School Segregation in the 21st Century

“We all bought our homes based on what school our kids were going to go to…it’s not a complicated concept.” (Baker, 2013), a parent explains at a hearing in Greenwich concerning the re-balancing of the racial makeup in school districts. This frustrated parent argues that he chose to live in a particular neighborhood so that his child would be able to attend a particular school. The underlying assumption is, in attending this particular school, the child will be in a safe environment and will receive an exceptional education which will increase the child's life chances of success. In 2006, the number of black students enrolled at his child’s school was 4; in the same year, one of the schools his child may be sent to had 11 blacks enrolled, still the majority of students enrolled are white (City-data.com, n.d.). The parent further explains that the top three facts offered to potential homebuyers are the price of the home, the square footage of the home and the school district (Baker, 2013). Baker (2013), stated “Connecticut is one of a few states that forbid districts from letting any of their schools deviate too much in racial makeup from any of their other schools.”

            Baker (2013) also suggests, “Segregation within school districts is not unique to Greenwich”. His statement makes sense given just this past August, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Louisiana over the implementation of its school voucher program. The question is whether the school voucher program reverses the effect of desegregation laws which the U.S. DOJ argues that the program, in fact, does. Louisiana is under strict desegregation orders following the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Flatlow (2013) stated, “school districts subject to federal oversight are tasked with assessing the impact educational changes will have on efforts to desegregate.” This measure ensures that a racial balance will exist and all children will have equal opportunity to receive a good education. At the head of the voucher program, Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal argues that the lawsuit intends to keep children trapped in failing schools (Klein, 2013). Jindal did not consider the impact the voucher program would have on desegregation. The DOJ argues that the department simply wants to ensure that Jindal’s program is in compliance with desegregation orders (Harrington, 2013); with reason one might add. Another argument is that the democratic, Obama administration wants to have its hands in state matters anywhere possible. It is worth noting that, according to Banchero (2012), “Judge Tim Kelley…ruled that the program…illegally diverts tax money intended for public schools to private and religious schools instead.”

            Racial and ethnic isolation is suggested to have a negative impact on child development. United States Education Secretary, Anne Duncan (2011) stated, "racial isolation remains far too common…and it is increasing,” (Jones, 2011). Renee Villamil said she would like for her child to attend a “white” school if given the opportunity (personal communication, October 10, 2013). If 91% of the students taking advantage of the Louisiana Scholarship vouchers are black, the population should be considered racially isolated. Duncan further stressed the importance of a racially diverse learning environment in support of globalization and noted the lack of such an environment would “breed educational inequality” (Jones, 2011). Jindal believes the students using the vouchers will be provided a better educational opportunity. This may be the case but they would still fall short in benefitting from a racially diverse learning environment.   

            This essay is looking at the way education reform is an issue concerning racism yet the issue of racism in the education system is overlooked. One can appreciate how Kozol (2005) describes of the use of “linguistic sweeteners” and “surrogate vocabularies” when race is discussed. In each other the articles reviewed in preparing this essay, identifiers were tossed around so much that understanding who would benefit most from education reform was not as clear at first. The populations mentioned were poor kids, African Americans, blacks, Latinos, low class, middle class, disadvantaged. The issues with self-identification is for another essay yet affects the very way in which this essay may be interpreted.

Many desegregation orders were removed because states believed that there no longer was a need for them. Formal equality masks the true inequalities in many areas with education being one. Kozol (2005) points to a decrease in the gap in educational achievement after the Brown v. Ed. decision followed by an increase in the gap in education achievement four decades later. He further explains the occurrence being, “in the early 1990s when the federal courts began the process of resegregation by dismantling the mandates of the Brown decision” (Kozol, 2005). The moment desegregation orders were lifted, schools began segregating. Busing, which was a big part in desegregation, was no longer required and children were being sent to schools in their own neighborhoods. The fact is that it is highly likely for African American children to reside in the same part of town based on socioeconomic status and attend the same school, giving the school the identity of being an African American school.

Believing that America no longer sees color and all are equal was a mistake on the judicial system’s part. Erwin Chemerinsky, similar to Kozol, places accountability on the judicial system for the backward trend in desegregation. He claimed that the courts ended court ordered desegregation laws and failed to identify inequalities that existed (Chemerinsky, 2003). In a sense, minorities were left to fend for themselves. Due to economic advantage, whites were able to move to the suburbs and were also able to invest into their children’s education systems.

Greenwich Public School Superintendent, William McKersie (2013) wrote, in an update proposal for action of facility utilization and racial balance, “unrestricted school choice plans often left minority schools totally segregated”. The document outlines why achievement gaps exist and offers remedies in each area. Focus on the importance of closing the achievement gap, integration, and equally distributing resources and support is highlighted in Mckersie’s document. Interestingly, the document also weighs the impact of implementing magnet schools. Superintendent McKersie (2013) explains how controlled choice programs do better but Supreme Court rulings blocking or ending desegregation plans and controls have been a hindrance to progression (p. 4). Parents can be given choice while maintaining the racial balance to ensure equal education opportunity. The document submitted by superintendent Kersie (2013) also states, “educational disparities…are highly correlated with skin color, ethnicity, linguistic, and social class status.” Racism could not be more clearly defined by this correlation.

This is America, right? America is about freedom of choice. All parents want their children to have the best education possible yet are often not able to choose what school they want their children to attend. Any parent would appreciate being able to choose whichever school to send their child. The fact is most schools have zoning rules which require that students reside in a particular zip code in order to attend a certain school. This does not need to mean that a child is put at a disadvantage or not afford the same opportunities as other children based on z zip code. Choice, in this matter, is defined differently across the board. For minorities, school choice means being able to put their children into high achieving schools; schools that will have better resources and a more rigorous curriculum. This choice can determine the child’s chance at being successful. For others, school choice means that their children will be able to attend the school down the block, close to the home they chose to live in.

Friedman (2004) points to “racism and lingering effects of past racism” as well as housing patterns to explain modern segregation of schools. It is not uncommon for ethnic groups to move into communities where they feel most at home, creating an ethnic or racial identity for the neighborhood. Here is where opposition can arise. When a parent is being told that their child will need to attend a school in a neighborhood racial identified as Black, Latino or other. It is the stereotypes that they are concerned with along with the fear of sending their child to a low performing school. Low performing schools are identified by the neighborhood it is located in and white flight patterns are still common. When Whites see that a neighborhood is changing racially or ethnically, they move. Lockette (2010), proposed rethinking the meaning of school choice. Going with McKersie’s ideas, choice can still be given to parents but with guidelines. The DOJ also offers guidelines in maintaining racial balance in schools. McKersie (2013) notes how housing segregation creates inequalities in education (p.4). His solution includes controlled choice programs where parents still have a choice in what school their child will attend while schools can maintain racial balance.

Looking back at Jindal’s claim that the DOJ wants to keep kids in failing schools, racial isolation should be considered. McKersie stated, “poorly performing schools cannot be turned around unless their isolation is addressed.” Jindal claims the achievement gap can be closed by sending the children to a new school yet McKersie on the other hand shows how the achievement gap cannot be addressed without addressing racial isolation. Reports suggested that charter school students do not perform better than public school students on the standardized tests. .Even if you take the student out of the poorly performing school, the student is still not being exposed to diversity, putting the student at a disadvantage.

            High performing schools have great enrichment programs such as music and art. Renee recalls how her art class in middle school encouraged her creativity giving her an open mind to modern expressions of art (personal communication, October 10, 2013). She feels that her child is losing out because for her son to have art class he would need to attend a specialized school. A teacher describes, “We lost our technology room, our music room, our art room” (Gonzalez, 2013). Perhaps this is why the Greenwich parent was so frustrated with the idea of re-zoning. Maybe his concern is that his child will attend one of the schools without all the great programs. Whites make up 85% of the Greenwich population; it is unlikely that his child will suffer since Greenwich is a well to do suburb.

            It is interesting how headlines change or differ over an issue covered by the media. Headlines read “Louisiana’s voucher system increases school segregation” and “Louisiana’s Voucher Program Is Making Segregation Worse” when the U.S. Department of Justice initially filed suit against the state. Over just two months, the language began to change. The program was being referred to as the Scholarship program and the focus was less of the idea of the schools being segregated and more on Jindal versus the United States government. People probably did not want to hear about race, racism and segregation. That would be too hard, too taboo and might even change things.

            The concerns in Connecticut over the racial diversity law, proved to be interesting as well. Headlines in the North versus South differ notably. The headlines in Connecticut point to race without stutter yet the conversation still appears to hide ideas that racism is modern. Unlike the southern state of Louisiana which preferred to focus on the politics over education flaws and remedies.

            My analysis is that racism is normal. It happens every day and people do not necessarily want to see change. Minorities do not necessarily want to integrate yet want equality. Whites are not concerned over whether or not minorities have equality as long as they are on the other side of the street. It is sad and disappointing to read about the Greenwich parents grumble about the racial balance laws in their state. It is even more disappointing to watch the state and federal governments bicker over whether one or the other is playing the race card while children sit in limbo waiting for the adults to make their life decisions.