The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education A TALE OF TWO DISTRICTS HOW POLICY PERPETUATES AND PROLIFERATES DE FACTO SEGREGATION BETWEEN SUBURBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS A Dissertation in Education Leadership by Heather N. Bennett © 2017 Heather N. Bennett Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2017 The dissertation of Heather N. Bennett was reviewed and approved* by the following: Erica Frankenberg Associate Professor of Education Policy Studies Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee David A. Gamson Associate Professor of Education Policy Studies Maria M. Lewis Assistant Professor of Education Policy Studies Daniel Letwin Associate Professor of History Kevin Kinser Professor of Education Policy Studies Department Head, Education Policy Studies * Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Recent demographic shifts of minority and low-income populations to the suburbs have transformed metropolitan areas. However, such transformations have contributed to increasing racial and economic segregation between jurisdictions. This dissertation explores how housing and school district policies of two suburban school districts within an affluent northeast county function together to impact the racial and economic demographic shaping and segregation between these school districts. To better understand the role of policy in the increasing demographic shaping and segregation between northern metropolitan suburban school districts I examined two themes in the literature: the suburban construct as White spaces and the link between political fragmentation in metropolitan areas to education and residential segregation. This research was conducted as a sequential mixed method multiple embedded case study to answer the following question: How does housing and school policy function together to impact the racial and economic segregation between Lower Merion School District (LMSD) and Cheltenham School District (CSD) within Montgomery County, Pennsylvania? More specifically, how have school districts and municipalities’ housing and population demographics in Montgomery County changed between 1960-2014? and What federal, state, and local housing and school district policies and jurisprudence contribute to the demographic segregation between suburban school districts in Montgomery County, and how, respectively, do they do so? Currently, Lower Merion School District is a predominately White and affluent community, while Cheltenham School District is racially and socioeconomically diverse. Yet in 1960, both districts’ municipalities had a predominately White population (95-99%) and similar economic iv demographics. Examining these two districts provided an insight to how divergent goals, cultural purposes, and implementation of housing and education policies have contributed to the demographic trajectory of each suburban jurisdiction. Findings suggest that suburban municipalities practiced exclusionary policies to keep out minority and low- income populations from a demographically changing Philadelphia core. However, the cultural narrative of each municipality imparted different zoning and housing goals and policies that shaped the divergent demographics of each area. Lower Merion reflected a Main Line narrative, concentrated in the production of wealth and whiteness. Cheltenham’s narrative focused on creating a diverse community that emerged over time. The findings also suggest that the municipalities shape the geographic and cultural boundaries not the school districts in Pennsylvania. School districts are often reacting to demographic shifts predicated by municipality zoning choices, but they do mostly reinforce the cultural narrative of the municipality that include or exclude populations. Furthermore, the continued perception of quality suburbs as White spaces allows segregated schools and communities to persist. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... xii Chapter One ...................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Dissertation ...................................................................................................... 5 Overview of the Dissertation .................................................................................................... 6 Personal Journey to the Suburbs: Complexity of Choice ...................................................... 9 Chapter Two .................................................................................................................... 11 Review of the Literature ................................................................................................. 11 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 11 Background: De Facto is De Jure Segregation ..................................................................... 11 Government Policy Creates Racially Segregated Suburbs ................................................... 12 Education Jurisprudence Maintain Residential and Education Segregation ......................... 18 Perpetuation of White Privilege in Suburban Areas ........................................................... 22 Political Fragmentation Theoretical Framework ................................................................. 26 Defining Political Fragmentation.......................................................................................... 27 Suburban Political Fragmentation and Segregation .............................................................. 28 Jurisdictional Sorting Models Explains the Segregation Between Areas ............................. 30 Boundaries are Race Based Mechanisms ............................................................................. 35 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 37 Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 37 Chapter Three ................................................................................................................. 39 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 39 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 39 Time Frame ............................................................................................................................. 39 Selection of Sites for the Research ......................................................................................... 40 Montgomery County, Pennsylvania ..................................................................................... 41 New Suburban Metropolitan History: Methodological Framework .................................. 50 Research Design ...................................................................................................................... 51 Sequential Mixed Methods ................................................................................................... 51 Justification of Source Data Analyzed .................................................................................. 53 Quantitative Data .................................................................................................................... 54 Municipality Data ................................................................................................................. 54 School District Data .............................................................................................................. 57 Quantitative Analysis .............................................................................................................. 58 Qualitative Data ...................................................................................................................... 60 Documents ............................................................................................................................ 60 Interviews ............................................................................................................................. 67 vi Direct Observation ................................................................................................................ 69 Qualitative Analysis: Making Sense of the Quantitative Data ............................................ 69 Positionality Statement ........................................................................................................... 73 Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 79 Chapter Four ..................................................................................................................