Pushing the Boundaries Redistricting the Kentwood Schools

¶ … successful redistricting efforts of the Kentwood schools as originated by Mary Leiker. Her plans, while somewhat idealistic, did address some marked needs in Kentwood and indeed in the United States as a whole. Redistricting, according to Leiker, would address the community's needs on various levels. Firstly, it would address the needs of the children involved. On the one hand, no American community is homogeneous, and this needs to be reflected in the school community. Leiker's justification for this view is that greater diversity in the school community would prepare them for diversity issues they would face as adults, both in the workplace and in the general community. Furthermore, giving children of diverse ethnic backgrounds and intellectual abilities the chance to work and learn together would be beneficial to both. What Leiker refers to as "at risk" children would benefit from the opportunity to learn from their peers, while intellectually stronger children would benefit from acknowledging the diversity of the learning community. These children could further develop their leadership skills by engaging in helping children with lower learning abilities. Friendships and learning communities would thus be enhanced by greater tolerance among children. These are all very laudable and community-oriented ideals, and it is understandable that the plans for redistricting were ultimately a success.

However, the way in which the plans were implemented and presented to the community leaves considerable room for improvement. The community resistance offered to the proposal was considerable and caused a large amount of unhealthy bickering among community members and board officials. According to the events presented in the article, it appears that the issue could have been handled with much more sensitivity. It is true that change is almost always somewhat painful and that a degree of resistance should be expected. However, such resistance should be dealt with by an open and honest relationship with those affected.

The planning and development phase of Leiker's ideals are perfectly logical, taking to heart the needs of the community, its children and its future in terms of the American ideal of equality and freedom. Further in her favor is the fact that she is obviously qualified as both a superintendent and educator to implement the kind of changes she deemed necessary for the redistricting process. Her passion and dedication to her job are also qualities that suits her well to the job at hand. The plans she wished to implement for Kentwood were well thought out, taking into account many complex issues and situations.

A great part of the problems she faced later when attempting to win community support for the project was due to elements beyond her control. The unfortunate timing forced by elements such as the mine and building the extra school, along with funding, was the main challenge.

Leiker however seemed aware of the possible controversy and resistance that rapid redistricting plans would entail. She also appeared aware of the sensitivity that would be necessary in order to implement the change with as little friction as possible. Her way of implementing the plans thus appear rather surprising.

Leiker's first and most grave mistake was concealing the impact and extent of the changes from the largest part of the community that they would directly affect. It is little wonder that, after a significant amount of discussion and planning with only a few community representatives, the rest of the community considered the letter they received as an invitation to war.

A further mistake was the insensitive way in which community diversity issues were handled by the discussion board during community meetings. Resistance from both the parents of "at-risk" children and intellectually more gifted children was voiced with a number of good reasons. It is strange that such resistance was not expected after the way in which the community was informed about he decisions affecting their lives. When Leiker and her team thus tried to explain the terms used and the reasons for changes, the community was already resistant and little effect could be expected. It would have been much more effective to explain terms and reasons before resistance was cultivated.

The main problem was thus not the principle behind the proposed redistricting idea. The problem was the way in which the community directly affected by the plans was excluded from the planning stage. The general community was never informed until right before the implementation stage. Furthermore little sensitivity was displayed towards their concerns. Instead of addressing concerns, further resistance was cultivated by maintaining the fact that the plans were what was "right." While true, there was no communication between board members and the community. Instead there was only a resentment-cultivating struggle for power between the groups.