The Narrowness of "No Child Left Behind"
I have a question for President Bush. If he truly embraces the concept of No Child Left Behind, why does he limit such to educational performance? Why is it seemingly okay for children to be left behind in myriad ways outside the schoolhouse doors but, once they cross the threshold, it is suddenly unacceptable? If the federal government truly values this nation's most precious resource (hint: it's not petroleum but children), then ought there not be a commitment to the whole child, inside and outside of school? After all, doesn't it stand to reason that a child who lags behind at home--e.g., due to poverty and its attendant ills--may as a result lag behind at school? Is the school somehow expected to compensate for such?
Okay, so I had a handful of questions for the Big Kahuna. But consider the following data, as reported by the National Center for Children in Poverty:
Nearly 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $20,000 a year for a family of four. The number of children living in poverty increased by more than 11 percent between 2000 and 2005. There are 1.3 million more children living in poverty today than in 2000, despite indications of economic recovery and growth.Not only are these numbers dispiriting, the official poverty measure tells only part of the story--it is increasingly viewed as a flawed metric of economic hardship....Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet. Children living in families with incomes below this level--for 2006, $40,000 for a family of four--are referred to as low income. Thirty-nine percent of the nation's children--more than 28 million in 2005--live in low-income families. [full text]
< Does Bush Support Our Troops? | Roots Remembered > |