Thank you for your reply. Let me try to address your points.

The programs often try to leave the community as a whole better off. You hint at this point in the closing sentence. Well, the same is argued here. The school placement system has the intention of furthering integration and a better society that this brings. As a whole, even if some go to schools in some fashion not as good as others (which will happen for any number of reasons anyway, ignoring the degme ranking problem ... and I share the idea that maybe something might be done, perhaps special programs favoring their interests etc.), the result helps society as a whole. The same applies to let's say paying school taxes even if you don't have kids.

They key point in these other social programs is that no one is really much worse off than their neighbor. The same rule and tax formulas apply to all. We don't have a lottery that says that some people have to contribute more to paying for welfare than others with the same income in the same neighborhood.

Even though nobody really has a right to go to a specific school, many people think about it that way. After all, many parents move kids to expensive suburbs with great schools (and stupendous taxes) to get their kids into good public schools. They have a reasonable expectation of a return on that investment.

This is the mentality, sure enough, but it is selfish. Some people simply don't have this freedom of movement. This results in class and racial divisions and haves and have nots. I don't quite see this as "fair."

Have and have-nots are part of the nature of capitalism. If you're suggesting that someone having a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood than someone else because they've earned more money is unfair... well then we're starting from different places. Moving to a nicer house in a neighborhood with better schools is part of the incentive for working hard and thus contributing to society. I've lived in the Soviet Union and based on that experience I don't accept your premise.

And the Constitution prohibits taking away rights or property without just compensation.

Their property isn't being taken by average understanding of the term. Nor are their rights, same. The same might be used to justify funding religious schools, since many want to send their kids to them -- they can, they just can't ask the state to pay for it. The gov't doesn't have a constitutional obligation to help people reside in comfty bedroom communities in this fashion.

I understand that it's not a right; I said that in my earlier post. I just mean that the vastly common experience is that kids go to a school in their neighborhood. Therefore, most people have a reasonable expectation that this will happen. And they make an investment in terms of property values and taxes on that basis. And they're understandably and rightly upset when that investment is not realized because of their child's race. You'd be upset, too.

So how about this: offer to refund to parents of the kids being forced to a worse school district the extra taxes (if any) they paid.

Again, this implies there is not net gain to the system. I also think ... I guess you can be supportive of the idea though it underlines its breadth ... any number of gov't programs might also have this requirement if we take things in a consistent way. After all, why limit the principle to one voluntary government program (there are any number of educational choices here) that in some cases supplies negative results to people?

No one said that there's no net gain to the system. At least I didn't. I haven't seen studies that say there is, but they're probably out there. At least, I hope they are, given the effort people put into making diversity happen.

Presumably, though, that gain is greater than the loss to those people asked to change schools. So, why not offset their losses with fair compensation? There's still a net gain. And, just as importantly, you avoid removing incentives to buy houses and pay property taxes in certain good neighborhoods with these programs, because there's your risk your investment will be taken away by loss in a lottery.

Auction the school switch off. Whoever is willing to move their kid for the lowest price gets the deal. It might sound cold, but it has the main benefit of market economics: whoever has the smallest relative burden of switching schools moves.

In practice, this is liable to result in various disadvantaged people stuck with bad choices. It is also the problem with some voucher ideas. The net result will be more lawsuits ... just different types of lawsuits.

What exactly are the bad choices? I propose to make the program strictly voluntary. The minority or poor parents will get a choice to send their kids to a potentially better school, or if they don't want to or it's not better, ask for compensation for it. The majority (is that the right word?) or rich parents will have a choice to send their kid to a local school, to a more distant school for free (maybe it's better), or to a more distant school with adequate compensation.

Compare that to a system that exists now, where a minority or poor kid might be sent to a school with fewer opportunities (as in degsme's example) and not have any say in it. The only possibility I'm taking away is the "choice" of being forced to do something against your will that your neighbors don't have to do, without any compensation.

Since, as Slate writers have mentioned, the number of kids forced to actually switch schools is small, the cost to taxpayers would be insignificant.

I'm not sure how "small" the class will be since each plan would be different and it sometimes is a matter of choosing a certain school. The ultimate argument made in this litigation, after all, is that you can't use race. There is really not "constitutional" right to go to school right near your house, after all, and often enough people rather not (other schools can offer any number of benefits for their child).

I personally agree with the Supreme Court that using race is a bad idea, but that's not the point here. Even if you just use neighborhood affiliation and just get kids from different areas of a city to mix in a school you can achieve a level of desegregation. What formula is applied is up to the local administrators and the law. All I'm proposing is choice and just compensation instead of a Russian-roulette style lottery system.