New at Reason

December 8, 2006

Jeff Taylor argues for taking race out of education once and for all.

Comments

parse|12.8.06 @ 2:29PM|#

The activist left, which unfortunately still controls much of the public education apparatus in America, steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that public school districts have not only beat back Jim Crow, they've kicked segregation's sorry ass.

Do you have some proof of this? You can certainly argue that race should play no role in determining which school a child attends, but the claim that US public schools are not segregated is an empirical that can be tested for accuracy.

The Civil Rights project at Harvard University reported the following in 2002:

The racial trend in the school districts studied is substantial and clear: virtually all school districts analyzed are showing lower levels of inter-racial exposure since 1986, suggesting a trend towards resegregation, and in some districts, these declines are sharp. As courts across the country end long-running desegregation plans and, in some states, have forbidden the use of any racially-conscious student assignment plans, the last 10-15 years have seen a steady unraveling of almost 25 years worth of increased integration. From the early 1970s to the late 1980s, districts in the South had the highest levels of black-white desegregation in the nation; from 1986-2000, however, some of the most rapidly resegregating districts for black students' exposure to whites are in the South. Some of these districts maintained a very high level of integration for a quarter century or more until the desegregation policies were reversed.
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/reseg_schools02.php

Do you have some reason to believe this research is wrong? It does not indicate that public school districts have "kicked segregation's sorry ass".

|12.8.06 @ 3:20PM|#

Why can't our children go to the nearest neighborhood school?

|12.8.06 @ 3:36PM|#

Ironchef, that is one of the central issues that prompted Brown v. Board of Ed. Ms. Brown could not attend the school closest to her home due to segregation - she had to attend a school set aside for black children, even though it was very, very far away from her home.

School "segregation" does exist - but not in the nefarious "separate but equal" way it existed in the early 20th century. Now the segregation has more to do with the fact that poorer neighborhoods with worse schools tend to have a higher population of poor minority students. It is not rocket science to see how segregation can occur, even if not legally mandated by a "separate but equal" clause.

I sit on the fence on this issue. I work for a prominent researcher of achievement gap issues and I know what the data says about impoverished schools, poor performance of minority groups, the effect that the race and level of experience a teacher has in contributing to the educational success of students, et cetera, et cetera. But I am not certain that improving diversity or using race as a factor in determining the school you attend will lead to improving the overall quality of a school. All it does is contribute to the overall diversity of the yearbook photos.

My career aspiration is to be an educator in the very near future. I am less concerned with the physical makeup of my future classes of students than I am with factors that really contribute to a good education (in my mind, at least): do I have the necessary resources, and if not, will I be given leeway to improvise as necessary to deliver the best education to my students? do the students have someone (a parent, older bro/sis, mentor or other) in their lives to help them with homework and other learning outside of the classroom? Do the students have the desire to learn and grow, and if not, can I inspire them to desire it?

|12.8.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Jeff's article doesn't even begin to make much sense much less live up to the assertions of the first paragraph.

Like parse said, I can understand opposing forced integration on principle. I can understand opposing forced diversity on principle.

But for an article that makes such a forceful statement as "Jim Crow is dead, but liberals don't know it," you'd better be prepared to back it up with credible statistics and numbers.

As this article goes, you offer nothing of any substance to back up your assertions...only wins on certain court fights. In a conservative court, no less.

But my fav is this little nugget..."Gauvreau estimates that some inner city elementaries in CMS receive 30 to 50 percent more money per pupil than some suburban elementaries.

"Some" spend more than "some"? And the figures come from a party filing an anti-integration lawsuit? That's your argument?

Lot's of us know teachers or have kids in school and are aware that there are plenty of disparities amongst public schools throughout the country...and many of them fall along racial lines.

Your assertions of principles are fine, but the evidence you present flies in the face of facts many of us encounter every day. This is shoddy, one-sided reporting. You can - and should - do better than this.

|12.8.06 @ 5:05PM|#

Jeff,

I am very skeptical of claims made by affirmative action/race-based proponents, but you need to get your facts straight. Where is your support for stating that "district after district nationwide spends more per pupil on low-income populations, often by thousands of dollars per child per year"? That may be the case in some districts when you are talking about federal spending on state/local schools, but not in terms of city (or local) spending on their local schools. I looked at various state government web sites to find spending per district. Your statement is either false or very misleading.

And diversity can cut both ways. Areas that have large black or minority populations may "favor" whites to create diversity.

|12.8.06 @ 5:44PM|#

I can't leave this one alone.

There's so much flawed and misleading garbage in this piece it's mind boggling. Lots of assertions with no data or expanation. No credible sources.

I won't argue that "diversity" is a dubious term and concept with a lot of politics tied to it that leaves every player disatisfied.

But Jeff's bold statement about 'Jim Crow's ass being kicked' seems to be the cringe-worthy notion that since school "diversity" is a dubious goal, racism or racial inequality no longer exist.

To put it bluntly...where the fuck do you come up with that?

As for this little un-supported charmer: In fact, district after district nationwide spends more per pupil on low-income populations, often by thousands of dollars per child per year.

I call bullshit on this one. Flat bullshit. Either outright lies, creative math or misleading mendacity.

Since your thesis pretty much rests on this statement, you need to cite some credible sources.

|12.8.06 @ 7:19PM|#

If we take Race out of education, then we should take out Jonny, Hadji, Bandit and Dr. Quest as well.

(Never mind, it's Friday and I want a drink.)

|12.8.06 @ 7:35PM|#

Good one, Stevo...man I loved that show...what was your favorite episode? Mine was the one in the sargasso see with the lizard men - mostly 'cause I wanted one of those hover-saucer things with the laser gun.

|12.8.06 @ 7:35PM|#

Sorry, that's "Sargasso Sea"(martini bound....)

Larry A|12.9.06 @ 1:01PM|#

Where is your support for stating that "district after district nationwide spends more per pupil on low-income populations, often by thousands of dollars per child per year"?

Inner city or rural districts with high poverty populations, which often correlate with minority and immigrant populations, have much higher percentages of students qualified for free school lunch or breakfast programs, remedial and special education, free afterschool programs, assistance in purchasing supplies, medical checkups like vision testing, support for day care for students' children, and a wide variety of other federal and state programs. In wealthier districts most kids' parents pay most or all of these expenses.

|12.9.06 @ 1:39PM|#

Larry A, I anticipated that might be the rationale. Some of those thing can be classified as "education spending" while others probably shouldn't be.

I'd still be looking for some hard numbers broken down before I throw too much credence behind Jeff's assertion about spending.

But none of that changes his loony idea that Jim Crow has had his ass kicked. If anything, the fact that dollars need to be spent at all to shore up low-income schools (with assumedly largely minority populations) pretty much proves the existence of racial inequalities.

I live in a large southern city. I know teachers who've worked in both urban and suburban schools here. The urban schools, by and large, are still garbage heaps. Most of the teachers still pay out of their own pockets for basics like papers and pencils. The disparities are a constant issue with the school local board.

|12.9.06 @ 5:14PM|#

madpad --

You can jump up and down all you want -- the facts are that merely federal Title I dollars tilt the per pupil spending avg. toward minority, low-income populations. Perhaps you also believe in 100 mph carbs that the oil companies have taken off the market.

In fact, the absolute dollars are so out of skew that the racial bean counters have turned to another less quantifiable measure -- teacher quality -- to try and make a victimization claim.

Simply, there is today nothing like the racist two-track public education system as it once existed. If you routinely talk, as I do, to public school teachers, they very aware of the allthe "goodies" extra funding of low-income populations can bring -- starting with class sizes perhaps 2/3 of a district's average.

Keep pretending it is just a matter of money -- maybe at $20K per pupil it'll all get better.

|12.9.06 @ 8:37PM|#

If you're so sure of your figures why didn't you included them? Instead you chose to cite someone with an agenda on this issue spouting anecdotal info.

If you're so sure of your sources, why don't you put them in the article? If you've got quotes from teachers, why didn't you use them?

You're talking to an ex-reporter and editor, son. Facts are you wrote a lousy article. My principle complaint has been threefold:

1. You said that "public school districts have not only beat back Jim Crow, they've kicked segregation's sorry ass." Bold statement. Then you relied on a lousy source to back you up.

2. You made claims throughout the article without sources or credible numbers to support you.

3. You cite info from one district and magnify it to include all districts everywhere.

Maybe they didn't teach these sorts of things in the journalism school you went to but they did in mine. Or maybe you're so jaded on the "Main Stream Media" that you feel you're above solid reporting practices. Or maybe you're so used to bitching about liberals you think every reader welcomes a stilted viewpoint. If so, maybe you should visit H&R more often for a much needed smack down.

|12.10.06 @ 2:57AM|#

OK, Let's give up ALL forms of "affirmative action"

Starting with legacy admittances to colleges. None of this "you get admitted because Daddy went and gave us a lot of money." You get to claw it out with every single other applicant. Deal?

|12.10.06 @ 1:54PM|#

You can jump up and down all you want -- the facts are that merely federal Title I dollars tilt the per pupil spending avg. toward minority, low-income populations. JAT

If segregation has had it's lousy ass kicked, as you claimed, how is it that you can easily identify schools where the students are predominantly minority and claim per pupil spending is higher there?