Was Karen Johnson expected or obligated to vote in a certain manner because she's black?

Further, will you guys address or respond to the points raised about the inappropriate behavior of Ed Kindall at the school board vote, his backroom dealings and underhanded tactics, or his personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him? Or will you just continue to ignore what doesn't fit your predetermined story line and your over-simplified characterizations of "good guys" and "bad guys" on this subject?

Given all the obvious holes in the Scene's coverage and representation of this story, you all should include a prominent "Keyboard Protection Warning" to your readers who may be sipping coffee when they get to the phrase "enterprising young reporters."

Cigarran and Ingram are "probably" the biggest donors? There needs to be a little more enterprise in that reporting.

Something else to investigate: Why would anyone interested in "excellence in public education" contribute to Ed Kindall and George Thompson?

Was Karen Johnson expected or obligated to vote in a certain manner because she's black?

No, she was obligated to vote a certain way because a few rich guys paid for her '06 campaign.

Well, I could have told you that. The chamber supported her in 2006 when she ran for election.

But you obviously didn't look at the contributions received by the other school board members. I think you'll find that pretty much ANY school board member supported by the Chamber got pretty much the same contributions.

For example, if you read Kay Brooks' blog from March of this year, you will notice that Gracie Porter ALSO received $1500 from the Chamber Success PAC and $5000 from the Excellence for Public Education PAC.

If I follow your logic, Gracie should have voted for the plan as well. However, she voted against it. So your logic does not make sense.

Actually, mnpsteacher, Johnson and Fox got more than anybody else.

Then post how much each person got where we can see for ourselves. From your headline, you imply that Karen's vote was bought. Let's see who got how much money.

For the vote-buying conspiracy theory to have any legs, wouldn't we need to see that a more segregated system was an outcome desired by the Chamber when they gave to Johnson, Fox and others in 2006?

Ralph Schulz, the president of the Chamber, says that his organization never took a position or played any role during the rezoning discussion. This comes from today's City Paper, which at least quoted people from both sides of the debate even if its columnist, Clint Brewer, accuses (without elaboration) the Chamber of "meddling" in the process.

Mr. Brewer lost credibility with me when he tossed out the term "Star Chamber" and obviously had no idea what it meant. Or maybe he just needs an editor.

Ask former Council member John Summers for the analysis. Whether you like him or not, he's done the investigative work.

Anonymous:

Could you be more specific? Investigative work about what in particular?

Money investing to candidates : it's expensive to inform the public why you should be their choice, especially for School Board because no one pays attention until the end. But in the long run, the School Board's decisions are important because it's one of the primary ways in which you evaluate the livability of a city.

And as the US economy tightens, there will be less and less funding from parents/grandparents for private schools.

You need to see who gave money to whom and even where their zip codes are. John Summers likes intrigue so he follows this stuff. The rest of us are just PollyAnna. I'm PA.

Of course it could have nothing to do with the fact her district is the fastest growing one in the city and her schools need the relief of a new student assignment plan. Postponing might have hurt the schools in her district.

Or how about- this plan basically keeps many inner city kids in the inner city rather than bus them out to Davidson County's "suburbs." Those against the plan generally represent the inner city, those for the plan generally represent the "suburbs," including Antioch's Karen Johnson. Jo Ann Brannon would be the exception. And while she voted against, she clearly didn't put herself out there like Thompson and Kindall did.

Look, I don't agree with Johnson's vote, but to villify her as "bought and paid for" or as an "Aunt Jemima" the way some have is just wrong.

It was quite clear during the election that Johnson was getting money and support from business folks. She is a businesswoman. Big shock!

Really, Tom. Have you been a business person? She has been too busy doing public service work to have a small business: small businesses take 14 hour days forever. That's why so many minority and immigrant families can't get to the school functions, regardless of where they are, next door or across town. Most are working 2 or 3 jobs just to pay for bread, gas and milk these days and the SSA.

Ms. Johnson I remember stood on corners, fought a hard fight for a much needed high school and has been extremely active in her area of the city as well as many other parts of Nashville. This lady was not paid off. She got multiple endorsements, but what I know of her, she is a hard hard worker and no matter what money was given to her, she would have been elected. She virtually got elected to the Metro Council as she won the general election by quite a margin. She just lost the runoff by 49 votes. Doesn't this tell you something about her. People know her and the money is not what got her elected. It was her hard work and believe me she is a worker.

Jo Ann Brannon would be the exception. And while she voted against, she clearly didn't put herself out there like Thompson and Kindall did.

Jo Ann Brannon votes with Kindall and Thompson 100% of the time. She almost never says a single word in the Board meeting. Her vote is merely a parrot of whatever Kindall and Thompson do.

wow. Leave for the evening, come hone, and the Scene writers put up another thoughtless, divisive post. Are you guys not reading the dialogue? Just about everybody but you has brought something intelligent to the discussion. Do you not get it, that there are more important issues than Kindall and Thompson's dated personal racist agenda?

Here's an idea: Karen Johnson is her own person. She has her own good, well-reasoned, valid reasons to justify her vote. Good for her. She doesn't owe Kindall, Thompson, or the NAACP anything. She doesn't owe the Chamber anything. She owes her own constituents and her own conscience an honest vote, plain and simple. And that's what she gave. Would that we had more people on the Board like her.

It's a bit rich having Scene reporters go on about the influence of the Chamber of Commerce in school board elections. When Garcia's contract was at stake, a couple of summers ago, and the Chamber was gunning for people like Harkey, the Scene editorial line was strongly pro-Chamber and pro-Garcia, who at the time were on the same page. Garcia got his supportive board, then squandered the support with more of his arrogant, imperious behavior, and the Chamber turned on him once it became clear that, on top of everything else, Garcia wasn't delivering the results they needed vis-a-vis NCLB assessments.

The Chamber, of course, just wants something to sell to the business community, relos, etc. They want the next Nissan to consider Davidson County instead of Williamson. When it became clear that Garcia couldn't deliver it, they dumped him. What's the great mystery?

This isn't about segregation. Those who say it is--Kindall, the NAACP, Pulle & Woods--are misreading the desperation within Metro right now to staunch the bleeding of middle-class kids out of the system. The Chamber of Commerce has been getting an earful about this, and they, like others interest groups, are trying to respond.

Now, if you want to make the argument that class doesn't matter--that the middle class isn't needed in the public schools for them to be good schools--go ahead, make it. You'd be wrong, of course. When public education is seen solely as a welfare system for the underprivileged (of whatever race or ethnicity), it fails. It loses the economic and political support it needs to survive. The Chamber may have felt that a little noblesse oblige philanthropy and patronization could fix the schools, but they've been, uh, schooled on that point.

So, go ahead and argue that the rezoning won't help matters. That's an argument that can be had on the merits. But the accusations of racism, resegregation, votes for sale, etc.? Just more incendiary rhetoric that diverts the conversation from substantive debate to political baiting and grandstanding.

I want to add: The rezoning plan is also in response to genuine concern for increasing parental participation and access to schools. Again, you can argue the merits of this approach, but let's do it without resorting to cheap race-baiting.

Sources told the Scene that Chamber types were lobbying public officials behind the scenes for resegregation during this spring's Chamber-sponsored conference in Miami, “twisting their arms and browbeating them.” One source said he was told, “‘Middle-income families don’t want their kids to be exposed to poor kids or adopt behavioral qualities or characteristics from poor kids.’” (Resegregation Plan? June 12, 2008)

Lisa, do you still think this all has nothing to do with race?

Matt, I remember that Scene article. It was about the efforts of downtown neighborhoods to remain part of the Hillsboro rather than Pearl Cohn cluster. The task force rejected those efforts and zoned those more affluent areas to Pearl Cohn, which undermines your position.

Actually, the task force gave the downtown neighborhoods a loophole. Their kids can go to Hume Fogg if they qualify academically.

"Sources told the Scene that Chamber types were lobbying public officials behind the scenes for resegregation during this spring's Chamber-sponsored conference in Miami, 'twisting their arms and browbeating them.'”

And, in this week's Board meeting, Karen Johnson flatly stated that Scene writers contacted her regarding the alleged Miami lobbying, and her comments were omitted from the story, because they did not match your ... agenda. So your story gave us unidentified "sources," vs Karen Johnson on the record, and your credibility down the tubes.

Karen Johnson also contradicted herself at the same Board meeting having said one thing, then when it was quoted back to her five minutes later, she denied having said it.

Sources told the Scene that Chamber types were lobbying public officials behind the scenes for resegregation during this spring's Chamber-sponsored conference in Miami, “twisting their arms and browbeating them.” One source said he was told, “‘Middle-income families don’t want their kids to be exposed to poor kids or adopt behavioral qualities or characteristics from poor kids.’” (Resegregation Plan? June 12, 2008)

What sources? Who?

Is there something wrong with wanting your child to get a good enough education that he can support himself comfortably and make a contribution to society?

And is there something wrong with NOT wanting him to go to school that offers messy, overcrowded classrooms, where he will witness such severe discipline issues that teachers function as referees? Several public school teachers I know have been physically assaulted; one pregnant grade school teacher was kicked and hit in the stomach by a large fourth-grader.

Dealing with kids with issues such as this is hard and punishing -- and when control is a continual issues, it takes the focus off of learning. If you have the money to opt out of a school where troubled kids frequently disrupt the classrom, are you going to do it? You bet.

Even a whisper of gang activity is enough to route me away from a school, because of the potential safety issues. The serious injury or death of a child is every parent's worst fear, and if you have the money, you'll pay to avoid that possibility. I think some parents honestly feel that private school is like buying life insurance for your child.

I can't comprehend such bland acceptance of teenage pregnancy that there's a nursery at Pearl Cohn, and that this is viewed as a positive thing. Where's the mom or dad threatening to cut their son's penis off if he makes a girl pregnant before he's grown up enough to marry her and support a family?

You don't have to be rich or middle-class to set a standard of personal responsibility that you expect your kids to live up to. In fact, many people who fit into one of those categories fail just as badly as the poor single mother whose daughter ends up pregnant at 15.

But, if I have an option, am I going to opt out of an environment where gang activity, discipline issues, drug use, crude language, violence and teenage pregnancy are accepted as part of the package?

And where, frankly, students -- even the ones who aren't behavior problems -- are treated with jaundiced contempt as a consquence?

You bet.

And it has nothing to do with exposure to poor people, and everything to do with the simple fact that I'm sending my kid to school to learn, not to contribute to a diversity goal or to pass state-mandated tests, because an education provides a foundation for everything he will do in later life.

The Scene is having the same problem as the school board in "getting it" as far as why the middle class is leaving Metro schools:

School is about learning.

Everything else, including diversity - which is now missing from Metro schools no matter how you slice the zones - should be a secondary priority.

Many middle-class parents have given up on Nashville's public schools because, under the leadership of Ed Kindall, George Thompson and others, the school board forgot that school is about learning.

And neither the Scene nor Mr. Kindall seems to get the fact that lots of parents out there, me included, aren't willing to settle for failing, poor or mediocre performance.

If we have an option -- and lots of us do -- we're going to seek schools where our children can learn.

But if we had our druthers, we'd send our kids to neighborhood public schools that offer a good education in a safe environment, the schools we are already (willingly, in my case) paying for with our property taxes.

Jeff--I'm not going to argue that there aren't people one could fairly accuse of racism involved at various levels of this process and debate. But I do not think that resegregation was the primary motivation behind this rezoning plan. Do some people who support it have racist opinions that make them yearn for an all-white school for their kids? Do they support the plan because of that? I don't doubt it. But I don't think that the task force that came up with the plan and the board members who voted for it were motivated by racist impulses toward resegregation. My rep, for example, is David Fox. C'mon. David Fox wants to resegregate education in Nashville? Give me a freakin' break. And Karen Johnson? I'm not going to go through the whole list, but you get my drift.

All of this is extremely complicated, with lots of opportunities for ugliness. But I think that attacking it with accusations of racism do more harm than good, when it's perfectly possible to look at the elements of the plan--including the demographic changes it entails--and evaluate in concrete terms its impact on the schools.

Instead of beating around the bush, pointing fingers and accusing each other of racism, let's just ask the practical questions. For example, is it wrong to make it possible for Hillwood to become less than 30% African American? What real effects will that have? Instead of shouting "racist" at each other, we need to ask, "Will it hurt the kids rezoned out of Hillwood, or will their needs be met as well if not better at their new school?" If the answer is that it will hurt these kids, we have to alter the rezoning plan. If the answer is that their needs will be closely monitored and addressed during the transition, then we can proceed. I'm not suggesting we deny racism exists in Nashville. I'm suggesting we focus the debate on outcomes for the kids and try to keep the racially charged rhetoric out of it.

Another question: Will the rezoning exacerbate racist dynamics at Hillwood? If not, okay. If so, how? What do we need to do to prevent that?

As for your quote re: middle income families who don't want their kids to go to school with poor kids, etc. Okay. I'm not going to say that attitude doesn't exist. It's not exactly new. What, are you just learning about class prejudice now? We can get all self-righteous about it, or we can look past the clutter and talk about the concrete: What will the kids experience when they walk in the school door?

Jeff, I agree that the comment you quote was in poor taste.
But, as a parent and a teacher in MNPS, I couldn't care less what color kids are in my kids' school. Heck, my kids go to Eakin, one of the most diverse schools around.
But, as crude as the comment was, there is some truth in it. As a middle-class parent, I wouldn't send my child to Hillwood. There, I said it.
Why? I've been there. My students go there. And while I'm sure the IB program is okay, what if my child isn't an advanced-class kid? In the regular classes, heck, even some of the honors (anyone can sign up for honors classes - you don't have to be reccommended), there's no homework, low expectations, and lots of discipline problems. And, yes, everyone knows that there are at least two major gangs at Hillwood. What if my kid gets caught in the middle of some gang fight, even if they aren't in the gang? It could happen.
Will a parent who has the means to make sure their child is in a conducive environment for learning let their child take a chance? It's a one shot deal, as another post wisely says.
So, what's happening? 200 middle class students have left Hillwood in 6 years. I expect that to continue. In 10 years, Hillwood will be full of kids of all colors and creeds who are mostly poor. The middle class (and it doesn't matter what color they are, including my African-American neighbor, who's putting her kid in Catholic school even though she herself went to Hillwood under zoning) will be gone.
And don't forget an important part of the zoning plan is CHOICE. Hey, you want to send your kid to Hillwood? Go for it. We're not saying you have to go to Pearl-Cohn. You don't know how many of my N. Nashville kids want to go to Pearl-Cohn but they don't have transportation or the wherewithall to fill out the transfer form.

Woods said:
Actually, the task force gave the downtown neighborhoods a loophole. Their kids can go to Hume Fogg if they qualify academically.

Posted 07/15/2008 at 10:06:49 AM

By the comment above, I assume you are referring to the provision in the plan that John Early Middle School will be a "pathway" for Hume-Fogg. (I'm sure you've read the plan, but it's on page 32 for those who haven't.) John Early is in the neighborhood north of I-265 and just south of Metro Center. According to the plan, Hamilton and Buena Vista Elementary Schools will feed into John Early. Hamilton is in Bordeaux and Buena Vista is in the neighborhood between Germantown and I-265. The enrollment in the latter school is virtually all black. Thus, it looks from here that the plan will actually create opportunities for many more of these kids from disadvantaged neighborhoods to attend Hume-Fogg than could do so previously. This will include North Nashville kids who are being rezoned out of Harpeth Valley Elem. and Hill and Bellevue Middle Schools. So, again, there appear to be more dimensions here than just the one the Scene is trying to present.

Since the 7th grade TCAPs, and grades, are the qualifying records, it all depends on the job that Buena Vista and the new, revised John Early do. One might want to do some data mining, based on their new data warehouse, how many kids in these schools are on track to do well. They have TCAPs for 5th graders which show really how well they did in elementary school. Like the downward trend in MNPS scores overall, it doesn't happen overnight. And corrective action can be taken.

The other question might be to ask parents and students if they want their children to go to Hume Fogg. Many of the students at Hume Fogg and MLK don't initially want to be there, their parents want them to be there. And will they provide transportation other than the city bus? It takes a lot of effort for some students and families to attend Hume Fogg and MLK even though they are in central locations. This is a huge county.

"School is about learning."

Oh, I'm so tired of this argument, along with its worn-out sister, "school is not a social experiment." Actually, that's exactly what education is: a grand, nation-wide social experiment that has been at the heart of our country's success, despite its imperfections. Public education in America was intended to unite a nation and create good citizens-- not to get your child a slot at Vanderbilt, job at HCA, and McMansion in Williamson County. I swear, some of you must make Thomas Jefferson spin in his grave.

Speaking personally, I've done pretty well for myself, both professionally and education-wise. But I'll be d*d if I'm going to cloister my kids away in some private school. Of course I want them to gain knowledge, but I already know they'll do that, wherever they go to school; what's harder to gain is character, civic engagement, respect for all people, and a genuine understanding of the greater world around us. You simply don't get those things by hiding in a white, Christian, upper-middle class enclave.

Does this mean subjecting my kids to a social experiment to enforce my own belief system? You bet it does-- and I'm totally okay with that. Parents impose their values on their children all the time, by taking their kids to church, encouraging them to volunteer, choosing a particular neighborhood to live in, and so on. Let me tell you, you're fooling yourself if you think sending your kids to private school is not a social experiment, too-- and one that can have negative repercussions not just for the community, but for your own child as well.

Side note about this whole business of safety, and private school as "life insurance": in recent years, has any student ever been killed or hospitalized after a MNPS incident? I haven't been able to find a single instance of even moderate to serious injury... frankly, I think this argument is a pretext for many people.

Oops-- I really didn't mean to be "anonymous." I have to take the credit or blame, as the case may be, for the post above. Fire away. :-)

When one strategy used in the social experiment doesn't seem to be working or serving anyone's interest, a new strategy needs to be pursued. We haven't heard anything to show that the old zoning plan was serving anyone well, except for "We all know what will happen..." which is meaningless. You can put anything after that phrase. Here are a few points: 1) We hear that North Nashville was once a stronger, cohesive community that was apart by the interstate and development decisions. Could it be that North Nashville has also suffered from having many students siphoned away from its neighbhorhood schools, leaving one small high school with limited offerings because of the small number of students, and less opportunity for parents to be involved? 2) When people totally discount the importance of school zoning that allows easier parent involvement, aren't they assuming that the parents in a certain neighborhood aren't worth a crap and won't be involved if given the opportunity? A friend who has taught in several low-income schools, including recently the Hillwood cluster, noted a difference. In the low-income schools that drew children from nearby, the impoverished parents could and would walk over to the school to address discipline issues, meet with teachers, and be involved. It did make a difference in student behavior. In the Hillwood cluster, the impoverished parents cannot get all the way to the schools, are less connected with what's going on, don't show up for teacher conferences, and are less able to support the teachers. Why do these Scene writers and certain school board members seem to think that just doesn't matter? Are they writing these parents off as deadbeats that won't be involved no matter what?

" 'School is about learning.' ... Oh, I'm so tired of this argument, along with its worn-out sister, "school is not a social experiment." Actually, that's exactly what education is: a grand, nation-wide social experiment that has been at the heart of our country's success, despite its imperfections. Public education in America was intended to unite a nation and create good citizens-- not to get your child a slot at Vanderbilt, job at HCA, and McMansion in Williamson County. I swear, some of you must make Thomas Jefferson spin in his grave."

Good grief, are you serious? Where the hell did you get your education? Are you saying that if I want my child to get an education that fosters a love of learning and intellectual and creative exploration, it's because I want that child to own a McMansion and work at HCA? Are you suggesting that the only use for knowledge is material advancement, and otherwise it's useless, say, as a part of a richer, more fulfilling life? What is your logic exactly? That if we social engineer them in the right way, we'll get self-sacrificing model citizens, as opposed to greedy, shallow capitalists?

The oldest public school in this country is Boston Latin, founded by Puritans. Here's the opening from the school history:

"Boston Latin School is the oldest public school in America with a continuous existence. It was founded April 23, 1635 by the Town of Boston (see Footnotes), antedating Harvard College by more than a year. The curriculum of the school is centered in the humanities, its founders sharing with the ancient Greeks the belief that the only good things are the goods of the soul. Edmund Burke referred to America as exemplifying the "dissidence of dissent." From its beginning, Boston Latin School has taught its scholars dissent with responsibility and has persistently encouraged such dissent."

I'll let you look up Thomas Jefferson, his educational ideas and the founding of UVA for yourself.

I am and always have been a huge supporter of public education in general and MNPS in particular but, yes, Cici, there has been the circumstance of a child being killed when another child brought a gun to school. It happened back in the 90s and both my children attended John Trotwood Moore on either side of the incident. It was an accident not intentional but a child's life ended. But there is more violence and potential for death everytime you enter a convenience store, a mall or stop at an ATM than in our schools. It even seems like lots of shootings now occur at places of worship.

"Of course I want them to gain knowledge, but I already know they'll do that, wherever they go to school; what's harder to gain is character, civic engagement, respect for all people, and a genuine understanding of the greater world around us."

And let me add that I feel completely confident in my ability to teach my child about character, respect, civic engagement and other values. I'm on a lot shakier ground when it comes to subjects such as physics, calculus and Spanish. That's why I send my daughter to school. (Not an all-white, Christian, upper middle-class school, by the way.)

I'm sorry, Cici, your comments about education--about learning and knowledge--just offend me. Knowledge allows you to think for yourself and to understand the world in more complex ways. It is one of life's greatest gifts, and I do think the quality of a school's academics is of highest importance. It does make a difference. I went to great schools growing up, and it's made a huge difference in my life--though I don't make a lot of money off it.

"Of course I want them to gain knowledge, but I already know they'll do that, wherever they go to school; what's harder to gain is character, civic engagement, respect for all people, and a genuine understanding of the greater world around us."

And let me add that I feel completely confident in my ability to teach my child about character, respect, civic engagement and other values. I'm on a lot shakier ground when it comes to subjects such as physics, calculus and Spanish. That's why I send my daughter to school. (Not an all-white, Christian, upper middle-class school, by the way.)

I'm sorry, Cici, your comments about education--about learning and knowledge--just offend me. Knowledge allows you to think for yourself and to understand the world in more complex ways. It is one of life's greatest gifts, and I do think the quality of a school's academics is of highest importance. It does make a difference. I went to great schools growing up, and it made all the difference in the world to me, and not because I make big money at some high-profile career. I don't. Not by a long shot.

Cici:

Your argument that the purpose of public schools is to throw the kids into a grand, nationwide social experiment is happily backed by departments of education all over the country, who have used the public schools as a free laboratory for the testing of one failed educational theory after another for 50 years - an educational experiment conducted concurrently with the social experiment of which you speak so fondly.

In my case, it was something called "the new math" in the 1960s, which derailed my math education for good.

In a friend's case, it was a phonetic spelling and reading program in Ohio that left her unable to spell and write a coherant sentence. When she become a successful engineer, she had to hire an assistant to write her reports and correspondence. You may view this as positive adaptation and an indication that she survived the social experiment. She viewed it as a real deficit.

So I find the word "experiment" really unfortunate in this context.

But your argument does explain the basic difference in the viewpoints of people who leave the public schools because they hold the view that the primary mission of a school is education and find they can't take the chaos of having kids drift into school for three weeks after it starts or go ballistic in class, and those who think of public school attendance as a civic duty and a grand experiment.

It also explains why some people think it's more important to spend $ on buses than on more teachers, better textbooks and more teacher's aides to give individual attention.

And I'm confident that my kids - who have attended public and private schools - will get plenty of exposure to the broader world.

When they do, I want them to view it with a well educated mind, which you can't get in a classroom with 30 other kids who won't settle down, aren't challenged, and aren't asked to do any work outside the class room. If your child is bored and stressed, the experiment's worse than a failure in your case.

Finally, maybe you don't take it seriously when there's a fight at the lockers so your child can't get his books or there's a lockdown or your child gets slammed against a desk or elbowed hard enough to raise a bruise, but no thanks. What's the positive lesson in that?

Sorry 'bout the double post, folks. Slow posting ...

Lisa: "Are you saying that if I want my child to get an education that fosters a love of learning and intellectual and creative exploration, it's because I want that child to own a McMansion and work at HCA?"

You personally? No, I don't know you, so I don't know anything about what you want or value. Have I personally met a number of people who do feel that way? Yes.

"Are you suggesting that the only use for knowledge is material advancement, and otherwise it's useless"

Obviously not. My point was that many people do value knowledge only as a tool for material advancement, and that those people need to be reminded that civic involvement is more important.

"I feel completely confident in my ability to teach my child about character, respect, civic engagement and other values."

Like I said, I don't know you personally. Maybe your kids go to private school, but you volunteer together at Second Harvest, have friends from all walks of life, etc. But in my experience, many people who send their kids to private school are also less inclined to venture outside a very narrow set of experiences. Repeat: I'm not referring to *all*, but rather to *many* of those parents. If that doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you, and there's no reason to be offended.

"I haven't been able to find a single instance of even moderate to serious injury..."

Well. I guess that may be, because such incidents are kept under the radar. Having a viewpoint from inside one of the prized magnets, I personally know of students who have been beaten up. From all schools, severe bullying and "beating up" incidents are routinely posted as nifty little film clips on youtube, for some people's viewing pleasure, and the victim's further humiliation. You can just imagine, the pressure on MNPS central office to keep these stories out of sight, away from public view. Just recall how the On The Bus Sexual Assault Stories in our recent history were handled.

So, just because you personally don't think you have reason for concern, does not mean that the reasons aren't there.

Those concerns aren't limited to MNPS. A friend of mine was thrown down a staircase at David Lipscomb High School back in the early nineties. He transferred to public school to escape the bullying.

Cici--
I used myself as an example to show my problem with your logic. I was not offended personally. What offended me was your attitude toward the benefits of knowledge and a well-educated (in the academic sense) mind. That said, you do seem a little judgmental when it comes to people you consider too concerned with wealth and ambition. Hey, that's your right. But does it have to be the mission of the public schools to show the people the error of their materialist ways?

As it happens, my child is in public schools, and will remain in them--but only because we are moving out of state and will be living in a good district. (No, not a lily-white district, but admittedly one where the diversity is more ethnic than racial. The immigrant population is more than 30 percent.) We're not rich, and I don't consider myself a moneyed elitist by any means. But I am an educational elitist, in that I think all children deserve the best possible academic environment we can provide, with as much nurturing as possible.

I suppose I don't understand why, instead of fighting the "elitists," including those who seem obsessed with getting the best for their children (the horror!), we don't use them to the district's advantage. Let's draw them into the system, get them invested with us, instead of calling them the enemy. The elitists are our friends--they will help us get the money and services we seek!

My child went to Eakin, which has a good rep but which has seen a lot of attrition of neighborhood families. Why? Part of it is, quite honestly, the way parents who can afford private school are treated. They are driven out by frustration. Yeah, they want what's best for their kids, but so what? Better teachers for their kids means better teachers for the whole school. Better books means better books for all, rich and poor alike. We need to think this way on a district level. Instead of pitting constituencies against each other to fight for resources, we need to see an improvement in any sector as a gain for us all, until we have the resources spread across the system. MNPS works on the zero-sum model. In this debate it's white against black. Sometimes it's rich against poor, or native vs. immigrant (ELL). Everyone sees a benefit to a different group as a loss to them. It's a rotten situation. Heck, when Eakin, which had become utterly decrepit, was renovated a couple years back, I heard complaints that it was just another sop to a privileged neighborhood. It wasn't. Eakin's desperately needed renovation. The school is 30 percent African American and 32 percent classified as "economically disadvantaged" by the state. So, did the renovation help those disadvantaged kids or not?

I'm rambling here. My apologies. But these old paradigms serve no one. Watching the dramatics unfold among the school board, the Chamber, the NAACP, councilmembers, and yes, the racist bottomfeeders ... It's just sad.

Cici:

Read Lisa's last post.

Then read it again.

The families who have left Metro schools aren't all white. What they are is middle class people of all races and ethnicities who want their children to get at least as good an education as they themselves got or even a better one (in my case, one that doesn't involve 'the new math.').

And materialism has nothing to do with it. Why would I bother to anguish over the fate of public schools in this blog, with its audience of a couple of stubborn Scene reporters wearing blinders and 10 other people, if my only goal was a good education for my own children? I can buy that on my own.

But Nashville desperately needs schools capable of helping even the poorest, most disadvantaged kids of any race achieve their potential. And I know from experience in one public school with a good parent support network and one that lacked such a network that Metro schools badly need involved and caring middle class parents, as Lisa capably points out, to make that happen -- yes, even parents with enough money to donate to the Invest campaign and help the teacher with supplies. How materialistic is that?

If the academic quality, 7th grade algebra, foreign language and other programs middle class parents who value education because of its incredible benefits and rewards cherish are bulldozed again and again, and any resources that go into schools they attend in any percentage beyond the single digits begrudged as elitist, they give up and leave the system because they're too tired and discouraged to keep fighting.

What angers me most about Ed Kindall is that his attitude is "my way or the highway,." He didn't get the vote he wanted, so he stormed out of the meeting with a verbal threat to stir up trouble, and that's just what he's done. I wish leaders in the black community had the courage to read the zoning program and even to give it a chance for a couple of years without letting Kindall get them all worked up.

if we were all on the same team with the idea that excellent academic performance is the big goal, I think we could come together. But as long as people like you cherish the idea that public schools are a grand social experiment and that academic excellence on any level is either secondary or unnecessary, and Kindall cherishes the thought that they exist only to promote diversity, MNPS will keep hemorrhaging the parents for whom academic excellence is a no-compromise standard.

The visible animosity at the last school board meeting has been building for years. It is at least a two way street. You could show that meeting to kindergartners, with or without sound, and they could label the behavior. Marsha and Ed are fiery characters who are pretty sure they are right but they are certainly caring water for other folks.

Guess we need two rr s and a y: carrying and caring are very different words. Sorry.

Mr. Kindall had to be the first one out to meet the media and get his spin out before anyone else. He raced straight out to the reporters.

Cici
Several students were arrested for assault at my son's high school in the four years he was there. A couple of them did require medical attention. The first day of his freshman year my son was robbed of his athletic shoes in the locker room after gym class under the threat of bodily harm. He was the only white kid in a locker room of 30 or so black kids. Of course we got it handled the next day, but he was also robbed of his security and self esteem, which we did not get back that next day. Since you like the social experiment, do you know and understand how territories work? Are you familiar with the gang standards and their boundries? Make sure your children know who they can talk to and who they cannot talk to. If they speak to the wrong guy or girl, they could be looking at a beating. Make sure they know which bath room they can visit during the day and which group controls them. My son's education made him an expert at social studies and the nuances of gang etiquette.
Oh, by the way, standard school attire just made it harder for the kids to know who to stay away from.

Know too much history here. It's the most polarized elected Board in the history of MNPS and I've been watching them since the first elected Board back in 1984, even before their TV debut. That meant I had to sit in the audience and say nothing. Did it forever. Marsha has been baiting Ed as if she is more black than he or at least more PC. She hasn't lived here except since the 90s so she might be carrying someone else's water.It has been an interesting public drama to watch. Sorry it can't be over something like the sewers and water drainage instead of our kids education.

Anonymous:
If Marsha Warden has been trying to be more black and more PC than Ed Kindall, then wouldn't that undercut the argument that she is carrying the water for re-segregationist Chamber types here?

Jeff:
A bone to pick with your characterization of Karen Johnson as "slapping" Jerry Maynard on her blog. I followed your link and read the blog. I noted first that Johnson reprinted the City Paper article that basically followed the Scene's version of the story. Then she reprinted the letter inviting opponents of the rezoning plan to meet. Then she pointed out -- and not in a shrill way, like some enterprising young reporters we could name -- that she had on more than one occasion invited Jerry Maynard to attend the task force's sessions. She had invited his comments on the plan before the school board voted on it. She reprinted the e-mails with these invitations. And, she said, Maynard had not availed himself of the opportunities. This seemed quite reasonable to point out. I realize you boys like to use active, if not sensational verbs, but your last sentence at the top of this thread makes it sound like Johnson had a hissy.

Boyd, you're right. I should have written "Johnson offers a very reasonable commentary on Maynard's failings."

I don't know who else Marsha's speaking for and it may just be herself since if you are the chair, it's hard to speak since you have to let others speak first. And all minority families don't agree totally with Ed so that may be who she is speaking for. But it appears they are all frustrated, exhausted and angry so to me that's the wrong time to make sweeping changes. Cooler heads need to provide relief.

Well, Jeff, you could have written:

"Johnson criticizes Maynard."

That at least would have been accurate without coloring it one way or another.

You boys seem to be taking your writing cues from the same cute folks who described Michelle Obama as "Obama's Baby Mama" on Fox News.