May 24, 2006
School for Scandal?
There appears to be something about the subjects of population, education, and growth in the District that makes local journalists a little nuts. That is what we're left to conclude after reading today's Post article on D.C. schools and the growing shadow they're ready to cast on this year's local elections. The main point of the piece is an incontrovertible one: despite some successes and increased government action, many District schools are failing to meet the standards they ought to meet in a city that's doing exceedingly well in many other areas. Washington's school system remains a stubborn public policy problem, and the issue will no doubt loom large this fall.
The problem with the Post piece (and with the strikingly similar City Paper article we discussed not long ago) is the stream of conclusions that are then drawn. The City Paper connected poor schools with an "epic" population crisis that doesn't actually exist. The Post repeats this error, failing even to point out, as the City Paper did, that many demographers and city officials openly question whether population is, in fact, declining. Instead of looking closely at the statistics used, the Post trots out additional anecdotes, tracking down families that are unhappy with their children's educational prospects, a useless exercise that could just as easily have targeted families who are completely satisfied.
The Post then talks to George Mason professor Stephen Fuller, who spouts the following nonsense:
The District has done an amazing job. It has more money in the bank than any city in the country. The housing market has turned around. The job base is strong. But they could lose it all if they don't get that one missing link: having middle- or upper-income families who want to live in the District.As we've mentioned here before, Census data reveals that District population, and the percentage of children in the population, is growing in the city's richer wards. It's also worth considering that middle and upper class residents (especially upper) are more able to afford options outside the public school system. At this point, the worst city schools are in the city's poorest sections, and the families who need better public schools most are those with the lowest incomes. The problem isn't recruiting middle and upper class residents. The problem, as it so often is, is how to improve the lot of the city's poorest residents.
The most perplexing parts of the Post story involve attempts to connect District schools to a jobs crisis. The story contains, for example, this passage:
Stephen S. Fuller, a public policy professor at George Mason University, reported that the District generated nearly 31,000 jobs from 2000 to 2005. But most of the jobs, which pay an average of $77,000 a year, require some college. Many D.C. residents couldn't compete. As businesses hired from the suburbs, the number of employed D.C. residents fell by 13,000 workers. The result: The D.C. government went without an estimated $107 million in taxes.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, D.C. did create 31,000 jobs over that period, and the average number of people employed in 2000 was about 10,000 higher than in 2005. There are a number of ways in which those figures are misleading, however. To begin with, labor force numbers are often too low for the same reasons population numbers are: immigrants and the poor doing off-the-books work aren't counted. Self-employed workers are undercounted, as well. The District unemployment rate confirms these suppositions, falling slightly even as overall population holds (generally) constant and the number of jobs available in the city increases. Moreover, a fair number of District residents leave the city to work in the booming suburbs, just as suburbanites come daily to Washington. Whether or not one feels that that is a problem, it should be clear that District schools aren't leading to some crisis of employability for the city as a whole.
On Friday, the Washington Business Journal published a story examining how blistering economic growth in the region had stretched the labor market here so thin that a labor shortage might become a burden on growth. The story notes that economic expansion has taken place in D.C. as well as the surrounding states, and it points out that recruitment has become problematic for manufacturing and service enterprises as well as those involved in white-collar occupations. Speaking to this point, the Post article in question notes, "This year, after many employers complained of trouble finding workers, the city's most influential business groups declared public schools to be their top priority." But the worker shortage affects the entire metropolitan economy, including suburban areas where the public schools are some of the best in the nation. There may be a school problem and there may be a labor shortage, but the two are not connected.
Washington ought to fix its schools. That much, I believe, everyone can agree upon. What should be clear, however, is that Washington will grow as a city and as an economy whether or not significant improvements are made in the school system. The past five years should be ample demonstration of that fact.
The real question is this: as Washington grows, will the city be able to address the needs of it's poorest citizens or will they continue to sit on the sidelines as growth slowly envelopes the entire District? That's what better schools and employability in the poorest Wards are really about. Our growth does not hinge upon quickly and drastically fixing our public schools, but the fate of the city's poor population does. I don't know why that distinction is so difficult to make for journalists and politicians and residents, myself included. If the goal is to assist the struggling citizens of the District, then framing the discussion honestly and with appropriate statistics certainly seems to be more desirable than attempting to convince professional Washingtonians that their livelihoods are at stake, when they transparently are not.
Picture taken by ohad*.
|
The schools will never get better until they are populated by students who don't think that "school is for white folks." The reason test scores are low is because the predominant youth culture is one that values ignorance and professes that the way out of poverty is through basketball or hip hop music.
Large city schools were just fine when they were filled with the children of immigrants trying to get ahead. Not so with the District, because the students don't value the education that their parents taxes pay for.
The schools will never get better until they are populated by students who don't think that "school is for white folks." The reason test scores are low is because the predominant youth culture is one that values ignorance and professes that the way out of poverty is through basketball or hip hop music.
Large city schools were just fine when they were filled with the children of immigrants trying to get ahead. Not so with the District, because the students don't value the education that their parents taxes pay for.
What's up, blanket racist statements?
DC is too far gone to fix the schools.
Ryan,
I have to agree with Dr. Fuller and disagree with you. You say middle and upper class families are "more able to afford options outside the public school system". Yes, we are "more able", but that doesn't mean we can afford it either. As my family grows, I want to stay in the District. I've lived here for several years and I want to stay. Unfortunatley, to do so we would only be able to have one child. That's all we can afford to send to private school - a foregone necessity.
Looking at the statistics you see an increase in children in wealthy areas of the city - the Post article mentions "children 3 and under". Living on Capitol Hill, we see that playing out. What the statistics don't show is that there are hardly any middle and upper class children over 5 on the Hill. Hmm. I wonder why? The Hill,like other great neighborhoods is a great place to raise a todler, while still experiencing the city. However, once private school costs kick in, and double when little sis or little brother hit school age, the majority of families pack up and move to the 'burbs.
What should be a neighborhood and city that grow with all the new families moving in will instead be a constant churn of people forced to move out if they want a family larger that 1 child. The roots and conections we develop, the sense of ownership of our neighborhood and resulting concern is disrupted. Furhtermore, stable tax income is lost. For the city to experience healthy growth, it can't rely on a revolving door of childless 20somethings. Trust me, you grow-up, you want to stay, but you can't. The very people that could help change this city for the better are forced out by our deplorable schools.
A couple things:
-Maybe I missed it, but where in the Post article did it even discuss the DC declining population? If it even mentioned it, it certainly wasn't a central point.
-The central point of this article is that for many, if not most, people in the middle to upper incomes do not consider DCPS even an option. This article seemed more interested in what are the ramifications if the DCPS become a service only used by poor people.
-The 13,000 worker number presumably includes DC residents that work outside the District.
-I think the problem IS attracting middle income families. When schools become so bad that middle income families won't send their kids there, then the schools suffer because the families either send their kids to private school or move to the suburbs. Either way, the middle income child leaves the system. Personally I think the most promising studies in education reform have shown that over-concentrations of lower income students reinforces poor learning environments and lower income students do best when surrounded by middle income students. By driving out the middle income students from the public schools, the threat is that the nosedive will only accelerate.
-As for schools hurting growth: I agree that DC is going to grow with or without good schools, but it is undeniable that there is a hidden tax on those that won't send their kids to public schools (i.e. the cost of private schools). Obviously rich families will always pay that tax, but the problem is that as that tax is paid by lower and lower income residents who reject DCPS, it will grow as more and more of a drag on the economy.
I'll admit, however, that this wasn't a particulary focused article. But I think it has a different point than your are attributing to it.
Also, unemployment and underemployment for those in the District without a college education is a problem. You can't dismiss that issue by saying that unemployment rates undercount workers because employment numbers and the unemployment rate come from two different sources. Employment numbers come from household surveys which do count the self-employed and those not paying income tax.
Of course, the long-term (and painful) solution is not to get more low-paying jobs into the District but to get more District residents to college which requires better elementary education...
"Prospective Dad" hits the nail on the head, from where I sit. As the father of a 4 and two year old, I am faced with this very dilemma. The concept of $50k a year for the next 14 years (essentially) before even hitting college is untenable. However the conditions at even the "best" public schools such as Lafayette are mediocre at best.
That is not to say that there isn't an active PTA, or that the teachers aren't terrific and caring. It's just that when you compare the overall experience, across the board, to the equivelents in Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Arlington (where most city dwellers would go if leaving the city), it is phenominal how much better the physical plants and test scores are.
It is the one thing that consistently holds the potential for the District of Columbia back, and has cheated two generations of Washingtonians out of a proper place in our society (honors from a few of the schools who have gone on tom college and successful careers notwithstanding).
I hope that at some point very soon, the politicians and citizens will come together and solve this problem. Simply throwing more money at DCPS is not the answer, but I am not sure where the solutions lie.
Reid, Andrew and Prospective Dad...
I have two kids both of whom attend DCPS (Peabody -- SWS -- and Watkins on the Hill). To date my experience with the Cap Hill Cluster has been very good. I personally find it amusing (and somewhat aggrivating) when the usual suspects gripe and moan about how pitiful the system is w/out having any first hand experience -- though I am sure we will hear about the rare exceptions which do. The fact is that there are some decent public schools and public charter schools in DC. I am particularly amused by Andrew's gripe about Lafayette. I happen to know that school quite well -- their test scores (FWIW) are higher than most comparable suburban grade schools. As for prospective dad, the interesting thing about the Hill right now (not to mention Dupont and Upper NW) is how many parents are staying in the system. Case in point, Watkins, Two Rivers, Peabody, St. Peter's and the many schhools in Upper NW are full to capacity and have very long waiting lists.
My point isn't that everything is perfect (far from it!); rather, it is that things (at least in some cases) are far better than conventional wisdom suggests.
I am a partial product of DCPS, so I am exceedingly familiar with the programs on a first hand basis. Given my personal experience with DCPS and the things I am seeing and hearing, I am faced with a tough dilemma of private schools or the suburbs.
I do not want my children to experience the things I did as a DCPS student. Sadly, conditions have only worsened since I was there.
I think you're reading into "upper and middle class"- that doesn't mean white. That means people with means and who know how to use their voice send their kids to a school system that has been pandering to the lowest common denominator for years. Do you hear what the DCPS School Board spouts? Do you listen to the crap that William Lockridge supports (he represents Anacostia). The first poster is right- the mentality that school is for "white folks" needs to end. And the DC mentality that DCPS is for blacks also needs to end.
More middle class people need to DEMAND superior schools. Have you been to a DCPS Board meeting recently? Nothing but ignorant people. If people like the poster above-- who sends his kids to the Cluster School-- attended these meetings and showed the FUTURE of DC and not the pathetic past, then maybe things would change.
I know a lot about DCPS from the inside and if I had a school-ready kid, I would likely be moving out of DC (with the exception of the schools on the Hill and some schools in NW).
Perhaps the problem could be better addressed if more upper- and middle-class people -- not just a few, but several hundred -- actually sent their kids to these schools, contributed their input and directly demanded changes, instead of having this fear of working-class Negroes. Or are you afraid that years from now, your children will be relegated to attending a state university instead of the precious, status-laden Ivy League?
Real nice idea Vincent....talk about putting the cart before the horse. Isn't the DCPS responsible to get the schools working properly so that everyone is comfortable sending their kids?
No joke people are afraid of sending their kids to DCPS. Would you experiment with your kid's future by sending them to a school with which you'll have to fight tooth and nail to get a decent education? Do you want to just wait and see how things will turn out 18 years from now? If I had kids, I sure wouldn't.
Won't it always be more logical to live in an area where basically *everybody* cares about the eduction of their children, and it's not just a "middle class" responsibiliy to make sure the schools work properly? A community that supports a school system means there's a much higher likelihood your kids will get a good enough education to make something of their life, rather than being beaten down by a dysfunctional system glorifying ignorance and violence.
Call it racism, classism, whatever you want. Fact is that until *all* parents start demanding more from the school system, those who care enough and can afford to leave will do so.
Finally, the idea that school is an optional "white" way to achieve something in life is disgusting. Where in the world does that come from?
Could the continuing flight of the Black middle class from DC have anything to do with their fear of "working class Latinos?"
DCPS has been in a state of perpetual decline since the late 1950s. The middle class white flight of the 1960s was followed by middle class black flight of the 1970s: people put their kids in schools that don't suck, regardless of the color of the kids in that school. NOVA is covered with some of the most multiculti schools in the nation, because regardless of their parents color, they want their kids in schools that value education.
Instead, DCPS offer lip service, "stand for children" plattitudes, flavor of the week educational "theory", and a bloated bureacracy where teachers have to pay out of pocket for school supplies while Deputy Assistant Vice Secretaries to teh Deputy Assistant Secretary for Esteem Affairs pull six-figures-a-year and work 3-day weeks.
Chocolate City went latee years ago because black middle class parents were sick of this nonsense. That's why PG County is the most affluent majority black suburb in the nation.