Dumb WaPoo Article on Public Schools

[Anonymous]

Careful with assumptions. My child is white and we don't live in capitol hill or nw and her charter is much less than 35 percent white. Funny thing is, I didn't enroll her there because it is a diverse environment. I just thought it was the best fit for her. Pretty sure many parents of kids in her class would agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the GAO report on which the article is based. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676745.pdf

As I read it, the report is saying something pretty similar to what OP suggested. Schools with students that are disproportionately black/Hispanic and low-income do worse on academic achievement measures. People who can afford to avoid schools with low academic achievement measures will avoid them. The people who can afford to avoid those schools are more often white. As a result, segregation increases because of income disparities. Various school districts have tried different tactics to encourage more racial diversity at schools, by giving extra money and better facilities to the schools that are low-income and black/Hispanic. But even those extra resources do not lead to much more diversity.

To me, it seems there are essentially two potential solutions:

1. Decide as a society that we value integration/diversity more highly than academic success. If maximizing integration is the goal, then schools and governments will essentially need to force students to integrate by race and income. This means upper and middle class students will somehow be forced into schools that are academically weaker, all in the name of increased diversity. The hope, of course, is that in more integrated/diverse schools, the academic success of wealthier/whiter students will somehow encourage the other students to academic improvement, but I have not seen much evidence that approach works.

2. Decide as a society that we value academic success for each student more highly than integration/diversity. This means we focus on lifting the academic achievement of each student, regardless of the impact on integration/diversity. That likely means we have fairly segregated schools in the short term, as we abandon efforts at diversity. It means lots of education money gets thrown at increasing the academic performance of black/Hispanic and low-income students. Hopefully, in the long term, it means we succeed in raising the academic performance of the black/Hispanic and low-income groups, so that integration naturally follows. (Speaking personally, I suspect that this approach would lead to more racial integration over time, but would never lead to much income integration because the wealthy will always have more money to spend on things that lead to improved academic performance.)

No, you misread the report and fundamentally misunderstand the legal principals. The point is that segregation is causing minority students to receive worse educations than white students, which is racial discrimination. It's not about balancing academic achievement vs segregation. We already know that segregation based on race that causes a disparage impact is illegal.

I don't think I misunderstand, but maybe you can help educate me. Here's how I read the GAO report ...

1. Government-sponsored segregation is illegal. No school district may engage in racial segregation. Page 4 of report.
2. However, no law requires schools or families to create diverse schools. Indeed, as the GAO report notes, "efforts to increase the diversity of schools are
hampered sometimes because the composition of neighborhood schools is often a microcosm of children’s neighborhoods. Thus, children who live in neighborhoods with a high minority population and with high levels of poverty tend to go to schools mirroring these demographics." Page 1 of the cover letter.
3. The Department of Education and various local school boards have programs in place to promote diversity in school populations, but those . Page 5-6 of the report.
4. DOJ has some open cases against some school districts that engaged in actual illegal segregation, sometimes 40-50 years ago. "These “desegregation orders” may include various requirements, such as creating special schools and redrawing attendance zones in such a way as to foster more racial diversity." Page 6-7 of report.
5. "An extensive body of research over the past 10 years shows a clear link between schools’ socioeconomic (or income) composition and student academic outcomes. Page 8.
6. "The studies, however, paint a more nuanced picture of the effects of schools’ racial composition on student academic outcomes." Page 9.
7. Over time, schools with high rates of poverty and with racial insularity have seen more poverty and more racial insularity. Page 10-15. [In the GAO report's lingo "H/PBH" schools refer to "high poverty black and Hispanic" schools.]
8. H/PBH schools have fewer advanced courses. Page 17-20. [I see this as kind of a chicken-or-egg problem: Are the students struggling academically because they are offered few advanced courses, or are they offered few advanced courses because they're struggling academically?]
9. H/PBH schools have more discipline problems. Pages 22-25.
10. Various local school districts and the Department of Education and the DOJ have all tried to encourage diversity and prevent discrimination. Pages 26-40. None of the efforts have had much success.

I feel my original points remain: We as a society need to decide whether our primary goal in this area is diversity or specialization. It would be wonderful to do both - and that's possible to some degree - but at present those two goals are often at odds with one another.


You can show me where I misunderstood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would welcome a lawsuit that forced DC to integrate its schools. I was really against the idea of "choice sets" last year, but now I think it's a great idea. It just makes no sense that on Capitol Hill there are schools that are 50% white within less than a mile of schools that are 99% FARMS. I think that integrating Capitol Hill schools would be the best possible solution for everyone. That said I agree with posters that for upper grades and jr highs, DCPS would have to provide programming appropriate for on-grade level kids. I also think we need an even more robust charter sector, but one that is better regulated to ensure that all families have reasonable access to all kinds of charters -- KIPP style and CMI style.

I would welcome a lawsuit to force DCPS to maintain a safe environment for students and to get rid of the bullies and deadbeats. But that would cost too much, and that's why your Capitol hill schools suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the GAO report on which the article is based. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676745.pdf

As I read it, the report is saying something pretty similar to what OP suggested. Schools with students that are disproportionately black/Hispanic and low-income do worse on academic achievement measures. People who can afford to avoid schools with low academic achievement measures will avoid them. The people who can afford to avoid those schools are more often white. As a result, segregation increases because of income disparities. Various school districts have tried different tactics to encourage more racial diversity at schools, by giving extra money and better facilities to the schools that are low-income and black/Hispanic. But even those extra resources do not lead to much more diversity.

To me, it seems there are essentially two potential solutions:

1. Decide as a society that we value integration/diversity more highly than academic success. If maximizing integration is the goal, then schools and governments will essentially need to force students to integrate by race and income. This means upper and middle class students will somehow be forced into schools that are academically weaker, all in the name of increased diversity. The hope, of course, is that in more integrated/diverse schools, the academic success of wealthier/whiter students will somehow encourage the other students to academic improvement, but I have not seen much evidence that approach works.

2. Decide as a society that we value academic success for each student more highly than integration/diversity. This means we focus on lifting the academic achievement of each student, regardless of the impact on integration/diversity. That likely means we have fairly segregated schools in the short term, as we abandon efforts at diversity. It means lots of education money gets thrown at increasing the academic performance of black/Hispanic and low-income students. Hopefully, in the long term, it means we succeed in raising the academic performance of the black/Hispanic and low-income groups, so that integration naturally follows. (Speaking personally, I suspect that this approach would lead to more racial integration over time, but would never lead to much income integration because the wealthy will always have more money to spend on things that lead to improved academic performance.)

No, you misread the report and fundamentally misunderstand the legal principals. The point is that segregation is causing minority students to receive worse educations than white students, which is racial discrimination. It's not about balancing academic achievement vs segregation. We already know that segregation based on race that causes a disparage impact is illegal.

I don't think I misunderstand, but maybe you can help educate me. Here's how I read the GAO report ...

1. Government-sponsored segregation is illegal. No school district may engage in racial segregation. Page 4 of report.
2. However, no law requires schools or families to create diverse schools. Indeed, as the GAO report notes, "efforts to increase the diversity of schools are
hampered sometimes because the composition of neighborhood schools is often a microcosm of children’s neighborhoods. Thus, children who live in neighborhoods with a high minority population and with high levels of poverty tend to go to schools mirroring these demographics." Page 1 of the cover letter.
3. The Department of Education and various local school boards have programs in place to promote diversity in school populations, but those . Page 5-6 of the report.
4. DOJ has some open cases against some school districts that engaged in actual illegal segregation, sometimes 40-50 years ago. "These “desegregation orders” may include various requirements, such as creating special schools and redrawing attendance zones in such a way as to foster more racial diversity." Page 6-7 of report.
5. "An extensive body of research over the past 10 years shows a clear link between schools’ socioeconomic (or income) composition and student academic outcomes. Page 8.
6. "The studies, however, paint a more nuanced picture of the effects of schools’ racial composition on student academic outcomes." Page 9.
7. Over time, schools with high rates of poverty and with racial insularity have seen more poverty and more racial insularity. Page 10-15. [In the GAO report's lingo "H/PBH" schools refer to "high poverty black and Hispanic" schools.]
8. H/PBH schools have fewer advanced courses. Page 17-20. [I see this as kind of a chicken-or-egg problem: Are the students struggling academically because they are offered few advanced courses, or are they offered few advanced courses because they're struggling academically?]
9. H/PBH schools have more discipline problems. Pages 22-25.
10. Various local school districts and the Department of Education and the DOJ have all tried to encourage diversity and prevent discrimination. Pages 26-40. None of the efforts have had much success.

I feel my original points remain: We as a society need to decide whether our primary goal in this area is diversity or specialization. It would be wonderful to do both - and that's possible to some degree - but at present those two goals are often at odds with one another.


You can show me where I misunderstood.

You misunderstand the legal definition of discrimination, which is disparate impact.:

"The problem is not just that students are more isolated, according to the GAO, but that minority students who are concentrated in high-poverty schools don’t have the same access to opportunities as students in other schools.

High-poverty, majority-black and Hispanic schools were less likely to offer a full range of math and science courses than other schools, for example, and more likely to use expulsion and suspension as disciplinary tools, according to the GAO."

We can't continue to stick black and Hispanic kids in segregated, low performing schools in the name of "specialization," or whatever you want to call it. Separate but Equal was thrown out a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and yeah other prior poster I totally agree

I am assuming some of the black posters who call everyone racist don't realize anyone with means is doing the same thing

I've been calling you a racist in multiple threads I think, and I'm white. You're still a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You misunderstand the legal definition of discrimination, which is disparate impact.:

"The problem is not just that students are more isolated, according to the GAO, but that minority students who are concentrated in high-poverty schools don’t have the same access to opportunities as students in other schools. High-poverty, majority-black and Hispanic schools were less likely to offer a full range of math and science courses than other schools, for example, and more likely to use expulsion and suspension as disciplinary tools, according to the GAO."

We can't continue to stick black and Hispanic kids in segregated, low performing schools in the name of "specialization," or whatever you want to call it. Separate but Equal was thrown out a long time ago.

I must be confused. As I understand it, "disparate impact" means that if a school has some policy that's race-neutral on its face, but is nevertheless causing a disparate impact, then the government could challenge that policy as discriminatory. But I've never seen it suggested that the government can force a school district to adopt additional policies to force diversity. Is that what you're suggesting here?

I must not have been clear about my suggestion. I'm certainly not proposing to create racially segregated schools. I'm just saying school districts might decide to quit pursuing a policy of artificial diversity, and instead focus on educating the children who are in each school. For example, if a neighborhood school is "H/PBH," the school district could spend its money to try to tailor the curriculum to match what the students are ready for, and hire the most qualified teachers possible for that school. That's not an effort to short-change those students, but rather to match the education to the needs.

By contrast, the diversity-first approach might call for busing half of the H/PBH students across town to a different school, and busing a bunch of other students over to the H/PBH school, to get a mix of races and incomes. But then, the school district needs to spend more money to ensure appropriate classrooms for all students at two different schools. Or more likely given how underfunded schools are, the school district cannot afford to offer both schools a full slate of classes, so they both get less. Seems costly and inefficient. Maybe the benefits of diversity outweigh those costs, but I'm not so sure.

No easy answers.

[Anonymous]

It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would welcome a lawsuit that forced DC to integrate its schools. I was really against the idea of "choice sets" last year, but now I think it's a great idea. It just makes no sense that on Capitol Hill there are schools that are 50% white within less than a mile of schools that are 99% FARMS. I think that integrating Capitol Hill schools would be the best possible solution for everyone. That said I agree with posters that for upper grades and jr highs, DCPS would have to provide programming appropriate for on-grade level kids. I also think we need an even more robust charter sector, but one that is better regulated to ensure that all families have reasonable access to all kinds of charters -- KIPP style and CMI style.

High SES whites would never send their kids to KIPP.

I know several.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would welcome a lawsuit that forced DC to integrate its schools. I was really against the idea of "choice sets" last year, but now I think it's a great idea. It just makes no sense that on Capitol Hill there are schools that are 50% white within less than a mile of schools that are 99% FARMS. I think that integrating Capitol Hill schools would be the best possible solution for everyone. That said I agree with posters that for upper grades and jr highs, DCPS would have to provide programming appropriate for on-grade level kids. I also think we need an even more robust charter sector, but one that is better regulated to ensure that all families have reasonable access to all kinds of charters -- KIPP style and CMI style.

High SES whites would never send their kids to KIPP.

I know several.

That is the most annoying argument- the PP was (implicitly) arguing that the vast majority of high SES whites wouldn't send their kids to KIPP. The statistics show this to be true. KIPP Grow, at 421 P St NW, which you think might interest some families in Shaw or along the green line, is 0.6% white. That is 2 students out of 312. You may happen to know those 2 families. But it doesn't invalidate the point that the number of white students at this school is very low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would welcome a lawsuit that forced DC to integrate its schools. I was really against the idea of "choice sets" last year, but now I think it's a great idea. It just makes no sense that on Capitol Hill there are schools that are 50% white within less than a mile of schools that are 99% FARMS. I think that integrating Capitol Hill schools would be the best possible solution for everyone. That said I agree with posters that for upper grades and jr highs, DCPS would have to provide programming appropriate for on-grade level kids. I also think we need an even more robust charter sector, but one that is better regulated to ensure that all families have reasonable access to all kinds of charters -- KIPP style and CMI style.

What would be the specific goal of the lawsuit? What would integration look like in a system that is 13% white? Who would be forced to do what exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You misunderstand the legal definition of discrimination, which is disparate impact.:

"The problem is not just that students are more isolated, according to the GAO, but that minority students who are concentrated in high-poverty schools don’t have the same access to opportunities as students in other schools. High-poverty, majority-black and Hispanic schools were less likely to offer a full range of math and science courses than other schools, for example, and more likely to use expulsion and suspension as disciplinary tools, according to the GAO."

We can't continue to stick black and Hispanic kids in segregated, low performing schools in the name of "specialization," or whatever you want to call it. Separate but Equal was thrown out a long time ago.

I must be confused. As I understand it, "disparate impact" means that if a school has some policy that's race-neutral on its face, but is nevertheless causing a disparate impact, then the government could challenge that policy as discriminatory. But I've never seen it suggested that the government can force a school district to adopt additional policies to force diversity. Is that what you're suggesting here?

I must not have been clear about my suggestion. I'm certainly not proposing to create racially segregated schools. I'm just saying school districts might decide to quit pursuing a policy of artificial diversity, and instead focus on educating the children who are in each school. For example, if a neighborhood school is "H/PBH," the school district could spend its money to try to tailor the curriculum to match what the students are ready for, and hire the most qualified teachers possible for that school. That's not an effort to short-change those students, but rather to match the education to the needs.

By contrast, the diversity-first approach might call for busing half of the H/PBH students across town to a different school, and busing a bunch of other students over to the H/PBH school, to get a mix of races and incomes. But then, the school district needs to spend more money to ensure appropriate classrooms for all students at two different schools. Or more likely given how underfunded schools are, the school district cannot afford to offer both schools a full slate of classes, so they both get less. Seems costly and inefficient. Maybe the benefits of diversity outweigh those costs, but I'm not so sure.

No easy answers.

Let me put it to you this way: You are the poor parent of a bright African American daughter. Do you think it's fair that she has to go to the low-test score, chaotic, rat-filled jr high with a 30% suspension rate? Or do you think she should be allowed to attend the shiny new, safe, high test-score jr high just across town? What do you think is fair in this situation?

The "race neutral" discriminatory policy is the one that assigns her to the subpar school based on her zipcode, which corresponds to race.

http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/disparate-impact.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

[Anonymous]

A zip code cannot correspond to race; it is simply where people choose to live. In contrast, in Apartheid South Africa, a zip code or neighborhood certainly did "correspond to" race, as the government forced races to live in specific places.

You are confusing self-selecting outcomes with outcomes determined by governmental policies. The latter does not exist in D.C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would welcome a lawsuit that forced DC to integrate its schools. I was really against the idea of "choice sets" last year, but now I think it's a great idea. It just makes no sense that on Capitol Hill there are schools that are 50% white within less than a mile of schools that are 99% FARMS. I think that integrating Capitol Hill schools would be the best possible solution for everyone. That said I agree with posters that for upper grades and jr highs, DCPS would have to provide programming appropriate for on-grade level kids. I also think we need an even more robust charter sector, but one that is better regulated to ensure that all families have reasonable access to all kinds of charters -- KIPP style and CMI style.

High SES whites would never send their kids to KIPP.

I know several.

That is the most annoying argument- the PP was (implicitly) arguing that the vast majority of high SES whites wouldn't send their kids to KIPP. The statistics show this to be true. KIPP Grow, at 421 P St NW, which you think might interest some families in Shaw or along the green line, is 0.6% white. That is 2 students out of 312. You may happen to know those 2 families. But it doesn't invalidate the point that the number of white students at this school is very low.

And are you aware of the WL at KIPP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

Yup, kids choose to be born to poor parents who can only afford to live in school zones with poor performing schools. Must be nice to live in your little world where every child gets to make that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can't be "disparate impact" if the citizens are the ones making choices to live in specific neighborhoods that feed into local schools. In the case of DC public schools, there is no government policy that creates the outcome that many on this board don't like. To them, the outcome seems unfair, but that's just the way life is. Throughout human history, btw.

Yup, kids choose to be born to poor parents who can only afford to live in school zones with poor performing schools. Must be nice to live in your little world where every child gets to make that choice.

How facetious. You may be correct that your ideal world would be the most "fair," but don't pretend the law is on your side.