TO THE EDITOR:
As a student of education policy, I agree with Jagir Patel’s column last week in noting the significance of socioeconomic status in students’ education.
But I also recognize that in-school factors affect student performance. Most education policy literature says that of those in-school factors, quality teachers are most consequential.
I believe, therefore, that we should welcome any policies that provide greater teachers for our students.
If that means expecting higher qualifications for new teachers, we should do it. If that means increasing teacher salaries and offering rewards to the teachers who create student growth, we should pay up. If that means removing protections for teachers whose students do not progress, let’s do that too. And if there are better alternatives out there, we should all be open to constructive, collaborative dialogue about processes and policies that will enable the best possible outcomes for every student.
Perhaps my beliefs make me an “irresponsible reformer.” If so, it is because I believe that what a student is born into does not constitute a prophecy of his or her future.
I would never claim that reform advocates like myself have all the answers.
The means for education reform will always be imperfect and debatable. But arguments holding that we cannot address school conditions until we address poverty are themselves as simplistic and wrongheaded as arguments that poverty is irrelevant in education.
Michael Welker ’14
Vice president for advocacy
Students for Education Reform UNC
