This is a fascinating Globe story about Cambridge’s attempt to integrate its schools based partly on family income, as opposed to integrating schools by race. It hasn’t worked out as planned in the uber-progressive city, as the Globe’s James Vaznis reports. … But there’s something missing in the story after you wade through all the stats about various socioeconomic imbalances at district schools. Read it. See if you can figure out what’s missing. … Here’s what is missing: academic performance. There are no detailed MCAS and other stats measuring whether Cambridge’s “controlled choice” school system has led to overall improvement in education results, for rich and poor student alike. Shouldn’t academic performance be the ultimate measurement of a school district’s success, not whether the school district has achieved perfect socioeconomic balance at each and every school? … I’m not criticizing the reporting per se. It just seems too many people in Cambridge are focused on socioeconomic bean counting and not enough on academic results. … 

P.S. – As far as I can tell, Cambridge’s “controlled choice” is indeed working overall, in terms of both integration and academic performance, based on sources here and here. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s hitting many of its goals. … I’m rooting for the current system to work. But I get the awful feeling, reading the Globe piece, that there are a lot of “advocates” out there itching to eliminate parental school choice as a way to avert occasional income/racial imbalances at schools. If they get their radical way, they’ll get more segregation, not less, as mostly affluent parents (read: mostly whites) pull their kids from city schools. That’s something Boston learned the hard way 50 years ago.