I have been against the three-way OPS split since I first heard about it. Problem is, I'm not sure why. Most of my opposition has been purely reflexive. But that's sloppy. Reflexive opinions are fine in limited cases where a quick decision is necessary, whereas for deeper, longer term problems, reflexive opinions are not especially useful.
So I've thought about the OPS division a fair bit these past few days. And you know what? I still don't get it. I can't understand why such a big chunk of the Unicameral thought it was a great idea. I'm missing something, some big, important detail. But what?
Some say that smaller districts are better. Perhaps that's true. But why is it the state's job, rather than the local residents' responsibility, to determine how big is too big? Senator Ernie Chambers had the gumption to point out the elephant in the room by bringing race into play. He says black people should be in charge of black people, whites in charge of whites, and so on. But then why not a boys district, a girls district, and a "confused" district? Or districts for the smart kids, the average kids, and the special needs kids? The jocks, the geeks, and the artsies?
Surely somebody can explain this to me. If that somebody is you, have at it. Even better if you can explain the implications the three-way split has for Lincoln.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
From what I understand, Ernie just did this to be…Ernie. Most feel this won’t hold.
I was given an explination of it this weekend but…it really confused me so I’m just going to say that.
Mr. Wilson…I couldn’t agree more. I also think “Ernie being Ernie” had something to do with it as well. And while I commend the intentions (trying to solve the educational crisis in Omaha) the solutions just seems odd. I don’t know why such a bastardized solution was developed when there are far more innovative and proven solutions such as, school choice, vouchers, charter schools etc. I would love to see those types of ideas broached as solutions for both Omaha and the state.
I see it as less of a race issue and more of an economic one. That is, poor kids have different concerns when it comes to education than rich kids. Many won’t have computers at home, or any training on them, at all. Many (especially in HS) won’t have the free time their richer counterpoints do, because they have to work. So in that way, I can see how having separate school districts could work. At the same time, I went to a very diverse (racially and socioeconomically) High School in California , and I think it did me a world of good.
What I don’t understand is the funding issue. I don’t really know how it works in Omaha or Lincoln. I still can’t understand why cities don’t take all property taxes and allocate the money to schools according to how many children the school serves. Seems reasonable to me, but not many places seem to do it that way. (hence the schools that are ridiculously unequal in the same city)
<em>I still can
To follow the discussion in light of my previous post, I would like to point out, that the type of per person funding is exactly what a lot of voucher systems do. They provide a per pupil educational stipend to parents and allow them to take their dollars to a school of their choice. In this way, I think a voucher system helps solve both the funding disparity and the school choice/fit issue.
Here’s a link to an article that ran in the Omaha World Herald the weekend after Ernie presented the bill, which gives his take on why he did. It’s an interesting read.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1640&u_sid=2148013
Registration is required to view the link.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.