Thursday, October 07, 2010

Bill Stanczykiewicz is Wrong



In Monday's Indianapolis Star the head of the Indiana Youth Institute Bill Stanczykiewicz wrote an article that got my blood boiling a little. I really don't know Mr. Stanczykiewicz. I met him once at an event that I was leading for a United Way in Anderson, Indiana. I do read his articles and I'm concerned that he is a cheerleader for a way of doing things that does not benefit the people it is purported to serve. I stayed up late on Tuesday night and worked up a reply which I sent to the Indianapolis Star. I doubt that they will use it. So, I will copy it here in my blog so that it will at least be "out there."

Bill Stanczykiewicz is wrong. He is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong. Perhaps he is right that “more opportunity today can mean less poverty in the future.” But that is unlikely as well. It isn’t “opportunity” that is the issue - it is income. He uses all the right buzz words to perhaps persuade someone that he may be right: “Education”, “opportunity”, “tutoring”, etc. How can you argue with all of these things? But none of his prescriptions or buzz words matter more than increased income. Not only academia, but also the Indianapolis Star has reported that income is the most important determinant in educational achievement. Doesn’t Mr. Stanczykiewicz think that at least one of the answers might be to find ways to increase income? The statistics he quotes from Haskins and Sawhill’s book are the type of statistics that can add more confusion rather than clarity to a conversation. And while these issues are complex a little common sense couldn’t hurt.

We have made the poor an industry that has supported people like Mr. Stanczykiewicz with nice salaries while little is done to directly increase the income of people who need it most. The energies spent on pimping poverty must quickly ebb to make way for a flow of innovation, collaboration and investment in people, not programs, to end poverty.

Stanczykiewicz may be right when he says that “growing up poor often means believing that success is for someone else...” The problem is that his solutions are more of the same. Haven’t the efforts over the last 50 years (and longer) taught us, at least, that the efforts we have made to “strike down poverty” haven’t worked? Then why do we keep on trying the same things and have the same people in charge of doing those things? Why I think that what he is saying is so dangerous is that we will continue to do these same things that haven’t worked and watch the number of young people and their families in poverty continue to rise.

The problem with the philosophy behind “Jobs for America’s Graduates” is that it does not take into account the failed model of building upon deficits rather than building upon assets. Any parent would understand this. We would never begin each day with our child by asking that child “so what’s wrong with you today?” But that’s how programs like these begin. Like good parents we could start with these young people and their families by asking - how do we build up what is best? Instead we spend our time poking around for every potential lack in their life. It’s a bad model for success in your home and it’s a bad model of success in our society.

When Julie Puttmann says “Our students realize for the first time they can make it” - I challenge her to name those students and then to talk with their parents and see if that is really true. I’ve lived and worked in low income communities most of my life and I can tell you that I’ve never met a person who “realized for the first time that they can make it” when they were in high school. Most young people have realized that from a very early age. Then they have their hopes dashed - not by their parents - but by a system and a society that tries to tell them that now thanks to this program or that one they can have hope for the first time. These programs aren’t bad things. They make the people who run them feel good. And they help a few people beat the odds. What our society could really find useful is something though that changes the odds for everyone. And for that we need innovation a lot more than we need programs.

Actually the 21st Century Scholars Program has modeled this for us. Over the last 8 years they have shown, by investing in the parents of the young people in their program, that a different way to approach poverty is by investing in the very people who the program is meant to serve and putting the actual working of it in the hands of the parents of young people in the program.

We need every part of the city and state challenging themselves to build on the gifts, dreams, talents, and passions of our young people AND their families. We need religious communities to start paying attention not only to “good works” but work that has good results. We need businesses that invest in our young, not by tutoring them - but by listening to them and investing in their good gifts. But what we need most of all is for each one of us to begin to recognize and celebrate the giftedness of our most marginalized citizens (liberals and conservatives are equally negligent on this) if for no other reason than this - it might actually work (and we have plenty of evidence that the other way doesn’t work). We see that evidence on the front page of our paper every day.


Rev. Michael Mather

Pastor, Broadway United Methodist Church


5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why the Star would not use it. Looks like a good, vigorous opinion piece to me.

In you next post you speak of the editor writing to tell you that poverty is too complex and issue for him to cover.

As a former journalist, I was disappointed when I read that. Many papers and media outlets cover issues of poverty - or can. There just is not much money in it. Subscription numbers do not move up when you devote resources to the issue.

Another example of how my noble former profession has fallen far from its highest aspirations.

3:01 PM  
Blogger Mike Mather said...

Whether the journalists will do it or not - will the Churches? Will the United Methodist Churches? Wesley seemed to spend quite a bit of time on it - in his journals, letters, sermons and practice (it was central to his class meetings).

You may be right about subscription numbers not moving up when you devote resources to the issue - but (as my mother would say in a very ugly image) there's a lot of ways to skin a cat (are there really?).

I have heard from some journalism folk I know that it the papers that are thriving more in this economy, these days, are the small ones that tell the stories of the people of their communities. The big city newspapers don't do that much. Perhaps one way to take on the issues of poverty, and I think this would be biblical, is to "see" the people by naming the gifts and graces in the lives of the citizens who others discount and who are numbered among the poor.

I doubt that will happen either. And I don't imagine that the Church will rediscover Wesley's commitment to this aspect of the Christian life, with much besides programs that cause us to pat ourselves on the back for helping the poor. That's what our Charge Conference reports ask us for.

3:29 PM  
Anonymous Billie Mitchell said...

I totally disagree with the article Children of inmates pay price.My great grandson's father is incarcerated, he has no health issues, he does well in school, and is not living in poverty. I knew Keith Blackburn when he was incarcerated, he had no children at the time, so what makes him qualified to teach a class on parenting skills to incarcerated fathers ?

11:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

qzz0629
polo outlet
fingerlings monkey
yeezy boost 350
canada goose outlet
michael kors uk
bcbg dresses
reebok outlet store
oakley sunglasses
toms shoes
camel shoes

1:44 AM  
Blogger yanmaneee said...

yeezy boost
curry 6
nike air max
hermes
golden goose outlet
supreme
a bathing ape
hermes handbags bag
retro jordans
cheap jordans

1:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home