In response to the cover article, "How to Fix Our Schools" by Amanda Ripley. (The on-line version is abridged from the print version.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that Ripley has missed the major debate in education since No Child Left Behind was passed in 2001. The research is showing that the accountability measures that she is heralding as saving the future of American education are not actually closing the achievement gap. Neither does she address the criticism of the unions concerning charter schools. The reason they do so well is because they don’t serve special-education students and English Language Learners-- populations that keep test scores down. They also keep kids in school for longer hours.
If we fire all the “bad” teachers, where are we going to find this reserve army of “good” ones? If we shut down all the schools, the one place where most of these students find stability in their lives, where are they going to go? A different over-crowded institution that has to start everything from scratch?
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
September 15, 2010
July 30, 2009
"Unequal America"-some excerpts
Some excerpts from the article "Unequal America: Causes and consequences of the wide-and growing-gap between rich and poor" by Elizabeth Gudrais in Harvard Magazine, July-August 2008.
. . .the United States also does less than most other rich democracies to redistribute income from the rich to the poor.
. . .
There is little question that it is bad for one’s health to be poor. Americans at the 95th income percentile or higher can expect to live nine years longer than those at the 10th percentile or lower.
. . .
As further evidence of a correlation between inequality and consumption culture, he points to national spending on advertising as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). The top-ranked countries on this measure, according to United Nations (UN) data, are Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela—countries with inequality levels among the highest in the world—but also Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (U.K.), and the United States, countries with higher inequality than similarly prosperous peers.
. . .
Japan comes second only to Denmark in terms of equal-income distribution among its inhabitants, according to United Nations data. And life expectancy at birth for the Japanese is 82.3 years, compared to Americans’ 77.9 years, even though per-capita GDP in the United States is about $10,000 more than in Japan.
. . .
One widely used measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient, named for Italian statistician Corrado Gini, who first articulated the concept in 1912. The coefficient measures income distribution on a scale from zero (where income is perfectly equally distributed among all members of a society) to one (where a single person possesses all the income). For the United States, the Gini coefficient has risen from .35 in 1965 to .44 today. On the per-capita GDP scale, our neighbors are Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.; on the Gini scale, our neighbors include Sri Lanka, Mali, and Russia.
. . .
In 1965, the average salary for a CEO of a major U.S. company was 25 times the salary of the average worker. Today, the average CEO’s pay is more than 250 times the average worker’s. At the same time, the government is doing less to redistribute income than it has at times in the past. The current top marginal tax rate—35 percent—is not the lowest it’s been—there was no federal income tax at all until 1913—but it is far lower than the 91-percent tax levied on top earners from 1951 to 1963. Meanwhile, forces such as immigration and trade policy have put pressure on wages at the bottom.
. . .
Americans and Europeans also tend to disagree about the causes of poverty. In a different survey—the World Values Survey, including 40 countries—American respondents were much more likely than European respondents (71 percent versus 40 percent) to agree with the statement that the poor could escape poverty if they worked hard enough. Conversely, 54 percent of European respondents, but only 30 percent of American respondents, agreed with the statement that luck determines income.
. . .
As American neighborhoods have become more integrated along racial lines, they have become more segregated along income lines and, some research indicates, with regard to all manner of other factors, including political and religious beliefs. (The Big Sort, a new book by journalist Bill Bishop, examines this evidence.) What’s more, even along racial lines, American society is still far from integrated. Sociologist David R. Williams, Norman professor of public health and professor of African and African American studies, has examined racial discrimination and health in the United States and elsewhere, including South Africa, where in 1991, under apartheid, the “segregation index” was 90, meaning that 90 percent of blacks would have had to move to make the distribution even. “In the year 2000,” says Williams, “in most of America’s larger cities—New York City, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee—the segregation index was over 80.” Only slightly lower, that is, than under legally sanctioned apartheid.
When a society is starkly divided along racial or ethnic lines, the affluent are less likely to take care of the poor, Glaeser and Alesina have found. Internationally, welfare systems are least generous in countries that are the most ethnically heterogeneous. Those U.S. states with the largest black populations have the least generous welfare systems. And in a nationwide study of people’s preferences for redistribution, Erzo F.P. Luttmer, associate professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS), found strong evidence for racial loyalty: people who lived near poor people of the same race were likely to support redistribution, and people who lived near poor people of a different race were less likely to do so. Differences in skin color seem to encourage the wealthy to view the poor as fundamentally different, serving as a visual cue against thinking, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
. . .
Mean household income in 2004 was $60,528, but median household income was only $43,389. More than half of households make less money than average, so, broadly speaking, more than half of voters should favor policies that redistribute income from the top down. Instead, though, nations—and individual states—with high inequality levels tend to favor policies that allow the affluent to hang onto their money.
. . .
Previous research has shown that voter turnout is low, particularly at the low end of the income spectrum, in societies with high inequality. Again, this is counterintuitive: in unequal places, poor people unhappy with government policies might be expected to turn out en masse to vote, but instead they stay home. Campaign contributions may provide the missing link.
. . .the United States also does less than most other rich democracies to redistribute income from the rich to the poor.
. . .
There is little question that it is bad for one’s health to be poor. Americans at the 95th income percentile or higher can expect to live nine years longer than those at the 10th percentile or lower.
. . .
As further evidence of a correlation between inequality and consumption culture, he points to national spending on advertising as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). The top-ranked countries on this measure, according to United Nations (UN) data, are Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela—countries with inequality levels among the highest in the world—but also Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (U.K.), and the United States, countries with higher inequality than similarly prosperous peers.
. . .
Japan comes second only to Denmark in terms of equal-income distribution among its inhabitants, according to United Nations data. And life expectancy at birth for the Japanese is 82.3 years, compared to Americans’ 77.9 years, even though per-capita GDP in the United States is about $10,000 more than in Japan.
. . .
One widely used measure of inequality is the Gini coefficient, named for Italian statistician Corrado Gini, who first articulated the concept in 1912. The coefficient measures income distribution on a scale from zero (where income is perfectly equally distributed among all members of a society) to one (where a single person possesses all the income). For the United States, the Gini coefficient has risen from .35 in 1965 to .44 today. On the per-capita GDP scale, our neighbors are Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.; on the Gini scale, our neighbors include Sri Lanka, Mali, and Russia.
. . .
In 1965, the average salary for a CEO of a major U.S. company was 25 times the salary of the average worker. Today, the average CEO’s pay is more than 250 times the average worker’s. At the same time, the government is doing less to redistribute income than it has at times in the past. The current top marginal tax rate—35 percent—is not the lowest it’s been—there was no federal income tax at all until 1913—but it is far lower than the 91-percent tax levied on top earners from 1951 to 1963. Meanwhile, forces such as immigration and trade policy have put pressure on wages at the bottom.
. . .
Americans and Europeans also tend to disagree about the causes of poverty. In a different survey—the World Values Survey, including 40 countries—American respondents were much more likely than European respondents (71 percent versus 40 percent) to agree with the statement that the poor could escape poverty if they worked hard enough. Conversely, 54 percent of European respondents, but only 30 percent of American respondents, agreed with the statement that luck determines income.
. . .
As American neighborhoods have become more integrated along racial lines, they have become more segregated along income lines and, some research indicates, with regard to all manner of other factors, including political and religious beliefs. (The Big Sort, a new book by journalist Bill Bishop, examines this evidence.) What’s more, even along racial lines, American society is still far from integrated. Sociologist David R. Williams, Norman professor of public health and professor of African and African American studies, has examined racial discrimination and health in the United States and elsewhere, including South Africa, where in 1991, under apartheid, the “segregation index” was 90, meaning that 90 percent of blacks would have had to move to make the distribution even. “In the year 2000,” says Williams, “in most of America’s larger cities—New York City, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee—the segregation index was over 80.” Only slightly lower, that is, than under legally sanctioned apartheid.
When a society is starkly divided along racial or ethnic lines, the affluent are less likely to take care of the poor, Glaeser and Alesina have found. Internationally, welfare systems are least generous in countries that are the most ethnically heterogeneous. Those U.S. states with the largest black populations have the least generous welfare systems. And in a nationwide study of people’s preferences for redistribution, Erzo F.P. Luttmer, associate professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School (HKS), found strong evidence for racial loyalty: people who lived near poor people of the same race were likely to support redistribution, and people who lived near poor people of a different race were less likely to do so. Differences in skin color seem to encourage the wealthy to view the poor as fundamentally different, serving as a visual cue against thinking, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
. . .
Mean household income in 2004 was $60,528, but median household income was only $43,389. More than half of households make less money than average, so, broadly speaking, more than half of voters should favor policies that redistribute income from the top down. Instead, though, nations—and individual states—with high inequality levels tend to favor policies that allow the affluent to hang onto their money.
. . .
Previous research has shown that voter turnout is low, particularly at the low end of the income spectrum, in societies with high inequality. Again, this is counterintuitive: in unequal places, poor people unhappy with government policies might be expected to turn out en masse to vote, but instead they stay home. Campaign contributions may provide the missing link.
Candidates, naturally, target voters with money because they need funds for their campaigns. And since the poor gravitate toward parties that favor redistribution and the wealthy align themselves with parties that do not, campaign contributions end up benefiting primarily parties and candidates whose platforms do not include redistribution. By the time the election comes around, the only candidates left in the race are those who’ve shaped their platforms to maximize fundraising; poor voters, says Campante, have already been left out. In a study of campaign contributions in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, he found that higher income inequality at the county level was associated with fewer people contributing to campaigns, but contributing a larger amount on average—so the haves participated, and the have-nots did not.
. . .
“Adults’ economic status is positively correlated with their parents’ economic status in every society for which we have data,” write Christopher Jencks and Laura Tach, a doctoral student in sociology and social policy, “but no democratic society is entirely comfortable with this fact.” The prospect of upward mobility forms the very bedrock of the American dream, but analyses indicate that intergenerational mobility is no higher in the United States than in other developed democracies. In fact, a recent Brookings Institution report cites findings that intergenerational mobility is actually significantly higher in Norway, Finland, and Denmark—low-inequality countries where birth should be destiny if inequality, as some argue, fuels mobility.
. . .
For most of the twentieth century, the average American exceeded his parents’ education level by a significant margin: between 1900 and 1975, the average American’s educational attainment grew by 6.2 years, or about 10 months per decade. Then, between 1975 and 1990, the authors find that there was “almost no increase at all”; from 1990 to 2000, there was a gain of just six months. Although college graduation rates for women are still rising steadily, for men they have barely increased since the days of the Vietnam draft.
May 29, 2008
Scholarship for an Iraqi student
One of my former students was accepted at the American University of Beirut for the upcoming school year. She moved to Lebanon in 2005 after spending a year in Jordan. She's from Iraq, and her house is across the Tigris River from Saddam Hussein's former palace which is now called the Green Zone.
Her parents are looking for scholarship money. Here are some of the e-mails her father wrote.
UNESCO Office Beirut
Dear Mr. Adel Moneim Osman,
We are Iraqi family residence in Lebanon since 2005. My three children at UCA in Aley school.
My daughter has been accepted this month at AUB American University of Beirut for the academic year 2008- 2009.
Her rating for the unfinished year up to last term is 85%.
Could you kindly assist, finding the firm, which can offer her scholarship grant so that she could join AUB.
Very Truly Yours
Dear Mr. Mohsen,
Thank you for your email.
I regret to inform you that UNESCO does not have a budget to provide help in your case.
Regards
Abdel Moneim Osman
Director of UNESCO Regional Bureau for
Education in the Arab States
UNESCO Representative to Lebanon & Syria
Beirut, Lebanon
Director of UNESCO Regional Bureau for
Education in the Arab States
UNESCO Representative to Lebanon & Syria
Beirut, Lebanon
Dear Dr. Abdel Moneim Osman,
Thank you for answering, may you excuse me for my rude kibitzing for the most critical position in Iraq, and for hard situation for the most Iraqi people, and for future of Iraqi sons and daughters, and for biggest crime of this era, consequences of Iraq invasion.
May you allow me to ask you... why don't UNESCO in Beirut and in other near Iraqi countries such as Jordan, Syria and Egypt ask United Nation to create such budget for Iraqi student who have high rating to attend well known universities and colleges. This could be done form the Iraqi Oil Found.
If this Iraq Oil Found does not support the education of Iraqi people. Is it fare enough that this found was only made to support the military purpose(The Militias ) and the policemen (The gangs)??
I would like to show my deep sorrow to you if my language was not as prudent perception as I wish.
Very Truly Yours
Dear Friends and Relatives,
Iraqi Students who live inside and outside Iraq needs direct support from the UNSECO , so that they could pay their expenses of the tuition fees.
Iraq Oil Found at UN need to add UNESCO-Iraq to his priority so that they could handle Iraqi students educational requirement, for graduate and post graduate education, supporting them for school ,college and university scholarships.
UNHCR has good starting, for food and medicine. Therefore, the UNESCO-Iraq needs to do the same.
If there is limited financial amount at Iraq Oil Found at UN, it would be better to reduce the support of Military and Police Forces which they have much corruption and to add it to UNESCO-Iraq.
Hundreds of Billions of the US Fraud $$$ spends on Iraq war, and they keep spending corruptly, but for educational and for high educational system in Iraq, ………USA spend very little !!!!!!!!!
Finally wish you the best.
Very Truly Yours
Dear Friends and Relatives,
Many of Iraqis retardation men and parties, who have much concern establishing their own militias, do not give much attention to education and cultures.
For five long hard sever years, after American war on Iraq, it becomes suffering from terrorist, Militias gangs and with many other different names whether they are nationally, middle east, or internationally.
These years of retardation, huge shortage in water supply and electricity power still effect daily and will continue several additional years.
Due to chaos in education system in Iraq, there is much need for Salvage College and Universities from its calamity of the influence of militias on.
As you know the importance of education on the societies, the right and need of every human- being to have proper education.
I look forward to concern my consideration to add UNESCO-Iraq for Iraqi oil fund, so that UNSECO-Iraq could have budged to provide the satisfy need of education inside and outside Iraq, which the new educated generation , intellectual and sophisticated way can go forward rebuild new Iraq.
Very Truly Yours
Dear Dr. Abdel Moneium Osman,
The Iraqis who live outside Iraq may have supported to send their children to school, high school, college, and universities.
We Iraqi reject that our Land treated as a milky cow putting Iraqi people restricted in a square between two jaws:
First:
Tardiness of many Iraqi parties who handling situation's deterioration, which they do not give much attention to education and high education system in Iraq.
Second:
The Oil Cartel War Companies on Iraq, which they deal with Iraq as backyard to Washington D.C fighting terrorists of the Middle East on our home land with no sufficient protection to Iraqi people.
We, the peaceful group of Iraqis, who live outside Iraq would like to educate our children in a proper way with no retardation no limits to education, we just wish making good start for new Iraq.
Would you please, UNITED NATIONS and the organizations which linked with, could assist in this matter produce new future for new generation, and not deal with Iraq only as oily cow.
Very Truly Yours
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)