I'm not exactly sure but I am assuming higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates.

http://www.gse.upenn.edu/review/inpractice.php

I can also say that I know a black high school teacher who has seen that black children will learn more under black teachers as well so I have that.

Merc, I have two arguments to counter that.

One, there are studies, see above, that have shown that blacks will learn more under black teachers and that is the reason behind the segregation. There is no way a white child can learn more by having a white only teacher because most of the teachers are white anyways. There is no need for a white-only school.

Two, the "double standard" is just a way to make up for the natural disparity we see in today's society. White males traditionally have more advantages to get ahead and by segregating society into white male only, it is only keeping power to the ones who have it and holding back others. When women or minorities have segregated themselves, they are usually trying to make up for the natural disadvantage. There is a difference between the the two.

For example, lets say I am going to race someone and I strain their ACL one day before the race. So now they have a natural disadvantage because they cannot run 100%. So, to make up for it, it is decided that he can have a head start. How would it make sense for me to get the same head start as him?

I respect that.

On your first point we have already discussed that so I did not repeat the argument. Your arguments do not support the facts but they do support why you believe them to be true. This is why, I do not support race or gender based programs to give minorities or others an advantage at the expense of better qualified persons. They called it Affirmative Action for the longest time and as people have wised up to the short comings of it they just change the name and try to do the same thing. If minorities or majorities want equality then we need to remove all such indications of one's race or sex from all applications for jobs, school admissions, etc from all the apps. Assign a number and let those with the best scores be admitted or get the job. But when you pass over people who have much better grades for people who have less than stellar grades for admissions based on skin color or sex that is discriminatory to those passed over. That is a double standard. So I see your point of the argument, many have tried to sell it the same way for years, I just don't buy it. I have found many people don't want equality, they want role reversal. That is not going to happen if I can help it.

That is why I don't like the idea of affirmative action and would much rather prefer to equalize when they are children. It works on solving the problem and not covering it up like affirmative action. As you can tell, I believe there is a difference between this and affirmative action.

If this idea does work, it would mean that minorities would be better qualified for jobs so it decreases the need for affirmative action and it wouldn't hurt anyone like affirmative action tends to do.

I agree and if it works, great. My concern is that it may further divide us as children and in doing so may unintentionally create further segregation. Kids do hang out with their schoolmates afterwards and if they go to an all black school...

Yes, the backlash is my biggest worry about this idea but I don't think it will be too severe on the children's part since many children segregate themselves anyways* even when going to integrated schools because they can relate to each other and they live in the same neighborhoods.

*http://www.learntoquestion.com/resou...es/000781.html

I am much more worried about the backlash coming from parents then how the kids grow up.

the more ways you separate people the deeper the divides in this country will become until there comes a day when we are completely unable to relate to people that don't look and sound like "us".

black kids get higher scores if taught by black teachers? show me. are they the same general knowledge tests taken by every other shade of kid? were all learning conditions other than the color of the kids and teachers the same? is the teacher/student ratio the same? over what subjects? over what time period?

if the educational materials are the same and the teachers' skill and experience are the same and the students intelligence and ability to learn are the same then the results should be the same. A black kid can't be fully educated by a white teacher because of the difference in their experiences? BS. if they are saying the education is better because they focus on "black subjects" or perspectives then they aren't receiving the same education and the scores are completely irrelevant.

what's next - specific schools for kids coming from defined income brackets? i only want my kid to learn from teachers that make XX dollars per year. they'll be able to identify more fully with that experience and obviously learn more.

this is just more PC bullshit that can be pushed out there because people are afraid that if they disagree they'll be labeled racist. Anything that divides and classifies on anything other skill and ability is wrong.

I agree totally, we already have an income difference in the private school system. The reality is that many of the upper income parents spend a crap load of money, and some who can't really afford to do it as well, to send their kids to schools they deem to be "Better" because they are private. In the end the kids do not seem to be any smarter, just more stuck up. As a percent that go on to college they most likely have a higher number who do, but that is more likely a function of social exposure in the home, not what they are taught in school. Parents who value education and higher learning will teach their children the same values.

I ridiculed private school kids when i was growing up. they were isolated, naive, and snobby. the education i received in the illinois public school system was great and life was good.

now i live in another state. the teachers that i know won't even send their own kids through the system they work in. so my kid goes to a private school. the tuition sucks but i pay less for him to go there than the dollar amount that the public schools claim they spend per child in their system. the learning materials are the same. the teachers have the same degrees and comparable experience levels. but the kids at his school test an average of 1.5 years ahead of the public school kids on the state tests. Why?

i believe it has very little to do with the way subjects are taught and almost everything to do with the families the kids come from. kids aren't smarter because their parents send them to private school, but they do tend to be a little more accountable. my kid doesn't go to a "rich school". nearly half the kids there are on some sort of needs based scholarship to assist with tuition. the difference is that parents who are willing to sacrifice to come up with the cash to send their kids to the private school obviously place value on education. 100% of them or they wouldn't spend the money.

When Johnny comes home the parent tends to ask about their homework. Maybe even helps them with it. The parents encourage learning. When Johnny goes to school he is surrounded by kids that come from similarly commited families. the kid who screws around and causes problems gets to meet with parents and teachers. either the parents and child straighten the problem out or the kid leaves the school. far fewer problems for the teacher to deal with means more time spent trying to teach the kids.

this is not to say that families who send their kids to public schools don't care - most do care. but there will be that one kid that sucks up a lot of class time being a jackass because that is what is acceptable within his family. the family sets the level of importance for education regardless of color, language, religion, or income level.

*although i feel the system needs a massive overhaul i am not anti-public school. i just happen to live in an area with very very crappy public schools.

Well I understand that position. I just feel like my kids need to figure out how to deal with the variety of people they will meet. I happen to live in the one town with the best public school system for 50 miles. If I lived one county over my kids would all be in private school. I have been lucky enough that my kids have learned the value of education because of what my wife and I have taught them, both of us have advanced degrees. Time will tell. My oldest is on track, she is on the Deans list at UGA with a double major in Anthropology and Arabic, and a minor in photo journalism. My Son is on track for college next year and has been accepted to 4 different colleges. My youngest is the smartest and will be on her way to college in 2 years. So I guess the proof is in the pudding.

BINGO... we have a winner.

So funny. Blacks are better taught by black teachers but it does not work for whites? Such BS!
If the formula works it works.
In poor areas where people are lighter and the drop-out rates are high for lighter kids this formula will work for them as well if it is, in fact, accurate.
As for the statement:
Make-up your mind, either segregation is good or it is not.
As for the advantages today, I have only seen whites not getting jobs, scholarships and promotions because of their color these days... not enough room because others must be given the position to fill quotas. Advantage is urban myth now.

ok, how bout this.

If I lived in another country where there were teachers from that country and maybe one or two aussies teaching some classes, I'd probably want my kids to be in the class with the aussie teacher for the simple fact that aussies relate to aussies.

I don't think I'd care if they were a white or black or purple spotted aussie though.

Cultural.
Melanin is not a culture.

melanin is an aspect of culture

I don't agree at all. It can be a coincidence, but nothing more.