Nebraska: 1950's Education System Was Better. Right.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

This upsets me:

LINK TO ARTICLE

I posted the article below, as well. I mean, when will people wake up and realize that the mistakes of the past don't just go away once they are addressed, in the past. History continues to try and repeat itself, and each generation must be vigilant so that these mistakes don't happen over and over again. Someone in Omaha is not learning their lesson from history.

The actual article:

School district split reverses racial progress


You often hear the charge that someone wants to "turn back the clock on civil rights." Often, it's just hot air and hyperbole. But that's not the case in Nebraska, and specifically Omaha, where some people really do want to turn back the clock on civil rights -- and, along with it, racial progress, educational opportunity and common sense.

First, since the controversy is about schools, here's a test question: Everyone has heard of the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, right? That's when the court declared it unconstitutional to have black schools and white schools, even if authorities insisted the schools were equal. In a decision that corrected a historical error and overrode an earlier and morally deficient decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, the court said separate was inherently unequal.

Well, then, could someone please explain it to Gov. Dave Heineman and those backward members of the Nebraska legislature who seem to be pining away for the bad ol' days of state-sponsored segregation? Last week, legislators took the harmful step of passing a bill to divide the Omaha school district into three separate districts: one largely black, one predominantly white and one mostly Latino. Gov. Heineman signed the bill into law, and the breakup is slated to occur in July 2008 unless lawmakers regain their senses, uh, we mean, unless they come up with a better idea.

How hard could that be? Anything would be better. Here's the sign of a bad law: It's so patently ridiculous that it sounds like someone is pulling your leg. This one meets that standard easily.

Supporters say, with a straight face, that the plan is a step in the right direction because it would give minorities control over their own school board and budgetary process and keep black and brown children from being shortchanged in favor of white students.

If schools in Nebraska are shortchanging kids because of skin color, then you fix the schools. You don't make the problem worse by taking whatever inequality exists in the education system and increasing it tenfold by bringing back segregation. And does anyone really believe this is being done for the benefit of minority kids? This is strictly for the convenience of school districts that don't want to deal with minority students because they're afraid the students will turn out to be low-achievers and bring down the test scores of individual schools. This law is an abomination, and it will be such for the five minutes it will stay in effect before some sane federal judge strikes it down as incompatible with Brown v. Board of Education.

And when that happens, Gov. Heineman and the bright lights in the Nebraska legislature can turn their attention to other matters. Like building a creative argument for bringing back separate water fountains.

[neglet]

The people decrying this development seem like they're closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. If you read an actual article about this development, rather than an op-ed piece, you'll see it's not an attempt to re-segregate Omaha schools by law (de jure segregation, similar to how it was mandated in the 1950s), but rather an attempt to deal with the de facto segregation brought about by residential patterns.

"There is no intent to create segregation," said Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers, the Legislature's only black senator and a longtime critic of the school system.

He argued that the district is already segregated, because it no longer buses students for integration and instead requires them to attend their neighborhood school.

Chambers said the schools attended largely by minorities lack the resources and quality teachers provided others in the district. He said the black students he represents in north Omaha would receive a better education if they had more control over their district.

Coming from Chambers, the argument was especially persuasive to the rest of the Legislature, which voted three times this week in favor of the bill before it won final passage on the last day of the session.

It's ironic: since the Brown decision, schools in the South and West are now less segregated than those in the North and Midwest. Since the mid-1970s, with the Milliken Supreme Court decision against forced busing and with the efforts of the Nixon administration to undermine similar desegregation programs (too much government involvement), the trend has been towards resegregation--caused by the white flight which has led to racially segregrated neighborhoods. And the fact is, even though the overall rates of residential segregation in the South and West are less than in the North and Midwest, those numbers are slipping. In large cities like Los Angeles, most schools are over 90% of one racial group.

Although no one would challenge Brown as a landmark decision--certainly it was a catalyst for the whole civil rights movement--if its goal was to provide equal education for minority students, it has failed. With its recent fiftieth anniversary, many African American scholars have questioned whether black children might have had better educations if the Supreme Court had instead enforced the "equal" portion of "separate but equal" in schools. (Interestingly enough, even when Brown was decided in 1954, not all prominent African Americans found it cause for celebration--novelist Zora Neale Hurston published an editorial saying "if there are adequate Negro schools and prepared instructors and instructions, then there is nothing different except the presence of white people. For this reason, I regard the ruling of the U. S. Supreme Court as insulting rather than honoring my race.")

There is still a lot of debate today about the best way to educate children, and the best way to fund and administrate that education. Because of Brown, most people don't give much thought to the problems of "resegregation" any more--because if it's not mandated by the state, it must be by choice and thus it's not our problem. While the Nebraska bill may not survive a court challenge (and with the new court makeup, it is possible it may), and on the surface seems wrong, at least it is trying to address the issue.

A good beginner's source on Brown, with a whole chapter on its legacy in education, is this book. (And I don't recommend it because I know the author personally--it got a starred review from SLJ, reproduced in the Amazon entry. )

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I don't think the idea behind Brown v.s. etc. had anything to do with education. It was about allowing black and white children to interact with each other in an effort to promote the idea of an integrated society. That same concept is applicable today. We can't learn to develop a society that benefits all equally, without everyone understanding each other. That understanding begins with being in the same room with each other. That was the concept behind integration in the first place. The only way to learn how to cooperate is to create the need to do so.

[neglet]

Originally Posted by Asonokirk V 2.0

I don't think the idea behind Brown v.s. etc. had anything to do with education. It was about allowing black and white children to interact with each other in an effort to promote the idea of an integrated society.

You are correct in that Brown was using education to wage a broader war against segregation and for civil rights. Once the Supreme Court found segregation in education unconstitutional, it was a short (if hard-fought) path to overturn other forms of segregation. However, calling Brown about promoting "integrated society" is perhaps putting too much of a modern, idealist perspective on the case. Brown was not decided because it promoted integration (although contemporary idealists did see that as a benefit of the case), but because the Supreme Court recognized that legalized segregation was inconsistent with the ideals of the constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular. In deciding the case, these major factors came into the court's decision:

1) the recognition that "separate but equal" was not only not how education was actually practiced (white districts routinely received more than twice as much funding as black districts), but was inherently damaging to the psyches of young black children, in giving government imprimatur to the idea that they were not, in fact, equal;

2) the recognition that the majority of American society was now open to the idea of racial equality (although at least one justice had to be persuaded that the decision would not cause unrest in the South); and

3) the recognition that government sanction of segregation put the American government at a disadvantage in the Cold War; when dealing with Third World countries, the Soviets could point to segregation as a flaw in the American system. This argument was prominent in the briefs in support of Brown presented by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.

That same concept is applicable today. We can't learn to develop a society that benefits all equally, without everyone understanding each other. That understanding begins with being in the same room with each other. That was the concept behind integration in the first place. The only way to learn how to cooperate is to create the need to do so.

That's certainly an ideal that most people would say they would like to strive towards ... unless it's going to cost them money, or force their children to be bused to another district, etc etc etc. When effort to achieve the ideal have failed, we are left with trying to cope with reality, which is what I think has happened in Omaha.

[kah]

Is it possible that by segregating the schools, that it could lower drop-out rates? A Study on Attrition in Texas 2002

I am not saying I am for or against this, but would it be better for the kids? Same sex schooling seems to be better than coed schooling, so could the same be said of same race schooling?

[kah]

I was interested about studies concerning this issue, so I started looking. Here's one I found and some quotable remarks.

The Thernstroms discuss Kenneth Clark and his research on the harmful effects of segregation - used in testimony in the Brown decision. However, they fail to note that a number of white and black scholars have discovered that Clark's studies, if anything, showed that integration, not segregation, had a more harmful effect on the self esteem of young blacks. (This point was addressed by the black legal theorist Roy Brooks and discussed in the review of his book, Separation or Integration: A Strategy for Racial Equality, in pinc Vol. 1 No. 2.)

The Thernstroms do an excellent job describing the disruption caused by busing and enforced school integration. For example, in Boston, the average minority child went to a school 24% white in 1973. In 1974 Judge Garity handed down his now famous busing decision. By 1993, after huge social and financial cost to the Boston community, "the average black child attended a Boston Public schools that was only 17% white..." White enrollment in Boston's public school dropped from 62,000 in 1970 to 11,000 in 1994. Interestingly, in 1994 the cost of busing in Boston was still about 30 million dollars per year in order to avoid the segregation "problem" that busing had created.

Concerning the value of the desegregation efforts of the 70's and 80's, the Thernstroms write, "It is plausible to think that they helped significantly, but recent analysis suggests not. Those black students who have remained in predominantly African-American Schools have improved their scores as much or more than those attending integrated schools." This fact has been noted earlier by the sociological researcher David Armor, who has studied desegregation efforts extensively in communities around the United States since the mid 1960s. As a desegregation supporter, he has nevertheless remarked that, based on the evidence, improved school performance is the last reason for one to favor desegregation.

To quote anything else would take away from the article as a whole, so I recommend reading it.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Originally Posted by neglet

You are correct in that Brown was using education to wage a broader war against segregation and for civil rights. Once the Supreme Court found segregation in education unconstitutional, it was a short (if hard-fought) path to overturn other forms of segregation. However, calling Brown about promoting "integrated society" is perhaps putting too much of a modern, idealist perspective on the case. Brown was not decided because it promoted integration (although contemporary idealists did see that as a benefit of the case), but because the Supreme Court recognized that legalized segregation was inconsistent with the ideals of the constitution and the 14th Amendment in particular. In deciding the case, these major factors came into the court's decision:

1) the recognition that "separate but equal" was not only not how education was actually practiced (white districts routinely received more than twice as much funding as black districts), but was inherently damaging to the psyches of young black children, in giving government imprimatur to the idea that they were not, in fact, equal;

2) the recognition that the majority of American society was now open to the idea of racial equality (although at least one justice had to be persuaded that the decision would not cause unrest in the South); and

3) the recognition that government sanction of segregation put the American government at a disadvantage in the Cold War; when dealing with Third World countries, the Soviets could point to segregation as a flaw in the American system. This argument was prominent in the briefs in support of Brown presented by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.



That's certainly an ideal that most people would say they would like to strive towards ... unless it's going to cost them money, or force their children to be bused to another district, etc etc etc. When effort to achieve the ideal have failed, we are left with trying to cope with reality, which is what I think has happened in Omaha.

I believe that deciding to "cope with reality" is less important than "creating a reality" that is more desirable. It should be the goal of everyone on earth to seek to be able to live in peace with every other person on earth. right? The only way I can see to achieve that goal is for all of us to learn to cooperate with each other for the good of all. In other words we should direct our energy towards fitting the differences between groups together in a way that benefits everyone equally.

In order to be able to share our resources effectively and efficiently, we need to be within physical proximity of each other. Separating people by race, for any purpose, in any context (with the possible exception of a medical context), and for any apparently logical reason, works against the goal of a better world. I could be wrong about this, but everything I know up to now leads me to the conclusions I've reached above.

[kah]

Unfortunately, that is not how humans are hardwired. That is why capitalism thrives, and socialism fails. We are born to want more, to want to be better at something than the person sitting next to us, to have more money/intelligence/luxuries/lovers/power than someone else. Ideally, most people will tell you they want a society that is equal and fair, but really think about that for a minute. That means that no one should bother excelling at anything, because the person who does nothing will benefit equally from their hardship. Advances in culture are not cultivated in such societies. They are at a virtual standstill, since people with talent and drive are rewarded no more than the people who would rather do nothing, and collect the same benefit from their government. It is a mistake to believe that all people are the same in capabilities, strength, ambition, intelligence and the ability to learn. Instead, we should accept that people are different and learn to teach to their strengths, instead of utilizing a general plan that has left a third of students in this country without a high school diploma.

I say this being a high school dropout. If you really want to know why I chose to fail three years of school before forcing them to kick me out, after nine years of straight A's, honors classes, math olympiads, gifted classes, and so on, I'll be glad to tell you. I can also tell you that my story is not unique, and is just another way our education system is failing all of us.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Sadly, what you are saying is so. However, we cannot and should not classify any group in such a way that stereotypes any member of that group as possessive of the same attributes everyone else in that group has been assigned by some kind of collective opinion. Our country was founded upon the ideal that we all are allowed the same opportunity to make for ourselves a life we want to live. Automatically placing a group of people in a category that separates them from other groups violates the spirit of freedom that is at the foundation of our society.

The needs of the individual outweigh the needs of the many is what freedom actually means. All of us have a duty to protect any single one of us so that our own freedom cannot be taken from us easily. We owe it to each other to watch each other's backs as a way of discouraging a tyranny by a majority. We cannot allow ourselves to forget where we came from, and why.

It is up to each individual student to apply themselves to self improvement. No amount of external pressure can force anyone to put forth the effort required. This means to me that it isn't our system that is failing, it is a mass failure by many individuals who aren't willing to put forth the effort required to succeed. What should be addressed is why those who fail choose to do so.

Sure, people do not have "equal" abilities, but all of us have something unique to ourselves others lack. We all have something we can contribute, and we each have to accept whatever limitations we may have without shame or fear. No matter what, there is only one you in this entire universe, and that makes you the most valuable product in existence. Something there is only one of. Don't be afraid to accept yourself as you are, for by so doing you will be at peace with your existence, and that is as much as any of us can possibly get out of life.

No amount of money, fame, or material success can make you appreciate your life any more than can just a simple sense of well being. Ask any person society has labeled as "highly successful" just how important that success really is to them. They'll all tell you that no matter what you may have in the way of material comforts and financial security, the only thing that really matters is how you feel about yourself.

[kah]

Originally Posted by Asonokirk V 2.0

This means to me that it isn't our system that is failing, it is a mass failure by many individuals who aren't willing to put forth the effort required to succeed. What should be addressed is why those who fail choose to do so.

Sure, people do not have "equal" abilities, but all of us have something unique to ourselves others lack. We all have something we can contribute, and we each have to accept whatever limitations we may have without shame or fear. No matter what, there is only one you in this entire universe, and that makes you the most valuable product in existence. Something there is only one of. Don't be afraid to accept yourself as you are, for by so doing you will be at peace with your existence, and that is as much as any of us can possibly get out of life.

That's a nice little speech there, and it would be nice if that was an accurate assessment of reality. Unfortunately, most children don't believe that. Most children have issues with their height, weight, intelligence, color, social class, the makeup of their family, and endless other facets of their lives. You and I might believe that every human being is special and has unique qualities that make them equal, but that is not what our society teaches them. Instead, our society teaches children that they are worthless unless they are beautiful, thin, intelligent and rich.

The real problem is that it is not always the choice of the individual to fail. A child in a single parent home might be driven to succeed, but if their parent has to work 2 or 3 jobs in order to support them financially, then who is there to support that child emotionally? Who is there to help them with their homework, and to push them to achieve? When a 9 year old comes home from school and has to make their own dinner, wash their clothes, and take care of their younger brothers and sisters, who is making sure they succeed? Not our schools. In many of the schools, the teachers are just there to babysit and hopefully teach the basics, which ends when the final bell rings. Worse, a lot of parents are shortsighted when it comes to their children's futures. They think that as long as they provide a roof, clothes, and food, that their parental commitment ends there. Hell, some parents don't even provide that. Or on the other end of the spectrum, you have upper middle class families, whose children feel entitled to anything they desire. They weren't born that way. They were raised to believe that life will hand them everything without having to earn it. Where do you think they will end up once college is over and the real world slaps them in the face? There is a real problem here, and it encompasses families and schools. I, for one, believe that if schools can be made to help children learn, then that is one step in the right direction.