Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 805–832 | Cite as

Neighborhood Priority or Desegregation Plans? A Spatial Analysis of Voting on San Francisco’s Student Assignment System

Original Research

Abstract

In 2011, San Francisco held an unprecedented citywide vote on its public schools’ student assignment policy. Proposition H provides a unique opportunity to learn more about the public’s desire for “neighborhood schools,” as compared to their interest in maintaining districtwide desegregation efforts. This paper takes the approach of applying geographic information system tools and regression analysis to understand the relationships between neighborhood, race, income, and attitudes toward student assignment systems. By comparing the election results with demographics and school quality data, we identify patterns of support for the narrowly defeated proposition. Support for a shift toward neighborhood-based schools was higher in census tracts with high-performing schools, more school age children, high median income, or a large fraction of foreign-born residents, and lower in tracts with a high percentage of Latinos. The shifting race- and class-based politics of the city foreshadow expected demographic shifts in the US.

Keywords

Educational equity Segregation Student assignment policies School choice 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by a Holmgren Faculty Development Grant at Mills College. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of graduate student researchers Rachel Trusty and Caitlin Palmer and summer research assistants Elizabeth Welsh, Jodessa Lanzaderas, and Toni Gomez. Myong Leigh, Orla O’Keefe, Ingrid Seyer-Ochi, and Eirik Evenhouse provided helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper.

Supplementary material

11113_2017_9435_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (52 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 52 kb)

References

  1. Abdulkadıroğlu, A. (2013). School choice. In N. Vulkan, A. E. Roth, & Z. Neeman (Eds), The handbook of market design (pp 138–169). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570515.001.0001/acprof-9780199570515-chapter-6.
  2. Abdulkadiroglu, A., & Sönmez, T. (2003). School choice: A mechanism design approach. The American Economic Review, 93(3), 729–747. doi: 10.1257/000282803322157061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, R., & Burgess, S. (2013). Evaluating the provision of school performance information for school choice. Economics of Education Review, 34(June), 175–190. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archbald, D. A. (2004). School choice, magnet schools, and the liberation model: An empirical study. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 283–310. doi: 10.1177/003804070407700402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betts, J. R. (2005). The economic theory of school choice. Getting choice right: Ensuring equity and efficiency in education policy (pp. 14–39). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  6. Betts, J. R., & Loveless, T. (2005). Getting choice right: Ensuring equity and efficiency in education policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  7. Betts, J. R., Rice, L., Zau, A. C., Emily Tang, Y., & Koedel, C. R. (2006). Does school choice work? Effects on student integration and achievement. San Francisco: PPIC Publication. http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=460
  8. Bifulco, R., Ladd, H. F., & Ross, S. L. (2009). Public school choice and integration evidence from Durham, North Carolina. Social Science Research, 38(1), 71–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Billingham, C. (2015). Parental choice, neighbourhood schools, and the market metaphor in urban education reform. Urban Studies, 52(4), 685–701. doi: 10.1177/0042098014528395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boston Public Schools. (2014). Student assignment policy. http://bostonpublicschools.org/domain/219.
  11. Brown University. (2010). Residential segregation measures, city data. In US 2010 discover America in a new century: American communities project. http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/segregation2010/Default.aspx.
  12. Burgess, Si., & Briggs, A. (2010). School assignment, school choice and social mobility. Economics of Education Review, 29(4), 639–649. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Capps, R., Fix, M. E., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Hernandez, S. H. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the no child left behind act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/new-demography-americas-schools.
  14. CDE. (2012). CalEdFacts: The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Sacramento: California Department of Education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pa/cefpsaa.asp
  15. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, W. A. V. (1987). Demographic change, attendance area adjustment and school system impacts. Population Research and Policy Review, 6(3), 199–222. doi: 10.1007/BF00122782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, W. A. V. (1988). Understanding residential segregation in American cities: Interpreting the evidence. Population Research and Policy Review, 7(2), 113–121. doi: 10.1007/BF00125463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, W. A. V., & Maas, R. (2012). Schools, neighborhoods and selection: Outcomes across metropolitan Los Angeles. Population Research and Policy Review, 31(3), 339–360. doi: 10.1007/s11113-012-9234-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coffee, A., & Frankenberg, E. (2009). Districts’ integration efforts in a changing climate two years after the PICS decision. In The civil rights project at UCLA. http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/districts-integration-efforts-in-a-changing-climate-two-years-after-the-pics-decision.
  20. Cohn, D. (2015). Future immigration will change the face of America by 2065. Pew Research Center, October 5. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/05/future-immigration-will-change-the-face-of-america-by-2065/.
  21. Crawford, C. A. G., & Young, L. J. (2004). A spatial view of the ecological inference problem. In G. King, O. Rosen, & M. Tanner (Eds) Ecological inference new methodological strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511510595.012.
  22. Croft, M., Greene, J., Loveless, T., Bentley MacLeod, W., Nechyba, T., Peterson, P., et al. (2010). Expanding choice in elementary and secondary education. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/02/02-school-choice.
  23. De la Roca, J., Ellen, I. G., & O’Regan, K. M. (2014). Race and neighborhoods in the 21st century: What does segregation mean today? Regional Science and Urban Economics, SI: Tribute to John Quigley, 47(July), 138–151. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DeBray, E., McDermott, K. A., Frankenberg, E., & Blankenship, A. (2012). Lessons from a federal grant for school diversity: Tracing a theory of change and implementation of local policies. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. http://works.bepress.com/kathryn_mcdermott/3/.
  25. Delmont, M. (2016). Why busing failed: Race, media and the national resistance to school desegregation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520284258.
  26. Department of Elections. (2011). Text of Proposition H: Quality neighborhood schools for all. City and County of San Francisco. http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/2011StudentAssignmentSystem.pdf.
  27. Department of Elections. (2016). November 8, 2016 official election results. City and County of San Francisco. http://www.sfelections.org/results/20161108/.
  28. Diem, S. (2015). Seeking diversity: The challenges of implementing a race-neutral student assignment plan in an urban school district. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(7), 842–867. doi: 10.1080/09518398.2015.1023231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dobbie, W., & Freyer, R. G. (2011). Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(3), 158–187. http://www.jstor.org.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/stable/41288642.
  30. Egan, T. (2005). Vibrant cities find one thing missing: Children. New York Times, March 24.Google Scholar
  31. Faught, J., & Hunter, M. (2012). Latinos and the skin color paradox: Skin color, national origin, and political attitudes. The Sociological Quarterly, 53, 676–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Figlio, D. N., & Lucas, M. E. (2000). What’s in a grade? School report cards and house prices. Working Paper 8019. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w8019.
  33. Frankenberg, E. (2013). The role of residential segregation in contemporary school segregation. Education and Urban Society, 45(5), 548–570. doi: 10.1177/0013124513486288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Freedman, D. A., Klein, S. P., Sacks, J., Smyth, C. A., & Everett, C. G. (1991). Ecological regression and voting rights. Evaluation Review, 15(6), 673–711. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9101500602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frey, A., & Wilson, M. (2009). The resegregation of public schools. Children and Schools, 31(2), 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gaddis, S. M., & Lauen, D. L. (2014). School accountability and the Black–White test score gap. Social Science Research, 44(March), 15–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Galster, G. (1988). Residential segregation in American cities: A contrary review. Population Research and Policy Review, 7(2), 93–112. doi: 10.1007/BF00125462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Goldring, E., Cohen-Vogel, L., Smrekar, C., & Taylor, C. (2006). Schooling closer to home: Desegregation policy and neighborhood contexts. American Journal of Education, 112(3), 335–362. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/500712.
  39. Hannon, J. T. (1984). The influence of Catholic schools on the desegregation of public school systems: A case study of White flight in Boston. Population Research and Policy Review, 3(3), 219–237. doi: 10.1007/BF00128461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hastings, J. S., & Weinstein, J. M. (2008). Information, school choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(4), 1373–1414. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2008.123.4.1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Henig, J. R. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hess, D. B. (2007). Transformation of spatial data to a new zone system: A survey of US metropolitan planning organizations. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(3), 483–500. doi: 10.1068/b32101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Holley-Walker, D. (2010). After unitary status: Examining voluntary integration strategies for southern school districts. North Carolina Law Review, 88(3), 877–910. http://www.nclawreview.org/2010/03/after-unitary-status-examining-voluntary-integration-strategies-for-southern-school-districts/.
  44. Hoxby, C. M. (2007). The economics of school choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kane, T. J., Staiger, D. O., & Riegg, S. K. (2005). School quality, neighborhoods and housing prices: The impacts of school desegregation. Working Paper 11347. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11347.
  46. Kane, T. J., Staiger, D., & Samms, G. (2003). School accountability ratings and housing values. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2003(1), 83–137. doi: 10.1353/urb.2003.0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kasman, M. E. (2014). School selection, student assignment, and enrollment in a school district with open enrollment and mandatory choice policies. PhD Dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Graduate School of Education. https://purl.stanford.edu/xr729vf1714.
  48. King, G. (1997). A solution to the ecological inference problem: Reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Knight, H. 2012. Families’ exodus leaves S.F. with lowest pct. of children in U.S. www.SFGate.com, March 9. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/08/MNQ91NI428.DTL.
  50. Ladd, H. F., Fiske, E. B., & Ruijs, N. (2009). Parental choice in the Netherlands: Growing concerns about segregation. Vanderbilt University. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/conference/papers/Ladd_COMPLETE.pdf.
  51. Lapkoff and Gobalet Demographic Research. (2002). Demographic analyses and enrollment forecasts: San Francisco Unified School District. http://www.demographers.com/SANFRANEXECSUMLETTERHEAD.pdf.
  52. Liu, B. (2007). EI extended model and the fear of ecological fallacy. Sociological Methods and Research, 36(1), 3–25. doi: 10.1177/0049124106295797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Loeb, S., Valant, J., & Kasman, M. (2011). Increasing choice in the market for schools: Recent reforms and their effects on student achievement. National Tax Journal, 64(1), 141–163. doi: 10.2307/41862562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lubienski, C., & Dougherty, J. (2009). Mapping educational opportunity: Spatial analysis and school choices. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 485–491. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599783.
  55. McDermott, K., Debray, E., & Frankenberg, E. (2012). How does parents involved in community schools matter? Legal and political influence in education politics and policy. Teachers College Record, 114(12), 1–39.Google Scholar
  56. McDermott, K., Frankenberg, E., & Diem, S. (2015). The ‘Post-Racial’ politics of race: Changing student assignment policy in three school districts. Educational Policy, 29(3), 504–554. doi: 10.1177/0895904813510775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morrison, P. A. (1996). Forecasting enrollments during court-ordered desegregation. Population Research and Policy Review, 15(2), 131–146. doi: 10.1007/BF00126131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Neely, F., Cook, C., & Blash, L. (2006). An assessment of ranked-choice voting in the San Francisco 2005 election. Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University. http://online.sfsu.edu/fneely/SFSU-PRI_RCV_final_report_July_17_2006.pdf.
  59. OERI. (1992). Getting started: How choice can renew your public schools. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Programs for the Improvement of Practice.Google Scholar
  60. Openshaw, S. (1984). Ecological fallacies and the analysis of areal census data. Environment and Planning A, 16(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Orfield, G. (2013). Choice and civil rights: Forgetting history, facing consequences. In G. Orfield & E. Frankenberg (Eds.), Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair (pp. 3–34). Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Orfield, G., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Kucsera, J. (2014). Sorting out deepening confusion on segregation trends. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/sorting-out-deepening-confusion-on-segregation-trends/Segregation-Trends-Dispute-CRP-Researchers.pdf.
  63. Parcel, T. L., & Taylor, A. J. (2015). The end of consensus: Diversity, neighborhoods, and the politics of public school assignments. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pattillo, M. (2015). Everyday politics of school choice in the Black community. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 12(01), 41–71. doi: 10.1017/S1742058X15000016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Phillips, K. J. R., Larsen, E. S., & Hausman, C. (2015). School choice & social stratification: How intra-district transfers shift the racial/ethnic and economic composition of schools. Social Science Research, 51(May), 30–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Quillian, L. (2002). Why is Black–White residential segregation so persistent? Evidence on three theories from migration data. Social Science Research, 31(2), 197–229. doi: 10.1006/ssre.2001.0726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reardon, S. F., Grewal, E. T., Kalogrides, D., & Greenberg, E. (2012). Brown fades: The end of court-ordered school desegregation and the resegregation of American public schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(4), 876–904. doi: 10.1002/pam.21649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reardon, S. F., Yun, J. T., & Kurlaender, M. (2006). Implications of income-based school assignment policies for racial school segregation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 49–75. doi: 10.3102/01623737028001049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reback, R. (2008). Demand (and supply) in an inter-district public school choice program. Economics of Education Review, 4, 402–416. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ryan, J. E., & Heise, M. (2002). The political economy of school choice. The Yale Law Journal, 111, 2043–2136. http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-political-economy-of-school-choice.
  71. San Francisco Public Schools. (2012). Student assignment [1st] annual report: 2011–12. http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/enroll/files/2012-13/annual_report_march_5_2012_FINAL.pdf.
  72. San Francisco Public Schools. (2013). Student assignment [2nd] annual report: 2012–13 School year. http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/enroll/files/2013-14/2nd_annual_report_april_17_2013.pdf.
  73. San Francisco Public Schools. (2015). Student assignment 4th annual report: 2014–15 School year. http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/enroll/files/2015-16/4th-annual-report-april-8-2015.pdf.
  74. Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2002). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schuessler, A. A. (1999). Ecological inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA, 96(19), 10578–10581. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.19.10578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Scott, J., & Quinn, R. (2014). The politics of education in the post-Brown era race, markets, and the struggle for equitable schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 749–763. doi: 10.1177/0013161X14551983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Seelye, K. Q. (2013). Boston schools revise’ 70s busing system. The New York Times, March 14, sec. Education. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/education/boston-schools-adopt-new-placement-plan-for-students.html.
  78. SFUSD. (2011). District API reaches 796 as three-quarters of schools meet school-wide targets. Press release. San Francisco Unified School District. http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/news-and-calendars/files/archives/8%2031%2011%20District%20API%20Reaches%20796.pdf.
  79. SFUSD. (2012). District receives academic performance index of 807. Press release. San Francisco Unified School District. http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/news-and-calendars/files/archives/10%2010%2012%20District%20API%20Exceeds%20State%20Target%20at%20807.pdf.
  80. Shively, W. P. (1969). ‘Ecological’ inference: The use of aggregate data to study individuals. The American Political Science Review, 63(4), 1183. doi: 10.2307/1955079.Google Scholar
  81. Smith, J. A. (2015). As parents get more choice, S.F. Schools resegregate. San Francisco Public Press, February 2. http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2015-02/as-parents-get-more-choice-sf-schools-resegregate.
  82. Sohoni, D., & Saporito, S. (2009). Mapping school segregation: Using GIS to explore racial segregation between schools and their corresponding attendance areas. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 569–600. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599782.
  83. Taylor, Jr., H. L., McGlynn, L., & Gavin Luter, D. (2013). Back to the future: Public schools as neighborhood anchor institutions. In K. L. Patterson & R. M. Silverman (Eds), Schools and urban revitalization: Rethinking institutions and community development (pp 109–135). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  84. Toch, T., & Aldeman, C. (2009). Matchmaking: Enabling mandatory public school choice in New York and Boston. Education Sector: Ideas at work.Google Scholar
  85. Tucker, J. (2015). S.F. Board sticks with school-assignment system. San Francisco Chronicle, June 9. http://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/S-F-board-sticks-with-school-assignment-system-6317632.php.
  86. Van Hook, J., & Snyder, J. (2007). Immigration, ethnicity, and the loss of White students from California Public Schools, 1990–2000. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 259–277. doi: 10.1007/s11113-007-9035-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Walzer, M. (2008). Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  88. Welner, K. G. (2006). K-12 race-conscious student assignment policies: Law, social science, and diversity. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 349–382. doi: 10.3102/00346543076003349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Witte, J. F. (2001). The market approach to education: An analysis of America’s first voucher program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wright, R., Ellis, M., Holloway, S. R., & Wong, S. (2013). Patterns of racial diversity and segregation in the United States: 1990–2010. The Professional Geographer (online). doi: 10.1080/00330124.2012.735924.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsMills CollegeOaklandUSA
  2. 2.Public Policy ProgramMills CollegeOaklandUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyMills CollegeOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations