Demography and Educational Politics in the Suburban Marketplace

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 12 November 2014, At: 03:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Peabody Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

Demography and Educational Politics inthe Suburban MarketplaceErica Frankenberg a & Stephen Kotok aa Pennsylvania State UniversityPublished online: 31 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Erica Frankenberg & Stephen Kotok (2013) Demography and EducationalPolitics in the Suburban Marketplace, Peabody Journal of Education, 88:1, 112-126, DOI:10.1080/0161956X.2013.752628

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.752628

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0161956X.2013.752628

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.752628

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 88: 112–126, 2013Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0161-956X print / 1532-7930 onlineDOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2013.752628

Demography and Educational Politics in the SuburbanMarketplace

Erica Frankenberg and Stephen KotokPennsylvania State University

The demography of public school enrollment continues to change dramatically, with students of colorcomprising an increasing proportion of the whole. As such, suburbia, with both White and non-White students, is a place in which integration is more possible in the beginning of the 21st century.Due to the intertwined nature of how these factors affect educational politics in suburban districts,we draw on Hirschman’s exit-voice-loyalty framework to examine factors influencing residentialand education decisions. Drawing on in-depth fieldwork in seven multiracial suburban districts, thisarticle examines how, and whether, the way in which districts define issues related to increasingdiversity shapes the actions they take. The article also examines how district jurisdiction affects theimplementation of diversity policies as well as the policies themselves. We argue that policymakers’decision making, both due to the pressure of exit to less diverse suburban districts and the rising voicesof more advantaged residents in the suburban marketplace, has increased inequality within districts,particularly those that we call “multimunicipal,” or districts with multiple, disparate municipalitieswithin the district.

The U.S. Census reveals the increasing spread of diversity to the nation’s suburbs, particularlythose in our largest metropolitan areas (Frey, 2011). Despite the suburban diversification, studies ofhousing trends find that there are complicated patterns of multiracial segregation within suburbia.Little attention has been paid to the implications of these residential trends for equal opportunityin suburban school districts. The demography of the public school enrollment continues to changedramatically, with students of color comprising an increasing proportion of the whole. Researchershave examined the effects of changing demographics on the educational policy agenda or theallocation of governmental resources (Stone, 1998), noting that a shift in state power from thecities to the suburbs has resulted in a policy shift away from concerns about equity to concernswith educational outcomes. School integration was central to the pursuit of equity in urbandistricts during the latter half of the 20th century, yet many urban districts are overwhelminglyminority. Suburbia, with both White and non-White students, is a place in which integration ismore possible in the beginning of the 21st century.

This article relies on research supported by the Spencer Foundation (PI Gary Orfield). All conclusions are solely thoseof the authors.

Correspondence should be sent to Erica Frankenberg, Pennsylvania State University, College of Education, 200Rackley Building, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

SUBURBAN DEMOGRAPHY AND EDUCATIONAL POLITICS 113

The exit, voice, and loyalty framework, popularized by Albert Hirschman (1970), provides auseful tool for the examination of demographic shifts within metropolitan areas as they relate toschool districts. In Hirschman’s framework, clients exit when they are dissatisfied with a productor service and decide to opt for alternative goods. Conversely, clients use voice when they seekto improve the quality of the product or service or when the price of exit is too steep (Ogawa &Dutton, 1997). Finally, degree of loyalty to a product, or in this case school district, representsa mediating variable in the decision-making process. For example, individuals might stay in astruggling community because they feel a particular affinity to the place.

Individuals in the United States are attracted to communities for various reasons, but schooldistricts stand out as a defining product, or amenity, in the suburban context (Bischoff, 2008).Families with school-age children usually desire to live in communities with safe, high-performingschools. Of interest, public opinion polling shows that this holds true even for the majority ofpeople without school-age children due to the association between school districts, real estatevalue, and overall quality of life (Berkman & Plutzer, 2005). Traditionally, scholars conceptualizedHirschman’s framework using an urban–suburban binary. As suburbia becomes more diverse, exitbetween suburbs occurs as much as simple exit from city centers. Because of limited interdistrictstudent assignment, to the extent that political boundaries reflect demographic differences, sortingwithin suburban areas may mean that suburban diversification is not a panacea for remedyingincreasing school segregation.

Due to the intertwined nature of how these factors affect educational politics in suburbandistricts, we draw on Hirschman’s framework to examine factors influencing residential andeducation decisions. Drawing on in-depth fieldwork in seven multiracial suburban districts, thisarticle examines how, and whether, the way in which districts define issues related to increasingdiversity shapes the actions they take. The article also examines how district jurisdiction affectsthe implementation of these diversity policies as well as the policies themselves. We argue thatpolicymakers’ decision making, both due to the pressure of exit to less diverse suburban districtsand the rising voices of more advantaged residents in the suburban marketplace, has increasedinequality within districts, particularly those that we call “multimunicipal,” or districts withmultiple, disparate municipalities within the district.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Metropolitan Areas, Schools, and Policy Agendas

The exit, voice, and loyalty framework is especially applicable in the American educational con-text given its decentralized school governance system. Although state constitutions define publiceducation as a state responsibility, local agencies have historically acted as the dominant politicalauthority through the levy of local property taxes and localized decision making (Stone, Henig,Jones, & Pierannunzi, 2001, p. 57). Peterson (1981) commented on the irony that “schooling, theservice-delivery system said to best exemplify America’s commitment to equality, is largely pro-vided by the level of [local] government least able to engage in redistribution” (p. 94). Originally,the localization of school governance stemmed partly from a Jeffersonian ethos and partly froma reluctance among the urban elite to subsidize the poorer “country folk” outside the city limits.Ironically, the elite now live predominantly in those once underserved communities outside the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

114 E. FRANKENBERG AND S. KOTOK

city, and the urban communities they exited are now the ones most associated with poverty andresource deficits.

Several forces converged in the decades following World War II that led to an exodus from citiesto suburbs and thus more fragmentation of school governance in metropolitan areas (Bischoff,2008). Some of this suburban expansion reflected economic growth and advances in trans-portation technology (Monkkonen, 1980), but Whites benefitted disproportionately from thesedevelopments. For example, government programs such as the 1948 Housing Bill, as well asprivate developers such as Levittown and Sons, specifically targeted returning GIs and Whiteworking-class residents (Fischer, 2008).

The civil rights movement was another major force contributing to the exit to suburbia. Duringthis period, the conversation in urban school districts revolved, at least to some extent, aroundthe concept of equity. Plaintiffs in Milliken v. Bradley (1974) argued for cross-district busing inand around Detroit based on the common goals and shared social goods of a metropolitan area(Garnett, 2007; Logan, Oakley, & Stowell, 2008). However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled againstthe plaintiffs, thus maintaining the rigid status quo of district fragmentation in most metropolitanareas. Despite some hard fought legal victories in funding cases, the policy implementation ofequity-based remedies has been less successful and had little impact on decreasing segregationand gulfs in funding (Bischoff, 2008).

As White, middle-class families exited diverse cities for suburbs, these suburban communitiesbecame less concerned with equity and more concerned with attracting wealthy taxpayers intotheir district. In the words of Peterson (1981), suburbs thus created an efficient marketplace where“those paying the most for school services receive[d] the most in benefits” (p. 94). Althoughfragmentation actually introduces some inefficiency (i.e., duplication of services) and substantialinterdistrict inequity, which undermines another guiding principle of American education, moreaffluent residents were, and still are, willing to live with this contradiction in return for theefficiency associated with tighter control over public goods. Further, accountability policies suchas No Child Left Behind exacerbate this marketplace of suburban efficiency by encouraginginterdistrict competition, publicly assessing the quality of schools, and discouraging regionalcooperation. In a highly decentralized system, it behooves suburban policymakers to maintain thestrongest tax base possible via restrictive zoning policies (i.e., no multifamily homes). Rothwell’s(2012) analysis of more than 80,000 schools suggests that relaxing restrictive zoning policieswould reduce segregation in highly fragmented metros, and thereby much of the achievement gapwhere it is greatest. In some cases, policymakers may be guided by discrimination, explicit orimplicit, against certain economic and/or minority groups (Berkman & Plutzer, 2005; Bischoff,2008). Meanwhile, lower socioeconomic status (SES) communities are left with the dauntingtask of forming political coalitions to encourage consolidation of districts or redistribution ofresources.

For years, private schooling has represented a second form of exit, allowing more affluentfamilies to receive certain amenities offered by the community while opting out of the publicschool district (Saporito, Yancy, & Louis, 2001). Parental choice policies such as charters,vouchers, and interdistrict transfers offer parents a different type of exit strategy when they aredissatisfied with their local schools but are unable to or are unwilling to leave their community.Interdistrict choice within metropolitan areas, which offers the most promise for equity, has gainedlimited traction given the history of home rule in the United States and the financial implicationsfor wealthier districts. Magnet schools were initially a type of school choice designed to stem

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


White exit from urban districts while complying with desegregation orders. More recently, asfederal magnet funding has become less tightly coupled with reducing racial isolation, somemagnet schools still offer unique educational themes but are without civil right policies. Finally,charters act as a different type of exit alternative since theoretically they allow lower SES familiesto “vote with their feet” (Buckley & Schneider, 2006). Charter schools also differ from otherintradistrict options, such as magnets, as they operate autonomously from the local district andthey do not have formal academic entry requirements. Both charters and magnets vary in levelsof equity and access due to transportation and enrollment policies.

Although early proponents of school choice (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Ogawa & Dutton, 1997)claimed it would increase equity by breaking down the monopoly of the neighborhood school,there is mounting evidence that intradistrict choice leads to greater inequity and racial segregation.In a study of the 22 largest school districts, including several suburban county districts, Sohoniand Saporito (2009) found that intradistrict choice was almost always positively associated withschool segregation rates much greater than neighborhood catchment rates. Moreover, chartersdisproportionately serve higher percentages of Black students and lower shares of special needspopulations such as English language learner and special education (Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley,& Wang, 2011; Sohoni & Saporito, 2009; Welner & Howe, 2005). Consequently, intradistrictchoice can no longer be assumed to be an equity-minded policy.

Place Stratification and Limits on Exit Options

The most fragmented metropolitan areas create a rich marketplace of suburban exit options oftenresulting in school districts stratified by social class and sometimes race. The socioeconomiccharacteristics of a district’s residents send signals to prospective home-seekers that influencestheir decisions about where to settle due to the composition of neighborhoods, schools, andindirectly about school quality (Holme, 2002; Shapiro, 2005). The research just described suggeststhat the expansion of this marketplace via suburbanization and school choice policies moves theconversation further away from equity and toward a system where there are winners and loserswithin the suburban landscape. An exception to this system occurs when residents of a schooldistrict experience loyalty (independent from real estate value) to a certain community. Forexample, some individuals take pride in living in a community characterized by cultural, racial,and social diversity (Florida, 2003). Still, another exception to the market metaphor occurswhen exit options are limited due to racial discrimination, both implicit and explicit. Somesociologists use the term place stratification to explain limitations of the market-driven spatialassimilation theory, the assumption that social status and cultural assimilation are easily translatedinto residential attainment at roughly equal rates for all groups (Massey & Denton, 1985; Massey& Mullan, 1984).

Several studies have documented the way attitudes of different groups shaped housing optionsfor blacks and Latinos in the 1990s (Charles, 2005; Turner & Ross, 2005) and early 21st century(Bocian, Li, & Ernst, 2010). Charles (2005) cited survey data indicating that one in five Whites,one in three Latinos, and two in five Asians preferred a neighborhood without any Blacks(p. 68). Although these responses indicate an improvement from previous generations, the factthat 20 to 40% of all groups show an aversion to Blacks suggests that racism persists in thehousing market despite legal protections such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (Shapiro, 2005).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Turner and Ross (2005) found that one in five minority applicants were deprived of housingor financing information by realtors. The recent housing bubble further exposed the persistenceof discrimination against minorities. Bocian, Li, and Ernst (2008, 2010) found huge disparitiesbetween Whites and minorities in regards to predatory lending practices, even when controllingfor income. Although the suburban housing market was more welcoming to Latinos from 1990to 2006, they have fallen victim to high-risk loans and subsequent foreclosures more than anyother racial or ethnic group.

Charles (2005) also uncovered a paradox that almost all Whites supported the principle ofintegration, but many qualified this response when asked about tangible public domains such asequal access to housing and public schools. This paradox plays out in the housing market as itlimits opportunities for minorities, thus perpetuating inequality. In terms of public education, theeffects of place stratification are extremely severe for school children as the cleavage betweenthe poorest and most affluent suburbs increases. Like the central cities of the 1970s, today’s poorinner-ring suburbs lack the financial resources and public assistance to handle their strugglingschools (Briggs, 2005). M. Orfield and Luce (2012) found that predominantly non-White suburbsare even worse off than their metro counterparts considering their tax base is two thirds thatof regional averages and roughly 30% lower than central cities despite nearly identical medianincomes between the two community types. Moreover, the fact that predominantly non-Whitesuburbs receive less attention from the policymakers and the media than their urban counterpartsmakes this crisis even more pressing.

Jurisdictional Structures and The Varying Benefits of Exit

Several factors play a role in whether individuals choose to exit and enter a given suburbancommunity, including transportation, economic conditions, and housing supply (Garnett, 2007;Timberlake, Howell, & Straight, 2011). However, the way metropolitan communities organizeschool districts plays an important role in where individuals choose to reside. Although school dis-tricts operate in the local political context, there is some variation in how states and metropolitanareas define local boundaries. The three most common systems of jurisdiction are (a) municipal,(b) multimunicipal, and (c) county.1 The variation in jurisdiction stems from state laws, de-mographic needs, historical circumstances, and interests of the community. Using Hirschman’sframework, individuals are most likely to exit when individuals have distinct choices and availableoptions. Moreover, the price of exit becomes steeper as distance increases.

The vast majority of school districts in the United States, with the exception of some states inthe Southeast and mid-Atlantic, organize school districts along municipal (or multiple munici-pal) lines. Cities in the Northeast and Midwest have a long history of decentralized governments,which has resulted in extreme fragmentation of municipal government, segregation, and spendingdisparities between school districts (Berkman & Plutzer, 2005; G. Orfield, 2001). This fragmen-tation, along with established housing patterns in northeast and Midwest metropolitan areas,frequently resulted in a dual system of education—urban and inner-ring districts disproportion-ately serving minorities as the more affluent Whites sort themselves into higher status suburbs

1Hawaii, with its statewide school district, represents the one exception to this localized system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


TABLE 1Demographics of Case Study Districts, 2009–10

District Enrollment White% Black% Latino% Asian% FRL% White Change

Waltham 4,763 53.6 9.3 28.3 6.5 31.8 11.5Oak Park Elem 5,421 62.9 27.4 4.9 4.7 18.8 0.0Oak Park-River Forest High 3,182 61.6 29.2 5.7 3.3 19.0 0.0Azalea∗ 25,000 50 < 5 35 10 30 13Osseo 20,903 55.0 22.8 7.0 14.5 35.3 23.2Southern∗ 65,000 35 10 50 5 40 13Sewell County∗ 40,000 40 45 5 < 5 45 38Beach County∗ 195,000 45 25 30 < 5 55 10

Note. Pseudonym districts (denoted by asterisks) have rounded figures; White change is the difference in the district’spercentage of White students from 1999–00 to 2009–10. FRL = free and/or reduced lunch. Source: NCES Common Coreof Data, 2009–10.

(Bischoff, 2008). Nevertheless, racially diverse municipal school districts have emerged in sub-urbs, but it is unclear whether they will be stably diverse or transition into more homogenouscommunities (M. Orfield & Luce, 2012).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2

Fieldwork

This paper draws on fieldwork conducted during the 2009–10 academic year by a team ofresearchers.3 The project included one suburban district in each of seven large metropolitanareas, and all of the districts were racially diverse. They encompass different regions, mixtures ofracial/ethnic groups, rates of racial change, and type of district jurisdiction (see Table 1). Thesefactors each might affect the conceptualization of racial change and/or response to the change.

The study involved the use of common protocols for district, school, and noneducationalactors in each site (e.g., Stone, 2001). Independent research teams conducted fieldwork usingthese protocols with an initial in-person meeting prior to beginning fieldwork, monthly phonegroup conversations, and research memos. We identified a common set of actors to interviewacross sites while also allowing for flexibility among the issues unique to each site. A total of224 interviews were conducted across the seven sites. Interviews were audio recorded, and mostinterviews were transcribed. We supplement these interview transcripts with case study reports,demographic data, and other field documents.

2For more detailed discussion of project methodology, see Frankenberg and Orfield (2012, Chapter 1).3The research team included Elizabeth DeBray, Ain Grooms, Jennifer Jellison Holme, Anjale Welton, Sarah Diem,

Susan Eaton, Lorrie Frasure Yokely, Gail Sunderman, Barbara Shircliffe, Jennifer Morley, Baris Gumus-Dawes, ThomasLuce, and Myron Orfield.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Description of Districts

We briefly summarize the demographic and political context of each suburban district in our study:two single municipal districts, three multimunicipal districts, and two countywide districts.4 Atthe time of fieldwork, these districts—like many across the country—were increasingly feelingthe effects of the economic crisis of 2008.

Boston (Waltham). This municipal district has experienced steady decline in enrollmentsince 1990. It is a satellite city in one of the whitest metropolitan areas in the United Stateswith extremely high fragmentation. Although not as diverse as Boston, it is also less advantagedin comparison to surrounding suburban districts. Increasingly, racial change means linguisticchange, yet Waltham is constrained by Massachusetts’ restrictive language policy in the policiesit can implement to educate English Learners.

Chicago (Oak Park). Small suburban district adjacent to the central city in another highlyfragmented, multiracial metropolitan area. This community had a history of housing integrationefforts in the late 1960s, and the district also aligned attendance boundaries so that they wouldcreate diverse schools. The district has been stably racially diverse, although the increasing SESof its residents attests to the fact that its “diversity” is seen as an amenity by home-seekers. Thereis a concern that focus is not on integration, but more narrowly on closing the achievement gap.

Los Angeles (Azalea∗). One of more than a dozen districts in the most stereotypically“suburban” county in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Azalea encompasses two demograph-ically disparate municipalities that merged in the 1980s for financial reasons. It is respondingto racial, economic, and linguistic change amid drastic state funding cuts and restrictive statepolicies around teaching English Learners and using race-conscious policies.

Minneapolis (Osseo Area). This district encompasses several municipalities and the east-ern part of the district is experiencing rapid change as minority suburbanization extends fromMinneapolis. The eastern side of the district has increasing shares of low-income and minorityresidents, whereas the western side remains largely unaware of racial change. Osseo is part of aninterdistrict integration collaborative and is located in a state that has a desegregation rule andrequires the district to submit a desegregation plan every 3 years.

San Antonio (Southern Independent∗). This district includes both a part of the centralcity as well as somewhat more affluent suburban areas adjacent to the city. It is one of the larger,more advantaged districts in the metro, but in the last decade it has become majority minority.Although Southern Independent has taken a race-neutral approach to responding to increasingdiversity, it has also closely focused on subpopulation outcome data. Due to a recent changein school board representation—switching to a ward-based election from an at-large election

4An asterisk indicates that the name used is a pseudonym, per research agreement with district.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


system—the district has focused on providing equal resources to schools in more disadvantagedparts of the district.

Atlanta (Sewell∗). Sewell is an outer-ring, exurban countywide district in a metropolitanarea in which other suburban districts have experienced tremendous demographic change. Thisdistrict itself has experienced rapid change, and its Black influx is well educated and middleclass—more so than the existing White population. There is little active political pressure forintegration, although a strong business–education collaboration exists. County leaders want toensure they do not experience the rapid racial change of nearby districts.

Florida (Beach County∗). This countywide district contains one of the metro’s central citiesand suburban areas; it is one of only four districts in the entire metro area. It is the only district inthe study with a history of court-ordered desegregation efforts but was declared unitary a decadeago. The historically Black–White district has a booming Latino population and illustrates thechallenges of pursuing diversity in a postunitary status era in a diversifying, sprawling district.

RETAINING THEIR “MARKET SHARE” OF STUDENT

Just as urban districts a generation ago used magnet schools as a way to comply with integrationrequirements and keep White or affluent students from exiting their district for nearby Whitesuburbs unaffected by desegregation mandates, a key finding across these suburban districtswas the need to be competitive in the suburban marketplace to retain “desirable” students (andtaxpayers), even if this exacerbated inequality within districts. The extent to which this emergedin each of the seven districts varied by the district’s placement within the metropolitan area andthe jurisdiction type for the school district.

Multimunicipal Districts

A central response to demographic changes in multimunicipal districts was the use of intradistrictchoice in ways that were decoupled from promoting equal opportunity. These districts seemedto fear the exit of advantaged parents in the suburban marketplace most strongly. Consequently,student assignment policies and decisions benefit the more affluent families within the districtrather than maximizing equity for all families.

Although it has been one of the most affluent, White districts in the metro, Southern Inde-pendent School District (ISD) includes a small part of the central city in its district boundarylines. Although Southern is one of the largest districts in the metro at 144 square miles, it stillis only a fraction of its county alone (Bexar County contains 1,250 square miles). Despite thoseadvantages, Southern policymakers display their sensitivity to retaining the advantaged by im-plementing choice policies and determining school boundaries to respond to parents’ use ofvoice.

The district allows for open choice, which is particularly advantageous for the middle portionof the district as the more engaged families leave these diverse schools to go further out to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


more developing, overwhelmingly White parts of the district. Southern ISD does not providetransportation for choice, which also affects whether families are able to take advantage of thispolicy (see Holme & Wells, 2008). The district has put magnets (with no diversity focus) in themost disadvantaged part of the district. Likewise, Southern ISD had initially proposed to zonestudents in the diverse, middle section of the district to a formerly White but now racially diversehigh school. Many White parents exercised their voice in protest and the school board relented,eventually zoning the students to a remotely located brand-new high school made up of the moreaffluent, mostly White students. As the district had projected, the new school quickly exceededcapacity and the neighborhood was zoned to the diverse school. District officials attribute thesubsequent defeat of a bond referendum to these parents’ anger. The case of Southern ISDdemonstrates that higher SES parents can use their voice to limit overall equity within the district.

Orange County, California, is between Los Angeles and San Diego counties, and it alonecontains 27 school districts. Azalea covers 45 square miles or a small percentage of the nearly1,000 square miles of Orange County. Similar to Southern ISD, Azalea is more advantaged thanOrange County, which in turn, is more advantaged than many other counties in the metro area.After experiencing a 25% increase in enrollment during the 1990s, the enrollment of Azalea hasbeen virtually flat since 2000–01 and the percentage of White students has declined rapidly. Thedistrict uses a neighborhood assignment policy but, like Southern ISD, allows for an open choicepolicy, and families utilizing intradistrict choice must provide their own transportation to theirnew school. The district has implemented an International Baccalaureate program at the majorityLatino high school to try to keep White, affluent students from exiting the district, but theseprograms, along with magnet programs at the lower grade levels, may create an enclave programwithin a school in which increased district resources are not available to all. One elementaryschool in this part of the district has declined from more than 60% White to less than 40% Whitesince 2000 during a time in which the overall district remained majority White.

Osseo Area Schools is a large district containing a handful of municipalities. Racial changehas spread mainly into the eastern part of the district. District officials acknowledge that by notaddressing the change earlier, it now leaves them with fewer options to integrate the districtdue to the lack of understanding by residents in the western side about the need to devote moreresources to the eastern side, much less being supportive of reassignments that would integratethe schools. Although choice has been the main means of trying to create more integration inthe region, Osseo’s use of choice is now largely implemented without regard to desegregationgoals. The district is a participant in an interdistrict consortium in which each district has an“incomplete” magnet strand to encourage movement across district boundary lines. In part dueto losing money because more students leave the district than transfer in, Osseo recently decidedto complete its magnet sequence to keep their students in district. In addition, district magnetschools, administrators acknowledge, exist more to offer unique choice options rather than as adesegregation tool: “I think [magnet programs] are good specialty programs; I don’t know aboutintegration strategies anymore” (Osseo district administrator and B. Gumus-Dawes, personalcommunication, March 3, 2010).

Although Osseo faces exit pressure from families of color through nondistrict choice options,it also faces a potential exit threat by White parents to further-flung suburban districts. Thedistrict’s decision to relocate a magnet program when closing a school in the eastern part ofthe district to a predominantly White, affluent elementary school in the western side becamea political controversy. Perhaps trying to stem exit to nearby, overwhelmingly White districts,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


district officials denied that the relocation of the magnet school was for desegregative purposes,but instead due to financial reasons (Boyd & Hawkins, 2008). Parents formed a group to protestthe decision and retained outside counsel from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a national antiracialpreferences group. Trying to use their voice to block this relocation, parents instigated an ethicscomplaint against the superintendent (ultimately found to be without merit). In addition, schoolstaff reported numerous harassment incidents; the school experienced substantial flight fromparents and the superintendent’s contract renewal became contested (Boyd & Hawkins, 2008).The parent group claimed that their concerns were unfairly portrayed as racist but were insteadbased on legitimate concerns about their children’s education (e.g., the additional disciplineproblems of minority children would “short-change” their child) and what they deemed to beunnecessary costs of educating low-income students. Trying to have a stronger voice in districtdecisions, the group endorsed several candidates for school board in 2008, but none were elected;one was elected in 2010.

In districts such as these, which contain disparate population enclaves and which representrelatively small, albeit somewhat advantaged, shares of the suburban enrollment, choice policyis used in several ways, including open choice and nondiversity-focused magnet programs. In aneffort to stem exit from the multimunicipal districts to developing, more homogeneous suburbandistricts nearby, these districts’ policies instead are expanding the area of segregation by causingflight from their diverse areas to the whiter enclaves still existing at each district’s outer reach.School choice may ultimately be exacerbating segregation, particularly in the areas of the districtthat may be the best situated to create naturally diverse neighborhood schools.

Countywide Districts

This suburban marketplace pressure was less of a concern in places that were booming inpopulation and where “exit” was steeper—for example, in this study, the two countywide districts,which earlier research have suggested are less susceptible to demographic change (e.g., G. Orfield,2001). The two countywide districts are located in very different parts of their respective metro,with Beach County containing a central city and suburban regions, whereas Sewell County hasuntil recently been largely rural and is located at the far reaches of the Atlanta metro. Yet,because of their size (Beach County is more than 1,000 square miles and Sewell is more than300 square miles), parents have much further to go to exit the system. Further, Sewell Countyhas no charter schools, which could serve as an exit alternative. Sewell has nearly quadrupled insize since 1990 (at a rate much higher than the entire suburban area), whereas Beach County hasadded approximately 70,000 students during this time. Thus, these districts are “winners” in thesuburban marketplace with spatial advantages that make it easier for them to attract a growingschool population, which is especially important at a time of austerity.

Sewell County officials describe their student assignment policy as being completely raceneutral, and based only on the numeric enrollment projections, taking into account barriers likeinterstates or railroad tracks. District officials do not consider student demographics, nor didcurrent administrators report any organized community pressure to consider diversity. Havingmore than doubled the number of students and schools in the last 20 years, the district engages infrequent rezoning, which occasionally sparks controversy, but illustrates the lack of exit pressurefacing policymakers. One such example was a high school rezoning in 2006 in which even though

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the school would have middle-class African American students, White parents were hesitant tosend their children to the school because it would become “blacker.” The rezoning went through,and the administrator cited it as a successful diverse school with a strong academic reputationthat is now supported by both black and white parents.

In Beach County, the growth and diversification have become more difficult to manage after theend of their desegregation case and due to state mandates such as the Class Size Amendment thatoften requires rezoning. Although district officials acknowledge that they consider the diversity inrezonings as a way to try to prevent increasing resegregation, they first consider the most “logical”way to address capacity and class size issues. This represents a dilution in the importance ofdiversity in their decision making since the end of court-ordered desegregation. The politicallycontested rezoning decisions in Beach County have been mixed in their effect on equity: Somerezoning has furthered integration, whereas, in another case, the school board bowed to pressurefrom an affluent enclave in redistricting (Wiley, Shircliffe, & Morley, 2012).

Because of their spatial and jurisdictional advantages, these districts may not perceive the sameconcern about preventing “exit” to nearby districts in the same way multimunicipal districts did.Sewell County implemented an especially inflexible student assignment policy of neighborhoodschools, which district officials said was devised without regard to student composition, onlycapacity. Such plans do allow for parents to determine where their child attends school butrequires buying a home in the appropriate attendance area, which is a more involved schoolexit strategy than requesting a transfer or opting for choice options. Beach County allows formore choice options (magnet & charter schools) but more than 85% of district students attendedschools in their attendance area. In both countywide districts, administrators note that there wasinitial parental resistance to some proposed rezonings but unlike in some of the multimunicipaldistricts, there are examples in both Beach and Sewell where rezoning occurred and the new,more diverse schools became successful and popular.

Single-Municipal Districts

Single municipal districts have the fewest policy options among suburban districts because theyare the most tightly coupled with the housing market. The two municipal districts in this study,Waltham and Oak Park, are the smallest in square miles, schools, and enrollment. Each is locatedin a metropolitan area with at least 100 other suburban districts (as well as charter schools) andis only a small part of the overall suburban ring. Yet, due to their city’s housing policy, the extentto which schools are integrated differs between the districts.

Waltham (14 square miles) is considered a satellite city and is one of the more diverse suburbancommunities in metrowest Boston because of the availability of relatively affordable real estate.Students are assigned to the six elementary schools and two middle schools according to wherethey live (there is only one high school), and as a result, the elementary schools differ substantiallyin their racial composition. Most of the response among educators about the demographic changeexpressed the need to have a more diverse teaching staff and to work on better relationshipswith families of less advantaged children, in part to close the achievement gap. Further, theserespondents describe a lack of public voice about the change or response to it, and educators feelthat the community fails to understand the change that has happened.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Oak Park (6 square miles; River Forest, which has a combined jurisdiction with Oak Parkfor the high school, is another 2.5 square miles) took aggressive housing integration effortsbeginning in the late 1960s as it saw the rapid transition occurring in nearby communities westof Chicago. Thus, housing integration efforts have allowed the school district to take very fewactions to integrate schools after drawing boundaries in the 1970s that have maintained largelydiverse school populations (two elementary schools have become a little imbalanced over theyears). In fact, it is a “winner” in the suburban marketplace not because of school policy decisionsbut because of residents’ loyalty to the city’s prominent commitment to diversity; as a result, itshousing prices have limited the access of low-income families to the district, which constrainsschool policy options. The district must balance the demands of the mostly professional class ofparents who want more gifted offerings for their children with implementing reforms like full-day preschool for low-income children to address the achievement gap—the main formulation ofracial disparity in Oak Park. Oak Park’s successful past in terms of formulating a housing policythat left the school district needing to do little to integrate the schools may have left the districtunprepared to address the complex issues of racial inequality that accountability and demographicshifts (e.g., in terms of affluence) have revealed.

These districts illustrate the way in which district jurisdiction constrains the political optionsof school districts. As municipal districts in increasingly expanding suburban areas, both OakPark and Waltham contain a very small share of the enrollment amid many other options, manyof which are larger and, in the case of Waltham, more advantaged. Like Sewell County, thesedistricts lack intradistrict choice options, but the “exit” option in municipal districts such as theseare considerably easier. Each is more dependent on other community sectors to stabilize enroll-ment, which was possible in Oak Park through the comprehensive efforts of community leaders.Although diverse, these districts may suffer from what Oliver (2001) described as suburbandemobilization:

By taking much of the competition for resources and much of the political conflict that naturally existsamong members of an interdependent metropolitan community and separating them with municipalboundaries, suburbanization also eliminates many of the incentives that draw citizens into the publicrealm. (p. 188)

An example is the feeling among Waltham educators that there was little public voice todiscuss the change seen in the schools.

DISCUSSION

This article has examined how racially diverse—and racially changing—suburban districts areresponding to this change and how that affects educational opportunity. Although this article doesnot examine the entire spectrum of suburban districts, it does examine districts where a possibilityof creating equitable, diverse schools remains, which is no longer possible in many urban districtsdue to the exit of the White and middle class from such schools.

We find that these districts, particularly the multimunicipal districts, are extremely consciousof their need to compete in the suburban marketplace, which has influenced the development ofstudent assignment policies and boundary lines in ways constrained by fears of exit by affluentfamilies. Although this is likely true in any district, to the extent we have found a reluctance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


to publically conceptualize the benefits of a diverse enrollment, much less proactively respondto such changes in these suburban districts, parents’ perceptions of educational opportunity in aracially changing district—and when disparate municipalities exist within the same district—maymake policymaking especially contentious. To the extent that such discourse cloaks considerationof equity, district leaders may only perpetuate the decision-making challenges they face in diversedistricts by not helping residents conceptualize concerns about educational quality beyond theirown enclave (Henig, Hula, Orr, & Pedescleaux, 1999).

The importance of preventing exit in the suburban marketplace for multimunicipal districtsin particular had significant implications for within-district equity, but district leaders seeminglydetermined that inequality within the district was a price worth paying to retain these residentsand tax base. It is important to remember that each of the multimunicipal districts within thisstudy were relatively more advantaged in comparison to other suburban districts, and yet they stillfelt such market pressures, perhaps because they existed on the edge between developed, diversedistricts and still developing homogenous districts. Several districts, likely perceiving that it wouldminimize political conflict between residents in demographically distinct municipalities, adoptedstrategies not designed to further integration but to make racially separate schools equal. At a timeof fiscal pressure, this strategy may be difficult to maintain, and may be difficult for residents inthe more affluent parts of these districts—who rarely encounter those in the more disadvantagedareas within the districts—to understand. Likewise, though each of the multimunicipal districtsemploys various intradistrict choice options, they are not being used to further school integration.Unless or until districts can help residents understand the importance of providing high-quality,diverse educational settings to all district students, they will likely face opposition and the threatof exit if they pursue policies perceived to reallocate opportunity.

Significantly, countywide districts and single municipal districts in this study had differentchallenges. The single municipal districts represented such a tiny fraction of the overall suburbanenrollment that they had few policy options available. Instead, they were more reliant on othersectors to attract and retain residents. As a result, most of the response to change was moreprogrammatic in nature within schools with little public discussion of change. On the other endof the spectrum, the two countywide districts in this study, in part due to their geographicallocation within their respective metro areas, as well as increasing student enrollment, faced less“exit” pressure. These districts, of course, also benefit from increased exit costs due to theirsize. Likewise, despite initial opposition to rezonings that created more diverse schools, districtleaders later described the schools as successful. These leaders were able to take political risksthat multimunicipal leaders in this study were not.

Finally, in an age in which any governmental use of race is politically and legally risky,it is significant to note that district policies, district decisions, and political or legal protests bydistrict residents utilized a race-neutral, rational sounding discourse (e.g., Osseo). However, giventhe existing racial and economic segregation—and the inequality existing within the suburbanmarketplace—this discourse will likely only perpetuate advantage for White and/or affluenthouseholds (consistent with place stratification theory) and prevent civic engagement and debateabout competing priorities like diversity and economic efficiency. This may also limit schooldistricts’ ability to connect to other community sectors (e.g., housing) that represent importantlevers as demographics continue to change. Without doing so both within and across districtboundaries, suburban districts will likely further expand the geographic scale of racial isolationand unequal opportunity in our largest metropolitan areas.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


AUTHOR BIOS

Erica Frankenberg is an assistant professor in the Department of Education Policy Studies atthe Pennsylvania State University. She received her doctorate from Harvard University. She iscoeditor of The Resegregation of Suburban Schools: A Hidden Crisis in American Education (withGary Orfield; Harvard Education Press, 2012) and Integrating Schools in a Changing Society:New Policies and Legal Options for a Multiracial Generation (with Elizabeth DeBray; Universityof North Carolina Press, 2011).

Stephen Kotok is a doctoral student in the Department of Education Policy Studies in the Collegeof Education, Penn State University. He received his M.A. from Teachers College–ColumbiaUniversity in Politics and Education. His research focuses on charter schools, school climate, andincreasing college access for historically disadvantaged populations.

REFERENCES

Berkman, M. B., & Plutzer, E. (2005). Ten thousand democracies: Politics and public opinion in America’s schooldistricts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bischoff, K. (2008). School district fragmentation and racial residential segregation: How do boundaries matter? SocialScience Research, 38, 55–70.

Bocian, D. G., Li, W., & Ernst, K. S. (2008). Race, ethnicity and subprime home loan pricing. Journal of Economics andBusiness, 60, 110–124.

Bocian, D. G., Li, W. & Ernst, K. S. (2010). Foreclosures by race and ethnicity: The demographics of a crisis. Durham,NC: Center for Responsible Lending.

Boyd, C., & Hawkins, B. (2008, November 18). Minority populations in suburbs rise—and so do num-ber of segregated schools. MinnPost. Retrieved from http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2008/11/minority-populations-suburbs-rise-and-so-do-number-segregated-schools

Briggs, X. D. (Ed.). (2005). The geography of opportunity. Race and housing choice in metropolitan America. Washington,DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2006). Are charter school parents more satisfied with schools: Evidence from WashingtonD.C. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 51–78.

Charles, C. Z. (2005). How racial discrimination affects the search for housing. In X. D. Briggs (Ed.), The geography ofopportunity. Race and housing in metropolitan America (pp. 81–102). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Chubb, J., & Moe. T. (1990). Politics, markets, and American schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.Fischer, M. J. (2008). Shifting geographies: Examining the role of suburbanization in blacks’ declining segregation.

Urban Affairs Review, 43, 475–496.Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City and Community, 2, 3–19.Frankenberg, E., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2012). The resegregation of suburban schools: A hidden crisis in American

education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1).Frey, W. H. (2011). State of metropolitan America: Race and ethnicity. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved

from htpp://brookings.edu/metroGarnett, N. S. (2007). Suburbs as exit, suburbs as entrance. Michigan Law Review, 106, 277–304.Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., & Pedescleaux, D. S. (1999). The color of school reform: Race, politics, and the

challenge of urban education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. New York,

NY: Harvard University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: school choice and the social construction of school quality. HarvardEducational Review, 72, 177–205.

Holme, J. J., & Wells, A. S. (2008). School choice beyond district borders: Lessons for the reauthorization of NCLB frominterdistrict desegregation and open enrollment plans. In R. Kahlenberg (Ed.), Improving on No Child Left Behind(pp. 139–215). Washington, DC: The Century Foundation Press.

Logan, J., Oakley, D., & Stowell, J. (2008). School segregation in metropolitan regions, 1970–2000: The impacts ofpolicy choices on public education. The American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1611–1644.

Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1985). Spatial assimilation as a socio-economic outcome. American Sociological Review,50, 94–105.

Massey, D. S., & Mullan, B. P. (1984). Process of black and Hispanic spatial assimilation. American Journal of Sociology,89, 836–873.

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717. (1974).Monkkonen, E. H. (1980). America becomes urban: The development of U.S. cities and towns 1780– 1980. Berkeley:

University of California Press.Ogawa, R. T., & Dutton, J. S. (1997). Parental involvement and school choice: Exit and voice in public schools. Urban

Education, 32, 333–353.Oliver, J. E. (2001). Democracy in suburbia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Orfield, G. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights

Project, Harvard University.Orfield, M., & Luce, T. (2012). America’s racially diverse suburbs: Opportunities and challenges. Minneapolis: Institute

on Metropolitan Opportunity, University of Minnesota.Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing costs, zoning, and access to high-scoring schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Saporito, S., Yancey, W. L., & Louis, V. (2001). Quality, race, and the urban education marketplace reconsidered. Urban

Affairs Review, 37, 267–276.Shapiro, T. M. (2005). The hidden cost of being African-American: How wealth perpetuates inequality. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.Sohoni, D., & Saporito, S. (2009). Mapping school segregation: Using GIS to explore racial segregation between schools

and their corresponding attendance area. American Journal of Education, 115, 569–600.Stone, C. N. (Ed.). (1998). Changing urban education. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Stone, C. N. (2001). Civic capacity and urban education. Urban Affairs Review, 36, 595–619.Stone, C. N., Henig, J. R., Jones, B. D., & Pierannunzi, C. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming

urban schools. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Timberlake, J. M., Howell, A. J., & Straight, A. J. (2011). Trends in suburbanization of racial/ ethnic groups in metropolitan

areas, 1970 to 2000. Urban Affairs Review, 47, 218–245.Turner, M. A., & Ross, S. L. (2005). How racial discrimination affects the search for housing. In X. D. Briggs (Ed.),

The geography of opportunity race and housing choice in metropolitan America (pp. 81–102). Washington, DC:Brookings Institute Press.

Welner, K. G., & Howe, K. R. (2005). Steering toward separation: The evidence and implications of special educationstudents’ exclusion from choice schools. In J. Scott (Ed.), School choice and diversity (pp. 93–111). New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Wiley, K., Shircliffe, B., & Morley, J. (2012). Conflicting mandates amid suburban change: Educational opportunity in apost-desegregation Florida countywide district. In E. Frankenberg & G. Orfield (Eds.), The resegregation of suburbanschools: A hidden crisis in American education (pp. 139–161). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

3:41

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Demography and Educational Politics in the Suburban Marketplace