OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS SPRING 2001 obstacle these schools face is in the courts. Once again, the judicial branch plays an extensive and complex role in the effort to create a unitary education system. The controversy surrounding magnets centers upon their admissions policies. About one third of magnet schools use some type of admissions criteria to determine who will attend. Some use test scores, recommendations from teachers, interviews, and sometimes race as a factor (Fuller and Elmore 1996, 168). When magnet schools began emerging in cities across the country, race was a paramount consideration in admission policies. Today many districts still consider the impact that certain transfers will have on the racial balance in the various schools. However, a series of lawsuits are challenging magnet administrators' authority to consider race in the admissions process (Hendrie 1998b). One of the most important lawsuits involving this issue is Montgomery County Public Schools v. Eisenberg 1999. In June 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed the Montgomery County, Maryland district court's decision. The district court judge held that the school board could deny Jacob Eisenberg's request for a transfer because of the implications it would have on the racial balance at his school. Eisenberg was white and wished to transfer from his predominately African-American school to a mathematics and science magnet school (Walsh 2000). As evident from the earlier discussion of the Supreme Court's role in desegregation, the justices have become increasingly wary of any procedure that considers race. Furthermore, the Court has held that school districts are not responsible for segregation caused by outside factors such as residential segregation. Montgomery County had never been under any court order to desegregate, nor was it found that the county intentionally attempted to segregate its schools, which meant the county was a unitary system. As a legally unitary system, "racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only on extraordinary justification" (Montgomery v. Eisenberg 1999). The Appeals Court found that the transfer policy did not meet the strict scrutiny guidelines used to determine the constitutionality of a race-based policy. In fact, the Appeals Court described the transfer policy as "simply too pernicious to permit any but the most exact connection between justification and classification." The opinion also stated that the district was merely racially balancing its school, and "[s]uch nonre-medial racial balancing is unconstitutional" (Montgomery v. Eisenberg 1999). In sum, the Court of Appeals ruled that Jacob Eisenberg was unfairly denied admission to a magnet school based solely upon his race. The county then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in March 2000 the Court declined to consider the case, despite the pleas from education leaders. They would like the Court to provide them clear guidance "on how they may use race, together with other factors, in granting or denying transfers, or devising overall student assignment plans, or admitting students to magnet schools or special academies" (Walsh 2000). This ruling conflicts with other federal rulings as well as rulings from higher state courts (Hendrie 1998b). The decision has left many magnet districts scrambling to revaluate their admissions policies, and left many frustrated by the legal uncertainty surrounding the issue (Hendrie 1998b). As attorney Maree Sneed, who has worked extensively on desegregation issues stated, "Thirty years ago, school districts were getting sued for not promoting diverse learning environments. Now they're getting sued for actually doing what they were originally sued for not doing" (Hendrie 1998b). Another school administrator commented, "You've got to reduce racial isolation without taking race into account. That is so strange. We're sort of in the twilight zone" (Hendrie 1998b). Magnets initially provided a legitimate way to circumvent the Supreme Court's decisions, which limited voluntary efforts to desegregate when segregation was due to de facto circumstances such as residential segregation. However, their ability to achieve lasting city/suburb integration is now being challenged. A possible way out of the legal entanglement is to establish attendance zone magnets in minority neighborhoods with a lottery system. This would ensure that a large portion of minority students could still benefit from magnet programs. The underlying question in the debate over segregation and school reform is whether the government should allow race conscious policies to redress past injustices and in a sense regulate race relations in America. The courts have answered yes, but under strict guidelines. More and more those guidelines are being challenged. The lawsuits are in some aspects a testament of how well magnets are able to attract white middle class suburbanites. Many of these parents believe that it is unfair to consider race when making admission decisions. They find that the school board and the government in general do not have the right to regulate race relations. These parents are only seeking a higher quality education for their children. Nevertheless magnet schools show promise in achieving the goals of integration and improving the quality of inner city schools, while at the same time heeding the legal restrictions placed upon desegregation. Although many magnet schools may not be exceptional, they are the most feasible alternative. One may argue that if the objective is to improve inner city minority schools, then more resources should be funneled into these schools, rather than focusing on integration. However, those who take such a stance do not understand that integration is the best way to improve public schools. Tactics to funnel more money into inner city schools, such as equalization of school funding, are highly contested and impractical. Those with greater political power use their influence in the form of lobbying and lawsuits to challenge such alternatives to school funding. Magnet schools, on the other hand, attract those with greater financial and political resources to inner city schools. Unlike equalization of funding alternatives, which threaten 73 |