Tennessee schools dispute pits 'haves' against 'have-nots'
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43970084...ews-education/

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...ax-EbcN3xAhEhJ

****
This is intense stuff that speaks to the heart of districting and zoning. This debate began yeeeears before I was a public school student in the early 1980s - middle 1990s.

What say you, GCers?

At the risk of sounding stupid, what are the cons of this merger? How would it affect the more affluent students and families? I'm of the (perhaps naive) opinion that high quality education should be standard and that all students should be challenged to excel.

I never attended a public school myself and I am not at all knowledgeable about the politics of this situation.

The district where I live was created out of a court-mandated merger of 11 smaller districts. It was primarily to desegregate, but if you know the economic makeup of the districts involved, that played into it too. It's now one of the bigger districts in the county (graduating classes about 600).

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionst...landstory5.asp

The wikipedia page on it basically says "they can't read or cipher for shit, but they have cool musicals and lots of football players."

It's just as the article summarizes. When you merge "haves" and "have nots," you are merging different levels of resources, knowledge, and achievement. Just as there are honors classes at the middle school and high school (and collegiate, at some institutions) levels, there are school districts with a higher quality of education, higher test scores, and more resources. When you merge, you are either telling the "have nots" that they need to step their game up; or telling the "haves" that they need to step their game down.

The school districts and schools need to carefully outline and work toward a positive outcome. They cannot just merge when these districts have been segregated for years for a reason. This is noncoincidentally highly correlated with social class and race and ethnicity. Therefore, there are some "haves" who simply do not want social class and race and ethnic diversity. It defeats the original purpose of the division.

<------ A product of one of many public school systems in the country that was intentionally segregated by social class and race in the 1950s-1960s. My schools were predominantly white until social class and race diversity began. Then (predictably) white flight/capital flight happened, class/race homogenous communities moved further from the city, new schools were built, districting and zoning were shifted, and the shitstorm continues.

I think this is where I got stuck. Is it a problem to tell the have nots to step their game up? Isn't the lack of belief that the have nots can achieve a roadblock to their success? I ask because we've seen time and again that, when provided with resources and attention, low performing students can and definitely do excel, as the issue is not a lack of intelligence.

While this issue is a given, it shouldn't be a factor in the decision-making process. Unless the haves students will be negatively impacted, academically, these parents need to get over themselves.

If it was as easy as telling the "have nots" to step their game up, this would have been accomplished years ago and without a merger. The problem is access to resources and essentially re-socializing the students. Throwing "have nots" in an environment with more resources and telling them "DO BETTER," as though it was only their fault they weren't achieving, will have a horrendous outcome. The school district reps, staff and teachers need to prepare the students for the new environment that is much different than what they are accustomed to.

As for the bolded, many aspects of intelligence are not inherent. If intelligence is lower it is also a result of access to resources in the home, school, and other environments. If this is caught early enough, intelligence can be shaped. If it is not caught early enough, the average low performing student will be considered less intelligent, by many standards of intelligence, and will therefore not perfom well in excelled environments if there is nothing to buffer the previous lack of access to resources.

It has been a factor in the decision-making process for over a generation. That doesn't end just because some people are finally doing something about it.

It also depends WHAT the resources are that they get. If they get a shiny computer lab, that's lovely and all, but if the lab is staffed by a teacher who's completely incapable of teaching computer usage from the very beginning, those "resources" don't do anything for the have-nots that are so supposedly lucky to get them.

True!

This merger will be a huge change for everyone involved. There are pros and cons with every change. It's simply a matter of whether the pros outweigh the cons. I would love to think they do but I don't know all of the details.

Of course. As part of the negotiations, the powers-that-be would have to do more than what has previously been done. This may mean additional course levels to give the have nots an opportunity to build the core knowledge and skills they may be missing, among other things.

I wasn't suggesting that the merger move forward without a game plan!

Of course it has. However, this argument should not be the basis for legal intervention (nor is it a valid "con" imo).

LOL. You had me worried there for a second. I thought someone had stolen your username. :p


As always, that argument would be expressed differently using quality of education and other angles. Those who intentionally live in social class and racially homogenous environments rarely express it as such around those who potentially disagree with them. :)

Not at all. lol I was making assumptions about the quality of the strategy behind the potential merger that I wasn't communicating in my posts. I can be foolishly optimistic, so I am often disappointed by the ineptitude of individuals with power and authority.

Exactly. My underlying point was that if all they can come up with is "we don't want THOSE kids here" they've lost already. It's also why I asked the, perhaps rhetorical, question about the legitimate "cons" of a merger.

My ignorance may be showing again, but I can't help but look at the relative success of charter schools and wonder WTH the problem is with the people making decisions that ultimately result in low performing schools. Of course, charter schools are a HUGE other topic, a discussion of which could be--and probably already is--its own thread.

The biggest problem here will be the word "share." The haves have a problem with sharing with the have-nots. Why should they? They have everything they need. What would the merger do for them and their kids? Convincing people that a better educated populace and a better school system for the entire city is a good thing is often difficult.