Closure plan is institutionally racist

The final Seattle school-closures recommendations by the Community Advisory Committee on School Facilities and Programs and Superintendent Raj Manhas reveal a plan that is discriminatory against students of color and students from low-income families.

The data from the Seattle School District's Web site display the institutionally racist and classist character of this plan.

The CAC and Manhas call for six elementary schools to be closed. These six schools — Graham Hill, Martin Luther King, Fairmount Park, Emerson, Whitworth, and Viewlands — currently enroll 1,322 students. Of these, 1,082 are children of color; this is 82 percent, while the district as a whole is only 59 percent students of color.

In these six schools to be closed, 882 students are enrolled for "free or reduced-price lunch," thus signifying that they come from low-income families. This is 67 percent of the total number of students, while the district average for "free or reduced-price lunch" is only 40 percent.

The district's Web site presents the following statement: "At its meeting on May 19, 2004, the Seattle School Board approved a resolution that commits Seattle Public Schools to the principles of Brown v. Board of Education and calls on school employees, volunteers and community members to eradicate institutional racism."

Wikipedia explains that "institutional racism is distinguished from the bigotry or racial bias of individuals by the existence of systematic yet covert policies and practices that have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial or ethnic groups ... The term 'institutional racism' has also been applied to policies, systems and processes which are not necessarily caused by intentional racism but which have the effect of disadvantaging certain racial groups."

Thus, well-intentioned folks who are not personally racist can nonetheless create policies and procedures that result in racist outcomes.

The key to institutional racism is the outcome. Who is affected and how?

The Manhas plan for school closures would ensure an institutionally racist outcome. Eighty-two percent of the children and families who would have their school taken away from them, whose lives would be disrupted and who would be compelled to start again in a new school would be children of color. This is a blatant case of institutional racism, since a disproportionate outcome is the key characteristic of institutional racism.

When Manhas removed Sacajawea Elementary School from the closure list, with its 61-percent white student population, he intensified the racist character of his proposal.

The Manhas plan also discriminates against children whose parents and/or guardians have low family incomes. Sixty-seven percent of the children whose school would be shut down come from these families.

Undoubtedly, given the demographics in Seattle, many of these children of color whose school would be taken away from them also come from low-income families.

I assume Manhas is not a racist and that he did not set out to discriminate against children from families with low incomes. But there is no question that his plan is both racist and classist, that is, discriminatory by family income. These are the simple facts.

Furthermore, neither the CAC nor Manhas seems to have considered the powerful research of the past 10 years both on school size and stability of school enrollment. Very convincing research (some of it conducted by Pat Wasley, dean of the University of Washington's College of Education) shows that children do better academically and socially in small schools and that children from low-income families are particularly helped by being in a small school.

Research also shows that children who stay in one elementary school do much better than children who attend two or more schools, that transferring from one school to another impedes the academic and social progress of many children — and that it is particularly a liability for children from families with low incomes.

Finally, the only reason we are talking about closing schools is the projected budget deficit that Manhas and the School Board claim is looming in years to come. But Manhas' final plan cuts the projected savings from closing schools to $3 million a year — and the board has already voted to use half of these funds for some unspecified academic improvements.

What exactly can we buy for another $1.5 million a year in 90 remaining schools? That's less than $16,700 per school.

And is a savings of $1.5 million a year worth disrupting the lives of more than 1,300 children and their families, most of whom are people of color from low-income families?

Do Manhas and our supposedly anti-racist School Board really want to stake their reputations on school closures that are both institutionally racist and classist and that produce such minimal potential benefits?

David Marshak is a professor in the College of Education at Seattle University.