The Prison and Education Crises in California: Is There a Connection?
 

This story hit the CBC Radio headlines this morning:

The Associated Press: Judges weigh ordering release of Calif. prisoners

I've always been amazed at the prison population in the U.S. in general, but this is crazy. I then go to thinking why there are so many people in prison, and I came back to the thought I've always had: Problems with crime are partly related to problems in education.

There's this piece here:
Education budget cuts are not in California's interest

So California is slashing their public education system while trying to figure out how to solve the overpopulation of prisons. Is this not connected in any way? Is California dropping the ball on their social programs?

You will find studies here (Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California - Research) that reveal how crime prevention starts as early as pre-kindergarten. If the state slashes public education, what tends to go out the door are the valuable programs that help at-risk kids—kids who are victims of abuse and neglect. Teaching fundamentals is important, and should be left at the core despite budget concerns, but that's not the point here. The point is, California is letting the candle burn at both ends. They're not getting at-risk children the help they need via the education system and they're dealing with a prison population spiralling out of control.

Are the two not connected in any measure?

Not to be facetious, but: lack of education, child abuse, poverty...as causes of crime...WHO KNEW!?!

The question I have is: who is ultimately responsible for it all, anyone...no one?

I bet they'd see a significant reduction if they let out everyone who was in prison for possession of a controlled substance.

I am intrigued by your ideas, sir, and wonder if perhaps you have some sort of newsletter to which I could subscribe?

Amen.

Prisons in the United States are full because we put nonviolent offenders and the mentally ill where they don't belong, and we create said nonviolent offenders via our mandatory minimum laws. It's not just possession--there have been cases where women have been convicted of drug crimes because their husbands were selling drugs.

Oregon just voted yes on a crime measure that is going to cost us $150 million to fund, and the measure came with no direction as to where that money is supposed to come from, therefore it must come from the general fund. This crime measure is meant to punish nonviolent offenders, such as those committing ID theft and meth-related crimes, and proscribes mandatory minimum sentences for such crimes. I voted no, because I am tired of living in a state where we spend more on prisons than we do on education, and tired of living in a state where we pack our prisons full of people who do not belong there--be they nonviolent offenders or the mentally ill.

Where do they belong, then? We need to establish some kind of rehabilitation program for these nonviolent offenders, and we need to create a space for mentally ill offenders who do not belong in the general prison population. We also need to take a serious look at how we educate our children so that we're not creating more delinquents via our educational system.

By sending these people to prison and then releasing them, we are just creating more of a problem. If we want people to learn how to live a good life and follow the law, why do we pack them into a place full of people who don't know how to do either? A lot of how we behave is taught to us by those around us--we act the way the situation dictates. By sending these people to prison, we're just reinforcing bad habits and not teaching them anything new. This is true of the way we run the education system too--we have a tiered system where the kids who behave and perform well end up in classes with other kids who behave and perform well, while the kids who do poorly and behave poorly end up in classes with other kids who do the same. If we structured classes so that a few poorly behaved kids were in a class where the bulk of the kids were well-behaved, the modeled behavior would rub off. Instead, we basically tell kids who perform and behave poorly in school that they're second-class citizens and must all stick together in a lesser classroom where they are more likely to be taught by a bad teacher (I'm really tired of running into this phenomenon as a substitute aide). What are we doing? We're setting up kids to see themselves as second-class citizens and act that way for the rest of their lives.

Our current educational system is not an answer to the societal woes that end up with these inflated prison populations, and our current justice system does more harm than good when it comes to dealing with nonviolent offenders. We test our kids to the point that we teach to the test and do little to teach them anything beyond the information they need to pass said test, and we test our kids to the point that they become a test score instead of a student. It's dehumanizing! No wonder we have problems.

How do we fix this? Well, the fundamental problem is the system itself, not the funding. All the money in the world won't fix the system that causes these problems, unfortunately. We have to make sweeping changes to both the educational and justice systems. I doubt that's likely to happen, though.

Arg, Snowy beat me to it. Well said!

i agree with most of what you said... but I have some disagreement/conflict with this. Prison isn't meant just for non-violent offenders. It's a place for criminals. Yeah it sucks for the white collar embezzler to be sharing a bunk with a rapist or murderer, but then they shouldn't have been embezzling.

meth-related crimes is pretty vague... are we talking about selling or using? or stealing/mugging/whatever in order to get the money to pay for their meth habit? i think we should be decriminalizing drug use, but i feel no sympathy nor do i think we should go easy on the dealers.

and ID theft may be non-violent, but it's a pretty horrendous crime. i've never had it happen to me, but i can imagine that it causes victims to lose some of their sense of security, and cause them a lot of pain and trouble to get their shit back together. how many people have lost a loan because of someone else screwing up their credit? (not that that should mean they should be punished extra hard or anything, just that it's not a victimless crime). really, the only difference between mugging someone (violent crime) and ID theft (non-violent crime) is that the latter lets you mug someone from anywhere in the world.

i think drug users should get rehab, not jail. and there are other victimless crimes that are worthy of reduced sentences or an alternative to jail. i think seperating violent criminals from non-violent ones in prison is a good idea. seperate those who could be rehabilitated from those who can't (which isn't based on whether the crime was violent or not). but don't go easy on those who cause harm to others, just because it's non-violent.

This works both ways. There are plenty of classrooms where a few poorly-behaved students make learning difficult for the rest of the class. Policy often prevents them from being expelled, and with lack of resources there's nowhere else for them to go. Part of California's education problems stem from excessive focus on the worst-performing students, while ignoring the better-performing ones. Educators fight tooth and nail to keep the difficult students in school, and in doing so allow them to drag down those students who are willing to work hard and who, given a proper learning environment, would be able to succeed.

Ideally, there would be enough money to serve the needs of all students, but unless that happens schools have to decide which kids to neglect. I think our reluctance to leave anyone behind is causing us to allocate effort and money where it is least effective. Why keep one bad student in school, barely scraping by, when it results in reduced opportunites/success/hope for those students who are disadvantaged, but willing to put in the effort? It may seem callous, but sometimes the best thing to do is walk away from a lost cause and put your effort where it will do some good.

I'm still waiting to see how the government has the power to enforce the CSA without a constitutional amendment. I'm also still waiting to see why 80% of the population is not up in arms with the US house of representatives demanding the rescind that illegal power.

dk...what is unconstitutional about the Controlled Substances Act...assuming that is the CSA you have in mind?
-----Added 6/12/2008 at 10 : 29 : 35-----
On the issue of prison funding and education....IMO, it falls under the notion of "you can pay me now or pay me later"

If more funding were committed to education now, particularly early childhood education, the necessity for more funding for prisons would likely decrease later.

It took a constitutional amendment for the federal government to ban the sale, manufacture, and transportation of a substance. Because that failed, for obvious reasons, instead of trying to abide by their restrictions and make another amendment, the courts have been complicit in allowing the government to bypass their prescribed restrictions and greatly expanded their power by upholding simple laws to control substances. This is why the CSA is unconstitutional. At least in my opinion it is. I know there are many others who will never see it that way because the 'living document' theory is too ingrained in their thinking.


I disagree. I'm nothing more than a high school graduate. Never attended a single day of college. I make decent money in the IT field without ever having taken a class, course, or certification exam for any subject in my field.....but most importantly.....I AM NOT IN PRISON!!!!!!!

so tell me why I should pay extra taxes so that someone who chose to attempt an easy lifestyle of stealing other peoples property can get a college education?

dc_dux said nothing about more funding for higher education in his post. He said we should spend more money on early childhood education (which is preschool/similar programs), which is fine and dandy on the one hand, but on the other, we should put more money into higher education so that the children in early childhood ed can have the best teachers possible at one of the most critical learning junctures in their lives.

He's saying that if we give people good educations and teach them to be good citizens starting at the earliest possible age, we'll end up with lower prison populations over the long-term, regardless of whether or not they go on to higher education.

It's like building a house--if you don't give the house a strong foundation, and it starts to fall, it doesn't really matter what the roof is like, does it? You've got to start from the ground up, which means starting with early childhood education.

so, in other words, we want to throw money at the problem? Kind of like those IBM commercials about 7 years ago?

there is no need to throw more money at the problem. All of the fundamental pieces of 'equipment' are there for good education. Whats needed is good parenting to show why a good education is necessary. Parents need to encourage their children to take advantage of the education that is there.

One "piece of equipment" that is not there for millions of kids is a nutritious meal to start the day.

we didn't have that when I went to school. I ate breakfast at home. made it myself even. so THAT piece of equipment belongs at home.

so everything should be as you had it growing up? we shouldn't strive to do things better?

..

If you can actually propose something that does it better, i'm willing to listen. what the 'nutritious meal to start the day' is going to do is just remove responsibility from the parent. that doesn't make things better.

when parents can't afford to give their children nutritious breakfasts (because it's a lot easier for low income parents to buy sugary cereal or pop tarts, etc, than nutritious foods), having the system do it for them is better.

but it wasn't my point you were commenting on. and i couldn't really care about that particular issue. your comment seems to be that if it was good enough for you, it's good enough for everyone else. which is a bit of a bullshit statement.

There are numerous examples around the country that have demonstrated that greater upfront investments in early education, particularly to improve socialization and basic learning skills, supplemented by other education reforms in the K-12 years (ie smaller class sizes, more parent-teacher interaction, etc) have resulted in fewer drop-outs....and fewer drops-outs results in less crime, less welfare, less strain on the health care system, etc.
-----Added 6/12/2008 at 11 : 41 : 11-----
There is something wrong, and IMO, very short-sighted, with a system that invests more in prisons than schools, particularly when the evidence is compelling that greater investment in the latter could result in the need for less investment in the former over time.

I'm not saying that if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for them. I'm saying that they have the exact same opportunities to succeed that I did. I had a mother that worked 3 part time jobs, paid for a house, put me in school, and maintained a relation with the school to ensure I did what I needed to. I did my part by working 2 part time jobs to get money to buy my own school clothes and supplies AND graduate.

I had alot of disadvantages, not unlike alot of the current kids dropping out. If I can make it, they can too. It's all about taking the easiest route for them and if that is their choice, they deserve to deal with the consequences of their decisions.
-----Added 6/12/2008 at 11 : 53 : 04-----
welcome to the new america, 1929-current. the creation of the public school system was supposed to enhance education. The creation of the department of education was supposed to streamline and make more effective that same public school system. Higher taxes, charities, government programs...all created to enhance public education, yet look where it's gone? throwing even MORE money is going to fix it this time? not bloody likely.

You want to change the success/failure ratio of education? show the country what happens when you decide to give up.

dk...so the answer is to keep throwing more money into prisons?

I doubt anyone but prison owners or politicians would suggest throwing money at prisons. Liberals would want to make them public (and decriminalize marijuana and reduce sentencing for use of other narcotics) and conservatives would want them to be cheaper and private.

the first answer of relief would be stopping the 'war on drugs', which I still believe that congress has no power to prosecute constitutionally. That would remove alot of simple possession inmates. other BS crimes that result in prison sentences should be undone as well. We don't need to throw money at that kind of issue, do we?

My point was that the evidence from many objective studies is compelling that for the investment of every $1 in programs like Head Start (and other early education programs) and followed up with the other education reforms I mentioned (more teacher-parent interaction, small class size...), we save from $5-$10 in other program costs, including criminal justice, welfare, etc.
-----Added 7/12/2008 at 12 : 20 : 43-----
I dont know that its unconstitutional...but I do share the rest of your sentiments.

the creation of the public school system in our country was to get kids off farms and get them ready for industrialization.

earlier than that, school systems were focused on memorizing and recitation, skills viewed necessary to learn the tenants of religion and morals

our education system has only recently been understood as a place to enhance civil values; unless I'm mistaken that was one of the findings of the Warren Court.


critiques of the public education system argue it serves mainly to perpetuate the class system and that it merely acts as a gatekeeper to higher education, which in turn facilitates gatekeeping to managerial positions.

AFAIK, it's never been held that public primary schools are meant to enhance education, per se. that is, if you mean facilitate "learning" or training of minds for analytical thought. if you examine the things students learn, such as, coming to class on time, obeying authority, turning in assignments complete, and the value of personal achievement, you can see how everything up to the master's credentialing process can be understood as gearing students for whichever position in the economy they will ultimately land.

the only place that is believed to produce analytical thought based education is private institutions and doctorate programs...even doctorate programs are suspect, however, in that their goal is to limit one's paradigm to a particular school of thought rather than expand it. such is the process of indoctrination.

anyway, the other portions of your post I basically agree with...except your views on whether we should publicly provide for those who are either unable or unwilling to do so themselves. I have a hard time believing you were making your own breakfast in pre-school. dc_dux is not talking about middle school or high schoolers. the data he's talking about is mainly referring to pre-school students.

it tends to hold true as students age, but if you can't even agree that pre-schoolers deserve every opportunity then I think you're just being an ideologue for the sake of it. you're a smart enough guy, if you want to be opposed to something doesn't it behoove you to actually read up a bit on Head Start before denouncing it as a waste of public funds?


It's great to hear about your mother's dedication. My mother was the same way. I unfortunately ended up in prison for dealing drugs. I also am sitting here eating an omelette while taking a break from writing my dissertation. So what does that tell us about mine and your experience in relation to this discussion? Well, at a minimum it tells us that both of our life stories are examples of outliers.... anomalies. Neither of our anecdotes should be used in this discussion because they aren't going to be experienced by pretty much any other person out there with very, very, very few exceptions.

I didn't do pre-school. I grew up in a town of 3,000 people so we didn't have things like that. In our town, we went to kindergarten and the elementary. I got lucky in that I got taken to my grandmothers in the morning while my mother went to work. My grandmother made our breakfast for those years. I started fending for my own breakfast when I started 4th grade and went from there. In big city environments where something like that MIGHT be necessary, fine. I can see that having to happen (breakfast at school). I think that should be a local thing only. It would serve a community better based on its size instead of the state or federal gov mandating it.

except that schools are funded locally, so the school kids who are most likely to need a program like Head Start are the least likely to receive it if you leave it up to local funding.

likewise, if you see providing textbooks, pencil/paper, and adequate desks to schools as "throwing money at the situation" then the children who are most likely to be attending schools without them have no chance of obtaining them.

I don't understand how you lay that responsibility at the feet of either the children attending or the parents sending their kids to public schools. Does your version of rugged individualism include 10 year old students buying their own textbooks and standing in the back of class or else they aren't availing themselves of the opportunities given to them?

in towns like you described, populations around 3,000, schools don't have the funds to keep their doors open without outside money.
do you realize this is the current state of our public education system?

kids today do not have the same opportunities you did or I had growing up.
the economy has changed significantly. many small towns depended on factory labor, mills, assembly jobs, which are quickly evaporating. even among the parents who have the personal drive to work three jobs, there aren't three employers to hire them. even if it wasn't illegal to hire 10 year olds so they could pay for their own school supplies, how can they compete against adults who are currently seeking employment?

paper routes and mowing lawns is not going to earn enough for one $70 dollar textbook, let alone six of them. schools are not equipping their students with the bare essentials needed for basic learning, regardless of any poor choices they will make when they're teenagers.

many of these changes were happening when I was leaving high school, and I think I'm at least a few years younger than you. I don't understand how you can be aware of these issues and then argue it's primarily the kids' fault for their own failed education.


and here's the weird part to me: you're arguing that local funding should be the answer to this when the thread is about what happens when California (where I grew up and still reside) focuses its budget on prisons at the expense of education. so what exactly is your position? that eviscerating education funding at the state level to fund prisons is acceptable or stupid? I don't really care about your tax dollars, I want my state tax dollars to go toward education rather than prison, not the other way around.

edit: and btw, you have a lot of nerve as a Texan to say anything to a Californian about the War on Drugs and abiding by the feds controlled substance regulations. We, along with Alaska, Colorado, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Oregon decriminalized marijuana possession since the 1970s. I can't remember if Nevada recently joined us, but last I heard Texas was still off the charts punitive for even minor possession charges...as in decades in prison. We have a large system of alternative sentencing for drug abusers, what do you guys have? I don't know of anything... Unless you haven't been attention to any news or political talk shows, I can't understand how you'd be unaware that California is under heavy national scrutiny for it's current stance against the government's war on drugs in regards to medical marijuana.

I think you need to tone your rhetoric down when you're talking to Californians about drug laws and sentencing.

Maybe you're confusing or misunderstanding the funding issues i'm talking about. I'm not saying ALL the schools should fund themselves with strictly local funds. The state should supply funding for the material things, desks and books like you talked about. The 'breakfast' idea should be local funding.

I'm not native texan. I'm born and raised in Northern Illinois and even though the state of Texas is a major player in the war on drugs, my local reps know i'm against it and that I believe it's unconstitutional. I'm well aware of what states like Cali are trying to do and I support that, I just think that the states would be better off demanding that the feds and courts back off and start abiding by the commerce clause as it was meant to be instead of using it to control everything.

no man, there's no misunderstanding going on here.
your post is off-topic when you start railing against federal money going to schools in this thread

this thread is whether California should use its money for school funding or prisons

we all know your position on whether feds should be involved in anything state related...I'm really at a loss after what 5 years or more? that you think I would not understand that out of you by now.

but this situation isn't about whether anyone wants to use your money for California schools.
this thread is whether people think our governor is off his rocker when he diverts primary education funding to prison expansion
California dollars for two Californian problems

if you got something to say about that, I'm interested
but I'm not interested in your normal "local/state services should be locally/state funded" because here we're saying that our state dollars would be better invested in education than prison. got nothing at all to do with DC.

this isn't even about "throwing money" at a problem. it's not even asking for an increase in school funding. this is about taking money from the education budget because our prison population is exploding.

reducing money to education to pay for prisons that are growing
how is that not throwing money at the crime problem?


btw, your earlier statement was a bit off. Think about this if you will:
you said, hey, I went to school and I didn't go to prison
yeah, that's exactly the point: the correlation between people who go to school is that they don't go to prison

but in that same statement, you made the claim that schools shouldn't feed young children because you did fine with your problematic conditions
ok, here's the problem: we know that students who aren't probably rested and nourished do not do well in school.

so, yes if the fact that performing adequately in school is linked to staying in school is true
and if the fact that staying in school is linked to staying out of prison is true
and if the fact that being rested and nourished is linked to performing adequately in school is true

then it must be true that if we don't provide proper shelter and nourishment to school children, then we will have to fund them eventually in a form of a prison cell and three full meals.

that's the problem with what you were saying earlier from how I understand it.
it just doesn't logically or economically add up to be hard-line about it because the statistics are just not going to support the position that doing nothing, or worse reducing funding in education, is going to save money on the backend.

to get directly back on topic, it's probably a really bad idea to remove funds from education and push it to corrections. I'm sure that there are other extremely wasteful areas that money could be taken from instead.

Arg.

Politicians should have a mandatory Sociology 101 course.

These guys put one out you might find interesting-

Leap