Markers Honors 13 Courageous Memphis Schoolchildren

For the children who walk the halls of Bruce, Gordon, Rozelle and Springdale elementary schools, few know they follow in the footsteps of 13 of the smallest pioneers of Memphis civil rights history.

On Oct. 3, 1961, 13 African-American first-graders entered these four schools as the first students to desegregate Memphis City Schools. Today, historical markers will be placed at the four schools commemorating the steps of these children and the courage of their families to enroll them.

It is an important acknowledgment of these contributions to our community.

Unlike school desegregation in Little Rock four years earlier, the event in Memphis was orderly and did not make national headlines. Perhaps as a result, the Memphis 13 do not hold the same place in the national consciousness as do the Little Rock Nine. The Memphis 13 have not been honored at the White House or appeared with Oprah; rather, they have been recognized periodically, but have lived in relative anonymity in our community.

View the full article here....

No Caste Here? Toward a Structural Critique of American Education

In his famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that in the United States, there was “no caste here.” Justice Harlan was rejecting the idea that American society operated to assign preordained outcomes to individuals based upon classifications, including racial classifications. This Article questions whether Justice Harlan’s aspirational assertion accurately reflects contemporary American education. Identifying: (1) multiple classification mechanisms, all of which have disproportionate racial effects, and (2) structural legal, political, and practical impediments to reform, the Article argues that the American education system does more to maintain the nation’s historical racial hierarchy than to disrupt it. This is so, the Article suggests, despite popular agreement with the casteless ideal and popular belief that education can provide the opportunity to transcend social class. By building the framework for a broad structural critique, the Article suggests that a failure to acknowledge and address structural flaws will preclude successful comprehensive reform with more equitable outcomes.

This article appeared in the Penn State Law Review.  The full article is available here.

The Enduring Power of Milliken's Fences

Abstract: Using the experience of one community that has undergone a district line altering transformation as a case study, this article argues that endorsement from the state is an essential element for success in efforts to mitigate the educational inequities caused by district boundaries and then offers specific steps states can take to support such changes even without altering district boundaries. Part I will introduce the ways in which school district lines can serve as barriers to educational opportunities, and Part II will summarize several current educational reform proposals and trends that either have the intent or effect of weakening the power of district lines. Part III examines the rationale for the largely successful suburban resistance to district-weakening proposals, filling out the context in which conversations on these topics take place. The case study of the merger of urban and suburban school districts in Memphis and Shelby County, Tennessee will be introduced in Part IV. Utilizing the experience in Memphis and Shelby County, Part V will identify lessons learned from Memphis, focusing on the role of the state in assisting or obstructing elimination of interdistrict disparities, and Part VI will offer practical and politically viable suggestions that states can take to address these issues. Although the legal context was quite different, the practical landscape facing the merger process in Memphis was not unlike what Judge Roth found in Detroit four decades earlier. At issue remained questions about whether education should be considered a common undertaking for the entire metropolitan area it affects, or whether local control should be limited conceptually by existing district lines. If anything, the fences between urban and suburban districts have grown even stronger since the Supreme Court embraced them in Milliken. The lessons from this contemporary attempt to break down school district boundaries demonstrate just how strong those fences have become.

This article appeared in The Urban Lawyer.  The full article is available here.

Education Week: Memphis-Shelby Schools Merge Amid Uncertainty

While plans are forging ahead this summer for joining Memphis' 140,000-student school system with the surrounding suburban district, school officials also have to take into account the possibility that the unification might be temporary.

The Memphis and Shelby County, Tenn., districts officially merged July 1. For one year at least, the unified district will be the nation's 14th largest, and the planning for the merger has involved board members and district leaders from both legacy systems.

The merger stemmed from the city schools' desire to be more financially stable.

"The merger gave us the opportunity to identify inefficiencies. Our community had to come together to improve and invest in the schools," said Kenya Bradshaw, a fellow with the Minneapolis-based Policy Innovators in Education Network, who served on a transition planning committee for the new district.

However, several municipalities in the surrounding county will vote next month to determine whether new school districts will be carved out of the newly unified system starting in 2014-15. Differing racial demographics have also emerged as an issue.

Although district officials say the system is ready to open schools' doors in August, the possibility of those further changes has affected the planning, said Daniel Kiel, a law professor at the University of Memphis who also served on the transition planning committee.

"There's so much uncertainty about whether the new municipal districts are going to exist," he said.

Read the full article here.

The Endangered School District

The Endangered School District: The Promise and Challenge of Redistributing Control of Public Education

Abstract: One constant in American public education reform has been the existence of a single local entity – the school district – with operational responsibility. In some places, that is changing. Fueled by undercurrents in education reform such as the embrace of broader school choice and an increase in state involvement in local education, as well as federal political alignment supporting these undercurrents, some communities are embracing a radical structural reform that redistributes operational control across a series – or portfolio – of autonomous entities.

In such communities – typically large, urban school systems serving a student population that is largely poor and made up of minority students – the term “district” no longer applies. The broad, district-wide authority of a school board and superintendent is being dispersed to a variety of operators, including state education departments, private (i.e., charter school) operators, and the preexisting district itself. Each operator enjoys substantial or even total independence from other operators, generating an autonomy that has not existed within the traditional district structure.

The Endangered School District describes the causes and ramifications of such a substantial departure from the traditional district model and offers case studies from two communities – New Orleans, LA, and Memphis/Shelby County, TN – at the epicenter of urban education reform. Building on scholarship evaluating the theory of expanded school choice and operational autonomy, these case studies help demonstrate the practical challenges of applying these theories beyond isolated schools to entire educational communities.

There is great disagreement about the wisdom of transitioning toward a portfolio model for public education. The Endangered School District simply accepts the development as the emerging trend that it is and offers insight from two communities for making the most of such a radical structural change.

First, the article describes the undercurrents that are enabling the portfolio strategy and the ramifications – administrative, legal and philosophical – of moving away from the traditional district model. After introducing the case studies, the article next examines the respective new models in depth in order to evaluate whether either can deliver as a strategy to increase educational opportunities for students. Specifically, the article identifies the dangers that these structural reforms may simply reorganize the stratified educational systems they seek to eliminate or that they may not be financially, legally, or politically sustainable over time and on such a large scale. Rather than merely identifying these challenges, the article then goes on to identify legal structures – such as state laws or bilateral agreements between public school authorizers and public school operators or even among operators themselves – that can help minimize these risks.

This article appeared in the Boston University Public Interest Law Journal.  The full article is available here.

Atlantic: In Memphis Classrooms, the Ghost of Segregation Lingers

Samantha Crawford, an 18-year-old high-school senior, doesn't like to use the word "ghetto" to describe her neighborhood in the center of Memphis, Tennessee, but she can't think of a better one. In Binghampton, people drink and hang out. They are transient, moving from apartment to apartment and job to job. Many don't work at all. Samantha speculates that few have finished college, or even high school.

In the past two years, though, Samantha has begun to look at her neighborhood as an inspiration. "It's not about where I stay, or wherever I come from, but what I'm going to make of it," she says.

Samantha once earned only Bs and Cs. Now, she makes straight As. She had dreamed of college, but wasn't sure how she'd get there. Now, she's feeling overwhelmed by the choices available to her. In the past few months, she received five college acceptance letters, along with a scholarship to a local community college.

Read the full article from the Atlantic here.

NY Times: Merger of Memphis and County School Districts Revives Race and Class Challenges

When thousands of white students abandoned the Memphis schools 38 years ago rather than attend classes with blacks under a desegregation plan fueled by busing, Joseph A. Clayton went with them. He quit his job as a public school principal to head an all-white private school and later won election to the board of the mostly white suburban district next door.

Now, as the overwhelmingly black Memphis school district is being dissolved into the majority-white Shelby County schools, Mr. Clayton is on the new combined 23-member school board overseeing the marriage. And he warns that the pattern of white flight could repeat itself, with the suburban towns trying to secede and start their own districts.

“There’s the same element of fear,” said Mr. Clayton, 79. “In the 1970s, it was a physical, personal fear. Today the fear is about the academic decline of the Shelby schools.”

“As far as racial trust goes,” Mr. Clayton, who is white, added, “I don’t think we’ve improved much since the 1970s.”

Read the full article here.

A Memphis Dilemma

A Memphis Dilemma: A Half-Century of Education in Memphis and Shelby County from Desegregation to Consolidation

Abstract: On May 17, 1954, the day that the Supreme Court handed down Brown v. Board of Education, essentially four separate school systems existed within the borders of Shelby County, Tennessee. Memphis City Schools (MCS) served students within the city limits, and Shelby County Schools (SCS) served the balance of students in the county; within each system were white schools and black schools. The next several decades saw the two districts grapple with implementation of the Supreme Court mandate to remove the vestiges of segregation from public education.

By 2010, both districts had achieved unitary status, freeing them from court supervision and adherence to judicially approved desegregation plans. However, there remained a sense in the community that public education remained very much separate - and that there was a continued racial component to that separation. Indeed, the demographics of the two districts supported this perception. Of the 100,000 students in MCS, nearly 90% were African American. Meanwhile, the majority of the county’s white students were learning in SCS. Coupling these demographic differences with the fact that the county schools performed better educationally, on average, by state accountability standards and the claims of separate, unequal schooling no different than what was confronted in Brown seemed even more legitimate.

This article appeared in the University of Memphis Law Review.  The full article is available here.

An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure

An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure:

Abstract: Written as an invited response to Prof. Richard Sander’s “Class in American Legal Education,” this piece argues that the debate about affirmative action in higher education has overemphasized the admissions process without focusing a sufficient amount of energy on addressing longer-term strategies that would make controversial admissions interventions unnecessary.

This essay appeared in the Denver Law Review.  The full article is available here.  Links to the other articles in the volume are available here.

C-SPAN: Memphis School Desegregation at 50

Memphis School Desegregation at 50 University of Memphis Law school professor Daniel Kiel has spent years collecting stories of the original desegregation of the Memphis City Schools in October 1961. His work takes a look at the history of desegregation and its legacy fifty years later. He presented video clips from oral histories of people who were part of the first desegregated class, when two separate communities combined as one. He talked about the lessons that apply as the community moves toward unifying the city schools of Memphis with the Shelby County school systems. Professor Kiel talked with Ms. Peiser and offered a long-view look at public education in Memphis and Shelby County.

“Memphis School Desegregation at 50” was a program of the Downtown Neighborhood Association’s conversation series. It was held at the University of Memphis law school.

Video available here...

It Takes a Hurricane

It Takes a Hurricane: Might Hurricane Katrina Provide for New Orleans Students What Brown Once Promised?

Abstract: Presented as part of a program for the AALS Education Law section entitled “Five Years After Katrina: Access to Education,” this article places post-Katrina education in New Orleans directly in the line of education reform triggered by the decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The article agues that post-Katrina New Orleans represents the pursuit of the same goal pursued by the Brown plaintiffs: improved access to educational opportunities for students, most of whom are African American, not being equitably served by the status quo. The article then frames these two moments – the Brown decision and Hurricane Katrina – as inertia-jarring events in the history of New Orleans public education and compares the responses to these two hurricanes (one figurative, one literal).

Connecting the post-Brown and post-Katrina eras, the article focuses on themes common to both – state intervention in New Orleans schools and an increase in choice for students – and details the ways in which the response to one has shaped the response to the other. Looking at ways the city has learned from the Brown era and the ways in which the city seems on a path to repeating some of that era’s mistakes, the article argues that success or failure in post-Katrina public education will be impacted by the city’s post-Brown experience. Specifically, although the motivation behind state intervention is clearly different than it was during the Brown era, there remains skepticism about the role of the state in providing for New Orleans public schools.

Further, despite having made choice far more widely available after Katrina than it had been before, the potential for a return to a stratified system of schools – and the class - and race-based resentment such stratification engenders – could threaten the public support New Orleans public schools currently enjoy.

The progress of public education in New Orleans is important beyond the boundaries of Orleans Parish. Post-Katrina New Orleans serves as the pivotal proving ground for the use of increased choice and charter schools to provide more equitable access to quality education. With 61% of New Orleans public school students enrolled in 51 charter schools (both numbers by far the highest in the nation), post-Katrina New Orleans represents an opportunity for the choice movement to demonstrate success on a large scale. Success in New Orleans will lead to broader choice in struggling urban districts across the country. Conversely, failure to deliver improved access to quality education will reverse the current upward trajectory of the choice movement.

Given the stakes, the New Orleans public schools are likely to be among the most scrupulously evaluated in the coming years. However, as scholars and advocates begin evaluating this reform effort and continuing to shape the future of public education in New Orleans, it is imperative to recognize the ways in which the story that precedes the hurricane shapes and impacts the story unfolding in its wake. This article serves will help ensure that happens.

If reformers in New Orleans are able to focus on the goal of increasing access to quality educational opportunities, then the chance created out of the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina will not be wasted. It would be beautifully ironic if, thanks in part to a hurricane, the schools in the city whose segregated railcars gave us Plessy v. Ferguson could finally deliver on that elusive promise of Brown to provide more equitable access to quality educational opportunities.

This article appeared in the Journal of Law and Education.  The full article is available here.

Accepting Justice Kennedy's Dare

Accepting Justice Kennedy's Dare: The Future of Integration in a Post-PICS World

Abstract: In the wake of the most important public schools case in decades, Parents Involved in Community Schools (PICS), the future of diversity in public schools is in doubt. This period of uncertainty comes at a moment when parents, educators, and employers are demanding high quality schools that prepare students for an increasingly globalized world. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his PICS concurrence, recognized this and challenged districts to continue the important work of bringing different students together without resorting to unconstitutional means. Filling the void between what is essential to public education and what is constitutionally permissible after PICS, the public schools of Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky, one of the districts rebuked in PICS, have accepted Justice Kennedy’s dare by crafting a nuanced and race-conscious student assignment plan aimed at promoting broadly-defined diversity and increasing the quality of education across the district.

The article argues two distinct points. First, it argues that the new plan is a constitutionally permissible response to PICS. Second, it argues that the new plan’s broadening of both the definition of diversity and the mission of a school district represents the beginning of a new post-Brown era that is responsive to the realities of public education in the 21st century. By tethering its analysis of PICS - and specifically of Justice Kennedy’s concurrence - to a specific response to that decision, the article provides a detailed analysis of the new constitutional framework in this area. Ultimately, the article argues that because it is both constitutional and educationally-relevant, the new plan represents the future of integration for any district willing to make the commitment to providing the educational benefits of diverse public schools to its students.

This article appeared in the Fordham Law Review.  The full article is available here.

Exploded Dream: Desegregation in the Memphis City Schools

Abstract: This article is a comprehensive look at the story of school desegregation in the Memphis City Schools. Beginning with the Brown v. Board of Education decision that ended segregation in schooling, the article traces the steps taken in Memphis to put the Brown decision into practice. Following a period of inaction and delay, the Memphis City Schools experienced a relatively peaceful transition as token desegregation took place in the early part of the 1960s. However, after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in Memphis in 1968, the community's polarization was globally exposed and further progress on school desegregation was limited. After federal courts ordered busing to implement the Brown mandate, a quarter of the district's white students departed for the nearby Shelby County Schools or for a growing, and uniquely successful, system of private schools. Since the busing order, the white population in the Memphis City Schools has steadily declined so that by the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, a district that had been 58% white and 42% black in 1954 was 86% black and 9% white in 2004. Using the Northcross v. Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools litigation as a guide, this article traces that history, putting Memphis in the context of the larger desegregation story.

This article appears in the journal Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, published at the University of Minnesota School of Law.  

The full article is available here.

Message to City School Students: Buzz Off

Dear Students of the Memphis City Schools:

I hope you have not been watching too much of the news these days. Your collective future is being used as a pawn in a shortsighted game of "pass the buck," with new developments by the day. I am writing this letter to you because you and your interests have been wholly absent from this conversation. It is imperative that we, the adults of Memphis, remember that what is happening right now is happening to you.

As the mayor and City Council and school board and state argue over who is responsible for your education, the fact remains: We are all responsible. We, the parents. We, the teachers. We, the principals and administrators. And we, the elected officials. We are all responsible because it is not just your future that is at stake, but ours as well. Unfortunately, many of us refuse to acknowledge this.

Take our City Council's decision earlier this month to cut funding to your schools. Now, we could have had an adult discussion about how best to address mismanagement and inefficiency in the district while also making absolutely certain that your education would not be affected. But we never had that discussion. Instead, the City Council made the unilateral decision to drastically reduce your funding.

The damage done by the City Council's action is not limited to the short-term budgetary mess that has been created or the lawsuit the school board filed this week in an attempt to rescind the budget cuts -- though both of those will be huge distractions from the district's primary mission of education. The most significant damage comes from the signal the action sends: The Memphis City Schools are not worth supporting. While the technical substance of the council's action may have been fiscal, there can be no mistaking the message that supporting the city schools is not a high priority.

That signal was sent to you, with likely consequences for your engagement in school. It was sent to your parents, who have entrusted your future to public education and now know precisely where public education sits on the city leadership's priority list. And it was sent to the larger community, upon whom you depend for support, and ultimately, funding.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time you have been pawns while the adults argue. In the 1970s, the City Council threatened to withhold funds to the district and actually sued the Board of Education for complying with a federal order to institute busing. In that instance, as here, the students' future was second to political gain as adults chose shortsighted confrontation over collaborative discussion about students' best interests. After all, it is the best interests of students such as you that ought to be foremost in our minds when deciding these issues.

The most significant lasting impact from that era in civic history was the erosion of public support for the Memphis City Schools, a district that educates the vast majority of the Mid-South's future work force. That erosion can be directly linked to the recent City Council cuts. There is apparently no more political consequence for condemning the city schools.

That does not mean that your future does not matter. Indeed, we all have a stake in your future whether we know you or not. If you are not prepared to work in a 21st century economy, then our community will be stuck economically, or will move backwards. All of the problems that plague us today -- crime, poverty, stagnant development -- become more intractable with every single dip in public support for the Memphis City Schools, whether individual (a Memphian who disparages the schools with glee) or institutional (a City Council that cuts funding because there is no legal obligation to support the schools financially).

Missing during the community confrontations over busing were honest and credible adults with the courage to push students' interests to the fore of the conversation, regardless of the political or social consequences. Those adults remain few and far between today.

To protect your future and ours, those of us who are discouraged when your education is deemed unworthy of our support (and dollars) should do our part. We must hold leaders who contribute to the erosion of public support for your schools accountable by filling their in-boxes and mailboxes with letters of dissatisfaction, and when necessary, using our power at ballot boxes. We must confront our friends who seem to take pride in disparaging the city schools with the fact that our future as a city rests on your shoulders. We must push those friends and ourselves to contribute to solutions rather than to the problem. If we are parents, we must push you to your potential and hold both you and your teachers accountable for taking education seriously.

There already was much to be done to provide you the tools you need to make our city maximize its capabilities. Now, there is the added burden of undoing the damage done over the last several months. But if we are to move forward as a community, we'd better be up to the task.

[NOTE: Originally published in Commercial Appeal, June 20, 2008. I had nothing to do with the title and might have chosen something a bit less sensational, like "Interests of Students Lost Amidst Funding Debate" - oh well!]

The Trouble with Diversty - Book Review

I have written several times (here, here and here) about the Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the constitutionality of school assignment plans in Louisville and Seattle that used race as a factor in maintaining diverse student populations in public schools. I criticized the Court for ignoring the almost-inevitable consequence of rejecting these plans – the resegregation of schools. However, in a book I’ve recently finished – The Trouble with Diversity, by Walter Benn Michaels – I found myself wondering about that resegregation: so what?

The Trouble with Diversity makes the argument that the focus on diversity as a goal has served as a distraction from increasing inequality in our society. Michaels is not so much against diversity – he is simply troubled by the way in which a room full of millionaires who happen to be of different races is praised as a diverse gathering. The fact that there are millionaires of all races, Michaels argues, makes it difficult to see that there are many more Americans of all races living in poverty with long odds of improving their lot. (Of course, the fact that a disproportionate number of those in poverty are African American only further complicates the balance between diversity and equality)

Michaels makes a compelling case that the focus on ethnic diversity in everything from university admissions to corporate boards has only hidden a system that favors the already-wealthy (regardless of race) at every turn. The danger is that it is hidden in a way that makes us (and by “us,” he means the educated and relatively well off who may be able to do something about the situation) feel better about ourselves: “A world of people who are different from us looks a lot more appealing than a world of people who are poorer than us.”

There is much to admire in The Trouble with Diversity – Michaels’ clarity of thought and writing, and his obsession with a society that is truly (as opposed to merely rhetorically) one of equal opportunity. However, in dismissing the quest for diversity as almost an intentional distraction from the quest for equality, Michaels goes too far.

The quest for diversity does not seek diversity for diversity’s sake. Rather, it is a direct response to discrimination. If personal biases are preventing otherwise qualified individuals from moving forward, then the clamor for more diversity can help take those personal biases out of the equation. Where Michaels fails is in minimizing the degree to which race still does matter to even the African American millionaire. Perhaps diversity proponents have gone too far, but that should not obscure the fact that racial and ethnic discrimination persists.

Ultimately, the debate Michaels weighs in on is a chicken-and-the-egg question. Michaels believes that if we can get to equal opportunity, then diversity will follow, whereas diversity proponents argue that if we have more diversity in our schools and professions, equality will follow. Which brings us back to the resegregating effects of the Supreme Court’s decision: Michaels would not be bothered by schools that are all-black or all-white so long as those schools provided equal educational opportunities (separate, but really, truly equal). Michaels would even go on to say that the litigation about the race-conscious assignment policies may in fact distract from and pull resources away from ever achieving schools that offer equal educational opportunities. In Michaels’ world, there is no inherent problem with the resegregation of schools.

And maybe there is no inherent problem with it. However, Michaels is no less guilty of ignoring reality than the Supreme Court. In our society, there is an unfortunate correlation between a school’s quality and its racial makeup. That correlation is not going to disappear as a result of abandoning effects at diversity – the more likely result is that the correlation with only strengthen. The race-conscious assignment plans that the Supreme Court rejected were designed to offer better educational opportunities (not to mention the social benefits of an ethnically diverse group of peers) to students who would otherwise be learning in racially-isolated schools subject to that unfortunate correlation.

So I have not totally converted to the conclusion that resegregation does not matter. But thanks to this book, I will be careful to keep the underlying goal of diverse schools or workplaces or neighborhoods in mind – opportunity that is not determined by the color of skin.

Ruling Can Light Way to Better Schools

When U.S. Dist. Judge Bernice Donald concluded last month that the Shelby County Schools district has not yet overcome the relics of segregation, the stunned reaction from school officials was unequivocal.

"Certainly we are disappointed by the ruling," said school board chairman David Pickler.

"It could have some very dramatic negative effects on the children of Shelby County," school attorney Rick Winchester added. Winchester went on to suggest that Donald's ruling could mean that education dollars would be diverted to busing and moving children to schools farther from their neighborhoods.

This practice of crying "bus" is a disservice to those the county schools serve and a distraction from what ought to be the goal of all parties involved -- providing the highest quality education to all Shelby County students. Compliance with Donald's ruling is -- forgive me -- not so black and white as the school officials seem to suggest.

Busing is not the only way for a school district to become unitary, and among the potential solutions, busing is probably the least appealing. Rather than frightening parents by alluding to the possibility of busing, school officials would do well to think outside of the busing box for creative ways to increase both the diversity and the educational quality in the Shelby County Schools. Where Winchester sees in the ruling the possibility of "dramatic negative effects," I see an unprecedented opportunity for Shelby County Schools to become a national model for equity and excellence in education.

Donald wrote that the true goal of any school desegregation plan is to provide equal educational opportunity to all students by eliminating racial isolation. For decades, as districts across the country were forced to comply with the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, the focus was on the elimination of racial isolation. Educational considerations were too often only secondary considerations.

In the 1960s and '70s, eliminating legally sanctioned racial separation was very important. But in 2007, with the benefit of a half-century of hindsight, districts like Shelby County have the opportunity to move beyond simplistic solutions such as busing and implement desegregation plans that embrace both the educational and the social ideals of Brown.

Using a combination of neighborhood schools with carefully drawn attendance zones, magnet schools that provide a variety of educational choices for parents, and lenient transfer policies combined with racial targets similar to those in Donald's ruling, districts across the country have achieved increased diversity by lifting the quality of all schools. In some instances, transportation is necessary, but it is far easier to convince a parent to accept busing when his or her child will be bused voluntarily to an exceptional school than when the child will be bused across town to a school no better, or worse, than the neighborhood school.

There is no reason to think the county schools cannot come up with a similar plan tailored to Shelby County in response to Donald's ruling. Devising such a plan is far more difficult than simply imposing busing, but county school officials need look no further than the Memphis City Schools to see the devastating effects busing can have on a district. The challenge is for school officials to resist the temptation to defensively use the threat of busing to criticize Donald's ruling and instead to develop a thoughtful, multifaceted desegregation plan that creates a world-class school district.

"In those instances where the Board adopted the Court's goal as its own," Donald wrote, "it has progressed with remarkable speed." The district should not miss this opportunity to adopt the goal of improving education across the system while eliminating instances of racial isolation. The initial signs of such adoption are not positive -- the board has already said it will appeal Donald's ruling -- but if the district does embrace the spirit of the ruling, there is no reason it should not progress with remarkable speed.

What Can Brown Do For Us Now?

After the U.S. Supreme Court's recent rejection of school assignment plans in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle that were aimed at maintaining racial integration in schools, a variety of pundits and scholars trashed the court for sticking a fork in the most revered decision of the 20th century, Brown v. Board of Education. However, the ideals of Brown -- providing students with equal educational opportunities regardless of race or background -- are far from dead. What has been missing from much of the criticism of the June 28 decision is an analysis of what exactly makes integrated schooling so beneficial, and what advocates for equity in education can do within this new legal landscape to recapture those benefits.

The court's decision is potentially calamitous because it handcuffs districts that are working to achieve racial diversity, thus threatening to eliminate the proven benefits of integrated classrooms. Numerous studies have shown that students who attended racially integrated schools -- such as the students in Louisville and Seattle -- show higher levels of tolerance toward individuals of different ethnic backgrounds and an increased sense of civic engagement, when compared with peers who attended more racially isolated schools. Academically, the benefits for African-American students are immense, with studies showing higher graduation rates, larger enrollments in advanced courses, and even higher post-schooling salaries for African-American students who learned in racially integrated schools. Preliminary studies show similar benefits for Latino students. Meanwhile, the racial composition of schools has proven to have no effect on the academic achievement of white students.

Recognizing these benefits, school officials in Louisville and Seattle enacted plans aimed at maintaining racial diversity, in certain circumstances considering a student's race in making school assignments. It was this minimal use of race to achieve the districts' goals that troubled the court (or at least its majority in the 5-4 decision). In a line from the ruling that is already famous, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. Brown itself actually ended discrimination on the basis of race in making school assignments. Something more than just ending discrimination has been needed to achieve Brown's ideal of providing equal educational opportunities to students of all races. Now that the court has ruled that the "something more" can no longer include consideration of race to ensure integrated schools, the question education advocates must confront is how to recapture the benefits of integrated education within the new limits of the law. One avenue that offers a particularly hopeful outlook is a shift in focus away from racial integration and toward socioeconomic integration.

The disadvantages that characterize many racially isolated schools -- inequitable resources, higher teacher turnover, fewer advanced classes -- and the lower average outcomes for students attending those schools -- higher dropout rates, lower graduation rates -- are even more pronounced in schools with high concentrations of poor students. The same educational benefits that flow to African-American and Latino students in racially integrated schools will flow to poor students of all races in schools integrated by socioeconomics.

One district that already uses this model is Wake County (Raleigh), N.C. In Wake County, where socioeconomic integration has been in practice since 2000, low-income students perform better than similarly situated students in other North Carolina districts. In addition, Wake County's minority students outperform the minority students in similar districts throughout the state. And the improved outcomes are not limited to low-income and minority students. In 2003, Wake County had the second highest graduation rate among the nation's 50 largest school districts. In addition, the cultural benefits of racially integrated schools, such as higher levels of tolerance among students, can also be captured by socioeconomically integrated schools. Unfortunately, there is a high correlation between income and race, such that creating schools with children from differing income levels is likely to have the effect of also creating schools with children from different races. Wake County, for example, has maintained much of its previous racial integration since switching from a racial to a socioeconomic integration plan in 2000. Income-based assignment plans also have the legal benefit of not triggering the strict judicial scrutiny that follows whenever a decision is made based on a student's race, making them less vulnerable to challenge.

With all due respect to Chief Justice Roberts, the way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to create a world where the playing field for individuals of all backgrounds is as level as possible. That leveling begins in our schools. Although the Supreme Court removed a critical tool in achieving opportunities that are equal for students of all races, other tools remain. It is now up to advocates of equity in education to find new ways to pursue Brown's ideals with the tools we have left. They are ideals -- with proven cultural and academic benefits -- worth fighting for.

Pulling Together for Equal Education

(NOTE: This article appeared in the Commercial Appeal on May 6, 2007)

In a New York town best known for hosting the Sing Sing state prison, school leaders have made it their mission to eradicate the achievement gap that separates white and black students. Since 2005, the school district in Ossining, New York, a small suburban district with approximately 4,000 students, has initiated a variety of programs specifically targeting black males, a group whose grades and test scores consistently lagged behind those of other students.

The Ossining programs read like a dream list of ways to raise the achievement of at-risk students. The voluntary programs begin in kindergarten and continue through high school graduation. High school students may receive one-on-one guidance from black mentor teachers, while elementary school students' progress can be tracked by a team of teachers. Parents of students as young as sixth grade are able to attend college planning workshops that explain the practical obstacles college can present to families while at the same time putting college on a student's radar at an early age. These multipronged efforts seek to deliver academic support, shift the norm of what is achievable for black male students and build a community environment that helps push students to succeed.

Although in a district vastly different from the Memphis City Schools, the Ossining programs are exactly the type of comprehensive efforts that would complement the Memphis City Schools' mission of "Every Child. Every Day. College Bound." That campaign seeks to elevate the expectations and outcomes of all Memphis City Schools students, 85 percent of whom are black, and Supt. Carol Johnson is committed to ensuring that "College Bound" is more than just a slogan.

In Ossining, although it is too early to see any impact on test scores, school officials report that behavioral incidents are down and enrollment in college-level courses is up for black students. With such trends, it seems that those who champion equal educational opportunities would hail Ossining's efforts as a welcomed attempt to tackle the black-white achievement gap. Although some have offered such praise, other would-be allies are highly critical of the district's singling out black male students for special attention.

"I think this is a form of racial profiling in the public school system," Michael Meyers, executive director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, a group that plans to file a formal complaint regarding Ossining with the state education department, said in a New York Times article last month. Kati Haycock, president of Education Trust, a group that advocates for disadvantaged children, told the Times, "You do have to worry whether you're creating a stereotype that is as damaging as the one you're trying to replace."

The goal of these civil rights advocates is presumably the same as the goal professed by the Ossining school district: to educate all black males to the highest of high standards. Yet these critics would halt extra attention being provided on a voluntary basis for fear of creating new stereotypes, or as Meyers put it in the Times article, "making (students) feel inferior or different simply because of their race and gender." Although there is a fundamental difference between assigning students to inferior schools based on their race and offering extra attention to students in a racial group that lags statistically in educational outcomes, there is validity to the critics' concern. In a perfect world, black students would not need any more attention to reach the same outcomes as other students. In fact, even in our own imperfect world, many black students excel without such attention. However, the reality -- especially in our own community -- is that many black students, particularly black males, are not achieving equal educational outcomes. For these students, the system is not working and it is incumbent on those who desire to solve this problem to offer creative solutions that work.

There are already enough challenges to elevating the educational opportunities of at-risk students, regardless of race. It is discouraging when those who seem to share the goal of eradicating the racial achievement gap construct additional roadblocks in the way of that goal. Students will be better served when racial politics, such as those surfacing in Ossining, do not derail programs that effectively tackle what some have dubbed the civil rights issue of our generation.

Leaving Brown Behind - Part II

[NOTE: This is a follow up to last week's column]

During the Supreme Court hearing on the voluntary school integration cases heard last Monday, I was struck by a question posed by Justice Antonin Scalia. For the past week, I have grappled with the question and its implication, struggling to figure out how I might have answered it.

Frank Mellen, the attorney representing the Jefferson County (Kentucky) Public Schools, was attempting to make a distinction between the use of race confronted in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and the use of race by the JCPS plan aimed at maintaining a racial balance in schools of between 15 and 50 percent African American students. Brown was different, Mr. Mellen argued, because there existed two entirely distinct school systems, one white and one black. “That stigmatized the black children. It sent the message that the white race was dominant and superior and that the black race was inferior.”

At the word “stigmatized,” Justice Scalia piped up. He wondered whether the assumption underlying the JCPS plan was not itself stigmatizing. The JCPS plan, Justice Scalia said, was “based on the notion that a school that is predominantly black or overwhelmingly black cannot be as good as a school that is predominantly white or overwhelmingly white.” The potentially stigmatizing message sent by that assumption, Justice Scalia asserts, is similar to the message in Brown – that the white race is superior and the black race is inferior.

What Justice Scalia’s question exposes is that the JCPS plan to provide a quality education to all of its students is based upon the assumption that quality educational may not be available for students in a mostly-minority school. That assumption, Justice Scalia suggests and I agree, is potentially stigmatizing.

But the assumption Justice Scalia is so concerned about is not really an assumption at all, but a statistically-verified fact. Students in the typical mostly-minority schools do not receive the same quality educational opportunities as students in mostly-white schools or racially-balanced schools. This is measured in terms of teacher experience, teacher qualification, access to honors courses, diversity of curriculum, and many other ways.

So, after a week of wondering what made Justice Scalia wrong, I’ve concluded that he is actually right. Yes, it is stigmatizing to assume that black schools will not be as good as white schools. But, it is also stigmatizing – and far more damaging, in my opinion – to ignore the fact that mostly-minority schools typically are not as good as white schools and then confine black students to those mostly-minority schools.

In an ideal world, plans like that in JCPS would not have to exist to ensure that the most students receive a quality education. But we do not live in an ideal world. In the world we live in, Justice Scalia is likely to vote to strike down the JCPS plan. He will do so knowing that the effect will likely be an increase in the number of minority students attending mostly-minority schools. And he will do so knowing that mostly-minority schools in the United States in 2006 (the real world) do not typically provide equal educational opportunities to their students. In effect, his vote will be to send more minority students to schools providing fewer educational opportunities.

Justice Scalia would probably respond to such a charge that as a Supreme Court justice, it is not his job to consider the consequences of his decisions, but rather to interpret the Constitution. In other words, it is the world that must change, not his interpretation of the Constitution, if this unfortunate result for minority students is to be avoided.

This is precisely what makes Justice Scalia’s interpretation so dangerous. The fictional world for which he interprets law – a colorblind and ideal world – is appealing. It just is not the world in which the effect of this decision will be felt. But though Justice Scalia’s intepretation can wear the clothes of colorblindness and loyalty to the Constitution, it will achieve the exact same real world result as Jim Crow school segregation: separate and unequal schools with minority children being left behind.

Leaving Brown Behind - Part I

Today, the public schools of Jefferson County, Kentucky will take the national stage as the Supreme Court grapples with whether JCPS’s student assignment plan, a plan that takes race into consideration, passes constitutional muster. As an outsider who has studied the unsuccessful path to integration in Memphis, I hope that the Court recognizes the wisdom of taking action, as JCPS has, to achieve the goals set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision more than a half century ago.

The Brown decision in 1954 famously put an end to the practice of “separate but equal” schooling. In addition to declaring state-imposed segregation unconstitutional, the Court recognized the importance of education in preparing the next generation of Americans. “Education,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “is the very foundation of good citizenship.” The Court recognized not only the necessity of outlawing legally-sanctioned segregation, but also the value of integrated schools in helping students adjust to the multiracial communities beyond the school’s walls.

Many cities, crippled by white flight from inner city school districts, have long since given up on integrated schools. Memphis is one such city. When Memphis was faced with court-ordered desegregation in the 1970s, the community essentially fractured into a black city school system, a white county school system, and a very white private school system. In the three decades since, those divisions have become seemingly permanent. Not only are the students largely separated by race, but, as is the case across the country, schools with the highest concentrations of minority students tend to perform the most poorly.

In Jefferson County, however, the community has embraced the values the Supreme Court identified in Brown. Since 1984, when JCPS began tinkering with its own court-ordered desegregation decree in order to make the schools more attractive to more families, enrollment – but more impressively, white enrollment – stabilized.

When the desegregation decree was lifted in 2000, rather than allowing its schools to resegregate as occurred elsewhere, JCPS enacted the student assignment plan that is the subject of the lawsuit to be heard today. The stated goals of the plan are to provide a competitive and attractive public school system, to maintain community support for JCPS, and to prepare students for life in a democratic and racially diverse society. The courts below found the plan constitutionally acceptable, holding that the JCPS policy of integrated schools is “both important and valid.”

Social science has shown just how important integrated schools can be to communities and, more importantly, to students. Integrated schools have been shown to produce increased levels of tolerance among students of all races. Surveys of Jefferson County students have shown high levels of tolerance – more than 92% of students reported that they were “comfortable” or “very comfortable” working with students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.

In addition, African American students tend to perform better and attain better educational outcomes coming from integrated schools. These benefits are especially pronounced in systems, such as JCPS, where integration is voluntary and begins at an early age. Indeed, the black-white achievement gap is shrinking in Jefferson County even as it persists elsewhere.

Many other cities, including my home town of Memphis, have proven unable to meet the aspirations of Brown. In contrast, Jefferson County keeps trying. With its student assignment plan and its continued commitment to integration, Jefferson County has sought to create a system that is largely integrated and equal, while other cities have regressed to a state of separate and unequal. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to embrace, as it did fifty years ago, the ideals embodied by the JCPS plan. For the sake of Jefferson County and its students, we should all hope it does.