School Re-Districting

tjohn said:

NikoleHannah-Jones4President said:

1971-1988 the achievement gap decreased by half in 17 years when schools were integrated at the height of integration in our history of educating youth post Brown vs. BOE.

 Suppose separate but equal education actually had been equally resourced.  Would there have been a Brown vs. BOE case?  Would the achievement gap have been reduced in in the same period?

 ....................aaaaaaaand why would you want to keep people separate?  As a traveler, I am always learning something new about people, life, perspective, ideas, systems, culture, beliefs, environment, etc.  I can only surmise you're raised to be either curious, arrogant or afraid, because we are born to be curious.  I have chosen to raise my children to be curious and seek to understand, versus being arrogant, afraid and inflexible.

NikoleHannah-Jones4President said:

tjohn said:

NikoleHannah-Jones4President said:

1971-1988 the achievement gap decreased by half in 17 years when schools were integrated at the height of integration in our history of educating youth post Brown vs. BOE.

 Suppose separate but equal education actually had been equally resourced.  Would there have been a Brown vs. BOE case?  Would the achievement gap have been reduced in in the same period?

 ....................aaaaaaaand why would you want to keep people separate?  As a traveler, I am always learning something new about people, life, perspective, ideas, systems, culture, beliefs, environment, etc.  I can only surmise you're raised to be either curious, arrogant or afraid, because we are born to be curious.  I have chosen to raise my children to be curious and seek to understand, versus being arrogant, afraid and inflexible.

None of the above.  I am simply  opining that Brown vs BOE was inspired primarily by the fact that separate but equal was anything but equal.

tjohn said:

NikoleHannah-Jones4President said:

1971-1988 the achievement gap decreased by half in 17 years when schools were integrated at the height of integration in our history of educating youth post Brown vs. BOE.

 Suppose separate but equal education actually had been equally resourced.  Would there have been a Brown vs. BOE case?  Would the achievement gap have been reduced in in the same period?

 Suppose pigs could fly.

There was never any interest in adequately funding 'separate but equal.'  It was a lie from the beginning.  Separate is inherently unequal.

Having two kids who both experienced 5-8 at SOMS I must say it was pretty much a disaster. The younger students, tho technically separated from the higher grades, were constantly bullied and annoyed by the older. Not for any other reason that that is what older kids did to younger one way back when. With all the emphasis on bullying these day maybe it would be different but I doubt it. Many of us had advocated for a 5-6 extension of elementary school and a 7-8 Junior high to relieve both any integration problems and to benefit the students who then would be together from 5th grade on and not separated from their elementary friends from other towns during middle school. At least one or two school PTAs in Maplewood were greatly disturbed by the possibility that their children would have to attend school in South Orange. Therefore 5-8 occurred.

librarylady said:

At least one or two school PTAs in Maplewood were greatly disturbed by the possibility that their children would have to attend school in South Orange. 

 Oh good grief!  What is wrong with people?

But ... we aren't talking about 5-8 now, so maybe we need to let that die (?)

librarylady said:
Having two kids who both experienced 5-8 at SOMS I must say it was pretty much a disaster. The younger students, tho technically separated from the higher grades, were constantly bullied and annoyed by the older. Not for any other reason that that is what older kids did to younger one way back when. 

Interesting. Our school in Philadelphia was K-8, and bullying wasn’t an issue. I wonder if having elementary schoolers around somehow tempered the teens. 

Millburn Middle School was 5-8 for a few years in the 1990s while construction was underway at elementary schools. It actually worked out very well. Most people were happy with the temporary measure. I suppose it's a matter of how it's done. In this case, 5th graders weren't considered middle-schoolers with a middle school type of schedule. They had self-contained classrooms as they would in elementary. IOW, they were in the middle school building, but weren't in middle school.

.

Thank you librarylady for stating more clearing what I had wanted to say in an earlier post:

"Many of us had advocated for a 5-6 extension of elementary school and a 7-8 Junior high to relieve both any integration problems and to benefit the students who then would be together from 5th grade on and not separated from their elementary friends from other towns during middle school. At least one or two school PTAs in Maplewood were greatly disturbed by the possibility that their children would have to attend school in South Orange."

I think our children are pretty much the same age-not children any more by any means, and I still remember the sense of alienation and frustration I felt when I realized that a substantial part of the district didn't understand or value the experience of the Marshall-Jefferson community or care what impact it had as long as their own kids and school routines were not impacted. I don't live in town anymore but am sorry to see that the issues seem to be arising again.

NikoleHannah-Jones4President said:

DannyArcher said:
So if its not a problem with the schools, the argument is that if we simply mix the racial make up of the kids attending the schools everyone will just do better?  

There is data that supports this?

 Absolutely!   Please refer to the research by Nikole Hannah-Jones!

 Thanks for replying, I am always happy to try to better understand the issues.

tjohn said: Suppose separate but equal education actually had been equally resourced.  Would there have been a Brown vs. BOE case?  Would the achievement gap have been reduced in in the same period?

 Isn't this what was intended with the Abbot districts which receive increased funding from the state in an effort to correct for issues attributable to facilities, access, supports, etc.?  The latest data seems to indicate that funding as an input does not produce increased performance as an output.

Equal funding or the correct racial mix will not fix the achievement gap - just a little research into the achievement gap will tell you that - far, far, far more complex than this. 

tjohn said:...

 Suppose separate but equal education actually had been equally resourced.  Would there have been a Brown vs. BOE case?  Would the achievement gap have been reduced in in the same period?

 Wasn't one of the findings of the federal District Court that both black and white schools in Ms. Brown's School District, were equally resourced?

If I recall correctly, that was one of the reasons that Mr. Marshall put the young woman's family name as lead petitioner in the matter before the Supreme Court.

Of course, in the event I've misapprehended your point, please elaborate.

TomR

Tom_R said:

tjohn said:...

 Suppose separate but equal education actually had been equally resourced.  Would there have been a Brown vs. BOE case?  Would the achievement gap have been reduced in in the same period?

 Wasn't one of the findings of the federal District Court that both black and white schools in Ms. Brown's School District, were equally resourced?
If I recall correctly, that was one of the reasons that Mr. Marshall put the young woman's family name as lead petitioner in the matter before the Supreme Court.
Of course, in the event I've misapprehended your point, please elaborate.
TomR

We have found as a fact that the physical facilities, the curricula, courses of study, qualification of and quality of teachers, as well as other educational facilities in the two sets of schools are comparable. It is obvious that absolute equality of physical facilities is impossible of attainment in buildings that are erected at different times. So also absolute equality of subjects taught is impossible of maintenance when teachers are permitted to select books of their own choosing to use in teaching in addition to the prescribed courses of study. It is without dispute that the prescribed courses of study are identical in all of the Topeka schools and that there is no discrimination in this respect. It is also clear in the record that the educational qualifications of the teachers in the colored schools are equal to those in the white schools and that in all other respects the educational facilities and services are comparable. It is obvious from the fact that there are only four colored schools as against eighteen white schools in the Topeka School District, that colored children in many instances are required to travel much greater distances than they would be required to travel could they attend a white school, and are required to travel much greater distances than white children are required to travel. The evidence, however, establishes that the school district transports colored children to and from school free of charge. No such service is furnished to white children. We conclude that in the maintenance and operation of the schools there is no willful, intentional or substantial discrimination in the matters referred to above between the colored and white schools. In fact, while plaintiffs' attorneys have not abandoned this contention, they did not give it great emphasis in their presentation before the court. They relied primarily upon the contention that segregation in and of itself without more violates their rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

For those who may be interested (or can't sleep and may need something boring to read), below is a general summary of the Brown Case:

• The Brown v. the Topeka Board of Ed was neither spontaneous nor centered around one individual as has repeatedly but inaccurately been reported.   There actually were many other plaintiffs in the lawsuit but their names were obscured by the legal abbreviation.   
• At that time, the legal basis for segregation was the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision which had established the “separate but equal” doctrine as the law of the land.  Under the Plessy doctrine, a state wasn’t required to segregate its schools but was legally allowed to have laws and practices that did so provided that the schools were "equal".  The Topeka Board of Education operated racially segregated elementary schools under an 1879 Kansas law which permitted districts to maintain separate elementary school facilities for black and white students in communities with populations over 15,000.
• In fact, the junior and senior high schools in Topeka had already been integrated.
• The Brown case had its origins when McKinley Burnett, who was the President of the local NAACP chapter, decided to challenge the segregated elementary schools in Topeka. 
• Burnett recruited 13 Topeka families that agreed to serve as plaintiffs.  Oliver Brown, a local minister and railroad worker was frustrated that his daughter Linda Brown and her sister had to walk through a dangerous railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop for the ride to their all-black elementary school a mile away. There was a school only a few blocks from the Brown's house, but it was only for white students.  Brown agreed to be among the 13 parents recruited by Burnett.    
• Under Burnett’s guidance, Oliver Brown attempted to enroll Linda in the local elementary school for whites but was denied.  In 1951, a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiffs were Oliver Brown and the twelve other Topeka parents on behalf of their children. The attorneys thought that because Oliver Brown was the only male among the Plaintiffs, the courts would be more receptive to the case if his was the lead name.  He also was willing to endure the potential harassment that was assumed to arise from the case. The suit called for the school district to reverse its policy of racial segregation in the elementary schools.   
• Although there would have been a basis for doing so for doing so, the attorneys for Brown did not contend that the segregated schools' physical plant, curriculum, or the staff were substantively inferior to the white school.  Their reasoning was that taking this approach would have served to preserve the Plessy doctrine and made the focus whether the teachers, budget, facilities, etc were equivalent…as had been done in prior cases (e.g. Sweatt, Gaines).  Rather, they sought to challenge whether the very act of requiring African-American students to attend separate schools violated the 14th Amendment. 
• The district court decided that because the physical facilities, the curricula, courses of study, qualification and quality of teachers  and facilities in the two sets of schools were relatively comparable (although that was debatable), there was no basis to rule for the Plaintiffs under the existing “separate but equal” doctrine.  
• The plaintiffs appealed their case to Supreme Court stating that even if the facilities were similar, segregated schools could never be equal to one another.
• In the meantime, the NAACP had started relatively similar actions in other states…although the Brown case most directly challenged the 14th Amendment.  When the Brown case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, the Court combined the Brown case with other similar cases that had been developed and filed by NAACP chapters in other states.  These cases were:  Belton v. Gebhardt  (Delaware); Briggs v. Elliott (South Carolina); Davis v. Prince Edwards County School Board (Virginia); Bolling v. Sharpe (District of Columbia).
• Thurgood Marshall was appointed by the NAACP to plead the combined case.
• The federal Dep’t of Justice filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the Plaintiffs.  
• On May 14, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”    Thus, in this landmark ruling, the Court ruled that state laws requiring separate but equal schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• However, the decision did not spell out any sort of method or timeline for ending racial segregation in the schools. 
• Brown II -  In 1955, the Supreme Court considered arguments by the schools involved in the Brown I case requesting the court’s assistance in accomplishing desegregation. In its decision, which became known as "Brown II" the court delegated the responsibility for carrying out school desegregation to district courts with orders that such desegregation occur "with all deliberate speed".  Unfortunately, advocates found the term "all deliberate speed" as ambiguous. In fact, because there was no definitive timeline, some Southern states and school districts used the decision in "Brown II" as a legal justification for resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years.  
• Brown III - In 1978, Topeka attorneys reopened the Brown case, persuading Linda Brown to serve as the lead Plaintiff. They were concerned that the Topeka Public Schools' policy of "open enrollment" had perpetuated rather than ended segregation because the choice of open enrollment allowed white parents to shift their children to "preferred" schools and had resulted in both predominantly African American and predominantly white schools within the district.  The district court denied the plaintiffs' request finding that the segregation was not something being done by the state, rather it was the inadvertent effect of personal choice by parents over which the courts had no authority.
• Brown IV – In 1989, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit concluded that because there still were vestiges of segregation in terms of student and staff deployment and by virtue of parental choice, the state had an interest.  In 1993, the Supreme Court returned the matter to the District Court and ordered it to implement desegregation efforts.   In 1994, a plan was approved to create elementary magnet schools and district attendance zones were redrawn. This finally resulted in the Topeka schools meeting court standards of racial balance - but not until 1998.  

Tom_R said:

tjohn said:...

 Suppose separate but equal education actually had been equally resourced.  Would there have been a Brown vs. BOE case?  Would the achievement gap have been reduced in in the same period?

 Wasn't one of the findings of the federal District Court that both black and white schools in Ms. Brown's School District, were equally resourced?
If I recall correctly, that was one of the reasons that Mr. Marshall put the young woman's family name as lead petitioner in the matter before the Supreme Court.
Of course, in the event I've misapprehended your point, please elaborate.
TomR

One of the two Delaware cases that were consolidated as Belton v. Gebhart, and that eventually became a part of Brown v. Board of Education, involved a pair of schools in my hometown, Hockessin. It may be worth noting that both the Court of Chancery (the trial court) and the State Supreme Court ruled that in neither case were the school resources equal.

I went to the first of a series of informational meetings regarding the proposed bond issue and rezoning of the schools. There are five more such meetings scheduled, in which the superintendent presents the proposed plan, and does build-in build in some time to take questions about it. The next meeting is at 730 tonight at Marshall school. 

The meeting I attended was at Seth Boyden, and many of the parents who were in attendance were more concerned about the change in the principal of that building, as well as expressing a desire to keep Seth Boyden unique within the school district as an opt-in school. However the current play calls for significant rezoning to the point where each school's demographics will closely align with the two towns overall demographic. 

It also sounds like it's time to pay the piper for many years of deferred maintenance on the schools, to the tune of a very large bond issue. There will also be construction of new classroom space at both middle schools as well as one of the elementary schools. They have currently selected Clinton, but that decision is not final. 

Although a lot of work has been done getting the plan to where it is now, there remains a lot of work to create a final detailed process. If you are interested in this, I would strongly advise you to attend one of the upcoming meetings, where you can ask a question or raise concerns if you are able to get called on in the time allotted. It is not like the school board meetings that can go on very late in the night if there is a lot of public comment.

This is probably going to be a definitive issue for local government elections. Members of the South Orange Board of Trustees, the Maplewood Township Committee and the Board of education serve on the Board of School Estimate which has the biggest say in this project. If anyone knows who those folks are it would be good for all of us to know. 

mrincredible said:

The meeting I attended was at Seth Boyden, and many of the parents who were in attendance were more concerned about the change in the principal of that building, as well as expressing a desire to keep Seth Boyden unique within the school district as an opt-in school. However the current play calls for significant rezoning to the point where each school's demographics will closely align with the two towns overall demographic. 

I attended last night's meeting also as the SB PTA sent out a flyer highlighting the end to opt-in, and the re-districting in the plan. However, Ficarra seemed unprepared to discuss or take input on these. He seemed to think he was just going to just present on/discuss the capital plan, but from the PTA flyer, many came in with a different expectation.

A summary of some SB families' concerns about the redistricting plan (the district currently plans to get equal proportions of demographics at each elementary school):

1. The zoned SB families will bear the brunt of the busing, as most of the other schools will need students from the SB neighborhood bussed to them in order to get the stated desire for equal demographics at each school.
2. Loss of: 
   1. The culture of the SB (for example, will any other schools no longer have Halloween celebrations to accommodate the SB area families who do not participate; and will the wealthier families that are newly zoned to SB insist on a Halloween celebration if they are going to ever possibly get over their grumpiness with having been rezoned to SB?)
   2. Loss of the outdoor space/outdoor learning center/garden for those rezoned to schools without these?
   3. Loss of other curricular aspects of SB (extra electives for upper grades; other programming that has been invested in).

3. Loss by ALL district families of any opt-in (opt-out) options (I note that this has been helpful to students across the district, as sometimes there is not a good fit of a student to their zoned school).

Perhaps some combination of opt-in/opt-out, together with new school zones, can be considered to accomplish the integration goals.

Sprout I agree with you about the points you lay out as the concerns of the SB parents.

I don't think a perfect demographic balance can be achieved using an opt-in / opt-out system. How do you make a school desirable enough for people to want to opt-in? Then you're setting up unequal facilities again, right?

Someone mentioned assigning schools with a lottery system but that could make for logistical nightmares getting kids to school.

This is going to be difficult all the way through to the end.

mrincredible said:

How do you make a school desirable enough for people to want to opt-in?

Last week, The Atlantic wrote about the idea of getting colleges to give students from integrated, socioeconomically diverse schools a built-in advantage in admissions — and thereby encourage opt-ins.  

“In other words, admissions officers would look favorably on students who attended an economically integrated school, much as they do those who have had unusual travel experiences or outstanding extracurricular achievements.“

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/05/an-unusual-idea-for-fixing-school-segregation/560930/

The article includes a link to a website (by a Rutgers researcher) that aims to explore the use of a points system to promote this goal:

http://www.schoolbonuspoints.org/

I have not seen anything posted or discussed by the board of ed for k-4 redistricting only 5-6 and 6-7 ..any word on this? 

Also does anyone trust the board with a 130 million budget? 

Do they have a roll out plan ? 

 Do the families at SB want to be rezoned?  

Do the residents of the two towns want to change the ages of the schools and be bused? 

Can the towns afford this and manage traffic? 

Jerrymaplewood said:
I have not seen anything posted or discussed by the board of ed for k-4 redistricting only 5-6 and 6-7 ..any word on this? 
Also does anyone trust the board with a 130 million budget? 
Do they have a roll out plan ? 
 Do the families at SB want to be rezoned?  
Do the residents of the two towns want to change the ages of the schools and be bused? 
Can the towns afford this and manage traffic? 

 Lotsa questions.  Perhaps you should to one of the information sessions to ask them....

weirdbeard said:

Jerrymaplewood said:
I have not seen anything posted or discussed by the board of ed for k-4 redistricting only 5-6 and 6-7 ..any word on this? 
Also does anyone trust the board with a 130 million budget? 
Do they have a roll out plan ? 
 Do the families at SB want to be rezoned?  
Do the residents of the two towns want to change the ages of the schools and be bused? 
Can the towns afford this and manage traffic? 

 Lotsa questions.  Perhaps you should to one of the information sessions to ask them....

 Or as elected officials they should make a detailed plan and share it publicly 

It was presented at the May 14th BOE meeting, which you can watch on-demand:

https://somatv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=PyZ3fLxCqcKm

Here is a write-up and the slides presented at the BOE and town hall meetings:

https://villagegreennj.com/schools-kids/somsd-proposes-131m-facilities-plan-and-reconfiguration-for-grades-k-4-56-78/#prettyphoto[group-838]/9/

Jerrymaplewood said:

weirdbeard said:

Jerrymaplewood said:
I have not seen anything posted or discussed by the board of ed for k-4 redistricting only 5-6 and 6-7 ..any word on this? 
Also does anyone trust the board with a 130 million budget? 
Do they have a roll out plan ? 
 Do the families at SB want to be rezoned?  
Do the residents of the two towns want to change the ages of the schools and be bused? 
Can the towns afford this and manage traffic? 

 Lotsa questions.  Perhaps you should to one of the information sessions to ask them....

 Or as elected officials they should make a detailed plan and share it publicly 

A detailed plan and effective communication of that plan will be needed once the board of education and school district administrators have determined what is needed and how best to accomplish their goal.  This is the point in the process where those most impacted by the process are given the opportunity to provide the final decision-makers with input on how best to carry out their initiative.  If you do share your ideas with the board members and key administrators at this point in the process, there is the possibility of getting the changes you want implemented and those you do not want removed from the plan.  If you do not participate, you run the risk of having ideas which you know won't work implemented with little or no opportunity for recourse after the fact.

The meetings are pretty informative.  The one I attended was sidetracked a bit by the attendees, but I plan on going to another.  

What is Fielding School?

badscooter said:
What is Fielding School?

 The District offices behind the High School.  Used to be an elementary school.

Why are they waiting to rezone the lower schools?  Cant we save money by addressing the two problems and not creating 3 or 4 more ( Rezoning and busing middle schoolers all over town) .  They seem very vague about their phases and plans. I think this is a ballsy thing to do until we get a real hire in. Hows the search going anyway...crickets crickets 

Jerrymaplewood said:
Why are they waiting to rezone the lower schools?  Cant we save money by addressing the two problems and not creating 3 or 4 more ( Rezoning and busing middle schoolers all over town) .  They seem very vague about their phases and plans. I think this is a ballsy thing to do until we get a real hire in. Hows the search going anyway...crickets crickets 

 This is what I don't understand.  They are pushing through the most important plan in decades without a permanent superintendent.