School Segregation

Most NYC residents vocalize strongly against racism and call for the need of better school systems. Apparently just not enough to keep their own kids in integrated schools, working together towards the solution. Much of this disparity is driven by the state’s Charter school laws put into place over the past 15 years which were probably the NYPD’s fault too:

“According to the UCLA civil rights project, the South is the least segregated region for black students and in fact New York state is now the most segregated system in America in large part due to New York City.”

“The number of schools where 1% or less of the population is white have more than double since 1988.”

And this from a UCLA 2012 release: “The nation’s largest metropolitan areas report severe school racial concentration. Half of the black students in the Chicago metro, and one third of black students in New York, attend apartheid schools.”…/orfield_epluribus…

Saw John Oliver’s segment on it last night, very interesting. I also read an article recently about growing resistance from African American families to desegregation policies in some southern states. Their primary position was that they had chosen to self-segregate and the government has no business taking their kids out of the overwhelmingly minority schools they chose to live by and putting them in other schools for the sake of diversity.

There will always be some detractors from either side. The evidence says diversifying schools helps underperforming minorities in every major metric. I also would bet my left nut that the poor state of inner city schools that champagne socialists like to bemoan would magically find funding and staff if children of white parents from better backgrounds were forced into attending. It’s the easiest solution, if you want to see measurable performance and halt some of the divisiveness that has occurred in the past 20 years, we need to start giving upper and middle class majorities a vested interest in those issues and have more of an integrated team mentality by putting their own futures and children at stake. The idea of wealthy classes self-segregating through high end charter schools while talking about the “idea of equality” in philosophy classes while leaving the lower income segments to fix their own problems has yielded predictable results. We’ll send kids to college for $400k to get a diversified well rounded education but don’t think it’s worth it to have a more well rounded integrated K-12.

^So let me get this straight–you want to take away people’s right to send their kids to whatever school they desire (as long as they pay for it)? So I can’t send my kids to a prep school, but I have to send them to the lowly public school instead? Even if I agree to pay for BOTH the public school AND the private school? (Because that’s what I’m doing–I’m paying property taxes AND private tutiton at the same time. In other words, I’m paying for both your kid and mine.)

You have posted at length about your plans to ensure that your inheritance stays intact, and that you have no plans to share it, even with your wife. I’m not denying your right to an opinion, but don’t these seem like polar opposites? On one hand, you are gripping your money with the tightest fist that you can, and on the other, you seek “equality” or “fairness”, even if it’s the result of trickle-down poverty.

Not at all. One is vested interest for the good of society. The other has no demonstrated social benefit. Also, if you’re paying for both public and charter, that wouldn’t be a problem as much. I’m more for the integrated schooling we had post segregation among public schools (ie, might require further bussing for some students) and eliminating waivers (in some states up North you get credits towards charter school from public school payments or can select districts).

I actually gave it more thought on the drive home and do think restricting charter schools may be part of the solution. We need a more integrated society with a vested interest. I realize it’s pretty socialist but this may be one area where it’s necessary.

I’m in agreement that public school is FUBAR in a lot of ways, but I disagree that bussing kids is part of the solution. That only creates divisiveness within the school age children. (“Tyrone is one of those ‘bussed-in’ kids. He doesn’t belong in our neighborhood or in our school.”) Plus, it costs a lot of money to run those busses every day.

Additionally, and I apologize in advance for the racist overtone, my wife (and all her teacher friends) continually complain about the bussed-in kids, stating that they are universally more likely to be behavior problems and/or academic problems. Granted, part of this is due to the fact that ABC elementary is going to try to ship out its problem children (both behavioral and academic) while keeping the good ones. But a big part of it is also the socioeconomic factor. Kids from the “other side of the tracks” just generally have more problems. So by bussing kids around the city, you are basically just spreading a social disease rather than keeping it relatively contained.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about with “eliminating waivers” or the other stuff. But in Texas, if you’re under age 60, then part of your property taxes goes to fund the local school district, whether you send your kids there or not. So if I send my kids to Rich White Prep School, I’m essentially paying for two schools, which I feel should be fully within my rights.

(Just FYI - I’m far from rich, and my kids will probably go to public school from Pre-K to PhD.)

In many states you get money back towards charter school tuition that would have gone to that public school and the school suffers. Also, the studies cited by John Oliver (segment worth watching) showed that bussing in kids improved nearly every metric for disadvantaged kids while not harming the advantaged majorities.

I’m not arguing against the benefits of diversity in education (don’t think I’ve argued either way actually), but in the particular districts I read about (I’ll try to find the article again but it was at least a month ago) the parents didn’t want their kids bussed to predominantly white, “better” schools. They were happy with the education their kids were receiving in their local school and in many cases had specifically moved there so their kids would go to that school. Should the government really be allowed to pull a kid out of a school where he’s happy and receiving a decent education and send him to a school 10 or 15 miles away because he’ll “benefit” from being in a diverse environment?

Charter schools are overwhelmingly supported by the African American community (70-some percent if I remember correctly). It’s teachers’ unions, the democratic politicians who get donations from teachers’ unions, and the NAACP who don’t like charter schools.

And it hurts white students. So are you for helping a small minority or putting money behind the majority? Forget about race and social issues. Economically forcing diversification is a poor decision.

You clearly cut the off quote pointing to the study cited by John Oliver that states otherwise without offering a counterpoint study. All I’m saying is that a divisive and racially segregated society that disengages lower class citizens while hampering mobility is bad for everyone and carries universal social costs. If we take a less myopic compartmentalized view of k-12 education it’s worth considering this towards the solution. Or we can just close our eyes, care for our own, blame the police and hope the problem, goes away rather than worsens.

An obvious case of supporting a policy that harms you. Most citizens love low capital gains taxes which provide massively disproportionate benefits to the elite and raise pressure on income taxes. Wouldn’t you support charter schools if the alternative was an underfunded apartheid school… which is exactly what we’re working to address?

A couple of pretty balanced articles on charter schools.

The basic conclusion is that some are great, some are okay, and some suck.

States have been trying to solve the problem of “underfunded apartheid schools” for decades and failed miserably. Charter schools represent another approach, other than just throwing money into those apartheid schools, which is actually producing some results. Granted the results aren’t always as hoped for, but you have to start somewhere and learn from the mistakes.

No, I read it all but it doesn’t change anything. The KCMO school district so messed up is actually unaccredited. So, if you live on the Missouri side the only option is to send your kid to private school. Charter school started popping up as a solution about a decade ago and have been shown as an affordable alternative to private schools.

There was enough success that they opened two more schools (they had been sitting vacant due to budget cuts). This was initially met with a positive response from the mostly white neighborhood where they were located. However, after about six weeks into the first year the school was open, everything went to shit. See, KC is very segregated and although the schools were in mostly white neighborhoods, the lines were drawn so that a good portion of the students were black. What ensued was shocking only to those on the far left. The white kids that had previously been receiving a good education (although more expensive) were being dragged down by the black students that were literally grades behind where they should have been.

Oh, and as added bones, crime went up around the schools. Kids were stealing bikes and stuff out of people’s garages on school days in areas that previously had virtually no crime. Having “more diverse” schools in the area actually started to negatively impact home prices. Guess how that went over?

Both schools have since been shut back down after local residents raised hell…rightfully so. But, let’s not by myopic you say. Would things change a decade from now when the kids started out in K and not get thrown into it in jr high? Maybe. Maybe the problem isn’t schooling but the family environment the black kids have to go home to. Maybe other factors would have to change first (or concurrently) to make any difference. All that mattered in the present time was home prices were going down, crime was up, and previously good students were being held down.

Fair enough. You seem willing to consider the idea at least abstractly and I’m not saying I “know” this is the right course of action or that it’s even politically possible, I just know we’re arriving at a point where some form of major structural changes seem to be needed somewhere in the system.

Homogeneous groups are more functional.

People parrot back the “we are all equal” and “diversity is our strength” memes out of fear of persecution, but they don’t actually believe that stuff.

Libtards and feminists that don’t actually know what being a feminist is do.

maybe, but once a population becomes heterogeneous integration is superior. To me it’s a tug of war between maximizing the elites or engaging the entire population in terms of optimization with there existing a full scale of options. Personally I like more integrated schools, I think you could begin by integrating at the kindergarten level then rolling it upwards.

I think this is the path that leads to the most success.

And, for the record, I’m not for racial segregation. I’m all for socio-economic segregation though.