From Brown V. Board to Parents V. Seattle: the Future and Constitutionality of Desegregation in American Public Schools
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
W&M ScholarWorks Undergraduate Honors Theses Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 4-2008 From Brown v. Board to Parents v. Seattle: The Future and Constitutionality of Desegregation in American Public Schools Jeree Harris College of William and Mary Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses Recommended Citation Harris, Jeree, "From Brown v. Board to Parents v. Seattle: The Future and Constitutionality of Desegregation in American Public Schools" (2008). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 778. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/778 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Brown v. Board to Parents v. Seattle The Future and Constitutionality of Desegregation in American Public Schools A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Bachelors of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies from The College of William and Mary by Jeree Harris Accepted for ___________________________________ (Honors, High Honors, Highest Honors) ________________________________________ Christine Nemacheck, Director ________________________________________ Paul Manna ________________________________________ Anne Charity ________________________________________ Deenesh Sohoni Williamsburg, VA April 18, 2008 Harris 1 From Brown v. Board to Parents v. Seattle: The Future and Constitutionality of Desegregation in American Public Schools Page Table of Contents……………………………………………...…………………………… 1 Acknowledgements………………….………………………...……………………………. 3 Part I. School Desegregation from Brown v. Board Preface. School Integration in the 21st Century…………………...………….….…… 5 Chapter 1. Historical Perspective of School Desegregation Following Brown v. Board.9 Chapter 2. Principal Agent Theory and the Theory of the Constrained Court……… 22 Part II. School Integration since Parents v. Seattle Preface. Overview of Case Study Methods…………………….……………......…. 34 Chapter 3. Seattle School District No. 1 in Seattle, Washington……...............……. 43 Chapter 4. Lynn School District in Lynn, Massachusetts………..…………......…… 63 Chapter 5. Jefferson County School District in Louisville, Kentucky………............. 79 Chapter 6. Monroe County School Districts in Monroe County, New York……...… 93 Part III. The Future of School Integration in American Public Schools Preface: Conclusion……………………..……………………………..……..…… 108 Chapter 7. Race Neutral Alternatives: The Socioeconomic Integration Debate…...110 Harris 2 Appendix…………………..………………..…………………………………………….. 121 Table 1. School District Classroom Comparison for Seattle, Lynn, and Jefferson County Table 2. School District Community Comparison for Seattle, Lynn, and Jefferson County Table 3. School District Income Data for Seattle, Lynn, and Jefferson County Table 4. School District Race Data for Seattle, Lynn, and Jefferson County Table 5. Monroe County School Districts Classroom Comparison Table 6. Monroe County School Districts Community Comparison Table 7. Monroe County School Districts Income Data Table 8. Monroe County School Districts Race Data Table 9. Supreme Court Cases & Corresponding Desegregation Plans Table 10. Wake County Math Proficiency from 5th to 8th Grade Table 11. Wake County Reading Proficiency from 5th to 8th Grade Cases Cited….……………………….………………………………………………….… 128 References………………………….……………………………………………..………. 131 Harris 3 Acknowledgements I would like the thank Professors Christine Nemacheck, Paul Manna, Anne Charity, and Deenesh Sohoni for their insight and intellectual encouragement throughout the honors process. In addition, I would like to acknowledge Dean Joel Schwartz. His Sharpe course “Perspectives on Citizenship and the Community” shaped my educational experience at the College. I would be remiss if I did not thank my dearest friend Sarah Thomas for her endless support. She gave me the inspiration to keep writing during the difficult times, and just the right words to get me to stop writing all hours of the night. Finally, I reserve my greatest thanks for my mother and father, Cheryl and Michael Harris. My father’s stories about being bussed in the 60s as an elementary school student in Norfolk, Virginia inspired this research. He’s words continue to inspire my educational inquiry and interest in the impact of school integration. Harris 4 PART I. School Desegregation From Brown v. Board Harris 5 Preface: School Integration in the 21st Century We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Over fifty years ago, in Brown v. Board the U.S. Supreme Court recognized de jure1 segregation as inherently unequal, and impermissible under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The Court found education to be an effective tool for social mobility, and prized school desegregation as a means to create social equality. Nevertheless, de facto2 segregation persists in classrooms across the country. In 2005, approximately 48 million students were educated in America’s public school system. As Table A illustrates, minority students comprised over 42.4 percent of the system’s population, an increase in 20 percentage points since 1975. Table A3 Percentage distribution of total U.S. Public Elementary and Secondary School Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity 1975 1985 1995 2005 White 76.2 69.6 65.5 57.6 Black 15.4 16.8 16.9 15.6 Hispanic 6.7 10.1 14.1 19.7 Asian N/A N/A 2.3 3.7 American Indian N/A N/A 0.6 0.7 Other 1.7 3.5 0.6 2.7 1 De jure segregation is defined as segregation mandated by law. 2 De facto segregation is defined as segregation “by fact” that is the result of social or economic factors. 3 Source: “The Condition of Education.” Institute for Education Science. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2007. 122. Harris 6 Racial diversity in the overall composition of American public schools has increased over the last decade; however, the number of multiracial or integrated schools does not reflect this trend.4 Table B illustrates the racial composition of schools attended by the average white, black, Latino, Asian and American Indian student. White students are the most isolated in public schools. On average white students attend schools that are 77 percent white. Only 14 percent of white students attend multiracial schools. In addition, 2.4 million students, 1 in 6 black and Latino students, are hyper segregated, attending schools that are 99 to 100 percent minority.5 Table B6 2005-2006 Overall School Composition Attended by Average White, Black, Latino, Asian and American Indian Student represented by percent % White Black Latino Asian American Indian White Student 77 9 9 4 1 Black Student 30 52 14 3 1 Latino Student 27 12 55 5 1 Asian Student 44 12 21 23 1 American Indian 44 7 12 3 35 Brown was a landmark for school desegregation; however, the fulfillment of its promise is an elusive goal for educators and policy makers. Research on the Florida 4 “Looking to the Future: Voluntary K-12 School Integration,” NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 2005: 10. Multiracial is defined as schools with at least three races representing 10 percent of the total school population. 5 Ibid.10. 6 Gary Orfield and Chungmei Lee. “Historic Reversals, Accelerating Resegregation, and the Need for New Integration Strategies,” UCLA Civil Rights Project, 29 Aug. 2007, <http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/reversals_reseg_need.pdf> Harris 7 school system found that when controlling for expenditures, poverty levels, teaching quality, class size, and mobility of students, segregation was related to low pass rates on state tests for black students in isolated schools.7 The researchers concluded that, “segregated schools can be viewed as institutions of concentrated disadvantage, and that policies that attempt to resolve the achievement gap by funding equity or classroom size changes would probably fail if the segregation issue was not addressed.8 After decades of legal action to end school segregation the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 127 (2007), revealed a legal tide turning away from affirmative racial integration. Chief Justice Roberts and the majority struck down voluntary integration plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky. Their decision leaves thousands of school districts with difficult choices ahead concerning school desegregation efforts. In this thesis, I will address several questions developed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Parents v. Seattle, 551. U.S. 127 (2007). First, how will school districts facing increased resegregation respond or react to the Court’s decision to limit the use of race conscious criteria in school assignments? Second, how will the distant relationship between the U.S. Supreme Court and school districts impact how school districts decide to implement or not to implement integration plans? What incentives will school districts have to comply with the Court’s race neutral suggestions? Finally, in light of the Court’s decision, what other criteria will arise in the placement of school children in desegregation plans? Four case studies on the following districts: