In her synopsis of the case study, "Equal but Separate," Brown adequately describes the situation as presented. She provides historical background on the impetus of racial inequality in schools, and presents the scenario from the functionalist and conflict theorist points of view.

Brown sees the intent of both the principal and the teacher as honorable. She feels that they both appear to want the same thing — success for the integrated students — but see the process to acquire that goal as quite different. While this may be true, I think Brown’s paper would be enhanced by further discussion of the underlying intentions of both Mr. Shire and Rosemary. I believe there is a possibility that Mr. Shire may be intent on protecting the status quo above all else, including the best education for all students at Deerpark. Mr. Shire’s plan to help the disadvantaged students includes tracking, and an assumption that the disadvantaged students will not be successful in the "advanced" curriculum of Deerpark. Both of these assumptions are suspect, based on educational research dealing with tracking, effort versus ability, and motivation.

Brown targets Mr. Shire as a functionalist, and I agree that Mr. Shire is intent on maintaining the status quo. However, I question whether Mr. Brown wants to maintain the status quo because he feels it is important for the maintenance and progression of a technological society or because he wants to maintain a dominant class. Is it possible that Mr. Brown acts as a conflict theorist, intent on maintaining "his society’s" upper hand in the school community? Is it possible that Rosemary acts as a functionalist, who wishes to see her students be given the opportunity to compete with the same parameters as the original Deerpark students?

Brown brings to light some of the issues of the controversy through a discussion of the benefits and costs as outlined in Analyzing Controversy. I feel that highlighting the value judgments made by Shire in the scenario could broaden the discussion as well. Shire makes judgments about the city students based on his values, and little fact. He lumps them all into a ball, stating that they’re "not as educationally advanced as their new peers." I question the validity of that statement.

Brown’s synopsis of the historical information related to racial issues in education since the Civil War is comprehensive and interesting; however, I feel that Brown does not need all of this information to address the issues in the case. Actually, the one who could really use the history lesson is Mr. Shire, to be used by Rosemary in an argument against his plan. Soltis and Feinberg ask several questions related to both conflict theory and functionalism. For the purposes of this paper, I feel it would be beneficial to broaden the discussion of those theories.

In Brown’s analysis of the controversy, she makes a few broad statements that I feel may be presumptions. For instance, she states that "most of us would take the position of Ms. Andrews…" If this were the case, perhaps all problems of racial inequality would be eradicated. In addition, she states that the principal’s intent is not malicious. As stated earlier, I question the principal’s intent.

Finally, in a discussion of Rosemary’s options, I agree with Brown that there are some grassroots actions that can and should take place. However, I feel the paper would be enhanced by a frank discussion of the obstacles Rosemary will face when she tries to change the status quo at Deerpark.

TO TOP