Ahh, the old teacher's union fallback position. Test scores. Meaningless pap. It is well regarded that standardized test scores do not measure intelligence. In fact standardized tests measure one thing. The student's ability to take the test.
Urban school districts with struggling schools never show high test scores.
So the article shows no context.
Yet that's the only measure we have, isn't it? The point is, in Milwaukee, test scores when DOWN after they looted the systems and let all the scammers get into play. ANother place where the scores went down was in Michigan, were Betsy Devos got school choice put in and things got measurably worse.
Look, school choice( not vouchers. No one is talking about vouchers) is a cry for help. The system in place is not working for inner city kids. It hasn't in three or more decades. Let them decide where they want to go to school. And BTW, most people who want to choose their child's school, are members of minority communities. Same applies to vouchers.
The problem is, you can't move the problem kids without moving the problems. moving the kid from the problem district to the good district just means you are moving the problem, not fixing it. This isn't complicated.
And your analysis of "poor kids".....I assume you mean minority children not being able to succeed despite the fact that they are given better tools and a better educational environment "won't work" is patently racist.
When did this happen? In fact, the opposite is true. Poor kids in Chicago have a lot less spent on them than rich kids in Evanston...(to use an IL example.)
— Due to the primary reliance on local property tax revenue for school funding, there are massive cumulative gaps in per-pupil spending, particularly in poor or minority communities. The 6,413 students who started elementary school in Evanston [a suburb north of Chicago] in 1994 and graduated from high school in 2007 had about $290 million more spent on their education than the same number of Chicago Public Schools students.— Many of the school districts that spent the most per-student received at least 90 percent of their money from local property taxes. Yet, these districts tended to tax themselves at far lower rates than their poorer counterparts.