Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

School District Lines Stratify Educational Opportunity by Race and Poverty

  • Published:
Race and Social Problems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

School segregation has serious consequences for educational opportunity and success. Across the nation, school segregation by race and poverty is deepening and varies by state. Using data from the National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, this study explores the relationship between fragmentation—the degree to which metropolitan areas are split into many separate school districts—and segregation. Three measures of segregation—exposure, concentration, and evenness—are employed to analyze state- and metropolitan-level data between 1989 and 2010 in four states with different school district structures. Findings in this exploratory study indicate that states and metropolitan areas with more fragmented district structures are associated with higher levels of segregation. In comparison with the less fragmented states of North Carolina and Virginia, in the highly fragmented states of New York and New Jersey, the typical black and Latino student are exposed to smaller shares of white students, the typical white student is more isolated with other white peers, there are greater disparities in exposure to low-income students by race, the share of non-white segregated schools is substantially larger, and levels of multiracial unevenness are higher. (These states were selected from a set of in-depth state studies by the Civil Rights Project of the states from Maine to North Carolina; comparable data are not available for many other states.) Highly fragmented states and metropolitan areas with numerous small school districts cannot confront segregation by exclusively focusing their efforts within districts; in these areas, segregation is fundamentally occurring among districts rather than within districts. Instead, highly fragmented areas could use regional strategies, such as interdistrict transfer programs, regional magnet schools, and district consolidation, to make progress in desegregating their schools across school district lines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. Recent reports analyzing the states with the most severe segregation of blacks (New York) and Latinos (California) found clear relationships with residential segregation (Kucsera and Orfield 2014; Orfield and Ee 2014).

  2. North Carolina was a notable exception where there was a long-lasting state policy strongly supporting consolidation of districts within a given county. There have been consolidations in some Tennessee metros and in court decisions in metro Louisville, Kentucky, and Wilmington, Delaware.

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. E. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis: Which high schools produce the nation’s dropouts? In G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation crisis (pp. 57–84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff, K. (2008). School district fragmentation and racial residential segregation: How do boundaries matter? Urban Affairs Review, 44(2), 182–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borman, K. M., Eitle, T. M., Michael, D., Eitle, D. J., Lee, R., Johnson, L., et al. (2004). Accountability in a postdesegregation era: The continuing significance of racial segregation in Florida’s schools. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 605–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braddock, J. H., & McPartland, J. M. (1989). Social–psychological processes that perpetuate racial segregation: The relationship between school and employment desegregation. Journal of Black Studies, 19(3), 267–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696. (1974).

  • Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483. (1954).

  • Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (Eds.). (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T. (2004). After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education, Finance, and Policy, 6(3), 399–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, C. D., Bifulco, R., & Bell, C. (2011). Legally viable desegregation strategies: The case of Connecticut. In E. Frankenberg & E. DeBray (Eds.), Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation (pp. 131–150). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, R. L., & Mahard, R. (1983). The effect of research methodology on desegregation achievement studies: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 839–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, M. N. (1976). The politics of exclusion. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, D. M. (1995). Reading, writing, and race: The desegregation of the Charlotte schools. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duncombe, W. D., & Yinger, J. M. (2010). School district consolidation: The benefits and costs. The School Administrator, 67(5), 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, S. (2001). The other Boston busing story: What’s won and lost across the boundary line. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, S., & Chirichigno, G. (2011). METCO merits more: The history and status of METCO. Boston, MA: Pioneer Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberg, E. (2009). Splintering school districts: Understanding the link between segregation and fragmentation. Law and Social Inquiry, 34, 869–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberg, E. (2013). The promise of choice: Berkeley’s innovative integration plan. In G. Orfield & E. Frankenberg (Eds.), Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair (pp. 69–88). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, G. (2011). Hope and despair in the American city: Why there are no bad schools in Raleigh. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinan, M. (1998). Diversity effects on student outcomes: Social science evidence. Ohio State Law Journal, 59, 733–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, K. (2009). Student demographics, teacher sorting, and teacher quality: Evidence from the end of school desegregation. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(2), 213–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins v. Morris Township School District, 58 N.J. 483, 279 A. 2d. 619. (1971).

  • Kane, T., Staiger, D., & Samms, G. (2003). School accountability ratings and housing values. Brookings–Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2003, 83–137.

  • Kucsera, J., & Orfield, G. (2014). New York state’s extreme school segregation: Inequality, inaction and a damaged future. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurlaender, M., & Yun, J. (2005). Fifty years after Brown: New evidence of the impact of school racial composition on student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, 6(1), 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, R., & Welner, K. (2007). Race-conscious policies for assigning students to schools: Social science research and the Supreme Court cases. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1988). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67(2), 281–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickelson, R. A., Bottia, M. C., & Lambert, R. (2013). Effects of school racial composition on K-12 mathematics outcomes: A metaregression analysis. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 121–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickelson, R. A., & Heath, D. (1999). The effects of segregation on African American high school seniors’ academic achievement. The Journal of Negro Education, 68(4), 566–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickelson, R. A., & Nkomo, M. (2012). Integrated schooling, life course outcomes, and social cohesion in multiethnic democratic societies. Review of Research in Education, 36, 197–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickelson, R., Smith, S., & Nelson, A. (Eds.). (2015). Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: School desegregation and resegregation in Charlotte. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717. (1974).

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The condition of education 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G. (1996). Metropolitan school desegregation: Impacts on metropolitan society. Minnesota Law Review, 80(April), 825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G. (2001). Metropolitan school desegregation: Impacts on metropolitan society. In J. A. Powell, G. Kearney, & V. Kay (Eds.), In pursuit of a dream deferred: Linking housing and education policy (pp. 121–157). New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G., & Ee, J. (2014). Segregating California’s future: Inequality and its alternative 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2008). The last have become first: Rural and small town America lead the way on desegregation. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2013a). Experiencing integration in Louisville: Attitudes on choice and diversity in a changing legal environment. In G. Orfield & E. Frankenberg (Eds.), Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair (pp. 238–254). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (Eds.). (2013b). Educational delusions? How choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2014). Brown at 60: Great progress, a long retreat, and an uncertain future. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orfield, G., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Kucsera, J. (2014). Sorting out deepening confusion on segregation trends. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701. (2007).

  • Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424. (1976).

  • Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, K. J. R., Rodosky, R. J., Munoz, M. A., & Larsen, E. S. (2009). Integrated schools, integrated futures? A case study of school desegregation in Jefferson County, Kentucky. In C. E. Smrekar & E. B. Goldring (Eds.), From the courtroom to the classroom: The shifting landscape of school desegregation (pp. 239–269). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., & Firebaugh, G. (2002). Measures of multigroup segregation. Sociological Methodology, 32(1), 33–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., & Yun, J. (2002–2003). Integrating neighborhoods, segregating schools: The retreat from school desegregation in the South, 1990–2000. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1563–1596.

  • Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumberger, R. (2003). The causes and consequences of student mobility. The Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 6–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rusk, D. (1999). Inside game, outside game: Winning strategies for saving urban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. (2010). Five miles away, a world apart: One city, two schools and the story of modern educational inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sager, L. G. (1969). Tight little islands: Exclusionary zoning, equal protection, and the indigent. Stanford Law Review, 21(4), 767–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheff v. O’Neill, 238 Conn. 1. (1996).

  • Siegel-Hawley, G. (2014). Mitigating Milliken? School district boundary lines and desegregation policy in four southern metropolitan areas, 1990–2010. American Journal of Education, 120(3), 391–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann v. Charlotte-Meckenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1. (1971).

  • Swanson, C. B. (2004). Sketching a portrait of public high school graduation: Who graduates? Who doesn’t? In G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis (pp. 13–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tropp, L. R., & Prenovost, M. A. (2008). The role of intergroup contact in predicting children’s interethnic attitudes: Evidence from meta-analytic and field studies. In S. R. Levy & M. Killen (Eds.), Intergroup attitudes and relations in childhood through adulthood (pp. 236–248). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1977). Statement on metropolitan desegregation. Washington, DC: U. S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachter, S. M. (1990). The effects of land-use constraints on housing prices. Land Economics, 66, 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiher, G. R. (1991). The fractured metropolis: Political fragmentation and metropolitan segregation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1994). Perpetuation theory and the long-term effects of school desegregation. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 531–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, A. S., Warner, M., & Grzesikowski, C. (2013). The story of meaningful school choice: Lessons from interdistrict transfer plans. In G. Orfield & E. Frankenberg (Eds.), Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair (pp. 187–218). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yun, J. T., & Moreno, J. F. (2006). College access, K-12 concentrated disadvantage, and the next 25 years of education research. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Los Angeles, 8370 Math Sciences, Box 951521, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1521, USA

    Jennifer B. Ayscue & Gary Orfield

Authors
  1. Jennifer B. Ayscue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary Orfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer B. Ayscue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ayscue, J.B., Orfield, G. School District Lines Stratify Educational Opportunity by Race and Poverty. Race Soc Probl 7, 5–20 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-014-9135-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-014-9135-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation