Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools

by Jonathan Kozol

NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • “An impassioned book, laced with anger and indignation, about how our public education system scorns so many of our children.”—The New York Times Book Review In 1988, Jonathan Kozol set off to spend time with children in the American public education system. For two years, he visited schools in neighborhoods across the country, from Illinois to Washington, D.C., and from New York to San Antonio. He spoke with teachers, principals, superintendents, and, most important, children. What he found was devastating. Not only were schools for rich and poor blatantly unequal, the gulf between the two extremes was widening—and it has widened since. The urban schools he visited were overcrowded and understaffed, and lacked the basic elements of learning—including books and, all too often, classrooms for the students. In Savage Inequalities, Kozol delivers a searing examination of the extremes of wealth and poverty and calls into question the reality of equal opportunity in our nation’s schools. Praise for Savage Inequalities “I was unprepared for the horror and shame I felt. . . . Savage Inequalities is a savage indictment. . . . Everyone should read this important book.”—Robert Wilson, USA Today “Kozol has written a book that must be read by anyone interested in education.”—Elizabeth Duff, Philadelphia Inquirer “The forces of equity have now been joined by a powerful voice. . . . Kozol has written a searing exposé of the extremes of wealth and poverty in America’s school system and the blighting effect on poor children, especially those in cities.”—Emily Mitchell, Time “Easily the most passionate, and certain to be the most passionately debated, book about American education in several years . . . A classic American muckraker with an eloquent prose style, Kozol offers . . . an old-fashioned brand of moral outrage that will affect every reader whose heart has not yet turned to stone.”—Entertainment Weekly

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Sociology, Social Justice, Politics, Teaching, History

274 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 1, 1991

About the author

Jonathan Kozol is a non-fiction writer, educator, and activist best known for his work towards reforming American public schools. Upon graduating from Harvard, he received a Rhodes scholarship. After returning to the United States, Kozol became a teacher in the Boston Public Schools, until he was fired for teaching a Langston Hughes poem. Kozol has held two Guggenheim Fellowships, has twice been a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation, and has also received fellowships from the Field and Ford Foundations. Most recently, Kozol has founded and is running a non-profit called Education Action. The group is dedicated to grassroots organizing of teachers across the country who wish to push back against NCLB and the most recent Supreme Court decision on desegregation, and to help create a single, excellent, unified system of American public schools.

Reviews

[Lobstergirl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Two cases of mothers lying about where they reside in order to get their young children into better school districts have made news recently. In Ohio in January, Kelley Williams-Bolar was sentenced to 10 days in county jail and three years probation for enrolling her children in the Copley-Fairlawn School District rather than Akron, where she lived. "School officials said she was cheating because her daughters received a quality education without paying taxes to fund it," said an ABC article. "Those dollars need to stay home with our students," said officials with the Copley-Fairlawn district, which went to the trouble and expense of hiring a private investigator to film the mother driving her children into the district. They demanded she pay $30,000 in back tuition, for four years of schooling. When she refused, she was indicted.

In Connecticut in April, Tanya McDowell, a homeless single mother from Bridgeport, is being charged with larceny and conspiracy for enrolling her 5-year old son in Norwalk schools, fraudulently using a friend's address. If convicted, she could face 20 years in prison.

Jonathan Kozol wrote Savage Inequalities twenty years ago, but obviously its lessons haven't taken hold. Kozol described the vast funding disparities between rich and poor school districts in America, due to the way public education is primarily (or initially) funded by local real estate taxes. Local taxes on the value of homes and businesses in the district form the base of per-student funding. "In the wealthiest districts, this is frequently enough to operate an adequate school system," writes Kozol. In poor districts, because the properties are worth less, tax revenues will be inadequate and the state is supposed to kick in sufficient funds to raise the amount to a level approximately equal to the richest districts. In practice, this rarely happens, which is why schools in rich districts are lavishly equipped, teacher salaries are much higher, class sizes are smaller, textbooks are plentiful and up to date, athletic facilities are abundant, libraries are full of books, bathrooms are clean, and students white. In poor districts the opposite is true.

Kozol tells tale after tale of deprivation. A 16-year-old South Bronx student in 1990 "is facing final exams, but, because the school requires students to pass in their textbooks one week prior to the end of the semester, he is forced to study without math and English texts." Another student says, "Most of the students in this school won't go to college. Many of them will join the military. If there's a war, we have to fight. Why should I go to war and fight for opportunities I can't enjoy - for things rich people value, for their freedom, but I do not have that freedom and I can't go to their schools?" He writes of science classes with no lab equipment, bathroom stalls with no doors, classrooms with leaking ceilings, playgrounds covered in broken glass, schools next door to factories belching dangerous levels of pollution. Bad teachers who are unwanted in better off schools are unloaded onto worse schools. Everything conspires against equality, and of course the children are the ones who are made to suffer.

Kozol reminds me of Howard Zinn in the way he sees neutrality on an issue as pointless, even detrimental. The worlds that Kozol and Zinn looked at aren't neutral places. Power structures and systemic inequality are already in place; children are born into them. The question is, do we do anything to ameliorate these inequalities, or not? Money doesn't solve education inequities, is a constant refrain of conservatives, wealthier school districts, some reformers, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. "Throwing" more money at poor, poorly-performing districts wouldn't do much if anything to improve them, they argue. Yet if anyone suggests redistributing school funds - taking money from rich districts and giving it to poor districts - the screaming, moaning and wailing reach a fever pitch. So it seems money does matter for rich districts, just not for poor ones. "Local control" is another buzzterm for keeping rich districts rich and poor districts poor.

Kozol quotes President George H.W. Bush (a product of the very expensive Phillips Andover Academy) weighing in on education spending:

More spending on public education, said the president, isn't "the best answer." Mr. Bush went on to caution parents of poor children who see money "as a cure" for education problems. "A society that worships money...," said the president, "is a society in peril."

Paradoxically, Kelley Williams-Bolar and other parents like her are almost always paying taxes at a higher rate than their wealthier neighbors, notes Kozol (despite the school district's contention that Williams-Bolar was "cheating because her daughters received a quality education without paying taxes to fund it.") Poor, inner city residents pay at higher rates, but less of what they pay goes to education, because so much of it goes to services like police and fire protection.

Every American ought to read this book. Whether or not you have children, whether or not they attend public school, whether or not you pay real estate taxes, you ought to read this book. Published 20 years ago, it remains profoundly relevant. It informs current debates about education reform; it ought to inform our opinions about the Michelle Rees and Wendy Kopps of the world. (Ree is the lavishly praised, reformist former head of D.C. public schools, Kopp the lavishly praised, reformist creator of Teach for America. Ree is now under something of a cloud for unsubstantiated claims on her resume and for a D.C. testing scandal; Kopp has never really been able to substantiate with hard statistics all of the media praise TFA has gotten.) Children who fail in school, who fail to learn, who drop out, have fewer and fewer jobs and opportunities available to them. Increasingly they end up in prison, where they cost us more than if we'd just spent the money to give them a safe school and a decent education. Even if you care nothing about education you ought to read this book because the way we treat children, whether ours or anyone else's, defines who we are as humans.

[Cindy Rollins · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took me four months to read this book. It was just hard to read the realities of the poor in America and not feeling like anything had changed in 25 years. While I do believe this is a must-read for anyone at all interested in education in America, I am not sure at all what the solutions are. One thought is that the whole system is corrupt, inevitably so, that it should just be tanked and Americans should take responsibilty for educating our children. Could children be any worse off in our schools than they are now? Kozol does point out that there is no constitutional right to education. Maybe the Government IS the problem. This is not what Kozol would say but his only answer seems to be complete equalization which is fraught with insurmountable problems as he clearly illustrates.

I agree with Kozol that our schools need more money, even while also agreeing with others that money is not the final answer. I am constantly in shock over how little money my own child's public school has. It DOES send a message to our children when they are made to go to school but so little beauty surrounds them. Where is the money? I assume it is being misspent by top-heavy district infrastructure.

At this point, maybe it is up to each of us as individuals to find a child and help that one child to get a better education.

On a personal note, there is an interesting paragraph on the next to last page:

" Cincinnati, like Chicago, has a two-tier system. Among the city's magnet and selective schools are some remarkable institutions-such a Walnut hills, a famous hgih school taht my hosts compared to 'a de facto private school' within the public system. It is not know if a child from Lower Price Hill has ever been admitted there. Few of these children, in any case, wold have the preparation to compete effectively on the exams that they would have to take in order to get in."

In fact, my dad lived in a white, very poor, inner-city Cincinnati neighborhood on Eastern Ave.,just like Lower Price Hill, as a child. He is 82 now. I am not sure where he went to elementary school, but, hopefully, I can find out. He did indeed take the exam to get into Walnut Hills at his mother's insistence, even missing a beloved baseball game in order to ride the bus to Walnut Hills on a Saturday morning to take the exam. He passed the exam and attended Walnut Hills for 3 years claiming that it changed his life. At that time, Walnut Hills was basically a classical school where he learned Latin, logic, and rhetoric.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

A heart-wrenching jeremiad about the sorry state of minority schools in this country. Kozol has stated in interviews that we are worse off (both in conditions and segregation) than we were before Brown vs. Board of Education. That seems hyperbolic, but after reading his observations here, it's hard to argue. A blistering attack on the use of local property taxes to fund schools, it's also a sobering testament to the intractability of problems of class and race in America. Should be required reading for libertarians and all those who wonder why ghetto kids don't just pull themselves up their own bootstraps. It's a miracle anyone makes it out alive, let alone succeeds.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every American should be required to read this book.

[Alice · Rating 4 out of 5]

*FIRST IMPRESSION*

Is this just going to be Mama Might Be Better Off Dead: The Education Chapter?

*HALFWAY THROUGH*

Answer to the question above: yes.

Look, Mr. Kozol, I'm not anti-expose, but I hate being confronted with a tragic and intractable problem to which the author presents no viable solution. Sure, it's important - and crucial - to acknowledge the inequities, to publicize them. But Kozol's hortatory exclamations of "yes, let's equalize the money" do little, if anything at all, toward building the public and political will to make that a realistic goal.

Kozol wants out of the system completely, and understandably so. It's an unfair system that puts the power in the hands of those who have lived in the lap of luxury, who have no interest in lifting up those who have not. (People like me, for instance. I went to public school in Great Neck, one of the communities Kozol repeatedly cites [villifies?] for its astronomical expenditures per student.)

But you can't so easily opt out of the system. Self interest is too powerful. And if you can't opt out, and you can't present a viable solution within the system, then what have you accomplished?

I'm hoping Kozol presents an answer somewhere in the rest of this book...

*ALMOST DONE, BUT SO GOD DAMN FRUSTRATED*

Ok, Mr. Kozol. You want to be blunt. That's great. I'll be blunt too.

All the excuses that we rich Great Neck folks present in opposition to cross-busing, or equalization of funding - the bullshit argument that money doesn't matter, or the racist one that Those People are lacking in family values, or the pretextual one that local control is important - are just that: excuses.

What our real argument is: Why should our money - even if it's an "inheritance" to which we, we winners in this race, feel entitled - go to improve your kid's education? Why should your self-interest trump my self-interest? Ultimately, we pay lip service to equality, because, once ahead, it's not in our interest to aim for equality anymore.

Is Kozol saying that it is in our interest? That it should be in our interest? Is he saying screw our interest, this is what's good for society? And, you know, whatever he is saying doesn't make one iota of a difference, because however troubled those who read his book will feel, we will not be troubled enough - into action.

*FINALLY DONE*

This paragraph sums up neatly why the book is important, but also supremely frustrating:

"There is a deep-seated reverence for fair play in the United States, and in many areas of life we see the consequences in a genuine distaste for loaded dice; but this is not the case in education, health care, or inheritance of wealth. In these elemental areas we want the game to be unfair and we have made it so; and IT WILL LIKELY SO REMAIN" (emphasis added).

[Danielle · Rating 5 out of 5]

The reason I became a teacher

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A college professor of mine who i greatly admire once labeled Jonathan Kozol as a modern day prophet. The idea is that he is a person willing to say things that most of us don't want to hear. And that he is willing to say it starkly. Its true. Kozol does an excellent job in this book talking about a number of failing school systems in the country, and then comparing them to thriving (and well-funded) school systems very close by. I read the book a long time ago, but it still resonates, and i still pick it up on occasion to read a chapter or two. Most striking was the chapter on Cherry Hill and Camden, NJ. I mean, the fact that districts can have such differences in wealth, and be so close together, well its shocking. Growing up in Washington, DC i knew this, though its different when you realize that the problem is more widespread and not just local. Kozol is an excellent writer. Its an easy read, though his words don't leave you as quickly as they come. If this is a topic that even remotely interests you, i highly recommend.

[Karan Bajaj · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this book up while researching for my book, since my protagonist grew up in the Bronx housing projects. But Savage Inequalities ended up meaning so much more, and led to a big Jonathan Kozol reading spree. Racial inequality, our apathy for the poor, all such concepts that seemed distant, became urgent and real for me. Having grown up in India, I have to admit, I didn't know this side of America, and I was struck deep in the gut by the stark description of the realities in the housing projects.

[Dave · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone knows that this is a masterpiece. If you ever found yourself trying to argue with someone who believes that money does not matter in schools and that urban schools need tough leaders to getthemselves together, then read this book. It tears this argument into scraps. Also it helps to debunk the myth that Hollywood sells of dedicated teachers who work magic in the classroom. Schools need resources like buildings and classroom materials. Teachers just need to be not evil before anything else. True it takes talent, but too much pressure is on teachers today partly as a result of this myth.

[Carl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kozol does and should discompose suburban liberals like me. This extraordinarily thorough and compelling book goes far beyond suggesting that there is a problem with America's schooling and priorities; it delves deeply into statistics, causes, and, most powerfully, reasons why we have allowed the problem to persist. Spoiler alert: Americans don't come off looking particularly ethical or sensitive in this analysis.

That's good. This journey through East St. Louis, Chicago, New York City, Camden, Washington DC, and San Antonio blasts a spotlight on schools and communities that complacent Americans wish were invisible...or that we use racist tropes to rationalize away. Kozol is mad -- it's hard not to be -- but his tone is almost entirely rational and calm. His book's strength flows from the statistics and details, even more than that the awareness of counterarguments, and most of all the interviews with children and educators.

The most difficult point for him to make -- the one that should unsettle us all the most -- is that the problem in underfunded, abandoned poor, minority districts is exacerbated by the lovingly proper funding in other districts (like the one where I live and teach). In other words, this is not simply a cheerleaderly "Let's raise up the disenfranchised!" but more of a "The disenfranchised are disenfranchised because the enfranchised are enfranchised." Everyone can get behind the cheerleader; Kozol is asking us all to accept responsibility. As you can imagine, this didn't go down easily then and doesn't now.

The Camden chapter notes, "the rigging of the game and the acceptance, which is nearly universal, of uneven playing fields reflect a dark unspoken sense that other people's children are of less inherent value than our own. Now and then, in private, affluent suburbanites concede that certain aspects of the game may be a trifle rigged to their advantage. 'Sure, it's a bit unjust,' they may concede, 'but that's reality and that's the way the game is played..." (177). The reader cringes, probably gets defensive; like some of the well-educated youngsters in Rye, NY, with whom Kozol engages in a vigorous discussion, the response is often something like What, do you want everyone to be mediocre?

This is a story about racism and segregation. Those kids in Rye agree that equity a moral goal to be desired but believe -- as many suburbanites, liberal and conservative alike, would say -- equity probably wouldn't make much difference because poor children "would still lack the motivation" and "fail...because of other problems" (126). Kozol writes of the Rye teenagers:

The children are lucid and their language is well chosen and their arguments well made, but there is a sense that they are dealing with an issue that does not feel very vivid, and that nothing that we say about it to each other really matters since it's "just a theoretical discussion." To a certain degree, the skillfulness and cleverness that they display seem to derive precisely from this sense of unreality. Questions of unfairness feel more like a geometric problem than a matter of humanity or conscience. A few of the students do break through the note of unreality, but, when they do, they cease to be so agile in their use of words and speak more awkwardly. Ethical challenges seem to threaten their effectiveness. There is the sense that they were skating over ice and that the issues we addressed were safely frozen underneath. When they stop to look beneath the ice they start to stumble. The verbal competence they have acquired here may have been gained by building walls around some regions of the heart. (126-7)

And later on that page:

"I don't think that busing students from their ghetto to a different school would do much good," one student says. "You can take them out of the environment, but you can't take the environment out of them. If someone grows up in the South Bronx, he's not going to be prone to learn....Busing didn't work when it was tried," he says. I ask him how he knows this and he says he saw a television documentary movie about Boston. (127)

"Keep them where they are but make it equal," as another Rye student says (127), wraps up the scene. It's classic Kozol: analytical, probing, insightful, unsatisfied with cliches and platitudes, empathetic of all but unwilling to let any off the hook. If the reader is not at least somewhat unsettled here, the reader lacks a heart.

Indeed, Kozol's other great strength is the compassion with which he writes about those who suffer in these degraded environments: living in what is effectively a chemical dumping ground in East St. Louis, going to schools with holes in walls and ceilings and tattered books that have to be shared, dealing with teachers who have given up, attending class in tiny and unpleasant rooms. After descriptions of overcrowding throughout the Camden chapter, as they are in every chapter, he unwinds this passage that epitomize his more editorial moments:

The crowding of children into insufficient, often squalid spaces seems an inexplicable anomaly in the United States. Images of spaciousness and majesty, of endless plains and soaring mountains, fill our folklore and our music and the anthems that our children sing. "This land is your land," they are told; and, in one of the patriotic songs that children truly love because it summons up so well the goodness and the optimism of the nation at its best, they sing of "good" and "brotherhood" "from sea to shining sea." It is a betrayal of the best things that we value when poor children are obliged to sing these songs in storerooms and coat closets. (159-60)

Whew. The myth of America takes a beating in this book. It's hard to see how that is undeserved.

It may be due to the changes in standardized testing over the twenty-four years since this was published that Kozol's obloquy against that particular hazard seemed less convincing to me than any of his other points. He is, however, on point in suggesting that the teaching to which these inner-city kids are subjected is the least imaginative to be found, largely because of the desperate need to stay with nostrils above the crashing waves. Maslow's hierarchy would tell us that.

The core of this essential book is Kozol's thesis that education is a fundamental right, and that the nation has abrogated its responsibility toward the members of these communities with regard to that right. "How much does a person have the right to ask?" (195). More than they are getting.

The contest between liberty and equity in education has, in the past 30 years, translated into the competing claims of local control, on the one hand, and state (or federal) intervention on the other. Liberty, school conservatives have argued, is diminished when the local powers of school districts have been sacrificed to centralized control. The opposition to desegregation in the South, for instance, was portrayed as local (states') rights as a sacred principle infringed upon by federal court decisions. The opposition to the drive for equal funding in a given state is now portrayed as local (district) rights in opposition to the powers of the state. While local control may be defended and supported on a number of important grounds, it is unmistakable that it has been historically advanced to counter equity demands; this is no less the case today. (210)

Today as well. Woe to us if we don't heed Jonathan Kozol.

[Erik Burke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book in junior year in highschool in tandem with Huckleberry Finn, and I remember that during a Socratic Circle presentation, I began my opening argument by asking the class what they thought would happen if Huck's Father and Jonathan Kozol were locked in a room together.

This is a very harrowing read, and I'd argue a necessary one for those seeking a career in education in the United States. My main problem with it is that it tends to devolve into tragedy porn, and while I'm certainly not arguing the fact that some students have it immeasurably harder than others, it can't ALL be doom and gloom. Kozol tends to revel in the failures, and not enough in the successes. I understand WHY he did this, but the way he presents the problems of race and inner city schools, it seems insurmountable and very defeatist. Still a good read, though.

[Cara Dominici · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think everyone on the American school system needs to read this. Rings the true virtues of injustice that we are often too ashamed to recognize and too disgusted to be associated with. Very eye opening.

[Danielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I first read Kozol's Savage Inequalities in a college education course, and I remember that what I read left me confused, sickened, and hoping for change. That was about 10 years ago--and Kozol's book was written 10 years before that. The first thing to remember and consider when picking up this book--however challenging it may be--is that it is 20 years old. I think things have changed for urban schools in a lot of ways. Not completely, not entirely, not "equally"--but changes have been made.

The stories that Kozol tells are compelling. The statistics he repeats again, and again, and again throughout the book are chilling. The schools he describes are disturbing. It sickens me to read of such discrepancy in our education system.

Ultimately, however, I think the book wasn't as well written as it could have been. The problem with having a cause is that occasionally, the writer or journalist loses objective. I think Kozol loses his objectivity in his tangible rage at the inequalities he saw in urban schools. I am not criticizing his rage, I am not disparaging his cause, but, I do think that there are portions of the book that are sheer emotional manipulation and, frankly, drivel. I hate to say this about a book and an author who so clearly has a heart for the plight of the poor, but he rages so severely against the conservatives that he runs the risk of alienating the very people who need to change their mindset about urban schools and funding for poorer school districts. When writing a persuasive argument, it is crucial to avoid preaching to the proverbial choir, and distancing the very people who need to hear the message, who need to be persuaded. Perhaps if Kozol was not quite so vituperative of his perceived conservative nemeses, this book would be more effective. The point is not to convince the people who are already convinced: the point is to convince those who are not in favor of his views.

Kozol's main point is that money will improve everything in urban education. He consistently makes this point again, and again, and again. He consistently derides anyone who partially disagrees with this. He sees any arguments that counter that money may not be the only answer to improving urban schools as stupid. Again, when forming an argument, it's more effective to explore both sides of the argument, and then disprove the one you disagree with after a balanced examination. I think Kozol sees red far too often to give actual balanced, intelligent counter-arguments to the "money doesn't solve everything" camp. I admit: I am in the "money doesn't solve everything" camp, to some degree, and I found his constant harping about this frustrating. I'm willing to be convinced--but only with reasoned rhetoric. I am not saying I think that urban schools should be left with over crowded classrooms, and bathrooms with no toilet paper, and teachers who can't teach--I think urban school districts should, indeed, get every opportunity that the richer suburban school districts get. But, I don't know that money will solve all social problems facing the underprivileged populations of America.

Savage Inequalities offers a poignant and challenging portrait of urban schools in the early 1990s. I believe he probably could have been as effective without so much repetition of the same argument in every chapter (chapters which lead the reader to believe they will focus on a school, but instead, by the final two or three chapters, are repetitions of the same arguments about property taxes and education and money--again, and again, and again.) I think this book is probably an important read for any education--one who is called to inner-city school education, or not. I wish that Kozol had a follow-up chapter in this later edition of the book: I'd like to know how we're doing now: 20 years later, is anything any better? Have we put this dark chapter in education behind us, shunted to the history books and Educational Philosophy courses? Let us hope so--although, sadly, I believe this is not the case.

[Henry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sad to read this in 2020 and think about how not a lot has changed for public education since the late ‘80s / early ‘90s when it was written. Really makes you think if a lot of the problems in our society couldn’t be traced back to education. (Shocking take, I know.)

I took off one star because, although I think this is an extremely important book that should be read by everyone, it got pretty repetitive. The book was organized into chapters by city, but the underfunded public schools in every city had a lot in common and all sort of blended together. As a result, by the third or fourth description of the author visiting a dilapidated elementary school and talking to its resigned staff, I started wondering if this was the best way to have organized the book. Maybe the point was to use repetition to create a sense of inescapable poverty and induce frustration in the reader, spurring them to action? (That’s what I would have written on the AP Lang exam.)

Anyway, solid book, got kind of repetitive but at least it was never boring.

[Meen · Rating 5 out of 5]

As it did for some other folks who have posted reviews, this book cemented my desire to go into sociology. It is a devastating critique of our educational system and how it perpetuates inequality, keeping poor children from achieving their potential and locking them into poverty. This book was written almost 20 years ago, and rather than improving the quality of education for ALL children in impoverished school districts, we now give vouchers to allow the "good" children to leave them, creating even more of a vaccum for the children who are INDEED left behind.

[Ariel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book makes me simultaneously want to scream and sit down to write a revised education budget.

A quarter century later and you *know* none of this has changed for the better.

We should make this required reading in high school... Or at least in the high schools where students can read.

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Important, seminal book. Class, money matters. New Trier is not Crane HS. The separate but unequal treatment of Amerca's children through school funding is tragic, criminal.

[Lenhardt Stevens · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a terrific book that gets so few stars because I can’t recommend it to everyone. I think those who have no inclination of what’s happening in our schools has an obligation to read this, but I wanted to hear more about solutions and the ones offered in the book were unconvincing.

[Victoria · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a very disheartening book and is sadly still relevant today. I hope we can come up with solutions to education inequality problems and implement them but it will be tough to do.

[Cortney · Rating 4 out of 5]

""But [no one] can tell us what it means to a child to leave his often hellish home and go to a school -his hope for a transcendent future-that is literally falling apart."- Jonathan Kozol


If I could choose one book to give to people who seem to be oblivious to the ways in which racial inequalities are often put into place from a very, very early age, it would be this one. I'm often dumbfounded when I encounter someone who honestly believes that every has the same opportunities in life in America, and that "anyone can make it if they work hard enough". They seem to truly believe that we all being life on the exact same "START" line, with the same resources afforded to each one of us. This is sadly not true at all. This book is an excellent example of how public schools consistently fail the poorest children, who are also often minority children. Yes, it was written in 1991. However, in 1991, I was 8. So the children Kozol writes about are a bit older and a bit younger than me. This is *my* generation, feeling the lasting effects of these inequalities- and no, savage is not an overstatement.

The descriptions of the conditions under which these schools are asked to function and educate are atrocious. Passages about children meeting in bathrooms for reading classes, or senior students sharing 8th grade history texbooks that are 20 years outdated, are just the tip of the iceberg. The conditions that Kozol documented, in which children were expected to learn, and teachers were expected to teach despite the depravity, enraged me. I have done some preliminary follow up research on this subject, and many schools are still in such conditions today. It is a disgusting fact in a nation as rich as ours, and it is an entrenched inequality that is enshrined in our laws, and the ways in which the American system finances education. Reading some of the court cases made me see red. I came across quotes from parents saying that "money doesn't matter" in education, yet turning around and fighting tooth and nail against a more equitable distribution. If money "doesn't matter", the obvious question is- why won't you let *your* child go to school in a windowless skating rink turned elementary school, with two bathrooms for 1,300 students? Or attend a school where 11 classes are crowded into the falling down gymnasium? Or try and learn when there are 15 textbooks for a class of 30+ students? Or do science experiments in classrooms with no running water?

To even try and say "money doesn't matter" with a straight face to a school that is falling down around its students is a peculiar type of cruelty.

[Nick Klagge · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the most compelling books I've ever read. Written in 1991, it is Kozol's account of the state of inner-city public schools at the time, and sadly, I believe the analysis to be practically unchanged in the intervening twenty years. It was especially meaningful for me as I try to move to a job in charter school management, both reinforcing the importance of the work and complicating my view of the problem and its solution.

Kozol does not pull any punches, and at times this book was quite difficult to read, outlining in excrutiating detail the awful state of many inner city public schools. He also has a unique style of writing, which seamlessly blends a clear sense of righteous anger and indignation with well-structured logical arguments. His critique of the status quo of public school funding mechanisms is very convincing.

At the same time, as I mentioned, the book complicated my picture of the no-excuses urban charter school movement that I am hoping to join. Kozol is very critical of the de facto racial segregation in the school system, which is a betrayal of Brown v. Board of Education, and as good as many charter schools are, part of their M.O. is intentionally drawing an all-minority (or nearly so) student body. There is no clear right answer to this question. Another major issue is, now that charter schools are clearly established, what is the next move in the game? Through Kozol's lens I would say the ultimate goal would be to reform the public school system using lessons learned from charter schools. This is an immense undertaking and I think there are still not many people who are really thinking in those terms.

[Kellie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ahhh! This was so frustrating to read! How can this be happening? In America? Education is supposed to be the great equalizer, but what students receive from public education is far from equal and definitely not even close to equitable. “One would not have thought that children in America would ever have to choose between a teacher or a playground or sufficient toilet paper. Like grain in a time of famine, the immense resources which the nation does in fact possess go not to the child in the greatest need, but to the child of the highest bidder- the child of the parents who, more frequently than not, have also enjoyed the same abundance when they were schoolchildren.” “But children to one set of schools are educated to be governors; children in the other set of schools are trained for being governed.”

[Alvaro Francisco Hidalgo Rodriguez · Rating 5 out of 5]

While this was written some 30 years ago, I highly doubt much has changed and I would not be surprised if the disparities in education have gotten worse along with the widening gap in incomes. What this book does so well is show how these early differences in schooling leads to some of the problems we see later on in life. It also does a great job exposing the mechanisms through which wealthy people keep the system rigged to their benefit.

[Connor Oswald · Rating 5 out of 5]

In short, sad in 1992, sadder still that little has changed in 2018.

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

The inequalities are indeed savage

A review of Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities

JDN 2456901 PDT 13:35.

The inequalities Kozol reports between different school districts are appalling; the poor districts barely have basic facilities—and often have crumbling buildings and obsolete textbooks—while the rich ones have basically whatever they want—even golf courses and swimming pools. The children in poor areas are subjected to environmental pollution because the regulations aren't enforced; they are surrounded by trash and disease because their sanitation infrastructure is defective; they are surrounded by poverty and crime; many of them are underfed and developmentally retarded. It's an absolutely terrible injustice, and he goes through such detail that portions of the book had me literally in tears.

The good news is that some of the gaps are closing; using Kozol's figures and comparing them with more recent data, I computed real growth rates in spending between 1989 and 2014.

I found that in New York, there was a -0.72 correlation between the spending in 1989 and the growth rate, meaning that the gap is getting smaller. The richest district received 2.04 times as much per-pupil funding in 1989, but only 1.55 times as much in 2014.

New Jersey showed an even sunnier picture. It had a -0.91 correlation. The richest/poorest ratio went from 2.18 to only 1.15. I'd say that New Jersey is now within an acceptable range.

Illinois, however, only got worse. The correlation between 1989 level and growth was positive 0.82, meaning that the inequalities are getting bigger. The richest/poorest ratio went from an already rather high 1.56 to a horrifying 2.78.

I said that I think New Jersey is now within an acceptable range. I doubt Kozol would agree. Throughout the book he gives the impression that he would only accept total equality—not a penny more in rich districts than poor districts. More than that, he honestly gives the impression that he would only accept total equality in everything, which makes him frankly the kind of ridiculous Marxist that Republicans falsely accuse all leftists of being.

He says things like this (p. 222): "This sentiment is so deeply held that even advocates for equity tend to capitulate at this point. Often they will reassure the suburbs: 'We don't want to take away the good things that you have. We just want to lift the poorer schools a little higher.' Political accommodation, rather than conviction, dictates this approach because, of course, it begs the question: Since every district is competing for the same restricted pool of gifted teachers, the 'minimum' assured to every district is immediately devalued by the district that can add $10,000 more to teacher salaries. Then, too, once the richest districts go above the minimum, school suppliers, textbook publishers, computer manufacturers adjust their price horizons—just as teachers raise their salary horizons—and the poorest districts are left where they were before the minimum existed."

No, no, no! You fail economics forever. First of all, Kozol seems to be asserting that the inflation rate is driven entirely by the spending of wealthy school districts; he seems to think that all prices will just automatically rise in lockstep, as though these products were completely monopolized and there were no other sources of demand besides schools. Maybe that's close to true for textbooks—they are certainly monopolistic and most of their demand is from schools—but it's damn well not true for computers or pens or staplers, not to mention bricklayers or electricians (many of these poor schools most desperately need repairs to physical infrastructure). Rising nominal income for schools is almost certainly going to translate into rising real income, because there's the whole rest of the economy that hasn't received the same injection of money.

That's not his only glaring economic error in this passage. The next is that he doesn't seem to understand that we can change the ratio between rich and poor schools even if we don't reduce the absolute level of the rich schools. This is basically what New Jersey did; inflation-adjusted, the only district that lost funding was Summit. West Orange and Cherry Hill stayed basically the same, and Princeton actually rose almost 19%. But the gap still closed, because the poor districts gained even more: Paterson rose 85% and Camden rose 126%. With this kind of reduction in ratio gap, even if the price level jumped up as fast as Kozol imagines it would, poor districts would still be better off because they now have a bigger piece of the pie.

And of course his most fundamental error is the notion that this whole game is zero-sum. We don't have to just re-slice the same pie. We can, in the immortal words of George W. Bush, make the pie higher. By increasing the real spending on public schools in general, we can attract better teachers from private schools; we can encourage people with advanced skills to move away from jobs in science or engineering or finance to become teachers; in the long run we can even encourage more people to go into teaching as a profession. You aren't competing for the same pool of teachers; you can expand that pool. In fact, you aren't even competing for a fixed amount of real economic product; improved education will eventually lead to improved economic growth. We could all become richer in the long run by investing in poor schools.

Kozol is remarkably unsympathetic to the middle-class parents who don't want to see their high-quality education taken away. Perhaps it is because I was the child of such parents, but I am quite sympathetic here. My education was good, yes; but if you started taking away pieces of it, it wouldn't have stayed so good for long. It's entirely reasonable for people to not want to lose things they have; sometimes we may have no choice—I don't see any long-term solution to wealth inequality that doesn't involve taxing billionaires at enormous rates—but if we do have a choice we should consider it; and this time we absolutely do. I'm quite happy with what New Jersey has done with their funding; a 15% difference between the poorest and the richest school is entirely reasonable, and totally consistent with a minimum standard of fairness for the poorest schools. Of course Princeton will have more money; even if it didn't get more in direct funding, parents would find a way to raise that extra money because they have it. And that's okay, because the goal here is not Marx but Rawls; we don't need everyone to have the same amount, we just want the floor to be as high as possible.

Another radical view Kozol has is against the very concept of academic tracking. Actually I guess this is a more common view lately, and I never understood why. Some students just obviously are better at certain subjects. Some 10th graders (like some of those in the poor schools Kozol talks about) can barely do arithmetic. Others (like myself at that age) could do calculus. How can you possibly teach them both in the same classroom? Some kind of tracking is absolutely essential, and we should not be ashamed of that. What we should be ashamed of is two things: One, that we disparage and degrade people who are not good at certain skills—like grammar and mathematics—and ignore other equally-important skills—like creativity, empathy and social interaction. And two, that we place a large segment of our population in such appalling conditions that they could never hope to fully develop cognitive skills of any kind.

Note that the problem isn't that we track Black students into low-level academics. We have to; statistically, on average, they're just not as good at math. But why are they not as good at math? It's not some kind of innate defect; it's because we've subjected them to conditions where they haven't had the opportunity to learn math properly. They had undereducated teachers in crumbling buildings with obsolete textbooks; they were underfed and subjected to environmental pollution, damaging their brain development. Kozol scoffs at the fact that Black and Hispanic students are disproportionately placed in special education, assuming that this is inherently discriminatory; but actually it makes perfect sense. If there is mercury in your water and you only eat four meals a week, of course your brain isn't going to develop to its full potential. It would be astounding if it did! Many of these children really are developmentally disabled. The injustice is not that we treat them as disabled—they are. The injustice is that we made them disabled by subjecting them to conditions no human being should have to live in. Once that damage is done, it may be extremely difficult—or even impossible—to repair, which makes it that much more imperative that we stop causing this kind of damage. But immediately putting a bunch of kids with brain damage into advanced academic courses isn't going to solve anything; it would just make those kids even more confused and discouraged.

I think that Kozol's socialist radicalism actually hurt his message substantially. If he had taken a moderate, realistic, economically-informed approach, I think he could have convinced a lot more people a lot more easily. Instead he sounds like he wants to pay neurosurgeons at the same rates as janitors, which is rightly derided as ridiculous—thus undermining the credibility of his otherwise absolutely correct core message that America's schools are too unequal. Some states (New Jersey) seem to have listened to him anyway; but others (Illinois) clearly didn't; and they might have if he hadn't argued for such an extreme position.

[Eleanor Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is a little outdated but the message was important anyway. I would recommend to anyone curious about some troubling disparities in the American education system.

Edit: If interested this is a book review I wrote for my education class. It's a bit different than I'd typically write a GoodReads review but I figured it could be interesting for you guy's anyway :)

Jonathan Kozol (1992) describes the striking differences between the public schools of middle-upper-class and lower-class students. In targeting this book toward the average citizen unaware of the discrimination at play here Kozol makes his argument by describing the favoritism and denial that sustains these practices.

This book often describes the poor physical state of some schools from sewage pollution to holes in the roof. These horrible conditions are made even worse knowing that “any high school class of 30 children in Chicago received approximately $90,000 less each year than would have been spent on them if they were pupils of a school such as New Trier High” (p. 54). For Kozol, these disparities are signs of remaining segregation because as described “nonwhite children in large numbers [were never] truly intermingled with white children” (p. 3). The implications of this statement are severe even before similar ideas are mirrored in interviews. One student remarked “‘we have a school in East St. Louis named for Dr. King,’ she says. ‘The school is full of sewer water and the doors are locked with chains. Every student in that school is black. It’s like a terrible joke on history’” (p. 35). Kozol furthers this argument by explaining the often-overt dismissal of solutions. As described fierce opposition to areas like East St. Louis is so strong that white schools are vehemently opposed to programs like bussing and structures like federal tax deductions only serve to structurally subsidize “unequal education” (p. 55). Through these arguments, Kozol firmly establishes this divide as the focus of his argument: lower-class students are ignored for the sake of maintaining the status quo.

Kozol makes his point through a series of statistics, school observations, and interviews. For example, Kozol explains the large percentage of high school dropouts in these poor-performing schools first by describing how “of the kids I see here, maybe 55 percent will graduate from school. Of that number, maybe one in four will go to college” (p. 26). Kozol uses this school-specific statistic to describe how the school’s apathetic teachers cause this result. The following interview, however, solidifies this argument. A “teacher at the school, where only 170 of 800 freshmen graduate with their class, indicates that the dropout rate makes teaching easier” (p. 52). This strategy for defining the argument in this book was very effective throughout. These three strategies balanced each other well and created an overall harmony among ideas. Kozol’s intent in writing this book was very clearly articulated and I found myself very connected to the vile issues described such as discrimination, denial, and inequality. At one point, Kozol interviews a student in a specialized class. When he asked, “what jobs they are trained for, she says: “Fast food places—Burger King, McDonald’s” (p. 27). In my practicum at a Title 1 school, the students I worked with often seemed keenly aware of the perception of their school and based their capability on this. I was saddened to hear, especially after reading the portrayal of the schools in this book, when several students joked about their aspirations to work in the fast-food industry after graduating. It is through striking portrayals such as this that Kozol paints a convincing picture of favoritism and denial in impoverished schools. In this, Kozol succeeds in communicating the need for education reform and overt opposition to these horrendous disparities.

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I agree with the premise that all children should have equal opportunity via material needs, I disagree with his tone in blaming the middle class for "oppressing blacks" for this I give this book 4 stars. Overall, a good worth it read and eye opening.

It is clear that corporate toxic waste is not really free waste that the environment can absorb. Corporations need to be responsible in not polluting US soil in their search for profits. The real sin here is that while corporation plants like Mosano have company based in the poor areas and thus pollute the surroundings, they do not employ locals b/c the plants need skill laborers which b/c of the lack of education these men do not have. The people are disenfranchised so they do not vote to change their surroundings. It is clear that charter schools are needed in these places so innovation can occur in finding paths to success. It is also clear that these kids need role models to emulate who look like them and preferably someone with similar background. They have to see a greater why in order to reach for the stars. Teachers pay also need to be creative in seeking how to retain valuable talent. It is a shame that children learn they are not wanted at an early age by their white peers so they have to settle for a second rate education. The school infrastructure needs to be updated so that students are able to thrive in it.

As with everyone else, who these children spend time with determine what they become. So, was it fine that mom forbade us from hanging out with our lower-middle-class neighbors? Tenured teaching positions are also an issue b/c teachers who are bad but who are tenured will have to be kept by the school system. Parents uninvolvement is also a big issue b/c of their disinterested in what happens to their children, the kids do not push themselves to succeed. It is clear having great innovative teachers who care about each of her students success is an important part of these kids education. It is clear that teacher personality is key to their success not just their methods. Teacher retainment are an important component of what needs to happen in these neighborhoods. It is also important that the supplies to these schools remain robust. I am for the poorer performing schools to have the greatest leeway for innovation in order for them to succeed. B/c property tax funds public education, it is incumbent for federal and state governments to make up the difference to equalize the funding b/w rich and poorer districts.

I am for poor people having choice in where they send their children so that schools that are working will be rewarded. It is also clear that parents have to have initiative to have their kids attend a superior school and voting so they influence the make up of the politicians who directly influence their needs. Along with a choice policy, there has to be a grassroots movement for black empowerment to seek the best education environment for their children so they can demand an equal access to quality education for their children. While it is clear that social class largely determines a child's future, people of privileged should try to level the playing field by mentoring children of lower means who have promise and support policies that will help children level the playing field so that people's potential will truly shine. Poor people's leaders have issues with corporate partners b/c they are the same people who lobby to cut taxes that would fund school programs.

Media is bad for kids b/c they see that they are underprivileged as a comparison to the media image they see on TV. Why do Asian place more emphasis on education as a path to success than Hispanics or Black people? Part of the luck of people is being born to the right parents with the right social environment and the right opportunities. Despite the wrong environment that some of the kids are born into, they should at least have a top notch innovative education so they have a way out of their deprived lives. I think mentoring programs are useful in people to see the opportunities in their lives. Perhaps it's a matter of parental expectation where people who are expected to do well, do better than people with lower expectation. Jonathan states that the fact

that people in better schools have the facilities that they desire means they will be disengaged from the political process thereby creating a self-perpetuating cycle. I think that this is where grass-roots community activism can come in, in trying to empower the people to advocate for their children's future. The fact that some of these people need books and do not have the book supplies for a prescribed class is completely appalling. Also the teacher:student ratio is way out of bounds for a normal school.

The teachers complain of a culture of teaching to the test without the necessary learning tools to accomplish the job. The culture of preparing for a test means that the students do not have the necessary critical thinking skills to be successful in college; thus the majority who make it to college drop out. Teaching to the test also allows a disuse of critical aspect of a subject in favor of teaching to a test. So the love of learning can be destroyed. I am for busing disadvantage children to richer neighborhoods with the topping of 10-30% so that the richer districts would rub off on the poorer kids. I am totally for equal opportunity in pursuing an education; the younger a child is the more equal the opportunity for advancement they should have. So that state money should go to shore up the poorest expenditure per capita of schools for the least of its citizens instead of making well off districts richer.

If disadvantaged minorities want change, they have to be politically engaged so their voice will be represented in government. It must be sad being a principal of an elementary school when you know most of the kids you teach are doomed to failure.

While I agree with the basic premise of the book that the public should equalize the children's school supplies for school, I disagree with the premise that it is somehow corporations fault for advertising that causes these kids to steal. I think that people should really have to participate in the political process in order to see any solutions to their communities. The divisions are institutionalized so that the rich districts do not want to have money to go to poor districts. I think someone who is rich should make a study on a well run school that has resources. Do their students do better than those without resources? I think this is what charter schools do... Kozol state that the fact that states have difficulty balancing their money negatively impacts school districts who are poorer. So why not have a state-wide school tax to even the playing field so money will not be @ the whim of legislatures or yearly state finances.

So the issue here is that politics enters the equation for the states redistribution of wealth to schools. Instead of having all the money go to school districts who need it, it is evenly redistributed to all districts regardless of need. I think the minimum foundation should be determined by tests that equate what a normal student of that age should adequately know. Affluent Americans will resist the redistribution of funds to children of the disadvantage. The problem with paying for the minimum foundation when it comes to education is that a general inflation of prices will occur which will let the poor uneducated children remain uneducated. It is clear the Poor White people (Appalachian) also suffer from the lack of resources as Urban Blacks and Latinos suffer, too. So this is more a class issue not necessarily a race issue.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. I know, I know, this is a well-known classic of nonfiction that has stood the test of time. And by no means do I disagree with his premise — since the time that I was in high school 15 years ago, I've been making the argument that funding public education with property taxes leads to entrenched inequalities, and that was without knowing the ways in which state and federal funding utterly fail to rectify the differences. But holy goodness, talk about beating a dead horse. This could have been a powerful magazine article or — if written 20 years later — an eminently shareable blog post. But instead we get a book that says basically the same thing over and over again for six chapters, until I could practically write a chapter myself.

"Take Big City X. At Poor Area High School, there is a large hole in the ceiling of the entryway. Most of the toilets don't work and there is no toilet paper. The gym is unusable because the flooring has been torn up, but due to overcrowding there are now four classes being held in there anyway. Class sizes average 35 students, and all the students are black and Hispanic. The library has about 200 books that are all from the 1960s and before. The graduation rate is about 50% and only about 50 students of 5000 will apply to college.

"Five minutes down the street / across the tracks / up the hill is Rich Area High School. It has six gyms and a 'study lounge' and a 'music suite.' Students can take classes in 'geology' and 'music theory' and 'obscure literature of the 17th century.' Class sizes average 18 students, and the student body is 90% white and 9% Asian, with three black kids who are in all remedial classes. The library has 20,000 volumes, and 99% of students graduate, many going to Ivy League schools. Whereas Poor Area High School spends $1,000 per pupil, Rich Area High School spends $10,000."

Don't get me wrong — it's important to draw attention to the degree of disparity that exists. And I'm glad Kozol has done so in such sharp contrast. But I don't need a rinse and repeat in ten different cities to get the point.

What Kozol does do well is to show just how entitled and racist white suburban parents can be when it comes to trying to rectify these disparities. From protests to court cases, anytime major action has been taken to try to give poor districts enough money to function decently, all the rich people get up in arms about the "Robin Hoods" who are trying to make their precious children mediocre. Kozol talks in unflinching terms about how affluent white Americans believe that education is adequate for poor minority children as long as it teaches them enough basics to hold down a minimum-wage job, even going so far as to imply that they are so uncultured that they wouldn't know what to do even if they had better facilities and so innately stupid that they wouldn't learn anything from better teachers.

It's hard to read, even more so because I know it to be true from my own experience. Kozol highlights New Trier High as the cream of the crop in the Chicago suburbs, but that's probably only because my high school hadn't been built yet. When it was, it was the most expensive high school to be built in the state. And while I'm grateful for the education I received, I hate the idea that it came at the expense (literally) of other students in other parts of the state. But even my very liberal mother disagreed with me on this, telling me that they paid to live in an expensive area so I could have the education I did, as if those born into poverty, whose children are born into poverty, just decided not to make the same "choice." Kozol returns to this idea of choice again and again, because it's an argument used often to assert that districts should retain control of their own schools from top to bottom so that "local choice" can play a role in how the school is designed. But as Kozol points out, the only choice that the poorest districts have is "negative choice": deciding whether to do without a nurse or a counselor, a gym or a lunchroom.

So I'm fully on board with Kozol's thesis, and I think that he makes his points well, even if he does it ad nauseam. But the other thing that grated on me the entire time I was reading was Kozol's writing style. He quotes a lot of people — so much so that at times it felt like passages were just strung-together quotations — but some of them get names and some of them don't, and there's rarely an explanation given for the difference (e.g., "a teacher said on condition of anonymity"). In at least one spot (p. 216) there's an entire paragraph in quotes that's given no context whatsoever (though this may have been a Kindle formatting error). And many of the people are quoted as speaking in multiple, uninterrupted paragraphs, making many of the same points and using the same language that Kozol uses in his narrative, which makes me think either they were highly edited or Kozol was just scribbling notes in a notebook and then reconstructed them into sentences later. This is in sharp contrast to the way he quotes written materials, where he denotes any kind of editing with ellipses, including oftentimes, unnecessarily, at the end of a passage. And some quotations are just baffling, such as, "Morris High School in the South Bronx, for example, says a teacher who has taught here more than 20 years, 'does everything an inanimate object can do to keep children from being educated.'" Who is speaking? The building?

Finally, I appreciate what Kozol was doing with his narrow focus on funding — and indeed, he argues well that those who say money doesn't make a difference are the same people not willing to redistribute any of their own money —but I also think he could have taken some of the space he used reiterating the same things over and over again and devoted it to a broader view of the factors that go into a quality education. He argues that giving districts more money, for example, would allow them to attract higher quality teachers, but I know from reading Radical: Fighting to Put Students First that there are other factors at play; when Michelle Rhee got outside funding to attract a huge number of would-be instructors in New York City, she discovered that there were hiring regulations and timelines that were stifling the recruitment within cities and losing many candidates to the suburbs. And I know from my own experience that being in a well-funded high school by no means guarantees quality teachers who understand their subject matter. (Kozol does make the point that affluent areas can better deal with a handful of poor teachers because they can afford tutoring for their kids, but he doesn't seem to believe that teachers in poorer districts would need to be held to any kind of standard as long as we could pay them more.)

Despite my problems with the book, I do see why it's considered a seminal work on this topic, and I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't already spent the better part of two decades thinking and arguing about this very thing. I doubt he's changed the minds of anyone who already had a firm stance going in, but for anyone who's never given much thought to disparities in public education funding, this is definitely worth reading as an introduction.

[Nikki Gorman · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's possible this was a reread -- some of the information seemed familiar, but if I did in fact read this book before, it was long enough ago that I no longer retained any of the specific details. I have a lot of respect for Jonathan Kozol and his work for educational equity in America (and may be just a tad impartial because I got to meet him and assist with his appearance at my college during my graduate studies).

Highly recommend if you are interested in or passionate about equity in public schools, racist policies in public education, and the blight of inner city education. The most shocking thing about this book is that Kozol wrote it in the early 90s, and not much has changed in the past 30 years. This book might make you feel outraged (or at least it SHOULD make you feel outraged). It also seems like the solution to the inequities of public education in America is pretty straight forward, but for the inherent underlying systems of white supremacy that perpetuate and deepen the divide between more affluent white people, and lower income Black Americans and other citizens of color, specifically in urban areas. This read helps remind why I strongly believe in public education and the work that I personally do, and inspires me to start thinking about (and hopefully someday acting on) ways to remedy the American public education crisis.

[Linda Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is dated, although I don’t believe much has changed since it’s been written other than the monetary figures have increased due to inflation. It mentions the school district that I attended as a child so it hits a bit close to home. The point it makes about educational inequalities are clear and obvious to any individual who studies education. I agree with the author’s assessments and simultaneously feel like a hypocrite as I can’t bring myself to give up any educational advantage for my own children. Milliken v. Bradley is discussed briefly as well. The author suggests that the wealthier districts should share with their lower income neighbors and while I agree with this in principle, I can’t see how the wealthy would ever give up what they see as rightfully theirs. The example of California’s attempt at equality is disheartening and I now understand why the public schools in the state are rated poorly. It feels like there is one public educational system for the wealthy and a completely separate system for the poor. The American public educational system is supposed to lessen inequality, it seems however, in some communities, it’s exasperating it.