Today's SCOTUS Decision re: public school diversity considerations

[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.

[shinerbock]

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.

[MysticCat]

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

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.