In Teabagistan Schools Will Be Segregated

[WildCat]

I should have also been more clear and specified that schools with unequal funding needs as well as unequal funding.

Wealthier families tend to financially support schools in ways other than taxes. This generally goes to the specific schools where their children attend rather than just the state school system in general. If wealthy families are distributed across all schools then all schools are likely to benefit from the beyond tax revenues. Sports, music and the arts are the programs that tend to directly benefit from this. Doing so helps ease the burden of these programs from general funds, leading to greater spending on academics.

Secondly, higher poverty schools divide their funding along different lines. A school that has to spend a higher proportion on lunches, transportation, equipment and so on is spending less proportion on academics. Even when two schools have equal budgets of say $9k per student, when one has to spend more on safety and discipline there is an equal expenditure on academics.

Such an example would be the rural/urban divide. Due to economies of scale rural schools often cannot equal an urban school with equal per student funding. An answer to this is sometimes increasing transportation time, busing rural students from multiple counties into a centralized school location to share in costs. Depending on the local factors it might be more cost and funding effecient to send such students to the nearest urban school district but sometimes the urban districts do not like the idea of sharing costs in that way.

In one of the smaller towns I lived in it was discovered I belonged to a different elementary school in the district that served the rural areas outside of town. The school I was informed I would have to attend had a student body a third the size of the other schools in the district and generally had worse performance. The school spent a higher proportion of its funding on elements such as the building, equipment, and transportation and less on teachers. Luckily the district allowed students to attend any school district as long as you did not use the school's transportation and I was able to walk to school, which was about the same distance as it was to walk to the bus stop I would have taken to the rural school. About a decade later it was discovered it was immensely cheaper to bus the students to the town based schools instead of maintaining a rural, under performing school and it was shut down. To much protest as well.

Sorry, I'm still not seeing your point. You're claiming that schools within the same district are spending different amounts on teachers? I don't see how that is possible. I also don't think schools within the same district are spending signficantly different amounts in the classroom. It's not like schools are allocated x-amount per student, regardless of maintenance issues. If a school needs $100,000 for a new roof it doesn't come from the classroom budget of that school, it comes from the capital budget of the district.

Lastly, keep in mind that economic integration generally includes integrating multiple school districts. If a city's districts are divided into zones of wealth, that creates vastly unequal funding levels. Integrated systems generally attempt to end this by integrating the districts of an entire city or metropolitan area.

Maybe it's different where you live, but school districts tend to follow municipal boundaries and in cases where they cross municipal boundaries they all draw from the same property tax pool because the district is its own taxing body. But the schools in the OP are all in the same district, so this isn't an issue there.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Do you really equate this with Brown vs. BOE?

If the intent of the School Board plan is to create "Separate, but Equal" schools, then yes, it is the equivelant.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

In this thread, too, look what gets people shocked -- SHOCKED!: a school curriculum where the "slave driving" and "indian killing" founding fathers are actually treated respectfully. What kind of evil reactionary nonsense is that? Off with their head! Down with the racists!

proposed by the same people who see no problem with treating the curent president with the utmost disrespect.

 

[Galteeth]

If the intent of the School Board plan is to create "Separate, but Equal" schools, then yes, it is the equivelant.

You understand that one was a case of legally segregated schools, with the other being schools that are segregated by virtue of where people live and the questions pertains to efforts to import students of a different race who would otherwise go to a local school?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Wow I didn't know USA schools had dropped subjects like mathematics and science.

To graduate high school (grades 9-12) in Albuquerque one only needs 2 credits in math and 2 credits of science. That's as of 2001 when I graduated. We were also required to take 4 credits of history/social study classes. Most of these were grievance theater targeted at the wrongs of the US/Europeans against Native Americans and Latinos. I suppose the emphasis on who we've wronged varies with the location.

The "World History" textbook included almost nothing about Greek, Roman or European history. And the class itself skipped that chapter. The "USA History" textbook was mostly about the wrongs the nation had done to people living here, rather than anything worthwhile and good it had done. It was a depressing read. I understand the need to learn our history so we don't forget it, but we also need to learn about the strengths and accomplishments of our forefathers as well. Failure to do so creates entire generation of young people who feel that government is an evil enterprise. I find that sad.

 

[Galteeth]

To graduate high school (grades 9-12) in Albuquerque one only needs 2 credits in math and 2 credits of science. That's as of 2001 when I graduated. We were also required to take 4 credits of history/social study classes. Most of these were grievance theater targeted at the wrongs of the US/Europeans against Native Americans and Latinos. I suppose the emphasis on who we've wronged varies with the location.

The "World History" textbook included almost nothing about Greek, Roman or European history. And the class itself skipped that chapter. The "USA History" textbook was mostly about the wrongs the nation had done to people living here, rather than anything worthwhile and good it had done. It was a depressing read. I understand the need to learn our history so we don't forget it, but we also need to learn about the strengths and accomplishments of our forefathers as well. Failure to do so creates entire generation of young people who feel that government is an evil enterprise. I find that sad.

I don't.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You have to love the idiotic pedantry of people saying, "We don't have a democracy, we have a republic." A representative in which the representatives are elected by the citizenry is still a form of democracy. The only reason they don't like the term "democracy" is because most people are Democrats and they want to be sure that their party (Republicans) are directly associated with our form of democracy as if that makes them right on everything (We have a republic and we're Republicans, right?).

You've genuinely never run into the kind of rhetoric before, where giving the poor a right to vote was a mistake and some kind of legalized theft ('cause they vote to steal the rich guys' money, see?) and that kind of democracy is "two wolves and one sheep voting what's for dinner"? (With of course the rich being the sheep and the poor and minorities being those evil wolves.) They even seemed to invade a lot of boards with their canned talking points in each of last elections.

So, yes, my impression is that it's really just about not liking democracy, rather than a pun on Democrats and Republicans. I mean, sure, that kind of person also hates the Democrats, but I'm left with the impression that they REALLY hate democracy, as in actually letting all the people have a say. They're pining for the good old days where the only ones voting were the wealthy white males.

They actually want something more like the original oligarchic republic, basically.

Mind you, that's not all right wingers, and probably not even all teabaggers, but I can see how that kind of extreme wingnut would be more represented in a party like the teabaggers.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

To graduate high school (grades 9-12) in Albuquerque one only needs 2 credits in math and 2 credits of science. That's as of 2001 when I graduated. We were also required to take 4 credits of history/social study classes. Most of these were grievance theater targeted at the wrongs of the US/Europeans against Native Americans and Latinos. I suppose the emphasis on who we've wronged varies with the location.

The "World History" textbook included almost nothing about Greek, Roman or European history. And the class itself skipped that chapter. The "USA History" textbook was mostly about the wrongs the nation had done to people living here, rather than anything worthwhile and good it had done. It was a depressing read. I understand the need to learn our history so we don't forget it, but we also need to learn about the strengths and accomplishments of our forefathers as well. Failure to do so creates entire generation of young people who feel that government is an evil enterprise. I find that sad.

Forgive me for responding to an anecdote with an anecdote, but I grew up in West Virginia, that paragon of educational superiority, and went to a very small, very poor public school. Our world history book started with the Tigris and Euphrates and actually ended at the Gulf War, covering the entire complex series of alliances that helped lead to WWI, and so on. The closest thing I can think of in my US history class to airing grievances was a reference to the yellow journalism that helped lead to the Spanish-American war.

We had math courses available up through college-level Calculus II, and science courses that went up through AP level. We were required to take at least 4 of each (and at least 4 overall had to be of a certain level or higher) to graduate. On top of that, we were required to take a foreign language and a fine art.

My point is that I really have a hard time believing the standard line that public school is about making youth hate America. To be honest (and of course, I have as little way of proving this as one would have of proving that public school is an America-hatred indoctrination machine), I have wondered whether the fears of indoctrination and America-hate in public schools have arisen out of an unfounded and unshakable belief in American exceptionalism.

What I'm saying is that there has never been a perfect nation, and there never will. As an American, I'm personally biased to think that America has led a particularly fortunate, colorful, and bountiful existence. This does not mean that I don't understand that it is a nation that--at the same time--has been full of flaws, some glaring and even egregious. However, I think that America's capacity to confront and adapt to these flaws has made it all the better. I do not see confronting or admitting these flaws as an attack on the inherent goodness of the nation itself. I see them as a sort of overall triumph, an ability to overcome adversity. To suggest that we place more focus on our successes, in my opinion, does not do our country the justice of witnessing its reactions to its failures, which--in my opinion--is a far more impressive and exciting thing.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Forgive me for responding to an anecdote with an anecdote, but I grew up in West Virginia, that paragon of educational superiority, and went to a very small, very poor public school. Our world history book started with the Tigris and Euphrates and actually ended at the Gulf War, covering the entire complex series of alliances that helped lead to WWI, and so on. The closest thing I can think of in my US history class to airing grievances was a reference to the yellow journalism that helped lead to the Spanish-American war.

We had math courses available up through college-level Calculus II, and science courses that went up through AP level. We were required to take at least 4 of each (and at least 4 overall had to be of a certain level or higher) to graduate. On top of that, we were required to take a foreign language and a fine art.

My point is that I really have a hard time believing the standard line that public school is about making youth hate America. To be honest (and of course, I have as little way of proving this as one would have of proving that public school is an America-hatred indoctrination machine), I have wondered whether the fears of indoctrination and America-hate in public schools have arisen out of an unfounded and unshakable belief in American exceptionalism.

What I'm saying is that there has never been a perfect nation, and there never will. As an American, I'm personally biased to think that America has led a particularly fortunate, colorful, and bountiful existence. This does not mean that I don't understand that it is a nation that--at the same time--has been full of flaws, some glaring and even egregious. However, I think that America's capacity to confront and adapt to these flaws has made it all the better. I do not see confronting or admitting these flaws as an attack on the inherent goodness of the nation itself. I see them as a sort of overall triumph, an ability to overcome adversity. To suggest that we place more focus on our successes, in my opinion, does not do our country the justice of witnessing its reactions to its failures, which--in my opinion--is a far more impressive and exciting thing.

Sadly my school was not poor. It was, and still is, the leading public high school in Albuquerque, and arguably the whole state.

I'm not arguing that we need "more focus" on the successes of the country over our failures and mistakes. I'm saying that in some areas (like mine) we need to actually discuss the successes instead of ONLY the failings.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

That's fair, as I have literally no way of ever seeing if what you're saying is true. If your school literally never mentioned something the US did right, then that should change, and I'm sorry if that is the case.

 

[Galteeth]

You've genuinely never run into the kind of rhetoric before, where giving the poor a right to vote was a mistake and some kind of legalized theft ('cause they vote to steal the rich guys' money, see?) and that kind of democracy is "two wolves and one sheep voting what's for dinner"? (With of course the rich being the sheep and the poor and minorities being those evil wolves.) They even seemed to invade a lot of boards with their canned talking points in each of last elections.

So, yes, my impression is that it's really just about not liking democracy, rather than a pun on Democrats and Republicans. I mean, sure, that kind of person also hates the Democrats, but I'm left with the impression that they REALLY hate democracy, as in actually letting all the people have a say. They're pining for the good old days where the only ones voting were the wealthy white males.

They actually want something more like the original oligarchic republic, basically.

Mind you, that's not all right wingers, and probably not even all teabaggers, but I can see how that kind of extreme wingnut would be more represented in a party like the teabaggers.

The idea is that there are fundamental principle which restrain the government so that it's not just subject tom the whims of the masses.

Here's a hypothetical example: Arab Muslims attack the US. People decide, hey we should be able to arrest Arabs and hold them without trial. A majority of people agree. Democracy! But wait. The republic has restrictions on what the government can do, and the court finds the new law, despite being the will of the majority, is not allowable. The whole "rights of the minority" thing. Sure, the original concern was about class interest. Doesn't mean it's not a good principle that can be extended.



You see the distinction people are trying to make with the republic/democracy thing?

 

[Galteeth]

That's fair, as I have literally no way of ever seeing if what you're saying is true. If your school literally never mentioned something the US did right, then that should change, and I'm sorry if that is the case.

In my AP history class, we were allowed to use Howard Zinn's the people's history as an alternate text. I decided i wanted to do that. Untill I actually read it, and realized how much of it was fiction.

 

[TraneWreck]

That's fair, as I have literally no way of ever seeing if what you're saying is true. If your school literally never mentioned something the US did right, then that should change, and I'm sorry if that is the case.

Of course, that means America is the sort of country with free enough speech that a school can never say a decent word about the place, ironically proving it's a decent place.

 

[Cleon]

Perhaps, instead of hand-wringing over whether or not history classes are properly "respectful" of certain figures, the focus should be on examining the events and trends that occurred and putting those figures into that context.

Separating history into "good guys" and "bad guys" might make classes more ideologically acceptable to certain people, but it doesn't do a very good job of delivering an education.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Perhaps, instead of hand-wringing over whether or not history classes are properly "respectful" of certain figures, the focus should be on examining the events and trends that occurred and putting those figures into that context.

Separating history into "good guys" and "bad guys" might make classes more ideologically acceptable to certain people, but it doesn't do a very good job of delivering an education.

Well put.

 

[ZirconBlue]

My daughter goes to school in a county without this policy, and her school is diverse, ethically and so forth. The schools in this county outperform those of Wake counties, with the exception of the magnet schools.

I'm not sure ethical diversity is something to strive for.

 

[Aepervius]

I would disagree with your prediction here -- in my own anecdotal experience, many American blacks are very hostile toward black men marrying white women. That's the real danger of being a mixed-race couple in the U.S. -- there are probably enough racists in both cultures to make feel unwelcome almost anywhere.

Sadly this is not only true in the US. It happened in my hometown when i was with my first GF (from Martinique). I suppose the racist on both side were feeling we were both "betraying" our race color or something.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow... and they expect that when things get worse that will make people happy?! I don't see those clowns getting re-elected anytime soon if that's the case. Too bad they'll wreck some of the local school districts before getting the boot.

Poor parents are less likely to be involved in their kids' school and less likely to vote in school board member elections than the parents who got these guys elected. When you have an issue like religious extremism resulting in a minority of parents getting pro-Creationism board members elected, other less-interested-in-the-board but very-interested-in-the-school parents wake up and come back to change the system back to rational sense. But when the issue isn't something all parents who are active in their kids' school care about, then the parents who got the change may not have anyone resisting.

If it ends up affecting kids besides the poor, then you might see a backlash. But if it only affects the disadvantaged, they won't necessarily have anyone to go to bat for them except outside groups like the NAACP who may or may not be effective. This is just my opinion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you really equate this with Brown vs. BOE?

The author of the news article saw hints of Brown in the incident.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's more like they expect that if the problem is made more obvious, it will force a solution.

I think it's very generous of you to believe this is the real underlying reason for the parent's desire for change rather than simply rationalizing their Ayn Randism.

They make a good point that, if you have a large population of at-risk kids that are performing very poorly in schools, evenly distributing them among your schools so that the statistical effects are diluted enough to make it look like everyone's doing fine is hiding the problem.
Mixing the poor kids and the rich kids may make the district's numbers come out okay, but it's not actually helping the poor kids, who are still failing. Returning kids to their neighborhood schools also puts the at-risk kids in one place where the problems common to that group can be dealt with.
What's important is the next step -- when you have a school with primarily poor kids, do you underfund it and move the good teachers elsewhere, or do you focus your resources and best teachers where they are needed?

Bought the Koolaide, did you? Maybe I can talk you out of drinking it.

First, if putting them all in a few schools would lead to a solution, why didn't it before?

Oh, that's right, it did. It led to integrating the kids into the mainstream in the first place because segregating them was horrendous.

One criticism of the charter schools is many of them have great results because they don't have to take the troubled and poor achieving kids like the public schools are forced to do. I think if you look behind the curtain here, you'll see the same principle operating. Some parents would prefer to dump the kids they don't care about into someone else's problem pile.

If, as is reported in the article, economically integrating the schools has not resulted in the improvements it was intended to achieve, then by all means investigate why and make course corrections. But to go back to the situation we know didn't work, and make up an unsupported reason for doing so, that's rationalizing some other motive. And the motive here is pretty straight forward, the people responsible like Art Pope see the integration as "social engineering". You can imagine the real underlying sentiments from there.