Supreme Court Shoots Down School Diversity

In an article on CNN.com titled "Divided court rejects school diversity plans," CNN is reporting that the US Supreme Court in Washington DC has rejected public school plans that consider race in forcing diversity. "The 5-4 ruling rejected programs in Louisville, Kentucky, and Seattle, Washington."

The programs in question used race to determine school assignments in an effort to increase diversity. "The cases from Kentucky and Washington revisit past disputes over race and education, stemming from the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.
"Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again -- even for very different reasons," Roberts wrote."

One of the different reasons for this type of profiling of students was to equalize poverty across a school district as opposed to having clearly high poverty schools and low poverty schools creating a disparity.

Justice Kennedy was quoted as saying, "A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue."
But he added, "Crude measures of this sort [as illustrated in this case] threaten to reduce children to racial chits valued and traded according to one school's supply and another's demand." Sounds familiar.

Justice Thomas stated that, "Simply putting students together under the same roof does not necessarily mean that the students will learn together or even interact," he said. "Furthermore, it is unclear whether increased interracial contact improves racial attitudes and relations." I wonder if this applies to socioeconomics? I would guess that it does considering Louisville and Seattle were looking at race because in their communities minorities tend to be the ones to live below the poverty line. So, with that logic, by moving minorities around, a school district could equalize poverty across the entire district.

The article went on to comment that "those on both sides of the issue, as well as the Bush administration, had hoped the Supreme Court would clarify when and to what lengths state and local officials can go to promote diversity in K-12 education." Without clarification, schools that are becoming segregated based on where families settle cannot promote diversity without risking litigation over racial segregation. People tend to live where others like them live whether it be race, culture, or economics. How to keep the communities within communities from creating islands of isolation is a challenge when the goals of public schools are to create and promote diversity of all kinds. Another problem is moving a small group of students from their neighborhood community and possibly isolating them in a "foreign" school community where they may not be welcome and the affects on the achievement of all students involved.

One parent in Louisville commented on that districts plan to have at least 15% and no more than 50% minority population in their schools, "We are here not because we didn't get our first choice, but because we got no choice," said Meredith shortly after the ruling. "I was told by the school board that my son's education was not as important as their plan. I was told I should sacrifice his learning in order to maintain the status quo."

In Seattle, the plan is that families can send their children to any school in their district. When the population nears capacity, race is used as something of a tie-breaker. When a school has a population of say Asian-Americans at only 10%, priority would be given to student applications from Asian-Americans. 200 parents sued the school district because their children were not the priority and would not be able to attend the schools nearest their homes. "The Bush administration supported the parents bringing suit against the choice plans."

Early in the Long-Range Facilities planning process, Dr. Heilmann commented that the district would be watching the outcome of these cases. I wonder what will be discussed now that the Federal Supreme Court has ruled that racial profiling is wrong in public schools. I wonder if socioeconomics will become part of the greater discussion in those school districts with integration plans as it is in ours. Maybe the Supreme Court can figure out a plan to solve the poverty problem in our society so public school districts can concentrate on teaching all students and stop worrying about what each students' gross annual income is in comparison to other students.

Possible Compromise

Last night the ASC and CRT met to discuss ongoing reports from various committees and an addition piece to Scenario 7.

It looks as though K-3, 4-8 is a go with SAGE expansion and a more equitable division of special education. The K-3, 4-8 committee recommendations will be presented at the next BOE meeting.

The additional piece is the one the district is currently looking for community feedback about. This piece is in reaction to current community feedback regarding the Casey's Meadow boundary, closing six elementary schools, No schools to the farthest north or south, and $45.6 million referendum.

What the committees discussed last night was Keeping Roosevelt and Lakeside open as K-3 Primary schools. Between Green Meadow and Lakeside, Lakeside has more classroom space. Roosevelt would be divided for 4-8 between Tipler then West and Merrill then North. The Roosevelt area would extend to Sheboygan Street north of 21.

The Westhaven Area would be divided north of Maricopa to Franklin then Tipler. South of Maricopa would go to Shapiro and then either South Park or Traeger (that has been decided yet). The are around Green Meadow school would be going to Shapiro.

In addition, Oaklawn would still be closed. However, a new building would be built on the Ryf Rd property to the tune of and estimated $14.5 million. With these changes, there would be less add-on construction to the remaining schools with no additions to Jefferson and possible others. We would keep the five SAGE schools.

The referendum would still be over $45 million.

This idea is not a new scenario but an improvement on the current plan in reaction to community input. This compromise is supposed to make changes that make sense and enhance what already works in this district.

Of course, no idea is without glitches and many details need to be worked out. Several questions that arose were with SAGE, transportation, and Special Education.

Is this a fair compromise? Does this move the district closer to community needs, wants, and values? Would the community be willing to accept/learn to live with this compromise? What do you think?

***Brenda Haines asked me to add the following information to give a clearer picture of the changes to the scenario:

• The boundary area is more than Casey’s Meadow…it’s the entire West side growth area.
  
• As for the school on the North side, it may or may not be built on the Ryf site. There has been some discussion that that is not the ideal site. That would take more consideration.
  
• The area around Green Meadow would be going to Lakeside. The only exception might be those located behind the outlet mall.