structural inequalities

i just finished reading Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. it is a deeply powerful work. powerful in the sense of its ability to penetrate directly into the heart of an issue and make me want to put the brakes on everything else and take up the cause for change.
but also deeply powerful in its ability to expose how difficult creating change will be.

the essence of Kozol's book is this: America's public education system, while designed to provide a measure of equality to children across the nation (particularly since the era of school desegregation), serves primarily the upper- and middle-classes at the expense of those with less financial resources. this is compounded by a significant racial divide across economic class, at least in the urban and suburban school district that are Kozol's primary focus. students in the wealthier urban and suburban districts are provided with resources many times over the meager opportunities poorer students get. surprised? perhaps you're not. but the extent to which this occurs shocked me to the core of my being. schools where kids have class in closets, schools without textbooks, schools where administrators and teachers are thankful when kids drop out because it's the only way they have enough space for their students...this is in the united states - - in the land of opportunity, the land with "liberty and justice for all..."

the most gut-wrenching aspect of reading the book, at least for me, was the realization that this situation is directly tied to our capitalist economy. school districts get money from property taxes, and, though they're not necessarily higher as a percentage of income, the taxes provide more money on an absolute level in wealthier districts because property is worth more. because property is worth more, and because schools are better, these districts draw in people/families with larger incomes - reinforcing the cycle. what this means is that students coming from poorer families are at a severe disadvantage: they attend public schools in which much less money is invested, which means they receive a much poorer education and are often unable to compete with students from wealthier districts. the extent of their disadvantage is so severe as to make dropping out a more attractive option than graduating - even teachers and principals acknowledge this. students aren't given the opportunity to gain the skills they need to compete with their fellow students - so few graduate, fewer start and even fewer finish college...and the cycle continues through the next generation.

as i said before, reading the book makes me want to go out and do something to change the system. the problem is, changing the system is just that - it's not something that can be done through a limited intervention. sure, i can open up a school for underpriveleged kids or go teach in an urban school district (east st. louis, the south bronx, chicago, you name it...), but how many people can i possibly reach? this requires systemic change. the kind that occurs through federal legislation or supreme court decisions. the kind that creates protests, lobby groups, and divides the nation.

plus, the sort of systemic change that is neccessary goes against the value system of much of this nation. it will require those with money to put it into improving the lives of others - by investing in poorer school districts, perhaps at the expense of the luxuries their own children receive. Kozol tries to make the case that it isn't a "win-lose" situation - that equality could mean better schools for everyone, rather than worse - but at the end of the day, even the allmighty USA is a country with limited resources. and this, intuitively, is hard for us to digest. this is understandable: why shouldn't we want our kids to get the best education possible? and, if we can afford to, we do the best we can to make sure they do - either by living in districts with well-regarded schools, or by sending them to charter schools or giving them extra-curricular opportunities that make up for deficiencies elsewhere in the educational system. it's hard to say, "ok, i'll invest in poorer school districts and not give my kid the opportunity that he or she could have otherwise." sure, there are those who are idealistic enough, committed enough, risk-takers enough to do so. but they are few and far between.

so what's the answer? no child left behind? i think not - certainly not in its current permutation, at least. head start? perhaps, though it's not enough. socialism? not in this country - though it seems that it is what might be required: systemic change, not just in education, but in the way we view our country's resources as a whole.

perhaps someone else has thoughts on this. i'm happy to hear them...