Choice vs. integration.(Editorials)(Schools can't achieve perfect balance)(Editorial)

Byline: The Register-Guard

The Eugene School District's reviews of its alternative schools are coasting to a close. The second batch of reviews has drawn less interest than the first; none of the schools placed under the lens in this round faces a threat of closure, or even a call for fundamental change. The entire review process has run up against its limit: Choice and uniformity are at odds in ways that can be mitigated, but not erased.

The Eugene district's system of alternative elementary schools empowers those who are best equipped and motivated to take advantage of the choices it offers. Despite abundant exceptions, these tend to be families with money, time and a commitment to education.

The result is that children from affluent and involved families are over-represented in some alternative schools, while some neighborhood schools are left to cope with the consequences of what amounts to upper-middle-class flight. These consequences range from reduced fundraising horsepower to higher percentages of students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

School district officials have long been aware that its array of choices has brought about a troubling degree of self-segregation, with both racial and economic dimensions. The most recent response has been an exhaustive series of reviews. The review team evaluated each alternative school - four last school year, and four this year - in terms of its curriculum, enrollment and diversity. The team also studied the effects of locating an alternative and a neighborhood school in the same building, as occurs in most cases.

On Wednesday the Eugene School Board will consider Superintendent George Russell's recommendations based on the reviews. The second round proved far less contentious than the first. Three of the schools in the second cohort - the French, Japanese and Spanish language immersion schools - have curricula of self-evident distinctiveness, and all four have healthy enrollments. That wasn't the case with some of the schools evaluated in the first set of reviews. And only one of the schools in the second group shares a building with a neighborhood school, whereas all of the schools in the first round were co-located with others.

Housing an alternative and a neighborhood school in the same building has been found to cause problems ranging from mild to toxic. Teachers, parents and students at the neighborhood school feel, sometimes intensely, that their school is regarded as second-best. It doesn't matter whether such attitudes are real or perceived, or whether they are communicated deliberately or unconsciously. Friction appears to be an unavoidable result of co-location. The only solution is to move toward eventually providing schools with their own buildings, as Russell recommends.

At least some of the friction occurs because close quarters make the social and economic differences between neighborhood and alternative impossible to ignore. Moving the schools to separate buildings won't make the differences go away. Further effort will be needed.

In the case of the Fox Hollow French immersion school, the review team found such a lack of student diversity that Russell recommends a special planning effort followed by another review. In all cases, Russell accepts the reviewers' calls for abolishing caps on class sizes at the alternative schools and working to attract greater numbers of minority, low-income and special-needs children.

Even if all of the recommendations are energetically implemented, some social and economic imbalances between alternative and neighborhood schools will persist. The imbalances are rooted in the very nature of a school system that allows choices among different schools. The only way to ensure a perfect distribution of students would be to eliminate choice, require that all students attend their neighborhood schools, and gerrymander attendance boundaries to ensure the proper demographic mix.

The Eugene School District is not about to take that step. That is no excuse for complacency - persistent imbalances impair the educations of students on both sides of the divide. The district must do all it can to ensure that choices among schools are not just open to everyone, but that practical opportunities to take advantage of the choices are available. The reviews may be ending, but the work must continue - indeed, as long as choice remains a feature of the Eugene school system, it will never be done.

Choice vs. integration.(Editorials)(Schools can't achieve perfect balance)(Editorial)

Byline: The Register-Guard

The Eugene School District's reviews of its alternative schools are coasting to a close. The second batch of reviews has drawn less interest than the first; none of the schools placed under the lens in this round faces a threat of closure, or even a call for fundamental change. The entire review process has run up against its limit: Choice and uniformity are at odds in ways that can be mitigated, but not erased.

The Eugene district's system of alternative elementary schools empowers those who are best equipped and motivated to take advantage of the choices it offers. Despite abundant exceptions, these tend to be families with money, time and a commitment to education.

The result is that children from affluent and involved families are over-represented in some alternative schools, while some neighborhood schools are left to cope with the consequences of what amounts to upper-middle-class flight. These consequences range from reduced fundraising horsepower to higher percentages of students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

School district officials have long been aware that its array of choices has brought about a troubling degree of self-segregation, with both racial and economic dimensions. The most recent response has been an exhaustive series of reviews. The review team evaluated each alternative school - four last school year, and four this year - in terms of its curriculum, enrollment and diversity. The team also studied the effects of locating an alternative and a neighborhood school in the same building, as occurs in most cases.

On Wednesday the Eugene School Board will consider Superintendent George Russell's recommendations based on the reviews. The second round proved far less contentious than the first. Three of the schools in the second cohort - the French, Japanese and Spanish language immersion schools - have curricula of self-evident distinctiveness, and all four have healthy enrollments. That wasn't the case with some of the schools evaluated in the first set of reviews. And only one of the schools in the second group shares a building with a neighborhood school, whereas all of the schools in the first round were co-located with others.

Housing an alternative and a neighborhood school in the same building has been found to cause problems ranging from mild to toxic. Teachers, parents and students at the neighborhood school feel, sometimes intensely, that their school is regarded as second-best. It doesn't matter whether such attitudes are real or perceived, or whether they are communicated deliberately or unconsciously. Friction appears to be an unavoidable result of co-location. The only solution is to move toward eventually providing schools with their own buildings, as Russell recommends.

At least some of the friction occurs because close quarters make the social and economic differences between neighborhood and alternative impossible to ignore. Moving the schools to separate buildings won't make the differences go away. Further effort will be needed.

In the case of the Fox Hollow French immersion school, the review team found such a lack of student diversity that Russell recommends a special planning effort followed by another review. In all cases, Russell accepts the reviewers' calls for abolishing caps on class sizes at the alternative schools and working to attract greater numbers of minority, low-income and special-needs children.

Even if all of the recommendations are energetically implemented, some social and economic imbalances between alternative and neighborhood schools will persist. The imbalances are rooted in the very nature of a school system that allows choices among different schools. The only way to ensure a perfect distribution of students would be to eliminate choice, require that all students attend their neighborhood schools, and gerrymander attendance boundaries to ensure the proper demographic mix.

The Eugene School District is not about to take that step. That is no excuse for complacency - persistent imbalances impair the educations of students on both sides of the divide. The district must do all it can to ensure that choices among schools are not just open to everyone, but that practical opportunities to take advantage of the choices are available. The reviews may be ending, but the work must continue - indeed, as long as choice remains a feature of the Eugene school system, it will never be done.