As You Were

I work for a school district and I'm going to have to go with Steve on this one.

I was just skimming through your blog, looking for some info about your "What To Do" application. (Nice ap, by the way.) when I chanced upon this note on Steve Jobs' comment on teachers and unions.

Now, I don't know a lot about schools, teachers, or unions, so I don't know how accurate Jobs' observation might be. It seems to me that unionizing teachers couldn't help but affect the structure and conduct of our schools, but whether this is for better or worse is beyond my competence.

What struck me about your comment was the tone of smug prejudice. It starts when you start talking about the "creative classes." It continues in the next paragraph, where you state "It's not an accident that most of the good public schools in the country are located in rich college towns and around research centers -- this is where the people who value education the most tend to move," though you dismiss "huge cities like New York City" as anomalies because their size and diverse population makes it inevitable that some schools would be of high quality. Next, you take cheap shots at "your average rural town or rust belt city" and the people who live there, and inner cities and the people who live there. Finally you imply that "Podunk-ville" (presumably a rural town or rust belt city) can't attract good teachers for unspecified reasons.

First of all, there's no such thing as a "creative class," nor is creativity limited to people who live in university towns and write computer software. Creativity is characteristic of human behavior and intelligence and has nothing to do with one's socio-economic status or postal address.

And no, it's not an accident that most good public schools are in rich college towns, but the reason is not the concentration of the "creative class" who value education, supposedly more than poor people. The reason is that college towns tend to be, to use your own word, "rich," or at least more affluent and economically stable than, say, an agricultural or industrial center. Rich towns can spend more on education than poor towns. Even so, a remarkable number of people who are now part of the "creative class" got their start in an under-funded, non-college-town public school.

What makes you competent to judge why people leave "rural towns or rust belt cities?" I happen to live in the red-brown buckle of the so-called rust belt, and I can tell you that our population is shrinking, not because we want to find "better places to live," but because the industries that once supported a metropolitan area of 1.7 million are gone. Many of my friends and neighbors have moved away simply because they could not survive here, not because they're the kind of people "who you would want to have be involved in schools, whether as parents or teachers," and found "better places to live." And as for rural towns, I think you'll find that, in many cases, their populations are expanding as the "creative classes" seek "better places to live" in a small-town setting.

Inner city schools suffer not only from a lack of funding, but from the other problems of inner cities: crime, drugs, inadequate health care, and so forth. (And before you say it, yes, these problems exist everywhere, but they're more prevalent--and more obvious--in the inner city.) To imply that poor people, or people with little or no formal education, do not value education is pure slander. I think you'll find that those who were denied schooling understand and value the public schools far more than the educated "creative class," who might be more inclined to take the school system for granted.

There are no "good" schools or "bad" schools, only schools where it's easier or harder to learn. The quality of education is determined, pure and simple, by people. First, and most important, the parents must themselves see education as more than just a formal curriculum and scores on tests. Kids follow their parents' example, and if a parent loves to learn, then the kids will, too. Second, teachers must be dedicated to their students, not to polishing their own reputations or paying their way through grad school to get the job they really want. And finally, the rest of us--school administrators, government types, business people, and lay citizens--must give those teachers the respect and support they need to let each child reach their full potential. Everything else, whether it's unions or socio-economic status, is just window dressing.

Your blog post displays a smugness and sense of superiority. Perhaps you were unaware of it. We all like to think we're the only sane person in the asylum and the world revolves around us. Part of maturity is recognizing the difference between fact and personal prejudice. Your post betrayed your own prejudices, and now you know mine. The point is this: neither of us is special. Let's get over ourselves, shall we, and start respecting other people?

"First of all, there's no such thing as a "creative class," nor is
creativity limited to people who live in university towns and write
computer software. Creativity is characteristic of human behavior and
intelligence and has nothing to do with one's socio-economic status or
postal address."

I don't agree with you here -- it has a lot to do with postal address. I think artists benefit by being around other artists, writers by hanging out with other artists, etc. The person who could be the greatest artist of our generation could be sitting in her basement doing watercolors waiting for the laundry to be done, but she won't realize her potential until she's pushed to do so by other artists she respects. This can only happen in locations that can support a large arist population. Now maybe the internet will change this, but certainly in the past this has been true.

"And no, it's not an accident that most good public schools are in rich college towns, but the reason is not the concentration of the "creative class" who value education, supposedly more than poor people. The reason is that college towns tend to be, to use your own word, "rich," or at least more affluent and economically stable than, say, an agricultural or industrial center. Rich towns can spend more on education than poor towns."

I agree with you completely. The difference between a good school district and a bad one is the difference between $9,000/student/year and $3000/student/year.

"Even so, a remarkable number of people who are now part of the "creative class" got their start in an under-funded, non-college-town public school."

Of course. But then they leave. Third World countries have a similar problem. They spend a lot of money to provide schooling for their best and their brightest, but at the first opportunity, those folks emigrate to somewhere nicer. This brain drain makes it very hard to keep the kind of talent you need make someplace nice.

"I happen to live in the red-brown buckle of the so-called
rust belt, and I can tell you that our population is shrinking, not
because we want to find "better places to live," but because the
industries that once supported a metropolitan area of 1.7 million are
gone. Many of my friends and neighbors have moved away simply because
they could not survive here, not because they're the kind of people
"who you would want to have be involved in schools, whether as parents
or teachers," and found "better places to live."

This is the kind of people I would wnat to be involved in schools as teachers and parents: people who are willing to uproot themselves so that their kids can have a better life. I worry about the people who stay behind, content to watch as things spiral down.

"To imply that poor people, or people with little or no formal education, do not value education is pure slander. I think you'll find that those who were denied schooling understand and value the public schools far more than the educated "creative class," who might be more inclined to take the school system for granted."

You're right this is pure slander, as I never implied such a thing. While there is no subsitute for well-funded schools, I do think that the combination of parents valuing education and economic opportunity can help offset the structural difficulties in urban schools. Inner cities tend to have the critical combination of large numbers of immigrants (i.e. people who have chosen to make great sacrifices for a better life for their family) and large engines of economic activity very close by. This makes the benefit of a good education much more apparent and I think it helps kids and their parents keep their eye on the ball.

But large swathes of the interior of this country are lacking these two things. Either the economy has fallen apart and there is no local economic opportunity, or the people there have an immense disdain for progress. Either way, it's hard for me to see how you can have a good school district there without spending large amounts of money per pupil.

"Your blog post displays a smugness and sense of superiority. Perhaps you were unaware of it. We all like to think we're the only sane person in the asylum and the world revolves around us. Part of maturity is recognizing the difference between fact and personal prejudice. Your post betrayed your own prejudices, and now you know mine. The point is this: neither of us is special. Let's get over ourselves, shall we, and start respecting other people?"

I guess this is true. I just don't understand why anyone would choose to live in Middle America. The intolerance, the know-nothing-ism, the disdain for immigrants, the lack of economic opportunity . . . I just don't get why people put up with it. Some people don't, and they move somewhere better.