School Segregation

[AthenaAwakened]

But this a discussion of the video. And even if it were more than that, you would still be wrong. If money did not make a difference, then unscale neighborhoods wouldn't spend any.

And the video is some abstract totally unconnected with reality? I'm saying that the increase funding approach has been tried--and doesn't work.

And note that this isn't purely a racial problem--you see the same thing when you have a big flux of immigrants who don't speak English. Poor students = poor schools.

And your answer to that equation is?

I do not know the answer. I'm saying that problem you get with an influx of immigrants shows that it's the students, not the school. A school can go to shit very quickly if it's swamped in immigrant students that don't speak English.

What we can do is sort out the students who want to learn from those who don't.

All students want to learn but they don't all learn the same way, at the same rate or do they all want to learn the same things.

It's not realistically possible to do much with the latter but we should be aiming to save the former--but you'll scream about any such attempt. You'll sacrifice the ones that can be saved on the alter of preventing discrimination.

You have not idea what I scream about. And since you don't go to school board meeting or schools, you never will.

You've screamed about it in the past on here. You see any attempt to sort out students as a tool of discrimination because it has been used as such in the past. The rules should be standardized so that's not a problem. (It's just standardized rules leave no room to scream discrimination when you see a disparate outcome.)

Yes, because my every idea and experience with the education system I have posted here

I actually taught school for eight years. And I spent a good deal of time calming down parents and students who were sure that Little Mary and Little Marty were being discriminated against because she was white, or he was black, or the child who won the math medal was Asian. Disparate outcomes across the aggregate are signs of discrimination rising from systemic practices that favor some groups over others, BY DEFINITION, but that doesn't mean that individual kids don't have to do their work or behave themselves. See Loren, I can hold those two truths in my head at the same time unlike some people. That's was I got to sit at the big desk with many pencils. And you won't

 

[laughing dog]

But this a discussion of the video. And even if it were more than that, you would still be wrong. If money did not make a difference, then unscale neighborhoods wouldn't spend any.

And the video is some abstract totally unconnected with reality? I'm saying that the increase funding approach has been tried--and doesn't work.

Except you also admitted it did work (as I pointed out). You appear terribly confused about what your actual position is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And if you integrate the so-called "well-to-do" populations with the so-called "inner city" populations, you see a rise in outcomes for "inner city" students and NO negative consequences for the "well-to-do" students. Funding is one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason or even the most important.

And where's this track record in modern times?

Charlotte School district until the mid 1990s, for one.

Did you even watch the video?

That was a comedian, not a scholarly research article. He's ignoring 90% of the issue, don't take his statements as evidence.

At first there was a very real issue but that has been pretty much fixed.

Systemic racism doesn't magically disappear just because you manage to reduce its social and economic impact for twenty five years. It's not like it just "runs its course" and goes away if you treat the symptoms long enough. You know as well as I do that the net EFFECT of Jim Crow laws were damaging to black people as a community and would be just as damaging even if they were passed for an ostensibly non-racist reason (as is basically the case with school segregation today).

"Systematic racism" is far more in the heads of the anti-discrimination crowd than reality. Virtually all the "evidence" for it is confounding race issues with economic issues.

Yeah, you would have to force matters. If the bad students are equally spread around you'll "solve" the problem--by the standard leftist approach of hammering down anyone who stands above the crowd.

No school district or curriculum in America has EVER been designed that way, and this claim -- as has been pointed out NUMEROUS times -- is bullshit.

That's not the official policy but it's what happens. Put bad students in a class and the teacher spends a disproportionate amount of time with them, neglecting the learning of the rest of the class in the process. Class material is slowed down to deal with the bad students.

This is why private schools are so popular amongst parents who care--the private schools do not admit/kick out the bad students rather than hold back the class because of them. The private schools do not actually do a better job given the students they have, it's the control in the students they have that allows the classes to operate at a higher level.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I actually taught school for eight years. And I spent a good deal of time calming down parents and students who were sure that Little Mary and Little Marty were being discriminated against because she was white, or he was black, or the child who won the math medal was Asian. Disparate outcomes across the aggregate are signs of discrimination rising from systemic practices that favor some groups over others, BY DEFINITION, but that doesn't mean that individual kids don't have to do their work or behave themselves. See Loren, I can hold those two truths in my head at the same time unlike some people. That's was I got to sit at the big desk with many pencils. And you won't

It would help if you would speak English instead of SJW.

In English discrimination is a matter of choices, not a matter of outcomes. If the input decisions are fair and the outcome varies, it varies. That's not evidence of discrimination. Now, it's possible to use biased measures (for example, using height requirements to pretty much exclude women) but that sort of thing is usually easy to spot.

The vast majority of "discrimination" these days is people pretending a disparate outcome proves a biased yardstick and neglecting any possible variation in the inputs as the explanation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the video is some abstract totally unconnected with reality? I'm saying that the increase funding approach has been tried--and doesn't work.

Except you also admitted it did work (as I pointed out). You appear terribly confused about what your actual position is.

A solution works only to the extent that what it solves is part of the problem.

When there were true funding issues correcting them helped. Now we have SJW-speak saying that since the outcome isn't equal that the cause must be discrimination and one of the prescribed solutions is more funding. Since that's not the problem at this point the result is it's pretty much useless.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And if you integrate the so-called "well-to-do" populations with the so-called "inner city" populations, you see a rise in outcomes for "inner city" students and NO negative consequences for the "well-to-do" students. Funding is one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason or even the most important.


Charlotte School district until the mid 1990s, for one.

Did you even watch the video?

That was a comedian, not a scholarly research article. He's ignoring 90% of the issue, don't take his statements as evidence.

Demonstrate which of his statements are factually incorrect if you want me to disregard them. They're not, by the way.

Same today as it was in school: when you don't do your homework, you fail.

"Systematic racism" is far more in the heads of the anti-discrimination crowd than reality. Virtually all the "evidence" for it is confounding race issues with economic issues.

Segregatoinists used that same argument in Brown v The Board of Education and in the fight against the voting rights act. The argument was wrong then. Why do you think it is correct now?

That's not the official policy but it's what happens.

All actual data on student performance suggests it DOESN'T. How do you explain that?

This is why private schools are so popular amongst parents who care

Private schools are popular among parents who are looking for a better funded and better developed school district than the local public school. Communities that already HAVE highly competitive school districts do not have a high prevalence of private schools. You will also notice those highly sought after public school districts do not discriminate or segregate either.

If you were paying attention, you might even notice that communities that popularize private schools contribute to the defacto segregation of public schools as well. The public schools also fail to attract decent funding in such an environment where the wealthier parents in the same district oppose funding of those same public schools BECAUSE they think those students are un-teachable.


And even YOU admit the problem is mainly in the minds of the parents:

The private schools do not actually do a better job given the students they have

Exactly. Their students are getting the same quality of education they WOULD be getting in a public school.

The truth is, teachers generally teach to the HIGEST level of their pupils, not to the lowest. If none of your students are advanced enough to be challenged, then none of them will be. If A FEW of them are more advanced than others, then the others are pushed to try and keep up with them.

I know this because I've been a teacher for almost 10 years, Athena knows this because she has been a teacher for 8. You do not know this because you have no experience with teaching or with raising children and are speaking purely from ignorance.