WE Blog

I would think logistically, this will be next to impossible to coordinate, especially with the leadership we have here in Wichita. My opinion, and we will see how it works out next year.

That’s so simple Joe, that you just know that it won’t be Wichita leader’s answer.

Joe – agreed. Also with TDT sadly …

I raise the question: what is the Office of Civil Rights position on this. Why is OCR’s position important? It is the successor to the agency under (at the time) the DOJ which became involved, as memory serves, in the litigation filed by private citizens back in the late 1960s. Again, from memory, the litigation was resolved by the consent agreement.

As there is a consent agreement, all parties thereto (it seems to me) will need to consent to the amendment of the plan encompassed within the Superintendent’s plan adopted by the BOE last night. In a prior story, it was reported that the new plan would be filed as an amendment to the consent agreement, with no mention of OCR’s acquiescence thereto (or that of any other party). It seems to me that if OCR does not agree, then there can be no amendment that has any viability, without some type of court action.

I raise these questions not because I do not favor the plan to eliminate forced busing; far from it. My concern is practical, in that if (a big word, right) OCR doesn’t agree, there is likely to be litigation over the issue, and I would expect an injunction issued against changing the agreement. This would leave many students and parents twisting in the wind, with the new school year approaching, and a very bad taste in the mouth of the residents of the City of Wichita in general. I know the BOE has counsel, and perhaps this has already been resolved. If it has, I find it remarkable that such resolution has not been reported. If it was reported, I missed it, and would owe the appropriate persons an apology. I don’t think there is a resolution of this issue, however. Therein lie my concerns.

The kids are heavily involved in the situation. They are the ones that are inconvenienced daily. Let them input their data and preferences into a database. Give them until May15 to finalize choices. 3rd grade and below may need help from upper grades or a teacher. The last weeks of school will solicit parental permission.

Make the database available to all.

The OCR or several other groups could kill the whole thing, of course.

Maybe because they are giving the students and parents a choice about whether they want to stay where they are or move to a closer school negates the problem that you raise?

TDT, I don’t know the answer to the excellent question you raise. My speculation is that giving the choice you post, which is somewhat limited in fact regardless of how it sounds, would not be enough if OCR or any other interested party has concerns sufficient to oppose.

And I’m not sure that has changed all that much in Wichita. We still have the poor NE which is predominately black, and I wonder if they have changed the way the tax is distributed so that we won’t revert back to that.

A few thoughts – esepcially would like TDT and VT to comment on:

Improve magnet opportunities – both inside and outside northeast area

Improve transit and provide bus passes.

Perhaps some selective busing from a collection point at the neighborhood school to a magnet.

Ben,

On improving magnet opportunities. Not too sure exactly what you mean by that. I know that NEM, the magnet with which I’ve been associated over the years, has a number of applicants and admitted students who live in the area. One thing of which I’m fearful is that there will be a push to convert the site of NEM into a comprehensive high school for students living in the area, with moving its magnet programs to other locations. One problem with this is the physical size of the building. Another is (personal bias will be showing here) the disbanding of one of the more successful, as measured, high school programs in the district, which, IMO, is attributable to the synergy of the three separate magnets being in the same location.

NEM is a “pure” magnet, and has students from all parts of the district (and, in the past, and I believe presently a few) students who live outside the district, admitted on a space-available basis. I believe the middle school magnets are “pure” magnets as well, with the bulk of the elementary schools being “neighborhood” magnets (preference given to neighborhood students first, the balance of seats filled by lottery from applicants not living in the neighborhood).

Under the “choice” plan adopted, as I understand it, the AAA students who are currently bused will have the opportunity to continue at the school in which presently enrolled; choose to attend a magnet program, whether in or outside the AAA; or attend a neighborhood school. To have sufficient seats for the elementary students, it is conceivable that two elementary neighborhood magnets will need to be “demagnetized”, and made solely neighborhood schools.

On transit, I speculate that the current policy of USD 259 with respect to the same (excluding forced busing) will be in effect; if the student lives more than 2.5 miles from the school to be attended, there will be a school bus provided. It would be that transportation would also be provided for hazardous areas (students required to cross busy streets, etc.), special ed students, and certain others the identity of the groups affected currently not coming to mind. It seems that as proposed, there exists under the plan adopted the real potential for more, not fewer, buses to be rolling every morning.

Recall that transportation funding also comes from the state, and is a separate fund from the general fund by which schools operate. I don’t see a big rush to hand out bus passes on the WMTA system, as I suspect, but do not know, the purchase thereof would be funded from the general fund and not the transportation fund.

The great experiment continues…

Well said VT. I would simply add that it should be possible to get the bus passes paid from the transportation fund. Also I would look for the MTA to discount them as there should be no ‘net cost’ to the system to transport the students.

Ben, what if (I consider all potential outcomes, regardless of how realistic the same are) the district “makes money” from the existing transportation system?

TDT, you are correct in your assertion about the MTA, as its present routes and schedules are, not being a realistic alternative for students. For some students living in certain areas attending certain schools, it can work; but for precious few.

Conservatives were right about this 40 years ago. It’s was a bad idea. Busing kids all over town, making them get up earlier than they should, parents are half way across town making it difficult to be involved.
It took a while, but we (and the kids) win.
Again.

outlander, clarification. I think that while some of the flight to the suburbs was to avoid forced busing, much of it has been for perceived better schools, based upon the reporting of state assessment scores, etc. Thus, the removal of forced busing as an issue won’t do much, IMO, to curb this.

Hmm, my later post isn’t there. So, trying again:

outlander, clarification. I think that while there was some flight to the suburbs to avoid forced busing, the majority is related to go to schools perceived as “better”, as reflected on things like published state assessment scores. Thus, there may be a few who might have gone based upon the forced busing issue, but for those who are seeking better schools, the ending of forced busing won’t change their minds.

I’m surprised the ACLU hasn’t stuck its snout in on this issue.

“Voters in the Wichita school district could decide on a proposed $350 million bond issue as early as May 6.

“Some residents have questioned why any bond vote should be at a special election rather than during the general elections in August or November. An earlier election would cost the district about $75,000.

“This cost would be better spent on two new classroom teachers,” district resident Bernard Hentzen told the board Monday.

“Superintendent Winston Brooks countered that inflation and the rising cost of construction means a special election could save the district money in the long run.

“That $75,000 you might spend in a special election will be saved several times over by doing it now instead of waiting,” he said.”

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/story/294983.html

Watch this whole scenario carefully, voters! Is this bond issue vote (at a cost of $75,000 just to hold a special election!) being held because voter turnout would ensure its failure?

Mark your calendars the instant they decide to hold this vote and don’t let a few make a decision that will affect us all!

Hi, nice post. I couldn’t understand some parts of the article but it sounds interesting..
Continue writing…