Today's N&R "... parents at Aycock, Eastern and Kiser say they need action."
Parents at Aycock have been saying this all year starting with this letter to the Aycock administration that was cc'd to the School Board and Superintendent Grier back on October 10th. The letter's urgency was hard to miss, but the problems persisted all year. When a group of parents recomends that a school enact "martial law" for their school you would think that the response would be swift and decisive:
"We consider the discipline situation at Aycock to be at a crisis level. The disruptions, due to poor behavior, prevent all the children at Aycock from learning. The environment is not positive for anyone involved. Drastic action is needed."
Response was swift... not in terms of action by the School Board... but in reaction to the letter within the black community. In a Nov 20th op-ed to the Carolina Peacemaker (article link is long-dead), frequent contributor Ed Whitfield framed Aycock parents' concerns in this way:
"I have seen e-mail messages from distraught white parents who talked about the need to put one of the middle schools under “martial law” in order to prevent disrupters from keeping other students from learning. This doesn’t strike me as being a very intelligent approach, and it smacks a great deal of racism and elitism."
After reading Whitfield's charge of racism, I asked, "Please explain what is "racist" or "elitist" about removing habitually disruptive students from the classroom?" I thought at the time that blaming the messenger for pointing out the problems exhibited by these students was "racist" in it's own right.
Regardless of denials by school administrators, the policy of keeping disruptive students in the regular classroom is obvious to anyome paying attention. In my opinion, the policy was instigated so the school system could deflect charges of "instituional racism"
While I'm sure that Dr. Grier is being honest when he tells a N&R reporter and parents that, "he's never told schools they can't suspend troublemakers" one has to wonder what was communicated to create the situation we find ourselves in. Might he have hinted, "keep those kids in school", or "we have to close the suspension gap at all costs"?. Such a wink-and-a-nod suggestion would not be lost on obedient principals but the "we never told them they can't suspend" statement would technically be true.
Because the suspension rates for black males is five times that of other groups of students in Guilford County Schools, the school administration has come under fire from black leaders with charges of institutional racism. Under such pressures, I can imagine that the administration felt they had to do something - and the strategy has backfired.
As N&R editorial page editor Allen Johnson states this morning (unposted) the problem is mainly within the black community:
"Most of them, it so happens, are black: Is it racist to say that some of these students have brought with them undesirable behavior? No, It is fact"
In a rare occurance, the N&R has posted an editorial that did not make the print edition which goes to the heart of the matter:
The disproportionate black male suspensions are a complex tangle that must be unraveled at its roots, but, regrettably, the answers won't come overnight. In the meantime, teachers and school administrators must feel empowered to enforce rules firmly, fairly and consistently. If that raises suspension numbers, so be it.
It is important for the leaders of Guilford County's black community to recognize that this problem cannot be written off as "instituional racism" anymore and they must attack the issue from within. Unfortunately, as Ed Whitfield demonstrated above, Guilford County's non-black leadership will necessarily be relegated to spectator status in addressing the behavior problems of these students because to do otherwise will only be met with charges of racism and elitism.
Just let me know how I can help but, in the meantime, here is a suggestion.
10:03:11 AM 
|
