The recent West Hartford BOE was more like Tuesday night at the fights.
Democrats chose to fight against Republicans instead of working together to craft solutions to the looming argument over state statute regarding "racial imbalance" in the district's schools.
West Hartford News said this -
An attempt by the Board of Education's two Republicans to take a forceful stance on racial imbalance at Tuesday's meeting was co-opted by the board's five Democrats, who substituted their own amendment for the Republicans' motion and then passed it without their votes.Hiring outside legal counsel is a wise move with this high profile issue. It is stupid for internal squabbling like this - but then again, we have heard silly and unproductive comments like this: "Your motion feels like a temper tantrum," said Democrat Bruce Putterman. "It feels like how a child would react." Honestly Bruce, can you not do better than that?
Lib Brassil Spinella and Diane Mudge brought forward the motion, which called for the hiring of outside legal counsel experienced in arguing 14th Amendment cases before the Supreme Court by Oct. 30 in order to fight the state's racial imbalance statute.
Harry Captain offered an amendment, (which passed) that will have in-house lawyers research legal options for fighting the state statute. Democrats cited financial reasons for not seeking more experienced and savvy outside counsel. Of course all five Democrats voted for the amendment. Mudge voted against it, and Spinella abstained (huh?). Well, the bottom line is that at least SOME lawyers will be looking at this issue! That is at least a step in the right direction.
And while Democrats say that "none of them likes the statute", and that the motion to seek outside counsel "was politically motivated", they have also been known to say that the racial balancing of our schools is "the right thing to do" and a "moral obligation".
According to reports, Democrats said that "since the state is not forcing the district to comply with the statute, but merely asking that another plan be implemented in two years' time, there was no pressing need to hire lawyers immediately." Meanwhile, we could be looking at plans which require busing kids all across the town and incurring huge transportation costs, and upsetting families and disrupting the school district! Most likely that will cost much, much more than legal counsel experienced in 14th amendment issues! Talk about "wrongheaded" spending!
Spinella said that the Republican's motion was related to the constitutionality of the state statute and taking action on the issue. How nice that someone somewhere on the BOE is finally being proactive on a potentially costly and very important issue.
The statute states that the proportion of racial minorities in schools must mirror that of the district as a whole, and that if it does not, the district must create a plan to correct the imbalance.
Here is what it says exactly:
Sec. 10-226b. Existence of racial imbalance. (a) Whenever the State Board of Education finds that racial imbalance exists in a public school, it shall notify in writing the board of education having jurisdiction over said school that such finding has been made.
(b) As used in sections 10-226a to 10-226e, inclusive, "racial imbalance" means a condition wherein the proportion of pupils of racial minorities in all of the grades of a public school of the secondary level or below taken together substantially exceeds or falls substantially short of the proportion of such public school pupils in all of the same grades of the school district in which said school is situated taken together.
(1969, P.A. 773, S. 2.) Cited. 21 CA 67.
Sec. 10-226c. Plan to correct imbalance. (a) Any board of education receiving notification of the existence of racial imbalance as specified in section 10-226b shall forthwith prepare a plan to correct such imbalance and file a copy of said plan with the State Board of Education. Said plan may be limited to addressing the imbalance existing at any school and need not result in a district-wide plan or district-wide pupil reassignment. A school district may request an extension of time in cases in which the number of students causing said imbalance is fewer than five students at a school.
(b) Any plan submitted by the board of education of any town under sections 10-226a to 10-226e, inclusive, shall include any proposed changes in existing school attendance districts, the location of proposed school building sites as related to the problem, any proposed additions to existing school buildings and all other means proposed for the correction of said racial imbalance. The plan shall include projections of the expected racial composition of all public schools in the district. The plan may include provision for cooperation with other school districts to assist in the correction of racial imbalance.
(1969, P.A. 773, S. 3, 4; P.A. 98-252, S. 41, 80.)
Sec. 10-226d. Approval of plan by state board. Upon receipt of any plan required under the provisions of subsection (b) of section 10-226c, the State Board of Education shall review said plan. If it determines that the plan is satisfactory, it shall approve the plan and shall provide to the board of education such assistance and services as may be available. The board of education shall submit annual reports on the implementation of the approved plan, as the State Board of Education may require.
West Hartford News reported this -
West Hartford has struggled with racial imbalance since the 1990s and redistricted starting in the 1994-95 school year, among other measures, but failed to correct the imbalance. The district average of minority students is 36 percent, officials said in May, but at Smith School of Math, Science and Technology, 70 percent of students are minorities, and at Charter Oak Academy of Global Studies, 80 percent of students are minorities.The question remains, is the State Statute Constitutional? Can any school district be forced to incur costs (another unfunded mandate), to shift students around like chess pieces, in order to satisfy some arbitrary number in the name of "racial imbalance"? Should race be a factor at all? Is a racial imbalance law in and of itself "racist"?
Schools that exceed 25 percentage points above or below the average for the district are considered out of compliance.
Yes, yes, yes, we all know what the intentions are...
We all know that we are trying to close achievement gaps etc.
But is this the right way to do this?
Do we want to have local control and neighborhood schools? or do we want to bow to some State Mandates that may or may not be legally valid?
After we disrupt and move everyone around, who is to say that imbalance won't occur again as people move in and out of homes across town? The do we move and disrupt kids and their families all over again?
Why don't we just strive to have each and every school in the district be the best it can be so that no matter what school any child attends in the district they are able to achieve and grow and succeed?
Let's take race out of the equation in this so-called "post racial era" and do what is best for ALL children and families across town - who are not pawns to be moved around a chess board, but rather, human beings who should ALL receive the best services our town can provide, no matter where they live.
And for the record, can the politicians please finally act like grown-ups and all work together instead of posturing and denigrating each other? We need mature solutions to this issue - not holier than thou attitudes or childish behavior. (Got that Bruce?)
18 WH Responses:
Talk of WH-
I’m 31 yrs old and have 1 child and 1 on the way. My wife and I decided to stay in WH after thinking about a move to the Farmington Valley. We decided to stay for the convenience factor (close to everything), WH Center, the neighborhoods and schools. To give you an idea of my political persuasion I’m an “Independent”, however, I’d say 60% of the time I side with the Dems. I disagree with several points you’ve made in your post and would like to share why. First, let’s agree that both Dems and Reps want to maintain neighborhood schools. Here’s where I disagree:
1. “Democrats cited financial reasons for not seeking more experienced and savvy outside counsel.” My response=The bigger issue they cited was they didn’t feel it would be in our best interest to antagonize the state when we’re currently under no mandate to do anything.
2. "And while Democrats say that "none of them likes the statute", and that the motion to seek outside counsel "was politically motivated", they have also been known to say that the racial balancing of our schools is "the right thing to do" and a "moral obligation". My response=I believe they are referring to using other means to balance Smith’s and Charter Oak’s population, ie the Inter’l Baccalaureate program at Charter Oak. The goal of the program is that white parents would send their kids to this school for the program, thus helping to balance racial unbalances without redistricting. Additionally, it would give parents another choice in town of where to send their kids. Choice is a good thing, right?.
3. “According to reports, Democrats said that "since the state is not forcing the district to comply with the statute, but merely asking that another plan be implemented in two years' time, there was no pressing need to hire lawyers immediately." Meanwhile, we could be looking at plans which require busing kids all across the town and incurring huge transportation costs, and upsetting families and disrupting the school district! Most likely that will cost much, much more than legal counsel experienced in 14th amendment issues! Talk about "wrongheaded" spending!” My response=I don’t understand why waiting until (OR IF) the state says we MUST balance the schools before we hire attorneys is a bad idea? I’m all for fighting this in court but why not wait until someone’s actually telling us we must do something? We can get out ducks in a row with our in-house attorneys then when/if the time comes hire outside attorneys. If we hire outside attorneys now, and don’t actually need them for 2+ years we’d have to hire them all over again at that time.
I’d like to mention one more thing I found disturbing – not on your post, rather at the last BOE meeting I watched. It came at the end of the debate and I believe it was Lib Spinella (sp?) who asked something like (totally paraphrasing) “If there’s no mandate then why are we having this discussion”….or something like that. I probably pay attention to BOE and Town Council meetings more than most residents but I still only watch about 50% of the time. I know what the issue is here and I’m not an elected official – only a resident who watches half of the meetings….I was very concerned one of our elected leaders (who just sponsored a motion on the issue!!) needed a refresher. I hope she was being sarcastic.
I watched the relevant portion of the meeting, including the Spinella/Mudge motion, the Captain amendment, and the Board's discussion and vote adopting the amendment.
Ms. Spinella's motion was about more than simply hiring counsel. It clearly contemplated launching federal litigation. Does TOWH favor escalation now?
TOWH's post overlooked a significant issue in failing to mention Mr. Putterman's point re: standing. Specifically, Mr. Putterman expressed the belief that a suit brought by the town now would be almost immediately dismissed for lack of standing, i.e., because the Town has not been required to do anything or been otherwise damaged as a result of the statute, it is not a proper litigant for purposes of challenging it.
I don't know if an action by the town would be dismissed as quickly as Mr. Putterman would have us believe, but the standing issue is a real one. A motion to dismiss for lack of standing would present a major hurdle, and defeating it would generate significant legal expenses before we even reach the merits of the challenge.
TOWH's post also did not mention (but the State Dept. of Education is certainly aware of) the US Supreme Court's June 2007 decision rejecting Seattle's use of race to determine school assignments. I presume that the State has no interest in inviting the political fallout that would follow if they run afoul of this decision, and therefore will not cavalierly mandate that we do anything.
If the state is not forcing our hand now, and may never do so in light of the Seattle School District decision, why should we borrow a fight - or the money to pay for that fight?
Anonymous - don't kid yourself - You are not an Independent - you are a Democrat who can't commit to being a Democrat. But that's ok. We won't tell.
And sure - we disagree on those points.
Antagonize the State?
Egads man, how many more unfunded mandates do you need thrown at you before you say enough? Yeah - let's not get the State angry at us. Don't you know McQuillan is a power hungry statist? Those folks in Hartford are a bunch of bullies, and our own BOE has even said so (in not so few words).
Choice is fine. What we are staring at is NOT CHOICE - it is busing and forced redistricting. If you don't believe that is in the cards then there's not much we can say to you.
If you are thinking that we should wait around and see what the State says - good luck to ya. We think we should get real prepared.
Lastly - I dunno, Lib says lots of strange things.
Kevin - No one is saying we should go out and sue now or tomorrow. What was said is that we should get some really really good counsel on this issue.
Perhaps if the State sees that we are preparing for a good fight they may not do anything at all.
Now, that's a strategy too.
"The best defense is a good offense"
According to Wikipedia:
Mao Zedong opined that "the only real defense is active defense," meaning defense for the purpose of counter-attacking and taking the offensive.[1] Often success rests on destroying the enemy's ability to attack. In reference to fighting terrorists, Matthew Levitt opines, "It’s important to pre-emptively strike at those who intend to do us harm."[2] The principle is echoed in the writings of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.[3]
Some martial arts emphasise attack over defence. Wing Chun, for example, is a style of Kung Fu which uses the maxim:
The hand which strikes, also blocks.
Well, I would expect the state to force the issue in the future. Since our legislative delegation can't seem to get WH its full share of ECS funds, why should I expect them to deliver a waiver extension?
Since they tried to make these "magnet schools" more appealing, haven't the numbers on the racial breakdown actually gotten worse? It will be interesting to see where this goes - do the liberal democrats in town decide that making the world a better place is great at an arm's length, but not when it comes to bussing their kids? Or do they stick to their beliefs and get the school balances correct? I am betting that the hypocrites fight this tooth and nail.
On a side note - Wolcott School, (one within the race standards, FYI) has had some interesting pick-up and drop-offs recently. Police have been called as some resident across Wolcott Road has been screaming and threatening parents. He demands that no one parki in front of his house - on EITHER side of the street. He chases kids that get near his yard. Why is this relevant? His front lawn is chock full of signs for every Democrat candidate. Let's say his public relations moves are killing the Dem ticket in this school district.
The hole in the Dems complaints is that they were planning on bringing up the subject (redistricting) in Dec., when the election was over. They wanted to avoid the controversy for the election.
Last spring they (the Dems) gave lip service to not increasing Open Choice which the State requested. Quietly they added 11 to the rolls (12-13%inc).
the numbers on $$$ and schools as I understand, have not yet been provided.
The BOE does as it pleases and hopes there will be no accountability!
Dear Anonymous and West Hartford Talk,
Lib's comment about the mandate not existing was a response to the Democrats' assertion that the town isn't being forced to do anything. She was referring to the correspondence which she quoted in her speech. Her point was that is there truly is no mandate, why would there have been so much discussion between WHPS and the State of CT.
Noah Webster you are right...before the magnet schools Charter Oak was at 28% minority...now it is at 78% minority...it is not working...and the hypocritical democrats that live on the the "other" side of town don't get it but feel good when they think these stupid programs do something, while really doing nothing but play with the numbers, to close the achievement gap. The joke is on them because just as Hartford went bad neighborhood by neighborhood so will West Hartford.
wow...someone who is quoting what I have been saying for years "Hartford went bad neighborhood by neighborhood"...Noah Webster is absolutely correct about how the number went from 28% to 78% when WH went about the balancing act...this town is full of hypocrites who want to "feel" that they are helping to close the achievement gap just so long as it doesn't impact their "backyard"
If the past practices of the school board and the administration are a guide to what to expect, lets recall the first meeting of the BOE post-2007 election. The first meeting was a swearing in and a fond farewell to Tom Fiorentino. The second meeting, brought Superintendent Sklarz before the board to admit that the overcrowding at some of the elementary schools might, just might, lead to some redistricting to ease the overcrowding - and maybe address the racial disparity.
Now, why wouldn't this have been announced at a pre-election meeting? The enrollment was known in September, and in October. But no public mention of the overcrowding and the potential shifting of students was made until the Democrat majority was safely reelcted in November.
So how does this withholding of information pertain to the current racial situation? The state advised WH in April of 2007 that the schools were out of balance - and started a two year "review" to look at alternatives. Something needs to be done now, before the state orders something to be done this spring. But rather than facing the issue, and firing up the electorate, the Dems and the administration are sweeping the issue under the rug. They do not want an enflamed electorate going to the polls next month. But once they are all safely returned to power, I would expect some sort of plan to address this to be brought up shortly after the election.
Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, I must be a short-term memory impaired WH voter.....
"Something needs to be done now, before the state orders something to be done this spring."
Why? Why do we need now challenge an action that the state has not taken, and may never take?
Kevin - Because West hartford is in violation of state law? The state has no choice but to order them to make the racial make-up comly with the law. Because absent some legislative change, the state will order a redrawing of the elementary school districts. But you are right - let's just wait and see. Let's ignore all the correspondence between the state and the school district.
The Dems are going to take some sort of action. Right after the election. It will probably be similar to what the R's proposed - but they can't accept a GOP idea - they have to co-opt it and make it so they appear to be the one's taking action.
But thanks for your thoughtful post about ignoring the elephant in the room....
Dear Kevin Walsh,
I must admit that the facts are contrary to what you have posted. Pat action that the state has taken or is taking includes (from 95 forward)
K-2/3-5
Making us submit several plans with voluntary measures to address the imbalance.
What do you mean that the state hasn ot taken action against us? They've been forcing us to submit plan after plan after plan since K-2/3-5, a plan that was most certainly involuntary.
Forgive my anger but have you been under a rock for the past 15 years?
Noah Webstar - please identify which state law you believe that West Hartford is currently "violating." We are certainly not in violation of C.G.S. §§10-226.b, c, or d, posted by WHTalk on 10/12/09. Those statutory provisions do not prohibit the existence of racial imbalance; rather, they speak to the definition of "racial imbalance" for purposes of the statute, and the affected BOE's obligation to prepare and file a plan to "correct" the imbalance. As far as I know, the BOE has filed the plans as required.
I also do not see in the code sections posted by WHTalk any language that clearly empowers the State Board of Education to mandate re-districting. In fact, I note that §10-226.c expressly provides that plan[s] to correct racial imbalance need not result in district-wide pupil reassignment. Moreover, §10-226.e (the section immediately following the cut-off point of WHTalk's citation) expressly provides that the regulations that the State Board is authorized to establish for the operation of the racial imbalance statute "shall include voluntary enrollment plans approved by the State Board of Education as an alternative to mandatory reassignment."
You have asserted that the State "has no choice" but to "make them comply" "absent some legislative change." I submit that the State absolutely has a choice: they can choose to continue to do what they have been doing for fifteen years. In fact, absent some legislative change, they may not have another realistic choice. I am not aware that the State Board of Ed has ever attempted to mandate re-districting by a local BOE to correct a racial imbalance and, based on a careful reading of the statute as currently written, it is not at all clear to me that the State is even empowered to do so.
Of course, the analysis set out above doesn't even reach the overt constitutional implications that would be raised by any attempt to compel redistricting based entirely on race. I doubt that the State is eager to invite the sort of scrutiny that would surely ensue - particularly from the Roberts court - if they attempt to compel redistricting.
Anonymous 2:01pm - I would be grateful if you could cite to "facts" that are contrary to anything I have posted on this thread. I have certainly spent enough of my time in the last fifteen years in places other than "under a rock" to know that the K-2/3-5 plan was not conceived by or imposed by the state. As I recall, we cooked that up by ourselves. In that respect, it cannot be fairly characterized as "involuntary," at least as between the local BOE and the State Board.
Finally, you appear to be suggesting that the requirement to submit voluntary plans to address racial imbalance is itself an action "against" the town. That is a whole other issue - one that I am not interested in wading into in this forum.
Thanks for your attention. I need now to get back under my rock to thoughtfully feed my elephant.
Kevin - sec. 10-226c requires the school board to submit the plan to rectify the racial imbalance. The "plan MAY be limited to addressing the imbalance existing at any school and need not result in a district-wide plan...or pupil reassignment". First off, this language is permissive - The plan may address a single school if that is the only one out of whack racially. But by permissively allowing a district not to redistrict to solve the problem, it is important to realize that they do not expressly prohibit it. If that was the case, the law would read that no district SHALL be forced to redistrict to solve the race issue. I
n WH, we have two schools - How exactly is the "plan" going to fix the imbalance? By making them super-duper, improved magnet schools to attract white kids to them? That was the plan last time, and has resulted in a worsening of the problem in the past 15 years. Do you really think the State is going to approve that yet again?
That section later, in subsection (b), now mandates rather than permits the town to submit a plan that must include any "proposed changes in existing school attendance districts...and all other means proposed for the correction.." Now the state goes away from the permissive "may" and definitively requires the town plan to include redistricting plans.
Later, in the section promulgating regulations, it says that the regs may provide for voluntary alternatives to mandatory pupil reassignment. This contemplates that mandatory reassignment IS a potential eremedy if the plan of the board is rejected, and the provisions in the regs do not result in correcting the racial imbalance. The town tried the alternative measure, and it has not worked. They will need to come up with something different for the state to approve the plan.
That is my entire point - that the Town HAS to come up with a plan. And you better believe that it will come up jusdt as soon as the Dems win reelection. My concern is that we all know it is coming - why not have the plans put out in advance as party platforms, and have the voters make informed decisions, perhaps the most important one that will face their kids and their education in the next few years? To try and pretend that the issue isn't out there, or that everything will work out, is to mislead the voters and ignore reality.
As for the state having the authority to order redistricting -They can reserve their approval of the town's plan until such time as the plan includes redistricting. That is one way that is obviously permitted in statute. The second is a court order, which is also a distinct possibility, reading the "intent" of the statutes to require correction of racial imbalance as the rationale, since as you believe, the language is vague regarding state enforcement.
Thanks for your reasoned response and willingness to discuss the issue. Now go back and give that elephant seconds....
You know what Kevin Walsh, you were right. I take back the "under the rock comment." It was rude. I'm sorry.
Yes, the plans were filed but have not worked. My point, which I so far have poorly expressed, is that the voluntary measures such as the magnet schools were filed. However, the state has so far been unsatisfied. The law with which we are not in compliance is the racial imbalance law. Charter Oak and Smith are the two schools that are currently out of compliance and Bugbee, Duffy, and Morley are on their way and have "impending" imbalance. This means that they are +/- 15 points away from average.
As for the plans that WHPS has had to file, it's just a waste of time. I don't believe "balancing" the schools racially is going to help solve the achievement gap. We need to address the economic problems in the CO and Smith neighborhoods. That will be a first step.
Again Kevin Walsh, I'm sorry. That comment didn't reflect what I meant to say.
Noah Webstar - Your analysis of the statutory language is not far from my own, except with respect to §10-226c(b). I do not read that language to affirmatively require that local BOEs construct hypothetical re-districting scenarios that they are not otherwise inclined to implement. I suspect that, if you read that section again, you will agree with me on this point.
If you are correct that the State Board's current intention is to attempt to mandate re-districting, and/or that the Ds on the Board have a plan that, for political reasons, they are not now disclosing, we will know soon enough. Given the margin by which democrats outnumber republicans in town, I don't see that the democrats would have much to gain by being coy.
Anonymous 6:39pm - anonymous apologies are every bit as meaningful as anonymous insults.
Post a Comment