Thursday, March 30, 2006
Hairy Armpits And Ed Reform
It is no surprise that there has been some edublog chatter on the student protests in France over proposed changes in labor laws there that would make it easier to fire or lay-off workers under the age of 26. See here, and here, for example.
Education Sector's delightfully wonkish Sara Mead provides what I believe is the most important connection between frog labor reform and American ed reform.
I'm not an economist, so I have no opinion about whether or not the proposed changes would lower unemployment, but if they did, they would have an enormous benefit for individuals who got jobs as a result, as well as a broader positive economic impact. But for the 3/4 of young French workers who are employed, the unions who represent them, and students who expect soon to join their ranks, these social benefits come at a cost of increased risk. So these groups seek to block change.
This strikes me as terribly similar to something that often happens here in public education. A lot of reforms seek to improve educational results for poor and minority students. Improving educational results--and, by extension, other outcomes--for these youngsters would also have broader social benefits. But many reforms--such as those that target resources to high-need schools, increase choice, or seek to enhance racial and socioeconomic integration--also threaten a status quo that works well for many people: not just established education interests, but also middle-class and affluent parents who've used their economic power to get their children into "good" neighborhoods and public schools. As Ted and Nancy Sizer comment in a recent Education Sector interview, affluent parents who've already made--and paid for--their choice of schools when purchasing a home tend to resist charter schools, vouchers, and other forms of school choice.
Part of the problem, both here and in France, is that those who are well-served by the status-quo tend to have more political and social capital and ability to block change than those who aren't. In addition, since those who would benefit from a potential change are often a somewhat hypothetical or unclearly defined group, they have less incentive to organize than those might lose something from the change. That can make education policy frustrating sometimes, but it's also part of what makes it worth doing.
Education Sector's delightfully wonkish Sara Mead provides what I believe is the most important connection between frog labor reform and American ed reform.
I'm not an economist, so I have no opinion about whether or not the proposed changes would lower unemployment, but if they did, they would have an enormous benefit for individuals who got jobs as a result, as well as a broader positive economic impact. But for the 3/4 of young French workers who are employed, the unions who represent them, and students who expect soon to join their ranks, these social benefits come at a cost of increased risk. So these groups seek to block change.
This strikes me as terribly similar to something that often happens here in public education. A lot of reforms seek to improve educational results for poor and minority students. Improving educational results--and, by extension, other outcomes--for these youngsters would also have broader social benefits. But many reforms--such as those that target resources to high-need schools, increase choice, or seek to enhance racial and socioeconomic integration--also threaten a status quo that works well for many people: not just established education interests, but also middle-class and affluent parents who've used their economic power to get their children into "good" neighborhoods and public schools. As Ted and Nancy Sizer comment in a recent Education Sector interview, affluent parents who've already made--and paid for--their choice of schools when purchasing a home tend to resist charter schools, vouchers, and other forms of school choice.
Part of the problem, both here and in France, is that those who are well-served by the status-quo tend to have more political and social capital and ability to block change than those who aren't. In addition, since those who would benefit from a potential change are often a somewhat hypothetical or unclearly defined group, they have less incentive to organize than those might lose something from the change. That can make education policy frustrating sometimes, but it's also part of what makes it worth doing.
Most Recent Posts
- Winning The War On Bird Flu
- New York Time$$$$$$
- Oops, That Went To Reporters?
- The Drain (Con) Game
- Charter Cap "Wrong... Unconscionable"
- Charter Powerball
- More Union And Charter Action
- Crappy Harlem School Update
- More Dems On Tax Credits
- Failing To Lift The Charter Cap
Archives
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
Feeds
Disclaimer: The Chalkboard is hosted by the New York Charter Schools Association (NYCSA) as a place where members, public education advocates and others can view and respond to informed commentary on timely public education and charter school issues. The views expressed here are not necessarily the official views of the NYCSA, its board, or of any of its individual charter school members. Anyone who claims otherwise is violating the spirit and purpose of this blog. To comment on anything you read here, or to offer tips, advice, comments, or complaints. please contact TheChalkboard.