Clueless Article On Busing

[Brainster]

I had to laugh at this thoroughly clueless article on busing, which apparently is making a comeback in Maryland:

It was there that progressive White parents mobilized with other groups to try to stop a school integration plan that would bus poor students, who were mostly Black and brown, to more affluent, whiter schools.

Now notice that framing--that opposition to busing is about not wanting Blacks to get into better schools. Putting it that way does make it seem pretty racist, right? And the article goes on and on in that particular vein:

Black Lives Matter signs are showing up on more White people's lawns today. But statistics suggest that these lives don't matter as much if more Black people start sending their children to school with White kids.

<snip>

"Once White parents have access to a school district that they feel is working well for their kids, they try to do everything they can to create barriers around it to keep the resources for themselves and their very small number of peers," he says.

Notice how the focus is always on the movement in one direction--sending the Black kids to a white school. But guess what? Busing is not solely about sending Black kids to white schools. You've gotta make room for those Black kids, and the way you do it is you load a bunch of white kids on a bus and take them on a nice long ride to the schools where the black kids came from. And that is what the white (and some black) parents oppose.

Look at the picture that heads the piece. Yes, some of the protesters are white, but not all of them, and in fact it looks like a pretty diverse group. Most of them have the preprinted signs, but the hand-written ones reveal the parents' concern: "Long Commute=More Stress", "Hour-long bus rides are not [unreadable]", and another one talks about sleep.

 

[HansMustermann]

Notice how the focus is always on the movement in one direction--sending the Black kids to a white school. But guess what? Busing is not solely about sending Black kids to white schools. You've gotta make room for those Black kids, and the way you do it is you load a bunch of white kids on a bus and take them on a nice long ride to the schools where the black kids came from.

I'm not sure how that follows. Is there some law saying that you have to build half the schools in the other direction? It seems to me like if the whole town wants to go to a school in district X, there's nothing to keep you from just building a big school in district X. In fact, from an economies of scale POV it seems like it would even be an advantage.

That's what we do over here for example with children from small villages on some hill in the middle of nowhere. If it's not worth it having a teacher for a whole 3 kids in a particular grade, we can bus them all to a bigger school that serves several villages. There is no law saying that if you bring 3 first graders from Nowheresville to Smalltown, you need to balance it by bringing 3 first graders in the other direction. In fact it would defeat the whole point if for every schoolkid bussed in one direction, you had to bus one in the opposite direction.

We're not in the Fullmetal Alchemist anime and have to obey the Law Of Equivalent Exchange, basically

 

[dann]

I truly hope they prove me wrong.

No, you don't.

I had to laugh at this thoroughly clueless OP.

Now notice that framing--that opposition to busing is about not wanting Blacks to get into better schools. Putting it that way does make it seem pretty racist, right? And the article goes on and on in that particular vein:

Now notice the objection to the article: It is obvious that the opposition to bussing is about wanting to secure their own children's priviliged position and not about racism.
I can't see any signs saying, Improve schools in black/poor neighborhoods! Equality in education!

Notice how the focus is always on the movement in one direction--sending the Black kids to a white school. But guess what? Busing is not solely about sending Black kids to white schools. You've gotta make room for those Black kids, and the way you do it is you load a bunch of white kids on a bus and take them on a nice long ride to the schools where the black kids came from. And that is what the white (and some black) parents oppose.

Notice how the focus is not only on sending (other people's) black kids to white schools. To make up for it, it is also about not sending (their own) white kids to black schools. What could be less racist than that?!
Well, making sure that all schools are good schools would be less racist than that, but that doesn't seem to be what the white parents are concerned about, does it?

Look at the picture that heads the piece. Yes, some of the protesters are white, but not all of them, and in fact it looks like a pretty diverse group. Most of them have the preprinted signs, but the hand-written ones reveal the parents' concern: "Long Commute=More Stress", "Hour-long bus rides are not [unreadable]", and another one talks about sleep.

It's true. One of the protesters appears to of Asian descent. My guess is Indian or Pakistani.
And they are obviously well-educated since they know to talk about long bus rides and sleep instead of race and privilege. Segregation is just the unfortunate side effect of fighting for their privileged position against the attempts to give children of unprivileged parents equal opportunities.

 

[dann]

I'm not sure how that follows. Is there some law saying that you have to build half the schools in the other direction? It seems to me like if the whole town wants to go to a school in district X, there's nothing to keep you from just building a big school in district X. In fact, from an economies of scale POV it seems like it would even be an advantage.

That's what we do over here for example with children from small villages on some hill in the middle of nowhere. If it's not worth it having a teacher for a whole 3 kids in a particular grade, we can bus them all to a bigger school that serves several villages. There is no law saying that if you bring 3 first graders from Nowheresville to Smalltown, you need to balance it by bringing 3 first graders in the other direction. In fact it would defeat the whole point if for every schoolkid bussed in one direction, you had to bus one in the opposite direction.

We're not in the Fullmetal Alchemist anime and have to obey the Law Of Equivalent Exchange, basically

But then the children of one of the villages probably aren't all black and much poorer than those in the other villages, are they?!

 

[HansMustermann]

But then the children of one of the villages probably aren't all black and much poorer than those in the other villages, are they?!

Well, that wasn't my point per se. I'm just saying that the "but then they'd HAVE to send an equal number of kids to a school in the opposite direction" is actually just a BS excuse. There is no such thing as having to do that, and it doesn't work that way anywhere in the world.

Of course, what remains when the argument is that, basically, "it's totally not racist, we have the totally different reason X instead" and it turns out that reason X is purely made up BS... well, you might start suspecting that race and privilege might play a role after all.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah...howzabout evening out funding the school districts and integrating the communities as a whole instead? Always focusing on the wrong end of the problem.

 

[dann]

Well, that wasn't my point per se. I'm just saying that the "but then they'd HAVE to send an equal number of kids to a school in the opposite direction" is actually just a BS excuse. There is no such thing as having to do that, and it doesn't work that way anywhere in the world.

I know, I know!
They could also build the schools somewhere in the middle between two districts and not at opposite ends - if the actual problem were transportation.

Of course, what remains when the argument is that, basically, "it's totally not racist, we have the totally different reason X instead" and it turns out that reason X is purely made up BS... well, you might start suspecting that race and privilege might play a role after all.

I am willing to believe that their motivation may not be racist, but their protest sure as hell doesn't do anything to overcome racial or social inequality.
But then again, racism usually isn't the motivation. It's the consequence, the justification, of financial and similar interests. Slavery didn't start because some white people thought that Africans were inferior, and once they had come up with that idea, it occurred to them that Africans might do excellent work as slaves at their plantations ...

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There's probably a non-racist argument to oppose busing or other desegregation efforts, and that's just your run-of-the-mill NIMBYism. Racism was so deeply baked into our society that desegregation efforts might mean sending your kid to a previously all black school that was grossly underfunded. NIMBYism might also mean selling your house and moving to the suburbs because a black family moved in to the previously all-white neighborhood and the property values were plummeting.

Of course, NIMBYs throwing a fit because some project for the public good might interfere with their comfortable, privileged lifestyle is not a good reason to scrap the project.

 

[HansMustermann]

But then again, racism usually isn't the motivation. It's the consequence, the justification, of financial and similar interests. Slavery didn't start because some white people thought that Africans were inferior, and once they had come up with that idea, it occurred to them that Africans might do excellent work as slaves at their plantations ...

While that's TECHNICALLY true, it's in the same way as saying that TECHNICALLY decapitation does solve headaches

Yes, most people just want some privilege for themselves. There's no doubt that that's the primary motivation. But that's usually when it occurs to them that, basically, "hey, I could have more if group X had less." And that's when it turns into racism, sexism, or a number of other -isms. Pretty much any attribute or criterion that lets one define some group X to get less, while one's own group gets more, will do.

 

[Meadmaker]

Busing. Stupid idea. Calling people racist if they don't want their kids to ride a bus for 30-60 minutes each direction is a very good way to get Republicans elected.

 

[HansMustermann]

But again, there is no law that says you have to bus an equal number of kids in the opposite direction. If everyone from district X wants their kids schooled in district X, and everyone from district Y wants their kids schooled in district X too, there's no law against just building a bigger school in district X.

 

[Thermal]

But again, there is no law that says you have to bus an equal number of kids in the opposite direction. If everyone from district X wants their kids schooled in district X, and everyone from district Y wants their kids schooled in district X too, there's no law against just building a bigger school in district X.

And who is paying for this new double capacity school? Assuming there is room for it. The poor district cant finance it. So the richer district pays? Wouldn't it be cheaper to redirect the money towards improving the poor district right out of the gate?

Busing makes no sense. The kids just spend more time on the road when they should be sleeping, studying etc. Its also removing them from their own communities. Why not throw that money into making those communities thrive? At least in theory, there would be natural integration when citizens are more socioeconomically equal.

 

[Meadmaker]

Michigan has a decent approach to this. We have limited schools of choice. If a school district has excess capacity, they can allow a certain number of students from other districts to travel to their district and attend public schools. No one is ever forced to leave their district, but the option is available.

I think the "excess capacity" seats can only be awarded by lottery. No favoritism based on residence or grades. You aren't allowed to "cherry pick" then kids who come to your school from other districts.

 

[Brainster]

I'm not sure how that follows. Is there some law saying that you have to build half the schools in the other direction? It seems to me like if the whole town wants to go to a school in district X, there's nothing to keep you from just building a big school in district X. In fact, from an economies of scale POV it seems like it would even be an advantage.

That's what we do over here for example with children from small villages on some hill in the middle of nowhere. If it's not worth it having a teacher for a whole 3 kids in a particular grade, we can bus them all to a bigger school that serves several villages. There is no law saying that if you bring 3 first graders from Nowheresville to Smalltown, you need to balance it by bringing 3 first graders in the other direction. In fact it would defeat the whole point if for every schoolkid bussed in one direction, you had to bus one in the opposite direction.

We're not in the Fullmetal Alchemist anime and have to obey the Law Of Equivalent Exchange, basically

What you are talking about is the old-fashioned (prior to the 1970s) version of busing in the US. Schools were desegregated in the southern US in the 1950s (they had mostly been desegregated in the North). But just because the schools were desegregated didn't mean that they were really integrated. Whether due to racism (definitely more common in the 1970s than today) or personal choice, whites and Blacks tended to cluster in groups, so that most whites in the US went to mostly white schools, while most Blacks went to mostly Black schools. And because much of school funding in the US is local, based on property tax, many (but not all) majority Black school districts tended to have lower funding per pupil.

Some states came up with equalization payments to the local districts, but there was also a belief (not unreasonable) that kids would benefit from having more exposure to children of other races. And yet you couldn't just bus all the kids from the city out to the suburbs and leave the city schools behind, so they took kids from the suburbs and put them in the city schools. Not a 100% swap, mind you, but maybe 25% of the students. As you can imagine, the parents of that 25% had some concerns about their kids having to take a bus ride into and out of the city every day (during rush hour in the morning, no less). And the parents of the Black kids supposedly benefiting from being in a white school also weren't thrilled at the long rides, either (and began to question whether it was racist to assume there was a benefit).

It became a huge hot-button issue and in fact, Joe Biden often highlighted his opposition to busing back in the 1970s and 1980s, as Kamala Harris brought up in the first debate. It also became a class issue, as wealthy white parents who found their child was going to attend MLK Elementary could just send the kid off to a private school, while blue-collar parents didn't have that option.

It eventually died out because there wasn't enough support and the opposition was pretty fierce.

 

[rockinkt]

Yeah...howzabout evening out funding the school districts and integrating the communities as a whole instead? Always focusing on the wrong end of the problem.

Studies I have seen indicate almost half of the funding for schools comes from local taxes.
Integration of underemployed low income earners into more affluent communities will immediately result in a lower per capita income level. That means an immediate per capita decrease in funding for schools in that area.
Where do the integrated people (either low or high income earners) immediately obtain jobs and the new skills to do those jobs in their new community?
Housing in the more upscale communities where they can afford more funding of their education systems will also cost more. Therefore, the cost of living will be higher for those new people integrated into that community. Where does that money come from?
Utopian ideas are wonderful - especially if you add some butterflies and unicorns.

 

[Thermal]

Studies I have seen indicate almost half of the funding for schools comes from local taxes.
Integration of underemployed low income earners into more affluent communities will immediately result in a lower per capita income level. That means an immediate per capita decrease in funding for schools in that area.
Where do the integrated people (either low or high income earners) immediately obtain jobs and the new skills to do those jobs in their new community?
Housing in the more upscale communities where they can afford more funding of their education systems will also cost more. Therefore, the cost of living will be higher for those new people integrated into that community. Where does that money come from?
Utopian ideas are wonderful - especially if you add some butterflies and unicorns.

Yeah, we call that enacting social change for the common good. Universal health care might force some to take it on the chops for a bit, too.

Glad your kind of thinking didn't prevail during the American Civil War, or the World Wars, for that matter. Some utopias can be gotten closer to.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, we call that enacting social change for the common good. Universal health care might force some to take it on the chops for a bit, too.

Glad your kind of thinking didn't prevail during the American Civil War, or the World Wars, for that matter. Some utopias can be gotten closer to.

What does the American Civil War have to do with that "kind of thinking"?

The southern states may have seceded to protect their use of slaves, but the North wasn't fighting to abolish slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't so much an abolitionist play as a strategic military play.

 

[Thermal]

What does the American Civil War have to do with that "kind of thinking"?

The southern states may have seceded to protect their use of slaves, but the North wasn't fighting to abolish slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't so much an abolitionist play as a strategic military play.

Making sacrifices in the name of societal change is the kind of thinking I was...kind of thinking about. Rockinkt thought a property tax redistribution was some kind of unicorn-laced utopian fantasy. I think Americans have done more.

 

[Brainster]

Studies I have seen indicate almost half of the funding for schools comes from local taxes.
Integration of underemployed low income earners into more affluent communities will immediately result in a lower per capita income level. That means an immediate per capita decrease in funding for schools in that area.
Where do the integrated people (either low or high income earners) immediately obtain jobs and the new skills to do those jobs in their new community?
Housing in the more upscale communities where they can afford more funding of their education systems will also cost more. Therefore, the cost of living will be higher for those new people integrated into that community. Where does that money come from?

Small pockets of lower-income housing can be created using tax credit financing, and probably don't affect area values significantly, or cause too great a drain on school resources, although of course you must always deal with the nimby mentality. That sort of solution is a lot less intrusive than requiring kids to take long bus rides.

 

[Puppycow]

Look at the picture that heads the piece. Yes, some of the protesters are white, but not all of them, and in fact it looks like a pretty diverse group. Most of them have the preprinted signs, but the hand-written ones reveal the parents' concern: "Long Commute=More Stress", "Hour-long bus rides are not [unreadable]", and another one talks about sleep.

Just reminded me of an embarrassing experience I had when I was a kid. I lived pretty far out in the country and my bus ride to school was quite long. I was one of the last few kids to arrive home after school (as well as one of the first few to get picked up in the morning). There was a time or two when I was a little kid when I forgot to use the restroom at school before getting on the bus to go home. Because I didn't need to go at the time, but about halfway home I really had to go pee so bad it hurt. Once I didn't make it. It was a traumatic experience peeing my pants with my peers sitting nearby and hoping they wouldn't notice.

So yeah, long bus rides can kinda suck for little kids.

 

[dann]

So can racism, but in the case of filled bladders and long bus rides, children can learn to take their precautions and pee before they get on the bus. In the case of racism, however, there appears to be nothing you can do about it. Little kids just have to learn to live with it because:

Utopian ideas are wonderful - especially if you add some butterflies and unicorns.

 

[HansMustermann]

So now we're at it being concern about the poor black kids being bussed? Because throughout recorded history nothing has been more of a common denominator of 'why I should keep my privileges and you shouldn't get anything you want above your station' arguments than the paternalistic 'for your own good.'

 

[Meadmaker]

So now we're at it being concern about the poor black kids being bussed? Because throughout recorded history nothing has been more of a common denominator of 'why I should keep my privileges and you shouldn't get anything you want above your station' arguments than the paternalistic 'for your own good.'

If the only bussing that occurred was voluntary, I don't think there would be an issue. If there's a school close to where a kid lives, he should be able to attend that school. If his parents would prefer that he went to a different school, then it would be awesome if the school authorities made that option available, and even more awesome if they provided transportation to get there. However, if the family lives close to a school, but someone else decides that society would be better served if the kid took a long bus ride to some other, more distant, school, then whoever made that decision should be thrown out of office.

ETA: I just read about the Howard County Maryland plan. It isn't really a "busing" plan at all. Basically, in that county, some schools are overcrowded, and some are underutilized. The plan would move kids out of the overcrowded schools and into the underutilized schools, so that the buildings are used more efficiently. In some cases, that means sending people to a new school, and not necessarily the one closest to their homes. However, it involves redrawing district lines, not sending kids to school in different districts.

Where the controversy arises is that in the course of drawing the new districts, the powers that be deliberately included economic diversity in the goals of the redistricting. This rankles some parents who bought homes near good schools, only to find that their kids won't be going there.

In my opinion, fixing the school utilization issues seems pretty critical, but after that shortening the commute time ought to be the most important criterion used for redistricting, but from the articles I've read, there's controversy about whether the new district plan actually increases the commute time. More research required.....if I'm in the mood for it.

 

[bluesjnr]

No, you don't.

What?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Maybe not have the district nonsense where the rich can ensure their taxes ONLY go to the schools of their own children and distribute the money to schools evenly based upon the number of students? That would solve a lot of problems.

 

[Meadmaker]

Maybe not have the district nonsense where the rich can ensure their taxes ONLY go to the schools of their own children and distribute the money to schools evenly based upon the number of students? That would solve a lot of problems.

Be careful what you wish for.

Here in Michigan, we do have a partial state element that is intended to somewhat equalize funding for school districts. To be honest, I don't know anything about how it works, but I know that Detroit schools are not funded entirely by Detroit, and I suspect the same is true everywhere in the US. However, some of my local tax dollars go specifically to my local school.

Periodically, the citizens of my town have to go to the polls to approve those taxes. The school districts routinely send out info about how important these things are and that citizens should vote to continue paying taxes to support local schools, or sometimes even raise taxes to support local schools. Those appeals usually pass.

People are willing to pay taxes to support local schools.

Take that local funding away, and what happens? Then, the state legislature would have to say to the people of the state, "Please approve more money for schools all over the state." People are less likely to support that. They don't see the personal connection as closely.

The end result of trying to make all schools equal is that the net funding will decrease. So, all schools will get equal funding, but it will be, on average, less well funded than it was before.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe not have the district nonsense where the rich can ensure their taxes ONLY go to the schools of their own children and distribute the money to schools evenly based upon the number of students? That would solve a lot of problems.

How is it nonsense for residents of a community to democratically vote to tax themselves to provide funding for a school in their community?

Here's what I think is nonsense: "I need money. You have money. I need your money!"

 

[Minoosh]

Studies I have seen indicate almost half of the funding for schools comes from local taxes.

Generally, property taxes.

Integration of underemployed low income earners into more affluent communities will immediately result in a lower per capita income level.

No, because the taxes are based on property valuations, not earnings. And also, busing is for integrating schools, not communities.

That means an immediate per capita decrease in funding for schools in that area.

Not as far as I know, because the taxes are based on assets, not income.

Where do the integrated people (either low or high income earners) immediately obtain jobs and the new skills to do those jobs in their new community?

Unless I'm missing something, the plan is to integrate schools, not communities.

Housing in the more upscale communities where they can afford more funding of their education systems will also cost more. Therefore, the cost of living will be higher for those new people integrated into that site community. Where does that money come from?

Please, if you can cite examples of cities trying to forcibly relocate people into richer communities, go ahead. To my knowledge, the idea is to integrate schools, not communities.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

How is it nonsense for residents of a community to democratically vote to tax themselves to provide funding for a school in their community?

Here's what I think is nonsense: "I need money. You have money. I need your money!"

Because it is creating a form of aristocracy where your chances in life are determined by your birth rather than your skills.

Taxes for education should be organized nationwide where the people of the whole nation, not just parts of it, determine democratically how much they want allocated for education with that money then spread across the country, ensuring equal access to education.

 

[rockinkt]

Yeah, we call that enacting social change for the common good. Universal health care might force some to take it on the chops for a bit, too.

Glad your kind of thinking didn't prevail during the American Civil War, or the World Wars, for that matter. Some utopias can be gotten closer to.

Seriously?
That's all you got? Some sort of thinly veiled personal attack?
Why not give me some actual specific solutions to the actual problems I have pointed out?
The idea that governments can just throw money at problems and create solutions is not always a viable solution. Sooner or later the piper has to be paid.

BTW - I am a Canadian so I already have universal type healthcare.
The US civil wars have nothing to do with the conversation but since it appears you are not dealing with reality - why not mention the average temperature on Venus as a comparative factor to the colonization of Jupiter?

 

[rockinkt]

Yeah...howzabout evening out funding the school districts and integrating the communities as a whole instead? Always focusing on the wrong end of the problem.

Generally, property taxes.

No, because the taxes are based on property valuations, not earnings. And also, busing is for integrating schools, not communities.

Not as far as I know, because the taxes are based on assets, not income.

Unless I'm missing something, the plan is to integrate schools, not communities.
Please, if you can cite examples of cities trying to forcibly relocate people into richer communities, go ahead. To my knowledge, the idea is to integrate schools, not communities.

I was answering Thermal's post on integrating communities not just bussing to create integration in schools.
Much of your post has nothing to do with that discussion.

BTW - I know that property taxes are not based on income - but you are missing the the point: How does one just move into a more expensive house in a more upscale neighborhood without a corresponding increase in income?
If housing is developed to meet the lower income integration the property tax levy on the social housing will have to be correspondingly lower. That will decrease the per capita funding.

 

[rockinkt]

Because it is creating a form of aristocracy where your chances in life are determined by your birth rather than your skills.

Taxes for education should be organized nationwide where the people of the whole nation, not just parts of it, determine democratically how much they want allocated for education with that money then spread across the country, ensuring equal access to education.

Ah yes...Redistribute the poverty.

Please provide an example of a very large country with the population and income disparities that the US has as an example of where this has worked before.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Ah yes...Redistribute the poverty.

Please provide an example of a very large country with the population and income disparities that the US has as an example of where this has worked before.

Europe. We had the same disparities in the 1800's early 1900's and we managed to work our way out.

It would also be the capitalist smart thing to do. How much actual talent in the US is now wasted because they are black, sorry, poor while incompetents are put in charge of large corporations because of nepotism?

The US is rich enough it could ensure good education for everyone without removing quality.

 

[Brainster]

Please, if you can cite examples of cities trying to forcibly relocate people into richer communities, go ahead. To my knowledge, the idea is to integrate schools, not communities.

There is a push to do both, and again, the goal is not unreasonable. Many communities use exclusionary zoning laws to prevent low-income housing. For example, my hometown in NJ required lot sizes no smaller than 1/2 acre (and one neighboring town required 2 full acres). This effectively prevented low-income housing.

The state supreme court ruled in the Mount Laurel decision that cities and municipalities had to use their zoning laws to encourage some low- and moderate-income housing. If this is done responsibly, there is no reason for it to have negative consequences for the local communities (and plenty of reason to suspect it will have salutary effects for the lower-income residents). Of course once you put developers in the equation, responsibility sometimes goes out the window and there have been proposals to build 1,000-unit apartment complexes in small suburban communities.

 

[Thermal]

I was answering Thermal's post on integrating communities not just bussing to create integration in schools.
Much of your post has nothing to do with that discussion.

BTW - I know that property taxes are not based on income - but you are missing the the point: How does one just move into a more expensive house in a more upscale neighborhood without a corresponding increase in income?
If housing is developed to meet the lower income integration the property tax levy on the social housing will have to be correspondingly lower. That will decrease the per capita funding.

Yes, and I already addressed that. Americans have historically and willingly taken personal financial hits for a greater good. The Civil War, which you didn't seem to get, is one example. We are quite willing to sacrifice for social benefit when motivated. What is needed now is sufficient motivation, which I think busing misses. Busing is a lame band aid measure. Like pulling down statues, people feel good about the progress while actually accomplishing next to nothing. Maybe some toothless symbolism. The problem remains unscathed.

Oh, and it's not a personal attack. Its an ideological one. Your argument is 'sounds expensive, so ridicule it as utopian, and add some unicorns'. I disagree. For a nation as wealthy as the US, it is do-able.

I support Universal Health Care, even though I am currently covered by an excellent plan which will likely decrease in quality if UHC is adopted. Many of us are willing to take the financial hit for the greater good.

The bottom line is that those of us who are doing ok need to give back to those with rougher breaks. My town has a somewhat staggering average home value. We also have subsidized . housing to integrate those who ordinarily couldn't afford it into the community. Sufficiently motivated, it is not the dismissable utopian fantasy you claim.

 

[rockinkt]

Europe. We had the same disparities in the 1800's early 1900's and we managed to work our way out.

It would also be the capitalist smart thing to do. How much actual talent in the US is now wasted because they are black, sorry, poor while incompetents are put in charge of large corporations because of nepotism?

The US is rich enough it could ensure good education for everyone without removing quality.

Europe????
Hahahaha! Pull the other one!

 

[dann]

You mean your "butterflies and unicorns" USA?!

 

[rockinkt]

You mean your "butterflies and unicorns" USA?!

?????
I am Canadian and my question was asking Lukraak_Sisser to provide an example of a country as large as the US that has achieved complete integration of education between rich and poor.
I know that we in Canada have not achieved it and my many travels in European countries - as well as any quick google - have shown me that the European Union certainly has not achieved it either.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I never said we had complete integration.
Just that we do have far better integration than the US

 

[rockinkt]

I never said we had complete integration.Just that we do have far better integration than the US

You certainly implied it as my question was very specific.
Many countries are doing better than the US - but that means little as the US is huge both by geographic size and population. It also has 50 states that control most things like education within their state boundaries.
Butterfly and unicorn utopian fantasies do not work well when confronted with reality.