You’ll probably find this hard to believe, but in my husband’s
and my house reading is a huge thing. We
were both bookworms as kids, and today we spend large chunks of every day
reading; news, academic texts, students’ assignments, and our own writings are
daily events. We have tried to pass this
same love of reading on to Kenny as well. Dwight read to my round belly before Kenny was
born, and I read him his first academic article when he was just a few days
old. Reading together as a family is a favorite
pass time for all of us (we’re currently working on the Hobbit).
You can imagine our surprise, then, when Kenny entered this
school year reading well below his grade. We had tried to prepare ourselves somewhat,
but didn’t expect as large a deficit as the teacher explained to us. “It’s only first grade.” “Expectations have changed since we were
kids.” “He’ll get it eventually.” We had told each other all these things prior
to his school start, but none of it mattered when we sat learning that our son
was “severely deficient” in the subject that we considered most critical, for
how can one learn harder subjects if the act of reading is difficult as well? We both knew the research, that kids not
reading well by third grade statistically rarely are able to excel the way kids
reading well by third grade do. Before
third grade, kids learn to read; after that, they read to learn (using reading
as a way to answer questions). If Kenny
was behind this early on, how was he going to make that first important
academic goal? (And when I say “we” I
may mean “I”; Dwight might be a little more laid-back than I am, and I’m OK
with that)
Fortunately for us, our school has a Title I reading
program, and Kenny’s lack made him eligible. We also heard of a reading tutoring program
that Kent State was putting on, and signed him up
for that, too. We made sure to have all
of our bases covered, so that he would be up to grade level soon enough. Fast forward to now, and he’s a reading
fanatic, pulling any book he feels like off the shelves at home and starting
into the text. He reads above level, and
has started reading to learn a bit. He
still loves his reading club and reading tutoring, but those are now seen more
as incentives to doing well than the chores they once were.
Here’s the thing, though, Ken’s school reading program and
reading tutoring were both funded by federal dollars. So when Marco Rubio- or any politician, really-
gets up on his high horse complaining about government spending and the need
for austerity, while acknowledging that he’s benefitted from federal spending,
it chaps my bum more than just a little. Carol Hanisch, the women’s liberation writer
and activist, popularized the phrase “The personal is political” and I agree
wholeheartedly with that assessment.
I’m not against cutting federal spending, and indeed we have
to cut spending as well as increase revenue; the real matter is where to make
those changes. Making budgetary cuts to
education, especially early childhood education may have the short-term benefit
of reducing federal spending, but it has the long-term impact of reducing
and/or denying to younger generations the benefits that we had. And more importantly, it denies the country of
a well-informed, well-educated next generation, which is critical if the US to
continue to be a growing, dynamic country.
Making cuts to programs that benefit children is cutting of our nose to
spite our face.
Obviously, there would be some portion of students that
would continue to get the excellent education that is required to forge
leaders. The reality in the US, however, is
that socio-economic status and educational opportunity is still very much
confounded by race and ethnicity. This
current situation, if partnered with cuts to formative educational services,
could deprive the next generation of the benefit that a diverse and
well-educated leadership provides, that of multiple experiences and
perspectives. Failure to provide
equitable educational opportunities to all children enshrines inequality for
another generation.
And if it isn’t the role of the federal government’s role to
concern itself with equality of opportunity, who’s role, pray tell, is it?
The political buzzword of "austerity" really gets me. It is one of those things that sounds good on paper during hard times, but doesn't necessarily play out that way. Contrary to what many politicians would like us to believe, government is not the same as a household and it is important for the government to spend more during times of a bad economy to keep money flowing within the economy that is missing. During times of prosperity is when austerity measures are important. (Many parts of Europe enforced strict austerity measures when their problems were equal to ours, showing a much worse outcome because of it.)
ReplyDeleteAnd yes - as you perfectly point out - we need to educate our children more not less. We need to do it for equality, and for staying relevant in a new global economy.
Thanks for the great post!