Rhetoric of Fear The Death of the California Dream Health Care in Perspective The Discipline Leave No Child Behind No Daddy, No! Unconditional Equal Justice under the Law Thank God I Am Not A Woman Infallible "Don't ask, don't tell" Thou Shalt Not Kill Irreconcilable Differences My Will Positive Reinforcement Changing My Name After Sixty Years Copyright © 2000-2009 Thomas E. Rosenberg. All right reserved. Essays may be reproduced with written permission. tomr@inaword.org

The elimination of negative words brings clarity to speech "Leave No Child Behind" Some fifty years ago, I heard a sermon that defined the key ingredients of happiness as love, accomplishment and hope. That sermon comes to mind often in these depressing days. According to The Children’s Defense Fund the number of people living in poverty has grown to 39 million. The number of people out of work has reached depression year levels, while nationwide our infrastructure and schools are in sad shape. A default attitude toward public schools grips middle-class American families. Those who can place their children in private schools. City dwellers flee to the suburbs. Legislation such as “Leave No Child Behind,” a self-serving political obfuscation because of its financial requirements, obscures the real issue at the heart of the matter. Time and time again civic officials - from the Secretary of Education, to Governors and school administrators - talk about greater parent involvement, increased social services, changing tenure, removing incompetent teachers, etc. About 12% of the nation’s high schools account for half the nation’s dropout. The authorities harp about the difficulty of removing incompetent teachers. They want to replace low performing public schools with charter schools although a recent study by Stanford University showed only 17% of charter schools studied provide a better education than traditional schools while 37% offered a worse education. Nicholas Kristof, a very fine columnist for the New York Times, recently summarized a column with “We can’t fight poverty without reforming education,” Kristof has it backwards. Eliminating poverty is the key to improving education. The number of children living in poverty has reached 14.1 million of which 6.3 million children live in extreme poverty. The poverty line for a family of four is $16,660 annually. The poverty line includes earned income and public assistance including cash payments, food stamps and tax credits or refunds. Extreme poverty is calculated at 50% of the poverty line. How in the world can a teacher succeed when children, many from broken homes, arrive at school hungry and ill-clothed? These children, many of color, start school with hope and seeking accomplishment. By the eighth grade they have lost hope and believe that, for them, accomplishment is found on the street. If our leaders were determined, America could eliminate poverty within a decade. We almost made it a few years ago under a plan proposed by a conservative Republican. Richard Nixon introduced a guaranteed annual income as a floor against poverty. Fearing that most Americans viewed a guaranteed annual income as a reward for the idle and promiscuous the plan was euphemistically called the Family Assistance Plan or FAP. When the bill was introduced in the House, one of its sponsors was then Congressman George Bush. Spurred on by his Public Affairs Counselor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixon recognized that only a radical change in policy could control the growth of AFDC, that cash supplements were more efficient in the long run than sustaining a welfare bureaucracy, and that including assistance to poor working fathers kept families together. Nixon also recognized that a liberal policy co-opted by a conservative gained credibility. The Family Assistance Plan twice made it through the House of Representatives but it died in the Senate. Northern liberals argued that the plan failed to help welfare mothers in the north and west. Organized labor feared a guaranteed income threatened a minimum wage and argued that it would subsidize sweatshop employers. Southern conservatives saw the guaranteed income as forcing up wages and giving new political power to African-Americans. The welfare bureaucracy opposed FAP out of self-interest and many Democrats hated the idea that Republicans should get credit for a basic reform. Today's political power structure suggests the chance for true welfare reform could succeed. Southern blacks have gained political power, the strongest unions are teacher and service related, and the political right is dominated by religious conservatives. Northern cities are centers of poverty. Numerous studies indicate that giving the poor child care, health coverage, food stamps, and cash benefits that raise their income above the poverty level, increases employment and keeps families together. Children above the poverty line do better in school and have fewer emotional problems that make teaching in poor neighborhoods difficult. A guaranteed annual income would pay for itself by reducing crime, lowering public health and welfare costs. It’s time to revisit the issue. Tom Rosenberg is the author of the novel, Phantom on His Wheel.