Neighborhood Forums
Community members share their thoughts. Email us to share your story.
Critique redistricting
without classism
I must express my strong disagreement with the statements made in the letter to the editor "Flawed plan fuels criticism," (May 26) regarding the proposed socio-economic integration in response to a quote from Megan Munson-Warnken.
There is no doubt the current proposal for socio-economic integration needs to be reworked, and analyzed publicly to ensure the best results for all of Burlington's children. However, I would agree with Munson-Warnken that many statements of opposition to the current socio-economic integration plans have been couched in classist and xenophobic language. The "othering" of children who currently attend H.O. Wheeler and Lawrence Barnes schools is unsettling in a community that prides itself on inclusion and unity.
The writer asks, "when is it classist to disagree with a flawed proposal?" The answer is simple: when dialogue seems to stereotype low-income children as unable to succeed and as corrupting; when community members express fear that their children may be forced to attend school with these "different" children. The writer seems to ignore the simple fact that such sentiments don't need to be explicitly spoken to be communicated.
Contrary to the writer's accusations, many folks like Munson-Warnken have been actively involved in both supporting the idea of socioeconomic integration and focused on providing constructive alternatives to flawed components of the plan. It is possible to critique the current proposal without using classist and racially charged language. I sincerely hope that our community moves forward with a plan to educationally enrich all of Burlington's children.
COLIN M. ROBINSON
Burlington
My Turn: Fair schools are worth a 2-block walk
Published: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 Burlington Free Press
By Terry Buehner
The socio-economic integration of the Burlington School community for the 2008 to 2009 school year will be a defining moment for our city. There have been many comments made over the past year regarding this issue. While some were inappropriate and smack of fear of the unknown, a majority celebrates the huge potential of an equal playing field for our children.
Would you have walked an extra block or two to be a childhood friend of Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Le Ly Hayslip, William Jefferson Clinton, Gloria Steinem or Russell Means? In "our day," many years ago, that would have been impossible. What these six Americans have in common is a childhood of socio-economic segregation.
Being in a classroom with these six people many years ago would have been impossible for many of us who grew up in a world of socio-economic barriers and, sometimes, bigotry. But, there is no question that being with them in school would have enriched our lives.
When children go to school and learn to read and write, their individual potential is a mystery. We wonder what each student will be doing in 20 years. We know that each of our first-, fifth-, seventh-, 10th-graders will grow, develop, mature and will become great successes in their own right.
Today in Burlington, we have a chance to restructure our schools in the hopes of leveling the playing field for all our children.
What can make the playing field level? It is the collective will of the community to restructure our schools. After all, many of us are parents, teachers, city councilors, school commissioners and taxpayers who remember Martin Luther King Jr. and his "I have a dream" speech: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
As we continue our journey to restructure the Burlington schools we need to keep our eyes on the goal. If our goal is to close the achievement gap between children, we first, as a community, need to define achievement. Is it reading and writing with a global understanding of the many different cultures that make up our world? Plato in "The Republic" stated that to exclude any part of a population is to waste the resources that group offers to the whole.
In Burlington, let's not waste our valuable resources; let us embrace all of our children with the hope that they may become a Martin, a Hayslip, a Rosa, a Russell, a Bill, a Gloria, or an everyday good citizen like most of us. What we need is courage to look into the eye of discrimination and determine that we want a future for all our children that frees them to explore all avenues of learning.
Terry Buehner of Colchester is president of the Burlington Education Association, the teachers union.
My Turn: Parents' involvement key to school success
Published: Sunday, June 3, 2007 Burlington Free Press
By William Rath
I recently moved to Burlington and have followed with considerable interest the debate over school redistricting as reported in the Free Press. It is a discussion which I have seen take place, in one form or another, in communities throughout the country -- one notably complicated by the fact that evidence supports both those who favor relocating students through redistricting, on one hand, and keeping them in neighborhood schools, on the other.
Generally, studies indicate that students from chronically poor communities tend to perform better academically in schools with greater economic resources, and schools tend to perform better, on the whole, when they are an integral part of the communities in which they're located -- effectively, where students stay at "home." Stripped of the high emotions which almost always accompany these discussions, common sense alone would suggest the likely merits of both positions, though clearly they just don't work together.
Now that the decision on redistricting has been delayed, I'd like to suggest another way of thinking about how to resolve the underlying issues driving this debate, one which takes into account what I believe is the single most important resource schools have to draw upon: students' parents, and, in a necessary supporting role, neighborhood communities as a whole.
Ironic though it may seem, annually, schools on U.S. military bases, operated under the aegis of the Department of Defense, are rated among the best in the country -- because the DOD mandates that parents be actively involved in these schools and affords them the time to do so. Similarly, public schools which have adopted "parent-school partnership" programs, as they're usually referred to, are typically ranked above their peer schools, a point wonderfully illustrated by one of the founders of the idea, James Comer, in his book, "School Power."
Leading a team of educators from Yale University in 1968, Comer worked instrumentally with the parents of kids at the two lowest-performing elementary schools (ranked 33rd and 34th) in New Haven, Conn., finding ways to involve parents at every level of school operations. It is worth noting that both schools were located in the poorest neighborhoods of New Haven, and consisted almost entirely of students from minority families.
The outcome? In just eight years, these two schools were ranked among the top five in the New Haven system. Since Comer's pioneering work, parent-school partnerships have proven time and again, when fully implemented, to improve student and school performance in every meaningful arena: academics; student behavior; student and staff morale; security; and communication among administrators, parents, faculty, students and other involved community members.
A few years ago, I participated in an evaluation of a statewide parent-school partnership program in Utah (which, at the time, offered program design, funding and staff support to any school in the state that elected to pursue such a partnership). What we discovered was compelling: In every instance, where schools/communities fully committed to these partnerships -- regardless of socioeconomic factors -- the schools began to show notable improvements in the areas described above.
One of the things which has so impressed me about the state of Vermont -- and Burlington -- since I moved here, is what seems an abiding public commitment to community and the power of human resources. Although parent-school partnerships aren't easy to implement -- inevitably requiring a lot of work, trust, and willingness to communicate among all participants, as well as a high level of support from the community-at-large -- the payoff can be enormous. And in the back yard of John Dewey, who long ago advocated school as a vital "form of community life," I can't think of a better place in which to make them work. When they do, all other discussions of how to achieve school parity seem to fade away.
William Rath lives in Burlington.
My Turn: Redistricting wrong way to tackle economic integration
Published: Sunday, June 3, 2007 Burlington Free Press
By Clifford Morgan
In attempting to achieve academic equity across the Burlington elementary school system through socio-economic integration, the Burlington School Board is attacking the right problem with the wrong method. The current approach of redistricting existing schools does not affect all families equally. To maintain equity across schools, school lines will need to be adjusted annually. Families will not know from year to year what school their child will attend. Some families will leave the public school system. Other families will leave our city. No one will be attracted to our situation. Yes, many families will benefit, but many will also suffer. It is a true "win-lose" situation.
I do not believe, however, that it is fair to complain without proposing an alternative solution. Therefore, I would like to propose the following. Rather than redistrict existing schools to provide equity through socioeconomic integration, let's build a new, consolidated elementary school on the Moran site or other suitable location, then close Barnes, Champlain, Edmunds, and Wheeler. Alternatively, a new, consolidated middle school could be built, then Barnes, Champlain, and Wheeler could be closed and consolidated at the current Edmunds Elementary and Middle School complex, and Hunt could be closed, as well. Such a solution represents a "win-win" for the entire city.
Advantages to such consolidation include:
1. With all students in one school, complete socioeconomic integration will be achieved each and every year with no need to annually redistrict. All families will be equally affected by a single change, rather than subjected to perpetual change year to year.
2. The project could be mostly, if not completely, funded through the sale of the closed school property.
3. Once sold, current school land will enhance the Burlington grand list by tens of millions of dollars, greatly enhancing property tax receipts.
4. A consolidated school will require lower overhead costs relative to the existing schools.
5. All Burlington schools are old. Some are very old. Older schools require significantly more maintenance and are less energy-efficient than new schools. Operational costs will be reduced.
6. Savings could be such that school buses could be provided. It is irresponsible to suggest that children as young as 5 years old ride a city bus to school unaccompanied.
7. The vision, as stated by the Burlington School Board is, "We need a school system that will position us as a city for the 21st century, a successful, vibrant, attractive, multicultural city." What better way to position our children for the 21st century than with a 21st-century school? Benefits here include: A new school will be 100 percent handicap accessible. Our current schools are not. Lake Champlain is a tremendous resource that is largely untapped by our current school system. Locating a school by the lake will open endless educational and recreational opportunities for our children. Our elementary and middle school drama and music programs are outstanding. These programs deserve a proper auditorium. Broadband Internet has dramatically changed the way we work and live. It has also changed the way we should educate our children. How can we fully prepare our children for the world today without taking full advantage of Internet technology?
8. A new, consolidated school would attract more families to Burlington than the existing plan with year-to-year uncertainty over redistricting and high cost, aging, inaccessible schools. Property values will increase across the entire city.
In conclusion, improving equity across Burlington elementary schools is a citywide obligation. The Burlington School Board plan for equity through socioeconomic integration does not affect all Burlington school families equally and fairly, nor does it completely address the stated vision of positioning our city, and preparing our children, for the 21st century. Complete and consistent socioeconomic integration can only be achieved through school consolidation, not redistricting.
Clifford Morgan lives in Burlington.
Resisting redistricting
benefits one group
The Burlington School redistricting debate has all the earmarks of great Vermont theater, a.k.a. government. The more affluent parents know that their kids are in a relatively better position than the kids in the economically disadvantaged schools, so they're busy fabricating socially palatable arguments as to why redistricting should not occur.
Superintendent of Schools Jeanne Collins is apologizing "for any misunderstanding or confusion" the redistricting maps created. She said that they were "purely conceptual and for the purpose of conversation." Mayor Kiss wants to have a "conversation" among residents. The City Council is now involved. Has anyone notified the Electric Department? We probably need their input, too.
This is the state of affairs years after knowing of the disparity in educational achievement between the poor and more affluent schools. It would all be fine, and Vermont classic, except that as every parent knows, kids grow up fast. On balance, the well-educated go on to live more fulfilling, productive, and comfortable lives. The ones not well-educated help to fill slots in the Department of Corrections and other government programs. And kids don't stay in their hometowns when they grow up, either. Foot-dragging here only benefits one group. Superintendent Collins -- lead. Everyone else -- stick to your own job.
CHARLES KOGGE
Hinesburg
Chicago experiment wasn't
same as Burlington's
In the May 25 letter "Redistricting won't harm the wealthy," the writer suggests that Steven Levitt's book, "Freakonomics," supports the idea that a child from a "good" school who is redistricted to a "poor" school will do as well academically in either situation. What "Freakonomics" actually discusses is that "motivated" students from poorer schools perform as well as those same students who go to better schools.
Levitt used data from the Chicago Public School system, which decided in 1980 to allow high school freshmen to attend virtually any high school in the district, and when schools had more applications than spaces, students were chosen by lottery. For Levitt, a professor of applied microeconomics, this randomization of thousands of students resulted in a fortuitously controlled data set for statistical analysis. Interestingly, it was found that the students who applied to transfer to the "better" schools -- but did not win the spot -- did as well academically as those who did transfer.
As far as I am aware, the Chicago Public Schools did not have a large number of students from better schools electing to attend poorer schools and so that situation, which would be similar to the Burlington proposed redistricting, was not presented.
ANITA LICATA
Burlington
Building Burlington's Future
