Dumb WaPoo Article on Public Schools
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
But what's the law that you're trying to strike down as discriminatory based on its disparate impact? There is no law that prevents people from moving to a different school district. It almost sounds like you're claiming the government has a legal obligation to pass more laws to prevent any disparate impact from occurring in education. Is that what you're saying? |
Anonymous
|
Let me clarify again
Looks like the only schools that have 50% or better test scores are.... wait for it..... majority white Not even charters can get 50% Looks like one campus of DC prep and KIPP is close Shout out to Basics Math Student Proficiency Levels 3% 11% 27% 48% 11% ELA Student Proficiency Levels 2% 8% 23% 52% 15% Did not yet meet expectations Partially met expectations Approached expectations Met expectations Exceeded expectations TOTAL 2014-15 ENROLLMENT 551 STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS 42% Black, non-Hispanic 5% Asian 40% White, non-Hispanic 7% Hispanic/Latino <1% Native American/Alaska Native <1% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 6% Multiracial That's my ideal DC school right there. Now how to replicate it |
Anonymous
| By the way - "WaPoo"??? Ugh. It reminds me of the very derogatory nicknames that some have recently given to Muslims. |
Anonymous
There really are not that many programs. Schools with high poverty get a little bit more per student but it's not enough. People say this on DCUM all the time, that poor kids get tons of money thrown at them but it really isn't true. |
Anonymous
LOL in both of these cases PP cites the courts are overturning activist government law and policies that CREATED disparate, unwelcome, outcomes based on race. Ergo, those cases are only relevant to OUR discussion if the District of Columbia government is actively making laws or regulations which manipulate the opportunities afforded to (in these examples) non-white people. Nothing of that sort is happening in D.C., where the vast majority of folks, black or white or whatever, are making choice to live where they want to live. The ideal, wished-for law that PP is so authoritatively referencing don't even exist in D.C. or the rest of the country for that matter. Well, maybe San Francisco but good luck with that here. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
That's what's coming out that "newspaper" recently. |
Anonymous
Ok sparky. Disparate impact has to do with the impact on racial groups whether or not the have purportedly made a "choice" to live or work or make purchases the way they do. Your stupid argument about black people chosing to live in black neighborhoods is irrelevant. Do you think if DC decided to say cut off electricity in Ward 8 alone they could defend that on the black people had chosen to live there? No. Also not sure what you are getting at when you say "activist" policies, but disparate impact only requires that there be a policy that impacts on the basis of race. In DC the argument would be that providing inferior schools in black zip codes is disparate impact. |
Anonymous
I am not PPs. I am a left-leaning person who wants to see equal schools. But you are overstating the strength of the SCOTUS case law on this. If bad schools in black neighborhoods was so clearly unconstitutional, don't you think we'd see lots of successful civil rights suits? After all that'S been the status quo for decades. But we don't, because unfortunately Brown has been watered down, a lot, as this article explains (another PP posted it up thread): http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html |
Anonymous
PP here again, here is a quote from the above article: The constitutional right to education that has survived into the Roberts Court is a limited right: of children residing in the United States to attend a public school free of intentional discrimination on the basis of race and other protected categories. While Brown and its progeny clearly established a federal right for children to be free from governmentsponsored segregation (and other invidious discrimination), the federal courts in the main did not require more than a minimal set of educational inputs. Moreover, administrative enforcement of Title VI by the Department of Education’s (the Department’s) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has proven insufficient to bring about systemic improvement in reducing resegregation, excessive discipline rates experienced by minority students, or inequitable resource allocation to schools. |
Anonymous
Did you even read that whole article? It clearly outlines how the feds could take action against states based on disparate impact, and additional state law bases for suits by private individuals under state law. |
Anonymous
Yes I did read it. It goes on to outline an aspirational litigation plan. But the quote above and the paragraphs preceding it are the correct statement of the law as it stands today. A lot hinges on who is appointed to fill Scalia's slot, but if it is a conservative I believe that the aspirational strategy would fail. Certainly, it has not succeeded to date. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
| You can always re-litigate an issue. Lawrence v Texas legalized sodomy about 20 years after a decision that did the opposite. You can always try to bring a case again to SCOTUS. But the current state of the law appears to be that if black people live in neighborhood X because it's what they can afford, and the schools in neighborhood X are poor performing, then the only constitutional requirement is that the govt not intentionally reduce the quality of schools in X. For example, the govt cannot underfund those schools. But in DC, schools in black neighborhoods are overfunded relative to schools in white neighborhoods. This satisfies the requirement of equal inputs. Sadly, and I am genuine when I say sadly, there doesn't appear to be a constitutional requirement of equal outcomes. |
Anonymous
Do the math. DCPS doesn't have the numbers to make every school look like this yet. |