Commentary: Providing social services through schools is fiscally prudent
In his column, Brian Crosby (“Commentary: Nanny state in schools lessens education,” Nov. 11) doubts the wisdom of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s School Renewal Program. Crosby arrives at this conclusion by taking an unnecessarily narrow view.
He decries the city’s spending of tax dollars on “free food, free medical care for physical and mental needs, regular checkups by dentists, including cleanings, and free eyeglasses.” And he notes, “One school has a washer and dryer for families to use.”
De Blasio takes a wider view. According to the commentary, the mayor calls the School Renewal Program his “whole child, whole school, whole community” concept for transforming 94 struggling schools. According to the New York City website, the schools will become “Community Schools,” and they will provide one hour extra of instruction each day, launch after-school programs, strengthen family engagement and receive extra professional training for teachers.
The national Coalition for Community Schools, taking a generalized view, describes community schools this way: “A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships between the school and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and community development and community engagement leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities.”
One can look at de Blasio’s initiative in several ways. On one hand, it can be seen as giving tax dollars to improvident families who should have prepared their children for modern schooling but haven’t.
On the other hand, it can be viewed as an investment in the city. By spending money now, the city will reap benefits in the future.
So who’s right? Actually, both are right. They are just looking at different parts of the same continuum.
Crosby restricted his view to the near term. This is at one end of the continuum, where needy children get their immediate needs met. Stomachs are fed, infections are treated, cavities are filled and myopic eyes get glasses so the blackboard is more than just a blur.
In the medium term, students from more-affluent families learn more, because the now-better-prepared classmates from the less advantaged families intellectually challenge them. Teachers are more effective, since they aren’t presented with huge intellectual and behavioral gaps among children in class. Teacher turnover is reduced, saving the costs of training new hires. And program costs decline over time because parents will have learned how to prepare their children for school.
The far term, at the other end of the continuum, is where the city benefits from reduced public safety costs because crime rates are lower; property owners benefit from greater home values because neighborhoods are safer and schools are rated higher; and businesses benefit from graduates who have prepared for higher-paying careers and thus have more spending money.
Taking into account this wide spectrum of benefits, people can responsibly conclude that a program such as Mayor de Blasio’s is fiscally and socially prudent, a worthy investment for a city and its schools.
TOM EGAN is a former Newport-Mesa school board member.