Aha, you don’t have kids, do you? It’s a pretty universal thing, that when it comes to a crunch you will defend your family against anyone else. It’s even codified: performing self-defense on behalf of a family member is treated the same way as self defense against your own person.
I imagine the theory is that good teachers are not in finite supply, in two important respects:
First, more people will become teachers when you reduce the number of schools with high concentrations of poverty, because there are more desirable teaching jobs.
Second, whether an individual teacher is a good teacher or not is partly a function of their circumstances. Bringing more engaged parents along with political and economic support for schools also means turning mediocre teachers into great teachers.
I conceive of it as a matter of marginal improvement. Bussing leads to more diversity. To capitalize on that, there are things within the school you also need to do. For example, you need to not expel students for being tardy (a popular tactic used in the early days of integration to try to keep poor students out).
I agree. I don’t think I am hand waving it away. It is an important point and I’m glad you’ve made it. As we examine the factors, it appears to me that bussing is likely to capture them.
FWIW, I have kids. I happen to think one of my highest obligations as a parent is to make sure my kids aren’t racists, and to prepare them for a multicultural society. So I think there is a self-interest justification in sending them to integrated schools.
But that aside, I think there’s something very dark about telling ourselves that a 5% math achievement increase is worth contributing to a system that destroys educational opportunity for families whose circumstances are largely the result of policies implemented to help people like me.
Not every action you take for your kids makes it right. And there’s a certain moral nihilism in the suburban motto of not sacrificing your kids on the altar of your values. Perhaps reasonable people can disagree about whether white flight is moral, but I don’t see that you can duck that question merely by observing that we must think of our own children.
Just to be clear, before you accuse me of being self-righteous about this, I’m not at all certain that sending your kids to integrated schools is some kind of moral obligation. I’m making the more narrow claim that you cannot duck examination of that choice simply by observing that morality should not be considered when it comes to your kids’ interests.
I am not exactly sure of what you mean by “moral nihilism”, but in any case it isn’t a question of sacrificing my children based on my values - it’s sacrificing them based on yours.
I’m not ducking the question at all. I am answering it as directly as I can.
My children are more important to me than yours. That’s not going to change. I put their interests first. I’m their father - it’s my job.
Regards,
Shodan
You can’t possibly think this is true. And you definitely don’t have kids.
Moral nihilism is the rejection that moral principles apply to your conduct.
Right, fine. This wasn’t directed at you, Shodan. My point wasn’t that you cannot disagree with the moral judgment (which you do, assuming you’ve actually examined the morality of it). My point was that it is moral nihilism to declare that the moral judgment doesn’t matter because kids.
If your moral reasoning is that everything is moral that is in service of my children, I would suggest that is quite monstrous moral reasoning, and I don’t think you actually apply that moral reasoning consistently. Instead, I expect that your moral reasoning is more along the lines of simply owing no duty at all to kids disadvantaged by your choices, which is a perfectly logical and non-nihilisitic (if wrong) judgment.
All of this is neglecting the socio-economic impact if the surrounding community. While Detroit spends a large amount per student, it doesn’t matter when the students are not supported at home, are lacking in food and basic necessities, and good teachers are afraid to work in the district.
Why do you think it is ignoring that?
Don’t those kids need the most resources in order to have a fair shot in life, instead of getting the least?
Because it obviously isn’t working. That is also a false dichotomy. It doesn’t have to be the most or the least. There are a lot of social programs that have great intentions but don’t produce the expected results or are even sometimes counterproductive. I would argue that busing falls into the latter category.
Detroit schools aren’t failing because they lack funding and need more money. It is because much of the city is a corrupt, post-apocalyptic hellscape. You can’t just buy your way out of such problems in the short-term. It doesn’t work. The U.S. funds public schools at a very high level already but the results are wildly variant. It is more about parental involvement and student commitment to education. Those are more general social problems so maybe people should look for other possible solutions.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even the saintly Head Start program doesn’t produce positive long-term results even though it sounds like it should. It is basically educational day care for young kids from disadvantaged families. Still doesn’t work. The problem is a whole lot deeper than the bleeding hearts want to admit. You are going to have to come up with something that is actually effective and passes a cost/benefit analysis.
We have never tried funding poor black schools like we fund rich white ones.
Maybe it won’t make them better. But I sure doubt it!
On my tablet, so apologies for the brevity, but are you discounting the Kansas city experience? I’d just send you to this piece from the Cato institute, but I’m not sure that would meet your criterion for acceptable sources.
No one, least of all me, has declared that, though.
My moral reasoning is that I owe a higher level of duty to my own children than to others. That doesn’t change if the others are disadvantaged, not by my choices, but by the choices of their own parents.
Children raised by single parents are significantly more likely to experience (and cause) problems in school like academic underachievement and discipline problems, and the increase in those problems persists even when correcting for race and income. Bad schools generally consist of disproportionately high numbers of children being raised by single parents. Bussing isn’t going to address that issue.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think anyone will challenge that principle – the disagreement is in the details, and relative valuations. How much and how strong is that “higher level” duty? If taking the blood of poor children (without risk of getting caught) improved the quality of life of your children, I presume you wouldn’t do it – your duty to be a good person and citizen outweighs your duty to improve your children’s lives, in that case. That’s an easy one. But there are harder ones.
Suppose sending your kids to a disadvantaged school across town reduces the future earnings and quality of life for your children by X, but raises the earnings and quality of life for all the other children in that disadvantaged school by Y. Is there a value of X and Y that you’d accept? I understand we can’t measure these things this specifically, but if you could be persuaded that your children’s earnings and future quality of life were only degraded by a tiny amount by going to this disadvantaged school, but the other childrens’ earnings and future quality of life would be enhanced significantly, would you consider it?
What level of disadvantage should other children be willing to accept to benefit mine?
Regards,
Shodan
you’re almost there! We need to find out the long term valuation of integrating schools. There is more to an education than just test scores. kids are learning how to navigate thru life, how to be good citizens, and neighbors, and parents themselves one day. It may be that a sacrifice of a few points on math scores by some now, leads to better and more lucrative choices for ALL later, including the ones who may have been temporarily disadvantaged. It seems awfully short-sighted to just focus on test scores.
A reasonable question. Did you plan to answer mine (which was not snarky in any way)? If so, I’ll put some thought into your question as well.
I am willing to accept the same level of disadvantage to my children as they are for theirs.
So go ahead and think about how much you are willing to sacrifice on behalf of my children, and also good evidence of how my sacrifice benefits everyone overall.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry, but I think you will be hard pressed to find any parent who would actively, purposefully lower the future earnings or quality of life for their own children. Assuming the parent actually cares about those things in the first place.
I have known plenty of parents who have sacrificed future earnings for a better quality of life. The two are not inextricably linked.
Maybe, but the scenario posits sacrificing future earnings AND quality of life for their children, not for the parent.