Omaha Public School splits

Eric the Red

Team HuskerBoard
Published Friday

April 14, 2006

Bill dividing OPS now law

BY MARTHA STODDARD

WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

LINCOLN - The Omaha Public Schools would be split into three districts and placed with all Douglas and Sarpy County districts in a new structure that shares resources and promotes integration under a bill that became law Thursday.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers wads up a letter from Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. Bruning said he saw "potential constitutional problems" with the law to break up OPS.

Gov. Dave Heineman signed Legislative Bill 1024 within hours of the Legislature's final vote. Heineman said the bill provides a first step toward a resolution of the issue that has divided the Omaha metro area ever since OPS announced plans to take over parts of the Millard, Ralston and Elkhorn districts.

"At its core, LB 1024 is about protecting local control while enhancing the opportunities for cross-boundary cooperation," he said.

"The intent of it is to end all of this talk about boundaries and force everybody to sit down and talk about what really matters - ways to improve the education of Omaha's children."

Later, the governor said he hopes the coordinating council of the new structure, called a learning community, would develop ideas for improving the bill. He said he would be willing to push for those changes during the next legislative session or, possibly, during a special legislative session.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha also hinted that OPS officials could avoid the breakup mandated by LB 1024 by changing their ways. The split is not scheduled to take effect until July 1, 2008.

Chambers advised OPS Superintendent John Mackiel to review the story of the sword of Damocles. In classical mythology, a sword hung over the ruler's throne by a single horsehair to represent the precariousness of power.

"Until the sword actually falls, the person sitting beneath it can take action to save himself or herself," Chambers said, declining to elaborate.

OPS officials said they expected a court challenge to the law but did not say whether OPS itself would sue. "We will never give up all our options," said Sandra Jensen, president of the OPS board.

Mackiel said the district would be formally inviting metro-area school districts to discuss ways to resolve the disagreements. OPS officials were drafting the formal invitations.

Mackiel said he hoped that after 60 to 90 days of talks the issue could go back to a special session of the Legislature.

Lawmakers passed LB 1024 by a vote of 31-16 with one senator not voting and another absent. Metro-area senators were represented on both sides of the vote.

Some were among the staunchest opponents of the bill because the split of OPS would create a mostly black district, a mostly white district and a mostly Latino district. Others, such as State Sen. Pam Redfield of Omaha, said it offers new possibilities for improving education throughout the wider Omaha community.

"We're not creating separate districts, we're creating interrelated districts," Redfield said. "I hope that none of you think that we're trying to go backwards. I think we're ahead of the nation."

Under LB 1024, all Douglas and Sarpy County school districts would share financial resources and students would be free to attend any school.

The learning community would be charged with integrating schools in the wider Omaha community. Districts that fail to participate would be dissolved.

The bill increases state aid for districts with low-income students and students learning English. It also would help small districts with declining enrollment.

But State Sen. Pat Bourne of Omaha cited a letter from Attorney General Jon Bruning to bolster his argument that the breakup plan could be constitutionally suspect.

While Bruning declined to issue a formal opinion on the bill, he said a "cursory analysis" of the bill shows it could raise "potential constitutional problems."

Chambers said he has no case law to support his position that the bill would pass constitutional muster because, he said, "I don't need case law."

"First of all, there's nothing racial about it. It's what you call neutral on its face," he said. "While I spoke about its being beneficial for black people, this would be beneficial for everybody and everybody's district. The purpose is for local control and quality education."

After the bill's passage, leaders of the suburban school districts pledged to come together to make the new structure work.

"There's a lot in this bill that we don't like," said Ken Bird, superintendent of Westside Community Schools.

Bird said he has concerns about some of the financial and organizational matters. He also doesn't support breaking up OPS. But he said the bill gives time for problems to be worked out and brings everyone to the table to do so.

"There's a lot of time and a lot of spinning of wheels before we get to that division," he said.

Roll call

A "yes" vote was to pass the bill. A "no" vote was against passing the bill.

Senators voting yes: (31)

Aguilar, R., Grand Island; Baker, T., Trenton; Beutler, C, Lincoln; Brown, P., Omaha; Burling, C., Kenesaw; Byars, D., Beatrice; Chambers, E., Omaha; Combs, J., Milligan; Cudaback, J., Riverdale; Cunningham, D., Wausa; Engel, P., South Sioux City; Fischer, D., Valentine; Heidemann, L., Elk Creek; Hudkins, C., Malcolm; Janssen, R., Nickerson; Jensen, J., Omaha; Johnson, J., Kearney; Kremer, B., Aurora; Kruse, L. Omaha; Louden, L., Ellsworth; McDonald, V., St. Paul; Pahls, R., Omaha; Pedersen, Dw., Elkhorn; Pederson, D., North Platte; Price, M., Lincoln; Raikes, R., Lincoln; Redfield, P., Omaha; Schrock, E., Elm Creek; Stuhr, E., Bradshaw: Stuthman, A., Platte Center; Wehrbein, Roger R., Plattsmouth.

Senators voting no: (16)

Bourne, P. Omaha; Brashear, K., Omaha; Connealy, M., Decatur; Cornett, A., Bellevue; Erdman, P., Bayard; Flood, M., Norfolk; Foley, M., Lincoln; Friend, M., Omaha; Howard, G., Omaha; Kopplin, G., Gretna; Landis, D., Lincoln; Langemeier, C., Schuyler; Mines, M., Blair; Preister, D., Omaha; Synowiecki, J., Omaha; Thompson, N., Papillion.

Present, not voting: (1)

Schimek, D., Lincoln.

Excused, not voting: (1)

Smith, A., Gering.

 
Hey Ar Husker Fan if you could reply with your thoughts on this. I believe this is headed right for the courts. Both sides have good arguements.

Of course if any others have thoughts chime in

 
I have no doubt that it is constitutionally suspect. You simply cannot discriminate on the basis of race. Creating three districts or schools using racial criteria does just that.

The Supreme Court (prior to the recent changes) has uniformily held that this kind of "local" control is in violation of the constitution - and has done so despite repeated studies that seem to indicate that when you group children together based on race (and assuming equal resources), the children perform better.

However, the catch is that you never get "equal resources". Unless or until education is funded completely by the state, districts have to rely on local tax bases. And those are based on neighborhood composition. Since historically African-American and Latino populations have lower socio-economic standing, there is a smaller tax base to fund districts in those locations. Less funds means inferior facilities and teachers. Never fails. So even though the bill mandates shared resources and revenue, sooner or later that will change.

Oddly, with the new makeup of the Supreme Court, there is a slight possibility that this kind of a bill would get a thumbs-up from the court. I find it hard to believe, given the court's virtually unchanging stance since the 1950s, but it is in the realm of possibility.

 
Back
Top