Young, Brown, and Weird (by Anna Almendrala)
Schools in the U.S. have been resegregating themselves at a fast clip for the past 15 years or so, and the racial demographics of some districts are approaching Old South numbers. Why should we care? I can tell you.
I was born in the Philippines and grew up in New Zealand, where 78 percent of the population is of European descent. The rest is mostly foreign-born, recently immigrated, and, in some cases, extremely socially segregated. There were disconcerting (albeit infrequent) experiences with xenophobia and racism: my dad and his South Indian colleague being refused service in a bar during a business trip, my parents whispering quietly in Tagalog with a friend who had his tires slashed and a swastika scrawled over his garage.
Growing up was awkward, difficult, and sometimes painful. I always just chalked it up to being a weird little person, until my family moved to Fremont, California, when I was 10. Only then did I realize how what should have been an idyllic childhood, in a country with more sheep than people, was instead marred by segregation and racism. In Fremont my school was incredibly diverse. I felt a lot of freedom and peace in my own identity once I saw how secure and confident the members of other minority groups were.
When I was 14 my family moved again—to Pleasanton, a suburb only 30 minutes away. The cultural shock was as startling as the move from New Zealand—in reverse. Like New Zealand, 80 percent of Pleasanton's population identifies as white. In my first few weeks at the new school, I remember standing in line for PE behind an Indian kid named Nikhil when he was called a "sand-nigger." I thought to myself, "Are you kidding me?!" I grew even more afraid as no one else in the line stepped in to defend Nik or protest the slur.
I don't count myself as oppressed or downtrodden—one of the good things about going to a majority white school in California is that it pretty much correlates to receiving an excellent public education (once you put all the privileged kids in the same institution, their privilege usually follows them). I made it into University of California-Berkeley straight out of high school, so I guess being called a "chink" once a year was totally worth it.
Here's something I learned at Berkeley: Ever since the initial breakthroughs in the years following Brown v. Board, schools have been tending toward resegregation through redistricting, strategic community planning, and prohibitive housing costs. In some school counties now it's Jim Crow in all but name, and that's a real shame. Diversifying schools gives more minorities the resources to earn their way to college in a less symbolically violent atmosphere. It's going to take effort on all levels – policy, institutions, community, and individual – to reintegrate neighborhoods and schools in a meaningful and lasting way.
Anna Almendrala is the marketing and circulation assistant for Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
brilliant analysis
Posted by: Jon Forrest Little | February 6, 2008 5:19 PM
Well, naturally one would learn that at Berkeley. I remember after prop. (I don't remember the number) passed, banning affirmative action at the UCs, one student was quoted as saying "we used to have people of all colors in the square, now it's just Asians."
Didn't sound very enlightened to me. Anti-Asian sentiment was less prevalent at Pomona (many of my friends chose Pomona for that reason), but I'm not sure that squishing people together is going to act as any sort of cure for the racism blues.
In my opinion, minorities would be better served by an education system that hadn't given up on them. Wealthier people aren't going to sacrifice their child's education to partake in some grand social experiment by sending their kids to failed schools in hopes that the "privilege" follows them. Our Mayor is as left-wing as they come, but he sends his kids to Breck.
It is pragmatism, not racism, that is driving these decisions.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 6, 2008 5:38 PM
re-segregation started in my town when the school district inaugurated a school choice policy for elementary schools and middle schools over 10 years ago. There were supposed to be thresholds in place to keep the racial balances from becoming too skewed any one way, but what happened was that the board that dealt with the school choice placement didn't want to disappoint anyone - especially white, middle class parents, so in a couple of years the schools were nearing segregation splits. They stopped using the choice formula years ago, but now the minority parents all want their children to go to the majority minority schools, if that makes any sense. They have a choice of 3 that are in their area, but they consistently choose the schools that are now segregated. The school where I used to teach doesn't even have 25 white students there now, and there are over 500 students in the school. No one is saying anything about it, either!
Posted by: Maggie | February 6, 2008 5:41 PM
re-segregation started in my town when the school district inaugurated a school choice policy for elementary schools and middle schools over 10 years ago. There were supposed to be thresholds in place to keep the racial balances from becoming too skewed any one way, but what happened was that the board that dealt with the school choice placement didn't want to disappoint anyone - especially white, middle class parents, so in a couple of years the schools were nearing segregation splits. They stopped using the choice formula years ago, but now the minority parents all want their children to go to the majority minority schools, if that makes any sense. They have a choice of 3 that are in their area, but they consistently choose the schools that are now segregated. The school where I used to teach doesn't even have 25 white students there now, and there are over 500 students in the school. No one is saying anything about it, either!
Posted by: Maggie | February 6, 2008 5:42 PM
This probably has nothing to do with schools or race and everything to do with segregations of community (usually along financial lines, fixed by housing affordability).
The separation apparent in the schools along racial lines is just a reflection that there are more wealthy whites in affluent suburbs.
In some of the schools I work at (in Australia) the islander population (samoan and tongan) is over 70% while the white population at a school across the freeway is at about 85%. Median house prices rise in crossing the freeway by about 400K.
There may be some schools or districts which have deliberately made it difficult for some people to attend them, but it's primarily about housing affordability and (with the exception of very small communities where everyone lives together) you probably can't desegregate house prices.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | February 6, 2008 6:10 PM
Whatever the problem is, it isn't funding, at least not in Michigan. Michigan has basic per-pupil state grant that follows every student. Local school districts are limited in the extent to which they can levy taxes on their own. As a consequence per-pupil funding is more or less equal -- not perfect but fairly close.
Guess what: Detroit Public Schools are still awful, suburban school districts, especially the wealthy sections of Oakland County and the Grosse Pointes, are pretty good.
I appreciate Ms. Almendrala's sense of perspective though, and I hope folks will consider in particular the implications of this statement:
I made it into University of California-Berkeley straight out of high school, so I guess being called a "chink" once a year was totally worth it.
Now maybe Ms. Almendrala meant this to be ironic, but the bottom line is she got called by a racial slur, apparently more than once, and still got into one of the nation's best colleges.
I think we need to re-evaluate what constitutes oppression. Or to phrase it another way: which is worse, the occasional impotent uttering of a racial slur, or lousy school districts that profess tolerance to the high heavens while holding students back by giving them little in the way of actual education?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 6, 2008 7:10 PM
"think we need to re-evaluate what constitutes oppression"
I don't think that will ever happen . Politically it works .
But what she is saying does make sense , its just that it is stated in a way that only is received by a specfic audience . Having different people , races, cultures be around each other does help break superficial barriers .
Just I see a limited understanding on Anna Almendrala to see the benfit from perhaps being around some groups she has a preconceived bias towards as helping her out too besides just fiancially .
Posted by: Mick | February 6, 2008 7:52 PM
Why not think outside the box. Why not ask why we can't have successful schools that ARE mostly black. Mostly asian. Mostly hispanic, mostly white...???
Everyone's so hung up on calling someone or other racist that they're failing to ask the real question... Why can't people succeed if we just ignore race?
Posted by: mark | February 6, 2008 9:15 PM
Ignoring race doesn't change everything. I know I teach in innercity schools. The kids have to deal w/ race issues. So the goal needs to be successful schools that build up all aspects of our humanity. That includes our ethnicity and race is a part of that.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 6, 2008 9:23 PM
Everyone's so hung up on calling someone or other racist that they're failing to ask the real question... Why can't people succeed if we just ignore race?
Posted by: mark
Ignoring access to good education and good schools based only on fiancial abilities of parents is wrong also for Government Schools .
We should not have better state run hospitals in suburbs , neither should schools be better .
The state needs to be colorblind too Mark .
I support vouchers , Charters , etc , but that is shot down by the academic establishment . I know money is not the answer because we already have some schools receiving way over the national average in some city areas and the educational results are still terrible.
I would say more local control is needed , but the local schools ask for more money , then when the Feds give it , all kinds of strings are attached and they loose even more local control .
Posted by: Mick | February 6, 2008 9:37 PM
Ignoring race doesn't change everything. I know I teach in innercity schools. The kids have to deal w/ race issues. So the goal needs to be successful schools that build up all aspects of our humanity. That includes our ethnicity and race is a part of that.
I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. The question could probably more accurately be framed a bit differently...
If we simply ignored that a school is made up of any particular predominant race... Can't the problems in the school be addressed as the problems, without any reference to race?
For instance, the town 11 miles down the road from me has HORRIBLE school statistics. Pregnancy rate is high, violence against each other is high, dropout rate is high, academic achievement is low, etc.
OUR schools have less funding, older facilities, and are understaffed. But we have good results. And I mean, GOOD results. Graduation rates are some of the highest in the state, achievement scores are similarly good, etc.
Yet, our "racial balance", etc, isn't all that different. Our districts' income stats, etc, is lesser than the one down the road. Not a lot, but a little.
So, why the discrepancy? The schools down the road blame race and poverty for failure. We find race and poverty are insigificant factors.
What's the difference?
When you leave race out of the picture, the ONLY differences are parental involvement and size.
We have somewhat (not dramatically) higher parental involvement. WE have somewhat larger class sizes. But we have a lot smaller schools.
Thier high school has several times the number of kids. Ours has around 200.
Which brings me back to the question I was asking about in the first place... Race isn't destiny, and if we don't use it as an excuse, I'm wondering if we can't find correctible factors that will turn failure into success?
Posted by: mark | February 6, 2008 9:49 PM
Ignoring access to good education and good schools based only on fiancial abilities of parents is wrong also for Government Schools .
We should not have better state run hospitals in suburbs , neither should schools be better .
The state needs to be colorblind too Mark .
In our state, at least, funding knows no color. The only budgets that we vote on per district tend to be mil levies for capital improvements, like new buildings, for instance.
The funding for teachers, books, etc, is set per child and comes from a combination of local and state tax revenues, it varies only slightly all across the state. Some of the big city schools have higher funding, because costs are much higher. I live in a rural area. Within our county, we range from schools with no "minority" population to nearly 50% non-white.
Yet, the success rate is is almost perfectly correlated to school SIZE, not any other factor.
Posted by: mark | February 6, 2008 9:55 PM
Speaking of success or failure...
My kids have attended a mix of public and private schools. I have 5, and never could afford private for all of them.
Currently, our district's high school has around 200 kids. My youngest daughter attends a private high school. Fees run about 7500 / yr. The public high school down the road is funded about 230% of that, yet the academic achievement averages for the private school are WAYYYY better.
You can argue anything you like, but it is NOT funding. Nor is it race. There's no difference in achievement at the private school between white and non-white.
Posted by: mark | February 6, 2008 10:00 PM
"OUR schools have less funding, older facilities, and are understaffed. But we have good results. And I mean, GOOD results. Graduation rates are some of the highest in the state, achievement scores are similarly good, etc."
So my question is how good are the teachers? I know I demand excellence from my students. They are not allowed to underachieve. But what I have found is that most students simply don't know how to take tests, how to study...
But and this is a big but, I don't want to simply ignore race and that's because it can bite the school in the butt if its ignored. when I was in high school during the 90's there was a race riot among the white and Mexican students. I think we need to make sure that all students are safe. That's what I am getting at.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 6, 2008 10:11 PM
,i>So my question is how good are the teachers? I know I demand excellence from my students. They are not allowed to underachieve. But what I have found is that most students simply don't know how to take tests, how to study...
I would say the teachers are no better that just average.
I'm not suggesting I have all the answers here, I just think that we get far too focused on "minority, race, ethnicity, funding" and overlook fundamental educational issues. Success can be achieved by any group, in my opinion. But not all 'solutions' actually are.
Posted by: mark | February 6, 2008 10:53 PM
You have to ask why the schools' excellence correlates inversely with the financial affordability of neighborhood homes, and why that corresponds with the lack of racial diversity.
When homes across tracks differ in price by $400K depending on the racial makeup of those living there, it has greater implications, because schools are mostly funded by property taxes and those taxes are raised on the basis of a percentage of the assessed home values. Neighborhoods with homes valued at much less simply won't have the same levels of funding available as those worth $400K more, to say the least. That is a drastic difference in revenues available to the two neighborhoods, with all the implications for creating vicious circles of deprivation as equality of opportunity is denied across generations.
When neighborhoods are segregated racially and that segregation is also financial, then institutionalised racism is at play. The likeliest culprits will be redlining in banking and mortgage practices, for just as easy credit fuelled a speculative housing bubble, lack of access to credit based on racial demographics will result in lack of comparable market and depressed prices, making the neighborhood financially unattractive and the opportunity for equity wealth there very limited.
We have seen a decrepitude creep into regulatory oversight of private finance over the same decade and a half, and corresponding abuses proliferate.
The lack of regulation, given human nature, guarantees that those in a stronger financial position will seek to enhance their position at the expense of those who are weaker.
A conservative reading of scripture, with its pessimistic view of human goodness due to original sin making us selfish, shows us that laws that uphold justice in the private sector are necessary and that government must enforce them for the common good. There are np grounds for Christians believing that a kind of heartless economic Darwinism, in which ruthlessness and selfishness are rewarded, can be a practical moral good.
Moreover, where iniquities have been allowed to fester, with all the attendant social ills proliferating, it would be naive to belive that the situation would rectify itself without positive and practical corrective action by that same regulating authority.
Posted by: Sojurner Truth | February 6, 2008 10:56 PM
"That is a drastic difference in revenues available to the two neighborhoods, with all the implications for creating vicious circles of deprivation as equality of opportunity is denied across generations."
Minneapolis schools receive far more funding per pupil than schools in the suburbs (and far more than most private schools. If you passed legislation guaranteeing equal funding, you would send more money to the suburbs.
The system is flawed in ways that are not the fault of suburban dwellers. In fact, most of the suburban schools are equally flawed, but slide under the radar because the students are otherwise motivated to achieve success.
"The likeliest culprits will be redlining"
Redlining is illegal. If you want to exert more effort enforcing exisiting laws, you have my support.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 6, 2008 11:28 PM
When "wisdom" consists of little more than a recitation of tired, worthless, and endless cliches, all of which are nothing more than justification to incite class and race hatred...
One MUST reject this, before it poisons a whole generation and makes forward progress utterly impossible in our lifetimes.
I know liberal political cliche and stereotype driven rhetoric fails to directly address a single valid solution. And that failure is generally just used to justify more of the same.
It all sounds nice and sophisticated, but when the rubber hits the road, there is no amount of implementation which will effect even the slightest positive result.
Sorry, ST, you do not understand ANYTHING about economics in the real world. No level of intervention can accomplish its intended results.
Posted by: mark | February 6, 2008 11:34 PM
Here is my response to the article:
Resegregation
Posted by: Rob D. | February 7, 2008 12:33 AM
When neighborhoods are segregated racially and that segregation is also financial, then institutionalised racism is at play. The likeliest culprits will be redlining in banking and mortgage practices, for just as easy credit fuelled a speculative housing bubble, lack of access to credit based on racial demographics will result in lack of comparable market and depressed prices, making the neighborhood financially unattractive and the opportunity for equity wealth there very limited.
This is a chicken and egg question. Does redlining cause property value loss and ownership decay? Or does declining property value create an untenable situation for purposes of borrowing against collateral?
Regulation or mandates will NOT "fix" this. Forced lending when the underlying equity is falling in value will result in ever increasing levels of default or bankruptcy - and that's going to further erode the equity value.
There ARE things you can do, of course, but the mandate method doesn't work.
Mind you, inner cities aren't the only place where "discrimination" occurs. We wanted to buy a new and larger home in our rural small town, and found we could not obtain financing under useful terms.. Why? Our mortgage would have been the largest or nearly the largest on record for our entire town.
This house has sat unoccupied (the owner died) for years now, because nobody who lives in this area can afford it. Median income here is upper 30's or low 40's for a family, and the home is $260,000. Yet, it is not new, classic, or elegant. It is simply large, old, and comes with well more than a city block of land - in town!
Only problem is that those who are in our income bracket can afford it, and most of those are building new homes in "appreciating" neighborhoods. It looks like a definite middle class or less home, and so its target demographic can't afford it, most of those with the income aren't interested.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 12:57 AM
"Sorry, ST, you do not understand ANYTHING about economics in the real world. No level of intervention can accomplish its intended results."
That's a lot of unfounded assertions without any merit - unless you can make your case by using reason and example, instead of reciting ideology.
It so happens that over a period of a couple of years I brought a start-up business to make over a million dollars, when a million was still something.
Subsequently, I worked as a problem-solver for seriously troubled businesses and managed to effect financial turnarounds.
I was elected to an office where we managed to reduce taxes and increase public services, a legerdemaine accomplished through eliminating waste and corruption.
Admittedly, it was a village and not a whole country, which made the results based on efficiencies immediately obtainable where that degree of control and reform would not be as easily scaled up to larger political entities.
I feel pretty confident I have a handle on practical economics, from your house to the White House!
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 7, 2008 1:06 AM
As for difficulty... I started a business just under 4 years ago with $10K. I was in the black in under a year and we've doubled our gross every year. I expect to do that this year and next year, as well.
As for doing better than most politicians, I dare say that most 8th graders would be dramatically more effective than most political entities at money management. A 5th grader, for instance, would definitely be several times more effective than ANYTHING Congress could EVER do.
Certainly, however, one should take pride in doing something good as a public servant. Congratuations for having the guts to take on an office, though. I have nowhere near the patience required to deal with the unending incompetence of government institutions. As an employer, that level of dealing with government is FAR more than I EVER wanted to have to suffer through.
The idea of abandoning payroll and dividing up the stock (and dividends) and having partner(s) rather than employees is awfully tempting at times. I pretty much plan on doing this in the not too distant future.
I have had an issue with our worker's comp insurance since late October. I just noticed today, that the complete re-write of our policy and charges is STILL wrong. Three months and it is STILL not corrected. Rather, they just keep substituting new errors for old ones.
If I had a choice, there's simply no way private insurers would be this absurd and retain my business. I would have changed to someone competent by now.
Of course, the even less competent FEDERAL government is the perfect entity to run our health care, make all issues fair, and solve every problem in our life.
To the insane, maybe.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 1:40 AM
Back toward the original topic of this thread.........
It's not as much about race as socio-economic status. I teach in a very poor school district, with both Hispanic and white students. When families exist in poverty, the parents are ordinarily less educated than the parents of suburban kids. Therefore, the children are less likely to be read to, and are given fewer enrichment opportunities at a young age (some of my 4th graders have never been to our city zoo, or outside the city limits). Almost all my student don't own any books- I routinely buy large boxes of withdrawn books at our public library sales and distribute them- these are the first books some of them have ever owned. And yes, I'm talking about an inner-city neighborhood in the United States. Reading some of these posts, it is clear to me many of you have not carefully observed what the real effects of poverty on children are. I see them every day.
Almost any early childhood research you can examine shows the extreme importance of mental and social stimulation between the ages of 6 months and 3 years. Children of poverty do not have these advantages- usually,even if both parents are present, they have multiple jobs and the children are cared for by older siblings or relatives, who don't have the resources or transportation to give them the enrichment experiences that are part of the everyday life of suburban kids (music lessons, soccer teams, trips to other parts of the country on vacations).
These children are already behind their suburban counterparts when they arrive at school. This is a societal problem, and no matter how good teachers are, schools can only do so much to catch up. We should stop blaming the schools, the parents, the teachers, and even the politicians (who I still hold accountable) and the neighborhoods and start coming together to end poverty. You want to change the world? Become a mentor to a 2-year-old child living in poverty; take them to the nature preserves, the zoo, the story time at the public library, the museums in your city. Bring along all their extended family. You will make a difference.
If every college graduate or even every adult who cares about the future of our world did this, our next generation of college students might not need remedial courses when they get to college, and they might not be living in poverty when they begin their own families.
Posted by: David | February 7, 2008 7:39 AM
Anna,Your post about your experience of racial bigotry truly touched me.I am a 52 year old white guy from a rather well to do family raised by a family who did not see skin color,so @ 16 years old I experienced bigotry for the first time when my family moved to the South.When I tried to make friends with African-American kids they told me "your people are not gonna like you".They were right I was physically assaulted and an outcast to a large part of the student body,but the friends I did make were real.One would think we should be done with such backward thinking by now,but stupidity is a powerful force! Peace in Christ,Mike
Posted by: Mike | February 7, 2008 8:04 AM
Folks, I strongly recommend Rob D's link. While I'm not a huge fan of Murray Rothbard, he's on solid ground when he argues that the nature of governmental bureaucracies is such that they will tend to push for uniformity and ease of administration, even at the expense of effectiveness and diversity.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 7, 2008 9:11 AM
Random observations about "integrated" schools and communities:
1. In spite of all the governmental machinations through the decades to bring integration about, the people (remember, 'government of the people, by. . . .?') DO NOT WANT to be integrated. This includes white people, who vacate, by the gazillion, areas where other minorites live, and it includes all other minorities, who gravitate toward, or form out of nothing, their own neighborhoods and ethnicities by simply moving together and forming a small version of the country from which they came.
2. When our schools are forcibly integrated, quality of education inevitably drops over time. This is simply because so much effort must be invested by staff and faculty in keeping the peace, maintaining the 'cultural integrity' of the various minorities within the school, that less real education (and yes, folks, that is still reading, writing, and arithmetic) can take place.
3. Private schools do better at education than public schools. But there is a contributing reason for that: private schools don't have to take everyone!! They get to pick and choose - - and believe me, they do that. The result is, the test scores are better, because the intellectual levels of the incoming students are better to begin with. Private schools make certain of that.
4. Public schools have many 'students' in their halls who should not be there. They are either intellectually unable to achieve an educated status (through no fault of their own) or they are disinterested in achieving an educated status. In some cases, this is because the drumbeat of the 'hood' in which they live is too compelling. In other cases, they are already, at age 14, 15, or 16, dealing with more cold cash in the course of a week than most educated folks see in a year. In other cases, they have little or sno support from their families or other supposed support groups, simply because education is not understood, within those support groups, to be But public schools have to take them, because after all, we can "leave no child behind."
5. None of what I have just said should be construed to indicate that I am a red-necked bigot. I am not. But the points I have just made are real-world points, they exist out there in the world of schools and ethnic neighborhoods, and they are at least part of the reasons why forced integration is now, and always has been, doomed to failure. People will do what they do, move where they want, and put their kids in positions where they want them to be, without the direction of 'the government." And they will do it, every time.
Posted by: joekc | February 7, 2008 9:19 AM
My apologies. Paragraph (4), above, should read:
In other cases, they have little or no support from their families or other supposed support groups, simply because education is not understood, within those support groups, to be CRITICAL.
Posted by: joekc | February 7, 2008 9:26 AM
I strongly recommend Rob D's link. While I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard, he's on pretty solid ground when he argues that it is the nature of government bureaucracy to value uniformity and rigid rules.
With options for education limited and tied to geography, it shouldn't be surprising if socio-economic stratification prevails. With more options, there might be more diversity.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 7, 2008 9:34 AM
Thank you for your comments, David. I agreed with what you've said. I don't think it goes far enough, though. In addition to reading, mentoring, and just generally spending time with young, pre-school aged children, the larger question about race and tolerance needs to be asked. What example are we providing for our children when they believe racial slurs are acceptable? It sounds cliche, but hatred is not born, it's taught.
Posted by: Jackie | February 7, 2008 9:42 AM
Sorry to repeat myself folks -- I thought the first post had been lost.
Anyway, if Anna Almendrala really wants a renewed "effort on all levels", then we're going to need to do some creative thinking on all levels, and no institution connected to education should be beyond criticism or change. This would include federal and state bureaucracies, school boards, and teachers unions. And we should start out with all ideas, including school vouchers and charter schools, in play.
Here's a question for the author: You say you want effort on all levels. Do you really mean that?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 7, 2008 9:57 AM
Pragmatism seems as a good an excuse for racism as any. Wealthier people will not sacrifice their kids
for some social experiment? I thought integration was an ethical choice? I guess I thought the Biblical mandate to see each other as created in God's image and valuable was part of our Christian life style, no matter what it cost us. So I guess our children would be another excuse for racism?
It would be interesting to check on education statistics and the implementation of integration laws. I suspect it would be as telling as the rise in "Christian" and private school enrollment and integration.
I do not believe there is any "chicken or egg" analogy here. The law mandated integration and we, the majority white, "Christian" population found ways around the law, along with plenty of excuses/reasons for doing so.
In my experience, everything that we fear and associate with minorities, ghettos, inner city schools etc. exists in the majority pop. as well and because of the size of the majority these problems exists in larger numbers. It just has a nicer face on it.
We determine to exist as diverse communities. If we do not determine to live as united communities our diversities will fracture us into chaos.
It would cost us, but it would be the price of doing the right thing. In the end it will be found to have been a bargain.
Posted by: Wayne | February 7, 2008 10:03 AM
I have a somewhat different perspective.
I live in a suburban school district that was created by court order in 1981 out of five districts -- one poor and majority-black and the rest richer and at least 90 percent white. Needless to say, that caused considerable consternation among the white districts, which fought it for years.
However, the children adjusted, as they always do. The combined district when it was first implemented operated three high schools (though it now has only one). The marching bands of two of the schools had already been invited to a band festival I attended in 1982 and the organizers decided to invite the third school; when one of those schools took the field the other two cheered. That was classy.
Well, some interesting things have happened. The football team at the single high school has since become occasionally nationally-ranked, with some elite players moving in from other districts and others now playing on Sundays, and academics are still pretty strong. Also, the bottom dropped out of the economy of what was one of the districts that had originally fought the merger; people there now understand that they eventually would have had to merge anyway.
This would include federal and state bureaucracies, school boards, and teachers unions. And we should start out with all ideas, including school vouchers and charter schools, in play.
Those have little, if anything, to do with scholastic achievement, and most teachers and parents understand that. Vouchers, for example, when put to a vote almost always lose, not because of the unions (often blamed) but because parents in the better schools don't want those kids attending our schools. Charter schools are similarly restrictive and, in my area, have proven a disaster.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 7, 2008 10:37 AM
Vouchers, for example, when put to a vote almost always lose, not because of the unions (often blamed) but because parents in the better schools don't want those kids attending our schools. Charter schools are similarly restrictive and, in my area, have proven a disaster.
Nonsense. Vouchers lose because of MASSIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS BY YOUR POLITICAL SOULMATES to defeat them. It isn't about "not wanting those kinds in our schools". It's about "not wanting to lose the dependency of those kids on us". Dependency is empowerment to liberal politicians and ANYTHING that threatens that dependency reduces thier power, and they will fight with a fanaticism equal to that of Bin Ladin to "keep dependency alive".
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 11:05 AM
Pragmatism seems as a good an excuse for racism as any. Wealthier people will not sacrifice their kids
for some social experiment? I thought integration was an ethical choice? I guess I thought the Biblical mandate to see each other as created in God's image and valuable was part of our Christian life style, no matter what it cost us. So I guess our children would be another excuse for racism?
Wow, what a load of horse manure!
Tell us a story of some inner city parents who get thier kids OUT of some disasterous school - sending them to the best they can find - and you'll stand and cheer.
But if middle class parents attempt to do the same for thier children... You call it "racism" and pronounce spiritual condemnation upon them.
Either it's right to do the best you c an for your kids... Or it isn't. You don't get to tell some parents they have the right to do the best they can, and others must sabotage thier kids for "moral political purpose". I don't think you people ever listen to yourselves when these topics come up.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 11:11 AM
3. Private schools do better at education than public schools. But there is a contributing reason for that: private schools don't have to take everyone!! They get to pick and choose - - and believe me, they do that. The result is, the test scores are better, because the intellectual levels of the incoming students are better to begin with. Private schools make certain of that.
Nice way to wrongly generalize. Of the private schools my kids have attended AND the public schools as well, the private kids take everyone, except for those completely incapable of school.
By contrast all of our public schools have special ed programs, often incredibly well funded, for anyone with any kind of disability, up to and including being lazy. And yet, even with the much larger class sizes, much lower funding levels, NO "special" programs at all, average kids in both have much different achievement levels.
Sorry, your #3 is just blowing smoke. In places where public schools provide more 'advantage' to special needs kids, as thereby remove them from the general student population, private schools STILL outpace them just as much.
Oh, and home schooling... Usually achieves DRAMATICALLY better than even private schooling, and in that case, poverty does NOT matter an iota.
Some people here have touched on the answers, but it seems nobody's willing to really get to the nitty gritty. Rather, they skirt around it and call anyone who dares get to the root "racist" and launches a campaign of personal destruction.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 11:20 AM
Tell us a story of some inner city parents who get thier kids OUT of some disasterous school - sending them to the best they can find - and you'll stand and cheer.
But if middle class parents attempt to do the same for thier children... You call it "racism" and pronounce spiritual condemnation upon them. Mark
Actually Mark I would not cheer. I sent both of my children to inner city schools. I have no other friends here locally who did as my wife and I did.
Some of their kids did well. Some, actually quite a few did not, regardless of where they lived or the schools they attended.
I would stack my children, both in their achievements and character against any and all.
Once again you knee jerk and do not ask any questions. But if you already know it all I guess you don't need to.
The question is not if you should do what is right for your kids. The question is if segregated schools and societies are "right" for anybody.
Posted by: wayne | February 7, 2008 11:26 AM
"Vouchers, for example, when put to a vote almost always lose, not because of the unions (often blamed) but because parents in the better schools don't want those kids attending our schools."
I might add, in Michigan, the voucher proposal of 2000 was voted against by parents in the better schools also because those parents understood that their own schools would get less state money. And I'd like to think also because some of them had a conscience about supporting low-income schools.
"Nonsense. Vouchers lose because of MASSIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS BY YOUR POLITICAL SOULMATES to defeat them."
Massive campaign in Michigan, yes, and for good reason. But the Michigan voucher proposal lost in the urban poor districts as well. Despite the Amway folks (who funded the petition drive) saying it would be good for low-income inner city kids, many concerned parents of those kids voted against it because they knew it would result in less money for their schools. There just simply are not enough private schools to accomodate all the kids in Detroit or Grand Rapids or Flint, and those private schools wouldn't have to take them anyway. That voucher was simply a way to divert state money from the public schools, and thankfully it lost, 65-35.
Posted by: I and I | February 7, 2008 11:28 AM
First, I'm NOT an 'educator' in the classic sense. I have formally taught things to kids, but not in a classroom setting. There are some observations that it seems nobody wants to address. Well, I see some people working at objectivity...
In my estimation, the following factors predict academic and personal success... roughly in the order listed.
1. Parental belief in education as a necessity.
2. Parental involvement in teaching thier kids how to recognize and grasp opportunity.
3. The student's sense of the possible for himself - generally comes from understanding the career, financial, and practical world outside his limited view.
4. Involved teachers who actually are concerned with the progress of individual students.
5. An educational curriculum that stresses the real world skills and knowledge instead of political goals (like the PC garbage about "being better community citizens")
I could go on, but it is my observation that parenting factors outweigh EVERYTHING else. Someone above mentioned mentoring, to be that substitute leader in a child's life, as far as his future, his view of the world, his view of the possible... If parenting is lacking, this is the ONLY possible means of raising the prospects any higher than "very dim". Ideally, it would be mostly as effective as real parenting.
Sadly, too many children become parents, parent themselves the same as they were parented by children, in a repeating cycle that all but gaurantees failure by the children they have.
Race, school size, and all these other statistical or "incidental" factors matter far less than the top 3 I listed.
A culture of failure and poverty cannot be legislated away. It can't be financially mandated away. It can't be "grant"ed away, it can't be redistributed away. It can only be broken by individual to individual effort.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 11:37 AM
That you go to Berkley does not impress me. Hope you had a great time.
I work for the 5th largest school district in my state and it is the 3rd most diverse. We are currently closing schools and reding the boundries because one of our levies did not pass. Each and every time we have redone the boundries we did so to make the diversity issue better - a more balanced mix in our schools. Most of the people of color in our district live on one side of the district because the housing is more affordable and most of their friends live there. Human nature is that we like to be with people we have an affinity with regardless of what that affinity might be. So - diversity in most school districts I believe is influenced by where people can and want to live. (EDINA is one of the districts in our area that has the least amount of diversity compared to other district around them. Their city counsel has a long history of making it almost impossible to build affordable housing. It is also one of the most liberal areas in the metro area - and they like to keep it that way)
I believe in most cases it is unfair to site Jim Crow and label a district that way. Most districts are a reflection of the community in which it resides. Deal with the community and county and the district will be just fine.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | February 7, 2008 11:42 AM
As far as vouchers go, I'll concede that a lot of opposition comes from parents in wealthy districts who do not want to lose the advantage of quality schools, but:
1. Their fears, however selfish, are misplaced. School funding in Michigan is largely equalized, and we still have dramatic differences in quality. Funding is not the problem.
2. The fact remains that public school teachers unions are vehemently opposed to vouchers, and they do have considerable resources at their disposal.
3. What you have, then, is an alliance between privileged suburbanites and teachers unions, in order to prevent an important education reform from taking root. This is hard to square with the common perception of teachers unions as defenders of the poor.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 7, 2008 11:55 AM
Their city counsel has a long history of making it almost impossible to build affordable housing. It is also one of the most liberal areas in the metro area - and they like to keep it that way
You'll find that the cost of a single family home goes upward in proportion to the average income directly by a mathmatical factor of how "liberal" the government is.
Ie, the more "liberal" the less affordable a home is. One example...My state. Portland, OR, has the most "liberal" government in the state. Single family homes in that metro area are beyond the reach of anyone who isn't "wealthy". If you are AVERAGE income, your ONLY option within Portland is to rent - to live in apartments.
And the city council continues A DELIBERATE EFFORT to maintain and worsen this trend. Middle class, both upper and lower, has fled the city itself, due to being unable to afford to live there. And then, in typical bleeding heart mode, the city then raises taxes even MORE ( further worsening middle class flight ) and then uses the proceeds to create mass subsidized housing.
The results of these policies - which are common to almost all cities with "liberal" governments - has been to create ghettos where none existed before. To drive almost ALL industry and small business out of the city. Portland has "stratified" itself. It trumpets its "progressive" policies of "providing affordable housing", and in just 25 years, it has managed to go from being a city without ghettos or any kind of "inner city" to being just that.
The only people who can afford to make thier home in the city are the very wealthy, and the dependent. And, to prevent erosion of land values, they tend to keep shoving the "affordable housing" into the dwindling remaining "middle class" neighborhoods.
In 1970, Portland had almost no "ghetto" areas. It was somewhat unique in that it was a collection of smaller, independent cities, each having mixed neighborhoods, and one of the most affordable housing costs of all larger cities.
The politicians of Portland, and thier political allies consider themselves a model of engineering and planning.
By all objective measures, it is a gross failure.
Portland used to pride itself on having uniformly well funded and high achieving schools. Today, they are drifting toward falling below the rural schools in performance. The smaller towns outside of the influence of the TriMet government have no such failure.
The unintended consequences of attempted social, business, and economic engineering have come home to roost. These problems have become structured into the very fabric of this city, and ALL of them are the direct result of liberal social engineering.
And all are "unintended consequences" of course, but real just the same.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 12:01 PM
Mark: "Putting politics ahead of your children.
I cannot imagine being that stupid. That willfully determined to put them in harm's way.
For empty, pointless, useless political nonsense. No wonder the nation's falling apart."
Mark, I'm asking you as one Christian to another. Please try to disagree in a less hostile and offensive manner. We can have vigorous debate without calling each other "stupid."
Mick, I'm curious. Do you approve of language like this?
Posted by: carl copas | February 7, 2008 12:04 PM
Does anyone have statistical information on the following question:
How directly does ownership of a home correlate to academic achievement by the minors in the household?
I'll be that the statistical correlation is VERY high. Even renting a single family dwelling is probably almost as high of correlation.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 12:05 PM
"School funding in Michigan is largely equalized..."
Yes, Wolverine, but their districts would still lose that money. That's why so many were against it.
"The fact remains that public school teachers unions are vehemently opposed to vouchers, and they do have considerable resources at their disposal."
But they are certainly not the only ones who were opposed. It sounds like you are also from Michigan, so you know about the recent challenges to the way the teachers' pension fund is set up. Despite the MEA's howling about it, there is little outcry from the general public. In short, the MEA does not have the public influence necessary to cause the public to reject the proposal by the margin it did--we can't just say the proposal's failure was due to teachers union efforts.
"What you have, then, is an alliance between privileged suburbanites and teachers unions..."
No! Remember my point that it failed overwhelmingly in POOR districts as well? And remember, by the way, that even our very conservative Gov. Engler opposed it, and that's what led Ms. Amway to step down as chair of the MI Repub Party?
Posted by: I and I | February 7, 2008 12:08 PM
Wayne, you should not have been treated that way. I wish I could be doing what you've done.
I request that the moderator remove the offending message. There's no place for that here.
Posted by: I and I | February 7, 2008 12:14 PM
The value of "an integrated life".
Arrogance scale = 100
Real world scale = 0
moral scale = 0
There, that's what I think of that kind of horse puckey. The things that MATTER are "to do justly, love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God".
This "i'm gonna go slumming to improve my integration factor" is beyond my tolerance level for mind numbing PC'ness. That's all about race and pretense.
In the eyes of God, there is no race, there is no ethnicity, and whoever is your neighbor is your neighbor, and whatever they may look like is OF NO CONSEQUENCE. Choosing who to socialize with on the basis of race or ethnicity is repugnant to me. Or even social status, or financial status.
I don't care WHICH way you go on this, I find it repulsive. My neighbors are my neighbors, because there IS NO OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD where I live. I don't give a rip what they look like, or where their parents came from. They share all the same needs, wants, concerns, and problems I do.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 12:26 PM
Mark do you believe in the gospel's call for reconciliation? If so do you ignore the culture of the people that are different from you?
I would caution against that. God loves the different nations and the beauty their cultures create. Culture and ethnicity are important to God. When Paul says that we are neither Greek, now Jew... he is using a value statement because the Jews believed their national/ spiritual state was better than everyone.
That value is that we are all equal but it doesn't erase culture. Paul or Peter, or Luke did not stop being Jewish or gentile. they still had their differences. That's what makes the gospel so amazing (among other things) it united the divided humanity into one.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 7, 2008 12:36 PM
Mar,
You do go out of your way to alienate and offend. I know you call it honesty and claim logic but you never seem to deal with logic when it is pointed your way.
I never experimented on anyone. I made a decision to do as I thought, and still do think, God would have me. It was a step of faith. The idea that you are repulsed by this seems very logical, given all that you have written here of late.
As a society we can claim we are not racist. We can claim we make our decisions based on the good of our children. We can claim we love everybody equally.
Then there is the outcome of all of our decisions, a very segregated society.
I have my outcomes.
You have yours.
I am more than happy to live with mine.
I hope you are too.
Posted by: wayne | February 7, 2008 12:42 PM
Wayne... When I was 16, my parents moved onto the largest reservation in the US.
They prayerfully choose that, because they felt God's calling to go. We lived there at barely above subsistence wages, 175 miles to a grocery store, and gas which was double the price most people paid.
My wife and kids have been all over the globe, from Jamaica to Japan, to the jungles of Peru.
I spent my last vacation in a remote village in Alasak, where milk was $8 a gallon, and a 4 pack of D cells was $12, and fuel to run the water heater was $7.50 a gallon. We built a church / community center the village needed desperately.
But my parents, me, my wife, my kids... We did not do these things, and continue to live this way, to have "an integrated life". We do these t hings because we find needs that we can fill.
But YOU made it about racial issues. You were the one who immediately spouted your "moral superiority" for being "integrated". You proved to all of us your pretense and that it wAS all about race with your own words and actions.
Your ignorant condemnation of me for my "segregated" life is all the proof I need, that it REALLY was all about race and all about your political feel-good moralism.
Bahh. Shame on you.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 12:56 PM
Mick, I'm curious. Do you approve of language like this?
Posted by: carl copas
Carl ,
I am not sure what your asking . Do I believe political policies can result in hardship for our citizens at times . Yes I do , that is why I am invoved in politcs . Do I think Mark is right in the reason housing prices went up so high in this situation , I don't know .
I think government policies can hurt people ? I think often government policies have unintended consequences that do hurt people . Is that not why you advocate for certian polices and against others ?
Mark said unintended , to me that means the people were not trying to hurt anyone , but because of political policies people were hurt .
Is this your question ?
I try to listen to all sides and consequences in public debate , and affordable housing is an important issue to all of us . But Mark said an unintended consequence , to me he is argueing the policy and made sure he was not injuring the character and integrity of the persons motives he was argueing against ?
Maybe I missed something ?
Posted by: Mick | February 7, 2008 1:03 PM
{{Wayne... When I was 16, my parents moved onto the largest reservation in the US.
They prayerfully choose that, because they felt God's calling to go. We lived there at barely above subsistence wages, 175 miles to a grocery store, and gas which was double the price most people paid.
My wife and kids have been all over the globe, from Jamaica to Japan, to the jungles of Peru.
I spent my last vacation in a remote village in Alasak, where milk was $8 a gallon, and a 4 pack of D cells was $12, and fuel to run the water heater was $7.50 a gallon. We built a church / community center the village needed desperately.
But my parents, me, my wife, my kids... We did not do these things, and continue to live this way, to have "an integrated life". We do these t hings because we find needs that we can fill.
But YOU made it about racial issues. You were the one who immediately spouted your "moral superiority" for being "integrated". You proved to all of us your pretense and that it wAS all about race with your own words and actions.
Your ignorant condemnation of me for my "segregated" life is all the proof I need, that it REALLY was all about race and all about your political feel-good moralism.
Bahh. Shame on you.}}
In video game speak, this would be classified as pwnage.
Posted by: aaron | February 7, 2008 1:08 PM
Mark do you believe in the gospel's call for reconciliation? If so do you ignore the culture of the people that are different from you?
Having lived in one for a while that was more... Hmmmm...words fail me. Let's say that although it was in our country, the culture had absolutely NO ties to anything I had ever seen before.
Ignoring this is counterproductive, of course. But, good willed people on both side get past these differences very quickly. However, the culture I was in was by nature almost xenophobic. It was 2 years before I got anything more than "hello" politely from anyone.
Suddenly, we were invited to people's homes and treated as if we were part of thier family. I never understood either the initial behavior or the sudden acceptance until our native Navaho language teacher (yeah, I took classes... It takes a lifetime to learn it if you don't grow up in it) explained that you're watched from a distance. If they find you treat people fairly, you're accepted. Communually accepted. In other words, I was welcome in MOST homes, but not until I had "proven" myself.
And funny thing. They didn't care that we pointed with our fingers (very rude in thier culture) and looked people in the eye and couldn't pronounce many of thier names, etc, etc. All of which are big no-no's. They were merely interested in knowing if we were going to stay around a while and if we treated people with respect and integrity. And once we were accepted, they wasted no time telling us not to point with our fingers, stare at people's faces, etc.
Many of the white people onsite were NEVER accepted at all.
Yes, dealing with people where they are is essential. But also understanding thier cultural weaknesses is important too.
The fact that thier culture had no monetary history (not even a word for money), discipline, or punctuality in it had to be addressed to help them deal with the outside world.
Understanding that your employee lives on the other side of the wash, and when it floods they can't get to work... Essential.
Spending six months with them a day or two a week helping them understand how to make a budget and understand how to figure out what is a good deal and what is not... Priceless. But they had to trust you first.
But if you judged them by our culture, they were lazy, uncaring, cold, and rude.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 1:25 PM
I have been on a few reservations and my experience was the exact opposite of that. I have not been on a Danae aka Navaho res before so it might be different from the other reservations I visited as a child and teenager. Heck even in college I was treated like I was one of them even though we are different. It was great to be treated like a shaman and medicine man even though I was neither.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 7, 2008 1:31 PM
aaron, I laughed for a moment at the incongruity of FPS combat speak on a cultural, religious, and economic discussion.
I am compelled to correct you. It isn't. This is not about me winning over him. If I don't get across to him the idea, then we both lose. I honestly spent my whole time making my breakfast trying to figure out how to come up with something that would dig through any level of communication barriers.
I grew up without PC language or thinking. Nor of the pseudo intellectual claptrap about 'diversity'. Rather, my parents who grew up very racist were transformed by God into people who cared nothing about race, and met anyone where they were, without pretense.
I have the benefit of their experience and watchign them deal with this, in parallel to my own young adult life.
Certain experiences of my life innoculated me before political correctness became popular, and I never fell for it. It is abhorrent to me. It is a mask that some hide behind, to preserve thier private prejudices and yet not be judgeed by peers.
Others seem to have been coopted and think that "integration" and "multiculturalism" and "diversity" for thier sakes alone are some kind of virtue, and then fail to grasp the humanness and commonness of the human condition that know no barriers of any kind, race, culture, religion, ethnicity, or religion.
It is a pity.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 1:36 PM
The Navaho word for themselves is "dineh".
It is pronounced "di neh" with a short "i" and "e" almost as one syllable but ends with a slight breath exhale very similar to "h" in "help".
It means, "the people", but it is in contrast to everyone else who is NOT "the (real) people".
This is not unique to Navaho culture. For instance, the Yup'ik, where I was church building, also have a word with the exact same connotation. It means they are "the people" and everyone else is... whatever.
This is a cultural thing, and it requires specific personal acceptance to reach anyone for any purpose if you are not 'dineh'.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 1:45 PM
I think it is pwnage Mark, you went through several posts trying to explain your position without resorting to the moral one-upmanship wayne was engaging, it's quite apparent you had the humility to not bring this up initially, unlike wayne.
Posted by: aaron | February 7, 2008 1:48 PM
Nonsense. Vouchers lose because of MASSIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS BY YOUR POLITICAL SOULMATES to defeat them. It isn't about "not wanting those kinds in our schools".
Please. I remember reading in the early 1990s an article in the Wall Street Journal (whose extreme right-wing editorial page supported vouchers), and one woman in a wealthy suburb of San Francisco complained that vouchers insinuated that the publicanschools in her are weren't good enough. That's when I finally realized why vouchers wouldn't fly anywhere. Also, Cleveland had a voucher program at around the same time that was declared unconstitutional, but before it could be approved by the Ohio Legislature in the first place a provision was inserted that allowed suburban schools to opt out of the program -- and, surprise, surprise -- every last one of them did.
In the eyes of God, there is no race, there is no ethnicity, and whoever is your neighbor is your neighbor, and whatever they may look like is OF NO CONSEQUENCE. Choosing who to socialize with on the basis of race or ethnicity is repugnant to me. Or even social status, or financial status.
But because of sin, such things do matter to human beings; let's not fool ourselves by saying that they don't. Even the church has been divided by such artificial constructs; therefore, we are obligated to work beyond that. I'm privileged to attend what is not (but wasn't always) an interracial, multicultural church, and today we wouldn't have it any other way. (A few weeks ago I was talking with a white grandmother who attends a large suburban church, and even she's complaining that it's too "white.")
You see, mark, based on our previous posts you apparently simply want to close your eyes and have these issues of race, culture, class and economics all go away so that you don't have to be involved with others' lives. Unfortunately, if you call yourself a Christian you're enlisted in the battle whether you like it or not -- so deal with reality.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 7, 2008 1:59 PM
Mick, I'm talking about the language Mark used in the following:
"Putting politics ahead of your children.
I cannot imagine being that stupid. That willfully determined to put them in harm's way.
For empty, pointless, useless political nonsense. No wonder the nation's falling apart."
or in this:
"What a load of horse manure again.
Who do I think I am? I know who I am. I put children first. I am a parent.
If I think your choices as a parent are stupid, then certainly, I'll tell you that."
Posted by: carl copas | February 7, 2008 2:40 PM
"Pragmatism seems as a good an excuse for racism as any."
It can be, but that doesn't mean they are synonymous. I won't send my kids to Minneapolis schools because Minneapolis schools won't educate them. It has nothing to do with the racial composition of the schools, no matter how much you try to force that viewpoint onto me.
"Wealthier people will not sacrifice their kids
for some social experiment? I thought integration was an ethical choice?"
Forced segregation is unethical. However, I see no biblical imperative to toss aside my child's education, such that I essentially have to home school them in addition to their daily schoolwork in order for them to receive an education, simply to placate the bean counters who run our public schools.
"I guess I thought the Biblical mandate to see each other as created in God's image and valuable was part of our Christian life style, no matter what it cost us. So I guess our children would be another excuse for racism?"
This is not an issue of seeing others in God's image, nor am I making an argument for using our children to racist ends. If you value diversity to the extent that you are willing to put in the extra work to compensate for a failing public school, that is a commendable choice.
But forcing parents to make that choice isn't going to work. If Minneapolis passes a law requiring me to send my kids to Minneapolis schools, I will move elsewhere. For me, public education is a means to an end. If it is not achieving the desired ends, I have no use for it.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 7, 2008 3:35 PM
"Also, Cleveland had a voucher program at around the same time that was declared unconstitutional, but before it could be approved by the Ohio Legislature in the first place a provision was inserted that allowed suburban schools to opt out of the program -- and, surprise, surprise -- every last one of them did."
The answer, then, is to eliminate those provisions. Opt-out features mitigate against the effectiveness of vouchers.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 7, 2008 3:41 PM
But because of sin, such things do matter to human beings; let's not fool ourselves by saying that they don't. Even the church has been divided by such artificial constructs; therefore, we are obligated to work beyond that. I'm privileged to attend what is not (but wasn't always) an interracial, multicultural church, and today we wouldn't have it any other way. (A few weeks ago I was talking with a white grandmother who attends a large suburban church, and even she's complaining that it's too "white.")
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 3:43 PM
All of this dialogue reaffirms my belief that equity in public education is the civil rights issue of our time. It saddens me that Sojourners (and other organizations with similar values) do not hold educational issues in the spotlight considering that our national educational system is deeply connected to our poverty.
Additionally (in response to other posts...) even though public schools - suburban and urban - get the same amoung of per pupil money from state and federal governments, the foundations supported by families and the community at suburban schools makes a huge difference in the educational programming offered. As a principal at an urban school who is deeply committed to high levels of academic achievement for every student, I can only dream of the programs I could start with $500K a year from donations: art programs, music, counseling, college visits... Money is ALWAYS an issue.
Posted by: Sonia | February 7, 2008 4:19 PM
"Money is ALWAYS an issue"
I call BS.
Buy one math book, you never need to buy another, it doesn't change. Overall lowered expectations might make those fancy new books with fancy new graphics appealing, but they have little substance.
Nature is always a free learning lab. $1.50 will buy some seeds, teach botany and genetics for $1.50, plus give them a worthwhile life skill, gardening. Hell use it as a springboard for your health and nutrition classes as well.
It's less about the foundations supported by the families and communities than the families and communities themselves. Dysfunctional families/community produce dysfunction, throwing money at that won't work.
Posted by: aaron | February 7, 2008 4:51 PM
The answer, then, is to eliminate those provisions. Opt-out features mitigate against the effectiveness of vouchers.
That's just why I said what I did. People intuitively realize that that reputation of a school or school district is in inverse proportion to how difficult it is to get into, which includes moving into a "hot" neighborhood. In other words, the very attraction of a private school or a solid public school system is precisely that not everyone can go there.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 7, 2008 5:25 PM
So here we are having these "separate but equal" arguments in 2008. I thought this stuff was settled in Topeka 54 years ago. Now we even have "let them use seeds instead of textbooks." I would be interested in how many of the posters here (regardless of opinion) come from the South. No implications intended, just curious.
Posted by: I and I | February 7, 2008 5:28 PM
I was an elementary school child in the late 1950's, part of that cadre of black students who initially broke the barriers of segregated schools in the South. Later, I spent time teaching children from cultures around the world, sometimes in supposedly rough and tough settings.
Here is what I have learned: Education works for students when people care about them as individuals. It takes parents, teachers, counselors, friends, neighbors and a community working together to support a child. The more people there are caring about one child, the more likely that child is to succeed. The more people who take the time to know a child's name, to encourage a child, to help a child develop a vision for his/her life, the more able that child is to overcome any factor associated with defeat. Rich or poor, students need access to the tools of learning and they absolutely need personal encouragement.
In my work with refugee children coming from devastation in their homelands, with inner city children of many ethnicities, and from my own experiences as a relatively poor child in various school settings, caring people made the difference.
I don't have an answer to the question of what forces seem to be behind the trend to resegregate schools. I imagine there are complex issues depending upon the region involved. Of course diversity enriches our experiences and should be sought, but in terms of individual students, if each teacher enters the classroom well prepared and calls students by their names with a sense of high expectation and respect, whatever the setting, that particular child will be well served.
Posted by: Marsha Hansen | February 7, 2008 5:38 PM
I was an elementary school child in the late 1950's, part of that cadre of black students who initially broke the barriers of segregated schools in the South. Later, I spent time teaching children from cultures around the world, sometimes in supposedly rough and tough settings.
Here is what I have learned: Education works for students when people care about them as individuals. It takes parents, teachers, counselors, friends, neighbors and a community working together to support a child. The more people there are caring about one child, the more likely that child is to succeed. The more people who take the time to know a child's name, to encourage a child, to help a child develop a vision for his/her life, the more able that child is to overcome any factor associated with defeat. Rich or poor, students need access to the tools of learning and they absolutely need personal encouragement.
In my work with refugee children coming from devastation in their homelands, with inner city children of many ethnicities, and from my own experiences as a relatively poor child in various school settings, caring people made the difference.
I don't have an answer to the question of what forces seem to be behind the trend to resegregate schools. I imagine there are complex issues depending upon the region involved. Of course diversity enriches our experiences and should be sought, but in terms of individual students, if each teacher enters the classroom well prepared and calls students by their names with a sense of high expectation and respect, whatever the setting, that particular child will be well served.
Posted by: Marsha Hansen | February 7, 2008 5:41 PM
Marsha
I could not agree with you more.
Posted by: wayne | February 7, 2008 6:54 PM
The housing "bubble" due exclusively to "liberal city governments" ?
Now I've heard everything.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 7, 2008 9:30 PM
Quote NM Rod
===============
The housing "bubble" due exclusively to "liberal city governments" ?
Now I've heard everything.
===============
Well, why'd you write it?
Nobody else thinks that, as far as I know.
Posted by: mark | February 7, 2008 11:09 PM
David and Marsha...I really want to "second" your comments.....I also teach in the city in after school programs....our church (suburban, mostly white) has started a mentoring program for boys without a father in their home...we believe that it is time for the church of Christ to step up and reach out the these boys and young men..it is a kind of "Christian Big Brothers"....it is time to stop looking for all the answers from the schools, the social service agencies and the law enforcement community....it is now time for men who are ready to reach the "lost and least of these" to stand in the gap and be counted... without judgement, excuses, or delay. There are about 11 million young men in America without a father in their home in every kind of social, ethnic, and ecomomic circumstance,(by and large, poor families.) Matthew 18 is about children, the "one lost sheep" is a child!
Posted by: PKman | February 8, 2008 1:04 AM
Mark,
Thanks for the correction on the spelling. Some of my favorite prayer experiences have involved a lot Indians. I was blessed to pray a healing over them for various aspects of genocide. It was one of the most healing and spiritual experiences I have ever had.
They said I had blessed them, but I sat there laughing in joy because I was truly blessed. Keep up the great work.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 8, 2008 1:42 AM
"In other words, the very attraction of a private school or a solid public school system is precisely that not everyone can go there."
For the Rybaks, Daytons and Humphreys of the world, perhaps. Most people just want a good education for their children. That's what I want. I could care less about exclusivity, and I don't know anyone who does care about it.
"I would be interested in how many of the posters here (regardless of opinion) come from the South. No implications intended, just curious."
I come from Michigan, the worst state in the union. I went to a hippie private school in Bloomfield Hills. My dad is in prison in Detroit. Analyze that, Freud.
"You seem to lack reading comprehension, perhaps you've been reading too much self-admiration literature?"
This wasn't nice, but he is correct that you read his statement incorrectly.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 8, 2008 1:47 AM
Most people just want a good education for their children. That's what I want. I could care less about exclusivity, and I don't know anyone who does care about it.
Not quite. "Good," in this culture, means "better than the next guy."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 8, 2008 8:58 AM
To continue my comments from earlier, one of the biggest obstacles to equal education has been the accountability movement. I am all for finding ways to hold teachers "accountable"- I would be in favor of yearly recertification exams or such- but what is so often missed in discussions about the high-stakes-testing movement is the socio-economic bias of the test material. Go do some research in peer-reviewed education journals over the past decade and you'll come up with a lot of data on this- I used to keep it at my fingertips whilst in grad school but have lost the file. Students can't pass tests in "non-reading" subjects (Math, Science) if their reading is impaired- I have students whose math skills are at level but who fail the math test because they cannot properly comprehend the meaning of the problems presented in word format.
Why am I considering high-stakes testing an obstacle to equality in education? Back to my original post- students from a low socio-economic background enter school with a reading deficiency (statistically; clearly not all do). There is also a large body of research showing a correlation between self image and success. When a kid fails to be successful on an ongoing basis, by the time I get them in 4th grade one of the biggest jobs is to convince them they can succeed at anything so they will even try. But under the accountability movement, schools are not allowed to teach kids at the level they need, but at the level that a state-wide "one-size-fits-all" set of standards requires. However, students in my district would benefit from an altered set of standards that might allow them to progress slower at first but accelerate as they caught up to their suburban peers. Can't do it, though.
Just one example. There are mandated technology benchmarks that they must pass in 5th grade. Only one student in my class of 19 has a computer at home. I have access to three in my classroom, and weekly access for one hour to a computer lab for all the students. By 5th grade they are supposed to be able to create and edit a digital movie. The one digital movie camera has to be shared among 47 classrooms in the school. With those kind of limitations, if you were starting from scratch as an adult with no computer skills because you had never had one in your environment, what do you think your success rate would be? When kids have never seen live theater, what kinds of things will need to be taught (things not included in the standards, and therefore out of the allotted time of the weekly scope-and-sequence) about producing a dramatic scene, or about props, or about continuity of viewpoint in a video production, etc....
High-stakes testing blows away kids self-esteem for purposes of "assessing" the quality of instruction they have received. I have a hard time seeing the justice in that. By all means, find some way to assess my teaching competence. Just don't do it by destroying kids futures.
Christ calls us (if we are Christian) to be an embodiment of justice. That means, to me, getting off our sitting apparatti and demanding that those in positions of power let parents and schools become in charge of education again. Too bad what that will mean for all those getting rich marketing tests and the textbooks and resources that support them.
Posted by: david | February 8, 2008 9:07 AM
"I come from Michigan, the worst state in the union."
Worst? Ya mean unemployment? Or social mentality? We've got lotsa nice lakes and rivers... Why'd you leave?
Posted by: I and I | February 8, 2008 9:52 AM
"I am all for finding ways to hold teachers "accountable"- I would be in favor of yearly recertification exams or such-"
That isn't how most other jobs do it. I refuse to believe that teaching is somehow the only profession that defied performance metrics. I could have told you who the lousy teachers were in my high school, and which ones were worthy of raises and promotion. It's not rocket science.
"Students can't pass tests in "non-reading" subjects (Math, Science) if their reading is impaired-"
So why not take before & after snapshots? There are plenty of ways to measure outcomes as they relate to incomes.
"There is also a large body of research showing a correlation between self image and success. When a kid fails to be successful on an ongoing basis, by the time I get them in 4th grade one of the biggest jobs is to convince them they can succeed at anything so they will even try."
What is the solution to this? Not keeping any sort of record of whether they have been successful at all? The accountability movement may be flawed, but it was instituted in response to the inability of a very expensive system to meet the most minimal standards.
If a student is hard on himself for not being able to read when he is nine, imagine how hard it will be when he is eighteen and wishes to obtain employment. The self-esteem movement makes a mockery of the system.
"By 5th grade they are supposed to be able to create and edit a digital movie. The one digital movie camera has to be shared among 47 classrooms in the school."
That's a stupid goal for any 5th grader. The answer is (or would be, if it were allowed) to find the idiots who produce this requirement and relieve them of their duties.
I remember in calculus we had to produce a package for a soft-drink, artwork and all. This was a month long project. I didn't get a very good grade because I am bad with tape and construction paper. I learned no calculus during that time.
But that is an argument against people getting paid to be idiots, not an argument against standards. Unfortunately, school administration is a magnet for idiots, combining a six figure salary with bulletproof job security and an overinflated sense of worth.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 8, 2008 2:09 PM
David's comments deserve a hallelujah!
I had a 5th grade student once who had been mainstreamed to me from a special ed program. She was a foster child and had been a victim of modern assessments. She was actually a brilliant girl. We were able to turn her around in one year. She became a straight A student in regular ed. She earned honors, became a student body leader,and set athletic records. She blossomed and has now graduated from high school. Her foster mother and I kept up with one another through the years, and celebrated her every triumph. I thank God she did not remain lost due to the incompetence of others. I have many stories similar to this one. As David suggested,and to paraphrase Einstein, it is a miracle that the holy curiosity of inquiry has not been strnagled by modern methods of education.
Children can learn if you meet them where they are.
Posted by: Marsha Hansen | February 8, 2008 2:31 PM
That's a stupid goal for any 5th grader. The answer is (or would be, if it were allowed) to find the idiots who produce this requirement and relieve them of their duties.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
I remember in calculus we had to produce a package for a soft-drink, artwork and all. This was a month long project. I didn't get a very good grade because I am bad with tape and construction paper. I learned no calculus during that time.
See my comments regarding math books above.
Posted by: aaron | February 8, 2008 3:18 PM
David I feel the same way.
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 8, 2008 7:36 PM
"Not quite. "Good," in this culture, means "better than the next guy.""
To some degree, yes. Which is why it is valuable to have competitive forces in play, but the present system inhibits any real competition. We're all supposed to be pleased as punch that the majority of schools fail, and chalk it up to our own racism, stinginess, (insert bogeyman here)...
Posted by: kevin s. | February 9, 2008 1:32 AM
To some degree, yes. Which is why it is valuable to have competitive forces in play, but the present system inhibits any real competition. We're all supposed to be pleased as punch that the majority of schools fail, and chalk it up to our own racism, stinginess, (insert bogeyman here)...
Except that you ignored what I said and the context in which I said it. People will gladly pay taxes to benefit their own children but balk when it comes to others' children, especially those of lower socio-economic status. That's why both vouchers generally fail and integration is resisted (and occasionally the two are related).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 10, 2008 10:38 PM
Kevin: "I remember in calculus we had to produce a package for a soft-drink, artwork and all. This was a month long project. I didn't get a very good grade because I am bad with tape and construction paper. I learned no calculus during that time."
This is where anecdotes fail as tools of persuasion. Your teacher had poor judgement, it sounds like. However, instituting a voucher system won't prevent that kind of thing from happening again.
"We're all supposed to be pleased as punch that the majority of schools fail..."
Overstatement, of course: the majority of schools do not fail. But it is one thing to acknowledge the need for change, it is another to say because we need change we must have a voucher system. Again, there are flaws in the logic.
Posted by: I and I | February 11, 2008 9:25 AM
Anna:
Were you at Foothill or Amador?
Posted by: Julie | February 12, 2008 11:42 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?