RED STATE RABBLE
OTHER BLOGSThe Return of Jim Crow
Where does the Discovery Institute -- you know, the ones who claim Darwin's theory of evolution is racist -- stand on this issue?
Well, John R. Miller, a member of Parents Involved in Community Schools, which sued the Seattle school district over its racial tiebreaker plan, is guess what, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and he's written an Op-Ed in the Seattle Times to tell us.
Discovery's Miller wants the country's history of racial segregation forgotten. Where once the opponents of integration blocked the school house doors to proclaim "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" they now demand an absolutely color blind system for placing children in public schools. And if that just happens to re-segregate public schools across the country, as white supremacists such as George,Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, and Strom Thumond fought to do, well that's just too bad.
"As someone who grew up in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement," evangelical theologian Charles Marsh recently told Robin Reid at Politico, "my reading is that the conservative Christian movement never was able to distinguish itself from the segregationist movement, and that is one of the reasons I find so much of the rhetoric familiar -- and unsettling."
Those on the Christian right, such as Miller and the Discovery Institute, standing on the shoulders of the segregationists who came before them, want to whittle away at the gains made by the Civil Rights movement.
To do that they've learned to appropriate the language of the civil rights fighters they once opposed. These days they talk more about Lincoln and diversity than race mixing and miscegenation. Neighborhood schools have replaced state's rights.
They no longer erect billboards calling for the impeachment of Earl Warren, instead they try to take credit for the Warren Court's Brown vs. Board of Education ruling even as they twist its intent and labor tirelessly to lead us back to the days of Jim Crow.
Vaughn Tolle said:
As I have posted before, there is only one way I see that integration of public schools without consideration of the "color" of the skin of the students may be obtained, which is to have: one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school per district to which all students are transported and must attend. Further, for situations such as in Wichita, there must be extension of the school district lines to be coextensive with the city limits.
So long as we, as a society, choose to live where we want, there will be racial imbalance in the schools if all attend the "neighborhood" school. Sadly, that's a fact.
There are some ways to achieve a balance without consideration of "color", but there are issues with each. For example, the Minneapolis, Minnesota school districts (yep, districts) have "open enrollment" which allows for any student to attend any school within the area. My daughter tells me this is how it works, but is necessarily hazy on the details (she's just getting involved). For example: is the open enrollment system based upon first come, first served when space becomes an issue? How are students transported to schools outside their respective "neighborhoods"? How do parents of modest means become and stay involved in their student's schools if the school is 15 miles away? What happens when there is a program of great popularity which cannot accept all who want to enroll? How does a district determine who gets in, who doesn't, if not on a "first come, first served" basis?
The history of segregated schools in the United States is a sad one, and de jure segregated schools were not limited to the South. Examples which come to mind are Boston, MA; Wichita, KS.
A fair reading of the Fourteenth Amendment does indeed mandate that all actions taken by the State (a school district is a political subdivision of a state) be done in such a way as to provide equal protection under the law. Applied to a school district situation, this clearly means that any attempt at school assignment based upon race, regardless of the good or malicious intent underlying the same, is in violation thereof. When one reads the Brown v. Board opinion without any preconceived notions, the Constitutional jurisprudence therein contained clearly serves as precedent for the current decision. I submit that the current decision is closer to the rule of Brown v. Board than much, if not all, subsequent school desegregation/affirmative action cases. In fact, this has been recognized indirectly, at least, by other Courts struggling with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment when dealing with the modern reality of voluntarily segregated neighborhoods, the workplace, and other arenas. Thus, the recognition that it might be facially violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to consider "color" in various areas, but an exception will be made if there is evidence of actual, past racial discrimination. Otherwise, such consideration is violative.
There is also a presumption stated by those who react negatively to the decision that the same mandates a return to the bad old days that existed after Plessey v. Ferguson was decided (which, interestingly, represented an aberrant departure from the developing jursiprudence dealing with the so-called "Civil War" amendments. I'm not going to accept the presumption as stated. There are many statutes that did not exist during the "Jim Crow" days that are firmly grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment, even as interpreted by the current SCOTUS majority.
The real question raised, whether explicitly or implicitly, is whether de jure 'segregation' is acceptable if it is to achieve something we call racial balance, as we all agree that de jure segregation is not acceptable to keep the races apart. The court held that it is not. "De jure" in this case refers to policy of school assignment based upon the race of the student, policies that in Louisville, KY were adopted after the district was released from a Court decree finding that it had operated a de jure segregated district; and policies adopted in Seattle, WA, which were not adopted under any court-decreed desegregation plan, but were adopted in an attempt to achieve a racially balanced district in all schools, seen as a desired social goal. Thus, the protection of the redress of prior de jure intentional segregation exception to the Fourteenth Amendment was not available to the two districts.
As can be seen by the above, I've no answers, just complaints about the way the decisions are interpreted. I've also complaints about the effects of this decision upon the educational process may, in reality, mean. I'm not a Pollyanna here. There is no doubt that if a return to "separate but equal" occurs, there's no "equal" there. The social science stuff cited by the dissents is clear on that. With all that said, I reluctantly, and respectfully, suggest that as a matter of law, the majority opinion in this matter was a correct interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with the Brown v. Board of Education opinion.
So long as we, as a society, choose to live where we want, there will be racial imbalance in the schools if all attend the "neighborhood" school. Sadly, that's a fact.
There are some ways to achieve a balance without consideration of "color", but there are issues with each. For example, the Minneapolis, Minnesota school districts (yep, districts) have "open enrollment" which allows for any student to attend any school within the area. My daughter tells me this is how it works, but is necessarily hazy on the details (she's just getting involved). For example: is the open enrollment system based upon first come, first served when space becomes an issue? How are students transported to schools outside their respective "neighborhoods"? How do parents of modest means become and stay involved in their student's schools if the school is 15 miles away? What happens when there is a program of great popularity which cannot accept all who want to enroll? How does a district determine who gets in, who doesn't, if not on a "first come, first served" basis?
The history of segregated schools in the United States is a sad one, and de jure segregated schools were not limited to the South. Examples which come to mind are Boston, MA; Wichita, KS.
A fair reading of the Fourteenth Amendment does indeed mandate that all actions taken by the State (a school district is a political subdivision of a state) be done in such a way as to provide equal protection under the law. Applied to a school district situation, this clearly means that any attempt at school assignment based upon race, regardless of the good or malicious intent underlying the same, is in violation thereof. When one reads the Brown v. Board opinion without any preconceived notions, the Constitutional jurisprudence therein contained clearly serves as precedent for the current decision. I submit that the current decision is closer to the rule of Brown v. Board than much, if not all, subsequent school desegregation/affirmative action cases. In fact, this has been recognized indirectly, at least, by other Courts struggling with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment when dealing with the modern reality of voluntarily segregated neighborhoods, the workplace, and other arenas. Thus, the recognition that it might be facially violative of the Fourteenth Amendment to consider "color" in various areas, but an exception will be made if there is evidence of actual, past racial discrimination. Otherwise, such consideration is violative.
There is also a presumption stated by those who react negatively to the decision that the same mandates a return to the bad old days that existed after Plessey v. Ferguson was decided (which, interestingly, represented an aberrant departure from the developing jursiprudence dealing with the so-called "Civil War" amendments. I'm not going to accept the presumption as stated. There are many statutes that did not exist during the "Jim Crow" days that are firmly grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment, even as interpreted by the current SCOTUS majority.
The real question raised, whether explicitly or implicitly, is whether de jure 'segregation' is acceptable if it is to achieve something we call racial balance, as we all agree that de jure segregation is not acceptable to keep the races apart. The court held that it is not. "De jure" in this case refers to policy of school assignment based upon the race of the student, policies that in Louisville, KY were adopted after the district was released from a Court decree finding that it had operated a de jure segregated district; and policies adopted in Seattle, WA, which were not adopted under any court-decreed desegregation plan, but were adopted in an attempt to achieve a racially balanced district in all schools, seen as a desired social goal. Thus, the protection of the redress of prior de jure intentional segregation exception to the Fourteenth Amendment was not available to the two districts.
As can be seen by the above, I've no answers, just complaints about the way the decisions are interpreted. I've also complaints about the effects of this decision upon the educational process may, in reality, mean. I'm not a Pollyanna here. There is no doubt that if a return to "separate but equal" occurs, there's no "equal" there. The social science stuff cited by the dissents is clear on that. With all that said, I reluctantly, and respectfully, suggest that as a matter of law, the majority opinion in this matter was a correct interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with the Brown v. Board of Education opinion.
lindainks55 said:
My friend Vaughn,
I'm going to wait until morning and read slowly. I always learn something from your posts and I like that. I just can't do it in the late afternoon. ;-)
I'm going to wait until morning and read slowly. I always learn something from your posts and I like that. I just can't do it in the late afternoon. ;-)
Vaughn Tolle said:
(Rant, part II)
Thus, where are we, as a society, at? Constitutionally, if we, as private individuals, make decisions that result in de facto segregation (such as living, say, in Eastborough rather than at 1801 N. Volutsia), so long as no "state action" (by law, resolution, ordinance, regulation, or reliance on the courts) exists, such discrimination is not violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, if the concept of "neighborhood schools" has any validity, perforce the same stand a reasonable probability in some areas of any urban district, at least, of being "segregated" by race. Some are happy with it that way; others are not.
There is some evidence being developed in the academic world that, all other things being equal, certain minority groups actually perform better academically when in a situation where the school is, in fact, racially separate. This has come as a shock to many, who still cleave to the deficiencies of the segregated schools of the Jim Crow era, not recognizing that in some of the situations, the poor education received by the segregated black children was a function of lesser funding, not the fact that the school was segregated racially. So, as best we can in modern day, when we assign equality of funding among the schools, it appears that at least in some situations, the fact that the school isn't racially diverse does not adversely affect academic performance. But, one may say, education is not simply academic in nature; there are many social lessons to be learned from being forced to attend school with those not of the same race. I suggest that in the 53 years following the Brown decision, precious little has been learned.
There is a way, however, that insofar as I can tell, that some "racial" diversity may be obtained without reliance on race. If diversity's definition is expanded to include economic and geographic diversity, then it appears that school assignments may be made in a constitutional manner to achieve these diversity goals. I suggest that as long as "economic" and "geographical" diversity goals do not appear to mirror the racial and ethnic makeup of a school district, assignment of students based upon these two criteria will achieve a healthy mix of "poor", "middle class", and "wealthy" students which amazingly will also result in a sufficient number of students from diverse ethnic backgrounds to attend a school together, with race being absolutely no factor in determining the makeup of the student body. For example, assuming the diversity target is based upon economics, and it may be demonstrated that 33% of the population are "poor", 50% are "middle class" and 17% are "wealthy", by structuring the student body around these numbers, there will be poor, middle class and wealthy white, black, asian, latino, etc. students. Similarly, if it is determined that geographic diversity is desired, then a student body consisting of equal numbers of students from each quadrant of the district will result in a diverse ethnic and economic mix. Again, race is not a factor.
The key here, IMO, is to assure equality of funding, staff assignments, curriculum, etc., in each building, so there exists, as closely as may be achieved, an equal opportunity for each student to be appropriately served educationally, both in terms of academics and socially. Will this be easy? No, it will not. However, I suggest it may go a long way towards achieving the goals we understand to be contained in Brown, without the impermissible consideration of race.
There it is. What do others think?
Thus, where are we, as a society, at? Constitutionally, if we, as private individuals, make decisions that result in de facto segregation (such as living, say, in Eastborough rather than at 1801 N. Volutsia), so long as no "state action" (by law, resolution, ordinance, regulation, or reliance on the courts) exists, such discrimination is not violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, if the concept of "neighborhood schools" has any validity, perforce the same stand a reasonable probability in some areas of any urban district, at least, of being "segregated" by race. Some are happy with it that way; others are not.
There is some evidence being developed in the academic world that, all other things being equal, certain minority groups actually perform better academically when in a situation where the school is, in fact, racially separate. This has come as a shock to many, who still cleave to the deficiencies of the segregated schools of the Jim Crow era, not recognizing that in some of the situations, the poor education received by the segregated black children was a function of lesser funding, not the fact that the school was segregated racially. So, as best we can in modern day, when we assign equality of funding among the schools, it appears that at least in some situations, the fact that the school isn't racially diverse does not adversely affect academic performance. But, one may say, education is not simply academic in nature; there are many social lessons to be learned from being forced to attend school with those not of the same race. I suggest that in the 53 years following the Brown decision, precious little has been learned.
There is a way, however, that insofar as I can tell, that some "racial" diversity may be obtained without reliance on race. If diversity's definition is expanded to include economic and geographic diversity, then it appears that school assignments may be made in a constitutional manner to achieve these diversity goals. I suggest that as long as "economic" and "geographical" diversity goals do not appear to mirror the racial and ethnic makeup of a school district, assignment of students based upon these two criteria will achieve a healthy mix of "poor", "middle class", and "wealthy" students which amazingly will also result in a sufficient number of students from diverse ethnic backgrounds to attend a school together, with race being absolutely no factor in determining the makeup of the student body. For example, assuming the diversity target is based upon economics, and it may be demonstrated that 33% of the population are "poor", 50% are "middle class" and 17% are "wealthy", by structuring the student body around these numbers, there will be poor, middle class and wealthy white, black, asian, latino, etc. students. Similarly, if it is determined that geographic diversity is desired, then a student body consisting of equal numbers of students from each quadrant of the district will result in a diverse ethnic and economic mix. Again, race is not a factor.
The key here, IMO, is to assure equality of funding, staff assignments, curriculum, etc., in each building, so there exists, as closely as may be achieved, an equal opportunity for each student to be appropriately served educationally, both in terms of academics and socially. Will this be easy? No, it will not. However, I suggest it may go a long way towards achieving the goals we understand to be contained in Brown, without the impermissible consideration of race.
There it is. What do others think?
Danny said:
I'm going to comment on a small part of how I see the issue being present in this format.
I see the question that if we are busing students around to different schools to address segregation issues, are we not in turn continuing racism? This student needs to go this school because this student is of this race, and this school doesn't have enough students of this race. If I am over simplifying, forgive me. This is the problem how I see it currently.
However, if we do not bus students around to different schools then we are creating a situation where segregation exists due to how people have congregated within city limits(for instance, Wichita). This also has a certain aura about it that is seemingly related again to race. Could this then not be addressed by spending money equally at each school? I think the blind answer is yes, but the reality answer is probably no.
So why not move students around through all the schools based on some other criteria? Basically, at random. Say, we are going to randomly pick students at the time they enter school and say which school that the student will be attending. No race, no income level, nothing other than location. Split the city(I'll pick on Wichita) up into sections(4 or 5) and have a random number generator say determine if someone is going to be going to their neighborhood school or a school across town. Once that child starts school, that will be the school the child remains in until finishing that grade block of school and the process repeats.
The problem with an approach like the one I suggested is that random generators could get into a situation that is bad(segregated schools again) though the probability of which would likely be low. I didn't explain the algorithm very well, as I only just thought it as I was typing my response.
I see the question that if we are busing students around to different schools to address segregation issues, are we not in turn continuing racism? This student needs to go this school because this student is of this race, and this school doesn't have enough students of this race. If I am over simplifying, forgive me. This is the problem how I see it currently.
However, if we do not bus students around to different schools then we are creating a situation where segregation exists due to how people have congregated within city limits(for instance, Wichita). This also has a certain aura about it that is seemingly related again to race. Could this then not be addressed by spending money equally at each school? I think the blind answer is yes, but the reality answer is probably no.
So why not move students around through all the schools based on some other criteria? Basically, at random. Say, we are going to randomly pick students at the time they enter school and say which school that the student will be attending. No race, no income level, nothing other than location. Split the city(I'll pick on Wichita) up into sections(4 or 5) and have a random number generator say determine if someone is going to be going to their neighborhood school or a school across town. Once that child starts school, that will be the school the child remains in until finishing that grade block of school and the process repeats.
The problem with an approach like the one I suggested is that random generators could get into a situation that is bad(segregated schools again) though the probability of which would likely be low. I didn't explain the algorithm very well, as I only just thought it as I was typing my response.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Danny, that's the point I was trying to make with the thought of use of "geographical" diversity, although I didn't expand the thought yesterday. Both of my proposed approaches necessarily assumes the existence of an "open enrollment" model, with the site to be attended not directly related to residence address. By making diversity "geographical" there is no need to do more than take the population of all students attending schools within the district, then determining the proportion of the total residing in each quadrant (or quintile), and assigning, by lottery using a random number generator or similar "blind" method, the student body of each school to ensure the appropriate ratios are met. That's it.
There are many, many issues contained within the above, including without limitation, issues of parental involvement, issues of how long each student might spend in transit to his/her assigned school daily, etc., but in final analysis, if a diverse student body is what is felt desirable, then a geographic assignment should ensure this, without the impermissible consideration of "race".
There would be the additional positive, IMHO, effect of eliminating magnet schools at the elementary level, at least. Due to personal bias, I think the existence of one magnet school at the high school level is just fine, but its lottery for acceptance of students would take geography, not race, into account. Given the popularity of said existing magnet school, and the waiting list that it has, I don't think filling the student body this way will be a problem. Of course, I thought the idea of requiring a lottery (with racial balance a factor) for this particular school was not a good idea, either, as it seems to me that if a school is to be a school of choice, it should reflect that by admission decisions based upon just how interested and qualified the applicant is, rather than attempting to balance the admissions. This, of course, ignores the still-existing consent order, which is applicable to the district; but, amazingly, pre-lottery days when it was a "first come, first served" admission process, the ethnic make-up of the student body reflected that of the District as a whole, which still continues (but not quite as closely, believe it or not) under the lottery system currently in place.
There are many, many issues contained within the above, including without limitation, issues of parental involvement, issues of how long each student might spend in transit to his/her assigned school daily, etc., but in final analysis, if a diverse student body is what is felt desirable, then a geographic assignment should ensure this, without the impermissible consideration of "race".
There would be the additional positive, IMHO, effect of eliminating magnet schools at the elementary level, at least. Due to personal bias, I think the existence of one magnet school at the high school level is just fine, but its lottery for acceptance of students would take geography, not race, into account. Given the popularity of said existing magnet school, and the waiting list that it has, I don't think filling the student body this way will be a problem. Of course, I thought the idea of requiring a lottery (with racial balance a factor) for this particular school was not a good idea, either, as it seems to me that if a school is to be a school of choice, it should reflect that by admission decisions based upon just how interested and qualified the applicant is, rather than attempting to balance the admissions. This, of course, ignores the still-existing consent order, which is applicable to the district; but, amazingly, pre-lottery days when it was a "first come, first served" admission process, the ethnic make-up of the student body reflected that of the District as a whole, which still continues (but not quite as closely, believe it or not) under the lottery system currently in place.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Oops! I'm in trouble with the Discovery Institute. Just read the op-ed piece authored by Mr. Miller. He wouldn't like my geographical diversity plan because it doesn't consider neighborhood in the factors. Oh, my; do I need to get a lawyer? /sarcasm
The problem with the posting from Red State Rabble, above, is that it does make some blanket assumptions in assigning motive for the original litigation, not saying that the disingenuous op-ed is too much better. To me, one of the supporting pieces cited by Mr. Miller concerning why the Seattle plan was bad is irrelevant; that is, the ability of students to stay after school, participate in after-school activities and get home before dark. A good emotional appeal that speaks loudly in what it doesn't say, that is, bad things are going to happen to our kids who are forced to attend school across town just because of the white/nonwhite classification of the Seattle BOE in its now-rejected policy.
And, the arbitrary classification of the Seattle assignment system is, by and large, why it was so easy to attack. An argument centered around "diversity", given the true ethnic diversity of the population of Seattle, as advanced by the said BOE in support of its system rings hollow when the racial classifications are two: white and non-white. Sorry, Seattle, that argument wouldn't fly with me either, even though I am sympathetic to your stated goals. This system is clearly race based in one regard: white, and thus does run afoul of the Constitutional jurisprudence announced in Brown v. Board. It is interesting to note that SCOTUS found that there was little racial shift in the student population in various schools even under the policy which it struck down. I'm in agreement that where Constitutional protections are involved, there should not be a de minimis rule.
The problem with the posting from Red State Rabble, above, is that it does make some blanket assumptions in assigning motive for the original litigation, not saying that the disingenuous op-ed is too much better. To me, one of the supporting pieces cited by Mr. Miller concerning why the Seattle plan was bad is irrelevant; that is, the ability of students to stay after school, participate in after-school activities and get home before dark. A good emotional appeal that speaks loudly in what it doesn't say, that is, bad things are going to happen to our kids who are forced to attend school across town just because of the white/nonwhite classification of the Seattle BOE in its now-rejected policy.
And, the arbitrary classification of the Seattle assignment system is, by and large, why it was so easy to attack. An argument centered around "diversity", given the true ethnic diversity of the population of Seattle, as advanced by the said BOE in support of its system rings hollow when the racial classifications are two: white and non-white. Sorry, Seattle, that argument wouldn't fly with me either, even though I am sympathetic to your stated goals. This system is clearly race based in one regard: white, and thus does run afoul of the Constitutional jurisprudence announced in Brown v. Board. It is interesting to note that SCOTUS found that there was little racial shift in the student population in various schools even under the policy which it struck down. I'm in agreement that where Constitutional protections are involved, there should not be a de minimis rule.
lindainks55 said:
Today has been the most unbelievable busy day! Retired people are not to have these days -- at least not very often. I want to read this thread; am anxious to read this thread. Alas, it's gonna wait till morning (yet again). If tomorrow starts out to resemble today, I'm tucking my head under the covers and refusing to get out of bed!
lindainks55 said:
I've finally gotten to read this thread all the way through (ONCE) and feel like I need to read it again to begin to understand. Vaughn, you did get off on your native language a bit. I love ya friend, it just makes me use my feeble brain to figure out what isn't obvious to the uneducated...
Before I read through again and take notes I want to get a couple of thoughts out of my head so I can concentrate.
Wichita schools "busing plan" which began in the late 60s / early 70s was for racial integration purposes and maybe accomplished that goal for a few short years. At that point our city was mostly two races -- white and black. In the years since we have acquired a number of Asian and more recently a number of Mexican residents. The burden of busing has always been on the black children of our city. Almost every child who lives in our predominately black neighborhood must ride a bus to and from school daily; a much smaller number of white children ride to and from the two schools left in the area of town we're busing all the children OUT of. At no time have we bused the Asians or the Mexicans or any other "race" to spread their numbers evenly throughout the schools. So for most of the time we've been busing the original goal of racial integration has not been met. We may have evened out the blacks and whites but we haven't accomplished racial integration of our more diverse population.
Point two: Wichita is as economically segregated as it is racially segregated -- by choice. Middle class and wealthy live east and west; the poorer live midtown and south (too generalized, but you get what I'm trying to show). Additionally, there is a definite east / west difference. It is almost like the days when Wichita was on the east side of the river and Delano on the west; Wichita was where the churches, so-called morally upstanding businesses were all located and Delano was where all the saloons and houses of ill repute were built. Families lived in Wichita, most men made their money in Wichita and spent it in Delano.
Two examples of the east / west divide that exists today. A long-time friend is a minister and school teacher. He was part of a group who started a church school several years ago on the west side of town. They struggled. In recent years they moved to the east side and immediately met with success. The east side parents were more willing to put their disposable income into education choices. Westsiders are still more willing to put money into entertainment and be satisfied with public education opportunities. (again, generalized which is never completely accurate or reflective of all!).
The business my kids opened this past spring draws most of their students from the east side and most of their gamers from the west side. East-side parents look for learning opportunities and spend money to advance their children's education! West-side parents want their children to be happy and entertained and have FUN. They don't see how much fun learning is.
There is a difference in attitude! There is a difference in what is a priority! So it isn't just race and economics but in far greater ways we are segregated in our city.
And parental involvement makes a HUGE difference! At too many schools we have a few PTA-Moms who are willing to help out. The schools that meet with the greatest success -- higher test scores, etc. -- are in neighborhoods where most of the Moms and many of the Dads are very active and willing to help out.
One last point I need to get out of my mind. Did you know Wichita schools are moving ever closer to being inter-city schools? Meaning, those who are able financially are moving to the bedroom communities surrounding Wichita or enrolling their children at private schools. This leaves Wichita schools with a disproportionate number of students who are from poor homes (unable financially to move out and up) and homes where the parents are less likely to be involved enough in their child's education. Some of these parents are working more than one job, others aren't aware schools have changed since they attended, some have no idea how to give their children more / better / greater possibilities -- the list could go onandonandon.
I grew up as the oldest of seven children. Smart people with good minds, but very limited exposure to anything beyond our little (happy!) world. In high school when an announcement would be made about a test for college bound I didn't pay attention. I didn't know college was possible! No one ever told me there was any way I could attend school after 12th grade. I don't expect anyone to understand and I'm not finding words that would help make this more clear. Granted, it was 50 years ago but I know there are many homes just like that today. My parents were good parents! They also didn't know of possibilities beyond the life they lived.
There are a few core subjects taught in USD259 grade schools that are scheduled at exactly the same day and time in all elementary schools in the district. Why? Because there are a large enough number of students whose families moved in the middle of the night and they are more likely to pass the tests if they can pick up at the new school where they left off at the old one. These students may attend three or four schools each school year. They live two or three months in one house and no rent has been paid after the initial first month, they move in the middle of the night and start the cycle all over in the next rental. I kid you not!
Education is THE single most important thing I gave my children. Maybe love was equally important. I found out how they could have what I didn't and made sure they knew they could go as far as they desired. We made learning a priority!
OK, with all that off my mind I will go back and reread and see if I can understand so that I may add something to the discussion.
Before I read through again and take notes I want to get a couple of thoughts out of my head so I can concentrate.
Wichita schools "busing plan" which began in the late 60s / early 70s was for racial integration purposes and maybe accomplished that goal for a few short years. At that point our city was mostly two races -- white and black. In the years since we have acquired a number of Asian and more recently a number of Mexican residents. The burden of busing has always been on the black children of our city. Almost every child who lives in our predominately black neighborhood must ride a bus to and from school daily; a much smaller number of white children ride to and from the two schools left in the area of town we're busing all the children OUT of. At no time have we bused the Asians or the Mexicans or any other "race" to spread their numbers evenly throughout the schools. So for most of the time we've been busing the original goal of racial integration has not been met. We may have evened out the blacks and whites but we haven't accomplished racial integration of our more diverse population.
Point two: Wichita is as economically segregated as it is racially segregated -- by choice. Middle class and wealthy live east and west; the poorer live midtown and south (too generalized, but you get what I'm trying to show). Additionally, there is a definite east / west difference. It is almost like the days when Wichita was on the east side of the river and Delano on the west; Wichita was where the churches, so-called morally upstanding businesses were all located and Delano was where all the saloons and houses of ill repute were built. Families lived in Wichita, most men made their money in Wichita and spent it in Delano.
Two examples of the east / west divide that exists today. A long-time friend is a minister and school teacher. He was part of a group who started a church school several years ago on the west side of town. They struggled. In recent years they moved to the east side and immediately met with success. The east side parents were more willing to put their disposable income into education choices. Westsiders are still more willing to put money into entertainment and be satisfied with public education opportunities. (again, generalized which is never completely accurate or reflective of all!).
The business my kids opened this past spring draws most of their students from the east side and most of their gamers from the west side. East-side parents look for learning opportunities and spend money to advance their children's education! West-side parents want their children to be happy and entertained and have FUN. They don't see how much fun learning is.
There is a difference in attitude! There is a difference in what is a priority! So it isn't just race and economics but in far greater ways we are segregated in our city.
And parental involvement makes a HUGE difference! At too many schools we have a few PTA-Moms who are willing to help out. The schools that meet with the greatest success -- higher test scores, etc. -- are in neighborhoods where most of the Moms and many of the Dads are very active and willing to help out.
One last point I need to get out of my mind. Did you know Wichita schools are moving ever closer to being inter-city schools? Meaning, those who are able financially are moving to the bedroom communities surrounding Wichita or enrolling their children at private schools. This leaves Wichita schools with a disproportionate number of students who are from poor homes (unable financially to move out and up) and homes where the parents are less likely to be involved enough in their child's education. Some of these parents are working more than one job, others aren't aware schools have changed since they attended, some have no idea how to give their children more / better / greater possibilities -- the list could go onandonandon.
I grew up as the oldest of seven children. Smart people with good minds, but very limited exposure to anything beyond our little (happy!) world. In high school when an announcement would be made about a test for college bound I didn't pay attention. I didn't know college was possible! No one ever told me there was any way I could attend school after 12th grade. I don't expect anyone to understand and I'm not finding words that would help make this more clear. Granted, it was 50 years ago but I know there are many homes just like that today. My parents were good parents! They also didn't know of possibilities beyond the life they lived.
There are a few core subjects taught in USD259 grade schools that are scheduled at exactly the same day and time in all elementary schools in the district. Why? Because there are a large enough number of students whose families moved in the middle of the night and they are more likely to pass the tests if they can pick up at the new school where they left off at the old one. These students may attend three or four schools each school year. They live two or three months in one house and no rent has been paid after the initial first month, they move in the middle of the night and start the cycle all over in the next rental. I kid you not!
Education is THE single most important thing I gave my children. Maybe love was equally important. I found out how they could have what I didn't and made sure they knew they could go as far as they desired. We made learning a priority!
OK, with all that off my mind I will go back and reread and see if I can understand so that I may add something to the discussion.
lindainks55 said:
Vaughn, I think you are absolutely right that the ONLY way to have racial integration without consideration of skin color would be to have only one school everyone attended.
And, you definitely helped me see the most recent SCOTUS ruling is actually more fair, more equal than what we have been doing all these years.
You said it all when you said, "The key here, IMO, is to assure equality of funding, staff assignments, curriculum, etc., in each building, so there exists, as closely as may be achieved, an equal opportunity for each student to be appropriately served educationally, both in terms of academics and socially."
Now that's a plan I want to get behind and work towards! Equality in ALL those areas... At least, try to remove the limitations. what a worthwhile goal!
I wish if I could do ONE thing it would be to tell parents there is great hope and possibilities for everyone, no one should be limited in educational opportunities, their children should be encouraged, they should make learning a lifetime fun activity and share that with their children.
And, you definitely helped me see the most recent SCOTUS ruling is actually more fair, more equal than what we have been doing all these years.
You said it all when you said, "The key here, IMO, is to assure equality of funding, staff assignments, curriculum, etc., in each building, so there exists, as closely as may be achieved, an equal opportunity for each student to be appropriately served educationally, both in terms of academics and socially."
Now that's a plan I want to get behind and work towards! Equality in ALL those areas... At least, try to remove the limitations. what a worthwhile goal!
I wish if I could do ONE thing it would be to tell parents there is great hope and possibilities for everyone, no one should be limited in educational opportunities, their children should be encouraged, they should make learning a lifetime fun activity and share that with their children.
lindainks55 said:
Danny, Your daughters are growing up in a world that offers both more opportunity and greater dangers. I don't know how parents today keep up with all the demands put on them. It was more simple and easier when I was parenting. Allow diversity and exposure to many ideas while you are still guiding them, protecting and teaching them. Don't limit anything other than exposure to known dangers. Even dangers have to be acknowledged and plans made to deal with such. Stay involved and aware; the years go so quickly!
lindainks55 said:
inner city -- NOT inter. Probably lots more stewpid mistakes, but I've been on here too long. You know what I do best? Make mistakes. Gives me a goal, a lofty goal. When the day comes I don't make a mistake I am finished.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, a few comments responsive (I hope) to yours.
First, the Wichita busing plan was, indeed focused upon just two races. The reason is just as you say, there were but two racial groups in Wichita at the time, and only one (the Black) had been the subject of de jure segregation. Thus, the consent order makes sense when placed in that perspective. Times have changed; the consent order has not, which results in the disproportionate burden of busing upon the African-American students.
Second, college financing opportunities are much greater than when you and I were in school. I suspect the main difference between your family situation and mine is that while there were six of us, and the folks were struggling to put food on the table and keep us clothed, my mother was a college graduate.
Third, 259 schools are indeed becoming, in increasing number, more like "inner city" schools than what we would like to think. The reasons are all of those you post.
Fourth, the east/west divide in general is as you describe. I don't know how we, as a city, overcome this. I am aware that this type of divide is not limited to a "big city". Northfield, MN, the home to two of the finest four year liberal arts schools in the country, is of 18,000 population, and is divided into East/West by a river (the Cannon, in that case). Same issues there, evidenced by on which side of the river the folks live.
Fifth, I appreciate your support for the "plan" I outlined. However, it won't happen without open enrollment throughout the district, with attendance assignment based upon some factor or factors other than race. Otherwise, there won't be enough students of "movers and shakers" in the buildings to assure the needed political pressure to keep the funding, etc., equal.
Sorry for slipping into my "native language" a bit much in my first posts. Goes with the territory, I guess.
First, the Wichita busing plan was, indeed focused upon just two races. The reason is just as you say, there were but two racial groups in Wichita at the time, and only one (the Black) had been the subject of de jure segregation. Thus, the consent order makes sense when placed in that perspective. Times have changed; the consent order has not, which results in the disproportionate burden of busing upon the African-American students.
Second, college financing opportunities are much greater than when you and I were in school. I suspect the main difference between your family situation and mine is that while there were six of us, and the folks were struggling to put food on the table and keep us clothed, my mother was a college graduate.
Third, 259 schools are indeed becoming, in increasing number, more like "inner city" schools than what we would like to think. The reasons are all of those you post.
Fourth, the east/west divide in general is as you describe. I don't know how we, as a city, overcome this. I am aware that this type of divide is not limited to a "big city". Northfield, MN, the home to two of the finest four year liberal arts schools in the country, is of 18,000 population, and is divided into East/West by a river (the Cannon, in that case). Same issues there, evidenced by on which side of the river the folks live.
Fifth, I appreciate your support for the "plan" I outlined. However, it won't happen without open enrollment throughout the district, with attendance assignment based upon some factor or factors other than race. Otherwise, there won't be enough students of "movers and shakers" in the buildings to assure the needed political pressure to keep the funding, etc., equal.
Sorry for slipping into my "native language" a bit much in my first posts. Goes with the territory, I guess.
lindainks55 said:
Friend Vaughn, it helps me keep my aging brain engaged to the extent possible. I need ALL the help I can get so know you are providing a service! tehe
One more example that made me worry about our tomorrow while at the same time making me appreciate those like your daughters, my children and grandchildren, so many others who will be prepared and willing to step up to the plate.
My kids scheduled a meeting with representatives of a large, local home-school network. Their intent was to offer some services and resources through their business. One of the "teachers" in this network brought along two pieces of curriculum they use for their high school students. They were pamphlet sized "books" one titled "State of the States," the other "State of the Presidents." The information was all they thought was needed to be taught. One listed each state and the various facts like capital city, state bird, animal...; the second listed each president and what years he held office and other "facts." Neither offered any opportunity for thinking, delving into political philosophy, merits of such. Just the non-controversial "facts." A series of facts to memorize, no opportunity to learn anything. Then early into the meeting the home-school reps made sure Steve and Tonya understood that the only history to be taught was the earth was less than 6,000 years old, man and dinosaurs lived together... THIS IS WHAT THEY MAKE AVAILABLE TO THIS GROWING NUMBER OF STUDENTS!! They aren't home schooling to offer an enriched education or one that is superior. They are home schooling to make sure the information provided to their children is LIMITED to their beliefs.
I've only given you the basics but doesn't this make you want to scream!?
As always, generalizations do a disservice. There are children being home schooled so their educational opportunities are greater than offered at the traditional school, but I dare say these aren't the majority. Maybe in a more rural area where there aren't private schools and tutors to complement, but in this urban area these children are limited to this abysmal lack of information. They will be so far behind, so poorly prepared.
One more example that made me worry about our tomorrow while at the same time making me appreciate those like your daughters, my children and grandchildren, so many others who will be prepared and willing to step up to the plate.
My kids scheduled a meeting with representatives of a large, local home-school network. Their intent was to offer some services and resources through their business. One of the "teachers" in this network brought along two pieces of curriculum they use for their high school students. They were pamphlet sized "books" one titled "State of the States," the other "State of the Presidents." The information was all they thought was needed to be taught. One listed each state and the various facts like capital city, state bird, animal...; the second listed each president and what years he held office and other "facts." Neither offered any opportunity for thinking, delving into political philosophy, merits of such. Just the non-controversial "facts." A series of facts to memorize, no opportunity to learn anything. Then early into the meeting the home-school reps made sure Steve and Tonya understood that the only history to be taught was the earth was less than 6,000 years old, man and dinosaurs lived together... THIS IS WHAT THEY MAKE AVAILABLE TO THIS GROWING NUMBER OF STUDENTS!! They aren't home schooling to offer an enriched education or one that is superior. They are home schooling to make sure the information provided to their children is LIMITED to their beliefs.
I've only given you the basics but doesn't this make you want to scream!?
As always, generalizations do a disservice. There are children being home schooled so their educational opportunities are greater than offered at the traditional school, but I dare say these aren't the majority. Maybe in a more rural area where there aren't private schools and tutors to complement, but in this urban area these children are limited to this abysmal lack of information. They will be so far behind, so poorly prepared.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, I've seen those and other related "educational materials" before, and yes, it makes me want to scream.
As I've posted previously, here and in other venues, the primary goal of education should be the encouraging of the development of critical thinking. A trivial example I've used before: two students, both of whom are taught 9X6 = 54. The first student is taught just that. The second student is taught that in the context of " A room is 9 feet long by 6 feet wide. How many square feet of carpet is needed to cover the floor?". Which student has the more valuable knowledge?
This is not to generally discredit memorization of discreet facts. There are some things that need to be memorized, IMHO. That, however, is only part of the story. Once the facts are memorized, education begins when the student is then led (yep, I said led) to analyze how these memorized facts are important to other situations. For example, James Buchanan was president of the United States from 1857 to 1861. Fine; now, why are the dates he served in office relevant to what was going on in the country at the time? What was happening? I think you see where I'm going here. The mere rote learning and regurgitation of the dates Buchanan served as President is meaningless, without the context. Although, given the dates that Buchanan served as
President, together with the date Fort Sumpter was fired upon, might, if the proper connection is drawn, show that Southern secession began prior to the inauguration of Lincoln as President and the rationale underlying the timing. Mere memorization of the two dates, without a link, doesn't demonstrate the relevance or relationship of the two.
I can go on and on, but, summing it up, Linda, we agree.
As I've posted previously, here and in other venues, the primary goal of education should be the encouraging of the development of critical thinking. A trivial example I've used before: two students, both of whom are taught 9X6 = 54. The first student is taught just that. The second student is taught that in the context of " A room is 9 feet long by 6 feet wide. How many square feet of carpet is needed to cover the floor?". Which student has the more valuable knowledge?
This is not to generally discredit memorization of discreet facts. There are some things that need to be memorized, IMHO. That, however, is only part of the story. Once the facts are memorized, education begins when the student is then led (yep, I said led) to analyze how these memorized facts are important to other situations. For example, James Buchanan was president of the United States from 1857 to 1861. Fine; now, why are the dates he served in office relevant to what was going on in the country at the time? What was happening? I think you see where I'm going here. The mere rote learning and regurgitation of the dates Buchanan served as President is meaningless, without the context. Although, given the dates that Buchanan served as
President, together with the date Fort Sumpter was fired upon, might, if the proper connection is drawn, show that Southern secession began prior to the inauguration of Lincoln as President and the rationale underlying the timing. Mere memorization of the two dates, without a link, doesn't demonstrate the relevance or relationship of the two.
I can go on and on, but, summing it up, Linda, we agree.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, my friend, one more comment to you. You've grasped the seminal point of Brown from a purely legal perspective. That is, simply stated, that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the use of race as a matter of law in determining where a student attends school. That's it; no more, no less. The rest of the decision was full of sociological data justifying the elimination of "separate but equal" doctrine in, at least, the context of attendance at public schools. This is why I urged leaving our preconceived notions of what Brown v. Board meant out in considering the recent decisions.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Tracy, it is theoretically possible, but so long as there are differences in climate, etc., I suggest that without intermarriage of races, there will still be different "colors" for long after our children's children's children are no longer around.
Danny said:
Linda,
I agree. I do plan to be involved. As it is right now, I do things with my nearly 2 and half year old like build things with blocks and legos together(including my mind storm kit). When my kids start school, then I'll stay involved and help with homework and their understanding of homework. It'll be like grade school and high school all over again for me. Maybe then I could compete on, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" ;)
I agree. I do plan to be involved. As it is right now, I do things with my nearly 2 and half year old like build things with blocks and legos together(including my mind storm kit). When my kids start school, then I'll stay involved and help with homework and their understanding of homework. It'll be like grade school and high school all over again for me. Maybe then I could compete on, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" ;)
Loading....