Abby Leisure

Dr. Raisor-Becker and Dr. Creaghead

Early Language and Literacy Development
1 November 2016
Debater Argument Paper

Americas schools are struggling. While the United States was once ranked at the very

top for education, new Pearson polls place the U.S. in 14th place among developed countries

across the world for education. American students lag behind in essential skills such as reading,

math, and science in a critical time when advanced skills are needed. The public education

system is failing its students and as a result, poverty levels continue to rise. It is clear a solution

is desperately needed before we fall too far behind. To solve these issues, the best solution is

community-based approach to poverty and education. It is not enough to only focus on schools

alone. Community programs are needed to support childrens success in school and to see real

progress in fixing our education and poverty problems in America.

A community-based approach allows policy-makers to target the whole student for

maximum success. As stated in the White Houses Neighborhood Initiative Report, an

effective system focuses on five key strategies which include resident engagement and

community leadership, strategic and accountable partnerships, a result-focused mindset, an

investment and building of organizational capacity, and an alignment of resources to a unified

and targeted impact strategy. Education components of community-based programs such as early

childhood programs, parenting classes, public charter schools, academic advisors, after school

programs, and support system for students enrolled in college all help the student to grow

academically. Health components such as fitness and nutrition programs and health management

classes contribute to a students well-being. If a child suffers from poor health, he/she will have a
hard time focusing on academics and cannot be expected to perform at their best in class.

Community-based programs also include neighborhood services such organizing tenant

associations, one-on-one counseling to families, foster care prevention programs, community

centers, and an employment and technology center that teaches job-related skills to teens and

adults. These services help the students and their families feel secure and attempt to help reduce

stress caused by issues within the home. High crime, high unemployment, poor housing, and lack

of resources all negatively affect a students education. Reducing these distractions not only

makes for better communities but better students who are more prepared to learn.

To date, many community-based programs have been proven to be effective. The White

Houses Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative Report gives seven solid examples including

the Harlem Childrens Zone, East Baltimore Development Inc., Evansville Vanderburgh School

Corporation, Atlanta Civic Site, Harmony Oaks Development, Spokane Countys SCOPE

Program, and Chicagos Quad Communities Program. Within all of these example communities,

significant improvements have been made. In the 2007, the Evansville Vanderburgh School

District had about 90% of their student population receiving free or reduced lunch and only had

one school in the district that was rated exemplary, the highest rate in given in Indianas

accountability system. By 2011, 17 schools in the district were rated exemplary. In only four

years, 16 different schools were able to significantly improve due to new after school programs

and an extensive neighborhood stabilization and improvement plan focusing on the environment,

education, health, businesses, housing, and safety. A new community involved leadership

structure was put into place allowing the neighbor residents to have a say in the changes being

made to their community. Resident engagement and community leadership is one of the key
strategies from the White House Report and was one of the main reasons why this program was

able to become so successful.

The main argument against community-based programs to approach education and

poverty issues is not that these programs dont work, it is that the millions of dollars being spent

on these resources are not needed. These resources are desperately needed. In 2013, less than

10% of students who graduated from one the Harlem Childrens Zone schools dropped of college

due to the HCZ College Success Zone. If these students were not given the community support

which includes this program, the college dropout rate for these students would likely be

exponentially higher. The national average of college students who drop out is 43.6 percent and

is even higher for lower income students. As noted in Hansons Assessing the Harlem

Childrens Zone, Mr. Canada, HCZs CEO, states that higher-performing schools, like those in

the lauded KIPP network, had no comparable network of cradle-to-college services. This is just

one example of how community services provide invaluable benefits to these students in a way

that an education only approach could not.

Community-based programs recieve a mixture of federal, state, and local funding as well

as large contributions from the private sector. Over $100 million dollars in private donations has

been made to the Harlem Childrens Zone so far. The HCZ spends $21,000 per year on each

student for their charter school education and the community services they provide, while the top

ten percent of public New York City school districts spend $28,754 per child on just education. If

the United States wants to be competitive with the rest of the world, then they must change their

policy to allow all kids to be on an equal playing field. They must provide low-income students

with the community services they need to thrive and succeed in their education.
 References

Building Neighborhoods of Opportunity. Rep. Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, White

House. N.p.: n.p., 2011. 1-41. Print.

Dobbie, Will, and Roland G. Fryer, Jr. "Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Increase

Achievement Among the Poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children's Zone." American

Economic Journal (2011): 158-87. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

Hanson, Danielle. "Assessing the Harlem Children's Zone." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 6

Mar. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

Hopkins, Elwood M. "A Strategy for Alleviating Poverty." Stanford Social Innovation Review.

N.p., 4 Dec. 2014. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.

Whitehurst, Grover J., and Michelle Croft. "The Harlem Childrens Zone, Promise

Neighborhoods, and the Broader, Bolder Approach to Education." Brookings. N.p., 20

July 2010. Web. 31 Oct. 2016.