Should the Supreme Court rule on diversity in schools?
In his latest column, Dave continues to push his agenda of bashing public schools. As opposed to last time hiding behind the false argument of "choice", this time around Dave attacks race-based admissions for public schools in Seattle and Lexington, Ky. The Supreme Court has agreed to accept the Seattle public schools case, and given the current make-up of the court, it is of no surprise that Dave comes on the side of ending race-based admissions in Seattle.
Dave's argument can be summed up in the column of his headline. Kids of the "wrong" color are being discriminated against. Of course, inherent in that message is that there must be a "right" color for kids, or anyone, to be discriminated against. In this case, the rightful discrimination is against Seattle's black children, who find themselves in neighborhoods with poor and failing schools, and wish to seek to find better education in the schools of Seattle's white neighborhoods. As the editorial in The Oregonian that announced the Supreme Court's decision makes clear, Seattle has an insufficent number of good schools, both in "white, affluent neighborhoods." As Seattle has sought to maintain a healthy diversity in their public schools, they have adopted race as a "tie-brekaer" in maintaining a healthy ratio of white students to minority students.
Unfortunately, the use of this racial "tie-breaker" has led to a lawsuit filed by parents of white children who feel their children lost a position at these better schools in their own neighborhoods. Can there be a better argument for the need of a fully funded public school system, with healthy and productive schools made available in all neighborhoods? Just as much as there are failing schools in poor, black neighborhoods, I would wager there are failing schools in poor white neighborhoods of Seattle as well. Should the quality of public education depend solely on that school's neighborhood's property values? It is obviously clear that a financial level for each school in Seattle's, and Portland's, public school system needs to be identified to provide the basic fundamental services to the children of the neighborhood that it's located in. Once the funding for these fundamental needs are met, parents and the neighborhood can take it upon themselves to provide donations and carry-out fundraising for any extra amenities desired, such as a lacrosse team or band equipment.
Once neighborhoods no longer see their schools as "failing" there will be little desire to re-locate their children to another neighborhood school, possibly "taking" the position of that neighborhood's children. However, that poses another problem, that of possible unintended segregation. Some, not all, neighborhoods tend to be homogenous, with similar families sharing similar viewpoints and lifestyles living close to each other. This homogenity would carry-over to the classroom, and such a lack of diversity would stifle any creative deliberation and deprive students of an opportunity for renewed perspective of thinking on various topics. Dave, as a typical conservative, is a proponent of this stifling of diversity in the classroom, and hopes that the Supreme Court rules in favor of such. The idea I propose- of healthy, fully-funded neighborhood schools that don't require students being shuffled around- might also carry such unitended consequences.
Certainly, diversity in the classroom is a good thing. Ideally, it should'nt be forced due to schools failing in areas that need them the most. However, the question that should be asked to neighborhoods, parents, teachers, and lawmakers alike is how to continue diversity while also maintaining healthy neighborhood schools?
Dave's argument can be summed up in the column of his headline. Kids of the "wrong" color are being discriminated against. Of course, inherent in that message is that there must be a "right" color for kids, or anyone, to be discriminated against. In this case, the rightful discrimination is against Seattle's black children, who find themselves in neighborhoods with poor and failing schools, and wish to seek to find better education in the schools of Seattle's white neighborhoods. As the editorial in The Oregonian that announced the Supreme Court's decision makes clear, Seattle has an insufficent number of good schools, both in "white, affluent neighborhoods." As Seattle has sought to maintain a healthy diversity in their public schools, they have adopted race as a "tie-brekaer" in maintaining a healthy ratio of white students to minority students.
Unfortunately, the use of this racial "tie-breaker" has led to a lawsuit filed by parents of white children who feel their children lost a position at these better schools in their own neighborhoods. Can there be a better argument for the need of a fully funded public school system, with healthy and productive schools made available in all neighborhoods? Just as much as there are failing schools in poor, black neighborhoods, I would wager there are failing schools in poor white neighborhoods of Seattle as well. Should the quality of public education depend solely on that school's neighborhood's property values? It is obviously clear that a financial level for each school in Seattle's, and Portland's, public school system needs to be identified to provide the basic fundamental services to the children of the neighborhood that it's located in. Once the funding for these fundamental needs are met, parents and the neighborhood can take it upon themselves to provide donations and carry-out fundraising for any extra amenities desired, such as a lacrosse team or band equipment.
Once neighborhoods no longer see their schools as "failing" there will be little desire to re-locate their children to another neighborhood school, possibly "taking" the position of that neighborhood's children. However, that poses another problem, that of possible unintended segregation. Some, not all, neighborhoods tend to be homogenous, with similar families sharing similar viewpoints and lifestyles living close to each other. This homogenity would carry-over to the classroom, and such a lack of diversity would stifle any creative deliberation and deprive students of an opportunity for renewed perspective of thinking on various topics. Dave, as a typical conservative, is a proponent of this stifling of diversity in the classroom, and hopes that the Supreme Court rules in favor of such. The idea I propose- of healthy, fully-funded neighborhood schools that don't require students being shuffled around- might also carry such unitended consequences.
Certainly, diversity in the classroom is a good thing. Ideally, it should'nt be forced due to schools failing in areas that need them the most. However, the question that should be asked to neighborhoods, parents, teachers, and lawmakers alike is how to continue diversity while also maintaining healthy neighborhood schools?
posted by true_slicky at 5:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home