Black Only Schools Proposed
 

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=TorontoHome

You should read the rest of the article.
If this occurs then there is nothing stopping each tone of person from asking for their own school and being right in doing so.
This is an insane idea.

Only the title says it would be a black-only school. The rest of the article states black/african-focused, which is a whole different thing.

Sounds more like a school where they stick all the black teachers. I find it amusing that they just broadly declare that the school would have more parent involvement. Unless they set it up like a magnet or alternative school, where students have to apply to be allowed to transfer in from their standard school, this will be no different from any public school in the area, with the same parental involvement and dropout rates to be expected.

But if they want to set up a magnet school that requires applications, more power to them. The Houston school district has had a lot of success with their specialized programs in this area: there's an arts high school, and computer high school, a hard science high school, a liberal arts/literature high school... if they have enough students to fill the classes, and aren't refusing students from other races, why not a cultural school?

As long as it really isn't black only--kids aren't forced to go, and it's open to everyone--I don't think it's an insane idea. It would be an opportunity for kids to learn from a non-Euro-centric perspective.

Edit: Like what Clod said in her 2nd paragraph.

Its potentially a good idea. I know of a black teacher and he says that it is much better for black students to have black teachers for obvious reasons.

I've also heard bad things about magnet schools but I don't know much about them.

To me it makes sense that students will/do perform better when they have an instructor that they can identify with and who appears to have a genuine concern for the students' progress. On the other hand, people should not expect these schools to be the magic pill that fixes the dropout rate, etc. The only things can fix these problems are correct and adequate parental involvement, sufficient funding for all schools, and competent leadership for the school system.

It's all about instilling in these kids the idea that they really can succeed in life despite troubled backgrounds, and then providing them with the necessary knowledge to do so. After that it is really up to them whether to be complacent with their current life, or to strive for something better and work hard to get it.

In no way is it a good idea.
How, in anyone's mind, will this prepare any of them for the world or fight the problem of stereotyping?
If they want the kids to have black role-models they need to actively recruit black teachers, without affirmative action, of course.

There have been some really good points here. I agree with most of them on both sides of the argument to be honest.

The only thing i would add is that there are Jewish schools and German schools and Greek schools. Why can't there be black schools? You don't have to be any of the above listed to go to the schools, but they're there for those who wish to patronize them.

I really don't see what the difference is. If it's ok for one, why not the other?

Do college-level African Studies programs churn out people who are unprepared for the real world?

You can't solve all problems at once, and the problem of other people stereotyping these kids is obviously pretty low on the list for this community: their goal right now is just getting the kids to attend class and graduate at all. Before they can prepare them for the diversity of the real world, they have to ensure that they actually end up in the real world instead of, say, prison.

In no way does one class compair to an entire school.
Strawman.
Wow, so racist I don't know where to start.
Others stereotyping the kids leads to a black only school for their pride and dropping out?
In poor white only schools they have problems with drop-out rates as well... it is about the culture not the tone of their skin.
How about separate bathrooms and pride fountains?
Would that help too?

As a private school I have no problem as long as they are subject to the same laws as all other private schools.

But if it's private, then it can't be open to anyone, black, white or purple can it? Only those that can afford it, which would probably defeat the purpose.

Of course, a community funded private school would be totally different I suppose.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=15935

Sure Ali, as long as the whites then get their own school too.

The proposal isn't for a black ONLY school if you read the article properly. the headline is misleading.

Some interesting ideas here, but I think it would be a step in the wrong direction.

Guh. Hope they aren't planning to teach in Ebonics.

Meh, sounds Afro-centric education, which would be intriguing. For years education has been The History of the West...and the Rest so it could have potential. Better yet why don't we just include an African focus in education, and how about an Asian focus in education, and then a Latin American focus and then... Nah that would solve our problems too easily. But I'm not Canadian, so it's up to them!

Team America World Police, aw shucks, here we go again...

What sort of things? My kids go to a magnet school and it rocks. The only problem is bussing -becasue it is a public school, they are entitled to be bussed there, but because kids are scattered over the entire school district, that's a logiostical and financial nightmare and some journeys are over an hour long.

Oh and we have fewer black kids than we should. Demographically speaking. Why? Well, the families we have spoken to -who have left the school or got a place then decided not to come- say that they are happier to have their kids in school where there are more black kids. We are too white/asian. Vicious circle.

If you think there isn't enough asia-centric education... you must not have been to an asian school.
Schools are going to focus on the history of where they are, through the bias of where they are. Simple fact of life. Should americans complain that their revolution takes a much smaller seat in british education than british history does in american education? No, because until there was an america, british and american history are the same (not counting native americans).

I'm working on an Indian Reservation this week and three of the schools are tribal schools. I don't know if non-Indians, or non-tribal members, are allowed to attend.

I haven't been to an Asian school because I live in America.

And to answer the rest of what you said: no shit.

Then what's the problem you have, again?

This country is moving backwards.

Canada?

Yes, but what if black students drop out for a combination of the overall poor culture and a rejection of euro-centric material? If this could help a little it might have some potential.

Now that is a strawman....

I'm not exactly sure but I have a friend that went to a magnet school and he absolutely hated it. He may have just gone to a really bad one too. I'll ask him more about it if you want?

We've got a magnet school two blocks from our house. The parents of the kids who attend it love it.

We (the neighborhood) don't care for it too much. You have to enter a lottery to get in and there is only something like a 30% acceptance rate. (We chose not to apply, because we wanted our kids to have friends in the neighborhood instead random connections all over the county. Also, all the schools around us are good, so we saw no need to get into this "good" school.) What ends up happening is that everyone in our neighborhood gets bussed to another (good) neighborhood school a few miles away, and there's a large influx of strangers zooming into our neighborhood every morning to drop their kids off at the magnet school. It's not thier neighborhood, so they don't care about the people who live there or obeying the speed limit. On some occasions, late parents dropping their kids off at the magnet school have blown past our school bus stop as our kids are climbing onto the bus with its lights flashing.

Every couple of years, they look at the enrollments for all the neighborhood schools and shift the boundaries around to get rid of overcrowding in some of them. Since our neighborhood has no school to call its own, we are the ones who always end up getting moved around in order to make things even at all the schools.

So I am bitter at the elitist magnet school families here. I take a skeptical view of magnet schools in general. They are self selecting, so any heightened test scores they have is really just because the best students were removed from the other schools and pooled in one location. This lowers the scores of the other schools and heightens the score at the magnet school.

If you have a kid in a magnet school, it is probably a good thing for them, because they are surrounded by the "best and the brightest," but I think magnet schools may be bad for the school system overall, and there is little or no proof that they offer a better education in an area with already decent schools.

Our magnet schools are listed as the schools that sceialize in one area or two like math and such. Math genuises go there, etc

Every school district uses the concept differently. Mine had the innovative idea of magically declaring the worst schools to be "magnet schools," but with a strong preference for kids in the neighborhood--so that the worst students would be forced to go somewhere else, and there would be an influx of good students to raise the average test scores in the bad schools. Made for a whole lot of mediocre schools, which I suppose is success from the superintendant's point of view.

For the afro-centric school, here is what I assume is the logic for it. The numbers mean nothing and are just there because they are easy.

Lets say we have an "integrated" school where 100 black students attend. 50 of them graduate and 10 of them go onto college. More than likely even though we have an "integrated" school, the inner city will remain segregated because the black students that did not go onto college will probably remain in the inner city. There will be little to none integration of the inner city because no one will want to live there.

Let say we take those 100 students and move them to an afro-centric school where the graduation rate jumps to 75 and 20 of those move onto college. That means the 10 extra students will be able to integrate much better economically since they will most likely make more money and be able to move elsewhere. Also, if the graduation rate jumps, it will most likely mean the whole area will enjoy a better standard of living and other people may move into that area, making it more integrated.


If that is the case, I will support this. If afro-centric schools don't prove to raise the graduation and going onto college rate, I will probably have to go against this idea. I have said in the past, the only way, besides everyone becoming one skin tone, to eliminate racism is for full economic integration and I think this has potential to achieve that much quicker than what we have now.

Oh, for the magnet school thing, I misunderstood. He said he liked it but just hated the social environment. My bad.

In defence, any school where pupils come in from a different catchment area has the potential to annoy residents. Mostly it is inconsiderate parents, with a little NIMBYism from the residents.

When I went to Grammar school (ages 12-18, exam passed to attend) the local community complained about us non-stop. In those days parents rarely dropped their children off by car but they complained about the buses, the coaches, the amount of children crossing the road - you name it. We were on the same site as the College (16-18) which probably didn't help.

My sister's children both went to the same school (not above) across town - it was her local Catholic school, but again with the complaints. I picked the kids up with her a handful of times when I was visiting and the parking of the parents took my breath away. We'd parked streets away (my niece & nephew have never been afraid of walking) but some were up on curbs, blocking driveways, kids being allowed to cut across gardens - way to piss off the natives!

Anyway, niece is now in her second year at my Grammar. Whaddya know - the site is complete traffic gridlock and the school is hated mre than ever. Why? Because parents now won't let their children take 10-12 mile bus rides, but amend their working hours and drop them off. And Upper VIth formers now have their own cars as soon as they hit 17 and drive in.

Can't remember where I was going with this! But if adults behaved with a bit more respect then children would learn it and schools might integrate into their environs more easily.

If the magnet school has a lottery entrance system, how can it be elitist?

Magnet school basically means kids from the whole district can attend, not just the neighborhood. Beyond that, they can vary greatly. We also have charter schools here. Those tend to be the ones with a special emphasis on some aspect of education/culture. Foe example, we have "Central Academy" which stresses middle eastern culture. I have to go out now to a school function and piss off all the people in the neighborhood around the school by blocking their streets with cars. but I'll be back with more words :lol:

Here, at least, you have to have a certain grade point and excellent behavioral record to be in a magnet school.
Those that meet the criteria then can be chosen from the lottery.
I think it is an excellent idea and not "elitist", anyone can choose to behave well and apply themselves.
Those that do deserve to be in an environment of their peers without the disruptive element.

BTW, by their own argument white students with black teachers are "at a disadvantage".
The entire idea is a symptom of the sickness of the adoption of the fallacy of "race".

poof

Let them have them, then we could start some "White's Only" schools......:headshake

1) no apostrophe in Whites :rolleyes:
2) for the umpteenth time, Blacks Only schools IS NOT THE PROPOSAL. It's just the title of the article and the thread and is erroneous
3) the point being made is that we already have "caucasian-focused" schools. We just don't call them that and refuse to admit it. They're suggesting some schools with a different focus to address the balance. That's all.

It's not so much to do with race as it is to do with culture. But an awful lot of people cannot get past the "racism" stumbling block.

Maybe they are ....or maybe they would only be disadvantaged if they were also in the minority (racially or culturally, your pick). Some of the news reports I see from some of the Detroit schools suggest to me this is a possibility.

Sure there is, I put one there.

Bad proposal, unless we can have "White's Only" schools... Which by the way I don't really think is a great idea.

"caucasian focused", what a crock of bull shit. Blacks and AA only represent about 12% of the US population. They should not be getting more than 12% of the attention.

Take your aposotrophe and shove it in your whites. :D

The proposal is not 'blacks only". So why are you demanding whites only schools for parity?

Is anyone asking for more than 12% of the schools to be AA-focused? No? then how is it disproportionate?

You are more intelligent than this. Either you are being blinkered by your racism or you are trolling. I'm done.

Merc, I don't think you understand the purpose of this proposal.

First of all, this is not a new idea. There are thousands of specific minority schools that include some asians, gays, etc. If you are so worried about this idea, you should have been attacking those and have already established your "white-only" school a long time ago.

The point of this school is not to segregate blacks from whites, but to give black children the best possible education. It is proven that black children perform better under black teachers under black administrations. That is the base argument behind the proposal, nothing else. I really don't see the problem with that as long as choice is involved.

Which brings me to rkzenrage's argument that white kids will perform worse under these new schools. Well, this is more than likely true. That is why integration failed and we need to move on to a more realistic and progressive model. If your kids, being white, were forced to go to an afro-centric school where studies have shown that they will not perform as well as going to euro-centric school, I can imagine you not being to happy with that. Then why are we forcing black kids to go to euro-centric schools when studies have shown that they will not perform as well opposed to going to an afro-centric school? The problem is that white kids will naturally perform better than black kids under the current system so all this is trying to do is break the black kids away so they can go to a system which benefits them. That is why there is no need for a "white-only" school because to get the benefits of that, you can just move to the suburbs or send your kids to a rich private school.

Public schools? Please cite.
"Any-Centric" education is a bad education.

Gay Schools:
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/...ol_29JUL03.htm

There are probably others but being public versus private isn't the problem.

What makes you say that? Do you have any evidence to back that up or is that your own biased opinion? And also, what makes you think that the current system isn't an "any-centric" system already? And if so, what would you do to fix it?

The fact that black kids do better in afro-centric schools says A LOT about the current system and education in general. Along with the fact that other cultures have tough times adjusting to United States public schools[1], it shows that whites do have a natural advantage when it comes to education in the United States and Canada, which means it is more likely than euro-centric. So we either let the current system fail as it has, destroy the entire current system, or give minorities a choice to go to a school that benefits them.

I am not going to talk about the first choice because that is what we currently have and the second choice will not go well with anyone even though it is ideally preferable. It is just unrealistic and will never work. So that leaves us with the third choice, which I will support as long as its not forced.

I know you favor equality with all "races", but as long as there is racial disparity in this country we can't just lump everyone together and pretend we are helping because more than likely we are just hurting the people we are suppose to help. Even today we live in a highly segregated school system that tends to be unequal[2] and even when there is an integrated school, the kids will likely segregate themselves anyways[3].

Clearly, the idea that if we put everyone in the same classroom we will solve the segregation problem has failed. Culture does play a large role in education and since the system will naturally favor whites, for various reasons, we should allow minorities to take matters in their own hands to get a better education.

The only backlash I can see coming from this is what I have seen here. Whites complaining about not getting a "white-only" school and turning this into a much bigger issue than needed. It may sound like a paradox, but this segregation might very well speed up integration on a larger scale, which is what I am looking for and hopefully you are too.

[1] - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...35/ai_62959085
[2] - http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005...tion1sep05.htm
[3] - http://www.learntoquestion.com/resou...es/000781.html

"Do better" is a little too vague to say a lot to me. How is this success measured?

Exactly. the point being the current offering is white-centric. Attempts to shift this have been met with much resistance, so this is the next suggestion.

BTW, my kids school is a public school. But it's "gay-friendly" and approx 8% (from a quiick glance at the directory) of my kids' classmates have gay parents. I imagine that's above the norm. Some of the teachers and staff are also openly gay.

there is also a Charter School (public funding) that is Arabic oriented. http://www.centralacademy.net/?q=node/63

Your argument is circular. It sounds like the racists of the south in the 50's. So it is ok for blacks to segregate themselves if they choose to do it, but if anyone white is involved it is segregation and racist? Come on... I am not worried about the idea at all. I have stated already if they want to do it let them do so. Not my problem, but don't come whining back to the society when greater effects and unforeseen fall out occurs. We have traditionally black only and female only colleges. So it is ok for an all female school to prevent the admission of a male but not ok for a traditional all male school to prevent a female entry because that would be discriminatory based on sex. We witnessed this with the traditional military schools and colleges. My only point is that if we are going to segregate based on race then let's do it; one group gets no preference over the other.

I'm not exactly sure but I am assuming higher graduation rates and lower dropout rates.

http://www.gse.upenn.edu/review/inpractice.php

I can also say that I know a black high school teacher who has seen that black children will learn more under black teachers as well so I have that.

Merc, I have two arguments to counter that.

One, there are studies, see above, that have shown that blacks will learn more under black teachers and that is the reason behind the segregation. There is no way a white child can learn more by having a white only teacher because most of the teachers are white anyways. There is no need for a white-only school.

Two, the "double standard" is just a way to make up for the natural disparity we see in today's society. White males traditionally have more advantages to get ahead and by segregating society into white male only, it is only keeping power to the ones who have it and holding back others. When women or minorities have segregated themselves, they are usually trying to make up for the natural disadvantage. There is a difference between the the two.

For example, lets say I am going to race someone and I strain their ACL one day before the race. So now they have a natural disadvantage because they cannot run 100%. So, to make up for it, it is decided that he can have a head start. How would it make sense for me to get the same head start as him?

I respect that.

On your first point we have already discussed that so I did not repeat the argument. Your arguments do not support the facts but they do support why you believe them to be true. This is why, I do not support race or gender based programs to give minorities or others an advantage at the expense of better qualified persons. They called it Affirmative Action for the longest time and as people have wised up to the short comings of it they just change the name and try to do the same thing. If minorities or majorities want equality then we need to remove all such indications of one's race or sex from all applications for jobs, school admissions, etc from all the apps. Assign a number and let those with the best scores be admitted or get the job. But when you pass over people who have much better grades for people who have less than stellar grades for admissions based on skin color or sex that is discriminatory to those passed over. That is a double standard. So I see your point of the argument, many have tried to sell it the same way for years, I just don't buy it. I have found many people don't want equality, they want role reversal. That is not going to happen if I can help it.

That is why I don't like the idea of affirmative action and would much rather prefer to equalize when they are children. It works on solving the problem and not covering it up like affirmative action. As you can tell, I believe there is a difference between this and affirmative action.

If this idea does work, it would mean that minorities would be better qualified for jobs so it decreases the need for affirmative action and it wouldn't hurt anyone like affirmative action tends to do.

I agree and if it works, great. My concern is that it may further divide us as children and in doing so may unintentionally create further segregation. Kids do hang out with their schoolmates afterwards and if they go to an all black school...

Yes, the backlash is my biggest worry about this idea but I don't think it will be too severe on the children's part since many children segregate themselves anyways* even when going to integrated schools because they can relate to each other and they live in the same neighborhoods.

*http://www.learntoquestion.com/resou...es/000781.html

I am much more worried about the backlash coming from parents then how the kids grow up.

the more ways you separate people the deeper the divides in this country will become until there comes a day when we are completely unable to relate to people that don't look and sound like "us".

black kids get higher scores if taught by black teachers? show me. are they the same general knowledge tests taken by every other shade of kid? were all learning conditions other than the color of the kids and teachers the same? is the teacher/student ratio the same? over what subjects? over what time period?

if the educational materials are the same and the teachers' skill and experience are the same and the students intelligence and ability to learn are the same then the results should be the same. A black kid can't be fully educated by a white teacher because of the difference in their experiences? BS. if they are saying the education is better because they focus on "black subjects" or perspectives then they aren't receiving the same education and the scores are completely irrelevant.

what's next - specific schools for kids coming from defined income brackets? i only want my kid to learn from teachers that make XX dollars per year. they'll be able to identify more fully with that experience and obviously learn more.

this is just more PC bullshit that can be pushed out there because people are afraid that if they disagree they'll be labeled racist. Anything that divides and classifies on anything other skill and ability is wrong.

I agree totally, we already have an income difference in the private school system. The reality is that many of the upper income parents spend a crap load of money, and some who can't really afford to do it as well, to send their kids to schools they deem to be "Better" because they are private. In the end the kids do not seem to be any smarter, just more stuck up. As a percent that go on to college they most likely have a higher number who do, but that is more likely a function of social exposure in the home, not what they are taught in school. Parents who value education and higher learning will teach their children the same values.

I ridiculed private school kids when i was growing up. they were isolated, naive, and snobby. the education i received in the illinois public school system was great and life was good.

now i live in another state. the teachers that i know won't even send their own kids through the system they work in. so my kid goes to a private school. the tuition sucks but i pay less for him to go there than the dollar amount that the public schools claim they spend per child in their system. the learning materials are the same. the teachers have the same degrees and comparable experience levels. but the kids at his school test an average of 1.5 years ahead of the public school kids on the state tests. Why?

i believe it has very little to do with the way subjects are taught and almost everything to do with the families the kids come from. kids aren't smarter because their parents send them to private school, but they do tend to be a little more accountable. my kid doesn't go to a "rich school". nearly half the kids there are on some sort of needs based scholarship to assist with tuition. the difference is that parents who are willing to sacrifice to come up with the cash to send their kids to the private school obviously place value on education. 100% of them or they wouldn't spend the money.

When Johnny comes home the parent tends to ask about their homework. Maybe even helps them with it. The parents encourage learning. When Johnny goes to school he is surrounded by kids that come from similarly commited families. the kid who screws around and causes problems gets to meet with parents and teachers. either the parents and child straighten the problem out or the kid leaves the school. far fewer problems for the teacher to deal with means more time spent trying to teach the kids.

this is not to say that families who send their kids to public schools don't care - most do care. but there will be that one kid that sucks up a lot of class time being a jackass because that is what is acceptable within his family. the family sets the level of importance for education regardless of color, language, religion, or income level.

*although i feel the system needs a massive overhaul i am not anti-public school. i just happen to live in an area with very very crappy public schools.

Well I understand that position. I just feel like my kids need to figure out how to deal with the variety of people they will meet. I happen to live in the one town with the best public school system for 50 miles. If I lived one county over my kids would all be in private school. I have been lucky enough that my kids have learned the value of education because of what my wife and I have taught them, both of us have advanced degrees. Time will tell. My oldest is on track, she is on the Deans list at UGA with a double major in Anthropology and Arabic, and a minor in photo journalism. My Son is on track for college next year and has been accepted to 4 different colleges. My youngest is the smartest and will be on her way to college in 2 years. So I guess the proof is in the pudding.

BINGO... we have a winner.

So funny. Blacks are better taught by black teachers but it does not work for whites? Such BS!
If the formula works it works.
In poor areas where people are lighter and the drop-out rates are high for lighter kids this formula will work for them as well if it is, in fact, accurate.
As for the statement:
Make-up your mind, either segregation is good or it is not.
As for the advantages today, I have only seen whites not getting jobs, scholarships and promotions because of their color these days... not enough room because others must be given the position to fill quotas. Advantage is urban myth now.

ok, how bout this.

If I lived in another country where there were teachers from that country and maybe one or two aussies teaching some classes, I'd probably want my kids to be in the class with the aussie teacher for the simple fact that aussies relate to aussies.

I don't think I'd care if they were a white or black or purple spotted aussie though.

Cultural.
Melanin is not a culture.

melanin is an aspect of culture

I don't agree at all. It can be a coincidence, but nothing more.