Hacker News Reader

Comment by tdees40 | Hacker News Reader

Money is irrelevant to the problems of Newark schools. The problem that plagues Newark's schools is old-fashioned segregation [1]. The whole district is segregated, but individual schools are worse. Here's a school I literally just randomly chose: it's 2% non-Hispanic white [2]. If Brown v. Board disappeared tomorrow, no one in Newark would notice.

[1] http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/district/info/ [2] http://www.zillow.com/newark-nj/schools/louise-a-spencer-ele...

View on HN

I don't think segregation is the model, but merely a subfactor. Segregation can be insidious, but it can't explain why getting a huge cash infusion doesn't work, especially since segregation arguments are often about unfair funding differences. But $200M ($100M from Zuckerberg) is a shit-ton of money to get. It's like saying if there were more white and Asian kids there, then money would be spent more wisely.

Given the information from the article, I think power play between major actors better explains how so much money vaporized. I mean, how did consultants get $20M? Because of racial distribution? I think it's because of power play dynamics.

I think tax revenue will be better spent because the flow is predictable, but when you get a sudden cash infusion with no plan, then you won't spend it as well as well-budgeted tax revenue. Perhaps it is also partially Zuckerberg's fault, because he should've realized the political fighting and released the money incrementally.

There is a great two-part story from This American Life [1] about this type of thing - it's a problem much bigger than Newark.

[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/t...

I agree the This American Life stories were pretty good. They were based on a pro-publica story which has background statistics that make the picture more interesting:

http://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregatio...

There was also recently this long article in the Tampa Bay times that I found at least as insightful, and with more perspective:

http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2015/investigations/pinella...

My concerns with this coverage is that they oversimplify the problems in their desire to find a solution (especially TAL). I'd also recommend the book 'Our Kids':

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kids-American-Dream-Crisis/dp/1476...

Which is far more comprehensive but spectacularly depressing.

I don't think artificial integration is the solution. It certainly didn't work very well in San Francisco. Kids should go to school in their neighborhoods. Families should get involved. People need to start taking some responsibility for making things better. I know that sounds right-wing but I really think that's what needs to happen. And obviously it can. Just need humans to get together and decide to change.

So your position is "separate schools should make themselves more equal"?

Well, is that surprising? Politically speaking, in word the US is committed to integrated schools but in deed it is not really a priority and most of efforts do essentially look like "separate but equal." I think it's shameful but it's reality.

Not the OP, but that's the point of having a system of schools with multiple locations. They should be equal or else some kid is getting held back.

The big part of the problem is the continued use of property taxes and local bonds to pay for schools. Poor neighborhoods don't have the money for either.

I'm not even sure what "separate schools" means. Yes, schools are separate. But at some point, a school's constituents need to take some responsibility for improving conditions. You can't just send the kids across town, driving the wealthy kids out of the public system. That is not the solution.

I guess I'm just a little bit tired of the suggestions that the solutions lie with everyone else except for the people involved.

We have data that shows that desegregation is very effective. However, people seem to stop there and not question why it's so effective. It's not nice to think about, but isn't desegregation just "diluting the problem until it no longer creates a poisonous learning environment"?

I agree that I don't get the impression that some communities aren't doing all that they can to improve education irrespective of funding.

I've seen one example of integration (San Francisco) and it was a complete disaster. The TAL episode suggests the exact same thing happened in Boston. I don't see how it would not happen. Some people may benefit but the system takes a nose dive.

It doesn't sound all that right wing to me (I'm left wing). I think you're just highlighting one of the primary underlying issues: parents, likely because of personal and economic factors, don't have the time or energy to be involved in their children's education.

I looked up some stats on Newark schools. $1B in expenditures for 43,000 students. Or: a relatively high $23,000 per student.

Increasing an already sufficient budget by 20%, when the district arguably can't effectively use its current funds seems like a mistake. It probably would have been more effective just to pay the families of the students $4600 as incentive to be more involved.

Interesting observation from link 1, is one full time employee per 6 students, but

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/nj_schools_struggle...

Claims that boots on the ground, the average math class size is 26 students. With 35K students that implies 1350 or so classroom teachers, and 4250 non-classroom instructor employees. Obviously not all four thousand are deadwood, somebody needs to empty the trash cans and somebody needs to be in charge, but "more or less" most of the 4000 deadwood could be fired with no negative impact to the students. That's a heck of an administrative load!

And thats how $100M disappears. (edited to add thats only $25K per deadwood)

How would having a more racial diverse demographic in Newark schools alleviate their problems?

My understanding of the most common argument is racially diverse =~ class-diverse and therefore a racially diverse group of schools all have similar tax bases. Unlike segregated schools which might have a lower class tax base for one school and an upper class tax base for the other.

But that probably isn't what your parent is invoking since they said money isn't the issue.

http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publication...

For more on segregation and the effect it has on school performance see these two recent This American Life episodes[1][2].

[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/562/t...

[2] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/563/t...

The TAL episodes don't touch at all on the impact to the schools and other students. Except for a few clips of non-PC parent comments.

Socioeconomic discrimination is the great divide of our time.

In theory, some of the money could have been used for desegregation. It really is a tragedy that there was no big purpose to which this money was put.

Desegregating Newark schools means integrating the schools in the surrounding suburbs, and the parents will fight it. They simply don't want their children educated alongside minorities.

That's odd because there are tons of Asians at their schools.

Asians and Indians don't count as minorities for purposes of the all important diversity narrative. Don't make that mistake too many times or the internet vigilantes will ruin you.

Desegregating Newark schools also means packing kids onto a bus each morning for a long bus ride. Then a long bus ride home. And if a parent needs to be there, it's no longer a walk to the neighborhood school, but more likely a trip on public transit.

I'd prefer just giving each poor school an extra $5000 per pupil per year, directly to the principal or the parent/teacher group.

Please, write the next check. Mark wrote the first.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant but you are making a very good point.

Show me the list of affluent parents who are willing to send their children to schools in crime-ridden areas. It has nothing to do with race but with the violent culture these areas breed.

Of course it has to do with race. You yourself are using code words of "affluent" for white and "crime-ridden" and "violent culture" for non-white, which is the same coded language parents themselves might even use to justify their prejudices. However, just because a neighborhood is mixed-race does not imply it is "crime-ridden".

Spending part of this money on desegregation busing programs would have been a step in the right direction.

You are the one injecting race not me. There exists affluent families of many different races, sometimes interracially mixing.

However, just because a neighborhood is mixed-race does not imply it is "crime-ridden".

Exactly.

Spending part of this money on desegregation busing programs would have been a step in the right direction.

No, it would a step in the "race to the bottom" direction. Solutions should be based on bringing the lowest performing students up without affecting the best performing students. Those are the hardest solutions BTW which is why people like you are attracted to the easiest ones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com