If the U.S. Won't Pay Its Teachers, China Will

> Peace occurs when tribes exist in a stable equilibrium. Peace exists when boundaries are clear, ownership of turf is clear, and when overstepping the boundaries will result in swift and sure retribution, thus making conflict unprofitable.

This worldview has caused so much pain and suffering that I can't really believe you would write it with a straight face. You're basically describing the Cold War as the most stable and peaceful state of geopolitics. You're advocating for all people to define themselves primarily by race, never associate with other races, and violently defend their race when there's an infraction.

> Thus the entire liberal cure for racism, at least in Boston, was actually the cause of the most virulent racism. By forcing these groups together, and putting people in conflict over girls, basketball courts, spots on varsity, etc, the busing created friction and animosity.

Another huge problem with your article, demonstrated here, is that you never once acknowledge a time before 1977. You write as if everything was great, and then those meddling liberals tried to integrate schools and thereby invented racism.

> My point is simply that large-scale, forced integration made race relation problems much worse. It created problems where little existed.

Really, no big problems before desegregation? I know you know this isn't true, why write it? I don't think desegregation is a magic cure any more than you do, and I don't think anyone claims that, although I've never seen Eyes on the Prize. But while segregated schools might have been a nice local minimum of racism, violence, and suffering, they were not anywhere close to the global minimum. Forced integration, while obviously not perfect, was necessary to start solving some big problems, even if it caused some new problems of its own.

> I am just pointing out that the "solution" to race problems made race problems worse, and for very obvious reasons.

No, that's one of your points, but the thesis is much broader. You claim that these beliefs are wrong: "racial segregation was bad, and that efforts to integrate schools were worthy moral crusades."

Oh come on. I clarified that people can be tribal in different ways -- by national identity, by religion, by polis, by clan, etc. You cannot get rid of people being tribal. You can change the type of tribalism (although that is not easy), but you cannot get rid of it. Since tribalism exists, you have peace when borders are clear, and you have war when borders between tribes are unclear, or when one tribe is actively preying upon another.

The Cold War was violent to the extent that boundaries were not clear. There were lots of fighting over third world countries that weren't clearly owned by either sphere (hence the very definition of the word "third world"). There was global conflict between the USSR and USA because both felt the other was predatory, both thought the other was trying to actively extend its territory. That is not a good equilibrium, that is not a good state of affairs.

Also, conversations are better when you make an effort to read with a little bit of charity. By "boundaries are clear" I do not mean that people should never associate with each other. The US and Canada have a clear boundary, with clear rules for coming across the boundary. That doesn't mean we never associate with Canadians. And if a Canadian commits a crime upon an American, they will be arrested by an armed American and suitably punished. And vice versa. That's a stable, good equilibrium.

Another huge problem with your article, demonstrated here, is that you never once acknowledge a time before 1977....Really, no big problems before desegregation? I know you know this isn't true, why write it?

If we just consider problems of racial animosity in Boston, on a scale of 1 to 10, they were maybe at 3 before forced integration and at 8 afterwards. That is my sense from reading the historical accounts. See the example of the black Southie school teacher who did not notice problems before the forced busing.

Obviously racial problems and disparities across the country go much further back. I intend to write more on that. Follow my blog if you are interested. But this post was already at 15,000 words so I just wanted to focus on the direct before and after impacts of busing in Boston.

Forced integration, while obviously not perfect, was necessary to start solving some big problems, even if it caused some new problems of its own.

No, in Boston, it failed in every single way. And there is no reason to think mass forced integration is necessary or even net helpful with regards to fixing problems of racial disparities.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the high performing schools are high performing because they have a high tax base, that's just a correlation.

Quality teachers may not be attracted to inner-city schools because of unstated biases, or because they prefer to live in other areas and have short commutes.

Or maybe you have a safety issue due to a school's location or an aging building and high rents that diverts resources towards countermeasures or repairs.

For whatever reason though, busing led to miraculously improved outcomes. Then we stopped doing it for some reason. Now, instead, we make some kids stay in schools where they have six hours of recess or lunch or study hall, then one session with a permanent math substitute with no lesson plans.

So yeah, funding isn't everything--but some schools can't even afford teachers for every hour of the day, or roofs that aren't collapsing. If there is a minimum threshold not being met, funding's probably part of it. The better solution is to just not bar kids who want to learn from functioning schools.

I've heard the same complaints about corruption in teachers unions and poor education at urban non-charters. Everyone has their own examples for each side of the argument.

I can never tell how much of the pro- or anti- charter allegations are politically motivated or real science.

Best option I have is to rely on actual research. Stanford provides some periodic in depth studies of school performance, and has found that "across 41 regions, urban charter schools on average achieve significantly greater student success in both math and reading."

http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/news.php

That's heavily caveated. There are regional variances. Maybe charters don't outpace peers outside of urban environments. Still, it's enough for me not to dismiss them out of hand.