Today's SCOTUS Decision re: public school diversity considerations

[shinerbock]

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

[KSigkid]

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.

[UGAalum94]

"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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

. . . I imagine things are pretty tense right now.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Scalia, scathing comments? Never!

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

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

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

[shinerbock]

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.

[Munchkin03]

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

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.

[Kevin]

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

[shinerbock]

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")?

[Kevin]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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")?

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

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.