Changing Demographics in area schools: 2013 vs 1993 (Dallas, Austin: for sale, apartment complex, Home Depot)

[TX75007]

Most of the families living in poverty are single parent homes. This reflects the rise in the US overall of the divorce culture.

[TXNGL]

Originally Posted by HockDad

I think that this probably has a lot to do with the numbers. I would guess that if you would look at Preston Hollow, LHHS, Berkner, Pearce, etc. and the people that live on the streets you would see a large number of retired couples (or empty nesters) that have lived in their same houses for 20 plus years. I would think that you would find very few Hispanic or Black people in those neighborhoods that have lived there for 20 plus years. However the younger families moving in are much more diversified and skewing the numbers.

Yep. When I moved into my neighborhood (PH area) about 10 years ago it was probably close to 98% white. I've been pleasantly surprised to notice lots of cute new young families in the last couple of years, some Hispanic. We also have lots of original owners (1960s), but they are getting up there. Now the folks just a bit older than I have their kids leaving home and are closing in on retirement.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by HockDad

I think that this probably has a lot to do with the numbers. I would guess that if you would look at Preston Hollow, LHHS, Berkner, Pearce, etc. and the people that live on the streets you would see a large number of retired couples (or empty nesters) that have lived in their same houses for 20 plus years. I would think that you would find very few Hispanic or Black people in those neighborhoods that have lived there for 20 plus years. However the younger families moving in are much more diversified and skewing the numbers.

This hasn't had a huge effect on the North Dallas public schools at the elementary level, though, because a large number of those people never sent their children to public schools in the first place.

I think the major turning point for the North Dallas schools was the combination of the Walker settlement, which gave black former project residents vouchers to move into North Dallas apartment complexes, combined with the Fair Housing Act of 1988, which prohibited apartment complexes from discriminating against people because they had children. This led to a new influx of mostly non-white school age children across the area. Before this, most of the public schools in the area still had 30% Anglo populations, but afterwards there was a dramatic drop.

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I wonder how much the Census Bureau's expanding of options for people to tick off their racial classification has affected these numbers. How many more people put white in older lists for whatever reason... lack of options to choose on such forms 20 years ago? Freedom to be more honest 20 years later?

It may have changed the overall demos of the neighborhoods, but the school breakdowns are based on the schools' reports to the TEA, I believe, which don't use census racial and ethnic categories (which, for instance, consider Hispanic as a separate issue, so one must select if they're White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, Some Other Race Hispanic, etc).

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

Lost in the hype about HP moving up a UIL classificiation was this: Dallas ISD schools will not opt up; Carter, Pinkston, Lincoln will ‘drop’ to Class 4A | Dallas Morning News

Historically black Lincoln HS is about half the size it was just a few years ago. Carter is also a largely black school...

Carter was a 5A school up to 2008, though I think they were playing up for the last few years of that. I think they've really been hit by the combination of black flight to the suburbs and the rise of charter schools. I don't think Lincoln has seen as much suburban black flight simply because it has always had far fewer middle-class blacks than Carter, Kimball, and SOC did. I think the opening of Molina and Townview also caused Carter to drop from one of the larger schools in Dallas to one of the smallest. NCLB has probably hit both schools as well, as kids receive district-provided transportation to transfer to a better school if it's unacceptable.

Defending on how you define "largely black," Carter may no longer qualify. Not only are they down to 988 kids, only 745 are black (when it used to have over 2,000 black students). There are also 232 Hispanic students (far higher in both absolute terms and as a percentage than in the past), 3 white students, 4 American Indian, 3 Asian, and 1 Pacific Islander.

Originally Posted by Considering Coming Back

Lakewood the school has increased its white population and decreased its poverty population because the school is no longer subject to busing. Stonewall (and the not mentioned Hexter) have experienced the same rebounding of demographics with the end of busing.

That is not entirely accurate. For starters, there was never any busing at the K-3 level, except for M-to-M transfers. There was for grades 4-6 from 1976-1996, for grades 7-8 from 1971-1996, and for grades 9-12 from 1971 to 1976 only.

Stonewall was never subject to busing at any point as it was considered naturally integrated. Lakewood hosted a 4-6 Intermediate School which saw kids bussed in from other attendance zones from 1976 to 1996, and Hexter hosted one from 1984 to 1996. However, starting in 1984, when DISD began to open neighborhood learning centers in lieu of busing minority kids, this number began to drop significantly, and by 1996, when busing was stopped altogether, only kids from JFK and JW Ray were getting bused, and they were getting split between Lakewood, Hexter, Reinhardt, and Sanger. At the K-3 level, both Hexter and Lakewood were 80%+ white. I'm not sure if the number they're citing is K-6, or just the 4-6 school for Lakewood.

So while the elimination of busing may have reduced the minority population somewhat, I don't think it's the sole answer for the change.

This DISD study (http://www.dallasisd.org/cms/lib/TX0...rs-2008-09.pdf) has some good background info, as do the opinions from Tasby v. Estes and Tasby v. Wright, if anyone cares to know more.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by TX75007

Most of the families living in poverty are single parent homes. This reflects the rise in the US overall of the divorce culture.

I don't think it has much to do with divorce. A large number of single mothers living in poverty were never married to begin with. It more reflects the absolutely atrocious sexual education curriculum we have in Texas.

[GreyDay]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

I don't think it has much to do with divorce. It more reflects the absolutely atrocious sexual education curriculum we have in Texas.

Leaving parents completely off the hook.

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by GreyDay

Leaving parents completely off the hook.

We don't expect parents to be able to teach their children physics or calculus. Why we would expect that parents should have up-to-date information on the best ways to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancies, I don't know. Most parents also have received completely unsubstantial sexual education themselves, and people in poverty tend to have less educated parents who also grew up in poverty. It's a structural issue that the schools are not remedying despite absolutely having the ability to reduce the problem significantly.

The fact that a child should be deprived of this information simply because he or she has a parent who either does not know it or else neglects to tell him or her out of some kind of philosophical objection is tantamount to neglect and child abuse on the part of the state.

[GreyDay]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

We don't expect parents to be able to teach their children physics or calculus. Why we would expect that parents should have up-to-date information on the best ways to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancies, I don't know. Most parents also have received completely unsubstantial sexual education themselves, and people in poverty tend to have less educated parents who also grew up in poverty. It's a structural issue that the schools are not remedying despite absolutely having the ability to reduce the problem substantially.

The fact that a child should be deprived of this information simply because he or she has a parent who either does not know it or else neglects to tell him or her out of some kind of philosophical objection is tantamount to neglect and child abuse on the part of the state.

Some things a school should not be held responsible. Yes, not being given a good moral foundation can cause problems to be repeated generation after another, however we can't legislate that a school do more than teach the three R's.

Some things can only be taught by parents. Should only be taught by parents. I don't have a great solution but it's too much to put on already overburdened teachers.

[HockDad]

The fact that a child should be deprived of this information simply because he or she has a parent who either does not know it or else neglects to tell him or her out of some kind of philosophical objection is tantamount to neglect and child abuse on the part of the state.[/quote]

We have far different opinions on what constitutes child abuse. I don't what the state, or specifically a teacher I don't know, giving my two daughters advice on sex. I don't mind the "movie" and some basic information, but I think most of the teaching should be done by parents.

[Walter Benjamin]

There is precious little evidence that a sex ed class, of whatever type, or lack thereof, has much impact on a student's behavior. The student's own temperament, family situation, social situation, etc., are much bigger factors. Just ask Berkeley sociologist Kristin Luker...



Luker, When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex--and Sex Education

“It is surprisingly difficult to show that sex education programs do in fact increase teenagers’ willingness to protect themselves from pregnancy and/or disease. Perhaps this is not surprising, in that few social programs show verifiable effects in changing individual behavior, particularly something as socially, politically, and emotionally complex as sex.”

Judith Shulevitz, "Teach Your Children Well"

Does sex ed lead teenagers to have more sex or have it sooner, as critics insist? There’s no evidence that it does. Does sex ed increase contraceptive use, as defenders reply? Also hard to prove. American teenage girls start having sex later than they did 10 years ago and favor birth control more and get pregnant less than they did 20 years ago, but if sex education can claim credit for their caution, it can’t claim much. AIDS and virginity pledges are equally proximate causes.

[GripeWater]

Parents, schools and society need to work together for optimum results since all have a responsibility and all face the consequences. We must not forget that condoms aren't a substitute for good morals, personal responsibility and wisdom.