NYC schools most racially and economically segregated (New York, Union: neighborhoods, buyers)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your concerns are obviously sincere, but are not reasons in my book to be against vouchers. I'll reply to each of your points below:
-the point about minimum standards in NYC for vouchers is ultimately a cop out as power-brokers are free to offer proposals with stronger standards that have a better chance at passing the legislature (also, suburban school districts with excellent public schools have no reason to implement a voucher system as such systems are largely aimed at granting parents and students greater educational choice at failing schools).
-I have no problem with vouchers serving as public money financing private education (at the end of the day, the public good is being served) so long as students have a better chance at success. Attending overcrowded schools with graduation rates, in some instances (referring to HS here) at dismally low levels isn't a working model and I'd think that reasonable people would be willing to take a look at all options.
-state schools aren't required to meet federal testing standards either (we already see states opting out of common core, etc.) due to 10th Amendment issues, though most will as a means of maintaining federal funds (although that issue would be ripe for a lawsuit in light of the Supreme Court's decision on medicaid expansion in the Obamacare case). Still, and this goes to the idea of a marketplace of choice and opportunity, schools don't have to meet federal education requirements to appropriately serve their students and plenty of private schools throughout the country are doing fine without such standards (quite frankly, government often messes things up anyway).
-private schools are not accountable to the electorate as a whole, but to a more intimate "electorate": those who are paying money to use their services; this should make them more responsive to demands for change where necessary. In a proper voucher system, dissatisfied parents would be allowed to take that voucher elsewhere if results aren't being seen (that's the whole point of a voucher system, and any voucher system that didn't allow this is doomed to fail and is an insult), which gives those schools plenty of incentives to maintain standard or get up to standard. Ultimately, though, what good has accountability to the electorate done for public schools in most urban areas, where the public continues to support candidates who are closely tied to teachers unions fighting substantive change as it endangers their members? I say let's try a new system and stop looking to a failed system for the standard that should be followed.
-private schools are not required to take students with certain disabilities, true, though any legislature could compel such. At the end of the day, even if most private schools were not compelled to take students with certain disabilities and subsequently didn't, those students would be no worse off than they are now as they would remain in public school. I'm not saying that we should forget about them, but that's hardly a reason to penalize those who would benefit from vouchers, IMO. Let's be clear, though: there are private schools that specialize in dealing with such students that I'd imagine would be open to use of vouchers (that's sort of the point...creating a marketplace of educational choice and opportunity).
Ultimately, though, going back to the power of the dollar, many of the issues you have regarding vouchers would, in my view, be solved by the fact that parents could take their vouchers and send their children to schools that are up to standard. I'd imagine that parents who took the initiative to fill out the voucher forms, which from my experience isn't exactly a walk in the park, would have no problem sending putting in the work to send their children elsewhere and/or demand change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy
Competition presupposes a level playing field where everyone (ie schools) play by the same rules. This cannot be said of vouchers.
There are a too many fundamental issues with vouchers (as they have been presented in NYC) that cause them to be unacceptable to voters whenever there is a serious proposal to implement them (and why they will be rejected in suburban districts with excellent public schools):
- There are no minimum standards covering the qualifications of private school teachers, unlike public school teachers who are required to complete a certain amount of training and accumulate experience. Public schools that receive public funding pay more to meet a portion of these qualifications. Shouldn’t private schools receiving public funding through vouchers also require their teachers to meet the same qualifications? Or conversely, shouldn’t these qualifications be removed for PS teachers to level the playing field? The vouchers propose to pay a fixed amount to the private schools (usually based on what it costs to school a child in the PS). If private schools scrimp by paying their teachers less, not having a pension plan or not spending on training – then who is pocketing the difference?
- Vouchers do not exclude for profit institutions, which is ridiculous. Unless they do, it is basically using taxpayer money to subsidize private businesses.
- Private schools taking vouchers will not be required to meet federal testing standards (ex. NCLB). How would the public know whether the organizations that they are subsidizing with their own taxes are doing a good job teaching? Nor are they required to meet the same level of background checks.
- Private schools are not accountable to the electorate. If a teacher or administrator has been found to be ineffective, or has done something wrong, they cannot be sanctioned by the school board.
- Private schools taking vouchers will not be required to take students with learning disabilities, mental illness, or who come from dysfunctional households. So the rejects then get dumped back to the PS which in turn causes their performance to suffer more.
For vouchers not to be abused by profiteers at the expense of taxpayers, there should first be a level playing field. Either private schools receiving vouchers should be subject to the same policies and standards governing public schools, or public schools and their teachers should be released from these requirements.
Your concerns are obviously sincere, but are not reasons in my book to be against vouchers. I'll reply to each of your points below:
-the point about minimum standards in NYC for vouchers is ultimately a cop out as power-brokers are free to offer proposals with stronger standards that have a better chance at passing the legislature (also, suburban school districts with excellent public schools have no reason to implement a voucher system as such systems are largely aimed at granting parents and students greater educational choice at failing schools).
-I have no problem with vouchers serving as public money financing private education (at the end of the day, the public good is being served) so long as students have a better chance at success. Attending overcrowded schools with graduation rates, in some instances (referring to HS here) at dismally low levels isn't a working model and I'd think that reasonable people would be willing to take a look at all options.
-state schools aren't required to meet federal testing standards either (we already see states opting out of common core, etc.) due to 10th Amendment issues, though most will as a means of maintaining federal funds (although that issue would be ripe for a lawsuit in light of the Supreme Court's decision on medicaid expansion in the Obamacare case). Still, and this goes to the idea of a marketplace of choice and opportunity, schools don't have to meet federal education requirements to appropriately serve their students and plenty of private schools throughout the country are doing fine without such standards (quite frankly, government often messes things up anyway).
-private schools are not accountable to the electorate as a whole, but to a more intimate "electorate": those who are paying money to use their services; this should make them more responsive to demands for change where necessary. In a proper voucher system, dissatisfied parents would be allowed to take that voucher elsewhere if results aren't being seen (that's the whole point of a voucher system, and any voucher system that didn't allow this is doomed to fail and is an insult), which gives those schools plenty of incentives to maintain standard or get up to standard. Ultimately, though, what good has accountability to the electorate done for public schools in most urban areas, where the public continues to support candidates who are closely tied to teachers unions fighting substantive change as it endangers their members? I say let's try a new system and stop looking to a failed system for the standard that should be followed.
-private schools are not required to take students with certain disabilities, true, though any legislature could compel such. At the end of the day, even if most private schools were not compelled to take students with certain disabilities and subsequently didn't, those students would be no worse off than they are now as they would remain in public school. I'm not saying that we should forget about them, but that's hardly a reason to penalize those who would benefit from vouchers, IMO. Let's be clear, though: there are private schools that specialize in dealing with such students that I'd imagine would be open to use of vouchers (that's sort of the point...creating a marketplace of educational choice and opportunity).
Ultimately, though, going back to the power of the dollar, many of the issues you have regarding vouchers would, in my view, be solved by the fact that parents could take their vouchers and send their children to schools that are up to standard. I'd imagine that parents who took the initiative to fill out the voucher forms, which from my experience isn't exactly a walk in the park, would have no problem sending putting in the work to send their children elsewhere and/or demand change.
I was talking about how the voucher system was proposed to NYC. WThere was never any proposal by the powers that be to make them comply with the same standards (including tests), staff qualifications and unfunded mandates as the public schools. So why not include it all in the same package, if as you might be suggesting, it would be easier? (answer - whenever someone tried, the private schools and now the charters fought back and argued that they should be treated as "private contractors").
Same thing about private schools being compelled to take difficult kids. Why not put it on the table first and see how the private schools and charters feel about that? Let them be as open to accepting the worst of the worst in the school system at the same time they are given the privilage of accepting vouchers, not later. Your concerns about overcrowding, low graduation rates, etc. would best be addressed if private schools taking vouchers were required to take students of any background/ability. See how they handle it. But this is not in the cards as they have fought back any proposal for such requirements.
Also your point about states opting out of the common core is irrelevant to NYC. NYC is sticking with the common core and therefore its public schools are required to comply with testing standards. Private schools are not. The DOE can declare a PS school a failure if it fails to meet testing standards, even if parents would not want to pull their kids out of it and go elsewhere - the school would be shut down and reorganized, or teachers fired. Private schools are not required to do the same since they are not subject to federal testing - no one will really know if they are indeed doing a better job than public schools.
And private schools by default are not required to submit to an audit, which makes it nearly impossible to know if the taxpayer money they are getting is being misused. Again, accountability is weaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
(that's sort of the point...creating a marketplace of educational choice and opportunity).
"Marketplace" - Will the same "customers" be using their own money to pay for these vouchers, like in a true marketplace? For example, it costs roughly $20K/year to educate a kid in a public school - the likely amount that private schools will be reimbursed. Will the voucher holders pay $20K from their own pockets?
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 01-07-2015 at 04:46 AM..
I was talking about how the voucher system was proposed to NYC. WThere was never any proposal by the powers that be to make them comply with the same standards (including tests), staff qualifications and unfunded mandates as the public schools. So why not include it all in the same package, if as you might be suggesting, it would be easier? (answer - whenever someone tried, the private schools and now the charters fought back and argued that they should be treated as "private contractors").
Same thing about private schools being compelled to take difficult kids. Why not put it on the table first and see how the private schools and charters feel about that? Let them be as open to accepting the worst of the worst in the school system at the same time they are given the privilage of accepting vouchers, not later. Your concerns about overcrowding, low graduation rates, etc. would best be addressed if private schools taking vouchers were required to take students of any background/ability. See how they handle it. But this is not in the cards as they have fought back any proposal for such requirements."
Do show me serious proposals that were put forward to include such standards that private schools subsequently pushed back on? I don't recall any, and such an approach doesn't make much sense given that the requirements would only kick in if a school accepted voucher dollars. So basically, schools can decide not to accept voucher dollars and be left in the same shape they are now (no win, no loss) or get on board and accept more students/money even if it means adhering to certain additional standards. In my limited and rather anecdotal experience, private school administrators are not opposed to voucher plants with such standards attached to them, especially if it helps them to meet their bottom line (and, note, many private schools are already meeting and exceeding certain standards). Still, I ask whether its appropriate to condemn the entire group to failed schools because a particular plan wouldn't require that a minority be accommodated? (again, I don't think that there would be a problem here for the reasons I stated before regarding the existence of private schools that accommodate such disabilities as is).
Quote:
Also your point about states opting out of the common core is irrelevant to NYC. NYC is sticking with the common core and therefore its public schools are required to comply with testing standards. Private schools are not. The DOE can declare a PS school a failure if it fails to meet testing standards, even if parents would not want to pull their kids out of it and go elsewhere - the school would be shut down and reorganized, or teachers fired. Private schools are not required to do the same since they are not subject to federal testing - no one will really know if they are indeed doing a better job than public schools.
And private schools by default are not required to submit to an audit, which makes it nearly impossible to know if the taxpayer money they are getting is being misused. Again, accountability is weaker.
On the contrary, its very relevant as I use it to show that there are no actual Federal education "requirements." Hence, states are free to opt out of common core, regardless of whether NYS is doing so or not.
As to private schools not being required to do so, again, parents have more immediate and powerful sway over demanding change or otherwise moving their children to better performing schools under a voucher system (under the current public school model, which under de Blasio is going to see far fewer school closures even where they are warranted, far too many years of failure and mediocrity pass by before such measures are taken) as they have the power of the dollar. That's strong accountability.
I will concede that the issue with accountability is huge and several states, including Indiana (Who's watching tax dollars for state voucher program?), have failed to incorporate such requirements into the law. Still, let's be clear, even state schools are very rarely, if ever, audited, though the current law gives them no choice but to accept an audit if one is compelled. At the end of the day, we can't even have a serious discussion on implementing audit requirements for schools that accept vouchers as politicians belonging to a certain political party, beholden to teacher's unions, has consistently blocked any real chance of implementing a voucher program. I'm sure that the GOP would gladly give way to mandatory audits, especially in a state like NY where they don't have total control of government, if it meant getting Democrats on board (I doubt such a proposal would get them on board either, but one can dream), especially in light of concerns over lack of audit authority in states already implementing voucher systems. Let's be clear here: its largely public schools teacher's unions, and not private and charter schools, that lead the opposition to vouchers of any kind.
Quote:
"Marketplace" - Will the same "customers" be using their own money to pay for these vouchers, like in a true marketplace? For example, it costs roughly $20K/year to educate a kid in a public school - the likely amount that private schools will be reimbursed. Will the voucher holders pay $20K from their own pockets?
No, they would not. But, although not a perfect "marketplace," its still a step in the right direction and one that promises much greater success than we're seeing now. Also, I'd imagine that the amount per student paid for vouchers would, on average, be less as many of the schools parents would target don't charge $20K per year (that $20K per year is in part the result of a bloated bureaucracy).
This is not news to us natives. Lol
I don't see this is a bad thing either.
It's much less a racial thing than an economic one.
This is a blatant lie. I asked you to back this up.
People have continuously responded to this lie like its the truth when it is not. Why not just make your thread about cultural issues in NYC schools? Was this an attempt to talk race without facts?
This is a blatant lie. I asked you to back this up.
People have continuously responded to this lie like its the truth when it is not. Why not just make your thread about cultural issues in NYC schools? Was this an attempt to talk race without facts?
UCLA - Civil Rights Project report (based on Department of Education data)
Janet Loehrke and Jolie Lee, USA TODAY
This distinction belongs to Virginia who is at the top of the list. Then in order as follows:
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
North Carolina
As for New York's share it is 13.3% compared to Louisiana's 28.6%.
Here is the actual report from the UCLA civil rights project. Not the USA today version of the report: New York State
This is the first few lines:
"New York State’s Extreme School Segregation: Inequality, Inaction and a Damaged Future
Authors: John Kucsera, Forword by Gary Orfield
Date Published: March 26, 2014
New York has the most segregated schools in the country: in 2009, black and Latino students in the state had the highest concentration in intensely-segregated public schools (less than 10% white enrollment), the lowest exposure to white students, and the most uneven distribution with white students across schools. Heavily impacting these state rankings is New York City, home to the largest and one of the most segregated public school systems in the nation. "
So you might want to hold off throwing around the "liar" accusations.
In addition, the title of the OP post's specifically says NYC schools, not NY schools. Not the same thing.
Clearly there is a big segregation issue - whether its first, second or third.... not really relevant.
Here is the actual report from the UCLA civil rights project. Not the USA today version of the report: New York State
This is the first few lines:
"New York State’s Extreme School Segregation: Inequality, Inaction and a Damaged Future
Authors: John Kucsera, Forword by Gary Orfield
Date Published: March 26, 2014
New York has the most segregated schools in the country: in 2009, black and Latino students in the state had the highest concentration in intensely-segregated public schools (less than 10% white enrollment), the lowest exposure to white students, and the most uneven distribution with white students across schools. Heavily impacting these state rankings is New York City, home to the largest and one of the most segregated public school systems in the nation. "
So you might want to hold off throwing around the "liar" accusations.
In addition, the title of the OP post's specifically says NYC schools, not NY schools. Not the same thing.
Clearly there is a big segregation issue - whether its first, second or third.... not really relevant.
WHERE IS THE MAP IN THIS STUDY. CLEARLY THE MAP PROVIDED OUTLINES WHICH SCHOOLS HAVE THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF SEGREGATION AND SORRY, NYC IS NOT AT THE TOP OF THAT LIST. I CAN READ, and I'm insulted you think I can't contextualize what I shared.
In its 1954 Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ruling, the Supreme Court ruled separate is not equal, and segregation by race is unconstitutional. But 60 years later, segregation is still widespread in America's public schools.
New York doesn't top out at number one, based on the map.
Ummm what does the study really prove? They should do percentages instead of absolute numbers. I bet places like Scarsdale would be 100% segregated. Everyone knows why so many schools are segrated, you have places named Spanish Harlem, Chinatown, and other ethnic nabes in NYC what do you really expect?? In the end it's not the evil concept that the authors of these studies want them to appear to be. Also NYC also has a huge amount of people making lots of money, so much so that they can cluster together and dominate an entire school district which contributes to the racial patterns in schools. The word segregation is so passe in this country, most people bring it up to stir up controversy. There are definitely racial patterns in public schools, but it didn't necessarily results because of institutional racism like the past. Higher education institutions with race based and legacy admissions is another story.
May I also add that all the public schools in NYC are on par when it comes to standards. Whether they are met are entirely up to the kids in those schools. I'm making this point because the authors of these studies want people to think that some groups don't so well in schools strictly because of what they call segregation. But some of the so called segregated schools dominated by minorities are also the highest performing schools in the entire state regardless of their income.
Last edited by bumblebyz; 01-08-2015 at 09:47 AM..
Ummm what does the study really prove? They should do percentages instead of absolute numbers. I bet places like Scarsdale would be 100% segregated. Everyone knows why so many schools are segrated, you have places named Spanish Harlem, Chinatown, and other ethnic nabes in NYC what do you really expect?? In the end it's not the evil concept that the authors of these studies want them to appear to be. Also NYC also has a huge amount of people making lots of money, so much so that they can cluster together and dominate an entire school district which contributes to the racial patterns in schools. The word segregation is so passe in this country, most people bring it up to stir up controversy. There are definitely racial patterns in public schools, but it didn't necessarily results because of institutional racism like the past. Higher education institutions with race based and legacy admissions is another story.
Spot on! I can read a map.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I asked you to back this up. 
Why not just make your thread about cultural issues in NYC schools? Was this an attempt to talk race without facts? 
