Austin Centrist: Inequity in Austin Schools

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Inequity in Austin Schools

The Daily Texan, the official newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin, has a very interesting report on the end of forced busing of Austin students from predominantly white schools to predominantly black and Hispanic ones, and the correlative re-segregation that has occurred. In addition to a decrease in white enrollment, these predominantly minority schools have witnessed declining test scores. One part of the article jumped out at me:

High minority enrollment often correlates with high concentrations of students below the poverty line, said Orfield, the author of reports on inequality in education. Poor students often score low on standardized tests, Orfield added. The high-poverty schools often have less experienced teachers, lower levels of peer group competition and less challenging curriculums, he said.

Between 75 percent and 80 percent of students at Austin's most racially isolated high schools - Reagan, Travis, Lanier and Johnston - are considered economically disadvantaged, according to TEA statistics.

"One of the common misconceptions over the issue of re-segregation of schools is that many people treat it as simply a change in the skin color of the students in a school," Orfield said. "If skin color were not systematically linked to other forms of inequality, it would, of course, be of little significance for educational policy."

It is all too easy to look at underachieving predominantly minority schools and presume that the problem is simply of a racial nature. But one must also consider the academic troubles of rural schools, many of which have large white populations. The common denominator between these two types of schools is that both usually serve students in poverty-stricken families. And, as the article goes on to explain, these schools must deal with the stigmas that often accompany a high-poverty student enrollment: more focus required on special needs and language services, and less social capital provided by parents.

The Texas Legislature will come together in a special session in a few months to rework the way we finance our schools, the current method having been declared unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. Beyond school funding, what can be done to help these high poverty schools? Should mandated busing be reinstated? Is there another student blending mechanism that is more appealing to parents? Or should we look beyond simply moving kids around?

The full Daily Texan article can be found here.

John Tierney of the New York Times wrote a column (on NYT select) about how Black leaders in Milwaukee WANT to expand their voucher program. They believe that it is the main way out of the self perpetuating despair in their black communities. The Democrats are blocking it apparently out of fear of the teacher's unions.
Isn't it ironic that the Democrats are suppressing hope on behalf of powerful financial interests.

Posted by Paul Silver | Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:45:00 AM

This has always been a fascinating issue. My brother is a 5th grade school teacher in a 85%+ latino school district in Southern California. He is convinced that the low performance of the students is rooted in parent/family committment to learning. I would argue that poverty plays a major role in the ability for parents to play a committed role in their child's education.

Poverty at home makes it incredibly difficult for parent/family to committ to learning. How many of these kids come home to an empty house because their single mother has just started her second job? How many parents living at or below the poverty line can afford tutors to help struggling students? How can we expect a mother and father that cannot speak english to help their kids finish their school essay?

Busing these kids to other schools will not change the fundamental challenges they face at home--which are directly related to poverty. That is why we need to strategically invest in programs that can close the "committment gap." After school tutoring programs, sports activities, and other activities that have a proven track record for improving achievement are paramount if we want to break the cycle of poverty. It is not as though these parents don't care about their kids. Its they literally can't afford to help them. That is a legitimate role for government to play. But schools should also look to private industry to invest in such programs, since they have the most to gain from an educated workforce.

Posted by Dom C | Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:08:00 PM

This post was included in Austinist's best of this week's local blogs.

Posted by eliz. s. | Friday, February 24, 2006 11:36:00 AM