|
suburban virgin posted:I don't think there's anything preventing good-quality schools existing in low-income, high-density, inner-city neighborhoods, either. Yes there is. All of our metrics for "good quality schools", both statistical and anecdotal, are based on student success, and the most overwhelming predictor of student success is family income. Schools in low-income areas have to compensate for the poor diet, trauma, and lack of parental availability that go hand in hand with poverty. "Good schools" are as much a product of the well-off students who go there as the level of investment from local government. This is (part of) why American city public schools often spend so much more per student but still "fail". This is before you even get into racism or classism. Let's not pretend like "good schools" isn't, often as not, a euphemism for schools without "those people".
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
suburban virgin posted:My point is though that there's no (or I don't believe there is any) switch for INCOME > $Xk = STUPID in human children. It is more than possible for a family with a low income to raise good students. In fact I'm pretty sure another of those predictors of student success is simply whether or not the parents read to the child growing up. So it's not being poor that makes bad schools, exactly. It's living in the sort of lovely neighborhoods that being poor necessitates that makes bad students that makes bad schools. First off, shut the gently caress up forever about education if you're going to use "stupid" as your shorthand for kids who don't do well in school. Yes, there is a switch for INCOME = bad educational outcomes. Poverty means malnutrition, which means worse educational outcomes. (This is why free school lunch is one of the most successful educational programs ever, by the statistical metrics we use.) Poverty means trauma, which means worse educational outcomes. Poverty means exhausted parents who don't have the time or energy to do the sorts of things that improve educational outcomes. It's possible for impoverished families to overcome these basic setbacks, but most can't or won't. You can't look away from this problem. Schools that serve impoverished students are going to always appear worse than schools that don't. It's not the neighborhood or urban design or educational methods - even if all of those could indeed be improved! The way we measure success is broken, and serves to punish poor kids for being poor. Unless you address that, all of your "good schools" nonsense is empty noise.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
on the left posted:Bussing is kind of like giving up on the problem. It means acknowledging that there's just a lot of lovely students, and the hope is that if you spread them out enough, you can greatly limit the impact they have on education. The idea that some students are "poo poo" is giving up on them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:Law of averages says the average minority student from a bad neighborhood will be behind the rest of the class and bring a number of social issues into the wealthier school. You can just say that black people don't belong in white schools. It's not like this fools anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Inflexible expensive labor forces become a bottleneck during budget squeezes. The two things are intrinsically connected. Bus labor is expensive and "inflexible" because both CDLed drivers and auto maintenance workers are skilled tradesmen that can often walk away and get a job in the private sector. Even if automation reduces the need for drivers, you'd still need maintenance workers to service a bus fleet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2016 14:46
|
|