Post by dave on Nov 8, 2013 8:45:13 GMT -5
In Public Education, Edge Still Goes to Rich
By EDUARDO PORTER
Published: November 5, 2013
It is hardly a partisan belief. About a decade ago, on signing the No Child Left Behind Act, President George W. Bush argued that the nation’s biggest challenge was to ensure that “every single child, regardless of where they live, how they’re raised, the income level of their family, every child receive a first-class education in America.”
This consensus is comforting. It provides a solution everyone can believe in, whether the problem is income inequality, racial marginalization or the stagnation of the middle class. But it raises a perplexing question, too. If education is a poor child’s best shot at rising up the ladder of prosperity, why do public resources devoted to education lean so decisively in favor of the better off?
The anguished and often angry national debate over how to improve American educational standards, focused intently on grading students and teachers, mostly bypasses how the inequity of resources — starting at the youngest — inevitably affects the outcome.
“The debate about education reform is a lot about process,” said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center in Newark, an advocacy group for disadvantaged students. “To a large extent it is a huge distraction. We never get to the question of what resources we need to get the students to meet the standards.”
Continued at:
www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/business/a-rich-childs-edge-in-public-education.html?ref=business&_r=0
Interesting article and probably largely true. Its premise is certainly rolled out often enough. But this "rich district versus poor district" setup always rings somewhat hollow with me because there are lots of reasons why per pupil spending has a wide spread throughout the state (and nation) and it doesn't always indicate a difference in the quality of education. And taxable property value per student can be really misleading. Still there are inequities and as the author points out, if we are to have a society where everyone gets an even chance, and that society so values education as we seem to do, it makes sense to insure that every child gets an equal education through high school at least.
By EDUARDO PORTER
Published: November 5, 2013
It is hardly a partisan belief. About a decade ago, on signing the No Child Left Behind Act, President George W. Bush argued that the nation’s biggest challenge was to ensure that “every single child, regardless of where they live, how they’re raised, the income level of their family, every child receive a first-class education in America.”
This consensus is comforting. It provides a solution everyone can believe in, whether the problem is income inequality, racial marginalization or the stagnation of the middle class. But it raises a perplexing question, too. If education is a poor child’s best shot at rising up the ladder of prosperity, why do public resources devoted to education lean so decisively in favor of the better off?
The anguished and often angry national debate over how to improve American educational standards, focused intently on grading students and teachers, mostly bypasses how the inequity of resources — starting at the youngest — inevitably affects the outcome.
“The debate about education reform is a lot about process,” said David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center in Newark, an advocacy group for disadvantaged students. “To a large extent it is a huge distraction. We never get to the question of what resources we need to get the students to meet the standards.”
Continued at:
www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/business/a-rich-childs-edge-in-public-education.html?ref=business&_r=0
Interesting article and probably largely true. Its premise is certainly rolled out often enough. But this "rich district versus poor district" setup always rings somewhat hollow with me because there are lots of reasons why per pupil spending has a wide spread throughout the state (and nation) and it doesn't always indicate a difference in the quality of education. And taxable property value per student can be really misleading. Still there are inequities and as the author points out, if we are to have a society where everyone gets an even chance, and that society so values education as we seem to do, it makes sense to insure that every child gets an equal education through high school at least.
