Quote:

---

I can certainly understand being on the losing end of some of those court cases, and the resentments of being told what your doing ain't fair.

---

When the gov starts acting like the children belong to it rather than to the parents, then everyone loses.

So the judge was biased after hearing both sides of the case? Why wasn't his ruling fair to the kids involved?

Quote:

---

So the judge was biased after hearing both sides of the case? Why wasn't his ruling fair to the kids involved?

---

Which ruling are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Which ruling are you referring to?

---

The ones you said ruled that kids had to go to schools they told them too against the wishes of the parents.

If you are referring to the ruling in the school where I worked, parents had built homes within sight of the school for the express purpose of being able to send their children to our school. A fed judge ruled that those kids had to go to another school about ten miles away, so the parents ended up with homes ten miles from their school as opposed to right across the highway. So no, it was not fair, but much worse than that, it amounts to the government making a decision that the parents should be making.

The only semi-large city in our county has been going downhill for forty years and for a simple reason. A judge decades ago ruled that children living in the city HAD to attend city schools. Many of the white families involved decided to simply move out to the county because they did not like the city schools. The result is that the city has lost about a fourth of its population. Vacant/dilapidated houses are all over the place. The city schools performance is lousy. Crime is a serious problem. It's probably too late now, but if someone had had the good sense to say, "You can send your kids to whatever school you choose," then the problem would have been solved. As it turns out, the schools are still segregated, but segregated due to geography, so nothing was achieved other than making the problem even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you are referring to the ruling in the school where I worked, parents had built homes within sight of the school for the express purpose of being able to send their children to our school. A fed judge ruled that those kids had to go to another school about ten miles away, so the parents ended up with homes ten miles from their school as opposed to right across the highway. So no, it was not fair, but much worse than that, it amounts to the government making a decision that the parents should be making.

---

Why did the judge rule that way as the logic escapes me. What was the purpose? What were they trying to achieve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The only semi-large city in our county has been going downhill for forty years and for a simple reason. A judge decades ago ruled that children living in the city HAD to attend city schools. Many of the white families involved decided to simply move out to the county because they did not like the city schools. The result is that the city has lost about a fourth of its population. Vacant/dilapidated houses are all over the place. The city schools performance is lousy. Crime is a serious problem. It's probably too late now, but if someone had had the good sense to say, "You can send your kids to whatever school you choose," then the problem would have been solved. As it turns out, the schools are still segregated, but segregated due to geography, so nothing was achieved other than making the problem even worse.

---

How eerily similar the effects of white flight and the aftermath, between my hometown and the city you reference.

Quote:

---

How eerily similar the effects of white flight and the aftermath, between my hometown and the city you reference.

---

If the white families had been left to their own choices about schools, then there would have much less flight. This is still a nation built upon the concept of maximum personal freedom.

Quote:

---

Why did the judge rule that way as the logic escapes me. What was the purpose? What were they trying to achieve?

---

I give the judge a little lee-way in this case. Our school was built on a county line and the district originally included students from both counties. That was changed decades ago and I'm not certain as to why, but I think it was because of fed ordered integration. At any rate, our neighboring district decided they wanted those students, so like good government employees, they ran around the wishes of the parents and got their way.

obviously you have learned nothing in the last 150 years

I'm sure you'll tell us all about it. You usually do.

No, I don't understand rampant racism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If the white families had been left to their own choices about schools, then there would have much less flight. This is still a nation built upon the concept of maximum personal freedom.

---

Maximum freedom for some and not others you mean, because while that's what the words may say, or IMPLY, but that's not how it actually worked, as there have always been exceptions and exclusions, which still exist to this day. Those good old days of the 60's you referenced earlier was all about people trying to maximize their freedom after 100 years of the end of slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

No, I don't understand rampant racism

---

It's not as rampant, but well enough hidden as to be plausibly denied, and still powerful and insidious.

Quote:

---

Those good old days of the 60's you referenced earlier was all about people trying to maximize their freedom after 100 years of the end of slavery.

---

Those were not good ole days. Segregation was a terrible idea and good riddance. Taking away the authority of parents was a bad idea as well.

Quote:

---

No, I don't understand rampant racism

---

Good to hear you say there is something you don't understand.

Isn't the whole basis of white flight about segregation? So how is it over? What is t about the local public schools that triggers this white flight? I have an idea just from what I have seen in my own hometown, but would be interested in your ideas also.

These parents want their kids in high-performing schools. It's just that simple. In our area the county schools largely do well, and the city schools stink. There is also a cultural element involved in it. The differences between the two school systems is so dramatic that I don't see any way to turn back the clock.

Tell me more about this cultural element, and I would also be interested in why those public schools stink so bad. I've always held it was funding more than almost anything else, as well as the quality of teachers and support systems essential to the kids well being, even with cultural differences. While I have no problem with school choice, I highly am against bad public schools through neglect for any reason.

The behavior in the city schools is pretty bad. The language used by the kids is bad. Multiple high school girls pregnant is something that many parents don't want their kids seeing, especially when it's basically just yawned at. They are flooded with kids from single parent homes, and that is a different dynamic. If you don't believe that, then go work in a public school for a couple of years and come back and tell me about it. Sagging pants is a red flag for many parents. Valuing athletics more than academics is a huge problem.

The public schools in the city stink because they struggle to keep students disciplined. It has nothing to do with funding. I worked in both districts. The city had money that flowed like a river compared to the county. It was a much better situation. That is also true, by the way, in famous failed school situations like D.C. and Chicago. They have lots of money. Teacher quality might be an issue, but that is a problem they brought on themselves. They don't value quality the way they need to, and that seems to be especially true for white teachers. They do have some good employees. I worked with and appreciated many of them, but they are inadequately supported, or at least that's how it seems to me.

They do manage to have a big celebration of Black History month every year. And yes, that was sarcastic.

Their biggest problem, in my view, is the fact that they don't value success. They have become accustomed to being mediocre, and so they don't identify what needs to happen to become successful. They aren't prepared to make the unpleasant decisions needed to become successful. It's not just a school problem, it's a city problem. We're OK with just being OK.

Might add that both of our kids went through the city schools. That is a decision I regret greatly to this day.

Let me tell you a bit about my school. We are considered a high poverty area based on zip code. We had an idea, (the school district), to create a public school with very high expectations, no transportation provided, uniforms required, and spots available for students by lottery only. Teachers were hired based on excellence and experience. We couldn’t quite fill the school year one, but we became one of the top ten schools in CA the first year based on state test scores. Since the second year, we have an average of 400 waiting for each grade level. We became a model for other public schools. A lot of visits from neighboring states to see what we are doing, as well as CA schools. Will it work everywhere? Probably not due to no transportation provided, but it does allow everyone a chance to get in. We have a few before and after school programs that provide transportation to the school, and it continues to work. Fingers crossed we get back to work when the danger of the Coronavirus has dissipated.

Show me a kid with behavior that crosses the lines of good behavior, and I will show you a kid with unaddressed issues. It's easy to broad brush a problem, and say they, but much harder to to ask WHY. Unnacceptable to write them off. That solves nothing. You say it has nothing to do with funding, guess again as teachers need support, that costs money, be it classroom aides, or simply having people they can refer such kids with bad behavior too. Testing and solutions cost money, a nurse floating between schools ain't cutting it. social workers with high case loads ain't cutting it, and economically challenged parents with no support system doesn't cut it either.

A kid in school with his pants down around his ankles is because the school allows it, and doesn't address it. A school without those social supports to address the unique needs of it's students is inadequate, and under funded, and under served, plain and simple. Schools have always been the heart of a community and could be counted on to serve the needs of that community and now they don't! That's the problem. So while your waiting for those single parents to get spouses, probably be a good idea to figure out how best to serve those single parent families.

Got any ideas in that regard?

It's amazing how much you know about running a school when you have never so much as taught a single day in one. Saying that "a kid with behavior that crosses the lines of good behavior, and I will show you a kid with unaddressed issues," is basically nothing. It's true sometimes,but with many kids, they are just kids being kids but who are not disciplined at home so they think they can do as they please. No one is writing anyone off so you can just stop your theatrics. Your funding comments are meaningless. If you want to say that the city schools should address these issues, then that's fine, but that doesn't mean parents should be forced to send their kids to those schools. Simplistic statements don't count for much. I have a lot of ideas. When I was principal of one of those schools, and when we had a really good staff, then the school performed very well. But then they had to go out and hire a liberal, northern superintendent who was pathetic, and so the wheels fell off the cart. But like I said. When the community is OK with being just OK, then you have your problem right there.