Joanne has a post that compared two different attempts in North Carolina:
To improve the performance of low-income students, Wake County, North Carolina’s largest district, uses busing to integrate its schools by socioeconomic status. One in six students is bused at a cost of $541.56 per student.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the second largest district, runs neighborhood schools that serve affluent kids in the suburbs, poor kids in the downtown. Millions of extra dollars go to improve high-poverty schools.
Which system works better? According to the Raleigh News & Observer, both systems are equally unsuccessful.
Coincidentally, RotLC reader Mazenko forwarded to me this column by DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, in which she says, "[T]eachers are the solution to the vexing problems facing urban education. "
I don't often say this, but I disagree with Michelle Rhee here. Looking at the failed solutions in Joanne's post, we can either assume that both the districts in North Carolina completely screwed up (not out of the realm of possibility, especially in public education), or something else is at work. I vote for Option B, and I'll even tell you what the answer is: The problem isn't the school, it's the culture.
And that explains why Rhee is mistaken. Her statement could be corrected thusly: Teachers are a necessary, but not sufficient, part of the solution to the vexing problems facing urban education.
And therein lies the answer to why so many students, especially lower income students, do so poorly--as a society we only address the school component.
Update, 2/10/09: And look what the major Sacramento paper reported Sunday.