District Administration - September 2007 - (Page 18)

InsidetheLaw SEPARATE BUT “EQUAL”: Banning School Desegregation Policies IN JUNE THE SUPREME COURT RULED 54 IN THE cases Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jeﬀ erson County Board of Education that race may not be used as a criterion for desegregating schools. Experts fear that the decisions will make long-established busing programs, magnet schools, charter schools and other initiatives aimed at increasing student diversity and educational opportunity unconstitutional. Senior Editor Gary Stager has collected the views of leading educators, policy-makers and law experts to begin a dialogue on these critical issues. Let us know how this ruling will impact your district by contacting zminers@edmediagroup.com. Roadblocks to Racial Diversity Michael Casserly Executive Director, Council of the Great City Schools Today’s troubling decision will make it harder for these and other cities to maintain an integrated student body, prevent racial resegregation, improve academic performance, and build a more equitable and competitive America. The ruling now forbids school systems across the nation from using the same strategies that the federal courts once ordered them to implement. The council is heartened that a majority of the court reaﬃrms that there is a compelling interest in achieving diversity in public school classrooms, and that raceconscious strategies can be consistent with the Constitution. As a practical matter, however, the court has left school districts across the land with few viable alternatives for using race in pursuit of that interest. School districts now have even fewer options to achieve the racial diversity that was possible before the decision. Therefore, the council decries the court’s ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jeﬀerson County Board of Education as a deliberate and pronounced step backwards in the nation’s long march 18 September 2007 toward racial equality. And the council views the Bush administration’s stance in promoting this outcome as deplorable. Entitlement by Color or Citizenship? Jesse L. Jackson Jr. Congressman, Second Congressional District of Illinois In their recent ruling on school racial integration policies, the Supreme Court could have helped clarify when, where and how public school systems can use race in determining which students get limited spots in competitive programs. Instead, they have created much more confusion, frustration and anger. I believe history will demonstrate that this court’s alleged “colorblind” approach will bring us back full circle to Plessy v. Ferguson’s 1896 principle that “we can have separate but equal” schools, which sustained the opposite result for 58 years. Brown overturned Plessy on both philosophical and practical grounds. Philosophically, if schools are truly equal, why should they be separate? But practically, history has shown that if public schools are separate they will not be equal. Seattle will perpetuate and escalate— not alleviate—our current separate and unequal American educational system. I’m not naive enough to believe the court is colorblind any more than I believe it’s politically neutral. But I do believe that how an issue is framed can help us achieve a more equal and just society. In terms of framing the issue, is “racial equality” really the American goal? Today’s conventional wisdom consistently appeals to racial and gender equality, i.e., aﬃrmative action is necessary because of historic negative action. And that’s true, but isn’t the real goal “equality for all citizens” regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, handicap or religion? Are we entitled to equality and a just society on the basis of color (or gender or handicap) or on the basis of our U.S. citizenship? If we are entitled to equal rights and protections under the law as citizens, then equality based on citizenship—not race, gender, handicap or class—is the real goal and the better way of framing the issue. In Rodriguez (1973) the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not grant a citizenship right to an education. But if we add an education amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees a citizenship right to a public education of equal high quality—which obligates Congress to structure and fund such a system, forcing the courts to deal with this speciﬁc language—then we will no longer be arguing over the rights of black and brown children, but over the right of District Administration

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of District Administration - September 2007

Cover Contents Editor’s Letter Letters News Update Curriculum Update Inside the Law District Profile Administrator Profile District Buying Power 2007 X-Factor Student Achievement Awards 2007 We've Got Mail Supporting New Teachers How Well Does This Web Site Work? New Products Problem Solution Computer Literature Research Corner Online Edge Supervisor’s Opinion Speaking Out Calendar of Events Understanding the Times

District Administration - September 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.