I've read through Parents Involved and think your account of it may be too narrow. It's not unreasonable to try to limit the scope of the decision when you write: "the decision only affects the small number of schools" It is, however, in my (often wrong) judgment, untrue and unrealistic. This is a bad decision but worse, it makes clearer how bad the Supreme Court has become.

We are facing, here, a Supreme court in the grip of a very-far-right-wing majority. However demoralizing it is to have justice trampled by this group, it may happen time and time again. Progressives need to plan practically for the hostility of right-wing federal judges for years to come.

Daniel, I definitely agree with you that this is a terrible decision, and that we should be scared as to the state of our higher courts. My point was that most schools do not employ in racial assignment, so this decision targets those who are really trying to encourage diversity and fight housing segregation.

There are over 14,000 districts in the state, and likely only several hundred who use any sort of race assignment. Of those, not all schools in those districts use race assignment. There may be many children in these schools, but the number is comparatively small.

The impact of this decision could be extremely detrimental to the cause of desegregation, but those most affected are those who are making the most effort. Sorry if I was unclear.

I am told, but don't know on my own, that 1,000 district plans are affected. People interested in school integration efforts in these tough times may want to review Rick Kahlenberg's paper from The Century Foundation. (a pdf file)

Hello,

I think the decision was a correct one and one that will have a positive impact on education, even beyond what benefits are gained from integration plans employed by many districts.

Number one: Brown v Board of education simply ruled that separate is not equal and government established segregation, therefore, is not constitutional. Forced deseg was deemed the remedy. It could have been different. If the courts instead forced schools to improve educational outcomes at the segregated schools we might be in a different place right now. (I've even heard of a case where the teachers in the "white" schools were transferred to the "black" ones as a remedy.) Even with busing, however, the achievement gap still exists and no amount of racial assignments seems to address it.

Now, governments and communities will be forced to address the achievement gap head on because there is absolutely no reason that a racially isolated school should be inferior to an integrated one.

If given the choice for my children I would send them to a racially isolated school that offered great academics over a mediocre school that was highly diverse.

Number2: Just because the government can't assign children by race, parents should still be able to. This latest decision can be another reason to give parents more choice in determining where their children go. If it is diversity they seek over convenience, parents should be able to refer to diversity numbers at the different schools and choose the one that works for them. If more children apply than there are spots then a lottery should be used.

Mike

I must disagree with the previous comment and apologize because I feel a long comment coming on:

Mike says that the decision "will have a positive impact on education, even beyond what benefits are gained from integration plans employed by many districts." But how? Our Supreme Court has already told us that all children do not have a right to an equal education (San Antonio v. Rodriguez) and all this does is close the door on yet another option for reducing racial and socio-economic isolation in our schools.

Mike notes that Brown v Bd "simply ruled that separate is not equal and government established segregation, therefore, is not constitutional...If [the Supreme Court] forced schools to improve educational outcomes at the segregated schools we might be in a different place right now." But the Court wouldn't have done that because it said that in the context of education, separate is *inherently unequal*. That meant that they had to get at the root of the separation--racial segregation--to deal with the inequality. It was the stigma created by racial segregation, in addition to the substantive inequality, that the Court wanted to fix. To do that they HAD to integrate.

Mike writes "Even with busing, however, the achievement gap still exists and no amount of racial assignments seems to address it." First, I have issues with busing too. I think it's wrong to force rural kids and poor kids and minority kids to do all the moving around, and there's a problem with telling them that their schools in their communities aren't good enough. The solution is get some of the resources from wealthier families flowing into the poorer schools, to get entire cities invested in the welfare of all the schools, not just their community school. But second, what amount of racial assignments have we seen? Not very many, in the grand context. But where we have seen racial assignments, we have often seen improvements. We haven't given ourselves enough time, or been committed enough, to see the impact it would have in the long term. We are too impatient.

I appreciate Mike's optimism that "now, governments and communities will be forced to address the achievement gap head on because there is absolutely no reason that a racially isolated school should be inferior to an integrated one." But who's going to care now? The average rich family (black or white) will have no *substantive* concern over a poor inner city or rural school's well-being. They may feel that the inequalities are wrong, but there's a difference between that and storming the gates because you don't want your kid going to a bad school.

Mike writes "If given the choice for my children I would send them to a racially isolated school that offered great academics over a mediocre school that was highly diverse." Me too, I guess. I'd also rather have my toe chopped off than my foot. Why shoud we have to make that choice? And more importantly WHO HAS that choice? People who already have the privilege usually are the ones who actually have the choice.

Mike says "Number2: Just because the government can't assign children by race, parents should still be able to." The government's interests in promoting social equality are far different than a parent's very personal interest in advancing his/her kid's life chances. Again, WHO HAS that choice? People should google Professor Charles Lawrence and look for an article entitled Forbidden Conversations on Race. It's about personal choice and how it often clashes with one's political beliefs about equality. I think it also makes the case for the need for government to continue to tell us we can't segregate, especially when social inequalities persist along racial lines.

First of all, I don't believe that San Antonio v Rodriguez really was about denying a right to an equal education. It was a little more involved than that.

Second,I live in a city and there are poor white people too, and they live in different neighborhoods than poor black people and both neighborhoods schools stink. Mixing them up wouldn't make much of a difference in the quality of education. I am not convinced this is really about race and diversity.

Third, it is about quality education. 50 years after Brown, the state of public schools is lousy. Is this really because a lack of diversity or simply a lack of political will. Again, I live in a liberal, Democratically run city, and they have completely ignored the education of the poor black children. The schools are terrible.

I think what this recent decision reflects is a collapsing of two issues here: segregation, real and de facto and education quality as a whole. People are upset because it correctly reduces the importance of diversity in schools but then lays bare the real problem that no one, not even liberals want to address: the poor quality of our school systems in general.

I assure you that if Louisville is such a good school district it isn't simply because they have a integration plan. In fact, I would argue that the reason they have an integration plan is because they are a well run district. The results they get will not be severly impacted by this ruling.

I realize that choice is lacking in our school systems. My hope is that it will become a bigger part of the educational landscape. Education quality and diveristy will likely increase with more educational options available for parents.

I guess I disagree with Mike S. too. As I see it, Mike mixes up two issues here: segregated schools and bad schools.

Racial integration of schools, in my book, is a good goal in and of itself. It is this goal that I see abandoned in the Parents Involved decision. For the next many years, those committed to actual racial equality will have a very hard time in our Federal Courts.

The reason some schools fail at teaching children, as I see it, is not because they are integrated. They fail because they are starved for money. Richer, whiter communities have smaller classes for their children, better trained teachers and better equipped classrooms, than do poorer, minority communities. (Interestingly, in New York State, even after Gov. Spitzer, those richer school districts have lower tax rates than poorer ones. Worse, as it happens, the poor pay for the schools of the rich.)

When, in Tennessee, as part of the "STAR" experiment, drastically smaller classed were tried, all children did better but poorer, minority children benefited the most. Smaller classes are expensive, but so is the war in Iraq. End the war and serious resources could and should be available to properly fund failing schools.

The Court in Rodriguez found that where wealth is involved, the equal protection clause does not apply, and that there was no fundamental right to an education.

We should be as committed to fixing persisting segregation as we are to improving educational outcomes. Both are critical. I'm from Seattle and went to Seattle public schools k-8. Without schools with magnet programs being located in the inner-city, there would have been no integration there, certainly not when I was growing up in the 80s and 90's.

But I agree that it's not just about diversity. I believe racial and socio-economic isolation must both be addressed. There are disproportionate amounts of poor people of color, so when we're talking about low-performing, low-income schools, we're also talking about a vastly disproportionate number of students of color. Why is that?

As long as schools are funded by property taxes, we can't separate de facto residential segregation, the de jure segregation that helped create it, and education quality. While it's a matter of political will, this will has to be shaped, and if people do not have to face these inequalities on a daily basis they may not recognize the urgency of addressing them. Tying together the interests of black and brown children, white children, poor and rich children, disabled children, etc. will help solidify public will for improving education.

Those following the fate of school integration plans like those struck down in Louisville and Seattle may want to check out SCOTUS Blog's Report on a newly revitalized challenge to the school assignment plan in Lynn, MA.

Being a black male, I take offense to the perceived notion that my education would have been better had I been placed in a school where I was the minority.

I feel blessed to have been able to attend school with those who shared the same urban neighborhood background. The camaraderie with those of my race and socioeconomic made my school experience comfortable.

I am encouraged by the underlying theme of school choice that is preached on this board. It is a tremendous luxury in today's world for some children to have the opportunity to choose which public school they would like to attend. Perhaps being able to go to private schools may one day be a choice for poorer children.

Let us not seek to sprinkle "diversity" into our schools. Forcing "minorities" to go to schools where they will be in the minority would do a disservice to minority children such as myself. I had a very rewarding experience going to schools with people I could better relate to on a personnel level. In fact, my public school experience was so positive that I decided to attend a traditionally black religious college in LA.

I agree with the posters who believe that the priority should be improving the education at public schools. Shifting students to make the schools more diverse will not have a great impact in itself.

I would much rather see people invest more into improving the quality of education at traditionally minority dominant inner city schools rather than sprinkling minority students into white schools that have better test scores.

My last point is a reminder that not everyone will succeed in school or in life. Sadly, the brightest people I know are not the ones that went to a racially balanced school. The brightest people I know are those whose parents both graduated from ivy league schools or whose parents are both doctors. Now a lot of that may be genetic, but a lot of that probably comes from the fact that these parents know that education is the key to success and have pushed their children to focus on education. Sadly, and I know from my own urban neighborhood, that education is not a priority in every household. Until we can change the perception among the poor that the education will pay off in the long run we will still face graduation rates in the 30% range in some urban districts.

I was part of busing, and it was the worst experience of my life. It caused far more racial strife than peace. I do, however, believe the court's latest ruling is bad. Brown v. Board, in spirit, was a very good ruling with great intentions; sadly, judges often interpreted the ruling poorly and made bade decisions in implementing it.

As a parent of school going children, beacause we live in the inner city we were unwilling to bus our children and more unwilling to pay enormous prices for private schools.So we decided to just keep our children home, change our jobs so to home school them.These are some of the ways that parents have to deal,take matters into their hands and say to hell with sending children to NASTY schools.It's true that it is mostly children of color who get the worst end of this, but as a whole American schools are not good and they are even worse in the inner city.I'm saddened that America (and we the people) keep on letting these politicians make decisions we know will not work nor benefit our society as whole.The individualist capitalist model just doesn't work in education.The poor are entitles to an education too.I've lived in third world contries and the way that education is played out in this country is just like in a third world country.From one parent to another I encourage parents to form community schools or simply home school their kids.Don't sacrifice your children to this school system, it's not worth it.