Educators brought this on themselves. Over the last decade, we’ve become paralyzed by education standards. We need to pass tests to get out of school and to get into school. If we can’t prove it by choosing (a) over (b), (c) and (d), then we must not be educated.
So it’s not surprising that the culture of objectivity has now put educators on the defensive in a lawsuit brought by parents in Louisville and Seattle who charge discrimination against their white kids who’ve been denied admission into K-12 schools in those cities. In Louisville, the parents want their kids in certain magnet schools where the city is trying to maintain between a 15% and 50% minority population, reflecting the city’s racial make-up. In Seattle, school officials want a multi-ethnic environment in schools because they believe “students learn best in a diverse environment.” Students can go to any school unless it’s “oversubscribed” with that student’s race or ethnicity.
White parents are crying foul and reverse discrimination. But it begs the question, if race isn’t a fair criteria to establish school standards, what is?
Scores, tests, numbers, of course. That’s what an education has become. A gifted writer will be denied a high school diploma is she can’t pass the math SOL. K-12 schools have succumbed to this thinking, whereas colleges have thought that way for decades. If a kid has a higher SAT, then he gets in over a child with creativity but lower scores. Having had three kids apply to college in the last four years, I think it is still solely a numbers game for most schools.
Opponents of plans to diversify schools claim they are being denied admission unfairly because they’re white, despite their higher scores. In both these cases, it may be that kids can’t go to their neighborhood school, although I suspect that affects both whites and minority students.
Whatever the specifics of these cases, having a diverse population can be a critical component of a complete education. We’re not just trying to teach these kids how to add and subject and know dates of the American Revolution. We’re trying to prepare them for today’s complex world. If all you really need to know you learn in kindergarten, you better have some faces that don’t like yours in it. And if you want to understand the subtleties of world affairs, you need some experience with folks you don’t share your views or prejudices. Race and ethnicity are playing a greater, not lesser, role in American life. Kids need some experience in that environment.
Just because a kid scores a few points higher on a test doesn’t mean he can contribute as much to the learning environment as someone else. The same is true in the workplace. Those who charge “reverse discrimination” believe that judging who is the best fit for a job can be coolly calculated by years of experience, courses taken and raises granted. The irony is that jobs have been filled for generations based on who you know, not what you know. But the myth of an objective grading system for employees is the smoke screen for those who can’t understand why a company might want to hire a minority for either the unique perspective he might bring the company’s business or because mere diversity might be beneficial to the company in some intangible way.
Once that kid, whatever race or ethnicity, gets into the real world, he learns what we all know: Life isn’t fair. We make decisions based on intangibles and are judged by the same. So isn’t it best we give all kids the greatest chance possible to explore those inequities and intangibles while they’re young, impressionable and, we hope, less corrupted by established prejudices?
There is no objective way to judge understanding, initiative or dedication. And there is little proof that a kid educated in one school will always have the advantage in terms of intellectual skills over another educated elsewhere. You get out of it what you put into it. But understanding diversity can only be accomplished the old fashioned way — experiencing it. We do great harm to children if we deny them that opportunity.