A study by an Atlanta based group finds that low-income students are now in the majority at Tennessee public schools. The reasons they name: "lower birthrates among higher-income groups, increased immigration, and declines in the number of jobs available to people with less education." The researchers downplay private schools and homeschooling despite rising participation in both.
I would want to see this group's research methods for isolating certain factors and ignoring others before I accept their conclusions. And I want to see who their private donors are (which I could not see from their last audit), in order to determine whether their income flow affected any research bias. Another interesting question is how many on their board or administration have private school ties. Increased immigration and declining jobs seem plausible, but so do private school growth and an expanding lower class beyond birth rate trends.
UPDATE: Facing South views the study results with less concern than I did.
Not surprisingly, it's a bit more complicated than the media report implies. The issue the SEF identified is not that wealthy people are having fewer children, but that there is a higher rate of population growth among Latino and African American children, who are statistically more likely to live in poverty. It also points out that Southern schools offer the least support for families in poverty from school systems in other parts of the country-- it also offers a well tailored disclaimer that the impact of race relations and segregation in the South is beyond the scope of the report, although they do have a brief on their site that unpacks those issues.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's just me, but does it really require "research" to see that the reasons are really "all of the above".
ReplyDeleteWould it have been too much trouble for them to cite, "lower birthrates among higher-income groups, increased immigration, declines in the number of jobs available to people with less education, and alternative education options.
Yeah, but that only really matters if it's a recent phenomenon. The alternative education options aren't new... many of Nashville's private options are linked to white flight after Brown v. Board. It's only relevant if MORE people are choosing private schools and homeschools than did in the last generation.
ReplyDelete"And I want to see who their private donors are (which I could not see from their last audit), in order to determine whether their income flow affected any research bias. Another interesting question is how many on their board or administration have private school ties. Increased immigration and declining jobs seem plausible, but so do private school growth and an expanding lower class beyond birth rate trends."
ReplyDeleteI frankly find this comment puzzling, and a bit disturbing. I realize that it's standard practice to assume bias if a result doesn't go your way [although it's unclear to me exactly what problem you're having with their conclusions--how, for instance, is "declining jobs" as an explanation inconsistent with "an expanding lower class beyond birth rate trends"? Aren't they different ways of saying the same thing?]. But if the study is flawed, it's flawed because it got the facts wrong, not because the "wrong" people fund it.
BTW, I just looked at the audit. It appears that most of their income is derived from previously donated assets. The major outside donor appears to be the well-known William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
In any case, I'd be amazed if this group is the private-school shill you seem to be implying it to be. The SEF is an old-line southern progressive organization, descended from the efforts of various philanthropic groups [notably the Peabody Fund, which underwrote George Peabody College] to improve education for both white and black southerners in the years after the Civil War. Steven Suitts, the author of this report, is, I presume, the same Steven Suitts who used to be head of the Southern Regional Council, the one-time flagship of southern liberalism.
... I realize that it's standard practice to assume bias if a result doesn't go your way ...
ReplyDeleteYou seem to assume bad faith in my argument. You lost me right there. Any other appeal I might make is colored by that assumption.