Last week saw an odd imbroglio between state Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez (D-Boston) and fellow liberal Cory Atkins (D-Concord).

Atkins, in remarks supporting expanding the state's Metco program (which sends city kids to suburban schools), had said, ``My community has two prisons. I'd rather have the kids come to my schools than have them come out later to my prisons.'' Sanchez reportedly called the remarks ``racist'' and upbraided Atkins.

Atkins then offered up a ``humble and sincere apology.''

But what was wrong with Atkins' words? After all, she was only expressing - pithily, perhaps - what is pretty much political dogma: Education and crime are deeply and tightly linked.

Here's the line of reasoning. Crime is a social problem caused by growing up in a disadvantaged environment with few opportunities. Education is a way to reverse that: Give kids skills, give them an opportunity to hold a decent job and they won't become lawbreakers.

The argument is grounded in economics. The theory is that to an individual, a job or a crime are essentially the same things - ways to make money. Those with education (and hence better paying jobs) won't turn to crime because, in effect, crime doesn't pay as well.

It's an attractive idea. Instead of building prisons, build schools.

Except for one problem. It's not true.

From 1960 to 2000, the number of adults who were high school graduates increased dramatically, from 41 percent to 84 percent. During those same 40 years, the crime rate, by almost any measure, also skyrocketed. Violent crimes, for example, went from 288,000 to 1.4 million.

If anything, it appears, more education seems to mean more crime.

Even the data that supposedly back up an education-crime connection are pretty weak. For instance, one 2001 study by the University of Rochester's Lance Lochner and UCLA's Enrico Moretti concluded ``completing high school reduces the probability of incarceration by about .76 percentage points for whites and 3.4 percentage points for blacks.''

That's hardly impressive, and for good reason. Crime isn't an issue of education and economics. It's an issue of morality.

The morality we're talking about is civic morality, the notion that we have obligations to each other and to society. Moral people have ``a vision of themselves that reaches beyond everyday concerns. The `I' becomes `we,' '' says Harvard political scientist Charles Euchner. Criminals, who engage in anti-social and fundamentally selfish acts, don't have that moral sense.

If you think about it, this seems logical. For one, while some crimes are economically driven, others - such as rape or vandalism - plainly are not. For another, a tendency to lawlessness starts early in life. People generally start breaking the law as kids; it's not something they pick up when they become adults. In other words, criminality isn't about economic decision-making; it's part of one's character.

Considered this way, one can easily see why education might not be all that powerful a tool in fighting crime. Learning the three R's may help you get a job, but it tells you little about respect for others or about the importance of complying with societal norms. (In fact, conventional public schools - unlike private or religious schools - mostly shy away from incorporating morality and values into their curricula.)

Moreover, if one considers crime a moral issue, then there are far better approaches than public education to fighting it. For example, one might look to local leaders such as priests and ministers. A number of years ago, Boston's black ministers banded together to form the Ten Point Coalition, an effort that sought to engage the entire community in the moral education of its kids. Data suggest the Coalition's approach was highly effective in reducing crime.

Modern law enforcement can also play a role in changing kids' characters. Zero-tolerance policing goes after lawbreakers for crimes that we might regard as minor, such as graffiti or underage drinking. By doing that, however, police identify early on those who might go astray, allowing parents and others to intervene and help youth turn around their lives.

The point is, if crime is a moral problem, then it needs to be addressed in those terms.

But back to Rep. Sanchez. Sanchez was plainly out of line - engaging in the worst sort of political hyperbole - when he attacked Atkins. Still, one can understand why he was upset. The education-crime formulation makes it seem as if the undereducated will almost necessarily become criminals. That's not the case, however. Most people, even in the grimmest of neighborhoods, live moral lives. And inculcating that morality is fundamentally a task for parents and other leaders within a community. To be sure, a great education is a wonderful thing; Sanchez and Atkins both seem to agree on the value of the Metco program. But kids don't need to be bused to Concord to learn the difference between right and wrong.

Talk back to Tom Keane at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.