From, you know, reliable sources, not just a solo statistic like the ones you presented.
Funding disparities for city students are a nationwide issue: Public school pupils enrolled in urban districts receive on average around $2,100 less per pupil than their suburban counterparts, and **$4,000 less than students who attend rural remote schools** , according to a recent study by EdBuild.
Why City Kids Get Less Money for Their Education - Bloomberg.
Curiously, there were lots of cars in the 1910s and 1920s, yet there were still vibrant downtowns with banks and theaters and 5-and-dimes. Then came the war, and after …
The years after World War Two saw a massive movement of people into new suburbs. The growth of suburbs resulted from several historical forces, including the social legacy of the Depression, mass demobilization after the War (and the consequent “baby boom”), greater government involvement in housing and development, the mass marketing of the automobile, and a dramatic change in demographics. As families began moving from farms and cities into new suburbs, American culture underwent a major transformation. Race and class dynamics began to shift; the longer distance between home and work generated a highway and housing construction boom; and older community institutions began to disappear as the family turned inward.
There were many factors propelling the growth of the suburbs, of course, but it is disingenuous to pretend that race had nothing to do with it. And continues to, as I have demonstrated in the first quotation in this post. But Sowell says “that’s not structural” and you swallow it.
It isn’t about “school choice”, although that’s a worthy goal someday. For now it’s about school equity And the objection isn’t to school choice, it’s to denuding public schools in favor of certain special selected schools. It’s like taking the budget for street repair and using part of it for streets only certain people can drive on, which necessarily diminishes the condition of the streets everybody drives on. Rinse and repeat often enough and you have two sets of streets: “special streets” for “special people”, and pothole cratered paths for the rest of us.
PS: I have read enough Sowell columns to know to avoid his books. His “I made it, and so should everybody else” philosophy is a joke, and the denial that there is inherent structural racism - of which multiple examples have been given you in just this thread alone - to your (and his) denial doesn’t make them untrue.
It’s astonishing to me that you can look at the penalties for crack vs powder and not see the obvious racial dimension to those particular laws. Maybe that wasn’t intentional , but it didn’t have to be. It tagged a good part of an entire generation of black youths as forever consigned to a low wage, low advancement life. Multiply that by mortgage redlining, white flight schools, property tax advantages of suburban schools, and yes, societal and parental norms (which anyone must agree have been destructive) and you have (at least) some case for (at least) some consideration of solutions.
Just saying “Well, nothing to see here” is the same solution we used for 100 years after Jim Crow and the slavery war, which eventually culminated in a VASTLY unequal and potentially combustible society. Or do you think that because Louis Armstrong was successful, “anyone could be.”?