Well-to-Do Neighborhoods Should Share Their School Fundraising with Not So Well-to-Do Schools

The other day I heard a pretty good interview of Robert Reich by DeRay Mckesson on the Pod Save the People podcast. Based on context, Reich's new book, Just Giving: Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better prompted the interview session.

Reich presented an interesting scenario that I believe he, himself, experienced. After moving into a neighborhood, he enrolled his children into a local public school. Important point: I recall Reich making a dinstinction about the school being a "normal" public school, not a charter school or anything other than a public school. Another vital thing to keep in mind: Reich likely lived in a well to do part of town/city. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to assume that he could have moved into a middle class part of town/city and had a similar experience.

Either which way, Reich soon received a letter from the school that stated the school had "expected, but didn't require" a donation of a certain amount. I can't recall if Reich clarified how much the school expected him to donate. Reich then used that experience of his to explain how well-to-do neighborhoods use this process to improve their own local school where their children go. By doing so, however, they create further divides from other stratas of society, as that neighborhood becomes more desirable because parents want their kids to attend the school.
From there, the following cycle happens:

1. Housing values increase because of the good school
2. Even more well-to-do people move into the neighborhood
3. Not so well-to-do people get pushed out of the neighborhood because they can't afford the neighborhood anymore
4. School quality gets better because more money comes into the neighborhood that can be channeled towards the school
5. Goto step 1

In a way, this seems like a good idea. Why burden the rest of the city for a better school when the neighborhood (and the businesses and organizations in that neighborhood) can fund it themselves? Pay for what you use/get, and use/get what you can pay for. Don't force other people to pay for the benefit of someone else's neighborhood, someone else's child.

It kind of makes me think of what people often say about health insurance, complaining about premiums increasing because of the actions of other people. The person complaining hasn't had a claim in their life! (I'm talking about ideal setting of insurance rates, not CEO pay, paying a workforce, etc. etc. . .because people have to get paid).

The problem of this system: Inequality and divides increase and people grow further apart. As the well-to-do compound the characteristics and actions that improve their lot, the not as well-to-do only get neglected. The not well-to-do don't receive resources, so they can't learn to understand and get the characteristics to know how to do the actions to improve their lot and get the resources to invest themselves and their neighborhood. Even if they have the said characteristics and knowledge, they probably don't have the bone fides to put on a resume or the connections or mentors to get resources or to provide references for them.

Sure, the not well-to-do are not "burdened" by the demand of the well-to-do maintaining well-to-do characteristics to continue having a comfortable life and taking more actions to improve their well-to-do lives even more. Instead, the not well-to-do become burdened with neglect, alienation, and disconnection with society. We shouldn't have any problem empathizing with situations in which the not well-to-do become desperate enough to sell drugs, steal, and other anti-social or victimizing activities (themselves or other people) to simply fund their survival.

If

• I had a child of my own
• Lived in this neighborhood
• Enrolled my child in the school at the end of the block

I probably would have received a letter similar to the one Robert Reich did. I haven't been in that school, even though I've patronized the farmers market there during the spring, summer, and the fall. I've also seen the nice playground the school has. The school also posts

• Signs that thank the neighborhood families and businesses for the investment in the school
• Imaginary thermometers that show how much money has been raised and still needs to be raised
• Announcements of fundraisers and events to raise money
• Nice pictures and announcements of accomplishments that students have had

This school does a good job raking in some money. I live in a pretty good neighborhood. Go one block over, and you see some nice homes. I've gone into a couple open houses, and my jaw has dropped at the size of the homes and the amenities in them. Michi and I can only really live in this neighborhood because we've found the best deal in one of the oldest apartment buildings. If we can help it, we don't plan on ever moving.

One mile north, property values drop drastically because the district for the school near to here ends right when you reach a particular road. The condition of homes don't get bad so much, but since people in those homes can't go to the well-to-do school, the market doesn't have much demand for those homes.

Candidates for mayor during the Chicago city elections have talked quite a bit about the school system. A lot of them highlight that the current mayor, Rahm Emanuel, closed 50 schools all at once. Emanuel, on the other hand, touts that he improved the school system by making the school year and school day longer. Emanuel probably has some right for feeling accomplishment as some schools had improved scores and some students have gone onto bigger and better things (I just heard Emanuel interview a couple STAR scholars on an old episode of the Chicago Stories podcast).

Nonetheless, Emanuel closed 50 schools and advocated for the opening of a lot of charter schools that seem to really skew the system (since charter schools can easily expel students if they bring down the grade/test curve). I remember hearing a lot of stories on the radio over the years about how students who didn't have to go far to get to a poor performing school in their neighborhood that didn't get the investment it needed. When their school closed, though, the children had to travel really far to go to another school that was just average or went down in quality since high performing students just went off to charter schools and other better quality schools.

Even more distressing, these students often had to go through dangerous parts of town in which they risked being attacked or possibly even getting hit by a stray bullet. All because of obvious inequality, segregated neighborhoods, and the list goes on to the factors involved. It also doesn't help that by closing schools and consolidating students, classroom sizes just grow larger while the number of teachers remains the same or decreases. The quality of school will likely go down for everyone, unless those with the means can get to better schools and/or those without means somehow get slipped out of the system. Manipulate the data set, and the results can be manipulated.

Before hearing the Reich interview on Pod Save the People, the whole well-to-do schools soliciting well-to-do people and businesses in their well-to-do neighborhood having such systemic impacts went right over my head. . .even as the practice occurred right before my eyes. I simply thought schools received funding from taxes, property and many times, as I'm learning these days, from states and sometimes from the Federal government. Obviously, I had the facts wrong.

So, in an attempt to remedy this issue, I have a policy proposal that I'm sharing with the world: What if these well-to-do schools that receive donations from well-to-do parents, neighborhood residents, and businesses have to share a portion of their fundraising with the rest of the school system? And depending on the situation and the state of schools in the county, state, etc. etc. that aren't in the same district, what if such abundant fundraising had to be shared with those schools, too?

I don't have any details beyond asking for more sharing of the fundraised wealth. I also understand that this kind of system won't save the world, but it can help. Maybe it can provide enough resources and funds to help pull up areas, neighborhoods, and people that often get neglected when these kids, when taken seriously, when given a chance, and when affirmed as worth the time and effort, can accomplish so much more, become so much more, and give back to society and the world so much more. By neglecting these kids, to compound the well-to-doness of the already well-to-do, the well-to-do neglect themselves. There's no telling how much the world could be better just by this sharing of wealth and helping helping to develop other human beings with different perspectives.

Why don't we do it, is my question, why don't we help fund the education of those currently neglected and help lift up our fellow humanity? Frankly, with all the money that goes into Go Fund Me's, Kickstarters, and Patreons, I'm sure we can make all the more difference in the world by funding our schools. Don't let me stop you. Get out there and make a difference! What's stopping you?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!