School Assignments

San Francisco School Assignments Childrens dreams and futures require equitable access to a solid educational foundation. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, declared racially segregated schools unequal and unconstitutional. Sunstein argues Brown overturned the doctrine of separate but equal, because separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and violated the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, Sunstein argues, Brown has disappointed those who hoped that it would give black Americans equal educational opportunities.[1] Charles Ogletree, Jr. contends, Brown did nothing to addresssocial inequality.[2] However, Michael J. Klarman contends Brown catalyzed the passage of civilrights legislation. Furthermore, Klarman argues the Johnson administrations Justice Department became committed to enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by threatening to cut off financing to school districts that refused to integrate.[3] I disagree with Bells contention that the Supreme Court should have reaffirmed Plessy and permitted segregation to continue.[4] I further disagree with Bell that Brown should be understood to require not colorblindness, but an end to white supremacy and the subordination of AfricanAmericans.[5] Tensions exist between an integrated and a colorblind society. One reading of Brown demands an integrated society, while a different reading of Brown argues we move towards a colorblind society. Ironically, it may be necessary to take race into account in order to achieve integration. However, I disagree that race should be a factor in efforts to move towards an integrated society, because race-based reasoning leads to an escalation of racial hostility and conflict.[6] I contend students should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. States must never separate citizens from one another by race, because separation imposes second-class citizenship that offends equality resulting in social harm. Nearly all racial classifications are unconstitutional[7], and I agree with the Rehnquist Court mostly opting for colorblindness. Government action dividing people by race is inherently suspect because such classificationslead to a politics of racial hostility.[8] According to a 1999 class action lawsuit settled in San Francisco, Race cannot be used in deciding school assignments. Legally separating children based on race violates the equal protection clause of the

Constitution. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District invalidated the use of a racial tiebreaker in the Seattle public school assignment plan by ruling, Allocating children to different public schools based solely on their race violates the 14th Amendments equal protection guarantee. I agree with Gratz and Grutter, which contend students maintain a 14th amendment right to be evaluated in a color-neutral manner based solely on academic merit. While the Seattle public schools never practiced de jure segregation, the Seattle housing patterns caused school assignments based on geography to produce de facto segregation. The three core principles that should be used to determine the legitimacy of the school assignment plan include participation, deliberation, and political equality. Tensions and trade-offs exist amongst the aforementioned principles. For example, deliberation and equitable access would be worthless without participation. San Francisco parents should participate in a school assignment process that considers all points of view, regardless of socioeconomic status, geography, or race. In a deliberative democracy, people must make their reasoning publicly accessible to others, especially those who may disagree. Bohman states that democratic theorists regularly discuss public deliberation without properly defining deliberation. I define deliberation as careful, lengthy, and thoughtful consideration by a group. Fishkin describes deliberation as the process by which individuals sincerely weigh the merits of competing arguments in discussion together. Deliberative democracy promotes reasonable conversation and arguments, which legitimize the decision-making process and outcome resulting in a lessening of political polarization. Bohman argues the decision making process must be both democratic and deliberative. Deliberation is democratic to the extent that it is based on a process of reaching reasoned agreement among free and equal citizens[9] by respectfully keeping an open-mind. The commonplace view of deliberation does not presume that citizens are literally equal in the sense that each has the requisite interest, experience, or expertise to participate in every decision.[10] Contradicting Michael Walzers claim that minimal deliberation exists in todays pervasively non-deliberative political atmosphere, San

Francisco held open and transparent community meetings debating the school assignment process In addition, the Community Advisory Committee on Student Assignment[11] met for two to three hours nearly every week, totaling over eighty hours of deliberation in meetings. The San Francisco Community Advisory Committee meetings included thoughtful discussion, extensive research, and vigorous debates. The school assignment process brings up key issues about deliberative democracy and equality. Deliberative democracy should be used in this case, because deliberative democracy relies on the procedures of debate and discussion to ensure the rationality and legitimacy of decisions.[12] I disagree with Aristotle and Madison that deliberation should be restricted to those who are already wise, virtuous, and well-off.[13] In a democracy, a legitimate decisionis one that results from the deliberation of all[14], which includes parents of students from poor neighborhoods. Political decisions ought to be made by processes that bring all the potentially affected partiesinto a public deliberative process.[15] The validity and moral authority of a conclusion (or outcome) largely depend on the mode by which it was reached.[16] It is important to note that students are not starting from an equal place, and Bohman claims political power can be unequal to a certain extentso long as inequalities of power fall within the limits of the rule of law.[17] The claims, reasoning, and concerns of politically impoverished groups, like parents of minority students, ought to be considered during the deliberative process, because political legitimacy dictates attentiveness to differences in political power. Knight and Johnson discuss substantive equality, which I define as the equal opportunity of political influence. Knight and Johnson argue democratic deliberation requires equal opportunity of access to political influence.[18] For deliberative democracy, political equality entails a guarantee of effective participation and thus a concern with the capacity of individual participants to engage in the process of mutual persuasion.[19] In order to secure the equal opportunity of political influence, society must take the steps necessary to guarantee that each citizen has the capacity to effectively participate in the deliberative arena.[20] Bohman introduces a capacities-based conception of political equality concerned with capacities relevant to participation.[21] In order to uplift politically underrepresented groups, quality education

is needed to develop the capabilities necessary for effective social agency and participation in the deliberative process. Public discussion and reasonable debate requires highly developed capacities and skills related to cognition and communication.[22] Deliberation (also) requires equal capacity to advance persuasive claims[23], which further proves the connection between education and capabilities. Politically unequal citizens do not have the reasonable expectation of being able to affect decisions. However, citizens who develop the capabilities necessary for effective deliberation avoid[24] being excluded from the decision-making process and included in the outcome. Students from underprivileged neighborhoods deserve equal access to a quality education that develops the capacities necessary to participate and effectively influence other citizens.[25] Sadly, we live in a society with deeply segregated neighborhoods[26], and San Francisco is no exception. Three San Francisco schools have more than 80% of a single racial/ethnic group.[27] In response, San Francisco must endorse an equitable policy that does not perpetuate race. Desegregation faces challenges including changing demographics and the avoidance of underperforming schools. SFUSD has received over $30 million in state funding for its desegregation efforts.[28] Regarding the allocation of state funding for K-12 programs beyond general education, school desegregation received more funding than special education and reducing class size.[29] However, no accountability exists because the California Department of Education does not supervise desegregation dollars.[30] A report on the SFUSD assignment system by UCLA in 2005 demonstrated a pattern of continuing re-segregation at close to half of the district schools since 1999.[31] Jonathan Kozol argues that racial segregation is still alive and well in the American educational system due to the gross inequalities that result from an unequal distribution of funds collected through property taxes. Metropolitan areas with the highest school poverty rates are concentrated in California and the Deep South.[32] Kozol illustrates the overcrowded, unsanitary physical conditions[33], and often under-staffed school environment that is lacking in basic tools and textbooks. I support the overall intent of the new SFUSD assignment process, which includes increasing transparency, reversing the trend of racial isolation, increasing diversity, and providing equitable access. The SFUSD plan seeks increased transparency by conducting an annual

assessment of the student assignment system, by the Superintendent. The annual report will be presented to the Board of Education, and the report will include a review of information and analysis that describes connections between the portfolio of schools and programs, student achievement, and student assignment. SFUSD and the Board of Education should actively work to foster public engagement and input in the decision-making process in a transparent and inclusive manner.[34] The SFUSD new school assignment plan aims to reverse the trend of racial isolation by reducing the concentration of underserved students in the same school. Racially isolated schools deny certain students equitable access to resources required to develop the capacities necessary for effective participation in the public forum. In Los Angeles, there is a school that bears the name of Dr. King that is 99 percent black and Hispanic.[35] In Philadelphia, there is a high school named after Dr. King that enrolls 98% black students. Furthermore, in New York City there is a primary school named for Langston Hughes that is 99 percent black and Hispanic.[36] Since being sued by the NAACP, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) has attempted to abolish racially identifiable schools and raise test scores amongst African-American and Latino students. Proponents of the new SFUSD school assignment plan seek to increase diversity by expanding access to academic opportunities and quality education. I believe diversity is essential in the classroom, because diverse perspectives greatly enhance the educational experience. Gratz v. Bollinger invalidates the argument that diversity constitutes a compelling state interest to use race in the school assignment process. I agree with Rosen that America should be committed to colorblindness and diversity while striking the appropriate balance between the two. Opponents of the assignment plan have different reasons why they are in opposition. Some opponents argue the new process does not avoid racial isolation and instead increases segregation. Under the choice system, the demand to attend Bayview schools has been extremely low. Over 90% of middle school students living in Bayview attend a school in other areas of San Francisco. Concerned parents may choose to leave San Francisco for the suburbs because parents dont want to transport their children across town. Other opponents argue the element of choice creates uncertainty or that the plan is complex. Whatever the reason, parents may sue or pull kids out of

school if they consider the school assignment process illegitimate. I support an amended form of the new SFUSD school assignment process similar to the plan adopted by the Charlotte Mecklenburg School board. I support an assignment plan that maximizes stability, increases predictability, and guarantees access to a neighborhood school assignment. These three principles can be accomplished by dividing San Francisco into geographical attendance zones depending on neighborhood demographics and available facilities. To the extent possible, the boundary lines for such home school zones will incorporate whole neighborhoods, anticipate growth, and make efficient use of facilities.[37] I contend the proximity of a students home to the assigned school should be the highest priority in SFUSDs assignment system.[38] This view conflicts with the SFUSD school assignment plan, which grants preference to children living in census tracts with the lowest test scores over kids living in the schools attendance area. Half of a schools seats should be reserved for neighborhood students, which effectively guarantees every student a seat in a school close to their home. However, SFUSD should support community schools not necessarily based on neighborhood residency, but on a shared sense of community, values, vision, and purpose.[39] A specific solution for San Francisco is to adopt a more nuanced and individual evaluation of school needs and student characteristics.[40] SFUSD must promote highly personalized relationships among teachers, students, and parents that create shared values, commitments, visions, and plans of action for student success.[41] The element of parental choice should be leveraged to play an integral role in creating strong community schools where parents and students can take ownership. In order to ensure that our children and our nation can thrive in an increasingly diverse and challenging world,[42] government must confront the gross levels of disparity that persist in American public schools. However, the problems faced by low-performing schools will not be solved through student assignment alone.[43]

Works Cited [1] Cass R. Sunstein, Did Brown Matter?, The New Yorker, 3 May 2004.

[2] Cass R. Sunstein, Did Brown Matter?, The New Yorker, 3 May 2004. [3] Jeffrey Rosen, The Nation; Can a Law Change a Society?, The New York Times, 1 July 2007. [4] Cass R. Sunstein, Did Brown Matter?, The New Yorker, 3 May 2004. [5] Cass R. Sunstein, Did Brown Matter?, The New Yorker, 3 May 2004. [6] Metro Broadcasting, Inc. V. FCC, 497 U.S. 547. [7] Jeffrey Rosen, The Nation; Can a Law Change a Society?, The New York Times, 1 July 2007. [8] Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. [9] James Bohman, Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom, (321). [10] Jack Knight and James Johnson, What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (289). [11] Recommendations for Student Assignment in the San Francisco Unified School District, 2 February 2005. http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/epc/CACSA%20The%20Community%20A dvisory%20Committee%20on.pdf [12] James Bohman, Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom, (322). [13] James Bohman, Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom, (324). [14] Jack Knight and James Johnson, What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (280). [15] Iris Marion Young, Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy, Political Theory, (672). [16] Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123. [17] James Bohman, Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom, (322).

[18] Jack Knight and James Johnson, What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (280). [19] Jack Knight and James Johnson, What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (309). [20] Jack Knight and James Johnson, What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (310). [21] Jack Knight and James Johnson, What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (297). [22] James Bohman, Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom, (325). [23] Jack Knight and James Johnson, What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (281). [24] James Bohman, Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom, (323). [25] Jack Knight and James Johnson, What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require? (299). [26] Jeffrey Rosen, The Nation; Can a Law Change a Society?, The New York Times, 1 July 2007. [27] San Francisco Unified School District, Key Features of Proposal, 4 March 2010. [28] Henry Der, Resegregation and Achievement Gap: Challenges to San Francisco School Desegregation, Berkeley Womens Law Journal, 1 October 2004. [29] Ed-Data Education Data Partnership: Fiscal, Demographic, & Performance Data on Californias K-12 Schools, Financing Schools 2003-2004, March 2004, www.eddata.kl2.ca.us/Articles/Article.asp?title=Financing%20Schools [30] Henry Der, Resegregation and Achievement Gap: Challenges to San Francisco School Desegregation,

Berkeley Womens Law Journal, 1 October 2004. [31] Mike Aldax, New Rules for Citys Controversial School Assignment Process, SF Examiner, 17 March 2010. http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2010/03/new-rules-city-scontroversial-school-assignment-process [32] Study Finds Widespread School Segregation, Northeastern University, 20 September 2010. http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2010/09/schoolsegregation.html [33] Jonathan Kozol, Still Separate, Still Unequal, Harpers Magazine, September 2005 (52). [34] The News and Observer Publisher, 13 October 2010. http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/mack-paul-on-democraticprinciples-on-student-assignment [35] Jonathan Kozol, Still Separate, Still Unequal, Harpers Magazine, September 2005 (42). [36] Jonathan Kozol, Still Separate, Still Unequal, Harpers Magazine, September 2005 (42). [37] Tom Roussey, CMS School Board Passes Controversial Guidelines on Student Assignment, 10August 2010. http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=12955169 [38] Tim Redmond, The Problem With the Students First Initiative, The San Francisco Bay Guardian, 1 July 2010. http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/07/01/problem-students-firstinitiative [39] Henry Der, Resegregation and Achievement Gap: Challenges to San Francisco School Desegregation, Berkeley Womens Law Journal, 1 October 2004. [40] Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District

No. 1 et al. [41] Henry Der, Resegregation and Achievement Gap: Challenges to San Francisco School Desegregation, Berkeley Womens Law Journal, 1 October 2004. [42] Study Finds Widespread School Segregation, Northeastern University, 20 September 2010. http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2010/09/schoolsegregation.html [43] Tom Roussey, CMS School Board Passes Controversial Guidelines on Student Assignment, 10August 2010. http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=12955169