This is a two-part series reflecting on the 2019 HCPSS redistricting process.
Many folks are aware that I supported the school redistricting that happened in 2019. Every now and then, someone will drop a comment on my social media that points to my position on the 2019 redistricting as being inconsistent with or contradictory to something I may have written or tweeted lately. It’s important to note that the 2019 redistricting was a complex topic, and my thoughts and feelings about it were proportionately complicated, so it makes sense that folks may be oversimplifying or misunderstanding my position. I’d like to explain for the record how I saw redistricting as it was done in 2019.
When HCPSS Superintendent Michael Martirano presented his redistricting plan in August 2019, I jumped immediately to page 10 to find out if my kids would be moved. I was relieved to see that my polygon was not listed in any of the proposed moves. My husband and I believe strongly in the benefits of a truly diverse school environment – meaning, one that includes not just racial diversity but also economic diversity. Our assigned schools provide that kind of socioeconomically diverse environment, we love having our children there, and we would have been disappointed to be reassigned.
Once I determined the fate of our school assignments, I went back and read Dr. Martirano’s proposal, and its accompanying presentation, with great interest. It was refreshingly bold in its attention to equity. His intent to reduce the concentration of students receiving Free and Reduced-Price Meal (FARM) services – the only marker available to school systems for measuring economic status – made sense to me. The effects of concentrated poverty in schools and its contribution to opportunity and achievement gaps is well-documented. In Howard County, the countywide average for public school students receiving FARMs is 22%. HCPSS has eighteen schools in which fewer than 10% of students receive FARMs. It also has eighteen schools where more than 40% of students receive FARMs. My children attend such schools, as do the children of many of our friends. We know that students from lower-income families often have a greater need for support and services. Sometimes, the need overwhelms the available resources. And unfortunately, an overwhelmed school cannot adequately serve its most vulnerable students. Dr. Martirano’s proposal, while not perfect, would have taken steps to reduce that overwhelm and allow schools to better serve their students.
Despite the noble intentions to balance utilization and reduce the concentration of poverty, the Superintendent’s plan was not without its flaws. While many schools would have seen positive changes, others may have seen little to no change, or may have been impacted negatively. I read a lot of letters of testimony that opposed redistricting for reasons I fully understood – small feeds, walkers becoming bus riders, students being redistricted for the second or third time in a row, and other reasons. Some simply loved their schools, as I do, and wanted to stay. Folks rightfully pointed out that while the plan may be beneficial for lower-income students in some ways, there were downsides for them too. I recognized that while I supported redistricting for its intent and the predicted effects on overcrowded and high-needs schools, it was not right for every student and every school.
(I also read a lot of letters of testimony that opposed redistricting for reasons I did not agree with – reasons that reeked of racism, privilege, and judgment against schools for their test scores and demographics – and I’ll address that topic in a future post.)
Above all, I supported the goal – equity. HCPSS may be a quality school system, but lower-income students, certain minority groups, and students receiving special education services do not fare as well as their peers. Closing achievement and opportunity gaps is a multi-faceted problem with no singular solution. The National Education Association has a list of strategies for school districts to use to close the achievement gap, but in a reality where budgets are finite and sufficient funding for education is a pipe dream, it is impossible to implement enough of these strategies to make a meaningful impact.
Redistricting was not going to achieve true equity. What it would achieve, however, is more efficient use of our limited resources and physical space. If we have empty seats in one school and portable classrooms lined up outside another, we aren’t using our resources efficiently. If reading specialists at one school have two hundred students to manage, while reading specialists at another school have only a handful, then we’re not using our resources efficiently. If money grew on trees, we could double the physical size of our neediest schools, hire twice as many teachers and support staff, cut class sizes in half, and implement as many of the NEA strategies as we like. But that’s not the reality we live in. Our budgets are not limitless or adequate, and the status quo of overcrowding and overwhelmed high-needs schools is untenable. The added cost of transportation that resulted from redistricting was a significantly cheaper alternative. It was never going to achieve equity, but it would move the needle closer.
Stay tuned for more on redistricting.