I don't really agree. Segregation will not be the result of this decision, but rather it occurs naturally within our society. The decision doesn't segregate at all, it merely doesn't allow "integration" based on racial discrimination.

I think its unfortunate that public schools differ so much, but I'm not sure what the solution is. I think people should be able to move into an area, pay higher taxes, higher property costs, etc...with the anticipation of sending their children to good schools. Obviously the only true solution is to improve those failing schools, but I'm not sure its something that can be accomplished without a complete overhaul in social attitude towards education.

I agree that this decision will not result in segregation. If segregation really comes about, it will not be because of the decision -- it will be because of the lack of creativity and vision of school systems.

Many school systems have both avoided segregation and provided quality schools across the board without making decisions based on race.

I agree.

I think the reason why kids in the schools in lower income areas do poorly is cultural. Education is just not valued enough in those communities, by the families. I attended an excellent public school in a suburb just across the lake from Seattle, so I had a completely different experience. The kids in my school pushed ourselves to do well, and our parents and communities always supported us through school levies, fundraisers and athletics. There was school pride, which I also think is lacking in the Seattle schools.

Speaking for Seattle's case, segregation will occur. It will just not be forced by the school district. It will be self-segregated, as are many communities in America.

But I don't think you realize how white some of the high schools in Seattle will be now. For those schools, they may be quality, but they won't be racially diverse because there simply aren't many minorities living in those neighborhoods.

I didn't say that the schools can't be racially diverse and excellent at the same time. I think that is an achievable goal for this district, but until the city's residents stop segregating themselves by neighborhood, diversity will not happen.

You're mistaken in that you assume racial diversity is the most important type of diversity and that racial quotas are even a minimally effective method of achieving diversity. That approach seems a little short-sighted to me.

The goal of diversity in itself seems a bit odd to begin with. What exactly is the goal here? To have different colored kids in the classroom? What does that accomplish?

It seems to me that there are plenty of non-racial methods which could be used to achieve diversity. For example, if a school district's goal is diversity, they could admit based on a student's socioeconomic background, their neighborhood, etc.

The thought that race is determinative of whether or not one is diverse from the majority in a successful school (I'm reading this to mean that the assumption is that non-white/asian = poor) is itself a racist approach. I may be building a bit of a straw man here, but if there is some other assumption folks are operating on, please fill me in.

Personally, my goal is for my kids to be exposed to and learn to get along with and respect people who are different from them, whatever kind of differences they may be. I think that's a pretty necessary life skill, unless one plans to live somewhere like Iceland.

From an administrator's standpoint, there is also the goal that a good mix of students helps raise standards for everyone.

That's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. Many school districts do this by limiting the percentage of free/reduced lunch students per school. Many disticts have also successfully used magnet schools to "lure" students from the suburbs and more affluent neighborhoods to the less affluent ones. My kids are at a magnet school rather than our "neighborhood" school, as are many of the neighborhood kids (different schools), because we chose it (and got in -- the magnets are very competative).

And that was my point. It's not SCOTUS or its opinions that will be bringing about any segregation in Seattle -- it will be the school administration's and/or the community's unwillingness to find other ways to avoid desegregation.

And I'll just say again that I agree with the ruling by the Court. Open enrollment in a district is great, but only if kids get "first dibs" on spots in their neighborhood school. I think kids should be able to go to school down the street if they want to. I also think it saves the schools money in the long run, because they won't have to bus kids all over (though I'm not sure if the Seattle schools have been using buses for high schools anyway...they might use public bus).

Anyway, I think the Seattle School District has been using racial diversity as a way of distracting people from the issues of why some of its schools aren't performing better, and now with things more clear, they won't have any choice but to face the problems and try to solve them. That's a good thing.

Personally, I prefer the segregation in Europe more than the segregation in America. How about you guys?

-Rudey