Children Have Better Ideas for Ending Poverty Than Adults

Call me a cranky anti-authoritarian woman-child if you must, but even though I've been an adult for a while, I don't tend to trust other adults to make decisions on my behalf. Why? Because I truly fear — and not without warrant, I don't think — that most people in positions of power didn't get there by being empathic, analytical folks in touch with everyday needs of ordinary people. Don't get me wrong: I don't hate the government or elected officials any more than I dislike wealthy businesspeople. Civil service may still exist as a noble calling. But my point is that the more powerful and influential you become, the less likely you are to be down with the people. Anyone familiar with the politician who recently suggested we barter chickens for health care? You see where I'm going with this?

Let's look at an example of how powerful men theorize ending poverty. About a year ago, I reviewed philosopher-ethicist Peter Singer's book The Life You Can Save: Acting Now To End World Poverty. Unlike many critics, I found it to be shamefully shortsighted when it comes to solutions like giving to charity. What about working in your own community to build relationships and lift each other up? Why should our donated dollars be funneled through charitable organizations run by enormously wealthy, extraordinarily privileged Americans? If the message doesn't ring true in your own backyard, it isn't exactly something you want to export.

Meanwhile, this stuff is fairly straightforward when you ask our youth. The Washington Post's Petula Dvorak wrote on Tuesday about a group of D.C. elementary school children who are studying poverty in their fifth grade classroom — in part because they live in one of the district's poorest neighborhoods. Their questions and answers are candid and simple: "If the government has all this money, why don't they just give some of it to poor people so that we don't have poverty anymore?" And, "What about if we grow food in a garden, so people have something to eat?" Who wants to be the one to explain, "Sorry, we're spending the money to bomb other countries?" Not me.

The rates of D.C. children living in poverty are astounding. While the national average is 18 percent — appalling for a wealthy nation like the U.S. — 32 percent of children in Washington live in poverty. Dvorak asked officials at the Communities in Schools of the Nation's Capital program why it wasn't being taught in wealthier neighborhoods, where poverty is further removed from people's everyday lives. But again, the answers are simple: empower the children who need it most. Help the kids understand tangible ways to lift up to their own community. Foster a sense of interconnectedness. Teach children that they are vital citizens who are part of our government processes. Programs like this teach young people about personal empowerment instead of faceless philanthropy, and if I'm forced to choose one, I vote for the former. It's not only more applicable to poor children; I believe it's ultimately more effective.

Maybe this is a no-brainer for me. I'm one of those people who think kids are infinitely smarter than we often allow ourselves to believe. In this case, they see things much more clearly than adults.

Photo Credit: woodleywonderworks