DeVos' confirmation will usher in....resegregation?

[crazed_hoosier2]

So says this author:

Racial animus was a primary catalyst of the move toward private and religious K-12 education almost 50 years ago, and racial segregation remains a dominant factor in all schooling, public and private, today. DeVos' track record suggests that as secretary, she will do little to combat these trends.​

I'm not carrying any particular brief for DeVos herself. But, really, she's largely incidental to the actual war being waged here. It's actually all about the issues -- vouchers, charter schools, etc. -- underlying her nomination.

Now, I've long been a proponent of these kinds of reforms (though I'm not sure how much it should involve the Feds and the DOE). That said, while there are some legitimate arguments to be made against them, it seems to me that the weakest one is that they would foster school segregation.

My parish's elementary school (PreK-8) has accepted Indiana's school vouchers ever since they were made available. And the percentage of minority students at the school has gone up sharply as a result of it.

As with most parochial schools in our Diocese, the school had previously been almost exclusively white. Most minority students before then were Asian, despite that being a much smaller demographic in our community than black and Latino.

Granted, our school's increase in minority enrollment is offset by a decrease in minority enrollment at our area public schools. But the starting point for the public schools was, as you'd expect, much higher. So, in effect, both the public schools and the private schools have moved towards being more representative of the area'a racial/ethnic breakdown.

 

[Sope Creek]

Granted, our school's increase in minority enrollment is offset by a decrease in minority enrollment at our area public schools. But the starting point for the public schools was, as you'd expect, much higher. So, in effect, both the public schools and the private schools have moved towards being more representative of the area'a racial/ethnic breakdown.

What has been the effect on the public school's percentage of white/minority students? I get that your school's minority enrollment has increased . . . but has there been a corresponding or perhaps even larger increase in the number of white students enrolled in other private schools?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So says this author:

Racial animus was a primary catalyst of the move toward private and religious K-12 education almost 50 years ago, and racial segregation remains a dominant factor in all schooling, public and private, today. DeVos' track record suggests that as secretary, she will do little to combat these trends.​

I'm not carrying any particular brief for DeVos herself. But, really, she's largely incidental to the actual war being waged here. It's actually all about the issues -- vouchers, charter schools, etc. -- underlying her nomination.

Now, I've long been a proponent of these kinds of reforms (though I'm not sure how much it should involve the Feds and the DOE). That said, while there are some legitimate arguments to be made against them, it seems to me that the weakest one is that they would foster school segregation.

My parish's elementary school (PreK-8) has accepted Indiana's school vouchers ever since they were made available. And the percentage of minority students at the school has gone up sharply as a result of it.

As with most parochial schools in our Diocese, the school had previously been almost exclusively white. Most minority students before then were Asian, despite that being a much smaller demographic in our community than black and Latino.

Granted, our school's increase in minority enrollment is offset by a decrease in minority enrollment at our area public schools. But the starting point for the public schools was, as you'd expect, much higher. So, in effect, both the public schools and the private schools have moved towards being more representative of the area'a racial/ethnic breakdown.

Be careful about drawing broad conclusions from personal experience. The author is right that there is a trend toward segregation among charters and private schools. Chose to care or not care, explain or not explain, it's still there. The study cited was hardly revelatory. It's pretty well known.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What has been the effect on the public school's percentage of white/minority students? I get that your school's minority enrollment has increased . . . but has there been a corresponding or perhaps even larger increase in the number of white students enrolled in other private schools?

Well, I can't answer that last question. I can only speak definitively about our parish elementary school -- and anecdotally about the 3 or 4 other parochial schools in our general area.

There is some statewide data available here.

According to that report, in 2015-16, 13.2% of the the voucher students statewide were black, 18.2% Hispanic, about 8% were multiracial, Asian, or "other", and 60.85% were white. By comparison, the population of the state of Indiana in 2015 was 80% non-Hispanic white, 9.6% black, 6.7% Hispanic, and about 4% other.

Just comparing those two sets of numbers, all racial/ethnic minorities are more represented among voucher students than they are in the general population and whites are less represented.

So I'd guess that the schools I'm personally familiar with aren't outliers. And, that being the case, it puzzles me that she'd argue that increasing school choice options (particularly if, as in Indiana, it's pegged to income) would resegregate schools.

It certainly stands to reason that, if the private schools are getting more minority students due to vouchers, then the public schools are getting fewer. But, there again, where are each of them starting from? And, let's not forget what segregation is, BTW -- it's the notion of having "black" schools and "white" schools. Well, I can tell you point blank that, but for one kind or another of financial aid, most of the private schools around here have previously been (and would likely continue to be) stark white. The introduction of vouchers has changed that significantly.

The only data I could find showing statewide enrollment data by race/ethnicity wasn't broken down between public and private schools. Maybe somebody else can locate that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Be careful about drawing broad conclusions from personal experience. The author is right that there is a trend toward segregation among charters and private schools. Chose to care or not care, explain or not explain, it's still there. The study cited was hardly revelatory. It's pretty well known.

Well, see the data from Indiana I just referenced. It suggests that my personal experience is in keeping with the rest of the state.

Minority students, of all categories, are receiving a significantly larger share of "Choice" vouchers in Indiana than their proportional share of the overall population. Whites, on the other hand, account for 80% of the state's population and just ~61% of the Choice vouchers.

This isn't about me caring or not caring, Goat. Why even say that? I'm saying that what she's saying doesn't comport with my personal experience -- but it also flies in the face of the statewide data in Indiana.

Are there private voucher-accepting schools elsewhere in the state that are largely or exclusively white or black or Hispanic? If so, which ones are they? Because, here, virtually all of the voucher-accepting schools pre-existed the Choice program and were, prior to that, almost exclusively white. They're still predominantly white -- but significantly less so than they used to be.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

One item I heard about school vouchers and school choice that I found interesting, support comes highest in rural areas. But rural areas aren't likely to have much school choice. If a rural community has 10 first graders, 8 second graders, 12 third graders, 14 fourth, and 10 fifth, is it likely someone is going to open up a competitive school? And what, steal 26 total students over those five grades? It doesn't seem real likely. So the biggest proponents of school choice aren't likely to see a single benefit.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

One item I heard about school vouchers and school choice that I found interesting, support comes highest in rural areas. But rural areas aren't likely to have much school choice. If a rural community has 10 first graders, 8 second graders, 12 third graders, 14 fourth, and 10 fifth, is it likely someone is going to open up a competitive school? And what, steal 26 total students over those five grades? It doesn't seem real likely. So the biggest proponents of school choice aren't likely to see a single benefit.

Does support of that kind ultimately end up mattering? I mean, I guess it does in the sense of creating the political will to overcome the entrenched public education establishment -- which is no mean feat.

But, ultimately, I think what ends up mattering most is participation. I mean, most rural people I know really like being rural people -- and know full well the kinds of tradeoffs this requires....educational options being one of them.

Back to the Diocese of Evansville, we have a number of small rural elementary schools. In fact, every once in a while, I come across one I'd forgotten about, if I'd ever heard of it in the first place. So, at least in our neck of the woods, it's not as if there aren't already some rural private schools.

Still, I think the ultimate test of these programs comes down more to actual participation and satisfaction than it does support in the abstract.

One thing from the report I listed that is interesting is that, in 2011-12, there were 68,700 (non-voucher) private school students in the state and 3911 voucher students. In 2015-16, there were 51,000 (non-voucher) private school students and 32,686 voucher students. In other words, the private schools have grown some -- but mostly at the expense of students paying their own way, not so much at the expense of the traditional public schools (which have lost just 8,000 students since 2011-12).

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, see the data from Indiana I just referenced. It suggests that my personal experience is in keeping with the rest of the state.

No, it doesn't. As you correctly noted in your response to Sope, segregation is about having "black schools" and "white schools." Having minority families take advantage of increased school choices will actually increase overall segregation, if most of them end up in the same select schools.

(IIRC, this is more common among charters than private schools. We have a black charter right here in the Fort, in fact - underperforming, of course.)

This isn't about me caring or not caring, Goat. Why even say that? I'm saying that what she's saying doesn't comport with my personal experience -- but it also flies in the face of the statewide data in Indiana.

I'm sorry, I was on my phone and trying to be judicious with typing. I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't care about the kids. I just meant that you might not thing segregation is per se something that should combated. Based on conversations we've had on other issues that touch on individual freedom, you strike me as the type of guy who would care less about the trend toward or away from more segregation, and more about whether the trend was the result of free choices made by individuals, as opposed to government mandate.

Are there private voucher-accepting schools elsewhere in the state that are largely or exclusively white or black or Hispanic? If so, which ones are they? Because, here, virtually all of the voucher-accepting schools pre-existed the Choice program and were, prior to that, almost exclusively white. They're still predominantly white -- but significantly less so than they used to be.

I have no idea. But I do know that people have studied the issue. The article you shared includes a link to one of those studies. I've seen others. Here's a very recent CSM article on the issue, which mentions different research. The research all seems to agree that the overall trend of vouchers and charters is toward segregation, not the other way around.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No, it doesn't. As you correctly noted in your response to Sope, segregation is about having "black schools" and "white schools." Having minority families take advantage of increased school choices will actually increase overall segregation, if most of them end up in the same select schools.

First, that's an awfully big "if" -- which is why I asked if there are private schools which accept vouchers around Indiana which are predominantly white or black or otherwise. I certainly don't have a finger on the pulse of the entire state. But I very much do have a finger on the pulse of the private schools in my community. And there's no question that they're more racially diverse today than they were prior to the vouchers.

And, again, the only way that statewide data on vouchers (it also includes data on charters) could be read to increasing school segregation is if there are private schools where black kids are exclusively congregating (or white kids, etc.). And if such schools exist, none of them are around here. Otherwise, what we're seeing is a significantly higher share of minority kids, as compared to overall population, being able to attend private school.

I just meant that you might not thing segregation is per se something that should combated. Based on conversations we've had on other issues that touch on individual freedom, you strike me as the type of guy who would care less about the trend toward or away from more segregation, and more about whether the trend was the result of free choices made by individuals, as opposed to government mandate.

Oh, well, that's a fair point. I've never been all that enthused by the prospect of engineered diversity -- be it racial or otherwise. But the same goes for engineered uniformity. In other words, I'm no defender of "separate but equal" schools or anything of the sort. But it's not lost on me that, largely by choice, we still tend (though probably less so than in the past) to associate mostly with people like ourselves. And I don't think that's anything to necessarily fret -- especially if it's not formally decreed in any way.

I mean, when I tune in to watch an IU or Pacers basketball game, the last thing I care about is the race of the players -- and it would be bizarre to me if we were so obsessed with racial bean-counting that we put together our rosters based on making a team that "looks like America (or Indiana)". Just find the best players you can and let's go win some games.

(IIRC, this is more common among charters than private schools. We have a black charter right here in the Fort, in fact - underperforming, of course.

We have one in Evansville, too. It's a K-5 charter school called Joshua Academy that is predominantly (if not exclusively) black. I suppose you could make an argument that this amounts to a step towards resegregation.

But I would say that nobody looks at it the way we look at old Lincoln High School (which was Evansville's black high school in the pre-Brown days). It's not a school that white people have made for black people and said "You can't go to school with us. You go over there." Rather, it's a school that black people have made for black people -- and it's largely a source of great pride (although, like the one in Ft. Wayne, it's never fared well in state school ratings).

In other words, if that's indicative of what's going on in other places, then it really isn't analogous to a return to the status quo ante Brown, is it? I mean, that was compulsory segregation, not something formed as a matter of people choosing from a range of options.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In other words, if that's indicative of what's going on in other places, then it really isn't analogous to a return to the status quo ante Brown, is it? I mean, that was compulsory segregation, not something formed as a matter of people choosing from a range of options.

I'm really answering your entire post at once, but this is the money quote. You might be right, but I took issue with your original post because that's not what you said. You didn't even consider the possibility that segregation might be benign. Instead you seemed to accept the implicit assumption of bad segregation (which, it must be admitted, was clearly there in that article), and tried to deny it with anecdotal evidence, which I know you know is a fallacious argument.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm really answering your entire post at once, but this is the money quote. You might be right, but I took issue with your original post because that's not what you said. You didn't even consider the possibility that segregation might be benign. Instead you seemed to accept the implicit assumption of bad segregation (which, it must be admitted, was clearly there in that article), and tried to deny it with anecdotal evidence, which I know you know is a fallacious argument.

It's not being presented by critics as a benign effect of school choice reforms. I'm just following their lead here. They're the ones presenting it as a road back to Plessy -- and that's what I'm taking issue with.

Further, the voucher programs here -- both anecdotally and by way of broad measures of data -- seem to be having the opposite effect. In those cases, you have formerly all (or almost all) white schools that are becoming more racially diverse.

If the over-representation of minority students taking vouchers aren't ending up in racially homogeneous schools -- and nobody has presented evidence that they are -- then it's a virtual certainty that minority representation in private schools is increasing.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's not being presented by critics as a benign effect of school choice reforms. I'm just following their lead here. They're the ones presenting it as a road back to Plessy -- and that's what I'm taking issue with.

But that wasn't your argument. If you want to make that argument, go ahead, and I won't disagree with you. I was disagreeing with your use of anecdotal evidence to dismiss actual research.

Further, the voucher programs here -- both anecdotally and by way of broad measures of data -- seem to be having the opposite effect. In those cases, you have formerly all (or almost all) white schools that are becoming more racially diverse.

If the over-representation of minority students taking vouchers aren't ending up in racially homogeneous schools -- and nobody has presented evidence that they are -- then it's a virtual certainty that minority representation in private schools is increasing.

The study cited by your article, as well as the one mentioned in my CSM article are both presenting evidence of precisely that. So your local religious schools are bucking the trend. Great for them! But you can't draw broad conclusions from that, which is why your OP was fallacious.

EDIT:
If you read through that CSM article I linked, you'll note that there are specific examples of school choice programs that resulted in increased integration, highlighting DC as the exemplar. So it should be recognized that segregation isn't a necessary consequence of school choice, and those jurisdictions which see it could perhaps look to others for hints about how to combat it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So says this author:

Racial animus was a primary catalyst of the move toward private and religious K-12 education almost 50 years ago, and racial segregation remains a dominant factor in all schooling, public and private, today. DeVos' track record suggests that as secretary, she will do little to combat these trends.​

I'm not carrying any particular brief for DeVos herself. But, really, she's largely incidental to the actual war being waged here. It's actually all about the issues -- vouchers, charter schools, etc. -- underlying her nomination.

Now, I've long been a proponent of these kinds of reforms (though I'm not sure how much it should involve the Feds and the DOE). That said, while there are some legitimate arguments to be made against them, it seems to me that the weakest one is that they would foster school segregation.

My parish's elementary school (PreK-8) has accepted Indiana's school vouchers ever since they were made available. And the percentage of minority students at the school has gone up sharply as a result of it.

As with most parochial schools in our Diocese, the school had previously been almost exclusively white. Most minority students before then were Asian, despite that being a much smaller demographic in our community than black and Latino.

Granted, our school's increase in minority enrollment is offset by a decrease in minority enrollment at our area public schools. But the starting point for the public schools was, as you'd expect, much higher. So, in effect, both the public schools and the private schools have moved towards being more representative of the area'a racial/ethnic breakdown.

Three things the Devos department of education will address

1. Eliminate the Obama administration's racial equality in school discipline that deprives many black youngsters of the discipline and structure that any adolescent needs and they don't receive elsewhere.

2. Stop the school bathroom and locker room ambiguities that demean what it means to be a girl or young women and restore the common sense boys and girls separation.

3. Restore due process to discipline and or expulsion of college young men who are accused of sexual assault which due process was thrown out of kilter with previous DOE Title IX requirements.

I don't see her having much impact on school choice or vouchers. That is all a matter of state law. A federal takeover of that field will require an act of congress which will never happen.