The Wilmington News-Journal (Delaware) suggests a bunch of boneheaded solutions to the racial achievement gap in schools. These solutions are based on the ideas of researchers and authors Richard Kahlenberg and Richard Rothstein; ideas that, as Dave Huber notes, don't seem to be based on reality in general, much less the reality of the Delaware school system.
Sample:
-----
WNJ: Rothstein said he doubted busing to integrate by income would be any more welcome in America than busing based on racial balancing. Rothstein said he believes a campaign to produce housing integrated by income is the better strategy.
Dave: A "campaign to produce housing integrated by income"? Sheesh...I suppose Rothstein might mean something like putting Section 8 housing in middle (or upper) class neighborhoods to achieve this integration. The chances, however, of such a move actually being implemented are slim...the plain, no-nonsense fact of the matter is that it is quite rational not to want Section 8 housing in a well-established "nice" neighborhood. An uncomfortable fact is that since Section 8 housing owners are greatly subsidized, they tend not to put as much upkeep into the maintenance of their homes. So, ask yourself a question: If you live in a nice neighborhood where homeowners take a lot of pride in their properties' appearance, would you want an influx of "homeowners" who couldn't care less? Of course not.
WNJ: Parental involvement is one of the factors Kahlenberg has used to show how schools heavy with low-income children cease to be equal to suburban schools. "Middle-class parents are four times more likely to be active in the PTA than low-income parents," he said. "In no way do I mean to be criticizing the low-income parents, because if you're working two or three jobs, you may not have time for the PTA."
Dave: Isn't that nice of him? He doesn't "mean to be criticizing." How "sensitive." But maybe people should be criticizing of [some of] these parents. Does Kahlenberg wonder, if these parents don't have time to look after their childrens' schooling, just why they had kids in the first place? I'm sure he probably does, but voicing such queries is "insensitive." No such sensitivity here, sorry. My wife and I planned out having our daughter to the Nth degree. Heck, silly me, I actually thought that was what we were supposed to do! If I was "poor," frankly, either I wouldn't have had children, or, I would have worked it out so that I could be involved in their education -- their lives. Isn't this just common sense, folks?
WNJ: As Rothstein's book shows, low-income students, for instance, are far more likely to suffer vision, hearing and dental problems, along with such afflictions as lead poisoning, all of which can afflict learning. Schools cannot solve the problems of poverty, he said; society ought to do that.
Dave: Ah! Here we have it, folks. "Society ought to do that." Here's a fresh idea -- how about, "Parents ought to do that"? Why do I have to be responsible for the irresponsibility of other parents?
-----
Dave's on the ball today.
Posted by kswygert at June 16, 2004 11:28 AM