Supreme Court Strikes Down School Integration Plans

[Gilding the Lily]

In what will likely prove to be a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be a factor in the voluntary integration assignment of children to public schools.

Justice Roberts explained: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

Justice John Paul Stevens, disagreeing with the plurality of the Court, said in dissent that there was a "cruel irony" in making that claim, because it involved a rewriting of the history "of one of this Court's most important decisions." Stevens noted that he joined the Court in 1975, and asserted that "no member of the Court" at that time "would have agreed with today's decision."


So, does this decision ignore the problem of de facto resegregation in schooling? And if so, is a voluntary segregated school system an example of poor public policy?

For example: My hometown, Chicago, has a very segregated school system. This is due to the very segregated neighborhoods. Thus, many would call this a voluntary segregated school system.

 

[TWAnr]

In what will likely prove to be a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be a factor in the voluntary integration assignment of children to public schools.

This was a 5-4 opinion. The majority's fifth vote was that of Justice Kennedy who wrote a separate opinion concurring in part with Chief Justice Roberts and with the overall judgment. Kennedy agreed that the Seattle and Louisville plans went too far, but he wrote that race may still be a component of plans to achieve diversity in the schools.

 

[jerseyfinn]

The catch-22 is that race is both an issue and it's not an issue in today's America. In one sense, one's race is a pretty obvious thing, hence it's unavoidable. OTOH, education is about learning plain and simple. And not all schools do a good job of it for a myriad of reasons which run from the schools themselves to the family.

To me, the real essence of the decision is that courts can not determine how to run our daily lives. In the case of schools, a good question to ask is why racial imbalances exist in the first place.

An honest answer in today's America is not Brown vs Topeka segregation, but the plain and simple fact that people choose where they live combined with the fact that in America, schools have always been a local/neighborhood affair.

Sure I know that the liberal argument runs that the poor lack the ability to escape the chains of poverty and the wretched neighborhood many live in. But education is portable and can be brought to the neighborhood, especially in technology America.

What's the big problem then?

Well, one of the big problems are the inflexbile, entrenched teachers unions who for decades fill the democrat's coffers with money to lobby on behalf of the status quo. School choice and charter schools are the most expedient solution for creating educational competition to find ways to teach kids out of povery with skills and an education which unlocks the chains holding them back. And parents in the inner city and other poorly performing school districts are clammoring for school vouchers. But the unions pick away at these efforts. They leave kids hostage to their neighborhoods and a not-so-promising destiny. Children are being treated like pawns in a number of ways. Putting them into a bus to move them across town is one way. Stifling discussion about school vouchers for poorly performing schools ( which are most often, though not always, minority districts ) is another way the game is being played.

Three cheers for the Supreme Court for saying that We the People should be calling the shots and not judges.

Barry

 

[Garfield1966]

An honest answer in today's America is not Brown vs Topeka segregation, but the plain and simple fact that people choose where they live combined with the fact that in America, schools have always been a local/neighborhood affair.

Sure I know that the liberal argument runs that the poor lack the ability to escape the chains of poverty and the wretched neighborhood many live in. But education is portable and can be brought to the neighborhood, especially in technology America.

I believe that is a bit simplistic. People move where they can afford to move to which mayor may not be the place where they want to move to. Poor districts do not have the same funds to pump into their schools that lets say Beverly Hills or Manhattan does. Education in inner city schools is not equal to that of the schools in the more affluent neighborhoods. While education may be portable, it is not being brought into the inner city schools at the same level that it is in the more affluent schools.

No money is not the entire answer. Yes, teachers unions (as with most unions) are on the wrong end of the solution.

I have always like the idea of taxes for schools going to the state and then the money is divided based on a per-capita equation. The rich neighborhoods get the same amount that the poor neighborhoods get. I think teachers should have to rotate among the schools in the district. If someone wants to send their kid to a private school, they can do it on their own dime. I, as a tax payer have no interest in funding two school systems (one public school system and another voucher school system) especially since I do not have any kids. Paying for one system is plenty for me.

I see no reason why I should not be able to walk into any school with in any given school district and not be able to tell if I am in a minority neighborhood or an affluent neighborhood aside from the skin color of the kids in the hall.

As for busing, even if all the schools were identically in education, class size, teacher quality I would still be in favor of busing. If we do not, the affluent will associate with other affluent and the minorities will only be able to associate with other affluent. And we are back to a segregated society with haves and have not's. If I have children, I sure would not want them to only go to school with kids "of their own kind". I had the good fortune to meet people from all over the world going to school. I learned as much from them as I did my teachers.

 

[jerseyfinn]

I believe that is a bit simplistic. . .

Yes, I take some short cuts.

But the really simplistic part is that the race card can't be played anymore in the old sense of the word. The failure of children to learn or achieve at a standard measurement is more about failure of educators to adapt, failure of families to participate in the process of their kid's education, and failure of administrators, educators, unions and politicians to face facts and innovate. In truth, busing is "an easy way out" which guarantees nothing.

People move where they can afford to move to which mayor may not be the place where they want to move to.

True, but that's socio-economics and plain old reality. Many of us can trace our immigrant forebearers via the same exact pathway of a have and have nots standard. Family and community were more cohesive then and the economy less demanding of higher education to earn a good living. Kids did learn and schools did teach.

Poor districts do not have the same funds to pump into their schools that lets say Beverly Hills or Manhattan does . . . While education may be portable, it is not being brought into the inner city schools at the same level that it is in the more affluent schools.

Not exactly true in all places.

New Jersey continues to struggle to find a fair and equitable way to fund their schools and we've been tied up in the courts here for decades as property taxes rise ( the wheel by which schools raise money). Nearly 20 years ago, the politicians mandate a leveling of spending in all NJ school districts to assure the same "quality" education in every district. Our poorer cities such as Camden found themselves overflowing with funds as the money problem is addressed.

Did the money help?

Not really. These poorer districts suddenly had all the money they needed to buy books and equip a class room ( as well as administrators, teachers and politicos who misused these funds ). But low standardized test scores continue to prevail in these districts on a NJ basic levels test which is not exactly rocket science. Look at how extra money from any source ( fed/state )in NJ or anywhere else is spent these past 20 years and you don't find more teachers ( even though the "pie in the sky" magicians insist that lower teacher to student ratios are the stairway to heaven ). You find new administrator and liason positions of ancillary administrators, preceptors, psychologists, child study team and an assortment of titles that are far from the classroom and the 3Rs. That's how the money got spent.

So in NJ where the taxpayer anted up, we got zippo for the investment in children.

IMO the problem (crisis) in the classroom has more to do with the disintegration of the family unit & neighborhoods and the erosion of teaching and disciplinary standards ( every child is unique, but this does not mean that self-esteem and easy A's or watered down curriculum to keep Johnny feeling good even if he can't read ). This does not equate with education. This is grinding children, teachers, parents and communities down. And all of this is color blind.

There is no true solution to this dilemma. But the sooner that folks get real both about what is necessary and about how bad things are in some districts, the sooner we can abandon the labels and streotypes that politicians, educators, and interest groups utilize to divide all of us for their own manipulative purposes.

Barry

 

[local 12 proud]

Yes, I take some short cuts.

But the really simplistic part is that the race card can't be played anymore in the old sense of the word. The failure of children to learn or achieve at a standard measurement is more about failure of educators to adapt, failure of families to participate in the process of their kid's education, and failure of administrators, educators, unions and politicians to face facts and innovate. In truth, busing is "an easy way out" which guarantees nothing.



True, but that's socio-economics and plain old reality. Many of us can trace our immigrant forebearers via the same exact pathway of a have and have nots standard. Family and community were more cohesive then and the economy less demanding of higher education to earn a good living. Kids did learn and schools did teach.



Not exactly true in all places.

New Jersey continues to struggle to find a fair and equitable way to fund their schools and we've been tied up in the courts here for decades as property taxes rise ( the wheel by which schools raise money). Nearly 20 years ago, the politicians mandate a leveling of spending in all NJ school districts to assure the same "quality" education in every district. Our poorer cities such as Camden found themselves overflowing with funds as the money problem is addressed.

Did the money help?

Not really. These poorer districts suddenly had all the money they needed to buy books and equip a class room ( as well as administrators, teachers and politicos who misused these funds ). But low standardized test scores continue to prevail in these districts on a NJ basic levels test which is not exactly rocket science. Look at how extra money from any source ( fed/state )in NJ or anywhere else is spent these past 20 years and you don't find more teachers ( even though the "pie in the sky" magicians insist that lower teacher to student ratios are the stairway to heaven ). You find new administrator and liason positions of ancillary administrators, preceptors, psychologists, child study team and an assortment of titles that are far from the classroom and the 3Rs. That's how the money got spent.

So in NJ where the taxpayer anted up, we got zippo for the investment in children.

IMO the problem (crisis) in the classroom has more to do with the disintegration of the family unit & neighborhoods and the erosion of teaching and disciplinary standards ( every child is unique, but this does not mean that self-esteem and easy A's or watered down curriculum to keep Johnny feeling good even if he can't read ). This does not equate with education. This is grinding children, teachers, parents and communities down. And all of this is color blind.

There is no true solution to this dilemma. But the sooner that folks get real both about what is necessary and about how bad things are in some districts, the sooner we can abandon the labels and streotypes that politicians, educators, and interest groups utilize to divide all of us for their own manipulative purposes.

Barry

Good God man, you hit the nail square on the head!

Now tell the libs why the disintegration of the family unit & neighborhoods and the erosion of teaching and disciplinary standards have failed!

I already know the answer.

 

[Garfield1966]

Yes, we all know it takes a village to raise a child. Everyone knows that if Principle to mother has to take an interest, the child is more likely to succeed. Wow, there is corruption is the school system administration. That’s a news flash. Just because there is a corrupt school admin handling the money does not mean that money will not fix some of the problems. No, money will not fix apathy, lack of involvement and the like. It will fix the lack of PC, books, structural safety and cleanliness. If the officials cannot get it done, then fire them and replace them with those who can.

There is a cultural barrier that needs to be broken. Most poop families have immediate needs that money will fix. They want their kids to work, not get educated. The adults a re usually not formally educated and seem to think that there is not a need for it so the support for an education is not there. You could have the most up to date, advanced school system in the world and it would not change that. How ever, if you have a properly motivated child wanting to learn going to a school where the building is dilapidated, they do not have proper equipment, the teachers are sub-standard then you are essentially telling that child that we don’t care about your future.

Money can fix part of it. I have no bloody idea how to fix the family part of the equation other than continued out reach programs, grants, legal enforcement and who knows what else. If we do not fix the problem, we will have a huge segment of society that is uneducated and that will not be good for our future.

 

[jerseyfinn]

. . . Now tell the libs why the disintegration of the family unit & neighborhoods and the erosion of teaching and disciplinary standards have failed! . . .


Umm .... aaahh . . . errr.... was it because Hillary threatened to kick Al Gore's ass if he opened his big mouth? :blush:

 

[local 12 proud]

. . . Now tell the libs why the disintegration of the family unit & neighborhoods and the erosion of teaching and disciplinary standards have failed! . . .
Umm .... aaahh . . . errr.... was it because Hillary threatened to kick Al Gore's ass if he opened his big mouth? :blush: