A while back, I randomly was watching ABC News, and came across an amazing hour-long story about the lives of a group of poor kids in Camden. It really was a wonderful job of showing just how desperate the lives of so many Americans are. And, I wasn’t alone in being affected by the story, because the show took on a life of its own. Governor’s Corzine’s staffers apparently made him watch a tape of it, charity poured in, etc.
Now, one of the families featured on the show- the Marrero’s- is back in the news again. In fact, they had a brand new house for them built over the course of a week (in Pennsauken, not Camden) by the show Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. First, let me state that it is wonderful that the family got a new home. Absolutely wonderful. But, there is something about all of this follow-up to the ABC piece that is so problematic, and echoes all-too familiar storylines about the deserving poor.
The deserving poor, for those who don’t know it, is an old term (used at least as far back as the Elizabethan-era in England) to talk about poor people who were a-ok, because they were sick or injured, etc. These ‘noble’ poor people didn’t deserve their lot in life, so, society was supposed to take care of them with charity. In other words, the nice guy father of five in Camden, who has a huge heart, but suffered two major heart attacks is deserving, so he gets a new house. Then, of course, there are the undeserving poor. You know, those 12-kid-having, welfare-defrauding-queens who are stealing money from the public.
Even without meaning it, Inquirer columnist Annette John-Hall gives a great example of the 'deserving poor' narrative that developed:
The family's struggles have been well-documented. A 20/20 documentary about the children of Camden first introduced us to Billy Joe, the oldest son, and the rest of the Marreros in January.
It was hard not to root for Victor: A pair of heart attacks in seven years had left him unable to resume work as an office manager and he was out of health insurance. He couldn't depend on his wife. She left with the couple's three daughters after his first heart attack in '94.
That left Victor, 54, permanently disabled, alone with five stairsteps - Jonas, 15; Steven, 16; Ethan, 17; Joshua, 18; to Billy Joe, 19 - to raise and no income to raise them.
Just like that, a situation that was already real bad became untenable.
"We were cold and hungry, but we never complained," Billy Joe tells me, relaying the story while crowded with his brothers on a leather loveseat in a family room decorated with Victor-mandated Eagles memorabilia.
This is clearly a loving family, who got the shaft in life, and are now getting some much deserved luck. But, what about everyone else in the City they moved from? The point is that the deserving poor, even when not explicitly referred to, is an extraordinarily dangerous road to go down. Yes, it was amazing that within days of original airing of the show, charity poured in for these families. Americans are, at their core, good hearted people. But, what would have been much more amazing was a realization that the Marrero family story could have been replicated over and over and over, in Camden, Philadelphia, and places all over the Country.
The answer to such massive, deeply entrenched generational poverty is not charity. The answer is public policy. If ABC and the Inquirer really want to serve their cities, the answer will not be more stories that focus on ‘fixing’ the situation of one or two families. They will continue instead to document just how pervasive poverty is, and what we can do as a city, region, state and nation to end it.
The Danger of the Anecdote
I think this is why promoting policy with anecdotal evidence is dangerous. Anecdotes can clarify a policy issue, put a human face on it, and show the actual consequences of bad public policy. And the feelings of sympathy and sense of unfairness/injustice that they can generate are potentially politically powerful.
But you have to consider the typical as well as the extraordinary, the ugly as well as the beautiful, and continually reiterate the fact that there are millions of stories like the one that you're telling -- not just like it, but likewise victims of political and social failure.
--Tim
Dead on.
I remember one time when this NPR reporter covered a moviemaker documenting the travails of very poor families in the South. One moment in the story depicted the kid talking about how he didn't have a pencil or a pen to take to school and there wasn't one in the whole house. So, the reporter said to the filmmaker, "didn't one of you have a pencil or a pen?" And the filmmaker said, "Yes, but we wanted to take the position of simply observing the situation without getting involved." or something along those lines.
All these angry letters poured in from self-righteous NPR listeners saying, "Well if he won't give them a pen then I will! Send me the address."
It's so easy to do that sort of thing when you see something in the press. Respond to that one case that you can see... but the truth is that there are thousands and thousands of kids going without pencils out there (or breakfast, or winter coats, or a roof, etc.).
That's why I say "Dead on." Chipping a few bucks in probably does make the person who does it feel better, but it doesn't make it better.
---
The Russellian Incorporated Innovations Corporation
Lefty Homilies
how to tell stories of individuals and trends
I totally agree with your points here.
I do find though that often when progressives talk about the effects of policies and the need for policy change we stay *too* much on the big picture and don't tell enough stories about individuals. The reality is that people respond more to stories about people. There's more heart to it. And there's more literacy. We're all trained from childhood to hear stories of people facing challenges that we emotionally respond to. We're not all trained in think about about large trends, apply the big picture to daily life and vice versa. . .
But then I think a lot of us feel uncomfortable telling individuals' stories because we don't want to seem explotative or United Way-ish (aka, promoting the story of the noble poor and charity as the solution rather than policy change).
I'd be curious to hear/see examples of something that strikes a balance.
Stories are good and they can add up to real change
No one wants the individual stories to go away, I don't think. We're just criticizing how the public reacts to them and maybe trying to equip reporters to give people real solutions, as opposed to charity.
Speaking of stories and reporters, I can tell you one of the most frustrating things reporters do. When reporters call us and ask for an uninsured person (or a person with whatever the problem-of-the-day is), we first refer them to our most experienced members who fit the bill they are looking for. We are often told, especially by Inquirer reporters, that they don't want people who've come out publicly on an issue before. I always push them on it. I say, "Why not? It's not like they are any more insured/employed/stable than they were when they were quoted before?" Somehow, the idea is that if a person is associated with a movement for change it corrupts them or makes what they have to say suspect.
When, in fact, a person involved with changing it has a more complete story to tell and understands their situation better.
---
The Russellian Incorporated Innovations Corporation
Lefty Homilies
That Elizabeth Warren book I was reading last night
takes this head-on. She basically collapses the dichotomy.
Her book addresses the changing fortunes of what was the middle class, not the chronically poor, but there are some interesting connections.
First, she tries to show that the 'undeserving poor' thing is a myth. The incredible increase of consumer debt is not generally a product of people being more wasteful today with their spending patterns. To the extent there is greater spending on, say, eating out, there are compensatory savings that balance that out. People spend less at the grocery store, and, for example, things like large appliances are cheaper and last longer. There have been shifts in spending, but there is not evidence that people are being particularly wasteful.
Instead, she finds that most income is committed to stable long-term obligations: house, car, education, health insurance. In fact, were people profligate and wasting money, they would in fact be better off financially: if they hit a period of trouble, they could simply cut back. But in reality, most expenses are non-expendable without huge dislocation (again: house, car, education, health insurance).
Second, she finds that most financial trouble that people have is a result of unavoidable life situations. Illness, layoffs. However, people almost totally lack any cushion to protect them. Since financial commmitments are now typically tied to the combined income of TWO wage-earning adults, there is not that potential income of the wife/mother waiting in reserve in case of need. So careful or not, people are at risk of spiraling debt if either partner suffers ANY misfortune that puts them out of work.
As Dan observes, these are structural problems that demand policy reforms. Usury limits, incentives for saving, guaranteed health insurance. As a temporary fix and as backup, re-"fixing" the bankruptcy code. And my favorite of Elizabeth Warren's suggestions: finally decoupling schools and school funding from geographic residency so that the bidding war that drives housing prices up in areas with decent schools is abated.
Schools and Residency
I'd be interested in reading a longer post/comment about this.
--Tim
The ultra condensed version
The ultra condensed version of her book is that despite many families bringing in two incomes, bankruptcies have massively increased in the last generation. And, she says it is absolutely not consumption- because many goods have become significantly cheaper.
Instead, it is mostly two things: healthcare costs, and the cost of sending your kids to good schools.
On schools, because parents want their kids to go to good school districts, they end up buying homes/paying levels of property taxes that they cannot afford in order to get their kids into good schools. Then, with a limited supply of homes in 'choice' districts, everything escalates. (Think the Penn-Alexander catchment area, which she uses as an example.)
So, if you didn't make school funding (and the quality of education) dependent on what kind of home you could buy and where the home had to be, people would not be struggling in homes they cannot afford.
There are a lot of other things going on in her book, but, that is the very quick punchline.
The rationale I totally get.
The rationale I totally get. What I wonder is, how do you make that work? Collect all the property taxes in a big pool and make school districts totally open enrollment? Big regional districts? Attempts to level funding can reduce some school inequality, but not to the degree that it would solve the school runup problem.
One thing I've often thought is that if you could reduce transportation costs (broadly conceived) to zero or near zero, you would get a major realigning of the way real estate works in this country.
--Tim
Tim- California has tried to do this since 1988
In the late 70's the California State Supreme Court ruled that rich communities got an unfair advantage in school funding. They essentially put the property tax contributions on parity across districts. While this later led to one of the more contentious initiatives EVER in Prop 13, it also eventually spawned Prop 98.
Proposition 98 was intended to supplement the drop in property tax revenue brought on by Prop 13. It mandates that a large chunk--initially 39 percent and indexed to growth--of the state's budget must go towards funding public schools.
Generally, teachers find it a net positive, as it provides school funding. After Prop 13, CA schools fell from top five nationally to the bottom ten. However, it does take some of the governance away from local school districts. Also, to force that kind of change, it would likely require a disastrous loss of revenue, like the kind brought on by Prop 13, which speaks to Gaetano's point.
Michigan has a similar program
Michigan has a similar program. I'm more familiar with the results in the mid-Michigan area than statewide, but it seems to be pretty positive. My brother lives in Lansing -- I don't know, think Reading -- and teaches in a school-of-choice district outside of the city, and both the school district and his neighbors love it.
The thing is, there are a lot of reasons why people live in the suburbs rather than the city, most of which have nothing to do with schools. People want yards and swimming pools, and less materialistic things like safety and more stable communities. The quality of a school district helps people with school-age children justify paying high property taxes, but sometimes I think it's just a socially acceptable way for people to explain their desire to live in nice neighborhoods without city problems.
--Tim
I don't know. When I worked
I don't know.
When I worked for the Planning Commission, quality of schools was cited to as the number one reason why people become "former residents."
Here is the deal: Philly property taxes are low. The wage tax is high. Car insurance is high. Philly schools are deemed insufficient. The alternative is Catholic and private schools, which charge tuition. For all this, you can move to the burbs and not pay tuition. Pay a smaller wage tax. Less expensive car insurance. Higher property taxes and transportation costs are the trade off. To some, that is worth the price--having a quality school district for your children.
If the schools were better, more people would have stayed. It isn't about swiming pools. It is about services delivered.
Last year, there was an article about professionals leaving the Cooper Run area of Camden. Not because of crime. Not because of city issues. But because of schools. Their kids were going into kindergarden. I posted on it.
Then, when the kids leave for college. The house is an investment that, most likely, has appreciated considerably. That helps fund your retirement.
Now, personally speaking, I went to a magnet school for most of my education. Dan and Ray likely did the same. My kids, hopefully, will go to one too. If not, the calculus changes for me. I live in South Philly. The option is South Philly High (nope), Neumann-Goretti (I'm not Roman Catholic) or some other private school. What do I do? Where do they go to school? If the situation is the same, most likely private school. What if I have more than one kid who isn't bright enough for a magnet school? Then it becomes a very expensive proposition for me.
That is the crunch.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
A distinction
I think people do leave Philadelphia because of its bad public schools. I think they buy big houses they can't afford in Lower Merion for lots of reasons, including schools. But if you ask them why they live there, they would omit all of the other reasons that potentially seem less ethical, and mention only the schools.
I am committed to deep and structural improvements in our city's public schools. But after years of fighting it, I am a complete agnostic about the question of vouchers. I think I would wholeheartedly support a statewide program that allowed students to cross districts into other public schools. And in Philadelphia -- within city limits -- I would in all likelihood support a program that allowed students to attend certified private schools with public money.
--Tim
I think the goal is
I think the goal is perfectly reasonable and something we should work towards.
BUT, my estimation is, right now, it will be more difficult to change the school funding situation than . . . getting out of Iraq.
Why?
Excellent schools, generally, equal high property values.
The question for many is, do you want to be the first generation to take a chance on your biggest asset?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
One idea
Obviously it can't be sold as, "Hey, do you want to devalue your property?"
What you could do is introduce a robust school-of-choice program, allowing students to attend public schools in districts in the same county, or adjoining districts across county lines. The money follows the student and goes to the district, giving schools a financial incentive to encourage students outside its catchment area to apply.
If you're worried about students pouring from one district into another, you could provisionally cap the numbers and introduce a lottery -- just as Philadelphia already does for its most desirable schools. For example, a student who lives in Overbrook could apply to attend Lower Merion schools.
This would most likely hurt Philadelphia schools -- although they could create several Masterman-type magnet schools to try to attract students (and $) from the suburbs. I would imagine a lot of kids in, say, Upper Darby or Bensalem might opt to attend school in Philadelphia if they were offered a better college prep experience in the city than outside it.
And property values would most likely rise city-wide, since you wouldn't be dooming your children to public school death.
--Tim
Your version is pretty close to hers
She uses as an example of one solution, a voucher-type system that fully funds schooling. The details are actually a bit unclear to me. I think she envisions a situation where anyone can try to get their kids into the "good" public schools, which would presumably ulimately spread incentive to make or keep schools good beyond the couple identified good schools, because committed people would be more spread out. She's mostly motivated by recognition that people suffering financial hardship continue to live in too-expensive places because they do not want to risk moving their kids to a bad school in a cheaper area (or take on too-large mortgage committments in the first place, which there is tons of data on).
Anyway, I think a neater solution and just as politically likely or un-, is to fight this out once and for all on the national level and get the federal government to condition education dollars on equitable funding between districts. This would help ease the property bidding wars in areas with good schools, and will ultimately help ease residential segregation. As Kozol recognizes, an overwhelming majority of people now intuitively accept that decent public schooling is a right. Though some good things have been able to happen on the state levels, I think that this is difficult because it is too close to the sensitive property value concerns that Gaetano invokes. But I think major change is going to have to happen, and it is probably easiest to push through nationwide.
Federally-mandated school-funding equity
is the right answer.
Add such legislation to President Clinton-Obama-Edwards-Richardson's To-Do List.
Federally-mandated school-funding equity would remove a major spoke from the cycle of poverty.
The system, as it is now, is of course unconscionably rigged. Poor kids are sent to under-funded public schools that fate far too many of them to grow up into poor adults. Middle class and oligarchical class kids are sent to decently-funded or well-funded public schools and thus have a far easier path to a middle class or oligarchical class lives.
Remove the stupid practice of basing school funding on property taxes and you remove a major cause of American social inequity.
Mandating equity will force America to invest more in primary education.
Mandating equity will FINALLY force America to fairly fund schools in poor districts. Politically-powerful parents in better districts like Lower Merion and Haddonfield will not accept a drop in funding, so funding everywhere will rise to our better districts' levels.
Fifty years later the other shoe will finally drop in Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
Vouchers are conceptually flawed because moving students out of one school and into another creates "winners" and "losers" among individual schools and districts. No one benefits when there are "loser" schools. The presence of such schools is the problem now. Vouchers may alleviate problems in one area, but they inevitably create problems elsewhere, as kids with motivated parents abandon certain schools and congregate in others, lowering the misery level in the schools where they congregate but raising the misery level in the schools they abandon.
Progressives need to dream big in 2008, and the best dream I've heard for schools is funding-equity.
Some men see things as they are and say, “Why”? I dream of things that never were and say, “Why not”?
Robert Kennedy, 1968
A Central GOP Narrative
Dan notes that charity is not a substitute for good public policy. Or, to put it in economic terms, relying on private donations is not a substitute for redistributive taxation.
Unfortunately, a central narrative of today's GOP is that not only is charity a good substitute for policy, but that it should be primary. Look at the so-called 'faith-based initiatives.' There could be no clearer example than thist to demonstrate how the GOP explicitly wants to de-fund government in favor of its buddies in the private sector. These even richer members of society will then, out of the kindness of their hearts, give less money to the 'deserving poor' than they would have received in the presence of a sane social safety net.
The GOP, in other words, is continuing its almost 30-year old mission of not only shredding the safety net, but also destroying the social contract itself. The notion that people should pay something to the society which allowed them to succeed is anathema to today's GOP. Indeed, the GOP of Eisenhower and even Bush 41 is long gone, to be replaced by, as John Iulillo (the first head of Bush 43's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives) called them, the 'Mayberry Machiavellis.'
And our Republic drifts further towards death. How many people will notice when it stops breathing?
-Z