I grew up in a small town where there was a school district thatfrom its satrt was integrated so I always believed all children should be given the same education regardless of race, social status, or financial situation. The wealthy leftist Democrats living in Washington D.C. want their children in all white schools where they receive a superior education while the minority and poor kids receive a sub-standard education in the public schools. This is what I consider the real racism and prejudice.

I was born in the late 50s and grew up in a lower middle class city east of Los Angeles. It was split equally White, Mexican, and Asian, but there was no racism. My parents and my brother and sister who are 6 and 8 years older than me were poor until my parents worked out of it.

When each of us graduated HS my parents showed us the door. I worked for the phone company as I paid my way through college and lived. I met my wife at UCLA. We ended up moving to Silicon Valley after UCLA, where she was from. Later in 96 my company moved me to Northern Virginia as I was in High Tech Telecom and was working for a Global Company.

We found that compared to California that Northern Virginia was more racist as there was more group against groups in the schools. We also found the education systems worse then we had in California and we complained to the teachers, the admin, and the School Boards but got nowhere. We ended up tutoring our sons through each class.

What we see today in Colleges hit Northern VA middle and High Schools back before 2000. My sons graduated in 2004 and 2005 and they decided on Trade Schools.

Well, to be honest, not caring about race at all, trying to make a low-performing school full of hoodlums and malcontents become better by inserting a bunch of non-hoodlums and good performing kids is like, sadly, diluting shit with water and expecting it to be drinkable.

More likely, until vast amounts of water for miniscule amounts of excrement are used, the water will be fouled. (Toss some ducks in there and the water will be fowled…)

This integration in big cities was tried unsuccessfully by New York Fin City. Which resulted in lots of private schools springing up everywhere and public schools being abandoned by well-performing students and good teachers (who went to the aforementioned private schools…)

Mandatory attendance is perhaps also an issue.

As is training teachers in modern ideologies of race war nutjobbery.

Part of the policy history here has the context of the development of statistical theory, and its spread among academic fields.

Learning is a behavior, and human behavior is complicated.

You have persons selecting positions to apply for, and employers selecting persons to hire. Upstream of that, learning, and whatever influence that students have from spendign the day around teachers.

You can not persuade me that Education and Law theorists in the 1960s were all so well trained in statistics that they grasped what a good modern statistician might understand.

Possibly the hypotheses for theoretically valid detection or control are a bit complicated. Possibly it is even beyond current known theory. I may simply just need to study Bayesian estimation, and then it will all make sense, and persuade me.

I would expect that the starting policy was insane, and we have simply had badly formulated industrial experiments driving sane people insane, and then the crazy people disparately influence students to have little desire to learn.

There are some claims that black educational outcomes were better under Segregation. The explanation being that teachers at colored schools often thought colored students could learn, and wanted them to pursue higher education.

In theory, modern critical theory trained instructors think that colored students can learn. In practice, they seem to think that there will always be a problem, and that problem is totally someone else being a racist.

In theory, modern critical theory trained instructors want people to pursue higher education. In practice, they may not see persons. In practice, they may have no idea what higher education can be. In practice, they seem to care very much about aggregate numbers, and are more concerned about whether they can be fudged ‘properly’ than about pursuing excellence as an individual in helping other individuals travel a measurable path to excellence.

Critical theory is of course a relatively recent invention, and does not explain the earlier failures, but we had communists then, we had innumerate technocrats then, and we had people wanting a fast apparent ‘fix’ over a slow true attempt at fixing.

People from culturally sane, informed families are more likely to have the extra help they need avoiding the insane pitfalls downstream of the modern education bureaucratic consensus. Which consensus has a budget, and metrics, but no sense of scientific inquiry when it comes to the foundations of their beliefs about their scope and mission.

The one thing I have never seen in public schooling is segregating the students by IQ. When they are grouped in that fashion, I would think the classrooms would work much better. The IQ difference between most blacks and most whites will always lead to problems in a classroom. The schools generally find it easy to squash the small number of higher IQ students while putting all their effort into the average ones, but this attitude/technique doesn’t work when you have a larger percentage of lower IQ students to attempt to fit into a classroom. The higher IQ students always pay a price when mixed with average or lower IQ students, as the teachers tend to ignore them or use them as a hammer to beat on the lower performing kids. None of the kids benefit in this sort of situation, and it is very common.