I'll repost the Facebook thread here, for the holdouts who refuse to go there. I'm signed up to speak at a public hearing about it on Monday, and hashing it out here with y'all might help me get my thoughts in order. I am interested in your thoughts, LFM.
AD: Did they actually say they were going to resegregate the schools? Or just end busing? Because, you know, up north we ended busing about 100 years ago.
JL: Jason, do not have this argument with me. I went to grade school in Ohio, I know what it's like, and I am RILED.
They're trying to end a program that would limit the number of children who qualify for free- and reduced-price-lunches to 40% of any given school. Without this program, which, yes, involves busing for a small minority of students, a handful of schools would house the vast majority of our poorest kids. It's not about racial diversity; it's about reducing the effect that our "pockets of poverty" have on our kids.
And, by the way, 94% of the parents in our county are "satisfied" to "very satisfied" with their kids' schools. This policy change is not the result of parent complaints; it's the result of a few lunatics who have decided to take something we already fixed and do their best to break it.
GKA: fight the power!
AD: I'm not arguing, I just think the term re-segregation is kind of inflammatory and probably (hopefully) not the intent. I agree that parents and communities should be able to have more input on school policy, including curriculum content and a major change like what you are talking about (which does, on it's face, sound like a little bit of "Send them poor kids back where they belong"). So I don't understand one thing - in the absolute poorest school in your district, how is it possible to limit the subsidized lunch proportion to 40% <without> distributing those kids among the other schools? This sounds like a move that will cause a bigger proportion at those schools in poorer areas of the district, not even things out.
This is reason number 123 why I send my children to Parochial Schools.
JD: We do redistribute students -- in some cases, we send poor students to rich neighborhoods, and in some cases, we send rich students to poor neighborhoods. You'd think sending rich kids to poor schools would make people mad, but actually, the parents are the ones that choose it! You see, we don't just randomly bus kids around -- we use an extensive program of "magnet schools" that offer benefits outside the standard curriculum to entice middle- and upper-class parents to put their kids on busses and send them into the city.
For example, one of our elementary schools is adjacent to a popular downtown children's museum; others offer more electives, foreign language immersion, or special concentrations. These schools are strategically located adjacent to some of the poorest neighborhoods (relatively speaking), and families who live outside the district for these schools can apply to send their kids to them (chosen by lottery). The kids who live nearby go by default; middle- and upper-class kids go by choice. You'd think parents would shy away from this, but they don't -- these schools have huge waiting lists and turn kids away every single year. And they retain high-quality teachers at much higher rates than schools with a higher concentration of poor and high-risk kids.
In addition to having diverse, well-funded schools, we also have a VERY high degree of parent choice. The kids in my neighborhood can choose from a nearby traditional-calendar school, a year-round calendar option, a school for gifted and talented kids, a creative arts and science program, an engineering magnet school, an active learning and technology program, and international baccalaureate accredited school, an international studies program, a Montessori school, the aforementioned museums magnet school, a leadership academy, and a Spanish immersion school -- and that's just at the elementary level! And these are all PUBLIC schools -- tuition-free.
BUT -- going back to "neighborhood schools" and dropping the "economic diversity" program endangers all these programs. Without diversity as a goal, magnet programs serve no purpose, which means they'll be dropped within a generation of students -- 12 years at most. Parent choice will suffer. Student performance will suffer. And ultimately, the local economy will suffer.
But hey, what do I care? I bought a house in the suburbs, so at least when my property values triple, I'll be able to afford to send my kids to private school!