We segment our students by real estate into winning and losing groups based on the assumption that parental income = academic performance. The primary result of NCLB is proving this has a rather intense correlation.
Locally our housing is hyper segregated (despite not being in the South) so naturally our schools are also racially segregated, as are our test results.
Racial income inequality is not likely to be solved by metric data worship, although that does act as an effective distractor from the root cause(s).
Big cities are an exception to this as it is not possible to segment further. Examples, such as Chicago or Buffalo New York come to mind where some of the best and worst schools in America exist in the same school district. Opening the avenues between these schools is often met with strong opposition, often from the underprivileged minority groups that would most benefit. Programs that reach out to the community as a whole but fail to represent that community's racial statistics are such targets.
When I was a kid our school admissions was on a lottery system where 70% of the school was admitted, but due to low parent involvement African Americans were made up a few dozen percentage points lower in neighboring schools. They made a majority although not a super-majority. I wondered what the so-called 'community leaders' that would protest this state of affairs hand in mind for the 40% of their skin color.
Locally our housing is hyper segregated (despite not being in the South) so naturally our schools are also racially segregated, as are our test results.
Racial income inequality is not likely to be solved by metric data worship, although that does act as an effective distractor from the root cause(s).