NAACP files complaint over neighborhood schools

[C_Felix]

Isn't it in exactly the phenomenon you described? People tend to self-segregate. If you don't combat that tendency, you'll end up with segregated schools (that's what self-segregate means). QED.

True, but where it the segregation "they" are complaining about?
Don't they realize they are complaining about what they themselves have done?

 

[mumblethrax]

True, but where it the segregation "they" are complaining about?
Don't they realize they are complaining about what they themselves have done?

It's still in the tendency that everyone has to self-segregate. I can recognize that I'm more self-interested than I would like to be, and that if everyone is like me, we're sometimes going to have the problem that a bunch of people acting in their own interest will bring about undesirable outcomes for the community at large. There's no hypocrisy in appealing to government to solve that problem (or to retain a solution that's already working), because it's just not a problem that can be solved without the intervention of an external agent.

 

[WildCat]

It's all about wealthy white parents who don't want their poor baby to have to ride the bus. As someone who attended a rural school district, where long busing is the norm, I have to say that I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them.

Wealthy white parents will just put their kids in a private school rather than let them get bussed across the city into a dangerous neighborhood and a crappy school full of gangbangers. Wealthy black parents do the same. Hell, middle class parents do it too, of all races. Michelle Obama's parents sure as hell didn't send her to a Chicago public school, they sent her to a Catholic school, and I don't think they were even Catholic. That's why you bus poor kids to wealthier areas, it doesn't work the other way around.

Bussing is a farce... IIRC Chicago spends over $80 million a year on bussing to "integrate" a school system that is 94% minority.

 

[WildCat]

It's still in the tendency that everyone has to self-segregate.

I think that happens when you throw kids from different areas together. The ones who live there feel it's really their school, and the kids bussed in feel like outsiders. Even happens when everyone is the same race.

Kids don't self-segregate if they live in an integrated neighborhood.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Wealthy white parents will just put their kids in a private school rather than let them get bussed across the city into a dangerous neighborhood and a crappy school full of gangbangers. Wealthy black parents do the same. Hell, middle class parents do it too, of all races. Michelle Obama's parents sure as hell didn't send her to a Chicago public school, they sent her to a Catholic school, and I don't think they were even Catholic. That's why you bus poor kids to wealthier areas, it doesn't work the other way around.

Bussing is a farce... IIRC Chicago spends over $80 million a year on bussing to "integrate" a school system that is 94% minority.

I think you're projecting the Chicago situation onto Wake County, North Carolina, where "a crappy school full of gangbangers" isn't really a concern.

 

[jayh]

"From the outside, it can look like a racist act, especially when the schools of choice are a majority white. There is still the problem of children of parents who want them to have a better shot at a good education but can't afford to live in the neighborhoods of those schools."

Assuming that even the parents and the poorer kids want to be bused for miles every day just to satisfy some bureaucratic crap.

Busing was a very bad idea when first created (mix kids with white kids, that'll help them get better grades). Stupid and counterproductive then (engenders a lot of hostility to many of the kids being bused), and with testing, school systems need to bring up scores even in the low performing schools. Spend the money there.

Busing NEVER cured racial or achievement problems.

 

[ZirconBlue]

"From the outside, it can look like a racist act, especially when the schools of choice are a majority white. There is still the problem of children of parents who want them to have a better shot at a good education but can't afford to live in the neighborhoods of those schools."

Assuming that even the parents and the poorer kids want to be bused for miles every day just to satisfy some bureaucratic crap.

Busing was a very bad idea when first created (mix kids with white kids, that'll help them get better grades). Stupid and counterproductive then (engenders a lot of hostility to many of the kids being bused), and with testing, school systems need to bring up scores even in the low performing schools. Spend the money there.

Busing NEVER cured racial or achievement problems.

So, "Separate, but Equal" was the way to go?

 

[LTC8K6]

I think you're projecting the Chicago situation onto Wake County, North Carolina, where "a crappy school full of gangbangers" isn't really a concern.

Yeah. Look in Durham County for those...

 

[jayh]

So, "Separate, but Equal" was the way to go?

Busing and integration are NOT the same thing.

There's a big difference between separate racially segregated by law and people's tendency to collect together. One is unacceptable, one is natural human behavior.

Unlike Jim Crow days, under the law the school board MUST make the school perform. Busing kids does not help anyone, and historically has been a disaster for all the kids.

It was a mistake for NAACP and other organizations to get behind that idea in the past, it was just a surrogate for actual improvement, and quite frankly racially insulting: suggesting that minority kids had to be helped by the presence of mainstream kids if they were going to succeed


[btw is anyone else having trouble with the italic and other controls on firefox?]

 

[jayh]

Isn't it in exactly the phenomenon you described? People tend to self-segregate. If you don't combat that tendency, you'll end up with segregated schools (that's what self-segregate means). QED.

This is where it goes terribly wrong, when the government decides that it's rules of association override your own choices. You no longer have a free society, you have an authoritarian one that enforces personal choice "for your own good" according to the ideology du jour.

The proper role of government is enabling people to have choice (as in removing restrictions that prevent people from living where they want) but has absolutely no business telling them what to do with that freedom.

 

[sgtbaker]

"From the outside, it can look like a racist act, especially when the schools of choice are a majority white. There is still the problem of children of parents who want them to have a better shot at a good education but can't afford to live in the neighborhoods of those schools."

Assuming that even the parents and the poorer kids want to be bused for miles every day just to satisfy some bureaucratic crap.

Busing was a very bad idea when first created (mix kids with white kids, that'll help them get better grades). Stupid and counterproductive then (engenders a lot of hostility to many of the kids being bused), and with testing, school systems need to bring up scores even in the low performing schools. Spend the money there.

Busing NEVER cured racial or achievement problems.

Bussing seems to be what the parents in the low performing areas want, considering that they are sueing to prevent the district from ending the program.

I lived in an open registration district, briefly. The procedure of that district is; Each year, you reregister your children. On the forms, you get to pick from a number of different schools. The problem was, it was on a first come, first serve basis. Their reasoning behind the open enrollment was so that children who live in low income areas aren't forced to go to low performing schools. On paper, it's a great idea. In reality, someone is forced to go to the low performing schools. I do not argue that a better idea would be to fix the schools rather than ship the kids out. However, the common traits in low performing schools are lack of parental involvement, high illiteracy rates among the parents, and lack of programs to encourage advancement. These poor zones become what is known as dropout zones.

I don't know how it works elsewhere but in Florida, schools that perform well are rewarded with funding, that whole teacher responsibility, thing. Again, in theory, it's a great idea but in reality; how is a teacher supposed to inspire a child when the encouragement is not reinforced at home? Co mingling the schools, IMHO, is a bandaid on a bullet wound.

 

[ZirconBlue]

There's a big difference between separate racially segregated by law and people's tendency to collect together. One is unacceptable, one is natural human behavior.

Do you think that poor people choose to live in poor neighborhoods?

Unlike Jim Crow days, under the law the school board MUST make the school perform.

Do you dispute that schools in low-income areas perform worse than those in higher-income areas?

It was a mistake for NAACP and other organizations to get behind that idea in the past, it was just a surrogate for actual improvement, and quite frankly racially insulting: suggesting that minority kids had to be helped by the presence of mainstream kids if they were going to succeed

The system in question is not about "minorities", and, in fact, does not include race as a factor. It's about economic diversity.

 

[mumblethrax]

I think that happens when you throw kids from different areas together. The ones who live there feel it's really their school, and the kids bussed in feel like outsiders. Even happens when everyone is the same race.

I'm sure homophily exists everywhere you find people, but schools actually have developed some interesting tools in combating it. For example, some schools have attempted the radical new approach of not letting children decide which classrooms they get assigned to.

The influence of peer effects are well documented.

Kids don't self-segregate if they live in an integrated neighborhood.

How do you intend to get them to live in a racially and economically integrated neighborhood? That rarely happens. Affluent people usually have the freedom to move around, and living in a neighborhood with a good school is a priority for most parents. Poor people generally can't afford to do this. Effects on the quality of the neighborhood school (or the local school districts) follow.

Busing NEVER cured racial or achievement problems.

Except in Wake County, where it did.

But don't let evidence stand in your way.

This is where it goes terribly wrong, when the government decides that it's rules of association override your own choices. You no longer have a free society, you have an authoritarian one that enforces personal choice "for your own good" according to the ideology du jour.

This is just libertarian jerk-off material. May I remind you that we're talking about schoolchildren? Public schools? In a country where education is compulsory? Complaining about 'freedom of association' in that context amounts to a radical critique of the entire school system, public and private. Which is fine if you want to make it, but it renders your opinions on this matter irrelevant.

 

[jayh]

Bussing seems to be what the parents in the low performing areas want, considering that they are sueing to prevent the district from ending the program.
....

The NAACP is suing, with involvement from some parents. they are trying to build up a lot of support through churches etc, but that does not mean that most parents necessarily want their kids to be bused.

If it were optional, it would be different.

 

[jayh]

I'm sure homophily exists everywhere you find people, but schools actually have developed some interesting tools in combating it. For example, some schools have attempted the radical new approach of not letting children decide which classrooms they get assigned to.

The influence of peer effects are well documented.

It is not the government's job to determine your peers.

How do you intend to get them to live in a racially and economically integrated neighborhood? That rarely happens. Affluent people usually have the freedom to move around, and living in a neighborhood with a good school is a priority for most parents. Poor people generally can't afford to do this. Effects on the quality of the neighborhood school (or the local school districts) follow.

It may or may not be in their bests interests to live in an 'economically integrated' neighborhood. That does not make it the government's job to force the issue.

My whole school life consisted of schools in walking distance to my house. I certainly have a lot of sympathy to kids who (unless they choose) are bused far away.

I don't object to voluntary busing programs, magnet schools etc. It's the busing you for your own good that's the problem.

Except in Wake County, where it did.

not everyone agrees

http://www.examiner.com/k-12-in-dur...or-pro-busing-stance-wake-county?render=print

But don't let evidence stand in your way.


This is just libertarian jerk-off material.

oh, my! Seems I've touched a sore point. Sorry freedom is such a dirty word to you. Strange too how many of the same people who decry vouchers as an attack on neighborhood schools are more than willing to support another kind of attack on neighborhood schools.

 

[jayh]

One final point.

It should not be a surprise that schools in wealthier areas perform better even without any discrimination on the part of the school board.

Consider several unremarkable factors withing a hypothetical population.

People who are more intelligent, on average would make more money than those who are not. Not everyone who is intelligent makes a lot of money, not everyone who gets money is necessarily intelligent. But in the overall, the average effect will be there.

Intelligence is hereditary. Estimates currently range from about 50-80%. There will be a larger percentage of smarter kids there.

People who are educated and who value education make more money. They go farther. They often get better jobs. They also raise their children in an environment where education is valued. So that covers the nurture part, supporting more acheivement in education.

Between those two factors, there will be a substantial statistical bias, even without anything like discrimination, that would favor overall higher performance of wealthier area schools.

In the real world of course their ARE other factors including racial, ethnic and social discrimination. But eliminating all such discrimination will not completely eliminate school disparity.

 

[mumblethrax]

It is not the government's job to determine your peers.

Unsupported assertion. Many of us feel that this is one of government's job, where doing so doesn't hurt anyone and where there are tangible benefits.

oh, my! Seems I've touched a sore point.

You've said something so stupid as to deserve scorn. Congratulations!

 

[NewtonTrino]

Personally I think we should completely chuck the public school system. Give every kid a voucher worth $X and let private school compete for that money. If private industry doesn't build enough schools then up the $X amount until they do.

 

[doobiedoright]

I wonder how many carbon credits they are gonna need?

 

[WildCat]

So, "Separate, but Equal" was the way to go?

You're not assigning kids to a school based on race, rather they get assigned according to where they live. Like it's done in places without a busing order.