Parental Handbook for Local Control of Education / Challenge Five |
70 | |||||||||||||||||||
San Diegans Challenge Perpetual |
||||||||||||||||||||
The Board Proposes Modifications in Its Integration Plan, But Retains Underlying Racial Considerations While Disclaiming Them On October 20, 1999, the San Diego Board advised of proposed modifications to its Integration Plan in an article by its counsel titled A Different Approach in the Union-Tribune: ... The district is now proposing changes that would remove a student's race / ethnicity as a criterion for eligibility to attend schools outside of the student's area of residence. The changes would encompass a system of choice and selection that avoids race-based consideration while using factors such as geography and residential patterns to continue nurturing integrated schools. The proposal would by no means lessen the district's commitment to diversity.... The Board's proposals did not meet Groundswell objections that they were not race-neutral in line with recent federal decisions. Nor did a final proposal meet the objections which the author placed before the Board on November 30, 1999. Enstrom presented examples of objections by non-class constituents of the Board in the Carlin case opposing the future use of race / ethnicity in its integration proposal. One objection, and the basis for it, was by a minority-classified student originally excluded from a magnet school because of her race and residence, by way of a copy of her written statement to the Board:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Carlin |
Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District, |
|||||||||||||||||||
Board of Education v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 411 (Feb.1998) |
||||||||||||||||||||
— Handbook: Challenge Five, pages 65 - 74 — |
||||||||||||||||||||
|