But this is far cheaper than actually fixing our entrenched poverty problems, screwed-up justice system, and terrible social safety net, and school reform programs are easy and often fairly popular (as opposed to what we actually need to do, which is guaranteed to be controversial and probably end up sabotaged no matter which plausible set of solutions one proposes) plus the real solutions would take many years to yield results, which is far too long for our political cycle—so we keep trying, then act surprised and/or outraged when the results are very stupid, when we've set things up such that we're basically asking for stupid results.
They're trying to make the schools fix poverty (whether caused by racism or anything else), in order to avoid directly fixing poverty. It's an endeavor doomed from the start because it rests on the religious belief that success is directly proportional to merit, and merit is best shown by achievement in school.
But we can't have a society of middle-class strivers, because no ditches will be dug, so all you end up with in the fantasy case is a bunch of well-educated ditch diggers who now have massive student loan debts. What you get in the real case is a bunch of people who realize that they can either A) be depressed baristas lamenting their failure to do better with the expensive degree that has given them a lifetime of debt, B) be depressed baristas who don't owe $100K for a useless degree.
It's not compulsory and free primary education that will fix poverty, and it's not the job of teachers to repair all inequity in society (although to the most egomaniacal, it's all they think their duty is.) Just like it isn't college's duty to fix racism. The way you fix these things is by directly addressing them, not explaining to children how to use a bootstrap.
One way to fix the statistical aspect of that problem is to reduce the possibility for such disparities to exist, which could be accomplished by removing "higher level" classes, such as algebra in middle school. If the upper limit of what a student can learn is lowered, then the students below that limit are "closer" to the students who are are at or above it.
Can anyone convince me this isn't what's happening? It just seems like a entirely ineffectual political move with the singular goal of making the people behind it look good, so that they can retain power. I cannot provide evidence, because part of my theory is that everyone involved in enacting these policies is either lying, or they incorrectly think that these policies help. I just can't see how anyone can think this is a good idea, or that it will help anything other than the stats. But why shouldn't I think this?