continued from page which claims ….
continued from page
which claims that the main factor that determines a child’s outcome in life is the neighborhood where that child grows up.
The most influential work in this “ZIP code is destiny” approach, per Heckman, is research done by economists from Harvard and MIT, using IRS data over a 42-year period.
This has given rise to various programs moving low-income families to better neighborhoods.
Heckman challenges the methodology of these studies.
Regardless, I shudder to think of government programs moving families to better neighborhoods when commonly the forces behind bad neighborhoods are various and sundry government housing and welfare programs.
A widely circulated recent video of HUD Secretary Scott Turner captures Turner explaining to a reporter the rationale of the HUD introducing time limits to residence in government housing. He talks about a woman who is one of three generations in her family living in the same government housing project. Turner justifies a period of assistance from government but, he maintains, welfare should not be a lifestyle.
Heckman insists that data show his approach in fostering early childhood education and “policies to bolster the quality of family decision-making and strengthen the quality of family life” is the most compelling approach.
Nevertheless, issues remain.
For one thing, why must it be one or the other? We don’t need Harvard to teach us the traditional understanding that the neighborhood where a child grows up influences that child. Programs, such as Economic Opportunity Zones, that generate tax incentives for investment in distressed ZIP codes, can turn around blighted neighborhoods that are the laboratory results of bad government policy.
It is also traditionally understood that the right education, given early, with a healthy family environment, is critical.
But we have a chicken and egg problem. Poor families and neighborhoods are already dominated by single- parent, nontraditional broken households. How do we fix this?
And let’s hope what Heckman means by character development is not what our public schools think of as character development — woke thinking devoid of traditional values.
It seems clear that this is not what he means. He notes that the Bible was the initial source of character education. He calls it “unfortunate” that as the country became more diverse in its population, there was pressure to remove the Bible and religion from public schools.
What is not clear is how he teaches character without religion.
My answer is don’t remove the Bible; remove the public schools. Give parents choice.
Star Parker is founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS. COM
