Poverty and Underfunding in Hawaii’s Schools

Posted on by

“Equal dollars cannot produce equal opportunities.”
– Linda Darling Hammond[1]

It would be myopic to view school climate without proper understanding of the larger crisis of poverty which the state faces.  Hawaii Appleseed has already compiled a clear report on this issue, available online.  A few facts should suffice to underscore the severity of this problem in Hawaii:

  • 131,982 Hawaii residents live in poverty, including 41,230 children
  • Hawaii has the highest cost of living in the nation, but the lowest average-adjusted income.  Its cost of living is 165% the national average
  • Hawaii’s state tax burden is the third worst in the nation for low-income wage earners
  • 75 percent of poor households spend more than half of their incomes on rent
  • 15 percents of households don’t know how they will get their next meal
  • Hawaii has the third highest homelessness rate among the states
  • Hawaii is ranked 26th in the nation for childhood well-being
  • Hawaii has the second highest number of millionaire households per capita[2]

And all of this, it must be remembered, is true within the context of a much larger national problem.  I mean obscene levels of wealth inequality in the United States, where the richest 1% owns 42% of the nation’s wealth, where the top 1% takes in 24% of national income,[3] where the 400 richest individuals have more wealth than half of the country–the bottom 150 million Americans combined.[4]

Research.

Poverty affects school climate because it affects just about everything in the culture and climate of its larger community, not least the students themselves.  Even aside from the students, poverty infects the atmosphere of a school.  Linda Darling-Hammond, one of the most respected contemporary scholars of education,writes:

All kinds of students, both poor and nonpoor, have lower achievement in high-poverty elementary schools.  Indeed, students who are not low-income have lower achievement in high-poverty schools than do low-income students attending more affluent schools.[5]

Aside from this obvious link between poverty and school climate, the literature on poverty has established a strong link between poverty and psychiatric disorders, social and academic functioning, and chronic physical health problems.[6]  Moreover, research has shown that much of the achievement gap between high and low SES students is attributable to out-of-school environments, especially the family.[7]  In fact, this effect has even been quantified.  In the groundbreaking ‘Coleman Report,’ research found that as far as student achievement is concerned, one-third of it is attributable to school factors, while no less than two-thirds is attributable to family characteristics.[8]  Or consider, for instance–this is not unconnected to poverty–that while Hawaii’s ratings for child well-being slipped significantly since the mid-2000s, social services, rather than being increased, were being severely cut.  In other words: increased need, decreased services.  This surely can have no little effect on the climate of the schools these students attend, especially when considering the fact that in Hawaii’s public schools, 50%–indeed, half–of all students are economically disadvantaged.[9]

Recent research by Stanford scholar Sean Reardon has concluded that what he calls the ‘income achievement gap’ is now nearly twice as large as the achievement black between black and white students.[10]  That is to say, family income is now a stronger predictor of educational outcome than race, even in a society like ours, which remains strongly discriminatory when it comes to race.  A literature review of the research re: the effects of poverty suggests that educational outcomes are “one of the key areas influenced by family income,” further concluding that “the evidence is clear and unanimous that poor children arrive at school at a cognitive and behavioural disadvantage” and schools, the report concludes, are “obviously not in a position to equalize this gap.”[11]

Of principal importance for Hawaii, the literature review suggests that “A key to making schools more effective at raising the performance of low SES students is to keep schools heterogeneous with regard to the SES of their students” — of principal importance for Hawaii because of its unusually high rate of private school enrollment (15.8% in 2012)[12], which is a de facto tracking mechanism, and which might reasonably be linked to its funding structure. In the mainland, huge disparities in school funding can come about because of decentralized funding, and parents can direct hugely disparate amounts of resources to schools in affluent communities.[13]  This is not possible in Hawaii, since it has a centralised funding mechanism and an equitable funding formula (the Weighted Student Formula.)  Given this, it is only natural that Hawaii should have an unusually high private school enrollment.

In fact, if one should require evidence that poverty plays an overwhelmingly important role, one might–aside from reviewing the vast literature on this–simply look at the United States, or the half which seems to count: the children of the affluent in the U.S. are not only not-behind the rest of the world, but outperform the rest of the world–even Finland.[14]

The point is not to suggest that schools cannot make a difference.  In fact, the same literature which makes the connection between poverty and academic outcomes suggests just the opposite: that schools can, even relatively late in the student’s psychological development, make a difference–and a considerable one too.  But schools cannot do it alone–and this is the point which is to be grasped.  The research concluded, let us repeat, that “schools are obviously not in a position to equalize this gap” academic achievement between low and high SES students.[15]

Public Discourse.

This point is of special concern if only because schools are only too easily scapegoated, made the easy target of public discontent, and often without any substantive reflection on the much larger, systemic issues.  Diane Ravitch, a scholar of the history of education, writes:

Wendy Kopp, Bill Gates, and Arne Duncan have all said on many occasions that if there is a “great” teacher in every classroom, that will take care of poverty. Or, in a variation, fix the schools first, then fix poverty.  They never explain how a great teacher overcomes homelessness, hunger, poor health, and other conditions associated with poverty. [16]

Ravitch’s observation is keen: in public discourse, the respective roles of poverty and education are completely reversed, and in such a way as to have no significant substantiation in the literature.  In 2005, for example, the Federal Reserve Chairman at the time, Alan Greenspan, commenting on how the obscenely wide income gap in the United States threatened the dissolution of democratic capitalism, suggested that the lack of income growth for U.S. workers is due to a lack of education.[17]

Or take Honolulu Magazine for example.  Every year Honolulu Magazine, out of the bountiful generosity of its benevolent heart offers its services to educators across the state by “grading the public schools.”  It is generous with its Fs and D-s  and Ds, but let us not be under the impression that it is stingy: it is also distributes D+s generously.[18]  It ranks schools best to worst, and belies an underlying attitude of competition, just like in business.  Curiously, one of the things they don’t consider is the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, or the median family income of the school.  Also rather interestingly, one more thing Honolulu Magazine fails to consider: private schools.  Perhaps it assumes they don’t require grading.  (That, surely, is just for our public schools, which need a little more supervision, un-patronisingly of course.)  Nor, many would argue, does it consider what students actually learn.  It ranks test scores, which signify, at least in the fickle opinion of such consummate nincompoops as Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, and Bertrand Russell, nothing–to say nothing of what simple common sense tells us.  But to the point, it does not so much as mention poverty, or the fact that half of the students in Hawaii’s public schools are economically disadvantaged, and what effect this might have on student achievement.

The last State of the State Address is also rather indicative of public discourse on poverty more generally.  Or the lack thereof.  The words ‘poverty’ or ‘poor’ were not mentioned even once in the entirety of the address.  Interestingly, however, the word ‘business’ is mentioned 11 times.[19]  This might be an indication of our relative priorities, as well as our contemporary vogue in education: the business model.  The current schools superintendent is former executive director of the Hawaii Business Roundtable[20] and the current Board Chair is the CEO of Hawaii’s most prosperous bank.  And even he is rather frank about the new business attitude in education, stating, in the language of business,“Frankly, [students] are our customers, and we want to hear our customers’ voices.”[21]  In an article in Honolulu Magazine, he is quoted as saying the Board will be “more businesslike.”[22]  This translates, essentially, into more testing, accountability, and evaluations, which are the new chimera of school reformers, none of whom pay any attention to poverty.  It was Oscar Wilde who quipped that nowadays, we know the price of everything and the value of nothing.  Might we not say, with this testing mania, that we know the scores of everything but the value of nothing?  And somehow, magically, putting teachers and principals on an evaluation-based contract is supposed to cure all of our educational ills, though no one has cared to explain how, or to provide any substantial evidence of the efficacy of such an approach.  The underlying assumption is the same: we can solve poverty by educating our kids and educate them well by evaluating our teachers and principals–just like we do in the business world.  Again, the causal relationship of poverty and education is reversed.

Discourse is framed in such a way as to perpetuate the myth that we can eradicate poverty with education rather than the reality which is, quite the contrary, that in order to address education meaningfully, we must first tackle poverty.  It is easy enough to see why.  Education is often the panacea and scapegoat we use to avoid any meaningful conversation on how to effect systemic change with regard to poverty.  There is probably a partial truth in the claim that education alleviates poverty–and indeed it is the nature this partial truth which is exploited–but it must not be taken out of proportion.  Research and reality demand that we address poverty first because research and reality show the overwhelming impact of family income and broader economic contexts on educational outcomes.

Or to give a more recent example, as this was being written, an article came out in The Atlantic which quotes what “has become common the world over,” namely that “Experts have found that four consecutive years of quality teaching eliminated any trace of socio-economic disadvantage.”[23]  But the article goes on to debunk this myth.  The research on which it was constructed turned out to be unreliable, and the article concludes that contrary to these myths, “in actuality by far the largest factor affecting school performance is family income.”[24]

Hawaii’s Data.

This–that SES is a strong predictor of educational outcome–is evident in Hawaii’s own local data.  In 2012 data compiled from public high schools across the state[25], there is a considerable correlation between the percentage of economically disadvantage in a school and its HSA reading scores:

 
Source: Hawaii Department of Education, School Status and Improvement Reports. Note: these data only reflect trends from 33 high schools.[26]

This is not even to consider that the data is diluted–and the trend understated–by the fact that this is data aggregated by school (the presence of non-economically-disadvantaged students in the school insulates the negative effects of economic disadvantage on test scores).  Surely if the data were disaggregated, if it were instead aggregated by the SES of the individual student (rather than the school), the results would be more striking, and the negative effects of economic disadvantage more pronounced.  Yet even putting all of these technical considerations aside, the numbers simply as they are suggest the need for greater and more sustained conversation–and maybe even organized concern–about poverty.  Comparable data on Median Family Income suggests a similar trend:

 
Source: Hawaii Department of Education[27]

And again, the results are diluted, the trends understated, by the way the data is aggregated.  If it were disaggregated, surely the trends would be even more stark.  Or, let us take SAT scores for example.  Research suggests that the strongest predictor of academic achievement is the student’s socioeconomic status.[28]  This is confirmed by Hawaii’s own data on SAT scores:

 
Source: CollegeBoard, Hawaii SAT Scores 2011.[29]  Note: these are scores of public and private school students.  The maximum score in reading, math, or writing is 800.

The trends are visible but harder to see when disaggregated this way.  If we re-aggregate the same data, the results are much starker:

 
Source: CollegeBoard, Hawaii SAT Scores 2011.[30]  Composite scores are the reading, math, and writing section scores added together.  The maximum possible score is 1600 (800 on each section).

It becomes clear from data like these, and research like that cited earlier, that greater funding is necessary for a school system with 50% economically-disadvantaged students than a school system with very little economic disadvantage (Hawaii’s own private schools, for example).  It was Lyndon B. Johnson who said:

Imagine a hundred-yard dash in which one of the two runners has his legs shackled together. He has progressed ten yards, while the unshackled runner has gone fifty yards. At that point the judges decide that the race is unfair. How do they rectify the situation? Do they merely remove the shackles and allow the race to proceed? Then they could say that “equal opportunity” now prevailed. But one of the runners would still be forty yards ahead of the other. Would it not be the better part of justice to allow the previously shackled runner to make up the forty-yard gap, or to start the race all over again? That would be affirmative action toward equality.[31]

Does not an analogous disadvantage stymie our own economically-disadvantaged students?  The research literature suggests so.  So does our own local data.  This should force us to seriously reflect and to begin to ask the hard questions about funding.  The public discourse in this regard has been particularly impoverished.

School Funding.

I mean the debate on school funding, the age-old debate on whether Hawaii’s schools are adequately funded or not.  Often, if informally, public schools are criticized for their comparatively low educational outcomes, but few talk about school funding.  Politicians, while asserting that our public schools are adequately funded, send kids to private schools at disproportionately higher rates than the public[32]–with apparently little sense of the implied contradiction.  A recent Honolulu Civil Beat article suggests that “Despite its relatively high education expenditures, Hawaii’s students perform below the national averages in every subject.”[33]  Because this is typical of the kinds of comparisons which are made, it will serve as a good example of why they are faulty.

Let us first consider the premise: “Despite its relatively high education expenditures …” It is true that Hawaii spends, in nominal dollar amount, more per pupil ($12,400) than the national average ($10,591), ranking it 11th in per pupil spending among the states.[34]  This makes it seem at first like Hawaii should have no excuse.  But it doesn’t tell the full story.  This is a comparison of nominal dollar amount, which does not reckon that Hawaii has the highest cost of living in the nation, at 165% the national average.[35]  So one would naturally assume that Hawaii would require higher amounts of per pupil spending: things cost more here.  How the extremely high cost of living translates into real effects is observable by the fact that when the cost of living is taken into account, Hawaii’s teachers are the lowest paid in the nation.[36]  An entry level officer in the Honolulu Police Department, for example, at $59,941, makes more than an entry level teacher in the Hawaii Department of Education whose starting salary is $45,963.[37]

But let us grant the claim this fallacy; let us ignore it for the moment.  Even then, we do not have the full story.  For when taken as a percentage of state and local expenditures supporting schools, Hawaii (17.1%) ranks well below the national average (22.6%) in per pupil spending[38] and 2009 data indicates that when this figure is used instead, Hawaii ranks not 11th, but 50th in terms of per pupil spending among the states.[39]  In fact, a report by the Education Law Center, which evaluates state education funding and which Linda Darling-Hammond has praised, gives Hawaii a “D” in the “Effort” category, which evaluates the state’s funding efforts, based on the percentage of the state’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) allocated to education.[40]  Indeed, the report goes on to single out Hawaii for its failure in this regard: “In general, the overall trend was for states to increase their funding effort between 2007 and 2009 [… but two] states–Hawaii and Maine–showed a particularly large disinvestment in public education by reducing their funding effort by over 20%. Both states saw increased GDP, but decreased the proportion that was spent on education. In Hawaii, this resulted in a substantial decrease in funding levels …”[41]  Mari Matsuda, Professor of Law at UH Richardson School of Law, and one of the most respected legal scholars in the nation, suggests “the real reasons schools are failing: long-term divestment from the infrastructure of good education; underfunded schools dealing with multiple, impossible mandates; underpaid, unsupported teachers; and elite flight.”[42]

So in truth, Hawaii spends comparatively less on students than any other state in the nation as a percentage of the state funds, and this ignoring the cost of living, which puts Hawaii even further apart from other states in terms of its comparative underfunding.  But when these two factors are omitted from not just careful consideration, but from consideration at all, one gets a different picture of things.

We might now consider the full claim: “Despite its relatively high education expenditures, Hawaii’s students perform below the national averages in every subject.”  Aside from omitting to consider the two factors mentioned above, the claim also fails, crucially, to account for two further relevant considerations: the egregiously high rate of economically disadvantaged students in our public schools, and the unusually high rate of private school attendance in Hawaii.

In Hawaii’s schools, 50% of its students are economically disadvantaged.[43]  So that it might not lose shocking truth, let us repeat: one out of every two students in Hawaii’s public schools is economically disadvantaged.  One might think that this would mean schools require greater funds, for remedial services and the like.  One might that that a school district half of whose student population is economically disadvantaged would need more funds to accomplish the same results as a school district with less economic disadvantage.  One might think that this is why Linda Darling-Hammond, who was President Obama’s Education advisor and one of the most respected scholars of education nationally, has said “Equal dollars cannot produce equal opportunities.”[44] So one would think.  But one would think in vain, for none of this was so much as considered in the article, nor is it considered more generally in public discourse.  In the Civil Beat article on ‘Student Achievement,’ for example, the word ‘poverty’ does not appear once.  The word ‘poor’ appears four times–in the phrase ‘poor student performance’[45]  But talk of poor students and poor families and poor schools–none of it.  The root word ‘economic’ does appear once in the article, but has nothing to do with ‘economic disadvantage.’  Rather, the sentence in which it appears reads: “Poor student performance is a serious issue for a state seeking to be economically competitive.”  But what about the sentence, rather more accurate, which reads: “Poor funding is a serious issue for a state, half of whose public school students are economically disadvantaged.”  The sentence (from the article) as a whole is indicative of public discourse: we talk about poor performance, but not poor students; we talk about being economically competitive, but we do not talk about the economic disadvantage that stymies half of our students.  And we go on pretending it doesn’t exist.  But back to the claim that Hawaii’s students perform below the national average in every subject.  Do we expect otherwise?  In light of the facts, now considered, do we expect Hawaii’s students to perform as well as other states’?  But this is only half of the untold story.  Let us now consider Hawaii’s unusually high private school enrollment.

At 15.8%, Hawaii has an unusually high private school enrollment.[46]  Mari Matsuda at UH Richardson suggests, “What has happened in Hawaii and the United States is that children from different social strata no longer, typically, go to school together.  Education is seen as a privatized commodity in the market with the best education going to the richest, who deserve it, because they can pay for it.”[47]  As mentioned earlier in this piece, in Hawaii’s case, this is probably owing in large part to its unique centralized funding structure.  As for our present considerations, this datum has no small significance, for the claim that Hawaii’s public school students perform below the national averages in every subject does not take into account the way unusually high private school enrollment affects public schools’ test results.  And the effect is rather obvious.  If we had a room full of students and we took out the tallest 15% of them, then–this, uncomplicated, should be no surprise–the average height of the room would decrease.  Likewise, if you take 15% of the highest performing students out of public schools, then the average test scores will decrease.  This is not complicated mathematics.  To estimate the extent of this negative effect, we need only compare the test scores of public school students with those of private school students.  In 2012, the average composite SAT score was 1369 (out of 2400) for public school students, and 1608 (out of 2400) for private school students.[48]  This 239 point difference is a difference of 17%.  That is to say, private school students, perform 17% better on the SAT than public school students do.  From this, it is clear how separating them from public school students–how Hawaii’s unusually high private school enrollment–affects its test results, by artificially shifting its distribution curve lower.  It should be no surprise either, considering the huge disparity in family income between private and public schools.  Earlier, we showed how strongly family income predicts test scores, even with our own local data.  Now consider this comparison: median family income in 2010 was $79,912 for Hawaii’s public school students, $122,019 for private school students–a 54% difference, one of the worst in the nation, according to a report by the Education Law Center.[49]  The report, ranks Hawaii 48th on a measure called “coverage” which indicates public and private school equity.  When this is considered, the difference between public and private school academic achievement is hardly surprising.

This kind of comparison, moreover, between private and public school students is quite interesting.  We have just compared educational outcome and seen that private school students on average perform 17% better than public school students on tests.  The difference is even more severe when we look at the best private schools like Iolani and Punahou.  In 2012, the average composite SAT score was 1369 (out of 2400) for public school students, 1882 for Punahou students.[50]  This 513 point difference represents a difference of 37%.  We have compared Punahou and public school test results and seen that Punahou students on average perform 37% better than public school students.

We can now compare Punahou and public school funding. Punahou tuition is roughly $19,000 annually.[51]  The per pupil expenditure for public school students is $12,000.  That is already a $7,000 difference.  Now consider that 38% of the DOE’s 2012 budget, for example, went to Special Education services and federal programs, like Title I,[52] for which there is no comparable equivalent at Punahou.  That leaves 62% of the DOE’s budget to accomplish work comparable to what a Punahou tuition would go to.  If we calculate this reduction at a per pupil level, it comes out to $7,440.  This is now an $11,560 difference.  So, in comparable terms, Punahou spends more than twice the amount DOE spends per pupil.  Now consider that 50% of DOE students are economically disadvantaged, and what effect this might have on the additional services which are necessary to address these students’ additional needs, services like alternative educational programs, tutoring, twilight schools, etc.–and the costs such programs might entail.  This does not even take into account the increased amount of work schools will have to put into its efforts to overcome the socioeconomic disadvantage of its students.  Nor does it take into account the increased amount of work schools will have to put into overcoming school readiness challenges.  (Punahou parents can afford preschool for their children.  42% of public school Kindergarteners couldn’t in SY 2012–so they didn’t.[53]  They enter school far behind their peers, and the extra work resulting thereof becomes the task of their public schools, which also means schools have to fund them.)

This, then, is a more realistic comparison.  The DOE has far fewer funds to accomplish far more (in terms of remediation, additional programs to help close the achievement gap, etc.) than a school like Punahou.  But the comparison with Punahou is not simply for effect.  Because Punahou spends most and performs best, we can use it as an indication, by logical regression, however imperfect, of how an increase in school funding might proportionally increase academic outcomes.  Let us summarize:

  • Public              Spends:   $7440 per pupil        Average SAT score: 1392
  • Punahou:         Spends: $19000 per pupil        Average SAT score: 1882

Punahou students perform 37% better than public school students but it also spends 155% more (or, nearly three times as much) per pupil than public schools do.  One can only imagine how public school students would be performing if we spent $19,000 on each of them.  This isn’t at all in any way to criticise Punahou.  On the contrary, it is to make a model of it, and to ask why we can’t do for our public schools what we do for the most affluent among us.  But perhaps the answer is too easy.  And too undesirable.  But if we should choose to do nothing about it, we will have to face the consequences.  John Dewey, one of the greatest American philosophers, once wrote “What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must we want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy.”  And it wasn’t some crazy leftist but Alan Greenspan who said our current levels of wealth inequality threaten the very fabric of our democracy.

Let us summarise what we have found so far:

  • 131,982 Hawaii residents live in poverty, including 41,230 children
  • Hawaii has the highest cost of living in the nation, but the lowest average-adjusted income.  Its cost of living is 165% the national average
  • Hawaii’s teachers are the lowest-paid in the nation when we adjust for the cost of living
  • Poverty has a huge effect on educational outcomes, as our own local data shows
  • Public discourse is impoverished so we never talk about poverty
  • When taken as a percentage of state and local expenditures supporting schools, Hawaii last in terms of per pupil spending among the states.
  • Half of the students in Hawaii’s public schools are economically disadvantaged
  • Hawaii has an unusually high private school enrollment rate, which distorts public school test result data

It has almost become a joke.  Every decade or so, we here in Hawaii come up with a new fantastical scheme to fix education once-and-for-all (!).  NCLB and Race to the Top, ‘testing and accountability’ and teacher evaluations seem but the latest installment of this grand comedy.  One former state legislator and BOE member once quipped to me, “I’ve lost count of how many times we’ve ‘re-invented’ education.”  Perhaps what we need, then, is clarity of thought, to pause and ask ourselves a few questions.  For example, would we be surprised if, failing to address the causes of a disease, treating only its symptoms, the symptoms continued to manifest?  No; that would be wishful thinking.  How we are surprised, then, that we fail every time to magically solve education once-and-for-all (!) without so much as mentioning its deeper causes in poverty, is indeed a mystery.  For until we seriously address the larger issues of poverty and underfunding, we shall be chasing shadows of our own whims, and wasting money in the process as well.

Yet we can imagine how things could be different.  We can imagine what things would be like, for example, if we funded public schools as much as we funded Punahou, if we paid teachers enough so that they weren’t the lowest paid in the nation, if ‘poverty’ was given as much mention in the State of the State Address as ‘businesses,’ if the portion of economically disadvantaged students in Hawaii’s schools were not so egregiously high, if Hawaii didn’t spend the least among the states on per pupil expenditures.  We can imagine that things would be quite different indeed.

Notes:

[1] Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2010. Print, p.22

[2] Jenny Lee, The State of Poverty in Hawaii, Honolulu: Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice, April 2012. p.3-4, 10, 15

[5]  Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2010. Print, p.37

[6] HB Ferguson, ‘The impact of poverty on educational outcomes for children,’ 2000.  Online: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/pdf/pch12701.pdf&gt;, p.701

[7] HB Ferguson, ‘The impact of poverty on educational outcomes for children,’ 2000.  Online: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/pdf/pch12701.pdf&gt;, p.702

[8] Joanne Barkan, cited in David Sirota, ‘New Data Shows School Reformers are Full of It,’ Salon, 03 June 2013, Online: <http://www.salon.com/2013/06/03/instead_of_a_war_on_teachers_how_about_one_on_poverty/&gt;

[9] Hawaii Department of Education, Superintendent’s 23rd Annual Report, Honolulu: 2012. Print. p.9

[10] Sean Reardon, ‘The Widening Academic AchievementGap Between the Rich and the Poor,’ Whither Opportunity?Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, July 2011. Online: <http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/reardon%20whither%20opportunity%20-%20chapter%205.pdf>  Summary available online here: <http://cepa.stanford.edu/content/widening-academic-achievement-gap-between-rich-and-poor-new-evidence-and-possible&gt;

[11] HB Ferguson, ‘The impact of poverty on educational outcomes for children,’ 2000.  Online: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/pdf/pch12701.pdf&gt;, p.701

[12] Hawaii Department of Education, Superintendent’s 23rd Annual Report, Honolulu: 2012. Print. p.5

[13] Cf. Alfie Kohn, ‘Only for My Kid: How Privileged Parents Undermine School Reform,’ Phi Delta Kappan, April 1998

[14] Diane Ravitch interviewed by Jon Stewart, Online: <http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/diane-ravitch&gt;, see also Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2010. Print, p.11-12

[15] HB Ferguson, ‘The impact of poverty on educational outcomes for children,’ 2000.  Online: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528798/pdf/pch12701.pdf&gt;, p.701

[16] Diane Ravitch, ‘Can Great Teaching Overcome Poverty?’, Online: <http://dianeravitch.net/2012/09/16/can-great-teaching-overcome-poverty/&gt;

[17] Theresa Capra, ‘Poverty and its Impact on Education: Today and Tomorrow,’ Thought & Action, Fall 2009, p.76-77

[18] ‘Grading the Public Schools,’ Honolulu Magazine, 2012. Online: <http://www.honolulumagazine.com/HM_Mar13_PublicSchoolsGuideChart.pdf>

[19] ‘Full Text of Gov. Abercrombie’s State of the State Address,’ Honolulu Star Advertiser, 22 January 2013. Online: <http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/187931811.html?id=187931811&gt;

[21] Don Horner, qtd. in Tiffany Hill, ‘Hawaii Education Q&A: Why Don’t Student Representatives Get a Vote?’ May 2012, Online: <http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/May-2012/Hawaii-Education-Q-A-Bonus-Question/&gt;

[22] Michael Keany and Tiffany Hill, ‘The Death of Public School: Ten Years Later,’ Honolulu Magazine, May 2011.

[23] Anthony Cody, ‘Poverty is What’s Crippling Public Education in the U.S.–Not Bad Teachers,’ The Atlantic, 19 July 2013, Online: <http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/07/poverty-whats-crippling-public-education-usnot-bad-teachers/6264/&gt;

[24] Ibid.

[25] Cf. Hawaii DOE, School Status and Improvement Reports for Economic Disadvantage Data and Median Family Income.

[26] This data is from 33 high schools and based on School Status and Improvement Reports (SSIRs) from SY 2011-2012, published by the Department of Education.  The sample size was restricted to allow for more feasible collection of data.  These high schools are, in alphabetical order: Aiea, Baldwin, Campbell, Castle, Farrington, Hilo, Kailua, Kaimuki, Kaiser, Kalaheo, Kalani, Kapaa, Kapolei, Kauai, Keaau, Kealakehe, king Kekaulike, Kohala, Konawaena, Lahainaluna, Leilehua, Maui, McKinley, Mililani, Moanalua, Molokai, Pearl City, Radford, Roosevelt, Waiakea, Waianae, Waimea, and Waipahu High Schools.

[27] See note above.

[28] Jennifer Barry, ‘The Effect of Socioeconomic Status on Academic Achievement,’ Wichita State University, December 2006.

[29] Available online: <http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/HI_11_03_03_01.pdf&gt;.
See also Katherine Poythress, ‘Hawaii Students Score Lower Than Peers on SAT,’ Honolulu Civil Beat, 14 September 2011, Online: <http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2011/09/14/12851-hawaii-students-score-lower-than-peers-on-sat/&gt;.
See also Catherine Rampell, ‘SAT Scores and Family Income,’ The New York Times, 27 August 2009, Online: <http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/&gt;

[30] Ibid.

[31] Commencement Address at Howard University (June 4, 1965), qtd. in Diane Ravitch, ‘Can Great Teaching Overcome Poverty?’, Online: <http://dianeravitch.net/2012/09/16/can-great-teaching-overcome-poverty/&gt;

[32] Katherine Poythress, ‘The Impact of Private Schools on Public Education,’ Honolulu Civil Beat, 04 October 2010, Online: <http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2010/10/04/4031-the-impact-of-private-schools-on-public-education/&gt;

[33] Katherine Poythress, ‘Student Achievement,’ Honolulu Civil Beat, Online: <http://www.civilbeat.com/topics/hawaii-student-achievement/&gt;

[34] Hawaii Department of Education, Superintendent’s 23rd Annual Report, Index, Table 10 “Expenditure pur Pupil, Hawaii and Comparison States”

[35] Jenny Lee, The State of Poverty in Hawaii, Honolulu: Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice, April 2012. p.3-4, 10, 15

[36] J.C. Grant, ‘State Education Rankings: Public Teacher Salaries,’ Yahoo! Voices, 22 June 2010, Online: <http://voices.yahoo.com/state-education-rankings-public-teacher-salaries-6445492.html?cat=4&gt;

[37] These are figures which are in effect from 2017.  See.  Gordon Y.K. Pang, ‘Pay Differential Adds $43.4 Million to Policy Contract,’ Honolulu Star Advertiser, 12 June 2013, Online: <http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=215203331&id=215203331&gt;

[38] Ibid, Table 12, “Percent of State and Local Expenditures Supporting Public Education”

[39] Hawaii Department of Education, Superintendent’s 23rd Annual Report, Honolulu: 2012. Print. p.11

[40] See: http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/reviews.htm.  Her comments are quoted here: “America’s commitment to equity in education will determine our future. Bruce Baker and the co-authors of the Fair School Funding National Report Card offer clear insights into the widespread and profound inequalities within and across our education systems. Their study is a powerful critique of the state education funding schemes that govern resources for our schools. This important study is a wake-up call to invest fairly in our children’s education as other developed nations do.”

[41] Bruce Baker, David Sciarra, and Danielle Farrie, ‘Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card,’ 2nd Ed., Education Law Center, June 2012, Online: <http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/National_Report_Card_2012.pdf&gt;, p.23

[42] Mari Matsuda, ‘The Value of Hawaii: Public Education,’ Honolulu Civil Beat, 20 September 2010. Online: <http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2010/09/20/4441-the-value-of-hawaii-public-education-by-mari-matsuda/&gt;

[43] Hawaii Department of Education, Superintendent’s 23rd Annual Report, Honolulu: 2012. Print. p.9

[44]  Linda Darling-Hammond, The Flat World and Education, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2010. Print, p.22

[45] Once as just ‘poor performance.’

[46] Hawaii Department of Education, Superintendent’s 23rd Annual Report, Honolulu: 2012. Print. p.5

[47] Mari Matsuda, ‘Think Tech Talk,’ Youtube.com, Online: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGmYwLqW6Y4&gt;

[48] CollegeBoard, State Profile Report (Hawaii). Available online: <http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/HI_11_03_03_01.pdf&gt;, p.2, Table 7.
The composite scores were calculated by adding reading, math, and writing scores.  The private school score presented here is an average of the ‘religiously affiliated’ and ‘independent’ schools’ composite scores.  The calculation was as follows: [(1248 x 1584) + (1682 x 1627)] / (1248 + 1682) = 1608

[49] Bruce Baker, David Sciarra, and Danielle Farrie, ‘Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card,’ Education Law Center, September 2010, Online: <http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/National_Report_Card.pdf&gt;, p.30.

[50] Punahou School, Academic Profile 2012-2013, Online: <http://www.punahou.edu/uploaded/P_Academics/PunahouAcademicProfile2012-2013.pdf&gt;, p.2

[52] Hawaii Department of Education Budget, Civil Beat. Online: <http://www.civilbeat.com/topics/hawaii-department-of-education-budget/&gt;

[53] Hawaii Department of Education, Superintendent’s 23rd Annual Report, Honolulu: 2012. Print. p.5

Leave a comment