A good discussion of how the rightwing frames discussions of poverty.
The strategy is to personalize issues rather than seeing them in context of poverty or other frames. That way, writes Bill Boyle,
Need I say that whole corporate ed reform movement follows the same logic? Schools “under-perform” not because of the context of poverty, but because of their people issues. The need for reform is personalized, and we can blame the people involved. The solution? Rid the schools of “under-performing” teachers, rid the schools of the unions which “protect” these under-performers, and then hold the new people accountable to metrics (i.e. tests). Or just offer charter schools, which does all of this in one fell swoop.
And a good video from Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC about race, poverty, voter ID, welfare, income inequality, and other volatile issues.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Is it just the right wing that frames it this way when it comes to schools? Doesn’t Obama frame poverty as an “excuse”? Teaching children raised in poverty whose parents are disengaged is at least as daunting as getting legislation through a Republican controlled House….
LikeLike
From Arne Duncan himself: ” There are some folks who feel you have to end poverty to fix education. I believe you have to fix education to end poverty.”
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/08/arne_duncan_better_education_s.html
LikeLike
Considering that the majority of the media is owned by conservatives, we have to be careful where we get our information. I believe that there are many who really care about our poor and want to see our poverty level go down drastically. Therefore, we have to speak louder so that the truth gets out. The example that Melissa gave in the video about a photo in the New York Times was an excellent sample of the type of distortion we are fed through the mainstream media. Therefore, we have to continue to educate our citizens as to what is really going on so we can change the dialogue and ALL move forward.
LikeLike
Just curious, and its not because I don’t believe you, but is there a link or evidence that the majority of media is owned by conservatives?
LikeLike
http://www.projectcensored.org/censorship/corporate-media-ownership/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership
http://www.cjr.org/resources/
LikeLike
Here’s a lovely infographic on the subject:
http://frugaldad.com/2011/11/22/media-consolidation-infographic/
LikeLike
NBC: Comcast and General Eclectic
ABC: the Walt Disney Corp
CBS: Viacom (National Amusements)
CNN: Time Warner
FOX: Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation
All owned by multi national conglomerates. I think it is fair to deduce that the parent companies are of, by ,and for the 1%.
LikeLike
Public employee pension funds own significant shares of major corporations. GE, owners of NBC, is one of the top ten investments of CALPERS S&P 500 fund, for example.
LikeLike
Don’t forget: CNN Worldwide President is Jim Walton, son of Sam, in the 1% WalMart Family, pro-charter schools, Michele Rhee.
LikeLike
I don’t think that most of the media is controlled by conservatives. However, virtually all media outlets are singing the same tune on education. Charter, test, voucher, bad teachers, etc.
LikeLike
The more I think about it, the more I think that a lot of poor people (certainly not all, but a lot more since the right-wing has been exploiting pretty much every conceivably profitable aspect of society) are poor because they made the choice (or choices) to be “good”. I think of social workers and now teachers who chose their fields at least in part because they want to help people, and now find themselves being laid off in record numbers due to no fault of their own. I think of people in all walks of life who have devotedly plugged away working for one employer and giving their best out of loyalty, only to find themselves “downsized” when they got too expensive and/or too close to their pension. So often the people who are poor are the ones who have done all the “right” things.
LikeLike
I do believe that poor choices can contribute to the perpetuation of poverty. I think the schools could help tremendously in this area by being allowed to teach things like home economics, personal finance, cooking classes, health, etc. However, when it’s all about test, test, test, and “everyone needs to be an engineer,” common-sense courses like these get pushed out of the way.
LikeLike
Baloney. Take your ignorance elsewhere. The vast majority of people are just a job or a paycheck away from destitution. Easy to sit there and be self-righteous and point fingers spewing your hogwash.
LikeLike
What? I am definitely not writing this from a computer in my mansion or waiting for the next opportunity to fly to my parent’s beach house in Naples or something. So your assumptions about my supposed ignorance and self-righteousness are totally absurd.
So are you saying that teaching people skills to help them manage what they have and help them move forward is a bad thing? Teaching them health and cooking skills so they don’t patronize McDonald’s every other day is a bad thing? What about auto shop class or a construction-related class? You know, things students could be certified for and jump into immediately after high school instead of going to college immediately and drowning themselves in loans?
I know getting out of poverty is difficult, but it is not impossible. I believe that if given the tools, schools could help. But like I said, as long as everything is about testing and sending everyone to engineering school, then I guess these types of classes (which DID exist in the past) won’t ever make a comeback. Given your crass response, I can only imply that you are in support of this new status quo in education.
By the way, there are plenty of people out there with GOOD salaries who are completely clueless when it comes to managing their money.
LikeLike
POOR PEOPLE MAKE POOR DECISIONS. STERILIZE THE POOR, PAY THEM A MODEST ONE TIME STIPEND TO BECOME STERILIZED.
LikeLike