Alamo Whites

Norton Grubb argues that inequality and inadequate outcomes from schools cannot be explained by inadequate revenues and financing, contrary to the opinions of many. More money to schools will not solve problems of inequality. Grubb points out that the link between spending per pupil and outcomes has always been weak, so more money should not be seen as the only solution for improving schools.

I find this philosophy interesting given my education experience and background before college. I went to school in one of the wealthiest school districts in San Antonio, known for its lack of racial/ethnic diversity and overall pretentiousness. Students at other schools in San Antonio express a general disdain for this district (Alamo Heights) and refer to it as "Alamo Whites." Most of the students come from upper-middle class families and over 90% attend college upon graduation. Although it has a wide range of accolades and favorable student outcomes, I believe this is largely because of the families/backgrounds of the students who attend this school, rather than because the district itself has money. Most of my friends’ parents were doctors, lawyers, or CEOs with large incomes and many resources to support and encourage their children.

Throughout my time in this school district, many legal practices and policies over the years required my school district to redistribute some of its money to the other schools in San Antonio. While I do think it is important for all schools to have enough money to provide quality curriculum and services to students, I think (and I think this is in line with Grubb’s thinking) that more focus should have been given to other factors. Money alone is not the reason for the success of students who come through this district. Family background, a tight-knit community, and other social factors likely contribute significantly to outcomes. While money is the easy difference to observe and measure, it is not the most significant factor.

Freedom and Equality

As discussed in class, the ideas of freedom/liberty and equality are present in most arguments and are directly derived from the capability approach. After realizing that these ideas are fundamental to the argument for gay rights, I have been on the look-out for other contexts where they arise.

I realized that these ideas have emerged in many issues surrounding global health and health inequalities. In my global health class, we have been reading and discussing Dr. Paul Farmer, a physician and anthropologist known for his humanitarian work providing “first world” health care to the world’s poor and marginalized people. Farmer believes that the poor not only deserve to receive the same medical care as wealthier patients, but should even be prioritized. People should not suffer and die when medication or treatment exists in the world. He argues that we are morally responsible for the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized populations. There is a collective responsibility for the “haves” to provide for the “have nots”.

This stance falls in line with many of the ideas of the capability approach. The poor and vulnerable should have the freedom to reach their full potential and live the life they wish to live. Health care should be equitable: the poor and the rich should be treated the same. People should not go untreated and die from AIDS, malaria, TB, etc. when treatments exist for those who can pay. The capability approach also provided a foundation for the idea that the community is responsible for the development and well-being of the individual. 

I think these same issues also arise in the current health care debate in the United States. Proponents of universal health care believe that we have a collective responsibility to make sure everybody receives health care. If health care is a human right, then all populations should have access. Opponents don’t want universal health care because they don’t want their tax money to cover health care for those who can’t pay, because they don’t feel a sense of responsibility. Regardless of responsibility, equality in access to health care and freedom surrounding health care are fundamental ideas surrounding the debate

Pondering International Aid and Education

I’ve been doing some research related to international aid for another project, and I started thinking about international aid and education. Aid Data, whose goal is to make aid more transparent and improve the quality of research on aid allocation, has a searchable database of aid activities around the world. Users can search data based on donor, recipient, purpose, activity, and other parameters. Education is one of 25 purpose groups, and within education there are 53 activity categories. A search of international aid in 2010 for education projects revealed twelve pages of results, with project commitments ranging from as little as less than $100 to over $740,000,000. The biggest expenditure in 2010 was a project in India for a second elementary education project funded by the World Bank – International Development Association ($742,953,164). 

I also started thinking about “failed states” and was curious about international aid funding education projects. I searched development aid for education projects in 2010 in the top 15 “most failed states” based on the annual ranking by “Foreign Policy”. This search returned 25 projects, ranging from $500 commitments to $93,387,942. The most common donors were Norway, India, the United States, and the World Bank. The top two biggest commitments were from the United States to Afghanistan for higher education and basic education. Three questions came to mind: 1) why do international donors commit so much money to education in other countries, especially in failed states, 2) are there negative consequences of international aid for education, and 3) are these education systems successful?

I believe donors fund education systems in foreign countries because they believe it will create social change. An educated populace could lead to economic development, a stable political climate, and gains in human capital at the individual level. When public education was first expanding in the U.S. in the 1800s, David Labaree believes that the goals were for democratic equality first, and then for social efficiency. It seems that these are the main goals when funding a new education system in a “failed state”. A potential problem with this focus is that it appears to focus on aggregate results, instead of the individual. For example, education is important because of democratic and economic gains, instead of the capabilities and functionings of the individual. It would be interesting to examine this situation in more detail.

Early Childhood Education Expansion

Is early childhood education important? The Op-Ed article “When Families Fail” by David Brooks in the New York Times argues that quality preschool could reduce poverty and increase social mobility. Although the federally funded Head Start program has been unable to improve school readiness of children from disadvantaged families, many local and state programs have emerged as successful. There is evidence to suggest that local programs like the Perry and Abecedarian Project and state programs in Oklahoma, Georgia, and New Jersey can make at least an incremental difference in school readiness. Although the improvements are small, they add up over years to produce significantly better lives (Brooks). It seems to me that the capability framework would support free early childhood education for children of disadvantaged families. It provides these children with similar opportunities available for children from wealthier families who can afford private preschool, minimizing the disadvantaged faced by children who cannot afford preschool before kindergarten and elementary school.

Reaction to Obama’s proposed expansion of early childhood education has been mixed, but mainly over issues related to cost. After reading about the capability approach, it seems that Obama is arguing for the responsibility of the local and state governments to provide early childhood education. The state should provide it so that every individual child has the same level of capabilities upon entering school After reading this Op-Ed article, I briefly looked up a few other articles in the last week or two from other newspapers. Most other articles acknowledge the importance of school readiness, but expressed concerned due to the minimal impact of Head Start despite the massive federal cost. Georgia Republican Senator Isakson stressed that his state’s program, which offers free pre-kindergarten to all 4 year olds, works because it started locally and is funded locally. This highlights the importance of focusing on educational programs at a smaller scale. This complements discussions we’ve had in class about focusing on the individual and the problem of increasing the scale when trying to solve issues of equity and efficiency. I think that the expansion of early childhood education will only be successful if it is implemented on a small scale.

Concern over Capabilities

When discussing the capability approach, Amartya Sen argues that education is important on its own, not just as a commodity for production. This reminds me of David Labaree’s article “How Dewey Lost: The victory of David Snedden” where he contemplates how the beliefs of popular Dewey lost out to the view of the wild card David Snedden. It seems to me that Sen’s beliefs share some of the “romantic and naturalistic” vision of education that Dewey had. Both Sen and Labaree point to the economic incentives and social mobility goals tied into the American education system today, which aligns with Snedden’s desire for a “socially useful school curriculum”. I wonder if the ideologies of Sen and other supporters of the capability approach will fall to the background, just as Dewey’s did. I know this is just a small fraction of the capability approach, but the almost romantic vision of the education system reminded me of the analysis of Dewey’s beliefs. My understanding of the capability approach so far is that the authors believe that education has the ability to influence social change at the individual level, and not because of the economic incentives tied into the human capital approach.

From my readings thus far, this approach to education seems to contradict the support for standardized testing. Standardized testing tries to make the material taught in schools uniform from school to school, and rates achievements off of test scores. Although the capability approach is concerned with egalitarian goals via schooling, standardized testing places too much concern on testing scores as a means of competition and mobility. Instead, the capability approach emphasizes the interactions in schools and the relationship between not only knowledge and skills, but also options and opportunity. Focusing on standardized testing and scores further draws the emphasis away from democratic morality and equality and towards economic efficiency and social mobility.

 

Equilibrium to Diseqilibrium

     Patricia Shields credits Dewey and Peirce for insight into the process of inquiry that takes place when writing a large research paper. Dewey and Peirce note that a transformation happens during this process, due to doubt associated from questioning the existing system. As student researcher, we begin with a topic and in a state of equilibrium. The process of reviewing the literature leads to doubt and a challenging of the original belief or understanding ("disequilibrium"). Eventually (it is the hope), we reach a new understanding further up the "learning curve".

     I find myself in the muddy state of "disequilibrium" where my previous understanding has been challenged. Even as little as a week ago, I thought I had a general understand of the problems of our education system. Any major city such as Austin or San Antonio (my hometown) reveals a wide gap in performance levels, funding, etc. between the top schools and the "bottom" schools. This gap reflects the systematic structural inequality that is evident in multiple areas of society. Based on David Labaree's social mobility approach, this inequality within the educational institution provides the upper middle class with the capital to stay ahead of the lower classes, furthering the inequality found in society. How can those who start out with less capital get ahead when the education system is a stratified hierarchy? I find myself doubting my previous understanding of such a complex situation, because I realize that the answer is not clear cut. The answer is not just redistributing tax revenues or increasing budgets, because the problem is more fundamental than that. I cannot say that I have found an answer to the problem of inequality between and within schools, but I can say I believe that we should aim to solve issues of equality through schools.