Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools have long been a bellwether for social change. In 1969, U.S. District Judge James McMillan ordered the schools to desegregate, turning Swann into a landmark case in the nation’s move toward school desegregation. In 2001, after 30 years of court-ordered desegregation, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools “unitary,” or integrated. As a result, the system was no longer under a court order regarding student assignment.
As a former CMS Board member, I helped craft the resulting student assignment plan — a progressive policy based on choice. Parents were given the opportunity to choose either a guaranteed seat in a nearby school, or to apply to attend another school in the system. CMS received more than 100,000 applications from students’ families, and an impressive 95 percent of these students were matched with one of their three specified choices. While this assignment plan was imperfect, and a small number (less than 5,000) of students were not able to find spots in a school of their choosing, the process nevertheless marked the start of a genuine effort to involve parents in school assignment.
In 2005, the board will conduct a comprehensive review of this choice plan. A special-interest group is already producing “research” asserting that allowing parental choice is not in the public’s best interest. During the 2001 court case, the Swann plaintiffs (in a reactivated case) argued that the schools should continue assigning students by race to achieve racial balance. After losing with this argument, they are now seeking to balance the system in a different way — requiring quotas of certain kinds of students in each school (poor, white, black, etc.).
The problem with this argument is that integration is defined only as achieving a quota. While we should continue to strive for racial and economic diversity in our schools, we should not deceive ourselves into believing that filling quotas will result in true integration. I believe integration is an attitude of the heart, requiring shifts in internal attitudes and perceptions. As Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1963 in Strength to Love, “The good neighbor looks beyond the external accidents and discerns those inner qualities that make all men human and, therefore, brothers.”
Yet, even if perfect racial and economic balancing were achieved, would the result be a stronger school system? I believe not. My definition of successful schools are those in which academic achievement can be measured, and data on student performance show an upward trend. Academic growth is the top priority, for all groups of students. If poor and disadvantaged students are not doing well, then we need to develop better programs and strategies to reach and educate this vulnerable group of children.
Sadly, the plaintiffs are afraid of the consequences of freedom. Instead, they advocate for “controlled choice” in pupil assignment — an oxymoron at best. Their plan begs the question: Who really controls the choice if placement is ultimately determined by a quota?
After 30 years of desegregation, we ought to have learned something about what students from all walks of life need to succeed. Contrary to what the Swann plaintiffs may believe, academic excellence is not directly influenced by the color of a child’s skin, or the money in his pocket; nor will it ever result from perfect economic and racial balancing. Rather, the measure of a good school is whether children —whatever their background — are learning the basics and learning them well.
Lindalyn Kakadelis is director of the N.C. Education Alliance.