Ed Talk is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the author’s.
To paraphrase The La’s, “There they go! There they go again!”
APS has again embarked on an elementary boundary process that dismisses student demographics, one of the six guiding principles in APS’ boundary policy. This isn’t surprising. But it is disheartening that APS’ new Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer (CDEIO), Arron Gregory, supports APS’ approach.
Mr. Gregory explains that “diversity” comes from our differences in culture, heritage, and upbringing. At the same time, he states that we need to shift our focus from the free- and reduced- lunch (FRL) aspect of diversity to the programs and services APS offers because “free- and reduced lunch is not going to create diversity within our schools,” that we can have diversity in any school because it is “about our thought process (and) cognitive diversity.”
Mr. Gregory reasserts Arlington’s long-standing “separate but equal” approach – or in today’s parlance, “separate but equitable.” There is just one problem with Mr. Gregory’s argument: the FRL aspect is precisely what produces the “cognitive diversity” he wants to focus on.
Like it or not, economic status is highly correlated with race in our society and in Arlington. It is the economic part of diversity that is critical to achieving the equity Mr. Gregory and APS profess is at the forefront of their decision-making. Since race legally cannot be used as criteria in designating school boundaries, FRL is our primary measure of diversity and is the logical and practical aspect on which to focus.
He is right that boundaries are but one in a series of steps toward equity. The problem is, APS is not actually using the boundary process to affect equity in our schools. Ignoring student demographics, or FRL eligibility, is misguided for several reasons:
- It hasn’t worked so far. Arlington’s high FRL schools have had highly qualified teachers and extra resources for years; yet the disparities in students’ opportunities, achievement, and experiences relative to those of students in low FRL schools has persisted;
- It runs counter to decades of social science research demonstrating that disparities are more effectively narrowed by providing economically diverse learning environments than by increasing investment and resources in high-poverty schools.
- It completely disregards so-termed “social capital” that enables true equity.
- It is shortsighted and does not consider the implications for disadvantaged students beyond their APS years.
Been there done that
Arlington has maintained a district of high- and low-FRL schools for decades, focusing on programs and services. My children attended one of Arlington’s highest FRL elementary schools and now attend high-FRL middle and high schools. I can attest to the high quality teaching that goes on in these schools and have seen the valuable extra resources and supports that these schools provide. Yet achievement and opportunity gaps persist. Vast disparities in the academic and social enrichment PTAs are able to provide remain. Those high-FRL schools continue to be disparaged and avoided by many in our community.