Can We Talk about Race?: And Other Conversations in an Era of School Resegregation (4 page)

For both Whites and Blacks, the likelihood of having either a multiracial social network of acquaintances or at least one close interracial friendship was linked to the experience of attending racially mixed schools in childhood.
²⁹
As school districts move back to neighborhood school policies, the next generation of White students will likely have
less
school contact with people of color than their predecessors did. Particularly for young White children, interaction with people of color is likely to be a
virtual
reality rather than an
actual
one, with media images (often negative ones) most clearly shaping their attitudes and perceived knowledge of communities of color. The progress that has been made in the reduction of racial prejudice that can be associated with shared school experiences is at risk of stalling.

For students of color, the return to segregation means the increased likelihood of attending a school with limited resources. We know that 90 percent of highly segregated Black and Latino schools have high percentages of poor children; however, at most highly segregated White schools, middle-class students are in the majority.
³⁰
The negative educational impact of attending high-poverty schools is well documented. Whether a student comes from a poor or middle-income family, academic achievement is likely to decline if the student attends a high-poverty school. Conversely, academic performance is likely to improve if the student attends a middle-class school, even if his or her own family is poor.
³¹

The learning conditions that are taken for granted in middle-class suburban schools are too often absent in impoverished classrooms. As an example, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in 2000 against the State of California on behalf of children in eighteen public school districts, charging that children who attend schools without such basics as sufficient books, materials, working bathroom facilities, clean and safe buildings, trained teachers, and enough seats for every child are being denied their fundamental right to an education. In this case, 96.4 percent of the children affected by these dismal conditions were children of color, even though as a group, children of color represent only 59 percent of the public school population in California.
³²
It is not surprising that the outcomes associated with high-poverty schools across the country are bleak: lower test scores, higher dropout rates, fewer course offerings, and low levels of college attendance.
³³

We need to remember that the fight for school desegregation was not simply a symbolic fight for the acknowledgment of the humanity and equality of all children. Fundamentally it was a struggle for equal access to publicly funded educational resources. Clearly that struggle continues.

It is certainly ironic that while race relations in America have changed significantly since 1954, as evidenced by the presence of men and women of color in visible positions of authority and influence throughout the private and public sectors, our public schools increasingly reflect enrollment patterns reminiscent of the 1950s. In order for us to avoid further societal regression, the social implications of this enrollment pattern require our attention—for White students who are racially isolated in predominantly White schools; and for students of color who are trapped in segregated schools with limited resources.

When we consider the implications of this return to segregation for today’s children, both White and of color, it is easy to feel discouraged about the future of our society. We seem to be moving backward. I recently gave a lecture on this topic, and afterward a young White woman asked me, “What can we do to change this?” I was at a loss to give a hopeful response. The window of opportunity that was created by
Brown v. Board of Education
has been closed over time by
Milliken v. Bradley
,
Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell
, and other court decisions. As long as we live in residentially segregated neighborhoods, it seems we will inevitably have segregated public schools. The strategy of using transportation to achieve racial balance in schools was effective in many communities, particularly in the South, but not popular among community decision-makers, as evidenced by the rapid return to neighborhood school assignments once judicial intervention was removed.

A second strategy of using “race-conscious” assignment policies at “magnet” or “exam” schools—schools with coveted special programs or innovative curricula that can attract a racially mixed group of students from across a school district—has been useful as a way to encourage voluntary integration, though because it is voluntary, the impact has not been as widespread as with forced busing. However, this approach is now also under legal attack. White parents whose children have been denied an opportunity to attend the magnet or exam school of their choice, due to the affirmative actions taken to enroll more students of color, have challenged the use of race as a criteria for selection.
³⁴

Consider the case of the Boston Latin School, one of three selective exam schools in the Boston public school system. Prior to 1998, admission to Boston Latin was determined using a formula based on previous grades, test scores, and race, with the goal of ensuring a racially balanced program. When a White family whose child had been denied admission made a claim of discrimination because her test scores were higher than some Black students who had been admitted, a federal court ruled that race could not be used as an admission factor. In the years since that ruling, Black and Latino enrollment at the Boston Latin School has dropped dramatically. Although Black and Latino students make up more than 75 percent of the Boston school population, they made up less than 16 percent of students enrolled at the Boston Latin School, down from 27 percent in 1998–99, the last academic year that race was used as a factor in admissions.
³⁵

However, in June 2003 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race in its admission process—the case of
Grutter v. Bollinger
³⁶
—the Court acknowledged the compelling educational interest the law school had in maintaining a diverse student body. It recognized the extensive social science research that was submitted by the university, and in amicus briefs citing the benefits associated with greater diversity—such as increased cross-racial understanding, reduction in stereotyping, more diverse perspectives in classroom discussion, and better preparation for life and leadership in an increasingly diverse society.

The
Grutter v. Bollinger
decision, in combination with the
Gratz v. Bollinger
undergraduate admissions case,
³⁷
clarified what was permissible for higher education admissions policies, but how the Court’s ruling might apply to K–12 public school assignment policies is still being determined. In
McFarland v. Jefferson County Public Schools
, the first K–12 case following the
Grutter
decision, the federal district court endorsed the consideration of race in making school assignments, in order to preserve the gains of desegregation in Jefferson County, Kentucky.
³⁸
However, at the time this book went to press in early 2007 the Supreme Court was considering two cases focused on the constitutionality of such race-conscious school assignment policies,
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
and
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education et al
.

As was true in the case of
Grutter v. Bollinger
, corporate leaders and social scientists alike have filed “friend of the court” briefs in support of voluntary integration policies, highlighting the benefits to students who attend racially mixed schools and the harms incurred, particularly upon students of color, when they are confined to racially isolated schools.
³⁹
Despite the compelling social science research in support of voluntary integration programs, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has advocated for the elimination of race as a criteria for assignment in public school programs.

The current composition of the Supreme Court, made more conservative by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2005 and the appointment of Justice Samuel Alito in 2006 by President George W. Bush, increases the possibility that the Court may side with the Department of Education and rule that any use of race as a selection criteria is unconstitutional. Such a ruling will undoubtedly lead to the rapid unraveling of voluntary integration plans, with few if any alternatives left to try.

One intriguing alternative was implemented in 2000 in the Wake County Public School System in North Carolina, a district that includes the capital city of Raleigh. Recognizing that race-conscious school assignments were in jeopardy, the school board decided to eliminate all references to race and ethnicity in its assignment policies, and adopted the use of school assignments on the basis of family income and student achievement level. Instead of keeping track of race in school assignments, a practice that was becoming a lightning rod for lawsuits across the country, the school board voted to limit the concentration in any school of poor students (percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch will be no higher than 40 percent) and of low-achieving students (percentage of students scoring below grade level should be no higher than 25 percent, averaged across a two-year period). Although initially accused of using socioeconomic status as a proxy for race, the Wake County Public School System successfully defended its new race-neutral policy, and at the same time ensured that the schools did indeed remain racially and ethnically diverse and avoided the concentration of poverty so often associated with resegregation. In the years since the 2000 decision, the achievement of low-income students has improved in both reading and math, as measured by student performance on state examinations. The apparent success of this new approach has not been without challenges, and the potential flight of middle-income parents in response to increasing low-income students in their local schools is an ongoing concern. Nevertheless, the Wake County Public School System approach is an example worthy of further study.
⁴⁰

Beyond this innovation, there seems little else to do to preserve racial diversity in schools except to encourage the residential integration of neighborhoods. However, according to a comprehensive study conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2000, while housing discrimination has declined generally since HUD conducted its last survey in 1989, it still persists at what the report calls “unacceptable levels” for both Black and Hispanic prospective homebuyers as well as renters, and geographic steering of Black potential homebuyers seems to be on the rise.
⁴¹
Asian Americans also experience housing discrimination, though less frequently than Blacks and Hispanics. Given this current reality, we cannot expect the composition of our neighborhoods to alter the composition of our schools anytime soon. Therefore, educators must be intentional in working to address the limitations created by racial isolation in our elementary and secondary public schools.

What must we do? In particular, White children will need to be in schools that are intentional about helping them understand social justice issues like prejudice, discrimination, and racism, empowering them to think critically about the stereotypes to which they are exposed in the culture. Such tools will be needed to help them acquire the social skills necessary to function effectively in a diverse world. These tools will also be essential to foster continued progress in a society still struggling to disentangle the racism woven into the fabric of its founding. The hopeful news is that there are teachers, principals, and school superintendents around the country who are making the effort to create antiracist classrooms and learning environments even when their classrooms are predominantly White,
⁴²
and there are resources available to help educators do this important work.
⁴³

Children of color who are in under-resourced, racially isolated schools also need such tools, as well as powerful advocates to ensure that they have committed and well-trained teachers, a challenging curriculum, and other educational resources needed to inspire their own striving for excellence. Providing these resources equitably is a daunting task, one that has never been accomplished in the history of education in the United States. The savage inequalities of school funding, so well documented by Jonathan Kozol, persist.
⁴⁴
Yet we fail at our own peril. Our ability to compete in a global economy is dependent on educating all of our students—including those students of color trapped in poverty—at a high level.

We know that the problem of concentrated poverty is difficult but not impossible to overcome, as we learn of educational leaders who have fostered high levels of academic achievement despite these well-known odds. Names like Jaime Escalante and Marva Collins have become synonymous with such success—but there are many less-celebrated educators who are engaging their students and producing positive results every day. Educational researchers such as Gloria Ladson-Billings, Michele Foster, Asa Hillliard, and others have documented their success.
⁴⁵

As we learn from these and other examples, I suggest that we also need in this period to pay close attention to what I call the ABC’s of creating inclusive learning environments—environments that acknowledge the continuing significance of race and racial identity in ways that can empower and motivate students to transcend the legacy of racism in our society even when the composition of their classrooms continues to reflect it. What do I mean by the ABC’s? I mean
A
,
affirming
identity;
B
,
building
community; and
C
,
cultivating
leadership. Let me briefly expand on each of these.