Black Only Schools Proposed
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20071112/black_focused_school_071112/20071112?hub=TorontoHome
Black-only school proposal draws praise, criticism
toronto.ctv.ca
It was a charged atmosphere in a Toronto school on Monday night as educators, parents and students met for the second time to discuss the idea of schools designed especially for black students.
While some members of the community say it's the best way to keep more young blacks interested and engaged, others fear the concept is a dangerous throwback to the days of segregation.
The event began at 7 p.m. at Northview Heights Secondary School, at Finch Avenue and Bathurst Street.
The debate was heated at the first meeting last Thursday night at North Albion Collegiate.
One mother strongly against the concept was escorted out after an outburst.
"We don't have to go back to segregation," the woman shouted. "Come up with something else. The kids are failing school, but come up with something else."
Opponents argue the idea would segregate students, while supporters say an "African-centred alternative school" would lower the dropout rate of young black males.
But the proposal also has supporters, including one parent who said it would be a step forward from the current system, which she says alienates many black students.
You should read the rest of the article.
If this occurs then there is nothing stopping each tone of person from asking for their own school and being right in doing so.
This is an insane idea.
Only the title says it would be a black-only school. The rest of the article states black/african-focused, which is a whole different thing.
The school board's proposal calls for a school from junior kindergarten to Grade 8 that would have more black teachers, mentors and a stronger focus on students' heritage.
The school would teach the Ontario curriculum and have more parent involvement.
Sounds more like a school where they stick all the black
teachers. I find it amusing that they just broadly declare that the school would have more parent involvement. Unless they set it up like a magnet or alternative school, where students have to apply to be allowed to transfer in from their standard school, this will be no different from any public school in the area, with the same parental involvement and dropout rates to be expected.
But if they want to set up a magnet school that requires applications, more power to them. The Houston school district has had a lot of success with their specialized programs in this area: there's an arts high school, and computer high school, a hard science high school, a liberal arts/literature high school... if they have enough students to fill the classes, and aren't refusing students from other races, why not a cultural school?
Some parents say an African-centred school with black teachers and role models would help black youths graduate and succeed.
The school board's proposal calls for a school from junior kindergarten to Grade 8 that would have more black teachers, mentors and a stronger focus on students' heritage.
The school would teach the Ontario curriculum and have more parent involvement.
As long as it really isn't black only--kids aren't forced to go, and it's open to everyone--I don't think it's an insane idea. It would be an opportunity for kids to learn from a non-Euro-centric perspective.
Edit: Like what Clod said in her 2nd paragraph.
Its potentially a good idea. I know of a black teacher and he says that it is much better for black students to have black teachers for obvious reasons.
I've also heard bad things about magnet schools but I don't know much about them.
To me it makes sense that students will/do perform better when they have an instructor that they can identify with and who appears to have a genuine concern for the students' progress. On the other hand, people should not expect these schools to be the magic pill that fixes the dropout rate, etc. The only things can fix these problems are correct and adequate parental involvement, sufficient funding for all schools, and competent leadership for the school system.
It's all about instilling in these kids the idea that they really can succeed in life despite troubled backgrounds, and then providing them with the necessary knowledge to do so. After that it is really up to them whether to be complacent with their current life, or to strive for something better and work hard to get it.
Its potentially a good idea. I know of a black teacher and he says that it is much better for black students to have black teachers for obvious reasons.
I've also heard bad things about magnet schools but I don't know much about them.
In no way is it a good idea.
How, in anyone's mind, will this prepare any of them for the world or fight the problem of stereotyping?
If they want the kids to have black role-models they need to actively recruit black teachers, without affirmative action, of course.
There have been some really good points here. I agree with most of them on both sides of the argument to be honest.
The only thing i would add is that there are Jewish schools and German schools and Greek schools. Why can't there be black schools? You don't have to be any of the above listed to go to the schools, but they're there for those who wish to patronize them.
I really don't see what the difference is. If it's ok for one, why not the other?
How, in anyone's mind, will this prepare any of them for the world or fight the problem of stereotyping?
Do college-level African Studies programs churn out people who are unprepared for the real world?
You can't solve all problems at once, and the problem of other people stereotyping these kids is obviously pretty low on the list for this community: their goal right now is just getting the kids to attend class and graduate at all. Before they can prepare them for the diversity of the real world, they have to ensure that they actually end up in the real world instead of, say, prison.
Do college-level African Studies programs churn out people who are unprepared for the real world?
In no way does one class compair to an entire school.
Strawman.
You can't solve all problems at once, and the problem of other people stereotyping these kids is obviously pretty low on the list for this community: their goal right now is just getting the kids to attend class and graduate at all. Before they can prepare them for the diversity of the real world, they have to ensure that they actually end up in the real world instead of, say, prison.
Wow, so racist I don't know where to start.
Others stereotyping the kids leads to a black only school for their pride and dropping out?
In poor white only schools they have problems with drop-out rates as well... it is about the culture not the tone of their skin.
How about separate bathrooms and pride fountains?
Would that help too?
Why can't there be black schools?
As a private school I have no problem as long as they are subject to the same laws as all other private schools.
But if it's private, then it can't be open to anyone, black, white or purple can it? Only those that can afford it, which would probably defeat the purpose.
Of course, a community funded private school would be totally different I suppose.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=15935
Sure Ali, as long as the whites then get their own school too.
The proposal isn't for a black ONLY school if you read the article properly. the headline is misleading.
Some interesting ideas here, but I think it would be a step in the wrong direction.
Guh. Hope they aren't planning to teach in Ebonics.
Meh, sounds Afro-centric education, which would be intriguing. For years education has been The History of the West...and the Rest so it could have potential. Better yet why don't we just include an African focus in education, and how about an Asian focus in education, and then a Latin American focus and then... Nah that would solve our problems too easily. But I'm not Canadian, so it's up to them!
Team America World Police, aw shucks, here we go again...
I've also heard bad things about magnet schools but I don't know much about them.
What sort of things? My kids go to a magnet school and it rocks. The only problem is bussing -becasue it is a public school, they are entitled to be bussed there, but because kids are scattered over the entire school district, that's a logiostical and financial nightmare and some journeys are over an hour long.
Oh and we have fewer black kids than we should. Demographically speaking. Why? Well, the families we have spoken to -who have left the school or got a place then decided not to come- say that they are happier to have their kids in school where there are more black kids. We are too white/asian. Vicious circle.
Meh, sounds Afro-centric education, which would be intriguing. For years education has been The History of the West...and the Rest so it could have potential. Better yet why don't we just include an African focus in education, and how about an Asian focus in education, and then a Latin American focus and then... Nah that would solve our problems too easily. But I'm not Canadian, so it's up to them!
Team America World Police, aw shucks, here we go again...
If you think there isn't enough asia-centric education... you must not have been to an asian school.
Schools are going to focus on the history of where they are, through the bias of where they are. Simple fact of life. Should americans complain that their revolution takes a much smaller seat in british education than british history does in american education? No, because until there was an america, british and american history are the same (not counting native americans).
I'm working on an Indian Reservation this week and three of the schools are tribal schools. I don't know if non-Indians, or non-tribal members, are allowed to attend.
If you think there isn't enough asia-centric education... you must not have been to an asian school.
Schools are going to focus on the history of where they are, through the bias of where they are. Simple fact of life. Should americans complain that their revolution takes a much smaller seat in british education than british history does in american education? No, because until there was an america, british and american history are the same (not counting native americans).
I haven't been to an Asian school because I live in America.
And to answer the rest of what you said: no shit.
Then what's the problem you have, again?
This country is moving backwards.
In poor white only schools they have problems with drop-out rates as well... it is about the culture not the tone of their skin.
Yes, but what if black students drop out for a combination of the overall poor culture and a rejection of euro-centric material? If this could help a little it might have some potential.
How about separate bathrooms and pride fountains?
Would that help too?
Now that is a strawman....
What sort of things? My kids go to a magnet school and it rocks.
I'm not exactly sure but I have a friend that went to a magnet school and he absolutely hated it. He may have just gone to a really bad one too. I'll ask him more about it if you want?
I've also heard bad things about magnet schools but I don't know much about them.
We've got a magnet school two blocks from our house. The parents of the kids who attend it love it.
We (the neighborhood) don't care for it too much. You have to enter a lottery to get in and there is only something like a 30% acceptance rate. (We chose not to apply, because we wanted our kids to have friends in the neighborhood instead random connections all over the county. Also, all the schools around us are good, so we saw no need to get into this "good" school.) What ends up happening is that everyone in our neighborhood gets bussed to another (good) neighborhood school a few miles away, and there's a large influx of strangers zooming into our neighborhood every morning to drop their kids off at the magnet school. It's not thier neighborhood, so they don't care about the people who live there or obeying the speed limit. On some occasions, late parents dropping their kids off at the magnet school have blown past our school bus stop as our kids are climbing onto the bus with its lights flashing.
Every couple of years, they look at the enrollments for all the neighborhood schools and shift the boundaries around to get rid of overcrowding in some of them. Since our neighborhood has no school to call its own, we are the ones who always end up getting moved around in order to make things even at all the schools.
So I am bitter at the elitist magnet school families here. I take a skeptical view of magnet schools in general. They are self selecting, so any heightened test scores they have is really just because the best students were removed from the other schools and pooled in one location. This lowers the scores of the other schools and heightens the score at the magnet school.
If you have a kid in a magnet school, it is probably a good thing for them, because they are surrounded by the "best and the brightest," but I think magnet schools may be bad for the school system overall, and there is little or no proof that they offer a better education in an area with already decent schools.
Our magnet schools are listed as the schools that sceialize in one area or two like math and such. Math genuises go there, etc
Every school district uses the concept differently. Mine had the innovative idea of magically declaring the worst schools to be "magnet schools," but with a strong preference for kids in the neighborhood--so that the worst students would be forced to go somewhere else, and there would be an influx of good students to raise the average test scores in the bad schools. Made for a whole lot of mediocre schools, which I suppose is success from the superintendant's point of view.
For the afro-centric school, here is what I assume is the logic for it. The numbers mean nothing and are just there because they are easy.
Lets say we have an "integrated" school where 100 black students attend. 50 of them graduate and 10 of them go onto college. More than likely even though we have an "integrated" school, the inner city will remain segregated because the black students that did not go onto college will probably remain in the inner city. There will be little to none integration of the inner city because no one will want to live there.
Let say we take those 100 students and move them to an afro-centric school where the graduation rate jumps to 75 and 20 of those move onto college. That means the 10 extra students will be able to integrate much better economically since they will most likely make more money and be able to move elsewhere. Also, if the graduation rate jumps, it will most likely mean the whole area will enjoy a better standard of living and other people may move into that area, making it more integrated.
If that is the case, I will support this. If afro-centric schools don't prove to raise the graduation and going onto college rate, I will probably have to go against this idea. I have said in the past, the only way, besides everyone becoming one skin tone, to eliminate racism is for full economic integration and I think this has potential to achieve that much quicker than what we have now.
Oh, for the magnet school thing, I misunderstood. He said he liked it but just hated the social environment. My bad.
In defence, any school where pupils come in from a different catchment area has the potential to annoy residents. Mostly it is inconsiderate parents, with a little NIMBYism from the residents.
When I went to Grammar school (ages 12-18, exam passed to attend) the local community complained about us non-stop. In those days parents rarely dropped their children off by car but they complained about the buses, the coaches, the amount of children crossing the road - you name it. We were on the same site as the College (16-18) which probably didn't help.
My sister's children both went to the same school (not above) across town - it was her local Catholic school, but again with the complaints. I picked the kids up with her a handful of times when I was visiting and the parking of the parents took my breath away. We'd parked streets away (my niece & nephew have never been afraid of walking) but some were up on curbs, blocking driveways, kids being allowed to cut across gardens - way to piss off the natives!
Anyway, niece is now in her second year at my Grammar. Whaddya know - the site is complete traffic gridlock and the school is hated mre than ever. Why? Because parents now won't let their children take 10-12 mile bus rides, but amend their working hours and drop them off. And Upper VIth formers now have their own cars as soon as they hit 17 and drive in.
Can't remember where I was going with this! But if adults behaved with a bit more respect then children would learn it and schools might integrate into their environs more easily.
If the magnet school has a lottery entrance system, how can it be elitist?
Magnet school basically means kids from the whole district can attend, not just the neighborhood. Beyond that, they can vary greatly. We also have charter schools here. Those tend to be the ones with a special emphasis on some aspect of education/culture. Foe example, we have "Central Academy" which stresses middle eastern culture. I have to go out now to a school function and piss off all the people in the neighborhood around the school by blocking their streets with cars. but I'll be back with more words :lol:
Here, at least, you have to have a certain grade point and excellent behavioral record to be in a magnet school.
Those that meet the criteria then can be chosen from the lottery.
I think it is an excellent idea and not "elitist", anyone can choose to behave well and apply themselves.
Those that do deserve to be in an environment of their peers without the disruptive element.
BTW, by their own argument white students with black teachers are "at a disadvantage".
The entire idea is a symptom of the sickness of the adoption of the fallacy of "race".
Only the title says it would be a black-only school. The rest of the article states black/african-focused, which is a whole different thing.
Let them have them, then we could start some "White's Only" schools......:headshake
Let them have them, then we could start some "White's Only" schools......:headshake
1) no apostrophe in Whites :rolleyes:
2) for the umpteenth time, Blacks Only schools IS NOT THE PROPOSAL. It's just the title of the article and the thread and is erroneous
3) the point being made is that we already have "caucasian-focused" schools. We just don't call them that and refuse to admit it. They're suggesting some schools with a different focus to address the balance. That's all.
It's not so much to do with race as it is to do with culture. But an awful lot of people cannot get past the "racism" stumbling block.
BTW, by their own argument white students with black teachers are "at a disadvantage".
Maybe they are ....or maybe they would only be disadvantaged if they were also in the minority (racially or culturally, your pick). Some of the news reports I see from some of the Detroit schools suggest to me this is a possibility.
1) no apostrophe in Whites :rolleyes:
Sure there is, I put one there.
2) for the umpteenth time, Blacks Only schools IS NOT THE PROPOSAL. It's just the title of the article and the thread and is erroneous
Bad proposal, unless we can have "White's Only" schools... Which by the way I don't really think is a great idea.
3) the point being made is that we already have "caucasian-focused" schools. We just don't call them that and refuse to admit it. They're suggesting some schools with a different focus to address the balance. That's all.
"caucasian focused", what a crock of bull shit. Blacks and AA only represent about 12% of the US population. They should not be getting more than 12% of the attention.
Take your aposotrophe and shove it in your whites. :D
The proposal is not 'blacks only". So why are you demanding whites only schools for parity?
Is anyone asking for more than 12% of the schools to be AA-focused? No? then how is it disproportionate?
You are more intelligent than this. Either you are being blinkered by your racism or you are trolling. I'm done.
Merc, I don't think you understand the purpose of this proposal.
First of all, this is not a new idea. There are thousands of specific minority schools that include some asians, gays, etc. If you are so worried about this idea, you should have been attacking those and have already established your "white-only" school a long time ago.
The point of this school is not to segregate blacks from whites, but to give black children the best possible education. It is proven that black children perform better under black teachers under black administrations. That is the base argument behind the proposal, nothing else. I really don't see the problem with that as long as choice is involved.
Which brings me to rkzenrage's argument that white kids will perform worse under these new schools. Well, this is more than likely true. That is why integration failed and we need to move on to a more realistic and progressive model. If your kids, being white, were forced to go to an afro-centric school where studies have shown that they will not perform as well as going to euro-centric school, I can imagine you not being to happy with that. Then why are we forcing black kids to go to euro-centric schools when studies have shown that they will not perform as well opposed to going to an afro-centric school? The problem is that white kids will naturally perform better than black kids under the current system so all this is trying to do is break the black kids away so they can go to a system which benefits them. That is why there is no need for a "white-only" school because to get the benefits of that, you can just move to the suburbs or send your kids to a rich private school.
First of all, this is not a new idea. There are thousands of specific minority schools that include some asians, gays, etc.
Public schools? Please cite.
"Any-Centric" education is a bad education.
Gay Schools:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_New_York_creates_gay-only_high_school_29JUL03.htm
There are probably others but being public versus private isn't the problem.
"Any-Centric" education is a bad education.
What makes you say that? Do you have any evidence to back that up or is that your own biased opinion? And also, what makes you think that the current system isn't an "any-centric" system already? And if so, what would you do to fix it?
The fact that black kids do better in afro-centric schools says A LOT about the current system and education in general. Along with the fact that other cultures have tough times adjusting to United States public schools[1], it shows that whites do have a natural advantage when it comes to education in the United States and Canada, which means it is more likely than euro-centric. So we either let the current system fail as it has, destroy the entire current system, or give minorities a choice to go to a school that benefits them.
I am not going to talk about the first choice because that is what we currently have and the second choice will not go well with anyone even though it is ideally preferable. It is just unrealistic and will never work. So that leaves us with the third choice, which I will support as long as its not forced.
I know you favor equality with all "races", but as long as there is racial disparity in this country we can't just lump everyone together and pretend we are helping because more than likely we are just hurting the people we are suppose to help. Even today we live in a highly segregated school system that tends to be unequal[2] and even when there is an integrated school, the kids will likely segregate themselves anyways[3].
Clearly, the idea that if we put everyone in the same classroom we will solve the segregation problem has failed. Culture does play a large role in education and since the system will naturally favor whites, for various reasons, we should allow minorities to take matters in their own hands to get a better education.
The only backlash I can see coming from this is what I have seen here. Whites complaining about not getting a "white-only" school and turning this into a much bigger issue than needed. It may sound like a paradox, but this segregation might very well speed up integration on a larger scale, which is what I am looking for and hopefully you are too.
[1] -
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_137_35/ai_62959085
[2] -
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/American-Apartheid-Education1sep05.htm
[3] -
http://www.learntoquestion.com/resources/database/archives/000781.html The fact that black kids do better in afro-centric schools says A LOT about the current system and education in general.
"Do better" is a little too vague to say a lot to me. How is this success measured?
Public schools? Please cite.
"Any-Centric" education is a bad education.
Exactly. the point being the current offering is white-centric. Attempts to shift this have been met with much resistance, so this is the next suggestion.
BTW, my kids school is a public school. But it's "gay-friendly" and approx 8% (from a quiick glance at the directory) of my kids' classmates have gay parents. I imagine that's above the norm. Some of the teachers and staff are also openly gay.
there is also a Charter School (public funding) that is Arabic oriented.
http://www.centralacademy.net/?q=node/63Merc, I don't think you understand the purpose of this proposal.
First of all, this is not a new idea. There are thousands of specific minority schools that include some asians, gays, etc. If you are so worried about this idea, you should have been attacking those and have already established your "white-only" school a long time ago.
The point of this school is not to segregate blacks from whites, but to give black children the best possible education. It is proven that black children perform better under black teachers under black administrations. That is the base argument behind the proposal, nothing else. I really don't see the problem with that as long as choice is involved.
Which brings me to rkzenrage's argument that white kids will perform worse under these new schools. Well, this is more than likely true. That is why integration failed and we need to move on to a more realistic and progressive model. If your kids, being white, were forced to go to an afro-centric school where studies have shown that they will not perform as well as going to euro-centric school, I can imagine you not being to happy with that. Then why are we forcing black kids to go to euro-centric schools when studies have shown that they will not perform as well opposed to going to an afro-centric school? The problem is that white kids will naturally perform better than black kids under the current system so all this is trying to do is break the black kids away so they can go to a system which benefits them. That is why there is no need for a "white-only" school because to get the benefits of that, you can just move to the suburbs or send your kids to a rich private school.
Your argument is circular. It sounds like the racists of the south in the 50's. So it is ok for blacks to segregate themselves if they choose to do it, but if anyone white is involved it is segregation and racist? Come on... I am not worried about the idea at all. I have stated already if they want to do it let them do so. Not my problem, but don't come whining back to the society when greater effects and unforeseen fall out occurs. We have traditionally black only and female only colleges. So it is ok for an all female school to prevent the admission of a male but not ok for a traditional all male school to prevent a female entry because that would be discriminatory based on sex. We witnessed this with the traditional military schools and colleges. My only point is that if we are going to segregate based on race then let's do it; one group gets no preference over the other.
"Do better" is a little too vague to say a lot to me. How is this success measured?
I'm not exactly sure but I am assuming higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates.
Another intervention widely championed is the idea of black teachers teaching black students. Most results show that when black teachers teach black students, black students achieve more than when taught by white teachers.
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.
My only point is that if we are going to segregate based on race then let's do it; one group gets no preference over the other.
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?
Not my problem, but don't come whining back to the society when greater effects and unforeseen fall out occurs.
I respect that.
Merc, I have two arguments to counter that.
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?
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.
~snip~would much rather prefer to equalize when they are children. It works on solving the problem and not covering it up like 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~snip~
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/resources/database/archives/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.
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.
the family sets the level of importance for education regardless of color, language, religion, or income level.
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:
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
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.
I know you don't agree, but it's a fact. Ask any anthropologist.
Sure, I'll ask him/her if someone of any shade is raised in any other culture from birth, what tribe are they?
Bet I know the answer.
You should ask some Australian Aboriginals how they feel about their culture after being taken from their tribe as a child and raised in a white environment.
You might be surprised at their response.
I don't agree at all. It can be a coincidence, but nothing more.
It's considerably more than coincidence that children tend to share both culture and melanin with their parents.
How one is born is complete coincidence. You choose your morals, character, and everything else that matters in life.
Especially Canada.
Please enlighten me on the shade of Canadian culture?
You should ask some Australian Aboriginals how they feel about their culture after being taken from their tribe as a child and raised in a white environment.
You might be surprised at their response.
I would not be surprised at all and don't agree with force, so you are not disagreeing with me at all.
That those children were kidnapped and jailed in those "schools/camps" is a tragedy worthy of FAR more world consideration.
That they are dark and have that culture has to do with their environment and how long they have been there, not how they think.
However, if an Abo child is adopted at birth by a light, American, suburban family, what is his/her culture?
Most (if not all) Aboriginal people will tell you that regardless of where they are brought up or by whom, they have a connection to this land that can't be broken. They are the land and the land is them. Similar to Indigenous American philosophy. I know people who were taken as very small children and lived in white society all their lives until such time as they could return to the land and their tribe. In many cases this is an incredible trial because there were no good records kept at the time.
To answer your question though, the child has both cultures. You can't stop someone being Aboriginal just because you put them in a white society.
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".
Make-up your mind, either segregation is good or it is not.
I have said this numerous times, this segregation will likely encourage integration on a larger scale. Let me say that again, it will encourage integration on a larger scale. If we segregate the kids and get them a better education, then they can get jobs they would not normally get going to the schools we have now. Then when more black kids are holding jobs that makes more money, they can move to the suburbs and further integrate society.
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?
I showed you that article and I can tell you I have the word of more than one person who knows what they are talking about. It makes sense anyways.
Why do you think black kids do worse than white kids in integrated schools? Until you can answer that question we can get nowhere with this subject.
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.
But the results aren't the same. That means there is some variable that you are not looking at. Social pressures play a large role in this and it has been shown that social pressures can influence academic results. Look up Jane Elliot for an example.
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.
No, the reason is much more psychological. It really doesn't have as much do to with the material as it does with role models and atmosphere.
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.
Shit, I think I just broke my leg falling down that slippery slope.
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.
No, this is not PC bullshit. This idea goes against PC, just look at the reaction given when this idea was brought up. PC says that if we put everyone together we will all be happy. But guess what, that isn't happening so we need to fuck the current method and find something that works. This is a potential method so we might as well give it a try.
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.
Actually, this formula would work for that, but it would have to add a twist to it. Do you get the point of this segregation idea rkzenrage? I mean seriously, what is the logic behind it?
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.
Really? Do I really need to pull out the stats? I mean, just for one, there is a study that says that a white guy with a criminal record has the same chance of getting a job as a black guy without a criminal record when they both have the same credentials. Most of the advantages you don't see and you can't even takes statistics of anyways. What do you think institutionalized means?
BINGO... we have a winner.
So you think that family is the sole influence on education? So that means my brother and I should have gotten the same scores throughout high school because our parents pushed us and emphasized education the same for both of us? But guess what, we didn't.
So you don't think teachers, environment, administration, friends, expectations from society, role models, and overall determination have no effect on how well a child does in school? Parents obviously have a large effect but it is definitely not the sole influence.
To answer your question though, the child has both cultures. You can't stop someone being Aboriginal just because you put them in a white society.
The Rabbit Fence. Great flick; I have a copy.
rabbit proof fence, and yes, it's a good movie. a classic in fact.
I hear the call of an open mind
leaving all that PC crap behind
Black-focused schools may not be the way
but blacks aren't served by the schools today
Don't be a fool or a PC jerk
If what we have just doesn't work
We need to try a set-up that's new
Why don't we see what these schools can do?
WRT RK's post #66, "Abo" is considered derogatory and offensive. Please use "Aboriginal" or "Indigenous".
And as a white college-educated 35-year-old male, I believe their IS racial advantage and disadvantage and since I care about social justice I want to see that addressed.
The best way to address it is at the education level, not at the job selection level. If that means tailoring education systems to the needs of disadvantaged minorities, then we should do this. I'd certainly like to see more black teachers, and I wouldn't mind trying black-only schools, but I'd like to see these schools have regular "mixer" events where students from different backgrounds do things together.
you aren't going to fix test results unless you can change the family. end of story. the color of skin doesn't matter. the emphasis placed on education and the living environment matter.
The family environment is of course enormously important - probably more important that the school. But that doesn't justify calling "end of story". School is still part of the story.
It's very hard to see how we can "change the family" without getting outrageously invasive. Short of forced fostering or institutionalization, there is only so much we can do. These extreme options were tried in Australia and are now regretted.
But we can work on school systems relatively easily. Getting the parents more involved in their kids' learning might help, but won't address the worst cases. We should do what we can, but not expect huge rapid progress.
you aren't going to fix test results unless you can change the family. end of story. the color of skin doesn't matter. the emphasis placed on education and the living environment matter.
But if the family cares deeply about the color of their skin, rightly or wrongly, it can be a reasonable way to meet them halfway. This project in theory already represents families who care, at least enough to actively send their kid to a different school that they believe will be better for them. The real improvements to the community would only possibly come after a few years of the school being in operation, when borderline parents, who maybe care but just don't have a clue what they're doing, have a chance to see the success of the students in the all-black school, and talk to the other parents in the community who already sent their kids there.
Tell the working mom in the ghetto that she has to read to her kids every night after her second shift, and she may just give up right there. But tell her (or rather, have her neighbors and friends show her) a way that she can get her children into a better environment just by applying for this free school, and maybe she'll do it. Is it really better because the teachers are all black, or because the kids are from families who care more and are able to build a better environment for themselves? Why does it matter? To care means to have at least some hope for success, and sometimes it helps to demonstrate the possibility of success to people in a more approachable manner.
you aren't going to fix test results unless you can change the family. end of story.
Do you have any proof of this? I have given a source that states that by placing black children in a different environment, you can improve results. I also know of teachers with first hand experience in this area that support this idea so this isn't just a random article that contradicts reality.
Then that also brings up the question on why my brother and I had such different grades in high school. My best friend and his twin sister also had different grades too. Can you explain this if the sole factor is family?
the color of skin doesn't matter.
Genetically, of course, but social pressures can have a large influence on people. If I take a kid with brown eyes and a kid with blue eyes with equal intelligence capacity and raise them to believe that people with blue eyes are genetically inferior to people with brown eyes, do you think even with the same family and school system that they will produce similar educational results?
the emphasis placed on education and the living environment matter.
Yes, it is an enormous factor. Why do you think they are trying to change the environment for black kids?
this segregation will likely encourage integration on a larger scale
Hilarious! Man that was awesome!
Speaking of Australia (and I typed Abo because I wasy being lazy and did not want to type the whole word... I consider lots of things lots of things, whaaaa, you know I don't believe in offensive words).
[youtube]Gb4LoTG3C8E[/youtube]
Hilarious! Man that was awesome!
Ah, another one of your intelligent posts that do nothing expect prove your ignorance in this debate. I wouldn't expect more from someone with a, correct me if I'm wrong, 170 IQ. :p
Now, since you can't seem to grasp what I am getting at, I will have to take this in small steps and hopefully you can follow along.
I initially said,
this segregation will likely encourage integration on a larger scale
which seems like a paradox but if you attempt to understand the situation as a whole we can see that this actually does make sense.
Let look at our current situation and I will be using examples with random numbers so they mean nothing.
Right now, the United States is very segregated racially and I am assuming we would like to see integration on a larger scale or at least not fight integration.
So lets look at a public high school in New York where, for the 100 black students, the graduation rate is 50%, only 5 of those 50 that graduate move onto college, and only three of those five actually graduate from college. Lets assume that those three get good jobs and are able to move out of the inner city into an area that is largely white while the other 97 stay in the inner city. Besides that, since the low graduation rates and consequently large crime right, whites and business are reluctant to move into that neighborhood.
Well, the people in that area decide to try something new and work with these black-emphasized schools. Lets take another 100 kids. Since these schools are suppose to raise graduation and college acceptance rates, 75 of the kids graduate from high school, 15 move onto college, and 12 graduate from college. That means instead of three, we have twelve kids that will get good jobs and move into mainly white areas. Not only that, but because of the higher graduation rate and consequentially lower crime rate, businesses and other racial groups will move into the area raising the integration of that area.
Get it? The segregation of schools will help black kids get better jobs and move out of the inner city. With the current integration schools we just see the kids segregate themselves and the cycle continues.
Now I am assuming because of your comment that had absolutely no substance or backing to your side and only consisted of a failed attempt to attack my credibility you have no actual reply and given up on the subject. Am I right?
Ah, another one of your intelligent posts that do nothing expect prove your ignorance in this debate. I wouldn't expect more from someone with a, correct me if I'm wrong, 170 IQ.
Thanks LJ, you have learned to fit right in.
In no way will an all black school encourage what they are stating it will.
No better jobs, no fewer drop-outs, none of it.
Well maybe LJ was right?
Anyways, do you have anything to support your views? I have given my side and backed myself up many times and you don't provide anything.
And we shouldn't prevent this from happening just because we have doubts. I have already stated this before, the current system is NOT working. We are not integrated and we will not be as long as we follow the same path. We might as well try something new and risk the chance of it failing, even though evidence goes against this doubt.
And we shouldn't prevent this from happening just because we have doubts. I have already stated this before, the current system is NOT working. We are not integrated and we will not be as long as we follow the same path. We might as well try something new and risk the chance of it failing, even though evidence goes against this doubt.
Amen
It's a fact that things aren't working for some pupils.
There seems to be an attitude that it is somehow pandering to a select group of people. But problems in education cost more money for society further on down the line. There's a higher cost to not trying.
This is a way to
try and change things before people end up claiming benefits, committing crime, getting free healthcare.
What's the worst that can happen? Really?
There was a very interesting programme called The Unteachables on Channel 4 recently about disruptive and soon-to-be-excluded children of 14-15. I watched it huffily at first, thinking "The system isn't failing, they are! They need to learn to fit in, they'll have to for the rest of their life!"
The series changed my mind. Of the 16 kids selected for the study course, 9 (a clear majority) completed it and were back at school making progress the next school year. It changed their whole attitude to school and learning. I realised that some pupils do need a different approach - and who suffers if they don't get it? Well, the children of course. And then me at a later date.
Sure, as long as you feel the same way about a white only school when someone wants one.
Well maybe LJ was right?
Anyways, do you have anything to support your views? I have given my side and backed myself up many times and you don't provide anything.
And we shouldn't prevent this from happening just because we have doubts. I have already stated this before, the current system is NOT working. We are not integrated and we will not be as long as we follow the same path. We might as well try something new and risk the chance of it failing, even though evidence goes against this doubt.
No, LJ chose to ignore the multiple times I stated that the tests were incorrect and that I don't believe that I am that intelligent and chose just to use that one small part of the statement to try to hurt me, which you are now doing too because you are exactly like him. Someone who uses something they know about someone to try to hurt them when you simply disagree with them instead of debating them with your intellect like a stand-up human being. The proof is clear, shown by your above action.
A good thing, now I know who you are.
Sure, as long as you feel the same way about a white only school when someone wants one.
If this addresses me - all but one of the kids in the CH4 documentary in the were white. Race (black culture, call it what you will) is less of an issue in the UK than socio-economic status. I am all for targeting children whose needs aren't being met by the current education system. I would rather see something tried than call the wah-hah-hambulance saying "It's not fair to the kids who are already succeeding!" because they are the one who will have to deal with an uneducated sub-class in 20 years time.
As long as we look at people as different based on their shade we will CAUSE this problem and will never be able to solve it with anything that continues that behavior. Racism is racism is racism, the only way to end it is to acknowledge that there is only one race, the human one and treat us all like the single race we are, African descendants who each have different familial backgrounds, with different distances from the equator for different periods of time.
I am not "white". Even if one wanted to look at me like that, I am Cherokee, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Apache, Caribbean and probably African American (we are 99% sure, other than the fact that we are all African)... so what am I? I am human, anything else is a lie and needs to be openly treated as such.
As soon as we treat all who treat each other as anything but human as a negative the better.
Don't be so hung up on skin colour RK - the title of the report was misleading.
It is about cultural differences.
I have cultural differences to people born in my own country to white families.
I have cultural differences to people born in this country to Asian families.
Admitting this does not make me racist.
Everyone I know has overcome these differences via education - but I am aware I don't meet the people who haven't. But in the last four months I've heard them - on the bus, in the Job Centre, in the Council Office, at alcohol counselling.
Different cultures do not deserve affirmative action. But they do deserve the best chance anyone can give them at being a valuable member of society and that starts in childhood.
To say you typed Abo because you were being lazy is exactly why there's a problem with race. Aboriginal people have been vicitmized ever since white settlement. All they want is for their race to be respectfully named. Believe me, if there were an Aboriginal person viewing your words, they would be incredibly offended by being called an 'abo'.
Education is working towards a more inclusive mix of curriculum in Australia. There is much more emphasis on the study of culture which focuses on the historical aspects. We definitely don't have it right. In fact, we're almost as far away from right as any other nation. I do believe we're on the right track though. Helping students understand the differences in culture goes a long way towards breaking down the metaphorical barriers between different groups. It takes away the 'hoodoo's' associated and creates a meaningful learning environment.
With regard to the comment about what happens at home has more influence. That's true, however what some families lack in social capital can only be supplied by outside influences. In most cases this is school. If the parents are racist or have closed minded views, then there's not much the school or any other government institution can do about it, but if the state has an opportunity to 'educate' the child in social matters which will (hopefully) create a better world view for the child, then why shouldn't it happen? This of course then means the children of that child will be one step further up the ladder and so on, so that hopefully after a number of generations the community at large is less racist etc. This is my utopia where education is concerned.
So what does that have to do with schools for minority groups? Not a whole lot, but if what I have dreamed of happened, there wouldn't be a need for people to send their kids to 'white only' or 'black only' schools (even if that were the case proposed here which I acknowledge it's not). It would mean that every child regardless of race, creed or religion would benefit from the same level of education.
Don't be so hung up on skin colour RK - the title of the report was misleading.
It is about cultural differences.
I have cultural differences to people born in my own country to white families.
I have cultural differences to people born in this country to Asian families.
Admitting this does not make me racist.
Everyone I know has overcome these differences via education - but I am aware I don't meet the people who haven't. But in the last four months I've heard them - on the bus, in the Job Centre, in the Council Office, at alcohol counselling.
Different cultures do not deserve affirmative action. But they do deserve the best chance anyone can give them at being a valuable member of society and that starts in childhood.
So, some cultures are less intelligent than others?
Elitist.
So ironic, because the most ignorant and lest educated people I know, by population, locally, here are light skinned. NO ONE wants to start any special programs or affirmative action for them... why is that?
By your logic, those who are the least educated here should have the affirmative action, right?
You may want to read some of my previous posts on affirmative action.
It only harms those it purports to help and the idea of it is insulting.
I have worked in more than one company that actively used affirmative action... it does not work.
When someone gets a job that they are not qualified for, or even the most qualified for, it only harms them, their group and everyone involved.
Education is working towards a more inclusive mix of curriculum in Australia
No argument with me there. History is always going to be "based on a true story", written by the winners and those with an ax to grind. Mitigating that as best as one can is the job of an educator.
This proposal flies in the face of that mandate in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.
To say you typed Abo because you were being lazy is exactly why there's a problem with race.
Typing? WTF?
rkz...it doesn't matter what your reason is for making a racist statement/comment. The only thing that matters is you did whether you choose to agree or not. To be honest, I'm not even Aboriginal and I found the word offensive.
No argument with me there. History is always going to be "based on a true story", written by the winners and those with an ax to grind. Mitigating that as best as one can is the job of an educator.
This proposal flies in the face of that mandate in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.
Education is changing. Students are learning to find facts, not just listen to stories told by someone older than them. That's the difference between rote learning and more critical analysis techniques.
As an example, the school my children go to teaches philosophy to all students. Now this might sound like a real wank, but in reality what it's doing is teaching them to question facts and learning how to think in different ways. This is a great strategy for the school, and I support it fully.
No, LJ chose to ignore the multiple times I stated that the tests were incorrect and that I don't believe that I am that intelligent and chose just to use that one small part of the statement to try to hurt me, which you are now doing too because you are exactly like him. Someone who uses something they know about someone to try to hurt them when you simply disagree with them instead of debating them with your intellect like a stand-up human being. The proof is clear, shown by your above action.
A good thing, now I know who you are.
And the "hilarious man, that was awesome" was so much different than what I did? I know mine was much more personal but you just took a small part of my post that could very easily be taken wrong and then tried to hurt my creditability by laughing at it with no backing on what you thought was wrong with my statement.
The reason LJ attacks you is not out of pure sport, but because you set yourself up for it. For example, you get very pissy when someone takes your words out of context or you have to repeat yourself but then you just go and do it to other people. If you wouldn't have said what you did, I would have never even thought about using that attack. I am not offended by what you said, just as I am sure you are not offended by what I said, but we can both agree of the frustration we both get when faced with a response such as that.
Sure, as long as you feel the same way about a white only school when someone wants one.
I will support a white-emphasis school when there is the need for one. Black-emphasis school's could have the possibility of significantly increasing the educational results of black children but there is nothing in comparison for white children.
Either way, if you want to go to a white-emphasis school you can send your kid's to a private school or move to the suburbs, there isn't much difference.
As long as we look at people as different based on their shade we will CAUSE this problem and will never be able to solve it with anything that continues that behavior.
Yes. But for any major changes to happen we need society to change and that will prove to be extremely difficult.
So, some cultures are less intelligent than others?
Elitist.
I never said anything about skin colour and intelligence or culture and intelligence. In fact if it were a matter of intelligence the children would be receiving special help anyway.
So ironic, because the most ignorant and lest educated people I know, by population, locally, here are light skinned. NO ONE wants to start any special programs or affirmative action for them... why is that?
Did you read my post about the fact the disruptive pupils in the series I watched were all white but one? I'm not going to pretend I know what percentage one in sixteen is, but it's a pretty overwhelming white majority. Would I like disruptive children to be put into a program that has a possibility of working, given they are failing in the current system? Hell yes.
By your logic, those who are the least educated here should have the affirmative action, right?
What? I have said (in agreement with other posters) that if you help children at an educational level - the same way you help children with problems in maths, reading etc - then you won't NEED to make allowances/ exceptions based on colour/ race/ culture at a later date.
Sure, as long as you feel the same way about a white only school when someone wants one.
NOTE TO RKZENRAGE: A black-only school was
not proposed. White-only schools are irrelevant.
Are readin', writin' & 'rithmatic, black or white?
Race (black culture, call it what you will) is less of an issue in the UK than socio-economic status.
It's the same in the states, the difference is in the stats. There's probably a much higher correlation between color and social class here (because there is a VERY big correlation in the states). The problem is not their color, it's their moneys. Now, if you're poor, you have a good chance of being black. If you're black, you have a fantastic chance of being poor.
And rk, my initial reaction (and one that continued until about two days ago) was that this kind of segregation is a bad bad bad idea. It probably stemmed just from a negative association with the words "____-only schools." However, I've changed my mind for two reasons: first, the powers of segregation are not institutionalized really, but are self perpetuating (as piercehawk did a pretty good job of describing, saving me some typing), and second (and more importantly) is that the school will not actually be segregated in rule, just in content. The only way to change these socially stratifying forces is to give special attention to the group that is in need. It might not be "fair" to the rest of the world, but frankly I couldn't give a crap, we've got it alright and we can spare some money and time.
The main point is a large section of our society is getting crapped on from every direction. I could care less who's fault it is, or if someone deserves the help or not, I'd just be happier with a lower class that was more socially mobile... which was supposed to be the American dream.
Sure, as long as you feel the same way about a white only school when someone wants one.
They're not proposing a black
-only school.
I am not offended by what you said
You shouldn't be, it is accurate.
Racism is not just a white thing, baby.
Hate to say it, but here in the Mid-South, 90% of our public schools are black-only. Not a racist comment; a fact. My brother and I were the only whites on our bus (standing room only by the time it got to us), and that was 1974.