Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Blogging from Another Planet

Stephen provides a lengthy rebuttal to Ken DeRosa, but really, how can you argue with someone who writes this:

...the favored bromide of poverty advocates is to increase the family income of poor families and hope that the parental education part might follow, along with a bunch of associated behaviors which we believe to be associated with high-SES families...

At least that's the theory. We've been testing this theory for forty years now by providing massive injections of financial assistance to the poor. The gains in academic achievement, however, have proven to be elusive.

Um... yeah. The problem is that this hasn't been our policy, rhetorically or legislatively in a long time. Yes, a lot of people with no political power advocate for income equality, but in the real world, we've been doing the opposite of what DeRosa claims for decades.

12 comments:

KDeRosa said...

The problem is that this hasn't been our policy, rhetorically or legislatively in a long time

To come to this conclusion, you'd have to ignore:

cash benefits:

TANF (welfare): average benefit about $3100 per family

non-cash benefits:

*food stamps (about $2,200)
*housing assistance (about $5,400)
*Medicaid (about $6,000 for a family of four)
*the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (about $1,000 per child)
*energy assistance (about $400),
the school lunch and breakfast programs (as much as $600 per child)
*the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (about $400 per person).

Tax credits:

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (about $1,700)

(All figures are average benefit amounts in 2002 regardless of family size, unless otherwise noted.)

In addition, assets, such as the family home are not counted.

Nor is the income of cohabitors and nonfamily household members (i.e., the single mother's boyfriend's income) counted.

And, let's not forget that a typical family of 4 can have "income," which excludes all of the above except for TANF payments, of about $21,000 and still be considered to be living in poverty, i.e., eligible to recive these benefits.

Certainly you know about these programs. Then why the snarky post? Let's see if you're brave enough to let this comment out of moderation and attempt a rebuttal.

Tom Hoffman said...

For the sake of argument, let's assume your numbers are accurate and representative (a citation would be nice). That's about seven dollars a day for food. $450 a month for housing. Medicade and health insurance so the children won't die and hopefully minor and preventable illnesses won't turn into chronic or long term disabilities.

That is, at best, a subsistence level of income in the US. But this looks nothing like a policy designed to raise the social and economic status of families. And the people running these programs, or funding them, would not claim otherwise.

KDeRosa said...

Here's a link with the cites.

Here are some more articles on the topic.

Add that all up and you get about $46000 (excluding the income of cohabitors) for a family of four which is within spitting distance of the median family income. That's not subsistence income. Subsistence income is $2 a day which is about what half the rest of the world surives on.

Most of the poor in the US are far from destitute and certainly don't lack for food, since they are more likely to be obese. In fact, the average poor family in the US has more income than the avergae European (not just the poor ones).

See for example here.

So is it it a fair argument to contend that this is the opposite of what I've been claiming?

Tom Hoffman said...

See, this is what I mean about the "blogging from another planet" part. On your planet, the natural state of poverty in the US is, I don't know, a family of four living in a bare single room eating rice every day. The safety net the government provides has, in fact, already eliminated poverty, and everyone is at least middle class. Because children the "fake" subsidized middle class does not achieve at the same level as the "real" middle class, this grand social experiment is a failure.

This is simply not the way anybody who has created or implemented any of the policies in question has conceived of the situation. Your analysis of everyone's intent is skewed by your frame of reference.

KDeRosa said...

This is simply not the way anybody who has created or implemented any of the policies in question has conceived of the situation.

Of course it isn't. I'm sure either the tooth fairy, santa claus, or perhaps both must play large role in this policy fantasy world you've imagined.

When you find some data that provides support or even a rational basis for the opinions you've expressed in this post, you let me know.

Tom Hoffman said...

What is your definition of living in poverty in America, then?

KDeRosa said...

Let's focus on education.

The proper question is what level of material well-being is needed to raise student achievement on the left half of the SES distribution.

My position is that not only isn't there any evidence that suggests that raising material well-being above current levels will result in a significant increase in student achievement, there is quite a bit of evidence showing that we should not expect to see any significant improvement.

The evidence I am referring to is the adopted twin studies. There are also plenty of counterexamples of children "living in poverty" that do achieve academically despite substandard living conditions. Moreover, the correlation between family income and student achievement is low (about 0.35).

And what is the evidence that supports your position? Bear in mind that your (and other's)opinion doesn't count as evidence. Rainbows and unicorns don't count either.

Please do try to be coherent. though it is your blog, so I suppose that's your prerogative.

Tom Hoffman said...

No, I don't want to focus on education. I want to focus on your historical claim about US anti-poverty strategy. You stated that we, that is, the government has been testing this theory for forty years: "increase the family income of poor families and hope that the parental education part might follow, along with a bunch of associated behaviors which we believe to be associated with high-SES families."

I'm saying, that's not what we've been trying to do for forty years. It is not what we think we've been doing, and it is not what we've actually been doing.

Certainly since NCLB this has not been our strategy. NCLB says we need to improve schools, not give parents more money. Since the Reagan administration, at least, our anti-poverty strategies have increasingly promoted work, not welfare. What you claim is our strategy is just not our strategy.

It is like saying that the Patriots loss in the Super Bowl proves that their strategy of focusing on running the ball is a failure, and citing the statistical strength of their running game as evidence of their run-oriented strategy. But that wasn't their strategy.

It is like saying that our strategy of shooting Iraqi civilians from Humvees for the past five years is not working, and citing the number of Iraqis we've shot from Humvees as evidence of our Iraqi civilian shooting strategy. But our strategy in Iraq is not to drive around shooting civilians. We have a different strategy.

Likewise, you claim that our strategy of giving money to the poor so they'll live a middle-class lifestyle, adopt middle-class ways, and then their children will achieve middle-class levels of achievement. To demonstrate that this is our strategy you point out that we do give poor people money. But our strategy for improving the academic children of poor children is not based on raising their families to a middle class lifestyle through an extensive welfare state.

Do you think there is a single person in the department of education who would claim that this is the case? They have an entirely different strategy, which they've been pursuing for some time.

KDeRosa said...

I'm saying, that's not what we've been trying to do for forty years. It is not what we think we've been doing, and it is not what we've actually been doing.

You're wrong; this was exactly what we intened to do. Go read the congressional record for the debates and see how LBJ's Great Society program was sold to us, before the rhetoric was toned down and the goal posts shifted when we soon thereafter discovered that it wasn't delivering as promised. But, elevated levels of assistance (which I've listed and cited) are still maintained.

Nothing has changed with the passage of NCLB. NCLB merely enforces accountability provisions that existed under the previous version of ESEA. All the funding remains and a good deal more was added to pay for the testing annd other initiatives, like Reading First.

This argument is a non sequitor.

Since the Reagan administration, at least, our anti-poverty strategies have increasingly promoted work, not welfare.

Provide as cite fo this assertion. In any event, TANF is a small part of the assistance package.

But our strategy for improving the academic children of poor children is not based on raising their families to a middle class lifestyle through an extensive welfare state.

As I pointed out above, this was once our explcit strategy, until it turned out not to work. That fact that no one talks about it anymore for fear of being associated with political failaure doesn't make it any less a strategy-- an implicit startegy at least so long as the assistance continues to be provided.

Do you think there is a single person in the department of education who would claim that this is the case?
DOE's role is to assure that the states abide by the 14th amendment so they provide funding in an attempt to reduce racial discrimination. Part iof their assistance goes to the non-cash programs I've mentioned, plus other programs like Head Start.

Not surprisingly, you failed to provide any evidence that supports your theory.

Tom Hoffman said...

Yes, but even you admit that the purpose of the funding, the strategic goal of the programs, is not what you claim it to be. The "goal posts shifted" and our public welfare programs took on more limited objectives. The subsequent funding of these programs reflects limited objectives.

Citing evidence for this is likely to be a futile effort. How's this: "The Food Stamp Program helps low-income people and families buy the food they need for good health." I don't see how I would convince you that this is actually the case, and the USDA isn't really thinking, in their heart of hearts that the purpose of the program is to encourage families to further their education and adopt behaviors associated with higher-SES families.

If our welfare programs were the focus of our strategy for improving the achievement of low-achieving students, then those programs would play some role in the remediation of low-performing schools. There would be programs that increased funding to families and communities with low income and low achievement. That isn't how NCLB works, because NCLB is based on an entirely different strategy and theory, that improving schools will increase achievement. That's what we've been working on, and, you're right, that's been a dominant strategy for more than the past eight years.

KDeRosa said...

No I'm not saying that at all. Subsequent funding levels have been not only maintained but have been increased to account for an inflation factor that substaintially overestimates inflation. Only the "stated" goals have changed, not funding levels. You should read the 1967 congressional record as I've suggested.

What I mean by citing evidence is to substantiate your position that achieving "income equality" is going to improve the education outcomes problem.

There would be programs that increased funding to families and communities with low income and low achievement.

Hello. That's what these programs already do. A typical single mother with two kids can have $16,242in "income" and be classified as poor. Her live-in boyfriend's income doesn't count. Let's say he makes another $10,000. The combined household income of this "poor family" is $26,242. The government provides this poor family with, on average, another $25,000 in cash and non-cash assistance. This effectively doubles the family's income and represents, as you say, "increased funding to families and communities with low income" who also tend to have low achievement. Is there something magical about expliciting stating that this assistance is intended to raise the SES of this family or is the act of providing the assistance alone sufficient?

It's been this way since at least 1967. What part of this aren't you getting?

NCLB attacks the problem from a different direction, i.e., holding schools accountable for improving student achievement by improving in-school instruction and the like. Is there some rule that we can't try multiple strategies concurrently?

Tom Hoffman said...

I suppose, aside from fundamentally viewing the world in a different way, we may also be interpreting the phrase "testing this theory" differently. We have certainly not been testing the theory that "massive injections of financial assistance" will raise people out of poverty in the sense that "we," meaning the politicians and bureacrats in our government, believes that theory.

What "we" believe, as reflected by our policies, is that people need to be self-reliant and get jobs and education which will raise them out of poverty, and we should give people as few handouts as possible.

We also believe that kids deserve to be fed, clothed, sheltered and educated, regardless of the sins of their parents, but it is hard to do this without creating perverse incentives.

And we also believe that people have some baseline human rights. We don't think people die in the street just because they don't have health insurance.

Those are the theories and ideas we've been testing over the last couple decades.

I don't think it is reasonable to say "we," this country, has been testing a theory that "we" have in fact been trying to move away from for a long time.