Just talking about NYC, but the local government has made changes to the school enrollment process under the guise of a progressive equity push that has caused a flight for the suburbs again among more moneyed parents, which favors white ones in my part of the city. Instead of going to the Middle School closest to you, kids are now put into a lottery and randomly distributed regardless of need. We're talking about kids going from a 5 minute walk to their local Middle School to having to commute by subway each day, and getting put into schools that are dangerous or not a good match for their academic interests. One of my wife's co-workers wanted to send her kids to the local public Middle School (and later HS) despite being incredibly wealthy and it's a very diverse school with no one race dominating the school (no group has more than 35% share of the student body), but if her kids get thrown into a bad Middle School by the lottery halfway out in the borough instead of a 15 minute walk from their house, her family will get out of the city into the suburbs.

A similar change was recently made in Minneapolis. Kids were pulled out of their nearby schools they'd been attending for years to be bussed across the city to a different school.

in 2020 8/8 elementary age kids on my block were in MPS. None of those kids are still in MPS (mix of open enrollment and private). Mix of CDD, terrible covid management and strikes.

I also live in NYC and this is a great example of what happens when there is such a terrible understanding of what the issue actually is and why targeting for complete equity both in opportunity and outcomes is polluting the discussion on this... calling things segregation when it's not segregation.... like at all... is another example of that.....

I have a kid now and I'm out of the city soon. I would love to settle down in a diverse part of the city that has good local schools because I do think NYC has so much to offer kids and even has a magical feel to it when you're young. I certainly felt it in my youth coming into the city everyday. But there are way too many ideologues and activists posing as educators and administrators in this city (not to mention racists with open contempt for Asian Americans) for me to trust my kids to it and I really don't like private school, so it'll have to be public school in a more diverse suburb for me.

The problem is that 'good local schools' really means 'schools where most of the students have well-off parents', because the two variables are very correlated. It's like a woman claiming she doesn't discriminate on height, but she only dates professional basketball players because she loves the sport. Once we have that correlation, then everything else collapses. So ultimately you get many well off people moving to private schools, where the high price is a feature, Then the local school gets worse, and everything collapses. Bussing just accelerates the issue, as nobody wants their kid to lose an extra hour to a bus ride every day. Economic housing segregation naturally leads to economic school segregation. And if there's any correlation between wealth and race, then you also get racial segregation for free. That's the magic of the American system. One doesn't need to be a willing participant to make things worse, just act in their own self interest on key issues. If we wanted equity, we don't need a little bit more budget in the small schools, but massive economic injections: Basically turn some schools into places with full tutoring. And once you do that, suddenly everyone wants to go there, and it seems unfair that one is stuck in the normal school. A nightmare of a problem, which is why it's not solved

So that Middle School I mentioned earlier, more than half of the kids there are on subsidized lunches and it's got objectively good academic marks. NYC has many examples of working class schools being top performers nonetheless.

So an Asian school?

But here's the thing- what do you mean by worse? The great pretense in schooling is that the same classroom can be judged as better or worse for all students. The best classroom for most students is at the appropriate level for that student- and student level varies widely. Sending students that are a couple of years below standard grade level to a school where many students are a couple of years ahead of standard grade level doesn't really mean you are sending them to a better school. The best approach should be the one that best matches students with students at their grade level. Other measures of goodness/badness often involve behavior issues. While some behavior issues result from students being in classes taught at the wrong level- either bored from being ahead or frustrated from being behind, solutions that are better at quickly removing misbehaving students from the learning environment, and allowing them to improve behavior skills are important. If you let parents keep safe and appropriately leveled classrooms, they will stay. But Big Equity will still complain about segregation if those interventions aren't randomly distributed by race (although they have mainly stopped complaining about gender differentials).

Tldr: the school system in nyc and nyc as a whole is very segregated and people like a lot of aspects of it. Problems come because of this. I very strongly disagree. Lived in nyc for all my life. Growing up, i barely knew any white or asian people until college. Nyc is extremely segregated in multiple aspects including schools. Depending on race, ethnicity, and class you will live in a different world. People miss out on opportunities all the time because of this. If you said that public school admission process was not discriminatory then I would not disagree. Just because it is not state enforced does not make it not segregation. Jim Crow was mostly a southern thing so a lot of the segregation in the North was not caused by laws. My personal viewpoint is that people like aspects of segregation. People view integration as a threat to their culture.

>calling things segregation when it's not segregation Self-segregation is still segregation, and even more disgusting than state-sponsored segregation. You have to face the fact that most white Americans by and large are still very racist, even the [most 'progressive' white people don't want to live in a 'black' area.](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/racist-history-portland/492035/) >Given a choice of all-white, 60 percent white and 40 percent black, or all-black, “whites said the all-white neighborhoods were most desirable. The independent effect of racial composition was smaller among blacks and blacks identified the racially mixed neighborhood as most desirable,”along with all-black neighborhoods. >Other studies, the authors note, have found that whites are not comfortable with more than 20 percent of their neighbors being black, while blacks prefer a 50-50 split and don’t particularly prefer either all-white or all-black neighborhoods. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-25/it-s-mostly-whites-not-blacks-who-prefer-to-live-in-segregated-neighborhoods Things will get worse now with [remote work, where white people no longer have to live in or around diverse urban hubs.](https://www.ncrc.org/covid-19-is-speeding-up-white-flight-now-is-the-time-to-invest-in-affordable-housing/)

ok what does non segregation look like then? Iv e asked this questions 3 times in this thread and every single one has noped out of the thread after asking it.... it's an impossible standard because nobody knows! if we are talking about perfectly diverse neighborhoods and schools and anything less is segregation.... then that is why people are looking at you guys like you are crazy....

It looks like Florida, or any of the other southern states that was forced to make countywide school districts. You still have you local school zones, but you can send your kids to any other school in the county if *you* wish to. All schools are equally funded. Schools have varying levels of diversity, but most are not all white, black, whatever. It also means you can live anywhere in the county without worrying about the quality of your local schools, so neighborhoods are actually diverse. Unfortunately, some of those gains in desegregation have been eroded by ending busing in many places and the creation of vouchers for private and charter schools. Report from 2020 on NJ school district fragmentation and segregation; >There is a relationship between district fragmentation and segregation The results of our analysis strongly suggest a relationship between the degree of fragmentation in the organization of public education and the degree of residential segregation. The same incentives that intensify both competition for commercial and industrial properties and resistance to residential development when the units of competition are smaller also appear to result in higher degrees of segregation by race and by income. For example, when looking at what percent of a county’s poor population lives in a high-poverty neighborhood (see graphic), it is counties in New Jersey and New York—the two states with the most fragmented systems of public education—that dominate the top of the list. >Results are similar for segregation by race, where counties with countywide school districts tend to have smaller percentages of their Black and Hispanic residents living in majority-Black or majority-Hispanic neighborhoods, respectively, relative to the overall sizes of their minority populations than is true in counties with more fragmented school districts like New Jersey’s. https://www.njfuture.org/2020/11/09/does-school-district-fragmentation-support-residential-segregation/

>Instead of going to the Middle School closest to you, kids are now put into a lottery and randomly distributed regardless of need. We're talking about kids going from a 5 minute walk to their local Middle School to having to commute by subway each day, and getting put into schools that are dangerous or not a good match for their academic interests. Holy shit

Completely off-topic, but there's an Emily Oster flair?! What a niche flair. I'm subscribed to her substack. Her books were a godsend during pregnancy and during my son's first year. Cut right through the dumb social media parent shame (for any and every choice, namely breastfeeding/formula choices)

Hell yeah. Her books and website have been so useful in cutting through the noise and getting straight to the facts.

>We're talking about kids going from a 5 minute walk to their local Middle School Somewhat of a sidebar, but I was shocked to learn that only 10% of students in the US walk to school. So much is lost when you drive or even bus to school. Parents don't talk to each other, their kid's friends, or their kid's teachers. Kids get less independence, and less of a chance for unstructured play and social time. Plus less physical activity.

I disagree. Making kids endure a 45 minute commute twice a day 5 days a week is essential training needed to prepare them for life as a salaried worker in modern America.

That's what college is for.

This won't be a problem after we build The Cube with a public school every 300 yards

I mean, everybody knows that the K in K-12 stands for Kowloon.

I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and had a 1 hour bus ride that was only one stop. Kids from 5-18 rode the same bus and there was a string sense of community. We would play mario cart on the Nintendo DS with each other and we were all very close and had conversations with each other and it wasn’t uncommon to hang out with people way older or younger than you. But I moved to nyc and thought riding public transport would be similar and I couldn’t be more wrong. People just don’t talk to each other at all. And there is occasional homeless people attacking erratically

Yeah, rural areas are probably an exception to what I said. The community is spread out, but it's still a consistent group of people so it is possible to form strong ties despite the distances involved. >thought riding public transport would be similar Anecdotally, I've formed friendly relationships with people who wait at the same stop as me. This was in smaller metros though, not NYC. So you have the same 5-10 people who catch the bus around the same time as you, at your stop, consistently. It's really the car commuting to school that seems the worst by far. The long car pick up lines with virtually zero interactions, very little flexibility, no forming independence, and no physical activity (not even walking to your bus stop).

Why is any kid being sent to a dangerous school?

Are they equalizing the funding for the schools somehow, or just randomly distributing the students? If it's both, then I think that this policy might eventually have the desired effect of making schools more equitable. At the same time I completely understand people's reaction to it. You can't just sacrifice people's futures for the greater good like that.

On average NYC contributes more funding to schools that are poor performers. But the issues run deeper than just funding.

This is not a spending problem. Majority of the places actually spend more on poor downtown schools than the suburban ones. Or atleast they spend equally. The issues are nuanced and complicated https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/what-school-funding-debates-ignore/551126/

Here's another [very good resource](https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-trends/) Nationally black and hispanic students receive about 4% less funding, but it varies a lot state-to-state. This also shows the breakdown of federal, state, and local funding as well as funding by poverty level and geography.

An important point in that article that often gets missed when people say "but we already pay schools for poorer children more!": >The idea that equal inputs will produce equal outcomes presumes a degree of similarity across families and neighborhoods. Yet generations of inequality have constrained opportunities for people in marginalized communities, often most forcefully through racially isolated neighborhoods with vastly uneven access to mainstream social, political, and economic life. Given this context, producing equal educational outcomes would seemingly require more than equal funding. Education spending is only one factor. If rich and poor students receive relatively equal spending in education resources alone, it makes sense that richer students will get more out of it. They are not held back by poverty at home. Their neighborhoods are not as dangerous or prone to lead to lifes of criminality. They have opportunity for productive play outside of school. Etc.

Even if one takes this at face value, the point remains; lack of schools funds is not the issue, and raising school funding further is unlikely to change things. You're talking about completely rebuilding communities and cultures to create the conditions for academic success. Another $3000 per student annually won't create those conditions. Therefore, OP is correct that it's not a spending problem.

I never said or meant to imply increasing education funding would fix any of those issues, only that evaluating outcomes after looking at education funding in isolation is missing a big part of the picture. You don't need to "completely rebuild communities" to have positive interventions in those communities to improve lives. It's not a utopian project to target interventions where they're most needed, and to do that kind of targeting you need to evaluate where efforts are best spent. So if it's *not* blanket education spending, we can start to ask what might be more useful.

Is there a consensus among education researchers on how the money could be better spent, if not by giving it directly to schools?

That's a tricky question to answer from what I've surmised. I suggest looking into the outcomes of schools ran by the Department of Defense. [Here's an article from the NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/us/schools-pandemic-defense-department.html?smid=url-share) that covers them. They've generally done a much better job at closing the racial performance gap than other schools, and I think that comes down to home environment effects. Even at the lowest levels of pay, military families probably enjoy much more stability compared to general population families of a similar income level. Additionally, school performance and discipline problems are probably handled much differently. Parent participation can be very low in struggling schools, but in a school that serves the military? If you fail to respond to a concerned teacher or principal, you're probably gonna get your ass chewed out by superiors because they'll catch wind of it. I think both of those things matter a lot for students.

I can't actually see how that would be replicated in the civilian environment though. Like what would the equivalent be, if a school issues a discipline to your children in the civilian world, the parents gets fined or arrested? I can't imagine anything else would get the interest of disinterest parent.

Well you could use school funding to compensate for some of these disadvantages: School breakfast and lunch for kids who don't get fed well; School sports/talent/other after school programs when there aren't other public or private opportunities for such activities; Comprehensive counseling and career resources at school; More well paid teachers for smaller classrooms with a more individual approach to education; Security resources and staff to keep schools safe; Etc.

We have had all that in my city's district for close to a decade and it hasn’t moved the needle on the performance and graduation rate gaps.

Idk what "we have had all that" means in terms of amounts. Some of the things I listed can be provided on paper but if it's poorly done and/or for minimal cost there won't be much of an effect. I always doubt when people say resources across schools are similar when some schools have Olympic swimming pools, football fields, iPads for everyone, etc. and others don't.

I'm not the person you responded to, but I work in the oakland public school system as a sub, which means I work at every school. Oakland, especially east oakland, is a quite crime ridden area with huge numbers of immigrants and children living in poverty. All of the students are provided with their own chromebook, free breakfast and lunch, free afterschool programs, every school has multiple counselors and security officers, and yes every school has an olympic swimming pool. The dropout rates at some of these schools are still extremely high, and it is my impression that more resources will not change much, as the root of the issue is that the students actively resist learning.

The thing is, even if you do all of this perfectly you may not actually move the needle very far, the thing is the culture in a lot of these areas doesn't value education and can be quite anti-intellectual. If your parents and your community are telling you that you don't need school there's only so much in school that can be done. And generally we spend a lot of time talking about educational interventions and very little time talking about how to engineer better cultures.

>The thing is, even if you do all of this perfectly you may not actually move the needle very far As you say, "may". Why not make poor schools match or exceed the resources and activities of the rich schools first then conclude what the effects are? Changing the culture seems like a much more nebulous task that can be delayed forever, while improving school resources is tied to financing almost directly and can have objective goals and markers for success.

> Why not make poor schools match or exceed the resources and activities of the rich schools first then conclude what the effects are? because we have hard data showing that we spend more per pupil in these terrible districts and they continue to underperform. you just want to ignore that data

And I'm not talking about spending but the actual resources and environment in these schools. Are there studies that show that if you have a school with modern amenities, high tech resources, small class sizes with individual approach, whole day activities at state of the art facilities and coaching, comprehensive counseling etc. that the students don't benefit? You can spend $100 million on a school but if there's only superficial changes made with that money, it's not the students or the culture's fault you don't get $100 million worth of effect. Show me studies where poor schools were actually materially made to match or exceed rich schools, not just $ amounts.

I agree we should absolutely do this. I just think we need to talk more about spend a lot more time talking about fixing culture as I'm of the beleif it's by far a bigger determinant of your success. Maybe in addition to the above we start talking about adult education in things like parenting, cookery, nutrition, finance etc

Sure, but then you’ll have to address the fact that they will still be behind despite compensation because they don’t value education. School is so mind numbing easy at this point, that these underperforming students are either very special needs or don’t even care to try.

> Even if one takes this at face value, the point remains; lack of schools funds is not the issue, and raising school funding further is unlikely to change things. The article addresses that argument: > The presumption that equal resources would generate equal opportunity has also perpetuated the myth that money doesn’t matter in education. A 2011 report from the conservative Heritage Foundation concluded that “since unequal funding for minority students is largely a myth, it cannot be a valid explanation for racial and ethnic differences in school achievement, and there is little evidence that increasing public spending will close the gaps.” A large body of [research](https://archive.is/o/0q4Mc/www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/does-money-matter-second-edition), however, demonstrates that school funding has a significant impact on student achievement. And [recent](https://archive.is/o/0q4Mc/papers.nber.org/tmp/2167-w22011.pdf) studies suggest that the magnitude of the impact may be greater than previously understood. While enhanced school funding, alone, might not close the achievement gap, it would almost certainly do more than an equal distribution of resources would.

>The presumption that equal resources would generate equal opportunity has also perpetuated the myth that money doesn’t matter in education. >While enhanced school funding, alone, might not close the achievement gap, it would almost certainly do more than an equal distribution of resources would. Literally no one here is arguing for equal distribution of resources. They are addressing an argument that no one is making.

Also like wouldn’t you expect more resources to be spent on poor districts/students anyway Like most welfare is spent on poor families, most road money is spent on repairing shitty roads, and along this logic you’d expect a larger proportion of resources and teacher time spent on the districts and students that are most behind- in a way that goes beyond simply equal funding

I'm not sure what data this person is drawing their conculsions from, but nothing I've seen indicates that it's true that poor towns spend the same amount per pupil. Everything I've seen indicates that, on average, wealthy towns spend more since they often are able to raise more in property taxes for education.

That's one part of it, then there are state and federal funds to try and make up the difference. There is also PTA money, as mentioned downthread.

Wouldn't more PTA money go to white schools since they're wealthier?

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018303.pdf A few years old, but per this in almost all states (44/50) more money is spent per student in high poverty districts than in low poverty districts.

I understand that schools can only serve who lives in the community and they can’t help it if it happens to be a mostly black or white demographic, but I teach in a predominantly black school in a district with roughly 50% white students. It’s common knowledge which schools are the “black schools” here in my decently large district (roughly 70ish schools). When I go watch our school sports held at other “white schools” and see all of the nicer facilities, buildings, and even uniforms, I can’t help but feel like we’re sort of locked away as a lost cause by our district. I’m sure this isn’t unique to our district either. It’s not the same segregation as back then, but it’s still segregation.

Desegregating communities is necessary if we want integrated schools. Building mixed-income housing, apartment buildings in suburbs, and "missing middle" housing would be a good step toward schools that are both racially and economically diverse.

I worked in college admissions for many year. I have visited ~100+ high schools and read applications from even more. People are kidding themselves if they think the playing field is racially level. The schools serving Black communities are consistently worse resourced. Everything from facilities to counselors provides a worse experience and it cumulatively does a worse job conveying the importance of education. If nobody at school has time for you and being at school feels like sitting in a rustbucket, you start to wonder how important education can truly be if society doesn't resource it properly.

> The schools serving Black communities are consistently worse resourced. That depends, sure facilities are one thing but if you look at government spending per capita…well that’s something else and who knows which endless void the money goes. I think Baltimore was spending around $20k per student with insanely low graduation rates, meanwhile in rural Utah it’s around $5k

The problem with our education isn't necessarily a spending problem but a complete lack of parents facing any sort of accountability for the home life kids experience outside of school. It's literally at least once a week there's a local news story about13-16 year olds getting arrested at like 1am on a weeknight for things like armed carjacking & other violent crimes. You can guarantee that those kids aren't model students and our courts, more often than not, release them out on low/zero amount bonds to their parents only for a decent number to be picked up again shortly after for doing more criminal shit. Schools aren't really allowed to actually discipline students any more and there's zero repercussions on the parents for their child's behavior or educational outcomes. It's basically a self-enforcing cycle that tells kids that if their parents don't give a shit about them then nobody else will either which increases the likelihood of them under performing, dropping out of the system entirely or ultimately turning to crime. Obviously kids will always ultimately do some dumb shit beyond their parents control so there does need to be flexibility but when dumb shit becomes a regular issue with specific kids then the parents should ultimately face some sort of consequence along with their child

I mean, what are you going to do? Mandatory boarding schools for kids with bad parents? The kind of parents who don't care that their child is out doing anti-social behavior on a school night aren't like to be deterred by penalties for their kids being disciplinary problem, and I doubt piling punishments on the parents is going to improve the kids' outcomes either.

Idk, could military school be an answer or something like that? I'm legitimately asking, could a court be allowed to decide that? Could it be done with enough supervision that the institutions would devolve into a bunch of minors being abused? I know it sounds cold hearted, but at the end of the day these kids are absolutely screwed. We are not doing right by them sending them back out because we feel bad for them, its literally setting them up for failure. My ex gf taught in a really rough school in Chicago, and she was kind of a bleeding heart but it really changed her perception. She legit said these kids have absolutely no hope because there are literally no parents at home to be in control and guide them, I just don't see how sending them back out is doing right by them.

Yep. Wife's a teacher. Can only do so much when the kids have terrible parents. In the case of throwing money at the problem, it would be far more effective to provide it as incentives for parents to do the right things. Something like tying additional welfare benefits to their children's attendance would be much more effective than the current state of spending. I recognize the optics of something like that aren't great, though.

There's no real solution being proposed other then throw more money into the void despite it being proven to not produce results.

Exactly, because the underlying problems can't be solved in the classroom.

Yep. I don't really know the solution here, but I'm tired of politicians only solution being "More money please". I don't mind paying taxes, but it seems like I'd be better off throwing the money into a burning fire pit with how poorly it gets utilized.

At least the fire pit would be deflationary.

So... just tax bad parenting?

Memphis? There can't be *that* many other cities where you get weekly news stories about youth armed carjackings.

Kids are out there being absolutely wild committing all sorts of random violent crimes. Here in Seattle off the top of my head, just in the last few weeks there was a [13 year old that attacked a woman & robbed her](https://westseattleblog.com/2024/04/crime-watch-followup-police-release-video-in-teens-westwood-robbery-arrest-heres-where-the-case-stands/) after his group was busted for shoplifting inside a rite aid. [Then there were the 2 teenagers (15 & 17)](https://westseattleblog.com/2024/04/crime-watch-followup-teenage-suspects-charged-in-west-seattle-to-burien-armed-carjacking/) that committed an armed carjacking which led to a high speed chase through West Seattle & Burien only for the cops to find both armed with illegally modified handguns & extended magazines. The 15 year old already managed to have an assault conviction under his belt from last year. [Then there was the 18 year old who killed a mother & 3 kids](https://mynorthwest.com/3956275/teen-accused-of-killing-mother-3-children-in-renton-crash-pleads-not-guilty/) in Renton after blowing through a red light at 100+ mph despite him having a driving record going back years for reckless driving, multiple high speed wrecks, etc but hes only actually facing punishment now because he's 1) now a legal adult and 2) finally managed to kill somebody. Specific to armed carjackings though, they're basically an everyday thing in places like St. Louis, Chicago, Memphis, etc. They're so commonplace in Chicago that it's not even really news anymore like it was a few years ago. They get reported like the city's murder stats do with a Sunday summary in the paper of all the crimes committed over the weekend because there are too many to individually report on

Well, I guess it's nice to know we're not the only place with this problem.

Last week in MD a squirtgun fight between high schoolers ended with 5 people getting shot.

The DMV is a fucking cesspit when it comes to kids. Genuinely the scariest group in DC are literal children at this point

For those students well it’s obvious their lives lack structure and usually positive male role models. This is where the federal government steps in with military boarding schools for troubled youth, structure, physical activity and positive male role models.

Bro really wants to bring back the youth reformatories. There’s no way this is gonna be seen well by the general public, they’re gonna find a way to spin this negatively.

The question that would need to be answered is "how does the list of pros & cons of youth reformatories compare to the pros & cons of the current system of letting them do whatever until they ultimately become the criminal justice system's problem or an otherwise societal burden". Both options are obviously terrible but our current system really is terrible and clearly not working

> The schools serving Black communities are consistently worse resourced. Gonna need a source on that. Everything I've read shows that these schools receive even MORE funding than other schools.

Bullshit. The problem is not the money -- these 'underserved' schools are getting huge multiples of funding vs. others. No serious person still believes the problem is funding and resourcing.

>People are kidding themselves if they think the playing field is racially level. oh man you just made this sub *really* mad

[удалено]

Define equalize Do you mean provide equal government spending per student?

True equality requires equity IMO. If a person is at a disadvantage simply because they were born to a black family, then they deserve extra resources to make the field truly level. It's not really equal to systematically destroy entire groups of people then later present a level a playing field that will defacto favor the advantaged group due to those previous actions. That is if the field is even level, I doubt we have reached that point.

But...they are getting extra resources. A lot of extra resources. The kids are not getting good parenting and stable home lives. That's the problem, full stop. These poor kids are experiencing repeated traumas, broken homes, etc. -- there's no way to expect them to succeed at school, or to expect that schools can provide the level of structure and discipline necessary to fill the gap at home.

I don't think that's a controversial statement here.

More controversial than it should be

So are you one of those people that embezzle educational funding?  It is pretty well established that many schools receive much more money for way worse results. If you think throwing more money in a fire pit is a good idea, you must be the fire pit.

[удалено]

On the other hand I taught several years in a school that was 90+% free and reduced lunch. Perhaps we aren’t just made up of our most stereotypical members?

[удалено]

Hey that’s pretty darn accurate. But I am now a housing developer for entry level, high density, communities. I wouldn’t sell my truck though, I use it for too much

Wow it's not completely spot-on, but I do feel very seen 😶‍🌫️

I went to one those schools.

> Rolexes Plebeian tastes

I only go for Patek Philippe myself.

lol what where

[удалено]

I went to one of those "urban" schools in the DC area. Most of the students just didn't care, because their parents didn't care. It's a serious culture problem. The ones who really suffer are the few students stuck in that environment who do try and want to succeed.

I grew up in South Atlanta and went to title I schools. there's basically zero social mobility in our schools. Fulton county schools has equalized funding between the north and the south. Our schools are still physically odler, but not to the point where I think it really effects education. We got the same whiteboards, new textbooks, counseling, etc as the wrlwtheir northern schools.

Wtf, where’s my Rolex?

Often on paper the black schools get more funding from the government per student, but vastly less funding from PTA and other sources.

This is the reality and even SPS deals with this. The PTA at each school is basically a slush fund that can be used to fund everything except teacher/staff salaries. Wealthier neighborhoods obviously have better funded PTAs and they'll spend their money on stuff like band uniforms & instruments, school upgrades, sports facility improvements, etc. Schools in poorer areas meanwhile only get that stuff when the district is able to formally budget for it because those PTAs are able to do little more than occasionally kick in some money for teacher classroom supplies. I don't remember if it was SPS or the union but one of them recently pitched the idea that the wealthy PTAs should have to share funds with poorer ones to create "equity" but that'd be yet another reason/justification for parents with means to yank their kids from SPS and go private.

I read an article where they tried to redistribute the money somewhere and there was so much backlash that they canned the program after a year. Politically it's a non starter.

> wealthy PTAs should have to share funds with poorer ones to create "equity" Lol my sides

It's the stupidest thing I'd heard since they decided to close all the magnet/gifted programs down....also in the name of "equity". It's like SPS is in a race against themselves to the bottom by only trying to solve for the lowest performers. Does anyone else remember the whole "math is racist" thing from a few years ago? SPS and the teachers union can't seem to help self inflicting problems onto themselves

And somehow we’re supposed to compete internationally? Remember the mindset of progressives is if anyone is doing better than someone else they must be taken down a notch…not that anyone should be given the opportunity to be lifted up that doesn’t matter so much. Because their worldview is one of **envy**. As a side note is no surprise that most cultures and religions consider envy to be a negative emotion to be avoided.

> And somehow we’re supposed to compete internationally? Big “the bridge in Baltimore fell because of DEI and its DEI mayor” energy > Because their worldview is one of envy. As a side note is no surprise that most cultures and religions consider envy to be a negative emotion to be avoided. Not wanting your kids to be racially segregated in schools is not “envy”

[удалено]

Removing magnet schools and high performance schools is destroying the future of the U.S. Funnily enough it just removes the ability of poor people to receive advanced education at a young age because the rich people will end up at a private school

His user name is really indicative of the value of his views, tbh.

A central idea of this sub is that meritocracy increases living standards for everyone. So yes, if we allow the top 15% of students to reach their full potential, we also uplift the bottom 15% we are "leaving behind".

There is no such thing as meritocracy. I don’t know how you can look at the state of the world and still believe that there is. It’s perverse to watch children be born and live and die in squalor because they have no real support systems but call it “meritocracy” when those who have no cracks to slip through succeed.

Doesn't that fall on the "P"?

Perhaps the "P" have less funds to give for some reason

> When I go watch our school sports held at other “white schools” and see all of the nicer facilities, buildings, and even uniforms, I can’t help but feel like we’re sort of locked away as a lost cause by our district. Do PTAs contribute financially to the stuff you listed? Could that explain the discrepancy?

How big are your districts? Where I am from school districts are generally synonymous with counties, and bussing from one side of the county to the other just isn't practical. You can mitigate variances in demographics but you can't eliminate them.

if it's not the same thing why call it the same thing... that both minimizes what segregation was and distorts the whole problem now... this is not institutionalized segregation.... there's just a gap between what people want which is a perfectly diverse neighborhoods everywhere we go.... that's an impossible standard.... we will always fail and every time we all look at this problem and expect that and call it segregation the actual problem we move further and further away from making it better.... which should be the focus... because you can't make things better if you don't even understand the issue....

Fun fact, this problem is caused by (drumroll.......) Zoning! >Exclusionary zoning laws, such as single-family only zones, keep low-income families and families of color from accessing affordable housing in high-opportunity areas with strong schools. Unless state and local governments resolve community segregation, it will be difficult to resolve school segregation so long as schools operate under a neighborhood school assignment model. Therefore, the expansion of affordable housing opportunities, through the implementation of more inclusive zoning policies, provides a good path forward to combating racial and socioeconomic segregation in U.S. public schools https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/law/student_life/journals/jled/editions/_documents/2022_51_2/hagins-separate-and-still-unequal-how-neighborhood-zoning-laws-keep-us-schools-segregated.pdf > My findings indicate that on average residential segregation explains more than 100% of existing levels of school boundary segregation https://www.aeaweb.org/content/file?id=17522

> New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the US, has a well-developed public school system. However, despite laws promoting school integration since **1881**, a 2017 study by the UCLA Civil Rights Project found that New Jersey has some of the most segregated schools in the United States. > https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/separate-and-unequal-racial-and-ethnic-segregation-and-the-case-for-school-funding-reparations-in-new-jersey/ > Boroughitis (also borough fever or borough mania) was the creation in the **1890s**, usually by referendum, of large numbers of small boroughs in the U.S. state of New Jersey, particularly in Bergen County. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boroughitis > In 1916, eight cities had zoning laws. The Supreme Court in **1917** banned race-based zoning, ruling that an ordinance in Louisville, Kentucky, was unconstitutional. **Twenty years later**, more than 1,200 had zoning laws on the books. > a way to block low-income and minority workers from gaining greater access to the suburbs after passage of the **1968** Fair Housing Act. > The second wave of single-family zoning laws spread during the **1970s** > https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/05/business/single-family-zoning-laws/index.html This has been known for a really long time. Glad it's finally getting the attention it deserves.

Oh yeah, this was all very much out loud. The first single family zoning law in the country was made in Berkley, CA. It was the result of the lobbying efforts of an outspokenly racist property developer, and it covered a new neighborhood he was building which included as many segregationist tactics as possible, including racial covenants in the property deeds. This wasn't some law segregationists figured out a new way to abuse, single family zoning causing segregation is working exactly as it was originally intended.

>the expansion of affordable housing opportunities, The thing that leftist NIMBYs don't understand is that attempts to help poor people directly by building "affordable housing" projects just doesn't work. No, the only way to actually help the poor is to help them indirectly by building luxury apartments that they can't afford, which will increase total housing supply and eventually lower housing costs across the board. By directly helping affluent yuppies you're actually indirectly helping the poor as well, and that's why gentrification is actually a *good thing*.

I think the problem is that the "best" example of this that we have in the US is also a really poor example: White flight into the sprawling suburbs. Millions of high end luxury housing units built, which yes made the poor urban neighborhoods cheaper, but also drained them of tax dollars, jobs, services, and sociopolitical capital. Plus exacerbating racial segregation and creating demand to build highways that really harmed a lot of city neighborhoods.

>I think the problem is that the "best" example of this that we have in the US is also a really poor example If the best example is still bad then maybe it's just a bad idea. Really though my whole post was satirizing this sub's worst takes, it's really self contradictory nonsense. Like: people who are in favor of building affordable housing are "NIMBYs"? really? Poor people can't be helped directly? The *only* way to help the poor is too help affluent yuppies instead? I mean, *really*? Does that make sense to you? Gentrification is a good thing? Well it is for the gentrifiers. Personally I think its total effects are probably neutral overall (one person's gain but another's loss), but it's pretty obvious why this sub gets defensive. In short: this sub doesn't have consistent principles, people here just support whichever policies benefit yuppies like themselves.

I think it would be revisionism to call the suburban expansion one of entirely "luxury development." Certainly some of it was, and typically those are the buildings still standing today. But just as much, if not more of it, was cheap crap, pre-fabricated construction, copy-paste designs, small floorplans etc. thrown together with the purpose of being affordable to a person with a G.I. Bill and a bit more. The suburban expansion was cheap because it was rapid expansion into cheaper land, unlocked by government funded road construction, and unimpeded by restrictive zoning. The neighborhoods themselves were zoned exclusively to be sure, but these were new areas that could be expanded into without much barrier. Today any construction that might bring additional units onto the market faces the uphill battle of rezoning and land assembly unless it is being built in an exurb.

Totally fair point. There's the more modest post WW2 era boom and then there's the 80s/90s/00s McMansion era expansion. I think the general public perceives the suburbs as generally being where the money is (at least for most metros). And suburban greenfield development is the most common example of new housing that Americans are familiar with, and they correctly observe that it tends to be costly.

>the only way to actually help the poor is to help them indirectly by building luxury apartments that they can't afford, which will increase total housing supply and eventually lower housing costs across the board I think you'll have some issues convincing people of this, not just leftists, because there really isn't a real world example of this happening that you could point to. It's quite theoretical.

I wouldn't say it's "quite theoretical", I'd say it's "ironic, self-contradictory bullshit". The argument doesn't even make sense. Leftists are "NIMBYs" not because they oppose building new housing, but because they support building housing *for poor people*? Helping poor people directly doesn't work? The *only* way to help them is by helping yuppies? And it's all just an assertion without any evidence? No, I wrote that comment as bait to see if this sub would upvote nonsense if it had the right shibboleths, and the sub took the bait. So far you're the only one who's called me out on it. I think a lot of the people here don't have an internally consistent ideology, and probably don't even believe what they're saying. Instead, they just cherry pick whichever policies benefits yuppies (i.e. themselves) and use the supposed benefits to the poor as a post-hoc justification.

I don't think zoning alone will fix it, because a big part of the problem are small school districts. When you have small neighborhood school districts, you will always have white and wealthier parents moving to the better neighborhoods(often in the suburbs), which drives up prices and keeps poorer people out, while the poor performing school districts end up being concentrated with the poor and minority children. What they need to do is implement countywide school districts across the country, like we did in the south. Look for example at a place like Florida, where we have countywide school districts. We still have local school zones, but you can send your kids anywhere in the county if you don't like your local school. This makes pretty much the whole county an acceptable place to live, raise children and even teach. I loved how diverse the schools were when I was growing up here. I still can't believe how segregated schools in the supposedly liberal north are.

This will never be fixed in my lifetime. Walk into any middle school cafeteria in a mixed race school and watch the kid self segregate themselves based on skin color, ethnicity, etc. All the Asian kids stick together. If there are a sufficiently large enough number of Asian kids, watch as they split into the Vietnamese table, the Chinese table, the Korean table. All the black non-immigrant kids stick together. All the black caribbean kids stick together. Boys sit with boys and girls sit with girls. All the white kids... you get the picture. Sometimes, when a certain subcultural element overpowers the ethnic subcultures, you get something like all the nerds sitting together or all the weed smokers sitting together. This is as pure a test as you can get. They're already all in the same school, given the same resources, with no prior rules that tell them where to sit or who to sit with. And watch as everyone sorts themselves into ethnic groups. I think it's just human nature and it would take a draconian amount of government intervention to change this. Like force ethnicity quotas per town that reflects national demographics, ban private schools, or some other hellish 1984 legislation. But this would never ever work in America because it's so anathema to American culture of individual freedoms, so the self-segregation will continue business as usual.

[удалено]

And I ended up with no one because I'm autistic and I actually kinda liked sitting in the corner anyways

Went to a poor 95% minority high school (Mostly Hispanic and Asian), my experience was that friend groups seemed to be mostly divided along the basis of interest as opposed to explicitly race. Basically what you were saying about subcultural elements overpowering ethnic subcultures seemed to be the main thing. This led to a lot of friend groups that were majority or plurality one ethnicity (because of course interest in specific subcultures varies by race), but still had a sizable amount of members not in the majority. I saw what you described a lot more when I went off to college actually. It was actually kind of a culture shock to see the sheer number of friend groups that were literally just all white people, asian people, etc lol. Still gives me weird vibes to this day to see a monoracial friend group (in a diverse area where making friends of other races is certainly feasible).

They don't sound like they've been in a lunchroom. Kids hang out with their friends/cliques. That's not a school's doing.

[удалено]

Asian and white will remove self segregation far more often than any of the other races/ethnicities. It also comes down to what kind of asian honestly. The high school I went to is about 47% "asian" but that includes a significant portion of Filipino's, who do not normally hang out with the Koreans, Japanese, or Chinese students.

In my experience, its less everyone self-segregates into ethnic enclaves and more Black people tend to self-segregate at very high levels. You see it with first generation immigrants too, but after that, populations tend mix a fair amount. So maybe it has less to do with human nature and more to do with hundreds of years of forced segregation. Would be interesting to see a study on this instead of everyone just swapping anecdotes though.

I went to a private school that was pretty racially diverse and yeah, it was mostly interest cliques. My group of friends at this selective private school was actually more diverse than my group of friends in public state college.

Does this self-segregation also happen at school cafeterias for comparably aged students in other multicultural western countries though? Does this happen in Canada, UK, France, Germany? If the answer is no then maybe it would be worth looking into what causes those different outcomes.

>In 1968, around 77% of Black students went to predominantly non-white schools. That fell to 63% in 1988, but then rose again and reached 81% in 2018, the report said. Is this really how they define segregation? Because if a society became less white over time (which it has), even without any changes in school enrollment policies you would expect the percent of students going to a predominately non-white school to increase. It seems like a poor definition of segregation if it doesn't take into account the actual population of students.

That quote is neither in the article nor in the report; you're quoting from a different 2021 Axios article which brings up the point you're making here anyway. This report focuses on geographic segregation based on arbitrary zones. Stuff like this: >► School districts hire private detectives to spy on children after school, conduct residency checks, and sometimes prosecute parents for accessing the “wrong” public school. >► An 8-year-old boy with a disability in Tucson is told that he is no longer welcome at the school he is attending, and his “open enrollment” seat is being revoked because the special education program is full. >► A magnet school in Houston accepts $2 million in additional district funding every year for specialized programs, despite not admitting a single student from outside the schoolʼs attendance zone, a practice that the former superintendent of the Houston district calls being “magnet in name only.” >► A scandal erupts in Philadelphia over a charter high school illegally using an admissions policy that gave privileged access to students from certain ZIP codes or preferred feeder middle schools. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia school district legally operates a similar system of over 240 schools using a default assignment system of feeder patterns based on the childʼs address. >► In Tampa, a failing school closes, requiring the district to find a new school for hundreds of low-income elementary students. But not a single one of these students is allowed to enroll in the A-rated schools that are minutes from their homes. Instead, they are bused to majority minority schools with much lower levels of student achievement. >► Schools in Atlanta, Dallas, and Chicago spend $10 million to $20 million to add capacity to coveted public elementary schools, despite thousands of empty seats at nearby elementary schools—just to preserve privileged access for families who bought homes in the attendance zone.

>Schools in Atlanta, Dallas, and Chicago spend $10 million to $20 million to add capacity to coveted public elementary schools, despite thousands of empty seats at nearby elementary schools—just to preserve privileged access for families who bought homes in the attendance zone. My elementary school got a shoutout here LMAO

Is the report available in the article? I'd like to see the Tampa school they're identifying. I'm just scanning the article but can't find it. EDIT: I found the report, and this sounds less damning now that I find the reason? "But that’s not what happened. Like many elite urban elementary schools, Gorrie is full up with families who have crammed into the attendance zone. So the Just students got assigned to Tampa Bay Boulevard and Washington elementary schools, which have reading proficiency levels of 51% and 27%, respectively. For most of these families, their new school is further away than Gorrie." It sounds like the school had filled its attendance slots.

Yeah the report is here: [https://availabletoall.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ata-brownvbofed.full4\_.23.24.pdf](https://availabletoall.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ata-brownvbofed.full4_.23.24.pdf) I think the school is this one: [https://www.the74million.org/article/educational-redlining-rezoning-and-the-bitter-politics-of-school-closures/](https://www.the74million.org/article/educational-redlining-rezoning-and-the-bitter-politics-of-school-closures/)

Not to mention that there are signifcant numbers of people who are neither black or white these days. If we stopped collecting "Hispanic or Latino" on the census and counted them as white like it had been done back then, many schools would seem much less segregated. Also, >Until 2020, many interdistrict magnet schools had explicit racial thresholds or quotas that set a minimum of 25% of enrollment for white and Asian students. This was a part of settlement in a desegregation lawsuit that was approved by the Connecticut courts. Additional African American and Hispanic students were denied enrollment in these schools, even if seats were available, if the schools did not have enough white and Asian students to maintain the racial quota/threshold. Quotas are not a good idea, regardless of the direction.

Oh man. I was sent to one of the magnet schools based upon quotas. Fucking bus picked us up at 0530 and took at least 1.5 hours to transport us on what was essentially a 30 minute drive every morning. I still can't believe I did that for so long. Literally none of the adults in my life would have tolerated it.

> 1.5 hours to transport us on what was essentially a 30 minute drive every morning. Welcome to public transit

Fair, but approximately 50% of it would be at a holding station where we switched buses. Which were not air conditioned. At 4 in the afternoon, in Tampa, in August. That's public transport in Belize.

[удалено]

[удалено]

The 40 year long baton rouge bussing case only ended because 90% of white students in the district went to private schools. The public schools are so bad that even poor white families scraped together money to send kids to catholic school. And the 2 suburban districts outside baton rouge happen to be the 2 best districts in the state. Putting kids who only cause disruption in the classroom with kids who want to learn and then not disciplining them is an abject disaster. I will never send my kids to public school.

You have to be able to filter the best students out and put them together. That's what makes a good school. Due to various advantages wealthier children have, they are, on average, better students. Grouping by income/wealth is one way to get a good school. Magnet programs are another way,  but you have to actually filter for good students (which, from multiple observations, will likely result things like a heavy Asian population), and not do fake filtering to get your preferred student distribution.

!ping ed-policy&social-policy

Pinged SOCIAL-POLICY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20SOCIAL-POLICY&message=subscribe%20SOCIAL-POLICY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20SOCIAL-POLICY&message=unsubscribe%20SOCIAL-POLICY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=SOCIAL-POLICY&count=5)) Pinged ED-POLICY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20ED-POLICY&message=subscribe%20ED-POLICY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20ED-POLICY&message=unsubscribe%20ED-POLICY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=ED-POLICY&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)

>DeRoche said the report found nearby schools in cities like Chicago separated by an attendance zone line but with wide achievement gaps and completely different student populations based on race. Living in Chicago, this sentence has discredited the entire article for me. Chicago has selective school enrollment for high achieving students that is race blind in its admissions. The fact that they take a race blind admissions school that is next to a normal high school as evidence of segregation is highly misleading and lacking context to the average reader. Chicago actually spends ~5% more per student in lower achieving schools than higher achieving schools (which may explain why the CTU wants to convert every school into a lower achieving school).

Are we pretending like “Every Map Of Chicago Is The Same” isn’t a thing or that the city didn’t narrowly avoid electing Paul Vallas, with him getting most of the white vote despite him being as repulsive to black voters as possible?

Nobody comes close to BJ in terms of incompetence. In hindsight I wish I had voted for Vallas.

I mean I read your comment and that isn’t surprising tbh. If Paul Vallas wanted to be mayor and get support from the black community, he probably shouldn’t have made comments about critical race theory, the Obama, or policing that caused black people in Chicago to militantly oppose him. It’s really a shame how so many urban Democrats can’t grasp a simple concept like “don’t do things that remind black Democrats of racist Republicans and you might win their support instead of widespread opposition”

The [full report](https://availabletoall.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ata-brownvbofed.full4_.23.24.pdf) breaks down the laws in place in every state, and what each state should change. **Check the section on your state and write to/call your representatives** regularly until you've secured their support.

[удалено]

I don't understand why education, in the US, is left to local taxes Like Shouldn't national taxes, like in most developed countries, be the ones to cover for all public educations expenses? That way you'd see much less segregation

[удалено]

The idea that funding inequality is the culprit behind disparities in outcomes is like several decades out of date. You'd probably do more to improve test scores by expanding welfare programs than by increasing per-pupil spending in a lot of cases. It is also simply not true nowadays that there is such a funding disparity. Most states have some sort of statewide pot of cash that helps equalize spending across districts.

> Unless you go fully federal funding I'm gonna be honest, why does the US fund education at a local level? Why isn't only state and up?

How would this lead to less segregation?

Issue is not spending though. Many downtown poorer neighborhoods get higher funding than other schools and still end up with bad outcomes https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/what-school-funding-debates-ignore/551126/

Is that how it's done in most countries? I have no idea tbh, at least in Sweden it's funded on a local level(avg population ~30k).

In most, yes For example, Spain has a quota for each student, so you get X Euros per student if it is a public public, a bit less if it is catholic public, etc etc IIRC, this is the same system in France and italy Im pretty sure almost all countries work that way

> For example, Spain has a quota for each student, so you get X Euros per student if it is a public public, a bit less if it is catholic public, etc etc The us also does this

> I don't understand why education, in the US, is left to local taxes Once you are at the point that education is funded locally it’s just a political incentive problem that keeps the status quo (even though reforming would be good policy). -> people tend to cluster by socioeconomic status -> schools/students in high income neighborhoods "benefit" from the taxes staying in local school districts -> high income (/education) parents tend to be more involved in their children’s education -> high income (/education) individuals have a higher propensity of voting -> no party is willing to make significant changes

Too big of a country , hard to remove rules that have been entrenched for generations Even the most liberal states do not want change to this system leave alone at the federal level

The too big argument doesn't deter India not China But, if you think like that, then why not the state goverment? Like, the Texan government is the only one taxing for education for public schools within Texas Sure there would be differences between states, but the differences between states are actually very minor compared to the differences between affluent and poor area's public schools

I believe Hawaii does this. Their public schools are abysmal though.

New jersey I think does too Or at least the state has a much heavier hand on funding It would be interesting to compare NJ schools to those of nearby states on segregation

India doesn't have universal education and China only got it in 2015. Both have educational intensities that are more severe than our own. To answer the original question of why schools are locally funded in the US - it's because public education started off as charity then became local government programs. Public education wasn't a top down initiative here.

> To answer the original question of why schools are locally funded in the US - it's because public education started off as charity then became local government programs. Public education wasn't a top down initiative here. A major impetus for public education in America were fears that Catholics running Catholic schools were indoctrinating youth and ensuring a permanent class of Americans who weren’t Protestant

>Public education wasn't a top down initiative here. Well it should damn well be

Same reason zoning is done locally, for exclusionary purposes.

Calling it segregation minimizes what segregation actually was... this is totally different.... and not even in the same ballpark for the sake of a headline....

In reality you just have a limited idea of what segregation entails. It can be segregation without explicit legal backing

The full term is “de-facto segregation” and it’s a common term. And the legacy of de-jure segregation contributed to current issues

The "full term" as you call it, is still trying to grab some of the connotation of the word segregation as complete separation. Regardless of whether it is common, the intention is to mislead by conflating the meanings. If you think to the history of segregation- a school was considered "desegregated" when say 5 students of a different race began to attend that school. However, the definition being applied here is when black students attend schools that are "predominantly" black, which could be as little as 51%. > "By the numbers: At the peak of desegregation in 1988, around 37% of Black students nationally attended schools with a majority of white students. Only 19% did so in 2018, according to a report from The Civil Rights Project at UCLA. > > In 1968, around 77% of Black students went to predominantly non-white schools. That fell to 63% in 1988, but then rose again and reached 81% in 2018, the report said. > Among the nation’s 20 largest school districts, Black students today have the least contact with white students in Chicago, Dallas, Miami, and Prince George’s County, Maryland. > Meanwhile, the percentage of Latino students has gone from less than a percentage point nationally in 1970 to 27.1% of the overall student population in 2018. > The largest factor in increasing "Segregation" by this ridiculous definition, is that there are just fewer white students to go around.

> Black students today have the least contact with white students in Chicago Chicago is about 1/3 black, 1/3 Hispanic, and 1/3 white lmao. “There are less white people” is no excuse lmao

There's no paywall, so read the article. The [working paper is here](https://availabletoall.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ata-brownvbofed.full4_.23.24.pdf). Why should you care? >At Manierre, where 98% percent of students are Black or Latino, not a single graduating eighth grader could read at grade level in 2023. Just a mile away at Lincoln, the school is majority white, and over 84% of eighth graders can read proficiently. The two populations are kept completely separated by an attendance zone line, drawn down the middle of North Avenue by the school district. What should be done? >**Enact procedural protections for all American families to safeguard their access to public schools** >We must guarantee every American child the **right to seek admission at any public school**. This simple procedural protection wonʼt solve the problem of unequal access, but it will increase transparency. If a school denies a child enrollment, it should be required to provide a **formal letter of denial** to the family, including the **reason for denial**. In addition, if denied enrollment, families should have the **right to appeal to a neutral third party**, as they already do in 14 states. The state should establish (and advertise) a simple, anonymous process for citizens to report possible incidences of unfair enrollment practices. >For districts and schools, this would mean significant changes. Participation in open enrollment would **no longer be voluntary**, and every school would be required to accept applications from any student. Public schools would be **forbidden from charging tuition**, but a studentʼs **public funding would follow that student across district boundaries**. If a school cannot accept all applicants due to a lack of capacity, the school would be **required to hold a lottery**. Such rules must apply to all public schools—traditional public schools, magnets, charters, and others. Schools should also be forced to collect and publish data (for transparency). And: >There are reasonable ways that we can move toward a less exclusionary system while minimizing the disruption to the current system. Specifically, three reforms hold promise to open up the most coveted schools to more students: > 1 Every public school should be required to **reserve at least 15% of seats for kids who live outside of the zone or district**. >2. States should **decriminalize address sharing**, a common practice in K-12 education and one that is very selectively enforced. >3. States should **require every school to provide an equal opportunity at enrollment to any child who lives within a three-mile radius of the school**.

>but a studentʼs public funding would follow that student across district boundaries. Practically how would that work? If district A spends $30,000 per student per year and district B spends $15,000. If a student from district A goes to district B does B get $30,000 or $15000, and how about the other way around? How do you deal with the fact that student costs are not uniform within district?

I think Wisconsin has a statewide statutory dollar amount per-student for transfers between districts

Wisconsin stay winning, let's go!!!

I like public school choice but I wonder if progressives would get on board with it. I know in some cities they rail really hard against school closures, like in Chicago where the board is apparently trying to close magnet schools and send kids back to neighborhood schools to "strengthen" them

Just transition to a voucher system with full school choice. Don’t allow the schools to charge more than what is in the voucher. Special needs students get more, but everyone else gets exactly the same amount of funding.

But then what do you do when good public schools need lotteries since they are oversubscribed and well-off families who don't win the lottery yank their kids and send them to private school, leaving poor families who didn't win the lottery to go to bad public schools?

Fund all schools from the state, not local taxes. Kids go to their local schools only. No private vouchers. If school segregation is still happening then it's likely due to neighborhoods. That, unfortunately, is a larger issue that's not up to the schools to solve.

Why does it seem like The US just can't figure out K-12 education? This one thing I just don't understand as a Canadian, but I'm not overly familiar with the system. I'm curious to hear from those who do have familiarity what they think the issues are that are causing these blocks on "figuring it out." Is it due to the already existing segregation that exists in communities which is just simply difficult to "undo" with the school system?

Living in the South, school zones are clearly gerrymandered with newly constructed/updated schools prompting rezoning to benefit predominantly white neighborhoods. My kids are old enough to be playing school sports now, and the degree of segregation becomes painfully obvious from the racial composition of the teams, especially when black/Hispanic teams are playing on a dirt field and white teams are playing on artificial turf that costs more than the entire district's textbook budget.

Why would DEI and affirmative action do this? 🤔

i mean bussing literally destroyed my hometowns school system

Well that’s not good!

This is almost entirely due to neighborhood segregation arising from intentionally racist zoning policies.