A NATIONAL ECONOMIC, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (EESD) PROGRAM

 

INTRODUCTION

If this proposal appears audacious, it is respectfully offered as a bold, non-traditional recommendation that the current crisis demands. It will partially define a “building back better” approach to advancing the economic, educational and social development of African Americans.

STRATEGY SUMMARY

  1. UNITE WILLING AFRICAN AMERICANS, IN SELECTED STATES AND CITIES, IN A NATIONAL  ECONOMIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (EESD) PROGRAM.

  1. INCENTIVIZE SELECTED TWENTY LARGE CITIES AND TWENTY STATES WITH LARGEST AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATIONS TO SUPPORT THE ECONOMIC EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS.

  2. INCENTIVIZE LARGE CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONS TO SUPPORT THE EESD MOBILITY STRATEGY FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES.

  1. FUND TW0-YEAR CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS AND ENTREPERNEURAL TRAINING AS KEY AVENUES FOR TEENAGERS AND ADULT FAMILY MEMBERS TO CONSIDER.

  1. ESTABLISH PER-FAMILY, INSTEAD OF PER-PUPIL,  AUTHORIZATIONS BY THE FEDRAL GOVERNMENT.

  1. INCENTIVIZE  AFRICAN AMERICAN RELIGIOUS, CIVIC, CULTURAL AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS TO MARKET, MONITOR, AND PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES TO FAMILIIES, AS PART OF THIS EESD PROGRAM.

  1. PROVIDE PARENTING EDUCATION ACADEMIES FOR PARTICIPATING FAMILIES WITH K-12 STUDENTS.

  1. ESTABLISH A STRUCTURE, UNDER THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL, WITH FISCAL & OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY OF A PRINCIPAL’S COMMITTEE OF KEY PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIES, WHERE THE  DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL IS THE “POINT GUARD” WITH AUTHORITY FOR ALL OPERATIONS, INCLUDING PERSONNEL, BUDGET AND ADVOCACY.

The details for these components follow:

UNITE WILLING AFRICAN AMERICANS, IN IDENTIFIED CITIES AND STATES, IN A NATIONAL ECONOMIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY.

This is a framework for a development plan with components for economics, education, health, employment and entrepreneur training, mortgage loans, business loans and the evaluation of the program. It is consistent with President Biden’s goal of “building back better.” It is presented as a voluntary program where state governments, local governments, families, traditional community-based organizations and major corporations will be incentivized to participate.

Conceptually, this program will be a domestic Marshal Plan for African  Americans similar in spirit to the European Recovery Program, (April 1948-December 1951) sponsored by the U.S. to rehabilitate the economies of 17 western and southern European counties following World War II.

Eligible  program participants will be drawn from:

A)  Twenty states with the largest African American population covering 41 million or 85% (41/48) of the African Americans in USA. (SEE ATTACHMENT 1)

B)  Twenty cities with  100,000 population, where African Americans comprise at least 50%,  which totals approximately 3.6 million African Americans.

(SEE ATTACHMENT 2)

C)  The program is multi-generational (current adults, their children, their grand-children)

Family Eligibility       

A)  Families must reside in eligible cities or states as identified, above.

 B)  Low-income families are those with household        incomes below $35 K/ year (SEE ATTACHMENT 3)

C) Families choose to participate as evidenced by a simple application.

D) Families commit to meeting simple program  requirements or risk losing eligibility.

E)   Families agree to pay a re-investment fee, after they         achieve a pre-defined improved income threshold (this fee will contribute to the continuation of the program, even after the statutes sunset)

   Funding for the program will be calculated based upon:

A)  Per-family costs of education (pre-K to grade 14) for children and for parents/guardians;

Job training and entrepreneurial training; small business grants/loans with technical assistance, without regard to household income levels.

B)  Per-low-income-family costs of education (pre-K to grade 14), health, job training housing, mortgage grants for first time home owners, small business grants/loans with technical assistance. Low -income household initially defined as $35k annually, then indexed for cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs).

C)  Sources of funds: there will be a mixture of private and governmental resources to advance economic mobility of African Americans and close racial wealth and income gaps.

INCENTIVIZE SELECTED TWENTY LARGE CITIES AND TWENTY STATES WITH LARGEST AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATIONS TO SUPPORT THE ECONOMIC EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS

This section describes the purpose, operations and resources that will likely flow from the federal government to states, school districts, municipal governments, non-profit community-based organizations and families to activate the economic, education, and social development of African American families. It will anticipate a continuation of several existing budgets, regulations, and operational procedures, and it also anticipates additional Congressional appropriations and authorization to implement program provisions for which there is no existing law to cover them.

In his frequent pronouncements that his administration will not simply restore losses to existing programs created by the prior administration, President Biden says his administration will “build back better.” It is in keeping with his vision that this economic, educational, and social development (EESD) program for African Americans is proposed.

The EESD program will build upon the delivery system for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I program which the president has publicly promise to triple. (Note: ESEA 2020 appropriations was $16 billion X 3 = $ 48 billion)

The goal for EESD embraces excerpts from existing budget language:

“The Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) recognizes that the primary responsibility for creating, improving and sustaining public education systems lies with States and local school districts. Consequently, the law builds on State and local reform efforts in recent years that help to ensure education opportunity for all student. Key provisions include:

∙ Holding all students to high academic standards that prepare them for success in college and careers;

∙ Requiring that when students and schools fall behind, steps are taken to help them improve, with a particular focus on the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools, high schools with low graduation rates, and schools where subgroups, including students from low-income families, English learners, students with disabilities, and students of color, are falling behind;

∙ Empowering State and local decision makers to continue to refine their own systems for school improvement; and

∙ Supporting the replication and expansion of high-performing charter schools for high-need students, including those that emphasize strategies for increasing racial and socioeconomic diversity.” With respect to this last bullet, I would reference my own research as reported in Bridging the Achievement Gap: What Successful Educators and Parents Do 2nd Edition, available on Bookbaby.com,  Amazon.com and my  website www.fortuneandassociates.com.

CAREER, TECHNICAL AND ADULT EDUCATION

Programs in the Career, Technical, and Adult Education account provide formula grants to States to support State and community efforts to improve career and technical education (CTE) and adult education and literacy systems. There are also competitive grants and contracts under both CTE and adult education national activities authorities for evaluation, performance measurement and improvement, technical assistance, research and development, innovative programs, and other national activities. For 2020, the budget is $1.3 billion to support CTE programs under the recently reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act). The budget also provides $559.6 million for Adult Education programs.

The EESD program would include this component. 

STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.  

The Federal student aid programs provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to help students afford a postsecondary education, find employment in today’s workforce, and realize the lifelong benefits of a higher education. Student financial assistance includes both discretionary and mandatory funding that would make available $131 billion in new Federal student aid to help nearly 12 million students and their families pay for college. This budget would be increased under EESD program. It supports expanding Pell Grant eligibility for short-term programs, and reforming the existing Federal Work-Study program to support workforce and career-oriented training opportunities for low-income undergraduate students.

EDUCATION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH

The Education Innovation and Research (EIR) program, the successor to the Investing in Innovation  program, supports the creation, development, implementation, replication, and scaling up of evidence- based innovations designed to improve student achievement and attainment for high-need students. This provision includes $200.0 million for demonstration projects to improve the quality and effectiveness of classroom instruction by empowering teachers to select their own professional development activities, along with $100.0 million for field-initiated projects that would promote innovation and reform in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, including computer science. A portion of this appropriation would be shared with the EESD program for monitoring, evaluation and publications. 

CHARTER SCHOOL GRANTS

Through grants to State entities, charter school developers, and charter school management organizations, Charter Schools Grants support the startup of new charter schools and the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools serving students in prekindergarten through grade 12. Funds also support grants to improve charter schools’ access to facilities and information dissemination and evaluation activities.

The $500m would make new resources available for Charter Schools Grants, supporting an estimated 340 new or expanded charter schools. This would be an example of the Biden’s Administration’s efforts to recognize the research on schools that are effective with African American (and Hispanic students) and empower States and communities to increase the number of high-quality educational options available to meet the varied needs of students and their families, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds. A portion of this allocation would go to participating districts and schools in the EESD program.

HIGHER EDUCATION 

The budget includes $1.5 billion in discretionary funds for Higher Education programs aimed at improving student achievement and increasing access to a high-quality education for all students. President Biden announced an augmentation to the HBCU budget of $70m. This EESD program would request an increase for adults in participating families to attend community colleges for certificate programs leading to employment, as well as entrepreneurial training. There will be an augmentation to the Higher Education for participating high school graduates and adult participants in the EESD programs.

FEDERAL TRIO PROGRAMS

Budget 1,010,000,000 

The Federal TRIO programs are among the Department’s largest investments aimed at getting more students prepared for, into, and through postsecondary education. This proposed EESD program would reverse the plans of the prior administration to close out these programs. Instead, families funded under the EESD would be encouraged to access the following:

Talent Search
Upward Bound
Veterans Upward Bound
Math-Science Educational Opportunity Centers Student Support Services
McNair Post Baccalaureate Achievement Staff Training

INCENTIVIZE LARGE CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONS, AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TO SUPPORT THE ECONOMIC, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES.

       Resource allocations will only flow to such entities that agree to the terms and    conditions required of eligible participants. It will create an entrepreneurship fund to invest African Africans from 20 designated states (ATTACHMENT 1) & 20 designated cities (Attachment 2).

The program will invest in African American business  entrepreneurs, including:

1)  Increasing their access to credit and capital

2)  Funding  State Small Business Credit Initiative (See Maryland’s TEDCO Builder)       

3)  Expanding New Market Tax Credit:

4)  Funding Community Development Financial Institutions

5)  Expanding SBA Programs: funding

6)  It will facilitate the award of 15% of federal contracts to same communities

PROVIDE PARENTING EDUCATION ACADEMIES FOR FAMILIES WITH K-12 STUDENTS

The family is the unit of funding, even though support services will be age-and developmentally-appropriate, on an individual basis for members of the family. For example, there will be support services for the pre-school member of the family which will differ from the community college support for adults in the family. On the other hand, medical and mental health services may be the same for all members of the family. It is expected that any participating family will likely extend their own creativity to the success of this program. Hence this proposed “program” is a framework for the economic, educational and  social development of their family.

While public policy related to ESEA Title I, Head Start and any number of  other educational or social welfare programs have long recognized parent involvement as an important component for dis-advantaged youth, they have not sufficiently incorporated lessons drawn from experiences of successful parents as a focus of the operation of the programs. I am not aware that even Title I parent training programs attempted to train parents to effectively raise and support their children as David Augustus Dickson & Mary Marguerite Dickson or Sue Pearl and Ulysses Rice or even Lois Ann and Emmitt Rice ultimately did.  Yet successful children, from almost any culture –Asian, White, Jamaican or African American—thrive when guided by  parents who transmit their culture of ambition, curiosity, industriousness and goal orientation, to the younger generation. My point here is that the successful social development of African American families should benefit from experiences of other successful parents. I have conducted parent academies in K-12 schools and published evaluations of those trainings on my website: www.fortuneandassociates.com. Hence the recommendation for parent academies as one of the pillars of the economic, educational, and social development program for African Americans is evidenced based.

A special focus for future parenting academies grows out of the Covid-19 pandemic. K-12 and higher education have come to rely upon distance learning delivery systems since March 2019. Indeed, some existing delivery systems were somewhat ahead of the homeschooling experience that parents and students of traditional schools had experience. Yet this dilemma has introduced a new set of needs for parents who want to assist with student learning at home. This is an area for investment in catch up strategies, especially for students who fell behind because of Covid-19.

INCENTIVIZE  AFRICAN AMERICAN RELIGIOUS, CIVIC, CULTURAL AND BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS TO MARKET, MONITOR, AND PROVIDE DIRECT SERVICES TO FAMILIIES, AS PART OF THIS EESD PROGRAM.

There will be a unique effort to engage civic organizations, religious organization, fraternities, sororities, and other non-profits groups as advocates, deliverers of services and monitors for the program. This will involve contracts for services rendered. Applicants will be required to comply with all legal, fiscal, and operational standards specified by the Director of Domestic Policy Council.

Applicant Agency eligibility:

  1. They must be located in identified 20 states with largest AA population, or

  2. They must be located in identified 20 large cities with > 50% AA populations

  3.   Churches must be located in eligible cities & states identified in 1 & 2 above.

  4.  Other Non-profits must be located within eligible cities & states ( Civic clubs, fraternal organizations, sorority organizations, etc.)

ESTABLISH A STRUCTURE, UNDER THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL, WITH FISCAL & OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY OF A PRINCIPALS’ COMMITTEE OF KEY PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIES, WHERE THE DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY COUNCIL IS THE “POINT GUARD” WITH AUTHORITY FOR ALL OPERATIONS, INCLUDING PERSONNEL AND BUDGET.

The management of this operation will be authorized by federal statue, but its structure will be a stand-alone, quasi-independent organization like the Federal Reserve Bank. The longevity of this program will not be linked to the political party that happens to be in power at the time of its initiation. Its term will span three generations. Resources needed to support this effort should come from private sources and a variety of federal agencies and departments which are authorized by multiple existing statutes and regulations. Collaboration among federal agencies will require a Presidential Cabinet level “point guard” with sufficient clout to command co-operation. The “point guard” will also develop legislation and guidelines for private corporation Incentives to participate.

“POINT GUARD” Chairs Principals Committee

              PRINCIALS COMMITTEE:

              SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,

              SECRETARY OF LABOR 

              DIRECTOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETS

              SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

              DIRECTOR OF STUDENT AID ADMINISTRATION, DIRECTOR         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

             DIRECTOR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL,

             WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF

             SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

             SECRETARY OF TREASURER,

             DIRECTOR INSTITUTES OF EDUCATION SCIENCES

DEPUTIES COMMITTEE –second-ranking officials at the key agencies above.

Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting

  It is critical that each program component is monitored from the beginning. EESD program eligibility, as well as adherence to program requirements, especially authorized expenditure allocations must be monitored from the start. There will be tensions between those who insist upon state and local control of program operations and those who will require compliance with federal regulations, especially adherence to the spirit of the Congressional statutes governing the EESD program.

Two observations regarding the history of ESEA Title I programs should serve to guide planning for the evaluation of EESD. The first one occurred after Title I had been authorized for about five years. In March 1972, the American Institutes of Research published their national evaluation of ESEA Title I entitled: A Re-analysis and Synthesis of Evaluation Data from Fiscal year1965-1970. Their conclusions in 1972 were: a) most states and many LEA’s have failed to implement their programs in full compliance with existing regulations, guidelines, and program criteria; b) funds and services have been under allocated for academic programs, over allocated for supportive (non-academic) services; and c) there is little evidence at the national level that the program has had any positive impact on eligible participating children…… We want the implementors of the EESD program at the federal, state, LEA and non-profit community-based organization levels to anticipate harsh critiques of how the EESD program operates and what its results are.

While it is true that all children improved in math over the past 46 years, we can observe that the achievement gap  for African American 4th and 8th graders and Asian or White students has persisted for nearly 50 years. (SEE Tables 4 & 5)

Yet, there are exceptions to this trend as documented in my research in Bridging The Achievement Gap: What Successful Educators and Parents Do, 1st and 2nd Editions

 (SEE Amazon.com).  

The other observation is a little more nuanced. This has to do with tracking services, funds and operations so that the intended program elements get focused on the declared eligible participants. Over the past several years, administrators of special programs have moved to a concept of “schoolwide programs” and away from “targeted assistance” to eligible participates. The pros and cons of this issue are too numerous to address here, but the stated goal of proponents of “schoolwide programs” is to ensure that all students meet or exceed State academic standards. A noble thought. But when budgetary critics demand evidence of the efficacy of the EESD program, they will want to know how the intended beneficiaries of the program faired. Is this too much detail at the stage? Perhaps. But clarity at the beginning will prevent the agony of apparent failure or disappointment later. 

This section must have sufficient budget and collaboration across the effected agencies identified on page 9 in the “Principal’s Committee.”

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

It would be a mistake to view the resources for the EECD program as a stand-alone budget, exclusively.  Its budget is not simply the sum of re-directed resources from existing programs (Talk about a non-starter to inspire collaboration!); it will take new resources.

As noted above, President Biden has already committed to “triple” the ESEA Title I budget, and much of what is described here could be a part of those new resources. This paper has not identified existing sources of funding for purchasing first-time housing or for investing in small entrepreneurial enterprises. Administration of the program at the federal, state and local levels needs to be budgeted. 

Finally, resources for the evaluation of the overall EESD program need to be authorized—probably as an independent contractor.

CONCLUSION

This Economic, Educational, and Social Development EESD) program anticipates an ability to draw upon existing federal programs to deliver to cooperating states and cities with high African American populations a coordinated strategy that will result in documentable improvements in the lives of their families. Its goals and methodologies should be straight forward and easily described. It is not a mandate for any state, city, or family to participate. Families will have to choose to participate. State and local governments will have to agree to participate. Given their rights to choose, there may be a phasing-in of the number cities and states identified in Attachments 1 & 2. The program needs a fair opportunity to succeed, and should not be burdened with organizations or individuals who are less than enthusiastic about its possibilities. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Rex Fortune, President

Fortune & Associates

www.fortuneandassociates.com

rcfortune9@yahoo.com

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT #1

 

BLACK POPULATION BY STATE – TOP 20

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2018 Estimate)

Rank

State

Black

Population

Percent

Black

1

Texas

3,936,669

14%

2

Florida

3,867,495

18%

3

New York

3,763,977

19%

4

Georgia

3,549,349

34%

5

California

3,024,208

8%

6

North Carolina

2,448,077

24%

7

Illinois

1,991,107

16%

8

Maryland

1,972,270

33%

9

Virginia

1,825,228

21%

10

Pennsylvania

1,705,705

13%

11

Ohio

1,692,390

14%

12

Louisiana

1,571,529

34%

13

Michigan

1,540,612

15%

14

New Jersey

1,455,615

16%

15

South Carolina

1,438,997

28%

16

Alabama

1,352,906

28%

17

Tennessee

1,227,260

18%

18

Mississippi

1,152,261

39%

19

Missouri

797,005

13%

20

Indiana

742,868

11%

 

 

 

Total Black Population in the Top 20 States: 41,055,528

Total Number of Blacks in the U.S.: approximately 48,000,000

ATTACHMENT #2

Top 10 U.S. Cities of over 100,00 with the highest percentage of

African American people. (Source: Wikipedia)

Rank

City

% of African

Americans

Total African

Americans

1

Detroit, MI

82.7

670,226

2

Gary, IN

80.92

75,282

3

Jackson, MS

79.4

137,716

4

Chester, PA

77.8

26,429

5

Miami Gardens, FL

76.3

81,776

6

Orangeburg, SC

75.04

13,964

7

Birmingham, AL

73.4

155,791

8

Albany, GA

71.6

55,442

9

Baltimore, MD

63.7

395,781

10

Memphis, TN

62.6

607,309

11

New Orleans, LA

60.2

206,871

12

Baton Rouge, LA

58.5

126,250

13

Wilmington, DE

58

41,326

14

Flint, MI

56.6

57,939

15

Savannah, GA

55.4

75,507

16

Augusta, GA

54.7

107,182

17

Shreveport, LA

54.7

109,022

18

Montgomery, AL

54.5

116,524

19

Atlanta, GA

54.0

325,894

20

Cleveland, OH

53.3

211,672

 

Total Number of Blacks in the Top 10 U.S. Cities with 100,000+ population: approx. 3.6 million.

 

 ATTACHMENT #3 (Source: Wikipedia, Household income in the United States).

 

ATTACHMENT #4

NAEP Scores Mathematics Trends – Grade 4

 

ATTACHMENT #5 

NAEP Scores Mathematics Trends – Grade 8

 

Back to News