I was a white student at Paul Junior High school in the 1965 and 1966 academic years. The school was primarily poor black at the time, but had a small college prep class that was ~ 50% black. As I remember it, the class had 3 white boys, no black boys, and had ~ 15 girls. The school was violent, I got beat up more times than I can remember for no reason at all and the playground at recess time was really dangerous. Groups were fighting all the time and kids would get hauled off to the ER for treatment and would reappear bandaged and splinted the next morning.
I did not go out at lunch.
In 1966 the school board got rid of the college prep classes in the name of equality.
We moved to Baltimore, where my brother and I then attended Baltimore Polytechnic.
I fared well through most of the piece, but by the end: "It's all so tiresome."
Imagine dismantling good schools to improve the welfare of all, then committing to the bit of not improving anything into eternity. For the good of everyone, of course. Interesting that Hobson was some type of marginal FBI informant.
I'm in Toronto. I had no idea how old these ideas were, I thought this was a recent "woke" phenomenon, but these fervent ideologues from 60+ years ago were saying the exact same insane things as those at the TDSB today. This is a much bigger and more entrenched problem than I thought
"In September 1964, D.C. students walked into integrated schools for the first time"
When I first read this, I was startled that D.C.'s rapid integration nevertheless took 10 years before first implementation. Now I think it was a typo - did integrated schools start in 1954?
The single biggest impediment to tracking is the never ending hysteria surrounding the racial gap in IQ. You know and I know that Sean Reardon of Stanford discovered that white students average higher school achievement test scores than black students in every single school district in the United States (2,000+). Reardon found school districts where blacks average higher incomes than whites, but not test scores. (There is, however, a public elementary school near me where every few years, the few dozen black students average higher than the whites students.)
But most people have no clue that The Gap is so incredibly consistent. If you tell them, many are sure it must be a racist pseudoscience stereotype and that you are bad person for falling for it.
Thus, I've read over the decades hundreds of articles from local newspapers about their shocking discovery that in the local schools, blacks scored worse than whites, and therefore, obviously, Something Must Be Done. The reporters and editors have zero awareness that it's like this everywhere, and everybody has tried to do something, and nothing has never worked to Close the Gap.
So, tracking _always_ leads to more Asians and whites in the higher tracks and more blacks and Hispanics in the lower tracks. And it always leads to complaints about racism.
It seems like there are two possible ways to ameliorate the accusations of racism.
One is using racial quotas. Obviously, racial quotas lessen the benefits of tracking, and they tend to reproduce The Gap within the tracked classroom. But maybe they can lessen opposition.
But, affirmative action is falling out of fashion because it's obviously unconstitutional, and because most people these days underestimate how big of a thumb on the scale blacks need to achieve equal outcomes.
But the biggest thing that could be done to make tracking politically feasible is to finally educate the public about the Racial IQ Gap. Make clear that it's not some Racist Fantasy, it's standard social science. Acting like it doesn't exist won't make it go away, it just means our policies are more self-destructively stupid than they have to be.
Supporters of tracking tend to be smarter than opponents, so it's up to supporters to keep coming up with new euphemisms for tracking that can fool their obtuse opponents for a few years until the opponents finally catch on.
Highly demoralizing to see how old these ideas are; they're so much more resilient and survivable than I expected. So many social activists are such dangerous morons, seemingly the vast majority of them.
As Steve Sailer alludes to upthread, the racial IQ gap and its consequences, everywhere and for all time, is a VERY heavy lift for liberals and social engineers. Conservatives, steeped in the tragic nature of life, know it well but suffer in silence for what should be obvious reasons.
Conservatives? They mostly don't believe it either. The racists claim that they understand the gap, of course they don't. Just a few non-racists who actually cared enough to look into it know anything about it.
"When viewed through the legal lens of SFFA v. Harvard, the reasoning behind the Hobson v. Hansen decision is revealed as constitutionally flawed. The SFFA opinion establishes that the Equal Protection Clause protects individuals, not racial groups, making the principle of colorblindness paramount. In stark contrast, the Hobson case was built entirely on a group-based grievance, treating the statistical imbalance in academic tracks as sufficient proof of systemic discrimination.
This fundamental conflict means the Hobson court's remedy—abolishing the tracking system to engineer racially integrated classrooms—is seen as an impermissible act of racial balancing under the SFFA framework. It sacrificed the specific educational needs of individual students in pursuit of a demographic outcome. Furthermore, Hobson relied on disparate impact as its standard of proof, whereas the principles affirmed in SFFA require evidence of actual discriminatory intent, a much higher bar.
Ultimately, the SFFA decision recasts the Hobson ruling as a form of judicial overreach rooted in a now-rejected legal philosophy. It prioritized group statistics over individual rights and merit. While the article describing the case has historical value, its subject represents a constitutional approach that is now considered illegitimate."
Thank you for writing and sharing this piece. I found it to be quite interesting and informative, but I also have a few questions about some of the article's details:
First, what became of the Stadium Report initially commissioned by Hansen? Based on what you quote from the report, it seemed quite critical of the "basic track" established as part of Hansen's "four track" system. What did Hansen think of the report's findings, and were the identified problems well-substantiated? Also, were the problems inherent to the tracking system as implemented by Hansen (or suggested to be so) ?
Second, who commissioned the Passow Report, and why? Was it supposed to be a follow-up to the Stadium Report, which called for closer examination of the tracking program? And, while the article suggests that the findings of the Passow Report were essentially ignored, I'm curious to know whether the authors of the initial Stadium Report agreed with its recommendations and implicit endorsement of tracking.
Third, the article's conclusion suggests that little has changed fundamentally since the 90s, but why? Is there no political appetite for change? What about the case of Banneker, which the article suggests is touted as an example of success? Are there no examples of DC politicians attempting to create new Bannekers? On a related note, I wonder how policies enacted by the federal government in the last 30 years (e.g., No Child Left Behind) have affected DC schools or the possibility of reintroducing tracking programs.
I was a white student at Paul Junior High school in the 1965 and 1966 academic years. The school was primarily poor black at the time, but had a small college prep class that was ~ 50% black. As I remember it, the class had 3 white boys, no black boys, and had ~ 15 girls. The school was violent, I got beat up more times than I can remember for no reason at all and the playground at recess time was really dangerous. Groups were fighting all the time and kids would get hauled off to the ER for treatment and would reappear bandaged and splinted the next morning.
I did not go out at lunch.
In 1966 the school board got rid of the college prep classes in the name of equality.
We moved to Baltimore, where my brother and I then attended Baltimore Polytechnic.
I fared well through most of the piece, but by the end: "It's all so tiresome."
Imagine dismantling good schools to improve the welfare of all, then committing to the bit of not improving anything into eternity. For the good of everyone, of course. Interesting that Hobson was some type of marginal FBI informant.
An absolutely fascinating, and frustrating, read.
I'm in Toronto. I had no idea how old these ideas were, I thought this was a recent "woke" phenomenon, but these fervent ideologues from 60+ years ago were saying the exact same insane things as those at the TDSB today. This is a much bigger and more entrenched problem than I thought
Your research and writing is top tier! Good Luck and Godspeed!
I remember reading the SlateStarCodex blogpost about DC Public Schools (https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/04/10/why-dcs-low-graduation-rates/) and thinking, "how the hell did things get this bad?" I am glad that finally, 7 years later, we have an explaination.
And, of course, rather than 42%...graduation that year was 69% according to https://dcps.dc.gov/publication/dcps-data-set-graduation-rates. Basically in line with previous (highly fraudulent, apparently) years.
"In September 1964, D.C. students walked into integrated schools for the first time"
When I first read this, I was startled that D.C.'s rapid integration nevertheless took 10 years before first implementation. Now I think it was a typo - did integrated schools start in 1954?
it's been fixed
The single biggest impediment to tracking is the never ending hysteria surrounding the racial gap in IQ. You know and I know that Sean Reardon of Stanford discovered that white students average higher school achievement test scores than black students in every single school district in the United States (2,000+). Reardon found school districts where blacks average higher incomes than whites, but not test scores. (There is, however, a public elementary school near me where every few years, the few dozen black students average higher than the whites students.)
But most people have no clue that The Gap is so incredibly consistent. If you tell them, many are sure it must be a racist pseudoscience stereotype and that you are bad person for falling for it.
Thus, I've read over the decades hundreds of articles from local newspapers about their shocking discovery that in the local schools, blacks scored worse than whites, and therefore, obviously, Something Must Be Done. The reporters and editors have zero awareness that it's like this everywhere, and everybody has tried to do something, and nothing has never worked to Close the Gap.
So, tracking _always_ leads to more Asians and whites in the higher tracks and more blacks and Hispanics in the lower tracks. And it always leads to complaints about racism.
It seems like there are two possible ways to ameliorate the accusations of racism.
One is using racial quotas. Obviously, racial quotas lessen the benefits of tracking, and they tend to reproduce The Gap within the tracked classroom. But maybe they can lessen opposition.
But, affirmative action is falling out of fashion because it's obviously unconstitutional, and because most people these days underestimate how big of a thumb on the scale blacks need to achieve equal outcomes.
But the biggest thing that could be done to make tracking politically feasible is to finally educate the public about the Racial IQ Gap. Make clear that it's not some Racist Fantasy, it's standard social science. Acting like it doesn't exist won't make it go away, it just means our policies are more self-destructively stupid than they have to be.
Supporters of tracking tend to be smarter than opponents, so it's up to supporters to keep coming up with new euphemisms for tracking that can fool their obtuse opponents for a few years until the opponents finally catch on.
Highly demoralizing to see how old these ideas are; they're so much more resilient and survivable than I expected. So many social activists are such dangerous morons, seemingly the vast majority of them.
As Steve Sailer alludes to upthread, the racial IQ gap and its consequences, everywhere and for all time, is a VERY heavy lift for liberals and social engineers. Conservatives, steeped in the tragic nature of life, know it well but suffer in silence for what should be obvious reasons.
Conservatives? They mostly don't believe it either. The racists claim that they understand the gap, of course they don't. Just a few non-racists who actually cared enough to look into it know anything about it.
Possible typo: "Despite the board’s fears, there had only been *two white* upon the school’s opening. Seven years later, there were four."
Broken link in the first footnote. Is that explanation available somewhere besides Twitter?
Many thanks for the article. The following analysis may be interesting - and the full analysis can be read here: https://g.co/gemini/share/6ad0cdf86d74
"When viewed through the legal lens of SFFA v. Harvard, the reasoning behind the Hobson v. Hansen decision is revealed as constitutionally flawed. The SFFA opinion establishes that the Equal Protection Clause protects individuals, not racial groups, making the principle of colorblindness paramount. In stark contrast, the Hobson case was built entirely on a group-based grievance, treating the statistical imbalance in academic tracks as sufficient proof of systemic discrimination.
This fundamental conflict means the Hobson court's remedy—abolishing the tracking system to engineer racially integrated classrooms—is seen as an impermissible act of racial balancing under the SFFA framework. It sacrificed the specific educational needs of individual students in pursuit of a demographic outcome. Furthermore, Hobson relied on disparate impact as its standard of proof, whereas the principles affirmed in SFFA require evidence of actual discriminatory intent, a much higher bar.
Ultimately, the SFFA decision recasts the Hobson ruling as a form of judicial overreach rooted in a now-rejected legal philosophy. It prioritized group statistics over individual rights and merit. While the article describing the case has historical value, its subject represents a constitutional approach that is now considered illegitimate."
Thank you for writing and sharing this piece. I found it to be quite interesting and informative, but I also have a few questions about some of the article's details:
First, what became of the Stadium Report initially commissioned by Hansen? Based on what you quote from the report, it seemed quite critical of the "basic track" established as part of Hansen's "four track" system. What did Hansen think of the report's findings, and were the identified problems well-substantiated? Also, were the problems inherent to the tracking system as implemented by Hansen (or suggested to be so) ?
Second, who commissioned the Passow Report, and why? Was it supposed to be a follow-up to the Stadium Report, which called for closer examination of the tracking program? And, while the article suggests that the findings of the Passow Report were essentially ignored, I'm curious to know whether the authors of the initial Stadium Report agreed with its recommendations and implicit endorsement of tracking.
Third, the article's conclusion suggests that little has changed fundamentally since the 90s, but why? Is there no political appetite for change? What about the case of Banneker, which the article suggests is touted as an example of success? Are there no examples of DC politicians attempting to create new Bannekers? On a related note, I wonder how policies enacted by the federal government in the last 30 years (e.g., No Child Left Behind) have affected DC schools or the possibility of reintroducing tracking programs.