By Greg Jobin-Leeds and Saulo Colon
I wrote in an earlier blog that “Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was correct when he stated that educational differences contribute to the U.S. having the biggest income disparity gap of all industrialized nations” but that “he overlooks the fundamental and critical issue of economic inequality”.
This post focuses how the current economic crisis and our nation’s misguided tax policies are damaging public education, increasing the inequality that threatens our children’s and our nation’s future.
In California, like many states, the governor is cutting billions of dollars from the state's public education institutions. Deteriorating schools are leaving scars on our children that will last for many years. Declining funding undercuts the quality and capacity of the next generation. Instead of generating revenues for access to quality schools--by increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1%--California’s governor, like almost every other, sacrifices the public education of our children and future adults. Meanwhile, according to the Los Angeles Times, the economic disparity gap in the state widens with the share by the state’s total income earned by the top 1% going from14% to 25%.
Why is this happening? Politicians depend on the wealthiest (corporations and the rich) for election contributions--and surround themselves with these contributors and lobbyists. This situation exposes the increasing reality of America’s economic system. Campaigns for all major local, regional, and national offices depend on buying expensive mass media exposure. Candidates' ads must propose as "common sense" ideas that benefit these wealthy contributors--such as the demonization of tax increases for the wealthy and that the government should bailout banks instead of homeowners. They promote the myth that somehow tax cuts for the wealthy will mean more jobs and deny the reality that the tax cuts mean cuts to social program employees. These ideas are also promoted by think tanks, organizations, university institutes, etc. that are financed by the wealthy. Similarly, newspapers and TV are owned by the same corporations.
Politicians concerned with reelection and a future career in corporate America dare not propose increased state revenues from corporations and the rich in order to fund social programs like public education (where their children don’t go). Instead the politicians cut state programs not primarily used by their patrons even though the programs serve everyone else--the majority. As corporations send more skilled jobs overseas, the wealthy who own these corporations need fewer educated US workers. This is a key reason why there is less and less support by both political parties for quality public education from kindergarten to affordable universities. This is why so many students are beginning to protest the cuts.
In New York a recent study of public elementary and secondary schools reveals the stark economic inequalities of the public education system, the two Americas resulting from unequal educational opportunities for our nation's children: "In poorer schools, their ceiling is meeting state mandates; for more affluent schools, the academic floor is even higher than the poorer schools' ceiling”. Minimal standards for these affluent schools are not even expected, thus not funded, for poorer schools. A court decision in New York that the government is only obliged to guarantee an 8th grade education further exemplifies this disparity of expectations. In addition, in response to the economic crisis, NY’s Democratic governor cut $750 million from the budget's provision for schools and local governments and then proposed that in the next budget, school aid be cut by another $700 million.
In our current tax structure, the current economic crisis is exacerbating educational inequalities. Working class, poor and middle class school districts have higher rates of unemployment and home foreclosures, declining real estate values, and smaller family budgets than wealthier school districts. This situation creates a short-term need for lower property taxes by these homeowners which, in the long-term, lowers the local school funding available to their children. As the US education scores decline relative to our international counterparts, it’s important to note that the US is the only industrialized nation that funds schools with local instead of national dollars. Coast to coast, most students' job, income, and life prospects are falling further behind those of the children of the wealthy class and countries that prioritize education and social service. Failure to fully support our public education system and provide every child an opportunity to learn threatens our society's future as much as our current housing and jobs crises.
State and federal legislators, governor and president should reverse the last 30 years of tax cuts for incomes over 1 million dollars a year, and close of all corporate loopholes (a savings to America of a trillion dollars!). These steps would make possible the full funding needed for an opportunity to learn for all. Join students, parents and teachers who are campaigning against these cuts. Join us and others in the Opportunity To Learn movement.
For more information and ways to get involved on budgets, taxation and revenue, go to websites like Fiscal Policy Institute, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and National Priorities Panel.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Another Look at PISA
The following blog was written by Diane Ravitch (recently named America’s most influential education scholar) on the results of the international comparisons of education known as PISA. The PISA results show that the United States is not doing well on nation-to-nation rankings. Ravitch points out that when poverty rates are taken into account, the picture is very different: “American students in schools with low poverty rates were first in the world when they were compared with students in nations with comparably low poverty levels . . . We have many outstanding schools and students, but our overall performance is dragged down by the persistence of poverty.” Other studies have shown that when students living in poverty attend schools that predominately enroll low poverty students, they do much better than in their neighborhood schools.
We know how to deliver top quality education—we just do not make that education available to those students condemned to a lack of opportunity by what Ravitch calls our “exceptional and shameful rate of child poverty.”
--Michael Holzman, Schott Foundation for Public Education
Another Look at PISA
By Diane Ravitch
January 04, 2011
Education Week
Dear Deborah,
I have been fascinated by the continuing commentary and controversy about the results of the international tests of reading, mathematics, and science known as PISA (the Program for International Student Assessment). President Barack Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan immediately said that the mediocre standing of American students was "a Sputnik moment," which should produce strong support for their agenda of testing and privately managed schools. Others used the results to promote whatever their favorite remedy was.
Some worried that the high test scores of Shanghai were an omen that the Chinese were on the verge of world domination (forgetting that Shanghai is one city in China and not representative of China as a whole). Others looked admiringly at Shanghai's high scores and dreamed that American students might somehow be compelled to accept the rigorous discipline, large classes, after-school tutoring, and devotion to academic success that produced those scores. In The Wall Street Journal, Jiang Xueqin, the deputy principal of Peking University High School, lamented that those high scores were purchased by sacrificing such qualities as independence, curiosity, and individuality. Even educators in Shanghai, he wrote, recognize that the singular devotion to test scores was "producing competent mediocrity."
Many American educators looked longingly at Finland as a successful model. Finland seems to be the educational utopia that was envisioned by John Dewey but came to fruition in Finland. Here is a nation that avoids standardized tests altogether, that prizes teacher autonomy, and that has regularly achieved great academic success on PISA. Skeptics said that Finland was ethnically homogeneous, relatively prosperous, and not at all like our society, so held no lessons for us. And the debate goes on.
Two points are worth noting about PISA. First, the two top-scoring participants—Shanghai and Finland—both have strong public school systems. Neither is deregulating their schools and handing control over to private organizations. Different as they are, they achieved academic success by strengthening the public sector, not by deregulation and privatization.
The other salient factor about U.S. performance on international tests is that we have an exceptional and shameful rate of child poverty. Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution says that more than 20 percent of our children live in poverty, and she expects that proportion to increase to nearly 25 percent by 2014. As poverty deepens, Sawhill writes, we should be strengthening the safety net that protects the lives of the poorest. Robert Reich, the former treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, says that income inequality is higher now than it has been in many decades. Most of the nations (and cities) that compete on PISA have far lower child-poverty rates.
In recent years, we have become accustomed to hearing prominent reformers like Secretary Duncan, Michelle Rhee, and Joel Klein say that reference to poverty is just making excuses for bad teachers and bad schools. But there is plenty of evidence that poverty affects students' readiness to learn. It affects their health, their nutrition, their attendance, and their motivation. Being hungry and homeless distracts students and injures their health; living in an environment where drugs and violence are commonplace affects children's interest in academics. Living in communities where many stores and homes are boarded up, and where incarceration rates are very high, affects children's sense of possibility and their willingness to plan for the future.
Researchers for the National Association for Secondary School Principals disaggregated the PISA results by income and made some stunning discoveries. Take a look at this link ("PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid"). It shows that American students in schools with low poverty rates were first in the world when they were compared with students in nations with comparably low poverty levels. Thus, the picture painted by doomsayers about American education is false in this respect. We have many outstanding schools and students, but our overall performance is dragged down by the persistence of poverty. Poverty depresses school achievement because it hurts children, families, and communities.
At a time of fiscal stringency, it seems crazy to talk about helping lift children and families out of poverty. Critics say, "We can't afford to do anything anymore," "Sorry, the money is all gone," "No one should pay any new taxes," "This is not a time for social innovation; it is a time for educational innovation." But in light of the overwhelming evidence of the dire consequences of persistent poverty, it seems even crazier to ignore it and to assume that we can reach the top of the international achievement tables by closing schools, firing teachers, and hastening privatization. These strategies will shatter already fragile communities. They will not give us schools that foster the creativity, originality, self-discipline, and initiative that we claim to value. They are strategies that avoid the hard, incredibly hard, task of economic improvement. Today's school reformers scoff at the idea of attacking poverty; it is so much easier to fire teachers. So long as we continue to avert our gaze from the festering problems bred by deep poverty and racial isolation, it seems unlikely that any school reform agenda can produce the transformation that our society seeks.
Diane
Link to article
We know how to deliver top quality education—we just do not make that education available to those students condemned to a lack of opportunity by what Ravitch calls our “exceptional and shameful rate of child poverty.”
--Michael Holzman, Schott Foundation for Public Education
Another Look at PISA
By Diane Ravitch
January 04, 2011
Education Week
Dear Deborah,
I have been fascinated by the continuing commentary and controversy about the results of the international tests of reading, mathematics, and science known as PISA (the Program for International Student Assessment). President Barack Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan immediately said that the mediocre standing of American students was "a Sputnik moment," which should produce strong support for their agenda of testing and privately managed schools. Others used the results to promote whatever their favorite remedy was.
Some worried that the high test scores of Shanghai were an omen that the Chinese were on the verge of world domination (forgetting that Shanghai is one city in China and not representative of China as a whole). Others looked admiringly at Shanghai's high scores and dreamed that American students might somehow be compelled to accept the rigorous discipline, large classes, after-school tutoring, and devotion to academic success that produced those scores. In The Wall Street Journal, Jiang Xueqin, the deputy principal of Peking University High School, lamented that those high scores were purchased by sacrificing such qualities as independence, curiosity, and individuality. Even educators in Shanghai, he wrote, recognize that the singular devotion to test scores was "producing competent mediocrity."
Many American educators looked longingly at Finland as a successful model. Finland seems to be the educational utopia that was envisioned by John Dewey but came to fruition in Finland. Here is a nation that avoids standardized tests altogether, that prizes teacher autonomy, and that has regularly achieved great academic success on PISA. Skeptics said that Finland was ethnically homogeneous, relatively prosperous, and not at all like our society, so held no lessons for us. And the debate goes on.
Two points are worth noting about PISA. First, the two top-scoring participants—Shanghai and Finland—both have strong public school systems. Neither is deregulating their schools and handing control over to private organizations. Different as they are, they achieved academic success by strengthening the public sector, not by deregulation and privatization.
The other salient factor about U.S. performance on international tests is that we have an exceptional and shameful rate of child poverty. Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution says that more than 20 percent of our children live in poverty, and she expects that proportion to increase to nearly 25 percent by 2014. As poverty deepens, Sawhill writes, we should be strengthening the safety net that protects the lives of the poorest. Robert Reich, the former treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, says that income inequality is higher now than it has been in many decades. Most of the nations (and cities) that compete on PISA have far lower child-poverty rates.
In recent years, we have become accustomed to hearing prominent reformers like Secretary Duncan, Michelle Rhee, and Joel Klein say that reference to poverty is just making excuses for bad teachers and bad schools. But there is plenty of evidence that poverty affects students' readiness to learn. It affects their health, their nutrition, their attendance, and their motivation. Being hungry and homeless distracts students and injures their health; living in an environment where drugs and violence are commonplace affects children's interest in academics. Living in communities where many stores and homes are boarded up, and where incarceration rates are very high, affects children's sense of possibility and their willingness to plan for the future.
Researchers for the National Association for Secondary School Principals disaggregated the PISA results by income and made some stunning discoveries. Take a look at this link ("PISA: It's Poverty Not Stupid"). It shows that American students in schools with low poverty rates were first in the world when they were compared with students in nations with comparably low poverty levels. Thus, the picture painted by doomsayers about American education is false in this respect. We have many outstanding schools and students, but our overall performance is dragged down by the persistence of poverty. Poverty depresses school achievement because it hurts children, families, and communities.
At a time of fiscal stringency, it seems crazy to talk about helping lift children and families out of poverty. Critics say, "We can't afford to do anything anymore," "Sorry, the money is all gone," "No one should pay any new taxes," "This is not a time for social innovation; it is a time for educational innovation." But in light of the overwhelming evidence of the dire consequences of persistent poverty, it seems even crazier to ignore it and to assume that we can reach the top of the international achievement tables by closing schools, firing teachers, and hastening privatization. These strategies will shatter already fragile communities. They will not give us schools that foster the creativity, originality, self-discipline, and initiative that we claim to value. They are strategies that avoid the hard, incredibly hard, task of economic improvement. Today's school reformers scoff at the idea of attacking poverty; it is so much easier to fire teachers. So long as we continue to avert our gaze from the festering problems bred by deep poverty and racial isolation, it seems unlikely that any school reform agenda can produce the transformation that our society seeks.
Diane
Link to article
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Economic Inequality and Opportunity to Learn
By Michael Holzman, Schott Foundation for Public Education
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Dr. Benjamin S. Bernanke, said in a recent interview that rising economic inequality in the United States is “a very bad development . . . It’s creating two societies. And it’s based very much, I think, on educational differences . . . If you’re a college graduate, unemployment is 5 percent. If you’re a high school graduate, it’s 10 percent or more. It’s a very big difference” (New York Times, December 5, 2010).
Employment, as Chairman Bernanke pointed out, and consequently income and wealth, is highly correlated with education. Americans tell our census takers that 30% of White adults 25 years of age or older have finished college, as compared to 18% of Black adults and 13% of Hispanic adults. It is twice as likely that a White, non-Hispanic, adult will have finished college as a Black or Hispanic adult. The Schott Foundation’s Opportunity to Learn study has shown that those ratios begin at the k-12 level, where it is twice as likely that a White, non-Hispanic student will be in a good school as a Black or Hispanic student.
Half a chance in school leads to half a chance to graduate from college leads to twice the unemployment rate.
Two societies: The top ten percent of US wage earners received half the total non-capital-gains income in 2007. Disparities are even more extreme for wealth: In 2007 the wealthiest 1% of households owned 35% of all privately held wealth while the bottom 80% held only 15%. America being what it is, these inequities manifest by race and ethnicity. While the median annual household income in 2006 for White, non-Hispanic families was $50,000, for Black families was $30,000 and for Hispanic families was $35,000. Again, the situation is more extreme for wealth: Median household net worth (including the value of homes) in 2007 was $144,000 for White families and $9,000 for Black and Hispanic families. Excluding the value of homes, median household net worth was $44,000 for White families and negligible for Black and Hispanic families (Deohoff, 2010).
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Dr. Benjamin S. Bernanke, said in a recent interview that rising economic inequality in the United States is “a very bad development . . . It’s creating two societies. And it’s based very much, I think, on educational differences . . . If you’re a college graduate, unemployment is 5 percent. If you’re a high school graduate, it’s 10 percent or more. It’s a very big difference” (New York Times, December 5, 2010).
Employment, as Chairman Bernanke pointed out, and consequently income and wealth, is highly correlated with education. Americans tell our census takers that 30% of White adults 25 years of age or older have finished college, as compared to 18% of Black adults and 13% of Hispanic adults. It is twice as likely that a White, non-Hispanic, adult will have finished college as a Black or Hispanic adult. The Schott Foundation’s Opportunity to Learn study has shown that those ratios begin at the k-12 level, where it is twice as likely that a White, non-Hispanic student will be in a good school as a Black or Hispanic student.
Half a chance in school leads to half a chance to graduate from college leads to twice the unemployment rate.
Two societies: The top ten percent of US wage earners received half the total non-capital-gains income in 2007. Disparities are even more extreme for wealth: In 2007 the wealthiest 1% of households owned 35% of all privately held wealth while the bottom 80% held only 15%. America being what it is, these inequities manifest by race and ethnicity. While the median annual household income in 2006 for White, non-Hispanic families was $50,000, for Black families was $30,000 and for Hispanic families was $35,000. Again, the situation is more extreme for wealth: Median household net worth (including the value of homes) in 2007 was $144,000 for White families and $9,000 for Black and Hispanic families. Excluding the value of homes, median household net worth was $44,000 for White families and negligible for Black and Hispanic families (Deohoff, 2010).
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Education policies pushing Black males out of schools at ever-increasing rates
By Dr. Pedro Noguera, New York University
Guest blogger Dr. Pedro Noguera is the Director of the Center for the Urban Education at The Steinhardt School of Culture, Education & Human Development at New York University. He is a professor of sociology and education, the author of City Schools and the American Dream, and a Research Advisor to the NYC Black Male Donor Collaborative.
Across the nation, alarming numbers of Black males, particularly those from low-income inner-city neighborhoods, are dropping out of schools in record numbers. According to national reports , graduation rates for Black males hover between 38% and 42%. Even in cities like New York and Atlanta where graduation rates have increased, graduation rates for Black males have largely remained stagnant. From 1973 to 1977 there was a steady increase in African-American male enrollment in college; however, since 1977 there has been a sharp and continuous decline. The problem is so pervasive and intractable that a growing number of policy makers and commentators have described the Black male dropout problem as a crisis.
Closer analysis of the drop out crisis reveals that it is actually a symptom of a much larger problem. On every performance indicator related to academic success—performance on standardized tests, grades, college entrance exams, etc.—Black males are under-represented, and on those indicators related to failure they are overwhelmingly over-represented. Nationally, Black males are more likely than any other group to be suspended and expelled from school. Black males are also more likely to be classified as mentally retarded or to be identified as learning disabled and placed in special education. They are also more likely to be absent from gifted and talented programs and advanced placement and honors courses. In contrast to most other groups, where males commonly perform at higher levels in math and science related courses, the reverse is true for Black males.
The educational challenges confronting Black males profoundly influence the types of opportunities that are available to them later in life. Today, Black males between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four are the only segment of the population with larger numbers in prison than in college; they are also the only segment of the US population with a declining life expectancy.
Given the broad array of challenges confronting Black males, it is essential that we begin to find ways to increase the number of Black males who are succeeding in school and who are able to avoid the pitfalls and hardships that beset so many others.
For the last few years the Schott Foundation has emerged as a leader in drawing attention to the educational challenges confronting Black males. Now it is stepping forward to lead the way to create an Interactive Black Boys Report that will serve as a tool for policy makers and educators to take action.
Closer analysis of the drop out crisis reveals that it is actually a symptom of a much larger problem. On every performance indicator related to academic success—performance on standardized tests, grades, college entrance exams, etc.—Black males are under-represented, and on those indicators related to failure they are overwhelmingly over-represented. Nationally, Black males are more likely than any other group to be suspended and expelled from school. Black males are also more likely to be classified as mentally retarded or to be identified as learning disabled and placed in special education. They are also more likely to be absent from gifted and talented programs and advanced placement and honors courses. In contrast to most other groups, where males commonly perform at higher levels in math and science related courses, the reverse is true for Black males.
The educational challenges confronting Black males profoundly influence the types of opportunities that are available to them later in life. Today, Black males between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four are the only segment of the population with larger numbers in prison than in college; they are also the only segment of the US population with a declining life expectancy.
Given the broad array of challenges confronting Black males, it is essential that we begin to find ways to increase the number of Black males who are succeeding in school and who are able to avoid the pitfalls and hardships that beset so many others.
For the last few years the Schott Foundation has emerged as a leader in drawing attention to the educational challenges confronting Black males. Now it is stepping forward to lead the way to create an Interactive Black Boys Report that will serve as a tool for policy makers and educators to take action.
Bernanke:Educational Differences,Two Societies
Greg Jobin-Leeds is Chair of the Board of the Schott Foundation for Public Education and is Founding Partner of the Partnership for Democracy and Education
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is certainly correct when he states that educational differences contribute to the U.S. having the biggest income disparity gap of all industrialized nations. While he overlooks the fundamental and critical issue of economic inequality, he is correct about the relationship between educational disparities and economic opportunity. Education does have the potential to be an equalizing economic force.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is certainly correct when he states that educational differences contribute to the U.S. having the biggest income disparity gap of all industrialized nations. While he overlooks the fundamental and critical issue of economic inequality, he is correct about the relationship between educational disparities and economic opportunity. Education does have the potential to be an equalizing economic force.
To be clear, there are other than economic reasons to be concerned about the education disparities that disadvantage low-income children and children of color -- as Americans and as humans we consider access to a sound and equitable education as part of the bedrock of our democratic society. It is one of the values that we hold dear – to provide our children, all children, with an opportunity to go to a school where they can blossom into healthy self-sustaining young adults and members of our society.
And it is important to view education as one of the key pillars of our economy. Increased education opportunities like access to high quality preschool and to teachers who have been supported with professional development lead to higher student educational attainment. This leads to higher employment and jobs with higher income which means increased tax revenues which, in turn, means more money for more opportunities in schools.
Recently, I visited with the teachers and students at Banana Kelly High School in the South Bronx. These caring and talented young teachers and the principal were pleading for coaching and teacher training programs that were being dropped due to funding cuts. The art teachers worked very hard but had few materials, and while youth obesity rates are growing students had no access to a gym.
My own school growing up in nearby Great Neck, like many wealthy suburban schools, had a gorgeous gym and access to the middle school down the street which had a pool.
This contrast exemplifies the two societies currently in America. One set of schools for upper middle-class and wealthy children that provides the opportunity to learn that the teachers, administrators, and Bernanke call for. And another set of schools for the majority that doesn’t provide an opportunity to learn.
How can we, as a society, ask our energetic healthy kids to go to schools without supplies or gyms? How can we ask our young teachers to teach their best without adequate coaching, space, or materials? The increasing reality in much of our country is that teachers are losing their professional development opportunities and art and athletics programs are being cut as state budgets are slashed. And it's going to get much worse over the long term as state revenues fall because of a shrinking tax (employment) base and, if the current tax cut proposal passes Congress, decreased tax contributions from the wealthiest 2%.
Why do state revenues fall when the need for education is so high and when the chairman of the Federal Bank says it is so important? One reason is that taxes are increasingly used to benefit the wealthy as tax rates for the wealthiest fall and lobbyists steer government budgets to welfare programs for the rich.
The vast majority of Americans support increased taxes -- especially for the wealthiest 2% -- when revenues are used for programs such as public education, health and safety, and essential services like the fire department.
Yet the country’s current economic design (more and more “the free market”) makes it so that we are not supporting our schools and communities with the basics students need to have an opportunity to learn. Due to educational research we know that dollars invested in high-quality preschool leads to higher incomes later in life. We also know that dollars invested in teacher recruitment, retention, training (so they can develop the art and science of their craft) result in higher student achievement which would help break down our two-tiered society and lead to fuller employment.
Yet, ironically, on the same day that Bernanke is saying our two-tiered economy is very much based on differences in our education system his boss President Obama joined with the greediest big corporate owners, investors, and politicians to extend tax cuts for themselves and the minority of Americans making more than $250,000 per year. These tax cuts will require us as a society to cut many school programs of the future as well as many other essential public services such as health programs for children, the elderly, and the disabled.
Many millionaires (who call themselves Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Sustainability) disagree with tax cuts for millionaires, as do many of the working and middle class, and propose instead that the tax cuts should be just for those making $250,000 and less.
During the recent financial crises Obama and Bernanke were able to get billions of dollars for the big banks and Wall Street investment firms. Now, with all 50 states and the national education system in a deepening crisis, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan asks for relatively meager band-aid sums that most parents and educators know is insufficient. Instead of calling for funding for internationally and nationally proven techniques like universal preschool and teacher development, the President and his Secretary of Education call for ‘free-market’ based charters and merit pay, which recent research has proven have little grounding in long-term success, yet appeal to the big hedge fund campaign donors, investment bankers, and to parents desperate to try anything new. But while they create little positive change, they also cost very little.
Our democratic society and our economy cannot afford cuts to our children’s education. We cannot afford the unequal society that jeopardizes both our children’s and our nation’s future. We must as a nation forge systemic reforms that provide the opportunities that will lead to educational success for all students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)