This American Life about desegregation in schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not buying this argument that people have no choice.

In AL they do have a choice where to live, there is no big gap in real estate prices. You can live in a trailer and go to a very good school. If you live in a failing school zone you have the option of transferring to any school of your choice.

And we still have the same problem. The black schools are failing and only black schools.

It's a personal choice. The government cannot make you make the right choices.

DCPS exists as a 80% african american, high-poverty school district because of explicit government policies from the 19th century until the early 1970s. That's the reason regional population patterns are what they are. That's just a fact. High concentration of poverty leads to dysfunction. The fact that we've stopped actively stepping on people's throats within the last few decades is not a convincing argument that "people have a choice where to live". That's just ignorant of history.

Do you actually know anything about the history of the District of Columbia? Here's one Locke you could start: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/15999/a-brief-history-of-white-people-in-southeast

You have a point presumably?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not buying this argument that people have no choice.

In AL they do have a choice where to live, there is no big gap in real estate prices. You can live in a trailer and go to a very good school. If you live in a failing school zone you have the option of transferring to any school of your choice.

And we still have the same problem. The black schools are failing and only black schools.

It's a personal choice. The government cannot make you make the right choices.

DCPS exists as a 80% african american, high-poverty school district because of explicit government policies from the 19th century until the early 1970s. That's the reason regional population patterns are what they are. That's just a fact. High concentration of poverty leads to dysfunction. The fact that we've stopped actively stepping on people's throats within the last few decades is not a convincing argument that "people have a choice where to live". That's just ignorant of history.

Gosh, I wonder why all those A-A folks living in predominantly A-A Georgetown decided to up and leave their beautiful houses and move somewhere else. Yup, must be the white people done it. Couldn't be any other reason why those folks moved, cos doing it by rational choice makes no sense to me.

Again, try to collect your thoughts. Order them into a coherent structure. And then try to convey them in words we can understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is true. Actually, you could probably get really good outcomes by just giving poor parents lots of money. Poverty is the problem. Make them not poor. The solution is simple. Problem is, there's no way you can sell those policies to the American electorate. So you're back to square one.

You think these people ended up poor by accident? It's the choices they make every day. Like getting nails done versus buying a book.

You give them cash and check in a few months. I guarantee you they will have gone through the cash, back on welfare, and it's not because they invested into 529.

You take a low SES class black girl and put her in a nice shiny building with books and teachers. She'll get pregnant and drop out. We create nice buildings over and over again, and the schools fall to shit because you can't fix internal metal issues with expensive material crap. Kids need proper environment and role models. Schools cannot make up for the environment at home.

Right. Every single one of them. And every single white person would studiously save their money and only spend it on what's necessary.

Care to share where you learned your racist stereotypes? I'm leaning towards Rush Limbaugh, but it kind of has a Bill O'Reilly flavor to it. Maybe a hint of Ayn Rand condescension too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not buying this argument that people have no choice.

In AL they do have a choice where to live, there is no big gap in real estate prices. You can live in a trailer and go to a very good school. If you live in a failing school zone you have the option of transferring to any school of your choice.

And we still have the same problem. The black schools are failing and only black schools.

It's a personal choice. The government cannot make you make the right choices.

DCPS exists as a 80% african american, high-poverty school district because of explicit government policies from the 19th century until the early 1970s. That's the reason regional population patterns are what they are. That's just a fact. High concentration of poverty leads to dysfunction. The fact that we've stopped actively stepping on people's throats within the last few decades is not a convincing argument that "people have a choice where to live". That's just ignorant of history.

Gosh, I wonder why all those A-A folks living in predominantly A-A Georgetown decided to up and leave their beautiful houses and move somewhere else. Yup, must be the white people done it. Couldn't be any other reason why those folks moved, cos doing it by rational choice makes no sense to me.

Again, try to collect your thoughts. Order them into a coherent structure. And then try to convey them in words we can understand.

You seem to be the only one who, if not quite misunderstanding others' counter-examples, prefers to interpret human events through a race-based lens for deciding human agency.

[Anonymous]

And you seem to think that everything is about free choice on a level playing field. Open your eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is true. Actually, you could probably get really good outcomes by just giving poor parents lots of money. Poverty is the problem. Make them not poor. The solution is simple. Problem is, there's no way you can sell those policies to the American electorate. So you're back to square one.

You think these people ended up poor by accident? It's the choices they make every day. Like getting nails done versus buying a book.

You give them cash and check in a few months. I guarantee you they will have gone through the cash, back on welfare, and it's not because they invested into 529.

You take a low SES class black girl and put her in a nice shiny building with books and teachers. She'll get pregnant and drop out. We create nice buildings over and over again, and the schools fall to shit because you can't fix internal metal issues with expensive material crap. Kids need proper environment and role models. Schools cannot make up for the environment at home.

Right. Every single one of them. And every single white person would studiously save their money and only spend it on what's necessary.

Care to share where you learned your racist stereotypes? I'm leaning towards Rush Limbaugh, but it kind of has a Bill O'Reilly flavor to it. Maybe a hint of Ayn Rand condescension too.

It's a shame that there are folks out there who think this way. What about the wasted potential of kids from this background who could do well with the right supports? I don't think a shiny new bldg will solve all problems, but perhaps it helps some, by attracting more high-quality teachers and letting kids know that they're worth the investment--the broken windows theory and all of that.

My friend is an AA male from Brooklyn with a single mom, who did have the right supports--he went on to an HYP for undergrad and comparable for medical school. He is now a pediatric neurosurgeon. What if someone looked at his demographics and said this kid is not worth investing in?

Not saying that the right supports are going to turn every kid into a smashing success (although there will, undoubtedly, be a few). However, we'll likely be spending a lot more if we just look the other way and allow them to fail, IMO. I'm no economist, but if we somehow harness the political will to invest in these kids in a more deliberate and evidence-based way, might that not be dollars well spent in the long-term? I'd much rather that the average low SES AA girl in DC graduate from high school and find a job as a teacher's aide or hotel worker, rather than pregnant and on welfare. If it takes a few extra of my tax dollars in the short-term to support such an effort, I'm all for it.

FWIW, I'm an AA girl who grew up in a mostly blue-collar AA environment who didn't drop out or get pregnant--I'm now married w/kids and have a Ph.D from a top program in my field and a six-figure salary in a helping profession. Not saying this to boast, but just to say that I'm a productive member of society, and I'm glad there were a few teachers who didn't give up on me. And a brand-new building for high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is true. Actually, you could probably get really good outcomes by just giving poor parents lots of money. Poverty is the problem. Make them not poor. The solution is simple. Problem is, there's no way you can sell those policies to the American electorate. So you're back to square one.

You think these people ended up poor by accident? It's the choices they make every day. Like getting nails done versus buying a book.

You give them cash and check in a few months. I guarantee you they will have gone through the cash, back on welfare, and it's not because they invested into 529.

You take a low SES class black girl and put her in a nice shiny building with books and teachers. She'll get pregnant and drop out. We create nice buildings over and over again, and the schools fall to shit because you can't fix internal metal issues with expensive material crap. Kids need proper environment and role models. Schools cannot make up for the environment at home.

Right. Every single one of them. And every single white person would studiously save their money and only spend it on what's necessary.

Care to share where you learned your racist stereotypes? I'm leaning towards Rush Limbaugh, but it kind of has a Bill O'Reilly flavor to it. Maybe a hint of Ayn Rand condescension too.

It's a shame that there are folks out there who think this way. What about the wasted potential of kids from this background who could do well with the right supports? I don't think a shiny new bldg will solve all problems, but perhaps it helps some, by attracting more high-quality teachers and letting kids know that they're worth the investment--the broken windows theory and all of that.

My friend is an AA male from Brooklyn with a single mom, who did have the right supports--he went on to an HYP for undergrad and comparable for medical school. He is now a pediatric neurosurgeon. What if someone looked at his demographics and said this kid is not worth investing in?

Not saying that the right supports are going to turn every kid into a smashing success (although there will, undoubtedly, be a few). However, we'll likely be spending a lot more if we just look the other way and allow them to fail, IMO. I'm no economist, but if we somehow harness the political will to invest in these kids in a more deliberate and evidence-based way, might that not be dollars well spent in the long-term? I'd much rather that the average low SES AA girl in DC graduate from high school and find a job as a teacher's aide or hotel worker, rather than pregnant and on welfare. If it takes a few extra of my tax dollars in the short-term to support such an effort, I'm all for it.

FWIW, I'm an AA girl who grew up in a mostly blue-collar AA environment who didn't drop out or get pregnant--I'm now married w/kids and have a Ph.D from a top program in my field and a six-figure salary in a helping profession. Not saying this to boast, but just to say that I'm a productive member of society, and I'm glad there were a few teachers who didn't give up on me. And a brand-new building for high school didn't hurt.

PP here. Fixed in italics.

[Anonymous]

This is why my siister on law played the dcps lottery to get her low income aa daughter into a school in NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

I didn't read that poster's response "outlaud," but I re-read it, and to me it seems a reasonable response to a proposal for mandated "wrap around services." What kind of cost are we talking about here, and who would qualify, and how?

Exactly. I live in Fairfax county, and I'm not sure why I should have to pay for wrap-around services for some poor in a place that's more than 5 miles from where I live. Sure poverty has costs, but I'm pretty much insulated from them. So what's in it for me?

Because you don't want to pay the cost of social services for them later? Don't want them breaking into your house or knocking you over the head to steal from you? Because the prisons are expensive and overcrowded (and also paid for by you?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

I didn't read that poster's response "outlaud," but I re-read it, and to me it seems a reasonable response to a proposal for mandated "wrap around services." What kind of cost are we talking about here, and who would qualify, and how?

Exactly. I live in Fairfax county, and I'm not sure why I should have to pay for wrap-around services for some poor in a place that's more than 5 miles from where I live. Sure poverty has costs, but I'm pretty much insulated from them. So what's in it for me?

Because you don't want to pay the cost of social services for them later? Don't want them breaking into your house or knocking you over the head to steal from you? Because the prisons are expensive and overcrowded (and also paid for by you?)

Right, but I'm not going to pay the cost of social services for them. That's why we structure our social services (housing, school, etc...) at the hyper-local level. So that me and my neighbors are insulated from any social or financial costs of national, state, and local policies that perpetuate poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

I didn't read that poster's response "outlaud," but I re-read it, and to me it seems a reasonable response to a proposal for mandated "wrap around services." What kind of cost are we talking about here, and who would qualify, and how?

Exactly. I live in Fairfax county, and I'm not sure why I should have to pay for wrap-around services for some poor in a place that's more than 5 miles from where I live. Sure poverty has costs, but I'm pretty much insulated from them. So what's in it for me?

Because you don't want to pay the cost of social services for them later? Don't want them breaking into your house or knocking you over the head to steal from you? Because the prisons are expensive and overcrowded (and also paid for by you?)

Right, but I'm not going to pay the cost of social services for them. That's why we structure our social services (housing, school, etc...) at the hyper-local level. So that me and my neighbors are insulated from any social or financial costs of national, state, and local policies that perpetuate poverty.

Well then what are you worried about, exactly? Sounds like everything is peachy in your little bubble.

Ohhhh. You're worried about the poors coming into your bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

I didn't read that poster's response "outlaud," but I re-read it, and to me it seems a reasonable response to a proposal for mandated "wrap around services." What kind of cost are we talking about here, and who would qualify, and how?

Exactly. I live in Fairfax county, and I'm not sure why I should have to pay for wrap-around services for some poor in a place that's more than 5 miles from where I live. Sure poverty has costs, but I'm pretty much insulated from them. So what's in it for me?

Because you don't want to pay the cost of social services for them later? Don't want them breaking into your house or knocking you over the head to steal from you? Because the prisons are expensive and overcrowded (and also paid for by you?)

Right, but I'm not going to pay the cost of social services for them. That's why we structure our social services (housing, school, etc...) at the hyper-local level. So that me and my neighbors are insulated from any social or financial costs of national, state, and local policies that perpetuate poverty.

Well then what are you worried about, exactly? Sounds like everything is peachy in your little bubble.

Ohhhh. You're worried about the poors coming into your bubble.

PP is obvs playing devil's advocate. Lighten up. PP's point is that hyper-localization of school and other neighborhood amenity funding, combined with segregation due to real estate prices, hampers efforts to build political consensus around helping the poor. This is 100 percent correct. The wealthy have been able to build walls around ther enclaves, literally and physically, so they are insulated from the externalities of poverty, like crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

I didn't read that poster's response "outlaud," but I re-read it, and to me it seems a reasonable response to a proposal for mandated "wrap around services." What kind of cost are we talking about here, and who would qualify, and how?

Exactly. I live in Fairfax county, and I'm not sure why I should have to pay for wrap-around services for some poor in a place that's more than 5 miles from where I live. Sure poverty has costs, but I'm pretty much insulated from them. So what's in it for me?

Because you don't want to pay the cost of social services for them later? Don't want them breaking into your house or knocking you over the head to steal from you? Because the prisons are expensive and overcrowded (and also paid for by you?)

Right, but I'm not going to pay the cost of social services for them. That's why we structure our social services (housing, school, etc...) at the hyper-local level. So that me and my neighbors are insulated from any social or financial costs of national, state, and local policies that perpetuate poverty.

Well then what are you worried about, exactly? Sounds like everything is peachy in your little bubble.

Ohhhh. You're worried about the poors coming into your bubble.

PP is obvs playing devil's advocate. Lighten up. PP's point is that hyper-localization of school and other neighborhood amenity funding, combined with segregation due to real estate prices, hampers efforts to build political consensus around helping the poor. This is 100 percent correct. The wealthy have been able to build walls around ther enclaves, literally and physically, so they are insulated from the externalities of poverty, like crime.

You can't seriously believe this, right? What about the AU grad who was stabbed to death riding metro on a holiday weekend? What about the other AU grad who was shot to death coming out of a metro stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

I didn't read that poster's response "outlaud," but I re-read it, and to me it seems a reasonable response to a proposal for mandated "wrap around services." What kind of cost are we talking about here, and who would qualify, and how?

Exactly. I live in Fairfax county, and I'm not sure why I should have to pay for wrap-around services for some poor in a place that's more than 5 miles from where I live. Sure poverty has costs, but I'm pretty much insulated from them. So what's in it for me?

Because you don't want to pay the cost of social services for them later? Don't want them breaking into your house or knocking you over the head to steal from you? Because the prisons are expensive and overcrowded (and also paid for by you?)

Right, but I'm not going to pay the cost of social services for them. That's why we structure our social services (housing, school, etc...) at the hyper-local level. So that me and my neighbors are insulated from any social or financial costs of national, state, and local policies that perpetuate poverty.

Well then what are you worried about, exactly? Sounds like everything is peachy in your little bubble.

Ohhhh. You're worried about the poors coming into your bubble.

PP is obvs playing devil's advocate. Lighten up. PP's point is that hyper-localization of school and other neighborhood amenity funding, combined with segregation due to real estate prices, hampers efforts to build political consensus around helping the poor. This is 100 percent correct. The wealthy have been able to build walls around ther enclaves, literally and physically, so they are insulated from the externalities of poverty, like crime.

You can't seriously believe this, right? What about the AU grad who was stabbed to death riding metro on a holiday weekend? What about the other AU grad who was shot to death coming out of a metro stop.

yes, I seriously believe this. It's one of the major obstacles to building any kind of political support for policies that help the poor. Neither of those AU grads was wealthy, based on publicly available information. The average wealthy person doesn't spend a lot of time in Shaw or use public transit, newsflash. People who live in McLean and work in Tysons have successfully eliminated their risk of harm from impoverished DC residents. This was my point. Happens all over the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, each family will be assigned a counselor, a life coach and tutors in every subject. And maybe a librarian who will visit them daily and read outlaud to the child.

And while you work on mocking whole groups of people, consider reading your post 'outlaud' to yourself.

I didn't read that poster's response "outlaud," but I re-read it, and to me it seems a reasonable response to a proposal for mandated "wrap around services." What kind of cost are we talking about here, and who would qualify, and how?

Exactly. I live in Fairfax county, and I'm not sure why I should have to pay for wrap-around services for some poor in a place that's more than 5 miles from where I live. Sure poverty has costs, but I'm pretty much insulated from them. So what's in it for me?

Because you don't want to pay the cost of social services for them later? Don't want them breaking into your house or knocking you over the head to steal from you? Because the prisons are expensive and overcrowded (and also paid for by you?)

Right, but I'm not going to pay the cost of social services for them. That's why we structure our social services (housing, school, etc...) at the hyper-local level. So that me and my neighbors are insulated from any social or financial costs of national, state, and local policies that perpetuate poverty.

Well then what are you worried about, exactly? Sounds like everything is peachy in your little bubble.

Ohhhh. You're worried about the poors coming into your bubble.

PP is obvs playing devil's advocate. Lighten up. PP's point is that hyper-localization of school and other neighborhood amenity funding, combined with segregation due to real estate prices, hampers efforts to build political consensus around helping the poor. This is 100 percent correct. The wealthy have been able to build walls around ther enclaves, literally and physically, so they are insulated from the externalities of poverty, like crime.

You can't seriously believe this, right? What about the AU grad who was stabbed to death riding metro on a holiday weekend? What about the other AU grad who was shot to death coming out of a metro stop.

yes, I seriously believe this. It's one of the major obstacles to building any kind of political support for policies that help the poor. Neither of those AU grads was wealthy, based on publicly available information. The average wealthy person doesn't spend a lot of time in Shaw or use public transit, newsflash. People who live in McLean and work in Tysons have successfully eliminated their risk of harm from impoverished DC residents. This was my point. Happens all over the country.

But this is a forum about DC Public and Public Charter Schools. In DC, there are million dollar homes across the street from public housing - and yes, people are buying them, living in them and sending their kids to neighborhood schools.