Setback for Socioeconomic Diversity Plans

Socioeconomic integration, which for some time was positioned as a race-neutral option that could achieve some level of school diversity without triggering strict judicial scrutiny, took a significant hit a couple weeks ago.  In Wake County (Raleigh), North Carolina – one of the largest district to utilize an assignment plan aimed at socioeconomic integration – the school board voted 5-4 to abandon the plan in favor of a neighborhood schools assignment plan. 

The arguments for and against socioeconomic integration are not especially novel, but they are worth evaluating in order to place the developments in Wake County in a broader context.

Why Socioeconomic Integration?  There are two main arguments in favor of socioeconomic integration plans, one practical and one policy.  The practical argument is that in a world where race-conscious school assignments are strongly discouraged if not forbidden, socioeconomic integration assignment plans have the advantage of removing the likelihood of a plan being struck down as unconstitutionally considering race.  Thus, these plans are far more likely to be upheld than a racial integration plan (at least for school districts that are not under court ordered desegregation plans) and given the unfortunate correlation between race and socioeconomic status, they may still provide some level of racial integration as well, albeit in a race-neutral way.

Second, the policy argument for student assignment aimed at socioeconomic integration is based upon the multitudes of data that high concentrations of poor students do not typically lead to strong schools.  Socioeconomic integration, then, can eliminate schools with such high concentrations of poor students by spreading students of all socioeconomic backgrounds across the district. 

Some go so far as to say socioeconomic integration is even better educational policy than racial integration since it is typically high concentrations of poverty – even more so than high concentrations of minority students – that correlate with poor school performance.  Socioeconomic integration, the argument goes, is better targeted at the problem than is racial integration – and the fact that it is less constitutionally suspect is a bonus on top of that.

Why Not Socioeconomic Integration?  Socioeconomic integration – like all well-meaning education reform ideas – has been criticized as being both too much and not enough.  On the “not enough” side, advocates of racial integration point out that 1) socioeconomic integration does not actually result in a significant level of racial integration; and 2) focusing exclusively on economics discounts the significant role race continues to play in educational opportunity.  They see it as a constitutionally safe solution that will not effectively address the problem of racial disparities in the education system.

In the “too much” camp, critics argue, including those at work in Wake County, focus on the displacement of students resulting from achieving a requisite level of socioeconomic diversity by transporting students across a metropolitan area.  This argument mimics those made against busing for racial diversity and feeds into advocacy for neighborhood schools.  Underlying the argument is the sense that educational quality must be being sacrificed somewhere for the sake of diversity – the most likely losers, it is assumed, are those who had something to lose in the first place: students from wealthier socioeconomic backgrounds.

In Wake County, the neighborhood schools argument seems to have carried the day.  This development is obviously a setback for advocates of school diversity (racial or socioeconomic), but the lesson for diversity advocates is clear and has been for some time: unless the case is sufficiently made that a diversity plan is enacted for an educational benefit for all students (i.e., not diversity for the sake of diversity), then the backlash from those who do not see the personal value to their children will always threaten to swallow good intentions and even good policy.  This happened in the implementation of desegregation following Brown v. Board of Education.  It happened in the aftermath of race-conscious affirmative action programs at the university and grad school level.  And it has now happened with a race-neutral socioeconomic integration plan.

Comments

[Justin B.]

Great post Daniel. I am sort of surprised that socioeconomic plans have not caught on more in the wake of Parents Involved. I really though that is where most districts would go to achieve some of the same diversity outcomes. So, what is the prevailing trend? Neighborhood schools like this one in Wake County? If a district has a neighborhood schools setup, what is done to address diversity, if anything?

Glad you posted - I had still been telling people socioeconomic plans were still the trend.

[Daniel Kiel]

I suspect that the unwillingness of many places to go to socioeconomic integration plans is a combination of a bunch of things. Probably foremost is fatigue: busing fatigue and diversity fatigue. These are most often considered in the years following the lifting of court-ordered desegregation and communities are so relieved to be out from under court control that they are reluctant to impose on themselves what the court had once imposed. Fatigue seems to be what happened in Wake County. Second, socioeconomic integration plans typically do not achieve the racial integration that many diversity advocates seek, so the advocacy in favor of such plans is often lukewarm from even those in favor of affirmative diversity plans.

As for the prevailing trend, it is hard to say. Socioeconomic plans are still in effect in several large districts. Probably most typical (and least effective at achieving diversity) are magnet-type programs. In these, the default is typically neighborhood schools and the hope is that a diverse set of parents will choose to send their children to various magnet programs. Berkeley, CA, and Louisville have an interesting race/socioeconomic hybrid assignment plan (the one I posted about previously), but even in Louisville, they are running into some fatigue. And, of course, there are still a significant number of districts under court-ordered desegregation, so they continue to operate using explicit racial integration plans.

If there is a prevailing trend, my sense is that it is that diversity continues to lose importance. In many districts, especially large urban districts, the demographics make diversity impractical (in Memphis, for example, the student population is 94% African American - not a lot of options for achieving diversity eh?). In those districts and even in others, the movement seems to be more toward offering choice in school offerings (charters, etc.). The thought is that the focus should be on school quality rather than diversity (i.e., quality is essential, but diversity a luxury) and that choice is more likely to get to that result.