Schools & budget plan I
Salena Zito's column “Fayette County, Philly have poverty in common” (Feb. 10 and TribLIVE.com) was insightful. I live in Fayette County. A basic institution we have looked to for addressing poverty is the public school system, in giving opportunities to all our children, whether from privileged or underprivileged, rich or poor homes.
A century ago, my ancestors tried to give a farm and land to their children; today, we give our children schooling because education is wealth and social mobility.
A major impulse for public education came a century ago in trying to integrate poor immigrant children into society as useful and functional citizens. However clumsy that effort has been, on balance it has served us quite well. One thinks of personal stories of children from poor families who took advantage of public education, learning to read and write and think well — hence, to achieve. Statistically, the correlation remains: Children who are enrolled and achieve in school are more likely to live outside of poverty as adults.
Our Southmoreland schools have had significant success in having higher student achievement levels than our socio-economic indicators might suggest, as have some of our neighboring districts. A significant factor for our remaining competitive in achievement has been to receive sufficient state basic education funding, in addition to what local taxes provide.
I hope Gov. Corbett and our legislators remember this factor regarding poverty during this spring's debate on the budget.
The writer is president of the Southmoreland School Board.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.