Today's SCOTUS Decision re: public school diversity considerations
 

I'm about to read the opinion, any thoughts?

I haven't read the opinion yet, but apparently Justice Breyer was pretty enraged, and threw a couple of comments at CJ Roberts and Justice Alito. I believe Justice Breyer's quote was "Never in the history of the Court have so few done so much so quickly."

From what I've read, it was a pretty tense day in the Court.

"Never in the history of the court have so few done so much so quickly" is a great little quote.

On the other hand, it could read "Never in the history of the court have so few undone so much that continued past the point of its utility or success" and be about as accurate it seem to me, but I'm sure opinions will vary.

I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but I did read the syllabus from the cornell site, pretty much what I expected...no narrow tailoring, failure to consider other options, etc.

I fully agree with the decision, but yeah, I imagine things are pretty tense right now.

NYT already has an editorial out talking about how the new conservative composition of the Court has turned back the clock, resegregated schools, other nonsense. What a liberal rag of a paper.

I think they have been all week, and not just between the liberals and the conservatives. Scalia had some pretty scathing comments, even for him, for the CJ on Monday.

Scalia, scathing comments? Never!

Actually, from what I've read, he and Rehnquist weren't always so tight either, so maybe he just doesn't like Chief Justices.

Then again, I've heard Souter is his closest friend on the Court, so maybe I shouldn't try to figure him out.

LOL. Well, I qualify it "even for him."

Whether closest friends or not, Scalia and Ginsburg are supposed to be very good friends. Go figure indeed.

I went to a more intimate speaking event w/ Thomas, and he stated his closest friend on the Court, or at least the person he does the most stuff outside with, was Souter.

I'm actually surprised that schools were still doing this.

Seattle
 

This has been a major deal in Seattle for years now. The reason why the Seattle School District was using race as a consideration when placing students was because most of the parents/kids in the district were trying to get into the same few high schools every year.

The district did away with mandatory bussing in the 90s, opening it up to allow students in the district to attend whichever school they wanted. But, unfortunately a lot of kids/parents didn't want the high school in their neighborhood...they wanted a few schools that are known as being better scholastically and as having more resources for students. The demand for those handful of schools got to be so high that the district needed to find a way to restrict enrollment. Since Seattle is a very diverse city racially, and the district and community sees the value in integration, the district thought race was something they should consider when admitting students. It was not the only thing they considered, however.

This was also happening in the Seattle School District because the city is divided not just racially but economically. There are several very wealthy, white neighborhoods in Seattle, and some lower-income black neighborhoods. Although it's not true that all the good high schools are in the wealthier neighborhoods, many are. I think the district was afraid that if it told everyone they had to go to their neighborhood school, the white rich kids would get a great education and the poor black kids would flunk/drop out. It would also lead to a self-segregated district.

Unfortunately, some families have horror stories about their kids being only admitted into high schools across the city, and this goes for elementary/middle schools as well as high schools (though I suspect there's more competition for high schools). Some white kids would get sent to a school in a black neighborhood, and black kids who wanted that school would get sent to the white high school because there were too many black kids at their neighborhood school.

I think this ruling will be good for the district. First, I think families should have the right to consider the local schools their children will attend when choosing where to make their home. Second, I think this will build a better sense of community surrounding each school, which is definitely needed in the Seattle School District right now (they need all the support they can get). And thirdly, I think the segregation that will come as a result of this ruling will force the district to strengthen the schools in lower income and minority-populated neighborhoods. When the diversity policy was in place, the test scores, graduation rates, etc. were fairly similar across the board, with the exception of a few schools. Now I think there will be clear lines drawn, and the district will be confronted with the reality that its low-income students are doing poorly while its white/asian wealthy students are performing at the top levels.

It sounds like NCLB could actually be a huge difference maker for Seattle schools.

Do you guys really think those on the left who are railing against this decision are genuinely that concerned about the decision itself, or is this mostly an offshoot of their dissatisfaction with the composition of the Court (and the person responsible for its "shift")?

Most of the leftists I've heard from have been upset because this "reversed Brown v. Board of Education" which couldn't possibly be a more idiotic way to interpret this case.

Yes to both, I think. I also think that many of them recognize the symbolic potential as an election year approaches.

I would consider myself a liberal, but I agree with this decision, for the several reasons I stated above.

I think the reason why many liberals don't agree with the ruling is because they know that discrimination and inequality WILL be the result of this decision. The schools aren't segregated now, but they will be in the future. And that means that the poor black kids will continue to have poor schools, bad/inexperienced teachers, and a lack of resources just like in the old days. The Court spun the decision to sound nice and idealistic, but the reality will be far from that.

As for No Child Left Behind, it's been a joke for many low-income and minority-populated schools, which is really the intended target of the policy. It gives funding, sure, but if the kids don't improve fast enough, the funding gets taken away. You can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to go away. NCLB funding won't make the top teachers want to teach at dangerous schools where kids have no interest in learning. It may buy books, but it won't make the kids read them. And, it's taught school districts around the country that they need to "Teach to the Test," the standardized tests that so many states now use to rate its students. That probably sucked any life and creativity from the classrooms where teachers were trying to find innovative ways to draw in at-risk students. And for the schools that HAVE improved under NCLB, how do we reward them and their students? By cutting financial aid programs that the poorest students depend on to get a college education.

Education policy in this country sucks.

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