Whatever it takes?

The Education Column

By Oli De Botton / @OlideB

The Harlem Children’s Zone is both an impressive experiment in combating poverty and a real challenge to our left instincts. Whilst the jury may still be out on the long-term effectiveness of the zone, early successes force us to consider more precisely how to employ means to pursue our ends.

Over the past 5 years, Geoffrey Canada, the zone’s founder, has bombarded New York’s poor with an arsenal of interventions. From anti-natal support to parenting classes, from pre-school programmes to the delivery of primary and secondary education. Canada is convinced that it is possible to eradicate poverty with overwhelming force. Barack Obama agrees and has set aside 100 million dollars for a further 20 zones in cities around the country.

But the approach taken doesn’t fit neatly into left and right arguments. For example, whilst it is an area-based intervention with local people using local services, controversial supply side reform plays its part too – the schools involved are all charters (similar to our Academies.) What’s more, the whole zone relies on Wall Street money.

Yet at the same time the scheme is built on solidaristic principles of community organisation and empowerment – neighbours talking to neighbours, individuals becoming collective networks. Parent participants are also told that they have to compete with middle class parents in downtown Manhattan.

So is this something we should pursue and replicate? An essentially private enterprise that combines community engagement with aspects of class competition? Perhaps it boils down to a judgement: do we think that these sort of interventions can actually overcome disadvantage and give people the tools to get out of poverty – however deep? Or do we think that structural inequality is just too overwhelming and interventions like this can only work alongside radical redistribution?

This debate is ranging across the Atlantic, in the run up to the election we should have it here too.