What I wanted to learn was how important the district thinks the results of this case are and why.
- The only district perspective I could find on the case was from a district attorney, Shannon McMinimee, who said in a Seattle PI article in December that school district officials haven't decided whether they would resume using the tiebreaker. If, as this suggest, the district is not necessarily going to try to use race again as a tie-breaker, then why is the district spending millions of dollars in this lawsuit?
- If the district believes re-instituting the race-based tie breaker is crucial, then how can it defend the proposed move towards less choice in a smaller, more restricted geographic area?
- In a Seattle PI article, James Kelly, president of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle said that "the debate over using tiebreakers "is really secondary to the importance of having all 10 high-performing schools," he said. "And we don't have that now." What is the district reaction to this argument?
- Danny Westneat, in a Seattle Times column Seeing our way to diversity, suggests an idea I would like to see explored: the income-based tie breaker. Is the district considering this as an option?
So Brita and others, that is the sort of thing I had hoped to read from the district about the Supreme Court case. Can you enlighten me further?
Take a look at an interesting piece of reading on this topic; a debate between former Seatte superintendent Joseph Olchefske (who tried to attend the Supreme Court hearing but couldn't get a ticket) and Roger Clegg from the Center for Equal Opportunity on race-based school assignments.
And if you want to pretend you were able to attend the Supreme Court hearing, visit this very cool site Eric Baer sent to me, which has both the audio and the written transcript linked together.
Finally, for some necessary background on what has happened in Seattle schools regarding race in the past, read HistoryLink Essay: Busing in Seattle: A Well-Intentioned Failure.