School choice in "progressive" San Francisco results in........

[GMM]

.......racial isolation:

Each January, parents across San Francisco rank their preferences for public schools. By June, most get their children into their first choices, and almost three-quarters get one of their choices.

A majority of families may be satisfied with the outcome, but the student assignment system is failing to meet its No. 1 goal, which the San Francisco Unified School District has struggled to achieve since the 1960s: classroom diversity.

Since 2010, the year before the current policy went into effect, the number of San Francisco's 115 public schools dominated by one race has climbed significantly. Six in 10 have simple majorities of one racial group. In almost one-fourth, 60 percent or more of the students belong to one racial group, which administrators say makes them "racially isolated." That described 28 schools in 2013-2014, up from 23 in 2010-2011, according to the district.

Keep this in mind the next time they lecture you about "white privilege" and how you're a "racist".

As Parents Get More Choice, SF Schools Resegregate

 

[qazplm]

your commentary makes sense

since clearly you stopped reading after the first couple of paragraphs.

This post was edited on 2/11 5:55 PM by qazplm

 

[GMM]

And yours makes sense.......

.......if you can explain why its happening the way it is. How can their be income inequality in SF? Why would progressive parents care if their kids went to school with poor kids?

Explain it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: And yours makes sense.......

It is pretty well explained throughout the article...

 

[GMM]

Re: And yours makes sense.......

Really? Its explained why there's so much inequality and how the progressive folks who live there haven't fixed it? Its explained why white progressive parents don't go out of their way to make sure their kids go to school with black and hispanic kids? Its explained why such a system that racially segregates would ever be allowed in that town? Its explained why they have to "incentivize diversity" and take steps to avoid "white flight" when the people who live there, as progressive as you can get, are already strongly for/against those things?

The narrative of two San Franciscos is valid," Norton said. "The schools tend to the extremes, instead of being balanced. Political differences arise when we ask how we make our schools attractive to the San Franciscan with choices, while still providing a great education for the least advantaged children."

.............

"That means you have to think grander, and beyond your own self-interest," Carter said. "So long as we live in an individualistic and self-interested country, we're going to probably continue to have thisproblem."

This is a reality that should not exist if the people "with choices" lived up to what they claim to believe in.




This post was edited on 2/11 9:44 PM by GMM

 

[qazplm]

just so I'm clear

you think because the school system is located in San Fran, everyone who lives there is a progressive?

FYI, not every Democrat is a progressive, in fact, many are not. Not every adult is political, in fact, many are not.

 

[GMM]

Re: just so I'm clear

Yes, everyone who lives there is a progressive. Lame exaggeration tactic.

Where does SF rank, within the US, in terms of its overall worldview? Is it one of the most left-leaning cities in this country? If so then explain these school choice results.

 

[qazplm]

ah so you want a rank within the US

OK, so where does SF rank versus other cities that also more or less do not desegregate?

Is their 40% voluntary desegregation rate high, low, or average compared to similar schemes in other cities?

 

[GMM]

Re: ah so you want a rank within the US

Now you're arguing over minutiae. Progressive looooove to condescend to the rest of America over how "racist" they are and other assorted racial sins. Yet in one of the most "progressive" cities in America we see racial segregation. If the left can't achieve its racial nirvana in places like SF then they should shut up about the rest of us.

 

[qazplm]

nope

you don't have an answer (because you made a specious claim).

IF SF is roughly equal to other cities with similar plans in how they "voluntarily desegregate" then that would be evidence in favor of the "progressives are just as racist as everyone else" argument you want to have.

IF SF is significantly worse, then that would be evidence in favor of the "progressives are more racist" argument.

IF SF is significantly better, then that would be evidence in favor of progressives are less racist argument.

Of course, evidence isn't proof in any of those scenarios, but it would at least be evidence.
And of course, progressives don't claim to be masters of racial nirvana, but I do understand it's tough out there for a racist in today's world, what with all the judging and whatnot. My heart feels for you.

 

[GMM]

Re: nope

And of course, progressives don't claim to be masters of racial nirvana.......

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!

IF SF is significantly worse, then that would be evidence in favor of the "progressives are more racist" argument.

IF SF is significantly better, then that would be evidence in favor of progressives are less racist argument.

Or, progressive could admit that when it comes to their own neighborhoods and their own children they're quite normal and sane. Otherwise derided as "racist" when they want to denounce people they don't like.

 

[qazplm]

Re: nope

yes, i understand how you think separating races is normal and sane.

 

[GMM]

Re: nope


yes, i understand how you think separating races is normal and sane.
Yeah, just like your fellow lefties. At least, that's what they do. What they say is of course another thing.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: And yours makes sense.......

Originally posted by GMM:
Really? Its explained why there's so much inequality and how the progressive folks who live there haven't fixed it? Its explained why white progressive parents don't go out of their way to make sure their kids go to school with black and hispanic kids? Its explained why such a system that racially segregates would ever be allowed in that town? Its explained why they have to "incentivize diversity" and take steps to avoid "white flight" when the people who live there, as progressive as you can get, are already strongly for/against those things?

Did someone claim there was inequality? No. They claimed there wasn't integration based on the system they use to select, and that system isn't based solely on race. You want everyone to infer that folks in SF are self-selecting to send their white kids to schools with other white kids, but the fact is they're sending their kids to schools that are closer by, have better records... lots of different factors. More affluent people are spending more time on research into the schools, and less affluent people are not - again for a variety of reasons cited quite well throughout the article. Your inference is inaccurate, so you can continue to throw a whole bunch of irrelevant questions around, but those questions are pretty clearly answered in the article.

Sorry, it's not "Whitey wants to send kids to schools with other whiteys."

Qaz is right, your claims in this thread are specious... which is nothing new. Unfortunately, most folks on here understand the difference between "plausible" and "reality."