Joseph A. Goodin

ICE maintains it is their policy not to enact immigration enforcement in schools unless there is prior approval by the superintendent and/or urgent circumstances; the Department of Homeland Security verifies such. ICE is not to arrest or detain, speak or interrogate, illegally search or conduct surveillance on a person for immigration enforcement while on school grounds or buildings, school bus stops, or an educational activity (field trip, etc.). That being the policy, why is it necessary for a separate piece of legislation like Safe Haven resolutions?

The last thing we want is to be found clueless and without public declaration on where we stand, we are easy prey to less-than-professional actions. My job is to ensure that doesn’t happen and uphold JCPS’s resolution, which basically says though we understand and respect the laws, we recognize that we are honor-bound to educate all children in our public school system—regardless of what demographic data you want to infer. While in our care, they will not be interfered with or pursued. I have a role as Board member to see to it that the extent of their reach ends at our doors.

Parents, interests groups, and stakeholders in District 1 are brainstorming ideas and plans that gives their kids an option to attend a school closer to home. That’s true stakeholder engagement and I applaud their taking charge because they’re certainly getting no leadership from JCBE representation. While District 1 students are already attending schools in East and South Louisville—it’s called busing—I’ve suspicion that a very liberal school choice policy in JCPS doesn’t represent them fairly. Repurposing the majority of secondary schools in District 1 and in town as our high-achieving, privileged campuses who pick and choose who does and who doesn’t belong, there’s nowhere to create a neighborhood option. They need a new, dual-purpose middle and high campus. I don’t need a new school in Southwest Jefferson County. If JCPS leadership wants to champion District 1’s cause, I’ll back it 100%. The student assignment plan, which would include school choice, works to a degree, but it is grossly unfair to west Louisville.

The JCBE decision to remove SRO’s was carefully and cleverly rushed through to avoid any input by District 4 and they didn’t have, and still don’t have, a clue with what goes on in schools in District 4 where we have our fair share of trouble and notoriety. Where were the SBDM’s in the decision-making process? Having a security presence is a deterrent; I’m sorry it is viewed as menacing. I support the designs on an inner-JCPS security staff; I want them trained by us, answerable to us, and, working for the principal. Suspending a student—regardless of race—does nothing more than temporarily remove a disruptive presence so the other kids who do want to learn are able to do so. It’s a “we give up” policy and these kids know it; some wear a suspension like a badge of honor because they have succeeded in controlling us. Keep them in school and their only option is they will be learning differently, away from their peers, in a room all set aside for them, and you can rejoin when you can act like you have sense.

Quality management—where restorative justice (practices) is principled—is a theory I believe can work in the public school system. We have to go a little further before looking at a broader base of application or improvement—we’re still in “work the plan” phase. Who would object to taking a sensible, logical approach to deescalate unruly or violent behaviors? You’ll ramp up ownership of civility and good order if you get the students to buy-in to peer mediation and have them collaborate on what’s too far over the line. Dependent on the model and staffing employed, anything that requires the teacher to facilitate conflict resolution instead of teaching, I’m not too keen about. I also believe a misperception with restorative justice is that it will eliminate suspension rates; it’s intended to only reduce them—we will continue to have students who refuse to follow any direction or authority. If anything “more” should be done, you’ll need JCPS security staff to be more interventionist than a heavy hand in the hallways.

Schools have their individual racial equity plans and board members are responsible to assist in their implementation. With an outline in place, it’s up to us to demonstrate we can “work the plan.” I don’t know if $2 million is a serious investment or seed money; I know I don’t feel good about it. It concerns me that in the excitement to field this approach, I haven’t seen a backup if it fails. I’ve no objection to Afro-centric approaches to meeting needs; however, what I question is are we leaving a back door open to quietly reintroduce segregated schools? I don’t want to be party to that or blamed for it. Granted, our methodologies don’t reach the neediest of our enrollment, thus justifying why another policy is necessary. Perhaps what we need to do is confess we should start over with an education policy that’s been proven successful elsewhere across all demographic indicators.

I had “sex education” when I was a youngster and it was awful. Curriculum today is aimed at helping our young people with information and motivation necessary to make healthy and wise decisions about sex and sexuality. If you don’t teach it, they’re going to learn it all the same—no different in my day. While sex education curriculum addresses choices, it should likewise include that alternative lifestyles are also a choice a segment of the student populace may choose to adopt. Free expression of one’s sexuality and the open exhibition of such isn’t acceptable everywhere regardless one’s persuasion, it isn’t tolerated in any public school I’m aware of, and I won’t support relaxing rules. Implying hetero and LGBTQ students should be permitted to utilize personal facilities (restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc.) puts a demand on parents they should never have to address or forced to support.

I oppose charter schools in general terms; they are aren’t governed by the oversight organization elected by the people and they drain funds away from our existing public schools operating budget. Legislation has only allowed for their creation, should they be desired; there is no funding earmarked for them, we all know where that money would come from, they are privately operated like a business, and I would not be in favor. However, are we admitting we have charters in our system with the schools of color? What about exclusive magnet and traditional programs? These are public schools funded by our tax base and their enrollments are exclusive to a segment of our students. I don;t object to them, I wonder, though, how close are we?