Anyone have insight into what is happening at Burroughs? Or how we should define what makes a school integrated? The situation at Burroughs School in Minneapolis raises issues about what definition should be used for integrated schools, and who gets to make that definition. In a meeting with the Real World Collaborative last week, Burroughs staff and parents described Burroughs as a school working for integration. Because Burroughs has a native language learner program that separates students for part of the day for instruction based on their first language, some have accused the program of segregating students. Chris Stewart from the Minneapolis School Board is reputed to have gone as far as suggesting that racism is involved. Could it really be true that it has been opined that Burroughs only wants their native language learner program to survive so that Blacks will not grow as a part of the Burroughs population? Since when are Spanish-speaking and Black mutually exclusive? Having seen the dismally inadequate coverage of the WMEP schools in the Star Tribune, I almost hesitate to provide a link for the story, but there are lots of comments (both sensible and inflamatory):
http://www.startribune.com/local/43321082.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUZ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is in reference to your post "What Does Integration Mean" and the controversy surrounding Burroughs School. I've listed it as a new topic because it took so long for me to respond.
ReplyDeleteI toured Burroughs as a prospective parent a little over a year ago, and left feeling it was a segregated school, at least in the younger grades (1-3). The Principle was frank about it: the ELL model they use is very successful at raising achievement, but depends on separation. The younger kids have PE and lunch together, the rest of the day the Spanish speakers are on one side of the hall and the native English speakers are on the other. As parents looking for a reasonably integrated school, we were told: "maybe this isn't the right program for you". While the Principle's motive was clearly to do right by the kids, I was troubled by the conundrum this revealed. I asked why ELL kids weren’t in an integrated classroom that separated for special instruction for part of the day (I had seen this in other schools), and the response was that the Burroughs model was more effective. My opinion: Burroughs isn't a homogeneous school, but neither is it an integrated school. In trying to meet the needs of more than one community, the kids from different backgrounds are kept apart.
We may agree there is a place for culturally specific programs, but if they are the norm, where are we headed? Can a school be tailored to multiple communities without being internally segregated? As a new WMEP parent, I hope that our district is at the forefront of this discussion. Finding a solution is not just a matter of good intentions. Bringing diverse communities together and meeting the needs of all those communities is a huge challenge.
I want to close by saying that I am not attempting to criticize Burroughs or take sides in the conflict. I just felt my experience visiting the school and the questions it brought up were worth sharing with this group. I would love to hear any comments or insights.
Laura Hulscher
Laura,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have the same dilemma in looking at this as I do. While I respect the need for culturally specific programs, I see that they often do lead to a "separate but equal" idea. Some suggest that it is a matter of having the choice. I worry about that idea, too. If Topeka had offered the Brown family a really attractive alternative to enrolling in what had been the whites school would the segregationists have been able to buy their way out of integrated schools?