Thank you for your comments, and apologies for the long delay on my part.

Remember, the original topic wasn’t schools in ghettos, it was ghettos in general. What is the definition of a ghetto? An urban neighborhood that is socially disconnected from the rest of the city. The point of this idea was to bridge those disconnections at the places where it is most acute, the places where conflict is most likely to happen anyway.

I’m sure this description fits, but we might be more direct and say its a concentrated geographical area of low socio-econoimc-status individuals. The advantage of this definition is that it becomes clear that connectivity is not a cure for the ghetoo — it just leads to better-connected low-SES individiuals.

Tennessee’s tragic experience, highlighted in this post, is an example of this.

Churches are one method. You’ve heard the old saw about Sunday mornings being the most segregated hour in America? Why not persuade church leaders to fight that? If you have Catholics living on both sides of a sharp border (probable, as there are Catholic segments in most populations), why not help the local diocese put churches at the border’s bridge points? Baptists (white and black Americans) and Pentecostals (both groups and Hispanics besides) also come to mind. If successful, this would create areas where the two groups could interact peacefully, discover their areas of common belief and work towards common purposes.

This invites increaed social conflict, as it forces race-based political conflict over basic folkways such as style of service.

Further, it decreases social trust in one of the few insituttions in these area which are pools of it.

Putting mutually attractive (and/or necessary) entertainments, retail stores and public services at these bridge points is also aimed at the same goal.

I’m not sure what your experience of this in practice is. In the city I currently live in, the consequence is shootings at the city-wide labor day fairgrounds (leading to smaller communities having their own labor day festivities), the trashing of city works that are in low-SES areas (effectively wasting those funds), etc.

Taking people who are normally isolated from each other and giving them opportunities- with incentives- to SAFELY interact as equals.

No idea how one would do this.

To start knowing each other not as the other that thugs on both sides want to attack but as the family from church, the kid at the next desk, the folks who drink the same beer or watch the same movies.

Pairing people up by SES will naturally lead to high-functioning folks in the ghettos being paired up with normal folk outside the ghettos. To the extent this allow high SES ghettofolk to escape, very well. Of course, it will also be introducing normally functioning people to bad influences they would not have had otherwise, as well as depriving low-functioning ghettofolk from high-functioning peers who may have been an example.

Affirmative action has similar consequences [1], by the way.

I point to the city I grew up in

Can you share which one?

No, it doesn’t. Remember my other idea? The one about providing alternate schooling for known troublemakers?

Are you think of a zero-tolerance policy (in which case you can expect to be sending a much greater percentage of blacks to alternative school), or one where you need to do something truly heinous to be kicked out?

Depends on the curriculum. I’ve heard of elementary schools that provide rigorous instruction in two languages and produce students fluent in both languages–another reason why starting with preschools and elementary schools at the bridge points would be a good idea.

Which ones?

Granted, though, I don’t know how much of the success of those students depends on their initial quality; if they were all from affluent families who pushed to get them into the school, they were more likely to succeed anyway.

That’s one reason I was kvetching about charter and magnet schools last year: Has anyone figured out what what curriculums help problem students the most?

Given Nebraska’s experience, I would say one that provides opportunities for regular, rigorous, quantitative evaluation.

Nebraska (and I believe many states) saw NCLB improve ELL and black students more than any others, because it removes a great deal of choice from the curriculum mand forces an intensive education on basics.

The constraints aren’t being ignored, they’re being assumed as a constant. The kids can learn to get along with other groups when they’re little (limited damage done and limited penalties for mistakes) or when they’re big (more ability to hurt others and harsher penalties for lost tempers). They can learn languages (English and others) when their minds are agile and comparatively little effort is needed, or when they’re older and more commitment is required (either to learn the language or to accept the limitations of not knowing it). The same can be said for the three R’s.

I’m not sure what is meant by this paragraph?

Why doesn’t socialization at that age matter much?

Except for nutrition, early childhood intervention programs fade out after a few years. Both genes and social environment seem to matter as children approach adolescence, and they become aware of thsoe they are politically allied with due to resource constraints, and their genetic heritage places a greater role in putting a cap in their general intelligence.

Head-start and all the rest are find baby-sitting program, but worthless over the academic long-haul.

How many quotes have you heard comparing the costs of educating a child to the costs of welfare, crime and/or incarceration? Depending on how long it takes to perfect genetic treatments for low intelligence or low self-control, the improvements in welfare and crime rates wouldn’t have to be large to be financially (as well as morally) worthwhile. Now what ideas do you have for making such improvements that would be better?

Effective technical training, time-consuming extra-curricullar activities, a minimal exposure to liberal education of any sort.

That’s because you keep getting the ideas mixed up. Schools on the bridge points between sharply bordered neighborhoods is one. Homesteading police, firefighters and teachers within the ghettos they already serve is another. It was the latter I assumed you were referring to. If we’re going to continue this debate, we’re going to have to agree on some sort of short-hand to mark which part of my original post we’re debating:P

I favor three-letter acronyms, henceforth to be known as TLAs

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/07/08/decapitating.html

” *Most public schools rely, to one extent or other, on property taxes for their budgets. In situations where this is still the case, minimizing the number of schools drawing on low-value lands makes financial sense.

Perhaps, but I don’t see how your proposal relies on implies a Robin Hood principle [1]. It’s easy to see how RH schools can exist without purposefully inciting communcal violence, and how purposefully inciting communal violence can exist without RH schools.”

It doesn’t rely on a “Robin Hood” plan–in cases where both sides of the dividing line are poor, the above case doesn’t apply. And you are correct that there are other ways of redistributing wealth. But in areas property taxes are tied to the schools serving said property, it makes sense to locate those schools in such a way as to maximize the number of students getting adequate funding; that means crossing boundaries.

As for your repeated claims of inciting communal violence (BTW, Firefox 3 comes with spell check*grin*) and hindering learning, I point to the city I grew up in. 100,000 people, 4 public high schools and a lot of economic and cultural diversity. As you can imagine, this forces each school is forced to draw students from a variety of neighborhoods and mush them together. We DID have riots in the schools in the early ’80s, but I saw no such thing in the early ’90s, and I’ve yet to hear of riots breaking out since then. None of these schools are great, but each continues to produce excellent students and one has a IB school-within-a-school. Heck, I had more trouble from other White kids that from the Blacks and Hispanics in my classes (plus boring teachers, clueless staff, athletics-obsessed Principles . . .). Starting to see why I’m not real sympathetic to Seerov and company? I KNOW from experience that conflict in diverse high schools isn’t inevitable!

” *I’ve also seen reports of studies to the effect that poorer students benefit from a more diverse school environment. This is one way of providing such an environment.

If by this you mean they benefit from a higher fraction of whites, asians, and jews in class with them, then you’re right. (Whites, asians, and jews do, as well.)

This doesn’t have anything to do with creating a more dangerous school environment in order to weed out troublemakers, though.”

No, it doesn’t. Remember my other idea? The one about providing alternate schooling for known troublemakers?

” *In situations where the two neighborhoods are linguistically disparate, schools which mandate a rigorous curriculum in both languages (plus English, if that isn’t already in the mix) would serve both communities well: partly by easing the transition of the non-English speakers into society, partly by helping the students become bilingual or trilingual (good skill to have on a resume or college application).

Perhaps, though your plan obviously retards English-language aquisition among the non-fluent community (which hurts them), and also takes time away from mor basic skills the fluent underclass community needs (which hurts them).”

Depends on the curriculum. I’ve heard of elementary schools that provide rigorous instruction in two languages and produce students fluent in both languages–another reason why starting with preschools and elementary schools at the bridge points would be a good idea. Granted, though, I don’t know how much of the success of those students depends on their initial quality; if they were all from affluent families who pushed to get them into the school, they were more likely to succeed anyway. That’s one reason I was kvetching about charter and magnet schools last year: Has anyone figured out what what curriculums help problem students the most?

“Your comment appears to reason free of constraints, figuring that if we say “Teach them X” it implies no reduction in skills for any other areas.

Alternatively, if you do want to sacrifice some things to get your new objectives, outline what those thigns are.”

The constraints aren’t being ignored, they’re being assumed as a constant. The kids can learn to get along with other groups when they’re little (limited damage done and limited penalties for mistakes) or when they’re big (more ability to hurt others and harsher penalties for lost tempers). They can learn languages (English and others) when their minds are agile and comparatively little effort is needed, or when they’re older and more commitment is required (either to learn the language or to accept the limitations of not knowing it). The same can be said for the three R’s.

“” Keep in mind, too, a couple of other things. 1) Depending on the school district’s budget and the existing school supply, such a program would likely start with preschools or elementary schools; in addition to being typically smaller, their student body is less likely to break out in riots and more likely to learn the above lesson about getting along.
”
Indeed. Additionally, socialization at this age seems not to matter much, so if you do your plan at the elementary school level, you’re trading little pain for little gain. So what’s the point?”

Why doesn’t socialization at that age matter much?

“” Where in this thread did I say that my ideas were exclusive of other ideas? In case you hadn’t noticed, I tend to take a shotgun approach to problem solving.”

OK, let me rephrase: what makes this worth the political effort, considering the opportunity costs of that effort?”

How many quotes have you heard comparing the costs of educating a child to the costs of welfare, crime and/or incarceration? Depending on how long it takes to perfect genetic treatments for low intelligence or low self-control, the improvements in welfare and crime rates wouldn’t have to be large to be financially (as well as morally) worthwhile. Now what ideas do you have for making such improvements that would be better?

“Much of the remaining parts of your comment do not even address my questions. When I asked if you a similar plan succeeded in the past, you responded with a description of embedded police officers… But the central point of your argument is that you want to build neighrbohoods across neighrbohood lines to create a diverse student body. So your example not only doesn’t address the criticism, it only loosely relates to your actual rpopsoal.”

That’s because you keep getting the ideas mixed up. Schools on the bridge points between sharply bordered neighborhoods is one. Homesteading police, firefighters and teachers within the ghettos they already serve is another. It was the latter I assumed you were referring to. If we’re going to continue this debate, we’re going to have to agree on some sort of short-hand to mark which part of my original post we’re debating:P

“Your last paragraph:

Fair enough. But the more cultural factors we can clear out of the way, the easier it will be to home in on genetic and epigenetic factors and the people suffering therefrom.

Confuses means and ends, and does not answer the question of: Does modeling work in such dysfunction? (Unless your answer was a way of saying “no”; again, I’m having trouble following your logic.)”

Not confusing ends and means, just confusing period. I was admitting your point that modelling may not always work. But if some combination of these and other ideas allows every kid who CAN be helped by good role-models to have them around, that’s still an improvement.

No, my criticism is more basic.

Your plan optimizes for escalating social conflict between groups, in order to teach appropriate de-escalation strategies.

All the time & energy being directed to that could be better spent on academics and technical training.

Your plan is doubly tragic, because it deprives those communities who most need those vital skills the opportunity to learn it, in the name of social engineering.”
“” 2) I wasn’t just thinking of schools at such locations: churches (Catholic, Pentecostal and Baptist would all work well here), retail, entertainment and other public service centers would all benefit from (and offer benefit to) such a location.”

I don’t follow.”

Remember, the original topic wasn’t schools in ghettos, it was ghettos in general. What is the definition of a ghetto? An urban neighborhood that is socially disconnected from the rest of the city. The point of this idea was to bridge those disconnections at the places where it is most acute, the places where conflict is most likely to happen anyway.

Churches are one method. You’ve heard the old saw about Sunday mornings being the most segregated hour in America? Why not persuade church leaders to fight that? If you have Catholics living on both sides of a sharp border (probable, as there are Catholic segments in most populations), why not help the local diocese put churches at the border’s bridge points? Baptists (white and black Americans) and Pentecostals (both groups and Hispanics besides) also come to mind. If successful, this would create areas where the two groups could interact peacefully, discover their areas of common belief and work towards common purposes.

Putting mutually attractive (and/or necessary) entertainments, retail stores and public services at these bridge points is also aimed at the same goal. Taking people who are normally isolated from each other and giving them opportunities- with incentives- to SAFELY interact as equals. To start knowing each other not as the other that thugs on both sides want to attack but as the family from church, the kid at the next desk, the folks who drink the same beer or watch the same movies.

This will be the 44th comment/trackback to this thread… it’s alwasy fun to talk about something that other people find interesting!

I’m not thinking of a new busing system, like they tried in the ’70s, if that’s what you’re thinking. I’m thinking that, in situations where a sharp dividing line exists between two different neighborhoods, put the neighborhood schools next to the bridges (intersections, underpasses) crossing that dividing line. As for the subject of academic value:

No, my criticism is more basic.

Your plan optimizes for escalating social conflict between groups, in order to teach appropriate de-escalation strategies.

All the time & energy being directed to that could be better spent on academics and technical training.

Your plan is doubly tragic, because it deprives those communities who most need those vital skills the opportunity to learn it, in the name of social engineering.

*Most public schools rely, to one extent or other, on property taxes for their budgets. In situations where this is still the case, minimizing the number of schools drawing on low-value lands makes financial sense.

Perhaps, but I don’t see how your proposal relies on implies a Robin Hood principle [1]. It’s easy to see how RH schools can exist without purposefully inciting communcal violence, and how purposefully inciting communal violence can exist without RH schools.

*I’ve also seen reports of studies to the effect that poorer students benefit from a more diverse school environment. This is one way of providing such an environment.

If by this you mean they benefit from a higher fraction of whites, asians, and jews in class with them, then you’re right. (Whites, asians, and jews do, as well.)

This doesn’t have anything to do with creating a more dangerous school environment in order to weed out troublemakers, though.

In situations where the two neighborhoods are linguistically disparate, schools which mandate a rigorous curriculum in both languages (plus English, if that isn’t already in the mix) would serve both communities well: partly by easing the transition of the non-English speakers into society, partly by helping the students become bilingual or trilingual (good skill to have on a resume or college application).

Perhaps, though your plan obviously retards English-language aquisition among the non-fluent community (which hurts them), and also takes time away from mor basic skills the fluent underclass community needs (which hurts them).

Your comment appears to reason free of constraints, figuring that if we say “Teach them X” it implies no reduction in skills for any other areas.

Alternatively, if you do want to sacrifice some things to get your new objectives, outline what those thigns are.

*Any public school worth its salt has the responsibility of preparing its students to be productive adults in society. Academics is a major part of that–getting along with people who look, sound and think differently than you is another part of that. The challenge, in this case, is maximizing the number of people learning that lesson while minimizing the number of people hurt in the process.

Why do you think that communal conflict escalation is important or useful in teaching people to obey the law?

Keep in mind, too, a couple of other things. 1) Depending on the school district’s budget and the existing school supply, such a program would likely start with preschools or elementary schools; in addition to being typically smaller, their student body is less likely to break out in riots and more likely to learn the above lesson about getting along.

Indeed. Additionally, socialization at this age seems not to matter much, so if you do your plan at the elementary school level, you’re trading little pain for little gain. So what’s the point?

2) I wasn’t just thinking of schools at such locations: churches (Catholic, Pentecostal and Baptist would all work well here), retail, entertainment and other public service centers would all benefit from (and offer benefit to) such a location.

I don’t follow.

Skilling ahead…

Where in this thread did I say that my ideas were exclusive of other ideas? In case you hadn’t noticed, I tend to take a shotgun approach to problem solving.

OK, let me rephrase: what makes this worth the political effort, considering the opportunity costs of that effort?

Much of the remaining parts of your comment do not even address my questions. When I asked if you a similar plan succeeded in the past, you responded with a description of embedded police officers… But the central point of your argument is that you want to build neighrbohoods across neighrbohood lines to create a diverse student body. So your example not only doesn’t address the criticism, it only loosely relates to your actual rpopsoal.

So: Have plans like this one had success in the past?

Your last paragraph:

Fair enough. But the more cultural factors we can clear out of the way, the easier it will be to home in on genetic and epigenetic factors and the people suffering therefrom.

Confuses means and ends, and does not answer the question of: Does modeling work in such dysfunction? (Unless your answer was a way of saying “no”; again, I’m having trouble following your logic.)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_plan

Actually, the reverse. The default location for a school is in a neighborhood, hence “neighborhood schools.” Your proposal seeks to make schools and school districts purposefully cross neighborhoods in order to get as hostile a student body as possible. So you still need to address the fair criticism of trading in academic value for social conflict, and also the question of logistics which you’ve raised.”

I’m not thinking of a new busing system, like they tried in the ’70s, if that’s what you’re thinking. I’m thinking that, in situations where a sharp dividing line exists between two different neighborhoods, put the neighborhood schools next to the bridges (intersections, underpasses) crossing that dividing line. As for the subject of academic value:
*Most public schools rely, to one extent or other, on property taxes for their budgets. In situations where this is still the case, minimizing the number of schools drawing on low-value lands makes financial sense.
*I’ve also seen reports of studies to the effect that poorer students benefit from a more diverse school environment. This is one way of providing such an environment.
*In situations where the two neighborhoods are linguistically disparate, schools which mandate a rigorous curriculum in both languages (plus English, if that isn’t already in the mix) would serve both communities well: partly by easing the transition of the non-English speakers into society, partly by helping the students become bilingual or trilingual (good skill to have on a resume or college application).
*Any public school worth its salt has the responsibility of preparing its students to be productive adults in society. Academics is a major part of that–getting along with people who look, sound and think differently than you is another part of that. The challenge, in this case, is maximizing the number of people learning that lesson while minimizing the number of people hurt in the process.

Keep in mind, too, a couple of other things. 1) Depending on the school district’s budget and the existing school supply, such a program would likely start with preschools or elementary schools; in addition to being typically smaller, their student body is less likely to break out in riots and more likely to learn the above lesson about getting along. 2) I wasn’t just thinking of schools at such locations: churches (Catholic, Pentecostal and Baptist would all work well here), retail, entertainment and other public service centers would all benefit from (and offer benefit to) such a location.

“The gradients of xGW are defined in terms of social dispersel of kinetic action [1]. They are described in terms of Operative Actions [2]. The central theoretical prediction of xGW is that each gradient is more cognitive than the one before it [3].

I’m not sure how this relates to our present discussion?”

You’re the one who accused my ideas of being 0GW. I was just making sure I understood what I was being accused of.

That’s reasonable. But until that therapy is available, and the means to use it effectively, legally and respectfully are established, other methods would be needed. Note, also, idea #2 in my original comment: I was imagining the homesteading of ghetto neighborhoods in part as a means of connecting the good aspects of its society (churches, other non-profit or volunteer groups, positive traditions. . .) with wider government and social networks that can help.

“Would this be more effective than getting people with bad behaviors off the street by, say, lower standards of evidence, longer prison terms, etc?”

Where in this thread did I say that my ideas were exclusive of other ideas? In case you hadn’t noticed, I tend to take a shotgun approach to problem solving.

” Getting definitions mixed up. #2 was the idea of getting non-ghetto residents- teachers, police, firefighters, social workers- to move INTO the ghetto. By giving them what they need to deal with the dangers of their new neighborhood and encouraging them to make social connections with such positive social networks as are already there (churches, non-profits and volunteer groups, etc), disconnection with the wider society can be gradually reduced and new ways of dealing local problems can be introduced.

Have plans like this one had success in the past?”

One problem: I don’t know how close to this idea other programs have reached in the past. For example, I know NOLA police were required to live in the same neighborhoods they patrolled, but how much of their lack of success was due to problems with this approach, how much was due to differences (Were other public servants also required to live in the same neighborhoods?) and how much was due to larger dis-functions in NOLA society.

” Are there people available to model, and teach, good habits to replace the bad ones?

Does modeling work in such dysfunction? I’m assuming if it does, it works for the chosen few who are poor because of a bad run of luck, rather than the chronic poor we are focusing on in this discussion.”

Fair enough. But the more cultural factors we can clear out of the way, the easier it will be to home in on genetic and epigenetic factors and the people suffering therefrom.