Is poverty destiny?
This question is posed repeatedly in the teaching profession. It is the question rhetorically asked by politicians, corporate education leaders, administrators, principals and even some teachers. Some have better intentions than others. I am going to talk about the ones who do not.
Historically, the question has been posed to elicit an emphatic "No!" from all the parties involved. They want to give the illusion that although not all people are born with an equal playing field, that because we live in a supposed meritocracy one can rise to tremendous social mobility out of poverty and into affluence and monetary success with just a good teacher and hard work.
The problem? It isn't true.
Sorry. Poverty is destiny.
There is no statistical significance to say otherwise. Social mobility in the United States is static. It rarely changes and when it does it is so rare that it is called a statistical outlier.
What does that mean?
I'll say it again. It means poverty is destiny. Powerful individuals want you to cringe at that statement. They want you to reiterate a party line that is statistically false. They call it "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
I say hogwash. What they don't mention is that not only has poverty become destiny in the United States, so has affluence.
Look at the statistics. The majority of individuals who are born poor remain poor and the majority of people who are born rich remain rich.
Now, I'm not addressing the morality of the situation. For that, we need to be ask whether poverty should be destiny. The answer, of course. is an emphatic no! But that isn't the reality. And that can no longer be placed on the backs of teachers.
Even if teachers could effectively change social mobility, which they can't, how would the supposed support systems help achieve that goal?
Would the higher class sizes, developmentally inappropriate higher stakes tests with movable cut scores, unproven curricula and less job security help combat poverty and social mobility?
I think not. But those are the constructs that teachers are given.
Ironically, for the past 30 years, the education policy makers and politicians supposedly have tried to combat poverty with their business-model solutions. The more standardized curriculum that culminates in more standardized testing has been their "game changer."
But has social mobility changed? Absolutely not.
There is an obvious reason for why social mobility is static. Social solutions to social problems are not even remotely indicative of the classroom teacher. They are a minute fraction of the solutions to poverty. It's just cheaper to say that it's the teacher's fault.
To actually address the enormous poverty we have — plaguing 23 percent of children — would take a lot more effort and resources. It would also make those at the very top of the scale very uncomfortable.
Every teacher of impoverished children hopes to have a positive impact on children. And many do.
But to put the entirety of the problem of poverty and social mobility on a teacher's back is absurd. That's especially true when schools are underfunded, required to teach narrowed skills for the result of test scores and profiteering, and teachers are losing autonomy as professionals.
Teachers continue to try but fight an impossible battle in the court of public opinion.
The narrative has to change. I refuse to continue to allow politicians and corporate leaders to say it's the fault of teachers. We can attempt to fix inequality, and teachers will be a part of that conversation, albeit minimally.
But they can not carry the burden of societal ills that are instead brought about by underlying greed and an overwhelming indifference to societal inequality.