Julian Vasquez Heilig writes in The Progressive about a scandal bigger than buying seats in college.
What we read about in the headlines was illegal.
What we don’t see in the headlines is education that is legally purchased.
He writes:
“Research is catching up to what is not exactly a well-kept secret: the nicer house an American family can buy, the better public school that family will have access to. While conservative politicians and a group of influential researchers were claiming that money didn’t matter for educational success, in practice, states spent less on the education of poor and minority students on purpose, while the wealthy enjoyed better-funded schools.
“A recent study by the nonprofit EdBuild found that predominantly white school districts receive $23 billion more than predominantly non-white districts—that’s an average of $2,200 per student. Wealthy districts have even grabbed 20 percent of the Title I funds that were meant for low-income districts.
“The implications of these cuts are lifelong for the students. A groundbreaking 2016 Northwestern study on school spending and student outcomes found that low-income children whose schools received a 10 percent increase in per pupil spending each year for all twelve years of public school had a higher school completion rate, and that students earned 7 percent higher wages once they’d joined the workforce, and experienced a reduction in the incidence of adult poverty. They also determined that funding increases have a more pronounced positive impact for children from low-income families. The increased funding, according to the study, was associated with reduced student-to-teacher ratios, increased teacher salaries, and more extended academic semesters.”
Conservatives loveto say that money doesn’t matter, but that’s nonsense.
The Trump-DeVos rhetoric pretends that choice is a substitute for adequate funding.
It’s not.
Gentrification in Denver:
https://www.westword.com/news/denver-leads-the-nation-in-hispanic-displacement-from-gentrification-11275133?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cb_bureau_colorado
Should rebuild for the poor not the already rich. The RICH became rich = TAKE, TAKE, TAKE or more like STEAL, STEAL, STEAL.
take take take, steal steal steal —- separate, divide, segregate…
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Best honest portrait of low-income school: The Class (French, 2008). I just saw it and was amazed.
Vasquez-Heileg demonstrates that money does matter in education. More money equates with more opportunities for students. Resource equity makes a difference in education for poor students. In public education majority poor minority districts have been deliberately short changed in funding formulas, and many states have still not restored funding to pre-2008 levels.
Privatization is a misleading false ruse to take the attention away from the real problem. So-called reform has scapegoated public schools and teachers as the source of inequality when the real issues are poverty and racism. Vasquez-Heilig is on the right track, but will his evidence based message ever be able to effect change? Privatization is a many headed hydra that transfers public funds to private entities. It has become a gigantic pay to play scheme. Many of our government representatives have been more than happy to settle for the status quo, and a number of them have jumped on the privatization bandwagon. Privatization is the enemy of collectivism and equity. It rations opportunity. Privatization creates winners and losers, weakens the common good and also enhances segregation and racism.
The best way to ensure resource equity is to integrate public schools. My poor ELLs, many of whom made it out of poverty and into the middle class in a single generation, were given resource equity by attending integrated schools. Integration works, and separate is never equal.
Ed reform compares voucher systems to higher ed constantly. The argument is public money pays for private colleges so why not private K-12 schools.
But higher ed is WILDLY inequitable. Why would they replicate such a wildly inequitable system? I went to a community college and then a public city university. They spent less on each student than these richly endowed elite universities. Won’t that be LESS equitable then the current public system?
Incidentally, I’m proud I went to a community college and then a public college. I earned every single thing I got out of that. I went to college with a really diverse group of people- poor people, middle class people, single moms and returning adults- a fantastic mix. I used to marvel at the adults in my classes who had returned to school. They were working full time AND attending college. The amount of energy and commitment that takes blew me away, and was, I think, a good model for a 20 year old so see.
Higher education is wildly inequitable, but a lot of it is already privatized! If public money is used for public education, then there must be accountability to the public.
The full picture here: So many people who join up with politics simply don’t believe in your story (or mine, since this was also my experience). They will ONLY hear and believe that public institutions can in no way compete with the “superior” private schools structure.
Chiara and ciedie, that is a common story here as well even tho I’m in an upper-mid NJ town. I never ran into the elite-school snobbery among school parents here (my 3 kids grad hisch ’05-’10)– altho it was common in the small upstateNY town where I was raised. I think it’s because pop is dense here: you may live in an enclave, but diff-SES towns are cheek-by-jowl, so wherever you go you’re surrounded by every type– & kids’ activites draw them into other towns w/a mix of peers. Also in tri-state area there’s a plethora of colleges/ job ops/ career paths, so kids grow up thinking in terms of choosing from many options.
Elite-college angst is a phenomenon of lower-density pop & fewer local options– & of course of the 1%. Not sure what excuse our pols have for their ed policies, but it isn’t “elite schools.” 80% cong/ sen went to public K12. Only 10% ave to Ivy League colleges. Most attended college in their home states (2/3 Senate, larger % congress).
Meanwhile, back in the real world, first generation and low income college students are getting brutally ripped off and the best the US government can offer them is a “webinar”
“Federal Student Aid
Students of Argosy University and select Art Institutes: Have you (or a friend/family member) been affected by a school closure? Join us for a special webinar to learn about your options. Details and schedule (March 20, 21, 22, and 25)”
Instead of regulating these schools or prosecuting fraud, they offer the students “advice” after they’ve been ripped off. Please don’t take this advice, students. It’s probably bad.
What you describe is the Darwinian conclusion of the free market. free for all. The wealthy will consume everyone else because they can. The strong will exploit the weak.
“US Dept of Education
The #EducationFreedom Scholarships proposal creates a $5B annual federal tax credit for voluntary donations to state-based scholarship programs.
Day Thirty of the US Department of Education promoting and marketing private school vouchers.
Not a single public school student in this country will in any way benefit from these vouchers, yet this entire federal agency spends every working hour promoting it.
And we’re paying them for this.
Maybe they could find a couple of people in DC who work for PUBLIC school students, given that 90% of the public attends public schools?
The US Department of Education now completely excludes public school students, teachers and families. It’s ludicrous.
We should demand they provide some value to public school students. That’s what they’re paid for.
When will politicians in Indiana ever learn?
……………………..
Overwhelmed by problems, an Indianapolis charter school is closing — again
BY SHAINA CAVAZOS – 15 HOURS AGO
A far east side charter school that suffered from dwindling enrollment, low test scores, and high teacher and principal turnover will close in June.
Indianapolis Lighthouse East, which reopened four years ago, was expected to graduate only 44 percent of seniors in its first graduating class this year. The school, which includes grades 7-12, also anticipated a budget deficit and fewer students next year, and teachers and students alike have complained that discipline is a major issue there.
“It’s, frankly, a sad occasion for us to close that school, because we have many dedicated staff who have worked day in and day out to try and create good outcomes for students,” said Adam Collins, chairman of the school’s board, which voted Thursday to shut it down. “But we just didn’t have the resources and the enrollment and the ability to be successful.”…
The school had cycled through three principals in four years and saw other administrators leave. It was billed as having an “arts-infused” curriculum, but teachers said the school showed no signs of living up to that designation. …
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/in/2019/03/21/indianapolis-lighthouse-east-charter-school-closing/?utm_source=email_button