Schools have limited space. You can shuffle around which kids go where, but ultimately that won't solve the problem if one school sucks and the other doesn't. At best it will make both schools mediocre, if you assume the student/parent body is the main factor in a school's success. If you assume it's the school itself, then things stay the same but with different kids in different places.

There's also value in having neighborhood schools, creating a sense of community.

The bigger problem is how segregated neighborhoods are. Not even neighborhoods... whole towns.

There has been a lot of research on these issues. A key finding that is pertinent here is that whatever public school you go to the teachers and administrators have almost zero effect on your education outcomes. All that does matter is who is going to school with you. These lines may be arbitrary and outdated. But that doesn't change the fact that everyone does get the same quality output from their teachers.

I have no strong feelings for or against attendance zones. But the fact is if you changed those lines it wouldn't matter. Public schools do need to change. But Romero's solutions won't make a difference.

The Democratic Party “throw more tax paper money at it” cure is worse than the problem.

Schools used to be almost totally funded at the local level. When the states and feds started adding their funding and the boatloads of admin paperwork that went with it, in the name of equalization of opportunity, local accountability for the quality of the product disappeared.

Kind of like colleges and all their foreign money.

Public Education is a sham, and relies on the mistaken assumption that *everyone* can be educated. We know that is not true, and when teachers are functioning as well paid prison wardens and baby sitters for the uneducable, you can’t do much for the kids that can actually be educated when they are forced into the same schools and classrooms.

In these parts, students without behavior or academic problems can go to any public school that they choose to attend, both in and out if district. If a student has academic or behavior challenges, they must stay at their home school.

Does this make things better or worse? I can see it going both ways.

Public schools are segregated by virtue of wealth, with children of parents who live in nicer districts getting better educations.

And because they live in wealthy neighborhoods, in expensive houses, they're paying a much larger share of the school's local funding. By all means, make the argument that they should get less than what they pay for.

Of course, this is socialism writ small: we'll take our cut of the vig, and make sure the rest of you are all equal. Equally miserable.

-
How much time should a primary (6-13) or secondary (14-18) student spend commuting to school? Do you want elementary students waking up an hour or more earlier than their working parents for a 2-hour cross-town bus ride, or even longer, commute to school?

Is it not incumbent upon the school system to ensure that students in any of its schools get an equal education without having to commute to the "good" schools?

Let's also keep in mind that there are things the school system cannot regulate - the parents and the environment. Parents who are not committed to their children getting a good education will likely end up with children who did not get a good education, no matter what school they attend. A neighborhood of parents not committed to their children getting a good education will not have "good" schools.
-

The elephant in the room is the fact that a white kid who goes to a mostly-black school is going to get beat up and robbed, regularly, for being white; and the school administration is always going to let the bad guys get away with it and assume racism on the part of the victim. This is simply a fact, and everyone knows it.

Therefore white parents, if they're not monsters, will always see to it that their child does not have to go to one of those schools, even if they have to move to the Moon, or homeschool their kid.

Those who regard these self-segregators as the problem are the real problem.

We already short change students on their sleep enough already. That causes all sorts of problems, including behavioural. Short change me my sleep and see if I'm not a wee bit cranky.

What were the results of the forced cross city busing back in the 1970s? surely that's been studied? perhaps that could inform our thought process?

If you believe in neighborhood schools, the problem cannot be solved. Similar people group together which means that similar people's children will go to school together. There is a feedback loop between housing prices and quality of schools. You can nibble at the edges but that's about it.

The two elementary schools near me are the highest scoring schools in a high scoring school district. I moved when my oldest child was five and had the money to ensure that my kids would be in schools with bright kids. Before that I lived in the worst part of a bad school district.

When Kamala Harris brought up her experience with busing during the Presidential debates, my impression was that she was the type of student who went to the library and learned on her own time, regardless of where she went to school. She already had the drive and determination to succeed, and attending a predominantly white school didn't magically provide that to her. Regardless of where she went to public school, she still would have been standing on that debate stage.

The best solution: abolish (in the way other forms of legal slavery have been abolished) government schooling. Those who confuse schooling for education will balk at this but that doesn't change the fact that it is the only ethical path.
My appreciation for education explains my opposition to schooling.

"What were the results of the forced cross city busing back in the 1970s? surely that's been studied?" ~IRA

As best I recall there was an initial bump but after 10-20 years everything had reverted back to the mean. But it has been a long time since I looked at that specific dataset.

Study after study has shown that as far as US public schools are concerned it doesn't matter where you go but it does matter who your fellow students are. Charter schools have shown it doesn't have to be that way. That is just how US public schools are run.

The elephant in the room is the fact that a white kid who goes to a mostly-black school is going to get beat up and robbed, regularly, for being white; and the school administration is always going to let the bad guys get away with it and assume racism on the part of the victim. This is simply a fact, and everyone knows it.

Narrator:

It's not a fact. And everyone doesn't know it.

The problem in schools with poor kids is, most frequently, intelligence. No one in government or education will say that. It's bad for business.

Even assuming a certain innate intelligence to be true, Crid, IQ is malleable and environment plays a large role. So if you put unintelligent people in a better environment, their IQ goes up.

Even assuming a certain innate intelligence to be true, Crid, IQ is malleable and environment plays a large role. So if you put unintelligent people in a better environment, their IQ goes up.

NicoleK at May 19, 2020 9:22 PM

To a certain extent, yes but not enough.
Environment plays a role. However, education will never turn someone with an low IQ into a competent skilled professional, Anymore than athletic training will turn an uncoordinated kid into a star athlete. Innate ability just counts for too much.

Both the unintelligent and the unathletic will be overwhelmed in any kind of competitive environment by those who have both the innate abilities and the training to develop those abilities.

Wow. Seems like the libertarian tilt of this blog and our Goddess/hostess just flies out the window when it's about "the children".

You all seem to hqve bought into the underlying assumptions that:

-This is the gubmint's issue to fix. Or that gubmint creates or supports "community"

-The solution to a problem caused by gubmint meddling is more meddling.

-the political goals of Dems take precedent over those of parents.

...what happened to the lively discussions of vouchers and charters?

Crickets

The problem with education outcomes in poor public schools isn't the IQ of the students. Yes IQ has a genetic component. Yes IQ puts a cap on how well students will do. But poor performing US public schools do well below that limit. The main issue is classroom disruptions caused by other students.

Ben David, charters just weren't relevant to the topic. The question was 'Are school attendance boundaries racist?' Or ethical if you wanted to take things that way. Charters and vouchers also have attendance boundaries. Even if they aren't enforced by the school then by simple practicality. It takes time to travel and that is just how life is. So on this specific topic there is no difference between the school types.

“The problem with education outcomes in poor public schools isn't the IQ of the students. Yes IQ has a genetic component. Yes IQ puts a cap on how well students will do. But poor performing US public schools do well below that limit. The main issue is classroom disruptions caused by other students.”

I agree that disruptive students are a large part of the problem. You get more than a few, and it becomes impossible for the teacher to do anything with the rest.

But, I think the problem to a large extent is the public education industry’s and government bean counters, and their desire to disguise bad educational outcomes, and cover up real differences in educational achievement between various demographics.

If you were coaching a track team, would you insist that everyone had to run at the pace of the slowest runnier?

Or would you structure ability groups so the faster runners pushed each other?

Now we are talking about different things Isab.

In the context of the current US public school system IQ doesn't differentiate good schools from bad ones. Nor do teachers or facilities or most anything else. Student and especially ones with behavioral problems do make a difference. Which is why Gloria Romero's solutions don't work. You aren't actually solving any problems. You are just moving the problems around.

On the point you brought up I agree wholeheartedly. The reason schools and teachers don't matter is due to exactly what you brought up. It doesn't matter what team you run on if every team has to run as fast as the slowest runner. Better coaches, better shoes, or even better tracks won't make a difference. That slow guy isn't going to get much faster no matter what you do.

Charters and other school systems show it doesn't have to be that way. Teachers can make a difference. But under the current education administration they don't.

Amy:

While district boundaries may be some of the cause of educational inequities, I don't think it's the primary cause.

I don't know how they fund schools in California, but Michigan has a standard grant for every student to pay for instruction and administration. Local schools can pass millages to support bond issues for facility improvement, but can't use those funds for instruction and administration. That's been the law since 1994.

This means that funding for instruction is basically the same regardless of district boundaries. The discrepancies will be in facilities. School districts with higher property values will be able to afford more pools, auditoriums, etc., but they can't fund higher teacher or administrator pay from those revenues.

School districts can (and do) increase their financial base by admitting out-of-district students and taking the standard grant (with some adjustment) from the student's home district. The result is that motivated parents abandon poorly managed local school districts (hello, Detroit!), leaving those districts with a worse financial condition and unmotivated parents. That provides a way out for students with motivated parents, but everyone else in the district is worse off.

So Michigan has policies in place that reduce district boundaries, but arguably the effect has been to increase inequitable results. Detroit Public Schools continue in financial crisis because anyone who gives a crap about their child's education and has the resources will drive the child to a charter school, or a public school with open enrollment, and take the state funding with them. The remaining student body are those students whose parents can't or won't make the effort.

> So if you put unintelligent
> people in a better environment,
> their IQ goes up.

1. To only a trivial degree.
   
   
2. 'Making IQs go up' sounds sweet to a popular ear, but it's not actually the goal of public education.
   
   
3. In any case, no one's talking about "[putting] unintelligent people in a better environment"; the topic, as ever, is about spending another metric fuckton of money we don't have on distant schools erected, administered and instructed by a mundane mob of history's most nakedly self-interested people in pursuit of some misty, indistinct social goal.
   
   
4. You, for example, aren't talking about 'putting' anyone anywhere. Quite specifically, you're not inviting a less-intelligent young child to live in your home, where the benefits of your compassionate presumptions could be most reliable applied.

We're paying enormous sums to an educational system which continues to bleed us dry even as it fails so atrociously. I think the larger problem, the reason that we can't compose a worthwhile & achievable standard for these kids, is that civilization doesn't know what to do for anyone with an IQ lower than about 95 or 90 in any case.

"It's not a fact. And everyone doesn't know it."

Perhaps you should read more crime reports. There isn't a white neighborhood in the USA you will die in because you drove in by mistake. Dozens of cities are off-limits to YOU.

"We're paying enormous sums to an educational system which continues to bleed us dry even as it fails so atrociously. I think the larger problem, the reason that we can't compose a worthwhile & achievable standard for these kids, is that civilization doesn't know what to do for anyone with an IQ lower than about 95 or 90 in any case."

There isn't any incentive to figure anything out besides how to bleed the public of money.

A public school student is headcount, not much more.