Tag Archives: education

INCOME INEQUALITY AND EDUCATION (Hint: Blame the left!)

John Mauldin

John Mauldin

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I think it will be worth your time.

I have mentioned before that I am a huge fan of John Mauldin. Mauldin is an investment analyst/economist from Texas. (You can check out my review of his newest book, Code Red.) I think he’s one of the most brilliant guys I have ever read.

He publishes a free weekly newsletter called Thoughts from the Frontline. There are close to a million people that read it. It’s basically Mauldin’s attempt to explain the world as he sees it. No matter whether you care about investing or not, I think Mauldin does an exponentially better job of reporting what is really going on in the world today. He is incredibly well read, and has quite a knack for the written word. Much of his analysis is done through the lens of economics.

Recentlym he had a three part series on income inequality (“The Problem with Keynesianism“, March 9, 2014; “Inequality and Opportunity“, March 16, 2014; and “When Inequality Isn’t“, March 29, 2014). The whole series is worth your time, but I thought I’d dish out the stuff I found most interesting and appropriate for our purposes here. I’m going to underline the parts I found most important.

Equality of Opportunity

In one of the most far-reaching studies I’ve seen, a group of Harvard economists have compared upward mobility – the ability to rise from lower to higher income groups – among US metropolitan areas, as well as among developed nations. Their rather remarkable website and database can be found here. Their one-paragraph summary is:

In two recent studies, we find that: (1) Upward income mobility varies substantially within the U.S. [summary][paperAreas with greater mobility tend to have five characteristics: less segregation, less income inequality, better schools, greater social capital, and more stable families. (2) Contrary to popular perception, economic mobility has not changed significantly over time; however, it is consistently lower in the U.S. than in most developed countries. [summary][paper].

Silence of the Left

Conveniently for the discussion of our topic, John Goodman posted a brief article on Townhall.com this week called “Silence of the Left”:

The topic du jour on the left these days is inequality. But why does the left care about inequality? Do they really want to lift those at the bottom of the income ladder? Or are they just looking for one more reason to increase the power of government? If you care about those at the bottom then you are wasting your time and everyone else’s time unless you focus on one and only one phenomenon: the inequality of educational opportunity. Poor kids are almost always enrolled in bad schools. Rich kids are almost always in good schools.

It turns out that homes cost roughly 20% more in areas with good schools. School choice is already in effect because people with more money buy homes in areas with better public schools. Children of families with less money on average tend to be stuck in lower-performing public schools.

Goodman cites a Brookings Institution study that investigated the same phenomenon nationwide:

  • Across the 100 largest metropolitan areas, housing costs an average of 2.4 times as much, or nearly $11,000 more per year, near a high-scoring public school than near a low-scoring public school.
  • This housing cost gap reflects that home values are $205,000 higher on average in the neighborhoods of high-scoring versus low-scoring schools. Near high-scoring schools, typical homes have 1.5 additional rooms and the share of housing units that are rented is roughly 30 percentage points lower than in neighborhoods near low-scoring schools.

Goodman continues:

You almost never see anything written by left-of-center folks on reforming the public schools. And I have noticed on TV talk shows that it’s almost impossible to get liberals to agree to the most modest of all reform ideas: getting rid of bad teachers and making sure we keep the good ones.

Here is the uncomfortable reality:

1. Our system of public education is one of the most regressive features of American society.

2. There is almost nothing we could do that would be more impactful in reducing inequality of educational opportunity and inequality overall than to do what Sweden has done: give every child a voucher and let them select a school of choice.

3. Yet on the left there is almost uniform resistance to this idea or any other idea that challenges the power of the teachers’ unions.

That “socialist” bastion of income equality and mobility – Sweden – uses vouchers for education.

Krugman argues against school vouchers because they might reduce support for public schools. And then he actually writes, “And – dare we say it? – we should in general oppose privatization plans if they are likely to destroy public sector unions.”

We have total academic, bureaucratic, and teachers’-union capture of public education. We are subjecting our children to an education system that that was designed for and that worked remarkably well during the first two industrial revolutions but that is now utterly inadequate for the coming Age of Transformation. The new New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio, is working to shut down many of the best-performing schools in his city – charter schools – which are hated by teachers’ unions. Rather than ask what is good for the children, he and many others simply want to expand the power of the unions.

If we want to do something about income inequality, perhaps we should think about the data that shows the remarkable correlation between education, educational opportunity, and income.

report from the American Enterprise Institute gives us a good summary. Notice in the chart below that while the income of the highest fifth of the US population is almost 18 times that of the lowest fifth, there is only a 3.5x differential when it comes to the average earnings of the people actually working and making money in the household. It is just that high-income households have more than four times as many wage earners (on average) as poor households.

And married and thus two-earner households make more than single-person households. That seems obvious, of course, but it is a significant factor in income inequality. That doesn’t make the plight of the single working mom any better or easier, but it does help explain the statistical difference. And it does make a difference in lifestyle. Marriage drops the probability of childhood poverty by 82%.

The AEI report ends on this positive note:

Bottom Line: Household demographics, including the average number of earners per household and the marital status, age, and education of householders are all very highly correlated with household income. Specifically, high-income households have a greater average number of income-earners than households in lower-income quintiles, and individuals in high income households are far more likely than individuals in low-income households to be well-educated, married, working full-time, and in their prime earning years. In contrast, individuals in lower-income households are far more likely than their counterparts in higher-income households to be less-educated, working part-time, either very young (under 35 years) or very old (over 65 years), and living in single-parent households.

Take a look at this chart below. It looks at spending by households on various items split out by quintile. It goes back to 1986 because that was when pretty significant changes to the tax law occurred. Noticed specifically the differences in spending on education and reading.

annualexpenditure

At the beginning of this letter I promised you a “solution” to income inequality. Let me offer this one tongue-in-cheek, as an argumentum ad absurdum.

We simply need to penalize the incomes of older people, take away any advantage there is from being married, reduce opportunities for education, penalize people for working more than 35 hours per week, and of course levy a significant tax on any accumulated savings. This will quickly reduce inequalities of income. It has the slight disadvantage that it will also destroy the economy and create a massive depression; but if the goal is equal outcomes for all, then communist Russia might be the model you are looking for. Except that even there the bureaucrats and other insiders did quite well.

If you’re really serious about dealing with income inequality, you need to worry about equality of opportunity in education, and specifically about making sure that the education system is radically reformed by taking it out of the hands of bureaucrats and unions. We need to make sure the economic and legal playing field is level by getting government favoritism and bureaucratic meddling out of the way and making the pie larger for everyone. However, as I demonstrated a few weeks ago, a natural outcome of doubling the size of the economic pie over the coming 15 years will be that there is an even greater differential between those who have next to nothing and those who have accumulated the most. The only way to prevent such an outcome is to keep the total economic pie from growing, and that doesn’t seem like a very good economic policy.

If we truly want to do something about income inequality, we must stop listening to the left talk about it. They are completely and utterly uniformed on the topic. And more then anything else, they probably are the most to blame. They have destroyed our families socially and culturally, and they have destroyed our schools through unionization and bureaucratization.

Andrew Palmer is co-founder and editor of Conservative Teachers of America. You may reach him at [email protected]

2 Comments

Filed under Economics, Uncategorized

12/1/2013 #QuoteOfTheDay #education #RonaldReagan

“Education is not the means of showing people how to get what they want. Education is an exercise by means of which enough men, it is hoped, will learn to want what is worth having.”

-Ronald Reagan

1 Comment

by | December 1, 2013 · 10:00 AM

THE BAIT AND SWITCH GAME OF MODERN SOCIAL-LIBERAL EDUCATION

An old fashioned con-man’s game of fraud is alive and well. It is called “Bait and Switch” and is sometimes used to sell products. It works very simply. The con-man offers to sell one thing at a given price, but when the customer arrives to get the merchandise, he is told that it has suddenly been sold out and a product of lower quality put in its place, usually at  higher cost.

“Bait and Switch” is not the exclusive practice of unscrupulous crooks. It is alive and well in American education, in which one thing is promised and another thing is delivered in its place that is astonishingly more costly and of vastly lower quality. In this case, they promise education, but, instead of a platform of studies which sets high standards of achievement and that demands students work to reach the objective goals of literacy, numeracy, clear critical thinking and uncorrupted reasoning, they deliver a platform of deliberately lowered standards, and political correctness in the form of a range of excuse-making devices. These devices take various forms, such as special education ploys for often fictitious and exaggerated “disabilities” that suspend the natural human challenge inherent in education, destroy accountability for failure and create an egregiously debilitating government dependency through ignorance and propaganda.

The Bait is the false promise that, through enormous funding, too often squandered in patronage grants for useless studies, a superior education is ensured. The Switch is that, for all the investment and graft, you get illiteracy, bad behavior through permissive conditioning and the continual failure of incalculable numbers of high school graduates unable to read, write, add, subtract, divide,  multiply, or generally to think.

There is only one reason to become educated. It is to free the mind so that it can govern the process of living. The purpose for being educated is not just to get a job, as is widely asserted. That is the main purpose of training, or the detailed learning of specific skills related to a profession or job. The real end purpose of becoming fully and truly educated is freedom, because only a free person can truly make life choices and decisions without being limited by anything but his ability and civilized society’s rules. To be free, a person must be able to depend on knowing reality, which requires the skills of clear thinking and uncorrupted reasoning. These alone enable a person to make wise and beneficial decisions, and without them, i.e., without education, there can be no freedom.

The methodology of education is learning to learn, a process which is guided by teachers, but which is something students must ultimately acquire for themselves. It cannot be instilled or instantly injected in anyone. You cannot simply tell someone how to play the piano or how to build a house. You may guide that person through a set of steps and explain various details, but the skills that make up piano playing or house building must be learned, fully understood and practiced until they are mastered. The ultimate ability of learning is the ability to teach oneself whatever one needs to learn. This should be the clearly recognized goal of every student and every teacher. The ultimate result of learning is not limited to specific facts or content, but to mastering the disciplines of clear, critical thinking and uncorrupted reasoning. It is the mastery of skills, not exclusively of content, because grasping truth and comprehending reality are skills that enable a person possessing them to learn anything and everything for the rest of his or her lives. Contrary to the argument that disciplined learning is constricting, a mastered set of disciplines, of reading, writing, reasoning, etc. is itself freedom from constriction. The intent of education should never be to cram data into a student’s head.

Neither is education the process of manufacturing self-esteem through grandiose notions or false narratives of history. That is the intent of propaganda, not education. The intent of educating students should be to teach them to evaluate data by objective standards and to expose them to many possible opposing explanations of a thing, until they have enough data to arrive at the truth objectively and it becomes a part of their experience. It is the truth and not the data which sets them free.

Author Dana R. Casey has put it succinctly: Teach students how to think, but never what to think.

This is vitally important for people to realize, because, a free, fully educated people are much stronger and less vulnerable to oppression than ignorant masses, long fed on propaganda. Therefore, governments often pervert education, so that facts are replaced with propaganda and the vital skills of objective critical thinking and a traditional liberal arts education are replaced by technical training. Freedom to think objectively strengthens people, while ignorance weakens them and makes them vulnerable to oppression or manipulation by government.

Corrupting an entire educational system takes a long time and must be done slowly and subtly. The advent of social liberalism and the theories of John Dewey, who praised the Soviet Union in its early days, introduced the concept of educating the masses, i.e., of collectivizing education. Dewey’s notion was that an educated population could be mass produced. He believed that the purpose of education is social reform. He wrote that “education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.”

Dewey tried this in the USSR in the 30s, but the Soviets did not take Dewey’s notions entirely to heart, although they recognized that his methods and rationale might effectively create an educated collective population. Recognizing that a functioning nation requires a high rate of literacy and of all the other basic skills, they kept the traditional principles of education intact and instead placed their emphasis on slanting the content of education.

They stressed technical subjects and rewarded science students with government subsidy of their work, because they knew that technological advances were advantageous to their national power. Students in the Soviet Union had a high rate of literacy, mastery of foreign languages, especially English, which they recognized as the global standard, and the arts. Students of history were taught a carefully constructed propagandized view, even to the extent of manipulating and even inventing historical accounts. They were not given opportunities for an objective, many-faceted examination of such events. Thus students “learned” history which was skewed to the purposes of the Soviet regime.

The arts were also fiercely controlled, especially literature, because the Soviets understood the power of arts, especially of the written word, to shape the spirit and soul of a people, and punishments were exacted for violating the rules regarding what one could draw, paint, compose, write or disseminate. Even what was read by the people was tightly controlled. The works of Kafka and others were banned, and anyone copying prohibited text, called samizdat, often went to jail where they were harshly treated. In some respects, dissident artists and writers were treated more harshly than murderers on the logical theory that a murderer only killed people, whereas a powerfully written poem could inspire rebellion.

We in the US do not have a collectivist culture. The founding principle of our free republic is the freedom and rights of individual citizens. The founding documents upon which our nation was formed, was the diametric opposite of Soviet Socialism, thus, we have never believed in collectivizing anyone. In the US, these values and principles are also the purpose of the US education system. But that has gradually been corrupted.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many former citizens of the USSR fled to the West. They knew that here they could fully appreciate what real freedom, freedom of the individual, was like. One component of Soviet life that was valuable and which they retained, was the skills had gained from their traditional education. One of the most encouraging things to draw from this is that many chose to reject Communism and become American citizens, praising American values, especially its extraordinary and unusual concept of individual rights.

Many of these former Soviet citizens were also shocked by the condition of education here in the US today, many claiming that education, minus the propaganda, was better in the USSR. This is hard to argue with. While in the Soviet Union people were not allowed to read the works of Kafka and other writers that would clash with Soviet values, they were encouraged to read, write and master many languages, all the sciences, and arts. Many mastered musical instruments and later established themselves in the West as soloists and orchestral musicians. Most Soviet and Soviet Bloc schools taught chess as a regular course of study, a game that most American children in public schools have either never heard of or ridicule as absurd, as they continue to fail to read on a high school level, preferring instead to spend their time listening to rap on their iPods and cell phones.

This is because American education has been degraded, deliberately and gradually, to its present state, so that students in schools are often encouraged to use excuse making and threats of litigation as a technique for achieving high grades, instead of the vital process of real learning. This degradation has come about through the yielding of control over education by local authorities to the Federal government.

The Soviets controlled the content of education while preserving the value of traditional standards and methods. But they lacked something that we in the US do not lack, money and its concomitant of greed. The Federal government uses money as a tool to control education by giving large grants to those who develop the so-called theories which promote standards prone to ideological propaganda and to school systems willing to implement these standards. It has also used money as a weapon to demonize standard education, ridiculing traditional methods as outdated or outmoded and instituting such corrupt standards as Common Core, a huge false-bottomed boat from which innumerable so-called “experts” drop their nets in search of big wads of cash. In a version of Bait and Switch, they offer idiotic fads and notions masquerading as theories in exchange for small fortunes of grant money. All that is required is that their cleverly invented “theories” always support and reinforce the ideology of big central government, thus making not only the students, but also the professionals in education, dependent upon it.

It will take brave educators, teachers in the classroom already overburdened with so much chaff that they cannot impart the kernel of wheat students badly, even desperately, need. They will need the courage of their convictions and great strength to insist on the restoration of traditional standards of a real learning environment, and to overturn the bandwagon of money, in order to right the course of American education. The first step will be to seize it back from the Federal Government and put it again where it belongs, in the local laps of teachers, parents and school officials who have been immunized against trendy notions and are confidently dedicated to bringing back proven traditional methods that actually educate students and teach them to appreciate what it really means to be educated. But it will also take dedication from parents not to allow the ultimate destruction of their children that illiteracy and a false conception of reality will cause.

*Social Liberalism is not true Liberalism, which was a product of the Enlightenment and celebrated freedom and the rights of individuals. Like so many other concepts, the Left has co-opted and corrupted the concept of true Liberalism, thus, it cannot be used in its original meaning without confusion.

FJ Rocca is an independent, conservative writer/blogger of fiction and non-fiction, most interested in the philosophy of American conservatism. Clarity is more important than eloquence, but truth is vital to human discourse.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Federal Department of Education, National Standards (Common Core)