Those of you who know me at all know that I usually take a slightly goofy slant on everything. But since I allowed Richard Linster to flatter me into becoming Education Representative for TNLA, I think I should tell you who I am in this context. First, I am NOT a NIMBY. But I AM a NAIMBY (Not ALWAYS in My Back Yard.)

Here's my record: When the city was looking to re-site the social services agency Yahara House (already on the edge of our neighborhood) to the corner of Livingston and E. Gorham, I said "why not?" I have a close relative who received their services for a while and I know them to be well-run and a good neighbor.

But when the city proceeded to site several other group homes which did NOT have proper supervision in our neighborhood, I said "why us again?" (My downstairs neighbor was Debby Beebe, a lovely, dedicated social worker who was murdered by a client at a poorly-supervised group home on Dayton twelve years ago. It makes one thoughtful.)

When TouchAmerica tried to slam a cable through our neighborhood when it could have gone as well outside the Isthmus, I said "why here?" When they listened to our complaints and were terrifically helpful in re-routing for least impact on our neighborhood, I said "okay, here, but with our input."

Now, the TEP program is looking to place all of the city's homeless children into the Lapham/Marquette and perhaps Emerson schools, and I have to say "not ALL here."

Here's why:

There could be up to 200 children enrolling in Lapham and Marquette schools for up to 30-40 days (the limit at the temporary shelters set up to house them.) As any teacher knows, having even one kid drop in and out of school is rough on that child most of all, but also on the kids who have (we hope) befriended him or her. Moreover, as a teacher myself (though at college where attendance is not required by law) I worry about kids who suddenly disappear from my classes.

Both Ken Swift and Michael Hibbler, well-known and widely-respected teachers in Lapham and Marquette respectively, have spoken eloquently to this point. Now, Ken was my child's teacher for two years and Michael has interacted with him also, so I know both of these teachers to be passionately involved in the well-being of all their students. I have personally seen Mr. Swift intervene with kids who were traumatized and practically pull off miracles-all through simple love and mentoring. But there is a limit to any teacher's time.

Since many of the homeless children are members of minority groups, the charge of racism was bound to raise its divisive head. Michael Hibbler himself is African-American. While that fact itself doesn't guarantee lack of bias, I think that it makes a difference in gauging his authority to speak to this question. All the teachers of my acquaintance, in fact, have rejected the plan proposed by MMSD as outlined above, and none is a racist or a knee-jerk NIMBY.

Spreading these kids around (and I understand that children have a right to attend their "home" school) from school to school would lessen the stigma which unfortunately can attach to the "new kid," especially if the new kid is also a poor kid and a homeless kid. Here, I must speak personally. I was never homeless, but I was raised in marginal housing (cold, lacking indoor plumbing, ugly.) I was a very poor kid whose family routinely relied on charities both individual and social to keep us in food, clothes, and housing. The most important elements of keeping me safe and mentally healthy were in place, namely excellent, attentive, hardworking parents, but poverty breeds many other problems.

Some of these kids have the emotional advantages I had, but I suspect many do not. Also, as happens in poverty, they may suffer from lack of perfect hygiene, have to wear odd clothing, and not always have the required materials to attend school. These kids can only suffer from being grouped together. One parent who teaches in the Emerson school and has had many homeless kids in her classes swears that they are indistinguishable from the other students and that their status as homeless never came up, but I have to tell her as one who has nearly been there, kids do know. Just because they didn't talk about it to her doesn't mean they don't know. Also, if a desk or desks is set aside for the purpose of making room for the "new" kid, all children will know.

In smaller numbers, more help can be given to the individual child. As to their classmates, we have a pretty good reputation for tolerance in our neighborhood, I believe. But we have to be vigilant about cases of cruelty and prejudice in all our kids and double our efforts to help them empathize. That's an easier task a few kids at a time.

Finally, also, it is somewhat imprecise to call the Eastside schools the home-school of these kids. Can thirty days in a motel room or Salvation Army shelter be called a home? Isn't this really the whole point? Do the homeless have a "home school"? We all know that Westside schools get a very unfair share of educational resources and funding. Allowing some children to attend other schools would be better for everybody-but mostly less painful for the kids.

Social service-support (especially social workers and counselors, but also nurses) doesn't seem to be following the children. This is asking for trouble. Even though I am mindful that Kid A is not Kid B, it is well-known that the kind of deprivation and disruption that follows loss of a physical home adds predictable damage to kids' psyches. Some do not understand the reasons for their predicament and act out violently. Lapham is already in the top five of schools (district-wide) for kids with special needs. It just makes no sense to site a highly-intensive needs program in these already-stressed schools.

Here's my ideal solution: let's place these kids in as many schools as we can - i.e., especially those who have very low percentages and numbers of kinds with special needs and who live in poverty (such as Gompers, Van Hise, etc.) along with a FAIR share of kids at Lapham and Marquette. But also, let's try to model a program of tutoring-one tutor per child-drawn from our wealth of educated and capable neighbors-to supplement this program. I personally know ten or twenty people who, I believe, would be excellent friends/mentors/tutors to these kids. And we can attract others. Sometimes (and studies support this) the most important predictor of success for kids in need is ONE dependable adult role model who takes a special interest. To make good on my idealistic proposal, I will be the first in line.

Lapham and Marquette have had checkered pasts-when I moved to Madison I was warned that they were barely better than inner-city schools of much larger cities. One colleague of mine (an African-American woman) in the English department at UW-Whitewater told me she did not feel safe tutoring there. I have witnessed dangerous encounters even more recently. But we have pulled these schools up by paying attention and attending meetings and being there for our kids. We don't deserve to be punished for our success. Option 3b, as outlined in the accompanying article, was carefully and thoughtfully worked out by parents and teachers who want ALL the city's kids well-served educationally. It's only FAIR (For An Integrated Redistribution.).

-Gay Davidson-Zielske

Return to January/February Table of Contents