Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Early last month, I posted on claims of a racially hostile environment at Boston Latin School, a prestigious public magnet school with a long history of attempts to diversify--some of which were thwarted by the courts. As a new story in Ebony details, however, the problem is structural and runs deeper than the particular environment at Boston Latin School or another other prestigious magnet school. As the push for extremely high performing magnet schools in our nation's largest cities has grown, access for minority students appears to have shrunk. This has generated OCR and other complaints in places like Richmond, Virginia and New York City. Those complaints allege that the disparate access and disparate impact of these schools' enrollment practices and criteria violate the Department of Education's Title VI regulations.
Paula Rogo writes:
Throughout the country, there are examples of magnet high schools that struggle with diversifying their student ranks. New York City’s high schools are notorious for their lack of diversity. In 2014, only five percent of seats at the eight magnet schools were offered to Black students and seven percent to Latinos in a melting pot city where 70 percent of all public school students are either Black or Latino. At Stuyvesant High School, arguably the best in the city, just three percent of available seats in 2014 went to Black and Latino students.
New York City’s use of a test-only admission process for specialty high schools is said to be part of the problem since this gives White, Asian and male students a significant advantage, says New York University Professor Sean Corcoran who worked on a recent study that measured whether replacing the admission test would add more diversity (the study concluded that it has no significant effect). Corcoran says, however, that unless school admission officers take on a more “holistic approach” that considers more than just scores, they will continue to have issues adding diversity to their student body.
Boston Latin for example uses test scores and grades for entry into the school, not taking into consideration where the prospective students are from nor if they have done their elementary and middle school years in the Boston Public School system. Nearly half the school is White as compared to the nine percent who are Black.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Harvard brought together various professors from its different colleges and departments to talk about their research on social and economic inequality. The conclusion spanning the various disciplines was that educational inequality is at the center of the problem of inequality in general. Ronald Ferguson, for instance, explained:
Education may be the key to solving broader American inequality, but we have to solve educational inequality first. Ferguson says there is progress being made, there are encouraging examples to emulate, that an early start is critical, and that a lot of hard work lies ahead. But he also says, "There's nothing more important we can do."
"The position of U.S. black students is truly alarming," wrote Fryer, the Henry Lee Professor of Economics, who used the OECD rankings as a metaphor for minority standing educationally. "If they were to be considered a country, they would rank just below Mexico in last place."
He and others point out that enormous strides in closing education gaps occurred between 1970 and 1990, but then the nation hit a plateau and has been stuck ever since. The effects of this plateau reverberate in various life opportunities. The explanation for the plateau is, in large part, the nation's backtracking on segregation and inequality. The trend, however, can be reversed. Roland Fryer, an economist at Harvard,
Monday, February 15, 2016
This from the National Coalition on School Diversity:
The National Coalition on School Diversity (www.school-diversity.org) applauds Acting U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr. for taking steps to address economic and racial isolation in American schools.
The Obama administration's 2017 budget, released yesterday, includes a $120 million request for “Stronger Together,” a new competitive funding program that would offer planning and implementation grants for voluntary, community-developed socioeconomic integration plans. According to the proposed budget, Stronger Together funds would support “comprehensive socioeconomic integration strategies,” to include: changes to attendance boundaries and student assignment policies; the establishment of schools that attract students from diverse backgrounds; community outreach and engagement efforts; faculty/staff recruitment, hiring, and training efforts; and activities designed to mitigate within-school segregation, etc.
We are also optimistic about the Administration’s requested budget increase for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, which would be set aside to fund “a new competition giving priority to applicants proposing to make socioeconomic diversity a central factor in their efforts to increase racial integration.” Our coalition members have long advocated for funding increases for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, and we continue to believe that efforts to promote racial and economic diversity should go hand in hand.
The Administration’s 2017 budget demonstrates a solid understanding of the research base that supports the use of integration strategies. Studies consistently show that racially, culturally, and socioeconomically diverse schools are strongly associated with a range of short and long term benefits for all racial groups. This includes gains in math, science, reading, and critical thinking skills and improvements in graduation rates. Research also demonstrates that diverse schools are better equipped than high-poverty schools to counteract the negative effects of poverty. Over the long-term, students who attend diverse schools are more likely than students from homogeneous schools to choose diverse colleges, neighborhoods, and workplaces later in life. They possess better critical thinking skills and analytical ability and are more likely to form cross-racial friendships.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Amy Stuart Wells, Lauren Fox, and Diana Cordova-Cobo have released a new report, How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms Can Benefit All Students, through The Century Foundation. Their introduction states:
A growing number of parents, university officials, and employers want our elementary and secondary schools to better prepare students for our increasingly racially and ethnically diverse society and the global economy. But for reasons we cannot explain, the demands of this large segment of Americans have yet to resonate with most of our federal, state, or local policymakers. Instead, over the past forty years, these policy makers have completely ignored issues of racial segregation while focusing almost exclusively on high-stakes accountability, even as our schools have become increasingly segregated and unequal.
This report argues that, as our K–12 student population becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, the time is right for our political leaders to pay more attention to the evidence, intuition, and common sense that supports the importance of racially and ethnically diverse educational settings to prepare the next generation. It highlights in particular the large body of research that demonstrates the importanteducational benefits—cognitive, social, and emotional—for all students who interact with classmates from different backgrounds, cultures, and orientations to the world. This research legitimizes the intuition of millions of Americans who recognize that, as the nation becomes more racially and ethnically complex, our schools should reflect that diversity and tap into the benefits of these more diverse schools to better educate all our students for the twenty-first century.
The advocates of racially integrated schools understand that much of the recent racial tension and unrest in this nation—from Ferguson to Baltimore to Staten Island—may well have been avoided if more children had attended schools that taught them to address implicit biases related to racial, ethnic, and cultural differences. This report supports this argument beyond any reasonable doubt.
In the forward to the report, Richard Kahlenberg emphasizes how timely and important the report is to moving forward an integration agenda:
Today, however, school integration—using new, more legally and politically palatable approaches—is getting a second look as an educational reform strategy.
For one thing, policymakers and scholars across the political spectrum are beginning to realize that ignoring the social science research on the negative effects of concentrated school poverty is not working to close large achievement gaps between races and economic groups. Diane Ravitch and Michelle Rhee—who represent opposite ends of our polarized debates over education reform—have both recently advocated new measures to promote school integration to raise the achievement of disadvantaged students.
What can give integration real political momentum, however, are not the documented benefits to low-income students, but the emerging recognition that middle- and upper-class students benefit in diverse classrooms.
Kahlenberg is not just blowing smoke. On Monday, Edweek reported that Secretary of Education, John King, and President Obama and proposing that Congress allocate new funding to help schools increase integration. Alyson Klein writes:
Monday, February 8, 2016
Celebrating the Brave Citizens of South Carolina Who Fought for Justice and Equality through the Briggs v. Elliott Litigation
On February 17, 2016, the historic Dock Street Theatre in Charleson will run a production of the play The Seat of Justice, which chronicles the story of Briggs v. Elliot, the South Carolina case that was consolidated as part of Brown v. Board of Education. This play will also count toward continuing legal education and feature a panel discussion led by SC Supreme Court Chief Justice Costa Pleicones and featuring US District Judge Richard Gergel and Circuit Court Judge Clifton Newman. The professional production features actors from New York and around the country.
For Information and to Reserve Your Seats, Contact Brian Porter, Director of Administration (843) 647-7373, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Friday, February 5, 2016
The United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent has released a statement regarding its recent visit to the United States. The visit heavily concentrated on the criminal justice system's treatment of African Americans, but it raised concerns regarding education several times. For instance, it wrote:
- The persistent gap in almost all the human development indicators, such as life expectancy, income and wealth, level of education and even food security, among African Americans and the rest of the US population, reflects the level of structural discrimination that creates de facto barriers for people of African descent to fully exercise their human rights.
- The cumulative impact of racially-motivated discrimination faced by African Americans in the enjoyment of their right to education, health, housing and employment, among other economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, has had serious consequences for their overall well-being. Racial discrimination continues to be systemic and rooted in an economic model that denies development to the poorest African American communities. More than ten million (26%) of African Americans remain mired in poverty and almost half of them (12%) live in what is known as “deep poverty”. The Working Group is particularly concerned about the fact that 48% of the households headed by African American women live under the poverty line.
- The zip code can determine to some extent the future development of young African Americans. People from Black poor neighbourhoods are more likely to face lower education achievements, more exposure to violence and crime, a tense interaction with the police, less employment opportunities, environmental degradation and low life expectancy rates as well.
OCR Finds Melrose Schools Failed to Adequately Respond to Teacher's Statement That a Student Should Not Act Like He Is on the "Plantation"
The Office for Civil Rights has completed its investigation of racial harassment in Melrose Public Schools in Massachusetts and entered into a settlement agreement with the school system. The investigation arose out of allegations that a teacher at Melrose Veterans Memorial Middle School had reprimanded an African American student and made a reference to "the plantation" or needing to "come back to the plantation." When meeting with the administration later, the teacher indicated she could not remember exactly what she said, but it was something to the effect of "don't talk to me like you're on a plantation." Of special note is also the fact that the student was attending Melrose as part of Boston's METCO program. The program allows students from the city to attend suburban schools, with the purpose being to increase diversity.
OCR investigated the matter and confirmed the incident. It found that the administration did not document the incident, but the did arrange a meeting in which the teacher would apologize to the student. In the meeting, the teacher "apologized for any misunderstanding that may have upset the Student, and she also told the Student that he should not feel subservient to her or demean himself, and described the Student's 'coming [teacher]' comment as akin to a remark that a 'slave' would make to a 'master.'"
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Boston Latin School is in the news again. Some of you may know it for its prestige, others for its tendency--good or bad--to be at the center of issues of race and education. The school's consideration of race in the 1990s led to the famed decision in Wessmann v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 1998). The court offered this background:
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Chicago Schools with the Most Disadvantaged Students Have the Most "Ineffective" Teachers, According to New Study
As detailed here, new teacher evaluation systems that measure teaching effectiveness based on students' achievement test scores are riddled with serious flaws. One of the most obvious is the likelihood that those systems will simply rate teachers with the weakest/most challenged students as the most ineffective. The hope of some, however, is that one might be able to demonstrate that districts are assigning teachers who are, in fact, the least effective to disadvantaged schools--a serious equity concern under both federal and state law. It is hard to say definitely which of these two possibilities a new study of Chicago schools reveals, but it tends toward the later. Either way, it is bad for Chicago Schools. The new study by the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research finds that:
teachers with the lowest scores on the REACH Students teacher evaluation system are overrepresented in schools serving the most disadvantaged students, while teachers with the highest observation scores are underrepresented in these schools.
The study uses data from the 2013-14 school year, which represents the first comprehensive snapshot of evaluation scores for Chicago Public School teachers under the new REACH Students teacher evaluation system. This includes value-added scores based on students’ gains on tests, as well as scores from observations of teaching practices in classrooms.
In 2007, mandatory desegregation ended in Wichita public schools. Under mandatory desegregation, 688 minority students were assigned to schools outside of their immediate neighborhood. In just seven years of post-desegregation policies, the number has fallen to 138. The result is that one in four Wichita schools are one-race schools. In 2013, the district applied for and received a magnet school grant from the U.S. Department of Education. The grant, however, has been far too narrow in scope to make a dent in the problem, which belies another problem: districts want to diversify through magnets, but federal funds are few and far between. In 2013, the Secretary made only 27 magnet school grants in 12 states. In fact, magnet school grants have been held flat for over a decade while funds for charters have increased exponentially.
This has lead the superintendent in Wichita to, in effect, try to make separate equal. Unfortunately, he, like many other policymakers, does not frame it that way or recognize the folly. Instead, "the superintendent, points to millions invested in new or expanded school buildings in northeast Wichita [(the minority community]. . . . Updated facilities, combined with standardized curriculum and professional development across the district, help ensure equity even if the racial balance at some schools is skewed." More here.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
The Every Student Succeeds Act's Random Additions: Charter Schools, Data Collection, Testing Limits, and Discipline
My prior post detailed the Act’s new approaches toward academic standards and accountability, teachers, funding, and the federal role in education. The Act also included some other important changes and additions that do not fit into those categories. These changes are one-offs that look like bones thrown to various different and competing constituencies (which is probably true of a few of the progressive changes I noted last time). In other words, they are pet projects that helped the bill get passed. These changes include for charter schools, data, test validity, test opt outs, and school discipline
The act includes new competitive priorities for charter school grants. For those unfamiliar with the term competitive priority, it means that states or districts that include certain policies in their competitive charter school grant application will receive extra points in the assessment of their plan. As a practical matter, it makes it far more likely that they will receive a grant. It also makes it highly unlikely that states and districts that do not include those policies will receive a grant. In short, they are implicit mandates for those who want money.
So what are these special charter school policies? They are exactly what charter advocates have been lobbying states to do, often with little success. The priorities are for states that increase the number of entities in the state that can authorize new charters, states that give charters per pupil funding equivalent to that in traditional public schools, and states that give more robust support for charters in need of facilities.
Nothing really changed for magnet schools, and that is the point. Magnet school financial support and policy has been stuck in neutral for nearly two decades. By comparison, this means magnet schools are moving backward while charters rush forward. There is, however, one potentially explicit retrogressive addition for magnets. The Act seemingly requires or strongly prefers socio-economic integration over any other form of integration. Socio-economic integration is, of course, immensely important. The point here is the attempt to take race off the board—a position that the Bush Administration took, that the Obama Administration eventually retracted, and that has now resurfaced.
The Act requires states to collect and submit far more detailed data, and the new data it seeks is important: funding and teachers. This will be a boon to researchers attempting to drill deeper into problems of resource inequity.
Valid Tests (Potential Bombshell)
A provision of Title I indicates that states can only use the mandated tests for purposes for which they are valid. To most, this may read as no more than technical jargon, but it is potentially the single most powerful provision in the bill for those who would seek to block the misuse of tests. As I detail here, the tests on which states rely to run their teacher evaluation systems (value added models and student growth percentiles) are not valid for those purposes. Others have also long raised validity problems with certain states use of high stakes tests for student graduation and promotion as well. Who knows whether this was Congress’s intent, but the Act certainly would appear to have the effect of preventing states from using standardized tests for illegitimate purposes. The question that remains is whether individual teachers or students could rely on this provision in litigation or whether it is up to the Secretary to enforce this provision through the administrative process.
The Act gives parents the right to opt their children out of standardized tests. Opt-outs were big news last year, as large percentages of students refused to take tests in New York and New Jersey and the states scrambled not knowing whether the Department would hold this against the states. The Act now specifically indicates that these opt-outs will not count against the state in determining the percentage of students who took the tests.
Discipline: Bullying and Suspensions
Finally, the Act gives a big boost to progressive discipline policy. Previously, there was no such thing as general federal authority in regard to discipline. The only foothold had been in regard to racial disparities in discipline (pursuant to Title VI). The Act now specifies that states’ plans should include policies to reduce bullying, suspensions, and averse responses to student misbehavior. The bullying provision is, likewise, significant because it is not limited gender or race based bullying--a big stumbling blocking in past enforcement efforts. To be clear, however, this discipline provision operates within the larger structure that offers states’ enormous autonomy in their plans and severely limits the Secretary’s ability to reject a state plan.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s 16th Annual Women and the Law Conference, Pursuing Excellence: Diversity in Higher Education, will be held Friday, February 5, 2016 at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California.
This conference brings together leading academics, educators, institutional leaders, and policy makers to examine how diversity in institutions of higher education affects and is inspired by students, faculty, and leaders. The conference will highlight a number of critically important topics including facilitating educational access for undocumented students, challenges to developing and nurturing a diverse educational environment, the importance of training students in professional programs (including medicine and law) to serve diverse populations, and challenges to affirmative action ranging from Prop 209 to the current U.S. Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas.
Professor Bryant Garth, Professor at UC Irvine School of Law and former Dean of Southwestern Law School and Indiana University School of Law, will deliver the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lecture. He continues in a long line of illustrious speakers who have been honored as the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lecturer, a lecture series Justice Ginsburg generously established for Thomas Jefferson in 2003.
Other speakers include: Toni Atkins, Speaker of the California Assembly; Susan Bisom-Rapp, Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Marisol Clark-Ibáñez, Professor of Sociology, Cal State University San Marcos; Youlonda Copeland-Morgan, Associate Vice Chancellor, Enrollment Management, UCLA; Meera E. Deo, Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law; Adrian Gonzales, Interim Superintendent/President and Vice President of Student Services, Palomar Community College; Vallera Johnson, Administrative Law Judge; Catherine Lucey, Professor and Vice Dean for Education, UCSF School of Medicine; Mary Ann Mason, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center on Health, Economic, and Family Security, UC Berkeley; Linda Trinh Vo, Professor of Asian American Studies, UC Irvine; Shirley Weber, California Assemblywoman, Chair of the Assembly Select Committees on Higher Education and Campus Climate, former President of the San Diego Unified School District; and Susan Westerberg Prager, Dean, Southwestern Law School, former Dean UCLA School of Law, former Executive Director and CEO of AALS.
For additional information and registration, visit: http://www.tjsl.edu/conferences/wlc/2016.
Monday, January 4, 2016
The New York Times took up the call for integration in New York City after the Civil Rights Project released a report in 2014 finding that New York's schools were among the most segregated in the nation. Since then, the city has passed legislation to monitor segregation in its schools and outline steps to address it. The City also now has access to grant funds from the state, which can be used to facilitate integration. Moving in that direction, the chancellor of the school system, Carmen Fariña, recent authorized seven city schools to establish admissions policies that would foster more diverse student bodies. While the City is owed a lot of credit for acknowledging the problem and responding to it in some way, its steps thus far are just drops in a large bucket of segregation. The next step is to fundamentally change the way students are assigned to schools in the city. Two members of the City Council are proposing just that, calling for controlled choice. Controlled choice would still allow families the opportunity to play a large role in determining where their children attend schools, but student demographics would also play a large roll. As a result, schools formerly closed off to some families would now be open and limits would be placed on schools becoming too isolated by any single demographic factor. Whether they can muster the political support to enact such a policy remains to be seen, yet two years ago, I never imagined the City would even be having the conversation.
For more on the proposal, see here.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Yesterday, Rebecca Klein published an excellent story exploring a bilingual program in Oregon that appears to be improving outcomes in all respects for all students involved. She writes:
Heritage Elementary School isn't a fancy private school, or even a public school nestled in an affluent suburb where parents pay high property taxes to give their kids a good education. It's part of the Woodburn School District, which has an expansive dual-language program although the vast majority of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.
Many students enter Woodburn schools without knowing any English, but can switch seamlessly between two languages by the time they leave.
And these students are not just bilingual. Woodburn students are also more likely to graduate from high school than students from districts with similar populations and levels of poverty, according to Chuck Ransom, the district's superintendent. Most importantly, they're more likely to continue on to higher education, which leads to better job opportunities and, ultimately, a better quality of life.
. . . .
But in 2014, Woodburn School District had the highest on-time high school graduation rate for Latino students in the state, and the second-highest graduation rate for students who weren't native English speakers. Its overall graduation rate fell within the top 10 percent of Oregon school districts.
In the decade since the district enacted its dual-language program, the gap in graduation rates between Woodburn's English language learners -- or ELLs -- and native English speakers has closed. Experts say that if implemented properly, dual language programs not only encourage students to appreciate other cultures as well as their own, but can even help desegregate districts where minority students and their white counterparts attend separate and unequal schools.
Just before the recession, I had a growing sense that programs like these were going to take off, as parental demand was increasing. Unfortunately, the recession promoted an isolationist mentality where communities tried to protect whatever they had and did not dare try something new--save the new curriculum and teacher evaluation policies the federal government was forcing on them. Klein's story suggests we may be returning to more sane times. Even in Columbia, South Carolina--not typically a leader on these issues--the district conducted a survey this past fall to test parental interest in starting a bilingual school in the near future. The district has relatively significant segregation challenges and this would be a significant step to begin addressing some of it.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Newark Settles Civil Rights Complaint Alleging School Closures Were Discriminatory, Reveals Lessons for Other Cases
The Advancement Project and Newark's Parents Unified for Local School Education filed a complaint with the the U.S. Department of Education challenging Newark's school closures. They alleged that the closures disproportionately affected minorities and students with disabilities and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Newark had closed several traditional public schools during the recession, consolidating them with other traditional public schools and/or replacing them with charters. OCR found that the closures did, in fact, disproportionately affect minorities and students with disabilities and did not produce the benefits that the district claimed was the basis for the closures in the first instance. Last week, Newark agreed to take remedial action. The problem, however, is that school closures cannot reasonably be reversed and Newark still got what it wanted. The remedial steps Newark now promises are relatively mild:
- Identify whether any transferring students have suffered any academic deficiencies and take steps to remedy them.
- Determine whether transportation issues affected the ability of transferring students to participate in extracurricular activities.
- Investigate where disabled transferring students were provided with appropriate special education and related aids and services in the receiving school; and if not, whether compensatory or remedial services are necessary.
Nonetheless, advocates saw this as a victory, as they should. A similar and more aggressive and disproportionate set of closures occurred in D.C. in recent years, but the challenge to them failed. As my earlier blog post noted:
In DCPS schools as a whole, 68.4% of students are black; 13.8% are Hispanic; 3.7% are Asian, other, or unknown; and 9.2% are white. In the schools slated for closure, by contrast, 93.7% of students are black; 5.9% are Hispanic; 0.4% are Asian, other, or unknown; and less than 0.1% (2 out of 3053) are white. The figures skew similarly, if less starkly, for disabled students: 27.7% of students in the closing schools are in special education, versus 14.2% of students in DCPS overall."
There, advocates filed suit in federal district court seeking an injunction, but the court denied their injunction and dismissed the case. Thus, by rough comparison, the Newark decision is enormous.
One analytical difference also bears emphasis. OCR evaluated the efficacy of the closures after the fact, which allowed it to find that the justifications for the closures had proven flawed. In D.C., plaintiffs sought to block the closures earlier and argued, based on social science and expert opinion, that the closures would harm students and not produce the benefits the district claimed to seek. The district court, however, ignored these prospective claims and assumed the District's goals to be valid. I have not seen any subsequent research confirming or rejecting plaintiffs factual allegations, but to the extent their factual allegations were not novel, it raises the question of whether courts should take social science and expert opinions more seriously in similar cases. Newark's experience suggests they should.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
I cannot recall any week, much less a single day, in education that carried two events as momentous as yesterday. The Senate passed the rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) by a vote of 85-12, which sends the bill to the President's desk, who will unquestionably sign it. At long last, No Child Left Behind will be no more. I will have far more to say on the substance of the bill in the coming weeks and months ahead. For now it suffices to say that if NCLB and the Secretary's waivers federalized education, this new bill has defederalized it. That is not to say that change was not in order. It is to say that this change significantly changes the federal role in education.
While Congress was signing off on the ESEA, the Supreme Court was arguing over the future of affirmative action in education, and I do mean the Supreme Court was arguing, not just the litigants. Apparently, the Chief Justice felt compelled to cut Justice Sotomayor's questioning off twice because she was not permitting Fisher's attorney to finish his response to questions. Given how Fisher I turned out, I will not attempt to read the tea leaves. I will only say that I thought the demise of affirmative action was greatly exaggerated in advance of that case. I have faith the same is true this time. That does not mean, however, the result in the case will be satisfactory. I doubt that even more. I would expect a compromise as tortured as the one we see in the ESEA rewrite. Read the oral argument transcripts here.
Fifth Circuit Rejects Claims That District Disproportionately Funneled At-Risk Students to Minority Schools
The Fifth Circuit recently decided Lewis v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., the contentious school rezoning case that we discussed on the blog last year when it was headed to trial. To recap, plaintiff Darrin Lewis challenged a Louisiana school board's rezoning plan (called Option 2f) that assigned a disproportionate number of at-risk students to Lewis' children's school, East Ascension High School, the only majority nonwhite and majority at-risk high school in the district. (East Ascension was projected to have 57% at-risk enrollment, more than twice the at-risk enrollment at nearby majority-white schools.) Lewis argued that the board's feeder plan deprived Ascension students of educational opportunities afforded to non-minority students. In its November decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's judgment for the school board, which concluded that the plan was facially race neutral because Lewis did not make a threshold showing that the redistricting plan treated similarly situated students of different races differently and failed to establish that the plan had a discriminatory effect. The Fifth Circuit focused on Lewis' two primary arguments: that "Option 2f was subject to strict scrutiny (1) because it contains explicit racial classifications, and, alternatively, (2) because its funneling feature was motivated by racial animus and had a disproportionately adverse impact on nonwhite students in the East Ascension feeder zone."
Resolving the first argument, the Fifth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the Third and Sixth Circuits that school zoning plans that assigns students based on their home addresses "is facially race neutral, and the rezoning body’s consideration of demographic data in drawing the relevant geographic boundaries does not amount to making an express classification." In doing so, the Fifth Circuit distinguished Ascension Parish's plan from that would be subject to strict scrutiny, such as the one in Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), because in Parents Involved, in which officials explicitly considered race and the overall racial makeup of the school when making student assignments. TAlthough the Ascension district considered racial demographics and desired to maintain unitary status through racial balancing, the court concluded that the district's decision was not explicitly based on race and thus was subject to rational basis rather than strict scrutiny review. The circuit court also rejected Lewis' argument that the redistricting plan’s feeder plan was subject to strict scrutiny review because it had both a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory effect. The court found that Lewis' evidence that the percentage of at-risk students in the East Ascension feeder zone increased after Option 2f was insufficient to show either discriminatory purpose or effect. Lewis v. Ascension Parish Sch. Bd., No. 15-30030 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2015) is here.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
For those who missed the National Coalition on School Diversity's recent conference, "21st Century School Integration: Building the Movement for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," the Poverty and Race Research Action Council has published a set of articles and essays that further detail the major research and practical experiences revealed at the conference. They include
- Making School Integration Work in Integrated Schools
- Inviting NYC Students onto the Scene of School Integration
- Next Generation Schools in Maryland
- Embrace Race
- City Garden Montessori School in St. Louis: A Story of Education Reform, Gentrification, and Housing Advocacy
- Neighborhood Schools-An Etymology
Read the articles here.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Can Plaintiffs' Educational Adequacy Challenge to the Growing Hypersegregation in Minneapolis Reinvigorate a National Movement?
Plaintiffs in Minneapolis and Saint Paul have filed a lawsuit against the state, alleging that the racial and poverty segregation in the metropolitan area violates the state constitution's education clause, equal protection clause, and due process clause, as well as the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The state supreme court has previously recognized education as a fundamental rights. On that basis, plaintiffs challenged segregation in Minneapolis in 1995. The Supreme Court never reached the merits of whether the segregation violated the state constitution, but held that plaintiffs case could move forward to trial. Plaintiffs presented a sufficiently compelling case that the state settled the case and agreed to an integration remedy.
In recent years, however, segregation in the metropolitan area has dramatically increased, with little or no effort by the state to abate it. To the contrary, charter school and other attendance policies are making matters worse. While children of color and low income students are respectively only 29 and 38 percent of the state's overall school population, "the public schools of the City of Minneapolis are approximately 66 percent children of color and 64 percent free or reduced lunch; and the public schools of the City of Saint Paul are 78 percent children of color and 72 percent free or reduced lunch." The adjoining surrounding school districts, however, are "overwhelmingly white" and predominantly middle income. Moreover, within the city school districts themselves, the state has created predominantly white and middle income schools alongside hyper-segregated poor and minority schools. Plaintiffs allege that "[t]he segregation and hyper-segregation [in these schools] have been the result of boundary decisions by the Minneapolis and Saint Paul School Districts, made with the knowledge and consent of defendants, which have had both the purpose and effect of creating and increasing segregation of the Minneapolis and Saint Paul public schools by race and socioeconomic status."
Charter schools, in particular, seem to have been the means to exacerbate segregation:
The Twin Cities metropolitan area now contains 131 charter schools, over 80 percent of which are segregated by race, socioeconomic status, or both. [Nearly seventy charter schools] are either more than 95 percent students of color or more than 80 percent white students. Nearly a third (42 of 131) of charters in the Twin Cities are more than 95
percent students of color. In addition, there is a growing pattern in the suburbs of predominantly white charter schools locating near more racially diverse traditional schools. In 2013, 67 percent of suburban charters (32 out of 48 schools) were predominantly white (defined as more than 80 percent white students) compared to just 44 percent of traditional schools in the suburbs. More than half of predominantly white suburban charters were located in the attendance areas of traditional schools that were significantly more racially diverse. This figure has nearly tripled in the previous five years.
This case is, of course, Minnesota's version of the Sheff v. O'Neill litigation in Connecticut, which produced the first and only state supreme court decision holding that racial segregation--even if de facto--denied students equal educational opportunity under the state constitution. The remedies in Sheff have garnered significant attention over the past year or so, with the New York Times criticizing the state of New York for its failure to replicate Connecticut's common sense remedies to address New York's hyper-segregation. Were Minnesota's supreme to eventually become the second state supreme court to formally validate the theory in Sheff it would go a long way to speeding along a movement two decades in the making. It is also worth noting that charter schools were not around in any real sense when Sheff was decided, but magnet schools were. Those consciously pro-integration magnet schools of choice have been the central means of integrating schools in Connecticut, whereas Minnesota's integration-agnostic charters of choice have become a major tool of segregation.
Get the full complaint here: Download Minnesota Complaint