Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
EDWARDS ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS. I've criticized John Edwards for talking a lot about inequality and poverty without mentioning public schools. This week, Edwards is reversing that trend, articulating a three-point plan for integrating schools in the wake of the Supreme Court decision declaring Seatle's race-based integration model unconstitutional:
1. Give bonuses to schools in affluent communities enrolling low-income students.2. Create magnet schools dedicated to economic integration by doubling current federal magnet schools funding to $200 million a year, and dedicating the increase to schools that draw students from across district lines and pledge to maintain economically diverse schools.
3. Create a million housing vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods.
I like these proposals because they hit directly (though incrementally) at the major reason why the schools poor kids go to are so bad: They are funded by the much lower property taxes of poor neighborhoods and cities. Edwards suggests increasing funding to schools serving poor kids while helping poor families move to more economically diverse areas likely to have better public schools. So he gets the central fact that geographical segregation is responsible for inequality in education.
It's disappointing to see that the conservative and libertarian line on the proposal is to reduce it to "out-of-touch" Edwards supporting "busing." By giving extra federal dollars to suburban schools who serve poor kids as well as urban magnet schools that attract suburban kids, Edwards attempts to equally distribute the burden of busing between the rich and poor. That's fair.
The knee-jerk negative reaction to busing is inexcusable. I took a bus every single day until high school, and that's because my town bused everybody in order to racially integrate. The bus allowed my parents to leave for work in the morning without the added stress of getting me safely to school. The bus is wonderful for families with two working parents. Now, I understand that excessive school commutes are no fun for kids or their families, and take away from play and homework time. That's why, when possible, neighboring communities with different socioeconomic make-ups should work in tandem to create integrated schools. In cities where the whole system is failing, Edwards' instinct to flush in federal dollars is exactly right, barring of course, the more radical step of pooling all educational funding at the state or national level.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (9)
Ladies and gentlemen, Dana Goldstein.
Posted by: Senescent | July 18, 2007 12:54 PM
Well, this is the key question about all this:
In urban areas where the
"whole system is failing" what is purpose in creating a "magnet school" system where students compete with each other for spots in a few schools that are pre-selected for special attention?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 1:41 PM
"The bus is wonderful for families with two working parents."
Extrapolating from a sample size of one -- yourself?
Talk about chutzpah.
And I'll bet all the students were above average in Lake Wobegoldstein too.
Posted by: KipEsquire | July 18, 2007 2:26 PM
"Create a million housing vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods."
Why would Edwards propose giving poor people a voucher to obtain better housing, instead of for the more immediate problem of obtaining better education for their children?
Guess his commitment to them is secondary to his loyalty to the teachers unions who insist on keeping poor children trapped in their crappy public school systems.
Posted by: Chicounsel | July 18, 2007 2:41 PM
"Guess his commitment to them is secondary to his loyalty to the teachers unions who insist on keeping poor children trapped in their crappy public school systems."
This is always so hysterical. I've seen people get lynched by the AFT at the behest of the board. If there's a problem in the school system it's them and their own cronyism, not the union's toothless bureaucratic grievance process.
At best all the union does is help keep the floor under their salaries. F-ing that up too isn't going to help any kid learn.
And before you pop up to tell me cronyism is the problem with the public school system, be prepared to tell me how cronyism isn't a problem in private enterprise.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 2:51 PM
Why would Edwards propose giving poor people a voucher to obtain better housing, instead of for the more immediate problem of obtaining better education for their children?
Classic. As if moving to a better neighborhood doesn't mean a better education for your kids!
Oh, what's that you say? You're just a partisan drone who wanted to make a gratuitous union-bashing argument? Never mind then.
Posted by: Steve | July 18, 2007 3:11 PM
"I like these proposals because they hit directly (though incrementally) at the major reason why the schools poor kids go to are so bad: They are funded by the much lower property taxes of poor neighborhoods and cities."
I see, that's why DC's schools are the best in the country because they have the highest funding per student. In fact they were so good Al Gore and Bill Clinton MADE SURE to send their kids there . . . oh wait, that's not what happened?
Posted by: Scott | July 18, 2007 3:47 PM
They have already tried stuff like this for poor people. They moved them to "richer" neighborhoods and found it didn't help their academic achievement or earning potential at all. In fact I think I remember reading they actually performed worse than if they had stayed put in their original neighborhoods. All of this stuff has been tried ad naseum to no avail. The democrats think they can engineer a utopia even though they have failed a million times over. In kansas city they spent billions of dollars on new schools for the poorer neighborhoods but in the end, tests scores were no better. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at the problem you will still get the some results.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 4:14 PM
Here's how to fix public schools:
1) Pool all school funding at the state level;
2) Outlaw private schools under the Collegiate level
When the rich are forced to send their kids to the public schools, those schools will get better so fast your head would spin.
Posted by: steveconga | July 19, 2007 9:17 AM