Segregation isn't addressing the root problem, it's just hoping that spreading out the problem (households that don't value education) will mask issues.
If one school was 100% Asian-American and a neighboring school was 100% white, the two schools wouldn't underperform because of segregation.
EDIT: Instead of downvoting, can someone refute my point about the Asian-American and white schools? Segregation itself isn't the issue.
It's obvious to everyone what the problem is, yet we're not able to discuss it.
Please, let us know what you think the problem is. Why hide behind an implication?
As for the problem? Well, the 72% illegitimacy rate among African-Americans is an absolute social disaster (1). No amount of school funding or social welfare programs can fix an economic problem of that scope. And yes, I believe that this is a cultural problem. What is the solution? I don't know, but I'm open to debating, engaging, and supporting policy that will help.
You can see a flip occur around 1980 which would coincide with the beginning of the crack era, the failing war on drugs, and mass incarceration.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families...
The "flip" doesn't occur around 1980, it occurs in the 1970's (feel free to download the excel sheet and examine it yourself, as I did) and it's a trend that follows ALL races, yet the crack era was largely an African-American epidemic.
There was, however, a major social movement in the 60's that encouraged free love, sexual liberation, women's rights, and an explosion of contraceptives. I think this is a stronger explanatory argument, one also made by the Brookings Institution:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wed...
When you don't have access to that wealth* and society takes an active role in eroding its explicit social safety net (welfare), the implicit communal safety net (redlining, divestment), and individual liberties (mass incarceration, the crack vs cocaine sentencing disparities), you can see what results. What you're falsely ascribing to sexual liberation I'm ascribing to the real, tangible effects of capitalism and a society that values black life less.
* http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2010/03/09...
That reminds me of something I've heard before. Oh, right...
“The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.” — Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party
Now as for the nonsensical rant about capitalism, I’ve had that debate about a thousand times, so I don’t see the point in engaging again - it’s not like we’re going to change each other’s minds.
My side? Please elaborate.
"Traditional family structure" has been used to browbeat same-sex parents, transgender people and anyone that lives a life not depicted in Norman Rockwell portraiture. In that way it has been politically weaponized to oppress the marginalized.
Families remain powerful agents for wealth creation, economic as well as intellectual, social, and spiritual wealth. This does not mean we should structure society to make no resources available for a single mother; no one should be faced with the choice of staying with an abusive partner or losing her only means of providing for her children.
It's nice to have a point of agreement, but unfortunate that you choose to keep your worldview narrow regarding our economic reality.
When you set up incentives such that a woman loses money by marrying a guy with a small or nonexistent income, you're going to see fewer marriages in the lowest income bracket. It's rational in the short term, but the long term effects are corrosive.
He is. It's incredibly ignorant and hateful to ascribe to the individual problems caused by systemic divestment from black and brown communities. We have to fight for every cent, our teachers are not only expected to be social workers, they're also held to different standards in ways that they wouldn't be if they were teaching in wealthy white districts.
From the article:
"Whether channeling more money to schools in underserved communities will help improve the quality of education is a subject of academic debate."
This isn't a question in countries where public schools are succeeding, it's obvious. Public schools in France have enough to serve their kids multi-course meals. Public schools in Sweden have small classrooms. Everyone gets enough to make their kids thrive. Not so in America, where the primary source of funding is local property taxes.
"simply increasing the salaries of all teachers in a high-need school district won’t have as much of an impact as identifying high-performing teachers and increasing their salaries."
This is exactly the kind of comparative stack-rank culture that breeds toxicity in a workplace. Why should high-need school districts have differing salary standards?
Also anecdotal: my grandfather (along with many other rural students in the country) went to school in a one-room schoolhouse. The funding was extremely limited. This didn't hold back their educational performance.
It's the Heritage Foundation so obviously it has an angle to push, but here's a study about school funding and performance: http://www.heritage.org/education/report/does-spending-more-...
This is extremely prevalent in diverse urban areas dominated by liberals, such as New York City.
"My city the segergation is increased through Private and Charter Schools. One charter school has 93% Latino population. Another Private School near me has over 90% Caucasian population."
These are the people who preach that "diversity is our strength" but will spend a LOT of money to avoid this "strength".
Blue states still have better public schools than red states https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/...
So even if they are sending them to private schools, the public schools that "they won't send them to" STILL do better than the public schools in conservative states.
> while at the same time bashing conservatives who wish to do the same.
Those wealthy liberals pay for both the local public school and the private school. They aren't exempt from taxes because they send their kids to private school. This is why they bash conservatives, for their desire to defund public education.
> That's because the link between funding and performance is tenuous at best
So if funding is irrelevant and liberal states provide better education, what's the next post-rationalization to justify downvotes for unsubstantiated political claims?
I don't think the metric used gives the entire picture. It's pointing out the percentage of nationally-ranked schools and ignores everything below that threshold.
>So even if they are sending them to private schools, the public schools that "they won't send them to" STILL do better than the public schools in conservative states.
The urban school that the wealthy whites are avoiding probably isn't nationally ranked.
>for their desire to defund public education
Who wants to do that? It's about the amount spent, not defunding.
Though it is I think broadly acknowledged that simply throwing money at the problem won't solve anything. The Brookings Institute side of the argument even acknowledges that. [1]
However, the Brookings Institute does argue for long-term state education finance reforms changes, with linked studies that show some improvement with overall school performance, with funding equalization structures. Another Brookings article [2] argues for spending on resources that matter where they are lacking, particularly well-qualified teachers and high-quality curriculum. Seems reasonable to me.
That does not change the socioeconomic factors that also are a large factor in current school performance. This is unfortunately a lot harder to solve.
But it's not going to be solved by being too broad in scope. "One school was 100% Asian-American and a neighboring school was 100% white" is too broad. After all, Appalachian whites currently have an educational gap, and Cambodian Americans currently having an educational gap. There are many other factors involved in school performance, such as socioeconomic status, parental and community involvement, etc.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/research/its-not-nothing-the-role-... [2] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-...
I grew up (and recently moved back to) Boone County, in north-central Arkansas. My school experience was... suboptimal.
It reads like you are saying that the root problem is households that don't value education, to which I would say that perhaps students that don't value education is the root problem. And then, perhaps spreading those students out into classes and schools among students who do value education won't mask that problem, but actually change the attitudes and eventually behaviors of those you are trying to help.
It might help out some, and some of those students will go on to college and they won't return to the same community to make it any better. Having children wake up early to ride the bus for an hour is avoiding the root issue. Communities should have local schools that they can take pride and ownership in. Having school close to home also makes it easier for parents to be involved.