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.
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.
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?
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.
Schools that exceed 25 percentage points above or below the average for the district are considered out of compliance.
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"?
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?)
