Omaha Public Schools Issues and Implications of Nebraska Legislative Bill 1024
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Omaha Public Schools Issues and Implications of Nebraska Legislative Bill 1024 On April 13, 2006, Governor David Heineman signed Nebraska Legislative Bill 1024,1 which included an amendment by State Senators Ernest Chambers and Ronald Raikes. The new law made a number of changes to the way in which school districts in the Omaha metropolitan area were structured and empowered. In particular, the Chambers- Raikes amendment would have required that the Omaha Public School District be divided into three. The new law would have become effective July 1, 2008 unless repealed, superseded, or modified by lawmakers before that date. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (the “Commission”) conducted a briefing in Omaha, Nebraska, on September 8, 2006 to get a better understanding of the civil rights ramifications of the Chambers-Raikes amendment and its effects on minority and non- minority students. The Commission consulted 10 panelists, including state government officials, community activists, parents, and other individuals representing a broad segment of the Omaha community. Since the Commission’s visit to Omaha, LB 1024 has been repealed and superseded. On May 24, 2007, Governor Heineman signed Nebraska Legislative Bill 6412 in an effort to address the issues raised in the Commission’s briefing as well as other issues. Rather than publish a report on what is now a moot issue, the Commission has elected to post only the panelists’ statements, their biographies and a transcript of the briefing. Following are the statements of seven of the 10 panelists who participated in the briefing. The following panelists did not submit prepared statements: (1) Senator Ernie Chambers, whose testimony can be found at transcript pages 7 thru 10; (2) Brenda Council, whose testimony can be found at transcript pages 124 thru 130; and (3) Ben Salazar, whose testimony can be found at transcript pages 159-166. 1 B. 1024, 99th Leg., 2d Sess. (Neb. 2006). 2 B. 641, 100th Leg., 1st Sess. (Neb. 2007) Panel 1 STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK BOURNE, NEBRASKA STATE SENATOR There are several components of LB 1024 that divide by race. It is critical to understand that the Legislature did not just create three districts divided by race, they created many districts separated by race. What we did was make permanent the boundaries for the other school districts inside Omaha who, prior to this law, would have been absorbed by the city school district as the city itself grew. The law now guarantees that all the districts in the fastest growing and wealthiest parts of Omaha have permanent boundaries. These districts are over 90% white, as compared to the whole district of Omaha which is over 50% minority. Therefore, LB 1024 creates racially isolated districts throughout the city - minority districts in the former OPS and white districts everywhere else. As if segregating the districts was not enough, LB 1024 (section 16) also destroys the current integration in OPS and prohibits most of the common tools used across the country to intentionally integrate. Section 16 puts a concept of "choice" before intentional integration, but the choice is controlled by the segregated school districts who are authorized to “cap” their own enrollment and who have to pay for the transportation of any student outside their district who comes in. Worse, it requires transportation for every student who attends a school other than the one in his or her neighborhood, regardless of whether such movement fosters integration. It also doesn't permit, internally, school districts to control the access to magnet schools. In other words, the law prohibits mandatory assignment to anything but a home attendance area school, prohibits using magnet schools as an intentional incentive to integrate, prohibits using transportation as an intentional incentive to integrate and creates an enormous incentive on school districts to try to keep everyone at home to control what otherwise would be huge transportation costs (There is no exception to the spending lid for the transportation funds to be paid, in arrears, by the state, so it eats into what a district can spend on everything else.) The most infamous component of the bill, Section 41, is being litigated because the Legislative record plainly reflects that at least one of the purposes for dividing OPS was to create a "black" district. The intent of AM 3142, the amendment to LB 1024 which requires the division of the Omaha Public School District, was stated succinctly on the floor by Senator Ernie Chambers, sponsor of the amendment. Since he is appearing as a member of the panel, I would encourage commissioners to review the transcript of floor debate on AM 3142 with particular regard to his introductory and closing statements. Other senators joining in the debate concurred with Senator Chambers and I would encourage commissioners to review their statements as well. As a Legislature, we took action knowing full well what was included in the language of AM 3142. That amendment requires that OPS be divided using attendance areas of existing high schools. It also requires that the new districts be comprised of contiguous attendance areas and that two or three new districts be created. Limited by those rules, in the absence of some intervening change, it is simply impossible to create districts which are not racially segregated. I challenge commissioners to create non-segregated districts using the rules the Legislature set forth. It cannot be done. Some would argue that integrated districts can be created if OPS were to change attendance areas. No one in the Legislature suggested that course during debate on the bill. In fact, every effort was made to prevent intervention by the OPS board. AM 3142 clearly sought to exclude any input from OPS by specifically providing that the new districts boundaries not be subject to approval of any school board. As originally introduced, AM 3142 required that the districts share a “community of interest”, thus guaranteeing segregated districts. While a later amendment eliminated the “community of interest” language, that occurred only after it was apparent that no non- segregated division of the school district could take place under the language of the amendment. While argument may be made that the intent was not to segregate, but rather to simply divide an overgrown district, that was not the intent on the floor. Had it been, we would have adopted AM 3167 which would have reduced the size of Millard Public Schools and Lincoln Public Schools. The Legislature knew what it was doing when it adopted AM 3142 and approved LB 1024. The Legislature was aware of the effect of AM 3142. The Legislature knew the racial composition of the other districts and that they would remain intact. Without going into great detail, what we do know about our federal constitution is that if a governmental entity takes race into account when it makes a law – and there is no doubt this does - then the courts must apply what is called "strict scrutiny". Nebraska will be required to show that it has a compelling interest to accomplish what cannot be achieved other than by using race. This has been the test required by our Supreme Court for years, it hasn't changed, and there is simply no compelling reason to use race to divide OPS. In a nutshell, the end result of LB 1024 will be exactly as intended: schools segregated by race, the districts themselves segregated, continued underfunding for what are and will be very high poverty areas. We will deny children an equal opportunity to the education they deserve in direct contradiction to the principles of Brown v. Board of Education. I am not aware of any evidence, empirical or anecdotal, that segregated education provides students with enhanced educational opportunities. But it is simply irrelevant. For I am aware of the view of the United States Supreme Court when it stated, in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 at 495 (1954): “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” STAEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER TODD RODGERS, DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS I want to express my thanks to Chairman Reynolds and fellow members of the USCCR for their willingness to hold this briefing on Nebraska Legislative Bill 1024. The hearing is needed to have a comprehensive dialogue on what this legislation entails and what the consequences will be to children in the eastern part of Omaha particularly Black and Latino children if the Omaha Public School District is split into three separate school districts. As a Commissioner on the Douglas County Board, I have no direct authority over how education policy is governed or implemented in the school districts within our boundaries. The only direct involvement Douglas County Government has with its schools districts is through its Juvenile Detention Center and the educational options we offer while they are detained in our facility. I bring to this discussion five years of experience as member of the Metropolitan Community College Board of Governors were I acquired a sound understanding of the how the State of Nebraska finances primary and secondary education. The taxing authority for Nebraska Community Colleges is under the same section of the law. My interest in the section of the bill that splits OPS is totally personal. I came to Omaha in August of 1987 after graduating from East St. Louis Lincoln Sr. High School in Illinois School District 189 an entirely black school district. The first time I had a white classmate was my freshman year at Creighton University. From that personal experience and my appreciation for the historic battles in Black History nationally and locally that have allowed me to serve as an elected official, I think the language in LB 1024 that authorizes the splitting of OPS creates an educational disadvantage, and strikes a blow at the foundations of Civil Rights: The Brown v.