I work in a STEM magnet in an urban district. I’ve worked in any number of schools in the district in a variety of capacities–both directly and by providing professional development/coaching etc.
Earlier, I presented evidence that white, non-poor kids in Dallas ISD perform as well or better on state assessments on average than do white non-poor students in districts that pretty much all white non-poor kids but that have a reputation for being “high performing” schools. I’d like that finding to be addressed instead of ignored. You can’t look at an average test score comparison that includes sizable ESL and impoverished cohorts apply that to all students in the school.
The negative variances in group X is sufficient in my mind to nix the forced integration. I have no objection to voluntary actions, but once force is involved, like banning homeschooling, private schools, or even moving to another location, then for me it crosses the line on what’s acceptable.
I can. It depends on scale I suppose. It’s hard to think of simple concrete examples to illustrate though. The first that comes to mind is if my kid is in a house that’s on fire - I’m going to go in and get them. If there is my kid and another person’s kid, I’m going to get my kid first. If you’re a firefighter, I’m going to assume the training is you get whoever is closest first or via triage who has the best chance to make it. But as a parent, forget that, I’m getting my kid first. I’m going to pass the other kid on the way to get my kid because that’s my kid even if I can only save one and the chances of saving mine are lower than the chances of saving the other kid. It could be 60/40 other kid to my kid and I’m still going for mine. It could be 95/5 and I’m still going for mine. It could be 99.9/.1 and I’m still going for mine. Sure after I get my kid, then I’ll do what I can to get the other kid, but my kid comes first.
I understand this argument but I reject it completely. Attributing results to racism structural or otherwise absent racist motives renders the term meaningless and is detrimental to its influence. If you want to talk about redlining and other racist practices then I’m with you. But once completely innocuous activity not motivated by race is categorized as racist, well, me and people who think like me discount everything further.
In my example, both families don’t care and don’t consider as relevant the academic impact on other kids. Are these folks racist? Or is one and not the other?
I’m not saying that every school has a path to a top-notch education. I’m saying that many urban and majority-minority schools–both magnet and comprehensive–do offer good educations, but that many parents avoid any school that is too heavily minority because they take it on face value that a minority-majority/poor school will be filled with kids who “don’t share their values” and is “dangerous”, even if that is not the case.
There is a very good “This American Life” episode that talks about what happened when some black kids were by chance integrated into a white school (integration was not what was being tried but circumstances conspired such that black kids ended up in a white school).
The parents at the school the black kids were coming to lost their collective minds and were super upset about it (related in the link below).
In the end what happened? The black kids did better in school and the white kids had no ill effects. In short everything was fine. Better than fine because the black kids got a better education. No one was hurt by this. Quite the opposite.
That is an excellent, excellent podcast. And saddening
But the thrust seems to be that moving kids from the poor schools to the rich or whatever schools really helped the poor kids with no ill effects on the students in the rich schools. Which seems to be the exact opposite of what is being proposed in this thread.
Your school sounds alot like Sumner Academy. It has some of the best academics in the KC area yet is only 15% white. As opposed to almost any school in Kansas City Missouri which are almost all horrible.
So yes. It is certainly possible to find a school thats majority non-white and the academics are still good.
The idea is to improve the poor schools, rather than abandoning them and dispersing the students. As iiandyiiii said, there is culture and community that is lost when you do that.
It is well known that the black community has inherent struggles that cause academic deficit among other issues within it. I am not laying blame whatsoever, merely describing the situation for what it is. You seen unable to accept this and want to deflect and point the finger instead of accepting the reality for what it is, albeit upsetting.
Oh please. Give the political correctness a break. You know what I meant. Its a given that black communities are plagued by economic distress and that is exactly what I meant. Don’t try to spin my words to suit your agenda.
It’s not a given. There are in fact black communities that are not plagued by economic distress, and you know what, unlikely as it may seem, there are white communities that are.
It is only a given for someone who has already decided. Judged in advance, as it were. Is there a term for that?
As I said before, things are complicated. Some majority-minority schools are NOT cultural centers for their communities, of course, and dispersing students to better-funded schools may not be an issue there. But some schools do comprise such centers.
I’m not saying there’s a single solution. I’m saying the exact opposite. And to find the right solution, talk to the local people.
I hear you. But I don’t think that’s analogous. Your personal decision is more like walking past the burning building to get home to change the batteries in your smoke alarm, because what if your own kids might burn? Or maybe it’s like walking past the burning building to take your kids to their violin lesson, because everyone knows extracurriculars look good on a college application. You’re willing to risk very real harm to other kids in order to prevent a mild and hypothetical harm to your kids–not to prevent a small risk of an equivalent harm to your own kids.
Second, you’re not only saving your own kid first, you’re opposing public policies that would have the fire department protect all lives equally.
I don’t care about personal racism in that scenario. When I talk about “structural racism,” that’s not at all about personal motives or personal character flaws.
This is an amazing episode and really shaped my thinking on the subject. I confess I didn’t cite it before because I couldn’t remember the researcher’s name; and fortunate for me, because the closest I could remember was Hannah Nicole Smith, and that would’ve been super embarrassing.
There’s an old Vonnegut story about a general fighting a war from a distance, but he’s captured along with his family by the enemy general. The enemy sets up a game of live chess, promising freedom to the protagonist if he wins the game; but every piece is played by a member of the protagonist’s staff or family, and captured “pieces” are shot. To win the game, the protagonist must sacrifice his own son.
The enemy’s point was, it’s all abstract and theoretical until you know the folks whose lives are on the line.
My point, I guess, is that this isn’t “just a debate” to folks who teach kids in poverty.
Yeah, it’s not perfect, but that’s why it’s analogy! The point is it’s a question of scale. Sure we are probably both willing to endure minor hardship or even potential hardship for some tradeoff of greater good - the question is where on that spectrum various actions fall. For me, ensuring that one’s kids attend the best school possible, regardless of race, doesn’t even rate on the scale of actions to avoid because they may unintentionally and coincidentally perpetuate structural racism.
I could think of lots of examples that represent personal choice or preference that have nothing at all to do with race. And when you aggregate them together you would see it as structural racism and I would see it as non race based choice.
No, not judging in advance. Observations are quite different.
Alright, I’ll concede not all, but Many/Most (see below). My point still stands. I didn’t say there were white communities that weren’t.
I was responding the the subject at hand.
I lived blocks from Austin (the neighborhood), worked in black neighborhoods and am pretty outgoing, went to public schools, one of which near a large housing project. I’ve done research on the subject in school. I watch TV, I read articles. FFS I used to read the Chicago Reader; how could I not have read an article about it.
You can look up more in Google or a search engine for academic articles; type ‘Black hardship’. There you are, take your pick. If thats not"given" I don’t know what is. By the way, I have in no capacity have been speaking/typing in authoritative terms. Much like I said above, this is from observation.
It’s not political correctness and it is not spinning your words. I noted what you said. Words mean things and if you meant poor people you should have said “poor people”.
When talking about things like this it is exactly that sort of subtle racism that is so insidious. Imagine sitting at the dinner table with your kids and saying what you said instead of saying “poor people”. Same with friends.
Do you think they will all be sitting there thinking, “I know he meant poor people”?
If those acknowledged as poor in the context of the conversation were noted as being black, then yes they should know what I meant if they were paying attention. The previous conversation alluded to that much.
