The New Guard

Magnet Schools: A Happy Medium Between Creativity and Accountability for School Choice

Jul 19, 2012Amy Baral

 

For those interested in school choice but worried about resources and accountability, magnet schools may provide a solid third option.

 

For those interested in school choice but worried about resources and accountability, magnet schools may provide a solid third option.

My previous posts on school choice have focused on two distinct types: the first, encompassing inter- and intra-district school choice, simply allows parents a choice of existing schools either in their home district or within a greater regional area. The second type, charter schools, creates an entirely new set of innovative and specialized schools that are completely autonomous from the school district. Magnet schools offer a mix of these two options, creating innovative programs within the “typical” public school system.

With charter schools facing their fair share of criticism, magnet schools may be a viable and sustainable alternative. While magnet schools are certainly not new to the education reform debate, they provide a school choice option that offers innovative programs and a diverse student body while maintaining accountability and strengthening neighborhood schools.

Magnet schools were first used as a desegregation alternative to busing. The idea was that if a segregated district could create innovative schools centered on a specialized type of education (for example, a school focused on foreign languages or math and science), a variety of public school students from different neighborhoods and backgrounds would be attracted to it and it would become integrated. Today, magnet schools are viewed less as a desegregation tool and more as a superior public school option for students.

Magnet schools are strikingly similar to charter schools. Both provide innovative educational opportunities and both face criticism from those who worry about the schools hogging resources. Critics of magnet schools worry that magnet schools skim the best talent from the school district, including both students and teachers, while leaving the other schools in the district to deal with less motivated students and teachers. Some critics also argue that magnet schools take resources away from struggling neighborhood schools. If magnet schools take all of these things away, the argument goes, the neighborhood schools are left with the struggling students and fewer resources to help them.

But magnet schools go much deeper than charter schools and may actually be more sustainable. Charter schools operate independently from school districts, which provides them with more freedom and opportunity at the expense of accountability. In the worst cases, charter schools fall into the hands of people whose goal is the financial bottom line and they aren’t held accountable for mediocre performance. On the other hand, magnet schools are an inherent part of the school district. An important distinction between magnet schools and charter schools is that magnet schools operate under the control of the local school district. What distinguishes a magnet school from standard public schools is that its curriculum is based on a common theme and the school can enroll students from across the district or regional area. They create opportunities for innovation within the school district while following the district’s accountability structure.

Magnet schools are a way to provide innovative educational options and integrated schools as a way to boost student achievement. Many magnet schools have innovative curriculums with an emphasis on foreign language, science, math, technology, or the arts. They may also have long school days and stricter codes of discipline. Most importantly, a primary goal for magnet schools was and still is to move beyond the traditional neighborhood school and bring together students from across a school district or geographic area to create a diverse learning experience.

An example of a school district that has widely implemented magnet schools is my home school district, the West Hartford Public Schools in West Hartford, CT. West Hartford has two magnet schools, Charter Oak International Academy (elementary school) and Smith STEM School (elementary school). Charter Oak’s magnet focus is on the international student population and the cultures and societies of the world. Smith focuses on STEM – science, technology, engineering, and math. Both Smith and Charter Oak are located in what are arguably West Hartford’s poorest and most diverse areas, on its border with the city of Hartford.

The magnet school structure of both schools ensures that the children attending them are drawn from the neighborhood but also from the other areas of West Hartford, ensuring greater socioeconomic and racial diversity than if the schools were solely neighborhood schools. Further, the magnet structure of these schools allows them to implement innovative experiences for the students, including extended day (longer school day programs), early access to foreign languages, and early access to hands-on science experiments. Just check out the school profiles for Charter Oak and Smith. West Hartford’s magnet schools certainly have not skimmed talent or funding from the other West Hartford schools, but have instead provided innovative learning experiences in the tough neighborhoods of the town.

For critics of charter schools who are supporters of school choice, magnet schools are an option that allows for innovative programs and a diverse student body while maintaining accountability and strengthening neighborhood schools.

 

Amy Baral is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow performing legal and policy research on the Boston Public Schools, focusing on access to quality education and school choice. She is also a 1st year law student at Boston University School of Law.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

Education for Profit: The Darker Side of Charter Schools

Jul 5, 2012Amy Baral

Charter schools offer students a chance at a better education, but they risk being exploited by for-profit companies.

Charter schools offer students a chance at a better education, but they risk being exploited by for-profit companies.

While my last post on charter schools was overwhelmingly positive, it ended on the note that charter schools cannot be a panacea for educational issues because quality public education needs to be made available for all students. However, after spending a week in Detroit in March working on the issue of charter schools, I realize that my previous post reflected the charter school experience of the Northeast rather than the country as a whole. In the Northeast, charter schools are supported as innovative laboratories for educational development and reform. But other areas of the country are skeptical of charter schools, and for good reason. In Michigan, that skepticism stems from the fact that about 65 percent of charter schools in the state are run by for-profit educational management organizations (EMOs). Without proper oversight and accountability, this runs the risk of turning a system that’s meant to make a quality education available to everyone into a purely profit-driven enterprise that lacks concern for the well-being of students.

EMOs have developed over time as a result of the charter school movement. While charter school supporters often envision them as non-profits run by a single Board of Directors with an innovative idea for student achievement and curriculum, the reality is that running a charter school is hard work and often requires more dedicated support and management expertise. Successful non-profit charter schools have developed into non-profit EMOs that use similar methodologies in all of their schools – KIPP is an example. However, EMOs have also sprouted up in the for-profit sector.

How does it work? A non-profit group decides to form a charter school, submits its charter to the state, and gets approved. In Michigan, all charter school Boards of Directors are required to be registered as non-profits. Once the school receives its charter authorization from the state, the school then hires out educational services to for-profit or non-profit EMOs. EMOs can provide anything from occasional reading tutors, to administrative staff, to the full-time teaching staff and organization of a charter school.

What’s the problem? A charter school hiring a for-profit EMO is entirely legal under the laws of most states. In fact, for-profit EMOs have become prolific in Arizona, Florida, and Michigan, in particular. By contrast, in my home state of Massachusetts, there are only two charters schools run by a for-profit EMO. The issue arises when the line blurs between the non-profit charter school organization and the for-profit EMO. There is a good reason that public schools are run by state and local governments rather than for-profit businesses. As a society, we expect government programs to be tailored to serve the needs of citizens and create common standards for the betterment of all. If we blur the line between private businesses and public schools, we may wind up diverting public funds to support a company’s bottom line rather than our shared educational goals and values.

So what can be done? Charter schools have achieved most of their educational successes from the autonomy they’re given from the state and district educational bureaucracy. However, in order to ensure that public money isn’t supporting a for-profit company while the quality of education at charter schools decreases, greater accountability measures need to be put in place. Michigan’s updated charter school law, which went into effect on March 28, eliminates the cap on charter schools while adding accountability measures for the schools and the EMOs they contract with. One completely new section deals with the management agreements charter schools enter into with their EMOs, requiring annual reporting, public disclosure, and ensuring no conflicts of interest between the charter school’s non-profit board of directors and the for-profit EMO. Still, these accountability measures have yet to be implemented and tested. In order to ensure the best education for students at charter schools, all charter schools – both those who contract out to for-profit EMOs and those that do not – need to be held accountable for student achievement and closed if they are not performing well.

Charter schools are not a panacea to the achievement gap or issues in education. For-profit EMOs running charter schools add an additional complication, because public educational funding is going to support both an additional school choice option for students in failing schools and the bottom line of for-profit companies. Therefore, states must develop and enforce strong accountability measures for charter schools in order to ensure that public funds for education are being used appropriately and that students are receiving a quality education.

Amy Baral is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow performing legal and policy research on the Boston Public Schools, focusing on access to quality education and school choice. She is also a 1st year law student at Boston University School of Law.

 

Classroom image via Shutterstock.com.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

Millennials' Lack of Faith in Government is Leading to a Grayer Congress

Jun 7, 2012Brad Bosserman

To get more young people on Capitol Hill we have to prove that government can play a positive role in American life.

To get more young people on Capitol Hill we have to prove that government can play a positive role in American life.

A recent survey conducted by Harvard University revealed that while 69 percent of 18-29 year olds believed community service was an honorable thing to do, only 35 percent felt that way about running for office. This has real ramifications for the make-up of our legislatures. A recent article in Salon explained that Congress is getting older not because incumbent members are sticking around longer, but because the age of incoming members is rising.

It is worth considering the impact of having telecommunications and Internet policy drafted by politicians who are still “learning to get online” and leaving foreign policy decisions to people whose views were shaped and developed during the Cold War. Stephen Marche made the case earlier this year that these trends have also led to “thirty years of economic and social policy that has been rigged to serve the comfort and largesse of the old at the expense of the young.” So where are the Millennials who should be beating down the doors to the Capitol?

Some have suggested that the absence of young people in elected office is all about economics. Older Americans have gone from out-earning their younger counterparts by 10 times in the mid-'80s to nearly 50 times in 2008. This migration of wealth from young to old has occurred alongside a dramatic growth in the cost of running a successful campaign, with political spending in House and Senate races increasing eight-fold between 1970 and 2000.

This alone does not seem to explain the systemic aging of our legislatures, however. The technology booms of the '90s and aughts also produced a record number of young millionaires and billionaires. Yet they have chosen to stay out of elected office in far greater numbers than wealthy members of previous generations. Why?

I have a theory. The Millennial generation has come of age in an America influenced by a conservative ideology that changed our views about the role of public and private civil society. Heather McGhee, the Washington Director of Demos, has observed, “[T]he most pernicious effect of the Reagan revolution was to take the horizon of public policy solutions off the table entirely. We know that there are problems, but we no longer imagine that there are public policy solutions to them.” This is a profoundly different vision of American government than that which animated the New Deal and Great Society.

The modern Republican Party’s commitment to shrinking the size and scope of the public sector has led them to shake our confidence in key government institutions. The GOP has been able to convince the public that the government is corrupt and ineffective, in part by making the government corrupt and ineffective. This campaign has disproportionately affected the generation of young people who have been forging their views about politics over the last 15 years. Gallup reports that cynicism and negativity toward the government has been building for over a decade, recently culminating in “record or near-record criticism of Congress, elected officials, government handling of domestic problems, the scope of government power, and government waste of tax dollars.”

This phenomenon parallels another recent trend: the rise of the independent voter. Research has long shown that despite the conventional wisdom, self-identified independents actually behave much more like weak partisans than they do like hyper-informed mavericks. The ranks of these “independents” have grown dramatically over the last 20 years, and much of that growth has been concentrated among young Americans. In 2009, Gallup found “more than one-third of the youngest Americans identify as independents, a percentage that drops steadily as the population ages, reaching a low of around 20% among those 80 years of age and older.”

This is not entirely bad news. Even as they have lost faith in our political parties, young Americans have flocked to other forms of civic engagement. The Corporation for National and Community Service reports that volunteer rates for 16- to 24-year-olds has nearly doubled over the last 20 years. In many ways, volunteerism has become second nature to the Millennial generation, taking the place of more traditional political involvement.

But the challenge remains for those who want to see young Americans in Congress. To reverse these trends, we must actively promote the belief that public policy and institutions of government have a powerful and positive role to play in American life. The graying of the House and Senate shows that allowing conservatives to demean public service, institutionalize gridlock, and breed public cynicism will drive away the young and idealistic. This vacuum hands power over to increasingly older politicians with entrenched views and distinct generational interests that do not represent the largest generation in American history.

Bradley Bosserman is a member of the Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline and a Policy Analyst and Director of the MENA Initiative at NDN and the New Policy Institute. 

 

Congress image via Shutterstock.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

How Our Government Incentivizes the Overproduction of Junk Food

May 30, 2012Lauren Servin

Americans need their tax dollars spent on providing food that will make us healthy, not food that's tied to the obesity epidemic.

Americans need their tax dollars spent on providing food that will make us healthy, not food that's tied to the obesity epidemic.

While Michelle Obama has been working hard to reduce childhood obesity through her "Let’s Move" campaign, she has done little to advocate for change in the Farm Bill, which is set to expire on September 30th. This is the main piece of agricultural legislation, and some believe it is the root cause of the obesity problem. Our country spends far too much of taxpayer money subsidizing the very foods that may be making us unhealthy.

Over the past five years, the Farm Bill has distributed $42 billion of our tax dollars to farmers, mainly in the form of direct payments or subsidized crop insurance. Those that qualify for these payments are mostly big commodity firms that grow such crops as corn, wheat, soy, and cotton, and they are paid regardless of crop prices. A majority of these firms are large enough that with the recent rise in commodity prices and without a regulatory limit on how much they can produce, much of the government subsidy gets banked as extra profits. The subsidies not only add to the national debt, but incentivize the overproduction of crops that are the major ingredients in unhealthy foods.

The Environmental Working Group reported that from 1995 to 2010, 75 percent of farm subsidies went to firms with incomes in the top 10 percent. Such payments are also further concentrated in the states that grow the largest amounts of corn and soy. In the same period, $167.3 billion was spent on commodity crops, of which $77.1 billion went to corn subsidies, with $14.2 billion spent in Iowa alone. All 50 states engage in some sort of agriculture, yet 8.5 percent of subsidies are concentrated in Iowa, spent mostly on corn that is inedible to humans. This corn is either fed to animals, used as fuel in the form of ethanol, or undergoes heavy processing to become an ingredient in sodas, candy, and other food.

And these food items have been linked to high rates of obesity. The real cost of foods containing unhealthy, commodity-related ingredients has consistently declined since 1985, while the consumption of such unhealthy foods has gone up correspondingly. From 1986 to 2000, the prevalence of obesity quadrupled from one in 200 Americans to one in 50.

Why did our government initially subsidize these commodity crops? Subsidies were a way to manage surplus food resulting from increased production needed to fuel WWII and to feed Europe, whose agricultural land had been destroyed. They offset and controlled the overproduction of these crops so as to prevent them from flooding the market. The government began paying farmers not to grow commodities, and they purchased surpluses to be placed in large government stores. By controlling production, they helped keep commodity prices stable. In the 1980s and 1990s, big food processers lobbied to get rid of these regulatory subsidies to maximize the amount of crops produced. Increased production was believed to promote economic growth through expansion into foreign markets. The overproduction caused prices to fall dramatically, yet farmers continued to produce more and more to try to make up for their losses.

Instead of trying to fix this issue through regulating commodity production, the 1996 farm bill, otherwise known as the “Freedom to Farm” bill, got rid of all subsidy programs that incentivized farmers to control their production and let the market provide payment to farmers. However, farmers became incredibly vulnerable to market fluctuation and many went bankrupt. To avoid an all-out disaster, the government enacted emergency subsidy payments to farmers, which were then made permanent by congress in 2002. This toxic combination of deregulation and perpetual subsidy has led to the overproduction and overuse of crops that we find in junk food.

But some of these payments may change in the near future. In a rush to impact the deficit, the “super committee” attempted to slash the Farm Bill by $23 billion over the next 10 years. A majority of these cuts, about $15 billion, will come from these direct payments to commodity farmers. But $6.5 billion will come from conservation programs and $4 billion from food stamps. While the commodity cuts look big, structurally the bill remains the same, with incentives still in place for farmers to grow large quantities of commodity crops. Programs that tend to promote healthier food under conservation, such as converting conventional farms to organics and capital for new farmers, will likely be cut. During the final hearings, some senators did voice concern over crop diversity, opportunities for new farmers, and conserving soil and water resources. However, there was no comprehensive proposal offered to address these issues, meaning they will likely be forgotten.

While some researchers deny the relation between subsides and obesity, there is no question that there are more cheap junk foods on supermarket shelves than ever before and that obesity rates are at a record high. It is also hard to ignore that the main ingredients in these cheap, unhealthy foods are the subsidized commodity crops that have flourished due to policies enacted during the ‘80s and ‘90s. While some subsidies for commodity crops are likely to be cut, the government needs to once again play a regulatory role in agricultural markets. Because of the unpredictability of agricultural production, farmers will continue to lean on the side of planting more as they take advantage of high commodity prices. Until there is regulation of such crops and incentives for the production of healthier options, the cheap price of unhealthy foods will continue to win out over healthier options that are less appealing to some both in taste and in price. We need our tax dollars or our debt invested in food that we actually eat, that will keep us healthy, and that is accessible to Americans of all income levels. 

Lauren Servin is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow focusing on agriculture policy and food security.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

Even Six-Figure Salaries Don’t Attract Men to Care Work

Apr 18, 2012Suzanne Kahn

Until these jobs are given the respect they deserve, they will continue to turn men off and be paid less than they're worth.

Adam Davidson’s recent New York Times Magazine article “The Best Nanny Money Can Buy” introduced readers to the “bizarre microeconomy” of New York’s highly paid nannies. The first nanny Davidson introduces earns $180,000 a year, plus a Christmas bonus and an apartment on Central Park West.

Until these jobs are given the respect they deserve, they will continue to turn men off and be paid less than they're worth.

Adam Davidson’s recent New York Times Magazine article “The Best Nanny Money Can Buy” introduced readers to the “bizarre microeconomy” of New York’s highly paid nannies. The first nanny Davidson introduces earns $180,000 a year, plus a Christmas bonus and an apartment on Central Park West.

Davidson’s economy is indeed bizarre. As Bryce Covert pointed out in Forbes recently, the average New York nanny makes $37,076 a year. Childcare providers, home health care aids, and others are paid far too little for the incredibly important work they do. In the U.S., median pay for a childcare worker in 2010 was about $9 an hour.

Care work jobs have historically been paid poorly. Jobs associated with the work women traditionally did as wives and mothers have not been conceptualized as real work and have generally paid far less than traditionally male work. This was partially a result of the way laws were written. Until the 1970s, domestic workers were not included in the Fair Labor Standards Act that mandated a federal minimum wage, among other things.

When jobs pay well, however, they tend to attract men. Yet this does not seem to be the case among New York’s elite nannies. Interestingly, even in the microeconomy of highly paid nannies, they are all women. Davidson himself points this out, and a glance at the job listings on the website of the Pavilion Agency, the firm that connected Davidson with the high-end nanny he spoke to, confirms this. Why aren’t men attracted to these high-end jobs?

The answer seems to lie with the respect we give care workers. Most nannies not only earn very low pay for very long hours but also gain little social capital from their jobs. This lack of respect seems to extend even to highly paid nannies. It is unmistakable in the language used in the Pavillion Agency job listings. “This is the nanny who will be a ‘wife’ to a fortunate family,” reads one posting. Others describe the candidates as a “lovely lady” or “cuddly.” This sounds like the way the ad execs on Mad Men talk about their secretaries and not the way we talk about candidates for professional careers in the 21st century.

These are also notably gendered advertisements. Employers are clearly looking for women to fill these jobs because they imagine them to be a woman’s or a “wife’s” work. This sort of language very likely not only keeps men out of these jobs, but it also keeps pay very low for most care workers. As long the job of nanny is not respected, it will be paid less than jobs that are. 

Davidson may have described a strange niche economy, but his rare, highly paid nannies actually tell us quite a bit about the problems most care workers face. If even six-figure salaries fail to attract men to the market, there’s a problem with care work that goes far beyond poor pay. It’s a job that society tells men, and many women, that it isn’t respectable to do. Until these jobs earn social capital as well as cash, care work will probably remain a sex-segregated, and therefore underappreciated, sector of the economy. Outside the upper echelons of Manhattan society, that means care work is likely to remain poorly paid.

Suzanne Kahn is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow and a Ph.D. student in history at Columbia University.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

The Poor Do Pay Taxes -- Too Many Taxes

Apr 17, 2012Alexander Hertel-Fernandez

tax-chalkboard-150 As we try to raise revenue, we must avoid placing a greater burden on those who have the least to give.

tax-chalkboard-150 As we try to raise revenue, we must avoid placing a greater burden on those who have the least to give.

Filing taxes is far from enjoyable for most people, but this year tax day will be especially hard on many low-income Americans. A number of states will levy increased income taxes on the working poor. According to recent research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, families at the federal poverty line in seven states will pay several hundreds of dollars in state taxes. For example, a two-parent family of four with annual income at the poverty line will pay $548 in Alabama and $509 in Illinois.

Why is it important to shield the poor from state income taxes? Many of the working poor already pay other forms of taxes, including local and state sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, and other fees. On average, state and local taxes consume a larger share of poor households’ income relative to more well off households --- that is, these taxes are regressive. Collectively, these taxes make it harder for poor families to afford basic necessities and to invest in activities that might help them escape poverty.

What can states do to ease the income tax burden faced by working families? First, state governments can enact exemptions or deductions to offset individuals’ tax burden. Another important effort is the creation of state tax credits for low-income workers. To date, 25 states have tax credit programs that provide support to low-income working families and piggyback on the federal earned income tax credit program. My own state of Massachusetts, for example, provides a credit worth up to about $800 for a low-income, two-parent family of four. These programs are an important step in the effort to provide economic support to poor workers that more state governments should emulate.

In addition to the economic evidence that supports the expansion of these tax credits, there may be public support for such measures as well. Polling indicates that Americans are quite supportive of the earned income tax credit program that the federal government administers – about half of Americans in 2007 reported wanting to expand the generosity of the program.   

Taxes are the way our government raises revenue to invest in important public priorities like health care, education, and infrastructure that lead to economic growth and prosperity. Taxing the poor, however, is the wrong way to raise revenue and makes it harder for low-income Americans to get ahead. Tax cuts for the working poor should be the type of tax cut that both liberals and conservatives can support. 

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is a member of the Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline's Boston chapter and a PhD student in government and social policy at Harvard University.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

What Small Business Really Needs: A Helping Hand, Not a Tax Cut

Mar 12, 2012Joseph Shure

Entrepreneurs aren't being discouraged by high taxes. They're struggling with a lack of support and resources needed to put their ideas into action.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, an Ohio man named Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher confronted then-candidate Barack Obama about the Democrat's plan to raise taxes on individuals in high-income brackets. Wurzelbacher, who became known as Joe the Plumber, asserted the plan would hurt small business owners like him.

Entrepreneurs aren't being discouraged by high taxes. They're struggling with a lack of support and resources needed to put their ideas into action.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, an Ohio man named Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher confronted then-candidate Barack Obama about the Democrat's plan to raise taxes on individuals in high-income brackets. Wurzelbacher, who became known as Joe the Plumber, asserted the plan would hurt small business owners like him.

At the time, it seemed as though Joe the Plumber gave a voice to the small business owner population, tired as they were of high taxes and strict regulations. But two things proved wrong with this picture: Joe the Plumber, it turns out, is not a plumber at all, he's merely worked for one. Also, he is woefully ill equipped to speak on behalf of small business owners.

The trope Wurzelbacher trotted out -- that small business owners just want the government to reduce their taxes and get out of the way -- is one we often hear coming from the mouths of conservative politicians and the press releases of right-leaning groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce.

While this stance may reflect the views of some entrepreneurs, it glosses over a reality that is becoming increasingly clear: many small business owners, most likely the majority of them, could benefit from policies that make it easier for them to do business. Small business owners need affordable healthcare, good infrastructure, and access to capital. Millions need more humane immigration laws.

I have seen this first-hand from having worked with hundreds of business owners; I'm the co-founder of the Intersect Fund, a New Jersey non-profit that provides training and loans to emerging entrepreneurs. I rarely hear my clients complain about taxes (as start-up owners, many earn low incomes). What I do notice, though, is that high health care costs hurt new businesses, and immigration related hurdles keep many from starting firms that could otherwise pay taxes and create jobs.

In addition, my clients struggle to find affordable capital with which to start or grow their businesses. Part of the reason the Intersect Fund exists is that big banks are uninterested in disbursing business loans of less than $25,000, and they balk at applicants with less-than-perfect credit.

We cater to clients at the "very small" end of the small business spectrum. The industry term for such a firm is "microbusiness," which we define as a business with five or fewer employees that needs $35,000 or less to get off the ground. The Association for Enterprise Opportunity estimates approximately 24 million of these firms operate throughout the country. If one third of them added one job each, the U.S. would enjoy full employment.

Vote by March 14 for the Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline to win a free both at Netroots Nation!

Unfortunately, these businesses face some serious obstacles. An Aspen Institute study found approximately 10 million of them lack access to basic resources, such as technical assistance or business loans.

And the resources that do exist are distributed unequally: a 2003 Dartmouth study by David Blanchflower found African American business owners are twice as likely as their white counterparts to be denied a business loan, even when controlling for factors such as creditworthiness. The perception (often correct) that capital is unavailable, the study found, makes black business owners more reluctant than others to seek out capital.

Government efforts like the Community Reinvestment Act mitigate the effects of discrimination, and agencies like the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, part of the Treasury Department, offer much needed aid to organizations that lend to underserved populations.

The effects of the Affordable Care Act remain to be seen, but the provision enabling individuals under 26 to sign on to their parents' insurance plans has already removed a significant barrier to entrepreneurship for more than a million young adults.

Millions of entrepreneurs -- especially those of modest means and those whom the financial services industry has historically ignored -- benefit every day from policies that seek to expand access to entrepreneurial opportunity. Instead of taking the hands-off approach that Joe the Plumber and his ilk promote, the federal government and states should re-think what "pro-business" means. They should play an active role in promoting small business development.

At a time when small businesses are so important, I believe voters deserve a clear picture of which policies help them and which hurt them. To this end, I'll be working in the coming months with entrepreneurs, industry organizations, and trade groups to develop a scorecard with which to assess a candidate's or party's stance on issues that affect entrepreneurs.

To be clear, Joe the Non-Profit Microlender (me) is no better qualified than Joe the Plumber to speak on behalf all small business owners. My observations represent neither entrepreneurs at large, the views of my clients, nor the positions of my organization. But I would propose a couple of things: first, an entrepreneur's potential should hinge on her talent and drive, not on her race, gender, origin, or income bracket. Second, a business climate that tolerates inequality ends up quashing potential that our economy -- especially now -- can scarcely afford to waste. Policies that ensure equality would spur far more growth than a tax cut ever could.

Joe Shure is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow and co-founder and associate director of the Intersect Fund.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

Making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Fully Gender Inclusive

Mar 8, 2012Minjon Tholen

On International Women's Day, a proposal that will make sure a vital document includes women's rights as human rights.

"It is necessary to scrutinize not only the truth of what we speak, but the truth of that language by which we speak it." - Audre Lorde

On International Women's Day, a proposal that will make sure a vital document includes women's rights as human rights.

"It is necessary to scrutinize not only the truth of what we speak, but the truth of that language by which we speak it." - Audre Lorde

The continued battle over women's rights both in the United States and across the world calls for a reaffirmation of the fact that women's rights are human rights. International Women's Day is the perfect time to once again point that out and challenge the gender bias in the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

During the 4th World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, it was explicitly reaffirmed that women's rights are human rights. The commitment of the United Nations, its member states, and NGOs to this important recognition has become clear in their efforts for the advancement of women and gender equality in their policies and practices. An important example is the institution of UN Women, the gender equity agency uniting the Division for the Advancement of Women, the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women, the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, and United Nations Development Fund for Women.

However, this evolving consciousness has not yet been reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself: the fundamental document human rights advocates base their work on. The declaration emphasizes that human rights are indivisible and apply to all members of the human family, and Article 2 explicitly states that there will be no distinction based on gender. Yet Article 1 still reads, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

Furthermore, almost half of the articles (8, 10, 11.1, 12, 13.2, 15.2, 17.2, 18, 21.1/21.2, 22, 23.3/23.4, 25.1, 27.2, 29.1/29.2) use the male pronouns "him," "he," "himself," and/or "his" as the generic terms to represent all of humanity. This initial gender bias in the declaration is historically understandable, but today needs to be addressed if we are truly committed to the full inclusion of women's rights in human rights. If you are not convinced, imagine all pronouns to be feminine. Wouldn't that sound exclusive of men? Therefore, we should replace the word "brotherhood" in Article 1 with something along the lines of "human solidarity." This term is gender inclusive and reaffirms our shared humanity, which in turn strengthens the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the same way, the words "him," "himself," "he," and "his" should be replaced with "one," "one's," or "their".

This linguistic adaptation will be of invaluable symbolic importance,  as it recognizes the efforts of those working for women's rights and truly reaffirms the United Nations' commitment to gender equity. It is well known that words are not value-free: they simultaneously reflect and reinforce values and attitudes. Moreover, a change in language is not only symbolic, but also has practical value for educational purposes. Gender equity should be integral to the next generation's upbringing and curriculum. When they learn about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they should not have any reason to read gender bias in the concept of "human."

Since the declaration was always intended to include women, there should be no legal consequences of these changes. And I by no means suggest a complete re-examination of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is merely an update in the language. Fifteen years after Beijing, it is time to review the Declaration from the perspective of our evolving consciousness regarding women's rights and gender equity. We must recognize the dedicated efforts of millions of women and men around this world for these causes by reflecting their work in the central declaration for human rights, either in the document itself or in the form of an addendum.

Like all gender equality advocates, I am dedicated to the tireless efforts of the global women's movement. I hope to do so with a gender-inclusive Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Minjon Tholen is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow and the Training & Development Specialist at Cook Ross Inc.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

Rethinking America’s Focus on Subsidizing Homeownership

Feb 13, 2012Kristen Tullos

Think most federal housing support goes to low-income families and renters? Think again.

Think most federal housing support goes to low-income families and renters? Think again.

What should be the role of the federal government in housing policy? Our fixation on homeownership as the primary goal has diverted resources from the programs that help those most in need of federal assistance. Most Americans are likely to associate federal housing policy with programs intended to help poor residents, such as public housing and rental assistance. They would be shocked to learn that in 2008, for every housing dollar the federal government spent on poor individuals and families, it spent approximately four dollars on middle class and affluent families. Hidden from plain view, these expenditures are primarily made through the tax code -- the largest being the mortgage interest tax deduction that subsidizes homeownership.

This homeownership-focused policy expends huge amounts of resources. The mortgage interest tax deduction is expected to cost the government $105 billion this year, which is more than double the entire budget of Housing and Urban Development, the agency tasked with administering most of the federal affordable housing programs.

While these large tax deductions are available to everyone, wealthy taxpayers benefit disproportionately. Not only does the value of the deduction increase as taxpayers move into higher income brackets, lower-income homeowners are less likely to itemize deductions. As a result, 85 percent of the mortgage-interest tax deduction goes to taxpayers with incomes exceeding $75,000. Not only is this out of line with a progressive tax structure, many experts believe that preferential tax treatment contributed to the real estate bubble. Over the last decade, there has been a huge increase in cost-burdened homeownership, defined as households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing. While many argue that more should be done for homeowners immediately in the context of the housing crisis, there is a larger question of whether the federal government should have done so much to encourage homeownership in the first place.

Check out “The 99 Percent Plan,” a new Roosevelt Institute/Salon essay series on the progressive vision for the economy.

There is no shortage of inequalities in the housing sector, and many came to light through the long process of unwinding the roots of the economic crisis. The inequality between renters and homeowners is merely one of them, but it is deeply rooted in our approach to housing policy. While homeownership benefits accrue automatically through tax expenditures, waiting lists to obtain Section 8 vouchers are notoriously long. Programs that help ensure safe and affordable rental options are often underfunded, while homeownership remains the focus of our national housing agenda. For example, the Federal Reserve recently proposed converting some of the REO properties held by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Authority to rental property. Even this policy is targeted at stabilizing the housing market; relieving upward pressures on the rental market is just an added benefit.

Rather than homeownership, the focus of federal housing policy should be ensuring that everyone has a safe place to call home. Resources should be allocated in a way that reflects that goal. This would require shifting to a more balanced approach between homeownership and rental assistance and making sure that federal dollars are put to their highest valued use.

Young people are increasingly aware of the affordability problem in the rental market. Many young adults have insufficient credit to qualify for a mortgage, lack the savings to make a 20 percent down payment, or are simply unable to break into an increasingly difficult job market. Our generation is feeling the effects of rising rental rates. Perhaps this recognition will create a newfound awareness of the need for affordability assistance, not just for those people who have attained the "American dream" of homeownership, but also for renters who have a similar need to maintain housing stability.

Helping people maintain shelter is not only socially beneficial, but economically rational. When a family loses its home, it can find its way through a web of homeless shelters and supportive services if it is lucky; otherwise, it becomes homeless. When people are unsheltered, the likelihood that they will need emergency health care or become incarcerated increases substantially. Emergency rooms and jails are operated at enormous expense to the public. But a sheltered person is much less likely to incur these expenses. A study in Denver found that providing housing to homeless individuals reduced their emergency health care expenses by 72.85 percent and lowered incarceration costs by 76 percent -- saving the city $31,545 per person annually.

There is an acute need for more affordable housing assistance. One and a half million American children were homeless in the years before the economic crisis hit. Almost everywhere, the estimated number of homeless people vastly exceeds the number of emergency shelter and transitional housing spaces. A renewed and serious focus on affordability means either committing new resources or redirecting them from programs, such as the mortgage interest tax deduction, that are designed to encourage home purchases rather than improve affordability.

Kristen Tullos is a Roosevelt Institute Pipeline | Fellow and a third-year student at Emory Law School in Atlanta.

Read more

Share This

The New Guard

The Multiple Choice Question: Do Charter Schools Work?

Feb 7, 2012Amy Baral

Charter schools give students options they might not otherwise have, but they don't negate our responsibility to provide a quality education to all.

Charter schools give students options they might not otherwise have, but they don't negate our responsibility to provide a quality education to all.

As I've explained in previous posts, inter-district and intra-district school choice programs work by creating choices from the existing schools in a school district. A different approach to school choice is the charter school movement.

As most know, charter schools operate as unique public schools within a school district. Unlike intra and inter-district school choice where the schools students attend are just the regular public schools in the district, charter schools are completely independent. Charter schools operate through a charter from the state government, although they receive their per-pupil funding from the school district where they are located. Because they are not controlled by the school district, they are given vast freedoms in return for higher standards of accountability.

Proponents of charter schools highlight the combination of freedom and accountability that they are provided. That allows them to experiment and innovate in ways that are tailored to meet the needs of the student population. As a result, many charter schools have implemented programs such as extended school day, extended school year, tutoring sessions, required athletic sessions, and hands-on experiences. The Harlem Children's Zone's charter schools exemplify this phenomenon. Faced with their students' limited access to health care services, the Promise Academy opened up the Harlem Children's Health Project to provide access to free medical services for its students.

While most charter schools operate based on similar principles -- high expectations, choice, more time, power to lead, and focus on results (derived from KIPP's "Five Pillars") -- not all charter schools are created equal. Opponents of charter schools worry that the choice created by charter schools is not a choice at all. While the accountability mechanisms in place for charter schools do work to close schools that do not meet their legally mandated goals, opponents note that many charter schools perform on par or worse than their public school counterparts. As CREDO's study notes, on math tests, 46 percent of students in charter schools performed on par with their public school peers, while 37 percent performed worse. Still, 63 percent of charter schools are performing at or above the level that public schools are performing.

Click here to buy Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch’s new book on the epic health care reform battle, Fighting for Our Health.

Finally, there's the issue of segregation. Charter schools in urban districts serve an overwhelmingly poor and minority student population, and there is often a higher proportion of poor and minority students in charter schools than in the district overall. This has led some to note that charter schools are creating de facto segregation based primarily on race. Yet while some charter schools cater to specific populations -- a German charter school, for instance, or a bilingual charter school -- this is certainly not a return to life before Brown v. Board of Education. Because charter schools are public, they must accept all students that apply for spots in their classrooms (unless there are too many applications, in which case a lottery must be held). Further, the population of a charter school most often reflects the population of the school district in which it's located. Segregation in schools is a problem, but charter schools are not exacerbating this problem -- they are simply trying to provide a high-quality educational choice for students who may have no other option.

The question this debate boils down to is about choice. If a student's option is to go to a failing public school or take a chance at a charter school with innovative programs, which choice do you think they would make? Parents and students would often rather take a chance with a new and innovative educational program than continue at the same public school that has led to few educational achievements. Charter schools, like inter-district and intra-district school choice, provide an additional educational option for students who have no other choice but to attend public school.

Still, this choice is not enough. Some charter schools have created innovative and effective programs to increase student achievement and success. Other charter schools have failed. But charter schools are not perfect and they certainly are not a panacea for educational issues. In pushing for high-quality school options for all children, the debate shouldn't be about the pros and cons of charter schools, but rather about ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality education. School choice programs, such as intra and inter-district school choice and charter schools, expand educational options for student and families who may have no other choice of schools. But in order to ensure that every child has access to a high quality education, the broader focus should be on widespread public school improvement and reform.

Amy Baral is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow performing legal and policy research on the Boston Public Schools, focusing on access to quality education and school choice. She is also a 1st year law student at Boston University School of Law.

Read more

Share This

Pages