Public Integrity
Public Integrity
Permalink:
This study uses the case of urban public education, and input from more than 5,500 people, to assess citizens’ willingness to follow leaders intent on advancing social equity. The evidence indicates that when vague notions of social welfare are replaced by actions focused on the creation of opportunity, there is broad support for social equity, including a willingness to pay increased taxes to support this agenda. Con- sistent with this understanding, public officials must engage citizens and encourage them to reject simplistic solutions to complex problems and to support policy that attacks the root causes of these concerns.
keywords: citizen engagement, disadvantaged, public interest, social equity, will- ingness to pay
Public education is sometimes referred to as the great leveler because it is instru- mental to the creation of opportunity and socioeconomic mobility (Sawhill 2006). Unfortunately, urban public schools, disproportionately burdened with children living in poverty, often lack the capacity to overcome deficits that contribute to and are the product of systemic societal inequality. Concerns about intergenerational inequality prompted Isabel Sawhill (2006, 2) to facetiously counsel young Americans “to pick their parents well. Circumstances of birth matter a lot, and the advantages and disadvantages of birth persist.”
This study builds on the work of H. George Frederickson (1974, 1990, 1994, 2005), who has long encouraged public administrators to provide moral leadership that places social equity on an equal footing with other measures of performance. More specific to the purpose of this study, Frederickson acknowledges that educa-
20 • puBlic inteGrity Winter 2011–12
Mark A. Glaser, W. Bartley Hildreth, Brandon J. McGuire, and Corinne Bannon
tional inequality, including differences within and between school districts, contrib- utes to a growing socioeconomic divide that does not bode well for the future of the United States. This article uses survey responses from more than 5,500 voters in a midwestern urban community to gauge their predisposition to respond to moral leadership that advances social equity. Table 1 provides a chronological outline of Frederickson’s understanding of social equity. Guidance for moral leadership as related to the study begins with an intimate understanding of the community ethos in support of social equity. The discussion that follows defines the content of and logic behind a social equity agenda, tests public understanding of contributors to and strategies for addressing social inequity, and assesses support for the advancement of social equity, including willingness to pay increased taxes.
community ethos and social equity
All too often, a community’s predisposition toward social equity is driven by vague notions about the origins of and contributions to disadvantage. Many are disinclined to support social equity because of the negative connotations of social welfare. If public leaders are to garner support for social equity, they must encourage citizens to introspectively examine public education and its capacity to create opportunity for disadvantaged children to become productive members of the community. Public leadership can expect to encounter resistance to attempts to advance social equity because, in the abstract, it invokes images of social welfare. This study sheds light on how public leaders can reshape these images and can encourage the community to rise above self-interest, creating opportunity for all schoolchildren.
Perceptions of self-interest often cloud vision, making it difficult for those who are advantaged to fully appreciate the plight of the disadvantaged, including the insidious nature of social inequality. Those who believe that all schoolchildren have the same capacity to learn, reason that failure to learn is a conscious choice and therefore deserving of its consequences. Thus, when parents fail to meet their obligation to coproduce the education of their children, they and their children must be held accountable. While some children from all socioeconomic classes have parents who are unwilling or unable to assist them with their schoolwork, those who are economically disadvantaged are disproportionately burdened (Wong 1994). This study focuses on the children and the creation of opportunity regardless of the behavior or capacity of their parents. Therefore, the message from public leaders must be one that encourages the community not to punish children for the behavior of their parents.
Social equity, as it is defined here, focuses on socioeconomic disadvantage and recognizes that the viability of urban education also depends on the creation of edu- cational opportunity for intellectually and educationally advantaged schoolchildren. Opportunity is lost and the competitiveness of a community is damaged anytime students fail to reach their educational potential. When advantaged children’s needs are not met, including educational performance and public safety, they are more likely to abandon urban public schools, contributing to the decline of urban com- munities and the schools that serve them.
Some forms of disadvantage are more likely than others to garner broad-based support. For example, children with mental or physical limitations are more likely to be deemed worthy of community support, including disproportionate investment to
Frederickson’s Social Equity Agenda Applied
puBlic inteGrity Winter 2011–12 • 21
improve their societal functioning. Frederickson (1990) sees this form of disadvan- tage as the normative benchmark for social equity. In this case, moral leadership to advance social equity could mean providing an improved understanding of genetic vulnerability and, therefore, community obligation. Conversely, one could argue that opportunity costs associated with investment in students with limited capacity keep those with greater capacity from realizing their potential. In any case, this study uses support for mentally and physically disadvantaged schoolchildren as the benchmark for commitment to social equity because it is witnessed by broad public support.
Public leadership intent on advancing social equity must encourage individu- als to focus less on their personal well-being and more on community well-being, including the creation of educational opportunity for all students. Therefore, when children, for whatever reason, fall behind their classmates or fail to reach their capac- ity, the community must be prepared to work with and through their public schools to create opportunity. The first section of the findings includes a number of measures that define the ethos or community predisposition to various forms of social equity. Leadership intent on advancing social equity can use this understanding to devise a strategy for enlisting commitment. Senior administrators should take special note of how those who are committed to social equity see issues of urban education, because these individuals will provide the foundation for meaningful change. Leadership intent on advancing social equity must become proficient at rejecting positions of self-interest and supporting actions that promote community well-being. Contextual details about the community examined here are found in Table 2.
taBle 1 Frederickson’s “Moral leadership”
Introduces social equity as a concern that should guide the behavior of public administra- tors (1971).
Argues that social equity is a dimension of performance much like responsiveness (1980).
Argues that citizens are “groping” for public institutions that serve the public interest (1982).
Rejects the legitimacy of the policy-administration dichotomy, arguing that administrators are not neutral in decision-making processes and have a responsibility for actions focused on the well-being of the underclass (Frederickson and Hart 1985).
Warns against simplistic fiscal solutions, such as “cutback administration,” and urges pub- lic leaders to engage citizens to guide institutional change (1982).
Urges public administrators to reach out to community through participative democracy and “benevolent patriotism” (Frederickson and Hart 1985).
Identifies “underclass hypothesis” as a concern (i.e., service delivery neglect of disadvan- taged) and challenges public administrators to particularly address inequality in public education (1990).
Develops “compound theory” of social equity that recognizes multiple “equalities” deserv- ing consideration when evaluating impact on community (1990).
Identifies “intergenerational equity” as a concern and encourages public administrators to balance concerns of present-day and future generations (1990, 1994).
Intensifies the call for moral leadership that enlists broad public support to advance social equity (2005).
22 • puBlic inteGrity Winter 2011–12
Mark A. Glaser, W. Bartley Hildreth, Brandon J. McGuire, and Corinne Bannon
answering the challenges of urban education
The challenges associated with urban education are considerable and include per- formance- and discipline-related concerns that contribute to and are the product of an educationally diverse student body. This research proposes a two-part strategy to create educational opportunity for all students. Success for the first part of this strategy focuses on the extent to which public leaders have the capacity to help the community understand the challenges associated with serving an educationally het- erogeneous population. Educational heterogeneity of the student body is a challenge for all schools but is particularly burdensome for urban public schools, and there are legitimate questions about whether these schools can reasonably be expected to meet these challenges (Bohte 2001; Smith and Larimer 2004). Variation in the strength of family-support systems is an important contributor to educationally het- erogeneous student bodies. Weak family-support systems mean that disadvantaged children are particularly likely to enter kindergarten with social and educational deficits that compound over time.
Economic and cultural differences tend to interact and evolve into behavioral concerns that interfere with performance and raise questions about student safety (Verdugo 2002). The second part of the strategy focuses on actions taken to recruit and retain schoolchildren from advantaged households, so that urban public schools
taBle 2 an urban public school system and the community it serves
Midwestern urban community with more than 650,000 people living in metropolitan area.
Approximately 50,000 schoolchildren attend urban public schools.
Two-thirds of school attendees receive free or reduced-price lunches.
Prior to passage of 2000 bond referendum, community made no significant investments in public educational facilities for several decades.
Community experienced decades of flight from urban public schools to suburban schools driven by concerns about educational quality and safety.
Suburbanization of tax base diminished capacity of urban schools.
Prior to 1999, public school leadership narrowly defined its constituents to be households with schoolchildren. Beginning in 1999, school leadership began engaging the broader community, strengthening ownership of urban public schools.
Community conducted its first large-scale citizen survey as vehicle for community engage- ment involving a large cross-section of citizens.
Community survey was followed by face-to-face engagement of citizens and community stakeholders to strengthen community support and articulate investment priorities.
In 2000, a $244.5 million bond referendum was passed to fund investment in facilities.
In 2005, a large citizen survey was conducted assessing public support for investment in additional facilities and to confirm that public dollars generated from first referendum were invested consistent with agreed-upon priorities. A section of the survey confirmed that the school district had fulfilled its investment promises.
Following the survey, a second large-scale citizen engagement process was used to directly engage citizens to articulate the next steps in facilities investment, including building and refurbishing neighborhood schools.
Second bond referendum for $340 million was passed in 2008 to fund investment in facilities.
Frederickson’s Social Equity Agenda Applied
puBlic inteGrity Winter 2011–12 • 23
can be said to be “owned” by the whole community. This part of the strategy seeks to restore the tax base needed to fund urban schools. This means that the creation of educational opportunity involves students who are in many cases polar opposites in academic preparedness.
Classroom behavior is both the problem and a manifestation of larger societal concerns and consequently defies simplistic solutions. All too often, community disenchantment with behavioral concerns contributes to public support for simplis- tic solutions. These solutions often include punitive agendas focused on extinguishing unacceptable behavior or the expulsion of students with behavioral problems. While this approach benefits the students who remain, it exacerbates the divide between advantaged and disadvantaged classes of citizens and often seals the fate of economically disad- vantaged children. Conversely, it is equally unacceptable to retain dysfunctional school- children at the educational expense of their advantaged classmates. Dysfunctional students contribute to the exodus of teachers and advantaged children, concentrating disadvantaged children in urban public schools without the tax base necessary to address these concerns.
Long-term solutions to these concerns are facilitated by early childhood interven- tion. It is critical to close the educational gap between advantaged and disadvantaged children. Intervention becomes increasingly expensive, and educational gains become more improbable as schoolchildren advance in grade but not in education. Therefore, cost-effective solutions necessarily must give consideration to early childhood educa- tion (Magnuson and Waldfogel 2005). However, it is not clear that communities are willing to pay now for societal benefits realized sometime in the future.
It is one thing to indicate support for social equity delivered through public schools and quite another to be willing to pay increased taxes to honor that commitment. Lasting and comprehensive solutions to the concerns of urban public education require broad-based community ownership of schools. Even when the vast majority of taxpayers are advantaged or do not have children in public schools, they must be willing to accept responsibility for the well-being of other people’s children in order to preserve the community and its schools. The final section of the findings assesses public awareness of the challenges and willingness to invest increased tax dollars to create opportunity.
