A discussion: Should schools promote the success sequence? Why or why not?

Description

Richard Reeves, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution and the co-director of the Center on Children and Families; Ian Rowe, the chief executive officer of the Public Preparatory Network; and Karsonya Wise Whitehead, a professor of Communication and African and African American Studies at Loyola University Maryland, will have a robust discussion on the extent, and the way, school leaders, civil rights advocates, and policymakers should address family culture. The discussion will be hosted by David Steiner, the executive director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy.

The event begins with a reception followed by the discussion and public forum at 6 p.m.

"Racism and poverty still matter and must be addressed," Ian Rowe, CEO of the Public Preparatory Network, has said. "But family structure matters monumentally to the ultimate success of all of our children, and ironically may be the best support to empower young people to have the personal agency to overcome racism, poverty, or adversity of any type. Our parents want and need us as education leaders to be the adults in the room, not silenced by political correctness or fear of accusations of moralizing. They want us to talk openly to our students about the best path to achieve the dreams they have for their children."

To what extent, and in what way, should school leaders, civil rights advocates, and policymakers address family culture? Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution identified the "Success Sequence" as a way out of intergenerational poverty. They found that among U.S. adults who graduated from high school, maintained a full-time job (or had a partner who did), and delayed having children until after they were 21 years old and married, only 2% lived below the poverty line and roughly 71% ended up in the middle class or above.

Even if this research is sound, is the school the appropriate domain for promulgating this message? Alternatively, is the message itself an affront that patronizes low-income families and blames those who are already the victims of institutionalized racism?