Goldstein: Why Cities Increasing Faster Than Suburbs Is Good For Education

It appears that, for the first time since World War II, major American ubran cities are increasing at a higher rate than those of suburban areas.  There seems to be a number of reasons for this that has taken place.  There are also a number of reasons to be skeptical that this is just a temporary statistical "blip" and not a long-term trend.  Here is an exert from Will Oremus of Slate:

This shift has been in the making for over a decade. As early as 1999, a Brookings report noted that “declining crime statistics, falling unemployment rates, balanced municipal budgets, and a resurgence in downtown living have cities across the country claiming that they are in the midst of a renaissance.” Back then, though, those claims were undermined by Brookings’ finding that suburbs were still outpacing cities in job growth. According to Frey’s new analysis, just five of the largest metropolitan areas saw greater urban than suburban population growth between 2000 and 2010. (One caveat: The U.S. Census itself can't confirm Frey's numbers, since it doesn't break down the data in this way.)

The question now is whether the past year’s reversal is a blip or a leading indicator of America’s urban future. If you think it’s the former, you blame the housing bust and the economy for the suburbs’ short-term slowdown, and predict that they’ll resume their growth when the market clears.

In any case, let's suppose this is a long-term trend.  If that is a case, than this means potential benefits for American education and the cause for integration of public schools, according to Dana Goldstein:

We know school segregation is a major social crisis because—despite the good performance of some high-poverty schools—poor children tend to have better academic outcomes when they attend school alongside middle class students.There is also some evidence that highly effective teachers prefer working in integrated schools.And it is my own strongly held belief that all children benefit from exposure to other children whose backgrounds are different from their own.

With more middle and upper-income young families now showing a predilection for urban living, city school districts have a wonderful opportunity to create more integrated schools. There are several ways they can do this:

1. By purposefully drawing school enrollment boundaries to encompass both high-income and low-income housing stock. My small Brooklyn neighborhood of Cobble Hill/Boerum Hill contains multimillion dollar, single-family brownstones, as well as a large housing project. Yet only one of the local elementary schools is truly diverse while the other two—both in easy walking distance—are segregated.

2. By asking charter schools to embrace diversity as part of their mission statements, and recruit students from across all races and classes, instead of focusing solely on poor children.

3. By creating magnet schools that draw students from across the city, and that do not require high test scores for enrollment. (Chris Hayes’ new book, Twilight of the Elites, is eloquent on the problem of frantic, expensive test-prep contributing to urban school segregation.)

4. And by attacking residential segregation head-on, in part through the sort of housing policies that Slate’s Matt Yglesias proposes in his book, The Rent is Too Damn High.

All of these suggestions have merit to them, and should at least be up on the table for debate in policy and political circles.  I do have one suggestion for the second proposal above regarding charter schools, assuming they are part of this picture to begin with.  Right now, they do more to hurt the cause of integration in public schools than help.  And it is one thing to "ask" charter schools to embrace diversity, but I think they will.  I am uneasy about how selective charters would become if they are given the ability to recruit white, middle-class students.  The one fear I have is that they may overrecruit white, middle-class students who tend to perform better on standardized tests.  School boards and politicians have to make sure that in such a scenario as Goldstein is proposing, that such selectivness doesn't take place.

I would also add that redrawing boundary lines is a good suggestion, but good luck getting the public and local politicans (especially in more, white suburban districts) to agree to it.  Here in the Kansas City metro area on the Kansas side for example, I have a hard time imagining Johnson County schools (Shawnee Mission, De Soto) agreeing to share students with Wyandott County schools (Turner, KCK).  Goldstein expresses similar skepticism at the end of her post:

Sadly, no American governor or big city mayor I know of has committed to school integration as a central, clearly articulated facet of his or her education reform agenda. In part, this is because so many middle and upper class parents still feel skittish about sending their children to school with poor kids, and so “school choice” policies have evolved, in many cities, as a way to de facto segregate the children of the creative class. If we continue down this road, we simply won’t be taking advantage of the social, civic, and academic upsides of our rapidly diversifying cities. That would be a national shame. 

Obama, Matt Damon, Education Policy, and Electoral Politics

 Photo from Huffington Post

In the past year, Matt Damon's support for the Save Our Schools movement has made him a favorite of teachers all over the country who are opposed to the hurtful policies implemented by so-called "education reformers" across the country.  I count myself as one of those whose personal fandom of Damon has increased for this very reason. 

Today, I was reading an article on Huffington Post where Damon criticizes Obama's failure to be more audacious and anti-establishment during his first term as president.  One of the policy areas that Damon addresses is his policies on education:

"I really think he misinterpreted his mandate. A friend of mine said to me the other day, I thought it was a great line, 'I no longer hope for audacity,'" Damon told CNN host Piers Morgan. "He's doubled down on a lot of things, going back to education... the idea that we're testing kids and we're tying teachers salaries to how kids are performing on tests, that kind of mechanized thinking has nothing to do with higher order. We're training them, not teaching them."

Everyone who supports the SOS movement, including myself, would certainly agree with Damon's words here.  We do have an over reliance on standardized testing in this country that hurts both students and teachers.  Indeed, the policies that President Obama has implemented on Education since his inauguration are, on the whole, not any better (and possibly worse) than President Bush's were.  These policies include the aforementioned testing procedures, as well as his support for funding charter schools and merit pay, and the destructive and simultaneously inefficient Race To The Top.  But what is most surprising in all of this is not Obama's support for these positions, but rather, that many of those who supported Obama in 2008 are suprised by his education positions. 

This is because President Obama's platform on education in 2008 was essentially an endorsement of the education reform movement.  For instance, he publicly supported the idea of merit pay in a speech to the National Education Association, the nation's largest teacher union, in 2007.  In addition, he was a supporter of both charter schools and school choice.  From USA Today in October, 2008:

[Obama] wants to expand federal funding for charter schools from $236 million to $450 million. He says he'd "work with all our nation's governors to hold all our charter schools accountable," adding: "Charter schools that are successful will get the support they need to grow; charters that aren't will get shut down." He also wants to expand non-profit child care, parenting and education efforts such as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York to other cities.

Just like his support for the Afghan War, Obama proposed policy initiatives on education during the 2008 campaign that are unpopular to many progressives and supporters.  But then (SURPRISE) he ended up mainly keeping his promise when entering office.  I am not sure if those who originally supported Obama thought he would renege on these particular policies when he entered office, or if they were so caught up with "Hope", "Change" and "Yes, We Can", that they didn't notice those particular aspects of his platform to begin with.  In any case, nobody who did pay attention to the Obama campaign in 2008 should be surprised at his current education policies.

To be clear, I supported Obama then (with full knowledge of his platform), and would do it again if I had to.  The prospect of a McCain presidency, or any presidency led by the 2008 GOP contenders, is too unnerving to contemplate.  I supposed I am in the category that hoped he would renege on some aspects of his education platform, but alas, he kept his word (and then some).  In addition, I hope President Obama wins reelection in 2012.  This, however, does not mean I will necessarily vote for him.  Like Damon, I am extremely disillusioned with many of Obama's policies (including education and Afghanistan), as well the continuation of the Democrat's love-affair with pussyfooting and unnecessary compromise. 

This does not mean I will vote for a Republican.  There is not a chance in hell of that given the current lineup of  pitiful and moronic contenders for the nomination, as well as the ignorant and cruel platforms that seems to be considered "mainstream" in today's GOP.  But now that I am a voter in the state of Kansas (as opposed to Missouri, where I am originally from), my vote as a progressive does not really count when voting for the Presidency.  No amount of campaigning or electioneering in the next year and a half will get the state of Kansas to elect a Democrat for the Presidency.  Not unless something happens between now and then of such earth-shattering magnitude, that Kansas electoral support for Obama in simply unavoidable.  I may, based purely on the principals I hold as a liberal, as well as being fed up with Mr. Obama, vote for a third party in the 2012 election (e.g. Green Party).  This is not final decision yet, and the President still has time to win disillusioned liberals such as myself over for an electoral landslide in 2012 (although, admittedly, that support will be more important in key swing states rather than states like Kansas). 

For starters, there is one policy proposal on education that Obama put at the center of his education platform in 2008 that he could start pushing for.  I am referring to his support for the expansion of early childhood education programs.  Here is an excerpt from the same 2008 USA Today article quoted above:

[Obama] proposes a $10 billion "Zero to Five" plan that would quadruple the number of slots in Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve the quality of both; he'd make states compete to create or expand child care and education for pregnant women and children. He'd "encourage" states to adopt voluntary universal preschool; he'd expand the Child and Development Care Tax Credit, making it refundable and allowing low-income families to get up to a 50% credit for child care expenses.

We already know how important the exposure to early childhood education can be to the potential of a young person, and there chances at academic excellence in the long term.  It is somewhat surprising, and unfortunate,  that Obama has yet to pursue such a proposal during his first term (at least, as far as I know).  Perhaps he is fearful that, given the current political environment in favor of austerity and worriment over budget deficits, proposing federal spending for early childhood programs wouldn't pass, at least, without some type of backlash. 

But one thing the President is long-overdue in understanding is that there will be a backlash by Republicans in anything he proposes.  That is what the Republicans do.  He is too worried about compromising with Republicans without ever putting up a fight to begin with.   Although he has shown glimmers of hope in changing this trend in recent months, he needs to keep up, and advance the good fight.  His Presidency, as well as the good of our country, depends upon it.  A comprehensive, early childhood education bill would be a step in the right direction.  Come on, Mr. President, time to get audacious!

Bullying is bad . . . Unless It's Done For Religious Rerrasons

Absolutely amazing:

Michigan Republicans turned what was supposed to be a new law protecting victims of bullying into a law pretty much declaring open season on them, thanks to a last-minute clause exempting anyone who can provide a moral or religious reason for their harassment.

"Matt's School Safe Law," which just passed in the state Senate and is now moving on to the House of Representatives, is named after Matt Epling, a gay teenager who committed suicide as a result of bullying. However, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan explained that the bill had to include the "religious motivations" loophole to prevent it from becoming "a Trojan Horse for the homosexual agenda."

I expect this kind of thing to happen in the South, or even where I live in Kansas. Not Michigan. So disappointing.