Eradicating Poverty Through Educational Policy in Altadena, CA
By Cienna Benn
Poverty is a complex and multidimensional issue within any society. It is defined as, “a state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial resources and essentials for a minimum standard of living”, and it complicates the lives of millions on a daily basis (Chen). Common traits for those living in extreme poverty include having little or no education, being under the age of eighteen, and working in farming or agriculture. The implications of poverty prevent people and families from having access to basic resources and opportunities such as clean water, adequate housing, healthy foods, access to good schools and healthcare. While the essentiality of such resources may be universal, the total number of those in poverty are determined and labeled by varying national thresholds for calculating poverty. For instance, according to the Census figures from 2016, more than 40 million people in the U.S. live below the poverty line, excluding people who are institutionalized, living in military quarters, college dormitories and people under the age of fifteen (Chen). The U.S then creates a set of estimated poverty thresholds per person in an attempt to determine how aid should be distributed and how their conditions of such poverty could be addressed. In all, Chen details that the factors of poverty itself are highly influenced by socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, and geography. In order to understand how these factors inform the lives of individuals to a tangible extent, I looked into the history and factors of poverty in my own community and means of alleviation through essential access to quality education and contemporary learning resources through investment in public schools.
The People’s Guide to Los Angeles published by the University of California Press offers incitement to the historical and social background of the greater eastside of Los Angeles and San Gabriel Valley. Laura Pulido approaches the history of the San Gabriel Valley’s migrations within cities such as Pasadena, Alhambra, Pico Rivera, and so forth, relevant to their racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. I was born and raised in Altadena, California just fourteen miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles. Altadena’s integrated population is explained as the product of many African Americans moving north of downtown after being displaced by the construction of the 210 and 134 freeways, causing White Flight to neighboring cities that remain more affluent today. The Altadena-Pasadena Human Relations Committee and the Pasadena Fair Area Housing Committee created The Altadena Open Housing Covenant that enabled significant integration that has made West Altadena a prominent Black and Hispanic community today. Pulido notes that while Altadena and Pasadena remain internally segregated even today, they are home to far more diverse populations than their neighboring cities in the San Gabriel Valley (east Los Angeles County). This provides the proper historical context for an examination of poverty, inequality, and subsequent gentrification in this region today.
Altadena is one of the 125 unincorporated areas that make up more than 65% of Los Angeles County (totaling to approximately one million people in population) that make no distinction between city and town under California law (County of Los Angeles). These areas are separated into five districts and governed by an elected board of supervisors and provided municipal services by county departments. Altadena, part of district five, is located directly above the city of Pasadena as the city lines essentially blend into each other and share local services. A Los Angeles Times article from 1986 reports that five times over the past 40 years, Pasadena has unsuccessfully attempted to annex the unincorporated territory, as Altadena residents today still maintain their resistance (Los Angeles Times). For this reason, I will be assessing the factors and social implications of poverty between both Altadena and Pasadena as they share a local community.
In order to contextualize the nature of poverty across these city lines, one must consult their measure of income and poverty. According to the Census Bureau, the per capita income in the past 12 months in Altadena, the per capita income in the past 12 months is $45,699, the median household income is $94,507, and the recorded number of persons in poverty is 8.6%. In Pasadena the per capita income in the past 12 months is $45,306, the median household income is $78,941, and the recorded number of persons in poverty is 15.7%; higher than the Los Angeles County Average of 14.2% (U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts). Each are California cities located in Federal Region 9 with the regional office located in San Francisco. The HHS regional office is located on 90 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103. HUD is located at One Sansome St., Suite 1200San Francisco, CA 94104. The Regional Office for the Department of Education is located on 50 United Nations Plaza, Room 205 San Francisco, CA 94102. The California Department of Education’s regional address is California Department of Education 1430 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5901.
The Pasadena Star News approaches the rising issue of poverty and income inequality in the city of Pasadena by juxtaposing it with the rather prosperous image painted by the extravagant, annual Rose Parade. According to the U.S. Census, 26% of Pasadena households earn less than $35,000 a year and 34% make under $50,000. Gentrification in this city has also seen an upward trend since 2012, as the proportion of households that earn more than $150,000 has increased from seventeen percent to 24% and the median price of a single-family home is close to one million dollars (Dreier). Drier and Maier report that most housing developments approved by the City Council since 2002 are luxury condos and expensive apartments targeted for high-income residents, leaving only 18% of the 5,311 new housing units within reach of lowincome and moderate-income families, making it harder for the working class to remain in Pasadena. This widening gap has pushed many working families out of Pasadena, hurting local businesses and shrinking enrollment in public schools, forcing many to close (Dreier).
The closing of schools can be detrimental to community battles against poverty, as access to education plays an essential role in Socioeconomic Status and the persistence of poverty. To reiterate, the initial definition of poverty used in this paper includes not having access to schooling and even states that a trait of living extreme poverty is having little or no education. The relevant federal government agency responsible for funding that local effort is the California Department of Education. The CDE was established in 1921 and is an agency of the larger United States department that handles these initiatives within the United States Government known as the Department of Education. The Department of Education was created after President Jimmy Carter signed the split of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1979. However, this department is contextualized by decades of initiatives before then, as discussed by Professor Stewart in class.
Dr. Stewart begins tracing the history of the Department of Education in 1636 when Harvard College formed as a staple of private and parochial schooling. Public Education did not begin in the U.S. until 1830, highlighted by State Superintendent of Education Horace Mann’s imitation of the idea of public schools from Germany (Stewart). From 1837 to 1918 the idea of state-level public education diffused from state to state meanwhile Connecticut State Superintendent of Education Henry Barnard began lobbying congress to collect data on literacy in the 1840 census for the first time in American history (Stewart). In 1867 Rep. James Garfield passed a bill in the census to create an Office of Education with only 6 people on staff and a focus on only research. During Reconstruction, the Office of Education concerted effort to educate free and former slaves. This was primarily a private, parochial effort launched by churches with the assistance of the Department of War’s Freedmen’s Bureau. Subsequently, The American Missionary Association and other organizations (Black Baptist & Methodist Churches) sent teachers to the south and built schools for the freedmen (Stewart). Sometime between 1877 and 1933, The Department of Interior Office of Education established a sub-office on education defined as a part of the special education section.
In light of New Deal Federal Social Welfare Programs in 1933, The Supreme Court reversed its staff and granted sweeping powers to the Federal Government by linking the necessary and power clause (the elastic clause) to the interstate commerce clause (thus creating a virtual Federal police power). In 1939 The Federal Security Agency was established as an umbrella agency for all Federal Government Social Welfare Programs: Office of Education (1867), Children’s Bureau (1912), National Youth Association— Dept. of Labor (Stewart). However, from 1941 to 1945 World War II interfered with the operation, draining the budget of the Federal Security Act, Government attention, and even personnel. Nevertheless, by 1950, the FSA became a grant-making agency distributing funds to state and local school systems and became the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1953 (Stewart).
The 1960s marked an Era of massive resistance to social change, as the Civil Rights Movement had opened up federal policy to women and minorities and the election of Nixon marked the resistance to the continued development of federal welfare efforts since the New Deal (Stewart). In the wake of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the onset of a second social Reconstruction, Federal Welfare Agencies finally drafted the rules and regulations needed to enforce the social justice legislation passed by congress. However, the 1980s launched the culture wars characterized by a resistance to teaching black history and women’s history, a call for return of traditional American values, and cuts in federal spending that heavily impacted education nationally (Stewart).
The Department of Education under Reagan heavily criticized American Public Education in general, laying the foundation for the dismantling of public schools. Such is seen years later in 2002 when ESEA is reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act, dismantling traditional public schools into becoming charter schools. Under President Obama, the Race to Top Program (2009) and Common Core Standards (2010) were established in favor of more progressive educational initiatives. Unfortunately, the every Student Succeeds Act (2015) was a triumph for conservatives as the latest reauthorization of ESEA in favor of all federal mandates in education, converting the Department of Education from program based funding that carries rules and requirements into Block Grants that give states discretion to use federal funding as they see it. Additionally, a recent bill was introduced by Rep. Massie in 2017 to Abolish the Federal Department of Education (Thomas Massie). While the Department of Education is responsible for establishing policy, administering and coordinating federal assistance to education, the The California Department of Education (CDE) and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction are responsible for enforcing these education laws and regulations. The CDE oversees public education statewide as an agency funded by the Department of Education to support educational initiatives within the state of California across districts. It supports reform and the improvement of public elementary school programs, secondary school programs, adult education, some preschool programs, and child care programs responsible for the education of more than seven million students in over 9,000 schools in California (California Department of Education). Within the few hours spent over the course of four days combing through JSTOR Articles, it was very difficult to find the history of either the California Department of Education or the Los Angeles Office of Education to any extent (especially predating the 2000s). However, it led me to an article published by the University of Minnesota Press entitled “Making Suburbia: New Histories of Everyday America”. In this article, John Archer tells a compelling history regarding the divestment from public schools in Pasadena, traced through the membership of city clubs. Though Brown V. Board (1954) and the Civil Rights Act (1964) were passed decades prior, it wasn't until the 1970s that Pasadena took on the task of desegregation. Archer describes the racialized history of Pasadena, especially with regard to court mandated desegregation of public schools by bussing between the years of 1970- 1974 (Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. Spangler). As desegregation progressed in spite of multiple appeals from the Pasadena City Board of Education, White Flight from public schools began to take place, expressed largely by the decline in membership in PTAs from 14,000+ to 8,248. Meanwhile, private schools (described by the author as “privatization of segregation”) saw a great increase in participation and investment. This has since been the case and these establishments have largely evaded the whims of Pasadena Unified School District, ultimately mandated by the Los Angeles Office of Education. These private schools have also maintained their segregated makeup geographically. Altadena, historically Black and Hispanic residential population following The Altadena Open Housing Covenant in the 1950s is located above Woodbury St; a well-known racial boundary and evident city line separating Altadena from Pasadena. The 17 nationally-ranked private schools that became the destination of White Flight after bussing are subsequently below Woodbury and in greater proximity to affluent white neighborhoods.
The MIT Press published an article entitled “The Availability and Transparency of Education Data in California” that details the development and the CDE with regard to their educational data system for the purpose of availability and transparency of data. Janet Hansen states that the standards and accountability movement of the 1980s and 90s helped facilitate the shift from school processes to school outcomes which helped to elicit the development of educational data (Hansen). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) furthered this process by requiring detailed information that state education systems were not previously structured about students, teachers, districts, and test scores. In 2005, The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program granted The California Department of Education a $3.255 million grant to develop the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) (Hansen).
California Dreaming: Reforming Mathematics Education published by the Yale University Press also details some of the happenings in the CDE between the 980s and 90s. In accordance with their systematic transition to school outcomes, Bill Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction, and his staff worked to change testing, teacher preparation, and curricular materials toward their goal. In the meantime, the CDE suffered approximately 200 position cuts in the late 1980s (Wilson). Wilson adds this change was also characterized by a change in California’s teaching of mathematics, as the conceptuals views were exchanged for new emerging views that mathematics should reflect more conceptual understanding than facts in order to change the outcome of students’ performance; specifically to address the disparities for women and minority students (Wilson).
In Altadena, only 36% of third grade students are meeting or exceeding California Standards for English, arts, and literacy; 4% below the Los Angeles County average and 44% below the best performing city or community (LA County Department of Public Health). This is notable because while the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is the largest school system in the state and the second largest in the country, the Pasadena School Unified District (PSUD) covers K-12 education across Altadena and Pasadena. The LAUSD has an extensive history of resistance to educational progressivism that contributes to its poor performance and struggles with issues such as overcrowding, budget cuts, poor security and maintenance of school buildings, administrative issues, and diversity. For the PSUD to perform below the County average with nearly $30,000 more in median income is a testament to their divestment from public schooling.
Consistent with administrative efforts to dismantle the provisions of the Department of Education, conservative arguments maintain a dissension from public schooling through further investment in private and charter schools. One article by the Heritage Foundation, entitled “School Choice Lets Parents Pick Safer Schools” supports this view on the matter. Research associate Jude Schwalbach asserts that parents’ decision to put their children in charter schools instead of local public schools is reflective of their growing concern for their children’s safety. Schwalbach consults a 2017 Gallup Survey found that three in 10 parents are concerned for their children’s safety in public schools where students have been victim to physical violence or injury (Schwalbach). For this purpose, charter schools are the efficient middle ground between the federally mandated public schools and privately supported private schools. These schools are Independently run, but must meet standards outlined in their charter in order to secure state funding; giving states more autonomy over curriculum. Through charter schools, parents are able to choose a school independent of the school district at their discretion, without the burden of tuition or entrance exams.
While this seems like the most feasible solution to inadequate public schooling, it doesn’t present itself as a viable option for parents without the time or transportation necessary to send their children to schools other than their local private schools; leaving some students without investment in adequate schooling. Additionally, while charter schools give states more autonomy over educational standards, it is reflective of the conservative efforts to put more power in state governments beyond federal oversight. This could result in the educational standards for one state being drastically more conservative or progressive than another, causing further divide within the national consensus of educational standards and directly undercuts the provisions of the Department of Education itself. Lastly, the implications of crime within communities typically correlates with its poverty rate. It can be inferred from the survey the possibility that the violent behavior among students is reflective of communities impacted by the social implications of poverty, which should be the ultimate object of eradication before abandoning public schools.
The Brookings Institute published an article entitled “Charter School Growth Puts Fiscal Pressure on Traditional Public Schools” voicing these investment concerns. Authors Helen Ladd and John Singleton explain fiscal externalities as the additional burden that charter schools place on the budgets of traditional school districts, manifesting themselves in higher local tax burdens and, “reducing the likelihood of spending per pupil on educational services–and hence lower educational quality–for students who remain in the district’s traditional public schools” (Ladd). In other words, funding that would otherwise be given to public schools are being diverted by the increasing presence of charter schools as seen consequently in North Carolina and New York. Their magnitudes and overall impact on the budget for local education and the quality of education depends on how much the states fund charter schools relative to traditional public schools and how much of the funding comes from local revenue sources. An appropriate policy response would be for the state educational department to provide transitional/financial aid to smooth or mitigate revenue losses for school districts in proportion to the rapid expansion of local charters (Ladd).
The California Department of Education is the agency responsible for addressing this need for policy response. CDE offers specialized programs such as the CA Equity Performance and Improvement Program as a solution. This program provides funding over the span of a twoyear grant period to support and build capacity within county offices of education (COEs), local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to promote equity and narrow achievement gaps in California schools (California Department of Education). A resource from this program is Black Minds Matter: Supporting the Educational Success of Black Children in California that calls on policymakers, education leaders, and all Californians to prioritize the equity-based changes that California’s Black students deserve (West). The California Department of Education is also responsible for funding provisions such as the Local Control Funding Formula Overview that establishes uniform grade span grants in place of the myriad of previously existing K–12 funding streams, including revenue limits, general purpose block grants, and most state categorical programs for school districts (California Department of Education); offering local schools within the PSUD an opportunity to recover financial aid that will be in proportion to the state investment in charter schools and private endowments funded by the community to support private schools.
In my opinion, access to quality public school education and adequate learning resources can offset the persistence of poverty in my community. While the Pasadena and Altadena populations have a higher amount of income per capita than Los Angeles County itself, Altadena public schools and Pasadena independent schools suffer from a divestment in public school education, brought about by White Flight after court mandated bussing to private schools and the recent pressure of fiscal externalities added by the rapid growth of charter schools. Poor regional educational attainment in Altadena can characterize a decline of opportunity and persistently low socioeconomic status that enables poverty for its historically Black and Hispanic populations. The California Department of Education can ameliorate this by implementing special programs to narrow achievement gaps and contribute to local funding provisions for the Pasadena Unified School District to ensure that public and independent schools within the district have enough funding to perform as well as their neighboring private and charter schools, ensuring that students do not remain grade levels behind their peers in academically and have the same attainment probabilities for higher education.