'No': ICCSD Proposed Diversity Policy

                                                                                                     
 

     It shall be the policy of the board to provide equitable learning environments for the students attending ICCSD. It is the board's policy that greater diversity and enhanced learning will be the result of establishing the following goals . . .   

                  

     

The School Board is split 4-3 on the proposed policy.

    

     Putting a whole new meaning on the generally accepted understanding of 'minority' in today's political climate, the draft policy defines "minority students" to “mean those students receiving free or reduced price lunches” and "non-minority students" as “those not receiving free or reduced price lunches”. These definitions cement in writing that the diversity policy addresses low socioeconomic black children attending the ICCSD and further stigmatizes this segment of our school age population.

     

     We hope that those who haven't done so and who are interested in this issue will go to this link http://www.edline.net/pages/ICCSD/and read the policy for themselves. Here is a sample:

     

         “No more than 10 percentage points of difference between the comprehensive high schools (grades 9-12) with the highest and lowest percentages of minority students at such schools in the District;

     

          No more than 15 percentage points of difference between the junior high schools (grades 7-8) with the highest and lowest percentages of minority students at such schools in the District; and

         

          For each elementary school (grades K-6), no more than 15 percentage points above the mean percentage of the district-wide percentage of minority students for all students in grades K-6.”

     

     The rest of the policy is equally obtuse; the four members of the School Board who support this policy need remedial work in how to write a coherent document. If you haven’t read the policy and think you support it, start from ground zero and see if you change your mind.

     

     The Board majority that favors passage of this mind twisting policy must rethink its position. A 4-3 vote is, as Sarah Swisher stated recently, enough to pass the policy, but her belief that after its passage the minority dissenters should get on board and work to implement it is wishful thinking.  The superintendent and school administrators will implement the policy, not the board; and after implementation begins, it may become clear that the majority was wrong to pass it.

      We - and apparently a large number of parents in the district - are not certain exactly how the proposed policy is to be carried out. Until clarification of the practical aspects of implementation is provided, the vote on the policy should be held in abeyance.  For example:

      If it is determined that a given school should have ‘x’ number of students transferred out, but more than ‘x’ students express interest in relocating, how will the decision of which students go and which remain behind be made? Who will be the final authority? What would be the impact on those who want to transfer out, but are not selected to go?

     Similarly, assume it is determined that ‘x’ number of students should be transferred out, but less than ‘x’ students express interest; will students who don’t want to be transferred be forced to do so in order to meet the goals set by the diversity policy?

The policy states that the “Superintendent shall not fail” in the implementation of the Board’s wishes on this matter. It is hard to believe that this policy will achieve the desired numbers without collateral damage, so we must ask ourselves if the policy isn’t also intended as a thinly disguised way to some day achieve what the Board can’t bring itself to do now: dismiss Superintendent Stephen F. Murley.

     Citing  "some" evidence as "seeming" to support the conclusion that students do better in schools where the disparity between free-lunch (minority) and not free-lunch (non-minority) is within "acceptable range" is a shaky basis upon which to decide to transfer out free lunch kids (minority) and transfer in not-free lunch kids (non-minority.) And why would any parent volunteer to transfer a child who is performing satisfactorily in his/her current school into a school where a majority of the students haven't been performing well, possibly have more unmet emotional needs, and still need much remedial work to get to grade level?

      What makes the majority of the School Board believe that free lunch kids (minority) and non-free lunch kids (non-minority) who have been transferred in or out will be accepted and welcomed by their new classmates into their cliques? The transferred children will likely be stigmatized immediately and may be isolated socially in a way that can be extremely painful: around income levels. 

     

     How will children who are transferred in and out get to their new schools? Will transfer buses go around to all the schools picking up the transfers and then dropping them off at the school they are now to attend -  and later picking them up and bringing them back to their home neighborhood at the conclusion of the school day?  What happens to students wanting to stay later for extracurricular activities or get back to their old school in order to participate in after school activities there? This is not a way to achieve healthy neighborhoods or good neighborhood schools.

     

     History has proven busing to be inadequate in addressing socioeconomic integration; and making everyone average is not a good long-term goal. Equality of opportunity is a worthier end for which the ICCSD should strive. 

      

     A more sensible solution for improving schools that are not demonstrating adequate academic performance would be to upgrade their physical structures; equip all classrooms with the latest technology; reward the teachers and administrators in those schools who use innovative and successful measures to improve student achievement; and provide top notch librarians as well as additional teacher aides, counselors and social workers.

          

     --Carol deProsse

     --Caroline Dieterle

Contact the School Board at: board@iccsd.k12.ia.us

Bits and Pieces

Supervisor Vacancy 

Kevin O'Malley

New Pioneer

     With rumors swirling that the Supervisors might allow an appointment to fill the vacancy created by Sally Stutsman's move to the Statehouse they voted to hold an election on March 5, 2013.

   Two Democrats have so far expressed interest for this seat: Mike Carberry and Terry Dahms. The candidate to be on the ballot on the Democratic ticket will be chosen at the party's convention on March 13. Information can be found at www.jcdems.org.

   There are two years remaining in Stutsman's term; it would have been an overtly political move to allow three people (Auditor Travis Weipert, Recorder Kim Painter and Treasurer Tom Kriz) to select the person for this vacancy. When Janelle Rettig was appointed a few years ago it was because there were only a few months remaining in the vacancy created by the death of Supervisor Larry Myers. She then had to run a full bore campaign anyway because Lori Cardella of Solon managed to get enough signatures to force an election, a move many people believed was based on Lori's personal prejudices against Janelle's 'lifestyle'.

   I hope the delegates elect Mike Carberry; Carberry has a better position on the issue of TIFs and will probably be a bit more independent in his thinking. Dahms served admirably as chair of the JC Dems, but is pretty buddy-buddy with state Senator Bob Dvorsky, a big TIF proponent and a legislator not inclined to push for more tightening of TIF.

jrettig@co.johnson.ia.us
pharney@co.johnson.ia.us
rsullivan@co.johnson.ia.us
tneuzil@co.johnson.ia.us

   I will miss Kevin O'Malley as Iowa City's Director of Finance. Kevin was always fun to talk to about City business and taught me a little something about TIFs in the process. He was everything a good public employee should be including being accessible to citizens. I wish him good times in his retirement.

   Having failed in its plans to build a new store at the corner of College & Gilbert Streets the board should welcome the renewed opportunity to talk to the city about acquiring land directly east of the Unitarian Church for a somewhat larger store; such a move would keep New Pi financially viable, remove any need for TIF assistance, and maintain a location in the downtown. This would also allow the City to raze the old store and build an attractive parking lot for City employees. It would be ideal if any building on this site were in harmony with the other structures on this block: Iowa Avenue and Van Buren, Washington and Linn Streets.
   The board should also undertake a survey of members to gauge support for the possibility of cooperatively working with the City toward a City built and maintained structure for the Farmer's Market in the planned Riverfront Crossings District south of town; this would be a perfect spot for the construction of a larger New Pi, one that would serve the greater community in a mixed-use setting with plenty of parking and open space.

--Carol deProsse

                               

Not Time Yet For A Bigger Jail

Until changes happen, 'no' to a new jail

      There isn't much to be said about having another jail vote in May except what this article by Professor Jeff Cox states most eloquently in the December issue of The Prairie Progressive. The committee that has been formed to address the issue of race in Johnson County incarceration can meet and come up with all the suggestions they want, but until those suggestions are implemented and measurable changes occur we see no reason to vote for a new, bigger jail, especially one that has simply reduced the number of beds by about 60, but will "rough in" the additional cells so they can be funded separately by the Supervisors through the budget process.

--Carol deProsse

--Caroline Dieterle

Don’t You Dare Use the “R” Word

    The successful campaign to defeat the new Johnson County jail produced unusual political alliances. The small Vote No committee included libertarians, Republican central committee members, Trotskyites, AARP officers, and a few aging Democrats with civil liberties sympathies. On the other side was the entire Democratic Party in Johnson County, including all local elected officials who took a position with the honorable exception of city council member Jim Throgmorton.

     The organizations that endorsed the jail constitute a virtual catalog of the local Liberal Establishment: the Johnson County Democratic Party, Iowa City Federation of Labor, Johnson County Bar Association, Iowa City City Council, League of Women Voters, University of Iowa Student Government, Iowa City Area Crimestoppers, Johnson County Local Homeless Coordinating Board, Painters & Allied Trades District Council 81, Public Professional & Maintenance Employees Local 2003, and (my favorite) The “Friends of Historic Preservation”.

     How could all of these liberal organizations endorse a proposal to jail even more victims of the war on drugs, and more African-Americans? The answer to that question lies in the initial success of the Jail Coordinating Committee in disguising the causes of over-incarceration in Johnson County. Approximately 50 beds were needed to deal with jail overcrowding, which still left 80-100 to explain. Jail advocates said that we must “plan for growth”, but they were unable to explain who would be incarcerated in the new jail cells.

     Local statistics about race were readily available to anyone who asked: 40% of those incarcerated locally are African Americans, who constitute slightly less than 6% of the population of Johnson County. All the Vote No campaign had to do was cite these figures to cause an electoral turnaround among many Iowa City liberals (note the voting totals at Horace Mann and Longfellow schools). Sheriff Pulkrabek responded to these figures with a series of dizzying nonsequiturs, while other liberal Democratic leaders responded with simple indignation that you would dare raise the race issue.

     There is a considerable degree of denial about race among Iowa City liberals. It would be worthwhile having a video of the meeting of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which was actually divided on whether to take a position on the issues of racial disparity raised by the Vote No campaign. One member denied that the 40/6 ratio should even be discussed as evidence of racism on the local level, and this denial has continued after the defeat of the jail. Jail supporter and Press Citizen columnist Bob Elliott, normally a reasonable person, published a post-defeat article entitled “lies, damn lies, and statistics” in which he suggested that even raising the issue of racial disparity was an “insinuation” of racism in the community, as if that were intrinsically outrageous. Pro-jail statistician John Neff posted on Facebook an outright denial that racism was an important factor in the 40/6 ratio.

     Well, perhaps these liberal Democrats are right, and there is no racism at all to be found in our well-meaning and color-blind People’s Republic of Johnson County. It is certainly true that calling people racists, or even public policy issues racist, is counterproductive. But it is equally true that this community needs to face up to the racial polarization that has occurred in Johnson County, and especially in Iowa City, over the growth of a working class African American population. The proposed jail does not exist in isolation from other racial issues that have not been addressed.

     In 2009 a homeless immigrant from Africa, John Deng, was shot and killed by an off-duty Sheriff’s Deputy dressed in civilian clothes. This incident was referred by County Attorney Janet Lyness to the office of Iowa Attorney General Thomas Miller, who issued a report in September of 2009 that is well worth reading. Like almost all reports on police killings, the report exonerates the officer, but in this case the racially charged nature of the incident is simply whitewashed. The report wades through a cloud of contradictory evidence, but it appears that one way to read this incident is that a white man came out of a bar and got into a fight with a highly intoxicated black man because he was spilling cans, apparently retrieved from dumpsters, on to the street. It is possible that John Deng was using what the report describes as a “small knife” to defend himself against this attack, although that is unclear. What is clear is that an off-duty (white) sheriff’s deputy arrived, intervened in the fight, watched the white man knock the black man down, ordered the white man to leave (which he refused to do), and then when the almost unbelievably intoxicated black man (blood alcohol of .295) stood up, shot and killed him. As far as we know, County Attorney Lyness never filed any charges against the white man. John Deng has been, for the most part, forgotten.

     As the investigation into the John Deng killing proceeded, the Iowa City Council was imposing an unprecedented curfew on young people. Unlike other Iowa cities, Iowa City had never imposed a teenage curfew, largely on civil liberties grounds. Why impose one in 2009? In the color-blind language of the curfew resolution: “Whereas, persons under the age of eighteen are particularly susceptible by their lack of maturity and experience to participate in unlawful and gang-related activities..... the City has found that there has been a significant breakdown in the supervision and guidance normally provided by parents and guardians for juveniles resulting in an increase in crimes and other unacceptable behavior”, etc. In other words, we now have black teenagers in town, and therefore must put them under police supervision.

     Two years later the irresponsible behavior of black young people came up again. For many years white bus passengers have waited in cold weather behind the glass doors of the Old Capitol mall, watching for the bus. As the number of African-American students at City High and Southeast Junior High grew, many came downtown after school, and made the mall a kind of gathering place. In response to complaints about their behavior, a new apartheid-style sign appeared: “Stand Ten Feet Back from the Door”, complete with a security guard to enforce the rule. Now bus passengers either have to wait outside in the cold, or stand behind the sign under the supervision of a security guard.  As someone who grew up in the legally segregated south, I can recognize signs telling black people where to stand and sit when I see them. So can they.

     Jail advocates will no doubt be back soon with new proposals to incarcerate

more African-Americans and more victims of the war on drugs. Perhaps this time around, we can actually have a community conversation about how to deal with issues of racial justice in Johnson County.

— Jeff Cox