Now, for some depressing news. The LA Times reports:
Nearly half of the Latino and African American students who should have graduated from California high schools in 2002 failed to complete their education, according to a Harvard University report released Wednesday.
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, the situation was even worse, with just 39% of Latinos and 47% of African Americans graduating, compared with 67% of whites and 77% of Asians.
…
The troubling graduation rates are most alarming in minority communities, where students are more likely to attend what researchers call “dropout factories.”
…
Statewide, just 57% of African Americans and 60% of Latinos graduated in 2002, compared with 78% of whites and 84% of Asians, the report said.
Using enrollment data, researchers produced what they believe are the most definitive graduation rates for California and its largest school systems.
They cast aside the state’s method, which even California Education Department officials acknowledge is flawed. The state officials say they are forced by the federal government to use a formula that relies on undependable dropout data from schools.
The Harvard report found that African Americans and Latinos in the state were far less likely to graduate than their white and Asian peers, reflecting an achievement gap that first appears in elementary schools.
UCLA researchers noticed one troubling pattern in Los Angeles Unified: Most students who leave high school do so between ninth and 10th grades.
In several Los Angeles high schools, UCLA researcher Julie Mendoza found that less than one-third of ninth-graders graduated on time.
This has also been my experience. As many of my readers know, I grew up in Compton California until the age of 22. If you were to take a poll of my Compton friends, both black and hispanic, I would put the percentage at 10-20% that graduated (only one person currently comes to mind, and even he didn’t go out much). Even I dropped out of high school in the 10th grade, only to later return to get my GED and than go onto college.
The people that graduated, those were typically the ones that didn’t go out much, had atleast somewhat strict parents, and stayed away from the spot light. So they had to pay the price of being less popular, less able to get the ladies, and sometimes picked on by others. It seems like small potatos, but a very big price to pay in your teenage years, when all you care about is the immediate world around you.
Sadly, I don’t think there is any quick fix for this, fundamentally it is a problem of culture. And unless the culture changes, the overall numbers aren’t going to move drastically in the upward direction. 
Alfonso, I agree it makes me sad too. You know I grew up in the suburbs and everyone I knew in high school graduated, including the Latinos. Still, I know there is a lot of room for improvement at the structural level as well as within our own families. I know researchers have studied high achieving Black and Latino students who come from disadvantaged background. Maybe we can know what (aside from high ability) helped these students out.
When I see studies like these, I also wait for those on the right to use any negative news as reason to attack any services to Latinos. Never to use as a call to action to improve but rather to blowup the education system, say. I, fortunately, had the benefit of parochial schooling and no shenanigan’s where tolerated by either my parents or the teachers, who, to my benefit, my parents always sided with.
I think one thing you can look at is the effect of Prop 13 in CA had on school funding overall and to different demographic communities and school systems. Not that I want a return to pre-1978 property taxes, just that the cost of services (public education) rises faster than my prop tax bill.
I, fortunately, had the benefit of parochial schooling and no shenanigan’s where tolerated by either my parents or the teachers, who, to my benefit, my parents always sided with.
Here is a strong call to action that conservatives fight for, vouchers. I wonder, given that you had the benefit of parochial schooling, what is your opinion on vouchers? Would you support poor people in having the same options you had?
First let me clarify. I didn’t mean to impugn public education. Just that when I was growing up my first local school option was just like my neighborhood - crime ridden. As we moved, the public schools got tremendously better.
Which segues into your question. I haven’t fully fleshed out my thoughts on it, but at first thought, I can see myself supporting it with some conditions and questions. First it should be means tested, the wealthier the less to none the subsidy. Wealthier families will be better able to transport their children to further distant schools than poorer families. Is transportation included, which would widen their options, the whole point of vouchers, right? I’m not so concerned about religious affiliated schools as long as no religion is taught to those with vouchers.
But my major concern will be what happens to that local school when, say, 1/4 to 1/2 the students leave. Do they take the funding with them, only exacerbating the problem or some state intervention to improve that school to better compete with non-public schools. Would it include portability to other and better public schools, rewarding those public servants? And how would you choose whom got in? Again I’m for means testing here. How about other school districts? I live on the border of two vastly different cities and school districts.
Basically, I’m for some equitable implantation. That’s easer said than done, though reading the link you posted gives me hope.
Oops, meant to say:
“Basically, I’m for some equitable implementation.”
First it should be means tested, the wealthier the less to none the subsidy.
Agreed.
Is transportation included, which would widen their options, the whole point of vouchers, right?
Either way, its a difference between good and better. If transportation is provided, that’s even better, but if transportation were not provided, I wouldn’t see it as a show stopper.
I’m not so concerned about religious affiliated schools as long as no religion is taught to those with vouchers.
I can do with either, but I must say that I have no problem, even prefer, if the option was there for parents to send their kids to whatever school they decided, even if that school decided to teach their kids a religion of the parents choice.
But my major concern will be what happens to that local school when, say, 1/4 to 1/2 the students leave. Do they take the funding with them, only exacerbating the problem or some state intervention to improve that school to better compete with non-public schools.
This is the least appealing objective to vouchers I hear. For example, do you stay up at night worrying about what would happen to Sprint if Verizon offered such superior cell phone quality that it caused 1/4 to 1/2 the customers to leave? No right, because you know that this is a natural phenomena in the market, and the market forces will take care of this, they reward success and punish failure, while at the same time expanding the choices and improving the quality for the customer. I have no reason to think that this would be any different in the case of vouchers and education, only in this case, the customer are the students.
I agree that it will take some time for the private sector to meet the demands, but that can easily be solved by slow implementation. You can implement it at a slow pace, giving entrepreneurs time to respond.
For the record, this issue is so important to me, that I would vote Democrat if the Republican didn’t support vouchers but the Democrat did.
Interesting you use cell phone analogy. Public education is a public service, like water or power (Enron!?@#%). The public doesn’t need cell phones; it’s a luxury good that those can afford will buy it if they want to. Basic telephone service is another matter; you’re stuck with whoever you provider is in your neighborhood. Say those that can’t, won’t or don’t want to switch, does the government just abandon them and provide crappier service, e.g. no 911 service between dusk to dawn.
I think this problem is more complicated than your analogy.
Your statement would be true if things would remain the same, but remember, this opens up the market for all. Every school, even public schools, would become private schools by definition. So in practice, you will find a happy medium between supply and demand, where there is demand, supply will surely follow. Those schools that do well will survive, those that don’t will fail.
As far as the schools that have a higher percentage of children leave, well those schools would fail, but that is because they were already failing students (afterall, that is why the students left). The remaining students in those schools can than go to a different school of their choice, and *if* it became more expensive to go to a different school than the current voucher provides, one could add in a clause that protects against this scenario by providing more money to pay for the transportation for the child to go to a different school. But again, this is worse case scenario, this is assuming that one would have the case where you have willing paying customers, and nobody to fulfill their needs. If this does happen, it is only in scenarios where there are a few people willing to pay, and it doesn’t justify the cost of opening up another school. A small price to pay compared to the overwhelming percentage of students the public schools are currently failing with the status quo.