Diversity In Schools 1st Edition Frank D Brown

Richard C Hunter Saran N Donahoo download

https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-schools-1st-edition-
frank-d-brown-richard-c-hunter-saran-n-donahoo-51321298

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Responding To Diversity In Schools An Inquirybased Approach Susie

Miles

https://ebookbell.com/product/responding-to-diversity-in-schools-an-
inquirybased-approach-susie-miles-2383248

Gender And Sexual Diversity In Schools An Introduction 1st Edition

Elizabeth J Meyer Auth

https://ebookbell.com/product/gender-and-sexual-diversity-in-schools-
an-introduction-1st-edition-elizabeth-j-meyer-auth-4476888

Affirming Language Diversity In Schools And Society Beyond Linguistic

Apartheid 1st Edition Pierre Orelus

https://ebookbell.com/product/affirming-language-diversity-in-schools-
and-society-beyond-linguistic-apartheid-1st-edition-pierre-
orelus-5302902

Educational Inequalities Difference And Diversity In Schools And

Higher Education 1st Edition Kalwant Bhopal

https://ebookbell.com/product/educational-inequalities-difference-and-
diversity-in-schools-and-higher-education-1st-edition-kalwant-
bhopal-5303524
Educated In Whiteness Good Intentions And Diversity In Schools
Angelina E Castagno

https://ebookbell.com/product/educated-in-whiteness-good-intentions-
and-diversity-in-schools-angelina-e-castagno-7187726

Gender And Sexuality Diversity In A Culture Of Limitation Student And

Teacher Experiences In Schools Tania Ferfolja

https://ebookbell.com/product/gender-and-sexuality-diversity-in-a-
culture-of-limitation-student-and-teacher-experiences-in-schools-
tania-ferfolja-33712266

Teaching Diversity In Rural Schools Attaining Understanding Tolerance

And Respect Through Young Adult Literature Lisa A Hazlett

https://ebookbell.com/product/teaching-diversity-in-rural-schools-
attaining-understanding-tolerance-and-respect-through-young-adult-
literature-lisa-a-hazlett-50441976

Educating Multilingual Students In Rural Schools Illuminating

Diversity In Rural Communities In The United States Maria R Coady

https://ebookbell.com/product/educating-multilingual-students-in-
rural-schools-illuminating-diversity-in-rural-communities-in-the-
united-states-maria-r-coady-49492820

No Outsiders We Belong Here Lesson Plans To Teach Diversity And

Equality In Schools Andrew Moffat

https://ebookbell.com/product/no-outsiders-we-belong-here-lesson-
plans-to-teach-diversity-and-equality-in-schools-andrew-
moffat-55922812
 diverSity
in SchoolS

Debating issues
in American Education
 EDITORIAL BOARD
Editors-in-Chief
Charles J. Russo
University of Dayton
Allan G. Osborne, Jr.
Principal (Retired), Snug Harbor Community
School, Quincy, Massachusetts

Volume Editors
Frank Brown
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Richard C. Hunter
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Bahrain Teachers
College, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain

Saran Donahoo
Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Advisory Board
Francine DeFranco
Homer Babbidge Library, University of Connecticut
Ralph D. Mawdsley
Cleveland State University
Martha M. McCarthy
Loyola Marymount University and Indiana University
Mark E. Shelton
Monroe C. Gutman Education Library, Harvard University
 diverSity
in SchoolS

volume editorS

Frank brown
univerSity of north cArolinA At chAPel hill

riCharD C. hunter
univerSity of illinoiS At urbAnA-chAmPAign And
bAhrAin t eAcherS college , univerSity of bAhrAin,
k ingdom of bAhrAin

saran Donahoo
Southern illinoiS univerSity cArbondAle

3
VOLUME

Debating issues series Charles J. russo

in American Education eDitors allan g. osborne, Jr.
FOR INFORMATION: Copyright © 2012 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

SAGE Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or
2455 Teller Road utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage
and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
E-mail: [email protected]
publisher.
SAGE Publications Ltd.

1 Oliver’s Yard

55 City Road
Printed in the United States of America.
London EC1Y 1SP

United Kingdom Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Diversity in schools/volume editors, Frank Brown, Richard C.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Hunter, Saran Donahoo.
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
p. cm.—(Debating issues in American education ; v. 3)
India

Includes bibliographical references and index.

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

3 Church Street ISBN 978-1-4129-8764-6 (cloth)

#10-04 Samsung Hub

1. Multicultural education—United States.
Singapore 049483 2. Minorities—Education—United States.
3. Marginality, Social—United States. I. Hunter, Richard C., Dr. II.
Brown, Frank, 1935-
III. Donahoo, Saran.

LC1099.3.D59 2012
Publisher: Rolf A. Janke

Acquisitions Editor: Jim Brace-Thompson 370.1170973—dc23   2011048280

Assistant to the Publisher: Michele Thompson

Developmental Editor: Carole Maurer

Production Editor: Tracy Buyan

Reference Systems Manager: Leticia Gutierrez

Reference Systems Coordinator: Laura Notton

Copy Editor: Matthew Sullivan

Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.

Proofreader: Ellen Howard

Indexer: Mary Mortensen

12 13 14 15 16 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Cover Designer: Janet Kiesel

Marketing Manager: Carmel Schrire

 CONTENTS
About the Editors-in-Chief x
About the Volume Editors xii
About the Contributors xiv
Introduction xix

1. Should the Courts Be the Primary Focus

in Efforts to Achieve Desegregation? 1
OVERVIEW 1
Frank Brown, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
POINT 4
Richard C. Hunter, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain
COUNTERPOINT 11
E. Lincoln James and Paul E. Pitre, Washington State University

2. Are Multicultural Counseling Programs in

Schools Needed to Improve the Academic
Performance of Students? 19
OVERVIEW 19
Saran Donahoo, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
POINT 23
Deneia M. Thomas, Eastern Kentucky University
Lynda Brown Wright, University of Kentucky
COUNTERPOINT 29
Jennifer L. Burris, Katrina A. R. Akande, and Sonja M. Feist-Price,
University of Kentucky

3. Are Traditional University Preparation Programs

the Best Way to Prepare Teachers and Administrators
to Teach Diverse Student Populations? 37
OVERVIEW 37
Frank Brown, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
POINT 40
Martin Scanlan, Marquette University
COUNTERPOINT 47
Carl Byron Keys, II, University of Virginia
4. Can Race to the Top and Related Programs
Improve Underperforming Schools? 55
OVERVIEW 55
Frank Brown, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
POINT 58
William J. Miller, Southeast Missouri State University
COUNTERPOINT 65
Muhammad Khalifa and Nimo Abdi, Michigan State University

5. Is Aid to Schools Under Title I the Best Way to Close

the Achievement Gap Between Students Who Are
Economically Disadvantaged and Those Who Are Not? 75
OVERVIEW 75
Frank Brown, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
POINT 78
Paul E. Pitre and E. Lincoln James, Washington State University
COUNTERPOINT 84
James E. Lyons, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

6. Is Aid to Schools Under Title I an Appropriate

Strategy for Closing the Achievement Gap
Between Minority and Majority Students? 93
OVERVIEW 93
Frank Brown, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
POINT 96
Richard C. Hunter, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain
Clare Beckett-McInroy, Bahrain Teachers College, University
of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain
COUNTERPOINT 102
James E. Lyons, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

7. Given School Dropout Rates, Especially Among

Poor and Minority Students, Should College
Attendance Be the Norm for All U.S. Students? 113
OVERVIEW 113
Richard C. Hunter, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain
POINT 117
Saran Donahoo, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
 COUNTERPOINT 123
Valerie Hill-Jackson, Brandon Fox, and Rachel Jackson,
Texas A&M University
Marlon C. James, Loyola University Chicago

8. Does Incorporating Elements from Popular Culture,

Such as Hip-Hop, on School Campuses Help Public
Schools Serve Diverse Student Populations? 133
OVERVIEW 133
Saran Donahoo, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
POINT 137
Latish Reed, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Natalie A. Tran, California State University, Fullerton
Christopher N. Thomas, University of San Francisco
COUNTERPOINT 142
Dana Griffin, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

9. Should All Forms of Ability Grouping

Be Eliminated in Schools? 149
OVERVIEW 149
Saran Donahoo, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
POINT 152
Tiffany R. Wheeler, Transylvania University
COUNTERPOINT 159
Deborah A. Harmon, Eastern Michigan University

10. Do Current Funding Structures and Districting

Criteria of Public Education Marginalize
Ethnic and Racial Minority Students? 168
OVERVIEW 168
Frank Brown, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
POINT 171
Robert C. Knoeppel, Clemson University
COUNTERPOINT 177
Enid Beverley Jones, Professor Emeritus

11. Are English-Only Models the Most Appropriate Means

for Teaching English to English Language Learners? 186
OVERVIEW 186
Saran Donahoo, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
 POINT 190
Linwood J. Randolph, Jr., Chapel Hill-Carrboro (North Carolina)
City Schools
Xue Lan Rong, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

COUNTERPOINT 197
Patrice Preston-Grimes and Wendy W. Amato, University of Virginia

12. Should Gender Be Applied as a Diversity Criterion in

Educational Programming and Placement? 206
OVERVIEW 206
Richard C. Hunter, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain

POINT 209
Wayne D. Lewis, University of Kentucky

COUNTERPOINT 214
Cosette M. Grant, Pennsylvania State University Greater Allegheny

13. Is the Full-Service Community School Model for

Involving Parents and Community Members
From Diverse Backgrounds Useful in Furthering
Equitable Educational Opportunity Among
Majority-Minority School Populations? 221
OVERVIEW 221
Richard C. Hunter, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain

POINT 224
Dana Griffin, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

COUNTERPOINT 229
Natalie A. Tran and Miguel Zavala, California State University, Fullerton

14. Should Pull-Out Instructional Programs Be Retained

Under Title I’s Compensatory Education Provisions? 237
OVERVIEW 237
Richard C. Hunter, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain

POINT 241
John A. Oliver and Miguel A. Guajardo, Texas State
University–San Marcos

COUNTERPOINT 248
Latish Reed, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
 15. Should Gender-Based Student Loan Forgiveness Be
Used to Increase the Percentage of Male Teachers
and Administrators in Public Schools? 255
OVERVIEW 255
Saran Donahoo, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
POINT 259
Paul Green, University of California, Riverside
COUNTERPOINT 265
Mona Bryant-Shanklin, Norfolk State University

Index 274
 ABOUT THE
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
Charles J. Russo, JD, EdD, is the Joseph Panzer Chair in Education in the
School of Education and Allied Professions and adjunct professor in the School
of Law at the University of Dayton. He was the 1998–1999 president of the
Education Law Association and 2002 recipient of its McGhehey (Achievement)
Award. He has authored or coauthored more than 200 articles in peer-reviewed
journals; has authored, coauthored, edited, or coedited 40 books; and has in
excess of 800 publications. Russo also speaks extensively on issues in education
law in the United States and abroad.
Along with having spoken in 33 states and 25 nations on 6 continents,
Russo has taught summer courses in England, Spain, and Thailand; he also has
served as a visiting professor at Queensland University of Technology in
Brisbane and the University of Newcastle, Australia; the University of Sarajevo,
Bosnia and Herzegovina; South East European University, Macedonia; the
Potchefstroom Campus of North-West University in Potchefstroom, South
Africa; the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; and the University
of São Paulo, Brazil. He regularly serves as a visiting professor at the
Potchefstroom Campus of North-West University.
Before joining the faculty at the University of Dayton as professor and chair
of the Department of Educational Administration in July 1996, Russo taught
at the University of Kentucky in Lexington from August 1992 to July 1996 and
at Fordham University in his native New York City from September 1989 to
July 1992. He taught high school for 8½ years before and after graduation from
law school. He received a BA (classical civilization) in 1972, a JD in 1983, and
an EdD (educational administration and supervision) in 1989 from St. John’s
University in New York City. He also received a master of divinity degree from
the Seminary of the Immaculate Conception in Huntington, New York, in
1978, as well as a PhD Honoris Causa from the Potchefstroom Campus of
North-West University, South Africa, in May 2004 for his contributions to the
field of education law.
Russo and his wife, a preschool teacher who provides invaluable assistance
proofreading and editing, travel regularly both nationally and internationally
to Russo’s many speaking and teaching engagements.

x
 About the Editors-in-Chief xi

Allan G. Osborne, Jr. is the retired principal of the Snug Harbor Community
School in Quincy, Massachusetts, a nationally recognized Blue Ribbon School
of Excellence. During his 34 years in public education, he served as a special
education teacher, a director of special education, an assistant principal, and a
principal. He has also served as an adjunct professor of special education and
education law at several colleges, including Bridgewater State University and
American International University.
Osborne earned an EdD in educational leadership from Boston College and
an MEd in special education from Fitchburg State College (now Fitchburg
State University) in Massachusetts. He received a BA in psychology from the
University of Massachusetts.
Osborne has authored or coauthored numerous peer-reviewed journal
articles, book chapters, monographs, and textbooks on legal issues in educa-
tion, along with textbooks on other aspects of education. Although he writes
and presents in several areas of educational law, he specializes in legal and
policy issues in special education. He is the coauthor, with Charles J. Russo, of
five texts published by Corwin, a SAGE company.
A past president of the Education Law Association (ELA), Osborne has
been an attendee and presenter at most ELA conferences since 1991. He has
also written a chapter now titled “Students With Disabilities” for the Yearbook
of Education Law, published by ELA, since 1990. He is on the editorial advisory
committee of West’s Education Law Reporter and is coeditor of the “Education
Law Into Practice” section of that journal, which is sponsored by ELA. He is
also on the editorial boards of several other education journals.
In recognition of his contributions to the field of education law, Osborne
was presented with the McGhehey Award by ELA in 2008, the highest award
given by the organization. He is also the recipient of the City of Quincy Human
Rights Award, the Financial Executives Institute of Massachusetts Principals
Award, the Junior Achievement of Massachusetts Principals Award, and several
community service awards.
Osborne spends his time in retirement writing, editing, and working on his
hobbies, genealogy and photography. He and his wife Debbie, a retired elemen-
tary school teacher, enjoy gardening, traveling, attending theater and musical
performances, and volunteering at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.
 ABOUT THE
VOLUME EDITORS

Frank Brown is the Cary C. Boshamer Distinguished Professor of Educational

Leadership and Dean Emeritus, School of Education, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Brown holds a PhD from the University of California
at Berkeley and has held several academic and administrative positions: lec-
turer in education and acting director of mathematics and science education,
University of California at Berkeley; associate director, New York State
Commission on the Quality, Cost and Financing of Elementary and Secondary
Education; assistant professor and director of University’s Urban Institute, City
College of New York; professor of educational administration and PhD pro-
gram in public policy and director of the Cora P. Maloney College, State
University of New York at Buffalo; and visiting scholar, Graduate School of
Education, University of California at Berkeley. He has authored more than
300 publications and is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in Black
America.

Richard C. Hunter is a professor of educational administration and former

head of the Educational Organization and Leadership Department at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He holds an EdD in policy, plan-
ning, and administration from the University of California at Berkeley and was
professor and chair of the Educational Leadership Program at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has worked as a teacher, a principal, and an
assistant and associate superintendent in the public schools of Berkeley,
California; U.S. Air Force Schools in Tokyo, Japan; Richmond, California; and
Seattle, Washington. He also was the district superintendent of the public
schools of Richmond, Virginia; Dayton, Ohio; and Baltimore, Maryland. He
was an associate director for education for the U.S. Department of Defense
Education Activity in Arlington, Virginia. He was given a Fulbright Scholar
Program Award from the U.S. Department of State and is currently serving as
a lecturer at the Bahrain Teachers College of the University of Bahrain.

Saran Donahoo is an associate professor in the Department of Educational

Administration and Higher Education and the director of the College Student
Personnel Program at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. She earned both
xii
 About the Volume Editors xiii

her PhD and her MA at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She

completed her BA in secondary education at the University of Arizona. Her
published works include coediting Teaching Leaders to Lead Teachers: Educational
Administration in the Era of Constant Crisis and articles in Teachers College
Record, Equity & Excellence in Education, Christian Higher Education, Urban
Education, and Education and Urban Society, as well as an array of book chap-
ters. She also serves as associate editor for Media Reviews for the Journal of
Student Affairs Research & Practice. In 2009, she received both the Joyce Cain
Award for Distinguished Research on African Descendants from the Comparative
and International Education Society (CIES) and the American Educational
Research Association (AERA) Division J Outstanding Publication Award.
 ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS
Nimo Abdi is a doctoral student in K–12 educational administration at
Michigan State University. Her research interests include issues relating to
school experiences of Somali refugees/immigrant students in public schools.
More specifically, she is interested in student identity and self-perceptions in
both school and community contexts.
Katrina A. R. Akande is a PhD candidate in the Department of Family Science
at the University of Kentucky. Her research interests are family diversity, father-
hood, and racial socialization.
Wendy W. Amato is a doctoral student at the University of Virginia in the
department of Curriculum and Instruction. Her research focuses on culturally
congruent pedagogy for English language learners.
Clare Beckett-McInroy is a coactive coach/psychometrist, senior consultant,
and president of Bizladies, Bahrain Chapter, at Bahrain Teachers College,
University of Bahrain, and lecturer/tutor with University of Strathclyde
(United Kingdom). Clare has worked in a variety of leading positions includ-
ing university dean. She has presented at numerous international universities
and conferences, including Harvard University and the University of
Manchester (United Kingdom), and has many publications.
Lynda Brown Wright is a professor of in the Department of Educational,
School and Counseling Psychology at the University of Kentucky. She has
24 years of experience as a trainer and instructor of multiculturalism. A pri-
mary research interest includes the examination of factors related to the cogni-
tive development and schooling experiences of children and youth of color.
Mona Bryant-Shanklin is associate professor with the Department of Early
Childhood, Elementary Education, and Special Education at Norfolk State
University (Virginia). Her background with “at risk” populations is the basis
for her current research and publication interests, which among other topics
include social justice issues for traditionally underrepresented groups.
Jennifer L. Burris is a PhD student in the Department of Educational, School,
and Counseling Psychology at the University of Kentucky. Her research interest
is academic motivation and achievement among African American children.
Sonja M. Feist-Price is a professor in the Department of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Counseling at the University of Kentucky where she has been on
xiv
 About the Contributors xv

faculty since 1992. In addition to her doctoral degree in rehabilitation research

from Southern Illinois University Carbondale, in 2006, Feist-Price completed
a PhD in counseling psychology from the University of Kentucky.
Brandon Fox is a PhD student in curriculum and instruction with an empha-
sis in multicultural education at Texas A&M University. His research interests
include culture and mathematics, equity and access, and multicultural teacher
education.
Jesulon S. R. Gibbs is an assistant professor of educational leadership at the
University of South Carolina in Columbia. Her research and teaching foci are
public school law and educational policy analysis. She is also a contract attor-
ney for Boykin & Davis, LLC, a school law firm. Dr. Gibbs’s recent book is titled
Student Speech on the Internet: The Role of First Amendment Protections.
Cosette M. Grant is a senior instructor and also serves as an adjunct professor
at Pennsylvania State University Greater Allegheny. Her research focuses on the
challenges and opportunities offered by increasing diversity in education. Her
work includes published research on gender, diversity, and mentoring in peer-
reviewed publications
Paul Green is on the faculty in the Ethnic Studies Department at the University
of California, Riverside. His research and teaching focus on policies, practices,
and laws that impede or advance educational and social opportunity for chil-
dren and youth of color.
Dana Griffin is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. Being a former school counselor, she researches school-family-
community collaboration and parental involvement in African American and
Latino populations. Further, she explores culturally appropriate strategies for
working with parents from these populations.
Miguel A. Guajardo is an associate professor in the Education and Community
Leadership Program at Texas State University–San Marcos. His research inter-
ests include community building, community youth development, leadership
development, race and ethnicity, university and community partnerships, and
Latino youth and families.
Deborah A. Harmon is a professor of curriculum and instruction at Eastern
Michigan University and the director of the Office of Urban Education and
Educational Equity in the College of Education. Dr. Harmon’s research is in
multicultural education, urban education, and gifted education.
Valerie Hill-Jackson is a national award–winning educator, AERA/Spencer
and Geraldine R. Dodge fellow, and clinical associate professor in the
xvi Diversity in Schools

Department of Teaching, Learning and Culture at Texas A&M University. Her

interests are passionately located in critical teacher education, community
studies, and STEM education for underserved learners.

Rachel Jackson is an undergraduate senior with a major in human resource

development, a minor in creative studies, while seeking a teaching certificate
from Texas A&M University. On completion of her bachelor’s degree, Jackson
plans to continue research in giftedness for the underserved and using organi-
zation development in revamping the public education system.

E. Lincoln James is professor of communication and managing editor of The

Western Journal of Black Studies at Washington State University.

Marlon C. James is an assistant professor in the School of Education at Loyola

University Chicago. His teaching and research focuses on developing social
justice educators and fostering transformative schooling environments for
African American males.

Enid Beverley Jones, professor emeritus, earned an EdD in educational

administration from University of Florida, Gainesville, and held several posi-
tions as faculty, department chair, and director of doctoral universities. She has
made presentations on educational administration and education finance at
local, state, national, and international conferences. Her publications include a
textbook on education finance and several journal articles.

Carl Byron Keys, II is an educator specializing in program development and

in the doctoral program at University of Virginia. His research interests lie in
understanding how educational leaders can build agency for members of their
schools and use the affective nature of the schooling process to improve
achievement. Keys is currently engaging in praxis in San Diego, California.

Muhammad Khalifa is a faculty member in K–12 educational administration

at Michigan State University. He was previously an urban school teacher and
administrator. His research addresses culturally appropriate school leadership
practice. He has looked at successful urban school leadership, as well as princi-
pals in alternative schools and in Middle Eastern and African countries. His
current research examines disparities in school suspension, urban school clo-
sures, and educational experiences of refugee children.

Robert C. Knoeppel is an associate professor and chair of the Faculty of

Leadership, Counselor Education, and Human & Organizational Development
at Clemson University. His research interests include school finance, leader-
ship, and accountability policy.
 About the Contributors xvii

Wayne D. Lewis is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational

Leadership Studies at the University of Kentucky. His teaching and research are
in the areas of education politics and policy, school reform, school-family-
community collaboration, and diversity in education.
James E. Lyons is professor of educational leadership in the Department of
Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He
joined the UNC–Charlotte faculty in 1979 and served as Department
Chairperson for 15 years. During the last 25 years, he has published more than
40 articles and book chapters.
William J. Miller is assistant professor of political science at Southeast
Missouri State University where he specializes in public opinion and American
public policy.
John A. Oliver is an assistant professor of educational and community leader-
ship at Texas State University–San Marcos. His research explores intersections
of effective partnerships between communities, schools, and institutions of
higher education for community change. Oliver was a public school teacher
and assistant principal in Michigan for over 8 years.
Paul E. Pitre is an associate professor of educational leadership at Washington
State University. His research focuses on underrepresented students’ experi-
ences in the college choice process and factors that predict college attendance.
His research interests include P–16 education policy and higher education
governance.
Patrice Preston-Grimes is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s
Curry School of Education. Her research interests include civic education,
African American educational history, the sociocultural contexts of teaching and
learning, and, more recently, the use of technology in social studies instruction.
Linwood J. Randolph, Jr. earned an EdD in curriculum and instruction from
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2011. He is a National
Board–certified teacher and currently is assistant professor of Spanish and
coordinator of foreign language teacher education at the University of North
Carolina at Wilmington. His research interests include heritage language main-
tenance and multiculturalism in world language education.
Latish Reed is an assistant professor of educational leadership at the University
of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Her previous experiences as an urban school teacher
and administrator influence her current research agenda, which centers on
school leadership with focus on serving the needs of traditionally marginalized
students.
xviii Diversity in Schools

Xue Lan Rong is professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Her research focuses on culture, race/ethnicity, and education, and the effects
of immigrant generation on young adolescents’ schooling. Rong’s publications
include 5 books, 3 edited journal volumes, and more than 40 journal articles
and book chapters.
Martin Scanlan is on the faculty in the College of Education at Marquette
University. His scholarship focuses on how schools work to create educational
opportunities for traditionally marginalized students. His current research is
on schools meeting students’ special needs and dual immersion schools, as well
as on collaboration among institutes of higher education, K–12 schools, and
community organizations.
Christopher N. Thomas is an assistant professor and department chair of the
leadership studies program at the University of San Francisco and was recently
named 2010 Professor of the Year by the Association of California School
Administrators. His primary responsibility is training and preparing educators
to become instructional and social justice leaders.
Deneia M. Thomas is an associate professor in counseling and educational
psychology at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky. She has
vast experience promoting equity and accountability within K–12 settings and
postsecondary institutions. Thomas maintains a record of scholarship relating
to the examination of factors that promote success among diverse populations.
Natalie A. Tran is an assistant professor in the Department of Secondary
Education at California State University, Fullerton. Her research focuses on
instructional practices and social contexts affecting student achievement in
science. Her methodological interests include hierarchical linear modeling,
experimental design, quasi-experimental design, and survey studies.
Tiffany R. Wheeler is an assistant professor of education at Transylvania
University in Lexington, Kentucky. Her teaching and research interests include
culturally responsive pedagogy, sociocultural perspectives of literacy instruc-
tion, race and ethnicity issues in education, and immigrant children. She
received the Bingham Award for Excellence in Teaching in 2011.
Miguel Zavala is assistant professor in the Department of Secondary Education
at California State University, Fullerton. His research focuses on the role
teacher-led community organizing spaces play in fostering social justice teach-
ing and action-research projects. Zavala has extensive experience working with
urban and migrant Latino youth.
 INTRODUCTION

T his volume covers several salient diversity indicators, including race, eth-
nicity, language, and socioeconomic status, that must be considered in
order to ensure quality education in public schools for all students. These
indicators are discussed in the context of efforts to achieve educational equity
through multicultural education and broader social policies addressing issues
such as school funding, segregation, and teacher training.
Efforts to provide educational equity for all students can be traced to the
women’s rights movement of the 19th century and the civil rights movement
of the 1950s. These efforts accelerated after the landmark 1954 Supreme Court
decision in Brown v. Board of Education supporting school desegregation. In
the 1960s, we witnessed the racial and ethnic pride movements. These activities
were followed by demands for changes in school curricula, more minority
teachers and administrators, and later, gender equity.
However, resistance to demands related to diversity has been strong and
persistent (Brown, 2004a; Brown, 2004b). There was resistance at all levels of
the federal government, state governments, and local school boards. Individuals
in these units of government expressed opposition to school desegregation,
changes in the curriculum, affirmative action plans to employ more minority
personnel, ethnic studies, and bilingual education. Several states banned the
use of state funds for racial desegregation, teaching of English as a second lan-
guage, and the establishment of ethnic studies programs. Some school districts
and their supporters pressured book publishers to remove or reduce the mul-
ticultural content in their books and school libraries to ban books popular
among minority students.
Recently, policymakers have attempted to replace the nation’s commitment
to public education with an emphasis on school choice and to define educa-
tional excellence in terms of student achievement on standardized tests. There
are many other controversies related to how best to meet the needs of diverse
students, but we have chosen the topics for this volume because of their rele-
vance to diversity and excellence as keys to the nation’s ability to meet the
challenges of the 21st century, especially with respect to effectiveness in the
global economy. An underlying assumption is that effective implementation of
goals related to diversity will lead to quality education for all students. The
debates in this volume focus on a number of broad issues relating to diversity
and quality education, ranging from desegregation and multicultural instruc-
tion, to educational and funding equity. These topics introduce the readers to
the nature and complexity of diversity in public education.
xix
xx Diversity in Schools

DIVERSITY AND QUALITY EDUCATION

Quality public education has been deemed important at all levels of govern-
ment, and imperative for the country’s survival in the global economy (Byrd,
2004; Spring, 2008; Wilson, 2009). Diversity in education is influenced by the
racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of the U.S. population. The United States
has one of the most financially unequal systems of education with respect to
educational funding per student enrolled in public K–12 schools. Most coun-
tries have a single national funding system for public education, with equal
expenditures per student nationwide. The United States has 50 separate state
systems, with expenditures per student that differ between the states, and
between school districts within each state, with one exception: The state of
Hawaii has only one school district with equal funding per pupil across the
entire state. Education achievement in the United States lags behind other rich
countries (Darling-Hammond, 2010, pp. 26–64). In addition, achievement
gaps exist between minority and nonminority students and between low-
income students and their more affluent counterparts.
There are several reasons for our approach to diversity in this volume. First,
we are concerned about equity in the funding of schools that promotes a better
chance for an equal educational opportunity for all children within each
school district within each state. Students’ test scores serve as a gatekeeping
function for success in school. In today’s economy, high academic skills are
important, and in an era of high-stakes testing, the penalty for having lower
academic skills is greater (Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2008, p. 2; Winerip, 2011,
p. A17). Thus, an achievement gap in education means unequal opportunities
in the larger society. An example of such a gap is that between test scores of
Black and White students. The test score gap between Black and White students
narrowed until 1988, but then it began to widen. This narrowing of the gap was
evident for both Black boys and girls until 1988, but after 1988, Black girls
began to outscore Black boys (Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2008, pp. 6, 13). This
achievement gap also exists for other racial and ethnic minorities. Second, this
country needs more and better educated citizens to compete successfully in the
global economy. Finally, academically, there is a lack of quality education for
most minority students, who live in poorer school districts with less educa-
tional funding per pupil. The lower levels of education funding result in these
children having less qualified teachers, which usually results in an inferior
education compared to most White students who reside in wealthier school
districts (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Magunson & Waldfogel, 2008).
This volume debates several significant issues that are central to achieving
this goal of providing students in each public school an equal educational
opportunity between the states and within individual states.
 Introduction xxi

DESEGREGATION
After 1865, slavery ended, but 31 years later in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the
Supreme Court held that states could meet the equal protection requirements
under the Constitution by providing “separate but equal” opportunities for
Blacks and Whites. It wasn’t until 1954 that the Supreme Court in Brown v.
Board of Education ruled that racially segregated schooling was unconstitu-
tional. Even after that decision, major progress in implementing desegregation
did not occur until 1970 (Brown, 2004a; Brown, 2007), and after 1980, school
integration declined (Brown, 2004a; Cashin, 2004). More recently, in its 2007
ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1,
the Supreme Court struck down voluntary assignment plans in Seattle,
Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky. The Court held that that a public school
student assignment plan that gave preference to racial minority students was
unconstitutional where there was no preponderant proof that such a plan was
necessary to achieve racial diversity. The case arose when parents in two school
districts challenged voluntarily implemented assignment plans that gave pref-
erence to minority students. The Court found that the two districts did not
have a compelling interest in adopting the assignment plans since they were
not being used to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination.
Further, the Court indicated that the objective of creating racial balance, while
laudable, was not compelling. This decision represented a setback for the diver-
sity movement, in that it limited a neighborhood school’s racial and ethnic
population to that of the immediate geographic area (Brown, 2007).
In this volume, the first chapter specifically examines the question of
whether litigation should be the primary focus in efforts to desegregate the
schools, while several other chapters look at other means of providing equal
educational opportunities to diverse student populations. In this respect,
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 debate various diversity strategies, such as racial and eth-
nic school desegregation, multicultural counseling, and school personnel
preparation programs that should educate such personnel to deal effectively
with such a diverse student population.

INSTRUCTION
Curriculum
Establishing a school’s instruction and curriculum has traditionally been a
function of state and local governments. State boards of education set cur-
ricula standards and approve textbooks. However, special interest groups
often request funding for additional instructional activities and curricula
offerings to supplement the district’s standard curriculum. The movement
xxii Diversity in Schools

toward curriculum diversity has stimulated an ongoing political and legal

debate that often becomes highly charged. Many curricula disagreements end
in court and become issues in political elections to statewide offices and local
school boards. Indicative of the ongoing struggle, some educators have sug-
gested that elements of popular youth culture, such as hip-hop, should be
incorporated into the curriculum, a proposal that is debated in Chapter 8. As
this debate clearly shows, there are both pros and cons to using pop culture to
teach a diverse student population, and some argue that the decision of
whether to adopt such a strategy should depend on the overall culture of the
school and community.

Personnel
Academic achievement among African American, Latino, and some other eth-
nic minority students continues to lag behind that of White students and some
groups of Asian Americans. One cause of this gap is that many teachers have a
low expectation of minority students and assign a disproportionate number of
minority students to lower level academic courses or tracks (Darling-
Hammond, 2010; Oakes, 2005). A second cause of this achievement gap may be
that minority schools have less experienced teachers and higher rates of teacher
turnover. Another issue is the lack of male teachers of all races. Chapter 15
debates the merits of gender-based student loan forgiveness programs to
increase the percentage of male teachers and administrators.
America is a capitalist society, and attracting better teachers to work effec-
tively with all racial and ethnic groups will require better financial benefits.
When the talent pool for teachers declined in the 1960s, the National Science
Foundation and the Ford Foundation spent hundreds of millions of dollars to
help elite colleges prepare teachers. Both programs recruited the best and
brightest into education by paying the total cost of their education and provid-
ing spending money. After the U.S. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of
1964 that opened better opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities and
females of all races to enroll in greater numbers in academic professions such
as medicine, law, and business, many of these individuals no longer sought
careers in public school teaching. This resulted in fewer academically talented
individuals entering the teaching profession. In addition, most elite colleges
and universities beginning in the late 1960s eliminated their teacher prepara-
tion programs. These events caused a decline in the quality of teachers, which
contributed to a decline in students’ test scores by 1980 (Magunson & Wald­
fogel, 2008). The earlier National Science Program had provided fellowships to
practicing teachers to enroll in programs in science and mathematics with all
 Introduction xxiii

expenses paid by the government. The current STEM program that began
under President George W. Bush has a much smaller budget and aims primar-
ily to encourage more college students to seek majors in the sciences, technol-
ogy, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)—not teaching careers. Despite
current programs designed to attract a talented pool of candidates into teach-
ing, such as Teach for America, a large number of young teachers leave the
profession within 5 years (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Klein, 2011; Ravitch,
2011, p. A25). This suggest that states may need to pay teachers higher salaries
(a) to attract more of the most academically talented college students into the
teaching profession to accomplish this goal and (b) to encourage more elite
colleges and universities to enter the field of preparing public school teachers
and administrators. Further, there is a need for greater diversity among our
teaching force. Several essays in this volume examine ways of bringing more
diverse and talented candidates to education. Chapter 15 looks at ways to
attract more males to the teaching profession, a profession that is currently
dominated by female teachers.

Title I and Race to the Top Programs

The primary purpose of public education is to provide instruction/teaching
for students. Thus, several chapters in this volume review efforts to improve
instruction for all students. The first national effort dealing with the country’s
diverse student population began with the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. This program recognized the lack of quality
instruction for poor minority children. This statute has been reauthorized
several times, most recently as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001.
The ESEA was originally approved to bridge the academic gap between eco-
nomically disadvantaged and advantaged students. Specifically, Title I of the
statute provides compensatory education for students and supports the educa-
tion of students with disabilities and bilingual education. It also allows stu-
dents to transfer from low-performing schools to better schools.
Recently, President Barack Obama’s Race to the Top (RTT) program,
designed to improve underperforming schools, has supplemented the NCLB.
RTT supports such programs as charter schools, magnet schools, private man-
agement of public schools, vouchers, and alternative teacher preparation pro-
grams. Authors in several of the chapters in this volume debate the merits of
Title I and RTT. With regard to Title I, Chapter 6 takes up the issue of whether
aid to schools under Title I of ESEA is an appropriate strategy for closing the
achievement gap that exists between White and minority students. Chapter 5
discusses whether Title I is effective in closing the achievement gap between
xxiv Diversity in Schools

those who are economically disadvantaged and their more affluent peers.
Chapter 4 addresses RTT and whether this and related programs can be suc-
cessful in meeting the goals of improving underperforming schools.

Support Services
Counselors and administrators are a valuable resource for teachers as well as
for students and their families. Disadvantaged minority students and their
parents may need special assistance from school personnel, and there may be a
greater need for more face-to-face interaction between parents and school
personnel. For example, parents of special education students may not fully
understand their rights or why their child is not progressing academically. As
children progress through school, parents should be informed personally as to
what is required of their children. Given the high dropout rate among disad-
vantaged minority students, it is also important for counselors and adminis-
trators to assist students and their parents in managing the demands of school
so that students are better able to succeed academically. Several chapters in this
volume deal specifically with issues that touch on the support services that can
be provided to a diverse student population. Chapter 2 in this volume deals
specifically with the question of whether multicultural counseling programs are
needed to improve the academic achievement of students. Another chapter,
Chapter 11, examines support services for students from limited English speak-
ing families and different cultures. This chapter also asks whether English-only
is the best method for teaching English language learners. Chapter 9 examines
the many issues surrounding the use of ability grouping and tracking in schools.
Chapter 13 examines ways to provide additional support services to minority
students and their parents, specifically utilizing full-service community coun-
seling models to assist students enrolled in majority-minority schools to
improve the students’ chances of being more successful in school.

EDUCATIONAL EQUITY
Research has shown that in the United States, family wealth is related to chil-
dren’s academic achievement (Cashin, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Wilson, 2009). Yet, being poor and minority is not the same as being poor and
White in the United States (Stricker, 2007; Wilson, 2009). There are more
opportunities to escape poverty for Whites than for racial minorities (Stricker,
2007; Wilson, 2009). As stated earlier, there is an academic achievement gap
between minority students and White students, as well as between low-
income students and higher income students. One proposal for providing
 Introduction xxv

equitable educational opportunities is the full-service community school

model, in which public health, social, and/or community services are pro-
vided along with education services. Chapter 13 of this volume debates
whether such full-service models are useful for achieving educational equity.

Educational Funding
State Funding

Public education is a state function, but the financial ability to support educa-
tion varies from state to state and district to district within a state. Also, there
are funding disparities between neighborhood schools within each school
district. Wealthier school districts are better able to attract the best school per-
sonnel to meet the high standards that all school districts desire. However,
more minority students tend to live in low-income neighborhoods with less
funding for their schools.
As is apparent from the essays in the Finance volume in this series, public
school funding is complex, and because public education is a state responsibil-
ity, funding is highly political. District level funding is based on support from
state and local funds, and the source of local and state funds varies widely by
state. For example, some states support up to 75% of the cost with 25% coming
from local funds, with other combinations in between, and the amount of local
funding also varies widely. Some states generate funds from sales or income
taxes, and some generate funds from a combination of sales and income taxes.
Basically, local funds are drawn mainly from property taxes, and local sales
taxes if permitted by the state.
There are state formulas for providing funds for schools. First, states may
provide local school districts’ funds based on their enrollment, property
wealth, property assessment ratio, and tax rate. Second, most states provide
each school district a basic support level regardless of its wealth or property tax
rate. But several states provide each local school district a single funding rate
per teacher per class without regard for property value or tax rate.

Federal Funds

The federal government provides about 7% of local school bud­gets to support

such programs as special education, meals for poor children, compensatory
education (Title I programs), bilingual education, dropout prevention, and
Native American education. These programs address special needs but do not
address the unequal funding among the states or among schools within a single
district.
xxvi Diversity in Schools

The Future of Educational Funding

In 1973, the Supreme Court in San Antonio v. Rodriguez held that unequal state
funding across school districts did not violate the Constitution. After 1973,
school funding equity cases were processed through state courts with not
much success (Odden & Picus, 2008), and some scholars believe this situation
is unlikely to change (Guthrie, Springer, Rolle, & Houck, 2007). These legal
challenges have not to date resulted in increased revenues for poor schools
servicing largely disadvantaged minority children.
Given such funding disparities and the high correlation between federal edu-
cation programs and the overrepresentation of minority students, Chapter 10
debates whether current funding structures marginalize ethnic and racial
minority students.

CONCLUSION
It has been more than 50 years since the Supreme Court outlawed racial segre-
gation in schools with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and 40 years since
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), when the Court
authorized the use of race to desegregate schools. It has now reversed that 1971
decision by its ruling in Parents Involved against the use of racial criteria to
desegregate schools, thereby returning schools back to the neighborhood con-
cept. Equal funding through the courts also has not been successful for plain-
tiffs. Using the federal courts to equalize state funding across school districts in
1973 was not successful (San Antonio v. Rodriguez). Also, subsequent challenges
in state courts for equal school funding have not been very successful.
The ability to racially desegregate schools beyond one’s neighborhood or
the ability to equalize funding of schools across all neighborhoods within each
school district could have a positive impact on the ability of schools to address
the needs of their diverse student populations. Unfortunately, school districts
may have difficulty desegregating public schools or receiving equal funding for
all schools within a school district.
Attracting more diverse and talented college students into teaching as a
career will incur additional costs. Top schools, academically, are able to recruit
and retain top college graduates, and schools that cannot afford to attract top
teachers should not expect to be highly ranked (Klein, 2011, p. 76). Although
there are many reasons why schools have difficulty in diversifying their staff,
financial shortcomings may restrict their ability to diversify the teaching faculty
and administration by race, ethnicity, and gender. Financial restrictions may also
impede efforts to diversify the curriculum, including extracurricular activities.
 Introduction xxvii

The challenge for education policymakers is how best to provide schools

with the tools and conditions needed for programs that meet the needs of
diverse populations of students, teachers, administrators, and parents neces-
sary to secure a quality education for all students.
Frank Brown
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Richard C. Hunter
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain
Saran Donahoo
Southern Illinois University

Further Readings and Resources

Brown, F. (2004a). The first serious implementation of Brown: The 1964 Civil Rights
Act and beyond. Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 182–190.
Brown, F. (2004b). Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and forces against Brown. Journal of
Negro Education, 73(3), 191–208.
Brown, F. (2007). Ending the Brown era: What is the future for equal educational oppor-
tunity? School Business Affairs, 73(9), 8–10.
Byrd, R. (2004). Losing America. New York: W. W. Norton.
Cashin, S. (2004). The Failure of Integration: How race and class are undermining the
American dream. New York: PublicAffairs.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Guthrie, J. W., Springer, M. G., Rolle, R. A., & Houck, E. A. (2007). Modern education
finance and policy. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Klein, J. (2011). The failure of American schools. The Atlantic, 307(5), 66–77.
Magnuson, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2008). Steady gains and stalled progress. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Ravitch, D. (2011, May 31). Waiting for a school miracle. The New York Times, p. A25.
Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational
Research, 78(2), 330–363.
Stricker, F. (2007). Why America lost the war on poverty—and how to win it. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Wilson, J. W. (2009). Why the poor stay poor: Being Black and poor in the inner city.
New York: W. W. Norton.
xxviii Diversity in Schools

Winerip, M. (2011, February 13). Closing the achievement gap without widening a
racial one. The New York Times, pp. A15, A17.

Court Cases and Statutes

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (1965).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301–7941 (2006).
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 127 S. Ct. 2738
(2007).
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
 1
Should the courts be
the primary focus
in efforts to achieve
desegregation?
POINT: Richard C. Hunter, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign and Bahrain Teachers College,
University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain
COUNTERPOINT: E. Lincoln James and Paul E. Pitre,
Washington State University

OVERVIEW
The debate in this chapter focuses on the issue of whether court-ordered man-
dates, as opposed to legislated school desegregation policies, should be the
primary focus in addressing unequal educational opportunities for students of
color. Studies have shown that since de facto segregation continues, unequal
educational opportunities for students of color continue to exist nationwide even
though state-mandated racial segregation no longer exists. Thus, children of
color do not always have equal educational opportunities (Cashin, 2004). The
question is whether current legislation can adequately address this problem.
Legal racially segregated public schools existed in southern and most
border states until the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown
v. Board of Education (1954). In Brown, the Court ruled that racially segre-
gated public education was unconstitutional and, in doing so, reversed its
1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy held that racial segregation was
constitutional if the state provided “separate but equal” facilities for both
Whites and non-Whites.

1
2 Diversity in Schools

Brown combined five school cases from the lower federal courts to review
challenges to racially segregated public schools. The cases came from four
states and the District of Columbia. The Court held a second hearing in 1955
to discuss implementation of Brown and ordered the lower courts to proceed
“with all due deliberate speed.” In 1968, in a Virginia school desegregation
case, Green v. County School Board, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the lower
courts to act affirmatively in enforcing Brown. The Green opinion listed six fac-
tors needed to achieve unitary desegregation status: student assignments,
faculty assignments, staff assignments, facilities, transportation, and extracur-
ricular activities.
The school desegregation process was slow. First, school districts refused
to voluntarily integrate their schools. Second, seeking a legal remedy against
school districts required lawsuits on behalf of Black plaintiffs with children
enrolled in each of approximately 5,000 school districts that required racially
segregated schools. This process was dangerous and costly for Black plain-
tiffs. Civil rights organizations were able to finance a limited number of cases
through the courts. Finally, it took 4 to 6 years for such cases to reach the
Supreme Court, and if the plaintiffs were successful, the cases were remanded
to the lower federal district courts for implementation. These were the same
judges who often had ruled against plaintiffs when their cases initially had
come before the trial courts. Lower courts approved limited remedies that
failed to adequately desegregate schools. In many cases, the courts super-
vised integration efforts for decades that never achieved unitary desegregation
status.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aided in this process by bringing legal action
against offending school districts by the U.S. Attorney’s Office that covered
legal expenses. By 1990, the Supreme Court began to retreat from its positive
views on school desegregation by allowing school districts to be removed from
lower courts’ supervision without meeting all of the six Green factors required
by the Court in its 1968 decision.
In 2007, the Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
School District No. 1 held that the use of race in busing to achieve integration
was no longer constitutional by overturning its 1972 Court decision that
allowed such use of busing to desegregate schools. Parents Involved ended
the 50-year practice of using race in assigning students to schools to pro-
mote racial desegregation. This case involved voluntary racial diversity. In
2001, prior to Parents Involved, a Fourth Circuit federal court decision
allowed North Carolina’s Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public schools’ opposition to
 OVERVIEW: Chapter 1 3

busing of students by race to stand (Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of

Education, 2001). As was expected, racially isolated schools returned to
Charlotte-Mecklenburg. In 2001, the 140,000-pupil Wake County Schools of
North Carolina enacted another standard to help achieve racial diversity: the
use of socioeconomic measures in assigning students to schools. This policy
of using socioeconomic measures to achieve more racial diversity is currently
under attack by opponents of busing.
Richard C. Hunter in the point essay in this chapter concludes that overall
research suggests that court-ordered school desegregation had a positive
impact on the academic and mental health of racial and ethnic minority stu-
dents. He feels that public school desegregation is still the best option for
addressing the unequal educational opportunities for students of color in this
country. E. Lincoln James and Paul E. Pitre argue, on the other hand, that
court-ordered school desegregation did not achieve its goal, even though a
few good things happened to Black children after Brown. In their counterpoint
essay, James and Pitre contend that legislated school desegregation policies
by themselves have been insufficient in bringing about equal educational
opportunities for students of color for a number of reasons.
In reading this chapter, you may want to think about how resources between
schools in poor neighborhoods can be equalized with resources available to
schools in wealthier neighborhoods. Resistance to school desegregation is still
strong among many White Americans (Brown, 2004a, 2004b; Cashin, 2004).
Therefore, in this new environment of racially segregated neighborhood
schools where required attendance at neighborhood schools is the norm, how
do we bring about equal funding between wealthy and poor neighborhood
schools? Are courts more likely to support plans to bring about equality
between children in different neighborhoods? Since it is unlikely that the U.S.
Supreme Court will reverse its 2007 decision in Parents Involved and allow the
use of race to achieve racial diversity in public schools (Brown, 2007), what
other options exist?

Frank Brown
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
4 Diversity in Schools

POINT: Richard C. Hunter

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and
Bahrain Teachers College, University of Bahrain,
Kingdom of Bahrain

A ccording to David J. Armor (1995), there is more than one source of

public school desegregation policy—the roots of this policy lie in both
school desegregation law and social science theory. The U.S. Supreme Court, in
its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, enacted a sweeping
school desegregation policy. In evaluating the need for a school desegregation
policy, it is important to discuss the history of public education in the United
States, which was racially segregated by law throughout the Southern region of
the United States and by housing patterns in most of the rest of the country.
This condition for public education was the pattern for several generations and
was supported by the 1896 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v.
Ferguson. This case held that Homer Plessy, an African American man who was
traveling on a public railroad, could not sit in the White section because of his
race. The Court’s decision continued the prevailing policy of racial segregation
for African Americans, as long as they were provided “separate but equal” treat-
ment. Although this legal decision related to public transportation, it was
extended to all sectors of American life, including public education. Practically
speaking, this meant that racial segregation of African American students in
public education could continue, as long as they received a free public educa-
tion. Because of Plessy and the overt racism in the South, African American
public school students continued to receive a substandard education for an
additional 50 years. They attended racially segregated schools with African
American teachers, who were paid less than White teachers; their schools were
built with less money and did not have the same libraries and science labora-
tories; and they received textbooks that had been discarded by White schools.
Education for African American students was separate, but not equal, in com-
parison to their White counterparts.
The cumulative effects of the “separate but equal” doctrine, coupled with
the policy of racial segregation that preceded it, had produced a demonstra-
tively inferior education for students of color. Because of this, a number of
lawsuits were brought on behalf of African American plaintiffs, who alleged
that their rights were being violated under Plessy. Most of the early public edu-
cation desegregation cases were brought on behalf of graduate students in
higher education because some states did not provide an opportunity for
 POINT: Richard C. Hunter 5

African American students to obtain a legal education. These early school

desegregation cases forced states to create new degree programs for African
American university students, who heretofore had gone to Northern universi-
ties to receive their graduate education (Hunter, 2004).

THE BROWN DECISIONS

The first Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I) was
handed down in 1954. This case was the result of consolidating four separate
public school desegregation cases, the most famous of which involved the pub-
lic schools of Topeka, Kansas. In this case, Thurgood Marshall, using the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
convinced the High Court that these public school districts had violated the
civil rights of students of color. Brown II was issued by the Supreme Court in
1955 to address the responsibilities of the federal district courts in establishing
remedies for the plaintiffs in Brown I.
Derrick Bell, a distinguished academic who has done extensive research on
race and law, maintains that even though the Brown decisions were important
and furthered race relations, the Supreme Court made an error in approving
Brown and should have continued support for the “separate but equal” doc-
trine espoused in Plessy by the Court. He suggests that Plessy could have been
used to require school districts to provide truly equal education instead of the
unequal education provided for African American public school students after
Brown. Bell also maintains that Brown was not successful because of a bad
calculation and misunderstanding of the effects of White racism on public
education (Bell, 2004).
John C. Boger and Gary Orfield (2005) maintain that the courts and polit-
ical leaders who are of the opinion that Plessy should have been maintained are
misguided. They believe these persons do not adequately consider that under
Plessy, equal education for students of color was denied in the South from 1896
through 1954. These authors cite data regarding the funding of public educa-
tion in the South, which indicates that White students received 33% more
financial resources for their education than African American students did in
1940, and 43% more in 1954.

OTHER IMPORTANT SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASES

Early federal court decisions in school desegregation did not place much
emphasis on educational improvements. The primary focus of these deci-
sions was the requirement that African American and White students attend
6 Diversity in Schools

the same schools and that faculties be integrated. The public school desegre-
gation case in Virginia, Green v. County School Board (1968), was responsible
for the now famous six Green factors, which are student assignment, faculty
assignment, staff assignment, facilities, transportation, and extracurricular
activities. Even though school facilities were one of the six Green factors, it
was not given as much attention as student assignment and transportation.
The six Green factors have been used by federal district courts to determine
whether the vestiges of deliberate and unlawful segregation in public schools
have been eliminated. In some cases, school districts are not given unitary
status until they have satisfied the court that all of the Green factors have
been met.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971), which involved
the public schools of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, is
another of the landmark public school desegregation cases. Swann decided
the issues of whether racial quotas and busing students could constitute a
remedy to achieve school desegregation. Another famous school district case
involving the attempt to consolidate or create a metropolitan school district
to enhance the racial balance of students was Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II,
1977), which was struck down by the Supreme Court. Milliken II would have
permitted the Detroit public schools to be combined with several neighboring
school districts in Wayne County. What makes this case additionally famous
is that, unlike other cases, the Court supported other remedies for the racial
segregation of Detroit schools. The state of Michigan was required to fund
compensatory education programs designed to improve public education for
Detroit’s students. This decision included funding instructional improve-
ments such as reduced class sizes, which heretofore had not been ordered in
Milliken I (1974) or in other school desegregation cases. After Milliken II,
public school desegregation litigants began taking a more comprehensive
view of public school desegregation and asked federal district courts to fash-
ion broader remedies (Hunter, 2004). The Jenkins v. Missouri 1995 case is
viewed by some as the most far-reaching school desegregation case in the
United States. In this case, the state of Missouri was required to fund many
remedial education programs—including full-day kindergarten, expanded
summer school, before- and after-school tutoring, an early childhood pro-
gram, and a comprehensive magnet school program—and to make salary
payments for underpaid school district personnel. The Court also ordered the
community to pass a tax increase, which had not been increased for over 30
years. Additionally, the state of Missouri was required to fund extensive capi-
tal improvements. The capital improvements required by Jenkins included
 POINT: Richard C. Hunter 7

funding the initial phase of the capital improvements plan at a cost of $37
million and the school district’s long-range capital improvement plan of
$187 million. Overall, the district’s capital plan called for the renovation of
approximately 55 schools, closure of 18 facilities, and construction of 17 new
schools (Alexander & Alexander, 2009; Hunter, 2004).

RETREATING FROM BROWN

There have been several decisions by the Supreme Court that indicate its
retreat from public school desegregation. One such case was the decision in
Board of Education of Oklahoma v. Dowell (1991), which allowed this school
district to end its desegregation plan and supervision by the Court. The
Dowell case led to what is now referred to as “unitary status,” which is the
process of releasing a school district from federal district court supervision
(Clotfelter, 2004). Other decisions of the Supreme Court discontinued the
policy of making race-conscious student assignments to remedy past dis-
crimination against African American students in public schools. These deci-
sions include Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools (Louisville), 2007. In
these decisions, the Court struck down race-conscious student assignment
plans even if such reassignment reduced student racial isolation and increased
diversity. Against the backdrop of other Supreme Court cases, these decisions
dealt a fatal blow to public school desegregation and are leading the country
to racial resegregation (Wells & Frankenberg, 2007). Christina Asquith (2006)
indicates that legal experts predicted the Supreme Court would strike down
the use of race-conscious admission policies in their decisions on these cases.
This change, experts maintain, resulted from the appointments of Justices
John Roberts and Samuel Alito—conservatives who tipped the balance of the
Court to a more conservative ideology, opposed to using race as a criterion
for assigning public school pupils, even if it improves student diversity.
Some view the decision of the Court in these cases as shortsighted in that
they had the potential to decrease student diversity, while public school
districts like Seattle and Louisville were going against popular beliefs by
maintaining student diversity. The approach of using race as a factor in
student assignment policy has never been popular in the United States,
even after the landmark Brown decision. The efforts in Seattle and
Louisville to achieve student diversity were designed to permit minority
students to attend schools outside their racially segregated neighborhoods,
thus improving diversity.
8 Diversity in Schools

PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE

In his opinion in the Seattle and Louisville cases, Justice Kennedy presented
options for school districts to achieve student racial integration:

•• Locate schools between racially distinct neighborhoods.

•• Redraw school attendance zones.
•• Target recruitment of students from particular schools.

However, social scientists and educational practitioners do not favor mea-

sures such as those suggested by Justice Kennedy. The use of race-conscious cri-
teria in student assignment decisions has demonstrated success in creating
more diversity in public schools. This assertion is supported by the recent
experience of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina, which
changed policy from a comprehensive race-based system of student assign-
ment to a race-neutral one. This change increased student racial segregation
and resulted in less student diversity. Wake County (Raleigh) Public School
System, also in North Carolina, chose to assign all district pupils on the basis
of socioeconomic status and achieved great success. Because of this, Wake
County was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for its success in
maintaining racially diversity. However, recently, Wake County rescinded its
policy to assign students using socioeconomic data. This change was brought
about by a change in the composition of the board of education and its deci-
sion to return to neighborhood schools. Additionally, the decision has created
considerable tension in the community (Schrader, 2009). Other approaches to
student assignment that school districts could use to create diversity among
their student bodies, in light of the Seattle and Louisville decisions, include the
following (Wells & Frankenberg, 2007):

•• The use of managed school choice approaches, where parents can send
their children to schools other than the neighborhood schools, such as
magnet schools that are based on themes and use nonracial criterion for
student assignment
•• Use of criteria that coincide with race, such as using neighborhoods or
native languages to assign students to schools

THE AUTHOR’S POSITION

Public school desegregation is still the best option to address the unequal
educational opportunities for students of color in the United States. This
 POINT: Richard C. Hunter 9

view is based on the following: First, state and local governments, includ-
ing many public educational systems, have not uniformly and consistently
demonstrated throughout history a desire to address discrimination
against students of color. This failure caused plaintiffs of color to take
legal action in federal courts. If we were forced to rely on the vagaries of
local and state government to address the educational problems of stu-
dents of color, we would not be as far along in terms of educational qual-
ity as we are today. Consider the unequal funding of public education that
has forced plaintiffs in just about every state in the union to sue for equal-
ized and equitable funding in support of the nation’s students of color.
Race has been a major issue in public education, and it remains so even
after Brown, even though Brown has improved public education for many
students.
Second, federal court judges have great authority to fashion remedies to
address constitutional violations found on the part of students of color. The
remedies ordered for students of color in Milliken II and in Missouri v. Jenkins
are examples of the latitude judges have in such cases. Admittedly, the Supreme
Court has become more conservative. It has also taken a negative view of race
in public school student assignments as a remedy for civil rights violations.
However, federal courts could order the use of socioeconomic status to assign
public school students or use one of the other criteria presented in this essay to
ensure schools are desegregated. We should take into consideration that the
Supreme Court approved broad remedies and that new cases could be filed
using such remedies.
Third, there are a number of public school districts that have achieved uni-
tary status and probably cannot be sued again for civil rights violations against
African American students. This is true, but there are other students of color
on behalf of whom legal actions could be brought, especially Hispanic stu-
dents. Moreover, the minority population is shifting from the large cities to the
suburbs, which have not been declared unitary and might be practicing de
facto segregation in their public schools. Perhaps litigation could be brought
on the behalf of these students.
Fourth, some have suggested we should not rely on Brown because Plessy
offers greater promise in addressing the educational conditions of students
of color than Brown did. As mentioned above, Plessy did not work so well for
public school students of color while it was in force. Nor does this position
acknowledge the impact that race has on public educational decisions. Again,
it is suggested that the school finance litigation movement in this country
offers concrete evidence that judicial intervention for children of color is
necessary.
10 Diversity in Schools

CONCLUSION
Presently, the Supreme Court is controlled by conservative jurists who do not
appear to favor diversity in public education. This condition is very trouble-
some, but the ideological leaning of the Court could change over time. The
struggle for equal education for students of color has not been a short journey,
nor is it over because conservative jurists and others believe it is.
Consider an interpretation from one of the legal framers of Brown, who
indicated in a conversation on school desegregation policy with the author of
this article that the civil rights attorneys in Brown elected to attack Plessy not
because they wanted African American children to be educated with White
children, or because they believed that African American children could not
receive a high quality public education unless they were in classrooms with
White students. After all, the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in Brown
had attended segregated schools. Most of them received their graduate educa-
tion at universities in the North, because they were not permitted to receive a
graduate legal education in their Southern home states. We should not lose
sight of the fact that the legal framers of Brown attended segregated schools
and experienced firsthand the effects of Plessy in their public educations. They
believed that a “separate but equal” education for students of color delivered in
racially segregated schools would not be truly equal education. They main-
tained the view that Whites would not allocate equal economic resources to
students of color who attended racially segregated schools. Again, the school
finance litigation movement in this country recognizes the predilection of
many Whites who by their actions appear to favor unequal education for pub-
lic school students of color. Further, the development and implementation of
new legal theory takes time and requires imaginative attorneys like Thurgood
Marshall, who are dedicated to the cause of equal educational opportunity for
students of color. Also, the legal obstacles that conservatives and others will
create to deny educational opportunity for students of color must not easily
deter these persons. Rather, they must be steadfast and willing to develop new
legal theories and strategies that will find favor with the courts, using Brown as
the primary vehicle to deliver school desegregation policies that address the
unequal educational opportunities for all students.

REBUTTAL STATEMENT
What the counterpoint authors, James and Pitre, do not adequately consider is
that public school desegregation, when it was being enforced, allowed more
Black students to attend public schools that were racially integrated. In fact, the
 COUNTERPOINT: E. Lincoln James and Paul E. Pitre 11

number of Black public school students increased dramatically after the first
few years of desegregation. Moreover, Black student achievement increased,
and the achievement gap between Whites and Blacks was less than it has been
at any other time in our history (Boger & Orfield, 2005; Clotfelter, 2004;
Schrader, 2009). Also, they fail to consider the growing body of research that
indicates that Black or poor students do better when they attend racially and
socioeconomically integrated schools (Coleman, 1966; Rothstein, 2004).
Moreover, there are very effective public school districts that maintain that
racial and socioeconomic diversity are necessary for Black students to have the
same educational opportunity as their White counterparts and have gone to
great lengths to maintain diversity in their schools (Schrader, 2009).

COUNTERPOINT: E. Lincoln James and

Paul E. Pitre
Washington State University

T he popular sentiment during the 1950s and 1960s was that Black children
would benefit enormously from attending integrated schools. Further, it
was believed that these students would experience adverse educational effects
by attending schools with a high concentration of students from low socioeco-
nomic status backgrounds. The civil rights movement and judicial and legisla-
tive actions of the era gave impetus to fairly successful desegregation of public
education in the United States. However, as the court retreated from its strong
stance on school desegregation in the 1980s, resistance by states and school
districts resulted in an increasing trend toward resegregation. It has resulted in
a widening achievement gap between White and minority students as mea-
sured by standardized test scores, mainly in the areas of math, reading, and
science. This gap is reflected in poorly funded schools—especially in urban
areas—low attendance and graduation rates, and high dropout rates for Blacks
and Latinos (Orfield, 2004).
Ever since the Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I) ruling in 1954, there
have been questions about the effectiveness of desegregation laws and policies
in creating equal opportunity for Blacks and other minorities. These questions
have revolved around particular desegregation strategies, some mandated by
Brown, and others by programmatic specifications emanating from legislative
acts such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary
12 Diversity in Schools

Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. We are of the view that legislated school deseg-
regation policies by themselves have been insufficient in bringing about equal
educational opportunities for students of color because of the following:

1. Political, economic, and social resistance at state and local levels reflect-
ing innate subscription to and protection of White privilege
2. Lack of enforcement and the systematic dissolution of policy by the
courts
3. Malaise and disinterest in desegregation by the federal government and
the U.S. Congress beginning in the 1980s
4. Inadequate funding
5. Loopholes in legislation and court rulings that have been exploited by
those who still harbor segregationist sentiments.

In this debate, we approach the fact of low education achievement for stu-
dents of color as a function of desegregation’s failure.
We begin by first presenting a general background to the problem, followed
by our identification and analysis of three strategies used historically in the
education desegregation effort. Five factors that have impacted the quest for
equality are embedded in these three strategic actions. In our conclusion, we
address some remedies that have been suggested as keys to improving the life
chances of students of color at the K–12 level.

GENERAL BACKGROUND: THE FIGHT FOR

EQUALITY AND SCHOOL DESEGREGATION
The fight for equality began in the 19th century with Plessy v. Ferguson, which
codified the already universal de facto segregation practiced in the South. The
law mandated a dual society where Blacks and Whites were “separate but
equal.” In terms of public education, this meant that Black and White students
did not have the same rights and were not allowed to share the same facilities,
including attending the same school. This segregationist doctrine persisted for
the next 50 years or so during the Jim Crow era as Black schools remained
undersupported, underfunded, and of extremely poor quality when compared
to their White counterparts. Indeed, Stephen J. Caldas and Carla L. Bankston
(2007) have observed that Jim Crow legislation in states and localities across
the South both disenfranchised Blacks politically and slowly separated Blacks
from Whites in many social spheres, including restaurants, public transporta-
tion, and housing.
 COUNTERPOINT: E. Lincoln James and Paul E. Pitre 13

However, in the 1950s, the stage was set for a new era in desegregation law
and educational opportunity through the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The issue before the court in Brown,
according to Chief Justice Warren, was whether or not the “segregation of chil-
dren in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical
facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the
minority group of equal educational opportunities?” In a unanimous decision,
the court ruled that segregation of public schools on the basis of race violated
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The intent of
Brown I was to have schools that formerly practiced de jure (by law) as well as
de facto (by fact) segregation eliminate all vestiges of prior segregation, to the
extent practicable, and to actively pursue integration bearing in mind that “the
mere cessation of discriminatory activities was insufficient” (Brown v. Board of
Education, 1954). Thus, the Brown decision mandated the desegregation of
public education, provided equal protection to Blacks under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and mandated a unitary system where Blacks and Whites living
in the same neighborhoods had to attend the same school. When it became
clear to the courts that hostility and resistance would delay or entirely stymie
implementation of the desegregation law, a further ruling, in Brown II (1955),
dictated that school districts had to comply with Brown I by desegregating with
“all deliberate speed,” and that district courts had the authority to implement
the rulings.

THE COURTS, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND THE ESEA

Three landmark events that occurred within 11 years of each other have
shaped the landscape of American public education. The first was the Brown
ruling, the second was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the third was the ESEA
of 1965. The civil rights movement in the 1960s raised public consciousness
surrounding the issue of poverty and played a critical role in affecting equal
education opportunity in public schools. No doubt the plight of the poor
helped guide the intent of the Civil Rights Act and reaffirmed the sentiment
expressed in Brown. Most importantly, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act
demanded that schools desegregate forthwith, and empowered the U.S.
Attorney General to prosecute noncompliance. Title VI allowed the federal
government to provide or withhold funding from any government agency that
engaged in discrimination.
Through the ESEA, the federal government provided billions of dollars to
fund state education. This funding allowed the government to exert a greater
amount of influence at the state level than was possible before. ESEA comprises
four titles, each addressing critical aspects of nationwide education change.
14 Diversity in Schools

The act provided funding for primary and secondary education and autho-
rized resources for professional development and instructional resources. The
expectations were that these compensatory education provisos would help
overcome poverty by the 1970s, as well as help the United States stay competi-
tive with other education systems through the combined effect of funding for
disadvantaged children noted in Title I and new programs such as Head Start.
The reauthorization requirement of ESEA has allowed various administra-
tions to influence the direction of public education. For example, President
Johnson’s democratic leadership amended ESEA in 1967 to include funding for
bilingual education; in 1994, the Clinton administration’s modification
allowed the creation of charter and magnet schools. The Bush administration’s
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 mandated high-stakes testing for elementary
and secondary schools as well as punitive measures for school districts that
failed to meet adequate yearly progress criteria. Since assessment became a
priority of education policy in 1994, it has been a feature in all reauthorizations
of ESEA, including the Obama administration’s Race to the Top.

THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF DECISIONS IN THE

HISTORY OF EDUCATION DESEGREGATION
Legislation and judicial decisions from Brown I until the early 1970s, most
often addressing equal opportunity for Black students, established the founda-
tion for many current rules and regulations governing the rights of racial and
ethnic minorities in public education. Many of these rules were hotly con-
tested, appealed, and modified, through the judicial and legislative systems as
well as in the court of public opinion. The years following Brown are character-
ized by three strategies affecting the success of desegregation in public schools:
legislative and judicial actions aimed at dismantling segregation, expansion of
judicial authority, and the use of funding to affect the behavior of states and
school districts. The resegregation of American schools is closely linked to
changes to these strategic approaches.
The judicial and legislative dismantling of segregation began in 1954 with
provisos for equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and a direct
ban on segregation. These efforts extended into specification of direct actions
that states and school districts needed to undertake to ensure desegregation.
Requirements by the courts included orders not only to end school segregation
but also to “undo the harm” that segregation had caused by racially balancing
their schools under federal guidelines. The courts fully understood the various
tactics used to avoid desegregation and, during these early years, treated them
with short shrift. But many of the gains made under the above rulings were lost
 COUNTERPOINT: E. Lincoln James and Paul E. Pitre 15

by 2000; by then, the courts, in a series of reversals, had begun to facilitate the
resegregation of public schools.
A second strategy in the desegregation struggle could be seen in the
expanding scope of judicial authority. As early as Brown II (1955), district
courts were granted the authority to implement and supervise desegregation
plans, which were to proceed with “all deliberate speed” (p. 301). Opposition
to Brown expressed itself in Arkansas just 3 years later. The Little Rock school
district had developed a plan to integrate all public schools within a year and
a half. However, the Arkansas legislature passed its own law declaring desegre-
gation illegal. Tension and violence erupted when nine African American stu-
dents attempted to enroll in public school and the governor sent in the
National Guard to block their entry. President Eisenhower sent in federal
troops to quell mob violence and enforce desegregation orders. In subsequent
action, the Eighth Circuit reasserted the federal courts’ authority to enforce
desegregation orders by firmly reiterating the supremacy of the federal consti-
tution over state law. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court affirmed
this ruling, clearly stating that a state governor and legislature could not refuse
to implement its orders.
Yet a third approach to overcoming resistance to Brown was financial con-
trol. This was first exercised in the Court in 1964 when Virginia amended its
constitution, outlawed integration, closed the public schools in Prince Edward
County to bar Black children from attending, and issued vouchers and grants
for Whites to attend private schools (Griffin v. County School Board, 1964).
Financial leverage was used by courts in prohibiting the use of public funds to
support private segregated education. Financial leverage for compliance was
especially useful in enforcing various aspects of the Civil Rights Act and ESEA.
Through its enforcement of the ESEA, the federal government became deeply
involved for the first time with education on a state level. It offered billions of
dollars to state and district boards to help them develop curriculum, acquire
resources, and improve teacher training. But states received federal funds only
if the state and its institutions followed strict accountability policies. The gov-
ernment also exerted influence on states by making money available to them
through the provisos of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI allowed the federal govern-
ment to withhold funding from any government agency that engaged in dis-
crimination.
Because public education was funded in several states by a combination of
property taxes and state funding, poorer school districts—which tended to be
mainly minority and largely segregated—were, and in some cases still are,
unable to maintain education quality. As a consequence, activists have often
brought lawsuits on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to use
16 Diversity in Schools

financial reform as a substitute for desegregation. The battle for school finance
reform today is based exclusively on provisos in state constitutions, and the
battle to desegregate schools has yet to be won.

CONCLUSION
The thrust for desegregation was met with strong resistance from Whites, who
fled en masse to the suburbs, where they campaigned vigorously for the right
to choose which schools their children could attend. They battled against
incursions by Blacks through busing and fought bitterly against increased
property taxes that could help support poorer urban districts—which in time
have become increasingly complex with large influxes of immigrant popula-
tions. The main impediments during the first 20 years following Brown took
the form of political, economic, and social resistance at state and local levels
reflecting White racism and a determination to protect White privilege and
segregation in housing, one legacy of Jim Crow.
As the federal government became more involved in public education,
courts became less enthusiastic about desegregation. By the mid- to the late
1970s, weak enforcement and systematic dissolution of policy by the courts
was accompanied by the malaise and disinterest shown by the federal govern-
ment. During the 1980s, the Department of Justice actively sought to disman-
tle and dissolve voluntary and mandatory school desegregation plans;
meanwhile, the courts allowed school districts to end court-ordered busing
and return to neighborhood school choice. The federal courts had come to
believe, like the federal government, that the pervasive racial isolation was due
to residential segregation and not actions of the school district.
The Reagan administration ushered in a new era of segregation in which
decisions were made with a greater focus on socioeconomic status than race. A
1983 commissioned report, A Nation at Risk, assessed the nation’s education
system and provided evidence to show that (a) American students were being
outperformed on 19 different international academic tests; (b) some 23 mil-
lion adults and 13% of 17-year-olds were functionally illiterate; and (c) high
school student scores on all standardized tests, including those demonstrating
superior achievement on the SAT, had declined. The recommendation was that
state and school boards take responsibility for governing, with the federal gov-
ernment providing and managing funding for projects that would preserve the
equal rights and protection of students. It was also recommended that a new
curriculum with five foundation courses be required for high school gradua-
tion, that more rigorous measureable performance standards be implemented,
and that a “nationwide (but not federal) system of state and local” standardized
 FURTHER READINGS AND RESOURCES: Chapter 1 17

testing be administered at key points in the education process. The purposes of

these tests were to provide remediation, credentials and certification, and
advanced or accelerated work.
Legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) has not delivered on
the success first touted when it was formulated. The failure of legislated policies
to address unequal opportunity in education is a direct result of failure to under-
stand the importance of desegregation. The segregated history of the United
States has given rise to the concept of “Whiteness as property”—property that
comes with certain rights and privileges. White schools have historically been
better funded, with better facilities and better teachers. Undoubtedly, some see
school integration as a threat to White privilege and the concomitant rights
associated with Whiteness. Granted, there is more to closing the achievement
gap than desegregating public education. There are other variables that
matter—variables that cannot be legislated or controlled, such as family values,
fair housing, poverty, and so on. A majority of students of color are not being
helped by legislated policies because they have been overwhelmed by stronger
forces, such as family circumstances and the changing racial composition of
inner cities.

Further Readings and Resources

Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2009). American public school law (7th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Armor, D. J. (1995). Forced justice: School desegregation and the law. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Asquith, C. (2006). Legal experts await Supreme Court’s ruling on race-conscious
admissions in public schools. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(13), 13.
Au, W. (2004, Spring). No child left untested: Brown v. Bush. Rethinking Schools.
Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/18_03/nclu183.shtml
Bell, D. (2004). Brown v. Board of Education and the unfilled hopes for racial reform. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Boger, J. C., & Orfield, G. (2005). School segregation: Must the South turn back? Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Brown, F. (2004a). The first serious implementation of Brown: The 1964 Civil Rights
Act and beyond. Journal of Negro Education, 73(3), 182–190.
Brown, F. (2004b). Nixon’s “Southern strategy” and forces against Brown. Journal of
Negro Education, 73(3), 191–208.
Brown, F. (2007). Ending the Brown era: What is the future for equal educational
opportunity? School Business Affairs, 73(9), 8–10.
Caldas S. J., & Bankston, C. L., III. (2007). A re-analysis of the legal, political and social
landscape of desegregation from Plessy v. Ferguson to Parents Involved in Community
Schools v. Seattle School District. B.Y.U. Education and Law Journal, 2, 217–256.
18 Diversity in Schools

Cashin, S. (2004). The failure of integration: How race and class are undermining the
American dream. New York: Public Affairs.
Clotfelter, C. T. (2004). After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Coleman, J. (1966). Equality in educational opportunity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University.
Hunter, R. C. (2004). The administration of court-ordered school desegregation in
urban school districts: The law and experience. The Journal of Negro Education,
73(3), 218–228.
Orfield, G. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools using social, economic, and educational reform to
close the Black–White achievement gap. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Schrader, J. (2009, November 1). More districts use income, not race, as basis for busing.
USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-11-02-
busing02_ST_N.htm
Wells, A. S., & Frankenberg, E. (2007). The public school and the challenge of the
Supreme Court’s integration decision. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 178–188.

Court Cases and Statutes

Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 269 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2001).
Board of Education of Oklahoma v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991).
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown I), 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955).
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (2006).
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (1965).
Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).
Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218 (1964).
Jenkins v. Missouri, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools, 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007).
Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken I), 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II), 433 U.S. 267 (1977).
Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 110 S. Ct. 1651 (1990) (Jenkins I).
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 115 S. Ct. 2038 (1995) (Jenkins II).
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301-7941 (2006).
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 127
S. Ct. 2738 (2007).
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
 2
Are multicultural
counseling programs
in schools needed
to improve the
academic performance
of students?
POINT: Deneia M. Thomas, Eastern Kentucky University
Lynda Brown Wright, University of Kentucky
COUNTERPOINT: Jennifer L. Burris, Katrina A. R. Akande, and
Sonja M. Feist-Price, University of Kentucky

OVERVIEW
According to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA, 2010), the
role of the school counselor is to work with children, teachers, and parents to
ensure that each student receives the appropriate advice and support needed
to foster academic achievement, career preparation and development, and
personal growth. Acting as educators who fulfill their primary functions outside
of the classroom, school counselors can trace the origin of their roles back to
ancient Greece when teaching philosophers worked to help individuals identify
the purpose of their lives. More recently, beginning in the Middle Ages, Catholic
priests also took on many of these duties with the added emphasis on confi-
dentiality, especially within the context of religious confession. In the United
States, modern school counseling began at the outset of the 20th century as
psychology, sociology, and social disciplines started to professionalize and

19
20 Diversity in Schools

craft spaces in which to study human development, identify theoretical per-

spectives, and practice their skills (ASCA, 2010).
Despite the long-established presence of school counselors within
American education, it is not always clear how best to use these educators
within schools. At the high school level, parents and students want information
on academic preparation for college and careers. Counseling professionals in
secondary schools spend much of their time gathering and distributing infor-
mation about entrance exams such as the ACT and SAT, helping students
learn about federal financial aid and other available funds, preparing students
to complete various elements of the college application process, and gener-
ally encouraging students to think about and work toward a positive future.
However, school counselors working in middle and elementary schools do not
always have such clear foci. Rather, these educators spend more of their time
working with students and families on addressing present needs such as aca-
demic performance as measured both in class and on standardized exams,
maintaining environments that support positive social interactions by address-
ing bullying and peer conflicts, and helping to connect students with resources
that assist with their needs outside of school, thus creating conditions that
allow them to focus consistently on their education. In all settings, school
counselors help with the development and implementation of individualized
education plans, assessments related to Response to Intervention, address-
ing and preventing school violence, and otherwise sustaining healthy educa-
tional environments.
Based on the changing context of public education, the duties of the school
counselor expand each year as more children enter school with unmet needs.
As a result of high-stakes testing and rising economic pressure on education,
schools also face increased accountability for nonacademic factors that influ-
ence academic performance. Recognizing this wide range of responsibilities,
programs for preparing candidates to be school counselors include curricula
that emphasize many professional skills, such as helping students achieve
competencies for various grade levels; developing individual plans for students,
especially those who require direct, personal counseling services and respon-
sive services related to preventing problems in public education; and interven-
ing when students face crises both at home and at school. Since school
counseling programs generally focus on providing master’s degrees and
postbaccalaureate training, many states also require individuals interested in
becoming school counselors to obtain classroom teaching experience first,
which helps to prepare them to identify the issues present in public school and
assists students, teachers, and administrators in addressing these concerns
(ASCA, 2010).
 OVERVIEW: Chapter 2 21

While school counseling programs focus on providing these future profes-

sionals with general preparation for working in various school settings, some
speculate that this is not enough for the current climate affecting and surround-
ing public education. As the debates in this section consider, do we need to
make more of an effort to prepare school counselors to address multicultural
issues?
The debate over multicultural preparation for school counselors springs
from the ongoing debate over the place and value of multicultural education in
general for students and all other education professionals. Proponents of mul-
ticultural education believe that such curricula provide the content and context
needed to address racial, ethnic, religious, and other cultural misinformation
and misunderstandings that continue to complicate social arrangements in a
multicultural society. Instead of hiding or avoiding negative elements of history,
multicultural educators believe that discussing negative aspects of the past
honestly and openly provides the foundation that will allow people to reconcile
their feelings about these events and move ahead in positive ways. Supporters
of these efforts suggest that openly teaching and talking about these differ-
ences will help children and educators to develop both understanding and
appreciation for various perspectives.
Conversely, those who oppose multicultural education maintain that empha-
sizing social and cultural differences helps to widen existing gaps that already
impair and inhibit the development of a cohesive and cooperative society.
Rather than increasing cultural understanding, opponents of multicultural edu-
cation contend that highlighting existing cultural differences hinders the ability
of the United States to establish and maintain a common national identity by
constantly dwelling on past racial and cultural structures, thus preventing the
nation from moving forward. In their view, students from cultures presented
negatively are forced to carry the stigma of events and policies in which they
have no direct involvement. On the other hand, students from cultures pre-
sented as oppressed may equally feel shame or sorrow over depressing condi-
tions from days gone by.
Building on the foundation of the general debate within multicultural educa-
tion, the two essays in this chapter consider these issues as they specifically
relate to the preparation and professional practice of school counselors. Similar
to the larger debate on this topic, in the point essay, Deneia M. Thomas and
Lynda Brown Wright support the use of multicultural education in counseling
programs because this curricular emphasis will better prepare these educators
to meet the needs of the various students that they will encounter while working
in public schools. Thomas and Wright contend that counseling services must
accommodate the changing population and demographic shifts evident in our
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
 [586] Näistä sanoista on moniat ollut niin pois-kuluneet, ettei heitä
ouk tainut lukea ykskään.

[587] Mitä näistä vapa-merkkilöistä tuloo sanottavaksi, niin suuri

osa heistä on niin vanhat, ettei heitä eneän tunnetak, liioitenkin
koska monet heistä on tainneet jo sammua ennen vuotta 1625,
jollon se Ruohtalainen Vapa-Huone, kuhun heitä sisään-kirjutettiin,
asetettiin; monet ovat myös muustakin syystä jäänneet siihen ylös-
panematak, alinomattain koska suurin osa meijän vanhoista
Suomalaisista vapasuvullisista, eivät kuulleet Ruohtalaiseen Vapa-
Huoneesen, mutta oli yksi peru niistä muinoisista Saksalaisista ja
Virolaisista Tempel-Herroloista, joihen vapaallisus oli Saksan maissa
perustettu. Kuin tähän vielä luetaan että näissä vapa-merkkilöissä
harvoin selitetään muuta kuin ainoastaan kilpeä, joka monessa oli
pian yhölläinen, ja jotka ainoastaan eroitettiin Rauta-kyperästä,
Sarviloista, tahi Kyperä-vaipasta (Hjelmtäcket), ja ettei heissäkään
painia paljon eroitetak, niin löyetään miten vaikkia se on näitä
selittää, liioitenkin koska usseen pois-vaihtelivat välillensä
vapamerkkilöitänsä, ja kantoivat vieraita äkkinäisiä, tahi muuten
muuttelivat omiansa.

[588] Minä olen kyllä kirjuttanut moneen paikkaan, tätä

kuulustellaksein, mutta en ouk soanut vastausta, joka toistaa miten
kylmäkiskoiset meijän moa-miehet vielä ovat näissä töissä.

[589] Brenner ei kirjuta tästä kivestä mitään muuta, kuin

ainoastaan nämät sanat: "I Åbo D. Kyrka."

[590] Hauta-varjo, Grafwård; Hauta-kivi, Grafsten.

[591] Peä-Kirkko (tahi Tuomio-Kirkko), Dom-Kyrka.

 [592] Tässä jääpi yksi sana, välissä, toimittamak.

[593] Mutta tässä tarkoituksessa kahomme toas ouoksi, ja

varomme olevan uskottomattoman, että tämä kivi oisi muka ollut se
ainoa Turun kirkossa, joka vielä v. 1671 oisi ollut jälellä näistä
vanhoista ajoista; ja jota niin muoton oisi yksinään jäänyt
murentumatak näissä kauheissa Turun kirkon tuli-paloissa, jotka
tapahtui v. 1318, 1429, 1458 (1464, 1473?) 1546 ja 1656, kussa
kaikki muut kirkon kaunistukset — joit' eivät Juuttilaiset v. 1509, ja
Venäläiset v. 1318 hävittänneet tahi vienneet myötensä — paloi
tuhkaksi. Mutta kysytään siitten, tokkos Turun kirkko on niin vanha,
tahi oliko se jo 1248:nen vuuen tienoilla rakettu? Sitä emme saata
sanoa, ainoasti että v. 1229 peätettiin jo että muuttoo pois kirkko
Rantamäeltä (kussa Brenner niinikkään vielä v. 1671 tapais yhen
vanhan hautakiven vuotesta 1291? — kaho X Taul. kuv. 1) Turkuun,
eli niin kuin sitä muinon kuhuttiin Unikankareesen. Millonka tätä
tehtiin ei varsin tunnetak, mutta 1258:nen vuuen teinoilla jo
mainitaan tästä uuesta Turun kirkosta (Porth. Chr. p. 193). Jos sen
eistä tämä Turun pappi oisi ollut naitu ennen v. 1248, niin se oisi
vielä saattanut eleä monta myöhempänä. Toiseksi niin nämät
kirjoitus-nenät eivät teoltakaan näyk olevan niin vanhan-aikuiset, jos
heitä verroitetaan siihen toiseen kiven-kirjoitukseen joka löytyi
Rantamäellä.

[594] Yksi nimellinen Niiles Antinpoika oli v. 1303 Praefectus

Finlandiae (Peämies Suomessa) mutta se on mahotoin, että näillä
sanoilla tarkoitetaan häntä.

[595] Kunta, Sällskap, Orden, Gille, Veli-kunta t. Veljellisyys

Brödraskap, Papillinen Veli-kunta, ett Presterligt Gille.

[596] Kirkko-Tarinamus, Kyrko-Historie.

 [597] Muistettava on myös, että jos tämä vapa-merkki kahottaisiin
kohallansa (niin kuin heitä aina kahotaan) niin silloin kirjutos alkaisi
ala-peästä kivee (jota en muualla ouk nähnyt); ja jos toas kivee
asetettaisiin kirjutoksensa mukaan, niin silloin toas vapamerkki
keäntyisi ylös-alaisin (joka oisi vielä sopimattomampi). Se näyttäis
ehkä silloin, kuin sillä kuvaeltaisiin yhtä Piispaan kypärätä (en
Biskopsmössa).

[598] Että tämä suku on vanha, arvataan siitä, että ne Ruotsin

muinoiset Kuninkaat Sverker den Gamle (joka kuoli 1155) jonka isä
Erik Årsäll oli vanhuuellansa ottanut Ristin uskoa, ja kasteessa
kuhtunut ihtesek Kol t. Koarle — kuin myös hänen poikansa Koarle
Sverkersson (joka kuoli 1168) ja toas hänen poikansa Sverker den
Unge (joka kuoli 1210) — sanotaan kaikki olleen tästä Natt och
Dagin suvusta, ehkeivät kantaneet tätä suku-nimee, joka otettiin
tavaksi vasta myöhöisämpinnä aikoina. K. Vapa-Huoneen polvi-
laskuissa, alotetaan tämä suku vasta v. 1220 yhestä Pentti
Matinpojasta, joka oli ollut Kuninkaan Eerikki Läspin Valta-Neuo.

[599] Tämä (nykyinen) Natt och Dagin suku tuli v. 1625

Ruohtalaiseen Vapa-Huoneesehen sisään-otetuksi 13:nen N:on alla,
josta suvusta siitten yksi nimeltä Åke Axelsson Natt och Dag tehtiin
v. 1652 Vapaherraksi 23:nen N:on alle. Se oli silloin Valta-Neuo ja
Lain-julistaja Nerkissä, ja sai vapa-moaksensa muutamia taloja ja
vero-tiloja Iin pitäjässä Pohjan ruoalla.

[600] Saattaa ehkä myös olla madollinen, että hyö ovat

perinpohjin eri-sukuja, vaikka heitä on vanhoissa polvi-laskuissa
yhteen veittynnä.

[601] Hään oli silloin Valta-Neuo Ruotissa.

 [602] Hänen isänsä oli Bó Sténson (Natt och Dág) joka v. 1440 oli
nainut Kárin Svennintytärtä Stúre, jonka isä oli Tähti-mies ja
Linnanisäntä Faeholmassa, Danmarkissa, Sven Sténson Stúre, joka
oli Herttu Albrechtilta soanut isoja pito-maita Hallannissa, Nerkissä ja
Vester-Norrlannissa; ja joka oli Valta-Hallihtian Svante Stúrin isän-
äitin-isä (lue Schönefeltin matrikel).

[603] Seneistäpä kaikki nykyiset Vapaherrat nimeltä Stúre, ovat

kaikki isänsä puolesta paljaita Natt och Dagiloita, ja ovat eroitettavat
niistä vanhoista Stúriloista, joita muinonkin kuhuttiin: Orms-Söner.

[604] Lue C.F. Schönefelts Matrikel öfwer ointroducerade af

Riddersk. och Adeln I D. joka kirja löytyy käsikirjoituksenna K. Vapa-
Huoneessa.

[605] Lue Olai Magni Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus,

Romae 1555. Lib. II. c. 25. p. 87. Kussa hään puhuu niistä vanhoista
Hangöin kallioloissa sisään-hakatuista Suomalaisista vapa-
merkkilöistä, joita hään jo silloin kuhtui "vetustissima" (varsin
vanhoja) ja joista hään kuvittaa 7 kappaletta, nimittäin: Vanhoin
Stúriloihen, Natt och Dágiloihen (poikki-puolin), Wásaloihen,
Gyllenstjernilöihen, Tottiloihen, Roosiloihen, Lämaloihen ja yhen
tunnettoman. Näitä kaikkia on hään asettanut vempelen näköiseen
poukkamaan, ja keskellen pannut Ruotin vallan vapamerkin (kolmet
ruunua).

[606] Tämä hautakivi mahto jo 1681:nen tahi 1738 vuuen

tulipalossa hävitä, koskei siitä mainitak niin mitään Lauraeuksen
Juttelemuksessa de Sacellis Sepulcr. in Templ. Cath. Aboënsi. Kussa
ainoastaan sanotaan yhen Lainistujan Natt och Dágin (hänen
Ristimä-nimeänsä ei nimitetäk) olleen hauattunna Piispa Tavastin
hauta-kammiossa.
 [607] Lue: Åbo Tidn. 1785. Bib. p. 181. Siinä ei eroitetak, jos hään
oli Natt och Dag pitkinpäin tahi poikkipuolin; mutta mahtoi se olla
pitkinpäin, koska yksi hänen jälkimmäisistä nimeltä Niclis
Ærengislesson kuhuttiin Natt och Dag i längden.

[608] Tällä Koarle Näskonungssonilla oli yksi veli Ærengisle

Näskonungsson (Natt och Dag) joka v. 1312 oli Miekka-mies, Ruotin
Valta-Neuo ja Vallan-Asettaja, ja yksi Roskildin Rauhan-Toimittajoista
(en ibland Freds-Kommissarierna wid Roskilska freden). Häntä tehtiin
v. 1323, Vallan-Asettajaksi Norissa, ja v. 1324 Ruhtinaaksi Ruotissa.
Hänellä oli yksi poika Ærengisle Ærengislesson, joka oli Miekka-mies,
ja jonka jälkimmäisistä arvelemme sitä Niclis Ærengislessonnia, jota
nimitettiin "Natt och Dag i längden", joka oli nainut Karin
Knútintytärtä, ja jolla oli Tukhulmissa monet talot, jotka se pois-
lahjotti niillen tässä kaupunnissa löytyivillen Papin-suljetuksillen.
Häänki mahto olla Suomen-sukuja, koska hään v. 1420 piti Valta-
käräjät Turussa (Åbo Tidn. 1789 p. 321. v. 1785 p. 233. Porth. Chr.
p. 508), ja luetteli jälkiseätöksessänsä yhtä Jeppe Finckiä,
omaiseksensa. Yksi Ærengitzle Nielsson (ehkä hänen poikansa) oli v.
1447 alakirjuttana yhtä vanhaa sovintokirjaa Göd. Finkin ja Juho
Ollinpojan veljeisten välillä (Porth. Chr. p. 448). Tämä Niiles
Ærengislesson mahto kuolla nuon v. 1440, koska hään silloin teki
jälkiseätöstänsä (sitt testamemte). Sekä hään että Ærengisle
Niclisson, oli kumpaisetkin v. 1436 ylös-pantu heijän joukkoon, joita
Kuninkaan Christofferin koroitus-päivällä v. 1441 piti tehtämän Tähti-
niekoiksi (Porth. Chr. p. 607). Myö aprikoime ellei tämä Turun
muinonen Pappi lie ollut varsin tästä sukupolvesta. Hänen ristimä-
nimensä Niiles on aivon Stúriloihen (eli niiten nuortein Natt och
Dágiloihen) kuin myös niiten vanhoin Natt och Dágiloihen, kaima-
nimi. Mutta yhtä Antin nimellistä, joka oisi ollut hänen isänsä, ei
löyetäk koko tässä sukukunnassa; niissä muka polvi-laskuissa, jotka
luetaan Vapa-Huoneen nimi-kirjoissa (Matriklar). Mutta meijän tuloo
muistuttoo, että hyö ovat ylikynteen varsin puuttuvaisia ja viallisia,
erinomattain vanhoista ajoista. Vuonna 1336 niin oli yksi nimeltä
Ærengisle Andersson Suomenmoan Peämies, eli niinkuin heitä silloin
kuhuttiin "Advocatus Finlandensis." Hään kuhtuu ihtesek yhessä
vanhassa Peätöskirjassa Stensbölin kartanosta, vuotesta 1335 —
Advocatus Aboënsis, ja puhuu siinä suurella kunnialla siitä ennen
mainitusta Koarle Näskonungssonista, jota hään kuhtuu "Nobilis
Miles, Dominus Carolus, Antecessor meus." Mitä sukuja hään lie ollut
on tietämätöin, mutta myö aprikoime ellei hään voan lie ollut näitä
yksiä vanhoja Natt och Dágiloita, jota hänen ristimä-nimensä ikään
kuin toistaa. Jos uskaltaisimme tätä peätteä, niin silloin oisi Antinki
nimee tavattu tässä suvussa, ja saattais muka olla mahollinen, että
hänellä oisi ollut yksi veli, tahi veljen-poika nimeltä Niiles Antinpoika,
joka oisi ollut Pappina Turussa — ellei tämä oisi elänyt, niin kuin
äsköin arveltiin, jo monta aikoa ennen.

[609] Kuninkaan Lain-Toimittaja (Konungens Domhafwande t.

Dom-innehafwande) kuhuttiin niitä Valta-Herroja, jotka Kuninkaan
siassa ja Kuninkaan nimessä pitivät Valta-käräjät (Räfste-ting)
Suomessa. Eli kuin näitä hävitettiin — ne jotka pitivät Moan-oikeutta
Turussa (Lands-Rätten i Åbo). Että hään v. 1405 piti Valta-käräjät
Suomesssa, luetaan Porth. Chr. p. 418, 508, ja Stjernm. Höfd. Minne
I D. 2 B. K I. p. 98 &c. Samaten sanotaan (yhessä Lainjulistajan
Claus Flemingin kirjassa, annettu v. 1412) hänen myöskin pitänneen
Valta-käräjöitä Ulfsbyin (Porin) kaupunnissa Suomessa v. 1410, jota
Porthan arveloopi kirjotus-virheksi vuosluvussa, luullen tämän
tarkoittavan v. 1405 (Chr. p. 418).

[610] Vara-lainjulistaja, Under-Lagman. Tämä Miekkamies Bó

Niclisson (se nuorempi) Åkeröiin oli v. 1434 Laintutkia Vaxalassa — v.
1459 Vara-Lainjulistaja Öster-Göthlannissa, ja v. 1461 Kuninkaan
Vouti-mies (Fogathe) Vedboin Kihlakunnassa ja Rumleborgin
Läänissä.

[611] Brenner: "I Åbo Domkyrkia på ett jerngaller för Biskop

Magni Olai graaf."

[612] Kammio, Kirkko-kammio Chor; Hauta-kammio, Grafchor.

Ennen Poavin aikana piettiin Turun kirkossa monta erinäistä
kammiota, kussa piettiin Jumalanpalvelusta, eli oikeemmittain, kussa
seisoi yksi altari, jonka luonna Pappiset vissinä päivinnä vuotessa
pitivät messujansa ja rukouksiansa, hyväksi niiten sieluillen, jotka
ovat näitä laitoksia seättäneet, ja heitä lahjoillansa ja antimillansa
asettaneet. Yhtenä aikana löytyi jo 18 tällaista kammiota Turun
kirkossa, joista suuri osa palkihtivat omia pappia ja messu-miehiä;
mutta kakkia näitä hävitettiin Kuninkaan Kustav I:sen aikana, jollon
tätä Poavin uskomusta pois-heitettiin. Siitä päivästä nimitettiin näitä
kirkko-kammioita paljaiksi hauta-kammioiksi, koska heissä
ainoastaan hauattiin heijän ja heijän lapsiin ruumiita, jotka olivat
heitä asettaneet, vaan ei eneä piettynä mitään henki-messuja. Piispa
Tavastin muista jumalallisista laitoksista oli yksi tämän Ristuksen
Ruumiin kammion asettaminen. Siinä häntä myös hauattiin, josta
tätä siitten kuhuttiin "Tavastin hauta-kammioksi." Tämä kammio oli
suljettu eli varuistettu näiltä rautahäkiltä, josta kuvat tässä nähään.

[613] Lue Porth. Chron. p. 429.

[614] Tämä sana fecit fieri (oli antanut tehä, tiettänyt) on yksi
Suomalaisuus (Fennicism) tässä Piispan Latinassa, joka toistaa
hänen ei ainoastaan olleen selvän Suomalaisen; mutta myös Latinata
kirjuittaissaan nouattanneen Suomalaista mielen-juohutusta. Sillä
Ruomalaiset oisivat epäilämätäk (ikeänkuin Ruohtalaisetkin)
kirjuttaneet fecit, posuit (reste t.e. stenen, minneswården). Ehkä se
oisi viallisesti sanottu, sillä Seppä teki (fecit) mutta Piispa tietti (fecit
fieri). Jos oisivat varsin tahtoneet tätä asioa eroittoo, niin oisit
kirjuttaneet tahi toimittaneet tätä apu-sanoilla (med hjelp-verber)
e.m. curavit, lät resa. Mutta Suomalaisessa kielessä ei tarvitak
sellaisia apu-keinoja, hänessä löytyy ikeän kuin Hebrealaisessa ja
Arabian kielessä, tätä eroitusta puheessa (ja ajatuksessa) toimitettu
eri-sanantaivuttamuksella (uttryckt genom en särskild
konjugationsform) jota Hebrean kielessä kuhutaan "Verbum Hiphil",
ja jota myö Suomeksi soattaisi kuhtua Tiettävä-Toimitussana
(Verbum Permissivum, t. Effectivum, t. Transitivum).

[615] Yksi kopio tästä kirjutoksesta luetaan myös Opettajan Joh.

Bilmarkin Juttelemuksessa "De Sacellis Sepulcralibus in Templo
Cathedrali Aboënsi_", Alexand. Lauraeuksen_ vastoomisella, Turussa
1772, p. 20. ja yksi toinen kopio löytyy niin ikeän Jonas Bångin "Den
Wälborna Tawastiska Släcktens ättare-tal", Stockh. 1756.

[616] Ei Porthankaan osanut näitä selittää; lue Chron. p. 511. m.

495.

[617] Joka nenä ehkä merkihtee sanaa "Regina" (Kuninkatar):

jotta ois: "Auttakoon Moaria Kuninkatar."

[618] Brenner: "I Åbo D. Kyrckia."

[619] Että tämän Piispan vapamerkki on ollut yksi semmoinen

taka-jaloillansa pystyssä seisova pukki, jota tässä nähään, arvataan
ei ainoastaan tästä hänen hautakivestä, mutta myös siitä
vapamerkin-piirutoksesta, joka hänen kunniaksi oli tehty Pargasten
pitäjän kirkko-laipioon. Sellainen Pukin-kuva on myöskin muinon ollut
kuvattu hänen muistiksensa siinä Piispan-penkissä, jonka hään oli
tiettänyt Savun kirkossa (lue Christ. Cavanderin Juttelemusta Petr.
Kalmin hoivauttamisen alla, "Beskrifning öfwer Sagu Socken." Åbo
1753, p. 3; ja Mart. N. Tolpon Juttelemusta Alg. Scarinin
hoivauttamisen alla, "De initiis Rei Litterariae in Svethia", Aboe 1750,
p. 83 etc. keskustele Porth. Chron. p. 571). v. Stjernman sanoo kyllä,
yhessä kohassa, puhuttaissa Piispan veljen-pojasta, Lainjulistajasta
Etälä-Suomessa Henrik Bitzestä, hänen vapamerkkinsä olleen
mustan veneen valkoisessa vainiossa ("en swart båt uti hwitt fält";
lue Åbo Tidn. 1785. Bih. p. 197). Mutta myö arvelemme ellei tässä
lie paino-virhe, ja että se olla pitäis: "en swart bock uti hwitt fält."
(Keskustele Porth. Chron. p. 545). — Uggla sanoo taas näihen
Bitziloihen vapamerkin olleen yhen Hirven, ja rautalakissa 4 sisään-
pistettyä nuolta (Uggla, Sw. R. Rådslängd n. 663. p. 65); mutta ei
häänkään nimitäk minkä perustuksen peällä hään tätä sanoopi.
Koskei tämä Bitzin suku löyvyk K. Ruohtalaisessa Vapa-Huoneessa
sisään-otettu, eikä hänen vapamerkkinsä heijän vapakirjoissa
piiritetty, niin meijän täytynnöön ottoo kirjaamme mitä ovat tästä
kirjuttaneet, että siitä tutkia totuuen.

[620] Porth. Chron. p. 26.

[621] Porth. Chron. p. 586.

[622] Hauta-kirjutos, Grafskrift, Epitaphium.

[623] Se kuuluupi näin: "Sanct. Venerabilis Patris, Domini Conradi;

Episcopi Aboënsis, anno 1489 den 13 Martii."

[624] Ruotiksi kirjutettiin hänen nimensä usseemmittain (sanan-

supistamisella) aivan lyhykkäisesti: "Biskop Koort, Korth, ja Kort."
 [625] Piispa, joka oli myöskin ollut yksi osallinen Kolmen
Kuninkaan Veljellisyyestä, Turussa, ei laimin-lyönyt piteä kirkkonsa
puolta, eli valvoa hänen hyötymisestään, kussa oli voan mitään
etullista soatuvilla. Niin kuin Peä-Rovasti pisti hään jo v. 1459
nimensä hänen enonsa Arvidh Claussonin jälkeen-seätöksen ala,
kussa hään Kolmen Kuninkaan Kammiollen (altari Trium Regum)
poislahjoitti tilansa Sorkisten kylässä Euran pitäjässä (Porth. Chr. p.
456). Samana vuonna alakirjutti hään myös saman enonsa lahjutos-
kirjan, kussa hään Pyhän Ristuksen ruumiin Kammiollen (Altari
Corporis Christi) pois-anto tilansa Pärkiö Vehmaan pitäjässä (Porth.
Chr. p. 434). Vuonna 1484 alakirjutti hään niin-ikeän Vapamiehen
Járl Jönssonin seätöksen, kussa hään sovinoksi Hárald Ollinpojan
murhasta, anto tilansa Kivikylä Virmon pitäjässä Kaikkein Ristuksen
Uskollisten Henkein Kammiollen (Altari Animarum Christi Fidelium)
(Porth. Chr. p. 442.), monta muita mainihtamatak. Ite hään ei
seätänyt kirkollen paljo mitään, jos ainoastaan toimitti isän
vainoonsa tahtoa (Åbo Tidn. 1785 p 199. keskustele Porth. Chr. p.
551 & 622).

[626] Tämä vanhaksi mainittu Eerik t. Henrik Bitze, on nimensäk

suhteen paha eroittoo hänen pojasta ja pojan-pojasta, jotka
kantovat saman nimen, ja joihen kanssa häntä ehkä sevoitetaan.
Hänen sukunimensä kirjutetaan monella tavalla, sekä Biidz, Büdz,
Bitz, Bytz, Bitzr, Bitze että Bisse (Porth. Chr. p. 543, 481,) ja se
näyttää kuin sillä tarkoitettais yhtä kuin sanalla Bässe, (jota hään
kantaa vapamerkissänsä). Juusten kuhtuu tätä Piispan iseä "famosus
Miles, quondam Capitaneus Castri Aboënsis." Hään oli jo v. 1420
Miekkamies (Armiger) ja v. 1441 Tähtimies (Miles). V. 1437 oli hään
Laintutkia Halikon kihlakunnassa, jota virkoo hään piti aina vuoteen
1453, jollon häntä myös kututaan Laintutkiaksi Vehmaan
kihlakunnassa. Samana vuonna mainitaan häntä myös
Lainjulistajaksi Pohjos-Suomessa, ja vuonna 1455, 1456 ja 1457
kuhutaan häntä jo Lainjulistajaksi Etelä-Suomessa (Lagman i
Sudhersinne Laghsagu); ja v. 1449 häntä jo nimitetään Ruotsin
Valta-Neuoksi, jollon häntä s. 31 päivänä Heinä-kuussa Visbyin
kaupunnissa alakirjutti Kuninkaan Koarle VIII:nen ja Christian I:sen
sovintoa Gottlannin soaresta (Hadorph efter Rimkrönikan p. 156.)
von Stjernman sanoo hänen myös v. 1452 olleen Turun linnan ja
moakunnan Peämiessä (Åbo Tidn. 1785. Bih. p. 198. Porth. Chr. p.
544). Hään eli vielä v. 1458, vaan oli jo kuollut ennen v. 1467, ja oli
ollut osallinen siitä Turussa löytyvästä henkellisestä Kolmen
Kuninkaan veljellisyytestä (Porth. p. 476, 545). Hänen iseensä ei
tunnetak, ja hänen äitinsä (jonka nimee ei muistetak) oli Turun
ensimmäisen Peä-Rovastin (Domprost) Heikki Maunuksenpojan sisar.
Hään oli kuolemaisillaan, jälkeen-seätöksessänsä, pois-lahjoittanut
tilansa Kuirilahen kylässä Paraisten pitäjässä, sillen Turun
Peäkirkossa asetetullen Pyhä Pietarin ja Pyhä Poavalin Kammiollen
(Porth. Chr. p. 445. Åbo Tidn. 1785, Bih. p. 199). — V. 1435 oli hään
vierasmiessä alakirjuttanut appensa Clauus Lydikinpojan seätös-
kirjoo, jolla hään Papis-kammiollen (eli niin kuin sitä muinonkin
kuhuttiin, "Neitzyn-kammiollen") Turun Peä-kirkossa, poislahjoitti
Hukasten taloo Lemun pitäjässä, m.m. (Porth. Chr. p. 453); ja v.
1438, oli hään niin ikeän ala-kirjuttanut Turun Peä-Rovastin Matti
Ollinpojan lahjutos-kirjan, jolla hään Pyhä Annan Kammiollen
poisanto Littoisten tilan Nummen pitäjässä (Porth Chr. p. 448).
Samana Vuonna istui hään Laki-miessä (såsom bisittare eller nämd i
Konungens dom) Moan Oikeutessa (wid Lands-Rätten) jota piettiin
Turussa, ja kussa häntä kuhutaan Laintutkia Vehmaan kihlakunnassa
(Åbo Tidn. 1785, Bih. p. 63). Vuonna 1449 vahvisti hään niin kuin
Turun muinoisen Peämiehen Heikki Gärdshaghin vainaan lasten
holhottaja (förmyndare,) sen kauppa-kirjan, jolla hään oli eläissänsä
myönyt tilansa Keykalan kylässä Kalvolan pitäjässä Hämeenlinnan
Vouvillen Engelbrecht Jaakonpojallen, 60 markkaan (Porth Chr. p.
525).

[627] Porth. Chr. p. 481, 453, 543. Tämä Anna Claus-

Lydikintyttären (Djäkne) isä, oli se Clauus t. Niiles Lydhekeson, jota
jo p. 424 nimitimme, ja jonka v. 1407 sanotaan olleen Laintutkiana
Pohjos-Suomessa, ja v. 1414 ja 1420 Voutina (Foghot, Fogda) Turun
linnassa. V. 1420, 1429, 1430 ja 1434 kuhutaan häntä myös tämän
linnan Peä-mieheksi (Höwitsman); ja v. 1442 Capitaneus Castri
Aboënsis (Åbo Tidn. 1785, Bih. p. 191, 192). Hänen sanotaan tulella
yläs-polttaneen oman vaimonsa nimeltä Christina Jonisedotteria,
joka vielä eli v. 1435. (Porth. Chr. p. 453). Ilman tätä Annaa, joka
mahto olla nuorin hänen lapsistaan, oli 7 muita; nimittäin: — 1)
Tähtimies Henrik Clauson (Djäkne) Koskiseen, joka oli Valta-Neuo ja
Lain-julistaja Pohjos-Suomessa (Lagm. i Norrsinne Laghsagu)
voutesta 1449 vuoteen 1458, naitu Lucia Ollin-tyttären (Tavastin)
kanssa; — 2) Arffwidh Clausson Nynäsiin, Tähtimies ja Valta-Neuo,
naitu Ingeborg Arend-Pentinpojan tyttären kanssa; — 3) Tönne (t.
Antonius) Clausson; — 4) Britha Clausdotter, Herreilään (?) naitu
Heikki (Pekanpoika) Svärdhin kanssa, joka eli v. 1420, ja jollen se
synnytti yhen tyttären, nimeltä Ragnild; — 5) Karin Clausdotter
Kankkaan, ensin naitu v. 1407 Jaakko (Niileksenpoika) Kurkin
kanssa, jollen se synnytti yhen pojan Claes Kurck Laukkoon, joka eli
v. 1466; ja siiten Heikki Ollinpoika Hórnin kanssa Åminneen, joka oli
Hórniloihen Peävanhin (Stamfader, Ättefader); — 6) Elin Clausdotter,
joka oli naitu Herman Flemingin kanssa; — 7) Anna Clausdotter,
josta äsken puhuttiin; — 8) Cecilia Clausdotter, naitu Claus
Pekanpoika Flemingin kanssa Peningebyiin, joka oli Tähtimies ja
viimäinen Lainjulistaja kokonaisessa Suomen-moassa; hään eli vielä
v. 1405, ja oli niiten Suomalaisten Flemingilöihen Peä-vanhin
(Peringsköld).

[628] Claes Bitze, jolla oli yksi poika Knút Bitze Öhrestadiin, naitu
Brigitta Christjern-Pentinpojan (Oxenstjernan) tyttären kanssa
Salestadiin.

[629] Tämä nuoreksi kuhuttava Eerik Bitze Viikiin, joka myös oli
osallinen Turun Papin-veljellisyytestä (Porth. Chr. p. 476) ja jonka
Porth. p. 545, ja 638 sanoo olleen Lainjulistajana Etelä-Suomessa v.
1462 ja 1463, oli naitu Tähtimiehen Olli Tavastin tyttären kanssa,
nimeltä Märeta, jonka kanssa hänellä oli kaks lasta (Porth. luettaa p.
638 yhtä Antin nimellistä, kolmaneksi); — 1) Anna Eerikintytär Bitze,
joka oli naitu Olli Jönsinpojan kanssa., Laijsiin, ja — 2) Heikki
Erkonpoika Bitze, Nynäsiin (Porth. p. 637 kuhtuu häntä Tähtimies
nuori Henr. Bitze Nynäsiin) joka oli naitu Anna (Hannon tytär) Totin
kanssa Bjurumiin, jota usseemmittain kuhuttiin "Finska Anna på
Åkerön," ja joka synnytti hänellen kaks lasta, Eerik ja Kirsti. Tämä
Anna tuli siitten naituksi Clemet (Pentinpoika) Hogenskildtin kanssa
Åkeröiin (kuhuttu Huitfelt), ja kuoli vasta v. 1549. Tämä Henrik Bitze
joka oli Lainjulistaja Pohjos-Suomessa v. 1489, 1490, 1499, 1504 ja
1506, ja jonka Uggla kuhtuu Miekka-mieheksi Viikiin, ja sanoo olleen
Peämiessä Turussa vuotesta 1480 vuoteen 1485, ja kantaneen
vapamerkissänsä yhen hirven — oli v. 1499 Tukhulmissa
alakirjuttanut K. Christian I:sen Kuninkaan-vaalia (Hadorph p. 367).
Hään on tullut Porthanin luulon perästä (Chr. p. 545; Åbo Tidn. 1785,
Bih. p. 198.) sevoitetuksi ukkosek kanssa, joka oli hänen nimellinen.
Sillä kaikki mitä v. Stjernman puhuu Henr. Bitzestä, niin se puhuu
enin tästä nuoremmasta, ehkä hään nimittää häntä vanhaksi, ja
villitteloo sillä sekä ihtesek että muita. Se on tässä, niin kuin
moneissa muissa lopen-vanhoissa asioissa, työläästi käsittää totuutta
vielä liiaksi kuin yhtäläiset nimet meitä ereyttää.

[630] Briita Bitze Benkkalaan, tuli naituksi Olli Drákin kanssa.

[631] Knút Bitze, Häänki mahto olla osallinen siitä toanon

mainitusta Papillisesta veljellisyyestä (Porth. Chr. p. 477).

[632] Oppia, Magister; Tietous-Oppia, Filosofie-Magister t.

Filosofie-Doktor.

[633] Tämä kuuluisa Opisto, josta on jo tullut niin monta

valaistuneita miehiä moailmaan, ja kussa Tievot ja Taijot vielä
paraittain sekä harjoitetaan että suojeletaan, tuli ensin asetetuksi v.
1409.

[634] Peä-pappinen, Abboth, kuhuttiin ylimmäinen Pappi heijän

papin-suljetuksissa.

[635] Peä-Rovasti, Domprost.

[636] Näiten Vadstenan Pappisten nimet oli Magnus, Richard, ja

Magnus Håkansson.

[637] Mitä sillä sanalla pyhittää (consecrare) tässä ymmärtänneen,

en saata varsin sanoa. Sillä koska näissä Kammioloissa jo ennen
häntä piettiin Jumalan-palvelusta, niin eivät mahtaneet olla
pyhittämätäk. Uskottava on jotakuta kirkossa tapahtuneen, joka
heijän mielestä soastutti Seurakunnan, jota nyt uuestaan pyhitettiin
— niin kuin tapa tahtoo olla Poavilaisissa.

[638] Kammion-laulaja, Chor-prest, Choralis. Turun kirkossa

piettiin Poavin aikana 6 nuorta Pappia, jotka laulelivat Jumalan-
palveluksissa. Milloin heitä ensin asetettiin on tietämätöin; mutta v.
1355 heitä jo mainitaan. Ja se näyttää kuin kukiin heistä oisi ollut
ikeän kuin Apulainen t. Lukkari auttamassa muka laulamisellansa
niitä ylhäisempiä Turun Pappiloita heijän jumalan-palveluksessaan
(Porth. Chr. p. 453, 473.) näiten lukua enenettiin siitten aikoa
myöten. Piispa Maunus Ollinpoika (Tavast) lisäisi näihin 4 uutta,
joihin Piispa Conradus Bitze vielä lisäis 2, jotka piti joka päivä
lauleleman Neitty Moarian laulu-hetket (horas canónicas) ja joillen
hään anto palkaksi papin-soatavat Nummisten pitäjästä. Niinpä jo
yhtenä aikana luettiin 12 Laulu-Pappia Turun kirkossa (Porth. Chr. p.
553). Ilman sitä vara-soalista (extra inkomst) joka jumalan-
palveluksessa, hautaisissa ja muissa semmoisissa toimituksissa, oli
heillen tuleva, niin heijän vuosillinen palkka luettiin kullenkin 10
markaksi rahassa, paihti 20 markkoo, ruokaneuoiksi, 9 mittaa
(spann) rukiita eläkkeeksi, ja 14 mittaa ohria olveksi (Porth. Chr. p.
474). Yksi mitta oli eri-maakunnissa ja erillä ajoilla erilainen, mutta
nuon arvaten luettavaksi pitävä 24:nestä 32:neen kappaan.

[639] Poto-huone, Hospital, sjukhus.

[640] Tämä Köyhäin Tivunti, johon luettiin neljäs osa Kirkko-

rahoista ja Pyhä Henrikin otosta, ja joka kussakin seurakunnassa
alussa annettiin Kirkko-vaivaisillen, oli jo ennen Ruotissa niinikeän
pois-annettu näillen poavilaisillen Papis-Neuoittelioillen, (Canonici).

[641] Henkellinen Opettaja, Theologie Professor.

[642] Kirjan-painaminen, joka on se isoin ja avullisin taito, johon

meijän ymmärrys on yltynyt, tietomuksiin harjoittamiseksi ja
ihmiskunnan henkelliseksi valaistukseksi, ilmauntui 49 vuotta tätä
ennen Saksan-moassa, kussa yksi vapasukuinen mies nimeltä Johan
von Sooyenloch, eli muuten myös kuhuttu Gänsefleisch vom
Gutenberge, tahi niin kuin häntä jokapäiväisessä puheessa kuhutaan
Guttenberg, rupeisi ensin monen kokemuksen perästä,
kuurmaelemaan kirjotus-neniä irtonaisiin puupalaisiin, joita hään
asetti lomaksuttain sanoiksi. Ja koska puu oli arka kulumaan, niin
hään kirjutti näitä neniä ly'y-palaisiin, joihen peälle hään siitten
painutti paperinsa. Tällä tavoin tuli v. 1439 se ensimäinen kirjan-
paino toimeen Wittenbergin kaupunnissa. Koska hään näihin
kokemuksiin oli hukuttanut kaikki omaisuutensa, otti hään Appensa
kumppaliksensa, joka oli yksi rikas kulta-seppä Mayntzin
kaupunnista, nimeltä Johan Faust. Tämäpä otti toas kaks muita
toveriksensa, nimittäin veljensä Jaakko Faust ja yhen pappisen,
nimeltä Schöffer, joka v. 1452 rupeisi valamaan näitä neniä tinaan,
ja kohta siitten kovempaankin kasariin (metall). Viekkauellansa ja
kavaloilla juonillansa omisti Faust tämän rehellisen Guttenbergin
kirja-pajaa, ja lopetti v. 1462 sen ensimmäisen Roamatun painamista
Latinan kielellä, josta hään sai paljon rahoo, alinomattain Parisissa;
suureksi harmiksi Pappisillen, jotka Roamatun kopioittamisella oli
tähän saakka viljellut paljon rahoja.

[643] Tässä Suomalaisessa Messukirjassa on alku-lehellä (på tittel-

bladet) puu-kuurmauksilla (i träd-snidt) kuvaeltu yksi istuvainen
Piispa, jolla on kypärä peässä, ja oikeassa käessä kirja, vasemmassa
Pispan-sauva, joka jaloillansa poljee yhtä miestä, joka makoo
pitkällänsä, kerityllä peällä, pitävä myssynsä vasemmassa käessä, ja
oikeassa kirveensä. Tämä kuvaus joka tarkoittaa Ristin uskon
ensimmäistä levittämistä Suomessa, ja joka tarinamuksessamme
muistuttaa meitä Piispa Henrikin pyhittämistä kuoltuaan — näyttää
niin kuin se ois muka kopioitettu siitä Hauta-kivestä jota Piispa
Tavast asetti Peä-Piispan (Erke-Biskop) Henrikin hauallen Nousisten
kirkossa, ja josta siitten on malli (modell) otettu niihin malauksiin
jotka oli tehty Iso-kyrön kirkossa Pohjan moalla, josta tullaan
puhumaan XXIII:ssä Taulussa.

[644] Näistä so'ista puhutaan aivan vähä meijän

Tarinamuksessamme, koska heitä piettiin enemmin rajan
murtamisella kuin oikeellä soan-käymisellä. Heitä piettiin aina
vuoteen 1468, jollon tehtiin vara-rauha, mutta ei se pitänt jos 5
vuotta; sillä v. 1473 puhkeisi toas sota, ja muuttui aina julmemmaksi
kumpaisellakin puolella, eikä helpount Eerik Akselinpojan sisään-
murtaamisella Venäjäseen v. 1480, eikä Stén Stúrin soan-käynöllä v.
1488.

[645] Tämä Eerik Axelsson Tott (josta vasta tullaan enemmin

puhumaan) oli sama mies joka näinä aikoina ensin varusteli Viipurin
kaupunkia kivi-muuriloilla (lue XX Taulu).

[646] Nämät puu-varustukset tehtiin v. 1475, paraassa sota-

aikana, ja juuri vihollisten kuuluvissa, niin kuin Tott tästä ite
kirjuttaa: "och när arbetis folket moste fara efter sand, steen och
kalck, då måste jag hafwa en roote med hwar pråm, och 12 eller 14
mine egne tjänare med harnesk oc hwärjor för Ryssarnes skuld."
(Porth. Chr. p. 594).

[647] Lue Porth. Chr. p. 581. Åbo Tidn. 1793, N:o 15. Juvan pitäjä,
joka jo v. 1442 sai oman Papinsa, luettiin silloin kappelina Savilahen
tahi Mikkilin pitäjäseen (lue Åbo Tidn. 1784, p. 385. Porth. Chr. p.
515.) mitenkähän se oisi siitten eneän tullut kuuluvaksi Seäminkiin?

[648] Se on kumma ettei Juusten puhuissaan tämän Piispan

ajoista, niin sanalla nimitäk näistä Turun kirkon tuli-paloista. Tahi hyö
eivät olleet varsin turmiolliset (förhärjande) tahi luettaa hään heitä
siihen, jonka hään sanoo tapahtuneen iski-tulella v. 1458 Piispa
Olaijin aikana, ja josta toas ei Messenius, eikä tämä vanha ajan-
laskettaja, tiijä niin mitään.

[649] Niin e.m. tuli Iin pitäjä vasta vuuen 1475:nen tienoilla
eroitetuksi Kemistä; ja Akkas v. 1483 eroitetuksi Seäksmäestä.

[650] Brenner: "I Åbo D. Kyrckia."

[651] Tämä vuosiluku on vissiinik viärin kirjutettu, ja pitäis olla

1454, niin kuin kohta kuullaan.

[652] Kärsiäjä, martyr, Pyhät kärsiäjät, de heliga martyrer.

[653] Yrjön t. Yrjän-päivä, oli s. 24 p. Huhti-kuussa.

[654] Mikä mies hään lie ollut, ei heissä selitetäk, eikä myös hänen
isänsä nimeä.

[655] Tämä Hórnin suku-juoksu (stamtafla), joka myös löytyy

niissä vanhoissa Péringsköldin, Åkersteinin, v. Schantzin ja
Palmsköldin polvi-laskuissa (Genealogier), selittää että Vapa-mies
Clas Heikinpoika Hórn Åminneen, joka v. 1485 oli Laintutkia Halikon
kihlakunnassa, ja v. 1487, 1488, 1490, 1499, 1508, 1510 ja 1514
Lainjulistaja Etelä-Suomessa, ja v. 1499 Ruotsin Valta-Neuo — oli
naitu Christina Frillen kanssa Hoapaniemeen, joka oli Lainjulistajan
Etelä-Suomessa Christian Håkansson Frillen tytär. Palmsköld, joka
myös kertoo tätä, sanoo että tämä Hórn oli vielä toisen kerran naitu
Christina Antintytär Karplanin kanssa. Merkillinen on että vaikka
hänellä oli kaksi vaimoa Kirstin nimellä, niin eivät kuitenkaan ykskään
heistä ollut Frésen sukuisia, ellei heijän nimet lie viärin toimitetut.
Mahollinen oisi ehkä myös, tällä Hórnilla olleen vielä kolmaaskin
vaimo, samalla kaima-nimellä. Jos otamme ajan-luvusta vuoaria, niin
havaimme kohta että tässä mahtaa jossa kussa olla erehtys. Sillä jos
tämä Frese oisi elänyt 1300 vuosien alulla (niin kuin luetaan hänen
hautakivessä) niin mitenkä hänen pojan-tytär oisi ollut naitu tämän
Hórnin kanssa, joka vielä eli 1500 vuosien alulla, eli oisikkohan
kolmet suku-polvea ylettänyt kahteen sataan aastaikaan? Sillä tahi
tässä on tehty Frési 100 vuotta vanhemmaksi (kuin hään olla pitäis),
tahi se on sevoitettunna siiheen nuorempaan Frésiin (joka on muka
yhtä) tahi ymmärretään tässä yhtä toista Hórnia kuin tätä äsköin
mainittua; ehkei yhtä toista sillä nimellä ouk ollut Lainjulistajana
Etelä-Suomessa. Myökin oisimme uskomoisillamme että yksi Frése oli
naitu yhen Hornin kanssa. Mutta jos tämä oli Claes nimeltään, eli jos
hään oli Lain-julistaja Etelä-Suomessa, sitä emme saata sanoa
(Pahuus kuin ei niissä Vapa-Huoneen kirjoissa nimitetäk minkän
perustuksen peällä hyö ovat näitä puheita kirjaan pistäneet). Meijän
luulo luottaiksen sen peälle, että Maskun pitäjän kirkon ikkunassa oli
muinon moalattu Hórnin ja Frésin vapamerkit rinnattain, josta
arvattaisiin, että hyö ovat olleet naimisen kautta yhistetyt, ja että
hyö ovat tässä pitäjässä asunneet, tahi että heillä tässä on ollut tiloja
ja kartanoita (kaho XX:nees Taulu N:o 2 ja 3).

[656] Koska myös tämä kaikki ikeän kuin passoisi tähän Fredr.
Fréseen, jonka hautakivi tässä kahellaan, vaan joka nyt luetaan 100
vuotta vanhemmaksi, niin milt' emme epäile Brennerin tässä
lukenueen veärin, ja vuosluvun ehkä olleen MCCCCLIIII, liioiten
koska tämä kivikin näyttää olevan teoiltaan niiten toisten kanssa
yksi-ikuinen, vaan ei sunkaan vanhempi; ja koskei Brennerin aikana
löytynyt Turun kirkossa muitakaan hauta-kiviä 1300 vuos-luvulta,
jotka kaikki ehkä lie murentuneet Turun kirkon tuli-palossa v. 1458
(Juusten; mutta v. 1464, 1473? Messenius) niin on uskottava ettei
tämäkään ouk niin vanha kuin hänessä luetaan. Se näyttää kuin
Brenner oisi jo itekkin tätä arvannut, sillä siinä nioitetussa kirjassa on
hään kirjuttanut vuos-luvuun: "MCCCCLIIII" niinikään luetaan myös
tätä vuoslukua yhessä vanhassa puu-kuurmauksessa tästä hauta-
kivestä. Mitä taas Vapa-Huoneen kirjoitukseen tuloo, kussa luetaan v.
1354 niin se ehkä luottaiksen tämän Brennerin vanhimmaisen
piirutoksen peälle, jonka olemme kopioittanut.

[657] Kolmen Kuninkaan Veljellisyys (Fraternitas Trium Regum)

kuhuttiin sitä papillista yhteyttä tahi veljellisyyttä, josta jo puhuttiin
p. 375, 377.

[658] Peä-Neuvo, Borgmästare. Hään oli ollut Peä-neuona v. 1431,

1439, 1448 ja 1449; ja luettiin olleen Saksalaisesta suku-perästä
(Chr. p. 598).

[659] Brenner: "I Åbo D. Kyrckia."

[660] Tämä Vapamerkki muutettiin siitten yheksi mustaksi Yötyr-

peäksi valkoisessa vainiossa. Mutta milloin, eli keltä, tätä tehttiin, on
tietämätöin. Bång sanoo kyllä (Palmsköldin puheen peälle; kaho p.
441): "Olof Niclisson Tawast upptog sin Frus, de gamble Finckars
sköldemärken, ett swart Syltehufwud i hwitt fält, sådant som Asessor
Brenner afritat det i Åbo D. Kyrka, litet förrän kyrkan bran." Mutta
näissä puheissa on niin paljon valetta, ettemme ollenkaan heihin
uskotak. Sillä — ensinnik niin tämä Olli Niileksenpoika Tavast ei ollut
naitu Finckilöihen kanssa — toiseksi, niin Finckilöihen vapamerkissä
ei ollut mitään Sian peätä — kolmanneeksi, niin nähään vielä tästä
Olli Niileksenpojan hauta-kivestä, jotta ei hään vielä
kuolemaisillaankaan ollut pois-muuttanut sitä vanhoo suku-
merkkinsä, ja — neljänneeksi niin näissä Brennerin piirutoksissa ei
löyetäk yhtä sellaista kuvattua Kössin-peätä, josta tässä puhutaan.
Tämä vanha merkki ei vielä ollut sen eistä tämän Ollin aikana pois-
heitettynnä; mutta 100:a'an vuuen peistä oli jo muutos tapahtunut.
Sillä Arvid Heikinpoika Tavast Wessundaan, joka v. 1568 oli
Linnanisäntänä Viipurissa, ja josta ja p. 444 puhuttiin, (ja joka oli
tämän Ollin pojanpojan-poika) kanto vapamerkissänsä yhtä Posson
peätä. Hänen aikanansa korjattiin taas tätä Tavastiloihen
vapamerkkiä. Sillä v. 1588, s. 24 p. Kesäk. niin Herttu Koarle,
kunniaksi tämän miehen pitkällisestä ja uskollisesta palvelluksesta,
paransi hänen vapamerkkinsä, sillä tavoin että, ympäri tätä Karjun
peätä pantiin yks sininen vanne kuhun oli vuorottellen pujotettu 4
punaista syväntä ja 4 punaisia luotia (kulor) — kostoksi samasta
uskollisuuestaan tuli hään monian vuuen peästä Viipurissa poikki-
hakatuksi. Tällainen tuli myöskin v. 1625 tämä vapamerkki sisään-
kirjutetuksi niihen Ruohtalaisiin Vapa-kirjoin (N:o 64) hänen
pojaltansa Germund Arvinpoiku Tavastilta Kurjalaan. Ruotissa on
nykyisinnä Peä-Luutnanti m.m. Gréve Joh. Henr. Tavast, sekä hänen
Vapaherrallisessa (N:o 321) että Grévillisessä (N:o 129)
Vapamerkissänsä, uuestaan ylös-ottanut sitä vanhoo kolmatta satoo
aastaikoa jo poishyljättyä suku-merkkiä.

[661] Sillä tämän Olli Tavastin isän-ukko, eli Piispa Maunus

Tavastin ukko vainaa, oli Herra Niiles nimeltään; josta Palmsköld
kirjuttaa: "Nicolaus Tavast Magnus, Finlandiae vir potens, habitans in
Tavastia, circa annum 1340" (Geneal. Saml. p. 3937). Mutta silloin
hään jo mahto olla keli vanha, sillä hänen pojan-poika Piispa Maunus
Olai oli syntynyt v. 1357. Hänellä oli kolm poikoo, — Olli
Niileksenpoika (Tavast, se vanhempi, sillä nimellä; ja tämän
nuoremman Olli Niileksenpojan ukko) joka oli Tavastiloihen Peä-
vanhin, ja jota Juusten kuhtuu: Nobilis et famosus Vasallus in
Paroecia Wirmo (Porth. Chr. p. 17, 423) joka oli Valta-Neuo ja Tähti-
niekka v. 1370, ja kuollut jo v. 1402 (Porth. Chr. p. 433) ja josta on
jo ennen p. 398 ja 422 puhuttu; — toinen oli Fader Niileksenpoika,
joka oli Stålarmiloihen Peä-vanhin, ja joka oli naitu Brita
Rochelsdotterin kanssa, ja eli v. 1370 ja 1400; — kolmaas oli Sune
Niileksenpoika, joll' oli poika Sune Sunesson, Miekkamies ja
Laintutkia Taivaansalossa v. 1402, Vehmaassa v. 1418; Valta-Neuo v.
1435, ja Lainjulistaja Pohjos-Suomessa ja Ahvenan-moalla v. 1437
(ja 1455?). Tästä selitetään mitenkä Tavastit ja Stålarmit ovat ennen
kantaneet yhtä Vapamerkkiä, vaikka eri nimellä. Kumpaisetkin suvut
oli muinon kuuluisat ja voimakkaat Suomessa, niin että löytyi harva
kirkko, kussa ei ennen aikana tavattu heijän vapamerkkiänsä
nimittäin yksi varusteltu käsivarsi, milloin keännetty oikeallen
puolellen, milloin (usseemmittain) vasemallen, osottava milloin
kämmenensä, milloin toas puistelevan nyrkkiänsä.

[662] Yksi kopio tästä hauta-kirjutoksesta tavataan Porth. Chr. p.

636. Yksi toinen kopio, jota luetaan Alex. Lauraeuksen
Juttelemuksessa Joh. Bilmarkin hoivauttamisen alla, (kuhuttu: de
Sacellis sepulcralibus in Templ. Cath. Aboënsi p. 21), on varsin
viallinen, ja kuuluupi näin: "Anno Domini MCCCCLXI crastino F:i Petri
de Cathedra Nobil. Vir Olavus Tawast, Miles hoc obiit: Orate pro eo."
von Stjernman ja Uggla eksyyvät vielä enämmin, kuin sanoovat
hänen kuolleen jo v. 1445.

[663] Istuimellansa istuvan Pyhä Pietarin päivän eli niinkuin

Ruotiksi kuhutaan tätä päivää: "Sancte Pehr i stolen," ja Latinaksi:
Petrus in Cathedra, oli yksi päivä jota poavilaiset rajuuttivat kunniaksi
Pyhä Pietarin istumisesta Poavin-tuolilla — niin kuin puhutaan heijän
satuissa. Tämä tulisi meijän luvun perästä s. 24 päivänä Helmi-
kuussa.

[664] Tämä Niiles Ollinpoika Tavast (joka oli Piispa Tavastin veli)
tuli s. 7 p. Jouluk. v. 1407 koroitetuksi Vapa-sukulliseen seätyyn,
Kuninkaalta Eerikiltä Pommerista, hänen Turussa ollessaan. Hään eli
vielä v. 1415 ja 1423. Hänen perillisistä mainitaan yhtä Vapamiestä
nimeltä Heikki Tavast, joka v. 1457 sai Valta-Hallihtialta Eerikki
Axelinpojalta vapaallista vapautta (frälse-frihet) niihen verotiloin
peälle, joita hään oli ostanut talonpoijilta Halisten kylässä
Räntamäen pitäjässä, ja Hekkialan kylässä Nummen pitäjässä (Porth.
Chr. p. 420, 421).

[665] Tästä Suomen Piispasta, josta on jo vähä mainittu p. 396,

461, 468, 482 tullaan koht-sillään enemmia puhumaan VI:nessa
Taulussa.

[666] Keskustele Porth, Chr. p, 636. v. Stjernman, joka myös

luettaa häntä Hämeenlinnan Linnanisännistä, sanoo hänen jo olleen
siinä Linnanisäntänä v. 1444, jä tässä virassa kuolleen v. 1445 (lue
Görwells' Sw. Mecurius v. 1757, Sept. p. 270; Porth. Chr. p. 521, 636;
Ugglas Rådslängd III Afd. s. 55). Mutta tässä ensimmäisessä
puheessa ei mahak ehkä olla parempata perustusta kuin siinä
viimeisessäkään.

[667] Lue Åbo Tidn. 1785, Bih. p. 192; Porth. Chr. p. 521: Koko
tästä rauhasta ei tunnetak meijän Tarinamuksessa niin mitään, ei ies
minä vuonna sitä tehtiin. Myö soamme vastapäin tilaisuutta että
kirjassamme Handl. till uplysning i Finlands äldre Historie toimittoo,
jota siinä viis-vuotisessa vara-rauhassa, jota tehtiin Viipurissa v.
1468, nimitetään että se entinen rauha oisi muuten loppunut v.
1469, s. 1 p. Toukok. Jos nyt varoisimme tämän rauhan olleen tätä
äsköin nimitettyä 9:sän vuotista, niin se oisi tehtynnä Toukokuussa v.
1459, ja oisi tapahtunut vuotta ennen tämän Tavastin kuolema-
vuotta. Hänen lankonsa Heikki Niileksenpoika Diekn, kuoli jo syksyllä
v. 1459.
 [668] Tämä Porkalan Herras-kartano (Janakkalan pitäjässä?), oli
vanhuuestaan ollut Tavastiloihen moisio, mutta tuli tämän Ollin
sisaren kautta, (nimeltä Katrina Niileksentytär Tavast Porkkalaan)
annetuksi hänen avio-miehellensä, sillen vanhallen Gödik Finkillen
(lue p. 421) jolta se nyt (v. 1439) lie tullut takaisin-lunastetuksi,
koska se siitten tämän Ollin tyttären kanssa, (nimeltä Märta
Ollintytär Tavast Porkkalaan), annettiin hänen toverillensa, Valta-
Neuollen ja Lainjulistajallen Etelä-Suomessa, Jaakko Pekanpojalle
(Ille) Storgårdiin. Sillä tavalla tuli tämä hovi jo kuuluvaksi Illilöillen.
Hänen poikansa, Linnanisäntä Stén Jepinpoika Ille Porkkalaan, anto
tämän talon v. 1509 huomen-lahjaksi vaimollensa Anna
Knútintyttärellen (Kurck) Laukkoon (lue p. 431). Hänellä oli yksi tytär,
Mätta Sténsdotter Ille Porkkalaan, jota naitiin Peä-Linnanisännellen
ja Suomenmoan Holhottajallen Kustav Gödikinpoika Finkillen (lue p.
430, 431); jonka kautta tämä kartano tuli jo toisen kerran kuuluvaksi
Finckilöillen (niillen muka nuoremmillen). Kustan pojan-tyttären
kautta, nimeltä Margaréta Gödikintytär Fincke Porkkalaan ja
Auttiseen, joka naitiin Sota-Asettajallen Evert Koarlenpoika Hórnillen
Kankkaan (lue p. 405, 411) tuli tämä Herras-kartano viimen
kuulumaan Hórniloillen.

[669] Lue Porth. Chr. p. 431. Piispa lahjoitteli samana pänä kaikkia
omaisiansa kartanoilla eli rahoilla, sillä eholla etteivät milloinkaan oisi
katehtivoinnaan sitä asennosta, jolla Piispa v. 1421 perusti Pyhä
Ristuksen Ruumiin Kammiota Turun Seurakunnassa, monen talonsa
pois-lahjoittamisellansa.

[670] Peringsköld sanoo hänen olleen kahestin naitu, nimittäin

toisen kerran, Ingeborg Valdemarsdotterin kanssa (kaho p, 441)
mutta siinä hään mahtaa erehtyä.
 [671] Tämä Rötgert t. Rotgert Ingosen t. Ingonpojan isä oli Valta-
Neuo ja Miekkamies Ingo Ollinpoika (Peringsk.) jonka omaisia lie
ollut Vapamies Jonis t. Jöns Ingonen joka v. 1418 ja v. 1432 istui
lakia (tingtade) Laintutkian Niiles Dieknin siassa, ja joka oli jo ennen
v. 1449 myönyt Montiskalan kartanoa ynnä muita tilojansa Raision
pitäjässä Pyhän Annan suljetuksellen samassa pitäjässä, 800:taan
Markkaan; ja josta heitä siitten syöstätiin Naantalin papin-
suljetuksen ala (Portk. Chr. p. 449, 486.)

[672] Tämä Jaakko t. Jeppe Pekanpoika (Ille) Storgårdiin oli

Lainjulistaja Etelässä-Suomessa v. 1477 ja 1485. Hänen isänsä oli
Miekkamies Pekka Axelinpoika, jonka toveri oli Ingeborg
Valdemarsdotter, joka niin muotoin oli tämän Olli Tavastin tyttären-
anoppi, ja jota Peringsköld mahtaa eräyksissä kuhtua hänen
puolisoksi.

[673] Tämä Henrik Clauusson (t. Heikki Niileksenpoika Djekne) oli

muinon yksi niistä kuuluisammista Lakimiehistä (Lagkloke)
Suomessa. Häntä ei piek sekoittoo hänen kaimansa kanssa, nimeltä
Heikki Djekne, joka v. 1374 oli Vara-Lainjulistajana Medelpadissa
(Stjernm. Höfd. Minne 1 D. p. 78, 126, 128, 139, 162, 170, 211,
224, 357 & c. Porth. Chr. p. 479); eikä häntä myös piek kuhtua
Fågelnäbiksi niin kuin Stjernman häntä nimittää lehen-laijassa (i
marginalen. Lue Åb. Tidn. 1785. Bih. p. 193) villitetty ehkä siitä
syystä, että Dieknilöihen vapamerkki löytyy Peringsköldin
käsikirjoituksissa kuvaeltunna melkeen yhelläiseksi kuin
Fågelnäbbilöihen t. Fågelhufvudloihen (jota nähään kuvaeltuna
XI:ssä Taulussa, N:o 2). Tämä Heikki, jonka isä oli se Niiles
Lydikinpoika Djekne (josta jo luettiin p. 424, 475, 476) oli jo v. 1437
Peämies Turun linnassa (Åb. Tid. 1785. p. 192) — v. 1441 oli hään jo
Tähtiniekka (Porth. Chr. p. 482. b) — v. 1445, 1446 ja 1447 oli hään
Laintutkiana Ala-Satakunnassa, ja vuoesta 1449 vuoteen 1458
Lainjulistajana Pohjos-Suomessa, joista vuosista vielä löytyy monta
hänen peätöstä (Porth. Chr. p. 527. 482. b) — v. 1449 julisti hään
lakinsa (höll han Lagmans-Ting) Birgelan kylässä Raision pitäjässä
(Porth. Chr. p. 485) ja v. 1450 oli hään muijen Valta-Neuoloihen
kanssa Arbogan kaupunnissa, kussa hään vakuutti Kuninkasta,
Koarlea Knútinpoikoo heittämään Norin hallitusta Kuninkaalle
Christjernille. Hään oli myös osallinen siitä Turussa löytyvästä
Kolmen-kuninkaallisesta Veljellisyytestä (Porth. Chr. p. 476); ja oli
näinä aikoina käynyt Appensa Tähtiniekan Olli Tavastin kanssa
Venäjässä, perustamassa yhtä 9:sän vuotista rauhoo (Åb. Tid. 1785.
Bih. p. 192). Hään oli varsin avara pois-lahjoittamaan kirkkoloillen ja
Papis- suljetuksillen tavaransa ja talojansa. Sekä tästä hänen
antamisuutesta että muutenkin myös hänen lupauksestaan,
salpataksensa vaimoneensa papis-suljetukseen, Piispa Maunuksen
kuoltua, (Porth. Chr. p. 482. b) luultaisimme hänen olleen varsin
jumalallisen. Hänen muista toimistaan tunnetaan, että hään v. 1435
alakirjutti hänen isänsä jälkeen-seätöstä, kussa hään Papis-
kammiollen Turussa anto ynnä Hukasten tilan Lemun pitäjästä, yhen
kauppa-puoin ja yhen kartanon Turun kaupunnissa, paitti 100
Englannilaista Nobloo, jonkun tilan ostoon. Siitten vaihto hään v.
1437 tämän Kammion suostumisella Olli Antinpoika Tolkin kanssa, ja
anto hänellen, ilman tätä mainittua kaupunnin kartanota, 400
Markkoo Ruotin rahassa, ja 10 kuorman alaista niittua, jonka vastaan
hään sai tällen Kammiollen Grotelan kylee Kuumon pitäjästä (Porth.
Chr. p. 453, 454). Vuonna 1448 anto hään Ajosinpeän kartanon
Maskun pitäjästä sillen äsken asetetullen Kolmen Kuninkaan
Kammiollen, jollen se myöskin v. 1449 hänen Vaimonsa
suostumisella lahjoitti yhen kartanon Turun kaupunnissa, ynnä
Atolan (Attulaby) tilan Nousiaisten pitäjästä ja Sorsalan tilan
Mynämäen pitäjästä (Dissert. de dotat. Alt. p. 9). Samana vuonna
vahvisti hään niin kuin yksi Heikki Gärdzhaghin vainajan lasten-
holhottajoista, sitä p. 475 jo mainittua kauppa-kirjoo; ja kuoli v. 1459
(Porth. Chr p. 800, 482, 483) ehkä Uggla sanoo hänen vasta
kuolleen v. 1462. Vuonna 1453 kirjutti hään Koskissa, jälkeen-
seätöksensä, kussa hään vahvisti näitä hänen entisiä asennoksia, ja
annettua vaimollensa puolen osan Koskista ynnä kaikkia hänen osto-
maita niillen säytyvillen, pois-lahjoitti hään hänen suostumisellaan
(koska hänellä ei ollut mitään lapsia) tavaroisuutensa (sin
förmögenhet) niin kuin tässä seuraa: — Peä-Kammiollen (Hög-
Altaret) Turun Peä-Kirkossa, yhen salonin (?) — Kolmen-Kuninkaan
Kammiollen Turun kirkossa, paihti kartanonsa pohjos-puolella
kaupunnissa, Atolan talon Nousiaisten pitäjästä, ja Sorsalan talon
Mynämäen pitäjästä (joita hän jo anto v. 1449) anto hään Synkalan
talon Vihin pitäjästä, ynnä yhen kalkin, joista 2 ikuista henken-
messua piti hänestä piettämän. — Pyhän-Henkein Kammiollen, yhen
kolm-jalkaisen pa'an. — Pyh. Henken Huoneellen (Helge Ands huset)
2 Lehmeä, 2 Lammasta, 2 L. Rukiita, ja 2 Liikkiöä. — Poto-
Huoneellen (Spitalet) sitä samoo. — Pyh. Laurentiuksen Kirkollen
Vehmaassa, yhen Hevoisen. — Pyh. Uolovin Kirkollen Ylälässä, yhen
Kammio-kauhtanan (Chor-kappa) ja yhen 16:nen kuorman alaisen
niityn Latvassa, jota hään oli ostanut Heikki Heikalalta 12:lla
Markalla. — Naantalin Papis-suljetuksellen (jollen se oli jo ennen
antanut puolen Aijlosen talosta) yhön kullatun vyön, ja yhön soaren
nimeltä Lethis. — Pyh. Uolovin Suljetuksellen Turussa, yhen niitty-
moan Letzalassa, ja hänen isoimman kupari-kannunsa. — Raumon
Suljetuksellen, puolen sälytyksen (Läst) Rukiita, 2 Lehmeä, ja 2
Liikkiöä. — Musta-Veljeisten Suljetuksellen (Swart-brödra Klostret)
Viipurissa, yhen hopea-maljan. — Harmaa-Veljeisten Suljetuksellen
(Grå-brödra Klostret) samassa kohin, yhen kulta-sormuksen. — Pyh.
Brigittan Suljetuksellen Kesoin kaupunnissa (t. Reävälissä) 20
Markkoo, jotka hänen piti soaha Claus Pekanpojalta Reävälissä,
kahesta hevoisesta. — Musta Veljeiksillen Kesoissa, yhen harmaan
hevoisen. — Pyh. Henrikillen, hänen parhan Ruunansa ja Rauta-
paijansa. — Pyh. Henrikin hauallen Nousiaisessa, yhen hurstin t.
peitteen. — Koarle Kuninkaallen, yhen valkean ja ruuninkarva-
kirjavan Hevoisen. — Piispa Uolovillen, yhön pöytä-liinan, ja hopea-
vaipan. — Hänen siskonpojalle Peä-Rovastillen Opp. Kort Bilzille,
yhen hopea-lukotun kannun (kansa?) — Peä-Kirkonpalveliallen
Turussa, yhen hopea-maljan. — Opp. Arvid Jaakonpojallen, yhen
maksankarvaisen käymärin (gångare). — Opp. Maunus
Valdemarinpojallen, yhen hopea-tuopin, ja yhet parit Herkiä. —
Veljellensä Arvid Niileksenpojallen, hänen hopea-vyönsä
(kullattumatoin), ja yhen mustan varsan. — Herra Niiles Naebbille,
yhen pienen hopea-vakan (silf-kosa). — Herra Niiles Mullillen, yhen
hopea tuopin. — Herra Niileksellen Pietarsoaressa, hänen mustan
kauhtanansa, Niätän-nahoilla kalsattuna (befodrad). — Herra
Knútillen Vehmaassa, yhen Härän, ja yhen mustan kauhtanan. —
Rötkerillen Vehmaassa, yhen rihla-pyssyn, yhen pa'an, yhen kattilan,
yhen kannun ja 4 lammasta — Herra Heikki Vilmarillen, yhen sänky-
voatteen, yhen parin Härkiä, ja yhen kannun. — Olli Dúsillen yhen …
sänkyn, yhen kannun, yhen pa'an, yhen kattilan, 2 Lehmeä, ja yhen
Härkä-parin. — (Heikki?) Plátallen, 2 Härkeä. 4 Lammasta. — Pekka
Karpalaisellen, hänen hopia-peä lukkoisen veihtensä. — Ovikonpojan
perillisillen Vihin pitäjässä, yhen niityn, jonka hään osti Plátalta 6:lla
Markalla. (Åb. Tid. 1785, Bih. p. 193. Åbo Stifts Predikare-Bröders
och Nådend. Klost. bref T. VI. p. 1362. Yksi käsikirjutos, joka löytyy
K. Vallan Säilyksessä, Tukhulmissa).

[674] Lue Porth. Chr. p. 424. m. 379; p. 456. m. 702. p. 484. m.

448. p. 529. — Gr. Hallenii Dissert. praes. Alg. Scarin de Virmoëns. in
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com