Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Racial Segregation/Integration

24

Posts

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Yeah, as far as home values go, racism will impact house prices until you find a way to reduce the impact of racism.

    Which is another reason school busing is so important, it forces children to see a multicultural society, because you cannot force multicultural home ownership.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    That's neat stuff.

    No increase in crime in high income areas. Kinda puts a damper on the "you're the real racist" crowd.

    rockrnger on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Did you watch the video of the school board meeting in the op?

    Nothing bad happened and they still resegregated.

    Calica
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Yeah, as far as home values go, racism will impact house prices until you find a way to reduce the impact of racism.

    Which is another reason school busing is so important, it forces children to see a multicultural society, because you cannot force multicultural home ownership.

    You sort of can, but only by aggressive rezoning whereby you drop section 8 housing in the middle of the most expensive neighborhoods you can find (a more aggressive version of Castro's HUD strategy), but that would also cause more problems than it would solve.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    At this point, I expect Breitbart to write an article about the beauty of a fictional wall, then all his folllowers can scream at the libtards questioning the existence of the invisible wall. After seeing hundreds of comments defending a dude who went armed to a pizza place I am not sure there's a limit to what his core will swallow.

    Panda4You
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    It can. Or it can work like it does in most the Upper Midwest in my experiences at least.

    I live in the SE corner of super segregated Milwaukee(37% white, 40% black, 17% hispanic), in a very white neighborhood. The local middle/high school is still 54% black and 30% Hispanic -- it also averages 9% proficiency in reading and math on state tests.

    If you live in my neighborhood, you either send the kids to private school or you bite the bullet, realize hey you're a parent now and not going out and doing the stuff people live in the city for anyways, and move out to the suburbs.

    The previous owners of my house ,3 years ago, and my neighbors, this summer, both made the move out to the burbs when the kids got to school age. It's just easier than dealing with the school roulette, and not any more expensive than private school.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    shrykeKraint
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    It can. Or it can work like it does in most the Upper Midwest in my experiences at least.

    I live in the SE corner of super segregated Milwaukee(37% white, 40% black, 17% hispanic), in a very white neighborhood. The local middle/high school is still 54% black and 30% Hispanic -- it also averages 9% proficiency in reading and math on state tests.

    If you live in my neighborhood, you either send the kids to private school or you bite the bullet, realize hey you're a parent now and not going out and doing the stuff people live in the city for anyways, and move out to the suburbs.

    The previous owners of my house ,3 years ago, and my neighbors, this summer, both made the move out to the burbs when the kids got to school age. It's just easier than dealing with the school roulette, and not any more expensive than private school.

    The idea is to send minority children to the suburbs in numbers that don't effect overall performance.

    Can't white flight if their is no where to white flight to.

    Fencingsax
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    It can. Or it can work like it does in most the Upper Midwest in my experiences at least.

    I live in the SE corner of super segregated Milwaukee(37% white, 40% black, 17% hispanic), in a very white neighborhood. The local middle/high school is still 54% black and 30% Hispanic -- it also averages 9% proficiency in reading and math on state tests.

    If you live in my neighborhood, you either send the kids to private school or you bite the bullet, realize hey you're a parent now and not going out and doing the stuff people live in the city for anyways, and move out to the suburbs.

    The previous owners of my house ,3 years ago, and my neighbors, this summer, both made the move out to the burbs when the kids got to school age. It's just easier than dealing with the school roulette, and not any more expensive than private school.

    The idea is to send minority children to the suburbs in numbers that don't effect overall performance.

    Can't white flight if their is no where to white flight to.

    It also depends on decoupling school funding from local property taxes, so that the white flight doesnt also have the knockon effect of defunding minority school districts.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    rockrngerIncenjucarCouscousNobodyshrykeCalicaHefflingFencingsaxArdolN1tSt4lker
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Mixed income neighborhood have been shown to be pretty successful on the whole. turns out lower income kids do better when there's positive role models around

    Mr KhanFencingsax
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    It can. Or it can work like it does in most the Upper Midwest in my experiences at least.

    I live in the SE corner of super segregated Milwaukee(37% white, 40% black, 17% hispanic), in a very white neighborhood. The local middle/high school is still 54% black and 30% Hispanic -- it also averages 9% proficiency in reading and math on state tests.

    If you live in my neighborhood, you either send the kids to private school or you bite the bullet, realize hey you're a parent now and not going out and doing the stuff people live in the city for anyways, and move out to the suburbs.

    The previous owners of my house ,3 years ago, and my neighbors, this summer, both made the move out to the burbs when the kids got to school age. It's just easier than dealing with the school roulette, and not any more expensive than private school.

    The idea is to send minority children to the suburbs in numbers that don't effect overall performance.

    Can't white flight if their is no where to white flight to.

    It also depends on decoupling school funding from local property taxes, so that the white flight doesnt also have the knockon effect of defunding minority school districts.

    Really what we need is to just entirely decouple local school funding from local taxes, and pass regulations that the worst school in the state gets 120% per pupil funding of the average school and the best school gets 80% per pupil funding. With a smooth transition in-between.

    Charitable donations to local schools should also have 50% of their value put into a central kitty. I'd almost go so far as to say private schools should be forced to do the same with their donations.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    It can. Or it can work like it does in most the Upper Midwest in my experiences at least.

    I live in the SE corner of super segregated Milwaukee(37% white, 40% black, 17% hispanic), in a very white neighborhood. The local middle/high school is still 54% black and 30% Hispanic -- it also averages 9% proficiency in reading and math on state tests.

    If you live in my neighborhood, you either send the kids to private school or you bite the bullet, realize hey you're a parent now and not going out and doing the stuff people live in the city for anyways, and move out to the suburbs.

    The previous owners of my house ,3 years ago, and my neighbors, this summer, both made the move out to the burbs when the kids got to school age. It's just easier than dealing with the school roulette, and not any more expensive than private school.

    The idea is to send minority children to the suburbs in numbers that don't effect overall performance.

    Can't white flight if their is no where to white flight to.

    It also depends on decoupling school funding from local property taxes, so that the white flight doesnt also have the knockon effect of defunding minority school districts.

    Really what we need is to just entirely decouple local school funding from local taxes, and pass regulations that the worst school in the state gets 120% per pupil funding of the average school and the best school gets 80% per pupil funding. With a smooth transition in-between.

    Charitable donations to local schools should also have 50% of their value put into a central kitty. I'd almost go so far as to say private schools should be forced to do the same with their donations.

    You just tax the shit out of private school tuition. Doesn't matter if it makes it the sole domain of the wealthy again, they're off doing their own thing anyway for the most part.

    DoodmannshrykeIncenjucarAiouaGnome-InterruptusLoisLaneSmrtnikN1tSt4lker
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    It can. Or it can work like it does in most the Upper Midwest in my experiences at least.

    I live in the SE corner of super segregated Milwaukee(37% white, 40% black, 17% hispanic), in a very white neighborhood. The local middle/high school is still 54% black and 30% Hispanic -- it also averages 9% proficiency in reading and math on state tests.

    If you live in my neighborhood, you either send the kids to private school or you bite the bullet, realize hey you're a parent now and not going out and doing the stuff people live in the city for anyways, and move out to the suburbs.

    The previous owners of my house ,3 years ago, and my neighbors, this summer, both made the move out to the burbs when the kids got to school age. It's just easier than dealing with the school roulette, and not any more expensive than private school.

    The idea is to send minority children to the suburbs in numbers that don't effect overall performance.

    Can't white flight if their is no where to white flight to.

    It also depends on decoupling school funding from local property taxes, so that the white flight doesnt also have the knockon effect of defunding minority school districts.

    Really what we need is to just entirely decouple local school funding from local taxes, and pass regulations that the worst school in the state gets 120% per pupil funding of the average school and the best school gets 80% per pupil funding. With a smooth transition in-between.

    Charitable donations to local schools should also have 50% of their value put into a central kitty. I'd almost go so far as to say private schools should be forced to do the same with their donations.

    You just tax the shit out of private school tuition. Doesn't matter if it makes it the sole domain of the wealthy again, they're off doing their own thing anyway for the most part.

    Luckily, charter schools have come along to blur the line between public and private schools.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    ObiFettLoisLaneFencingsaxhippofantN1tSt4lker
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    It can. Or it can work like it does in most the Upper Midwest in my experiences at least.

    I live in the SE corner of super segregated Milwaukee(37% white, 40% black, 17% hispanic), in a very white neighborhood. The local middle/high school is still 54% black and 30% Hispanic -- it also averages 9% proficiency in reading and math on state tests.

    If you live in my neighborhood, you either send the kids to private school or you bite the bullet, realize hey you're a parent now and not going out and doing the stuff people live in the city for anyways, and move out to the suburbs.

    The previous owners of my house ,3 years ago, and my neighbors, this summer, both made the move out to the burbs when the kids got to school age. It's just easier than dealing with the school roulette, and not any more expensive than private school.

    The idea is to send minority children to the suburbs in numbers that don't effect overall performance.

    Can't white flight if their is no where to white flight to.

    It also depends on decoupling school funding from local property taxes, so that the white flight doesnt also have the knockon effect of defunding minority school districts.

    Really what we need is to just entirely decouple local school funding from local taxes, and pass regulations that the worst school in the state gets 120% per pupil funding of the average school and the best school gets 80% per pupil funding. With a smooth transition in-between.

    Charitable donations to local schools should also have 50% of their value put into a central kitty. I'd almost go so far as to say private schools should be forced to do the same with their donations.

    That's about where we are now funding wise. MPS spends tons of money per student. I know, cause I pay a higher property tax rate than my friends in the suburbs because of it.

    https://k12.niche.com/d/milwaukee-school-district-wi/

    Milwaukee Public Schools Ranking(353rd of 365 WI Districts)

    Per Pupil Spending $15,100
    Student Teacher Ration 19:1
    Reading Proficiency 26%
    Math Proficiency 19%
    Graduation Rate 61%
    Average SAT/ACT 880/22

    Suburb(Ranking 8th of 365 WI Districts)
    https://k12.niche.com/d/franklin-public-schools-wi/

    Per Pupil Spending $12,300
    Student Teacher Ration 17:1
    Reading Proficiency 71%
    Math Proficiency 65%
    Graduation Rate 84%
    Average SAT/ACT 1250/26


    MPS is spending 25% more per student and getting terrible results. Don't let that graduation rate fool you. I have several family members who work at the Milwaukee area technical schools, and a lot of those high school 'graduates' are barely literate or can't do basic arithmetic.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • LiiyaLiiya Registered User regular
    Desegregation requires less socioeconomic division.

    Have no clue how that would work though or if that's even ethical.

    This seems to be the consensus in the world of landscape architecture/planning too. I studied this at university last academic year, and a book I found very useful was The Social Life Of Urban Form by Fran Tonkiss. The theory is that you've got to design places for people live where those of all socioeconomic backgrounds, races and religions can live together. And this will reduce segregation and bring people together. The problem is how to do that though:

    “While such outcomes may be impossible to engineer, design and planning might help enable the conditions for them through the use of
    • different housing typologies and sizes,
    • the design of urban amenities for diverse populations,
    • the integration of commercial, residential, civic and cultural functions at accessible urban scales
    • and grains,
    • and the creation of non-exclusionary public spaces that accommodate differences in shared spaces
    .” – p 85-86

    I saw the above happen in Nørrebro (a case study) where the housing typology is mixed grain in terms of present and upcoming housing, amenities are within walking distance for residents and interventions such as educational facilities focusing on those who have recently moved from abroad with poor language skills are set up. These all encourage social mixing and equalising people.

    Nørrebro is the district in Copenhagen with the highest number of residents who are an ethnic minority, and since these deliberate interventions have taken place the area has reported positive social mixing and education (I looked up censuses and surveys) and results showed positive perceptions and mixing.
    ba8w370ymex3.jpg
    This is an intervention in the form of very well design public park accessible to people of all backgrounds, ages, abilities where events are held weekly.

    Of course, there are several things to take into account with the mixing of planning etc - it often works well in places like Nørrebro because Copenhagen is a dense city to begin with so you have space restrictions, its not like the US where you can just go "well there's some land here so instead of changing the current city, lets build some houses and stuff over there", in Nørrebro they had to deal with the present situation. The second is of course that Nørrebro has a strong ethnic minority and socioeconomic mix of people, but its an isolated area where the results of the theory shine - while the bullet pointed conditions from the quote can be done the effect is no doubt less noticeable in an area like the US where minority groups are larger with a more complex history and segregation is far more ingrained as the status quo. There would have to be a very conscious and full effort to put things into practice, which would be expensive and time consuming for local authorities. Thirdly, you can always go too far into the danger zone and come out into the land of gentrification, but thats another story.

    Anyhow, I find it an interesting subject so thats what I've researched from books and stuff.

    rockrngerDarkPrimusshrykeCalicaNeoTomaPeter Ebel
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I mentioned this when this topic came up in the other thread, but it's not just home prices. There is a perception of lowered educational outcomes and parents will fight that shit to the death.

    It is, essentially, a situation where you are never gonna get the people affected to agree to submit to it.

    Yes, but unlike determining where someone buys a house, you can implement neighborhood quotas so each school can only accept so many students from a particular neighborhood.

    This then requires students to be bussed around to different schools, which forces mixing.

    It can. Or it can work like it does in most the Upper Midwest in my experiences at least.

    I live in the SE corner of super segregated Milwaukee(37% white, 40% black, 17% hispanic), in a very white neighborhood. The local middle/high school is still 54% black and 30% Hispanic -- it also averages 9% proficiency in reading and math on state tests.

    If you live in my neighborhood, you either send the kids to private school or you bite the bullet, realize hey you're a parent now and not going out and doing the stuff people live in the city for anyways, and move out to the suburbs.

    The previous owners of my house ,3 years ago, and my neighbors, this summer, both made the move out to the burbs when the kids got to school age. It's just easier than dealing with the school roulette, and not any more expensive than private school.

    The idea is to send minority children to the suburbs in numbers that don't effect overall performance.

    Can't white flight if their is no where to white flight to.

    It also depends on decoupling school funding from local property taxes, so that the white flight doesnt also have the knockon effect of defunding minority school districts.

    Really what we need is to just entirely decouple local school funding from local taxes, and pass regulations that the worst school in the state gets 120% per pupil funding of the average school and the best school gets 80% per pupil funding. With a smooth transition in-between.

    Charitable donations to local schools should also have 50% of their value put into a central kitty. I'd almost go so far as to say private schools should be forced to do the same with their donations.

    That's about where we are now funding wise. MPS spends tons of money per student. I know, cause I pay a higher property tax rate than my friends in the suburbs because of it.

    https://k12.niche.com/d/milwaukee-school-district-wi/

    Milwaukee Public Schools Ranking(353rd of 365 WI Districts)

    Per Pupil Spending $15,100
    Student Teacher Ration 19:1
    Reading Proficiency 26%
    Math Proficiency 19%
    Graduation Rate 61%
    Average SAT/ACT 880/22

    Suburb(Ranking 8th of 365 WI Districts)
    https://k12.niche.com/d/franklin-public-schools-wi/

    Per Pupil Spending $12,300
    Student Teacher Ration 17:1
    Reading Proficiency 71%
    Math Proficiency 65%
    Graduation Rate 84%
    Average SAT/ACT 1250/26


    MPS is spending 25% more per student and getting terrible results. Don't let that graduation rate fool you. I have several family members who work at the Milwaukee area technical schools, and a lot of those high school 'graduates' are barely literate or can't do basic arithmetic.

    Which helps out the districts they end up going to since the money follows the kids.

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.

  • hsuhsu Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    What you do not realize is how this works in practice.

    Schools taking in worst performing students means that the school reallocates funds that used to go stuff like advanced/honors classes and uses that money to help the worst performing students. You'd think the schools would get more funding to deal with worst performing students, but that's not what happens. The schools don't get more money, so they're forced to reallocate funds, which invariably comes from "frivolous" honors classes.

    The advanced/honors students get screwed, so the parents of those kids end up doing two things: first, the mom drops out of the workforce to help with supplemental education for their kids, and second, they send their kids to a cram school, like Russian School of Mathematics or Kumon.

    It's basically the rich get richer.

    My sister's kids go to the #2 ranked school system in Wisconsin and this is what she was forced to do, once she realized that the school system was stunting her kids development, as their classrooms were all geared towards the worst performers. I cannot restate that enough - my sister gave up a job she loved to help with the schooling of her kids because she saw how badly the #2 ranked school system in her state was educating her kids.

    Note that two decades ago, schools dealt with this by just bumping up the smart kids a grade level, but due to how schools are judged based on test scores, and how money is allocated to schools based on those scores, the schools no longer bump up smart kids, because that would lower their ranking, and thus lower their funding.

    Also note that those poorly performing kids aren't held back a grade either, even though they should be. They are just bumped along, just like everyone else, even if they are near illiterate. Yes, this even happens in the #2 ranked school system in Wisconsin. My sister has talked my ear off with first hand stories about that.

    And for all you folks advocating taxing the hell out of private schools - you all obviously don't have kids, nieces or nephews trying deal with public schools. Because whatever utopian policies you all are dreaming up, they ain't gonna help right now, and that's the only time frame that's important when your kids are going through school.

    iTNdmYl.png
  • DunderDunder Registered User regular
    hsu wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    What you do not realize is how this works in practice.

    Schools taking in worst performing students means that the school reallocates funds that used to go stuff like advanced/honors classes and uses that money to help the worst performing students. You'd think the schools would get more funding to deal with worst performing students, but that's not what happens. The schools don't get more money, so they're forced to reallocate funds, which invariably comes from "frivolous" honors classes.

    The advanced/honors students get screwed, so the parents of those kids end up doing two things: first, the mom drops out of the workforce to help with supplemental education for their kids, and second, they send their kids to a cram school, like Russian School of Mathematics or Kumon.

    It's basically the rich get richer.

    My sister's kids go to the #2 ranked school system in Wisconsin and this is what she was forced to do, once she realized that the school system was stunting her kids development, as their classrooms were all geared towards the worst performers. I cannot restate that enough - my sister gave up a job she loved to help with the schooling of her kids because she saw how badly the #2 ranked school system in her state was educating her kids.

    Note that two decades ago, schools dealt with this by just bumping up the smart kids a grade level, but due to how schools are judged based on test scores, and how money is allocated to schools based on those scores, the schools no longer bump up smart kids, because that would lower their ranking, and thus lower their funding.

    Also note that those poorly performing kids aren't held back a grade either, even though they should be. They are just bumped along, just like everyone else, even if they are near illiterate. Yes, this even happens in the #2 ranked school system in Wisconsin. My sister has talked my ear off with first hand stories about that.

    And for all you folks advocating taxing the hell out of private schools - you all obviously don't have kids, nieces or nephews trying deal with public schools. Because whatever utopian policies you all are dreaming up, they ain't gonna help right now, and that's the only time frame that's important when your kids are going through school.

    Got more than anecdotes and parental feelings to back this up?

    ZomroCambiataHakkekageFencingsaxCptKemzikFeralShadowhopeN1tSt4lker
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    hsu wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    What you do not realize is how this works in practice.

    Schools taking in worst performing students means that the school reallocates funds that used to go stuff like advanced/honors classes and uses that money to help the worst performing students. You'd think the schools would get more funding to deal with worst performing students, but that's not what happens. The schools don't get more money, so they're forced to reallocate funds, which invariably comes from "frivolous" honors classes.

    The advanced/honors students get screwed, so the parents of those kids end up doing two things: first, the mom drops out of the workforce to help with supplemental education for their kids, and second, they send their kids to a cram school, like Russian School of Mathematics or Kumon.

    It's basically the rich get richer.

    My sister's kids go to the #2 ranked school system in Wisconsin and this is what she was forced to do, once she realized that the school system was stunting her kids development, as their classrooms were all geared towards the worst performers. I cannot restate that enough - my sister gave up a job she loved to help with the schooling of her kids because she saw how badly the #2 ranked school system in her state was educating her kids.

    Note that two decades ago, schools dealt with this by just bumping up the smart kids a grade level, but due to how schools are judged based on test scores, and how money is allocated to schools based on those scores, the schools no longer bump up smart kids, because that would lower their ranking, and thus lower their funding.

    Also note that those poorly performing kids aren't held back a grade either, even though they should be. They are just bumped along, just like everyone else, even if they are near illiterate. Yes, this even happens in the #2 ranked school system in Wisconsin. My sister has talked my ear off with first hand stories about that.

    And for all you folks advocating taxing the hell out of private schools - you all obviously don't have kids, nieces or nephews trying deal with public schools. Because whatever utopian policies you all are dreaming up, they ain't gonna help right now, and that's the only time frame that's important when your kids are going through school.

    You might have some information that I don't but I haven't seen anything that showed brown (and school integration in general) had an adverse effect on white school performance.

    CambiataHakkekageFencingsaxdurandal4532FeralN1tSt4lker
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    man we hold kids back. I have a 17 year old still in 9th grade!

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    That anedcote is a textbook case of why school funding shouldn't be tied to scores because it presents a series of perverse incentives that make the school unable to actually teach children according to their level. Though that's an interesting discussion, it probably belongs to it's own thread.

    HakkekageCalicaFencingsaxshrykeGnome-InterruptusShadowhopeN1tSt4lker
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    No Child Left Behind is not good policy, but it's not the main issue at hand.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Hakkekage
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    TryCatcherKraint
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    rockrnger on
    CambiataN1tSt4lkerCalica
  • GlyphGryphGlyphGryph Registered User regular
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?

    Education is run on feels and "metrics" that are important by virtue of being easy to measure but not by virtue of measuring things of value. Hell, discussions of value aren't even commonplace because no one actually agrees on what schools are even for, so even if we wanted to prioritize meaningful metrics rather than easy ones we'd have a tough time of it. So no of course it hasn't been proven exhaustively, it has never been proven in the slightest and it never will be because no one actually cares, and "Performance" is an absolutely meaningless term in isolation anyway.

    HachfacehippofantJulius
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?

    I guess the kid being raised by the local grand wizard that keeps getting suspended / expelled because they refuse to be taught in the same room as a minority would be harmed. Is that what you are talking about?

    Or lets put this on another foot, has it been exhaustively proven that segregating schools improves educational outcomes?

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    CambiataCarpyN1tSt4lker
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    GlyphGryph wrote: »
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?

    Education is run on feels and "metrics" that are important by virtue of being easy to measure but not by virtue of measuring things of value. Hell, discussions of value aren't even commonplace because no one actually agrees on what schools are even for, so even if we wanted to prioritize meaningful metrics rather than easy ones we'd have a tough time of it. So no of course it hasn't been proven exhaustively, it has never been proven in the slightest and it never will be because no one actually cares, and "Performance" is an absolutely meaningless term in isolation anyway.

    In this case you can pretty much take your pick.

    Test scores, graduation rates, class size, computer access, economic preformance, likely hood of jail time.

    Black goes up, white stays the same.

    CambiataN1tSt4lkerCalica
  • GlyphGryphGlyphGryph Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    rockrnger wrote: »
    In this case you can pretty much take your pick.

    Test scores, graduation rates, class size, computer access, economic preformance, likely hood of jail time.

    Black goes up, white stays the same.

    I'd argue the metrics many parents actually care are more like "degree to which I can brag to my peers about my child's superiority", "avoiding any sort of real growth or independence that might make my child no longer dependent on me", or "avoiding exposure to situations that might lead their children to adopt a different value set", or "my child is receiving more resources than other children and is thus better by comparison", and "instilling an unwavering dedication to making money and achieving social status that their parents can benefit from vicariously".

    You know, the important stuff. It seems like integration would make students do a lot worse at all of the above.

    Even on the metrics you listed like test scores, the versions many parents actually care about are "difference between my childs test scores and average test score" and most of those (failure to graduate, jail time) are things these parents would never even consider as a possibility for their own child so even talking about it makes them anxious because even if the number is low now their children is going to a school where they might fail to graduate!?

    I mean, that's what your up against here.

    And you can say that's the wrong way to think about it, but many people live immersed in cultures where value isn't about what you can acquire, but about how much more you can acquire than the next guy. To that extent, integration seems like a losing prospect. And it's not an uncommon sentiment.

    I'd argue that anyone who has ever wanted their property value to go up is going to think that way, because it's literally the only way to cast something that is unequivocally bad like rising property values as a good thing.

    GlyphGryph on
    rockrngerAngelHedgieCptKemzikshrykehippofantN1tSt4lker
  • GlyphGryphGlyphGryph Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    To distill that down to a simple phrase:

    For many people in this country, more people being able to do something decreases the worth of those who are able to do it. Accessibility is intrinsically bad, and thus so is school integration. Exclusivity has enormous value in and of itself, and for parents whose students already have every other opportunity it is the only metric that still matters.

    GlyphGryph on
    AngelHedgiehippofantShadowhopeN1tSt4lker
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    GlyphGryph wrote: »
    To distill that down to a simple phrase:

    For many people in this country, more people being able to do something decreases the worth of those who are able to do it. Accessibility is intrinsically bad, and thus so is school integration. Exclusivity has enormous value in and of itself, and for parents whose students already have every other opportunity it is the only metric that still matters.

    That is 100 percent something that you can't really argue with.

    A big point that keeps coming up in conservative thinking on integration is why do black people deserve a good education or to live in safe neighborhoods. The thinking is that since white people pay for those luxuries any attempt to change the status quo is unjust.

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/27/why-moving-black-families-into-white-neighborhoods-isnt-justice/

    However I cannot and will not begrudge those who have achieved the kind of success that allows them access to these neighborhoods. When I was a young man, I could have worked several jobs to put myself slowly through community college. I could’ve fought my way into a better university. I could have gotten a degree that would have led to a six-figure job. But I didn’t. The people in these houses did. The black families did. The white families did. The Korean families did.

    rockrnger on
  • AistanAistan Registered User regular
    Dang, that person's byline. "He is currently working on his first book about overcoming addiction and liberalism."

    Because clearly people who disagree with him have brain problems that must be cured.

    steam_sig.png
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    GlyphGryph wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    In this case you can pretty much take your pick.

    Test scores, graduation rates, class size, computer access, economic preformance, likely hood of jail time.

    Black goes up, white stays the same.

    I'd argue the metrics many parents actually care are more like "degree to which I can brag to my peers about my child's superiority", "avoiding any sort of real growth or independence that might make my child no longer dependent on me", or "avoiding exposure to situations that might lead their children to adopt a different value set", or "my child is receiving more resources than other children and is thus better by comparison", and "instilling an unwavering dedication to making money and achieving social status that their parents can benefit from vicariously".

    You know, the important stuff. It seems like integration would make students do a lot worse at all of the above.

    Even on the metrics you listed like test scores, the versions many parents actually care about are "difference between my childs test scores and average test score" and most of those (failure to graduate, jail time) are things these parents would never even consider as a possibility for their own child so even talking about it makes them anxious because even if the number is low now their children is going to a school where they might fail to graduate!?

    I mean, that's what your up against here.

    And you can say that's the wrong way to think about it, but many people live immersed in cultures where value isn't about what you can acquire, but about how much more you can acquire than the next guy. To that extent, integration seems like a losing prospect. And it's not an uncommon sentiment.

    I'd argue that anyone who has ever wanted their property value to go up is going to think that way, because it's literally the only way to cast something that is unequivocally bad like rising property values as a good thing.

    Partially why we need to take away local governance of schools, which states could do, or even the feds could do in a roundabout way (like the old Highway Funding cludge to force the 65 MPH speed limit, just tell them you're free to have local school boards if you want those schools to get 0 federal assistance money). NIMBY factionalism gets wiped away when school decisions are made at the state level.

    ShadowhopeN1tSt4lker
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    But in this case nobody is being pushed in front of anything.

    We have really good evidence for this since integration didn't happen everywhere at the same time (and didn't happen everywhere at all). Even the people who think integration by itself didn't help black people (maybe it was something else. More data!) don't think it hurt white people. If this is a trolley problem it's a easy one.

    And I'm not sure how anyone is being used. Their money isn't going anywhere else.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    You are overlooking that this also helps the rich / white students by reducing their biases and fosters a stronger sense of community with their fellow Americans.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    DarkPrimusAngelHedgieCambiataCptKemzikCalica
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    How are the kids being harmed? You keep bringing up that this is somehow immoral because of harm to the students, but you fail to show how they are being harmed in the first place. Meanwhile, research has shown that diversity has genuine benefits socially.

    As @GlyphGryph pointed out, the actual "harm" is that the pool of workers is broadened and diversified, so that the effects of institutional bias become weakened. Which is what the parents are actually upset about.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    CptKemzikPanda4You
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    You are overlooking that this also helps the rich / white students by reducing their biases and fosters a stronger sense of community with their fellow Americans.

    Has that been shown?

    Lots of southern white people had integrated schools and didn't mind being racist.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »

    That's kinda the whole point. Everybody's got an idea about why minority districts are failing but we know that sending them to other districts improves their performance without hurting anyone else's.
    Not one single students performance ever? That's been proven exhaustively?
    Couscous wrote: »
    Some percentage fleeing to private schools is not necessarily a big deal unless it is very high. There just needs to be a sufficient number of well off children remaining.

    So these together touch on something that I think doesn't get the examination it deserves when people talk about school bussing because morally it's significant.

    It's not the money spent on the students that's being pursued, because plenty of bad schools spend more money than much better performing schools.

    It's not the facilities or the teachers either. The entire ideas behind blending the students argues that's not the case. No one is arguing for vitamixing the teachers around, or replacing the teachers and administration at the bad schools. Or just building newer schools and thinking that will fix anything.

    No it's consistently the students that must be mixed. It's the students that are being used to create this change, and using people, especially minors, as means is generally considered unethical.

    There's an underlying acceptance of naked utilitarianism in this thread, but I strongly suspect that the love of that particular ethical framework ends as soon as it is not nominal white kids with rich parents getting used to maximize the aggregate utility. Special ed and ADA programs are pretty expensive after all.

    Not utility so much as pragmatism. We have thrown a lot of shit at this problem and that's the only thing that really stuck.

    As to proof first I will say I'm not a expert or anything so grains of salt.

    http://www.nber.org/digest/may11/w16664.html

    On average, children were in desegregated schools for five years, and each additional year that a black child was exposed to education in a desegregated school increased the probability of graduating by between 1.3 and 2.9 percent. For black men, spending time in desegregated schools as a child also reduced by 14.7 percent the probability of spending time in jail by age thirty.

    http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregation_NBERw16664.pdf

    http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197902_hawley.pdf
    according to available research,
    School desegregation almost never impeeds the academic propormance of whites and more often than not faclilitates the achievement of blacks.

    http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3442&context=lcp
    net effect of desegregation ol the academic achievement levels of nonwhites, in most studies, is positive and in others is at least neutral

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1992/01/1992_bpeamicro_boozer.pdf
    Finally, in light of evidence that we presentedon the timing of school integration,we believe that the federal government's financia lincen- tives for school integration beginning in the mid-1960s were efficacious. Given the adverse consequences documented here and elsewhere of attending racially isolated schools, it may be wise for the federal government to renew its efforts to provide school districts with an incentive to maintain racially balanced schools.

    This in no way addresses the criticism I was making.

    Using people-the students in this case- as means is not moral. The metrics in no way address this, because just because in aggregate there isn't a harm doesn't mean in specific there isn't.

    Pushing one fat person in front of the trolley, doesn't show up as an aggregate change if there's at least one other fat person going to be hit by the trolley if you don't act. But that doesn't mean that the person you pushed wasn't harmed.

    And this problem is doubled down on because all these proposals necessitate some way of stopping white flight. So not only are you using people as means, you are intentionally stripping from them of the ability to avoid being used, especially if they are being harmed.

    You are overlooking that this also helps the rich / white students by reducing their biases and fosters a stronger sense of community with their fellow Americans.

    Has that been shown?

    Lots of southern white people had integrated schools and didn't mind being racist.

    Reduce, not eliminate.
    Our central finding is that school desegregation fundamentally changed the people who lived through it, yet had a more limited impact on the larger society. Public schools faced enormous challenges during the late 1970s as educators tried to facilitate racial integration amid a society that remained segregated in terms of housing, social institutions, and often employment. Nonetheless, desegregation made the vast majority of the students who attended these schools less racially prejudiced and more comfortable around people of different backgrounds. After high school, however, their lives have been far more segregated as they re-entered a more racially divided society.
    http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news/4774

    EDIT: I should also point out, that forced school busing was a very short lived policy, lasting only 10-15 years in the USA. A more sustained effort may have had a broader and more lasting impact.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    rockrngerhippofantCambiataEdith Upwards
Sign In or Register to comment.