I'm glad there is a blog about this but I'm still waiting for more candid coverage of the race issue. Since schools were desegragated we've been playing a game of musical chairs, with people who can afford it leading the way out of troubled (aka minority-filled) neighborhoods. I remember my grandmother, who was lefty-religious and politically active, explaining to me that black people were just white people with different skins, and once segregation ended they (black people) would have a chance to be like us... something like that, I was pretty young at the time. I bounced that one off some black friends in college, they nearly busted a gut.

The point being that there's a lot of political/religious ideology wrapped up in theses issues, especially in terms of what we should expect of underperforming minorities.And I think there's a lot of well-intentioned naivite..

As I see it, 'charter schools' is a euphamism for allowing schools to become more segregated (I'm assuming choice==segragation in most cases) while 'unions' is a euphamism for promoting integration (less choice==integration if you can't afford to move). Given that progress generally results in more freedom and more choices my vote is that the government gives us more choices and gets out of the business of telling people what race they are and how they should be performing.

In a lot of ways it's actually economics, economics, economics. Money, regardless of your color tends to buy a good education. When I was in Michigan I saw many well educated children of minorities who happened to be VPs at General Motors. I also saw many poorly educated children of poor whites living downriver from Detroit.

Think about one of the things that drives housing prices, are the schools any good?

Brown v. Board is the defining moment in American public education. It was the moment when white conservative support for public schools began to decline.

It was an important decision that had to be made, but it should be noted that until that decision, there was widespread support for public schools in this country. Nobody called them "socialist" or whatever. But there is/was a downside to the decision: it effectively began the removal of community control over schools.

That's the key. When people don't have control over the institutions in their own communities, they tend to lose interest, or they become hostile toward them. I know some people believe that centralizing oversight of schools has lead to higher academic standards, but I don't like the trade-off. Parents should have the final say in how their children are educated.

and about family involvement..if one's family doesn't value and emphasize education ( with more than lip service), it is unlikely a child will do very well in school.

if a parent lets their child stay home for negligible and imagined illnesses, refuses to allow the teacher to do the most routine discipline, and doesn't establish good habits like daily review of material( hw, drill, etc), the teacher is probably not going to be able to overcome this lacsidaisical( i know i cant spell) and sometimes oppositional attitude.

StanfordHarvardYale wrote: "I'm glad there is a blog about this but I'm still waiting for more candid coverage of the race issue."

In order to actually be candid about the race issue regarding education, the first step is to acknowledge the reality of race/ethnicity based differences in IQ-type intelligence. Secondly one has to realize that IQ is mainly passed through the generations via GENETIC transmission and NOT via the home environment (reading to children, books in the home, playing classical music etc.). Thus if a meritocratic society selects for higher class people based on credentials that require higher IQ (e.g. graduate and professional degrees), and if IQ is mainly genetically transmitted, it then is obvious that higher class people will tend to have higher IQ children.

Basically in terms of socioeconomic class, the children (like Barack Obama) of parents with graduate and professional degrees will tend to have higher IQ than average and will tend to do well in academic achievement. In terms of race/ethnicity, high-IQ groups include: Jews (115), Chinese (110), Koreans(110), Japanese (110), and high caste Indians (108). These groups will be admitted in very high proportions to elite colleges, graduate schools, and professional schools because they tend to be significantly smarter than gentile whites (98). In parentheses are approximate average IQ values (with a white population average IQ = 100 and 15 points equals one standard deviation).

Similarly, the children of high school dropout parents will tend to have lower IQ than average and will tend to do poorly in academic achievement. In terms of race/ethnicity, low-IQ groups include Blacks (85), Hispanics (88), and American Indians (88). These groups will often fail in academic endeavors and be admitted in very high proportions to wellfare programs, homeless shelters, and prisons because they tend to be significantly dumber than whites (100).

Did you really see that many poor white kids living in black neighborhoods? I don't see many, although I know there are some stuck attending schools that have problems with 'gangs and violence' (yes, 'gangs' and 'violence' are euphamisms for poor black kids)... As near as I can tell, schools are regarded has having 'gang' problems when they have >20-30% poor minorities--when schools bottom out they tend to become exclusively minority. 'Struggling inner-city school' tends to be a euphamism for 'all-black and maybe some latinos'.

As for 'good' schools, I've found that pretty much tracks along racial lines, with 'good' schools having few minorities--usually less than 5%. So 'good' schools are a euphamism for 'few minorities', and not coincidentally, high property values. I'm acutely aware of this as my wife and I are looking for a house/school system in New Jersey. There's just no escaping it. If you want to be 'open minded' and send your kid to an 'integrated' school district people will think you just can't afford better or that you don't love your children. And since 'good' is equated with quality (rather than a description of the racial makeup of the school district) there is the confounding problem that graduates of integrated schools won't get much love come college application time.

As for the divergent performance of blacks in different classes, don't forget that all blacks are not the same. Some blacks want nothing more than an integrated, colorblind society, but others have absolutely no interest in this. Some blacks point out that there is more diversity among blacks than there is among whites--that is, it would be more accurate to say 'all whites want X' than to say 'all blacks want X'. FWIW there are people who think women should have exactly 1/2 the jobs and 1/2 the income in the US, but there are women who just don't want that (they want to stay home w/ kids, for instance). And there are people who think every black should be in a school with white kids but there are a lot of blacks who actually don't want to deal with white people on a daily basis.

Anyway, food for thought...

Galtonian wrote: In order to actually be candid about the race issue regarding education, the first step is to acknowledge the reality of race/ethnicity based differences in IQ-type intelligence. Secondly one has to realize that IQ is mainly passed through the generations via GENETIC transmission and NOT via the home environment (reading to children, books in the home, playing classical music etc.).

Nothing converts math-illiterate Americans into statistical whiz kids faster than a discussion of IQ's. :>)

The IQ based argument is worth making simply because it is so heretical, (the closest thing to forbidden speech we have in the US) but ultimately IQ has been oversold. Bearing in mind that SAT/PSAT/GRE etc. all simply borrow from a subset of IQ test questions, IQ measurements are firmly entrenched in our 'meriticracy'. I don't think simply resegragating our society (or at least schools) based on IQ tests makes any sense... after all, our mutual goal is to NOT live in a technocratic hell, right??

It seems like giving people choices about where they go to school and making those options as safe and attractive as possible is the only way forward from the racist/integrationist standoff we have now. There isn't much evidence that people (black or white) who don't want an integrated environment will choose one... as long as there are opportunities and protections for people who don't want to be forced into a particular school, we should be content with the choices people make for themselves.

As for 'good' schools, I've found that pretty much tracks along racial lines, with 'good' schools having few minorities--usually less than 5%. So 'good' schools are a euphamism for 'few minorities', and not coincidentally, high property values.

This is bullshit. I know what the trends say, and there is some variable at work here that isn't being addressed.

My high school is about 85% Hispanic, poor to working-class. We are a Recognized School, and we have met or exceeded all of our standardized testing goals for three years running.

At my last high school, there was a distinct difference between first generation immigrants and other students. They were as poor as any others, coming from Africa and Latin America, and once their limitations with English were overcome, they routinely outperformed their counterparts academically.

This whole idea of boiling down academic performance by race is horseshit.

Anse wrote "My high school is about 85% Hispanic, poor to working-class. We are a Recognized School, and we have met or exceeded all of our standardized testing goals for three years running."

In a prior thread Anse claimed that Hispanic students at his high school were outscoring white students at other high schools in his district. I knew he was lying so I challenged him to name the schools so that the stats could be independently verified on the NCLB web data sites. Of course he could not produce the data links, so now he is merely claiming that the Hispanic students are meeting their "standardized testing goals". Undoubtedly these "goals" are way below the performance level of white and Asian students.

The language argument for low Hispanic performance is total baloney. Second and third generation Hispanics that can hardly even speak Spanish still show low IQs and low academic performance. The low cognitive ability of Hispanics is all due to low-IQ genes stemming from their native American and (in some instances) African ancestry; it has nothing to do with their language heritage.

By the way, the presence of substantial numbers of predominantly low-IQ minority group students (i.e. blacks and Hispanics) does not neccessarily mean a school is "bad", as long as there is a sizeable number of higher-IQ students (usually whites and Asians) the school can still be an excellent school with good high level courses that are not too dumbed-down. The important thing is that cities should concentrate the high-IQ children in special schools with highly demanding curricula, it is called "ability tracking". Liberal parents say they hate tracking but in actual fact upscale parents LOVE tracking. Tracking is the key to a successful ethnically-diverse urban school system. (e.g. Boston Latin, NYC Stuyvesant and Bronx Sci, San Fran Lowell etc.)

i taught at a mostly black high school, and much to my dismay, my best student was mocked for being an "urkel"...he blew it off and went on to a very good university. his mother and father(hello) were determined that their bright and talented boy would not become a victim of this hideous attitude..but it is there, many of my upper level language students faced the derision of their peers that they were trying to be successful in school...i would always encourage them to blame me for them having to go to academic competitions and clubs and so forth...they didn't want to be the big geeks...so i would give them an out to save face with their friends.."tell them your crazy teacher is forcing you to go"

even my idiot principal told me in respect to my best student
"i wish he got along better with his peers"...well, hell, maybe his peers are at the university and not the gangbanging losers sitting outside the cafeteria trying to look tough, getting ready for prison i guess.

Galtonian, there is no need for me to jeopardize the anonymity we all enjoy; the statistics for Houston ISD are freely available (including demographics), and if you wish to investigate this further, you may do so.

And all this talk about IQ is also horseshit. There is not one iota of difference between the average intelligence of whites and those of other races.

For further study, I direct you to research the academic accomplishments of African immigrants vs. African-Americans. If anything you say is true, there should be no difference at all. The truth is considerably different.

As I see it, 'charter schools' is a euphamism for allowing schools to become more segregated (I'm assuming choice==segragation in most cases) while 'unions' is a euphamism for promoting integration (less choice==integration if you can't afford to move).

You're reversing cause and effect. Where unions are strong they prevent "choice", they also turn teaching into a jobs program. This isn't the *only* reason why some of these schools suck, but it doesn't help.

Inner city schools need "choice" a *lot* more than the rich suburbs because their residents are stuck there.

As for 'good' schools, I've found that pretty much tracks along racial lines, with 'good' schools having few minorities--usually less than 5%. So 'good' schools are a euphamism for 'few minorities', and not coincidentally, high property values.

So I *must* be a racist because I wanted to send my kid to a good school? How about you, if you want a good school, does that make you a racist?

Dude, sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. It's not a "euphemism", but it might be a side effect.

Most parents don't care about the racial makeup of the school. But they care about what kind of education their kids will get. That's not only the first consideration I made when I moved into a 'good' school district, that was the *only* consideration.

If you want to be 'open minded' and send your kid to an 'integrated' school district people will think you just can't afford better or that you don't love your children.

Worry less about 'what people will think' and more about whether or not your kids will get an education.

...graduates of integrated schools won't get much love come college application time.

You mean, "graduates of sucky schools won't get much love come college app time".

DBuss:

So I *must* be a racist because I wanted to send my kid to a good school? How about you, if you want a good school, does that make you a racist?

Dude, sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. It's not a "euphemism", but it might be a side effect.

Well, yeah, that's racism if you don't want to send your kid to a sucky school if the reason it sucks is because there are poor people of a different race who don't share your values. It might be elitism if the poor people you didn't want to go to school with are white. What's so bad about being racist? (I know, don't explain). My point is just that I'm racist enough that I'm not going to send my kids across the color lines if I can afford not to, and it seems very people are willing to do so.

FWIW I don't have a problem sending my kids to schools with poor academic performers regardless of color, but I worry about poor values, especially those of many black kids. Still racist, I know, but that's life.

Well, I'll back Anse up. My high school is a 95 percent Hispanic, 90 percent free lunch school and although we are not yet Recognized, we are ranked Acceptable right now, the entire sophomore class had an 81 percent pass rate in English/Language Arts. 4th in our district. My students- no honors classes, no Pre-AP classes, had an 86 percent pass rate. My limited English proficiency students had a 75 percent pass rate. I was a first year teacher. Because of the new, highly motivated teachers (who have worked elsewhere before choosing education) who REFUSE to accept that race and economics predestine success, we will be Recognized this year.

As I've said before, it is absolutely wrong to state the hurdles "economically disadvantaged" students face are the reasons they cannot be successful. The minute a teacher accepts this, this becomes an excuse. Working in said school is incredibly challenging, but it's also incredibly rewarding. It takes patience, creativity, the ability to relate to a "different kind" of student, and solid teaching skills.

To concede that it's about race shortchanges the very students we serve. Success can come in many packages, even predominately brown or black ones.

I call bullshit on anyone in the HISD system saying that there are acceptable schools there, etc. There are many all-white, completely surrounded 'ex-urbs' in Houston that I used to get pulled over in on a regular basis. Those schools do great. I dare you to compare Bellaire to the HS where Dexter Manley got his 'degree'.

Additionally, I taught at a HS that gave 8 scholarships through college and med school each year, and the place was still an idiot factory.

Thank god that Charlesetta Collins is now overseas screwing up someone elses kids. I believe that it is possible for a school to rank in Houston, but only when compared to other HISD schools. If you compared them to students from a REAL school system (Fairfax county comes to mind, but so does almost anywhere in Maine...), they would get their asses handed to them as a group.

As a member of a 'disadvantaged' minority group and a HS dropout (as well as somoene who has taught professionally and has received scholarships for both grad and med school), I am very sensitive to the problems of underrepresented populations. But to trumpet anything in Houston as an educational success, is to lie to yourself and others.

Just my 2cp...

Have a great day!