Meritocracy Hypocrisy

Last month, two very different groups of high school students loaded their backpacks with supplies, preparing for the upcoming year.

One group, on the path to pedigrees from top high schools, faced an avalanche of over-scheduling. They are in the midst of their first team practices, their first sessions of SAT prep, music lessons and debate meetings. And doubtless, as they embark on their busy fall routines, they'll keep Ivy League schools on the brain: college, after all, is the torch that guides them through the forest of stress. From ninth grade on, these children of privilege are taught to eat, breathe, and dream "the college process." Their parents will have explained to them that most of what they do in high school is preparation for that thick envelope from the tony school of their choice.

The other group of students entered a different September. These kids, usually nonwhite and from low-income backgrounds thanks to the resurgence of unchallenged segregation, will be thinking about school, for the most part, on their own: parents are busy at work and they have no housekeepers, tutors, or au pairs. They, too, began a series of "firsts" for the year: their first trip through the school metal detectors, their first cell phone confiscation, the first fight in the hallway that disrupts classes, and of course, the first mention of the dreaded state tests. This is the No Child Left Behind era, but these students, because their lives are absorbed with rote test prep among other reasons, are left behind in terms of social, creative, and personal development.

Of course, there are plenty of kids whose educational life falls in between the pressured-meets-pampered existence of the ultra-wealthy and the prison-like drudgery of our country's worst high schools. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the educational gap in our country is more like a chasm. I'm a firsthand witness to this disparity, having taught in the inner-city Bronx, and tutored private school students on New York's Upper East Side.

What bugs me so much about the press' coverage of education is that while as a society, we're constantly bemoaning the stress facing both groups of students, we ignores the connection between the self-absorption of one group at the expense of another. So much effort that could be applied to closing the fabled "achievement" gap is caught up in the college rat race. While status-obsessed parents shell out cash for private college counselors, private tutors (like me), and private coaches to help position their kids, they forget an important truism: the children of success are destined for success themselves. Even the most mediocre student at a fancy school, with a little help from his parents' and his school's connections, will likely end up at a top 50 university or liberal arts college. When he graduates, those same factors, plus more connections made in college, will help him get a good job in no time; he'll come back home and happily settle into a PR or banking or real estate job (maybe one just like mom and dad's). Time and time again, prep school graduates who barely scraped by in class end up in positions of power anyway -- look at our president.

Most of the extra pushing and expensive help that these privileged offspring receive won't appreciably boost their chances of landing lucrative gigs in the future. These kids already have it made: between their money and the savvy adults guiding them, they are way ahead of most American teens.

But the other group of kids, the ones whose classrooms are overcrowded and who sometimes haven't been given a good enough vocabulary to express themselves properly, are crying out for more resources. They need academic enrichment, one-on-one mentoring and instruction, and the guidance and intervention to help them get into college, period (never mind choosing to go to a top-tier school). They would benefit tremendously from summer camp and summer internships, and as for well-equipped sports teams and theater programs, those are beyond most of their wildest dreams. But most of all, these kids need people who will advocate for them, people who will pressure the government to make meaningful change: smaller class sizes, better supplies and facilities, universal pre-school.

When we talk about the barriers to educational equality, we rarely talk about the obstinacy of affluent American parents. They fret that affirmative action for minorities will displace their darlings, but don't raise a fuss about special preferences (which is in itself a form of affirmative action favoring the wealthy) given to alumni children, donor children and athletes. These people are more benign, but still harmful spiritual descendants of those who once tarnished our legacy of integration: the parents who protested busing, who moved their kids out of town when families of other racial background moved in. And the media caters to them with a litany of "how-to" manuals on getting your kid into college, but there's always one key ingredient missing in the how-to list: "Step 1. Be sure to have a trust fund." Americans who luck out, education-wise, often delude themselves into believing that our education system is a "meritocracy." Anyone who scrutinized our country's classrooms with a clear eye would say that it's not a meritocracy, but rather a system that keeps rigid class barriers in place. Poor students are trained to be docile direction-followers in large classes and large schools, while wealthy kids are encouraged to think critically and lead in supportive environments.

Affluent parents in America are a powerful group. If they believed education for all was the same priority they make it for their kids, we might see a real difference. In fact, the involvement of all citizens is our only hope. I'd love to see parents spend less time fretting about whether it's UPenn or Stanford for Tyler and Katie and more time worrying about whether their children's lower-income peers will make it to senior year without dropping out. Chances are, Tyler and Katie won't suffer from the lack of attention. They might even breathe a sigh of relief.

Comments

[greatslack]

The problem is not with the teachers, or with funding, or even the students. The reason poor kids don't get into college is that they simply don't have the money to pay for college. If you don't have the money for college, then there's no reason to prepare for college. Considering that a college education today is on the same level as a high school diploma was a generation ago, we really should make public universities free. Some states have experimented with this, such as Georgia, and many other countries have free public universities. A college education should not be required, but by all means it should be available to anyone who is willing to pursue it.

[SamThornton]

If America is too dumb to create an effective educational system, and/or too dumb to make it work, we will probably get precisely what we deserve.

[saibotchilizm]

The problems of our society at large are often blamed on problems in our school system. The USA per-pupil spending is very large compared to many other countries, but our schools can only do so much.

The real reason low-income kids do poorly is because they are very poor; their parents are out working, the kids themselves might out be working, they have poor access to healthcare and healthy food, there's no day-care for a little bro or sis that might really need it, etc.

School nurses are kid's only access to healthcare, and school lunches a (rare) reliable meal; schools serve as daycare in many situations. These are handicaps no one talks about. We expect our schools to do everything in our country, but they can't.

Socialize our healthcare, provide day-care, focus on the other large-scale problems in our society, and stop blaming it all on the schools.

[sqweels]

Poor people need to stop having kids. That's such a no-brainer, but as soon as you say that, people start crying "eugenics!".

[DanBest]

I was a suburban kid in Mobile Alabama in the 60"s. We were put on buses and sent to an inner city school. This experience taught me that inner city schools are poorly funded and poorly maintained. As a white kid, the thing that stuck with me for years was that the white non-suburban kids at this school were the worst. A good portion of the black kids seemed smarter and more together than these white kids. It wasn"t until much later in life that I realized that the parents of the white kids were the lower income whites who couldn"t make the flight out the suburbs where we lived and the middle class blacks were not welcome in those suburban neighborhoods, so they sent their kids to the school districts in which they were forced to live. We had more in common with the middle class black kids then we did the lower income whites. Class really does play an integral part in where you end up.

Vouchers are not an answer. Once such programs are in place, we will be paying for rich people to send their children to the schools they would send them to anyway. The obvious solution is to fix the public schools. The voucher notion would be one lifeboat for a ship"s worth of students.

Teachers unions are not the problem. In case you have no understanding of our labor laws, workers do have the right to unionize. Unions aren"t perfect but they are not the cause of why kids don"t learn. We all know the real culprit: Parents. If, as a parent you are not curious, don"t read, don"t care about academia, your children won"t. Sarah Seltzer makes an excellent point about rich parents showering their children with tutors etc¦ most of them are anti "intellectual, they just pay someone else to be enthusiastic about learning. The product is George Bush Jr. If all that privatized education can create is something like this sub-human intellect, then let"s look at the real culprits George Sr. and Barbara Bush.

[dchavern]

I am not sure why you are complaining about parents looking out for their kids? That is as normal and natural as the sunrise.

You do make a good point, though, about what we are losing with all of the kids who lack opportunities. We are doing severe damage to our future prosperity as a nation. But what do you propose to do about it?

Usually it comes down to some discussion about money. (By the way, I would check the per-pupil spending in many of the bad schools you describe. It is often very high. Check out the DC public schools.) So how much money would fix all of our schools and guarantee that all of our kids would get educated and prepared for the future economy? Lay the number on the table, along with your case as to why it would fix all ills. A lot of things are possible -- but complaints don't fix anything.

[Kansas Evans]

I agree with much of what you say. I just want to point out the in the case of DC, for example, not all of that money isn't being spent on the students. Also, catch-up is an expensive game to play.

[FullMontyHall]

The one lesson liberals refuse to learn about politics--the lesson that got Bill Clinton elected twice--is that to raise some people up you don't have to pull other people down. If you're a parent who happens to be successful and wants your child to be successful and like any parent, rich or poor, will do everything you can do help them be successful, why would you vote for someone who espouses such angry, dismissive views of the interests of your own children.
Hate or at least bitterness, which comes through loud and clear in the posting and many of the comments, is not an endearing quality. You turn off some of the very people you need to convince to be able to help these low-income children. This is about doing something about the problem, right?

[Justis]

I work with conservative, wealthy status-conscious parents like you describe. They all send their kids to the local K-12 prep school running over 30 grand a year. They also spout Republican talking points like "liberals think the solution is throwing money at public schools".

Their hypocrisy eludes them.

[BTN]

Great article.

The teacher unions are killing our kids education by not allowing school choice or teacher pay-for-performance.

We must do all we can for the future of this country by stopping the teacher unions.

[kasa5400]

"thanks to the resurgence of unchallenged segregation,"

Oh get off it. Assigning any child to a school based upon their race is morally, ehtically and legally wrong. 53 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that a child could not be assigned to a certain school because they were black and another child assigned to a school because they were white. PERIOD.

This whining litany because the Court has reiterated that fundemental rule and such a result happens to block social engineering is beyond annoying.

Want schools "integrated" to meet that social goal? Make people live in assigned areas so that the communiity and neighbohood has your desired social, racial and economic mix.

And you (and any spouse or children you may have) can be assigned to live in the absolute worst part of NYC where the median income is at or below the poverty level and the crime rate is out of control - and your children must go to school in that area.

[Kansas Evans]

I think if you read the NYT article Sarah linked, you'll sympathize with her point a little more.

And also, 53 years ago, the problem was more a less that more money was being spent on white schools than on black schools. It's not just the assignments based on race that the Court was trying to undo, it was the fact that whites were assigned to the better school (even if the school had been built and paid for by black parents for their black children), and blacks were assigned to the worst school. In some case, even, not only did whites have better resourses, they also had a longer academic year.

Anyway, at the risk of turning your wrath on me, the issue isn't as simple as your comments makes it seem. For example, the parents of the worst NYC schools spend a higher proportion of their money on their children's education than suburban parents do.

[ResidentChimp]

Liberals believe money solves all the problems, as if children from properous parents turn out better than those from less fortunate circumstances. They would change our society from a meritocracy to a mediocracy.

[Kansas Evans]

Not true. If money isn't the issue, why is it that privilege parents spend so much while other parents have so little? And why don't they share?

Our society isn't a meritocracy, now. If it were, then the money would be spread out more equally and those with merit would rise to the top. We wouldn't have a mediocracy. In fact, I've been in honor classes at UNC, a mediocracy is what we have now.

[Mormondude]

You make a strong argument for school vouchers. Why should we continue trapping kids in failing school? It's time to empower parents and children rather than empowering teachers' unions.

And what's this bunk about universal pre-k? They've done the studies. They don't produce any long-term academic benefit whatsoever. Our effort and resources are better directed elsewhere.

A friend of mine sent her oldest child to the local elementary school for pre-k because it was 'free' for her. I was curious about the school, and looked up the statistics online. It was the single worst school in the entire city of Houston. I mentioned this to her, and she shrugged it off at the time. Only later did she mention that of the 35 kids in class, only 8 spoke English as their first language. And even later she mentioned that the school asked HER (the mom with one kid in half-day pre-k) to be the President of the PTO!!

HOW can any child succeed in an environment like that? The parents care so little that they are begging ANYONE to step up and show one iota of leadership. Now looking back, she is the first to say how horrible the school was.

She put her child there because that was the only school that offered free pre-k. Money was the one and only determining factor. If she could have taken a voucher elsewhere, she would have in a heartbeat, and her child surely would have benefitted from it.

[DudeE]

Getting into the right college has absolutely nothing to do with getting a good education and everything to do with establishing the right pedigree.

The 'leg up' is not from a superior education but from an emphasis on legacy and trading on the reputation of the Ivys. I work with a bunch of Ivy guys. The reason I know it, is because everyone talks about it. So-and-so is a Harvard grad, etc.

Until employers start hiring *smart* people rather than connected people or ones from schools with the "right" reputation, we will preserve this de facto caste system. Parents are simply responding to market forces.

[lizawell]

Thank you so much for this post. The academic lives of one class of children are centered around "rote test prep", while the academic lives of other children are all about ensuring that they inherit control of this society. The notion that there is an equal playing field is a bedtime story that the Republican elite tells to poor whites to ensure that they never really wake up to their predicament. My daughter is preparing to enter college, and I never let her forget the advantages she enjoys over other children, especially other black children. Like me, she is thoroughly disgusted that my husband and I have to shell out a thousand dollars for SAT prep. She is even more disgusted that there are many kids whose parents can't afford to do this. At an early age, she understands the realities of classism and racism; she also understands that she has to share this country with children who aren't as fortunate as she is.
If public school kids are forced into rote test prep, why is it that the tests they are preparing for are these dreadful state tests and not the SATs? This test is so essential to college admission, yet preparation for the test is mostly only available outside of high school classrooms and at an astronomical cost. It's classist, racist sabotage, pure and simple.

[bootsriley]

Excellent posting! Anyone who mistakes the rank plutocracy of the American higher-ed machine for a meritocracy really needs his or her head examined, stat. The spectacle of the "college process" among the wealthy would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing.