Opinion
Law & Courts Commentary

The Future of Racially Integrated Schools

By Zoe Burkholder — May 26, 2010 5 min read

Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made it even harder to create racially integrated public schools in its decision on two closely related school integration plans in Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., which includes Louisville. The court effectively ruled that while it is acceptable for school districts to create a school-assignment plan that promotes “diversity,” it was illegal to define this diversity solely in terms of race. This created a real challenge for educators who believe that creating racially integrated schools is one of the most effective ways to promote educational equality for all children. The Supreme Court ruling presented a new challenge: How can communities promote racially integrated schools without considering students’ “race”?

Without carefully crafted school-assignment policies, a vast majority of American public schools would be racially segregated because of historic patterns of residential segregation. Well into the 1960s, it was difficult if not impossible for a black family to purchase or rent a house in a white neighborhood because of real estate practices, federal mortgage policies, and racial covenants that made it illegal to sell property to a nonwhite buyer. Racial segregation in our small towns and large cities is no accident, and it is not simply the result of individual preferences. It is the result of deliberate and potent racial discrimination, some of which, multiple studies demonstrate, still exists today.

Racial segregation in housing engendered segregation in our public schools, and in most cases schools that had a majority of black or Latino students were not equal to majority-white schools in tangible factors like per-pupil spending, academic resources, and experienced teachers. Thanks to deliberate school integration policies between 1965 and 1990, many American school districts achieved a remarkable degree of racial integration. This helped equalize educational opportunities for all students. Beginning in the early 1990s, however, the courts began to dismantle school integration plans, as white parents insisted that their children’s civil rights were being violated when they were assigned to schools outside their “neighborhood” that included more African-American and Latino children.

Despite the fact that public schools have been resegregating for more than 20 years, my two young children will attend racially diverse public schools in Montclair, N.J. Ordered to integrate its schools in 1967, Montclair created a magnet system in which each elementary school was assigned a special theme, such as science and technology or gifted and talented. Parents ranked their preferences for school assignment, and buses transported students to schools beyond walking distance. The district, meanwhile, kept tabs on each student’s race and was able to ensure that schools were racially balanced—in other words, that the proportion of students in each school generally reflected the broader racial demographics of our public school-age population. The result has been an integrated and highly successful school district for more than 30 years.

When the Supreme Court ruled against school integration plans like Montclair’s that promote racial balancing, the district was compelled to create a new assignment plan. Beginning this fall, a student’s individual race will no longer be a factor in school placement in Montclair. Instead, our town of roughly 40,000 people has been divided into three geographic zones that are weighted according to the following five factors: (1) median household income, (2) household poverty rate, (3) number of free and reduced-price lunch students, (4) parental education levels, and (5) neighborhood racial demographics.

According to sociologists, each of these five factors has a discernible impact on individual student academic achievement. When the school board combined all five factors and looked at this data spatially, it was easy to see how the data overlap and could be used to promote a new kind of diversity in our public schools that happens to correlate closely, but not exactly, to race.

As in the past, Montclair parents this year ranked their choices for school placement on their children’s kindergarten-registration forms. The school board will then consider the percentage of incoming kindergartners from each of three geographic zones and make school assignments so that each school has a balanced proportion of students from each zone. This means that when my daughter joins her big brother in public school, the district will not take her “race” into account as it assigns her to a school. Instead, she will be labeled as a resident of “zone C.” Nevertheless, the superintendent of schools believes that her classroom will be as racially diverse as the one her brother attends now.

As school districts nationwide revise their integration plans in the wake of the Seattle and Louisville cases, many people question the logic that says we cannot use students’ race to create racially integrated schools. In his dissent to the majority opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle (2007), Justice John Paul Stevens labeled the high court’s majority opinion a “cruel irony” because it so obviously undermined the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that outlawed racially segregated public schools in 1954. Similarly, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has argued that school administrators will be forced to “camouflage” their intentions to promote racial diversity if they are required to pursue race-blind admissions criteria in higher education.

It is far better, Ginsburg suggests, to acknowledge that we have a troubled national history that includes legally enforced racial discrimination not just in education, but also in housing, health care, and employment. According to Ginsburg, if integrating public education helps make up for past racial discrimination, then we should not hesitate to identify students on the basis of their race.

Creating more-equitable public schools is an evolving project in the United States, one that adapts not only to local pressures and Supreme Court rulings, but also to shifting demographics and changing student needs. The Montclair public schools have crafted a revised integration plan that takes all of these factors into account with the goal of creating an even more “diverse” school system than we had in the past. At the same time, we have created a plan that is neither race-blind, as Justice Ginsburg feared, nor dependent on race, as the Supreme Court recently outlawed. It is our hope that with a more nuanced definition of diversity, we can improve the academic achievement of all students in Montclair as part of a continuing effort to give all students the best education possible.

A version of this article appeared in the June 09, 2010 edition of Education Week

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
How Schools Can Implement Safe In-Person Learning
In order for in-person schooling to resume, it will be necessary to instill a sense of confidence that it is safe to return. BD is hosting a virtual panel discussing the benefits of asymptomatic screening
Content provided by BD
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
How Districts Are Centering Relationships and Systemic SEL for Back to School 21-22
As educators and leaders consider how SEL fits into their reopening and back-to-school plans, it must go beyond an SEL curriculum. SEL is part of who we are as educators and students, as well as
Content provided by Panorama Education
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Achievement Webinar
The Fall K-3 Classroom: What the data imply about composition, challenges and opportunities
The data tracking learning loss among the nation’s schoolchildren confirms that things are bad and getting worse. The data also tells another story — one with serious implications for the hoped for learning recovery initiatives
Content provided by Campaign for Grade-Level Reading

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts How a Cheerleader's Snapchat Profanity Could Shape the Limits of Students' Free Speech
Brandi Levy's social media post is the basis for a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on whether schools may punish off-campus speech.
9 min read
Image of Brandi Levy.
Brandi Levy, now an 18-year-old college freshman, was a cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania when she made profane comments on Snapchat that are now at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court case on student speech rights.
Danna Singer/Provided by the American Civil Liberties Union
Law & Courts Student School Board Members Flex Their Civic Muscle in Supreme Court Free-Speech Case
Current and former student school board members add their growing voices to a potentially precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court case.
7 min read
Image of the Supreme Court.
iStock/Getty
Law & Courts Justice Department Memo Could Stoke State-Federal Fights Over Transgender Students' Rights
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, a Justice Department memo says.
3 min read
Stephanie Marty demonstrates against a proposed ban on transgender girls and women from female sports leagues outside the South Dakota governor's mansion in Pierre, S.D. on March 11, 2021.
Stephanie Marty demonstrates against a proposed ban on allowing transgender girls and women to play in female sports leagues outside the South Dakota governor's mansion in Pierre, S.D.
Stephen Groves/AP
Law & Courts Diverse Array of Groups Back Student in Supreme Court Case on Off-Campus Speech
John and Mary Beth Tinker, central to the landmark speech case that bears their name, argue that even offensive speech merits protection.
5 min read
In this photo taken Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2013, Mary Beth Tinker, 61, shows an old photograph of her with her brother John Tinker to the Associated Press during an interview in Washington. Tinker was just 13 when she spoke out against the Vietnam War by wearing a black armband to her Iowa school in 1965. When the school suspended her, she took her free speech case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. Her message: Students should take action on issues important to them. "It's better for our whole society when kids have a voice," she says.
In this 2013 photo, Mary Beth Tinker shows a 1968 Associated Press photograph of her with her brother John Tinker displaying the armbands they had worn in school to protest the Vietnam War. (The peace symbols were added after the school protest). The Tinkers have filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a Pennsylvania student who was disciplined for an offensive message on Snapchat.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP