The coronavirus will explode achievement gaps in education
This blog post was originally posted on shelterforce.org.
The COVID-19 pandemic will take existing academic achievement differences between middle-class and low-income students and explode them.
The academic achievement gap has bedeviled educators for years. In math and reading, children of college-educated parents score on average at about the 60th percentile, while children whose parents have only a high school diploma score, on average, at the 35th percentile.* The academic advantages of children whose parents have master’s degrees and beyond are even greater.
To a significant extent, this is a neighborhood issue—schools are more segregated today than at any time in the last 50 years, mostly because the neighborhoods in which they are located are so segregated. Schools with concentrated populations of children affected by serious socioeconomic problems are able to devote less time and attention to academic instruction.
In 2001 we adopted the “No Child Left Behind Act,” assuming that these disparities mostly stemmed from schools’ failure to take seriously a responsibility to educate African American, Hispanic, and lower-income students. Supporters claimed that holding educators accountable for test results would soon eliminate the achievement gap. Promoted by liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, the theory was ludicrous, and the law failed to fulfill its promise. The achievement gap mostly results from social-class based advantages that some children bring to school and that others lack, as well as disadvantages stemming from racial discrimination that only some children have to face.
The coronavirus, unfortunately, will only exacerbate the effects of these advantages.
Congress should immediately pass legislation protecting workers’ safety during the coronavirus pandemic
Key takeaways:
- Working people should not have to wait for a fourth recovery bill for vital, lifesaving protections, while corporations have received $450 billion in aid with no strings attached.
- The federal government should take on the role of “payroll of last resort,” as some other nations have done, in order to keep working people on the payroll with access to health care.
- The “phase four” recovery bill should contain enhanced protections for all workers performing essential work during this crisis, such as providing personal protective equipment, hazard pay, whistleblower protections, and bolstered collective bargaining rights.
Since March 8, Congress has passed three bills allocating trillions of dollars to relief and recovery measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic. These bills included some important provisions for workers hurt by the pandemic. Chief among those are funding for expanded unemployment insurance, increased access to paid sick leave for some workers, and funding for the airline industry to keep paying workers and covering their benefits. However, direct aid to workers was a small percentage of the overall funding in these relief and recovery measures. Much of the money included in these bills went directly to corporate interests. For example, the CARES Act included $450 billion in aid to impacted firms with virtually no strings attached. Instead of requiring firms receiving this bailout money to maintain pre-pandemic payroll levels, wages, and benefits, the language in the bill requires that such worker protections be provided “to the greatest extent practicable.” This is toothless language that does not require employers to use this taxpayer money to keep workers employed.
The airline industry relief funding was the only example of financial assistance with a serious string attached—requiring relief funds to be used explicitly for the “continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits.” However, the Trump administration seems to be playing politics with the implementation of this program. It is unfortunate if not unpredictable that the sole program that provided a subsidy for workers’ wages and benefits is now the source of a political battle that jeopardizes its efficacy.
A comprehensive U.S. manufacturing policy is needed now more than ever
Twelve years ago, we warned that:
-
- The increasing dependence of U.S. defense systems on foreign suppliers is alarming, especially, it might be argued, in a post-September 11 world…What happens when supply routes, for example, anywhere across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, are disrupted?
These warnings could not be more relevant today as we experience devastating disruptions in our supply chains across virtually every industry sector due to the growing COVID-19 crisis. Essential medical supplies are impacted as we struggle to combat the coronavirus pandemic.
The U.S. commercial industrial base is particularly threatened by excessive reliance on outsourcing without regard to possible downsides. Aerospace, which contributes heavily to gross domestic product (GDP) with almost 500,000 U.S. jobs, has been outsourcing production for many years to repeated protests from the Machinists Union, among others. Fifty years ago, U.S. commercial airplanes were mostly produced in the U.S. Now, a much larger percentage of aircraft is outsourced—with an estimated 70% of the Boeing 787 production being outsourced.
Of course, it is not just aerospace and related products that are outsourced. The U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry has declined dramatically, along with other fundamental industries like machine tools. We are now more dependent on other countries for these items—along with countless others—than ever before.
Do Black economists matter?: The media erasure of Black economic voices hurts the communities hardest hit by the pandemic and society at large
The voices of Black economists have been largely absent from the recent media coronavirus coverage. Over the past month, for example, The New York Times, which has become one of the primary sources for economic insights about the pandemic, published 29 articles between opinion editorials and The Upshot mentioning the words “economist” and “coronavirus” between March 9 and April 9. Out of the 29 articles listed, just one was authored by a Black journalist, and only three addressed the racial inequities with respect to COVID-19. Given the high demand for economists’ insights, between the opinion page and The Upshot, 42 economists were either cited or co-authoring a piece. Among the 42, not a single Black economist was cited or was a contributor to an article despite the fact that some are addressing mobile payments to workers, solutions to the widening racial-wealth gap, and the pandemic’s impact on marginalized communities.
Black economists have long been ignored by the economics profession and media. Sadie T.M. Alexander, the first African American economist, could not practice after she earned a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania in 1921 because of racism and sexism. And recently, the American Economic Association began addressing its race problem beginning with a professional climate survey that showed a 56-percentage-point-difference between Blacks and non-Blacks with respect to feeling that race was respected in the profession and nearly half of Black respondents cited that they felt discriminated against because of race. One respondent went so far as to share that they would not recommend their Black children go into economics and that they made a mistake in choosing the field.
This is not the first crisis in which Black economists have been ignored by their colleagues and the media. Before the 2008 financial downturn, Black communities were experiencing early signs of waning unemployment and housing market devastation with respect to subprime loans and predatory lenders. William Spriggs, an economist at Howard University, told Quartz that underrepresented minority economists noticed these trends early on but their notes of alarm were barely amplified and were, quite frankly, ignored. Janet Yellen, former Chair of the Federal Reserve Board has since gone on record to recognize how the lack of diversity at the Board contributed to the severity of the crisis and the ineffectual nature of responses to it. The problem hasn’t gotten better, however. The Federal Reserve Board has hired only one Black woman out of its team of 406 economists, which is why there was a slew of coverage about its lack of diversity in 2019.
Relief efforts need to do more to protect older workers in a coronavirus economic shutdown
Key takeaways:
- The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, signed into law last month, and earlier policy responses to the pandemic are steps in the right direction but don’t do enough to protect workers, including older workers, who are at much greater risk from COVID-19.
- Older workers who lose their jobs face harsh consequences. They have less time to make up for lost earnings and savings before retirement. Many have trouble being hired and retire before they’re ready. They’re often forced to accept large pay cuts because some skills and knowledge they’ve built up aren’t transferable and may be undervalued by prospective employers.
- While older workers are less likely to work in the hard-hit leisure and hospitality industries, many are employed in other sectors and occupations that could see large job losses, including public-sector occupations.
- Expanding access to paid sick and family leave is critical to the safety and well-being of older workers and their families, as are stronger health and safety protections for workers.
- The CARES Act makes some necessary changes to paid leave and unemployment insurance programs, but these reforms need to be made permanent or automatically extended as long as economic conditions warrant.
- Older workers with inadequate health and safety protections who stop working because they’re at higher risk of serious consequences from COVID-19 should be eligible for paid leave and unemployment benefits.
- Work-sharing programs that encourage employers to reduce hours rather than resort to layoffs would especially help older workers.
(This is part one of a two-part series of posts on the impact of the coronavirus on older workers and what needs to be done to mitigate the economic shock to this group.)
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, signed into law last month, and earlier policy responses to the pandemic are steps in the right direction but don’t do enough to protect workers, including older workers, who are at much greater risk from COVID-19.
Older workers ages 65 and older, though not those ages 55–64, are less likely to be able to work from home than most other workers; only workers ages 15–24 are less able to telecommute. These older workers—many of whom are on the front lines—are at much higher risk of dying or suffering serious consequences from COVID-19 than their younger counterparts.
Personal care aides are among the low-paid and high-risk occupations with a disproportionate share of older workers (personal care aides are also overwhelmingly women and disproportionately people of color and immigrants). Older workers are also somewhat more likely than their younger counterparts to be employed in hospitals and nursing homes. (Unless otherwise noted, all references to older workers’ employment shares are based on the author’s analysis of 2015–2017 American Community Survey microdata for workers ages 55–64.)
The federal response to the pandemic has so far done little to protect the health of older workers and others facing greater risk from exposure to the virus, who are faced with a daily choice between risking their lives and losing their livelihoods. Low-paid workers in particular are not only less able to work from home, they’re also more likely to rely on public transportation and share close living quarters, heightening the risk of contagion for themselves and their families.
The next coronavirus relief package must include funding to safeguard our democracy: Voting by mail and online voting must be considered
An essential component of any “phase four” coronavirus relief and recovery package must be additional investments to protect our right to vote. Lawmakers must act now to establish safe, alternative voting methods—like vote-by-mail and online voting—especially before November’s general election.
The CARES Act included $400 million in “election security grants” to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus domestically for the 2020 federal election cycle. This is far less than fair election advocates argued was necessary to protect our elections during the pandemic. The Brennan Center for Justice, for example, released a plan calling for a $2 billion investment to ensure that the 2020 election is free, fair, accessible, and secure.
As more states explore alternative ways of casting ballots, Congress must provide resources responsive to the magnitude of the challenge. A failure to provide sufficient investments to safeguard elections is the most successful effort at voter suppression and disenfranchisement since the expansion of the franchise. We must demand investment in our democracy infrastructure and more voting options.
States continue to see record-high levels of initial unemployment insurance claims, including in the South
Key takeaways:
- Twenty-eight states had record numbers of unemployment insurance (UI) filings last week. The remaining states had their record high in one of the previous two weeks.
- California, Georgia, Michigan, New York, and Texas had the most claims last week.
- Southern states didn’t initially lose jobs as quickly as other states, because they were slow to implement social distancing measures. Now, however, they are experiencing this unprecedented job loss particularly acutely.
- The federal government should take on the costs of keeping workers on the payroll and provide substantially more funding to state and local governments.
Another 6.6 million people filed initial unemployment insurance (UI) claims last week, continuing the upending of the labor market we have seen in response to the coronavirus pandemic. According to seasonally adjusted data released yesterday morning by the Department of Labor, over the last three weeks, 16.8 million—over one in 10—workers have filed for UI. As the labor market is disrupted, so are the lives of millions of workers across the country.
Last week, 28 states saw a record number of initial UI filings, with the rest of the states experiencing their high point during one of the prior two weeks. While many states saw a slight decline in UI claims compared with the prior week, the number of claims filed this week is still staggeringly high. In the four weeks between March 7 and April 4, over two million Californians and one million Pennsylvanians filed UI claims.
At least $500 billion more in coronavirus aid is needed for state and local governments by the end of 2021
- States and localities are already announcing severe budget shortfalls due to the coronavirus shock.
- The recently passed CARES Act allocated $150 billion to help state and local governments respond to the coronavirus, but this amount does not come close to what’s needed.
- We estimate that at least $500 billion more aid will be needed by the end of 2021 to prevent state and local budget cuts that hamper the economy after the public health crisis ends.
Congress has provided multiple rounds of relief to state and local governments in legislation responding to the economic shock of the coronavirus, but much more will be needed by these governments in coming years. We estimate that roughly $500 billion more will be needed by the end of 2021 to keep state and local governments from becoming a significant drag on economic recovery after the public health crisis passes.
The recently passed CARES Act allocated $150 billion to help state and local governments grapple with the costs of responding to COVID-19. But this amount does not come close to what is needed to address the severity and likely duration of the public health and economic crises. As economic activity has collapsed, it has triggered a dramatic downturn in state and local revenues even apart from new spending demands imposed by the coronavirus. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required by law or constitution to balance their budgets. As revenues decline because of lower incomes and reduced spending, state and local governments face serious fiscal constraints, often leading to budget cuts that further depress demand in the economy.
Already, states and localities are announcing austerity measures and severe budget shortfalls exactly when public spending is most critical—both for protecting workers and for priming the economy for a rapid bounceback when the shutdown ends. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has proposed an across-the-board 20% budget cut; New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli estimated tax revenue would be between $4 billion and $7 billion below projections for fiscal year 2020; Arkansas’s projected revenue decline is more than double the size of the state’s reserves; and California is projected to spend down its sizable cash reserves in mere months, despite previously being on track to build the largest cash reserve in its history of more than $20 billion.
Local governments are announcing severe revenue shortfalls, too: This week, Arlington County, Virginia, announced a shortfall of $56 million for FY 2021, and cities like Seattle and New Orleans are each projecting shortfalls of at least $100 million this year.
Clearly, the aid to state and local governments passed so far is not sufficient, and we estimate that at least $500 billion will be needed by the end of 2021. Here’s how we got to this number.
The Wild West: Gig workers on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic lack basic worker protections
In the safety of our homes, those of us lucky enough to be healthy and have disposable income are searching websites for the best food delivery options, clicking on the pad thai and pizza choices that will soon arrive at our door. We wash our hands after touching the delivery bag and enjoy our dinner in front of the latest Hulu or Netflix binge offering. But what about the Uber Eats driver who dropped off the food? Not only are these workers exposed to customers and restaurant workers who might be sick with COVID-19, but these workers lack paid sick leave, health care, or unemployment protections through their employer because Uber—as well as so many other companies we depend on right now, such as Instacart, Lyft, and Amazon—classifies many of its workers as independent contractors not entitled to regular employee benefits.
Right under our noses, every day, these men and women toil without any of the basic job safety or security protections we take for granted. Independent contracting is the Wild West of the workplace. No law applies. None. While lately, Uber, Lyft, and Amazon have been in the news for filling a critical role in delivering supplies to a homebound nation, until recently news on their employment practices has focused on lawsuits accusing them of misclassifying their workers as independent contractors. California has even passed a law, AB5, that would make sure these workers are considered employees with full protections, but the gig employers are defying the law and spending tens of millions of dollars to repeal it in a November referendum. Some gig employers defend their practices as simply a byproduct of the “gig” economy and a natural development from the greater use of technology. But in reality, this is just an old dog doing a new trick: These workers are clearly employees. The same regime applies to many other workers we interact with every day, from janitors to manicurists and hairstylists.
When the New Deal laws were drafted, few could have imagined the creativity of the American employer. At its inception, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires a minimum wage and time-and-a-half overtime pay, was written to apply only to “employees,” because no one anticipated how that term would be manipulated. But the FLSA helped set in motion the legal contortions used by employers today, by giving companies an avenue to pay less than the minimum wage and avoid overtime pay by insisting that their workers are independent contractors, not employees.
How can the U.S. get more transformative with its coronavirus-shock response? With payroll guarantees and an economic ‘deep freeze’ plan.
Since March 8, Congress has passed three bills to provide resources for health care and economic relief and recovery in response to the shock of the coronavirus. Yet more remains to be done. We should continue to make marginal improvements on the existing framework of response, but we should also think about how to move our policy response closer to the international best practices established by other countries.
At the heart of those best practices are payroll guarantees and a willingness to “deep freeze” the economy.
Other nations have shown greater social solidarity and a much keener recognition of just how different the coronavirus shock is from previous recessions. In essence, the public health response to the coronavirus has mandated an economic “sudden stop.” The challenge is giving households and businesses resources to live on during the shutdown (relief), while making an economic bounceback once the all-clear sounds as fast as possible (recovery).
One key ingredient in fostering a rapid recovery is preserving labor market matches between workers and their employers and allowing employers to continue paying fixed nonlabor costs during the shutdown period.