Back to web version
‘Nuclear option’ for KC schools: a weapon of mass delusion
By MARY SANCHEZThe Kansas City Star
Anything termed “the nuclear option” ought to give pause.
Especially when generations of children are at stake. And politicians are in charge.
For the Kansas City School District, the nuclear option is doling out its schools to surrounding districts. Admittedly, it’s more apt to be called nuclear by detractors.
One version of this idea is already proposed in legislation, and other forms of it are in the works.
This is a bad idea that won’t go away easily.
Legislators need to recognize that the soon-to-be-unaccredited school district’s greatest problem is achievement.
And low-income students from struggling families do not perform remarkably better in any of the surrounding districts. The instability of their homes won’t magically change if they attend the same school, just tacked onto a new district.
A recent letter to the state commissioner of secondary and elementary education from leaders in the African-American community didn’t mince words: “Our schools are plagued with abysmally low achievement levels and high dropout rates. Many of those who do graduate are functionally illiterate.”
The successful transfer of seven schools, including Van Horn High School, into the Independence School District has likely emboldened politicians. But those schools and children were already largely a part of the Independence community, which, to a certain extent, was welcoming home its prodigal children. The transitions were relatively smooth.
Divvying up the schools within a whole district that has large numbers of currently underperforming students is another matter. Under one plan, suburban districts would contract to run specific schools. Voters in Kansas City and the receiving district would have to approve the arrangements. That’s fair to taxpayers.
But when push comes to vote, many people will be reluctant to welcome large numbers of low-achieving students.
Even if that hurdle is overcome, for three years the receiving district can opt to keep the new students’ test scores separate, not allowing them to impact the overall rankings. It’s an understandable precaution to gain support for the new configuration, but it also gives the suburban districts a grace period with no accountability. At what point would these children’s achievement really become anyone’s responsibility?
Being bold for the sake of being bold, to put one’s stamp on an entrenched problem for political kudos, isn’t enough.
No local school system has a magic answer to overcome the struggles many poor children face: parents with drug and alcohol addictions, a new address every few months and hunger, to list only a few.
And if this plan fails to help children learn, do we cobble the district back together?
Surely, that would leave some terrible scars.