By Josh Kraushaar
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
For progressives, the buzzy phrase of the moment is
income inequality. President Obama plans to make it the focus of his upcoming
State of the Union address after sermonizing about the issue in December. New
York City Mayor Bill de Blasio made it the centerpiece of his campaign and the
theme of his inauguration ceremony. Freshman Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth
Warren gained national celebrity because of her outspoken criticism of moneyed
interests.
But as these politicians are invoking the issue for
political gain, they're avoiding one prescription that has proven to be a
time-tested path to economic mobility—increasing access to quality education.
When progressives discuss education, it frequently leads to the demand part of
the equation. De Blasio proposed offering universal pre-K and after-school to
city residents, while Obama has made it easier for students to obtain grants
and loans to tackle the skyrocketing cost of a college education.
Left unmentioned are the efforts on the supply
side—expanding school choice, improving teacher quality, and strengthening
curriculum. In most poor, city neighborhoods, students are locked into failing
schools, with few options for parents to turn to. Unions are invested in
protecting an educational monopoly, fearing that increased competition could
drag down salaries and threaten employment for less-than-qualified teachers. At
the college level, one major culprit for rising tuition is that government is
aggressively subsidizing tuition costs—spurring inflation—without demanding accountability
from the universities benefiting. As the bar to attending a four-year college
has been lowered, fewer students are graduating and more are exiting with
calamitous debt, degree or no degree.
The victims of this bubble are the students. Politicians
benefit from feel-good rhetoric, administrators see a steady flow of money
filling their coffers, and teachers can rest assured their jobs are protected
regardless of their abilities in the classroom. All the pre-K and low-interest
tuition loans in the world won't matter if the education being provided is
substandard.
Yet, those railing against economic inequality are doing
very little to offer an educational pathway for children to rise out of
poverty. De Blasio has declared war against charter schools in New York City,
proposing to stunt their growth in the city by threatening to stop offering
them free rent. More brazenly, the Obama Justice Department filed a lawsuit
against a Louisiana program designed to allow poor students to pick
alternatives to their failing public schools. It's on par with the
administration's hostility to school choice: One of the first moves the Obama
administration made was trying to shut down the popular D.C. Opportunity
Scholarship Program, providing vouchers to city students to attend private
schools.
Last April, my colleague Adam Kushner documented the
remarkable turnaround New Orleans public schools are experiencing, thanks to a
wave of educational reforms introduced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The
city laid off most of its public school teaching workforce, liberally issued
charter school licenses, and demanded accountability from its students. In a
system that's 95 percent black and with 92 percent of students getting free or
reduced lunches, the passing rate on state tests nearly doubled and the
graduation rate is now higher than the national average.
Such reforms aren't a panacea for the numerous challenges
facing impoverished Americans. As Kushner wrote, the New Orleans school system
has gone from a "state of crisis to a state of mediocrity, which counts as
a miracle here." For every successful KIPP college-prep charter school in
the city, there's another charter school that's flailing down the road. But the
successes clearly demonstrate a pathway for success—one that holds a much better
track record than simply spending more money without setting necessary
benchmarks.
Despite de Blasio's hostility to education reform, it has
become something of a necessity for Democratic mayors across the country. Many
cities, like Washington, are experiencing an economic and cultural renaissance
thanks to an influx of young professionals eager to tap into their vibrant
environment. But without an adequate public school system, many families will
move out when they have school-age kids. Many of the party's leading mayors,
from Chicago's Rahm Emanuel to Michael Nutter in Philadelphia, have been
charter-school boosters. Former Newark Mayor Cory Booker, now New Jersey's
junior senator, has even backed vouchers for private and parochial education.
It's telling that the first big pitch from the Obama
administration and down-ballot Democratic candidates in 2014 is a push for
raising the minimum wage—an issue that's famous for its political value but
offers little in the way of economic benefit. (Two experts on the subject argue
it helps low-skilled workers who keep their jobs at the expense of others
looking for work.) By contrast, education reform is one of the rare issues that
could unite a cross-section of Republicans and Democrats. It would allow the
president to build a bipartisan alliance while tackling his signature pitch on
income inequality.
In reality, the White House's rhetoric about income
inequality is as much about politics as policy. Obama unveiled his first speech
on the subject during the 2012 campaign—long after the Occupy Wall Street
movement sprang up on the left—as a way to hit Mitt Romney for his plutocratic
background. "The themes he laid out were tailor-made for a campaign,"
authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann wrote in their campaign opus Double
Down. Indeed, Obama rarely promotes his administration's Race to the Top
initiative incentivizing states to raise educational standards—he devoted just
one sentence to it in his income inequality speech—because the program irks the
party's teachers-union allies.
The tougher challenge is to advance policies that address
a major reason behind the growing educational gap—the fact that poorer children
aren't afforded the same educational opportunities as wealthier ones. There's a
path to closing the gap, focused more on increasing opportunity than equalizing
outcomes. But it means the president and his progressive allies will have to
make decisions to move beyond speeches and the minimum wage.
No comments:
Post a Comment