment will follow to push economic gain and resident

well-being. It is through this transformation of impoverished communities into the

neighborhoods of opportunity envisioned by the Obama White House and community organizers

that poverty can be vanquished.

 7

Works Cited

Bernstein, Jared. “Is Education the Cure for Poverty?” The American Prospect, The American

Prospect, 22 Apr. 2017, prospect.org/article/education-cure-poverty.

Brannon, Linda, et al. Health Psychology: an Introduction to Behavior and Health. 8th ed.,

Cengage Learning, 2014.

United States, Congress, “Building Neighborhoods of Opportunity: Neighborhood Revitalization

Initiative Report.” Building Neighborhoods of Opportunity: Neighborhood

Revitalization Initiative Report, The White House, 2011.

Croft, Michelle, and Grover J Whitehusrt. The Harlem Children’s Zone, Promise

Neighborhoods, and the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education . The Brookings

Institution, 2010, The Harlem Children’s Zone, Promise Neighborhoods, and the

Broader, Bolder Approach to Education .

Dobbie, Will, and Roland G Fryer. “Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Increase Achievement

Among the Poor? Evidence from the Harlem Childrens Zone.” American Economic

Journal: Applied Economics, vol. 3, no. 3, 2011, pp. 158–187., doi:10.1257/app.3.3.158.

Accessed 9 Nov. 2018.

Dwyer, Kayla. “Low-Income Students Face Systemic Barriers to College Access.” The Ithican,

Ithaca College, 26 Apr. 2017, theithacan.org/news/low-income-students-face-systemic-

barriers-to-college-access/.

Hopkins, Elwood M. “A Strategy for Alleviating Poverty.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4

Dec. 2014, ssir.org/articles/entry/a_strategy_for_alleviating_poverty.

KIPP Foundation. The Promise of College Completion KIPP’s Early Successes and Challenges.

KIPP Foundation, 2016, The Promise of College Completion KIPP’s Early Successes
 8

and Challenges. Accessed 12 Nov. 2018.

Matthews, Dylan. “Everything You Need to Know about the War on Poverty.” The Washington

Post, WP Company LLC, 8 Jan. 2014,

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/08/everything-you-need-to-know-

about-the-war-on-poverty/?utm_term=.955e40e7559e.

US Census Bureau. “Poverty Thresholds.” U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce,

6 Sept. 2018, www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-

poverty-thresholds.html.