Category Archives: Demographics

Millennials Want a New Kind of Suburbia

Image credit: Demand Institute

Image credit: Demand Institute

by James A. Bacon

The Millennial Generation (18- to 29-years old) will be a predominantly suburban generation, contends a new study by the Demand Institute based on a survey of 1,000 Millennial households. Significant majorities of the younger generation aspire to owning a single-family home and consider automobiles a necessity, while a 48% plurality expresses a preference to live in the “suburbs” over an urban or rural environment.

These findings, the authors contend, contradict “myths” perpetuated by advocates of smart growth and urbanism that Millennials “all want to move to the city and rent; they don’t want to own things; they won’t need cars anyway — and there will be a massive slump in demand because they are all going to be living single in their parents’ basements for the foreseeable future.”

Phew! It’s hard to know where to start with this. The study does provide a useful benchmark for what Millennials are thinking and it reaches at least one very interesting conclusion. Unfortunately, the analysis totally clouds the debate by misstating what smart growthers and urbanists are actually saying and by what employing what our old friend Ed Risse terms “core confusing words.”

The Demand Institute does make some useful observations. While there are only 13.3 million households headed by Millennials today, young people will emerge from their parents’ basements. Their number will swell to 21.6 million households by 2018. Almost four in five expect their financial situation to improve within the next five years, and three out of four plan to move. The reasons they list for wanting to move: 71% for a better home or apartment, 59% for more privacy or space, 50% to establish a household, and 48% to own, not rent. While Millennials have delayed family formation, 30% are married today, 64% expect to be married within five years, and 55% expect to have children within five years.

Three out of four Millennials believe home ownership is important, and 60% plan to purchase a home within five years. When they do rent or buy a new home, 61% want more space. Sixty-two percent want to either rent or purchase a single-family dwelling for their next home.

Here’s where it gets interesting for those following the urban vs. suburban debate: Millennials’ locational preferences are:

48% suburban
38% urban
14% rural

Those who say it’s important for their next home to be within “a short drive” of grocery stores, restaurants and retail outnumber those who say it is important to be within walking distance by more than two to one. Meanwhile, 88% of Millennials own a car, down only one percentage point from 2001.

Among the study’s main conclusions: “The suburbs are going to remain important destinations for young families, but the ideal suburban location for Millennials may not be the same as it was for previous generations. Communities that can offer the best of urban living (e.g. convenience and walkability) with the best of suburban living (e.g. good schools and more space) will thrive in the coming decade.”

Very good. I believe that to be true. One of the great challenges of the next two or three decades will be urbanizing the suburbs, or, to be more precise, to replace the “suburban sprawl” pattern of development characterized by large lots, segregated land uses and autocentric streets with a more traditional “urban” pattern of small lots, some mixed-use and walkable streets.

The authors confuse the issue, however, by their indiscriminate use of the words “suburbs” and “suburban.” They do not differentiate between close-in suburbs where single-family dwellings have small lots and walkable streets and the far-flung “exurbs” on the metropolitan fringe where single-family dwells have large lots and rely exclusively upon automobiles. I would argue that while Millennials assuredly seek to live in communities with good schools and reasonable taxes, they are far less interested than previous generations in living in the “exurbs.” However, it is impossible to prove or disprove that argument with the way the authors constructed the survey.

As for dispelling the “myth” that all Millennials want to live in the city, rent an apartment and give up their cars, the authors have created a straw man. I don’t know of anyone who says “all” Millennials want those things. But the Demand Institute’s own data suggests that a significant number do. Thirty-six percent of Millennials say they expect to continue to rent multi-family housing over the next five years; 24% say they want the same amount of space, and 15% want less space. Thirty-eight percent say they prefer to live in an urban environment. As for transportation, 48% say they take mass transit at least once a week, 22% say they walk and 15% ride a bicycle. I would suggest those numbers represent a major shift from previous generations. It would be nice to compare those preferences with those of Generation Xers 20 years ago. The Demand Institute data would mean far more if we could put it in a generational context.

Bacon’s bottom line: In actuality, there is a big shift in Millennial preferences compared to those of previous generations. A big percentage of Millennials prefer urban lifestyles and a bigger percentage prefer a “best of both worlds” approach typical of the older, denser suburbs. There is little evidence here that Millennials are craving an “exurban” lifestyle of big houses on big lots in locations that make them dependent upon cars for long commutes. The study missed a chance to make that clear.

The Fickle Patterns of Population Growth

Map credit: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service

Map credit: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. (Click for bigger image.)

Image credit: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service

Image credit: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service

Except for a brief period during the Civil War, the population of Virginia has increased steadily as long as anyone has kept track. But the pattern of growth varied as the nation evolved from an agriculture-based economy to an industrial economy and then to a knowledge-based economy. Many once-dynamic jurisdictions have gone into decline and, bucking the overall statewide trend, have lost population.

Hamilton Lombard with the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service has published a fascinating map showing the decades of peak population for Virginia’s cities and counties, as seen above. While roughly half the state’s cities and counties reached peak population last year in 2013 (no numbers yet for 2014), large swaths reached their apogee decades ago. Indeed seven counties saw their glory years in the 1800s. Amelia County’s heyday was 1790.

Lombard’s article traces population growth through the tobacco era, the New South industrialization and the rise of independent cities. A couple of patterns strike me from my eyeballing of the map:

  • Many of Virginia’s larger “cities” — Norfolk, Richmond, Portsmouth, Roanoke peaked in the 1960-1970 era before urban decay white/middle-class flight set in.
  • The coalfields of Southwest Virginia reached their zenith in the 1950s after decades of growth in the coal industry, although a couple of counties didn’t peak until the coal revival of the 1970s.
  • Much of Southside Virginia peaked in the 1920s-50s, although a couple of mill towns — Danville and Martinsville — and their neighboring counties continued growing until 1980.
  • Not all growth has been concentrated in the Washington, Richmond and Hampton Roads metropolitan regions. The Interstate 81 corridor stretching between Winchester, Roanoke and Bristol has provided a secondary locus of population growth (with the main exception being Rockbridge County).

Bacon’s bottom line: Beware ye, exurban counties, who think ye shall grow forever. Fortunes change.

– JAB

The Other SOL Scandal

Source: VDOE SOL Assessment Build-a-Table

Source: VDOE SOL Assessment Build-a-Table

by James A. Bacon

The new, tougher Standards of Learning (SOL) test scores have Virginia’s political establishment in an uproar. Too many children are failing to achieve basic proficiency. Dozens of schools seem institutionally incapable of improvement. Entire school divisions resemble learning-free zones.

The overwhelming focus of public attention has been on the disappointing pass rates for basic proficiency. In just the latest example, Governor Terry McAuliffe vowed yesterday that all schools in Richmond, Petersburg and Norfolk will reach full accreditation before he leaves office, the Times-Dispatch reports today.

While the failure of thousands of Virginia kids to meet basic proficiency standards is alarming, the failure of even more kids to achieve “advanced” (college-track in upper grades), learning standards is every bit as panic-inducing. But no one seems to be paying attention.

If students fail to achieve proficiency in reading, writing, history, math and science, they will not qualify for the vast majority of jobs opening up in the knowledge economy. The numbers suggest that as many as one-fifth of Virginia kids will be consigned to the economic margins.  Likewise, the inability to achieve advanced, college-path standards, suggests that only one out of five Virginia public school students will be prepared for college. Not shown in the table above: Advanced scores for math and science are even lower on average. Virginia students are really unprepared for the so-called STEM subjects required for mastery of technology.

Bacon’s bottom line: We’re not doing ourselves any favors by focusing overwhelmingly on bringing the bottom performers up. We need to improve performance across the board.

Tobacco Commission Needs Huge Makeover

tobacco leafBy Peter Galuszka

One more glaring example of mass corruption in Virginia is the grandly named Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission formed 14 years ago to dole out Virginia’s share of a $206 billion settlement among 45 other states with cigarette makers.

I’ve been writing for years about how millions of dollars are doled out with little oversight to economic development projects supposedly helpful to the former tobacco-growing parts of the state from the bright leaf belt around Dinwiddie out west to the burley leaf land of the mountains.

There have been no-strings giveaways to absentee tobacco quota holders, a board member sent to prison for siphoning off grant money and the shenanigans of the extended Kilgore family which is very politically powerful in those parts. The commission even figured in the McDonnell corruption trial starring the former and now convicted governor and back-slapping witnesses for the prosecution, entrepreneur and tobacco-believer Jonnie R. Williams Sr.

I revisit the issue in Sunday’s Washington Post and I ask the obvious question of why no one seems to watching the commission. I raise broader ones, too, such as why the commission  serves only people in the tobacco belt. That doesn’t seem fair since the Attorney General’s office represented all of the state in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement against four major tobacco firms. People in Hampton Roads, Arlington, Onancock and Winchester should be benefit but get nothing from the settlement. They didn’t  because tobacco road legislators pulled a fast one back in 1999 when they set things up.

There needs to be a thorough disassembling of the commission’s current governance structure with many more people far from Tobacco Road included. There’s far too much family and friend back-scratching as it is. It is like watching a vintage episode of the Andy Griffith show but it really isn’t funny.

(Hat tip to James A. Bacon Jr. who spotted the commission as a great story back in the year 2000 when he was publisher of Virginia Business).

So, please read on.

The Simple, Lovable Sidewalk

sidewalk By Peter Galuszka

Forever humble, the simple sidewalk is becoming an issue in land planning and transportation.

In densely-populated populated urban areas, sidewalks have been a staple of living since the time of the Ancient Greeks. They were classics in the familiar grid plans that marked most American towns in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

It all changed after World War II when thousands of veterans came home with access to cars and cheap mortgages and builders started constructing car-centric neighborhoods. The cookie-cutter plan included big subdivisions with only one or two access points, lots of cul de sacs and long streets and wound around until they emptied into the few access roads.

You couldn’t walk anywhere. The feeling was, with the complicity of such car-centric bodies as the Virginia Department of Transportation, that you didn’t need sidewalks because the kids could play in the cul de sacs and anyone could drive.

This started to change a decade or so ago as pe0ple wanted to walk more to the library, the store or to visit a neighbor. Suburban planners are taking this into consideration and are “encouraging” developers to put in sidewalks.

A couple problems here:

First, although the Tim Kaine administration changed VDOT policy to advocate more intersecting streets in new developments along with sidewalks, the policy has been watered down under pressure from the development industry.

The other problem is that while it is a simple matter to put sidewalks in new projects, retrofitting them in older ones is tough. It is expensive, there are rights of way issues and sometimes the terrain doesn’t lend itself to them. And, when sidewalks are put in, they merely connect with gigantic feeder roads where one might have to walk a half a mile to a stoplight just cross safely, as is the case in one instance in Chesterfield County.

For more, read my recent pieces in the Chesterfield Monthly and Henrico Monthly.

Race, Culture and SOLs

by James A. Bacon

Here we go one more time… Does cultural background influence the likelihood of Virginia students passing the Standards of Learning tests, or do disparities in results between racial/ethnic groups reflect only the disparity in resources allocated to different schools?

Over the past week, I have been arguing that cultural background is one critical differentiator, not the dominant differentiator — poverty (or economic disadvantage) accounts for roughly 57% of the variation — but it is nonetheless an important one. I allow for the possibility that some schools are better run than others, some teachers better than others, and that differences in resources may account for some variation. But culture is a significant factor, as can plainly be seen in the superior academic performance of Asians, both economically advantaged and disadvantaged, across the board.

But some readers doggedly refuse to acknowledge that culture plays any meaningful role. Among the most tenacious is our old friend Larry Gross, who asks a valid question that needs to be addressed. Pick the same school division, say Fairfax County. Then pick different schools within that division. The SOL pass rate for black children varies substantially. As he commented in my last post, “The SOL Debate: Bringing Asians into the Equation,” pass rates for blacks for 3rd grade reading in some of the Fairfax Elementary schools are all over the map:

Annadale Terrace 36%
Bren Mar Park 62%
Bull Run 71%
Brush Hill 47%
Rolling Valley 50%
Saratoga 46%

“How,” he asks, “is this explained by culture?”

Let’s take a closer look. Here are the average SOL pass rates for all subjects at all six schools — hand picked by Larry to illustrate his point — broken down by race/ethnicity and by economic disadvantage, with the same information presented in chart form below. (Note: the DOE data did not include some scores for certain subjects for certain racial/ethnic groups. I have made the necessary adjustments.)

fairfax_elementary_SOLs

fairfax_pass_chartAs expected, economic disadvantage plays a major role. For every ethnic/racial group, economically disadvantaged students showed a lower SOL pass rate than those not disadvantaged.

However, differences remain. Same school division, same schools, same economic classification…. We see the same pattern repeated over and over. Asians score highest, whites not quite as high, Hispanics lower, and blacks lower. As discussed in other blog posts, the difference between whites and Hispanics largely disappears when adjusted for English proficiency. But Asians consistently score higher than other races, and blacks usually, although not always, score lower.

Does that settle the issue? Probably not. Here’s what we don’t know. Are some of the selected six schools better run, do they have more experienced teachers, or do they have more resources, any of which my skew results between schools? Those factors undoubtedly come into play — we just can’t isolate those variables from this data.

Am I saying that culture accounts for all the variation between racial/ethnic performance in those six schools? Of course not. Clearly, even after adjusting for economic disadvantage and ethnic background, some variability remains. Equally clearly, there is a lot of variability within ethnic/racial groups. Some Asian kids just can’t get their act together. Some African-American kids are academic superstars.

But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that culture explains some of the overall superior academic performance of Asian kids. Such a conclusion is not terribly controversial. We see the high performance of Asians back in the home countries of China, Korea and Japan. We’ve all heard of “Tiger moms.” We observe that Asians are not nearly as prominent on athletic teams but way over-represented when academic awards are handed out. We can admit the obvious because it does not upset deeply held political views on race and race relations. But as soon as we begin talking about the differences between whites and blacks, talk of culture becomes incredibly touchy. Indeed, a lot of people, suspecting racist motives, find it offensive when conservative white people bring the subject up.

But the idea that cultural attitudes affect educational outcomes is not terribly controversial in the black community. Bill Cosby famously highlighted the issue. Just yesterday Michelle Obama stressed the importance of education to an inner-city Atlanta school: Continue reading

The SOL Debate: Bringing Asians into the Equation

by James A. Bacon

And the debate goes on…Yesterday, in “Yes, Virginia, Culture Does Matter in School Performance,” I argued based on the statewide pass rate for the Standards of Learning that disadvantaged Hispanic school children who had proficiency in English actually out-performed disadvantaged white school children (and black as well). I hypothesized that the difference could be attributed to culture, perhaps the work ethic of poor immigrant families.

The blogger Life On the Fall Line countered by suggesting that the superior statewide performance of disadvantaged, English-proficient Hispanics could be attributed to the fact that nearly three-fifths of Virginia’s Hispanic population resides in Northern Virginia, which spends more money per pupil on schools, while most whites and blacks live downstate. “So,” he concluded, “yes, Virginia, schools with superior financial resources matter.”

That sounded like a potentially valid point, so I decided to drill deeper into the Virginia Department of Education “Virginia SOL Assessment Build-A-Table,” to see if that was the case. The chart below compares disadvantaged, English-proficient whites and Hispanics in Fairfax County, Northern Virginia’s largest school division. And for yucks, I threw in disadvantaged, English-proficient Asians and blacks.

Fairfax_SOLs

It turns out that Life on the Fall Line had a point. While poor, English-proficient Hispanics still out-performed their white counterparts, it was by such a narrow margin — less than one percentage point — that it could well fall into the margin of error.

But another stark finding jumps out from this table. Poor Asian kids kicked every other group’s academic ass by a wide margin. These are poor kids, mind you, not the sons and daughters of Indian software engineers and PhDs, whom you’d expect to excel. And, sadly, poor blacks under-performed by an equally large margin.

The response of the structuralists (those who believe that institutional structures discriminate against blacks) will be to say, “Drill down deeper! Look at the allocation of resources school by school.” That would be a worthwhile exercise for anyone who has the energy to do it. I welcome any contributions. But if differences in performance are mainly structural, not cultural, someone needs to explain the exceptional performance of Asian students. Do poor Asian kids attend the best schools with greater resources? If so, how do they pull it off? If they’re disadvantaged, they have no greater resources than their poor white, Hispanic or black peers to move into the top school districts.

While we’re at it, if school resources were the decisive factor, how do we explain that poor Hispanics outperform poor blacks? Do Hispanics not face as much discrimination and institutional racism as blacks?

From my reading of the data, it looks like once Hispanic students master English, they pass the SOLs at the same rate as white students. As I said before, that’s great news. It suggests that Hispanics are rapidly assimilating into mainstream Virginia culture. However, that still leaves the matter of Asians and blacks. How do we explain the persistent superior performance of one group and the under-performance of the other, if not in part by culture?

Yes, Virginia, Culture Does Matter in School Performance

by James A. Bacon

I was planning to give readers a break today from graphs and scatter charts relating to Virginia’s 2014 Standards of Learning tests. Then I read a quote in the Times-Dispatch this morning by Michel Zajur, CEO of the Virginia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Zajur was lamenting the high Hispanic drop-out rate from schools which, at 11.7%, exceeds the rate for blacks (8.7%), whites (4%) and Asian (3%).

“Zajur and others attribute the high dropout rate to the cultural pressures felt by Hispanic students, the article states. “While other cultures focus on education, Hispanic youths are more often pushed to enter the workforce as early as possible to help support their families.”

Hmmm… Here is a clear example of how culture affects educational achievement, a fact that some readers are determined to deny. Hispanic civic leaders, not right-wing conservatives, believe that their culture pressures young people to drop out of school early, and they’re trying to do something to change it. The article profiles the Passport to Education program in three Richmond-area schools that matches students with mentors and provides a bilingual Website to help families navigate the school system.

So, I began wondering, how are Hispanic students performing in their SOL tests? And could Hispanic culture influence the outcome? While acknowledging the hazards of generalizing about “Hispanic culture” when Virginia Hispanics originate from divers countries across Latin America, I think the answer is a resounding yes — but not in a way that people will expect.

Percentage of students passing 2014 SOLs, contrasting Hispanic students proficient in English, Hispanics not proficient in English, and whites.

Percentage of students passing 2014 SOLs, contrasting Hispanic students proficient in English, Hispanics not proficient in English, and whites.

Overall, Hispanics score significantly lower pass rates than whites. But that generality is deceptive. Utilizing the Virginia Department of Education SOL Assessment Build-a-Table tool, I found a huge gulf between Hispanic students who are proficient in English and those who are not. But, as seen in the chart above, when you compare English-proficient students, nine-tenths of the gap between Hispanics and whites disappears .

That would seem to confirm the idea that culture doesn’t matter. But let’s dig a little deeper. We also know that educational achievement is correlated with socio-economic status. What would happen, I wondered, if we compared apples with apples — disadvantaged but English-proficient Hispanics with disadvantaged white and black students? The results, I suspect, will startle many readers.

english_proficient

Disadvantaged Hispanic kids whose families have lived in the U.S. long enough to acquire English proficiency pass SOLs at a higher rate than disadvantaged whites by non-trivial margins, and blow the socks off the pass rates of black students.  To what factor do we attribute this superior performance? Do Hispanic kids attend schools with superior financial resources? Do they get the more experienced teachers? Does institutional racism favor poor Hispanic kids over poor white and black kids? That’s going to be a hard case to make.

Conversely, could there be a cultural difference? Is it possible that, as first- and second-generation immigrants, Hispanic students have a stronger work ethic than their disadvantaged peers in white and black communities? It is possible that they feel less entitled and more impelled to work hard?

Whatever the answer, it is very encouraging. The SOL data gives us every reason to believe that Hispanic kids in Virginia are assimilating very well once they master the English language.

Update on the Debate over SOL Performance

top_school_divisionsby James A. Bacon

There has been a lively discussion in the comments section of previous blog posts regarding the interpretation of the 2014 Standards of Learning (SOL) data. The debate has largely focused on explaining the gap in the average SOL pass rate between white students and black students.

Broadly speaking, there are two schools of thought reflected in the comments. The first school blames the lower black SOL pass rates on unequal access to resources, most notably access to experienced teachers. For simplicity’s sake, I call this the “structural” school of thought. The second school attributes black under-performance to cultural factors, such as peer pressure to avoid “acting white” by pursuing academic achievement. For simplicity’s sake, I call this the “cultural” school of thought.

I have presented evidence in previous posts suggesting that cultural factors play a big role in explaining the SOL performance gap. But the case is hardly a slam-dunk (at least not as I have presented it.) The Blogger who goes by “Life on the Fall Line” makes an interesting argument. Schools with the smallest gaps between white and black performance happen to be among the smaller school systems in the state. When there’s only one elementary school, one middle school and one high school in a jurisdiction, he says, all the white kids and all the black kids in a jurisdiction get thrown in together.

When white parents don’t have a choice but to send their children to schools with black children the racial gap looks like it shrinks. … Broadly speaking, when the chance to discriminate does not present itself as an option, the racial gap closes. Or at least that’s how it appears.

The correlation between small school systems and higher black SOL performance is far from perfect, he concedes, but he thinks the relationship is strong. (It should not be difficult to test his hypothesis. We’ve got data on black SOL performance, and we’ve got data on the number of schools per school district.)

Larry Gross advances a different argument. He points to large variations in the black pass rate from school to school.

There are 45 elementary schools in Henrico with only 10 showing significant percentages of blacks – and the reading scores of the 10 schools vary from 40% pass to 75% pass. Now if “culture” is the cause of the state-level black scores, please explain why “culture” is not being reflecting pretty much the same across different elementary school districts. Why is there a 35% disparity in black pass rates depending on school?

One reason for the variation may be that the percentage of “economically disadvantaged” black students is higher in some school districts than others. The data exists to take that variable into account. My hunch is that the variability would shrink but still persist, and Larry’s question still would need to be answered.

Larry and Life on the Fall Line both make interesting points. Anyone who embraces the “cultural” school of thought needs to address their arguments.

There is a third basket of explanations, which I call the “institutional” school of thought, that remains to be explored here. That line of thinking would attribute some of the gap in student performance to varying quality of administration at different schools and school systems. Arguably, some schools and entire school divisions are just better managed or have more inspired teachers.

Along those lines, instead of chastising failing school systems, perhaps we should be rewarding — or at least recognizing — exceptional school systems. Hill City Jim has ranked Virginia’s school divisions by the average SOL pass rate for black students. The top-performing school systems — all divisions with a pass rate of 70% or higher — appear at the top of this post. Are administrators of those school divisions doing something right, or does superior black student performance reflect lower poverty rates or other factors over which schools have no control?

I’m not sure we’ll find any definitive answers, but we’ll keep asking the questions.

Shedding More Light on Black SOL Performance

black_SOL_pass_rate
by James A. Bacon

After a brief hiatus, we’re back to analyzing the 2013-2014 Standards of Learning results… Hill City Jim provided another data set that’s worth looking at — correlating the relationship between the percentage of black students in Virginia school divisions and the percentage of blacks that pass the SOLs. Why would anyone conduct that exercise? Because there is a body of thought, mainly in the liberal-progressive camp, that a significant factor explaining poor black academic performance is the segregation of black kids in under-resourced black-dominated school divisions.

The chart above shows the distribution of school divisions with a measurable black student population (leaving out 14 school divisions in Western and Southwestern Virginia). The vertical axis shows the SOL pass rate, the horizontal axis the percentage of blacks in the school system. An illustration: The red diamond, representing our old friend West Point, has a 9% black student body and a black pass rate of nearly 94% (the highest pass rate for blacks of any school system in Virginia, incidentally).

The black line shows an R² of o.o704, which (according to my primitive understanding of statistics) suggests that only 7% of the variation in black SOL performance can be attributed to the relative concentration of blacks in the school division.

Bacon’s bottom line: The school division data gives some credence to the liberal-progressive idea that putting black children in a school division with more white children will boost their academic performance. But the correlation is a weak one. And as a practical matter, what can Virginia state and local governments do with this information anyway? Implement school busing across school divisions? The resulting expense and furor would be hugely counter productive.

Of course, there is a deeper level of analysis that we have not performed. One could argue that the percentage of black kids in a school division is less relevant than the percentage of blacks kids in a particular school, on the assumption either (a) that predominantly black schools receive less adequate resources than their predominantly white counterparts, even within the same school division, or (b) that the proximity to white students has a beneficial effect. Unfortunately, analysis of the first proposition is exceedingly difficult to perform — at least it is in Henrico County, which I have delved into in the past. Amazingly, Virginia school districts do not break down spending by individual schools. As for the second proposition, that proximity to white children has some magical effect on blacks, that strikes me as borderline racist. It amazes me that any liberal or progressive would ever advance such an argument.

In the final analysis, this chart, while interesting, does not settle anything. Hill City Jim has some more suggestions for SOL analysis, so, we may be back soon.

Download spreadsheet, “Black students percentage of division.”