If you want a picture of deprivation, the east end of Richmond, Virginia paints it. But look closer and you will see change

The east end of Richmond, Virginia is a community rich in people, but depressingly poor otherwise. It's like every other inner city in America. It is strikingly similar to the impoverished section of Jersey City, where I was born and raised. Just as in the days of Jim Crow, the racial and class segregation is real, amplified these days by the gentrification masked as "redevelopment", with whites re-taking chunks of the east end abandoned since the white flight of the 1960s.

Public schools here are woefully underfunded and run-down. There are multiple grammar schools but just one high school, which suggests most of these children have no real shot at college, let alone high school. Violence, crime, and bulging bags of garbage dominate this population, which has the densest concentration of public housing south of New York City.

Outside of Jackson, Mississippi, Richmond's east end also has the oldest public housing stock in America, with some families in their fifth generation in public housing. The average income of those living in public housing with names like Mosby Court is just over $8,000 per year. A community tour reveals the city jail, the courts building, and the juvenile jail bunched together at one entrance to the east end. Coming into this neighborhood from the other direction, you pass a graveyard and a landfill. Brutal reminders of what the children of the east end face if there is no empowerment plan for their lives.

There is only one grocery store, but an overabundance of corner stores, fast food chains, and liquor stores pushing their products. "Food desert" has been used to describe areas like Richmond's east end. Little wonder that diabetes, high blood pressure, and other diseases overpower this community, too.

On a weekday afternoon, there are residents on street corners, on their stoops, many unemployed, underemployed, or unemployable save the odd low-skilled job here or there. Drugs are rampant, and other criminal activities linked to economic desperation are the norm. Only 45% of adults over the age of 25 have earned a high-school diploma or equivalent degree and the east end's unemployment rate is 40%, four times the national average.

Since the civil rights era, it has often been stated that education is the great equalizer in America, the one way that poor people could advance their lives. My life is undoubtedly a testimony to that, in spite of my single mother's extreme poverty and limited educational background. Social programs had a great impact on my overcoming the worst aspects of ghetto life, of my going to college. But in Richmond's east end, only 20% of these students receive any kind of pre-school education. And on average, students in the east end make only 65% of the annual academic progress compared to their peers nationally. Finally, just 41% of students entering high school in the east end will graduate with a degree in four years.

So, it is simply not enough for politicians to suggest the poor in America have an unapologetic dependency on government assistance. Most people I know who are poor, or have been poor, including my own family, actually want to work, and work hard. But when you hail from generations of poverty, are stuck in environments that breed contempt from outsiders and mayhem from those within, it takes a monumental effort to free even a few from the deeply-held belief that they have no future whatsoever.

That is why I greatly admire the Peter Paul Development Center in Richmond's east end. We hear the perpetual chatter about poverty, but Peter Paul is about solutions. I recently spent two days at Peter Paul, listening to the children, the workers, the staff, the board, and came away saying this is a model for what can be done to address poverty directly in America.

Run by a multicultural army of committed change agents, Peter Paul is the oldest continually operating community center in the east end.

I was struck by the integrity of the staff, board members, and donors, and by the fact that some of them are Democrats, some Republicans, some poor, some super-wealthy, some black and some white, united for a common cause here in Virginia, once a major outpost of the Confederacy. Peter Paul speaks to the best of who we are as Americans, and of what is possible if there were less talk and more action, if there were less finger-pointing and more problem-solving.

This center serves children, families, and seniors through a variety of holistic programs. I witnessed students receiving their daily meals and tutoring for various subjects. I witnessed a love and respect for these children often missing from glossier, more famous programs that have far larger budgets and the attention of President Obama. But many don't have what Peter Paul has, which is a soul and, I feel, a long-term commitment to our children – with or without the revolving door of celebrity attention and big-money benefactors.

For sure, I witnessed expectations of excellence, something most poor American children do not experience consistently. But Peter Paul doesn't stop there. It has a twice-monthly food distribution that serves over 800 individuals in the east end. It hires people from the community and it listens to the voices of the people as its mission evolves. And Peter Paul's core purpose is an immersive after-school education. In other words, the nearly 80 children it helps are given a real shot at winning, and not merely surviving.

Obviously, we've been discussing the poor since the days of Dr King and President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", but what is needed now, more than ever, is not just tough talk, but tough-minded people willing to commit huge chunks of their lives to rooting out this ugly stain in the American landscape, once and for all. In its very simple brick building in Richmond's east end, the good people of Peter Paul are showing us one way. We need to pay attention.

Lord Coe vowed the London Olympics would connect young people with the inspirational power of the Games, but there are now real fears this goal will not be realised

Around two and a half months before the cream of the world's athletes parade around the track at the opening ceremony of the London Games, a rather more low-key event will mark a new phase in the battle to secure an Olympic legacy – or at least the perception of one.

The School Games, the brainchild of the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is – depending on who you ask and their political persuasion – either a bold attempt to reinvigorate competitive school sport using London 2012 as a catalyst or a desperate attempt to distract from deep spending cuts that risk putting any hope for a meaningful legacy at risk.

The finals, which will take place in the Olympic Park between 6 and 9 May, are the climax of four levels of intra- and inter-school competition that Hunt insists will help deliver on the legacy promises made by Lord Coe in Singapore.

Then, Coe vowed: "We can no longer take it for granted that young people will choose sport. Some may lack the facilities. Or the coaches and role models to teach them. Others, in an age of 24-hour entertainment and instant fame, may simply lack the desire. We are determined a London Games will address that challenge. So London's vision is to reach young people around the world. To connect them with the inspirational power of the Games. So they are inspired to choose sport."

As Guardian education editor Jeevan Vasagar writes today, there are now very real fears that Coe's electrifying words will result in little meaningful change. The background is complex and controversial, marked by political and ideological rows and turf wars.

In 2010 the education secretary, Michael Gove, resolved to remove the £162m ringfenced funding for a network of school sports partnerships that had raised the number of schoolchildren engaged in two hours or more of sport per week from 25% in 2002 to more than 90% by 2010.

Following a feisty debate in the Commons (during which the shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, suggested the cuts were Gove's revenge for years of misery on the playing fields) and a furious rearguard action from teachers, pupils and athletes, some of the money was reinstated. But it was less a U-turn and more a 90-degree turn.

Sue Campbell, the redoubtable chair of the Youth Sport Trust, and her new chief executive, John Steele, are putting a brave face on the new strategy. Campbell says it can be the start of a renaissance for competitive school sport.

But while a total of £153m will be going into the School Games over the next four years – gathered from a variety of sources and including £10m of sponsorship from Sainsbury's – it doesn't make up for what has been lost.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, there was also a pitched battle for control of the School Games themselves. Lord Moynihan, the British Olympic Association chairman, thought that its remit after the Games could usefully extend to running a school Olympics. But Hunt said on Monday that the BOA wanted complete control, which wasn't on the table. So the name was changed to the School Games and the BOA sidelined.

Hunt also lauded the fact that half of all schools had signed up. By the same token, that means that half of schools haven't – in London the total is only 42%.

The risk is that we will be left with a patchwork of provision between those schools that understand the wider value of sport and those that don't – exactly what the original strategy was introduced to combat. There is no such hesitation at private schools which pour their considerable funds into top-class sporting facilities and as a result have punched well above their weight at recent Games, supplying half of all Britain's medallists.

Hunt deserves praise for doing what he can with limited resources to try to minimise the effect of the cuts imposed by Gove and he loyally defends the actions of his colleague.

But it is hard to see how sacking 450 people, then re-employing the majority of them on fewer hours with a re-badged job title and simultaneously cutting the primary school provision that could instil the very "sport for life" attitude that Hunt's rhetoric promises can be seen as a step forward.

For all the economic gloom, and the inevitable cuts, the London Games should have been a moment to definitively rebalance Britain's relationship with sport and exercise – beginning in schools, and particularly in primary schools.

Ministers from all departments are keen to pay lip service to sport's role as a social tool – inspiring otherwise hard to reach children, raising academic achievement and self-esteem. But not enough of them are willing to find the means. This is difficult stuff and the societal and cultural barriers are immense. But that does not mean the original aim – to use the Olympics to catalyse a lasting change in sports policy and the amount we invest in it – was wrong.

For all the money poured into school sport by the last Labour government when times were good, they arguably didn't do enough to hardwire investment in sport and exercise into bigger Whitehall departments such as health, education and the Home Office.

Now the money they did provide is leaking away. Nor does there seem much clarity on how progress will be measured – Hunt talks vaguely of instilling the habit of "sport for life" and measuring progress at 16, 18 and 21. Which means it will be years before we know if the strategy works.

There are other pressing concerns. Cuts to local authority budgets will inevitably impact on facilities, and the effects are just starting to be felt. Meanwhile, planning laws are being changed in a way that has raised fears about the impact on playing fields.

Hunt spoke at a briefing this week of wanting to follow the example of continental Europe and create community sports clubs of the kind that will be familiar to anyone who has spent time in the Netherlands, Germany or France. That is a laudable aim, but is hard to see how the mishmash of policies and initiatives – individually impressive as some of them are – that has been cobbled together to assuage concerns over the Olympic legacy can achieve it. Hunt's enthusiasm seems genuine, but it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the government as a whole increasingly views the Games as a month-long morale-boosting advert for Britain rather than a driver of lasting change.

Coe, loyally, insists that the coalition is delivering on his promises by reinvigorating competitive sport. But others are less sure – from opposite sides of the political divide both Tessa Jowell and Moynihan have expressed confidence in the regeneration vision for east London and Team GB's medal hopes but flagged up school sport as an area of grave concern.

The danger is that after the Games, Britain's attitude to sport will remain broadly unchanged – world-class at watching it, and sometimes at practising it at the elite end, but with a population largely happy to take part from the comfort of their sofa with a big bowl of crisps.

Stadium wrap leaves a little to be designed

London 2012 organisers are close to unveiling the design for the contentious wrap that will surround the stadium at Games-time, but Damien Hirst and other big-name British artists who were initially approached will not be involved.

The £7m wrap that will surround the main stadium during the Games is at the centre of protests from MPs and human rights groups over the fact it is being paid for by Dow, the chemicals giant which they claim still has outstanding liabilities relating to the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India.

Initial plans for the 1km wrap were scrapped during the government's comprehensive spending review as the £9.3bn Olympics project shared some of the pain of widespread spending cuts, but revived when a commercial sponsor was found.

However, the original designs for the wrap were abandoned and a push to find a new designer was launched. Hirst and other British artists were approached but it is understood that talks went no further than preliminary conversations.

Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP who has called for a parliamentary review of the decision to back Dow, told the Guardian that any prominent British artists would be damaged by their association with the wrap.

"I can't imagine the artistic community of the UK feeling that Dow Chemical, with all its history, is a sponsor they particularly want to associate themselves with. I would be gobsmacked if any eminent British artist decided that what they wanted to do was associate themselves with the Bhopal tragedy."

Sir Humphrey doesn't take the train

Harassed civil servants across Whitehall were this week expected to "reroute and remode" their journeys to work in order to practise for Games-time. The transport secretary, Justine Greening, has already promised that her department will achieve a decrease of 50% in normal traffic by working from home and travelling at different times. Games organisers are relying on an average reduction of 30% among London commuters to avoid transport chaos. Posters pinned up around the DCMS building urged staff to partake in the week-long rehearsal. And Ian Watmore, the former FA chief executive who is now leading a Whitehall cost-cutting drive, tweeted: "This week we are practising for the Olympics by working out of London or on flexible shifts. Today I'm heading to Norwich from Manchester."

Commons education committee expected to veto appointment of Prof Les Ebdon, a critic of higher university fees

The business secretary, Vince Cable, is expected to be overruled by an influential Commons committee over the appointment of a new university access tsar.

Cable has endorsed Prof Les Ebdon, an advocate of new universities and a critic of higher fees, for the role of director of the higher education access watchdog – the Office for Fair Access.

The watchdog's current director, Sir Martin Harris, is stepping down.

Ebdon, vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire University and chair of a lobby group for new universities called -Million+, wants to impose large fines on universities that do not take sufficient numbers of disadvantaged students. He has also advocated what he has called a "nuclear option" of forbidding them from charging maximum fees of £9,000 a year.

But Tory MPs on the business, innovation and skills select committee, including the chair, Graham Stuart, are expected to veto his appointment at midday on Wednesday.

Private schools and the country's 20 leading research universities are thought to have lobbied against Ebdon's appointment.

Ebdon attended a pre-appointment hearing before MPs last week.

Michael Gove, the education secretary, is said to be against Ebdon getting the role, while David Willetts, the universities minister, is in favour of his appointment.

Cable and other Lib Dems are thought to believe that Ebdon would improve social mobility and fairness in university admissions.

The government could overrule the MPs if they do not endorse Ebdon, or they could start the recruitment process from scratch – a more likely option.

Ebdon has said universities should be more flexible by admitting students with lower grades if they have attended low-performing schools – something most, but not all, institutions do.

Data shows the poorest 40% of students are seven times less likely to be admitted to the 20 most prestigious universities than the richest 10%.

• This article was amended on 8 February 2012. The original referred to Tory MPs on the education select committee. This has been corrected.

The White House science fair launches with a bang on Tuesday as Barack Obama shoots marshmallows at the wall in the state dining room

Young boys are often 'reluctant readers', so to help meet the government's aim to get more children reading, here is a Top 10 of books for boys, as chosen by expert Ellen Ainsworth

On Tuesday, the government announced its plan to get more children reading. It takes the form of a competition, aimed at seven- to 12-year-olds and slated to kick off in September, that will reward the young readers who devour the most books: the clear intention, as schools minister Nick Gibb put it, is "to give a competitive spur to reluctant readers".

Both boys and girls will be eligible, but as boys make up the majority of these "reluctant readers" – one in 10 British boys are now leaving primary school with the reading-age of a seven-year-old – Gibb added that he hoped boys in particular would be inspired "by a bit of healthy competition".

So which books should the nation's boys be reading if they want to get a headstart? Here's a handy guide to the 10 best books for boys aged seven to 12, chosen with the help of Ellen Ainsworth, a retired children's librarian and mother of two grownup sons who has more than 33 years' experience of getting boys reading.

1. Alex Rider Anthony Horowitz's series about a 14-year-old boy recruited by the British secret service has proved phenomenally popular: there are nine novels, from 2000's Stormbreaker to Scorpia Rising, released last March, suitable for readers aged around 10 and over; a number of spinoff short-story collections; a film; and a video game. "Definitely my No 1," says Ainsworth.

2. Harry Potter No list would be complete without JK Rowling's much-loved novels about a teenage wizard battling the evil Voldemort, while getting to grips with Quidditch, strange spells and first love. Their addictive qualities are likely to have young boys (and girls, of course) wanting to devour all seven in a row, quickly putting them ahead in the competition.

3. Young Bond Covering similar ground to Alex Rider, Charlie Higson's books – suitable for ages 10 and over — act as a compelling prequel to Ian Fleming's Bond series: here, we meet Bond as a 13-year-old at Eton in the 1930s. "007 should certainly give Harry a run for his money" was the verdict of Observer associate editor Robert McCrum on the second book, Blood Fever.

4. Horrid Henry Younger boys will love Francesca Simon's series about a perpetually naughty young boy and his butter-wouldn't-melt brother, Perfect Peter. Though unpopular in Simon's native US, over here we might even be permitted to call them a phenomenon: 20 books, a number of joke books, a series for early readers, a film, a stage show and a CITV cartoon series.

5. Flat Stanley This classic children's book, written in 1964 by Jeff Brown, tells the decidedly surreal tale of a boy named Stanley Lambchop who is flattened in the night by a collapsed pin-board. He makes the best of the situation by using his newly flattened state to slide into locked rooms, be used as a kite, and even posted in a letterbox. "A lot of boys of seven to nine are still not reading very well," Ainsworth says. "This book is really likely to engage them."

6. Artemis Fowl The anti-hero of Irish author Eoin Colfer's seven novels (the last is due out this summer) is like the Blofeld to Higson's Bond: a teenage criminal mastermind named Artemis Fowl II. "This is in the solid nine-12 years category," says Ainsworth.

7. Diary of a Wimpy Kid Boys aged seven and up will relate to American author Jeff Kinney's tales about a hopelessly uncool boy named Gregory. There are six books in the series, which originated on the website FunBrain.com, where it scored 20m hits over five years. "My own boys loved these books," Ainsworth says.

8. Captain Underpants In Dav Pilkey's series of amusingly illustrated novels, two primary-school boys accidentally hypnotise their headteacher, turning him into the eponymous superhero. Exuberant fun for younger boys.

9. The Cherub series Bestselling author Robert Muchamore became the subject of controversy last October, when a north London junior school cancelled his scheduled visit, citing a number of complaints from parents about the challenging subject matter of his books about a group of orphaned teenage spies (anyone sensing a pattern here?). "I always call it the EastEnders test – that broadly speaking nothing happens in my books that doesn't happen in an episode of EastEnders," Muchamore said in response.

10. Holes Louis Sachar's award-winning 1998 novel about a 13-year-old boy named Stanley Yelnats, sent to the juvenile detention centre Camp Green Lake after being wrongly accused of stealing a pair of shoes, will appeal to boys of 10 and over.

Can you do better? What's your essential read to win over reluctant boys?