Editorial from the Founder
A Court Order Is Not a Classroom
This week the Justice Department moved to end federal desegregation oversight for close to sixty school districts, most of them in the South, some supervised for half a century. On paper, that is how the system was built to work. A desegregation order was always meant to be temporary, lifted once a district proved it had done the work. The hard part is what sits underneath the paperwork.
A review of those same districts found that about half are more segregated today than they were thirty years ago. So two things are true at once. A court order is not proof of integration, and ending one is not proof that a district has failed. But lifting oversight where separation has deepened is a real risk, because the research keeps finding that when these orders come off, segregation tends to grow rather than shrink.
I do not think the answer is to keep every district under supervision forever, and I do not think a judge in Washington is the right person to run a school system in Alabama or Mississippi. I also do not think we should pretend that closing an order is the same as finishing the job. The order was a means. The end was always supposed to be a school where a child's zip code and a child's color stop deciding the quality of their education.
So let us measure this the way it actually counts. Not by how many orders are closed, and not by who gets to claim a win, but by what happens next in those classrooms. If the children in a released district are better taught and less divided a few years from now, the decision will have earned its name. If they are not, we will have simply stopped watching.
Chris Glavin, Founder, K12 Academics