Weekly Briefing

North Carolina's capital county flirts with re-segregating its award winning school system

Voters in Wake County will head to the ballot box next Tuesday in what figures to be one of the more important "off year" elections in some time. At-stake: the composition of the county school board and whether Wake's nationally acclaimed school system (the nation's 18th largest) will stay the course and retain its system of economic diversity or retreat back into the mid-20^th Century model of separate and supposedly equal schools. Given Wake's prominence on the national scene, the results of the election are sure to reverberate far and wide for some time.        

At present, the school board includes at least one very loud dissenter on the matter and proponents of "neighborhood schools" are hoping to elect a new majority that would repeal the system's pro-diversity assignment policies. Defenders of diversity hope that the election will help settle the matter once and for all and send a strong message that North Carolina's capital county remains strongly committed to the construction a modern, progressive community. 

The fight over school diversity is, of course, nothing new. For centuries, many American communities maintained school assignment policies that not only discouraged diversity, but actually prohibited it. After the United States Supreme Court barred such practices in the mid-1950's, however, the question then became how far and fast the nation should go in redressing this shameful past. Was it enough to simply say that no one would be prohibited from attending a school because of his or her race (or some other characteristic) or was it necessary for school systems to actively promote diversity?

The "con" argument

Opponents to the active promotion of integration and diversity have long objected to public school assignment policies that would do anything other than reflect the racially and income-based segregated housing patterns of the broader community. Their official position is that while they oppose forced segregation and have no particular objection to diversity, they reject the notion that schools should do anything to actively promote it.

In this worldview, the public schools simply exist to serve whoever happens to live nearby. If the neighborhoods surrounding some schools are all rich and white and those surrounding others are all poor and minority, then so be it. Physical proximity and transportation ease should trump all other factors when it comes to school assignment. This position is perhaps best summed up by those parents who oppose the possibility that their children could be assigned to a school as part of a "social experiment."

The "pro" argument

Proponents of diversity and integration dismiss these positions as naïve at best and dishonest at worst.

First and foremost, they point out, it's simply ridiculous to treat a public school system as if it were a rudimentary public service like water and sewer or fire protection. Education is not a mere product or service to be consumed conveniently and anonymously on an individual-by-individual basis. It is not enough for a county to simply distribute roughly equal "packets" of education to all residents who might consume it. Schoolchildren are not just a collection of sponges who merely absorb whatever is directed their way.

If this were the case, we could have long ago eliminated public schools altogether and designed an education system in which every child was propped in front of a TV or computer screen six or seven hours a day in their own homes.

But, of course, public education is (and ought to be) about a lot more than the mere efficient distribution of information to "consumers."  Public education is, when done right, a communal endeavor - a system in which a society imparts the best of what it knows and does to its children, both as individuals and a group. Yes, individual achievement and success are critically important, but so too is group achievement and success. Public education is not just about distributing a similar product to every child that he or she is free to absorb or ignore, it's about affirmatively lifting up the present and future of the entire community.

Seen in this light, the promotion of public school diversity and integration (sometimes via assignment policies) comes through as a lot more than simply a burden on the small number of families who fail to receive the most convenient neighborhood school assignment.

To the contrary, diversity and integration are essential tools that a healthy society uses to improve the chances of success for all of its schools in the present and to promote its future health and well-being. School systems work to integrate and diversify their schools because the price is so minimal and the payoff is so potentially enormous. Students and their families are not mere consumers, but participants (and even contributors) to public education.    

For many proponents, this reality is so patently obvious (and the widespread failure of segregated schools so demonstrable) that they have a hard time taking the arguments of the opponents seriously. "Neighborhood schools" supporters may pay lip service to a desire to see schools in low income and minority neighborhoods fare well, but for integration and diversity supporters, this mostly rings as a hollow façade - a convenient cover-up for a brand of shortsighted selfishness at best and racism at worst.

Proof in the pudding

When one looks at the record in Wake County, it's hard to dispute the position voiced by integration and diversity supporters. In his "must read" book "Hope and Despair in the American city: Why there are no bad schools in Raleigh," Professor Gerald Grant of Syracuse University puts it this way in response to the question "how did Wake do it (i.e. achieve a record of great success - especially in comparison to other mid-sized urban areas like his hometown of Syracuse)?

"Breaking down the wall between affluent suburbs and impoverished inner cities created a ‘healthy balance' of rich and poor in every classroom. And in 2000, Wake was the first metropolitan school district to move away from racial balance to economic balance as a measure of the school's diversity. Any school in Wake County where more than 40 percent of pupils were poor enough to qualify for subsidized lunches was defined as being out of balance. The policy guaranteed that all schools in Wake County would have a core of middle-class students who would establish a floor of positive expectations and create student networks across class line that would benefit poor students. Through this network of friends, less privileged students would get to know parents who might help them get a job or gain admission to college or simply serve as role models. Schools with a majority of middle-class parents will not tolerate incompetent teachers, or drinking fountains that don't work, or restrooms with no toilet paper."

In other words, Wake County schools have achieved great success and come to be recognized as a national model because they have acknowledged that there's more to public education than simply making access to learning physically convenient. Is convenience a priority? Of course - just as designing a system that makes providing gifted kids from wealthy families with an opportunity to scale the heights is a priority. The difference in Wake County is that they're not the only priorities. Integration isn't an "experiment" - it's a proven tactic of success.

Going forward

As with many off year local elections, next week's vote in Wake County may hinge on turnout. Opponents of integration are hoping for a tiny turnout that their comparatively small but passionate base (mostly parents disgruntled with their child's school assignment and far right ideologues) can dominate. Supporters of the current policy are hoping for a large turnout from the mostly silent, multi-issue majority that has headed off past efforts to repeal progress in the Wake schools.

Whatever the result, its impact seems likely to be felt for years to come - both in Wake County and beyond its borders.         

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 at 6:30 pm and is filed under Weekly Briefing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.