Monday, March 18, 2013

Can we redefine "indiscriminate?"

This excellent piece on the cost of "sequestration" for education is worth a read, though I have some trouble with this claim:

"The sequester's guillotine has little regard for good or bad programs as it unselectively slices spending across the country, but perhaps nowhere does its indiscriminate blade fall more harshly than within education. The students who will lose out will be the ones we should be most careful to protect: children from poor families and special needs kids.".
Yes, I understand the point,  but it's worth remembering (as the article actually goes on to say) that when we slash government programs, it is anything but indiscriminate; the harshest results will always be felt by those who are most in need, and a large percentage of those people happen to be children.

So, while the phony haggling over the budget continues, and while austerity becomes more and more of a genuine reality, it's worth remembering that when government representatives talk about tightening our belts, they're really talking about removing supports for millions of school children who need food and education.

To see how austerity measures are expected to affect your state, go here.

No comments:

Post a Comment