Social Baton Rouge Will Split into Two Cities Following Court Ruling

[Cajun]

I'm not sure how this obviates my comment.

Studies show when children are segregated according to economic class or academic achievement all students do less well. If it we're up to me we'd stop treating high achieving and rich kids as special and kids who have a more difficult experience as being deficient in some way and needing to be kept on their own. When they're all thrown in together the evidence shows they all raise each other up.

Funding schools based upon property taxes is shameful. It's the best way to perpetuate the "poor people--particularly poor black people--are problem students" narrative though; that's for sure.

I'm good with changing the system but I will say that its the standards being held. Even in my hometown, we only had one public school which was funded by the town but the education was terrible. I went to a private school instead. It was geared as a college-prep school so there werent really a lot of elective type classes. There is a lot that goes into this convo. I dont have a proper solution but I'm ok with peeps wanting their kids to have the best shot in this world. Here in Houston, there are schools geared towards science and medicine, engineering, even law. they usually get advantages in college and can get an automatic in for university and med school. My niece who is poor went to the medical one. Guess they have programs for those who cant pay tuition. Again, rich kids dont go to public schools its the middle class that go to the nicer ones. I do wonder how much the states fund education on any level but I'm open to changing the system around. Its not even really fare under the current system to have people with no kids funding the public schools through property taxes. But I think if you pull the money from somewhere else, many of those that have tax burden releif will give to make their schools better.

 

[panamaican]

Sounds reasonable. Not sure what the resistance is to the idea

The resistance is because of a system tied to the end of segregation and segregated schools. Basically, when the Supreme Court ruled that schools had to be integrated, the pushback from those who opposed it was to push for more ways to ensure that they weren't funding black kids.

It basically had 2 components. The first component was people moving out of cities. "White flight" is the common term but we should actually describe the thinking process. With segregation, white and black families could live in the same zip code but not have to send their kids to schools together. With integration, the black kids could now attend the white schools. Pro-segregationists needed a way to ensure that they could maintain segregated school systems without breaking the law. The solution was to move to places where there were little to no minorities. The more expensive the new location, the more likely it would be segregated as a result of income.

This meant that they could get all-white schools without breaking the law.

The second component was pushing for township lines that put these primarily white and economically segregated neighborhoods outside of townships and cities that included the minority neighborhoods. This legal partitioning meant that the minority neighborhoods fell outside of the white towns and the minority kids couldn't attend the white schools.

Once those 2 steps happened, the township then set local taxes to fund their local schools. And the states didn't intervene because the people with the money and know how to actually implement these types of legal segregation strategies were friends with the people in power. It's all legal so there's no real judicial argument against it.

Fast forward 60 years and no one really has an interest in undoing the system for the economic reasons. The families with money have no incentive to pool education dollars and the families without money don't have the political capital to change it.

If you want a decent real life example of the situation, look at Baltimore around that time. The wealthy portion of Baltimore moved out of the city after school integration. Then they wrote laws that said no tax dollars generated in the county but outside of the main city could ever be used for the benefit of the city of Baltimore. They effectively defunded the city.

The numbers are important here. Following integration, Baltimore City lost 110,000 residents in a decade. It decimated their ability to pay for things. This pattern happened all over the country. When people talk about cities being shitty and poorly run, they often leave out the economic destruction reaped on cities because of integrated school.

Baltimore population graph showing what happened post integration:

Spoiler

Chicago? Same thing, almost 1 million residents lost:

Spoiler

Detroit? Same thing.

Spoiler

 

[Cajun]

The resistance is because of a system tied to the end of segregation and segregated schools. Basically, when the Supreme Court ruled that schools had to be integrated, the pushback from those who opposed it was to push for more ways to ensure that they weren't funding black kids.

It basically had 2 components. The first component was people moving out of cities. "White flight" is the common term but we should actually describe the thinking process. With segregation, white and black families could live in the same zip code but not have to send their kids to schools together. With integration, the black kids could now attend the white schools. Pro-segregationists needed a way to ensure that they could maintain segregated school systems without breaking the law. The solution was to move to places where there were little to no minorities. The more expensive the new location, the more likely it would be segregated as a result of income.

This meant that they could get all-white schools without breaking the law.

The second component was pushing for township lines that put these primarily white and economically segregated neighborhoods outside of townships and cities that included the minority neighborhoods. This legal partitioning meant that the minority neighborhoods fell outside of the white towns and the minority kids couldn't attend the white schools.

Once those 2 steps happened, the township then set local taxes to fund their local schools. And the states didn't intervene because the people with the money and know how to actually implement these types of legal segregation strategies were friends with the people in power. It's all legal so there's no real judicial argument against it.

Fast forward 60 years and no one really has an interest in undoing the system for the economic reasons. The families with money have no incentive to pool education dollars and the families without money don't have the political capital to change it.

If you want a decent real life example of the situation, look at Baltimore around that time. The wealthy portion of Baltimore moved out of the city after school integration. Then they wrote laws that said no tax dollars generated in the county but outside of the main city could ever be used for the benefit of the city of Baltimore. They effectively defunded the city.

The numbers are important here. Following integration, Baltimore City lost 110,000 residents in a decade. It decimated their ability to pay for things. This pattern happened all over the country. When people talk about cities being shitty and poorly run, they often leave out the economic destruction reaped on cities because of integrated school.

Baltimore population graph showing what happened post integration:

Spoiler

Chicago? Same thing, almost 1 million residents lost:

Spoiler

Detroit? Same thing.

Spoiler

The second part seems correct as the wealthy moved out of the city and left the poor on their own. Now they are all trying to move closer as traffic has become an issue in most big cities. In the rural areas these are not the issue as you have much more limited choices. The first part of your answer I'm not sure. I read that by the 1850s-1870s almost all states used property taxes for public schools. Not sure if that was state controlled or local only that was the method. Currently in Texas the funding is 50% local, 44% State and 6% Federal. I believe there are several things at play here.

 

[Andy Capp]

I'm good with changing the system but I will say that its the standards being held. Even in my hometown, we only had one public school which was funded by the town but the education was terrible. I went to a private school instead. It was geared as a college-prep school so there werent really a lot of elective type classes. There is a lot that goes into this convo. I dont have a proper solution but I'm ok with peeps wanting their kids to have the best shot in this world. Here in Houston, there are schools geared towards science and medicine, engineering, even law. they usually get advantages in college and can get an automatic in for university and med school. My niece who is poor went to the medical one. Guess they have programs for those who cant pay tuition. Again, rich kids dont go to public schools its the middle class that go to the nicer ones. I do wonder how much the states fund education on any level but I'm open to changing the system around. Its not even really fare under the current system to have people with no kids funding the public schools through property taxes. But I think if you pull the money from somewhere else, many of those that have tax burden releif will give to make their schools better.

People who don't have kids contributing to their future success is helping those childless people too. When they're old they'll particularly benefit from all these kids they didn't have paying for their social welfare programs, right, like Medicare for example?

Like the old saying goes, what comes around goes around. People won't feel any responsibility to help you later on if you decry any responsibility to help them now.

Sorry that school in your town sucked. But that's why I mentioned there needs to be a high bar for minimum standards. And again, if it were up to me there'd be no private schools--well, not accredited ones anyway--so that latter part about how all the rich kids go to private schools would be obviated. Of course, that's a pipe dream, but the point stands. Note if all schools were public it would be easier to make school tuition free.


Edit: note, I have no kids but I support a portion of my provincial and federal taxes going toward some things that do not benefit me in any way because it goes both ways.

 

[Cajun]

People who don't have kids contributing to their future success is helping those childless people too. When they're old they'll particularly benefit from all these kids they didn't have paying for their social welfare programs, right, like Medicare for example?

Like the old saying goes, what comes around goes around. People won't feel any responsibility to help you later on if you decry any responsibility to help them now.

Sorry that school in your town sucked. But that's why I mentioned there needs to be a high bar for minimum standards. And again, if it were up to me there'd be no private schools--well, not accredited ones anyway--so that latter part about how all the rich kids go to private schools would be obviated. Of course, that's a pipe dream, but the point stands. Note if all schools were public it would be easier to make school tuition free.

Well that should likely be a choice if we stay with property taxes. I mentioned that Katy Texas built a 72M football stadium with that money. Some of this stuff gets ridiculous if you don't have kids.

Agreed on the second part and the standards need to be the same but at present your future is much brighter to go to a private vs public school. That's a fact so I don't mind using that if it's available. Rich peeps will always find a way, then there are expensive tutors whatever. The advantages for actual rich kids will not end because money does solve a lot.

Again I'm fine with removing or shifting the money to other sources

 

[Andy Capp]

Well that should likely be a choice if we stay with property taxes. I mentioned that Katy Texas built a 72M football stadium with that money. Some of this stuff gets ridiculous if you don't have kids.

Agreed on the second part and the standards need to be the same but at present your future is much brighter to go to a private vs public school. That's a fact so I don't mind using that if it's available. Rich peeps will always find a way, then there are expensive tutors whatever. The advantages for actual rich kids will not end because money does solve a lot.

Again I'm fine with removing or shifting the money to other sources

Yeah that's different. I don't blame you for private schools existing or sending your kids to them if you can. I've said as much in the past to Pan. Those are two different discussions, should they exist and should you send your kids to them since they do exist. I can't blame any parent for the latter.

The stadium would be a draw for the entire community, wouldn't it? You build a big stadium like that and you're not going to have massive non-sports events in it in the off season?

 

[panamaican]

The second part seems correct as the wealthy moved out of the city and left the poor on their own. Now they are all trying to move closer as traffic has become an issue in most big cities. In the rural areas these are not the issue as you have much more limited choices. The first part of your answer I'm not sure. I read that by the 1850s-1870s almost all states used property taxes for public schools. Not sure if that was state controlled or local only that was the method. Currently in Texas the funding is 50% local, 44% State and 6% Federal. I believe there are several things at play here.

Yes, they used property taxes before but because of the existence of segregated schools, the tax base was more evenly distributed. You'd have a black school and a white school within the same school district and they were funded equally in order to adhere to the requirements of "separate but equal".

 

[Rob Battisti]

@panamaican

I think I generally agree with your position on funding.

Would you get rid of local funding entirely in favor of just funding at the state level? Or just more funding from the state level?

 

[panamaican]

@panamaican

I think I generally agree with your position on funding.

Would you get rid of local funding entirely in favor of just funding at the state level? Or just more funding from the state level?

I don't think you can ever completely eliminate local funding nor that you should prevent people from contributing to their local school. But the property tax methodology doesn't really work well for equal education funding. How it works now is that the states set a per student spending amount and then cover the shortfall for any school district that can't meet those numbers.

In practice, a wealthy school district will generate more property tax income than a poor school district. This will result in the state covering more of the gap for poor school districts (this is how you end up with the stats that show states spend more on poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones). But the funding issue is that wealthy school districts can raise more money than the state spending amount. And the state doesn't fill the gap between the wealthiest districts and poorest.

Imagine if the state sets a local spending target of $5k per kid. A poor school district only raises $2800 per kid, the state steps in and covers the short fall. But a wealthy school district raises $6500 per kid. The state doesn't contribute anything to that school district since they don't have a shortfall. But the kids in the poor school district are still receiving $1500 less per student than their wealthier counterparts. And for people with narratives to push, they're going to say "Look, the poor kids are getting $2200 more per kid from the state and still underperforming, conveniently leaving out that the total spend for the poor kids is still less."

So, the solution is more funding from the state with some mechanism to address the ability of wealthy school districts to outspend poor ones. Not stopping wealthy districts from spending property tax but accounting for it somehow and addressing it.

A heavy handed approach (which I don't recommend) would be to simply match the highest spending district in the state. School district X spends $10,000 per kid, the state matches that across the state. But that's really hard to accomplish with state budgets.

 

[Rob Battisti]

some mechanism to address the ability of wealthy school districts to outspend poor ones.

I’m trying to follow your point. It sounds like you are more concerned with the fact that some wealthy areas are able to spend more per student.

Is that a bad thing?

In your solution, as I understand it, you want to limit what the wealthy districts can spend to close the gap. Your final point is the desire to match the high number, but that seems impossible.

 

[panamaican]

I’m trying to follow your point. It sounds like you are more concerned with the fact that some wealthy areas are able to spend more per student.

Is that a bad thing?

In your solution, as I understand it, you want to limit what the wealthy districts can spend to close the gap. Your final point is the desire to match the high number, but that seems impossible.

Yes, it's a bad thing. No, I don't want to limit what the wealthy districts can spend but I do think that gap needs to be closed.

It's bad thing for general social mobility. Education is a huge part of future income opportunities. Better educations prepare kids for better college opportunities or for better options in the trades. It also allows us to make the most of our human capital. We should want the best educated population possible because of all the secondary social benefits that come from it, including better social engagement.

I don't recommend the solution of simply matching what wealthy districts spend because it's an unfeasible solution. You can't budget for it and I'd like to think there are more creative solutions, although I don't know any.

And I don't want to limit what people can contribute to education, particularly to the education of their own children.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Yes, it's a bad thing. No, I don't want to limit what the wealthy districts can spend but I do think that gap needs to be closed.

It's bad thing for general social mobility. Education is a huge part of future income opportunities. Better educations prepare kids for better college opportunities or for better options in the trades. It also allows us to make the most of our human capital. We should want the best educated population possible because of all the secondary social benefits that come from it, including better social engagement.

I don't recommend the solution of simply matching what wealthy districts spend because it's an unfeasible solution. You can't budget for it and I'd like to think there are more creative solutions, although I don't know any.

And I don't want to limit what people can contribute to education, particularly to the education of their own children.

It seems like you’re a little at odds with yourself.

You recognize the value of more educational spending while being unhappy with only being able to spend in certain areas.

You aren’t saying you want to limit the ability for those districts to spend more, but then also say it’s a bad thing that they can.

Your final point I 100% agree with. I think we can just spend more on education but only after busting the unions to get away from their stranglehold. We need less administrative costs and higher teacher salaries while restricting tenure.

The issue I and other take on more education spending is it goes to administration positions while not allowing for bad teachers to be taken out. We need more teachers across the board.

 

[Cajun]

Yes, it's a bad thing. No, I don't want to limit what the wealthy districts can spend but I do think that gap needs to be closed.

It's bad thing for general social mobility. Education is a huge part of future income opportunities. Better educations prepare kids for better college opportunities or for better options in the trades. It also allows us to make the most of our human capital. We should want the best educated population possible because of all the secondary social benefits that come from it, including better social engagement.

I don't recommend the solution of simply matching what wealthy districts spend because it's an unfeasible solution. You can't budget for it and I'd like to think there are more creative solutions, although I don't know any.

And I don't want to limit what people can contribute to education, particularly to the education of their own children.

Honest takes all around. Good stuff.

 

[panamaican]

It seems like you’re a little at odds with yourself.

You recognize the value of more educational spending while being unhappy with only being able to spend in certain areas.

You aren’t saying you want to limit the ability for those districts to spend more, but then also say it’s a bad thing that they can.

Your final point I 100% agree with. I think we can just spend more on education but only after busting the unions to get away from their stranglehold. We need less administrative costs and higher teacher salaries while restricting tenure.

The issue I and other take on more education spending is it goes to administration positions while not allowing for bad teachers to be taken out. We need more teachers across the board.

I have a problem with the gap. I don't say it's a bad thing that one school district can spend more than another school district.

It's bad thing that there's no state level mechanism for closing the gap between school districts. The spending gap, not the spending itself.

 

[Cajun]

It seems like you’re a little at odds with yourself.

You recognize the value of more educational spending while being unhappy with only being able to spend in certain areas.

You aren’t saying you want to limit the ability for those districts to spend more, but then also say it’s a bad thing that they can.

Your final point I 100% agree with. I think we can just spend more on education but only after busting the unions to get away from their stranglehold. We need less administrative costs and higher teacher salaries while restricting tenure.

The issue I and other take on more education spending is it goes to administration positions while not allowing for bad teachers to be taken out. We need more teachers across the board.

It would be counter productive to restrict money influx to help kids for America's future he is just being honest and admitting that the state may be unable to match it. Texas already spends around 60 billion on public schools. Less admins at the university level I agree with but are administrative costs high at public elementary or high schools? It's a question as I don't know. Doesn't seem like much but I went to a small school with few admins. Will say that these conversations where we are all admittedly unsure but tossing around ideas is gold to me. Good discussion

 

[Rob Battisti]

I have a problem with the gap. I don't say it's a bad thing that one school district can spend more than another school district.

It's bad thing that there's no state level mechanism for closing the gap between school districts. The spending gap, not the spending itself.

Sorry, I thought my question you responded to was clear. Is it a bad thing some districts can outspend others? I guess your response is not that it’s bad one district can spend more but it’s bad others can spend the same?

Makes more sense now, thank you.

I would agree with nearly your entire point.

What’s your stance on school choice voucher systems?

 

[Rob Battisti]

It would be counter productive to restrict money influx to help kids for America's future he is just being honest and admitting that the state may be unable to match it. Texas already spends around 60 billion on public schools. Less admins at the university level I agree with but are administrative costs high at public elementary or high schools? It's a question as I don't know. Doesn't seem like much but I went to a small school with few admins

I just know it’s gotten bigger over time. Ideally a school would be smaller with less students per class but you need more teachers to do that.

The biggest issue I have with education in today’s world is the changes post Covid. In middle school and above it’s all laptops open while the teacher lectures. Just a generation lost.

 

[Cajun]

I just know it’s gotten bigger over time. Ideally a school would be smaller with less students per class but you need more teachers to do that.

The biggest issue I have with education in today’s world is the changes post Covid. In middle school and above it’s all laptops open while the teacher lectures. Just a generation lost.

Is that how it works now? All on laptops instead of having books? Don't know the best way to learn but with my age I prefer text books and watching teachers while they lecture.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Is that how it works now? All on laptops instead of having books? Don't know the best way to learn but with my age I prefer text books and watching teachers while they lecture.

Yeah it’s bad man. It’s that way in central Texas and New Jersey at least.

 

[panamaican]

Sorry, I thought my question you responded to was clear. Is it a bad thing some districts can outspend others? I guess your response is not that it’s bad one district can spend more but it’s bad others can spend the same?

Makes more sense now, thank you.

I would agree with nearly your entire point.

What’s your stance on school choice voucher systems?

That's broad because there's lots school choice systems and they all approach it differently. There are systems with charter schools and there are systems that simply eliminate the neighborhood school requirements.

I think the charter system is flawed. First, if there are not enough charter seats for every student that wants to change school then there will be a funding problem. Most school districts move funding with the student. So if a student moves to a charter, his funding leaves his original school and goes to the charter. However, since the overhead of the original school does not change, this simply defunds the original school at the expense of the students who remain.

School has $500k @$1k per student. Teachers, electricity, buses, etc. all cost $X. If 10 students leave for a charter, the school gets $10k less. But they still have the same number of teachers, the same number of buses to run, electricity for the building remains the same. The school now risks a budget shortfall and the remaining will suffer because of it.

If the funding doesn't follow the kids then both groups benefit. The remaining students get better student/teacher ratios and the leaving students can go where they want.

If it's simply eliminating neighborhood schools, that can work fine since the total number of students and the total number of seats remains the same. The funding would remain consistent across schools.

But the 2 elephants in the room with any school choice program are simply "Do you continue to fund the prior school at the same level?" and "Do you have enough flexibility for every student that wants to choose or does it turn into a system where only some kids get the benefit?"