During the recent struggle over collective-bargaining rights in Wisconsin, a number of left-of-center observers, including New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, pointed out that students in unionized Wisconsin do better on average than students in non-unionized Texas. The obvious conclusion, or so we were led to believe, is that teachers’ unions lead to better education.
There is, however, a problem with this argument. Drawing on data from the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, the political commentator David Burge pointed out that white students in Texas outperform white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas outperform black students in Wisconsin, and Hispanic students in Texas outperform Hispanic students in Wisconsin. This may look like a statistical paradox; Wisconsin does better on average, even though all groups do worse in Wisconsin. But there is an explanation: Wisconsin has a considerably larger share of white students than Texas, and white students tend to fare better than black and Hispanic students. This example highlights the increasing importance of demographics to the American education debate.
Advertisement
It is not difficult to understand the sources of the achievement gap. Particularly when confronted with the fact that more K–12 spending hasn’t generally meant better educational outcomes, even defenders of the teachers’ unions often highlight the role of poverty, family disruption, and historical disadvantage in limiting the ability of black and Hispanic students to thrive in school. As a general rule, native-born non-Hispanic whites have reaped the benefits of many generations of relative peace and prosperity. And this long experience of prosperity has contributed to the intergenerational transmission of wealth, tacit knowledge, and social networks that can give one a leg up. Social capital might also contribute to the stability of non-Hispanic white families, in which children are typically raised by both biological parents.
This is in stark contrast to the experience of African Americans, in no small part because of the lingering legacy of enslavement and segregation. The Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson has written extensively on how the black historical experience has shaped contemporary marriage and family patterns. Today, 72 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers, and a large number of these children are denied the stability and comfort offered by having two parents in the home. African Americans experienced dramatic material progress over the course of the last century, which is not always acknowledged, but it can’t be denied that they still suffer from disadvantages that, say, Mayflower descendants do not.
America’s Hispanic population, much of which has its origins in Mexico, faces its own set of challenges. Family breakdown is not as severe among Hispanics as it is among blacks, but it is still troubling, with 53 percent of Hispanics born out of wedlock. As the economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz have observed, recent waves of Mexican immigrants have tended to have levels of educational attainment comparable to those of the immigrants from southern Europe who settled in the United States in the 1920s. The problem is that educational attainment for the native-born population has increased considerably since the 1920s, which puts Mexican immigrants at a greater disadvantage in a labor market that increasingly rewards education.
It isn't medical neuroscience: It's not about money. It's not about unions (absolutely not!) It is about family structure and support. Blacks, STEREOTYPICALLY and generally, not individually, are disadvantaged for one reason, and that is of their own making--their family structure is a mess. The men don't marry the women. Selling drugs, pimping, killing each other, and becoming incarcerated. And women have children to get the welfare card pumped up. The women doing this do not constitute a strong educational background. For hispanics, it may be for the same reasons as above and in addition they are not assimilating. They choose instead, to speak Spanish, never learning English and they are back and forth to their "home country," not educating themselves first, and not encouraging their kids to study, not choosing to commit to citizenship and being involved in gangs and drugs--thus having no investment in any normal American traditional lifestyle here. Hispanics are so intent on LaRaza that if they do overtake the government, they won't know what to do with it when they get there.
Call me P.I., I am happy to be so, declaring the truth of matters until the facts change. If you would like to prove me wrong on these issues, please do, with factual references, because I am happy to hear good news for The United States of America!
Until then, we are bound to the statistics that bear the facts.
Vivienne, the substance of your comment is true, and it can be stated completely without reference to race: Those who copulate and spawn like animals instead of acting like human beings and raising children in two-parent families are the cause of most of this awful problem, and those who engage in animalistic, antisocial (in its most fundamental sense) behavior should be made the subjects of scorn and derision so as to curtail this horrible situation.
That being said, what do you do about two grocery baggers who together earn $11/hour, pulling down a massive $45,670 annual joint household income? If you're either of them, but especially the guy, how do you look at yourself in the mirror and say, "Yeah, I think we can afford to be responsible parents, I think we can bring up a couple of kids, pay for day care, health care, food, clothing, shelter, gas, car insurance, etc."? The answer, in most places in this country, is: you can't.
We need two grocery baggers to be able to do the right thing and live a modest, dignified, productive life. To hell with the free market. That goal is more important to me than the free market. I want to pay for that goal to be achieved. I want to condemn the animals who copulate and spawn, and I want the decent, married couple that works hard bagging groceries to enjoy a modest, family life in America.
Duh, because the reason for the existence of businesses and employers is to give people money.
And people who choose not to start families (or who choose not to support theirs) will still be needing an equivalent amount of cash for other stuff, thanks.
Please, oh please, learn something about economics and statistics. Most people earning minimum wage are teenagers. Very few adult workers actually make minimum wage.
For this reason, and to drive the economy for the good of all, we should abolish the minimum wage - not increase it.
Mike,
You say you're "willing to pay for that," but what are you willing to pay for, specifically?
I'm with you that someone living on a low-level job should be able to actually live on it--my folk were low level steel workers and farmers for generations (and preachers on the side, apparently)--but I'm not sure where infusing government money has helped, or is likely to start helping. You put money in government housing, you end up with the projects. You put money in public education, you wind up with... public education as we know it. Not being a free market fanatic (I'm more of a social conservative), I'm not inherently opposed to a safety net or even something that might help out, but I don't think the problem here is necessarily lack of money. I think that lack of money is a symptom of the problem.
One big part of the problem is the boom and bust states--when you can't leave an area to go to a cheaper area because there are no jobs outside of a certain radius, you end up with landlords who can charge whatever they feel like because people have nowhere else to go. When all of the "new jobs" are college educated fancy jobs, there's not much to look forward to on that front. Nothing has replaced the steel mills, and the farms are disappearing rapidly, meaning that both rural and urban poor have little to hold onto. If all that can be suggested is that the government hand money out indefinitely, that's not going to help the psychological problem of feeling like you can't support your family--it's only going to exacerbate it, because you're *not* supporting your family, and every check from Uncle Sam to make up the difference is a reminder of that fact.
So... *what* do you want to pay for? If you have a great idea, then please share it. What the heck, start a foundation for it. But the money that's been funneled in so far is not all that helpful.
I hope this isn't a serious comment. You do realize that an increase in minimum wages will just increase price tags on other products thus nullifying the increase in minimum wage. Please tell me you were being facetious??? Basic Economics man.
What a depressing world view you have. Do you really expect the couple to be baggers for there entire adult lives? You know with a robust free market they may well end up running a chain of stores. Of course with a socialist system they will be encouraged to accept what the government will give them and be fat, dumb and bagging groceries. And their kids will be able to enjoy a soviet style life of national debt.
While our family started out modestly, I remember that the commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" was a leap of faith for us, but we took it.
In time, opportunities presented themselves for us to "move up," as it were, to better positions for my husband. I chose to stay at home, when most of my associates were making money working outside the home.
Honestly, I attribute our success to a few things and I can recommend these things based on our experience: (I think these cross all racial lines)
1. Acknowledge God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ and Christ as our Savior.
2. Be active in our church and donate 10% of our income to the tithing fund.
3. Spend time, lots of it, reading to, playing and working with, and teaching our children.
4. Live traditionally, honestly, trustworthily as best we can.
5. Help others-- with time, effort and money when it is available, and allow others to help us when we need it.
6. Give to other charities even if they are not of our faith.
7. Buy locally from family owned businesses, even if we have to pay a few cents more, instead of the big box stores. The family shops have families too.
8. Register and vote.
9. Say "I'm sorry" quickly.
10. Keep working, trying, helping, sharing, all in the face of being ridiculed, slandered, libeled, or being persecuted or accused falsely.
We have been blessed. Not that hardships haven't made their way to our home, but that these things have been a good foundation to weather the storms of life. Best, always. Thanks for asking.
You're right, these people are in a difficult situation, but how does that justify their decision to live together without getting married (a "lifestyle" more common among low-income people of all races)? Will that improve anything?
I would say that blacks are incarcerated at a greater rate than whites because of all the racism in the system. Perry wouldn't even hold off on an execution when there was plenty of evidence to at least question the verdict. The way education is funded in the US is largely through local taxes, so poor people are stuck in a cycle that is extremely difficult to break out of. Black people are poor by a far greater degree than white people, and this is largely a side-effect of slavery, and then the pre-civil rights near-slavery. The United States is amongst the least socially mobile in the industrialized world, and this is to an even greater extent amongst the black community.
Please! I have spent my entire teaching career ( 16 years) choosing to work with minority and low income students. As the years and programs add up it is impossible to deny the obvious: More money, access to programs, extra tutoring, free breakfast, free lunch
( 100% at my school), transportation for parents and free child care; still the majority of Black families refuse to participate in their child's education. They call block the school so we cannot call, argue about behavior and do not follow through on homework, school supplies or support. The real "racists" are the excuse givers like yourself who overlook the tragedy of American born children so deficient in English language skills that refugee camp born Burmese children have a better command of language than their peers. You can deny, deny, deny all you want but the African American community that puts more value on spinning rims for expensive vehicles, fake nails, hair extensions, video games and yet provide not even the basic ( pencils!) educational materials for their children is beneath contempt. Not even mentioning the violence, absentee fathers and the gang culture and it is hardly surprising that the racial gap is so huge.
I grew up in South Texas in the 60's. In my age group the Hispanic kids did not strive to attend college and they did not value an education. I'm not a sociologist so I csn't say why this is true, but I know that it is. Virtually no Hispanic kids left the community to attend major universies like there white counterparts of every economic tier did. I am sure that the segregation that they experienced during this era was a contributing factor. But their culture was also to blame.
Texas ranks near the bottom in the USA, so that alone tells you what you need to know. Saying that white students are more capable than black or hispanic is nothing short of racist.
It comes down to Capitalism, and whether you believe in the principles of it or not. If you do you have to accept that the salary offered will determine the caliber of applicant. What kind of person will become a teacher when the pay is $30k annual? Mediocre at best. You get what you pay for. So Texas, which pays lousy wages, gets lousy teachers, and does a lousy job teaching their students. Then businesses complain that they have difficulty finding suitable workers. It is a vicious cycle, and pretending it does not exist will not change one thing.
