Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
What is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)?
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the symbiotic relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators" - Lisa Dunn, InclusionHub
Within her article "What is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)?", LIsa Dunn eloquently defines DEI:
Diversity: Acknowledges all the ways people differ: race, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, and more.
Inclusion: Is about diversity in practice. It’s the act of welcoming, supporting, respecting, and valuing all individuals and groups.
Equity: Is often used interchangeably with equality, but there’s a core difference: Where equality is a system in which each individual is offered the same opportunities regardless of circumstance, equity distributes resources based on needs. We live in a disproportionate society, and equity tries to correct its imbalance by creating more opportunities for people who have historically had less access.
Belonging: Infers that an equitable structure is in place and functioning to make all people, no matter their differences, feel welcome. When you reach for equity, you’re striving for a system that benefits everyone, no matter their circumstance. Belonging is when this not only works, but no one feels as if their inclusion is questioned.
Equity, diversity, and inclusion all mean different things, but interact with and rely on one another. Equity is the goal of diversity and inclusion.
Justice: Is the mission of equity, in which an equitable system works so well it eventually eliminates the systemic problems driving the need for the latter. In other words, everything is fairly and evenly distributed to people no matter their race, gender, physical ability, or other personal circumstances.
Where D&I focuses on making all groups feel welcome, DEI also addresses the systemic ways access to things—such as education, food, the web, and more—are unequally distributed."
The referendum claims that DEI is a benefit of this plan, but closing Sharp and Garfield is inequitable.
The "All in for Collingswood" plan divests from the most diverse schools in the district.
If the "All in for Collingswood" referendum passes in September, Garfield and Sharp schools will close. These closures will significantly impact the families that attend these schools.
The chart below outlines the demographics of the Collingswood Elementary Schools as reported by the State of New Jersey. As evidenced by this chart, Thomas Sharp School has the greatest percentage of minority students throughout the district (56.50%). Within the school district, Thomas Sharp School also houses the greatest percentage of students who fall under the umbrella of economic disadvantage (38.20%), the greatest percentage of students with a disability (21.50%), the greatest percentage of students who are at risk for chronic absenteeism (21.40%), and the greatest percentage of homeless students (3.70%). Sharp also has the second highest percentage of homes where a language other than English is spoken (9.40%). James Garfield School is home to the highest percentage of homes that speak a language other than English (11.90%) and as well the second highest percentage of minority students in the district (38.90%). Data collected from the state of New Jersey reveals students at Sharp and Garfield schools have a set of unique needs which require resources to optimize their education.
Research suggests that school closures have the potential to lead to a myriad of negative social and academic outcomes, increasing the burden for Sharp and Garfield community members. Divesting from Sharp and Garfield and their respective communities while investing in the most affluent and white schools in the district is simply inequitable.
Why are the most diverse community members and the community members with the greatest adversity being asked to carry the heaviest load in this plan?
The Referendum Action Committee believes district-led DEI-work is a critical need in our schools and must include the diverse voices that make up our community.
WIthin the past year, we have seen racial tensions rise and accusations of discriminatory behavior lodged across the borough. The "All in for Collingswood" presentation noted that our special education inclusion rates are below the national average. I think we can all agree that we want everyone to feel seen, heard, and included in Collingswood, but how are we going to to that?
Diversity asks "Who is in the room?"
Equity asks "Who is trying to get in the room, but can't?"
Inclusion asks "Have everyone's ideas been heard?"
Unfortunately, it feels that our Board of Education did not follow this formula when creating the "All in for Collingswood Plan". There is no evidence that a diverse sample of Collingswood residents were asked about what they needed from this plan. Information was not disseminated to stakeholders in their native language. Outreach was not conducted to residents who are marginalized. Throughout several of the BOE meetings we have heard HOURS of public comments pleading with the BOE to consider changes to the referendum based on needs of our community members. Why hasn't the board of education listened to the community and implemented their feedback into the plan? If we can't trust our district decision makers to listen to the people who are able to "make it into the room", how can we trust that they will act in the best interest of the community members who aren't able to "make it into the room"? Is this the behavior of a Board of Education truly committed to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion?
We also need the ability to determine solutions not only with empathy, but with objective data. We need to determine the "why and how" of our challenges. We need the data to find out why we're facing these challenges and how we can fix these challenges using peer-reviewed evidence. These challenges are not going to disappear by throwing random solutions at the wall to see what sticks through trial and error. These community challenges require targeted, evidence-based, and measurable solutions so we can move forward as a community with efficacy.
In order to determine the best plan for the Collingswood community all of the stakeholders need the opportunity to express their needs and voice their opinions. When the community is able to come together, determine the how and why of our challenges, and truly listen to each other, we can create a more equitable plan which serves all of our community members.
The complex challenges faced by the Collingswood district requires complex solutions which include all of the stakeholders
But what about ADA compliance and Special Education? Don't you want everyone to be included?
Absolutely! But we need to find the most equitable solutions based on evidence and individual needs
We live in a historic area which has older buildings built prior to the passing of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). This is not a unique problem to Collingswood. You can look at the surrounding areas of Haddonfield, Haddon Township, and Haddon Heights to see they also have older school buildings. Has the BOE reached out to find out how they have worked to solve the concern with ADA compliance?
Within the board presentation, there is no mention of cost comparison between making our buildings ADA compliant versus the cost of buying and renovating the Good Shepherd building. How can we make a decision to close and uproot two buildings worth of families at the cost of $40 million dollars when we haven't explored all of the options?
Inclusion of students and their family members is of the utmost importance, but we can not make decisions on the best way to go about that without exploring evidence and options.
Increases in the cost of living may lead to gentrification
Report by Harvard reveals bleak outlook on homeownership for Black and Hispanic renters. Will this plan help their cause?
An article published by NPR entitled, "U.S. home prices have far outpaced paychecks. See what it looks like where you live" revealed home prices are up 47% since 2020. As if that fact isn't concerning enough, the article goes on to reveal a bleak outlook for Americans and homeownership;
"Median home sales prices last year were about five times the median household income, according to tabulations in a newly released report by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, and there are signs it could get worse. The double whammy of high prices and high mortgage rates has 'left homeownership out of reach to all but the most advantaged households,' says Daniel McCue, a senior research associate at the center."
The article goes on to assert, "For those looking to buy — as well as for current homeowners — rising property taxes and insurance rates are also adding to financial strain. According to Harvard's estimates, "The all-in monthly costs of the median-priced home in the U.S. [when adjusted for inflation] are the highest since these data were first collected more than 30 years ago."
The "All in for Collingswood" plan claims that it will lead to a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive Collingswood, however, the article raises the possibility of the opposite effect;
"This has made it even harder to close racial gaps in homeownership. In the first quarter of 2024, the report finds that just 8% of Black renters and 13% of Hispanic renters had enough income to afford the monthly payments on a median-priced home."
With this information, how can we expect that the plan will actually result in a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive Collingswood?
Resources shaping our beliefs
Southern Poverty Law Center and the Advancement Project
The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Advancement Project, major national organizations that specifically work on issues of systemic discrimination, racism, and equal access sent a letter to the US Department of Education on 06/2024 that details the numerous deleterious effects that closures have on marginalized children, particularly those who are low income, and even more so when those students are not white. Copy of the letter can be found here.
Source: Blad, Evie. “When Does a School Closure Become Discriminatory?” Education Week, Education Week, 6 June 2024, www.edweek.org/leadership/when-does-a-school-closure-become-discriminatory/2024/06.
Education Law Center
Former Executive Director of the Education Law Center David G. Sciarra proposed both a diversity approach and an equity approach for addressing school segregation. Diversity approaches would include ensuring that all students have a diverse educational experience, and equity approaches invest in under-resourced schools. He argues that both are needed for desegregation and educational equity to be successful. Read his full report here.
Source: Education law center. “Equity and Diversity: Defining the Right to Education for the 21st Century.” Education Law Center, 4 Dec. 2023, edlawcenter.org/equity-and-diversity-defining-the-right-to-education-for-the-21st-century/.
The Making Caring Common Project
A report from the Making Caring Common project at the Harvard Graduate School of Education found: "[R]esearch suggests that the vast majority of parents across political affiliation, race, class, and geographic region strongly favor schools that are racially and economically integrated. But this doesn’t translate into action. In districts where parents have a choice, schools tend to become more segregated, not less. For example, white, affluent parents often choose schools based on the number of white, affluent students in attendance." Report can be found here.
Source: Making Caring Common Project. “Do Parents Really Want School Integration?” Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, 29 Jan. 2020, www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/news/20/01/do-parents-really-want-school-integration.