Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:39:21 MST
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         Gene Glass <ATGVG@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Inequalities

     Tom Mauhs-Pugh has called us back to a discussion of
inequalities in American education, noting that we tend to slide
off this important topic through a chain of reasoning that holds
that inequities in schools reflect broader social problems, schools
can't cure all ills, and since these bigger social problems stem
from the atrophy of moral fiber in America's children, we need to
address the problem of strengthening moral fiber in our schools (if
we should and if we should do it in public schools as opposed to
private). That line of argument led to some very interesting
discussions, but it left Tom, I presume, and me unsatisfied. Given
that school choice is staggering and going down for the count as a
big issue in American education after the election, what can we say
about correcting inequities in the public school system?

     Tom M-P asked some basic questions:

  1) Are there inequities in American public
        education?
  2) If so, are they justified? On what basis?
  3) Do any such inequities provide prima facie
        evidence of injustice?
  4) What would justice look like?
  5) What would justice require?  And is it politically
        feasible?

     Let me attempt some answers.

  1) Of course.
  2) Some are justified, some aren't. Some of those that are
justifiable can be defended by appealing to the notion that parents
should be free to give necessities and gifts to their children to
a degree greater than they would choose to give them to all
children. The state's denying this expression of love would be
totalitarian repression.
  3) Are all inequities prima facie evidence of injustice? Of
course not. Better schools for poor children than for rich children
would be unequal but not unjust.
  4) What would justice look like (now in this country)? For a
start, it would look like far greater per pupil expenditures in
minority impacted, poor urban districts than in white suburban
school districts.
  5) Is it feasible? Of course not.

     And let me speak for a moment to something else that is not
feasible. When we started discussing Kozol's book I made a
suggestion that no one took seriously, viz., the hostage theory of
promoting equal treatment in the public schools. Make certain that
white majority and minority students are completely mixed in every
classroom, then the majority's concern for the safety and education
of their children will incidentally bring the benefits of good
education to all children. This would require desegregation across
school district lines. I think that liberals in America have given
up on desegregation; some minorities have too, but far fewer.
     That we can't seriously consider this notion of "hostage
taking," dressed up as "cross district" desegregation is a
testimony to the country's lack of resolve to face the inequities
in our school system, because I am convinced that it is the only
plan that will address the problems of unequal schools in any
meaningful way. In avoiding the prospect of something that would
bring real change, we are too willing to forget history.
     In 1975 in Milliken v. Bradley, the U.S. District Court in
Michigan found that the schools of the metropolitan Detroit region
were separate and unequal (probably less so than they are now,
ironically) and that desegregation could not be achieved within the
boundaries of the city. They ordered the remedy of forced busing
across lines separating urban and suburban districts. Whatever
became of Milliken v. Bradley? Well, it was overturned by the
Nixon-Supreme Court. Justice Burger opined that the abysmal state
of Detroit's schools was not the result of any official action of
suburban districts, hence it was Detroit's problem. Whizzer White,
writing for the minority (the vote was 5-4), observed that the
majority had failed to make any convincing case as to why remedies
should stop at school district lines, since schools districts were
not "sovereign entities" but mere political entities established by
states and hence the state as a whole could be held responsible.

     I contend that had the appeal of Milliken v. Bradley gone
differently, we would be seeing far different and much more equal
education in this country today. And who is to say that after a
decade or more of liberals in the White House stacking the Supreme
Court according to their lights that we would not see a new version
of Milliken v. Bradley being decided in the opposite direction.
Then the country would have to make an honest effort to reduce
inequities in the schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

GENE V GLASS                                    ATGVG AT ASUACAD.BITNET
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                            ATGVG AT ASUACVAX.BITNET
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY                        INTERNET ADDRESS:
Tempe, AZ 85287-2411                            ATGVG@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
602-965-2692
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU