So the New York Times editorial board comes out strong in its support for tightening the screws on NCLB, highlighting the urgency behind closing the achievement gap. The editorial board even goes out of its way to acknowledge that some critics of the law “never wanted accountability in the first place.” Good stuff.

So what could I possibly disagree with? The Times, unfortunately, falls into the trap (common in many upper crust circles these days) of linking the need to close the achievement gap primarily with our nation’s ability to compete in the global economy. (My guess: Poor Gail Collins got stuck sitting next to Tom Friedman at the Times Christmas Party again this year…)

Why do I think this is the wrong reason for closing the gap? I’m not entirely convinced the “create a supply of good workers” line is as emotionally/intellectually compelling as “maintain an equal, just, democratic society” in terms of the primary reason we should care about the future of impoverished black and brown children. I'm also not sure it's right.

Here’s what I mean:

1.) Forget tomorrow’s workforce projections (I’ll explain below.) These kids are our neighbors today. The greatest nation on Earth isn’t necessarily the one that wins the trade battle, it’s the one that truly empowers the weakest among us to have an equal chance at living a decent and productive life. We’re not doing that right now. Not even close. Not to sound like I’m lost in the Land of Kozol, but it really is the shame of our nation that our public education system actively helps shove so many needy kids through the cracks.

2.) The “compete in the growing world economy” thing is starting to sound a bit like the boy who cried wolf. Heresy! America has done pretty well in the global business world, despite the fact that we have, for generations, failed to make sure the weakest in our midst have gotten a decent public education. The flat Earth thing didn't start overnight. I understand the projections (again, see below), the implications in terms of jobs being moved, the number of non-American engineers doing all the important work, etc. But we’ve been hearing that for years. And we’re still kicking rump, no? (If not, why are so many of our American CEO’s getting paid so much?) If a decade from now, we’re still giving poor kids the shaft in our schools and we haven’t completely collapsed as a nation economically, will people still be buying the urgency from this line of argument?

3.) I was recently at a meeting with a consultant, who also happened to be working with a major American corporation on crafting a plan to figure out how to drastically increase the supply of workers who could do high-level mathematics. The options there seemed to be (a) Invest corporate money in improving American public education, (b) Invest in impacting national immigration policy to make it easier for highly-skilled math dudes to move here from other parts of the world to fill the jobs, or (c) Just suck it up and move this major American business to another part of the world where the problem isn’t so great.

If you dissect the options, and you are looking at it from a cost-benefit, analytical point of view, the cheapest/surest thing to do could very well be (a) investing in American public education. But if you really drill down, and keep that analytical hat on, wouldn’t you quickly realize that the greatest bang for the buck absolutely, positively wouldn’t involve investing in inner city schools? It’s in changing suburban mediocrity! It’s far easier to take kids from good homes, who have learned minimal math and science through their academic careers, and get them over the hump to become math whizzes than it is to invest in dysfunctional urban public schools, where we keep getting told by experts that it basically becomes a crap shoot.

That is: If all you care about is increasing the supply of highly-trained/educated workers, wouldn’t you be better off investing in mediocre suburban kids and pushing them to new heights? Target your investment on the winning end of the bell curve so that, rather than eliminate the curve, you merely alter its form in a way that suits your needs?

That is: We can probably solve the trade problem without totally closing the achievement gap. Gasp!

So I think it becomes more incumbent on the rest of us, who profoundly appreciate American democracy/jurisprudence etc., to place our patriotic markers on improving education for our most disadvantaged kids simply because it is the right thing to do.

Honestly, the “Flat Earth” thing is getting old. Why should we tolerate any education system that continually screws our weakest citizens? Why are so many people who consider themselves good Upper West Side liberals more interested in our international trade prowess than in our ability to stack jury pools with people capable of understanding basic legal concepts... who can inform themselves and participate in a democracy where their voice counts? You can't vote if you can't read the ballot. Etc.

Can justice and equality compete with Thomas Friedman?