So why were these black kids talking while he was but other schools didn't? I don't get what is different could be? Is this a poorer area is it economics?
The problems are multifold.
A lack of opportunity is an economic problem.
This lack of opportunity means that it's more likely they'll get into drugs -- the risk is high, but the reward is higher than anything they can expect (and we see this everywhere, see next point)
The risk is high, reward is higher, but
cops routinely patrol AA areas more than predominantly white areas. RIGHT NOW, it's not because AA commit more drug crimes than whites -- it's because statistics say that. The problem started 50 years ago, with actual racists, and continues today, because those actual Klansmen police officers decided to patrol AA areas more than anywhere else. Yeah, it's racial, but that's because "more crime" comes from predominantly black areas (because there are more patrols there). This is why it's called institutionalized racism -- the entire thing is bunk.
Now, because drugs and burglaries are pretty much the only way to get by in some areas, plenty of black men are arrested, which them leaves us with single mothers raising kids -- single mothers who obviously need to work, but probably won't be able to afford daycare at the high price. Simply put, parent(!) doesn't have TIME to raise her kid.
...Which just feeds back into the lack of opportunity, which fuels the disproportionate arrests for drugs and burglary. The same, I need to add, is true of predominantly white neighborhoods, but on the poorer side of the spectrum. It's a vicious cycle that hits blacks harder because of racism, but hits ALL of the poor/working class pretty hard.
There are some ways we can fix this: One of them is economics. Better fiscal policies would certainly help. No demand = no businesses = no jobs = no opportunities. Anything that breaks the cycle would do, but this one is the easiest one to subvert that cycle, especially considering it comes with the implicit fact that yes, it will help /everyone/, so it's a little harder to be oppose to it on racial/discriminatory grounds.
The second is police reform, specifically, balancing police officers out and throwing out statistics. Police forces measure crime and put more resources in higher crime areas. The problem is that this is historical, and only feeds into "there's higher crime here!" when in reality, there's more crimes elsewhere, it's just not patrolled as much. Fixing that would ALSO subvert the system. The problem is that a LOT of people are loathe to blame the police for it, and again, they'll just pull up statistics that are wrought be disproportionate enforcement.
A two-pronged approach would be best, because one would lead to fewer crimes in general, and the other would lead to fewer losses of opportunities that would balance out the lower crimes (and render the economic path unable to work).
Felons check a box to get a job, why hire a felon when you have a non-felon looking for one? This too drives recidivism rates, and entire generations are lost when they cant' get raised correctly because they effectively don't have parents.