Likely a matter of the parents in richer neighborhoods being able to donate more time and money to the local school than in poorer neighborhoods. The buildings are better, there are more resources available to teachers, more extra-curricular activities, skilled teachers fight to be posted there. Certainly things can be improved at schools in poorer neighborhoods, but I doubt it could be equalized to the point where kids won't benefit from being bussed to the richer neighborhood schools.
It's not really solving the problem though, is it? The bad neighborhoods and bad schools are still there. And the idea that if you can't equalize it to rich neighborhods (when they can and will never be equal anyway even with this bussig) then there's no point, is exactly the kind of thing I find absurd about it.
I don't deny that it might help some kids some amount. Although now I'm curious -- what kind of improvement does the evidence actually show? Anything close to "equalized"?
> "Good school" is like 99% pupil safety and the general disciplin related and 1% other. Money won't buy you that.
I think money could help that. Even if it never left the schools. Assuming that it went to things like removing lead, made the schools look less run down, supported after school programs, and added security (not police).
Since the suggestion was "making their local neighborhoods and schools better" there might be a lot that could be done in local neighborhoods to improve student safety too. Fixing environmental issues there, cleaning the place up and planting trees, improving access to good stores, improving public transportation, and providing daycare. That could lower crime rates, improve the health of the kids and parents, and give parents more time to spend with their kids or get involved with the school.
