FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Who is the We in American Public Education?

In 2006 Dave Eggers published a powerful non-fiction novel called What is the What? based on the difficult path of one of the “lost boys” dislocated during the second Sudanese civil war. With respect to the difficult path of many boys and girls in American public education, now and in the future, another question comes to mind: ‘who is the we?’

There are four factors to consider.

First, our students. Data compiled by the U.S. Department of Education recently led the department to project that for the first time most children attending the nation’s public schools this year are non-white. Moreover, the Southern Education Foundation, employing state-level data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics, issued a report in January stating that in 2013 a majority of students enrolled in America’s public schools were classified as low income. More specifically, the report found that the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch programs in 2013 had risen to 51 percent  (from 42 percent in 2006 and 48 percent in 2011). The rise in recent years was in part the result of a broadening of eligibility standards, but most reasonable people would consider the students covered under the new criteria to be “low income” and therefore deserving of aid. After all, granting free lunches to students residing in households whose income is less than 135 percent of the poverty threshold, and reduced-price meals for those residing in households within 185 percent of the poverty threshold hardly seems profligate.

Secondly, some data relating to aggregate population and wealth-holding patterns. As the nation’s   public schools become darker and poorer, the U.S. as a whole is becoming older, with older age cohorts in the U.S. much whiter than younger cohorts. Moreover, studies of household wealth-holding patterns in the U.S. have demonstrated that median household wealth rises with age of householders in the U.S. at least through the ages of 65-69, before beginning to decline a bit (though remaining, even after 75. far higher than households in all cohorts under 65). They also show that median wealth levels of white households are significantly higher in all age cohorts than those for Black and Hispanic households, with the racial gap widening as households age.

Thirdly, findings regarding age-specific and race-specific voting behavior. In the U.S., participation in elections by cohorts comprised of middle-aged and senior voters is consistently higher than levels for younger voting cohorts. As for race, blacks—at least in the last two presidential elections—have voted at about the same rate as whites (actually at a slightly higher rate in 2012), with both groups voting at much higher rates than Hispanics.

Fourthly, patterns relating to social spending. Several takeaways from UC-Davis economist Peter Lindert’s landmark 2-volume comparative study Growing Public: Social Spending and  Growth Since the Eighteenth Century (2004), are relevant, two positive and another, not so much. Lindert’s main finding, broadly speaking, is that the efficiency costs of investment in education and social welfare, contrary to the assumptions of many neo-classically oriented economists, historically have been small.

Regarding investment in public education per se, Lindert found that prior to the 20th century the U.S. and Germany were the leaders, largely because of widespread voting rights and the fact that both places were characterized by local control of schools. What about the situation in the US today? Despite some recent efforts to constrain voting rights, such rights are still relatively widespread and, despite federal inroads, local districts still exercise considerable sway over their schools.

One other finding by Lindert, however, offers less support to those supportive of social spending. He found that since World War II the countries that have invested most robustly in education and social welfare have been pretty homogenous—Scandinavia in particular. In other words, taxpayers around the world generally like their taxes to go for programs helping people like themselves, and historically have voted accordingly.

To return to my opening question, will the older cohorts of the US population — whiter and wealthier than the population as a whole — vote into office people who will support robust investment in education and other forms of human capital (health and social welfare) for darker and poorer populations?

There are plenty of reasons (selfless and selfish) for investing in education and social welfare, according to recent observers (from Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam to Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell). One can point to lofty Rawlsian notions of fairness and social justice or to matters more material: but unless today’s young get decently educated, they aren’t going to be in position to keep the U.S. economy operating at a high level, much less to contribute to the needs of retirees.

Polls have shown that a large majority of Americans say they believe in equality of opportunity, though not of outcome. People interpret equality of opportunity in different ways, either narrowly and formally, or broadly and substantively. In the former case, non-discrimination is the goal; in the latter, what counts is rendering more equal the conditions in which people start out in life. Investment in education, including pre-school education, is one of the best ways to narrow gaps relating to birth. Which way will we have it, America, and who is the we?

Peter A. Coclanis is Albert R. Newsome Distinguished Professor of History, and Director of the Global Research Institute at UNC-Chapel Hill.

This article appears in the excellent Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.

More articles by:

Peter A. Coclanis teaches at UNC-Chapel Hill. He does not speak for the university.

December 19, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russophobia and the Specter of War
Jonathan Cook
American Public’s Backing for One-State Solution Falls on Deaf Ears
Daniel Warner
1968: The Year That Will Not Go Away
Arshad Khan
Developing Country Issues at COP24 … and a Bit of Good News for Solar Power and Carbon Capture
Kenneth Surin
Trump’s African Pivot: Another Swipe at China
Patrick Bond
South Africa Searches for a Financial Parachute, Now That a $170 Billion Foreign Debt Cliff Looms
Tom Clifford
Trade for Hostages? Trump’s New Approach to China
Binoy Kampmark
May Days in Britain
John Feffer
Globalists Really Are Ruining Your Life
John O'Kane
Drops and the Dropped: Diversity and the Midterm Elections
December 18, 2018
Charles Pierson
Where No Corn Has Grown Before: Better Living Through Climate Change?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Waters of American Democracy
Patrick Cockburn
Will Anger in Washington Over the Murder of Khashoggi End the War in Yemen?
George Ochenski
Trump is on the Ropes, But the Pillage of Natural Resources Continues
Farzana Versey
Tribals, Missionaries and Hindutva
Robert Hunziker
Is COP24 One More Big Bust?
David Macaray
The Truth About Nursing Homes
Nino Pagliccia
Have the Russian Military Aircrafts in Venezuela Breached the Door to “America’s Backyard”?
Paul Edwards
Make America Grate Again
David Rosnick
The Impact of OPEC on Climate Change
Binoy Kampmark
The Kosovo Blunder: Moving Towards a Standing Army
Andrew Stewart
Shine a Light for Immigration Rights in Providence
December 17, 2018
Susan Abulhawa
Marc Lamont Hill’s Detractors are the True Anti-Semites
Jake Palmer
Viktor Orban, Trump and the Populist Battle Over Public Space
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Fights Proposal to Keep It From Looting Medicare
David Rosen
December 17th: International Day to End Violence against Sex Workers
Binoy Kampmark
The Case that Dare Not Speak Its Name: the Conviction of Cardinal Pell
Dave Lindorff
Making Trump and Other Climate Criminals Pay
Bill Martin
Seeing Yellow
Julian Vigo
The World Google Controls and Surveillance Capitalism
ANIS SHIVANI
What is Neoliberalism?
James Haught
Evangelicals Vote, “Nones” Falter
Vacy Vlanza
The Australian Prime Minister’s Rapture for Jerusalem
Martin Billheimer
Late Year’s Hits for the Hanging Sock
Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail