Given recent news around Affirmative Action, it is understandable that it is all anyone can talk about. Regardless of your opinion on this topic however, what is not debatable is that countless millions of children in America are currently being shortchanged, and denied the childhood they need to succeed and pursue the American dream.
Just consider the following shocking statistics:
- Children who grow up in poverty are 45 times more likely to grow up to be poor adults
- Children who grow up in the bottom quintile are 7 times more likely to be convicted of violent crime
- Children who grow up in the lowest income percentile are 3-4 times more likely to suffer from mental disorders
- Children who grow up in the bottom quintile are 2 times more likely to engage in substance abuse
Statistics like the ones above are the reason why universities began affirmative action. What is swept under the rug is that by the time someone applies to university, it is often too little too late.
Early childhood and adolescence are the most formative years in your life. Children growing up in working-class families suffer from numerous handicaps during this time that stunt their long-term potential. Handicaps that snowball over the course of their childhood. By the time they graduate from high school and attend college, these handicaps are too severe for any Ivy League university to cure.
Millions of children around us are growing up stunted, for no fault of their own. And if we truly care about fixing the problem and giving every child a fair opportunity to succeed in life, we need better interventions far, far earlier than the university admissions game.
Crime
Speaking of handicaps, let’s start off by discussing crime and public safety. Let’s acknowledge one thing at the outset: crime is a major problem in America, far more so than other developed countries. Just take a look at the above chart showing the annual homicide rate in America compared to Canada, UK and Australia. You are 5 times more likely to be murdered in America as compared to Australia.
If you’re reading this though, you probably aren’t very worried about being murdered. You most likely feel as safe in your neighborhood, as you would in any random neighborhood in Australia. The reason for this perception is that crime in America is tremendously concentrated in a subset of the country. If you live in a “nice” or “safe” area, you enjoy a life of extremely low crime rates. The kids who live on the “wrong side of the tracks” however need to constantly look over their shoulders.
There are many wide-ranging reasons for this, but let’s talk about a big one. Policing priorities and funding. 87% of police funding comes from local government, as opposed to state or federal. As you can imagine, this leads to tremendously uneven policing. Rich families predominantly live in affluent townships with high property values. Hence, their police departments are extremely well funded. In contrast, poor families live in areas with low property values. As a result, their police departments have far less funding.
Almost all (96%) police funding goes towards operational costs such as salaries, so having less funding directly results in fewer police working fewer shifts. To quote a news story on the situation in Detroit:
They hid in bedrooms, cowered behind doors and ran down city streets. All of them were waiting for police… thousands of the most urgent calls to police each year still leave victims waiting 30 minutes or more for help. Hundreds wait longer than an hour
This is tragically ironic given that working-class areas have far more criminals on average than affluent townships. Considering that these same areas are the ones with the most meager police funding, is it any surprise that crime rates are an order of magnitude higher?
To give just one example, Princeton NJ is a mere 20 minute drive away from Trenton NJ, but your odds of falling victim to violent crime is a whopping 27 times higher in Trenton compared to Princeton. If you think this is a cherry-picked example, feel free to look up other examples yourself. 10x differences in violent crime rates are hardly unusual when comparing affluent townships to the nearby areas where the bottom quintile live.
I would argue that every American is equally deserving of protection from crime. The protection of the law is a right, not a privilege that has to be earned. But maybe you disagree. Maybe you think that people in high paying jobs deserve to live in safer townships with lower crime rates. Let’s side step that rabbit hole for now and agree on at least the following: every child is equally deserving of protection from crime. Regardless of how virtuous your parents are, you as a child deserve a safe childhood. Because the lifelong consequences are severe. To quote research on this topic:
Any person can be affected by crime and violence either by experiencing it directly or indirectly, such as witnessing violence or property crimes in their community or hearing about crime and violence from other residents… In addition to the potential for death, disability, and other injuries, people who survive violent crime endure physical pain and suffering and may also experience mental distress and reduced quality of life. Specific examples of detrimental health effects from exposure to violence and crime include asthma, hypertension, cancer, stroke, and mental disorders
Decades of research has established a connection between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) such as violence or abuse and lifelong health outcomes, including chronic disease and mental disorders… Children and adolescents exposed to violence are at risk for poor long-term behavioral and mental health outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder, regardless of whether they are victims, direct witnesses, or hear about the crime. Research has also shown an association between exposure to violence in childhood and an increased likelihood of experiencing intimate partner violence as an adult
one study found an association between gun-related violent crime in a neighborhood and a reduction in park use and park-based physical activity. Higher rates of neighborhood safety fears may lead to poorer self-rated physical and mental health. One study also found that higher rates of neighborhood crime were associated with increased odds for adverse pregnancy outcomes in Chicago… people who were exposed to gun violence fatalities experienced higher levels of depression and suicidal ideation… Addressing exposure to crime and violence as a public health issue may help prevent and reduce the harms to individual and community health and well-being
Given the above, is it any surprise that children exposed to 10x more violent crime are so much less likely to attain good grades and attend elite universities? Policies like Affirmative Action are mere band-aids trying to smooth over far deeper cuts. Regardless of your political beliefs, we should all be lobbying for greater public safety in crime-ridden areas.
Fighting crime is a massive subject on its own with many solutions that are best discussed elsewhere, but let’s focus on one easily remediable factor: the fact that working class areas get far less police funding than affluent areas, despite having far higher crime rates. This is a direct and easily foreseen consequence of police funding primarily coming from local property taxes, not state or federal funding.
Think for a second about how ridiculous this is. Imagine if medicare was partitioned off by township, and funded primarily by local property taxes. Those living in rich townships would get world-class medical care, while those living in working class areas would get third-world healthcare. We would be outraged by the idea that the affluent deserve better medicare services than the working class. And yet, this is exactly how police departments work. Except that while Medicare only impacts the elderly, unequal police funding directly harms children and teenagers who never had a say in the city or township they found themselves in.
Every child is equally deserving of a safe and secure environment. When we identify dangerously unsafe neighborhoods, no expense should be spared in restoring public safety, regardless of local property values. If this necessitates state-level or federal funding, so be it. Post a cop on every metaphorical street corner if need be – whatever it takes to get crime under control. Our children are worth it.
Early Childhood Education (ECE)
Over the past centuries, we thankfully have recognized the importance of K-12 education, hence why public schooling is universally available in America. And yet, we are ignoring the vital importance of early childhood education. Which is shocking because there is strong evidence demonstrating their lifelong impact:
High-quality early learning experiences have the potential to improve a child’s life trajectory into adulthood. Broad, persistent effects have been found for learning, development, school success and educational attainment, social behavior, health, and even adult earnings. Early care and education (ECE) programs can provide experiences that enhance cognitive, social, and emotional development prior to kindergarten entry compared to outcomes for children who experience only home care or who attend low quality tending low-quality ECE. These benefits are particularly important for children from families with lower incomes and lower parental education levels, as by kindergarten entry their development lags significantly behind those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds
Decades of research finds that high-quality ECE programs have positive short-term and long-term outcomes for children. Three seminal studies provide evidence from preschool through adulthood. They found that children who attended had significantly higher cognitive abilities as measured by standardized tests from preschool through high school. These studies also found that children who attended were much less likely to be placed in special education and/or retained a grade in school. As adults, those who attended these ECE programs had higher levels of employment and income, and in two of the studies had lower rates of arrests
Large-scale public programs in Boston and Tulsa have been found to produce gains equal to a half- to a full year of learning in reading and math. High-quality public programs at scale can be sound public investments with economic returns averaging $3 or $4 to 1. Starting earlier leads to larger gains. Two years of high-quality pre-K produced larger long-term gains than one. The Abecedarian Study began in infancy and found positive effects of the preschool program on intellectual development and academic achievement through age twelve. The long-term cognitive effects of this program are among the largest found by research
Economic returns of 300-400%? Less crime, fewer mental disorders, and a populace that is smarter and more productive in their careers? How on earth do we not have bipartisan support for this already? This should be a no-brainer for anyone who cares about children or the future of their society.
Maybe some think we don’t need a public ECE because parents can pay for it on their own. I wonder if they feel similarly about eliminating public elementary schools as well? The average cost of ECE is $10,000 per child per year. This means that the average couple with two children will need to fork over $20,000 per year. A number that rises to $30,000 per year for families in places like Massachusetts. Little wonder that the vast majority of families reaping the benefits of ECE are affluent families, whose kids go on to attend elite colleges and pursue lucrative careers themselves.
Thankfully some public pre-K programs exist to close the gap for children in poverty. But these programs don’t go nearly far enough, and aren’t nearly good enough. To quote a report on these programs:
In the United States ECE quality typically is not high. Public programs offered by local, state, and federal governments through public pre-K, subsidized childcare, and Head Start … do not yet reach even most children in poverty nor do they ensure that most public programs are high quality. 40% of the nation’s four-year-olds were enrolled in state-funded pre-K or Head Start compared to only 14% of three-year-olds. Only three states met all 10 of the NIEER benchmarks for minimal quality
Yes, the benefits of ECE can seem extremely distant, abstract and nebulous. Many of us didn’t attend ECE ourselves and “we turned out just fine.” We can all think of people who never attended ECE but became tremendously successful. It is incredibly tempting and convenient to then decide that today’s kids don’t really need ECE either.
But the research on this is clear. ECE confers upon children tremendous cognitive, career, and mental health advantages. Middle-class kids who don’t attend ECE are facing a lifelong handicap when competing against affluent kids. And countries that don’t invest in their children’s development will find themselves lapped in the coming century by countries that do invest in their children. Hence why we need universal public Early Childhood Education.
Better K-12 Schools
Early childhood education, as important as it is, is also just the first milestone in the education journey. America undoubtedly has great Universities. Places like Harvard and Stanford are world renowned. However, the American public K-12 system is sub-par and setting up millions of children for failure.
Just consider the PISA global education rankings. USA lags significantly behind Canada in all 3 areas of Reading, Science, and Math, and very far behind world leaders like Singapore and Estonia. Particularly in Math (shown above), American students lag far behind every single developed nation, and are on par with countries like Belarus and Croatia.
Spend some time visiting various public schools in America, and the low-hanging fruits jump out immediately. Some schools and school districts are run extremely well, while others are abysmal.
As a representative example, just consider the various school districts within a single small state like New Mexico. Their ratings vary all over the map, from A+ to C-. Districts like Los Alamos feature:
- 93% graduation rate
- 1300 average SAT score
- 61% of students proficient in Math
While districts like Espanola feature:
- 63% graduation rate
- 880 average SAT score
- 8% of students proficient in Math
And these are both public school districts, within the same state, a mere 20 minute drive from one another.
Imagine what your life would be like as an elementary school kid in Los Alamos, surrounded by peers who will almost certainly graduate high school and attend competitive universities. Now imagine what your life would be like as an elementary school kid in Espanola, surrounded by peers only half of whom will graduate from high school, and the vast majority aren’t even thinking about going to college.
Sure, outliers exist everywhere, but you would be delusional to think that your odds of educational success will be the same in both school districts. If you believe that every child deserves an opportunity to fulfill their true potential, then we have a vital duty to help students who are currently trapped in sub-par school districts.
Equal Funding for All Students
Fixing all the problems in a school district like Espanola is far beyond the scope of this article. But let’s focus on two big-picture root causes that lead to numerous downstream problems. Starting off with school funding.
At present, 45% of K-12 funding comes from local sources such as property taxes, not state or federal governments. As a direct consequence, kids living in towns with high property values get to attend public schools that are far better funded. Funding that can be used in a variety of ways to improve educational outcomes. To quote a study on this topic, the average “low-poverty” school district gets to spend 12% more on each student, compared not just to “high poverty” districts but also “medium-high poverty” districts.
It would be one thing if we were discussing private schools. No one can stop parents from choosing to spend more money on their kids. But public schools at least should be egalitarian, regardless of which town your parents can afford to live in.
To consider just how ridiculous the current system is, let’s consider Medicare once again. Imagine a world where Medicare is parceled up into “medical districts” and your quality of medical care depends on the amount of property tax collected locally and allocated to your “medical district”. We would never stand for such a grossly unequal system of Medicare. So why do we tolerate it when it comes to educating our children?
Things don’t have to be this way. Countries like Singapore have such high-performing public schools in part because they aren’t reliant on local property taxes. Every school gets its funding directly from the national government, regardless of local property values or affluence. If federal funding for K-12 seems a bridge too far for America, we could at least consider state-level funding. Public universities are already funded primarily by the state government, not local government – there’s no reason why K-12 schooling can’t be similarly structured.
Sure, it wouldn’t resolve variations between different states. But at least it would level the playing field between the slums and the wealthy enclaves that exist in every state.
Less Monopolies, More Competition
Let’s continue the Medicare analogy further. Imagine if every senior on Medicare was assigned to whichever hospital is closest to them – one that can range in quality all the way from A+ to C-. And when they need medical care, their only choice is to go to the hospital they were assigned to. Even if they hate the doctors, nurses, or administrators there. Even if they prefer to go to a different hospital or doctor elsewhere that is equally willing to accept Medicare.
As dysfunctional as it sounds, this is the reality of how public schooling today works. Once you’ve bought or inherited a house and laid roots, you have minimal choice in which school to send your kids to. Sure, this provides great stability for the school administrators and staff. But if the primary goal of public schooling is to promote educational outcomes, why not let each family decide which school would be best for their children?
Average K-12 spending per student in America is currently $13,000. In New York State, average K-12 spending per student is a staggering $25,000. Imagine a world where instead of $25,000 being automatically sent to the school district, every student in New York gets an annual $25,000 voucher, and their parents can decide how best to use that money. They could use that voucher to enroll their child in the public school that is closest to them. Or a public school in a neighboring town. Or a charter school. Or even a private school that charges $25,000 per year. Admission into their preferred school is not guaranteed, but there would certainly be no shortage of schools that would welcome a $25,000 check.
Debating how best to run a school is sure to provoke endless debate and vitriol. Thankfully, regardless of your opinions on the matter, the above voucher system is a win for both you and anyone who disagrees with you. If you believe that teachers’ unions lead to better student outcomes, you can enroll your child in a unionized school. If you believe that the Montessori method leads to better student outcomes, you can enroll your child in a Montessori school. If you believe that small class sizes lead to better student outcomes, you can enroll your child in a school that has a larger number of less-highly-paid teachers teaching smaller classes. And anyone who disagrees can do the exact opposite.
School principals and administrators can be given wide freedom to implement the policies that they believe will lead to the best outcomes. As long as they are required to administer to their students the same standardized exam used state-wide (or even nationally), and publish their results publicly.
This is not just about “freedom”. I am firmly of the opinion that students’ education takes priority over “parental freedoms”. The more compelling argument is that school choice will lead to far better educational outcomes over the span of a single decade. Schools that enact policies conducive to student learning will produce more successful graduates with better educational outcomes. Over time, they will attract more and more students. These successful schools will flourish.
Schools that fail to enact policies conducive to student learning will hopefully recognize that they are lagging behind other competing schools, and will strive to emulate the better policies of their more successful neighbors. And schools that are failing and stubbornly refuse to change their ways will find their enrollment dwindling more and more until they are eventually forced to close their doors.
In this manner, instead of government bureaucrats deciding what is best, the free market will over time allow good schools to flourish, force bad schools to close their doors, and facilitate the experimentation and proliferation of policies that are most conducive to student learning. And even those public schools that exist today, and continue to exist in the future, would still come out better than ever, as they are forced to learn from and keep up with other schools competing for the same students.
There is plenty of research supporting this idea. For example:
Florida’s low-performing schools are improving in direct proportion to the challenge they face from voucher competition. These improvements are real, not the result of test gaming, demographic shifts, or the statistical phenomenon of “regression to the mean” … Schools already facing competition from vouchers showed the greatest improvements of all five categories of low-performing schools, improving by 9.3 scale score points on the FCAT math test, 10.1 points on the FCAT reading test, and 5.1 percentile points on the Stanford-9 math test … Schools threatened with the prospect of vouchers showed the second greatest improvements
Public schools can and do react to competition by improving the schooling they offer and by reducing costs. They are not passive organizations that allow their students and budgets to be withdrawn without responding. Realistic increases in the competition they face produce significant improvements in students’ test scores, educational attainment, and wages… public schools’ responses do not depend just on whether they lose students; the responses also depend on the fiscal rewards and penalties attached to gaining or losing students. When competition has little fiscal implication, a public school is less likely to react
A random survey of 210 Ph.D. holding members of the American Economic Association, found that over two-thirds of economists support giving parents educational vouchers that can be used at government-operated or privately operated schools, and that support is greater if the vouchers are to be used by parents with low-incomes or parents with children in poorly performing schools
But let’s be honest for a second. It should hardly be surprising that competition and voting-with-your-wallet lead to better quality services. We see this in every single aspect of our life. If anyone seriously believes that K-12 schools are magically exempt from this rule, they better have some ironclad evidence to back it up.
Spoiler alert: it doesn’t exist.
If you’re someone who sees public schooling as a vehicle for other interests, this must be profoundly scary. School districts with guaranteed funding may suddenly find themselves having to compete for their students, and convince parents that they are worthy of educating their children. Teachers and administrators with rock-solid job security in dysfunctional schools may suddenly find themselves out of a job when nobody entrusts them with their children. Such a change must be petrifying for anyone who isn’t used to competing in the free market.
But for those whose foremost desire is the best possible educational outcome for students, the above system will give all children the opportunity to attend a high-performing school. And that should trump any and all other concerns.
A Fair Shot At Life For Every Child
Over the past decade, wealth inequality and income inequality has become a highly politically charged topic. But there is a different inequality that we ought to be talking about a whole lot more: the shocking inequality when it comes to public safety and education.
Regardless of any parent’s vice or virtue, every child deserves a safe environment and an enriching education. This is the bedrock that will allow every child to have a reasonable chance at success, and a fundamental need that every society has a duty to provide. Both because it is the moral thing to do … but also because a successful society is one that can best harness the full potential of every citizen.
When society fails its children, they grow up disproportionately likely to commit crime, suffer from mental health problems, become unemployed/homeless/drug addicts, and raise children themselves who go on to suffer from these exact same problems. When we deny children a fair shot at success, we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Outlook Zen 
2 thoughts on “Beyond Affirmative Action – How To Avoid Stunting Entire Generations of Kids”
Comments are closed.