When U.S. Dist. Judge Bernice Donald concluded last month that the Shelby County Schools district has not yet overcome the relics of segregation, the stunned reaction from school officials was unequivocal.
"Certainly we are disappointed by the ruling," said school board chairman David Pickler.
"It could have some very dramatic negative effects on the children of Shelby County," school attorney Rick Winchester added. Winchester went on to suggest that Donald's ruling could mean that education dollars would be diverted to busing and moving children to schools farther from their neighborhoods.
This practice of crying "bus" is a disservice to those the county schools serve and a distraction from what ought to be the goal of all parties involved -- providing the highest quality education to all Shelby County students. Compliance with Donald's ruling is -- forgive me -- not so black and white as the school officials seem to suggest.
Busing is not the only way for a school district to become unitary, and among the potential solutions, busing is probably the least appealing. Rather than frightening parents by alluding to the possibility of busing, school officials would do well to think outside of the busing box for creative ways to increase both the diversity and the educational quality in the Shelby County Schools. Where Winchester sees in the ruling the possibility of "dramatic negative effects," I see an unprecedented opportunity for Shelby County Schools to become a national model for equity and excellence in education.
Donald wrote that the true goal of any school desegregation plan is to provide equal educational opportunity to all students by eliminating racial isolation. For decades, as districts across the country were forced to comply with the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, the focus was on the elimination of racial isolation. Educational considerations were too often only secondary considerations.
In the 1960s and '70s, eliminating legally sanctioned racial separation was very important. But in 2007, with the benefit of a half-century of hindsight, districts like Shelby County have the opportunity to move beyond simplistic solutions such as busing and implement desegregation plans that embrace both the educational and the social ideals of Brown.
Using a combination of neighborhood schools with carefully drawn attendance zones, magnet schools that provide a variety of educational choices for parents, and lenient transfer policies combined with racial targets similar to those in Donald's ruling, districts across the country have achieved increased diversity by lifting the quality of all schools. In some instances, transportation is necessary, but it is far easier to convince a parent to accept busing when his or her child will be bused voluntarily to an exceptional school than when the child will be bused across town to a school no better, or worse, than the neighborhood school.
There is no reason to think the county schools cannot come up with a similar plan tailored to Shelby County in response to Donald's ruling. Devising such a plan is far more difficult than simply imposing busing, but county school officials need look no further than the Memphis City Schools to see the devastating effects busing can have on a district. The challenge is for school officials to resist the temptation to defensively use the threat of busing to criticize Donald's ruling and instead to develop a thoughtful, multifaceted desegregation plan that creates a world-class school district.
"In those instances where the Board adopted the Court's goal as its own," Donald wrote, "it has progressed with remarkable speed." The district should not miss this opportunity to adopt the goal of improving education across the system while eliminating instances of racial isolation. The initial signs of such adoption are not positive -- the board has already said it will appeal Donald's ruling -- but if the district does embrace the spirit of the ruling, there is no reason it should not progress with remarkable speed.
12 comments:
I appreciate the lofty ideals that you mentioned in your column today. In some ways the County schools are already meeting the ideals that you are espousing. Per the judge's ruling only a few schools exceed the % population by race deviation that she desires (all or most of those school are the Southwind area where 90% of the student body is black). In addition based on many measuring sticks the County schools are providing a better education then most public schools in Tennessee. I suspect that the main reason the County school board and superintendent feel blind sided by Judge Donald's ruling. The County school system has been integrated with very few racial tensions and have done a good job of educating its black and white students.
There is only one area of concern for the school district and the Judge. That's the 4,000 students in S/E Shelby County where 90% of the students are black and they attend schools that reflect that racial background. Make no mistake this no ghetto as these folks are almost all middle class or upper middle class African Americans who for the most part own very nice and for the most part brand new homes. These students in the so called "Southwind area" are the reason the Judge's ruling, in my opinion, is bound to lead to education failure and it will either not work or not be implemented. To me there are two major flaws in the Judge's plan.
1. Geography and Demographics make her plan pointless. The County schools are roughly 66% white and 34 % Black. The judge wants no more then 15% deviation in each school from that number. So the white population of kids needs to be from about 50% to 80%. The black student population needs to range from 20% to around 50%. Currently there are only a few schools that are too white, but the New Southwind high school and the middle schools and elementary schools in that area are all too Black. These schools house 4,000 students and there are 90% black. Sadly this area is in far S/E Shelby county. If it was the area between Bartlett and Germantown perhaps one could maneuver around matters by adjusting school lines. Being flat against DeSoto county the only way it appears to achieve Judge Donald's quota goals is busing. Kids in Southwind will have to be assigned to schools in Germantown and Collerville and vice versa. Another factor makes any other alternative a no go.
2. Reason #2 for failure. We actually have three school systems in Shelby county. 1st is the Memphis city schools, second is the County school system operating in cities in Shelby county not called Memphis and then there is the County schools that operate in areas that are in Memphis City annexation zone. The 4,000 County students in Southwind live in the Memphis annexation zone. The Politicians do not like to say it, but eventually the Southwind schools will be the City schools problem (or opportunity) sometime in the near future. It may be next year or it could be 10 years from now. This future annexation removes what chance the county has in interesting teachers or students or parents in the Southwind zone. A superb teacher would have to think twice about moving to a County school there as they are likely to either have to enter the City school system or have scramble to get a place back in the county system. The same for setting up Southwind as a Magnet school to attract white students from Germantown or Collerville. Those schools could be in the city next year so what student or teacher will take an educational chance when they may have to scramble back to their home schools after a year or two.
Does Judge Donald not realize all these things? Well its easy to make decisions like this when one is not accountable to anyone. To me Judge Donald seems to be trying to mess up the one school system half way doing a decent job.
Ralph DelBove
Just a note to say that I appreciated your column this morning. In your own way you're keeping up the great tradition of Lucius Burch, Mike Cody, and Charlie Newman.
All the best, Mike Nelson
Michael Nelson
Fulmer Professor of Political Science
Rhodes College
Great article in yesterday's paper. You are very insightful and I couldn't agree with you more.
I enjoyed your column yesterday - it was refreshing to read an optimistic analysis of Judge Donald's ruling....not sure I completely agree, but I liked the angle.
I enjoyed this article and I agree with you. Back in the seventies and through the eighties busing was a short term solution and an opportunity to bring the depth of the inequality to the forefront. Such a critical nation wide problem needed to be brought to the doorstep of every American. Today, resources need to be spent on long term solutions which means that youth should be able to achieve without leaving their
local communities.
I read your column in Sunday’s CA and thought your approach to achieving the Judge’s stated goals was sensible and well stated. Of course knowing this city and the mindset of the people in the county who are there almost exclusively because the schools are segregated and knowing David Pickler and how he operates using race to promote fear, I hold little hope that your progressive approach will be adopted. Hopefully at some point when the appeal process has run its’ course they will reflect on your reasonable and achievable approach and take your ideas into consideration.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Ralph - Thanks again for a thoughtful comment. I won't go into too much detail in response. You are absolutely correct that the potential annexation complicates things. Still, my point was that the reaction of the county was extremely counterproductive and even disingenuous. The suggestion that the choice is between busing and doing nothing at all is totally wrong. I agree with those (perhaps like you) who don't think busing for the sake of busing will accomplish much more than aggravating parents. However, a county school board that was seriously committed to the highest quality education for all students, including the educational benefits of more integrated schools, would be considering ways to achieve the court's mandates without going out of its way to scare the community. Anyway, thanks again for reading.
Kiel Wrong on All Counts
Mr. Kiel was wrong in nearly every point he made with his guest editorial on Sunday. He accused the district of crying “bussing” when alternatives exist. Nearly one third of the black students served by Shelby County Schools live in the extreme Southeast corner of the district. Just to balance the new Southwind High school and its feeder schools would require reassigning 4,000 students, 2,000 out and 2,000 in (the area schools are already over capacity). That’s 100 busloads of children each day. I’m not sure what Mr. Kiel’s alternative is, teleportation? Mr. Kiel also resorts to the favorite editorial gambit, the vague “many”. He says “districts across the country have achieved increased diversity” with race conscious transfer policies and magnet schools. Please Mr. Kiel, name one large, diverse school district that has achieved a racial balance that would comply with Judge Donald’s order. I have searched the Internet and not been able to find one. The famous Seattle school district, reprimanded for the very techniques Mr. Kiel proposes, is LESS balanced than Shelby County.
Mr. Kiel approvingly quotes Judge Donald as saying that desegregation “is about providing equal educational opportunity for all students by eliminating the educational isolation of black students.” Unfortunately, both the Judge and Mr. Kiel are wrong about the purpose of desegregation. As quoted in the Judge’s decision, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “the objective of the school desegregation cases was to eliminate from the public schools all the vestiges of state imposed segregation.”(pg5) The Judge also quotes the Green decision: “the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state imposed segregation has been completely removed” (pg4). State imposed segregation in Shelby County was real, it was wrong, and it was a long time ago. In 1992, the only county school that was majority black was Woodstock Elementary (51%B/47%W). Of the 10 SCS schools that were majority black at the close of the last school year, 6 are in the Southeast and all 6 were majority white in 1998. In 1992, Southwind Elementary was 82% white. By 2007, SWE was 81% black. (All figures from SCS racial surveys 1992-2007). The “segregation” present in SCS is a result of thousands of families making independent choices about where to live and where to send their children to school. Apparently Mr. Kiel believes that the families who moved into the Southwind Elementary area made a mistake in their choice of school. He would like for the government to overrule those families’ choices and place their children in the “correct” school.
It is interesting that Judge Donald did not quote the most recent Supreme Court ruling on integration, the Seattle/Louisville case. In that decision, the Court said “..the plans are directed only to racial balance, an objective the Court has repeatedly condemned as illegitimate.” I suppose including that quote would not be appropriate in an order dictating racial balance. Shelby County Schools does not need racial set asides or court ordered bussing. The district does need a formal and transparent rezoning process with a high level of parental involvement. When parents have a strong voice in zoning decisions, the resulting zones will satisfy the needs of the community, though not necessarily the prejudices of a federal judge.
Ken Hoover
Mr. Hoover - I appreciate your taking the time to respond to Sunday's column. I feel that your extensive comments deserve a reply, even if the paper does not run your letter. So, here goes.
My column was more a critique on the misleading and counterproductive response of Shelby County officials to Judge Donald's ruling. The suggestion that the choices presented by the ruling are either to bus thousands of students or to do do nothing is completely false. Rather than taking the time to consider educationally beneficial ways to address the issues identified in the ruling, county officials simply alluded to the most frightening (and notably, least educationally beneficial) solution in an effort to divide the community and spur outrage at a decision that really embraces ideals of educational quality and diversity I think many in Shelby County would support.
What are the non-busing solutions? First, zone line - lines, it should be noted, that have coincidentally resulted in large clusters of African American students at particular schools even outside the southeast corridor - could be adjusted. While I acknowledge that the geography of the county limits this solution in the southeast corridor, there is no reason zone lines could not be redrawn elsewhere. Second, schools that offer special programs or non-traditional learning environments could entice parents to choose to send their children to these schools. In my experience, parents are willing to have their children travel significant distances to school if they feel it is worth it educationally. Certainly, busing for the sake of busing serves no one's interest. But, voluntary busing for the sake of unique educational opportunities is very different indeed. My column was meant to criticize county leaders for pretending these options do not exist rather than to embrace any particular solution.
I would point you to the Jefferson County, KY (Louisville) schools, the Cambridge, MA schools, the Wake County, NC (Raleigh) schools as examples of districts that have used some of these tools with success. In Louisville in particular, the district has made a significant commitment to maintaining racial diversity alongside educational quality and parents have expressed enormous satisfaction.
You write that "the segregation present in SCS is a result of thousands of families making indepednent choices about where to live and where to send their children to school." That is surely part of it, but it ignores the significant evidence that the county has gone out of its way in drawing zone lines and new school construction to ensure that African American neighborhoods are not assigned to more than a handful of schools.
Finally, the most recent Supreme Court ruling you mention was almost wholly irrelevant to the Shelby County case. That case explicitly dealt with districts for which desegregation orders had been lifted (Louisville) or were never present in the first place (Seattle). Whereas those plans were found to be directed only to racial balance (a conclusion I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I disagree with), the Shelby County situation continues to involve an effort to eliminate the vestiges of segregation. To dismiss that era as "a long time ago" is to overlook the very real present day policies that perpetuate racial isolation in schools. Unlike the districts involved in the most recent Supreme Court case, Shelby County has never been found to have erased the vestiges of segregation - in fact, that is precisely what the county's motion was all about.
I suspect that we will have to simply agree to disagree, but I did want to take the time to thank you for reading and submitting your comments. Please feel free to disagree with me in the future.
Good job on a thought-provoking column Sunday. You are right - there are not many words more worrisome to parents han "busing." This is an issue I struggle with because I love the public, neighborhood school my children attend. However, I understand the need for diversity. If children are introduced to other cultures and races when they are young
then it follows that they will be more accepting of those people as
adults.
As I look around my suburban neighborhood, I am grateful that we do have black families in my neighborhood and there are a handful of students in my sons' classes who are of other races. However, the fact remains that the vast majority of people they are around at school and church look like them.
Diversity is sadly lacking.
Having said that, I feel strongly that busing is not the answer. I love that when we bike around the neighborhood or visit a local park, it never fails that my kids see friends from their school. I go to their school often to volunteer and have lunch and there is a great sense of community. I don't want to give that up.
It seems to me that for whatever reason, we've segregated ourselves and the schools are just a reflection of that. To this, there are no easy answers.
Emily - Thanks for your thoughts. I think you're right - busing for the sake of busing is good for nobody. Even if it might increase diversity, when you look at the big picture, basic busing does more harm than good in terms of making parents angry and disengaged from the school and of course having children spend lots of time riding buses. What I hoped the county schools would do would look at other examples in other cities of ways to encourage diversity without immediately resorting to busing, the simplest and least appealing solution. For instance, if a school with a very specific special program (arts, sciences, cohort learning, etc.)were available for parents to choose to send their children to (even if it meant getting there by bus), I think the county could encourage some of the integration Judge Donald has ordered. In my experience, parents and students are willing to travel long distances for a top quality education. I knew of several people at White Station who drove in from past Germantown Parkway and a friend of mine drove to St. Mary's every morning from Holly Springs, MS - it is not busing, per se, that people oppose - it is busing for no obvious educational purpose. Anyway, I think the county may win on appeal so my whole column would be moot. Oh well.
Mr. Kiel,
What a wonderful response. I must admit, I’m quite surprised to receive it since I was not kind to you in my letter. I agree with several of the points you make.
I agree that zone lines need to be revisited. Shame on the judge for delaying her action on the high school zones until it was too late to change anything. There is, in fact, gerrymandering going on. The recent high school boundaries were drawn to protect Houston High school. Not necessarily for racial reasons, but at least so that the parents in Kimbrough Woods could attend the school of their choice. The transfers from Collierville to Houston were never really explained either. Your point about zones also seems applicable for some of the middle schools. Elmore Park (15% Black) and Appling (15% B) are adjacent to Shadowlawn (62% B). Many Shadowlawn students would likely see a reduction in travel time if they were assigned to Elmore Park. The Riverdale (18%B) attendance zone wraps around Houston middle to preserve the low minority population at Houston (4%), Farmington (4%), and Dogwood (4%). However, the judge makes no mention of these irregularities, referencing only the 9 schools over 56% black, 6 of which are in the insolvable southeast.
The special programs idea is fine. The International Baccalaureate program introduced at Germantown High this year is a direct effort by the district to attract more white students to GHS I have no problem with voluntary programs to address diversity, I simply believe they will have very limited impact.
The 3 districts you mentioned are all more balanced than SCS, but none of them meet Judge Donald’s standard of +/- 15 points. My point is the judge has laid down a standard that cannot be met. Louisville has 10 mainstream high schools, only 1 of which is clearly outside the judge’s standard (2 are borderline). Cambridge is an interesting example since it only has 5,600 students and their mix is 39B, 35W. 23H, and 13A. 8 of their 10 elementary schools (they only have 1 high school) meet the judge’s standard for black mix. If you extend her standard to all the races, most of their schools are too heavy or too light on one race or another. Raleigh has very balanced high schools, but they still have 2 out of 7 (data only available on 7) that don’t meet the judge’s standard. (all of this is based on data from greatschools.net)
You mention that there is significant evidence that the county has gone out of it’s way to draw discriminatory attendance zones. While I believe the zones have often been unfair, I’m not aware of this “significant evidence”. It doesn’t seem that Richard Fields is aware of this evidence either. It’s strange that the judge did not cite a single example of racially drawn zones if she had access to “significant evidence”. It’s also extremely hypocritical of the judge to conclude that SCS is still segregated when every zone implemented and every school built in the last 40 years has been approved by the court. As to your comment “African American neighborhoods are not assigned to more than a handful of schools”, over half the high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools have a significant (over 20%) minority population.
Our views on the intrinsic values of diversity probably differ only in degree. I believe diversity is very positive. I believe the children at Farmington and Dogwood are missing something in their educational experience; as are the kids at Highland Oaks and Southwind Elementary. However, I do not believe that diversity trumps neighborhood schools. (By the way, by my count 20 of 27 elementary schools have adequate diversity. 2 of the 5 that don’t are in the Southeast)
As to the Supreme Court rulings, I realize that actions which might be unconstitutional in Seattle can be ordered in Shelby County due to the deseg order. It just seems illogical that the Judge would order measures that will become unconstitutional the day after the order is lifted. By the way, the court is not charged with eliminating segregation. The court is charged with eliminating state sponsored segregation.
In the end, we may both agree more than we disagree. Hyperbole in making a point can hide the common ground. The Shelby County School board has failed. For 44 years, it has been their job to get out from under the court order, and they have not done so. Where we may still strongly disagree is in the remedy. The court is not the answer; it has failed as well. After 44 years of supervision, it still has not breached the fence surrounding certain schools. The court is too removed from the facts and too slow to act to be an effective agent. Why would anyone believe that an organization that did not judge itself successful in its first 44 years of trying will come through in the next 8 years? A formal zoning process with heavy parental involvement will insure that the community’s needs are met.
Thanks again for taking the time to engage in the debate.
Ken
Post a Comment