My wife, who consulted and taught in both upper-middle class schools (Littleton, Colorado) and numerous inner-city schools (Detroit and Minneapolis), was the source of many insights that would never have crossed my mind or appeared in policy articles. One of her deep-seated insights was that merely fixing the schools could never heal many children’s educational problems, much less significantly impact achievement. And she had the breadth of experience and political wisdom to support her conclusion.
Seven years after her death, her conclusion has finally surfaced—in two intriguing places. The first was an indirect statement out of the mouth of Mayor Pete in the August Democratic debate. Ezra Klein called my attention to it in his analysis of the August debate. Coming after a lengthy section in which the candidates debated different health care plans, decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing, and a series of gun control ideas, none of which have the slightest possibility of passing in a Republican controlled senate.
At that point Buttigieg spoke up to say that this was the conversation that we’ve been having for the last 20 years. Of course, these policies are all true and needed. But when he proposes the actual structural democratic reforms that might make a difference—and make the policies possible--people look at him funny, as if this country was incapable of structural reform. Buttigieg’s basic understanding is that when the middle class has to hold down two or three jobs just to exist, children cannot get the kind of support and family education they need. He’s applied that insight to all kinds of situations. But significantly, I suspect he understands, since he’s married to a smart teacher, that schools with lower poverty rates tend to have higher scores, while schools serving large numbers of poor students have a different perspective on what achievement looks like. That’s all a reflection on the long-standing and well-documented connection between a schools’ poverty rate and achievement.
Education isn’t enough
But the most thoroughgoing analysis of this issue was written by Nick Hanauer and appeared in the July issue of the Atlantic. He sets up the problem uniquely, admitting that he used to think that better schools could heal the country’s ills. But, he acknowledges, he was wrong.
The common view is that both poverty and rising inequality are largely consequences of America’s failing education system. And, Hanauer admitted, he’s supported that view publicly and in the establishment of organizations, embracing education as both a philanthropic cause and a civic mission.
The typical reasoning is that if we improved our schools, modernized curricula and teaching methods, increased school funding while eliminating poor teachers, then low-income and working-class children would start learning again. That would result in better graduation rates and increased salaries, eliminating much of today’s poverty and inequality.
In contrast, Hanauer finds that American workers are struggling because they are underpaid, not primarily because of poor education. In fact, Americans are more highly educated than ever before. Despite nearly record-low employment, most Americans have seen practically no wage growth since 2000. He puts it rather clearly: educationism is tragically mistaken. Why is that? “Even the most thoughtful and well-intentioned school-reform program can’t improve educational outcomes if it ignores the single greatest driver of student achievement: house-hold income.”
(See part two for Hanauer’s rationale and data.)
**The Atlantic, July 2019.
