"Despite their many differences, the two books [one conservative and one liberal] both rested on a series of assumptions about human nature - and especially about the nature of poor Americans in ghetto neighborhoods - that were as yet untested. Murray and Wilson agreed that lives in Harlem were deeply affected by decisions made in Washington, D.C. If the right set of incentives and disincentives and opportunities were dangled in front of poor ghetto residents, they would respond in predictable ways: they would get jobs, they would become better educated, they would be more likely to marry, and they would raise their children more conscientiously. The two men acknowledged that the dysfunction of ghetto families was the result of decades - generations - of discrimination, isolation and cultural decay, as well as one of the most cataclysmic shifts in the economy in American history. But they shared a faith that the problems those forces had produced could be fixed simply by the passage (or the dismantling) of the right federal laws" (emphasis mine).Tough is quite right that that this is the shared faith of vast swaths of education reformers, and that it pertains to their assumptions about human nature.
What if those assumptions are false? Is it really the case that these people will simply respond to certain incentives, disincentives and opportunities in predictable ways? Does that treat them with dignity as responsible decision makers? Or does it further malign them as sub-human subjects of social manipulation? Are any the great actions of human history attributable to social manipulation? Are not the great actions, like those of Dr. Martin Luther King, great precisely because they could never arise merely from social manipulation - those actions that are responsible, courageous, visionary and profoundly human? Could it be that the very necessity of reform is to admit that the poor are persons who have a very important, responsible role in addressing the issues of education and poverty?