The article discusses the increasing adoption of the "success sequence"—finishing high school, getting a full-time job, then marriage and children—as a curriculum in US public schools, particularly in red states. This initiative, originating from conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, aims to address poverty by emphasizing personal choices. The concept was initially introduced to combat teen pregnancy and later popularized by various institutions, with claims of a high success rate in poverty avoidance.
However, critics argue that the evidence supporting the success sequence is weak, confusing correlation with causation. Studies suggest that while the individual steps contribute to avoiding poverty, the specific order is less crucial. Furthermore, the sequence overlooks systemic barriers to success, like wage stagnation and unaffordable housing. Alternative perspectives emphasize the impact of social safety nets and structural policies in reducing poverty.
Despite the criticisms, the success sequence enjoys widespread public support across the political spectrum, although this support might be more fervent among conservatives. The article notes the potential for opportunity costs in educational curricula, arguing that teaching the sequence could detract from more effective poverty-reduction strategies. The debate highlights the tension between promoting personal responsibility and acknowledging systemic factors that contribute to economic inequality.
The practical implementation of the success sequence in classrooms remains uncertain. While some believe that teachers can effectively teach the concept within context, others worry about the potential for misinterpretations and the opportunity cost of time and resources. The article concludes by considering alternative frameworks for addressing poverty in schools, focusing on systemic change rather than solely personal choices.