A Comment At Kilroy’s Sparks Another Education Post

I’ll post the original comment from commenter, Deliberate_1, first and then my reply.

Via this thread at Kilroy’s:

Deliberate_1’s Comment:

deliberate_1, on February 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm said:

RTTT, Choice, and Charters are the result of flawed desegregation laws which excacerbated and made worse the situation of racial population geography. Neighborhood schools law is the result of a constituency fed up with social engineering. Upper New Castle’s 4 districts is a perfect example of best of intentions rendered FUBAR. The fact is Christina’s Wilmington section was only assigned to Christina’s district to prevent “Flight” from the other three when Desegregation was instituted. Now you have a district being held responsible for a population removed from its geography, no educational benefit has been created and the Wilmingtonian portion, is threatening to sue at every turn. Thanks Jea, keep up the good work and good relations.

Pandora, why shouldn’t students and parents be secure in their “good” schools? Are you inferring that the only good education is one where the racial and socio/ economic distribution is perfectly balanced with some stat that your feel represents the correct political picture, regardless of academic performance? Why wouldn’t students in predominantly minority sections be able to enjoy educational success close to home? What happens in the city that doesn’t happen in the suburbs? Could it be higher incidence of violence, truancy, property destruction, etc? And those things should be spread out over everyone because it benefits the educational experience???? Drop the poverty and segregation crap.

DOE should COMPLETELY reconfigure the districts in the geography north of the canal. The city should get its own district and the city should be held responsible to pay for it. The segregation remaining is not due to some governmental infrastructure and there has been plenty of time for individuals to integrate or move to where they are comfortable. The segregation is by choice and cannot be rationally laid upon some family that lives in Red Clay or Colonial or Brandywine or Christina. Racial distribution is what it is by choice. Playing with geography puzzles will not magically fix educational performance disparities. You need to look much closer in the mirror and not at some governmental program to hopscotch reality. Jea, you listening? Probably not, he’s too busy suing the district he fought to get his district students INTO.

Finally teacher pay cannot consistently and fairly be determined by student performance. It simply doesn’t work that way. I’m no union fan and there are teachers which should be removed but this “pay higher in low performing schools” crap is just smoke and mirrors for the larger cultural and social problems. Schools can’t fix those nor should teachers be expected to fix them.

After reading this yesterday my head was spinning.  First, this guy is really angry and defensive.  I almost didn’t respond, but then Cassandra came over last night and we got to talking.  What follows is what we discussed – a mind meld of pandora and cassandra.

My response:

pandora, on February 25, 2012 at 11:08 am said:

Pull up a chair, this is going to take a while.

RTTT, Choice, and Charters are the result of flawed desegregation laws which excacerbated and made worse the situation of racial population geography. Neighborhood schools law is the result of a constituency fed up with social engineering. Upper New Castle’s 4 districts is a perfect example of best of intentions rendered FUBAR. The fact is Christina’s Wilmington section was only assigned to Christina’s district to prevent “Flight” from the other three when Desegregation was instituted. Now you have a district being held responsible for a population removed from its geography, no educational benefit has been created and the Wilmingtonian portion, is threatening to sue at every turn. Thanks Jea, keep up the good work and good relations.

You say that desegregation laws “excacerbated and made worse the situation of racial population geography. Neighborhood schools law is the result of a constituency fed up with social engineering. Upper New Castle’s 4 districts is a perfect example of best of intentions rendered FUBAR.” The reason busing came to be was that not everyone lived in your educational utopia. Desegregation ended up in court because populations outside the city were unwilling to help make sure all children received a quality education – a publicly funded education. Separate was not equal. I guess you and/or your parents were upset, but not so upset that you and/or your parents would look into solution “for all the kids” – solutions that might have averted busing. This didn’t end up in court without the help of those outside the city limits.

Pandora, why shouldn’t students and parents be secure in their “good” schools? Are you inferring that the only good education is one where the racial and socio/ economic distribution is perfectly balanced with some stat that your feel represents the correct political picture, regardless of academic performance? Why wouldn’t students in predominantly minority sections be able to enjoy educational success close to home? What happens in the city that doesn’t happen in the suburbs? Could it be higher incidence of violence, truancy, property destruction, etc? And those things should be spread out over everyone because it benefits the educational experience???? Drop the poverty and segregation crap.

First, it’s no secret that I believe diversity is important if you want to raise a child with a world view. That’s my opinion. You may, of course, disagree. And there are minority student success stories, and these success stories are very impressive given the obstacles facing these kids. And don’t be so quick to throw out the scary city card. Go check out the crime map at delawareonline. Newark looks a lot like Wilmington.

In regards to your last sentence… I will not drop it because it exists. Keep ignoring it like your predecessors did in the past, but don’t be surprised if history repeats itself.

DOE should COMPLETELY reconfigure the districts in the geography north of the canal. The city should get its own district and the city should be held responsible to pay for it.

Finance isn’t your strong suit. Wilmington doesn’t have the tax base. We have a lot of tax exempt properties – you know, the ones where little Johnny from Newark goes to live when his drug problem crosses the line and mommy and daddy are at their wits end. Or the apartment buildings you send Granny to since neither of you can afford Cokesbury Village. Or the homeless shelter your neighbor’s brother uses because he and his spouse won’t take him in. Now, I’m not complaining about these services. They are part of any city. I am pointing out that people outside the city make use of these services. A lot.

The segregation remaining is not due to some governmental infrastructure and there has been plenty of time for individuals to integrate or move to where they are comfortable. The segregation is by choice and cannot be rationally laid upon some family that lives in Red Clay or Colonial or Brandywine or Christina. Racial distribution is what it is by choice. Playing with geography puzzles will not magically fix educational performance disparities. You need to look much closer in the mirror and not at some governmental program to hopscotch reality. Jea, you listening? Probably not, he’s too busy suing the district he fought to get his district students INTO.

This entire paragraph demonstrates how little you understand poverty. What are you suggesting? That poor people pack up the SUV and buy/rent a house in the suburbs. Gotta lot of subsidized housing out there? Oh no, I forgot, that’s another one of those city services you guys make use of and then point fingers at – citing your superiority. You want Wilmington to be responsible for Wilmington? Fine, we’ll discuss that once you start zoning for section 8, opening halfway houses and homeless shelters in your neighborhoods. In fact, Limon House is presently looking for a location. Perhaps you’ll give them a call. If that suggestion seems absurd to you then we’ve identified the problem.

And let’s deal with the reality of Choice. Choice requires that a parent get their child to and from the Choice school. Now, if you own a car, or two, this rule doesn’t seem like a big deal. But what if you don’t own a car? Well, that’s going to limit your choice, now isn’t it.

Now let’s discuss employment. Despite your stereotypical view, most people in poverty have jobs. But most don’t have the sort of jobs that allows them to say, “Hey Charlie, gotta dash out and pick up the kids from school.” That sort of flexibility isn’t found in low wage employment.

So we begin with a system that is designed to limit Choice based on the basic rules of the Choice program itself.

School Districts and Charters can limit Choice by placing, or not placing, certain programs in certain schools. If you’re poor and need a subsidized after school program so, you know, you can work then you’ll need to send your child to a school that offers that service. I understand Newark Charter doesn’t have a cafeteria – which boggles the mind – and I would guess this is a deliberate way to limit those who rely on free and reduced lunch. Either that, or they’re implementing the Little House on the Prairie model. Given all these factors, guess which schools high poverty parents have to pick from.

Basically, The bottom line is that choice (in regards to public and charter schools) means something when you have it.  If you can spend only $20.00 on a watch, the fact that there are Rolexes in the case doesn’t mean much to you.  The business of choice is meant to serve those who have the means to make those choices — better neighborhoods, access to the right transportation, money for private schools or even charter facilities with mediocre educational capabilities but the ability to Deep 6 the problem kids.  Choice is largely meaningless if you can’t move, have a kid with special needs, can’t get the kid to other facilities.

Choice lets school boards and administrators off of the hook for a basic bit of educational business — making sure that a world class education is reasonably available where the kids already are, no matter what neighborhood that is.  You can’t mandate equal outcomes, but you can mandate equal opportunity and all of this choice eliminates the possibility of equal opportunity for those without the same choices.

Finally teacher pay cannot consistently and fairly be determined by student performance. It simply doesn’t work that way. I’m no union fan and there are teachers which should be removed but this “pay higher in low performing schools” crap is just smoke and mirrors for the larger cultural and social problems. Schools can’t fix those nor should teachers be expected to fix them.

So… you see no difference between experienced teachers and teachers fresh out of college? One of the biggest problems facing high poverty schools is the lack of experienced teachers. I don’t have a strong opinion when it comes to pay, but I will say that I wouldn’t have a problem with paying them more for two reasons. 1) More pay would be an incentive for experienced teachers to teach in theses schools, and 2) The job description for teachers in high poverty schools is greater than for those teaching in non-poverty schools.

You know, there’s a lot of “if you really cared about your kid you’d do what I did” comments over at Kilroy’s – most in defense of Charter Schools.  So I posted this comment in the same thread…

(Note: While I responded to pencadermom’s comment in this thread, I was not singling her out.  Merely trying to make the point that what is possible for one socioeconomic class of people is not an option, or a choice, for another.)

pandora, on February 25, 2012 at 11:23 am said:

Let’s look at it this way. How would you feel if a Tower Hill parent told you that if you really cared about your child’s education then you would choose to send them to Tower Hill. They would also say that if you only cared enough, were involved enough, you’d make sure they traveled abroad every summer.

My guess is that you’d look at them like they were crazy, because Tower Hill and yearly European vacations isn’t a real choice for you (or most people).

In a perfect world we would stop playing the my choice is superior to your choice game.  Besides it demonstrating a deep insecurity – which every parent has when making what they hope are the best choices for their child – it also lends itself to lecturing other parents.  My guess is that the people calling for high poverty parents to step up, like they did, would be deeply offended by a Tower Hill parent telling them the same thing.