North Carolina Teabaggers resegregate schools

[Smash255]

Okay, what about the 99% white counties in Western NC and Eastern TN? Are we going to bus people all the way to Memphis from Knoxville? Is that what British law would require?

Don't be silly now. Of course it wouldn't (and, indeed, doesn't).

Then how does diversity get achieved in those areas, since you guys are arguing that the lack of such a plan amounts to unintentional discrimination at the very least?

You don't have to have diverse schools everywhere, just roughly equal education opportunities. If educational opportunities were actually equal in the new system, it wouldn't be discriminatory.

Agreed.   I think in this case looking how the lines are drawn are important.  If a school isn't diverse because there is little or no diversity anywhere close, its one thing.  If a school winds up not being diverse because you have an affluent white area bordering a poor minority area and the lines are specifically drawn along those racial and socio-economic lines it is a major problem.

Aside from the reason why the school is or isn't drawn to be diverse, one thing that is very important is keeping the integrity that education opportunities are similar regardless of racial or socio-economic background.  This is one area in which Wake County has done better than many areas of the country (north and south)  What they are doing here makes that very important thing of providing equal opportunity much more difficult. 

It will be interesting to see if they do anything to keep that basic integrity of equal opportunity in place, or if we will simply wind up with a bunch of affluent schools verses a bunch of poor schools, and a vast difference in resources and opportunities.  Something in which we have way too much of in this country.

[nclib]

So in short, parents hate having their kids bused across town and vote in a school board that listens to them.  What's the problem?

Ironically, parents complaining about this tend to be ones who have chosen to move far from the center of town.

[jimrtex]

If the schools are not equal opportunity or at least close to it, there is a big problem. The system really isn't about diversity, but equal opportunity. The Tea Party and their supporters can through out all the spin they like, it doesn't change what they're real agenda is.

So you're saying that this school district is operating cruddy schools, and good schools, and so they bus some kids that live near the good school to the cruddy school, and some who live near the good schools to the cruddy school?

[fezzyfestoon]

You people do realize that the school board has nothing to do with the Tea Party, and most of the new board was elected PRIOR to the popularity of the Tea Party movement? In fact most of the new school board was elected in October of 2009, and the controversy over the old school board's policies go back to 2007, before we even heard about such a thing as a Tea Party.

Thus, the libtards on this thread have no clue what they are talking about.

You do realize that everyone in the Tea Party existed prior to it, don't you?

[Mr. Taft Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you dense? How can this be a board elected by the Tea Party and associated with the Tea Party, when the efforts to oust the old board (by WakeCares) started back in 2007, before the Tea Party was even conceived.

This is nothing but libtard spin from an idiot who knows nothing of the local issues involved.

Dude, chillout and don't make it so damn personal.

He meant that everyone in the Tea Party now existed prior to its founding, and held the exact same beliefs that led them to join. So its likely that the people now assosciated with the tea party voted in the Wake County schooboard. (Am I getting it right fezzy?)

And no, I don't know what goes on in Wake County, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell a "conservative" schoolboard is getting elected over here in OC. I followed that election, heard all the sides, and eff the Independent, amirite?

[DrScholl]

So you're saying that this school district is operating cruddy schools, and good schools, and so they bus some kids that live near the good school to the cruddy school, and some who live near the good schools to the cruddy school?

That's not what I'm saying at all. The article doesn't mention sub-standard schools, the concern is about clustering low income students together, which can lead to education standards falling. Obviously, there is some risk of this, otherwise there wouldn't be opposition.

[jimrtex]

So you're saying that this school district is operating cruddy schools, and good schools, and so they bus some kids that live near the good school to the cruddy school, and some who live near the good schools to the cruddy school?

That's not what I'm saying at all. The article doesn't mention sub-standard schools, the concern is about clustering low income students together, which can lead to education standards falling. Obviously, there is some risk of this, otherwise there wouldn't be opposition.

Why would educational standards fall?

[DrScholl]

That's not what I'm saying at all. The article doesn't mention sub-standard schools, the concern is about clustering low income students together, which can lead to education standards falling. Obviously, there is some risk of this, otherwise there wouldn't be opposition.

Why would educational standards fall?

[/quote]

Because poor neighborhoods tend to get less educational funding than middle to upper class ones.

[jimrtex]

That's not what I'm saying at all. The article doesn't mention sub-standard schools, the concern is about clustering low income students together, which can lead to education standards falling. Obviously, there is some risk of this, otherwise there wouldn't be opposition.

Why would educational standards fall?

Because poor neighborhoods tend to get less educational funding than middle to upper class ones.
[/quote]
Why would the school district spend less in some of its schools than others?

[Smash255]

That's not what I'm saying at all. The article doesn't mention sub-standard schools, the concern is about clustering low income students together, which can lead to education standards falling. Obviously, there is some risk of this, otherwise there wouldn't be opposition.

Why would educational standards fall?

Because poor neighborhoods tend to get less educational funding than middle to upper class ones.

Why would the school district spend less in some of its schools than others?


[/quote]

Poorer areas will need more actual funding to make educational funding equal due to things like meal needs and stuff of that nature that are needed in some areas and not in others.

[DrScholl]

Why would the school district spend less in some of its schools than others?

Believe it or not, it does actually happen, a quick Google search would turn up plenty of examples. Educating poor students can be different than education middle or upper class students, which means more funds that the school districts don't want to provide.

[courts]

The wackos are at it again. Make no mistake, this what they mean when they say "Taking America Back". Take the country back to 1955 is what they mean.

Ah yes, those wonderful days of 90% taxation on the top 1%, high union membership and.. Wait, why do liberals hate the '50s again?

Uh, McCarthyism? Also the insanely backward values in society at the time (Seriously imagine if it were controversial for women to go to college or have jobs today.) and the horrid growth of suburbia.

I thought it was pretty obvious who I was strawmanning but oh well. I guess even responding to troll threads in kind backfires when people don't get it.

[memphis]

Poor schools frequently get more funding, not less. Title I and all.  If it stays in the same district, that shouldn't matter. Meals are totally federal and not a local concern.

[jimrtex]

Why would the school district spend less in some of its schools than others?

Educating poor students can be different than education middle or upper class students, which means more funds that the school districts don't want to provide.

But imagine you were one of the enlightened individuals who used to control the school board.  Why wouldn't you appropriate the funding to the schools?

Let's imagine there were two neighborhoods each with 1000 children and a school with capacity of 1000.  Neighborhood A is higher income than Neighborhood B.

Why wouldn't you as an enlightened school board member send $5 million to School A and $6 million to School B?

Instead you are going to spend several $400,000 on busing 500 children from Neighborhood A to School B, and 500 on busing 500 children from Neighborhood B to School A, and $5.3 million to each school.

What makes you think that both schools won't spend equal amounts on each student, if not more on the higher income students?

[Smash255]

Poor schools frequently get more funding, not less. Title I and all.  If it stays in the same district, that shouldn't matter. Meals are totally federal and not a local concern.

They sometimes get more aid, but not more funding.  When you look at per pupil spending and things like that, that generally takes into consideration all funding including meals and such.

[CatoMinor]

So Lief, care to change the title of this thread since it clearly has nothing to do with tea partiers, or segregation?

[fezzyfestoon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you dense? How can this be a board elected by the Tea Party and associated with the Tea Party, when the efforts to oust the old board (by WakeCares) started back in 2007, before the Tea Party was even conceived.

This is nothing but libtard spin from an idiot who knows nothing of the local issues involved.

He meant that everyone in the Tea Party now existed prior to its founding, and held the exact same beliefs that led them to join. So its likely that the people now assosciated with the tea party voted in the Wake County schooboard. (Am I getting it right fezzy?)

Yup, that's a good way of spelling it out for everyone to comprehend.

The real issue I take with this is that I don't buy the bullshiz reasoning.  I could understand if this was an actually impactful action.  The thing is that this is another one of the nonsensical, disconnected reactions to the "budget crisis".  That's been used as an excuse to enact all kinds of completely unrelated changes for the worse.  The crap the Tea Party has been touting as its revolutionary changes are transparent and insulting.  Bus costs are just another one of those inexplicably useless fiscal changes being made for ulterior motives.  It's simply intellectually dishonest to suggest this change is being made for any reason other than the discomfort of having to send our pristine white children to school with those dirty blacks.  I know it's largely accepted that we don't have to deal with race anymore, but it's as much of an issue now as it has been for decades...if not more.  If anyone can spell out a sensible reason why this action is necessary beyond any other budgetary changes possible, I'll immediately give them credit and admit to being a race baiter.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you dense? How can this be a board elected by the Tea Party and associated with the Tea Party, when the efforts to oust the old board (by WakeCares) started back in 2007, before the Tea Party was even conceived.

This is nothing but libtard spin from an idiot who knows nothing of the local issues involved.

He meant that everyone in the Tea Party now existed prior to its founding, and held the exact same beliefs that led them to join. So its likely that the people now assosciated with the tea party voted in the Wake County schooboard. (Am I getting it right fezzy?)

Yup, that's a good way of spelling it out for everyone to comprehend.

The real issue I take with this is that I don't buy the bullshiz reasoning.  I could understand if this was an actually impactful action.  The thing is that this is another one of the nonsensical, disconnected reactions to the "budget crisis".  That's been used as an excuse to enact all kinds of completely unrelated changes for the worse.  The crap the Tea Party has been touting as its revolutionary changes are transparent and insulting.  Bus costs are just another one of those inexplicably useless fiscal changes being made for ulterior motives.  It's simply intellectually dishonest to suggest this change is being made for any reason other than the discomfort of having to send our pristine white children to school with those dirty blacks.  I know it's largely accepted that we don't have to deal with race anymore, but it's as much of an issue now as it has been for decades...if not more.  If anyone can spell out a sensible reason why this action is necessary beyond any other budgetary changes possible, I'll immediately give them credit and admit to being a race baiter.

Never let a crises go to waste? I never saw the point in busing kids, I think it would be better if we all went to the school cosest to us. In Texas  would have been shipped to a school 30 minutes away when there was another one within walking distance. And with gas prices the way they are, it may seem like sh**tty reasoning, but it makes some sense that the longer we have our buses on the go, the more fuel they eat up, and on and on.

Even then, we should look for better solutions within the schools themselves. Every teacher in the district has a "Smartboard" which is basically a glorified white board for any teachers except math ones. They shouldhave stopped paying for the implementation and training in the use of those godawful things, would've saved tons.

[Gustaf]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011107063.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These are terrifying times we are living in.

omg!

[jimrtex]

Poor schools frequently get more funding, not less. Title I and all.  If it stays in the same district, that shouldn't matter. Meals are totally federal and not a local concern.

They sometimes get more aid, but not more funding.  When you look at per pupil spending and things like that, that generally takes into consideration all funding including meals and such.

You're still not making any sense.   Imagine you are in charge of a school district and you have $11,000,000 to spend.  You have 2000 students, so average available funds are $5,500 per student.  It so happens you have two school buildings each with a capacity of 1000.  One is situated in a lower income area, the other in a higher income one.

Why wouldn't YOU simply direct more of the funding to the lower income school, perhaps $6,000,000 vs. $5,000,000?

Instead YOU would spend $400,000 on busing 500 students in opposite directions, and reduce spending to $5,300.000 at each school.  What makes you think the lesser spending will be equitably directed to low income students?

[Smash255]

Poor schools frequently get more funding, not less. Title I and all.  If it stays in the same district, that shouldn't matter. Meals are totally federal and not a local concern.

They sometimes get more aid, but not more funding.  When you look at per pupil spending and things like that, that generally takes into consideration all funding including meals and such.

You're still not making any sense.   Imagine you are in charge of a school district and you have $11,000,000 to spend.  You have 2000 students, so average available funds are $5,500 per student.  It so happens you have two school buildings each with a capacity of 1000.  One is situated in a lower income area, the other in a higher income one.

Why wouldn't YOU simply direct more of the funding to the lower income school, perhaps $6,000,000 vs. $5,000,000?

Instead YOU would spend $400,000 on busing 500 students in opposite directions, and reduce spending to $5,300.000 at each school.  What makes you think the lesser spending will be equitably directed to low income students?

Because if you have a bunch of low income students clustered together its going to take even more $$ to educate them than whatever difference you would save in the busing.   Unless you gut the funding quite a bit more of the wealthier school (which the tea partiers would never go for) to send to the poorer school, you are still going to have more inequality. 


Now say a district provides services to poor and disadvantaged students to six schools, and the poor and disadvantaged make up approx 20% of each school.   That then changes and you have the same six schools, but the poor and disadvantaged mostly concentrated in two schools, with very few poor or disadvantaged students in the other four.   Even though the amount of poor and disadvantaged students overall did not changed much, the services that are needed to provide for them would likely increase because the need and problems escalate when you have the poor and disadvantaged clustered together.

[jimrtex]

Because if you have a bunch of low income students clustered together its going to take even more $$ to educate them than whatever difference you would save in the busing.   Unless you gut the funding quite a bit more of the wealthier school (which the tea partiers would never go for) to send to the poorer school, you are still going to have more inequality. 

Can you provide a formula that illustrates the cost of education as a function of the percentage of low-income students in a school, over the range of 0% to 100%.  It doesn't have to be an exact formula, but is rather to be indicative of form of the cost structure.

I have suggested a formula of the form:

    $$(poor) = $X + $Y * poor

Where poor is share of student population that is low income in the range of 0 to 1.

Now say a district provides services to poor and disadvantaged students to six schools, and the poor and disadvantaged make up approx 20% of each school.   That then changes and you have the same six schools, but the poor and disadvantaged mostly concentrated in two schools, with very few poor or disadvantaged students in the other four.   Even though the amount of poor and disadvantaged students overall did not changed much, the services that are needed to provide for them would likely increase because the need and problems escalate when you have the poor and disadvantaged clustered together.

Why does the need escalate?  What sort of problems escalate?

[LBJ Revivalist]

Of course to the left equality = egality (at the point of a gun.)

You people are so dramatic "At the point of a gun."

[Smash255]

Because if you have a bunch of low income students clustered together its going to take even more $$ to educate them than whatever difference you would save in the busing.   Unless you gut the funding quite a bit more of the wealthier school (which the tea partiers would never go for) to send to the poorer school, you are still going to have more inequality. 

Can you provide a formula that illustrates the cost of education as a function of the percentage of low-income students in a school, over the range of 0% to 100%.  It doesn't have to be an exact formula, but is rather to be indicative of form of the cost structure.

I have suggested a formula of the form:

    $$(poor) = $X + $Y * poor

Where poor is share of student population that is low income in the range of 0 to 1.

Now say a district provides services to poor and disadvantaged students to six schools, and the poor and disadvantaged make up approx 20% of each school.   That then changes and you have the same six schools, but the poor and disadvantaged mostly concentrated in two schools, with very few poor or disadvantaged students in the other four.   Even though the amount of poor and disadvantaged students overall did not changed much, the services that are needed to provide for them would likely increase because the need and problems escalate when you have the poor and disadvantaged clustered together.

Why does the need escalate?  What sort of problems escalate?

There really is no set formula or anything you can estimate to a $$ amount, however it does take more funds to educate someone who is poor than someone is wealthy.  Its even more so when the poor is clustered together than when they are spread out because the simple day to day issues of not having much simply have more impact when its clustered together.

[jimrtex]

There really is no set formula or anything you can estimate to a $$ amount, however it does take more funds to educate someone who is poor than someone is wealthy.  Its even more so when the poor is clustered together than when they are spread out because the simple day to day issues of not having much simply have more impact when its clustered together.

What are these "clustering" issues?

With a small number of low-income students, it would be easy to ignore those who don't show up for class, and it would be easier to transfer funds intended for the low-income students to more expensive programs that benefit high-income students.