Educating Ourselves on Education

I've been wondering: is discernment possible without examining evidence?

When we repeat unfounded, unfactual ideas, who pays the price?

A few weeks ago I helped buy back-to-school supplies for some children I know who live in one of Pennsylvania’s poorest neighborhoods.

The supply list sent home included the obvious school items: pens, pencils, paper, but also paper towels and Kleenex. 

Can more money fix America's schools? NPR, April 25, 2016

Weird, right?

Unless you know that in some schools even simple necessities like those are not available if teachers or parents don't supply them. 

A day or two later I had dinner with an acquaintance who spoke with passion about the money wasted by the Philadelphia schools.

“We keep pouring money into that system and it just disappears.”

Sometimes I bite my tongue.

But if votes are decided and policy put in place on the basis of generalized nonsense, inequity continues.

And grows.

And swallows whole communities.

Per pupil spending in Philadelphia is far less than in the school district my acquaintance’s children attended.

About half as much, in fact.

Apparently high-end wireless microphones for school plays for wealthy children are justifiable expenses, while school libraries and computers for poor children are not.

I’ve written before about Pennsylvania’s inadequate and inequitable school funding.

But the narrative of school failure continues, fed by politicians eager to privatize education. According to a video on Donald Trump’s Issues Page:  

We are rated 28 in the world, the United States, think of it – 28 in the world, and frankly we spend far more per pupil than any other country in the world by far it’s not even a close second.   So here we are, we spend more money and we are rated 28. Third world countries are ahead of us.   We spend far more per pupil than any other country in the world. By far. And if you look at education. Out of thirty countries. We’re last. We’re like 30th. We’re last. So we’re last in education.

Aside from the general incoherence of his statements, there's also a question of fact.

No, we’re not 28. Or 30. Or "last." 

And we don’t spend far more per pupil than any other country.

By one international standard, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), American kids rank 7th out of 42 countries.

On the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, America’s public school students rank 6^th out of 53 systems tested.

On the most widely used, the Program for International Student Assessment, (PISA) 15-year-olds in 65 countries are tested in math, science, and reading. In 2012, the last available year, the US ranked 35th in math, 27th in science, and 24th in reading.

 

PISA Scores 2012, OECD, focus added by Business Insider, June 6 2015

So, it’s true that American students are not doing as well as we might like. 

But it’s not true that we spend far more than other nations. On per-student spending, the US average was $11,732 per full-time student in 2012 – behind Switzerland ($15,512), Norway ($13,611) and Austria ($12,164).  

Given differences in cost of living, a better comparison might be percent of GDP invested in education. By that measure, the U.S., at 3.6%, doesn’t make it onto the list of top 25 countries.

Trump’s conclusion that school choice would improve scores is contradicted by the statistics: nations with top results have strong, centrally-administered public school systems; consistent, equitable funding; focused attention on pre-K preparation for low-income, at-risk students; high public respect for teachers and schools.

For anyone really interested in understanding the numbers, it’s a complicated story.  But the question of which school systems waste money is far simpler to address for anyone who has even a small interest in the truth. The Commonwealth Foundation offers a website that allows comparison of districts on per pupil spending, money allocated for classroom attendance, special education and more. Here's how Philadelphia and neighboring Lower Merion compare. I've added Reading - one of the most underfunded districts in the country.

A quick interpretation: Lower Merion spends more than twice as much on its students, but a smaller percentage is spent on instruction. In other word, Philly and Reading are putting a higher share of their dollars into the classroom and doing their best to educate high needs children with less than half the funds. 

  

To put that spending in context: Philadelphia has the highest number of people living in “deep poverty” of any large city in the U.S. In 2015, the threshold for deep poverty was an annual cash income of less than $5,885 for an individual, $7,965 for a single-parent with one child, or $12,125 for a married couple with two kids. Nationally, one in ten children is now living in deep poverty. In Philly, that number is closer to one in four.  

People in deep poverty tend to be transient, living with friends, sometimes sleeping on the floor in a relative’s apartment. They frequently struggle with mental illness. Illiteracy is often a factor. Add in food insecurity. Inadequate child care.

Children in poverty, in addition to unstable home arrangements, often experience trauma from exposure to violence and crime. They are less likely to attend preschool, less likely to be exposed to books, games and enriching experiences in the home or local community. They start school less prepared than their wealthier peers, in systems less able to offer extra help or support.

On Tuesday, our state Supreme Court will hear a two-year-old lawsuit about school funding inequities. Six school districts, seven parents, and two advocacy organizations will again call attention to the vast disparities in resources among Pennsylvania’s schools. The suit describes Pennsylvania educational system as “the nation’s most inequitable and irrational,” with “’gross disparities’ in per-student funding”: 

the Commonwealth’s total investment in a child’s education can range from as little as $9,800 per student in low-wealth school districts to more than $28,400 per student in high-wealth districts. Those disparities exist not because highwealth districts have chosen to invest more in education; low-wealth districts often have property tax rates far higher than wealthier districts.

Nor are those disparities the result of differences in student need; students in lowwealth districts have needs that warrant more, not less, funding. Rather, the disparities exist because the structure of Pennsylvania’s funding scheme prevents low-wealth districts from ever closing the funding gap. 

I’ve heard, more times than I can count, that “throwing money at it” won’t solve the education problem.

There’s a difference between throwing money and investing wisely.  “Investing” is what we call it when we’re thinking of the future. “Throwing money” is what we call it when we simply don’t care.

Does money make a difference?

When you really consider, it seems a ridiculous question. 

Put it another way: 

Should low income children be provided high quality preschool? 

Yes.

Certainly affluent parents who invest in preschool for their children must see some benefit. The benefit is even greater for children who grow up in households without books, games, educational toys, without educated adults with time and ability to to read and play and teach.

Are smaller classrooms and better-trained teachers helpful?

Yes.

Small class sizes allow more individual attention, more help to students who need it. Put thirty already-behind kindergarteners kids in a room with no aides and no parent volunteers and they’ll be further behind by the end of the year. Every time.

And the more difficult the neighborhood, the more essential that teachers are experienced and well-trained. Too often the schools where excellent teachers are needed most are the schools that can least afford them.

What about money for school libraries? 

Yes. How will kids with little access to books develop a love of reading?

School nurses and therapists? Of course. Have you ever watched a child in pain, emotional or physical, struggle to focus or stay on task? 

When I dig into numbers, looking for evidence of waste, I see two things:

A pension problem primarily caused by legislators who undercut investment and now are reaping the fruit of that decision: “[i]n reality, based on actuarial need, the state continually hasn't kicked in enough money to cover its growing debt, the single biggest reason for the dire straits the state now faces.” 

The other major money drain is one Donald Trump has promised to expand: funds shifted from public schools to for-profit corporations through loosely regulated charter school schemes. The school where he chose to speak about education last week was a publicly funded, for-profit charter school that received an F on recent evaluations, compared to the surrounding school district, which received a C.

While public schools on average spend more money on instruction, charter schools spend more on administrative costs: high executive salaries and undisclosed profits.

This is true in Ohio, where Trump made his "school choice" speech. And in Pennsylvania, where 

inadequate oversight and a lax law have allowed a significant number of bad players to siphon millions of taxpayer dollars into their pockets, at the expense of Pennsylvania’s public school children.• Nick Trombetta, founder of the state’s largest cyber charter school (PA Cyber) has been indicted on multiple charges and is accused of siphoning more than $8 million from the school.• June Brown went on trial for allegedly defrauding the 4 Philadelphia charter schools that she founded of $6.7 million.• Recently the eighth Philadelphia charter school official pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges. 

Charter management organizations are permitted to spend unlimited taxpayer dollars on advertising, political lobbying, 7-figure CEO salaries and other expenses that are unrelated to educating children. 

I would love to see every child in our state and in our country attend a clean, safe, well-resourced school.

I can’ t make it happen.

What I can do:

• Refuse to vote for legislators who villainize teachers and public education or who offer privatized “choice” as a solution to “wasted money.”
• Push back – gently and politely – when people I know suggest we’re “pouring money away” in funding urban schools.
• Applaud organizations working to inform voters and advocate for adequate, equitable funding. 
• Pray for sight for the politically blind, wisdom for the willfully foolish and justice for those who without it will never reach their potential or find a way to flourish.

This post is part of a series on What's Your Platform 

Beyond the Party Platform July 24, 2016

A Different Way July 31, 2016 

Election Fraud and Rigged Elections, August 10, 2016 

How Long Will the Land Lie Parched? August 21, 2016 

Walls, Welcome, Mercy, Law August 28, 2016

Workers and Their Wages, Sep 3, 2016 

Makers, Takers, and Immoral Wealth Transfer

We’ve been hearing for years now: “47 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.” Memes are hard to trace back, but this one seems to have started with a 2009 report by Tax Policy Center fellow Bob Williams, estimating that 47 % of “tax units” would pay no federal income tax in 2009. That number has shifted from year to year, but the 47% idea appears impervious to fact, and was solidified by launch of a "We are the 53%" Tumblr site: "Those of us who pay for those of you who whine about all of that . . . or that . . . or whatever."

We’ve also been hearing references to “makers and takers.” While this idea dates back as far as Ayn Rand (and probably far beyond that), it was affirmed and publicized by a 2008 book by Peter Schwizer called Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less . . . and even hug their children more than liberals.” (And yes, that's all part of the title.

A Fox News editorial in July energized the "maker taker" discussion once again:

"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'  Abe Lincoln used those words in 1858 to describe a country that was careening toward civil war. Now we’re a house divided again and another civil war is coming, with the 2012 election as its Gettysburg.
Call it America’s coming civil war between the Makers and the Takers. 

"On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector. . .

"On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments,  from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra).

"Over the past century America’s private sector has been the source of productivity, innovation, creativity, and growth–and gave us the iPhone and iPad. The public sector has been the engine of entitlement, stagnation, and decline -- and gave us Detroit and the South Bronx.   . . .

"That public sector . . . brought us to the point where 48% of Americans are now on some form of government handout."

New York Times, Business Daily, How Do the 47% Vote?

Arthur Herman’s comments were repeated, reposted, retweeted thousands of times, and the ideas he shared continue to surface in poltical speeches, both private and public. The takers, that lazy 47 or 48%, are ruining our economy, fueling our debt, dependent on government handouts.

Set aside, if you can, the damaging, deliberately divisive image of a coming civil war.

And set aside the misleading suggestion that those who don’t pay federal income taxes don’t pay taxes at all, and the reality that many pay state, local, social security and FICA taxes, and all except the most indigent pay sales taxes.

And set aside the mean-spirited idea that our retired, our young, our disabled, are simply “takers” because our contribution can be accurately measured by whether we pay federal income taxes.

And set aside the strange idea that somehow the “private sector” is always the good guy, and the “public sector” just gets in the way.

Or the mention of "handouts" to GM and Solindra, without honest acknowledgement of far larger handouts to fossil fuel, banks, agribusiness, and a host of other private sector enterprises never questioned by those decrying "the growth of government."

Who, really, are the “makers” and the “takers”?

And which direction is wealth being transferred?

This whole question of entitlements is at the heart of the upcoming election: aren’t we tired of the entitlements of the old, the sick, the poor? Aren’t we angry about grants for low income students, subsidized housing for low income families, nutrition assistance for those who don’t work hard enough to feed the children they brought into this world?

And isn’t it immoral to transfer wealth from one group to another?

There’s the question that interests me most: transfer of wealth. Isn’t that socialism?

We’ve been watching a transfer of wealth on a scale hard to imagine, made possible by globalization and the increasing mobility of the global elite.

Fueled and funded, in large part, by quiet shifts in rules that allow government handouts to those who need them least.

But the transfer isn’t the one “makers and takers” proponents have their spotlights on.

Just consider one small change: the capital-gains tax cut of 2003.

A May, 2003, the House Ways and Means committee reported: “In tax year 2003, the capital-gains tax cut which only covers eight months of the year is worth $30,700 to millionaires, but only $42 to households with incomes between $40,000 and $50,000.”

If the average millionaire saved $30,000 in 8 months, that’s $45,000 for the next full tax year. Not bad for a small tax sleight-of-hand.

Most of the “entitlements” so hotly denounced yield small amounts for the families in question: the average SNAP (nutrition assistance) benefit for a family of four is about $6,000. A maximum Pell Grant for a full-time college student is $5,550.  The maximum SSI (social security income) for a disable individual is about $8,400 a year.

Where’s the outcry for the $45,000 a year in wealth transfer accomplished through the capital gains tax cut?

And that’s for the average millionaire. For those in even higher brackets, the take is far, far greater.

Another wealth transfer to consider: mortgage deductions. Why does the government subsidize home ownership, and at what cost? Who benefits?

Full disclosure: my husband and I own a home. We deduct our mortgage – which gives us a tax break each year of at most $2,000.

If we owned a larger, more expensive home, the break would be bigger: according to a recent Pew Charitable Trust study, families in the highest income categories receive a tax subsidy on average of almost $18,000.

I’m happy to see some of my tax dollars help provide housing for those most in need of it. In fact, yes, I’d be willing to give up my own mortgage deduction to ensure adequate housing for families I know who are currently living in substandard, crowded rentals.

But I’m not happy to think that tax subsidies are incentivizing purchase of second homes, or wasteful McMansions. And puzzled that the same people who object to small contributions to the poor are so unconcerned about very large contributions to the rich.

Last year four thousand families with net earnings of over a million each paid no federal income taxes at all. That’s a wealth transfer of hundreds of thousands per each “tax unit.” Do we care?

The difficulty in all of this is a distaste for numbers, a dislike for taxes, and a willingness to believe that “they” are stealing “my” money.  But who are “they”? And what can I do about it?

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities works hard to make numbers visible: their contributions make clear that “the takers” are not always those struggling hardest to get by, and while there may be some “takers” at the low end of the economic ladder, the biggest takers, and the most dangerous to our economy, are at the other end:

Read that housing benefit chart carefully: last year, the goverment gave $105,000,000,000 - $105 billion - in tax benefits for mortgage deductions. Add all the other housing subsidies together, and the total is less than half that. Who are the takers? Where's the wealth transfer?

The current wealth transfer goes much deeper, though, than tax cuts for the wealthy. I’m still trying to understand: how did it become possible for CEOs to pay themselves hundreds of times more than their workers? Why do workers reap an increasingly small share of profit in companies with strong bottom lines? Why do almost one in three working families still struggle to make ends meet? Who benefits from pushing back worker protections, or holding the line on minimum wages?

Who are the takers: the Walmart employees who make $11.75 an hour, $20,000 per year, often paying a large percentage of their wages for health care benefits, often scheduled week to week, with shifting hours that make a second job impossible?

Or the six heirs to the Walmart fortune, who now have a net worth of 89.5 billion, equal to the bottom 41.5 percent of US families combined.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote in 1904, “taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” Who benefits from the argument against raising taxes in the upper brackets? Which loopholes are our politicians willing to close, and at what cost, what benefit?

Another Supreme Court justice,  Louis Brandeis, wrote in 1897, “we may have a democracy or we may have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” That's even more true when that great wealth can be used, without limit, to influence elections, platforms, policies.

The Apostle James, two thousand years ago, wrote:

“Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong? If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”

Givers? There are many ways to give. Money is only one measure of our contribution.

Takers? We all take, some of us humbly, and with gratitude. Some of us on a far greater scale, with a far greater sense of entitlement, and far greater harm to those we take from.

Immoral wealth transfer?  The divide continues to grow. The question James asked the church has never been more relevant: “Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? . . . Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?”


Join the conversation.  Look for the "__ comments" link below to leave your comments.  

This is part of an continuing series about faith and politics: What's Your Platform?