Today’s post in honor of School Choice Week: State proposals and lawsuits in Minnesota look at charter schools and desegregation. In general, segregation has increased in our public schools over the last few decades around the country, but charter schools tend to be more segregated than district schools. Should this be considered a civil rights issue? That’s the question being raised in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Department of Education is considering making charter schools create integration plans if they have large minority populations. The reporting I’ve read on the issue is confusing. Does it address charters with large white populations as well as those with large black populations? Is it more concerned with academic progress or desegregation? Whatever the specifics, the proposal is creating heated discussion in the state.
At the same time, a lawsuit accuses the state of allowing greater segregation in its public schools and maintains that charter schools have made the problem worse. A graph in the article shows 65 percent of black charter school students attend schools that are 90 percent minority, compared to 15 percent of students in district schools; 28 percent of white students are in charters with less than 10 percent minority students, compared to 12 percent in district schools.
My research in Tucson also shows that segregation is higher in charter schools than in TUSD. TUSD’s student population is 64 percent Hispanic and 21 percent Anglo, which is a reflection of the population of school-aged children in the city. Tucson charters are 53 percent Hispanic and 37 percent Anglo, meaning that charters attract a disproportionate number of Anglo students. In Tucson charters, 35 percent of students attend schools with fewer than 30 percent Hispanic students, compared with 2 percent of TUSD students.
Minnesotans arguing against using desegregation rules with charter schools say that parents make active choices to send their children to charter schools, so it’s not the state’s concern if parents choose to send their children to schools with high percentages of white or black students.
School desegregation remains a hot-button issue across the country, not just here in Tucson, and the importance of charters in the deseg equation is receiving increased attention.
This article appears in Jan 28 – Feb 3, 2016.
uh…..impossible. People live where they live. Trying to meet demographics in a illusionary integration is totally unfair. Since majority of the population is of one race they have to give advantage to a minority? First come first serve from grades no matter what is the only answer. No advantages other than grades. Its had nothing to do with income, race ect…
We destroyed the public schools playing the race game. Don’t screw up the charters.
People live where they can AFFORD to live!!! Real Estate property is manipulated by Financial Institutions creating areas within Cities of “Affordable Housing” mainly for low income minority families. Neighborhood Public Schools follow these demographics.
Notwithstanding these demographics, enrollment in Public Schools/Charter Schools should be open to all Students within the District providing a First Rate education; supported by First Rate Teachers/Administrators and a first rate Academic Infrastructure; with Magnet Programs offered in these Schools so as to attract other Students from within the District. Assessment Examinations must be given after each Grade Level so as to determine that, in fact, Students are provided with the Academic Skills necessary to achieve their Career Goals. The location of the Public School/Charter Schools, should have absolutely no influence on the quality of Education provide to Students.
The only solution to the dismal performance of our System of Public Education, is the Demand by Parents, through the Electoral Process at all Levels of Government, that ALL Schools offer a First Rate Education to Students; that Pubic Education should be the FIRST PRIORITY of Government!!!
Ah, Minnesota. With its wonderful DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) and its lovely socialist-leaning, taciturn descendants of Swedish and Norwegian immigrants. Would that we had such a Democratic party here in Arizona. We do not.
It’s amazing how many people here in Tucson try this dodge, when attempting to avoid discussion of the main issue with desegregation: our largest local school district and its decades-long miserable record on social justice, integration, or responsible behavior of any kind. The argument runs something like this: “We can’t be expected to integrate our public school districts in a context in which the charter policies introduced by the Arizona legislature are allowing such massive ‘white flight.’ In this context, we must do damage control. We will introduce a Fruchtehendler-Sabino pipeline on the east side that will prevent more white families from fleeing the district. We will not require the magnets to actually integrate, which is impossible. We may try to raise achievement in minority-majority schools, but for goodness sake we can’t be expected to INTEGRATE, and by the way minority kids don’t need to sit next to white kids in order to be able to learn. And hey, what ABOUT those charters? They’re less integrated than TUSD. Why don’t we focus the public’s attention on them instead?”
Sorry, David, but Garrison Keillor and his friends and relations back in the Land of 10,000 Lakes would see right through this dodge. You’ll notice that at the same time Minnesotans are discussing possibly taking steps to require integration in charters, they’re discussing the fact that their previously well integrated public district schools have developed problems with integration, and they’re addressing those problems as well, not making excuses about why it can’t be done, blaming charters, and changing the subject.
In the article you link on Minnesota, this is one reason given for the regrettable trend towards resegregation: “The resegregation of the region’s schools, critics say, was the product not just of demographic change but also of conservative pressure in the 1990s to weaken desegregation mandates.”
“Conservative pressure to weaken desegregation mandates.” That sounds like something we should be combatting, not capitulating to, right, David? Perhaps you should talk to some of your good friends in TUSD governance and admin about that.
Thanks for the link to the article in The American Prospect about the desegregation suit filed by the Shulmans against the state of Minnesota. This quote from the article provides a way of looking at things we should adopt in Tucson:
“It’s hard enough to get a broad coalition of people to say we want to integrate the schools, and when you add the charter school issue, the politics just become much more challenging,” says one Twin Cities civil-rights leader. “There are definitely some advocates who say we should focus on desegregating the traditional schools, and if the districts can get their act together then demand for charters will [naturally] go down, because parents will trust that traditional schools can take care of their kids.”
That’s exactly right. So when we talk about integration, let’s focus our attention where it belongs: on a chronically poorly integrated public school district serving almost 50,000 Tucson kids, not on this and that and the other little charter chain.
Ahhhg no!
Wait, charters have more minority students (Anglos) than the public schools. Doesn’t that mean they are succeeding?
Why is it that only white schools need desegregation?
Only white schools need diversity and multiculturalism?
Why aren’t white and hispanic and Asian children being bused into Flint and Detroit, MI? Or Newark, NJ or Baltimore MD?
Oh, those are all poor and crime ridden areas. So tell me where the successful predominantly black schools are do we can properly diversify them.
When are we going to start acknowledging reality and history?
Social tinkering OPV. It keeps the tax payers funds flowing…the wrong direction.
Safier is simply trying to take the heat off of his favorite three anti-integration TUSD Board clowns; Krystal Foster, Cam Juarez, and Adelita Grijalva . Not too long ago he cited an example of the failure of desegregation by pointing to a school district that has done as poorly, if not worse, than TUSD. He never mentioned any success stories; of which there are many. All the while that TUSD has recognized its loss of students to charter schools and private schools, it never produced an aggressive plan to gain back or retain white students. It has sat back passively. Mind you, TUSDs neglect has all taken place while under a desegregation court order. Since HT Sanchez took over as TUSD Superintendent he has chummed up to Safier and in return, Safier has done all possible to position the District as the “victim” in the desegregation court case. Of course, the victims are only the children. Safier would do well to put his personal bias aside and to conduct more stringent research. He is a disgrace to the Tucson Weekly and to the entire liberal movement.
Safier needs to stop creating excuses for his so-called liberal friends on the TUSD Board. All three of them have made public comments that show them to be against integration. They use HT’s talking points.
David S is not a liberal he is a progressive. Big difference.
What is the difference again?
Ever heard of a “cafeteria Catholic”? It’s a term used for Catholics who pick and choose the elements they like among Catholic doctrines, adopting some and leaving others. Safier appears to be a kind of “cafeteria progressive.” When there are elements in the progressive agenda that align with the need to criticize political opponents and / or “privatizers,” he pushes them. When there are elements in the progressive agenda that would suggest the need to speak up about anti-progressive policies or stances being adopted by TUSD leadership, most of the time he will remain silent. In reality he cannot accurately be described as either a liberal or a progressive. He seems to be acting as a partisan of a particular party and a propagandist for particular elected officials and their administrative appointees. He probably considers himself a pragmatist, but for some people there comes a point when you cross a line and realize your “pragmatism” is causing you to completely betray any ideals you might have had. Whether and at what point Safier will reach that point with the ever-more-egregious anti-progressive behaviors of the TUSD board and administration remains to be seen. He seemed to be heading that way in this interesting piece:
http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2015/11/23/recent-tusd-decisions-the-good-the-bad-and-the-arrogant
but then in the final paragraph he did a pivot back towards his usual role.
Stay tuned. How he manages his own (correct) stance on Prop 123 and the fact that it is at variance with the stance being taken by TUSD leadership and the teachers’ union will be interesting to observe in the coming weeks.