Despite the fact the Kennedy regards diversity as a pertinent concern, he fails to determine whether the two school districts establish if their diversity plans are intently designed to such concerns. Kennedy points out that Jefferson County offered only imprecise and broad terms regarding the mode and timing of the utilization of individual ethnic classifications. Such ambiguities prove problematic if some intricate, comprehensive scheme containing tactics for attaining ethnically integrated learning institutions exists.
Kennedy points out that Seattle school district has not explained why , within a district having many races, ‘non white’ and ‘white’ races classifications were used to make assignment choices. Seattle pointed out that the promotion of the learning benefits of different school enrolment constitutes one of its objectives , nevertheless, Kennedy states that the ‘non-white/’white’ distinction does not solely further such goal (Miller, 2009). For instance, schools having 50 percent white and 50 percent Latino learners would be classified as unbiased in spite of the lack of any African-American or Asian-American students.
Thus, Kennedy regards Seattle’s plan as defeating its own purpose of attaining diversity. The concurrence of Kennedy rectifies the mistake endorsed by most of the Court and ushers in the reintroduction of re-segregated schools. Such ruling may influence not only community school learning since ethic categorizations, among additional issues, arte used to establish scholarship eligibility, educational assistance, plus allocation of targeted donations for learning institutions.
Following the ruling Seattle school district quickly moved to thwart re-segregation within schools. The district recently endorsed a fresh strategy which will allocate particular learners to learning institutions on the basis of their areas of residence. Seattle halted busing, which was devised to attain integration. The Seattle School Board revised its allocation of learners to learning institutions by, for instance, placing an increased number of learners at neighborhood or nearby school.
School Administrators considered reserving a number of secondary- school positions, between five and fifteen percent , for learners external to school neighborhoods, and probably giving first priority to learners from low-revenue families. However, such reserved positions are likely to attain the same level of integration as previous tie-breakers. They as well would not affect existing segregation in preparatory and middle-level schools (http://onthedocket. org/cases/2006/parents-involved-community-schools-v-seattle-school-district-1-et-al-06282007)
Some school administrators in Seattle school district have openly stated that they did not care about the racial composition of the schools they manage provided that such schools’ educational performance is good. They cited the existing political environment as being hostile to any integration attempts . Seattle district developed a fresh assignment arrangement that would see every school have a minimum of fifteen percent and a maximum of fifty percent of its learners from localities having lower-than-average educational achievement and revenues , plus a higher-than-average marginal population.
Such an arrangement was hoped to be legally endorsed sine learners were to be allocated learning institutions on the basis of their residences, as opposed to their ethnicity. The ruling was delivered less than 2 months prior to the commencement of Jefferson County normal school year and less than 3 weeks prior to the commencement of the District’s year-round school. Teddy Gordon, Plaintiff’s attorney told a press conference on the material ruling day that if required, he would seek official mechanisms to bar the usage of existing Student Assignment Plan for the 2007-2008 school year.
Regarding the timing that was close, Gordon declared that the District was supposed to adjust so as to conform to the Court’s verdict (Shaw, 2008). Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) representative, Pat Todd at a different press conference, stressed that the existing assignment arrangement would be used for the entire 2007-2008 school year. He cited the conclusion of financial plans, busing, assignments, and staffing as the basis why adjustments would be logistically impossible.
Alderson reporting company . (December 4th 2006). Parents involved in community schools v. Seattle School District . retrieved July 13th 2009, from http://74. 125. 77. 132/search? q=cache:5xfmdOVD2UJ:www. supremecourtus. gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05 908. pdf+Parents+involved+in+community+schools+v. +Seattle+School+District&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gke&client=firefox-a