Schools report finds ‘jaw-dropping’ gap for black boys

[The Spartan]

Has anybody else seen this commercial? (Youtube link)

It's actually an Amex commercial, but it features Geoffrey Canada founder of something called Harlem Children's Zone. Here's an article written by him:

The truth about our schools: Harlem Children's Zone CEO Geoffrey Canada on 'Waiting for Superman'
By Geoffrey Canada

The documentary "Waiting for 'Superman'" - which features the Harlem Children's Zone I am proud to lead - has unleashed a furious debate over the urgent need to improve our public schools. As often happens in a war of words, the facts are the first casualty, so I want to set the record straight.

There are 11,000 children living in the neighborhood covered by the Harlem Children's Zone, and we work with 8,800 of them. Whether they are the 1,400 in our two charter schools or in the local traditional public schools, we make the same guarantee: We will get you through college. Given the desperate need for high-skills workers, this is a promise that America needs to make to all of its students.

Some have accused "Superman" of advocating for public charter schools as the solution, but we feel they are an "R&D" division where innovation can be tested. Successful charters have demonstrated that a longer school day and year, increased accountability and a reliance on data to drive instruction can help children who have fallen behind. These high-performing charters are one of the solutions, but consistently low-performing charters should be closed.

At our Promise Academy II public charter school, the guarantee is taking shape: On statewide exams, the students did better than the schools in the district (with 81% on or above grade level in math compared with 21%-52% in other public schools, and 62% on grade level in English, compared with 12%-49% in other public schools), and our students - predominantly African-American and Latino - performed better than or on par with white students statewide.

Critics have charged that we are spending outsized amounts on our students. While the city spends about $14,500 per pupil in traditional public schools, we spend about $16,000 on our public charter schools. That $1,500 gets us a 30% longer school year and added teacher support. More importantly, that $1,500 comes with a guarantee that we will not fail.

We have only been operating public charter schools for six years, but we have begun to see what is possible for poor children in a high-quality school setting. And I guarantee our schools will get stronger.

Our Promise Academy I students exceeded the district performance in math (by more than 20 percentage points in some grades), but our sixth-graders struggled in English, which has been seized upon by critics as "proof" that our school, and charters in general, don't work. However, our experience has shown that it takes several years to get students who are massively behind up to grade level. Our current charter high-schoolers are passing their Regents exams at higher rates than the state overall, and they arrived at our middle school way below grade level.

Unlike a traditional school that is bound by contract restrictions, our charter schools have the flexibility to act quickly - so we revamped the sixth-grade staff, letting go teachers who failed to raise our children's skills. That is what all schools need to be able to do: Evaluate teachers, retain the good ones and let go of the worst. This idea has sparked protests that "Superman" is against unions, but its message is really against retaining lousy or ineffective teachers.

Charters are not the only answer to our education crisis. We must improve all our public schools. That's why my organization runs after-school programs in each of the seven public schools in our zone and will supply teachers' assistants in 76 public school classrooms this year.

For the local students in public middle and high schools, we have created a pipeline of after-school and summer programs offering tutoring, SAT prep and college guidance as well as the arts and technology. More than 90% of our high school seniors from public schools were accepted into college for this fall.

We are proud of our charter-school students, but our goal is to pioneer a comprehensive, community approach to breaking the cycle of generational poverty.

The heartrending stories in "Superman" call out for action and have spurred many to anger. There is indeed a crisis in public education and there is more than enough blame to go around, but we need to look forward and work together on improving the odds for our children. The success of any school or program should be not treated as a threat, but an invitation for other educators to learn.

If there is any magic happening in the Harlem Children's Zone, it is the everyday magic of hard work over the long haul. Our early successes - and we believe we have just begun - have shown that poor children in devastated neighborhoods can excel if the playing field is truly leveled.

I'm not worried about the students in our zone. They will be fine. But what about the millions of students in our failing schools - will their schools do anything different? Superman isn't coming for them. It is up to all of us to save them.

tl;dr is that under his charter schools, they spend an extra $1500 per student on average than the local public schools, but they have additional resources for teachers and students and they have the power to fire teachers who aren't living up to expectations. They also have after school programs and college prep courses and, at least from what I've heard, they're succeeding. So, apart from what I just mentioned, how are they doing it? Is it really that simple?

There's also this article which I won't post since it's fairly long and mostly doesn't directly relate to the thread. What is important from the story is that the man in it was growing up in a decent neighborhood until his parents divorced. After that his mom had apparently no choice but to move to a neighborhood across the river from New Orleans, the projects. A neighborhood where he, "noticed how nobody ever talked about getting out. How nobody believed they could. Soon enough, neither did he." It's that generational poverty thing. The reason I bring it up, is the first article I posted. Harlem, I presume, was not dissimilar in beating the hope and aspirations out of people, so, do we do much the same thing in New Orleans? In the 5th Ward here? Appalachia?

[Broomstick]

Broomstick:
Firstly, the problem I have with megastores (and doesn't Chicago ban big-box stores inside the city limits?)

That was true for a long while - I believe there is ONE Wal-Mart inside the city limits, on the far west side of the city. The city relented because the residents of that ward lobbied to bring Wal-Mart in, and a deal was brokered where Wal-Mart pledged to preferentially hire from the local area. When you consider that the area in question had been devastated by the riots of the 1960's and never rebuilt, unemployment was through the roof, and shopping for anything required going out of the area, in this particular situation bringing Wal-Mart was a net benefit. The store supplied jobs that had been lacking for decades and also brought readily available, low-cost groceries into an area that had been a "food desert". In that particular case it was a good thing. There is still considerable resistance to bringing the big boxes into the rest of the city.

... is that the profits are sucked out of the area and essentially vanish. This is pretty counterproductive for establishing a working city.

Unless, as in the example above, there are essentially NO employers in the are and the big box brings in wages that simply didn't exist in the area before. This in contrast to when Wal-Mart moves in and displaces established businesses. For an established area with functional businesses a big box store can be bad. Where the local economy is dysfunctional, there are few or no local businesses (other than liquor stores and churches) and jobs are absent it can be a benefit.

Because circumstances vary you have to be wary of making blanket judgments. That's the tricky part of civic planning, knowing how to properly evaluate local circumstances.

Well, the combined factors of functioning public areas, functioning schools, and a friendlier police force should help to damage the gangs. They form because of the lack of family for many kids, though, so national-level efforts as well as city-level efforts would probably be needed.

There is also the problem that gangs are self-perpetuating organizations - they resist efforts to eliminate them. The mafia always ran legal businesses alongside their illegal ones, so given sufficient inducement they could be persuaded to "go legit", run legal operations, and still continue to exist. So far as I know, the current street gangs in Chicago have NO legal businesses, so it's not a matter of pressuring them to shift the balance of their work to legal things. For them, if you eliminate their illegal operations they cease to exist. So they're brutal about pushing back.

[Big Phil]

Oh, Lord, Sanchez! You make all your insults in complete seriousness? That's very illuminating, I must admit. But it is not a practice that I favor, generally speaking. I prefer making my insults with a song in my heart and a lightness in my step, if you don't mind me waxing poetic a little. But thank you for actually addressing the topic of the thread.

Unfortunately, the sources that you have provided are more than a little faulty. Shelby Steele uses the "bootstraps" argument and ignores any structural aspects of poverty. This is not a particularly strong argument, since it requires that the US be a near-perfect meritocracy, which it is fairly obvious to see that it is not. Do you have anything to support Mr. Steele's argument? For that matter, what is the difference between affirmative action and welfare programs, precisely, such that we should shut down one and not the other, and that we can differentiate "black culture" from "poor culture". Or do you not believe there is a difference?

Bootstraps is your own strawman of his argument. I stated explicitly what his argument actually is. I'll quote it again: "blacks made a deal with the devil by exchanging responsibility and control over their destiny for handouts."

That is bootstraps. It's saying that blacks could negate these disparities if they hadn't accepted the idea of affirmative action; in other words, they could pull themselves up without any help from the government, indeed government "help" only making things worse. I'm not sure what the major difference is between that and bootstraps, but maybe you have a handy chart to explain it?

I don't want to forget about this, so I'll say it first. Thanks for providing suggestions for how to improve black education rates. You're short on details, but you did do what was asked. Broomstick is already debating the finer points there, so I'll let you two has that out.

On this issue, it's not bootstraps to tell black people they're responsible for their own success or failure. White people/the government is already there doing everything it thinks it should be doing (and often what black "leaders" are telling them to do) to help, and it's still not making things better. You don't think you should ask why that might be?

Inner city schools tend to be shittier than other schools, and they receive correspondingly less money, but money isn't everything. The level of parental involvement is also pathetically low, and that's not something that the government can solve.

[Bakustra]

I don't want to forget about this, so I'll say it first. Thanks for providing suggestions for how to improve black education rates. You're short on details, but you did do what was asked. Broomstick is already debating the finer points there, so I'll let you two has that out.

On this issue, it's not bootstraps to tell black people they're responsible for their own success or failure. White people/the government is already there doing everything it thinks it should be doing (and often what black "leaders" are telling them to do) to help, and it's still not making things better. You don't think you should ask why that might be?

Inner city schools tend to be shittier than other schools, and they receive correspondingly less money, but money isn't everything. The level of parental involvement is also pathetically low, and that's not something that the government can solve.

See, now you're departing from Steele's argument. That's not really a bad thing, but his proposition is that affirmative action is harmful, not that it isn't enough. As for why affirmative action programs aren't making things better? Because they are opposed at every turn, and the programs that are adopted don't generally deal with root problems. You have to consider that the political climate is very negative on aid to the poor and disadvantaged in the US, too.

Broomstick:
Firstly, the problem I have with megastores (and doesn't Chicago ban big-box stores inside the city limits?)

That was true for a long while - I believe there is ONE Wal-Mart inside the city limits, on the far west side of the city. The city relented because the residents of that ward lobbied to bring Wal-Mart in, and a deal was brokered where Wal-Mart pledged to preferentially hire from the local area. When you consider that the area in question had been devastated by the riots of the 1960's and never rebuilt, unemployment was through the roof, and shopping for anything required going out of the area, in this particular situation bringing Wal-Mart was a net benefit. The store supplied jobs that had been lacking for decades and also brought readily available, low-cost groceries into an area that had been a "food desert". In that particular case it was a good thing. There is still considerable resistance to bringing the big boxes into the rest of the city.

... is that the profits are sucked out of the area and essentially vanish. This is pretty counterproductive for establishing a working city.

Unless, as in the example above, there are essentially NO employers in the are and the big box brings in wages that simply didn't exist in the area before. This in contrast to when Wal-Mart moves in and displaces established businesses. For an established area with functional businesses a big box store can be bad. Where the local economy is dysfunctional, there are few or no local businesses (other than liquor stores and churches) and jobs are absent it can be a benefit.

Because circumstances vary you have to be wary of making blanket judgments. That's the tricky part of civic planning, knowing how to properly evaluate local circumstances.

Yes, and that's only a short-term solution. The workers get money, but the profits are sucked out of the neighborhood, unlike with locally-owned stores. So focusing on establishing those stores would be better than adopting Wal-mart as a stopgap and then having to force it out again later.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, great. Focus on establishing local businesses. How?

This is a community that still hasn't recovered economically from riots forty years ago. While it's possible that the conditions for establishing local business exist if only the Apathetic Government would throw more money at the problem... it's also possible that there's a genuine problem with the neighborhood.

This kind of problem is never simple enough for a one-size-fits-all solution.

[Bakustra]

OK, great. Focus on establishing local businesses. How?

This is a community that still hasn't recovered economically from riots forty years ago. While it's possible that the conditions for establishing local business exist if only the Apathetic Government would throw more money at the problem... it's also possible that there's a genuine problem with the neighborhood.

This kind of problem is never simple enough for a one-size-fits-all solution.

What is the genuine problem, then, apart from the departure of tax income from the city limits, large businesses departing afterward, a reputation for crime that accelerated departures... all of which are not inherent to the neighborhood, or, rather to its inhabitants. So what is this problem? How could it be dealt with? At least you can establish businesses by providing ultra-low-interest loans and subsidies to people and giving out free education in business and finance. But dealing with a nebulous, undefined problem like this is punching fog.

[Broomstick]

OK, great. Focus on establishing local businesses. How?

This is a community that still hasn't recovered economically from riots forty years ago.

Actually, it hasn't recovered physically from the riots. There were buildings left in ruins for decades. That was a situation where there was blatant redlining connected to race. In other words, racial discrimination was a serious factor in the neighborhood being left as a shitpile for a generation.

While it's possible that the conditions for establishing local business exist if only the Apathetic Government would throw more money at the problem... it's also possible that there's a genuine problem with the neighborhood.

This kind of problem is never simple enough for a one-size-fits-all solution.

True. And, being that I've lived in Chicago, and even worked for a time on the west side, I may be privy to more details than others on this board.

There were several factors at work here (as there usually are).

- There was the physical destruction of the buildings - not only from riots but from succeeding years of neglect and decay.

- Prior to the destruction, the area was already low-income. Thus, those who did live in the area had few resources to tap to rebuild.

- Post-riots, a lot of people and businesses just up and left due to perceived dangers (which, by the way, were real to one degree or another). Of course, those that left where those that were able to leave, the ones with the resources to do so. Which meant many (though not all) of those left were those too destitute to leave... and they certainly didn't have the money to rebuild.

- Loss of local businesses (due either to outright destruction in civil unrest or the owners pulling out) meant the jobs in the area all left, which crushed the local economy even further.

- Crime rates rose, as often happens in such areas, including greater gang activity. Hoodlums are bad. Organized hoodlums are worse.

- Businesses that remained (few as they were) had to purchase more security. This reduced profits and increased prices in an area with already sharply limited purchasing power.

- New businesses were reluctant to open up because..
--- need for security measures
--- danger to employees resulting in high turnover
--- inability to obtain loans to improve buildings or businesses
--- not a lot of money in the neighborhood to purchase your products/services
Now, given that, if you're planning on opening a business are you going to do that on the west side, or in a neighborhood like Lincoln Park with a low crime rate and customers with ample disposable income?

The plus side of adding a Wal-Mart
- you get at least one major lot rehabbed and back on the property tax roles
- local jobs
- wages mean more disposable income in the neighborhood
- disposable income means people are now able to purchase items to improve their living quarters, which means the neighborhood finally starts seeing some repair.
- disposable income also means the locals now have more purchasing power, which may attract new businesses, and at the very least improves the few that are left.

Yes, Wal-Mart profits leave the neighborhood - but prior to their arrival money was bleeding out of the neighborhood already. With wages being provided by Wal-Mart, and customer traffic from outside the immediate area, the net result in this particular case is more money in the neighborhood than there was before.

Certain Wal-Mart programs - such as providing certain antibiotics free - can also boost the health in a severely depressed area where medical care is spotty and often too expensive for residents.

Anyhow - there were genuine problems with the neighborhood, many interlocking and intractable problems. Wal-Mart has alleviated the lack of local jobs and mitigated lack of disposable income. It won't be enough to truly revitalize the area, but it does reduce two of the many problems.

However, it doesn't matter how much money a government throws at an area - you can't force people to want to live there. You can't force people to want to do business there. At best, government can mitigate some of the costs of doing business (such as subsidies or tax breaks) to attract businesses that might not otherwise find being there profitable. It can also reduce the practice of redlining (though it's almost impossible to completely eliminate it) so, as mentioned, business loans are available, and even available at low interest rates. Redlining is not as rampant as it used to be, thank goodness (though there is still much to do to reduce it further). The government aids are important, but they won't solve all these problems either.

The area needed a big player like Wal-Mart that could afford to operate at a loss at that location for a period of time. A small business simply won't last long enough in an area like that. Wal-Mart is, of course doing this for reasons other than charity (though they're hoping for some positive PR, of course) but as a mega-corp they can afford to sink money into the building, into security, into training a work force, and to promoting a store in a less than ideal location. In return, they get more customers and open up a new area for business.

[Skylon]

I had an eye opening day a few weeks back when a black girl proclaimed she didn't think blacks were as brave/driven as whites. This tangent originated during a lesson about the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and looking at an image depicting all white men writing the thing. At the question of "what are the only kind of people here"...followed by "why not blacks" we somehow came to that point. The lead teacher and I were both pretty horrified, and we shot off whatever examples we could ranging from the 54th Mass in "Glory" to MLK.

I don't know where this kid's role-models are. Maybe it doesn't help that on two hands I can count the black teachers at my job. I don't know. But, I cannot fathom someone saying that about their own race. Even with whatever learning disability she has (this was a Special Ed. class). She's a senior in high school, and in 2010, on some level she believes her race is inferior.

[Broomstick]

Now that is an example of a culture meme holding people back.