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

[jsteele]

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.

[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.

+1

[Anonymous]

So we can only change the feeders east of the park in a way that bring white children west? So goodbye Bancroft, if there's no diminishment of black enrollment allowed.

[Anonymous]

There is a threat of litigation no matter what DCPS does in terms of changing boundaries or feeder patterns. Reducing diversity is however politically unpalatable. Too bad that the announcement is postponed until after the primary in order to give Grey cover. I suspect Kaya will also decamp to Rhee's Students First or similar "reform" group regardless of which candidate prevails.

[Anonymous]

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.

I agree with that. Well, more accurately, you are not-so-subtly implying that you have some kind of insider information (doubtless from Mr. Frumin?) - I have no such informartion. I just think it's politically untenable to make Deal/Wilson less diverse.

But that's not the topic of this particular line of posts. You said, "Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity." That is a misinterpretation of the analysis that I, and others, corrected.

But, given your pipeline into the thinking of District officials, care to weigh in on the changes of the Committee recommending elimination of all school boundaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is going to start forcing busing of Ward 3 kids to eastern, then there is no legal way to enforce divserity at Wilson.

Yep. If Wilson parents say they value diversity, I'd say, send them to my kid's school. What they value is not feeling guilty that they live in a segregated white enclave.

I don't think Wilson parents have any problem with diversity considering the school is 22% white, 47% AA, 19% Latino and 8% Asian. That's real diversity. I'd wager that your school doesn't match those statistic.

If those are the actual numbers, I think no lawsuit could challenge any new rational boundaries because of "diversity." If anything, what is underrepresented there right now is white, taking as reference the existing boundary.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with that. Well, more accurately, you are not-so-subtly implying that you have some kind of insider information (doubtless from Mr. Frumin?) - I have no such informartion. I just think it's politically untenable to make Deal/Wilson less diverse.

But that's not the topic of this particular line of posts. You said, "Defending a solution that did not preserve diversity, on the other hand, would be difficult given the compelling state interest in promoting diversity." That is a misinterpretation of the analysis that I, and others, corrected.

But, given your pipeline into the thinking of District officials, care to weigh in on the changes of the Committee recommending elimination of all school boundaries?

I don't think you corrected me so much as you offered your own interpretation. I'm still pretty comfortable with my interpretation. I have no idea what changes the Committee is likely to recommend. I would suggest that anyone who claims to know is not being honest.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deal and Wilson are located in the core of residentially segregated upper northwest. I am tired of the idea that the rest of the City is here to benefit Deal and Wilson by providing local children with a multiracial, multiclass learning experience. We offer them diversity?

And I like it even less when people from schools with more diverse populations or from other areas of the City cite Deal and Wilson's interest in diversity to allow their family, their school to feed to them.

Arguments like "Hearst is full of out boundary black students so it has to be allowed to feed to Deal to provide them diversity.". Or Eaton or Shepherd or Ward 6 to Wilson for that matter.

Upper northwest residents and those who just want to go to school there jump on this when diversity is icing for the cake for Upper Northwest and losing these students into this single feeder pattern is a detriment to the rest of the City.

You can be as tired of the argument as you like, but you had better get used to it. It is a simple fact that boundaries that have the effect of eliminating minorities from Deal or Wilson will result in an instant lawsuit -- and a very winnable one at that.

They may result in a lawsuit, but it is by no means clear plaintiffs would prevail. Boundaries that are drawn to maximize transportation efficiencies are perfectly acceptable under current law even if they result in racially polarized schools. The jurisprudence of the early 1970s is no longer the law.

[Anonymous]

I don't think you corrected me so much as you offered your own interpretation. I'm still pretty comfortable with my interpretation. I have no idea what changes the Committee is likely to recommend. I would suggest that anyone who claims to know is not being honest.

OK. Just to be clear, your interpretation is that a finding of a compelling state interest in promoting diversity in schools schools means that defending a solution that does not preserve diversity would be difficult, correct?

[Anonymous]

NP. I am a native Washingtonian who in the early 80's traveled from Columbia Heights across Rock Creek Park to attend a quality elementary school and then Deal Jr high school. Back then there were plenty of spaces since these schools were not in vogue with those who lived in the neighborhood. It was easier to manage this OOB process than try to deal with the fact that DC in the 1980s remained as segregated (in terms of housing and education) in the 80s as it had been in the 60s. Fast forward to today, I think DC still does not want to (or does not know how to deal) with fact that DC was never truly integrated and the discriminatory practices employed in the 50s, including redlining and covenants prohibiting sales of Ward 3 homes to African-Americans/Black, were never ameliorated. Now as a result of this inaction, DC is still de facto segregated and now thanks to gentrification, economically segregated.

If the Ward 3 schools become neighborhood schools, essentially a "separate and unequal" school system has been created - with the best public schools being in Ward 3 with great facilities, test scores, innovative classes/course work, teaching staff etc and the other schools across the park with low test scores, inferior facilities and classes, teachers etc . DC has begun to improve on the physical plants of its East of the Park schools but test scores are still dismal compared to Ward 3 schools. This is why I think that a legal challenge to any boundary revisions that cuts out diversity in Ward 3 has a chance of success. The history of racial discrimination in DC is distinguishable from the facts of the PICS and might lead to a different outcome. I agree with jsteele in that the threat of being branded as the govt that brought back a separate system for elite Whites in Ward 3 vs AA/Blacks in the Wards across the park means that diversity at Deal and Wilson will be somehow be retained.

[Anonymous]

You can dislike the argument but it is the reality at all levels of society. This country will be majority minority by 2040. Personally want may white kid to be in a plurality environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I am a native Washingtonian who in the early 80's traveled from Columbia Heights across Rock Creek Park to attend a quality elementary school and then Deal Jr high school. Back then there were plenty of spaces since these schools were not in vogue with those who lived in the neighborhood. It was easier to manage this OOB process than try to deal with the fact that DC in the 1980s remained as segregated (in terms of housing and education) in the 80s as it had been in the 60s. Fast forward to today, I think DC still does not want to (or does not know how to deal) with fact that DC was never truly integrated and the discriminatory practices employed in the 50s, including redlining and covenants prohibiting sales of Ward 3 homes to African-Americans/Black, were never ameliorated. Now as a result of this inaction, DC is still de facto segregated and now thanks to gentrification, economically segregated.

If the Ward 3 schools become neighborhood schools, essentially a "separate and unequal" school system has been created - with the best public schools being in Ward 3 with great facilities, test scores, innovative classes/course work, teaching staff etc and the other schools across the park with low test scores, inferior facilities and classes, teachers etc . DC has begun to improve on the physical plants of its East of the Park schools but test scores are still dismal compared to Ward 3 schools. This is why I think that a legal challenge to any boundary revisions that cuts out diversity in Ward 3 has a chance of success. The history of racial discrimination in DC is distinguishable from the facts of the PICS and might lead to a different outcome. I agree with jsteele in that the threat of being branded as the govt that brought back a separate system for elite Whites in Ward 3 vs AA/Blacks in the Wards across the park means that diversity at Deal and Wilson will be somehow be retained.

The Ward 3 schools always have been neighborhood schools - they just had OOB slots. But now that extra capacity is gone, and many are neighborhood-only schools.

I don't get what you mean by gentrification has caused economic segregation. Pre-gentrification, the city was ecomonically segregated. Now, look at Ward 1 - I believe it's the most economically integrated Ward in the city, because of gentrification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I am a native Washingtonian who in the early 80's traveled from Columbia Heights across Rock Creek Park to attend a quality elementary school and then Deal Jr high school. Back then there were plenty of spaces since these schools were not in vogue with those who lived in the neighborhood. It was easier to manage this OOB process than try to deal with the fact that DC in the 1980s remained as segregated (in terms of housing and education) in the 80s as it had been in the 60s. Fast forward to today, I think DC still does not want to (or does not know how to deal) with fact that DC was never truly integrated and the discriminatory practices employed in the 50s, including redlining and covenants prohibiting sales of Ward 3 homes to African-Americans/Black, were never ameliorated. Now as a result of this inaction, DC is still de facto segregated and now thanks to gentrification, economically segregated.

If the Ward 3 schools become neighborhood schools, essentially a "separate and unequal" school system has been created - with the best public schools being in Ward 3 with great facilities, test scores, innovative classes/course work, teaching staff etc and the other schools across the park with low test scores, inferior facilities and classes, teachers etc . DC has begun to improve on the physical plants of its East of the Park schools but test scores are still dismal compared to Ward 3 schools. This is why I think that a legal challenge to any boundary revisions that cuts out diversity in Ward 3 has a chance of success. The history of racial discrimination in DC is distinguishable from the facts of the PICS and might lead to a different outcome. I agree with jsteele in that the threat of being branded as the govt that brought back a separate system for elite Whites in Ward 3 vs AA/Blacks in the Wards across the park means that diversity at Deal and Wilson will be somehow be retained.

Probably the best remark I've read on DCUB in a LONG time. +1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more exclusionary Ward 3 parents become, and the more they wage war on OOB families (who earned their spots at WotP school through established policies and enabled those schools to maximize their budgets) will push the Chancellor towards a solution of no boundaries. Turning "OOB" into a dirty word will necessitate getting rid of it altogether.

Can we stop with this nonsense? They're not getting rid of boundaries. On the heels of a much-touted inprovement in test scores, they're not going to completely change the system (and torpedo many property values, at that). There is overcrowding at some schools, and underenrollment at others - that needs to be addressed.

Good grief, people. I can't figure out is many of you are so simple-minded that you actually believe this fairy tale, or if there is a concentrated campaign to instill fear in the community so that when a less drastic solution is proposed, people welcome it as better than the alternative.

Check that. I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, and I AM a believer in Occam's Razor. So we'll go with simple-minded.

+100. DCUM is full of Chicken Littles. Somebody heard about San Francisco's model and has been continuously posting the possibility of DC adopting the model to the point where others are starting to believe this inane fairy tale. Good grief!!! Stop perpetuating this myth!

Well I guess the Mayors PR team better dispel this myth right away because so far all public utterances and announcements on the subject give the impression that a major change in the way students are assigned. Listen to smith and the rest of the panel on the Kojo Nnamdi show and read between their lines

Listen Chicken Little, they haven't changed the boundaries in decades. Change of any type would be major.

This whole no boundaries rumor is a construct of DCUMers. The basis for this silly rumor goes something like this: San Francisco is a big city like DC and they tried a no boundaries public school system, so that must be the plan for DC too. Really???!

Sometimes DCUM exhausts me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the more exclusionary Ward 3 parents become, and the more they wage war on OOB families (who earned their spots at WotP school through established policies and enabled those schools to maximize their budgets) will push the Chancellor towards a solution of no boundaries. Turning "OOB" into a dirty word will necessitate getting rid of it altogether.

Can we stop with this nonsense? They're not getting rid of boundaries. On the heels of a much-touted inprovement in test scores, they're not going to completely change the system (and torpedo many property values, at that). There is overcrowding at some schools, and underenrollment at others - that needs to be addressed.

Good grief, people. I can't figure out is many of you are so simple-minded that you actually believe this fairy tale, or if there is a concentrated campaign to instill fear in the community so that when a less drastic solution is proposed, people welcome it as better than the alternative.

Check that. I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, and I AM a believer in Occam's Razor. So we'll go with simple-minded.

+100. DCUM is full of Chicken Littles. Somebody heard about San Francisco's model and has been continuously posting the possibility of DC adopting the model to the point where others are starting to believe this inane fairy tale. Good grief!!! Stop perpetuating this myth!

Well I guess the Mayors PR team better dispel this myth right away because so far all public utterances and announcements on the subject give the impression that a major change in the way students are assigned. Listen to smith and the rest of the panel on the Kojo Nnamdi show and read between their lines

Listen Chicken Little, they haven't changed the boundaries in decades. Change of any type would be major.

This whole no boundaries rumor is a construct of DCUMers. The basis for this silly rumor goes something like this: San Francisco is a big city like DC and they tried a no boundaries public school system, so that must be the plan for DC too. Really???!

Sometimes DCUM exhausts me.

Don't forget, you have to read between the lines!