tired of "diversity for Deal and Wilson" as an argument

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Supreme Court's PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)) ruling might have fundamentally altered the landscape here.

If the boundaries of Deal or Wilson are redrawn to preserve AA enrollment a the expense of non-AA kids who live closer to the schools, those boundaries can and should be challenged by neighborhood families, and those families will likely prevail.

While the PICS case certainly makes things more complicated, I am not sure that I come to the came conclusion you have. A majority of the court recognized that the state has a compelling interest in seeking diversity in schools. However, the court ruled that plans to promote diversity have to be narrowly tailored. In the case of Deal and Wilson, a narrowly-tailered solution that preserves diversity would be fairly easy to develop. Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity.

That's not how it works. The government has no affirmative obligation to "preserve diversity." In fact, the Court reaffirmed that, "the Constitution is not violated by racial imbalance in the schools, without more." That there is a compelling state interest in diversity simply means that the government can act to remedy a lack of diversity IF the remedies withstand strict scrutiny (in other words, are narrowly tailored). Applied here, there is no obligation to preserve diversity at Deal/Wilson. If they want to do so, fine - as long as the solution is narrowly tailored. But they certainly don't have to (absent some other court-imposed requirement).

Well, let's wait and see. I can assure you that District officials are concerned enough about the threat of legal action that I am pretty confident there will be no proposal that significantly reduces diversity at either Deal or Wilson.

So, in reviewing the racial composition of both DC and the schools' student bodies, I assume you mean by "diversity" no proposal that significantly reduces the number of Caucasian students there?

[Anonymous]

^^I'm a different poster but yes. The diversity issue cuts both ways. You wouldn't significantly reduce the number of Caucasian students at Wilson but it will never become a 90% Caucasian school either. I think we all know that.

I posted it on DCUM before but here is a link to the DOJ page that has the guidance that DCPS will likely be using to inform their decisions re: boundary changes and diversity.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/December/11-ag-1569.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The transit system is not effective. That's the point. You want kids rolling into class 30 minutes late once a week?

I want them to learn to build in extra time so they won't be late. Life skills.

But I'll grant that outside the urban core, and away from Metro stations, bus service is not so reliable. This is a problem in less dense neighborhoods that will not change quickly enough.

[Anonymous]

They are going to need more than life skills if we move to an open boundary system. Maybe lower the driving age? From today's Post:

Commuters on Metro’s bustling Red Line are experiencing delays for the second consecutive day, this time because of a disabled train and a signal problem outside the Fort Totten station.

At 8:18 a.m., Metro sent out an alert warning of the disabled train. Another alert went out from Metro at 8:30 a.m. warning of delays — in both directions — because of a signal problem, also outside of Fort Totten.

[Anonymous]

16:27...ok what is it when a person who's a principal is now an assistant principal? Ok, she wasn't kicked to the curb she was moreso tripped up. Don't get me wrong, she's a lovely person...but we have since have vacancies at the principal level and "cough" she's not been given another chance to rise to the occasion.

[Anonymous]

Where was she before?