Briefing Note: “Ending Extreme Poverty: a Focus on Children,” UNICEF, Oct. 2016.
Briefing Note: “Ending Extreme Poverty: a Focus on Children,” UNICEF, Oct. 2016.
Call for Papers: Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research of the University of Salzburg on “2017 Salzburg Conference in Interdisciplinary Poverty Research, Focus Theme: Religion and Poverty,” Sept. 21-22, 2017.
The Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research of the University of Salzburg happily announces the call for papers for its 2017 Salzburg Conference in Interdisciplinary Poverty Research. The focus theme of the conference will be religion and poverty. …
The Organizing Committee invites submissions of proposals for single papers and thematic panels in all areas of poverty research but special attention will be given to those concerned with the 2017 focus theme of religion and poverty.
Possible topics [sic] for the general theme sessions are, among others, current trends in poverty, inequality and social exclusion, poverty trends of different groups (minorities, age, gender, disability, unemployment), analysis of the economic, social and cultural processes underlying poverty, the effects of poverty on health, well-being, education, and inclusion, conceptualizations of poverty, methodologies of poverty research, the effectiveness of poverty alleviation measures and policy responses, and research on safety nets and welfare.
Possible topics for the focus theme sessions are, among others, the relation of religion and poverty and inequality in different states and world regions, religion as a factor in development, faith-based organisations and poverty alleviation, extent and causes of poverty and social exclusion of religious groups and minorities, religious perspectives on poverty, and theological responses to poverty and inequality.
Please submit abstracts for single papers and panels via the submission form on the conference homepage. In case that you encounter difficulties using this form, please contact the organizers via e-mail.
The deadline for submitting abstracts for single papers and panels is 31 March 2017. Decisions will be communicated until 30 April 2017.
Gottfried Schweiger, Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research, University of Salzburg
Article: Lily L. Batchelder, “Families Facing Tax Increases Under Trump’s Latest Tax Plan,” NYU School of Law (Sept. 2016).
Donald Trump’s latest tax plan would cost more than $5 trillion over 10 years. Trump claims his plan would cut taxes for every income group, with the largest tax cuts for working- and middle-class families. But despite its enormous price tag, his plan would actually significantly raise taxes for millions of low- and middle-income families with children, with especially large tax increases for working single parents.
This paper explains why Trump’s latest tax plan raises taxes on so many families and provides examples of how large these tax increases would be. I conservatively estimate that Trump’s plan would increase taxes for roughly 7.8 million families with minor children. These families who would pay more taxes represent roughly 20% of households with minor children and more than half of single parents. They include roughly 25 million individuals and 15 million children.
New Article: Jason P. Nance, “Over-Disciplining Students, Racial Bias, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline,” 50 Richmond L. Rev. 1063 (2016).
Over the last three decades, our nation has witnessed a dramatic change regarding how schools discipline children. Empirical evidence during this time period demonstrates that schools increasingly have relied on extreme forms of punishment such as suspensions, expulsions, referrals to law enforcement, and school-based arrests to discipline students for violations of school rules, including for low-level offenses. Many have referred to this disturbing trend of schools directly referring students to law enforcement or creating conditions under which students are more likely to become involved in the justice system — such as suspending or expelling them — as the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Perhaps the most alarming aspect of over-disciplining students and of the school-to-prison pipeline generally is that not all racial groups are affected equally by these negative trends. This short symposium essay describes the observed racial disparities associated with disciplining students. It then discusses the concept of implicit racial bias, which appears to be one of the causes of these racial disparities. Finally, it describes the role that national and state government entities, including the U.S. Department of Education and state departments of education, can play in forming a comprehensive strategy to address the implicit racial biases of educators.
News Article: George Packer, “Hillary Clinton and the Populist Revolt,” The New Yorker, Oct. 31, 2016.
Article: Susan DeJarnatt, et. al., “Charting School Discipline,” The Urban Lawyer (forthcoming).
Exclusionary school discipline can steer students away from educational opportunities and towards the juvenile and criminal justice systems. As many public school systems have turned to exclusionary school discipline practices over the past two decades, they have also increasingly adopted charter schools as alternatives to traditional public schools. This research is examines the student codes of conduct for the charter schools in the School District of Philadelphia to consider the role of their disciplinary practices and the potential effects on charter students.
We analyzed every disciplinary code provided to the Philadelphia School District by charter schools within Philadelphia during the 2014-2015 school year. Our goal was to examine the provisions relating to detention, suspension, and expulsion, along with other disciplinary responses, to determine what conduct can result in disciplinary consequences, what responses are available for various types of misbehavior, and whether the code language is clear or ambiguous or even accessible to students or potential students and their parents or caregivers. We conclude that too many of the codes are not well drafted, and too many follow models of punitive discipline that can be used to push out non-compliant or challenging students. Some codes grant almost complete discretion to school administrators to impose punitive discipline for any behavior the administrator deems problematic.
We hope that this work will spur future research on implementation of charter school discipline policies to illustrate how charter schools are using their codes. Further, we hope to see the charter sector develop model disciplinary codes that move away from a zero tolerance punitive model towards disciplinary systems based on restorative principles.
News Article: Emily Badger, “The one thing rich parents do for their kids that makes all the difference,” Washington Post, May 10, 2016.
News Article: Marina N. Bolotnikova, “The Purpose of Harvard Law School,” Harvard Magazine, Sept. 17, 2016.
Anthony Abraham Jack, “(No) Harm in Asking: Class, Acquired Cultural Capital, and Academic Engagement at an Elite University,” Sociology of Education, Nov. 15, 2015.
How do undergraduates engage authority figures in college? Existing explanations predict class-based engagement strategies. Using in-depth interviews with 89 undergraduates at an elite university, I show how undergraduates with disparate precollege experiences differ in their orientations toward and strategies for engaging authority figures in college. Middle-class undergraduates report being at ease in interacting with authority figures and are proactive in doing so. Lower-income undergraduates, however, are split. The privileged poor—lower-income undergraduates who attended boarding, day, and preparatory high schools—enter college primed to engage professors and are proactive in doing so. By contrast, the doubly disadvantaged—lower-income undergraduates who remained tied to their home communities and attended local, typically distressed high schools—are more resistant to engaging authority figures in college and tend to withdraw from them. Through documenting the heterogeneity among lower-income undergraduates, I show how static understandings of individuals’ cultural endowments derived solely from family background homogenize the experiences of lower-income undergraduates. In so doing, I shed new light on the cultural underpinnings of education processes in higher education and extend previous analyses of how informal university practices exacerbate class differences among undergraduates.