We hate our children

What leads me to believe we hate our children?

Is it education?   

When I look at the world through the eyes of an educator I am ashamed at the sorry state of American public education.

• Less than half of all American children go to Preschool. 
•  20% of American children do not pass high school. 
• Of those students who attend college, nearly 60% must take remedial courses because they are not ready for college.  

One might hope that as a country we would continuously improve public education in a rational, data driven, problem solving methodology.  However, control of education begins at the state (not federal) level and ends in the local community.  Unfortunately, there is little consistency in American education with 50 different sets of state regulations and thousands of local school districts.   Thus funding, programming and quality appear almost to be random.  Funding is based on local property taxes. Governance is based on locally elected school boards.  And control is often dictated by the loudest citizen voice, the discretion of the superintendent or the teachers union.  


There is no venue in America for talking about a quality education system because of our localized, balkanized approach. Thus, it is easier to talk about teachers unions, property taxes and school sports than to talk about the complexities of learning and how to enhance student achievement.  Education in America is a unique from most of the world. If you want a quality education for your children, you have to move to a community that has a lot of money and a quality school.  Otherwise you are limited to what your current community can offer and what you can afford.  My local school district is one of the worst in the state with the highest property tax millage.  Many of my neighbors don't have the means to move into a community with better schools (and higher priced housing.)

And for those students who graduate high school and want to attend college, the cost has risen at such a fast rate that the accumulation of student debt takes decades to pay off. There is a lot of profit to be made off of the educational enterprise.  It is not surprising the existing institutions who benefit from the "business of education" seem to be a higher priority than the children themselves.

Is it politics?  

The discussion about education occurring in the mainstream media, in the blogosphere and in government (local, state and federal) is dysfunctional. It focuses on taxes, testing, unions, superintendents, school boards, school choice, preparation of teachers, public school pensions, etc. This focus on top-down issues led by uninformed, politically driven stakeholders is stifling, mean spirited and toxic.  If you don't agree, do a Google search on major media outlets for Diane Ravitch, Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, Wendy Kopp, Common Core or NCLB.  The discourse on public education has been co-opted by both the left and the right to serve the needs of their political agenda. If that doesn't depress you enough, look at the local news pertaining to your school district. Articles on local education focus on budgets, problems with teacher unions, layoffs, school board politics and scandals.  It is nearly impossible to read the newspapers and learn about quality schools, new academic models and across the board student achievement.  Frankly, at the local level, the conversation is mainly about money.  This is because the majority of people in a community do not have students in schools.  Schools and education become a discussion of property values.  The latest attack on education by the Governor of Pennsylvania is about cutting teacher pensions in order to lower local property taxes.  

Is it money?  

Of course everyone states "we're all about the children... the children are what's important". But if you truly want to know where our values are, follow the money. Proven interventions such as preschool (Head Start), support services for both the mental and physical health needs of children, providing quality nutrition, learning to read at an early age, school programming in the arts, sciences and physical education have all taken huge budget hits.  As communities attempt to lower taxes, schools are cutting services and programming that they believe is not focused on the bottom line - raising test scores. Class sizes are up and success rates are down.  Seldom do you see schools cut the football, baseball or basketball budget. Stadiums go up, astroturf is put down and Friday night football remains the important community event. Yet educational programs are cut. Follow the money.

Is it families? 

When we look beyond the educational institutions, we find a fundamental breakdown in our society regarding our children. Broken families, poverty and subsequent mental/physical health needs are driving our students into a state of mind that damages them for life.  In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan authored a report for the Department of Labor entitled "The Negro Family: The case for national action". In the report, Moynihan documented the increase in children in black families being born out of wedlock. Moynihan referred to the "tangle of pathology" that caused the breakup of families:

"There is no one Negro community. There is no one Negro problem. There is no one solution. Nonetheless, at the center of the tangle of pathology is the weakness of the family structure. Once or twice removed, it will be found to be the principal source of most of the aberrant, inadequate, or antisocial behavior that did not establish, but now serves to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and deprivation.

As you might guess, Moynihan was vilified by many and supported by others.  He called out a problem on the basis of race. This controversial report dogged Moynihan for most of his life.

Nearly 50 years later, the Urban Institute partnering with Fathers Incorporated produced "The Moynihan Report Revisited." Not only has the problem reported by Moynihan exacerbated, but it is broader than he suspected.

Note that in 1965, the year Moynihan published his report, approximately 3% of white children and 24% of black children were "born outside of marriage".  In 2010, 29% of white children, 53% of Hispanic children and 73% of black children were "born outside of marriage". This represents a significant increase for all populations.  This suggests that what Moynihan described as a problem of the "Negro Family" is really a problem of American families in general.

Is it poverty?  

The Education Policy Institute (EPI) conducted a recent analysis of poverty in America over the last decade.

While many government efforts have succeeded in reducing poverty in this country, there have been periods of even greater strides in poverty reduction. For instance, the period between 1959 and the mid-1970s saw great declines in poverty. As the country got richer, on average, poverty fell precipitously. If the relationship between per capita GDP growth and poverty that prevailed from 1959 to 1973 had held, the poverty rate would have fallen to zero in the mid-1980s. The fact remains that rising inequality has kept poverty from falling as the economy has grown over the last three decades.

So what does poverty have to do with the Moynihan report.  The following graph from the EPI report tells the story.



Note that the category Female-headed households with children (i.e. children born out of marriage) has the highest rate of poverty of any group.  The report doesn't comment on causality (poverty causing out of marriage children or visa versa).  It just points out correlation.  However, I believe Moynahan was onto something.  There is a tangled pathology here.  Poverty and the breakdown of the family appear to be linked.

This trend of increasing poverty among children was confirmed in a 2005 UNICEF report "Child Poverty in Rich Countries".  The report ranked the United States as the 25th worst (out of the 26 richest countries) with 21.9% child poverty.  One out of five American children live in poverty.  Maybe we don't hate all of our children, just the poor ones.

Am I crazy?  

When I begin to rant about how we hate our children most people in the room look at me like I am crazy.  Maybe I am just another bleeding heart that is too close to the problem. They tell me it's time to lighten up. I'm being too critical.  Many Americans would say that all countries have poor populations. We are the wealthiest country in the world with the highest standard of living.  4 out of 5 of our children do not live in poverty.  It is not appropriate for you to say "we hate our children".  You work with the "poor city kids."  Maybe they are right.  I'm being too dramatic.  I suppose once you get out to the suburbs, everything is just fine.  However, before you too declare me crazy, read the 2013 UNICEF report.

Is it America?  

In 2013, UNICEF published a second report entitled "Child Well-Being in Rich Countries".  They ranked the 29 wealthiest countries on Child Overall Well-Being (25) and in five sub-domains: Material Well Being (26), Health and Safety (25), Education (27), Behaviors and Risks (23) and Housing and Environment(23).  The numbers in () are the ranking of the United States.  The richest, greatest, free-est nation in the world is ranked in the lowest 1/5 of wealthy nations in terms of the well-being of our children... All of our children.

2013 UNICEF Rankings on Overall Child Well Being

The following table shows the areas surveyed for the report.

Can you imagine how the report would have looked if they looked at these additional indicators?

• Children born outside of marriage
• Education funding
• Number of days in school
• Quality of faculty
• Educational activities outside of school 
• Opportunity for health care
• The cost of college
• The cost of housing
• The proliferation of guns and violence
• The amount of time spent watching TV
• Opportunities for employment 
• Ability to earn a living wage

The UNICEF report ranked America 26th out of 29 developed countries on the overall well being of our children.  Yet the Organization for Economic and Cooperation and Development (OECD) states:

The U.S. has the highest average household disposable income on the list at $38,000 a year — much higher than the OECD average of $23,000.

So America is ranked first in household disposable income and 26th on the overall well being of our children.  Something is very wrong here.  This is not a race problem, or a poor problem or an urban problem.  This is an American problem.  Even if we love our children, we are doing a really bad job of taking care of them.  

---

It is our values.

In America, we are localized, individualized and we focus on our rights: Freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, the right to own property.  In our Declaration of Independence it states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  

It has taken over 200 years just to get the "all men are created equal" part implemented. I'm not sure the "pursuit of Happiness" part guarantees that we have to take care of our children. No where in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it state that we have the right to a quality education.  Our founding fathers argued for our rights, not our responsibilities. Therein lies the rub.

It is not my responsibility to care about your child... or any child not my own.  Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.  It's not my problem if you don't have a father.  It's not my problem if you don't have a job.  You need to work harder. You need to take care of yourself.  Go get a job and quit whining.  It's not my problem that you are black or poor or have no parents.  You are on your own.  I'm doing fine.  America is the land of opportunity.  Pennsylvania is doing fine.  The suburbs are doing fine.  Our children are doing fine. That is unless you look at issues of drugs, mental health, school violence (Franklin Regional HS, Columbine, Sandy Hook ES), divorce, bullying and low achievement (only 56% of students who attend a four year college graduate within 6 years.)  This is who we are.  

Obviously, if you are reading this blog you care about children.  If you've gotten this far in this distressing post, then you either are very angry or deeply depressed.  I promised that this blog would attempt to focus on what works, not what doesn't and so far this post has not lived up to that promise.  I don't know what this country can do to fix itself, to find a moral compass, to believe that our children are our destiny.  I certainly don't know how to create a society that has less "children born out of marriage."  And I'm afraid solving the poverty problem is beyond my scope as well.  I'm guessing it's not really a viable solution to say we just need to be more like the Netherlands.

So let me talk about what I do know.  Unbeknownst to many people in our country, there are outstanding schools that succeed with all students achieving at high levels.  There are schools that help students of all races, socio-economics and demographics succeed. Some of these schools are public, some are charters (also public) and some are independent private schools. Some are union and some are not. Some are in urban areas, some in the suburbs and some are rural.  What they all have in common are methodologies that are aligned with the needs of their students. Successful schools use organizational structures, curriculums, pedagogies, support mechanisms that work in societies that are diverse, with students in need, with families that need help. Successful schools create cultures of success and support, that are so student focused, that nothing gets in their way.

Schools that produce students that succeed, particularly students who are poor, born out of marriage and at-risk, succeed because they are designed to provide the supports that many families cannot. This includes nutrition, health care, counseling and structure. The school assumes they are responsible for their students. This is a radical thought.  School as family. Successful schools love their students.  This statement is a heresy in America.  Critics would state that a school acting in such a deeply supportive and caring manner is presumptuous, paternalistic and an example of "social engineering".  That is not a school's responsibility. A schools job is to serve up education. Provide the education and students who are interested will succeed.  The only problem is that traditional factory model schools don't come close to the success of caring schools.

School is the most profound social mechanism that we have to help our children - thirteen years (K-12), seven hours a day, 180 days out of the year.  Don't think about school as a baby sitter or as a nuisance or as the enemy... think of it as how your community values children.   We live in a time when education has become the great equalizer or the great divide.  If we really loved our children, not just our own, but all of our children, we would demand quality education and make it our number one priority with regard to resources.

Our values as a nation are instantiated through our language, our behaviors, our use of financial resources and our institutions.  I would suggest that it is the American way to place the burden of education on the individual and let the chips fall where they may. This cowboy mentality works great in the movies, but in reality it simply demonstrates that we really don't care about our children.