CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer
   California Association of Private School Organizations 
November 5, 2014 
Volume 8, Number 3
In This Issue

-- The Heritability of Education

-- Slow Times at Jefferson High

-- Quick Takes

-- Mobility and Inertia

-- Publication Note

Join Our Mailing List 

 

 

 

Follow us on Twitter 

 

and Facebook

 

CAPSO Logo GIF  

 

Quick Links...
 

General Resources



California Department of Education
Public School Districts
News & Information


Newsletters & Blogs


Organizations & Think Tanks



California Association
of
Private School Organizations
 
15500 Erwin St., #303
Van Nuys, CA  91411

818.781.4680
  
 CAPSO Logo GIF 
 
  
 CAPSO Logo GIF 









 
The Heritability of Education
Increasingly, Americans are becoming fixated upon income inequality and related issues.  While considerable controversy exists with respect to how 'income' should be defined, most social scientists agree that income inequality in the U.S. is significant and growing.  Decades of research have also pointed to a strong degree of association between educational attainment and income, with the upshot that education continues to be widely regarded as the surest means of lifting people out of poverty.
 
Wealth can certainly be inherited, and with affluence comes an undeniable host of educational advantages.  But is there an "educational heritability" factor?  Brookings Institution researchers Richard Reeves and Joanna Venator have produced a couple of tables that enable readers to compare intergenerational education mobility and intergenerational income mobility.


The author's explain the basis upon which the tables were created, here.  The table's five columns represent five quintiles of educational attainment achieved by fathers, most of whom were born between 1920 - 1940.  Each column is divided into segments showing the percentage of children (most of whom were born between 1950- 1968) whose educational attainment ended up in the corresponding quintile.  A correct reading of the table shows that 37 percent of children whose fathers were in the lowest education quintile remained in that quintile, themselves, while a mere 7 percent whose fathers were in the lowest quintile managed to reach the highest quintile.  Conversely, 46 percent of children whose fathers were in the top education quintile ended up in the top quintile, themselves.

Comparing the intergenerational income mobility table to the education table produces an interesting observation: the 'stickiness' of education (i.e. its persistence across generations) is greater than the 'stickiness' of income, meaning that there's less income mobility across generations.  Such a finding gains significance in light of the strong degree of correlation between education and income which would lead one to expect the two tables to look very similar.  And while the tables do look very much alike, it's noteworthy that 76 percent of those born to fathers in the highest education quintile remained in the top two quintiles while only 65 percent of those born to fathers in the top income quintile remained in that table's top two quintiles. 
 
What might this mean?  According to the authors, the finding "echoes research showing large, and possibly growing, gaps in educational attainment by social and economic background."  At the same time, there's an upside, for the data show that an investment in education is, indeed, likely to yield an advantage for life
Slow Times at Jefferson High
Hundreds of students at Jefferson High School in Los Angeles spent close to two months whiling away portions of their school day sitting in the auditorium, attending content-free classes, or performing administrative tasks as a result of a glitch in the software used to schedule courses.  Many were assigned to classes they had already taken, or courses they didn't need.  Some were assigned to multiple free periods.  Others were sent home early.

The computer-generated snafu induced disgruntled parents to turn to civil rights groups who petitioned a Superior Court judge for redress.  Their action was supported by former Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent John Deasy, who, in a letter to the court, wrote of the non-instructional classes to which Jefferson High students were assigned, as follows:

"These courses serve no conceivable pedagogical purpose and defy every norm and standard adhered to by professional educators. The fact that these courses are used anywhere is antithetical to education, but the fact that they are being assigned to students who are academically behind and have not fulfilled graduation and college entry requirements is outrageous."

Following the issuance of a court order requiring the district to remedy the situation, the LAUSD school board produced a $1.1 million plan whose elements included a lengthened school day, the provision of additional courses, and tutoring for students who suffered a loss of instructional time.  The board also committed to the conduct of an audit to determine whether students at other district schools had been negatively affected by similar scheduling problems, as well as to expand its investigation into what caused the problems at Jefferson High, and how administrators responded.

There is speculation that Superintendent Deasy's support for the legal action directed at the district contributed to his ensuing resignation.  Dr. Deasy had already angered the teachers union by authoring an op ed piece appearing in the Los Angeles Times in which he lauded the Vergara v. California decision, a ruling that struck down a number of teacher protections that included the granting of tenure after two years of service, and the "Last In - First Out" protocol governing layoffs.  In that piece he wrote:

"As a consequence of these laws, which were challenged in the Vergara lawsuit, too many students throughout the state have been saddled with grossly ineffective teachers, and administrators have had little power to remove them. Far too much of school districts' money and administrators' time has been spent trying to dismiss ineffective teachers - funds and time that could have been spent far more productively on improving education."

Was the former superintendent of the nation's second largest public school district courageous, or foolish for making his views transparent? The L.A. Times reports the Jefferson High School story here, and here

Quick Takes 

Green Ribbon Schools

CAPSO encourages all schools to teach and model responsible stewardship of the environment.  If your school has taken steps to become "more green," we strongly encourage participation in the U.S. Department of Education's Green Ribbon Schools (GRS) recognition award program.  The GRS program, "honors schools that are exemplary in reducing environmental impact and costs; improving the health and wellness of students and staff; and providing effective environmental and sustainability education, which incorporates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), civic skills and green career pathways."  More information can be found on the California Department of Education's website, here.




The application process begins with the completion of a short "Snap Survey" that can be completed online, here.  Once your school has taken this step, instructions governing the completion of the full application will be provided, or, directions can be found here.

Following a thorough evaluation of all applications, one California private school will be nominated to receive the national Green Ribbon School designation.  However, thanks to the establishment of a new California recognition program now in its second year, all applicants achieving an evaluation rating of 55 percent or higher will receive state-level recognition.

If you have questions about the program, please contact the CDE's terrific GRS program director, Lesley Taylor, at 916-322-0310, or via email at:
[email protected]


Whole Lotta' Spendin' Goin' On!

[Update:  As this edition of the E-Mailer goes to press, the California Secretary of State website shows that the incumbent, Tom Torlakson, has defeated challenger Marshall Tuck by a margin of 52.1% to 47.9%.]

This year's race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, typically a low-key affair contested in the backwaters of political visibility, generated an unusually generous amount of spending.  In fact, more money was spent on this race than any other statewide contest in yesterday's midterm election.  As of last week, incumbent Tom Torlakson and challenger Marshall Tuck had raised and spent a combined $24 million to win election to a position that administers, but does not make education policy - a role performed by the State Board of Education.  Each candidate raised approximately the same amount.

Mr. Torlakson's primary benefactor was the California Teachers Association, while the bulk of financial support for Mr. Tuck came from an outside group whose donors included such heavy hitters as philanthropist Eli Broad and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  What made the magnitude of such spending the more remarkable is that both candidates were Democrats who view California's public schools as underfunded, support Proposition 30, the new Local Control Funding Formula for the state's public schools championed by Governor Jerry Brown, the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, and the extension of greater control to the local level.  Obviously, where the two parted company was regarded as critical by their respective donor bases. An insightful analysis and commentary on what may conceivably have been the crucial difference is provided by David Menefee-Libey, writing in EdWeek's "On California" blog, here

Mike Antonucci, writing in the Education Intelligence Agency's Communiqu, offers this view:

"The California Teachers Association has staked all of its political capital and reputation on Torlakson. Should Tuck defeat him, it would be a signal to California Democrats, particularly down ballot, that it's no longer career suicide to go your own way on education policy. A Torlakson win would not only cement CTA's grip on the state's education system, but would be a warning shot across the bow of any future Tucks, even very well-funded ones."

The E-Mailer will have more to say about the outcome of the election in its next edition.  Meanwhile, for those who may be interested, EdSource has created a web app tracing the flow of campaign funds to each candidate.  You can find it, here.
 

Parlez-vous Anglais?

If you're a parent who is currently shouldering the cost of a private school education, chances are you're thinking ahead to the financing of your child's, or children's college education.  Given the skyrocketing price tag accompanying a post secondary education, and the staggering level of indebtedness with which many graduates become burdened, the following piece of news may be of considerable interest: A number of other nations offer college and university programs taught in English and available to U.S. students, at little or no cost

Yes, you read that correctly.  You can learn more from a Washington Post blog piece authored by Rick Noack, here.  The foreign countries mentioned in the article include Germany, Finland, France, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia and Brazil.  Each nation is home to colleges and universities that offer courses of study in English that are open to foreign students meeting admission requirements, for little or no tuition and accompanying fees. 

In Germany, the article notes, "About 900 undergraduate or graduate degrees are offered exclusively in English, with courses ranging from engineering to social sciences. For some German degrees, one need not even formally apply."  In Sweden, Ph.D. programs are tuition free.  Many French universities charge tuition on a sliding scale basis linked to familial income.  One does, however, need to provide for one's own living expenses.  C'est la vie!


Do as I Say, Not as I Do

Teachers are more likely to enroll their own children in private schools than the public at large, yet are far less likely to support school choice policies that would extend the same opportunities to others.  So suggest the findings of a recent survey conducted by Education Next's Program on Education Policy and Governance. 

When asked to identify the kinds of schools their own children have attended, 19 percent of teacher respondents indicated that their offspring had attended a private school, compared to just 14 percent of the public.  Yet, when asked if they would support "a tax credit for individual and corporate donations that pay for scholarships to help low-income parents send their children to private schools," only 37 percent of teachers expressed support for such an arrangement, compared to 60 percent of the public.  Among other respondent groups, 60 percent of African-Americans, and 70 percent of Hispanics indicated support for such a tax-credit arrangement.

Interestingly, a slightly higher percentage of teachers (38 percent) expressed support for a school voucher arrangement (although the word 'voucher' did not appear in the question), compared to 50 percent of the public, 59 percent of African-Americans, and 58 percent of Hispanics.  Significantly fewer teachers,  however, indicated support for a voucher arrangement whose benefits would be restricted to low-income students, with 18 percent expressing support for such a plan compared to 37 percent of the public, 47 percent of African-Americans, and 55 percent of Hispanics. 

Teacher approval increased substantially (to 33 percent) when the criterion for receipt of what amounts to a voucher changed from income to enrollment in failing public schools.  By comparison, 51 percent of respondents representing the public indicated support for such a policy, as did 65 percent of African-Americans and 54 percent of Hispanics.
Mobility and Inertia
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently produced a sobering op ed piece titled, "The American Dream is Leaving America," in which he bemoans the demise of education as the key "escalator" to upward social mobility.  "Among young Americans whose parents didn't graduate from high school," he writes, "only 5 percent make it through college themselves. In other rich countries, the figure is 23 percent."  Alluding to comparative educational attainment figures appearing in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's most recent Annual Survey of Education, Mr. Kristof concludes that, "the American dream seems to have emigrated because many countries do better than the United States in educational mobility."  Utilizing college graduation as his key metric for assessing educational mobility, Mr. Kristof notes: "As recently as 2000, the United States still ranked second in the share of the population with a college degree. Now we have dropped to fifth." 

Mr. Kristof assigns blame for the decline to three factors: a bifurcated system that offers "superb education for elites," while short-changing the majority, failure to provide universal early education, and low teacher salaries.

Just two days prior to the publication of Mr. Kristof's article, an op ed column titled, "Getting more poor kids into college won't fix income inequality," appeared in the Washington Post.  As did Kristof, authors James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer Riley acknowledged: "The fact that relatively few students from low-income backgrounds attend college is responsible in large part for the lack of upward mobility in the United States today."  To which they added: "But [colleges] aren't the real problem; K-12 education is."
 
The authors cite current research conducted by economists Caroline Hoxby of Stanford University and Harvard University's Christopher Avery which found that the overwhelming majority of high achieving high school students from low-income backgrounds fail to apply to any selective colleges or universities, "despite the fact that selective institutions typically cost them less (owing to the availability of generous financial aid) than the two-year and nonselective four-year institutions to which they actually apply."  For students admitted to Harvard whose familial income is less than $65,000, the family pays nothingYale University bills itself as "one of the most affordable colleges in the country for families making less than $200,000 in annual income - significantly less expensive than attending a top public university, even as an in-state student."  As is true of rival Harvard, those whose families earn less than $65,000 pay nothing.

Why do so few high-achieving low-income students seek admission to top U.S. colleges and universities?  In part, suggest authors Piereson and Schaefer Riley, the answer involves the observation that, "teachers have more school choice than students do. Rather than sending the most qualified and experienced teachers to educate the kids who need them the most, we do the reverse."  The upshot is that relatively fewer high-achieving students from low-income households have contact with teachers and counselors who encourage them to apply to leading colleges and universities and advise them of the generous financial aid opportunities they offer.  And, as the authors note: "All you have to do is look at a high-performing charter school or private school in a poor neighborhood to realize that there is nothing about low-income kids that makes them incapable of doing well in school."
 
The crux of the problem, however, is that the educational achievement gap dividing children from low-income families from their more-affluent counterparts is growing rather than shrinking.  Citing research conducted by Stanford University's Sean Reardon, the authors note:

"The achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families is roughly 30 to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among those born twenty-five years earlier. In fact, it appears that the income achievement gap has been growing for at least fifty years."

This, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on programs such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and Head Start, whose express purpose is to close the achievement gap.  Indeed, while the U.S. was falling behind other nations with respect to proportionate numbers of college graduates during the years following 2000, federal investment in education skyrocketed.  President Bush committed more federal dollars to K-12 education during the first two years of his presidency than his predecessor did in the preceding eight.  And in President Obama's American Recovery and Investment Act, an extra sum of nearly $100 billion was allocated for education, with most targeted for K-12 schooling.

Both articles acknowledge that education continues to hold the key to upward socio-economic mobility, and both concur that our education system is distancing the "American Dream" from the grasp of the economically disadvantaged.  With global competition accelerating and the stakes higher than ever, maybe it's time to abandon a "more of the same" approach in favor of real systemic reform.

Ron Reynolds
Publication Note


The next edition of the CAPSO Midweek E-Mailer will be published December 10, 2014.