Achieving socioeconomic desegregation and diversity: One district's retrenchment from 21st century school integration

In his 2009 book, Hope and despair in the American city: Why there are no bad schools in Raleigh, sociologist Gerald Grant  compares two cities—his former hometown of Syracuse, New York, and Raleigh, North Carolina—in order to more closely examine the consequences of the nation’s ongoing school integration efforts.  Grant argues that the main reason for Raleigh’s educational success is the focus of their school integration efforts based on socioeconomic class that occurred when the city voluntarily merged with the surrounding suburbs back in 1976 to create the Wake County Public School System. By contrast, the primary cause of Syracuse’s decline has been the growing socioeconomic and racial segregation of its metropolitan schools, which has left the city mired in poverty.

With its sprawling 800 square miles, the Wake County Public School System includes a varied geographical landscape, ranging from urban public housing units in Raleigh, wealthy suburbs just outside the capital city, and booming towns being increasingly populated by newcomers to the area.  Traditionally, large areas such as Wake County would be broken down into smaller school districts with students assigned to public schools located nearest to them.  

Back in 2000, the Wake County Public School System shifted their school integration policy from one focused exclusively on race to socioeconomic desegregation, adopting a district-wide diversity policy that held that no individual school in the district should have more than 40 percent of its students qualify for free or reduced lunch.  In order to attract middle-class and wealthy students, the district implemented a variety of student assignments, choice policies, and quality magnet programs located in the district's poorer neighborhoods.   Amazingly, a majority of Democratic and Republican school board members supported Wake County's new diversity plan for improving the district's school integration efforts.  

In addition to achieving greater student diversity, Wake County experienced significant increases in state reading and math test scores.  In 2007, for example, EdWeek magazine ranked the Wake County Public Schools 17th among the nation's 50 largest public school districts in graduation completion rates.

In the last year, however, a newly elected majority school board has essentially abolished Wake County's diversity policy claiming it fostered a type of "social engineering".  Without a diversity policy currently in place, Wake County will likely return to an all too familiar pattern experienced by the majority of public school districts across the county-schools in wealthier neighborhoods often do well while schools located in poorer neighborhoods struggle.   

It is no surprise that the NAACP has recently filed a civil rights complaint arguing that recently approved student transfers under the new Wake County school board have already increased racial segregation in the district. 

It is my hope that increased national attention to the recent Wake County school board's retrenchment from a successful school integration policy centering on socioeconomic desegregation which has increased both student diversity and test scores will question why the district's successful diversity policy was abolished in the first place.   

In a recent “Disintegration” segment on the popular, The Colbert Report, comedian Stephen Colbert mocked the Wake County school board's controversial policy change of doing away with busing students for diversity in favor of neighborhood-based schools.  Hopefully, this type of national attention to the school integration issue in Wake County will result in more thoughtful and rigorous commentary and discussion relating to the direction of school integration policies in a 21st century global society.  Check out the video at this link:  http://www.wral.com/news/education/wake_county_schools/story/8963193/

Trial Court Decision in California School Finance Case

Last Spring, I reported here that a new school finance suit had been filed in California.  The suit, styled Robles-Wong v. California, presented claims founded both on inadequacy of spending systemwide and inequality of educational opportunity among California districts.  A little over a week ago, the trial court hearing the suit issued its ruling on the state's demurrer (what California calls a motion to dismiss the complaint--H/T, Silicon Valley Education Foundation for both the alert and the pdf of the court's ruling). 

The decision tracks the recent trend that I and others have identified of state courts shying away from deciding systemic educational adequacy claims.  The court dismissed the adequacy-based claims with prejudice, holding that the California Constitution does not require any particular quantity of spending.  Although the court forcefully rejected the state's non-justiciability argument, this dismissal effectively has the same effect as a dismissal for non-justiciability.  If sustained on appeal, it would mean that one cannot state a claim for educational inadequacy under the California Constitution. 

However, the court did recognize that, under the canonical Serrano v. Priest decisions, one may state an individual claim for inequality of educational opportunity, typically as a class action brought by students in a resource-deprived district.  The court dismissed the equality claims presented in the plaintiffs' complaint, which did not contain allegations of individual harm, but also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend to sharpen up their allegations.  Thus, the case is still alive, but has been trimmed down substantially (for now). 

It remains to be seen what the California appellate courts will do with the trial court's dismissals.  As I stated a few months back, watch this one--it could be a very significant decision when all is said and done. 

Race to Nowhere

For those folks that live relatively close to Lexington, tonight the P20 Innovation Lab is hosting a free screening of the new movie Race to Nowhere. More details on the showing are here. You can view a trailer here. I'll be moderating a panel discussion after the movie. My friend Ellen Usher (a rising superstar in the learning motivation ranks) is organizing the screening and also participating in the panel. Joining the panel are Wayne Lewis, John Thelin, & Huajing Xiu Maske. 

I've viewed the movie already, but you'll have to come to the screening to get my (and my friends) thoughts. I'll update this post later with details. I'm looking forward to this one. 

Interactive Snowday Notification

One of the things that has caught my eye this winter is the use of Facebook to notify parents of school closures. In particular, the comment option on Facebook posts has be used frequently by parents to give their two cents on the decision. Today, for instance, my local district, Fayette County Public Schools, has cancelled. It's borderline today (my kids preschool stayed open), so the comments are pouring in and the discussion is intense.  

I've noticed that districts have been dealing with this differently on their Facebook pages. Consider that FCPS is responding to some, not to others, but doing so from a professional district account. Also, the responses are coming from FCPS' PR department. After a series of tough comments on the decision, FCPS made this response: 

A different way of dealing with this comes from another large district in Kentucky, where the Superintendent himself posts the notification and responds to comments (and gets the spam): 

Of course, other districts can either post nothing at all, or just refuse to respond to comments. I'm not sure what the best procedures are, but it has been extremely interesting this year (because of the frequency of snow days and the tipping point Facebook has seemed to cross). Either way, it is a very interesting new conversation taking place between school officials and their communities. 

Even though there is lots of potential for abuse and legal issues, generally, I think this is a good thing. And, if this is the icebreaker (pun intended) for districts utilizing Facebook pages more broadly both with communities and with students, then I am happy to see it. 

Translating University Technology into Cold Hard Cash - A Good Idea?

The Post-Dispatch had a great story today on how universities are increasingly commercializing the technological developments of their researchers. They do so largely through patenting and licensing. This activity, especially in the medical world, can generate substantial amounts of money. According to the Association of University Technology Managers (with 3500 members), this specific licensing activity adds up to around 2 billion dollars each year.

Two billion may sound like a lot of money, but it is isn't, actually. It is just scratching the surface of what universities spend on research. This concept of university licensing of developed technologies is a relatively new one. Universities were first granted this power only 30 years ago and really only begun to use it in the last decade or so. In fact, from my experience with the patent office here at UK, my university is only really patenting (and thus seeking licensing fees) from the really big projects. A potential return analysis is conducted and if the return looks less than a few hundred thousand dollars or so (minimally), the university doesn't even bother with the patent.

What I am saying is, that 2 billion is only catching the upper end of the curve and missing nearly all of the long tail. For instance, I would venture that very, very few innovations from Colleges of Education are being patented, even though new commercial innovations are being generated. Those innovations are either privatized by the researcher (making private profit), or just released to the public for free. For example, (I'm not going to release details of the innovations we are working on at UK, as they are not yet market ready) this researcher at Indiana University's College of Ed. developed this product, but just turned it into a private corporation and pocketed the money.

So, what do we think of all this? Can the traditional service concept of universities co-exist with the concept of commercialization? The very kind of big picture, big impact innovations that could change a state like Kentucky are the ones being put behind the patent wall and only those with existing cash get to play. Seems a bit counter-intuitive. But, on the other hand, as Legislatures continue to reduce university funding, these types of revenue streams keep the innovations coming.

I'm very mixed on all of this, but these commercialization concepts are very rapidly invading my and other university researchers lives. And, my P-12 readers, your next.    

"Highly Qualified School Board Members:" Raising the Entry Qualifications

News out of Colorado today has a school board member bringing his gun to school board meetings because of his fear of retaliation over comments he made on his radio show. His comments were to the effect of denigrating and downright insulting Martin Luther King, Jr. The school board member is, apparently, an openly white supremacist and broadcasts his ideas over the radio and internet. In response to his "ideas," he has allegedly received death threats. 

In light of the recent school board shooting in Florida and still within the context of events during the previous week in Tucson, this board member feels the best idea is just to bring his gun with him to the school board meeting in case he needs to engage in a shoot-out, wild-west style, I guess. 

Aside from this obvious craziness, how do we get rid of folks like this, legally? The Colorado Constitution (Art. 9, Sec. 15), as well as many other states, require there to be a local board of education, so doing away with the whole thing is out of the question barring a constitutional amendment or convention. Further, attempting to impeach (for lack of a better word) a school board member would be procedurally complex and extended, meaning the member's term is likely to expire before the litigation completes. So, now what? 

How about this ... could we substantially raise the entry qualifications? We just got through a whole national push for "Highly Qualified Teachers," so perhaps it is time for a national push for "Highly Qualified School Board Members."

Most board qualifications look something like this, where the minimum qualifications are just to be a human adult and live in the district. In fact, that Louisiana one I just cited is unique in that it requires the board member to be able to read and write. Most, it seems, do not. In fact, likely the most complicated thing about running for school board is filling out the nominating papers. 

So, what about requiring a college degree to serve on a school board? Such a requirement would be legally possible, it seems. In particular Kentucky seems to be a leader on this front in requiring their board members to have completed the 12th grade or have received a GED certificate. In 1990, with KERA, we increased this from 8th grade to 12th grade, so increases are not out of the question. Further, case law in Kentucky has upheld these educational provisions (Commonwealth v. Norfleet (272 Ky. 800, 1938)). Thus, perhaps other states should consider this model and perhaps it is also time to increase the educational attainment to at least an Associates or Bachelors degree? 

In the same way that the federal government put forth the Highly Qualified definition, they could do the same thing for board members. It is a bit more complex because board members are elected officials, but I think the smart people in Washington could figure it out. Alternatively, states could just take it on themselves to increase board member qualifications. Politically, it seems, such a bill in the state legislature would not be dead on arrival, like some other possible changes to school board structure.  

Okay, the downside. While I don't see much downside, I do think it could harm representation particularly in two areas, minorities and the aging/elderly. Because drop-out and college attainment rates are lower in some minority populations, there would be less of a pool of candidates in some areas of the county. But, to me, even more of a reason to have college graduates on the board as examples to the students. Secondly, the bigger problem it seems, is that some elderly would not qualify not as a result of their lack of knowledge or hard work, but simply as a result of generational shifts in educational expectations. Because many current board members are older individuals (have a look at the rest of the board in Colorado), a phase-in provision might have to be added to compensate for these generational differences. Certainly there would have to be a grandfathering provision for all existing board members (no pun intended, of course). 

This kind of provision certainly would not get rid of all the crazy people. Remember, this guy had no problem attaining degrees from top schools. And, this guy in Colorado may well have a college degree, especially since it is a university town. But, generally, entry requirements for school board members would likely increase the quality and expectations of local school boards. Given that they are the true entity legally tasked with running local schools (not administrators or teachers), I think a national push to set a minimum educational attainment for local school boards makes perfect sense. 

Should State Boards of Education Issue Guidelines?

Today, the Virginia School Board is considering adopting a set of guidelines on teacher electronic communication. The "guidelines" cover everything from texting to online gaming ... basically, they say teachers can never talk to students using electronic communication. If they do, for an emergency or whatever, they need to report it to their supervisor the next day. 

Obviously, I am going to hate the merits of this set of guidelines. They are simplistically stupid - as in this is an attempt to apply simple rules to complex situations - in addition to just making me think the board members are a bit simple-minded.

But, outside of the merits, these sort of guideline prescriptions of model policy have always bothered me. State Boards are regulatory agencies tasked with passing administrative law extending legislatively created statutes. So, I don't see this in the job description.

It winds up being, of course, a policy back door. You can get schools to do what you want without having to go to the trouble or burden of passing regulations. And, then, just like the Federal government, you say that schools have a choice, even if it is a politically or financially unrealistic choice.

It's coercion, simple as that. Is that what we want from our democratic systems? Are both legislatures and schools so screwed up that state agencies are forced to intervene with coercive, legally-questionable model policies because neither can accomplish the correct outcome (questionable anyway) through traditional legal means?      

Educational Adequacy and Fiscal Reality

Two recent developments highlight what I think portends lots of coming chaos in school finance.  The first is a suit filed by parents in a middle-class Kansas school distict challenging the state's limits on local property tax millage rates (enacted in response to Kansas's numerous school finance cases).  The parents allege that their First Amendment right to direct the education of their children is infringed by the caps.  They also allege that their Fourteenth Amendment rights to control their own property and the uses to which it is put are infringed.  This is a novel claim, but it illustrates very clearly the conflicts that judicial rulings on systemic equality of educational resources create--simply put, these equalities cannot be achieved without limiting local control, and if these parents are correct, there are federal constitutional interests in local control of educational expenditures.  The parents have Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe on their side, so this is not just a shot in the dark. 

The other development is the re-opening, once again, of the Abbott v. Burke case in New Jersey.  This time, the plaintiffs challenge the $800-plus million in budget cuts that the Christie Administration has directed at the NJ schools to help close an $11 billion dollar budget gap resulting from the recent economic times.  The most recent prior action of the New Jersey Supreme Court (the most activist court in the nation on school finance) was to grudgingly approve the latest set of funding levels (enacted before Governor Christie was elected), on the explicit assumption that these levels would not be reduced.  Now that the funding levels have been reduced, it is likely that the court will once again find its way into the case.  By my count, if the new set of hearings results in a written decision, this will be the 21st New Jersey Supreme Court opinion in the Abbott case.  Pretty remarkable. 

The question now is what will happen as a result.  If the courts in both cases rule for the plaintiffs, will the political branches comply?  In Kansas, this would seem to be easy, as the legislature can just remove the caps from the plaintiff district, but the suit in Kansas did not open up the prior Kansas Supreme Court decision--it is an independent challenge to the legislation based on federal constitutional rights, so the Kansas legislature may be faced with an equality mandate from its own supreme court and simultaneously an order forbidding the application of its equality legislation from the federal courts.  In New Jersey, it's hard to see this being resolved without a constitutional confrontation, unless the court completely capitulates to the Governor's arguments that the state just doesn't have the money.  The really scary thing is that, considering the coming end to the ARRA and its federal subsidies of state education systems, these two cases are likely only the tip of the iceberg. 

Memphis City Schools Votes Itself Out of Business

Strange things are afoot in Memphis, Tennessee.  Some very brief background – in Memphis and Shelby County, we have both a city district (approx.. 100,000 students) and a suburban county district (approx. 45,000 students). 

Just before the holidays, the city district voluntarily voted to surrender its charter, effectively dissolving the district.  Since the county is the entity tasked with educating citizens, the ultimate result of this is likely to be the absorption of the city’s 100,000 students into a very large county-wide mega district.  Before anything becomes official, a city referendum putting the question in the hands of the voters must pass.  That is likely to happen in February, although there is much legal wrangling about the procedure and status of that vote.

This is a fascinating (and highly contentious) time with all sorts of undercurrents of race, history, and of course, politics.  But I’m wondering if y’all have heard of anything of this sort happening elsewhere?  On this type of scale?  With a huge school system basically voting itself out of business?  I would love to hear your thoughts (and I’m happy to fill in details for those who are interested).

Proposed Bill in Kentucky would bar undocumented students from attending public colleges and universities

A bill filed for the upcoming session of the Kentucky legislature would deny undocumented students admission to public postsecondary institutions.  The issue of permitting undocumented students to enroll at public colleges and universities has resulted in national debate and in pointed conflicts in several states.  Some states, such as California, have opted to allow admission and to permit qualifying undocumented students to pay in-state tuition.  Recently, in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, the California Supreme Court held that the state’s policy did not violate federal law.  Other states prohibit undocumented students from receiving in-state tuition rates.  The proposed legislation in Kentucky would follow the approach taken in South Carolina and ban enrollment by undocumented students.  Federal legislation, the DREAM Act, to permit undocumented students a path to legal status through enrollment in postsecondary education or enlistment in the military has failed to gain traction in Congress for several years.

 In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state could not deny a free public elementary or secondary education to undocumented students, but the decision did not apply to higher education.  Thus, a sharp legal contrast exists for undocumented students when it comes to access to higher education in comparison to elementary and secondary educational opportunities.  From my point of view, the proposed legislation in Kentucky represents ill-conceived policy.  Immigration policy in the United States is certainly in need of revision, but denying a higher education to students who were brought to this country by their parents, often at a very young age, and who consider this nation their home makes little sense and comes across as less than humane. Rather than solving any problems, the proposed legislation would only exacerbate the types of challenges we face with our national immigration policy.  

Book Reviews: Future of Management - Where Good Ideas Come From - Grand Design - Drive - What Technology Wants - Macrowikinomics

My holiday reading list was pretty diverse, so wanted to get the reviews out in case any of you have a few days left to squeeze in a book. Since I haven't done one in a while, I thought I would also include some of the other books I read over the last couple months that caught my attention.

Drive: 4.7 out of 5 (Amazon) (Overview Video) Daniel Pink

I really liked this book ... and I didn't think I would going into it as Pink's previous work didn't blow me away. But, he is really growing as an author and he found a topic that he hit out of the park. There are so many good lessons in Drive that it is hard to identify just one or two. But, especially for university folk like myself, the motivations that he identifies as the primary motivations for working are very accurate, at least in my case. But, the larger lesson for education is that our current workforce has a lot of latent capacity inside of it if we can find ways to tap into the internal drive already existing with this individuals. Anyway, just put it on your must read list.

What Technology Wants: 4.5 out of 5 (Amazon) (Overview Video) Kevin Kelly

This book blew my socks off. It caused me to fundamentally reconsider how I understand and define this technology thing. Now, that said, the score suffers because it is really deep and, at times, boring. He goes back to the beginning ... all the way to the beginning of humanity. And, let's be honest, he makes some guesses as to the historical development of technology. I thought that was really not necessary. Plus, his broad new concept, the "Technium," was acceptable but a stretch But, aside from that, the reconceptualization of technology is totally worth your time. Schooling, after reading this book, must be considered a technological enterprise. Nearly everything that we teach children in these places are technological tools. To the point that technology at some point is indistinguishable from humanity. Our technology distinguishes our species. Anyway, you can see how it can get deep quickly. But, give it a shot. It made a lot of sense to me.   

Macrowikinomics: 3 out of 5 (Amazon) (Overview Video) Don Tapscott & Anthony Williams

Didn't think this book was necessary. Don is stretching it a bit for a few more bucks. This book has good new examples over Wikinomics, but it is not necessary to read both. If you have not read either, I guess you can start with Macrowikinomics for more recent and relevant examples, but I really couldn't distinguish many brand new concepts articulated in this second book. Probably best just to consider this a second edition. I'm actually looking forward to Anthony Williams just striking it out on his own soon.

The Grand Design: 4 out of 5 (Amazon) (Overview Video) Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow

Yeah, I'm a pocket physics fan. Some people read novels for fun ... physics (at least this extreme surface-level, kindergarten variety physics) for me. If you have not heard of and have no idea what string theory or quantum theory means, this is not the book to start with. Instead, start with Hawking's previous work here or this one by Brian Greene. But, if you have kept up, this book does 2 basic things. First, it makes the case for M-Theory, which isn't so much a theory as it is a collection of possible hypothesis and the uber concept to string theory. But, secondly, and what has gotten Stephen into more trouble, is that he thinks a theory like M-Theory (with multiple universes and a rationale behind the big bang) provides no need for any initial external spark (read: a God). What struck me, though, is how nearly he came to actually making the case for intelligent design (the theory that there had to be such an external spark/creator). In fact, he makes a rather compelling case for it and then goes on to cite most of the big historical names in science as supportive of such a theory. Then, when he has you adequately down that path, he explains how a concept like M-Theory (which is, for better or worse, about the best we have thought of so far even though it requires an additional 7 hidden dimensions we have not yet found ... but, the math works out nicely) could explain how the existing physical properties of the multiverse (yeah, I guess that's a word now) could have given rise to ... well ... us and our situation on Earth. Anyway, yeah. That's it.

The Future of Management: 2.8 out of 5 (Amazon) (Overview Video) Gary Hamel

I didn't like this one, although I could see how many others would. I actually stopped several months back after the first chapter or two, but Scott M. recently convinced me to give it another shot. And, I will say, that is did get better as it went. If you are going to read it, skip Part I, skim Part II, and pick it up in Part III. Basically, it is a book for existing managers, not an untenured assistant university professor like myself. I could see how my Provost, for instance, would like this one. But, personally, there were just some things I couldn't get over. For instance, the use of the word "manager." I hated it. If people think of themselves or, even worse, call themselves a manager ... they have already lost. Yet, the author explictly teaches "Strategic and International Management." Hmm ... yucky. It could be a generational thing, but when the author is very adamant in explaining about the examples he cites (Whole Foods, Gore & Google) that a major advantage is the elimination of managers ... why are you still teaching management? Generally, I thought this book was just a retread of concepts already on the table by the real innovative authors for the business school community. And, toward that purpose, it was a good book. But, outside of that, there are other, better books that seem to say the same thing.

Where Good Ideas Come From: 4.8 out of 5 (Amazon) (Overview Video) Steven Johnson

Let's end on a high note. This has been one of my favorite books recently and it caused me to change some of my work habits. Now, this book might be custom fit to me, so I might be over-rating it from a general population standpoint. I happen to be actively trying to build such places to generate good ideas for Kentucky education. So, for that purpose, it was the perfect fit for me right now. Concepts like liquid networks and platforms are the kinds of concepts that I lie awake at night thinking about (this is why I need physics, or baseball, to clear my head). I am a slow hunch kind of guy, as described in this book. I mull over ideas for years. For instance, I am still not sure what I think about the church/state/schools issue. Just search the blog and you'll see I've been wrestling with it for years. Also, I am very interested in environments, as I recently obtained 1100 square feet at UK for the Lab I've been building. So, starting this spring, we are going to use that space to intentionally get people to mix ideas together. I'm hoping to start a lunch series with speakers from all over campus just to get us thinking. Anyway, this is a solid author with good things to say in a super accessible format. Give it a read.  

That's it for now. I'll try and review some of the education-based books I am reading soon to try to focus us in a little more. Anyway, I enjoyed my holiday reading. Hope you did as well.