Unions, Education, and the Future of Low-Wage Workers

Low-wage workers have never had privileged access to desirable labor market opportunities but their position has significantly deteriorated over the last two decades, as union representation has decreased and the demand for higher skilled labor increased. This essay explores the future for low-wage workers and begins by defining what we mean by low-wage work, and also who low-wage workers are. I next explore the two most common advocated paths for improving the lives of low-wage workers: reviving unions and a human capital focus. I suggest that reviving unions, even in the context of the Employee Free Choice Act, offers at best a limited hope for improving the labor market opportunities for most low-wage workers. For a variety of complicated reasons, there is no basis for expecting a substantial resurgence of union representation, even if the law is changed to make union organizing more effective. Instead, I emphasize a human capital path, noting in particular, that far too many young individuals attend college without attaining any degree, and I discuss the important role community colleges can play in enhancing the human capital of low-wage workers. In the final part of the paper, I discuss educational reforms at the high school level that target at-risk populations, including a return to vocational education and the rise in charter schools, both of which might offer important opportunities for students to excel in school

Stimulating School Reform: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Shifting Federal Role in Education

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), aimed at stimulating and stabilizing the American economy during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, reflects significant new dimensions of federal action in the area of educational reform. In addition to saving jobs in the educator workforce, the ARRA was designed to spark the implementation of specific reform strategies in states and schools and lay a foundation for the Obama administration\u27s subsequent educational reform efforts, including the impending reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. While the goals of the educational reform provisions of the ARRA are laudable, the ARRA oversteps the limits of effective federal action. The educational reform provisions of the ARRA face many potential pitfalls given the historical characteristics of federal educational reform \u27from the capitol to the classroom, the scientific evidence underlying the reforms encouraged by the ARRA, and the current political climate. Although many of these pitfalls are now unavoidable, reform efforts that build on the ARRA but focus on managing the teacher workforce, balance issues of local and federal authority in a more nuanced way, and draw more strongly on educational research offer much promise for more effective federal action in educatio

Disparate Impact, School Closures, and Parental Choice

We live in an era of parental choice. Today, forty-two states and the District of Columbia authorize charter schools, and twenty states and the District of Columbia permit students to use public funds to attend a private school. During the 2012-2013 school year, nearly 2 million children attended charter schools, and nearly 250,000 children received publicly funded scholarship to attend a private school. The expanding menu of publicly funded educational options is one (but by no means the only) factor contributing to the current, intensely controversial, waves of urban public school closures. In school-closure debates, proponents of traditional public schools frequently demand a reduction in parental choice policies in order to preserve neighborhood public schools. These demands are reflected in complaints alleging that school closures, and the parental choice policies influencing them, violate Title VI\u27s disparate impact regulations. This Article argues that, absent evidence of intentional discrimination in the adoption or implementation of parental choice policies themselves, these regulations should not be interpreted as requiring state and local education officials to restrict parental choice programs. Disparate-impact analysis requires an inquiry into the potential harms and benefits of, and alternatives to, education policies that neither federal officials nor federal judges are well-situated to evaluate. To illustrate these complexities, the Article focuses on the frequently asserted claim that traditional neighborhood public schools are more-effective community institutions than choice schools

Civil Rights, Charter Schools, and Lessons to Be Learned

Two major structural shifts have occurred in education reform in the past two decades: the decline of civil rights reforms and the rise of charter schools. Courts and policy makers have relegated traditional civil rights reforms that address segregation, poverty, disability, and language barriers to near irrelevance, while charter schools and policies supporting their creation and expansion have rapidly increased and now dominate federal policy. Advocates of traditional civil rights reforms interpret the success of charter schools as a threat to their cause, and, consequently, have fought the expansion of charter schools. This Article argues that the civil rights community has misinterpreted both its own decline and the rise of charter schools. Rather than look for external explanations, civil rights advocates should turn their scrutiny inward. And, rather than attack charter schools, they should learn from them. A close examination of past civil rights movements in education reveals that their decline was inevitable. Each of the various educational movements depended on establishing a causal connection between the reform sought and positive student outcomes. But precisely establishing causal connections in education is nearly impossible. Education involves too many variables to isolate conclusively the effects of educational policies on student outcomes. Ignoring this reality leaves civil rights reforms vulnerable to contraction. This weakness-not competition from charter schools-continues to undermine civil rights reform. Charter schools suffer from the same causal weakness, but it is not impeding their expansion because the charter movement, unlike civil rights, is not based primarily on evidence. Instead, charter school advocates emphasize ideological values that appeal to broad constituencies. These value-based constituencies form a movement that forces the expansion of charter schools and is undeterred by evidentiary critique. To regain relevance, civil rights advocates must scale back their reliance on evidentiary claims and reframe their arguments in terms of compelling values that can again inspire a movement.

Civil Rights, Charter Schools, and Lessons to Be Learned

Two major structural shifts have occurred in education reform in the past two decades: the decline of civil rights reforms and the rise of charter schools. Courts and policy makers have relegated traditional civil rights reforms that address segregation, poverty, disability, and language barriers to near irrelevance, while charter schools and policies supporting their creation and expansion have rapidly increased and now dominate federal policy. Advocates of traditional civil rights reforms interpret the success of charter schools as a threat to their cause, and, consequently, have fought the expansion of charter schools. This Article argues that the civil rights community has misinterpreted both its own decline and the rise of charter schools. Rather than look for external explanations, civil rights advocates should turn their scrutiny inward. And, rather than attack charter schools, they should learn from them. A close examination of past civil rights movements in education reveals that their decline was inevitable. Each of the various educational movements depended on establishing a causal connection between the reform sought and positive student outcomes. But precisely establishing causal connections in education is nearly impossible. Education involves too many variables to isolate conclusively the effects of educational policies on student outcomes. Ignoring this reality leaves civil rights reforms vulnerable to contraction. This weakness-not competition from charter schools-continues to undermine civil rights reform. Charter schools suffer from the same causal weakness, but it is not impeding their expansion because the charter movement, unlike civil rights, is not based primarily on evidence. Instead, charter school advocates emphasize ideological values that appeal to broad constituencies. These value-based constituencies form a movement that forces the expansion of charter schools and is undeterred by evidentiary critique. To regain relevance, civil rights advocates must scale back their reliance on evidentiary claims and reframe their arguments in terms of compelling values that can again inspire a movement.

Civil Rights, Charter Schools, and Lessons to be Learned

Two major structural shifts have occurred in education reform in the past two decades: the decline of civil rights reforms and the rise of charter schools. Courts and policy makers have relegated traditional civil rights reforms that address segregation, poverty, disability, and language barriers to near irrelevance, while charter schools and policies supporting their creation and expansion have rapidly increased and now dominate federal policy. Advocates of traditional civil rights reforms interpret the success of charter schools as a threat to their cause, and, consequently, have fought the expansion of charter schools. This Article argues that the civil rights community has misinterpreted both its own decline and the rise of charter schools. Rather than look for external explanations, civil rights advocates should turn their scrutiny inward. And, rather than attack charter schools, they should learn from them