Tag Archives: new york city

The school for social capital?

The New American Academy, serving poor non-white  youth in Crown Heights, Brooklyn aims to reinvent education, but it may well be a strong contender for  building social capital as well.

Joel Klein, Former Chancellor,New York City Department of Education has written:

“The New American Academy [NAA] is an innovative, potentially very powerful way to provide education to children. It is both brilliant and scalable and holds out the hope of changing K-12 education in major ways.

This is a big idea, something we desperately need if we are going to significantly change the educational outcomes for our children.”

Educationally, NAA started in 2010 as a public school with kindergarten and first graders.  Each year they will add another grade until they reach fifth grade.  They assign 4 teachers to 60 students who they remain with from grades K-5. The teachers are compensated and promoted based on performance their 60-student flock as well as on peer and supervisory review.  OneMaster teacher (paid $120,000 annually) helps supervise the overall direction among 3 less senior teachers who rotate among 3-4 tables.

The school was founded by a  Shimon Waronker, “who grew up speaking Spanish in South America, became a U.S. Army intelligence officer, became an increasingly observant Jew, studied at yeshiva, joined the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, became a public schoolteacher and then studied at the New York City Leadership Academy, which Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the former New York Schools chancellor, Joel Klein, founded to train promising school principal candidates.” While a doctoral student in Harvard’s Urban Superintendents Program, he conceived the NAA educational approach based on the elite Phillips Exeter Academy and in 2009 won Harvardʼs Phi Delta Kappa Award for Innovation in Education.

Waronker, a Hasidic Jew, who sports a long bears and wears a black  suit,  black hat and a velvet kippa, seems an improbable leader for a non-white inner city school.  But he gained credibility after reviving the failing extremely violent Jordan Mott School  in the depressed South Bronx and overcoming parental wariness ultimately to gain the trust of parents and students.

In principle, the school seems unusually well-designed to promote social capital building among the students and teachers.  There is a high mix of teamwork, the students get a lot of practice in honing civic skills (like making presentations) and sit around larger tables participating in teacher-led group discussions.

“The teachers are not solitary. They are constantly interacting as an ensemble. Students can see them working together and learning from each other. The students are controlled less by uniform rules than by the constant informal nudges from the teachers all around.” [David Brooks]

“He has a grand theory to transform American education…. The American education model, he says, was actually copied from the 18th-century Prussian model designed to create docile subjects and factory workers. He wants schools to operate more like the networked collaborative world of today.” [Brooks]

Brooks says NAA “does a tremendous job of nurturing relationships. Since people learn from people they love, education is fundamentally about the relationship between a teacher and student. By insisting on constant informal contact and by preserving that contact year after year, The New American Academy has the potential to create richer, mentorlike or even familylike relationships for students who are not rich in those things.”

The school is important for at least two reasons.  Much social capital research and socialization research demonstrates that “as the twig is bent, so grows the tree”.  These early years are a critical time to teach the soft non-cognitive skills that are increasingly valuable in today’s society like teamwork, building relationships, negotiating differences, etc.  So this early experience in building social capital, if successful, could be an important model.

Second, we are increasingly discovering in our own research that working class kids (white and non-white) are increasingly falling through society’s cracks and are falling further and further behind their counterparts from more affluent and educated backgrounds.  While it is still to be proven, NAA seems to offer promise for what schools could do to start to close these gaps among kids who happened to be born on the wrong side of the tracks.

I look forward to the research that compares the educational and social outcomes of kids attending NAA against their matched counterparts who don’t.

Read David Brooks’ “The Relationship School” in the NYT (3/23/12)

Read “60 First Graders, 4 Teachers, One Loud Way to Learn” (NYT, 1/11/2011) [Slide show here.]

Is Occupy Wall Street a moment or a movement? (UPDATED 6/7/12)

Flickr photo by eleephotography

Despite their lack of demands, it’s been fascinating to watch the growth in Occupy Wall Street protests (in the US and abroad).  As someone long puzzled that the US don’t object more to the uneven distribution of wealth, it is heartening to see many Americans taking the issue of inequality to the streets.  The effort has been incredibly effective at putting the issue of “income inequality” (the 1% vs. the 99%) on the table, but far less effective at effecting change.

Is it a social movement?  Or as Marshall Ganz says “is it a moment“? The eminent Univ. of Columbia sociologist/political scientist/historian Charles Tilley (1929-2008) identified three components widely considered to be the core elements of a social movement:

  1. A sustained, organized public effort making collective claims on target audiences (“a campaign”);
  2. Employing various combinations of political action (“repertoire”), including special purpose associations and coalitions, public meetings, processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, public statements through the media, and pamphleteering; and
  3. Participants’ concerted public representations for themselves or  constituents of their worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment (WUNC).

Along these three criteria, Occupy Wall Street merits mixed success.

1a. sustained campaign: so far Occupy Wall Street has been going for 6+ months but their momentum has fallen sharply from their original days [their funding is running short, contributions have slowed dramatically, public support for the movement has gone from 54% approval in an October 2011 TIME poll to 71% disapproval in an April ABC/WSJ poll. Social media interest in OWS has fallen: there were 20-60 tweets a minute in October  (hitting a peak one night of 1500 tweets a minute) using the hash tags #occupy and #OWS; that flow has fallen by June to 5 a minute and some of these concern an Oregon Wildlife Campaign.  The number of sites has dissipated dramatically.

The ouster of protesters by police in places like NYC, Oakland, Portland, Denver, and the like, seems to have substantially dissipated their numbers.  And violent confrontations with police in places like Oakland have undermined broader support for the Occupy movement.

1b. organized:  so far Occupy Wall Street is highly unusual in their self-organization.  They do not have leaders.  They don't even have megaphones so they resort to people around a speaker physically amplifying a speaker's comments by repeating it in unison or developing hand signals to show approval/disapproval with comments.  OWS certainly is organized as far as things like the provision of food, having various committees, etc.  While there was no leader to the OWS protest, it was the brainchild of Adbusters, and based on the Arab Spring protests and designed to be a US-based Tahrir Square, but having called people to protest, they have remained fairly hands-off.  Note: it's worth reading the interesting "Pre-Occupied" on the history of OWS and ongoing involvement of Adbusters.

1c. demands:  so far, there are no demands that Occupy Wall Street has made of the government, of Wall Street, etc.  In fact some (like Bill Clinton) are criticizing OWS for not having made specific demands, although in some ways it makes it easier to sustain this amorphous "movement" by being potentially all things to all people and being a vehicle for people's general anger.  They have now formed a committee to try to develop demands.  Many of their demands like "an end to Wall Street greed" seem relatively unachievable without a cap in pay on Wall Street (which seems very unlikely).  Other possible goals like writing down student debt for unemployed students might be more achievable.

Derek Thompson, writing for The Atlantic claims that the mid-November ouster of OWS from Zuccotti Park is a good thing because it enables the protesters to reformulate their movement and focus on a central demand:  "Whether or not the protesters return to their tents, New York police have given them a chance to lift up, take stock, and pitch their energies in an issue worth occupying. Writing for The Atlantic yesterday, Sara Horowitz reached back into the Industrial Revolution protests that culminated in the Eight-Hour Day Movement. From a "massive, inchoate, messy movement emerged a central demand: an eight-hour workday," she wrote. And that eventually led to Fair Labor Standards Act as part of the New Deal in 1938.

"What should be the Eight-Hour Day Movement of the moment? Maybe they should focus on student debt reform. Today, student debt lives with you until you die and cannot be unwound in bankruptcy court; perhaps it should be. Maybe they should focus on the minimum wage, which has declined in real value for the last few decades. Maybe they call for repealing the Bush tax cuts, a savvy request that would represent broad sacrifice (it would raise taxes on almost all households, but mostly at the top) to demonstrate to Americans that the movement is willing to sacrifice for its ultimate goals. There is also welfare reform, unemployment benefit support, and other platforms that would aim to support the least well-off."  Such demands don't require a physical base.

Some protesters after the Zuccotti Park eviction said they "were already trying to broaden their influence, for instance by deepening their involvement in community groups and spearheading more of what they described as direct actions, like withdrawing money from banks, and were considering supporting like-minded political candidates." But "Doug McAdam, a sociology professor at Stanford, predicted that the energy could quickly dissipate without the occupation. 'The focal point will be lost,' he said. " (NY Times)

In total, on dimension 1, given how short this protest has lasted and the current lack of demands, I'd give them a C+ on this.

2. repertoire:  OWS has largely resorted to rallies thus far, but they have had a couple of marches (to places like Times Square).  They make wide use of social media, including the Internet, Meetup, Twitter.  They have a website (Occupy Together) that charts their efforts in other cities.  They use protest signs, music (although often more entertaining than protesting).  I'd give them a B+ on this front.

3. WUNC: they clearly have made a general statement that government has been there during the Great Recession much more for the 1% than for the 99% (Wall Street at the expense of Main Street).  Moreover, their message appears to be resonating, in terms of number of actual and inchoate demonstrations, number of Facebook sympathizers, and views in the general public.   As noted in a lack of their demands, there is relatively little "unity" and their "numbers" while growing are still relatively small in any one site.  As to "commitment", it certainly appears that some of the protesters are there for the long-haul, sleeping there overnight, but their numbers have dramatically fallen. I'd give them an C- on this dimension.

As someone who has written about the power of Meetup before and about "alloy social capital", the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) folks who originally showed their support on Facebook (a far less meaningful indicator of support in my book) have now taken to using Meetup as a tool to organize protests in new cities.    As Micah Sifry noted on 10/14/11, "On Meetup.com/OccupyTogether, where the OccupyTogether folks shifted their efforts, the number of communities represented has also doubled in the last 8 days, from 945 to 1,749. The number of occupiers listed as having joined one of those Meetups has tripled, from just under 4,000 to about 12,300."

If this chart to left is put on a logarithmic scale, one sees that the rate of growth dramatically slows after 10/7, even with an action (registering a "like" on facebook that is quite easy). By June, 2012, there were only 167,000 Facebook likes.

I think the growth on Meetup is much more real, but many of these locations are currently inactive (see below).

- number of actual and inchoate demonstrations.  There is not great data on this.  Nate Silber had an interesting post on 10/17/11 about the size and geography of protesters.  Meetup charts the current number of "occupiers" by location, but this is likely an overestimate since some/many(?) of these "occupiers" may not show up on a given day and an underestimate since it only includes people registered on Meetup (and not their tag-along friends or people who see a protest and join in).

- views in the general public. Over 54% of Americans have favorable views of OccupyWallStreet. And a Quinnipiac University poll on 10/17/11 found two-thirds of Big Apple voters support the Occupy Wall Street protests.  [Recent polls, as noted above, show support for the OWS protest slipping dramatically.]

- moreover, there is some evidence that the OWS efforts are changing at least what the media is discussing.  See this post by Zaid Jilani of Think Progress on what the media was covering in the end of July versus what it was covering in October.  [Granted that the resolution of the showdown over the national deficit naturally made the focus naturally shift away somewhat from a focus on debt, but the turnaround in attention to jobs, fairness and inequality has been remarkable.]

Syd Tarrow, a pre-eminent scholar of social movements defines them as “collective challenges to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities.”  Along this definition, the OWS movement would have to wrestle with proving that they are sustained (see above), that they have “common purposes and solidarity” (see above) and “collective challenges” when they have yet to present any unified demands.  Moreover, the OWS movement has been less about interacting directly with elites, opponents or authorities (other than fighting off arrests or threats to clear them from Zuccotti Park).

Where OWS may be more successful as a quasi social movement is to the extent that they get political leaders to stand up and take notice and change their policies accordingly.  On this score, time will obviously tell, but they have tapped into a period of fundamental and widespread feeling of malaise and lack of economic confidence about the future.

+++

For a primer on Occupy Wall Street, see this LA Times piece and see this CBS piece comparing the actual distribution of income in the US against what respondents think the distribution is and what they would desire.  There is also an interesting abridgement of a Scientific American article on attitudes/behaviors toward income redistribution in the US.

Note: Jeffrey Sachs calls OWS “The New Progressive Movement“, but he is far looser about using the term social movement.

- From analysis of 5,600 completed surveys at occupywallst.org, fastcompany concludes that the typical protester is white (82%), male (61%), college-educated (61%), has a political affiliation of “independent” (70%), is 25-44 years old (44%), has a full-time job (47%), has income under $25,000 (47%) although 30% have income over $50,000 and 2% have income over $150,000, and about one quarter of them have attended occupation events previously.  Other demographics here.

- And an interesting article about how the Teamsters are allying with Occupy Wall Street around shared goals.

- See “Can Occupy Wall Street Survive?” (Reuters)

New: quality social capital data available online

Rating of large cities in Group Participation 2008-2009, CNCS data

The Corporation for National Service (CNCS) several years ago started making volunteering data available online through Volunteering in America , with a research brief, rankings and profiles for all states and big cities, and even downloadable summary data.

The Corporation has now released comparable social capital data.  See: Civic Life in America website.

They have an Issue Brief describing their overall results across 5 dimensions (service which includes volunteering, group participation,  connecting to civic information, social connectedness,  and political action).

One can see the ranking of states or large cities across these dimensions (volunteering, voting, working with neighbors or group participation).

And one can see geographic profiles of states (here’s NY) or communities (here’s the Twin Cities for example).  And summary data can be exported (to a PDF, Excel table, etc.).

These data, in addition to being a great boon to scholars, are highly useful for local leaders.  For example, Governor Schwarzenegger used the California volunteer data to develop new public polices around volunteering, state legislative support for those efforts, and ultimately created the first cabinet-level position on service and volunteering in the state.  Driven by public discussions about the low level of volunteering in New York City, highlighted through CNCS research releases, Mayor Bloomberg launched a new civic initiative for the city including launching a Civic Corps, further buttressed with borough-level data from CNCS.  Many press outlets help spread the word about how cities and states are doing against one another and encourage friendly competition for citizens to become more actively engaged.

Well done and keep up the good work.  With thanks to CNCS for their leadership on this issue.

See earlier post on advances in social capital measurement.

See later post on “US expands social capital measures

NYC Street-art trying to build social capital

This is a social capital friendly street art that is appearing around New York City.  I’m interested in learning more about whether it is working.  The artistic effort is called “Living Exercises”; not sure who the artist is.

One assumes there is a lot of self-selection going on here — the misanthropes are unlikely to sign up, but maybe this a useful social capital nudge for those of us interested in making new acquaintances.

[hat-tip to "How to Make Friends in Brooklyn"]

The importance of building social capital accidentally (UPDATED)

Mario Luis Small, (University of Chicago, Sociology), who spoke this summer at our SCHMI 2010 workshop, has a compelling recent book that we commend.  Mario is a wonderful person and a smart applied researcher, undertaking research with societal implications.

In his ground-breaking recent book Unanticipated Gains (Oxford University Press, 2009),  Small both focuses on how important social capital is to the health of mothers but also uses the book to explore “how social capital is built” since he thought there was a lot of research on the importance of social capital and a dearth on how to create it.  It represents a major advance in our collective knowledge.

He studied new mothers and daycare centers in the New York City area for two reasons:

  1. Daycare centers are diverse institutions (they come in for-profit, non-profit, state-run, privately-run, and religiously-run flavors);
  2. They are prime place for observing new ties being formed since many American parents deal with these during in their lives, they have high turnover, and catch mothers at a phase of their life when they are often interested in and likely to make new ties (children are an important channel through which we make new ties).  Daycare centers also come at a time in mothers’ life when they have big responsibilities (children) but low knowledge, which also makes networking very important (e.g.,  Who is a good local pediatrician? When do you worry about a rash?  When should you start on formula?  How warm does it need to be? What museums are child-friendly?).

Part of his research was about how social networks at daycare centers helped make mothers healthier and less depressed; he found significantly less depression in daycare centers where parents made more social ties and the quality of their information was much better.

But equally important was his conclusions about how social capital was built.  This is an excerpt from a piece he wrote for RSA about his research.

Levels of commitment

We interviewed the directors of many different kinds of childcare centers – 23 in all, ranging from the commercial to the nonprofit, the secular to the religious, the corporate to the standalone – and observed what staff, children, mothers and fathers (though few of the latter were visible) did over the course of operations.

At the end of our study, nothing surprised us more than how much the centers differed in their social capital. In some, most mothers forged new friendships among the other parents; together, they organized parties, arranged play dates, attended movies and dinners, and developed what many of them referred to as a new community. Joining the center had measurably transformed their social networks…. In other centers, mothers knew few, if any, of the other parents; they did not party or dine with them, or babysit their children. These centers served as little more than drop-off and pick-up locations. In one rare example, the director had even tried to build social capital but failed: she threw a pizza party for parents to socialize and almost none of them attended.

Flickr photo by Jason L Park

Mario’s central question is “why” did some succeed when other centers failed in building social capital?  He concludes that social capital was often the unintended consequence of an administrative policy.

The socially effective centers did not differ from the others in the amount of leisure time the mothers had at their disposal; in all of them, most mothers worked full-time. Race, class, lifestyle and neighborhood did not explain the difference, and nor did these centers have particularly heroic directors committed to creating a sense of community among the parents. On the contrary, few directors displayed any interest in building social capital for its own sake. Like the rest of us, they were busy; they had a center to run.

Instead, social capital typically emerged when directors were trying to accomplish some other task, one that gave parents opportunities to interact or incentives to cooperate. For example, many directors believed strongly that children should be exposed to zoos, museums, libraries, children’s parks and farms. But trips to these locations require many more adults than are needed in the classroom, to prevent children from sticking their hands in monkey cages, wandering off in parks or slipping into ponds at apple-picking expeditions. Since hiring more staff for these occasions was costly, the centers needed parents to attend. No parent volunteers, no field trips. Centers needed volunteers for other activities, too, such as sanding and painting playgrounds at the end of the year, contributing food for various ceremonies and raising money to keep tuition fees moderate. In some centers in low-income neighborhoods, mothers were expected either to raise a certain amount over the course of the year – usually about US$300 – or pay it out of pocket. To avoid paying the fee, parents had to volunteer for group fundraising activities, such as selling baked goods or holding raffles.

All of these activities – field trips, clean-ups, ceremonies and raffles – required interaction and socialisation with others; they obliged parents to meet, talk, exchange phone numbers, arrange schedules and get organized. As a result, the centers that imposed greater demands on parents provided opportunities and incentives that, over the course of weeks and months, stimulated the formation of social capital.

Mario also talks about how the daycare schedule helped build social capital.  Some centers had strict drop-off and pick-up times, with fines often running at rates as high as $10 a minute for every minute that one was late.  Other centers had lackadaisical attitudes toward drop-off and pick-up times.  The centers with rigid times, in turn had parents all arriving at nearly the same time to drop-off and pick-up their children.  Invariably, that time (just before or dropping off children) was a social capital gold mine: parents would ask other parents whether their child had had a certain behavioral problem, or would arrange playdates or would get advice about equipment, toys or books for their kid.  Mothers would seek out useful connections to tap if they were unavoidably detained at work, got a flat tire, or were stuck in a train, to have that other parent to pick up their child.  They might ask other mothers to babysit their children some time during the week in exchange for reciprocal favors.  This is another example of administrative policies designed with no attention to social-capital-building that had big consequences.  Every parent who didn’t form a social tie with others in a daycare center, regardless of their social class, cited flexible drop-off and pick-up times as the number one cause (and this was confirmed by the data).

Mario also found that the existence of a parent-teacher organization in a daycare center was a strong positive predictor of how much social capital was built.

The implication of Mario’s book is regardless of one’s organizational post, one should be more attuned to ways to build (or not destroy) social capital in the everyday policies; this is far more important than the intentional but infrequent organizational group get-together or pizza party.  The pizza party is not counter-productive, but since it is a rarity, it’s unlikely to be as consequential as the daily rhythms and patterns of the organization.

Mario notes that other research comes to broadly similar conclusions about the importance of organizational features in the building of social capital:  for example, Mitch Duneier’s work on restaurants; Maureen Hallinan’s work on schools; Frida Kerner Furman’s work on barbershops and salons; and work by Omar McRoberts and Chaeyoon Lim/Robert Putnam on houses of worship.

One of Small’s interesting findings was that one of the reasons that the daycare centers were so successful in building social capital was their homophily: they tended to draw other parents of similar socio-economic backgrounds, partly through where the centers were located, through their pricing structure and through who was eligible for government-supported programs.  Small speculated in a visit to Harvard (October 4, 2010) that the social capital gains exhibited by daycare centers would be less successful for a hypothetically new daycare center located in a mixed-income housing center and available only to its residents.  He also speculated that it would lead to more task-oriented conflict, of the kind that he observed in researching Unanticipated Gains.

We highly recommend the book for those interested in rebuilding our stock of social capital.  The book focuses much more on inter-organizational variance in building social capital (i.e., which organizational settings are more successful) than on within-organization variation in building social capital (i.e., who within a daycare center succeeds in building social ties).  He agrees that more research is needed on this second question:  the “mating” part of “meeting and mating.”  His book focuses more on what about the organization creates an important opportunity structure for building social capital.

Small also noted that the ties generally being created at these daycare centers are a strange hybrid of strong and weak ties.  Scholars like Granovetter focused on the strength of weak ties for accessing information (job leads, etc.) and the importance of strong ties for getting social support.  In general, Small finds daycare centers produce “compartmental intimates”; daycare parents use these networks both for exchanging important information relating to their children, but because of the fact that young children share all kinds of private information about parenting and because parenting often relates to many other intimate things like the quality of one’s relationship with one’s spouse, these daycare friendships often provided strong social support and friends felt comfortable talking about many personal items that directly or indirectly related to their parenting.  In this sense, these compartmental intimates offered some of the best of strong and weak ties.

Small engaged in an interesting dialogue with Robert Putnam about to what extent the focus on daycare centers obscures the role of agency (individuals’ efforts to build social capital).  Does the existence of these daycare centers substitute for personal agency and effort?  Does it compound inequalities in social capital creation.  Small thinks in general that they daycare centers are likely to reduce the class-based inequalities in social ties and Putnam’s instinct is the opposite.

From a policy perspective, Mario Small’s work suggests that if one were hypothetically figuring out how to invest $5,000 in childcare per low-income resident in an area, one would be far better providing a voucher to be used for childcare in an organizational setting, rather than a voucher for family daycare or a $5000 voucher to the mother.  Small found that the publicly-run centers also tended to maximize the social capital building:  they typically had parent associations (founded in their Head Start roots) and ran a lot more field trips.  They were also better about connecting parents to things like assistance if there domestic abuse issues, or access to dental and health exams.

Chapter 1 of Unanticipated Gains can be read here.

Video of Mario discussing his work.

An article Mario wrote on his research for RSA Journal available here.