How will Supreme Court decision affect PA schools Schools & Kids, posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 28, 2007 at 11:21 pm
We now have the ruling of Supreme Court that a child's race will not affect where a child goes to school? I see it that there are two different ways that will affect us here. Firstly, what about our choice programs where we have to have a language bias and secondly what about EPA and Tinsley kids which also have to be minorities?
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2007 at 12:17 am
I'm actually wondering about the charter schools, where there's that must match the ethnic make-up of the community.
It's a weird ruling simply because Kennedy disagreed with one chunk of it, but not the rest. It's going to be one case at a time. My guess is that a white EPA parent could sue over the Tinsley minority clause.
Posted by Star, a resident of the Professorville neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2007 at 4:39 am
What it says is that integration and ethnic balance cannot be forced onto unwilling participants. The Tinsley program is voluntary, as are charter/choice programs. Federal law prevails over state law. State law can continue to encourage ethnic diversity, but it cannot force people in or out on the basis of race. Active recruiting efforts to make options known will be important to achieving and maintaining diversity.
Posted by OhlonePar, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2007 at 10:47 am
It says nothing of the sort--that was clear from Kennedy's opinion. He wants to leave options open. You may think it ought to make assigning racial identity illegal (though, in fact, people tend to self-identify), but the opinion does not address this issue.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2007 at 3:13 pm
This is a typical Kennedy "give me a way out" clause. Look back through his history, he has a very hard time being clear, and has done a lot of damage as a result. ( In litigations occuring to help clarify the decision).
At the very least, the vote was particularly true for any school district that tries to achieve racial balance through forced anything, like busing kids past their closest school instead of allowing a kid to go to the closest school even if "the wrong color". I am not sure we can draw any other conclusions, yet, though it certainly is a step in the right direction, in my opinion, against what I think is blatant racism.
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I am really concerned by this constant mis-labeling of "conservative" judges and "liberal" judges. Since when is insisting on non-discrimination a CONSERVATIVE categorization? The belief that all humans are created equal, and should not be discriminated against OR FOR on the basis of anything is what made me a LIBERAL.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2007 at 6:16 am
Interesting that Kennedy graduated from a high school [McClatchy] built to keep the residents of the high value Land Park district from having to mix with Mexicans and commoners at Sacramento High. [The High School Earl Warren limo'ed his kids to]
Posted by resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Don't get confused. The issue that was fairly clearly resolved ( except for Kennedy's usual fence sitting) is nobody can any longer "force" integration into a farther school on the basis of race against the wishes of the person who prefers the closer school.
beyond that it gets a little murky, which will be litigated ad nauseum until untangled.
so, a choice program is not FORCING anyone into it on race..thus in the short term is irrelevant. It is not color-based, but competency based.
The result may be a type of segregation, but that was not a part of this week's Supreme Court decision, and will require a different type of ruling concerning public education funds.
"busing" etc can still be used to force a kid to a further school in a District for ECONOMIC diversity, which at least treats all colors of people within an economic classification equally.
Posted by resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Besides..to say that MI will serve only a single ethnic group shows you have not been paying attention. A particular ethnic group having more interest, by percent of population, maybe, but such programs do not ONLY interest a single ethnic group.
Posted by yet another parent, a member of the Escondido School community, on Jul 19, 2007 at 1:08 am
Education Week, a publication for teachers, is hosting a live web chat on "The Supreme Court's Impact on School Policies". It's being held today, July 19, at noon at Web Link. They're accepting questions. If you're late to the conversation (apologies for the short notice), you can find the transcript at Web Link. Here's part of the description, taken from their website:
Join our panel of legal experts for this live Web chat about policies schools will need to change based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued in the past year.
In its recently concluded term, the court decided cases that will alter schools' policies on student speech, race-based assignments, and a wide range of issues that will affect K-12 schools.
In its term that ended last month, the U.S. Supreme Court made several decisions that will require school officials to re-examine several of their policies. The court ruled, for example, that school districts must limit their use of racial classifications when making school assignments.
Posted by yet another parent, a member of the Escondido School community, on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14 am
Sorry, I didn’t realize you’d have to sign up for access to the chat archives when I posted that. However....how about signing up? Membership is free and EdWeek is a reputable organization. You won’t get spammed and you can always cancel after reading the chat. It was a worthwhile discussion.