Posted by Jay Livingston
A comment on an earlier post raised the question of whether “rich Republicans . . . pay so much for their kids' education but don't want to pay for the education of poorer children .”
Neither that comment nor the response to it had much to do with the substance of the post itself (which was about the ways in which the SAT might be biased). It was a tempest in the shot glass that is the Socioblog and not of much relevance, so I said nothing.
But just now I read this WaPo story saying that the Minnesota government shutdown is going to be resolved. It looks like the Mark Dayton, the Democratic governor, caved. Here’s the relevance:
- Rich Republicans: “Dayton reluctantly acceded to Republican demands not to raise any taxes . . Dayton {had] wanted to include a tax increase on the state’s top 2 percent of wage earners.”
- Paying for public education: “The plan would balance the state’s budget by cutting programs, delaying state aid to local school districts . . .”
It’s only one case, but I also did a quick-and-dirty rummage through the GSS, specifically the question of government aid to education. Here’s the breakdown by party and income.
(Click on the image for a larger view.)In the highest income groups, the percentage of Democrats and Independents saying “too much” is zero. Among Republicans, 8.8% and 12.7%.
The good news (good if you think that cutting education spending isn’t going to do much for educational results) is that not many Americans think we are spending too much. Most think we’re not spending enough. Who are those folks who think that the government is overspending on public education? Republicans, especially rich Republicans.
8 comments:
Jay -
You've missed the point just as your thin-skinned friend missed the point. Throwing more money at a failed public education system is what Democrats and their union allies want, yes. Republicans tend to oppose that, yes. But to oppose spending more on failing schools is not necessarily to oppose money for education.
Spending more money on bad education that poor families are trying to escape from is not what Republicans support, true. But this does not make them selfish. It makes them progressive, empathetic and smart -- and supportive of poor families -- whom Democrats apparently would rather keep confined in dependency.
Republicans tend to favor voucher systems, for example, that use public money to enable poor kids to attend better private schools. Democrats and unions oppose such schemes. That's being selfish.
We've had this debate before. I don't know why I bother to reply. This blog is like a front for the New Jersey Democratic Party. Luckily, the people of your state elected a smart, progressive governor who is willing to battle supporters of a failed education system. I guess all teachers -- including tenured faculty in higher education -- feel threatened by the winds of change sweeping the nation's educational establishment. Fighting back by calling Republicans "rich" and "selfish" is pretty pathetic.
1. We don’t know why the GSS respondents answered the question the way they did. And as I said, most (roughly 65% of GOP, 80% Dem and Ind) said that the federal government was spending too little on education. Maybe whose who said “too much” were thinking about charters and vouchers. We don’t know. Maybe they were being “selfish” (a word I did not use). We don’t know.
It would help if we had data on how this question was answered by rich Republicans in places where public monies go to private schools. But I couldn’t find any data along those lines.
2. What we do know is whether party and income make a difference. They do. And in exactly the way I summarized the data. I could have added, though it’s obvious from the graph, that poor Republicans are less than half as likely as are rich Republicans to say that the government is spending “too much” on education (6% vs. 12.7%).
3. I did use the word “rich.” Maybe that’s a “pathetic” term to characterize people whose income is greater than that of 90% of the population. But I’m sticking with it.
4. As for Christie and the people of New Jersey: “When asked about how Christie is handling education, his signature issue, 41 percent approve and 55 percent disapproved.” Among women, it was 34% approve, 60% disapprove. (From a poll pf 1600 NJ voters last month. Story here.)
Jay,
Aren't you missing a much bigger picture here?
Please cite --other than the "general welfare" clause -- where the federal government has any authority to spend money on education.
It isn't the job of the federal government to educate children.
I could have added, though it’s obvious from the graph, that poor Republicans are less than half as likely as are rich Republicans to say that the government is spending “too much” on education (6% vs. 12.7%).
Maybe the difference lies more with the level of dependence on the government and the view that the government should be the solution to the problem.
When a person is poor, aren't they less likely to want to reduce the aid they are receiving?
I find the labels often hide reality. Instead of being binary "GOP/DEM" people tend to all over the place --more of a spectrum than binary. And people support one area of government intrusion (schools) and not others (marriage, etc)
So the Republicans would rather delay aid to schools than allow a small tax increase on the very rich.
When do we stop trying to soak the 'rich' to pay for more and more aid to others?
You fail to mention that 47% of the population effective pays no federal income tax.
You fail to mention exactly how much of the 'tax' burden the rich pay.
Why is that?
When do we stop throwing money at a system that isn't working as well as it used to?
Tell me that more spending is going to help the school systems in Chicago, D.C. Dallas.
It isn't. More money isn't going to make a difference until the parents of those child make education a priority.....and way too many of them don't.
And don't even get me started on the vast amounts of time wasted in schools on progressive talking points like 'global warming' and more.
1. The federal government does lots of things that are not explicitly required by the Constitution – licensing people who fly airplanes, assuring the safety of prescription meds, subsidizing agriculture, etc. I assume that the Court’s reasoning is that the Constitution doesn’t proscribe these things.
2. Yes, the reason poor people are more likely to say the government is spending too little on education is probably self-interest. They depend on the government for education. If your income is $20,000 a year, it would be hard to pay the $8-10,000 tuition at, say, the Fort Worth Christian School. It would be even harder if you had to pay income tax as well (though of course you’d be paying a higher rate on your payroll tax than are your US Senators and Representatives). So I can see why there’s broad support for public education and the EITC (created during the Ford administration, greatly expanded during the Reagan administration).
Note, though, that apparently they don’t see this federal spending as “throwing money” at a system that doesn’t work, else why would they want more of it?
I guess we can assume that the same logic of self-interest is what’s motivating rich people who oppose raising the income tax on that portion of income over a quarter-million.
3. Dem, Ind, Rep. As you say, the party labels are broad. Not all Democrats hold the same opinions; ditto for Independents and Republicans. Thirteen perecent of Republicans think we’re spending too much on education, 87% don’t.
The labels in the GSS are self-applied. The survey asks the respondent for his or her party affiliation. If someone says “Democrat,” they get classified as a Democrat. Nearly everyone (98%) picks one of those three.
Jay,
Note, though, that apparently they don’t see this federal spending as “throwing money” at a system that doesn’t work, else why would they want more of it?
Why?
How about decades of brain washing by the education system?
For decades we've been lead to believe that the government should be the ones educating our children. People in the public education arena have pushed for laws making it tougher for parents to home school or for private education -- in the name of knowing what is best for the children.
For decades, the standards of what is required to be taught in public schools have been lowered, time and time again.
Gee, that makes it easier on who? The teachers, administrators perhaps?
For decades, liberals have forced there philosophical beliefs on students, especially those going into education.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/search?q=education+system
People want to throw more money at it because they don't see an alternative.
The 'rich' though do. I'm not rich and I'm working to be a position to have either my wife or I home school our grandkids.....the public education system is failing.
Can you deny that the skills of kids graduating this year are less than 20 30 years ago?
I guess we can assume that the same logic of self-interest is what’s motivating rich people who oppose raising the income tax on that portion of income over a quarter-million.
How much is it 'fair' for people to pay?
The 'rich' already pay more in taxes then they take out of the system. Why shouldn't the people who are reaping the benefits of the education system help pay for it?
Surely a sociologist you could tell me isn't there something about what people pay for they value and what they get for free the don't?
Who shows they really care about their kids education? The majority of the people who pay NO Federal Taxes or the People who pay the majority of the taxes?
Some of your points – for example the question of what is “fair” – are not empirical. They are matters of values and could not be settle by evidence even if we had all the information in the world.
For others, I don’t know the data. Do rich people care more about their kids’ education than do poor people? There may be data on this, but I don’t know of it. Do people value education more if they pay income taxes than if they don’t? Again, I don’t know the data on this.
“Can you deny that the skills of kids graduating this year are less than 20 30 years ago?” This information was pretty easy to find:
NAEP Reading scores of public school students:
Age 9
1980 - 214
2008 - 218
Age 13
1980 - 257
2008 - 258
Age 17
1980 - 284
1008 - 284
It was harder to find math scores. From what I read, it seems that scores for the younger groups rose from 1973 to about 2000, then leveled off. For 17-year-olds, there hasn’t been much net change.
So yes, I can deny it, though that's hardly cause for celebration. Kids' academic skills today are no worse than they were 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but they’re not much better. What gains we’ve seen occurred mostly in the 80s and 90s (i.e,, the pre-NCLB years).
Jay,
Sorry if I take your studies with a grain of salt.
Reading yes, comprehension maybe.
Math skills I know the kids today are being taught less than what I was taught thirty years ago.
I just got my last of 3 out of school. I hear the same thing from most parents.
I worked with many kids through scouting and church so I'm not limited to my school district or just my kids.
Today's kids are exposed to more liberal soft skills and thoughts (climate change, tolerance for alternate lifestyles, etc) as a part of the curriculum instead of hard sciences (math, engineering, science).
School systems around the country have continually relaxed education requirements for graduation.
The empirical evidence shows this to be true...look at how many college students have to take remedial classes now versus 30 years ago.
Show me the surveys on the attitudes toward education in the different economic classes.
I'll bet dollars to donuts the poor-- mostly inner city -- place less value on education then the 'rich'.
How about a comparison of the educational accomplishments versus economic classes?
Care to show how many high school graduates per quintile, how many college graduates per quintile?
In my opinion, we are seeing the results of generations of welfare entitlement mentality coming home to roost. Too many people don't feel they have to earn their education, it should be given to them.
Too many people feel they shouldn't have to earn their living, it should be given to them.
And that is why so many people support the federal government involvement in education.
Bob S.
Very eloquent.
But your task – trying to make these liberal academics see "the big picture" – is futile. Anything you say can be countered by results of a "study" or a querulous demand for your study. The veil of "social science" conceals a hardened leftist ideology.
You are right in invoking the big picture: Public education in most big cities is a scandal – and it is the poor with few options who suffer. Meanwhile administration-to-teacher ratios grow. Tax dollars are spent on such programs as "gender spectrum diversity training" (as in Oakland California kindergartens) while a strong foundation in math and reading is often left to the hands of burned-out teachers with seniority.
It's amazing that teachers unions are only now grudgingly giving in to the concept of accountability - which is at play in every other profession. Only now are SOME unions accepting that, hey, maybe staying on the job for 15 years is not the best criterion for granting job security and higher pay - perhaps we might consider how well pupils are learning!
Good teachers should make more money, in my view. Bad school systems should not get more funding -- but the boot.
That's the big picture. Where is my "evidence"? Just ask the poor inner-city moms who clammer for educational choice.
Bob S. -- good luck.
Post a Comment