The Brookings Institution published a study of the D.C. school system, which is almost evenly divided between public schools and charter schools. It was written by three scholars: Vanessa Williamson, Brookings Institution; Jackson Gode, Brookings Institution; and Hao Sun, Gallaudet University. The title of their study is “We All Want What’s Best for Our Kids.” Their findings are based on close reading of an online parent forum called “DC Urban Moms,” where school choice is an important topic.
What they found is not surprising. Choice intensifies and facilitates racial and socioeconomic segregation. This is the same phenomenon that has been documented in choice programs everywhere. The most advantaged parents master the system and get their children into what is perceived as the “best schools.” The “best schools” are those that have the most advantaged students.
The study begins:
Public education in the District includes a system of traditional public schools and a system of public 8
charter schools; in 2018–19, these schools served over 90,000 students at 182 schools. The city is highly diverse, as is the incoming school-age population. Among children under five, 48 percent are Black, 27 percent are white non-Hispanic, and 17 percent are Hispanic.9 54 percent of the city’s public school students are in traditional (DCPS) public schools, while 46 percent are in public charter schools (DCPCS). All students have the right to attend their local public school, or they can enter a lottery for a seat at another traditional public school or public charter school.10
In practice, parents’ school choices are limited. Housing in Washington is strongly segregated by race and class, with popular schools generally located in expensive or rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods.11 Housing prices in the District are high and rising, and affordable housing is in exceptionally short supply.12 The District’s school system does not provide regular school bus transportation; children can ride public transit to school for free, but commutes can be long, and it is often impractical for working parents to accompany young children to a school that is far from home.13 Most students attend a school in their own wards, with students in poorer parts of the city facing longer commutes.14
In making decisions about where to send their children to school, parents (and especially more privileged parents) are key contributors to school segregation and inequality.
Even for parents willing or able to enroll their children far from home, there remain fewer options than might first appear. The most popular traditional public schools rarely have spaces available to students who live beyond the school’s catchment area. Popular charter schools often have waitlists of hundreds of students.15 Moreover, researching the schools available via the lottery requires time and resources; school lottery waitlists are dominated by families that are more socioeconomically privileged.16
In making decisions about where to send their children to school, parents (and especially more privileged parents) are key contributors to school segregation and inequality. As the District of Columbia Auditor’s office has stated, “there is a pattern of District families moving away from schools with more students considered at-risk17 to schools with fewer students considered at-risk. These moves are facilitated by the robust choice model in DC.”18
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Dr. Ravitch – I think that the study making a connection to choice in DC is a bit of a stretch. The CHOICE that is within DC is not just for charter/public, but rather the opportunity for students to attend any public school within the district. While I admit the process HAS not been as successful as it could be, the sentiment should be applauded and considered – that one’s neighborhood should not limit their schooling options.
That being said, I think more importantly in this study is the use of social media/internet boards, including Great Schools, NICHE, and yes even DC Urban Moms. As someone who lives within the DC area, I’ve been on the site and have seen the hatred and vitriol aimed at different schools, including the school my daughters attended.
This is more than traditional public school/charter school choice issues.
I agree the study is not just about charters vs publics, & I doubt that’s what Diane is implying by “choice.” The fact that students may attend any traditional school within the district is very much part of the choice system, evidenced here [under “Location, Location, Location… In-Bound”]: “Of all the substantive terms we counted on any topic, the single most common was “in-bound,” which appeared in nearly two-thirds of all conversations in the forum. To be “in-bound” (or “in-boundary”) for a school is to live in its catchment area, so that your children are guaranteed the right to attend; this right applies only to traditional public schools.”
In other words, a particular prize to be jockeyed for is attending a high-SES, less-minority traditional pubsch—either by living in the catchment area because you can afford to, or by somehow maneuvering to get one of their coveted open seats. This is not any kind of plan for integration, race or SES-wise (rather the opposite).
Compare SF school district’s attempt to overcome residential segregation: families are assigned to schools according to a formula that prioritizes diverse student school bodies throughout the district (the opposite of ‘school choice’). I have no idea how that’s working out– only, anecdotally, that my young nephews were thriving there pre-covid. To me it seems smart. It mimics the distribution of kids in a small town where there are only a few schools—everyone thrown together. That way you have the research-proven advantages of a diverse school body – and an equal proportion of well-off parents w/the time to advocate for good staff/ offerings.
The SF policy seems interesting but one factor I’d be curious about is transportation…do they bus kids across town to go to different schools?
One of the families interviewed for this 2018 article sends their kids to a far-flung nbhd via schoolbus, but elsewhere they say “The district runs several buses on routes designed to give students more access, but seats are limited.” Their complex lottery process allows one to prioritize a school near home, or one that has early-start & after-school hours—but you don’t necessarily get the school(s) you want. Another parent interviewed sent her kid private instead of the school assigned in K, then got the same school assigned again the next year, tried it, loved it. The consensus seems to be: most are happy with the school their kids go to, but find the lottery system stressful. Apparently it’s a work in progress. https://www.kqed.org/news/11641238/how-the-san-francisco-school-lottery-works-and-how-it-doesnt-2
Great Schools is financed by billionaires and it sells school data for a fee. It can boost ratings for some schools. Zillow uses data from Great Schools as a tool for red lining. See more in this post https://dianeravitch.net/2020/10/07/laura-chapman-greatschools-rating-system-is-funded-by-school-choice-billionaires/#comments
I realize this – I was not saying Great Schools was a good example of rating but rather a poor example (and a place, like the DC Urban Moms list serve) where families often go to for information
Great Schools recently revised its rating system. They claim they are trying to be fairer to diverse system. My former integrated school district went from an 7 to a 5 with their new algorithm, even though over 90% of the students go to two and four year colleges. I think their objective is to hustle students into charter schools.https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/9/24/21453357/greatschools-overhauls-ratings-reduce-link-race-poverty
This notes that 27 percent of D.C. children under age 5 are white. But as of just a few years ago, at least, only 10 percent of students in DCPS are white. So most white children in D.C. don’t attend public schools at all—private school choice, along with the choice to move out of the city, is mostly what’s driving segregation in DC.
But what’s the main driver behind choice options in lieu of public schools? Its a problem that can’t be solved unless directly addressed but the topic is now considered to be taboo! Nothing will encourage parents to leave the public schools more than the need to do what’s best for their children.
Is the topic now considered to be taboo? (Which of the topics?) I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Clearly the parents at this website feel free to vocalize their hunt for fewer minorities/ SpEd/ low-test-scorers.
A topic I consider under-discussed at the posted website & in general is disruption in the classroom – but perhaps ‘less SpEd’ is code for that. I also found it startling that small classroom size was toward the bottom of much-discussed issues.
I found this chart https://dcps.dc.gov/page/dcps-glance-enrollment showing that %white in DCPS has been steadily increasing from 10% in school year ’11-’12 to 16% last year. Still means 40% are moving to suburbs or going private when kids reach school age, but something is changing.
Or is it? The 27% white under-5yo # is current; we don’t know what it was for the previous 9 yrs. It could be that gentrification has increased the # of white under-5yo’s each year, & the 40% moving/ going private has stayed steady…
If NYC is any guide, and I think it is, the percentage of white students attending public schools is highest in the early elementary years, and ratchets down in middle school, and then down again in high school.
Yes that’s similar to DC – there are various reasons for this. As I mentioned in DC Public School they began free pre-K-3 to all parents. More parents of means (often white parents) will send their kids to elem school to save money on child care. Additionally parents think they can more easily supplement elementary school skills at home then middle and high school.
FLERP!, you’re reading of this situation is inaccurate. In the 2019-20 school year, 16% of DCPS students were white (https://dcps.dc.gov/page/dcps-glance-enrollment). The reality is that more white families are choosing DCPS, particularly in elementary schools. Part of this is due to the fact that DC offers FREE PreK-3 to ALL parents, which cuts down on the costs of daycare.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than …
http://www.dictionary.com › browse › all-animals-are-equal
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.”
Nations housing is segregated by class elites that use the power of government to decide who will not enroll in wealthy neighborhood “public” schools. There must be a more accurate word to use than “public” for publicly funded segregated schools nested in million dollar neighborhoods.
But aren’t you really objecting to housing policy? Why the decision to do nothing on housing but instead put the entire burden for “equity” on schools?
Sometimes the whole goal of ed reform seems to be to leave all the inequitable systems in place and not upset anyone who is wealthy or powerful by in any way affecting them, and just switch schools around.
I just can’t help but notice they chose the “lever” for equity that requires no change at all from the most wealthy and powerful.
So instead of putting low and middle income housing in wealthy neighborhoods we got rid of neighborhood schools? It’s such an elaborate workaround.
The answer Jim2812 is to reduce the dramatic inequalities of wealth and income. Billionaires should be subject to the 91% tax rate of the Eisenhower era. There should be no billionaires and no poverty. A person can be quite comfortable with “only” $999 million.
My surmise is that if George Floyd had lived in a comfortable home, had gone to good schools, had good medical care, and a sense of economic security, he might have been a doctor or a lawyer or an executive.
Dr. Ravitch – I agree with you we need to work on the wealth disparities and I also am fine with raising taxes on the rich. However, to say there should be “no billionares” to me becomes a bit draconian in nature…One of the great things about the US is the land of opportunity. There are many billionares, including one person you speak of often here due to his focus on education – Bill Gates, that has committed to giving away all of his wealth. Now, I know you may not like how he is spending it, but in many cases, including the COVID Vaccine, I am sure you’d say it was well spent. If we say No Bililonares, then that can open the other side to saying “Ok, then NO (insert group of people here)
I repeat: I believe that there should be no billionaires.
Google the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and see how you feel about Jeff Bezos having $180 billion while his many of his workers complain of inhumane working conditions.
You can disagree if you want. That’s my view.
No billionaires, no poverty.
Dr. Ravitch = you certainly have any right to your viewpoint. But your arguments don’t make sense. So, it’s okay for someone to have $999,999,999 but having 1,000,000,000 isn’t okay? As for Mr. Bezos, yes, I agree with you that profit should not drive all companies. I do wonder if you consider how many things we would not have without some Billionaires. I’ll take David Rubenstein as one example. Here is a list of ALL of the charities has has donated too, including places such as the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rubenstein#Philanthropy.
Do I think that capitalism can lead to greed? Of course. Do I think Bezos could afford to treat Amazon workers better. Yes. Do I think more money could be used in education. Absolutely. But I think we have to agree to disagree that we should wipe someone place caps on how much money someone has.
Whether you agree with me or not, I believe it corrupts society to have the top 50 people holding as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the population
Read “The Spirit Level.”
Reverting to Eisenhower era tax policy would do little to reduce the wealth of folks like Bezos. The long term capital gain tax rate was 25% in the Eisenhower era and is currently 20%. The 5% difference in capital gains taxes would of course reduce his wealth, but he would still be a billionaire many times over.
I hope we can think of a way to reduce Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and everyone else on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index to the relative penury of owning no more than $999 millions. I don’t know how, but that’s my hope.
My secular, humanist god, this is sophistry in its purest form: “So, it’s okay for someone to have $999,999,999 but having 1,000,000,000 isn’t okay?… I do wonder if you consider how many things we would not have without some Billionaires.” Using this individual’s, shall we call it “logic?”, there is not difference if one makes $1 a year or $10 million (billion? gazillion?). Any discernment of income levels, according to his, shall we call it “reasoning?”, is illegitimate. Does he have the capacity to understand the statement, I do wonder if you consider how many things we could have if we had fair progressive taxation and an engaged citizenry to influence and inform their representatives to do the right thing? And the “Billionaires” wisdom of societal rules and taste is quite a doozy. He must love what the Waltons, Gates, Hastings, and Arnold’s are contributing to our world.
Greg – I’m that individual. And I appreciate your twisting my words. As I noted in my post I do agree we should have fairer taxation rules and that those who make more money should pay more taxes. And yes if the system were different we most likely wouldn’t need those when money to pay for many of the items mentioned. That being said I live in reality. Not in a “let’s snap our fingers and make everything better” land.
I also don’t believe that just because someone is wealthy or of means means automatically they are unethical or immoral people.
I did not say that billionaires are necessarily unethical or immoral people. I wrote that no one should be allowed to have $1 billion in wealth.
Having a fairer income and wealth distribution would make us a better society.
Eliminating poverty would reduce crime, misery, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, and despair.
Read “The Spirit Level.”
Dr. Ravitch – I agree with everything that you have written about economic equity being important to eliminating many of the things that you have mentioned. My question though is HOW that is done in this nation besides just taking money from someone once they reach a certain level. Are we a nation that just takes from people just because they have money and means? That has happened in other communist counties, some which led to dictatorships. My mother and her family fled Cuba in part because the Castro government began to take over people’s homes and just take their property. I realize that this is not the same thing, but it creates a fine line in what is acceptable…
I think that the first steps are increasing taxes on the wealthy. That I do agree with. And I agree trickle down economics do not work. THAT said, I do think that in considering policies one must consider repercussions of those policies. For example, the move to require health care for anyone working 40 hours a week makes much sense and is something I agree with. However, what happened – businesses cut the hours of many workers to 30 hours (or less) a week to save on that cost. One may argue that is unethical (I probably world) but it’s still legal…Unless we begin by taking control of what businesses do…
There are multiple sides of freedom – one cannot have it both ways.
Dr. Ravitch,
I think the easiest way to prevent billionaires will be to prevent really valuable innovations. If some one develops a cure for cancer or a way to extend life to 200 years, we should, as a society, refuse to take advantage of it because the innovation would make the person too wealthy.
What has John Arnold contributed to society other than a war on public pensions? The Koch brothers? The Waltons? Bill Gates has messed up our nation’s schools with his dumb ideas. Government should support researchers, not billionaires.
The Gates foundation has contributed millions to fight diseases in Africa as well as work for the vaccine for COVID-19. I already stated the items David Rubinstein has helped pay for, including the Kennedy Ctr and PBS.
In any category of people one can say there are good people and not so good people. You said in a earlier post that you didn’t say all billionaires are immoral yet the only ones you cited here are ones that would be.
I’ve already stated numerous times that I believe higher taxes on the rich is something that should happen.
Not everyone agrees that Gates has made a significant contribution to public health.
He chooses winners, as in education, maximizes self-promotion, and he drowns out the voices of the scientists he did not pay.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/gates-covid-data-ihme/
This is from an article in the Lancent: “There are several big successes the Foundation can take credit for. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation, which received an initial gift from the Foundation of $750 million in 1999, has been its single most important contribution to global health so far. To that we would add the Foundation’s investment in the Seattle-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which, in its short life, has made a critical impact on international policy and thinking, acting as a valuable independent scientific monitor of global programmes in health.”
I will not disagree with you that the Gates Foundation has some concerns…But I guess my question is what is the trade off?
You did not read Tim
Schwab’s article about how Bill Gates has distorted public health by his habit of picking favorites.
Start here:
Dozens of research institutes have published educated guesses about what’s coming next, but none have had the impact or reach of the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
In the early days of the pandemic, the IHME projected a far less severe outbreak than other models, which drew the attention of Donald Trump, who was eager to downplay the danger. At a March 31 press briefing, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, Debbie Birx, with the president at her side, used IHME charts to show that the pandemic was rapidly winding down.
““Throughout April, millions of Americans were falsely led to believe that the epidemic would be over by June because of IHME’s projections,” the data scientist Youyang Gu noted in his review of the institute’s work. “I think that a lot of states reopened based on their modeling.”
Gates gave the IMHE $600 million, making them more powerful than WHO. Gates doesn’t control WHO. I prefer government research rather than vanity research funded by billionaires.
So as I’ve mentioned – there could be good and bad in the way the Gates Foundation has spent its money – my question to you is has the foundation done ANY good? And if you think so is that good not worth it?
Whatever Gates does is for self-glorification.
I prefer to see basic research in the hands of federally funded scientists, not glory seeking narcissists.
No, I can’t think of one positive result of the billions he’s spent to build his reputation as the world’s greatest expert in everything.
I am sure that many in Africa who received medical vaccines, clean drinking water or similar services from Gates Foundation funds would disagree with you
To teachingeconomist’s point, most likely without Mr Gates (or similar billionaires in the tech world we probably wouldn’t be able to communicate on a blog in this manner)
To another poster who noted the wealth difference between the top and the bottom has changed dramatically in the last 40 years. Some of that is not the fault of the billionaires. Costs for many things has increased dramatically since the 1970s. That said the costs of other things has decreased dramatically – consider who now has access to cell phones or technology now vs the 1970s?
I’m sure the billionaires are happy to have you defending their obscene wealth.
What have the Koch brothers done to deserve $150 billion?
What have the Waltons done for their $150 billion?
What billionaire created the Internet?
Dr. Ravitch – I’m going to go out and enjoy the beautiful area in my weather on this day. But I want to add a couple thoughts:
No where am I “defending billionaires’ OR the way they use their wealth. I have stated time and again that I do believe that there should be a higher tax rate.
You mention the Waltons – One can have different opinions about Wal Mart and their stores, however their stores do provide jobs for numerous people, don’t they? One can disagree with the way they have chosen to use their wealth – such as in the support of charter schools, but there are positives.
As for the billionaire who invented the internet – I can’t speak do that. what I can speak to is the computer that I am currently typing on and that many people type on are PC’s, which stem from Microsoft, which stems from the company Bill Gates started.
I don’t see the world in extremes…I see the world from a middle point of view. And I understand that is where we will disagree.
The Waltons oppose unions, which fight for good wages, pensions, and health benefits. The Waltons underpay their 1 million workers and advise them how to get welfare. The Walmart’s destroy small town Main Street and force the closure of family businesses. The Waltons pay millions every year to open charters and undermine public schools. The Waltons fight for privatization and profits. They are an object lesson in the scourge of billionaires.
Dr. Ravitch – fair points on the large company putting small town America out of work. But how much of that is a general evolution in businesses? Barnes and Noble and Borders Books overtook smaller independent bookshops. And then they were overtaken by Amazon…
I understand you may question the ethical aspect of the company or how they chose to spend their money. In citing these or other issues I’m not defending what they’ve done. Rather I’m stating that there is nothing illegal about what they have done.
I have shopped at Walmart. Twice. Never again. Their imports from China are cheap and shoddy.
jlsteach: you could have made the same arguments about benefits provided by our wealthiest back in the days when income distribution was very different, and you might have a point. In the ‘70‘s household incomes increased at the same rate across all classes. Today, the bottom 20% are barely above where they were in the late ‘70’s [purchasing power]. The median is about 30% higher. But the 95th percentile is over 80% higher. Today the richest 1% are close to surpassing the wealth of the middle and upper-middle classes combined: that is what’s meant by ‘too many billionaires.’ For another gauge: between 1978-2019, CEO compensation grew 1008%– compared to 12% for the average worker. There’s no defense for this.
” Are we a nation that just takes from people just because they have money and means? ”
Of course we are and have been since day one, as the Constitution makes clear:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes”
The only subject up for legitimate debate is the rate.
And bringing up communism is just a scare tactic.
SomeDAM Poet – have you read any of my other posts? I am guessing you didn’t. Because in those posts I have said and repeatedly said that I support a high tax rate for the rich (including billionaires). However, as many of us here know, and you would probably agree, the tax code needs a large amount of reform to really do that. Just setting the tax rate at 90% does not mean Bill Gates would owe 90% of his money made in a year to the government. One small example of a needed change – if a company loses money the owner can deduct the losses (that’s how President 45 skirted around paying taxes for many years). Yet if a family buys a house but is caught in bubble and loses money on their house they cannot deduct that loss.
Please read what people write instead of jumping to assumptions. As did the communism comment, why is it that you can’t appreciate someone else’s family history?
We could also introduce a wealth tax as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have proposed.
Jlsteach
Don’t like getting called on precisely the words you used, eh?
You poor dear.
I have no problem getting called out. They being said SomeDamPoet did you read all of the words I posted, on only the ones you chose to read (or not read)?
Diane
As I am sure you are well aware.
The internet is an outgrowth of the ARPANET, a US military project funded with US tax dollars.
Billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs simply hitched a free ride on the information superhighway.
And Bezos is also hitching a ride on the real highways and roads to deliver his packages, highways that were also paid for with public tax dollars.
SomeDAM Poet – As I’m sure you’re aware…Steve Jobs worked on creating the Apple computer in the 1970s and Bill Gates worked out n the PC around the same time. So to claim either one “rode the internet” isn’t accurate.
jlsteach,
The people who are responsible for inventing things are rarely the ones who become billionaires because of it. The scientists who discover cures for cancer aren’t the billionaires.
So if we got rid of billionaires, the only thing that would happen is that the people who have no compunction from benefitting from other people’s work will not get rich, and maybe the scientists and doctors and researchers and engineers would make more money than they do now (but still won’t be billionaires).
Okay let’s take your logic a little bit with the COVID vaccines that were just produced. The head of Moderna is worth 4.3 billion. Do you think that some of that wealth helped in the production of the vaccine? I understand the scientists who directly created the vaccine will not benefit from their creation. But do you think there were any positives involved that the owner was a billionaire?
As I’ve repeatedly said in my posts I agree many of you about the need for wealth equality. And i think lowering loopholes on taxes for the uber-wealthy is a start. What I’m not willing to say but clearly others will say is “all billionaires are bad”
All billionaires are not bad.
It’s bad for society to have any billionaires.
I appreciate you saying all billionaires are not bad…I believe that it’s bad to have such wealth disparity (that I’ve stated time and again). However I won’t go so far to say billionaires are bad for society. Guess we will have to disagree.
I’ll answer that.
No.
There are many ways to recapture wealth that is currently taxed too low. Why even look at income tax?
One of the most obvious: crack down on offshore tax havens for individuals and corporations. $Trillions in assets stored there, over a $half billion in tax revenue lost annually.
Require capital gains tax to be paid yearly as accrued instead of only when sold. The wealthy can hold their stock indefinitely and borrow against it for cash needs at a tiny fraction of the amount the stock is appreciating. If this seems too draconian, in view of 401(k)s having replaced pensions, allow the first x $millions to be sheltered from those rules. Don’t allow the lifetime gain to be erased if held until death then passed on to heirs—and beef up that estate tax [Trump’s 2017 law just doubled the shelter from $11 to $22million].
Wages vs investments: why should this be allowed?: Bezos’ self-assigned salary is only $82k. It’s subject to nearly 37% in income tax (in his bracket), plus 7.65% soc sec & medicare, like any schmo’s income. Everything else is investment of one kind or another. Dividends and long-term gains taxed at 20% max, with nothing towards Social Security and Medicare.
Fix this: rental properties depreciate for tax purposes, but not in real life. Again, you don’t have to apply the rule to live-in owners of a 2 (to 6) family home, or even to owners of a small # of bldgs.
Close the “like-kind exchange” loophole entirely: it’s still in effect for RE investment property. you can keep selling-replacing for a lifetime without paying a cent on the gain for any of the sales [& then pass free to heirs per above].
How about the ludicrous break for investing in “small” startups? Heck, most truly small startups are pass-through businesses, not corporations, and don’t even qualify!
Jlsteach: just a couple more details.
RE: your examples of Borders & B&N taking over small bookstores [&, you forgot, used-book stores], then being swallowed by Amazon… being legal. That goes back to an acctg reg changed in ‘80’s making it impossible for any bookstore to afford keeping remainders/ small titles in inventory. Overnight, new book prices quadrupled, and esoteric stuff (like poetry) couldn’t even get published. So yeah it’s legal—but to what end? Ans: squeezing out tax support of public goods.
As to “another poster [me] who noted the wealth difference between the top and the bottom has changed dramatically in the last 40 yts… Cost for many things has increased dramatically since the 1970s… cost of other things has decreased dramatically – consider who now has access to cell phones or technology now vs the 1970s?” Let’s get real. I’ll just give you house, and college tuition for one kid.
In the late-‘60’s a very nice house—the kind my dad custom-built for college professors– cost $40k; their annual household inc was about $18k. So house was roughly 2-1/2 yrs’ salary. Our household inc was more like $15k. I was attending an Ivy League, which (after NYS Regt Schol—bringing it down to state coll price) cost my parents $2500/yr incl rm&bd. So college for 1 child was roughly 16% of 1 yr’s salary.
Today, median salary is $69k, and median house price is $270k, so 4 yrs’ salary [40% higher]. Median public college cost is $21k or 30% of a yr’s salary [nearly double]. And I haven’t touched on cost of healthcare, which has tripled in those years, current range is 10-20% of household budget.
The fact that we can get cheap China-made clothing, household appliances & tech now just helps us keep heads above water.
Here’s the thing bethree5, I’m not arguing with anything you’re saying…I’ve seen those same trends. I noticed that the university I went to (not Ivy League but within the top 10 nationally on a regular basis) has had tuition nearly triple since I attended in the 1990s.
In all of my posts I’ve never said we don’t have a wealth inequality in this country. I’ve also never said that we shouldn’t find ways to close loopholes so that rich people pay more taxes. What I have said is that I think it’s dangerous to say “no billionaires should exist”
If you’re going to use the fact that companies have relied on China for technology, etc I am wondering how many things in your life right now you would have to go without because they were made or had a part made in China. Is that the billionaires fault or rather a trend that has happened across the US with all companies?
“Bill Gates worked out n the PC around the same time. So to claim either one “rode the internet” isn’t accurate.”
jlsteach doesn’t seem to know anything about Bill Gates. Giving him credit because he bought sopmeone else’s idea for cheap and resold it and sayig that if we didn’t have Bill Gates, the people would not have ideas is kind of ridiculous.
The Curies didn’t do research only if they could become the world’s wealthiest scientist. Jonas Salk didn’t go on strike and say “I’m not working for one cent less than ten million a year. But you think our country would be worse off without greedy businessmen who are easily replaced. I can find 10 qualified people willing to accept a salary of $5 million a year to do what any CEO does and be just as good at it.
The real treasures that are irreplaceable are the brilliant scientists and engineers and inventors who didn’t do it for money and the notion that the people who monetized their ideas for their own benefit are the ones we should be grateful to,not the scientists, is absurd. Without the people who did NOT become billionaires, there would be no internet. Or computers. Or cures for cancer. Period.
Without we the people – taxpayers – funding the internet, there would be no billionaires who profited from it.
NYC public school parents – way to twist words! No I never said our country would be better off with billionaires replacing scientists – if I did please show me where I said that exactly. I agree we need more scientists, etc
What I disagree with you on is that all billionaires (including Mr. Gates) are bad. You say his taking an idea and then copying snd profiting off of it is a bad thing, I’d argue that it takes some smarts to figure out how to create the PC. I know I couldn’t do it – could you?
I wish that people would stop jumping to conclusions…if anything (bringing this back to the original post about the DC urban moms list serve), interactions like this show the negatives of these I list serve back and forth – words can get twisted, misused and misconstrued
Jlsteach
I said nothing about Gates riding the internet. Nothing. Where you got that is anyone’s guess.
And Steve Jobs certainly did ride the internet … All the way to the bank.
His iPod was a multibillion dollar boon that saved Apple purely because of the internet. The iPod and the whole iTunes business model upon which it was based would not have existed without the internet.
The fact that you did not know that does not speak particularly highly of your knowledge of the relevant history.
And Bill Gates is a whole other ball of wax. Don’t even get me going on him.
SomeDAMPoet – As you and I both know, Gates and Jobs both began and had their initial success with computers way before the rise of the internet or even high speed internet.
As I said in my other post – love how this format of interchange leads to words being twisted.
Because you obviously have never heard of it, Id suggest you do an internet search for “iPod”.
That’s “iPod”, not “iPad”.
“Because you obviously have never heard of it” – ah yes is the exact type of insults that have been exchanged on the DC Urban Moms blog when discussing schools.
Such a great way to bring people together instead of tearing them apart
I would have said “Google” iPod.
But I couldn’t be sure you would know what that meant.
The irony is that YOU are the one twisting words here.
And you can dish out the criticisms but can’t take them.
You poor poor dear.
More insults. Is this the way you interact with anyone who disagrees with you?
jslteach,
You are the one twisting words. I did not say billionaires were bad. I said that there would be people who would do the same thing as they do who would do it if they “only” had 999 million dollars and not one billion. You are the one who thinks Bill Gates would have done nothing if he only earned 999 million because you seem to think Gates is far more greedy and self-serving than the scientists, engineers and inventors whose inventions made him rich. Gates didn’t design the operating system that made him rich — he bought it from someone and made business deals to sell computers with it.
The people who are irreplaceable are the ones who invent things, not the ones who say 999 million isn’t enough to fulfill my greed.
NYC public school parent – I didn’t say YOU said billionaires are bad. I said the sentiment has been expressed in this post multiple times. As for Gates, when did I say he would have done nothing if he only earned 999 million.
Let’s get back to the point of this post – which was about a blog that focused on comments that segregate schools.
That’s the main point.
The overwhelming majority of billionaires who have taken an interest in education are paying to privatize it. That is evil.
Bill Gates, Reed Hastings, Betsy DeVos, Charles Koch, Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, the Waltons. Why don’t they demand higher taxes on themselves to pay for healthcare for all?
What Bill Gates does is NOT irreplaceable. Ergo it is not necessary to pay people billions of dollars to do it. What scientists and researchers who invent cures for cancer and work on the technology that gave us the internet do IS valuable. And they don’t demand billions to do it.
You are right that there needs to be an honest and truthful discussion about school choice, but since those billionaires have power and have spent enormous amounts of money pushing false narratives (including about how African American children thrive because they need the harshest no excuses discipline), addressing the problems of segregated schools is near impossible.
When greedy billionaires who think their money makes them knowledgeable about K-12 education stop using their vast wealth to buy politicians to enact the policies that benefit their own personal agenda, things will be better. Do you agree?
Warren Buffett, as far as I can tell, never tried to use his billions to influence local, state or federal governments to use public tax dollars to pay for the types of schools he decided that poor non-white kids deserved.
If Bill Gates had used his money to establish schools that were just like the ones je sent his own cildren to, that would make sense. But since he decided that he benefitted more by amassing more weath to insure that other people’s children didn’t have that kind of education, he is the problem, not the solution.
Billionaires don’t solve problems and never have. Gates’ so-called “charity” has always been about himself first, and helping other people only as much as it makes him look good or keeps their taxes low or pursues whatever agenda he is certain his brilliant mind has decided is the “right” one. And people who amass great amounts of wealth because of their innate greed and willingness to screw over other people (see Gates, Trump, Zuckerberg) are not the people who should be given great power to decide how American education works.
Many brilliant people could amass more wealth if they were ruthless and cared only about amassing more wealth. It isn’t a coincidence. No one becomes super wealthy without rationalizing all the people they stepped on along the way.
Maybe if IBM or Bell Labs had been run by more ruthless, money-hungry, greedy CEOs, there would be no Apple or Microsoft.
NYC PS Parent – Let’s go back to all of my post and examine a few things:
I have stated time and again that we do need to have those with more money pay higher taxes, and as one person pointed out, that includes eliminating loopholes. I agree we have a huge wealth disparity in this country.
My issue came when Dr. Ravitch stated we should have “no billionaires” – while I agree with the need to lessen the wealth inequality in this country, I don’t believe that we should just TAKE money from someone “just because”
You mentioned Warren Buffett – he is a billionaire right? And as you said, he doesn’t seem to have influenced or gotten involved politically, etc. But just because he is a billionaire, should we take his money. He, Gates and others have pledged to donate 90% of their wealth to charitable purposes (I believe that is the case, I am not 100% sure), Now you may not agree with the causes they are supporting – and that’s your right to do so, but they still are giving away the majority of funding.
I am wondering if you think there are Billionaires on the left – the answer to that is yes – look at George Soros. He has wealth of more than 32 billion and is the founder of the Open Society Foundations, etc. Are you okay with how he spends his money? He is a billionaire too right? Or is it that you only dislike billionaires that spend money on things you disagree with?
As for billionaires pushing the narrative about no-nonsense schools (perhaps being an NYC parent you are referring to Success Academy) – I agree with you that the idea of no-nonsense schools is not a good idea, and that anyone on either side should examine them more carefully. As for billionaires being involved in education – I am sure we will disagree on this, but I think that some push for common standards nationally (aka Common Core SS) was a good thing – is it fair that kids in NYC would have different standards for math or English than kids in South Carolina or kids in Iowa, etc. Sadly our Founding Fathers didn’t fathom a nation where education would be such a vital role, so they left that to the states to decide (thus the lack of a National Curriculum in the US)
What I have found interesting in ALL of the back and forth is that because a person raises a point about someone they are suddenly attacked as if you know all about what I believe or don’t believe. When in reality, even if you were to search and find information on the internet about me, you still would have no idea what I think about in terms of education simply because I raised one counterpoint. Talk about jumping to conclusions….
Bill Gates gives what he can control.
I am okay with George Soros having only 999 million to support his Open Society Foundation.
I don’t want to get into a back and forth about the policies that would lead to “no billionaires”. It is possible that someone could still amass over one billion with high marginal tax rates and a wealth tax, but not only would it be more difficult, if we had high estate tax rates (as they were in the 1950s and 60s and 70s), it would be taxed properly eventually.
The Vanderbilts, Mellons and Morgan progeny did not continue to amass wealth and influence over generations. But the Koch and Walton families did. There was a time when anti-trust legislation prevented this country from turning into the morass that leads to fascism (as it did in Nazi Germany).
There is a difference between using your wealth to build museums, parks, or research institutions, and using it to buy politicians and have public policy that reflects your personal desires for how taxpayer dollars are spent.
I believe that you should do a little bit of history reading about the Vanderbilts and the Morgans and they way they earned their wealth. They were as ruthless as you claim Gates and others to be…And the point about Soros is exactly my point – you won’t say no billionaires, but rather will say “if the billionaires support my causes, I am good with that”
I hope you have a good rest of the day – and I noticed as often is the case you chose to not focus on any of the things we may have had in common the post, but only narrowly chose to focus on one or two items.
Soros doesn’t try to destroy public education. He’s a good man. He believes in democracy. Unusual for a billionaire.
I never said that the Vanderbilts and Mellons and Morgans weren’t ruthless. Please stop.
I pointed out that unless the ruthlessness of billionaires is limited by a democratic government, they will continue to be ruthless to use that government (and the money that the rest of us pay as taxes) for their own agenda.
Nothing wrong with being rich. Nothing wrong with being very rich. There IS something wrong with letting the very rich accumulate so much wealth that they essentially make public policy in a democracy and their own desires thwart what the vast majority of Americans want.
The vast majority of Americans want Social Security. They want Medicare. Those programs would have never happened if the oligarchs had as much influence over public policy in the 1930s – 1970s as they do now.
The study was introduced, “In recent years, new attention has been brought to the role that upper-middle-class white parents living in diverse metropolitan areas have played in reinforcing segregation in their local school systems. The demographics of a school’s student population, particularly the racial and economic status of students, strongly influence parents’ perceptions of school quality.”
Denying the existence of racial bias in our country is dangerous folly. Instituting school segregation takes many forms, and is abetted by competition among schools for students to stay open. It takes the form of privatization, and it takes the form of tracking. One will never understand why that is so before recognizing that every adult person has biases, even parents. Segregation sells. Everywhere. That is why it is the responsibility of government to prevent competition for students to allow civil rights to prevail.
I agree housing segregation are linked to school segregation that was found to do harm to Black students and basis of Supreme Court decision in 54 segregation is illegal and 55 decision locals must enforce desegregation with all deliberate speed. School boards except a few districts are doing nothing. Parent choice is eye wash that desegregation by class and race is being implemented. Parent choice is the choice to segregate.
It only makes sense, right jim2812?
The last time we had a serious effort to desegregate schools (and put some brakes on, or at least highlight the shenanigans behind segregated housing) was in the heyday of the post-WWII economy [‘50’s-‘60’s]. A magnanimous sense of ‘share the wealth.’
Once the dislocation of automation/ digital revolution/ globalization set in [late ‘70’s], we got a 180 in short order. ‘Parent choice to segregate’ is all about grabbing my piece of the shrinking pie and hey he’s taking something off my plate.
Exacerbated by govt response to that triple-threat– dereg toward laissez-faire capitalism– which shrunk the pie super-fast for middle/ wkg classes while trickling assets to the top—who can buy their own ‘public goods’ & now have $clout to set policy—hence policy that sets the middle/wkg classes fighting over the scraps via ‘choice’ [privatization].
The obsession with standardized testing never quits…even when students have been at home for a year.
What is known about this? THANKS Janet FastBridge by Illuminate Education and Reading Inventory by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 8:01 AM Diane Ravitch’s blog wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: ” The Brookings Institution published a study of the > D.C. school system, which is almost evenly divided between public schools > and charter schools. It was written by three scholars: Vanessa Williamson, > Brookings Institution; Jackson Gode, Brookings Ins” >
I might have developed an opinion that there are two distinct kinds of charter schools, an opinion which might be off base. If my opinion seems wrong, I would be glad to have it challenged, and I would seek truth which could mean changing my opinion. The two distinct kinds of charter schools are those which offer slightly superior education, through careful selection of which students they are willing to accept, and not accep, and other techniques which get them in the direction of where they want to be. (I noticed KIPP in St. Louis had a 15 member board, of which 13 members were from the banking industry). The other charters are in it for the monetary success…..they hire fewer teachers, at lower prices, and do not care much about the results—-and sometimes go out of business when their techniques no longer produce monetary success. I have found it hard to study exactly what has happened with charters which go out of business after 5 or 6 years. Am I completely out of the ball park regarding what I seem to have been witnessing? I consider charter schools uniquely dangerous to public education in a variety of ways…and I find it difficult to hear about genuine public schools which are pretty much doing what charters are doing. I am not, however a fan of choice.
Joe: My view there is only one type of charter school that undermines public schools: pritvarely managed charter schools.
I am dismayed as how often “privately managed” charter schools are referred to as “public” charter schools, which I feel is a misleading term that many charter school advocate try to use to distract the public from learning that enrolling a student in a public charter is undermining and de-funding public schools in most states that legislatures have passed charter law.
While public schools and privately managed charter schools are taxpayer government funded, government funding does not a charter school a public school make, as one school is publicly managed and the other privately managed.
In court, judges have treated charter schools not the same as public schools; distinguishing between public schools as “government agencies. And charter schools in Court are treated as separate and independent from government agency that chartered them. They are treated as privately managed.
Outcome in Court of judges ruling there being differences between public schools and privately managed charter schools is that workers, students, and parents of privately managed charter schools have fewer rights in a court of law than public school workers. students and parents.
That may be but one reason advocates try to misrepresent privately managed charter schools to the public as “public charters.
Another reason may be, that if the public notices there is differences between public schools and public charter schools they might start to realize taxpayers are paying for two public funded public school systems to compete for enrollment. Danger to interest of charter school advocates is and the public might question what does adding a second publicly funded public charter system cost the taxpayers?
Taxpayers might understand that two publicly funded system that compete for enrollment will fund the competition by re-allocating taxpayers’ dollars for education to paying for advertising the public charter school brand. And the public schools will feel the same pressure to divert education dollars for students to funding the school’s brand.
Keeping the word “public” associated with privately managed charter schools has been successful in the sense the public is not noticing the cost of funding the public choice of two education systems is wasteful of taxpayers educational dollars.
And as to charter advocates propaganda claim, that adding a competing privately managed charter school education system would improve both competing systems, there is no evidence that both education systems have been improved by State Legislature decisions to introduce a second competing taxpayer funded education system.
But there is lots of evidence that state legislatures adding competing privately managed education system is diverting education tax dollars from educating students to selling both brands as the right choice.
I have always thought the only way to break through the disingenuous “school choice” propaganda is to show taxpayers exactly what this ideology is taking from their pockets.
We have spent a lot of effort publicizing studies that illustrate how little (if anything) charters of any stripe achieve educationally, compared to traditional publics. That doesn’t really do it. Public is OK with that. What’s needed is a clear-cut display of the excess monies spent on running dual systems. That’s hard to do in states with widespread charters because frankly state govt actors are bought & paid for by charter lobbyists/ campaign-coffer-stuffers [in some states, Dept of Ed folks have relatives who run charter chains or even run them themselves!]—in those states the stats are especially hard to get a grip on.
I was happy to read Diane’s 3/31 post “How Students Pay for Corporate Tax Abatements,” which linked Good Jobs First’s report called “Abating our future: how students pay for corporate tax breaks.” This is the sort of thing that will get us there. As well as NPE’s excellent reports on the profligate waste of fed charter grants.
bethree5: I believe in communicating to the public how expensive it is for government taxpayers to continue fund two competing K-12 education systems.
The high cost to taxpayers of “school choice” competition between a publicly managed public school system and a privately managed charter school system has little public knowledge and understanding. A reason the public little understands that public charter schools and public schools are not the same and they are competitors for student enrollment.
Cleverly the word “public” as in public charter is a charter propaganda strategy that keeps public from understanding that public schools and charter schools are not the same as one is public school publicly managed and the other is a privately managed charter in a market competition to enroll students.
Charter advocates reform propaganda promised that competition from privately managed charter schools would make both education systems better.
Over 20-years of implement market competition between public schools and their privately managed charter school has not delivered on its advocates promised parent choice and two systems competing for enrollment of students would bring improvement to both systems.
Instead of higher test scores, private management competition managed to only lower the amount of taxpayer taxes that supported student learning in both education systems. Root of less taxpayer funding paying for education of students in both systems is both competitors reacted to the competition for enrolling students by adjusting their taxpayer funded budgets to replace instruction costs with public relations cost as well as costs of legal struggles with the competing education system. Competition has met de-funding of public and charter school budgets.
Instead of charter school privatizing competition creating win win outcome that charter propaganda had promised, legislator reforming public education by adding privately managed publicly funded charter school reform created unintended lose lose outcome.
Bethree5, thanks for getting us back in topic. The only thing is that the original post, and the DC Urban Moms list serve isn’t just about charter schools as a choice. As I noted, DC has a city wide lottery – anyone can put down their top choices for schools and then hope they get in. That said there are MANY things wrong with this system, starting with kids in zoned areas get first priority on schools. So wealthier families move into better school areas and fill all of the spots, etc
What the study does show are many things: 1. That second hand rumors among parents often drive school decisions as much or more) than facts, 2. That these types of discussions perpetuate the segregated school system in the DC area (as well as most likely across the nation in similar cities).
The challenge with education is that in the end each parents will look out for their children first regardless of how it impacts others.
I came across this awesome commentary in a San Antonio paper from the associate director of Texas Pastors for Children.
What’s the end game with school choice?
https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/commentary/amp/Commentary-With-school-choice-what-s-the-end-16073608.php
Excellent link! Thanks.