The author did an excellent job with a very difficult case study. I found the lack of information very frustrating, which made analysis extremely difficult. The history presented added information that seemed appropriate to this situation. I do feel, however, that a case as significant to education as Brown v Board of Education should be mentioned by name not simply referred to as a Supreme Court decision.

It appears there is some fundamental misunderstandings between Ms. Andrews and the principal or perhaps those who made the decision about consolidation. The author believes there are conflicts in the area of benefits and costs and I would agree but not necessarily in the same way. Consolidation was brought about according to the case study as a means of providing additional revenue and improved services for the city schools. That was meant to be a substantial benefit. Bringing educational parity and racial balance while proposed to be a substantial benefit is more likely perceived as a symbolic benefit to the urban poor students who are thought to gain from increased resources. We would need to know who was involved in making the decisions in order to determine the actual intent. The cynic in me suspects the decision was made solely to gain additional money, not for increased educational benefit. In some way it feels like the students who were sent to the suburbs were being used to benefit the inner city schools.

Ms. Andrews had a long history of working with disadvantaged students and idealistically believed that placing students in integrated classes with integrated teachers would "ameliorate the cleavages afflicting life in Madison County."(p.130) She believed the intention of consolidation was to benefit all. She seems to want society o embrace a consensus model. In order to do that a lot more communication is going to need to take place. Mr. Shine appears to operating more in a conflict model where he sees a special interest group as having gained power and he is now trying to preserve control of his school by imposing those things which he believes are necessary to maintain community values and keep control over those invading from the outside. In the end these conflicts may have positive payoffs or may further the conflicts by heightening the sense of "us" versus "them." If the various parties can identify common values and goals than the conflict may provide a revitalization of the school and its education. Even disagreement may keep a group together to continue discussions.

The case study gives us no idea what the residents and students of Jefferson City wanted. If what they wanted was access to the resources that the suburbs had to offer then access to those resources may help benefit the students. Ms. Andrews may be able to use the progressive Deerpark curriculum and the improved resources she has to bring her students up to the average level of the current Deerpark students. Then there would be no reason for the students not to be integrated the following year. If the segregation continues, her arguments would then seem more obvious. Right now the principal’s argument that students need time to adjust seems logical and therefore difficult to dispute. In a year his resistance would seem more like a resistance to change.

The author tells us in her summary that she believes we would all agree with Ms. Andrews position that the intent of the project was to bring about equality of education and social interaction for both groups of students. I would disagree. You can expose children and give them opportunities but you cannot guarantee equality and social relationships.

TO TOP