I read with interest "Striving for an education, struggling with poverty," Feb. 10, highlighted by the experiences of the three Albany families headed by single mothers. It correctly linked poverty to single motherhood, and the cycle that continues as those single mother families move from one generation of single motherhood to the next.
The most recent data show that more than 37 percent of families headed by a single parent live below the poverty line, a percentage that's much higher in some communities, while only 6 percent of two-parent families do.
It is disappointing, therefore, to once again see an article, and subsequent Times Union editorial, move from there to a discussion as to how more education is the answer; and to stop there, without drilling down further to the problem's core.
Education can play an important role, but as long as the cycle of single motherhood continues, significant changes in that cycle of poverty will not occur. It has long been established that a stable, two-parent environment is the best predictor of educational achievement.
Since 1965, single motherhood has exploded from 10 percent to 41 percent in 2011. An informative article would look at the reasons for that and remedies to reduce it. An area that might be explored is the legacy of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." Perhaps well-intentioned, it generated a welfare system that can, at least in the minds of some already in the poverty cycle, remove any adverse economic consequences of single motherhood and provide some perceived short-term economic benefits, especially when a society's moral fabric becomes tattered.
Until we have that discussion on the core issue of single motherhood, focusing on spending more on education as the means to solving poverty is a Band-Aid.
JOSEPH FLYNN
Selkirk