School report gets an "incomplete."

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT report released last week by retired federal judge James Giles on the December violence at South Philadelphia High School is instructive - but mainly as a lesson in the difference between minutia and detail.

The 31-page report commissioned by the district to investigate "the causative events and circumstances surrounding attacks on Asian students" on Dec. 3 presents an exhaustive unreeling of a chaotic day at South Philly High that ultimately sent some Asian students to the hospital. The report details two confrontations the day before, sparked by rumors that a disabled African-American student had been jumped by Asian students; it documents at least seven confrontations and fights inside the school on Dec. 3. These fights led to early dismissal, when, blocks from school, a group of Asian students were shoved, punched and kicked by 20-40 assailants wearing hoodies.

The report documents a horrifically chaotic day at the school. Unfortunately, it lends no insight into what caused the fights (the rumor that might have set off the fights is never substantiated), or what kind of history serves as a backdrop.

In part, this is because the judge did not speak with the accused assailants, since there may be criminal charges pending. Also, the judge focused his investigation solely on two days in December.

The end result is a report that shows us what happened on one school day, but no insight into what these actions mean, or how they might relate to the bigger picture.

No references were made to any history of racial tensions or violence at the school, though students and community leaders say there have been many incidents of violence, particularly against immigrants.

The closest the report comes to acknowledging events beyond the day is to say that "race or ethnicity were contributing factors to some degree in all the attacks."

That's hardly a definitive statement.

We're not necessarily faulting the report or Judge Giles; the report is by necessity limited in its scope.

But we do wonder at Schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman's immediate acceptance of the report as a kind of "case closed, let's move forward." In receiving the report, Ackerman said, We'll never be able to really get a handle on what happened in the past . . . it would take us another 10 years to unravel the intricacies of what happened."

This is unacceptable, both as a direct response to the report, as well as a philosophy of stemming tension and violence in our schools. One would think that even if it took 10 years, the intricacies of what happened are critical to making sure it doesn't happen again.

A fuller understanding is critical if we care about fixing our troubled schools. For example, why have more than 10 percent of the district's 161,000 students been suspended this year, and 274 been expelled in the last 18 months? Why are 12,000 students truant every day?

Programs and policies can't begin to fix these problems if we don't acknowledge the full import of these numbers.

It's understandable that school officials would want to move forward and put Dec. 3 behind them. But this is a great injustice to the students who still have nearly four months of school ahead of them.

Bottom line: At best, this report gets an "incomplete." A fuller investigation is warranted. If the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund gets its wish, that investigation will be headed by the Department of Justice. *