|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 4, 2006 13:29:22 GMT -6
I don't want to start any kind of contentious debate, but as many coaches here coach HS or even younger levels, I thought I'd just mention that the Supreme Court today is hearing two rather important cases that will affect many of your school districts. The Court is reviewing two plans, one from Seattle and the other Louisville, KY where students are allowed to choose what schools they attend within a local school district or system, but where the student's race is used as a factor in determining where they can go and how they are assigned. The two plans differ somewhat, but essentially both dictate that students/parents may choose where their children go to school, but if a school breaks certain bundaries of too many white or too many minority students, some students will be denied their first choice to ensure that each school remains appropriately "integrated." What the cases today mean is whether locally elected school boards can create these kinds of plans in an effort to prevent "white-flight" and to keep schools relatively "integrated." The challengers here are white parents who say that they were denied the school of their choice because of their race, which they say violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I mention it here because many on this board are teachers/coaches and parents in school districts with similar plans, and whichever way the court comes out (they are permissible and here is when, or these plans are patently impermissible) will have a big effect on the actual make-up of schools. This is not just an academic issue, but one that will affect what school boards across the country can do. The New York Times discusses the cases here: www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Schools-Race.html?hp&ex=1165294800&en=4e5897872b94e8e9&ei=5094&partner=homepageAnd those interested in the legal arguments can read about those here: www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/12/schools_argumen.html |
|
|
|
Post by tribepride on Dec 4, 2006 13:41:06 GMT -6
Minnesota has had open enrollment for many years. You can go to any public, charter, or private school that you want with in the state. There have been some problems with kids jumping schools for sports but the high school league has started to crack down on transfers and athletic eligibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 4, 2006 17:32:21 GMT -6
i heard about that today on NPR and I used that as a chance to discuss the new trend in our school district, same sex classes/schools. My kids had a field day with that and we had a vrey productive discussion.
As to these two cases, regardless of how they are framing the discourse, separate, but equal is still unconstitutional. According to what I have read and heard on NPR about these cases, the parents are able to fill out an application with there first 3 choices and are 80% of the itme given one of their first 2 choices. The isssue of racial balancing is bogus and is asking for some major problems. What is going to happen once the white population is no longer the majority but the minority (should happen within the next 25 yrs or so) and they still retain political power (just like South Africa up until recently)? Who then decides what is "racially balanced"?
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 4, 2006 17:38:27 GMT -6
Saintrad, it's unfortunate. I think the petitioners (the white parents) in this case are going to win. I might be opening myself up to attack, but I personally cannot understand how the same Constitution that said that it is unconstitutional and unlawful for schools to segregate whites and blacks (Brown v Board of Education) apparently also says that local, democratically elected school boards in an area once dominated by intentional segregation, cannot put in place their own, modest school-choice plan to simply ensure that these schools don't return to the days of "all white schools" and "all black schools." A sad irony, if there ever was one, and one that will continue to set back the state of race relations in this country. (See Kramer/Michael Richards, Exhibit A.)
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Dec 4, 2006 18:15:14 GMT -6
spread-
I hear you on this one. I truely is a travesty to see our Constitution abused like this, but is it morally right to allow this newest verison of "separate, but equal" to be disguised as "racial balancing"? Coming from a school district where "white flight" was evident to a school district of the impoversihed that can't seem to leave, it is hard to watch this action being taken. I undertand the intentions were good, but I am waiting to see how this can play out. It has boiled down to a new version of state's rights issue yet again.
Spread I appreciate the honesty and thoughtfulness you put into your response.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 4, 2006 18:21:28 GMT -6
Well the plans are designed to prevent white-flight, they ensure that schools stay within a certain range of integration by essentially giving students their second or third choice when their first choice would result a racially imbalanced school. And, constitutionally (both separation of powers and the bill of rights), I think it's pretty clear that locally elected school boards have the authority to promote integration when it does not burden or unequally benefit the races, or stigmatize any race as inferior. I believe upholding the plans is the correct decision because they are designed to prevent the return to "separate but equal," as striking them down would be inviting a return to racially isolated schools. That's my opinion, based on oral arguments today I think a majority of the court disagrees with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 4, 2006 18:42:13 GMT -6
some school districts are still segregated
it is called segregation du jure (sp?)
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 4, 2006 18:47:47 GMT -6
De jure segregation is what the Court said was unconstitutional in Brown v Board of Ed, which is where the board or some body, by law, says whites here and blacks there. You can't do this anymore, but there are a few school systems that are still considered to be suffering from the longstanding effects of it. When a school district was formerly de jure segregated but now no longer is, it is said to be "unitary."
Many schools now have "de facto segregation," which is where schools are segregated by virtue of external factors, most commonly housing patterns.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 4, 2006 18:56:12 GMT -6
De jure segregation is what the Court said was unconstitutional in Brown v Board of Ed, which is where the board or some body, by law, says whites here and blacks there. You can't do this anymore, but there are a few school systems that are still considered to be suffering from the longstanding effects of it. When a school district was formerly de jure segregated but now no longer is, it is said to be "unitary." Many schools now have "de facto segregation," which is where schools are segregated by virtue of external factors, most commonly housing patterns. we got it now and it was set up that way school district opens up a new school to aleive the stress on the old established school just so happens that the new school is 70/30 hispanic to white while the old school is now 70/30 white to hispanic the socioeconomic ratios are just as badly uneven makes me sick the powers that be have relegated the kids at the new school to being "second class" and have relegated the kids at the old school to not having the experience of dealing with the vast switch in populations that they will call their neighbors in the next 20 years |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Dec 4, 2006 18:58:12 GMT -6
and it was set up that way
in my former law school student eyes, it is du jure, the powers that be made sure that it is that way
makes me sick
|
|
