This thoughtful article by Emma Brown in the Washington Post shows the debates in the District of Columbia about the future or the demise of neighborhood schools. Some see the neighborhood school as a relic of the past, with school choice being the wave of the future. Others think of the neighborhood school as the heart of the community, where children and parents walk to school together, plan together, build community together.
It is clear that the corporate reformers would like to kill the very concept of neighborhood schools and communities. They prefer a free market that mirrors a shopping experience, with schools run by corporate entities and parents choosing schools as they might choose one kind of milk or another in the grocery store (the metaphor used by Jeb Bush in his speech to the 2012 Republican convention).
Some of us recall that in the 1950s and 1960s, school choice was the battle cry of the most ardent segregationists. Scholars today have found that the most segregated schools are charter schools, which are typically more segregated than the district in which they are sited. When journalist John Hechinger wrote about the charter schools of Minneapolis, he wrote that it was as though the Brown decision of 1954 had never happened.
Hechinger wrote:
“Six decades after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down “separate but equal” schools for blacks and whites, segregation is growing because of charter schools, privately run public schools that educate 1.8 million U.S. children. While charter-school leaders say programs targeting ethnic groups enrich education, they are isolating low-achievers and damaging diversity, said Myron Orfield, a lawyer and demographer.
“It feels like the Deep South in the days of Jim Crow segregation,” said Orfield, who directs the University of Minnesota Law School’s Institute on Race & Poverty. “When you see an all-white school and an all-black school in the same neighborhood in this day and age, it’s shocking.”
“Charter schools are more segregated than traditional public schools, according to a 2010 report by the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles. Researchers studied 40 states, the District of Columbia, and 39 metropolitan areas. In particular, higher percentages of charter-school students attend what the report called “racially isolated” schools, where 90 percent or more students are from disadvantaged minority groups.”
Is this the future of American education? Are we doomed to repeat the past? Ironic that we reach this moment in which the elites embrace George Wallace’s cause, luring black families to all-black charter schools, with promises that are seldom fulfilled, as we near the 60th anniversary of the Brown decision.

To be fair, I have also heard this sort of school choice rhetoric from some on the left who see neighborhood schools as a way to trap students where they live. In my city, we had a very, very left-wing school board candidate a couple years back who ran on the idea of making every school a magnet dedicated to a particular curricular emphasis, and then letting parents choose the right schools for their kids. Thankfully, she didn’t win.
LikeLike
Now that is interesting, a left wing candidate that believes (on some level) in school choice. Do you remember her name or remember anything else from her campaign that made her left wing?
However, I can’t say that I’m shocked by this line of thought. After learning from this site that Sen. Warren also believed in a similar version of school choice, my whole world flipped upside down. (Note: I don’t know if she still does, I haven’t seen a definitive answer yet.)
LikeLike
The Elizabeth Warren idea makes absolutely no sense.
Her objective is to limit the incidence of people borrowing too much money to purchase a house in a neighborhood with good schools. To solve that problem she proposes giving everyone a voucher to go and pick a “good school”.
But why does she think the schools in some neighborhoods are “better” than others?
She seems to think “better schools” are just a naturally-occurring event in certain neighborhoods, and the school will remain exactly the same under a voucher system. But of course it won’t. The funding will change and so will the population of the school, not to mention that EVERY public school will change with a voucher system, because schools are part of a system and when one loses/gains students it ripples. How does she know that would turn out equitably or even as “fair” as the current system? She doesn’t.
I’ve read her work on bankruptcy and debt, and it’s wonderful, but she’s way out of her area of expertise. I don’t think she has any idea what she’s talking about.
If one wants families to take on less debt and rely on only one income (part of her argument is two income households are a ‘trap” ) there are a lot less reckless ways to get there than sending everyone off with a voucher and “good luck!”
LikeLike
“Nevertheless, the solutions that Warren has proposed often fail to convince. To counter both the crisis in public education and the high cost of housing, Warren and Tyagi recommend a universal public-school voucher system in which parents could send their kids to any public school: “An all-voucher system would be a shock to the educational system, but the shakeout might be just what the system needs.” Yes, that would be a shock. It would also be reckless.”
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/04/21/140421crbo_books_lepore?currentPage=all
I just think it’s nuts to say “parents could send their kids to any public school” and, presto! High cost of housing AND public education solved!
How does she know either of those things will happen? What happens if a group of wealthy parents all pick the same school, say, the one closest to their house, and supplement funding for that school leaving a whole bunch of under-funded, under-enrolled “safety net schools” ? Isn’t she right back where she started?
Obviously, they’re going to have to engineer and regulate some of this “choice” and then they’re just zoning kids into schools individually rather than by “zip code”.
LikeLike
Her name was/is Eddgra Fallin. Not sure I recall anything else specifically from her campaign that made her left-wing, but she definitely is. She is very politically active and outspoken in progressive causes in the area.
LikeLike
Re: Warren’s idea – Why don’t people realize there would be more “good” neighborhood schools if more people did not go for broke buying houses they really can’t afford?
LikeLike
There is certainly a lot of school choice for the relatively wealthy. In my little town there is a private Waldorf school, a private Montessori school, a private progressive school, among others. Of course if you can not afford the tuition, there is the zoned public school which can not offer any of those kinds of educations to any student because some parents would object.
One frequent poster here often talks about allowing everyone the choice of schools that the relatively wealthy have. That is not possible with the zoned school system.
LikeLike
TE,
“One frequent poster here often talks about allowing everyone the choice of schools that the relatively wealthy have. That is not possible with the zoned school system.”
It is definitely within the realm of possibilities to have those schools were this country willing to give up its addiction to death and destruction (the DOD & MIC) and use our resources to fund life and living, public education to the degree needed to accomplish “great schools for all”.
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Magnet schools have been used in NYC & Montclair NJ as a way to end-run the segregation that occurs because schools are funded by property taxes. It works– sort-of, for a while. In NYC, the magnet system is selective; those who can’t cut the mustard end up in zoned schools with all the other rejects, & you end up reinforcing segregation. In Montclair– truly 100% magnet with no zoned schools– you may have a great thing going, but you’ve given up neighborhood control/ community/ voter clout– so when a Gov Christie comes along with a privatization agenda, you have no voter consensus to fight him.
Preserving and funding neighborhood schools is the only way to preserve community, voter clout, democracy.
LikeLike
Neighborhood schools, based on districts with vastly differently real estate property tax revenues are one of the best ways this country has promoted IN-equality in opportunity.
LikeLike
I’m sure I’m not the only reader of your blog who recalls Ted Sizer’s Shopping Mall High School. Sizer, like many of us who worked in HS’s at the time, despaired at the notion that high schools offered a smorgasbord of bland offerings intended to meet the needs of the “typical” student in the same way malls were populated by bland shops geared to generic shoppers. Sizer believed HSs should emphasize “purpose, push, and personalization” instead of “covering the curriculum”… He was called a school reformer when “reform” meant “change” and not “test-driven-instruction” or “engineering the factory school”…
LikeLike
Sizer was a huge advocate for providing options within public education and helped set up and run a charter in Mass.
Choice was one of the proposals for people who wanted to send African Americans to inferior schools. True.
Choice also has been one of the strategies used by progressive educators for more than 40 years – as a way to create distinctive options within public education…a school can’t simultaneously be a Montessori, Chinese, Spanish Immersion, project based, school.
African American educators have come repeatedly to the Mn Legislature to respond to Orfield. They’ve pointed out that some of them experienced segregation when it meant being assigned to an inferior school. That’s quite different than providing a range of options.
LikeLike
I can’t help but think that Ted Sizer would be appalled at for profit charter chains and the testing yolk placed on on public schools… non-profit charters and charters that play by the same rules as public schools are OK from my perspective… but de-regulated for-profit charters that reward shareholders and “CEOs” at the expense of children and hard-working classroom teachers are an anathema…
LikeLike
This is from the comments to the article:
“The article states that San Francisco is leaning away from neighborhood schools.
This is wrong. San Francisco had a city-wide lottery, but based on popular voice, is going back to the neighborhood school system. School choice and diversity sound nice on paper, but in reality, the city-wide lottery failed to achieve any diversity at all. The only result was a massive exodus of families to the suburbs and private school, which left the public school system in a weakened situation. ”
Is that true? Did San Francisco try this and then go back the other way towards neighborhood schools?
If so, might be worth looking that their experience.
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx How did you get to comments to the article? I couldn’t find any. To your point, tho I can’t quote you a link, I know I read a couple of months ago that certain SF neighborhoods were pushing very hard to go back to nbhd schools, & that a couple had succeeded.
LikeLike
I’m wondering if you had a chance, Ms. Ravitch, to watch BookTV Afterwords on Saturday. Juan Williams interviewed the “brilliant” Cal Thomas about Thomas’s new book. Apparently all of our problems can be solved by going back to what works, by applying “Common Sense”. He begins talking about education at around 25:30.
http://www.booktv.org/Podcasts.aspx
Enjoy?
LikeLike
I worry about the death of the idea of neighborhood schools as well.
LikeLike
I don’t think that neighborhood schools and zoned schools are necessarily the same thing. School zoning decisions, especially when they seek to balance SES across schools often divide neighborhoods. Students living at my street address, for example, are not assigned to the closest junior high (which is much more safely walkable) nor the closest of the two high schools.
LikeLike
Yet another post about segregation that is really a post about charter schools.
“Some of us recall that in the 1950s and 1960s, school choice was the battle cry of the most ardent segregationists”
And? Others may recall that “neighborhood schools” was the battle cry of groups that resisted desegregation efforts in the 1970s. Does that mean “neighborhood schools” are an insidious vehicle for segregation?
Well, yes, actually, it does. Residential segregation and “neighborhood schools” are the main driver of school segregation. You could shut down every single charter school in the country and at the end of the day, the public schools would still be highly segregated.
If the goal is to meaningfully reduce segregation, the focus should be on neighborhood schools.
If, on the other hand, the goal is to keep schools highly segregated, but perhaps ensure that they don’t become one or two percentage points *more* highly segregated, then maybe it makes sense to focus entirely on charter schools.
LikeLike
But if your focus is to do something meaningful, worrying about desegregation is a waste of time. Sitting next to middle-class white kids isn’t going to make poor minority kids do better in school. Forcing the issue, however, will ensure that we get even more middle-class flight from central cities into exclusive suburbs. You are NOT going to force middle-class parents (including many black parents) to send their children to schools where gangs, violence, etc. are prevalent.
LikeLike
Hi Jack,
You are aware that not all low income schools are full of gangs and violence, right?
Seems that many middle class parents assume a lot about low income schools.
LikeLike
Ang — I am specifically talking about situations where parents already know such activities are taking place in the schools across town that would be mixed in with their neighborhood schools.
Furthermore, even in situations where such activities are not especially prevalent, there is no denying that attitudes toward education tend to be closely related to socio-economic status. The more poor kids a school has, the more resources have to be dedicated to supporting those kids. A suburban school system that is almost completely middle-class is therefore going to be more attractive to middle-income families looking to buy a home than a school system with a mixed student body. So even though the flight won’t happen quite as fast, it will still happen.
LikeLike
It also seems middle-class parents assume a lot about middle class schools. There are plenty of children with negative attitudes about education in middle class schools. It could also be argued that more students cheat in middle class schools.
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your comment only makes sense in the context of extremely segregated areas (of which, I grant you, there are many). Keep in mind today there are many other sorts of neighborhoods– small-to-medium-sized ethnic suburbs surrounding transportation hubs to big cities– which are gathered into regional middle and high schools, joining blacks, whites, Hispanics & Asians– who have already been intermarrying over the last 20 yrs, so many of the kids in these middle & high schools today are black-Hispanics & Afro-Asians & Afro-whites & White-Asians. I I teach at the PreK level & I can tell you that within 15 mis of the employment hubs of the NE my students are Indo-Chinese, Afro-Chinese, Indo-Hispanics & white+any of those groups. These are all middle-middle+-class people seeking quality ed for their kids. This is the population of the future. They lean toward neighborhood schools, & they look for neighborhoods which have long been tolerant to an ethnic mix; in my corner of the world that means those neighborhoods that tolerated a Jewish-black mix a generation ago.
LikeLike
Jack I like your point in the first sentence. I see it as the pinpoint. Every school in every territorial district, charter, voucher, magnet, and system whatever has kindergarten teachers with a focus on the incoming kindergarten skills. Who is ready to read, count and understands positive expectations, or not? Over time, and right now, the public school district has the advantage to make sure the children are ready through its position as the collaborator of choice and the protector of blueberry quality. Districts have unique positions because high quality starts at age 0-6 and the public systems are in position to do more, even if it costs more and has to be restructured into the whole system. Ready means there is no gap against the world definition of ready and that has tremendous market value. Baldrige Quality Processes allows for the self definition of whole system quality based on the end in mind.
In short order, these huge efforts in the community with the culture groups are rewarded by ready children, attendance growth and reformers that have figured out what is first things first. This can be done with one very most solid effort that sets the pace for the community that can be listed on the to do sheets and word of mouth ranking. In the beginning the constraint is not the providers, it is the attitude (mom and district) and the new money to make new deliveries to kindergarten. If the delivery is 100% ready (great blueberries) the district can use old money to pay back the bridge and pay directly for future world class readiness and its extension from innovation and savings. If the delivery is not 100% ready the school knows what the problem is in positive terms of solution.
Each district and school has simple points to organize around the goal of more high quality throughput, less in process and less cost in total. What is first thing first to increase most dramatically the throughput? Decide! What to change? What to change to? How to make the change? If district were to do this they would own the local market again. In the concept of turnaround logic, if you don’t change what is first thing first you will have to come back later to fix what could have been fixed first things first. Leadership of the turnaround logic working with dependent events only has one or two capacity constraints that are first things first. No Choice will not go away.
LikeLike
I have been paying attention to your blog for some time now. The breath of commentary is overwhelming. Commonsense reforms, respectful treatment of educators, loving treatment of children, the joy of learning and being clear about the risks to public education as an institution gives you a clear platform. How this adds up to a powerful expectation of lasting truthful reform is the direct concern to me. The nation can protect our children and our public schools from disrespect from the powerful by focus on what is not happening timely for the at risk children and the teachers.
My take on this is not common but should be. In that light many are being asked to help.
A first thing first is not considered important in education reform but it is critical to success. We cannot expect large changes without 100% of the children being ready for kindergarten. That means the war is actually during the age 0-6 period. Our most at risk children have the least help and success and no focus on reaching 100% during the period of most sensitivity. This would change everything including the focus on the teacher.
The new money to do first things first is actually NewOldMoney because of the change it would drive into the system district by district. How will our powerful players give the district this kind of control to make certain the early reading skills are delivered and that outcome from pre-k becomes expected 100% input to kindergarten so innovation and savings can go forth to pay for the early deliver? The cultures, communities and districts need to make this happen with the money already in the whole system or on its way to the whole system. In the case of Minnesota, the unfunded law is already written and passed to give the cultures, communities and districts the money to deliver the children 100%. The districts will need to make new money from old money like every profession has to do these days.
You have made readiness the number one issue that parents and communities can provide to help the teachers and schools. Page 227 -235 of the Reign of Error written by you. Your report on the Century of School Battles in Left Back did not deal with the most at risk age 0-6 children which is telling in itself because our nation did not deal with it. Outcomes from this age 0-6 period without testing is more than critical. It is first things first to the solutions and the end in mind for the most at risk.
To get the largest bang for your effort it seems every one of your blog entries could be referenced back to your solutions list of 1-11. In that process you could register and report to the nation on how lacking we as reformers are in our attention to first things first and finding the money to do first things first at the district level. The setting of requirements as good, better, and best so the whole of the district’s territory meets the truly possible brain development expectations for education, social and economic ends in mind. Where should Title I and ESEA money be spent? How much special education is left when 100% of the children start kindergarten ready to read, count and understand positive expectations? Would the homes of the most at risk change from this focus and influence? Check out the paid for language expectations for age 3-6 half day Montessori that includes the kindergarten year.
A culture / community / district goal of 100% early reading skills delivered to kindergarten would rule the reformers day and positive expectation for change when the most at risk make it so for themselves with all the help they can get. You hold the platform, with less comprehensive others, that could make the change and status quo understanding of “most important but not urgent” a simple framework for the grassroots that vote for school district leadership. Today, there is not a focus on 100% until it is too late and the most at risk are impacted the most. Take all the reforms being proposed and put them on steroids with a 2-3 year focus on 100%.
God Bless your efforts. We know he wants us to attend to the wellbeing of the children. In that light chapter 28 of the Absorbent Mind authored by Maria Montessori is most appropriate for the 21st century education requirement. “It updated” would gather practical support from all corners and the middle when exposed as the path to utopia. Today, there is not a focus on 100% until it is too late and the most at risk are impacted the most.. Take all the reforms being proposed and put them on steroids with this 2-3 year focus on 100%.
LikeLike
However well-intentioned, universal pre-K will never be as effective as proponents claim because you simply cannot fully overcome what a child is getting (or not getting) at home. Furthermore, however it starts off, it will soon be bastardized just like K-12. Pearson will be selling policymakers on the wonders of its standardized tests for 2-year-olds, and preschool teachers will be facing termination if their toddlers don’t make improvement on their toilet training benchmarks. No, thank you.
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Whatever others may say, I wish to reinforce your emphasis on Montessori for PreK. My 3 kids encompassed a wild spectrum of disabilities & abilities, but all gained much from the opportunity to learn, each on his own, from the materials and teaching structures, each reporting on himself & learning from 1-on-1 encounters with teachers. I cannot help but wonder whether the current interest in nationalizing PreK might be swayed to following the precepts of Maria Montessori.
LikeLike
The fundamental problem with charters and magnets is that at the end of the day, the “parental choice” comes down to who has better PR, not who will actually educate children better. The public school system here in LA, and probably statewide and nationwide, is woefully underfunded. “Choice” does nothing to solve that; instead it provides an illusion of individual “escape” and being able to avoid “those children.” And if all the parents are divided up advocating for their individual school, while the teachers union is eviscerated, then we are all at the mercy of the oligarchs.
Just to connect the dots, look at the horrendous state of college funding today; we are creating a generation of indentured servants because of reduced state funding and the exponential increase in student loans.
As Dr. Ravitch has pointed out often, public education, including college, needs to be viewed as a public good worthy of adequate, not to say generous, public funding. In a democratic society every child deserves a good education, not just the “lucky ones” who won the genetic lottery, or whose parents chose well. Special programs, like magnets and charters, only make sense if they provide truly expanded alternatives to an already great public school system. Unfortunately, these days such “choices” really amount to a shell game. Bring on the suckers! I choose to fight back on behalf of all our children, but I am very pessimistic about our chances.
LikeLike
I think that Montessori schools will be very up front that they are Montessori, Waldorf will tell people they are Waldorf schools, etc. There are differences in the approaches to education that go beyond PR.
Economists have a technical definition for public good. What do you mean by the term “public good”?
LikeLike
What company do you do your PR with?
LikeLike
I am not really sure what you mean, but in any case I earn a living teaching economics.
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The question which occurs to me is why do economists [apparently] not count education as a ‘public good’?
LikeLike
Public goods have paticular properties. A public good is not rival, that is my use of the good does not diminish your use of the good. A public good is not excludable, that is you can not be prevented from using the good.
Education in a school is excludable. That is how admission standards work, both for qualified admission schools and zoned schools that use street address to deny students the ability to take classes at a particular school. Education in a school is rival when class size gets to large. That is why it is reasonable to limit the number of students in a class. Education in a school is what economists call a club good, but a club good with significant positive externalities.
What is it that you mean by the term “public good”?
LikeLike
My issue is not with the Waldorfs and Montessoris, but rather with the fly-by-night and corporate-owned and corporate operated charters which are out to make a buck. Neighborhood public schools should not have to “market themselves” to counter such charlatans.
As for the definition of “public good,” I’m not an economist, but my understanding is that a public good is something that benefits society as a whole and deserves to be supported by society as a whole. Public education ought to be on that list, and it ought to be supported.
LikeLike
It sounds like you are in favor of tighter regulation of charter schools, perhaps requiring them to be non-profit like in New York and or some measure of uniqueness in educational philosophy. Both seem like reasonable positions to take.
As for things that benefit society as a whole, it would seem to me that many things would fit that description. The economists definition looks to 1) the feasibility of using a decentralized market to produce a good or service (if the good or service is not excludable, markets will have difficulty getting people to pay for the good or service) and 2) if it makes sense to exclude anyone from from using the good or service (if a good is not rival, we only diminish the value of the good or service by preventing anyone from using the good or service.)
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I so agree. The unwritten agenda in public schooling today is underfunding. Charters, bless them, are mostly operating on 2/3 the public per-pupil #, & can achieve only 2/3 of what public schools achieve, less the advantage of volume. It is only to the shame of our underfunded public schools in places like NO, LA, that parents, between a rock & a hard place, must choose some cheapo nationalized franchise, or worse, a fly-by-night underfunded religious school, to escape some Katrina-flood-ruined zone school.
LikeLike
Charters may be at 2/3 funding level on paper, but they generally get GOBS of money in the form of private funding that public schools can only dream of. I wish I had the smaller class sizes, better technology and abundant supplies of the charter schools around me.
LikeLike
concerned mom
April 14, 2014 at 4:41 pm
It also seems middle-class parents assume a lot about middle class schools. There are plenty of children with negative attitudes about education in middle class schools. It could also be argued that more students cheat in middle class schools.”
Warren doesn’t have to theorize. Ohio has open enrollment. It has HUGE winners and losers. It’s not more equitable. It’s chaos, and they have no earthly idea of the effect it’s having on the kids in the “losing” schools.
Ohio ed reformers didn’t like the data, so they simply changed the language in the report:
“The thrust of their work focused on discrepancies in funding. Stronger language addressing the adverse effects on minority and poor students was either toned down or removed from an early draft.”
They disappeared the “adverse effects”.
Here’s a winner and a loser:
“During the task force’s deliberations, educators and citizens gave public comments.
“[Open enrollment] obviously takes away kids from more affluent families with means, and leaves us with students who have challenges,” said Terry Martin, superintendent of Zanesville City Schools. “That’s it in a nutshell.”
A Wayne County superintendent touted the program’s positive effects on student achievement and his rural district’s ability to use the extra cash to provide a better education.”
This idea that it will just shake out so everyone “chooses” and everyone gets exactly what they want and there will be no downside is just delusional. It’s a fairy tale. The kids in Zanesville City Schools are losing. They’re the losers. What are they supposed to do? Get new parents who can afford the time and money to truck them county to county every day to school?
That Elizabeth Warren would promote this really gives me pause.
http://www.ohio.com/news/ohio-s-open-enrollment-shifts-360-million-and-72-000-students-across-districts-1.470365
LikeLike
Making transportation available is an important part of any school choice plan…because as TE points out, wealthy people already have lots of choices.
Another approach is to offer two or more options in the same building. There are rural, urban and suburban communities that do this.
LikeLike
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OK blame me if I am stupid but I keep looking to where Elizabeth Warren blessed this idea. In fact, as a previous supporter I’ve sent her an email. E Warren supports the insane privatization moved in Ohio ed??
LikeLike
Every time I read articles like this one, I think of Jamie Vollmer. I actually got to hear him speak earlier this year at my district’s convocation the week before school started. He was awesome! This guy really knows how to get teachers fired up! Now, he does this in a very good way, which was not the way it all began 🙂 Some of you may already know about his Blueberry Story. I never get tired of hearing it. Like Diane, he changed his mind about a few things! I’d post the link, but it will go to moderation. Just google it because it is definitely worth the time. If you are ever given the opportunity to listen to him speak in person, you definitely need to do it!
LikeLike
In my area, the best district has zero choice – no magnets, no charters. While I agree these parents can afford private if they desire a different approach, why do so many in this district choose public schools with the only option being their neighborhood school?
LikeLike
CM – would you please describe the demographics of the “best district in your area”? In many areas, the “best district” – if this is based on test scores & graduation rates – is a suburban district that is actively chosen by those who can afford it.
In fact, the largest tx supported school choice program in the country is the suburbs. That’s because affluent families can deduct from their federal income both real estate taxes and interest on their home loans.
Some of us don’t think that the “best district” or the “best schools” are necessarily those with the highest test scores & graduation rates.
LikeLike
This district is considered the best by many highly educated, high income parents. Many people overextend themselves to live in this town. My question is, why do these people parents not demand choice and actually seek out these neighborhood schools? You may agree with them, but they are highly involved parents and they are choosing a choice-free district.
I am surprised you don’t think graduation rates are a good indicator.What is a good indicator? A parent having a warm and fuzzy feeling about a school?
If test scores and grad rates aren’t a good indicator, what is and why do the reformers almost always mention test scores.
LikeLike
CM – I asked for the demographics. What you are describing is very similar in many areas to a suburb with few low income families and few students who speak English as a second language. Yes, many affluent and “well educated” families seek out such districts. They don’t want their youngsters to attend school with “those students.” These affluent families exercise school choice by buying homes in areas where few low income families can live.
Educators in affluent suburbs have for decades been telling families that they have excellent schools based on test scores, graduation rates (along with a list of colleges/universities that graduates attend) So it’s not surprising that parents believe this.
Other ways to measure a school’s quality:
a. Safety – what % of students say they have been the victim of some sort of crime (some affluent schools have high rates of theftI)
b. Value – added measures – how much progress do students make while in a school on various measures, including but not limited to standardized tests.
c. Graduate surveys – how to graduates feel about the quality of education provided to them.
d. Family surveys – do families believe their input and involvement in various ways is welcome
e. What are trends in terms of graduates continuing their education in some form of 1, 2 or 4 year program?
f. What are trends in terms of graduates having to take remedial courses?
There are a variety of people working to improve public schools. Hope the list above is useful.
LikeLike
Joe,
Thanks for the reply. I am trying to figure out why some people want choice and others don’t I guess your argument is a valid one – some people choose a town based on demographics (and test scores) so maybe for them the type of school isn’t a priority.
I will add that this district has a considerable achievement gap even thought the % of frl students is only about 25%.
LikeLike
Considering all the comments above, many with which I agree, some NOT….here is what Tilson, the hedge fund maven who teaches his clients how to invest in public education, just sent out regarding Elizabeth Warren. I would wish that both my California Governor and the astute Warren could be reached by many who post here, and they would listen with open minds about choice, vouchers, charters, firing teachers, etc.
Diane…a panel discussion with you, Warren, and Brown would be fabulous. How could we make that happen?
—————————————————————————————————————
From Tilson….
1) STOP THE PRESSES!!!
Elizabeth Warren was already one of my favorite Senators for her tireless efforts to rein in the financial industry, which is plagued with predatory behavior. (In total seriousness, I cannot think ANY financial product in which there isn’t widespread exploitation and abuse, almost always victimizing our society’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens: mortgages, student loans, credit and debit cards, auto loans, many forms of insurance…you name it…)
(Plus she was my wife’s favorite professor, by far, at Harvard Law School in the early 90’s.)
But my admiration reached a new level this morning when I learned (from Alexander Russo’s blog) that Warren supports universal school vouchers. Here’s what Russo wrote:
Politics: Your Favorite Liberal Lawmaker Supports Universal Vouchers
http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54f8c25c9883401a73dac0a2b970d-popup
Maybe you knew this already but liberal darling US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) supports private school vouchers — for everyone.
US News had the story in 2012 (Elizabeth Warren’s Quiet Support for Public School Vouchers), and it comes up again in the latest New Yorker as part of a review of her new book (Reading Elizabeth Warren).
Warren doesn’t just support vouchers in special circumstances, like special education placements or DCPS. She wants to give them to everyone, everywhere.
As quoted in the New Yorker piece, Warren has written that:
“An all-voucher system would be a shock to the educational system, but the shakeout might be just what the system needs.”
According to Warren, those “public” schools in expensive enclaves aren’t really all that public as their defenders like to make them sound:
“Schools in middle-class neighborhoods may be labeled ‘public,’ but parents have paid for tuition by purchasing a $175,000 home within a carefully selected school district.”
Interestingly, Warren’s argument is at least partly based on the high housing costs associated with the current zip code-based system of allocating scarce quality schooling. High housing costs, plus burdens on working Americans (mothers in particular) have been a scourge for decades, according to Warren. Breaking the link between housing and school quality would relieve pressure on families that have moved to expensive places just for the schools.
Warren’s ideas have been debated on Diane Ravitch’s site in recent days — they’re New Yorker readers too, it seems 🙂 — though not surprisingly the idea is being met with shock and disappointment. And the New Yorker writer, Jill Lepore, calls Warren’s proposal reckless.
(I love the fact that Ravitch and her ilk are filled with “shock and disappointment”!)
Warren hasn’t been talking about these views (most likely because, as the article below notes, “teachers unions are a key part of the Democratic base, big party funders, and have vigorously fought proposals to give parents more schooling options.”), but the fact that one of the most prominent Democrats in the country (and someone being talked about as a potential Presidential candidate) is clearly and strongly on the record in favor of universal vouchers is a BIG DEAL!
2) Here’s an article from the latest New Yorker about Warren – what a remarkable personal story! – and her new book, A Fighting Chance (which I just ordered: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1627790527/tilsoncapitalpar). Here’s an excerpt:
Warren, like Brandeis, is a lawyer and a scholar. She was born in Oklahoma in 1949, the youngest of four children. When she was twelve years old, her father, a salesman for Montgomery Ward, had a heart attack and lost his job. The family lost a car and might have lost their house if Warren’s mother hadn’t managed to get a job at Sears. Warren went to college on a debating-society scholarship but dropped out when she was nineteen to marry an old high-school boyfriend, Jim Warren. She later finished college and moved with her husband to New Jersey; he’d been transferred there by his employer, I.B.M. Warren started work as a schoolteacher; by the end of her first year teaching, when she was twenty-one, she was pregnant. “Somewhere in between diapers and breast-feeding, I hatched the idea of going to school,” she writes. Her husband didn’t want her to work full time, but agreed that it would be O.K. if she took classes. She decided on law school, because she liked the lawyers on TV. Every day, she brought her daughter, Amelia, to a woman who took care of half a dozen kids, and went to class at Rutgers Law School. By the end of her third year, she was pregnant again; she had a boy named Alex. Much of Warren’s book is about her children and grandchildren. She writes about a moment in 1978: “It was early evening, the cranky time of day. I was jostling Alex on my hip and frying pork chops. Amelia was on the floor with crayons scattered all around. I kept an eye on the clock, knowing Jim would come through the door in about twenty minutes.” The phone rang. It was a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, asking her about a job inquiry she’d sent because her husband might be transferred to Houston. Warren writes, “I tried to sound smooth and relaxed, even as I jiggled Alex furiously in the hope that he wouldn’t start crying. And I kept looking at those damn pork chops.”
Warren got a teaching position at the law school (where she was routinely mistaken for a secretary), and the family moved to Houston. One day in 1979 when she picked up Alex from a day-care center in a strip mall, he held on to her and cried and cried and cried. She took him out of the day-care center. “I was so tired that my bones hurt,” Warren writes. She was about to quit. Then her aunt Bee volunteered to move to Houston from Oklahoma, to help take care of the children. “Nearly eighty years old and so needed,” Bee said. Not long afterward, when Warren’s marriage fell apart, her parents moved to Houston to help out, too. In 1980, Warren remarried.
Warren’s interest in debt, she says, is partly personal. “My daddy and I were both afraid of being poor, really poor. His response was never to talk about money or what might happen if it ran out—never ever ever. My response was to study contracts, finance, and, most of all, economic failure, to learn everything I could.” Her research led her to conclude that the bankruptcy rate is a canary in the economy’s coal mine and that, sometime during the Reagan Administration, the canary died.
The argument Warren offers in “A Fighting Chance” is one that she began to make in “As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America,” a monograph written with Teresa A. Sullivan and Jay Lawrence Westbrook and published by Oxford in 1989. Sullivan, a sociologist, is now president of the University of Virginia; Westbrook teaches bankruptcy law at the University of Texas School of Law, where Warren taught from 1981 to 1987. (In 1986, Warren and Westbrook wrote a textbook, “The Law of Debtors and Creditors,” currently in its seventh edition.) In “As We Forgive Our Debtors,” Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook reported the results of a study they made of twenty-four hundred bankruptcy petitions filed in 1981. Bankruptcy rates had risen because of the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act, which made filing for bankruptcy easier, but also because, by the nineteen-seventies, consumer spending had become the engine of the American economy. Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook found that most filers weren’t cheats or frauds and they also weren’t poor; they were members of the middle class, undone by the volatility of the economy and by a six-hundred-billion-dollar consumer-credit industry. More than half were homeowners, and many were women rearing children.
In 1987, Warren began teaching at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. In 1995, she moved to Harvard. In “The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt,” published by Yale in 2000, Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook reported the results of a follow-up study of another twenty-four hundred bankruptcy filings, these from 1991. Even more Americans were drowning in debt. Between 1979 and 1997, the number of personal-bankruptcy filings rose by four hundred per cent.
In an age of debt, an unexpected loss can drive almost anyone to ruin. “Divorce, an unhappy second marriage, a serious illness, no job,” Warren writes. “A turn here, a turn there, and my life might have been very different, too.”
3) Here’s more on Warren’s support for vouchers and the reasons behind it, from a Jan. 2012 US News & World Report article:
Elizabeth Warren’s Quiet Support for Public School Vouchers
A public school voucher system would radically reform education while stabilizing the housing market.
By Carrie Lukas Jan. 26, 2012 Leave a Comment SHARE
Carrie Lukas is the managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/26/elizabeth-warrens-quiet-support-for-public-school-vouchers
If all goes right for Massachusetts Democrats in November, they will fill the seat once held by liberal lion Sen. Ted Kennedy with a school voucher supporter who has proposed radically reforming public education in America.
You won’t find a call for school vouchers on Elizabeth Warren’s campaign website. Education is listed first among the candidate’s top priorities, but the website sticks to safe, poll tested platitudes calling for “good public schools, good public universities, and good technical training” as the key to a having a competitive workforce.
Yet in her 2003 book, The Two Income Trap, Warren and co-author Amelia Warren Tyagi cite the traditional public schools system, in which children are assigned to a school based on their residence, as a key source of economic pressure for families with children. Warren and Tyagi call for system-wide reforms to break the link between where a child lives and where they go to school, and specifically make the case for a fully-funded voucher program that would enable children to attend any public school.
Written during the housing-value boom, Warren identifies the competition for slots in “good” public schools as fueling the rise in real estate prices. While home prices were rising across the board, families with children were outpacing the rest of the public in paying more for homes, because, Warren argued, a home in the right location was the price of getting into that coveted school. Over-paying for houses required great financial sacrifices from families, and created the potential for severe hardship if housing prices fell—which of course they did, effectively wiping away the savings of millions of Americans.
Warren aptly exposed the lie behind the concept of public schools as a great equalizer: “Schools in middle-class neighborhoods may be labeled ‘public,’ but parents have paid for tuition by purchasing a $175,000 home within a carefully selected school district.” How to relieve the pressure on families? “At the core of the problem is the time-honored rule that where you live dictates where you go to school. Any policy that loosens the ironclad relationship between location-location-location and school-school-school would eliminate the need for parents to pay an inflated price for a home…A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly.”
Warren might have also noted how changing the structure and incentives faced by school officials could also lead to better quality schools. If administrators could no longer count on a captive clientele of neighborhood children, they would have to compete to attract students. Current road blocks to reform—such as the tenure system and inability to fire bad teachers—might be tackled more aggressively if school officials had to fear that they would lose students, and therefore lose funding, if counter-productive policies remained in place.
Research confirms what is considered common sense in every other aspect of life: Competition among schools leads to a more efficient use of resources and better outcomes. According to a meta-analysis conducted by Dr. Greg Forster, 18 of 19 empirical studies measuring the competitive effect of school vouchers found that offering families vouchers spurred public schools to improve. Forster similarly reported that most studies show that choice improves student performance. For example, the U.S. Department of Education’s analysis of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program revealed that vouchers boosted students’ test scores and graduation rates.
Warren may now be reticent to discuss her critique of the public school status quo. After all, teachers unions are a key part of the Democratic base, big party funders, and have vigorously fought proposals to give parents more schooling options. However, prominent Democrats—from reform-minded mayors like Cory Booker to power-brokers like Sen. Dianne Feinstein—have already blazed the trail by publicly backing vouchers.
This week is what’s known in education reform circles as National School Choice Week. Reformers across the country are holding events to raise awareness about the need for and benefits of policies that give parents, rather than the education bureaucracy, control of their children’s education. Candidate Warren should use this opportunity to discuss her research on this critical issue and demonstrate to Massachusetts voters that she will serve as a true leader and stand up for policies she believes in, even those that challenge her party bosses.
——————–
The Warren Brief
Reading Elizabeth Warren.
by Jill Lepore April 21, 2014 The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2014/04/21/140421crbo_books_lepore?currentPage=all
Warren believes that the two-income family has contributed to the bankruptcy rate: there’s no longer reserve capacity for hard times.
Warren believes that the two-income family has contributed to the bankruptcy rate: there’s no longer reserve capacity for hard times. Illustration by Shane Harrison.
In her new book, Elizabeth Warren tells the story of her life in order to make an argument about America (the middle class is trapped in a vise of debt), which is the sort of thing politicians do when they’re running for office. Warren, who spent most of her career as a law-school professor, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012; she’s not up for reëlection until 2018. “I am not running for President,” she insisted at a press conference in Boston in December, pledging that she will finish her term. But the publication, this month, of her autobiography, “A Fighting Chance” (Metropolitan), ahead of a memoir by Hillary Clinton that is due out this summer, only adds to the speculation that Warren is considering challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2016. And, even if Warren doesn’t run, this book is part of that race.
Warren’s book was originally called “Rigged,” a reference to her contention that the American political system places power in the hands of plutocrats and bankers at the expense of ordinary, middle-class Americans. “Big corporations hire armies of lobbyists to get billion-dollar loopholes into the tax system and persuade their friends in Congress to support laws that keep the playing field tilted in their favor,” Warren writes. “Meanwhile, hardworking families are told that they’ll just have to live with smaller dreams for their children.”
“A Fighting Chance” is in many ways heir to a book published a century ago. “Other People’s Money and How the Bankers Use It,” by Louis Brandeis, appeared in the spring of 1914. Brandeis believed that the country was being run by plutocrats and, especially, by investment bankers, who, by combining, consolidating, and aggregating the functions of banks, trusts, and corporations, controlled both the nation’s credit and the majority of its resources—including the railroads—and yet had not the least accountability to the public or any sense that the functions they had adopted were essentially those of a public utility. “The power and the growth of power of our financial oligarchs comes from wielding the savings and quick capital of others,” Brandeis wrote. “The fetters which bind the people are forged from the people’s own gold.”
Brandeis was concerned with Gilded Age plutocrats’ use of people’s bank savings to build giant, monopolistic conglomerates answerable not to the people but to shareholders. “Other People’s Money,” which originally appeared as a series of essays in Harper’s, is a polemic, but it’s also a huge compilation of facts and figures. Brandeis pointed out, for instance, that J. P. Morgan and the First National and the National City Bank together held “341 directorships in 112 corporations having aggregate resources or capitalization of $22,245,000,000,” a sum that is “nearly three times the assessed value of all the real estate in the City of New York” and “more than the assessed value of all the property in the twenty-two states, north and south, lying west of the Mississippi River.” (Brandeis’s ability to enlist data in the service of a legal argument, a statement known as a “Brandeis brief,” is among his many legacies.) In 1933, Brandeis arranged to have “Other People’s Money” republished—in an edition that cost only fifteen cents—so that it could exert the same influence on F.D.R.’s Administration that it had exerted on Woodrow Wilson’s. In the first decades of the twentieth century, arguments made by writers like Brandeis led to a series of antitrust reforms and financial-industry regulations that, in the middle decades of the century, made possible the growth of the middle class.
Warren is concerned not with saving but with borrowing, not with monopoly but with debt. Since the nineteen-eighties, many Progressive-era and New Deal reforms have been repealed, including a cap on interest rates and a wall, erected in 1933, separating commercial and savings banking from investment banking. In the second gilded age, the fetters that bind the people were forged first from the people’s own credit cards and then from their mortgages. Credit-card companies lured borrowers in with “teaser rates.” Rates of consumer bankruptcy skyrocketed. Eying the profits made by credit-card companies, mortgage companies began selling an entirely new inventory of “mortgage products,” with low down payments, ballooning rates, and prepayment penalties. Home prices shot up, and then they collapsed. “When the housing market sank,” Warren writes, “so did America’s middle class.”
Warren speaks Brandeis’s language. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,” Warren said at a campaign stop in 2011, in remarks that defined her candidacy. “Nobody. You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.” You used other people’s money. “You built a factory, and it turned into something terrific or a great idea—God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” It’s the Brandeis in Warren that got her elected. What she does next will have to do with the many ways in which 2014 is not 1914.
“A Fighting Chance” begins this way: “I’m Elizabeth Warren. I’m a wife, a mother, and a grandmother.” Nowhere in “Other People’s Money” did Brandeis mention his life or his family; no doubt, these matters did not strike him as relevant to his discussion of financial oligarchy. Also, Brandeis wasn’t running for office. He was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1916, but, even if he had run for office, and had been required to write the necessary campaign autobiography, its first words would not have been “I’m Louis Brandeis. I’m a husband and a father.”
Warren, like Brandeis, is a lawyer and a scholar. She was born in Oklahoma in 1949, the youngest of four children. When she was twelve years old, her father, a salesman for Montgomery Ward, had a heart attack and lost his job. The family lost a car and might have lost their house if Warren’s mother hadn’t managed to get a job at Sears. Warren went to college on a debating-society scholarship but dropped out when she was nineteen to marry an old high-school boyfriend, Jim Warren. She later finished college and moved with her husband to New Jersey; he’d been transferred there by his employer, I.B.M. Warren started work as a schoolteacher; by the end of her first year teaching, when she was twenty-one, she was pregnant. “Somewhere in between diapers and breast-feeding, I hatched the idea of going to school,” she writes. Her husband didn’t want her to work full time, but agreed that it would be O.K. if she took classes. She decided on law school, because she liked the lawyers on TV. Every day, she brought her daughter, Amelia, to a woman who took care of half a dozen kids, and went to class at Rutgers Law School. By the end of her third year, she was pregnant again; she had a boy named Alex. Much of Warren’s book is about her children and grandchildren. She writes about a moment in 1978: “It was early evening, the cranky time of day. I was jostling Alex on my hip and frying pork chops. Amelia was on the floor with crayons scattered all around. I kept an eye on the clock, knowing Jim would come through the door in about twenty minutes.” The phone rang. It was a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, asking her about a job inquiry she’d sent because her husband might be transferred to Houston. Warren writes, “I tried to sound smooth and relaxed, even as I jiggled Alex furiously in the hope that he wouldn’t start crying. And I kept looking at those damn pork chops.”
Warren got a teaching position at the law school (where she was routinely mistaken for a secretary), and the family moved to Houston. One day in 1979 when she picked up Alex from a day-care center in a strip mall, he held on to her and cried and cried and cried. She took him out of the day-care center. “I was so tired that my bones hurt,” Warren writes. She was about to quit. Then her aunt Bee volunteered to move to Houston from Oklahoma, to help take care of the children. “Nearly eighty years old and so needed,” Bee said. Not long afterward, when Warren’s marriage fell apart, her parents moved to Houston to help out, too. In 1980, Warren remarried.
Warren’s interest in debt, she says, is partly personal. “My daddy and I were both afraid of being poor, really poor. His response was never to talk about money or what might happen if it ran out—never ever ever. My response was to study contracts, finance, and, most of all, economic failure, to learn everything I could.” Her research led her to conclude that the bankruptcy rate is a canary in the economy’s coal mine and that, sometime during the Reagan Administration, the canary died.
The argument Warren offers in “A Fighting Chance” is one that she began to make in “As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America,” a monograph written with Teresa A. Sullivan and Jay Lawrence Westbrook and published by Oxford in 1989. Sullivan, a sociologist, is now president of the University of Virginia; Westbrook teaches bankruptcy law at the University of Texas School of Law, where Warren taught from 1981 to 1987. (In 1986, Warren and Westbrook wrote a textbook, “The Law of Debtors and Creditors,” currently in its seventh edition.) In “As We Forgive Our Debtors,” Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook reported the results of a study they made of twenty-four hundred bankruptcy petitions filed in 1981. Bankruptcy rates had risen because of the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act, which made filing for bankruptcy easier, but also because, by the nineteen-seventies, consumer spending had become the engine of the American economy. Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook found that most filers weren’t cheats or frauds and they also weren’t poor; they were members of the middle class, undone by the volatility of the economy and by a six-hundred-billion-dollar consumer-credit industry. More than half were homeowners, and many were women rearing children.
In 1987, Warren began teaching at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. In 1995, she moved to Harvard. In “The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt,” published by Yale in 2000, Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook reported the results of a follow-up study of another twenty-four hundred bankruptcy filings, these from 1991. Even more Americans were drowning in debt. Between 1979 and 1997, the number of personal-bankruptcy filings rose by four hundred per cent.
In an age of debt, an unexpected loss can drive almost anyone to ruin. “Divorce, an unhappy second marriage, a serious illness, no job,” Warren writes. “A turn here, a turn there, and my life might have been very different, too.”
Louis Brandeis had a knack for making himself an expert on just about anything, but the original “Brandeis brief” was a hundred-and-thirteen-page document that he submitted to the Supreme Court in 1908, in Muller v. Oregon, a case concerning a law limiting the workday for women in laundries and factories to ten hours. “The decision in this case will, in effect, determine the constitutionality of nearly all the statutes in force in the United States, limiting the hours of labor of adult women,” Brandeis explained in his brief. He proceeded to cite and summarize the findings of hundreds of reports and studies by physicians, municipal health boards, public-health departments, medical societies, factory inspectors, and bureaus of labor, demonstrating the harm done to women who worked long hours, an argument that relied on ideas about women’s weakness relative to men. The Oregon law was upheld.
The efforts of a generation of Progressive reformers, including Brandeis, lies behind the abolition of child labor and the establishment of maximum-hour and minimum-wage laws for both men and women. A century later, Warren’s brief, too, has to do with the long hours that women work. She’s interested in the unintended economic consequences that arise when women rearing children enter the paid labor force. Warren’s counterintuitive argument is that, for all the public and private good that has come from gains made by women in education and employment, earning money has made women who are mothers more economically vulnerable, not less.
Warren believes that the two-income family has contributed to the bankruptcy rate. “For middle-class families, the most important part of the safety net for generations has been the stay-at-home mother,” Warren and her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, wrote in “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke” (2003), a book aimed at a wider audience than Warren’s earlier, academic work. (“Mom, you are boring,” Tyagi told Warren. “Collaborating with my daughter is not for sissies,” Warren says.) It used to be that when a middle-class family was faced with a financial crisis the woman in the house could get a job, to tide things over, which is what happened when Warren’s father had a heart attack and her mother got a job at Sears. This cushion doesn’t exist in the two-income family, which, in its short history—it has its origins, as a middle-class phenomenon, in the nineteen-seventies—has also taken on a great deal more housing debt. The 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act required lenders to count a wife’s income when evaluating borrowers; the deregulation of the mortgage lending industry began in 1980. With two wage earners and low down payments, middle-class families took on bigger mortgages and contributed to an increase in the cost of housing, especially when families with children paid a premium for property in school districts with high test scores. Financial crisis, for a two-income family, usually means having to live, quite suddenly, on one income. In these straits, families with children tend to totter on the edge of ruin. “Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman will end up in financial collapse,” Warren and Tyagi reported. Between 1981 and 2001, the number of women filing for bankruptcy rose more than six hundred per cent.
Warren entered the world of policymaking when, in 1995, she was appointed to serve on the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, during the Clinton Administration. She found the work thrilling and the results maddening. She describes a report, sponsored by the banking industry, alleging that bankruptcy protection amounted to a five-hundred-and-fifty-dollar “hidden tax” levied on every hardworking American family: “I’d spent nearly twenty years sweating over every detail in a string of serious academic studies, agonizing over sample sizes and statistical significance to make certain that whatever I reported was exactly right. Now the banks just wrote a check, commissioned a friendly study, and purchased their own facts.” Warren’s frustration was part of what led her to seek a broader audience for her research by writing “The Two-Income Trap,” which led to appearances on the “Today” show and “Dr. Phil,” where she spoke with a family struggling with debt. “Year in and year out, I’d been fighting as hard as I could,” Warren writes. “But by spending a few minutes talking to that family on Dr. Phil’s show—and to about six million other people who were looking on—I might have done more good than in an entire year as a professor.”
Nevertheless, the solutions that Warren has proposed often fail to convince. To counter both the crisis in public education and the high cost of housing, Warren and Tyagi recommend a universal public-school voucher system in which parents could send their kids to any public school: “An all-voucher system would be a shock to the educational system, but the shakeout might be just what the system needs.” Yes, that would be a shock. It would also be reckless.
In 2008, Warren joined a five-person congressional-oversight panel whose creation was mandated by the seven-hundred-billion-dollar bailout. She found that thrilling and maddening, too. In the spring of 2009, after the panel issued its third report, critical of the bailout, Larry Summers took Warren out to dinner in Washington and, she recalls, told her that she had a choice to make. She could be an insider or an outsider, but if she was going to be an insider she needed to understand one unbreakable rule about insiders: “They don’t criticize other insiders.” That’s about when Warren went on the Jon Stewart show, and you get the sense that, over that dinner, she decided to run for office.
Elizabeth Warren has a case to make about what bankers do with other people’s money; she’s been making it for twenty-five years. It’s hardly uncontested, but it rests on collaborative, peer-reviewed, empirical research. Getting that argument across to voters in 2012 required a great deal of compression and simplification, even more than was required to write “The Two-Income Trap,” but Warren’s expertise—her authority as an intellectual—also helped get her elected. Running against Scott Brown, she had to tell a stump-size story about her life, a story that includes this fact: for a time, she was a single mother. That story helped get her elected.
My life explains my fight has been the argument of every American political biography for a long time. When you’re grafting a life story onto a political argument, there will always be places where the grain runs in different directions. (An argument that the system is rigged tends to be somewhat undermined, for instance, by the success of the person pointing that out.) And, particularly for women with children, campaign biography can be a snare. When Wendy Davis decided to run for governor of Texas, her consultants advised her to tell the story of how she started out as a single mother before becoming a lawyer; conservatives accused her of having abandoned her children. This snare exists because political biography as a genre follows conventions whose origins lie with Andrew Jackson, in the early nineteenth century, long before women gained the right to vote or to hold office. Discrimination is the afterlife of discredited ideas. By the standards applied to Davis, who left her two young daughters with their father so that she could go to law school, most candidates elected to office in the United States in the past two centuries abandoned their children.
But there’s another snare here: the danger of adopting, in place of the conventions of the Andrew Jackson’s-bootstraps political biography, the newer conventions of diaper-pin Girl Jacksonianism. Political consultants appear to be eager to advise their female candidates to include, when telling the story of their lives, gauzy intimacies, silly-little-me confessions of domestic ineptitude, stagy performances of maternal devotion, and the shameless trotting out of twinkle-eyed tots. In “A Fighting Chance,” Warren argues that the federal government has allowed an unregulated financial industry to prey on the middle class; she also writes no small amount about peach cobbler and burned frying pans. Still, she is not adorable; instead, she’s fierce in her affections. “Sometimes, late at night, when the house was quiet, I’d scoop Lavinia out of her crib and hold her,” she writes, referring to one of her grandchildren. “Not because she needed it but because I did.”
Warren is also smart enough to use the conventions of political biography, old and new, to insist on the existence of a relationship between caring for other people and caring about politics. Her brief is really about the abandonment of children, not by women who go to school or to work but by legislatures and courts that have allowed the nation’s social and economic policies to be made by corporations and bankers. Writing about her children and grandchildren—rocking that baby—is more than the place where Warren leaves Brandeis behind. It’s an argument about where our real debts lie.
LikeLike
Some of us recall Rosa Parks working for charters during the last decade of her remarkable life. Some of us recall African American child psychologist Kenneth Clark (who produced the doll study that the US Supreme Court used in Brown v Board) strongly recommending alternative public schools, operating outside district public schools, in an important 1968 article published in Harvard Ed Review.
LikeLike