There appears to be something about the subjects of population, education, and growth in the District that makes local journalists a little nuts. That is what we’re left to conclude after reading today’s Post article on D.C. schools and the growing shadow they’re ready to cast on this year’s local elections. The main point of the piece is an incontrovertible one: despite some successes and increased government action, many District schools are failing to meet the standards they ought to meet in a city that’s doing exceedingly well in many other areas. Washington’s school system remains a stubborn public policy problem, and the issue will no doubt loom large this fall.
The problem with the Post piece (and with the strikingly similar City Paper article we discussed not long ago) is the stream of conclusions that are then drawn. The City Paper connected poor schools with an “epic” population crisis that doesn’t actually exist. The Post repeats this error, failing even to point out, as the City Paper did, that many demographers and city officials openly question whether population is, in fact, declining. Instead of looking closely at the statistics used, the Post trots out additional anecdotes, tracking down families that are unhappy with their children’s educational prospects, a useless exercise that could just as easily have targeted families who are completely satisfied.
The Post then talks to George Mason professor Stephen Fuller, who spouts the following nonsense:
The District has done an amazing job. It has more money in the bank than any city in the country. The housing market has turned around. The job base is strong. But they could lose it all if they don’t get that one missing link: having middle- or upper-income families who want to live in the District.
As we’ve mentioned here before, Census data reveals that District population, and the percentage of children in the population, is growing in the city’s richer wards. It’s also worth considering that middle and upper class residents (especially upper) are more able to afford options outside the public school system. At this point, the worst city schools are in the city’s poorest sections, and the families who need better public schools most are those with the lowest incomes. The problem isn’t recruiting middle and upper class residents. The problem, as it so often is, is how to improve the lot of the city’s poorest residents.
