The Voluntary Interdistrict
Desegregation Program in St. Louis
and the Geography of
Opportunity
Ain A. Grooms, University
of Georgia[1]
Abstract:
The voluntary
interdistrict desegregation program began in St. Louis in 1983 and provided
Black students from urban communities with free transportation to one of 15
participating suburban school districts.
The geography of opportunity
posits that location can impact the opportunities available. This study conducts a descriptive statistical
analysis of the fiscal resources in St. Louis as compared to those in the
participating suburban districts, as well as among the suburban districts
themselves. Results indicate that there
are significant variations in resources among the suburban districts,
indicating the need for additional research on race, place, and education
spending.
Horace
Mann (1848) once declared that education was to be “‘the great equalizer’ of
the conditions of men—the balance wheel of the social machinery” (para.
9). Just over one hundred years later,
in 1954, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled, in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case,
that racial segregation was unconstitutional, and that separation of the races
denied Black children the equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. This case remains one of the
most influential lawsuits of the past hundred years, and has helped in shaping
not only the landscape of public education, but of society as a whole. The Supreme Court’s decision initiated an
ongoing nationwide discussion about equal educational opportunity. Despite the intentions of the Brown decision, our country’s history of
racial, residential, and economic segregation continues to pose a tremendous
obstacle to the creation of equal schools and an equal society.
As
public schools were instructed to become racially integrated, affluent White
students left city schools for neighboring suburbs, in what is known as White
Flight. In the 1960s, the White
population in cities declined by 1.3 million (National Advisory Commission on
Civil Disorders, 1968). Wells and Crain
(1997) contend that the Great Black Migration, the movement of millions of
Blacks from southern, rural communities to northern cities during the 1940s and
1950s, was “second only to the suburbanization of the white middle class as the
most profound social phenomena of twentieth-century America” (p. 42). This movement of Black and White families
across city lines affected school enrollments and demographics.
As
Du Bois (1903) famously wrote, “The problem with the twentieth century is the
problem of the color line” (p. 13).
Wells and Crain (1997) asserted that race plays an significant role in
the shaping of our communities, stating that “the color line envelops us all,
limiting the housing we rent or purchase, the schools our children attend, the
transportation we have access to, and the network of friends and associates
with whom we share information” (p. 8). Almost a century after the comments
made by Du Bois, and almost 60 years after the Brown decision, race continues to be an integral component of discussions
about equal opportunity, educational and otherwise.
Ten
years following the Brown decision,
several cities created their own localized programs to address inequalities in
public schools. The earliest programs
began in 1965. These voluntary
interdistrict desegregation programs[2]
were implemented specifically to address racial and socioeconomic segregation
in public schools by providing minority (predominately Black) and/or
socioeconomically disadvantaged students from urban areas with free
transportation to public schools in suburban districts. There are currently eight programs in
operation across the country: Boston, MA; Hartford, CT; Milwaukee, WI;
Minneapolis, MN; Omaha, NE; Rochester, NY; Palo Alto, CA; and St. Louis,
MO. These programs were either developed
through state law as a result of local grassroots movements, federal court
rulings, or state court rulings (Wells et al., 2009). Parents of participants in the voluntary
interdistrict desegregation programs have openly admitted to participating in
the program because of access to the “better education” being provided in the
suburbs (Armor, 1972; Eaton, 2001, 2006; Orfield et al., 1998; Wells &
Crain, 1997).
The
voluntary transfer program in St. Louis is the largest, as well as one of the
oldest (having been founded in 1983). At
the height of the program, during the 1999-2000 school year, almost 15,000
students participated. During the
2012-2013 school year, over 5,000 Black students from St. Louis attend suburban
schools in one of 15 participating suburban school districts.
As
Coleman et al. (1966) argued, with whom a student attends school is as
important as family background, and this research intends to examine the suburban
schools and communities in which urban students enroll. It has long been assumed that suburban
communities are inherently better than urban communities, and while families
from St. Louis participate in the program due to access to “a better education”
(Wells & Crain, 1997), little attention has been paid to the variation among
suburban communities and how they differ from each other. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a
descriptive statistical analysis of the fiscal resources available in St. Louis
as compared to those available in the 15 participating suburban districts and of
the variation in resources among the suburban communities themselves. There is an ongoing debate about whether and
how increased funding impacts student achievement (Biddle & Berliner, 2003;
Gamoran & Long, 2006; Hanushek, 1996), and rather than join that
discussion, this research intends to specifically investigate the fiscal
resources available to families participating in this school choice program.
Past
quantitative studies about these busing programs have looked expressly at
standardized test scores and/or high school graduation rates (Angrist &
Lang, 2004; Eaton & Chirichigno, 2011), and the previous qualitative
research on voluntary interdistrict desegregation programs questioned parents
about their reasons for enrolling their children in the program and whether
they would participate again if given the choice (Armor, 1972; Eaton, 2001,
2006; Orfield et. al, 1998; Wells & Crain, 1997). Past studies that have investigated the
intersection of race, place, and access to educational opportunities in similar
contexts have focused on the Gautreaux and Moving to Opportunity programs,
where participants physically relocated to suburban areas. This study provides an alternate context, as
students enrolled in the voluntary transfer program in St. Louis are able to
remain in their own communities while simultaneously receiving access to
suburban resources.
Geography
of Opportunity
The
geography of opportunity is used as
the conceptual framework for this study.
In defining the framework, Galster and Killen (1995) pose the following,
“How confined are households to certain areas of residence and thus to
particular markets and institutions? What are the resulting differences in the
environments in which youth of various backgrounds make choices about education,
fertility, work, and crime?” (p. 10). Many
scholars have continued this line of research, specifically as it pertains to
housing and the educational and employment opportunities available in
particular neighborhoods. Squires and
Kubrin (2005) contend that, “where one lives and one’s racial background are
both social constructs which, on their own and in interaction with each other,
significantly shape the privileges (or lack thereof) that people enjoy” (p.
48). Briggs (2005) asserts that,
“location matters—for economic returns, quality of life and many other
reasons” (p. 17).
Beginning
in the 1960s, direct efforts were made to combat residential segregation
through the creation of suburban residential relocation programs for low-income
Black families. Two such programs were
the Gautreaux Program in Chicago and the Moving To Opportunity (MTO) program in
Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. Results of the programs varied, but an
important distinction between the two programs must be noted--the Gautreaux
program in Chicago, created following the 1976 Hills v. Gautreaux Supreme Court ruling, was designed to offer Black
families living in segregated housing projects the opportunity to relocate to a
more racially-integrated neighborhood throughout the metropolitan area, while
the MTO program, a randomized housing experiment funded by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, provided selected families a means of moving from
high-poverty areas to more affluent neighborhoods, regardless of race. Families that participated in the MTO program
tended to relocate to wealthier neighborhoods, though still racially segregated
(Duncan & Zuberi, 2006). Research on
the Gautreaux program indicates that participating children had higher
satisfaction with teachers and better attitudes about school (Sanbonmatsu,
Kling, Duncan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006) while studies found that participating
in the MTO program had minimal impact on school quality and academic
performance (Briggs, Ferryman, Popkin, & Rendon, 2008; Duncan & Zuberi,
2006).
Additional
studies on race, place, and class continue to necessitate the focus on the
geography of opportunity. In a study conducted on the 100 largest metropolitan
areas, Acevedo-Garcia, Osypuk, McArdle, and Williams (2008) found that the
average White child lives in a neighborhood that has a poverty rate of 7
percent, the average Black child lives in a neighborhood with a 21 percent
poverty rate, and the average Latino child lives in a neighborhood with a 19
percent poverty rate. Poverty rates at
10 percent or lower generally indicates a low-poverty (or high-opportunity)
neighborhood, and poverty rates at 20 percent or higher are generally considered
high-poverty neighborhoods.
National
data shows that “the average black family earning $60,000 or more lives in a
neighborhood with a higher poverty rate than the average white family earning
under $30,000” (Logan, Oakley, & Stowell, 2003, p. 16). Acevedo-Garcia et al. (2008) conducted an
analysis specifically focusing on poor Black, White, and Latino children, and
found that even the poorest White children live in better neighborhoods (14
percent poverty rate) than the average Black and Latino children. In his book, The Truly Disadvantaged, Wilson (1987)
focused on equality of life outcomes, and argued that the isolation of Blacks
from White, middle class opportunities poses the greatest obstacle to academic
and economic success. This speaks to the
need for a greater understanding of the geography of opportunity and its impact
on children, families, and neighborhoods.
Despite
such research, it is critical to remember Yosso’s (2005) research on community
cultural wealth, and to recognize that although low-opportunity neighborhoods
do not have all of the access and privilege of high-opportunity neighborhoods,
they do provide residents with the “knowledge, skills, and abilities…to survive
and resist macro and micro forms of oppression” (p. 77). Rather than always considering what these
neighborhoods lack, it is critical to celebrate what they do possess. Briggs (2005) notes that while housing
integration can be viewed as a “proxy for access to opportunity” (p. 29),
access to high-quality education is more directly related to long-term
prospects. In light of these details and of the implementation of the unique
voluntary transfer program in St. Louis, there exists the need to examine race
and place in this specific context.
Brief History of the
Voluntary Interdistrict Desegregation Program in St. Louis
The
plaintiffs in the 1972 Liddell v. Board
of Education of the City of St. Louis case argued that the School Board had
operated in a discriminatory manner following the 1954 Brown ruling, and as a result, deprived Black students in St. Louis
of equal educational opportunities. A
settlement was finally reached in 1983, which included the creation of a dual
transfer program, where Black students from St. Louis were provided with free
transportation to suburban schools at all grade levels, and White suburban
students were eligible to enroll in city magnet schools. Through this transfer program, the suburban
districts agreed to increase the percentage of Black students by at least 15%
of their current enrollment, though not to exceed 25% of total enrollment
(Heaney & Uchitelle, 2004). Applications
are processed on a first-come, first-served basis, and parents indicate their
preferences for the suburban districts paired with their city zones.
By
1999, following a lengthy process, a bill was passed that ended court-ordered
desegregation of the city’s public schools, but would keep both the transfer
program and the magnet schools. The 1999
settlement agreement did not require the participating suburban districts to
enroll the same percentage of transfer students into their schools each year,
and as a result, districts began phasing out a small percentage of available
seats each year, approximately five to six percent annually. Enrollment was at its peak of 14,227 total
participating students, including 1,249 suburban students attending city
magnets, during the 1999-2000 school year, the first year following the
settlement agreement. Enrollment has
continually fallen since the Settlement Agreement, and during the 2012-2013
school year, program enrollment totaled 5,130 total students, with 86 suburban
students attending the city’s magnets (Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation,
2013). This study focuses on the ten
years following the lifting of the court order in 1999, and though this is a
dual-transfer program, emphasizes the urban-to-suburban aspect of the
program.
Methods and Data
Using
descriptive statistical analyses, this study investigates both the differences
in resources between St. Louis and the 15 participating suburban districts, and
among the 15 suburban districts. The ten
years of data (1999-2009) included in this study allows for a longitudinal
analysis of the fiscal resources in the suburban districts to which transfer
students have access. The mean (average) of the ten years of data is calculated
for each district, as well as the range of each variable (subtracting the
minimum value from the maximum value) among the suburban districts only.
Data Sources
The
district-level data used to examine the resources available in the 16 participating
districts (including St. Louis) were obtained from the following state or
federal databases: the National Center for Education Statistic’s Common Core of
Data, the Common Core of Data’s Local Education Agency Finance Survey Data
(F-33 file), the Missouri Department of Education, the St. Louis County
Department of Revenue, and the U.S. Census Bureau. The dollar amounts used throughout this
analysis are reported in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars based on conversion
rates outlined by Sahr (2013).
Variables
A
total of 17 variables were used compiled into three resource categories (Table
1). The five spending variables are: per pupil expenditures, per pupil revenue
received from property taxes, per pupil revenue received from Title I funding, per
pupil teacher salary used for instruction, and local tax effort. Using the F-33 file, district enrollment was
used to calculate the per pupil expenditures, the per pupil revenue received
from property taxes, and the per pupil teacher salary used for instruction. The local tax effort was obtained from the St.
Louis County Department of Revenue.
Table 1. Variable
Definitions
|
Category |
Variable Name |
Description |
|
Spending |
PPE |
Per
Pupil Expenditures (in dollars) |
|
PPRevPropTax |
Per Pupil
Revenue from Property Taxes (in dollars) |
|
|
PPRevTitleI |
Per
Pupil Revenue from Federal Title I Funding (in dollars) |
|
|
PPSalInstruct |
Per Pupil
Teacher Salary Used for Instruction (in dollars) |
|
|
Local
Tax |
District
Tax Rate (in mills) for the School System |
|
|
District |
Enrollment |
Number of
Students in the District |
|
%BlackDistrict |
Percentage
of Black Students in the District |
|
|
%WhiteDistrict |
Percentage of
White Students in the District |
|
|
%FRL |
Percentage
of Students that Qualify for Free and/or Reduced Priced Lunch in the District |
|
|
PupTchRatio |
Pupil-Teacher
Ratio |
|
|
Community |
MedHome |
Median
Home Value (in dollars) |
|
MedFamInc |
Median Family Income
(in dollars) |
|
|
%BA |
Percentage
of Residents aged 25 and older with a Bachelor’s degree |
|
|
%FamPov |
Percentage of
Families living in Poverty |
|
|
%BlackFamilies |
Percentage
of Black Families in the School District |
|
|
%WhiteFamilies |
Percentage of
White Families in the School District |
|
|
Distance |
Distance
(in miles) from St. Louis to the School District |
Five
district variables were obtained from
the Common Core of Data and the Missouri Department of Education, and included
the total district enrollment, the percentage of Black and White students, the
percentage of students that qualify for free and reduced priced lunch, and the
pupil-teacher ratio. The seven community
variables included six collected from the U.S. Census Bureau: median home value,
median family income, and demographic information pertaining to race, family
poverty, and educational attainment. Because
all of the suburban districts are located in greater St. Louis county, school
district data was calculated based on county subdivisions, defined by the
Census Bureau (2013b) as “the primary divisions of counties and statistically
equivalent entities for the reporting of decennial census data” (para. 1).
Integrationists
that have advocated for busing in the past argued that, “the greater the
distance the student travels to get to the school, relative to options
available to him, the more the school should offer him when he arrives”
(Campbell, 1973, p. 482). Physical
distance (number of miles) between St. Louis and the suburban districts is
included among the community
variables to provide an estimate of students’ travel time.
Findings
As
evidenced in Table 2, across the five spending
variables (per pupil expenditure, per pupil revenue from property tax, per
pupil revenue from Title I funding, per pupil teacher salary used for
instruction, and local tax effort), St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) had higher
average per pupil expenditures than the suburban average, had higher local tax
effort, and received almost $450 more per pupil in Title I funding. Regardless of the higher tax effort, SLPS
received $2,000 less, on average, in revenue from property taxes due to lower
property wealth. Despite substantial
differences in per pupil expenditures and revenue from property taxes, SLPS only
spent an average of $100 less on teacher salary used for instruction per pupil.
In
looking at the range of the spending
variables among the suburban districts, we find significant variations,
especially among the expenditure and revenue variables. The highest-spending suburban district spent over
$10,000 more per pupil than the lowest-spending (fives times the difference
between the SLPS and suburban averages), and received over $8,500 more in
revenue from property taxes than the district receiving the least amount (four
times the difference between the SLPS and suburban averages). These data reflect important fiscal and
socioeconomic differences among the suburban districts.
Table 2.
Spending Variables, 1999-2009 Averages
|
School District |
PPE ($*) |
PPRevPropTax ($*) |
PPRevTitleI ($*) |
PPSalInst ($*) |
Local Tax |
|
SPLS |
13,532 |
3,799 |
585 |
4,194 |
4.8581 |
|
Suburban Average |
11,673 |
5,977 |
118 |
4,257 |
3.8432 |
|
Affton |
10,356 |
5,744 |
81 |
3,527 |
4.3712 |
|
Bayless |
7,134 |
3,299 |
146 |
2,544 |
3.5962 |
|
Brentwood |
16,193 |
7,916 |
105 |
5,691 |
3.0307 |
|
Clayton |
17,956 |
10,281 |
83 |
6,870 |
3.4456 |
|
Hancock Place |
8,871 |
1,771 |
273 |
3,529 |
4.3518 |
|
Kirkwood |
11,013 |
6,716 |
88 |
4,216 |
3.9149 |
|
Ladue |
17,158 |
9,713 |
20 |
5,647 |
3.0150 |
|
Lindbergh |
10,882 |
5,445 |
78 |
4,032 |
2.9902 |
|
Mehlville |
7,863 |
4,443 |
78 |
3,338 |
3.6101 |
|
Parkway |
11,295 |
6,342 |
72 |
4,136 |
3.4380 |
|
Pattonville |
14,229 |
7,639 |
106 |
4,923 |
3.8008 |
|
Ritenour |
9,458 |
3,826 |
213 |
3,547 |
4.3503 |
|
Rockwood |
10,161 |
5,069 |
68 |
3,447 |
4.3145 |
|
Valley Park |
10,583 |
5,286 |
238 |
4,012 |
4.6376 |
|
Webster Groves |
12,034 |
6,160 |
125 |
4,400 |
4.7811 |
|
Suburban Range |
10,822 |
8,510 |
253 |
4,326 |
1.7909 |
*inflation-adjusted
2009 dollars
Source: National
Center for Education Statistics, 2013a; St. Louis County Department of Revenue,
2013
Table
3 displays the variations in district
variables. The percentage of Black
students in the suburban districts ranged from an average minimum of 12% to an
average maximum of 34%. The average percentage
of students who qualify for free and/or reduced lunch was also greater, on
average, in SLPS than in the suburban districts. Four of the participating suburban districts
had an average percentage of students that qualify for free and/or reduced priced
lunch at 40% or higher, but the average percentage of Black students in those
districts did not mirror those percentages. It is also possible that changing suburban
demographics, in addition to the transfer program, may be a factor in the
variations in the percentage of Black students and students that qualify for
free and/or reduced price lunch enrolled.
Table 3. District
Variables, 1999-2009 Averages
|
School District |
Enrollment |
%Black District |
%White District |
%FRL |
PupTchRatio |
|
SLPS |
39,422 |
80.4 |
15.1 |
78.6 |
12.9 |
|
Suburban Average |
6,304 |
19.9 |
73.5 |
24.9 |
15.2 |
|
Affton |
2,543 |
11.7 |
83.9 |
23.4 |
16.5 |
|
Bayless |
1,575 |
12.4 |
79.9 |
40.9 |
18.0 |
|
Brentwood |
860 |
26.4 |
66.8 |
17.5 |
11.9 |
|
Clayton |
2,556 |
21.7 |
68.0 |
11.8 |
11.4 |
|
Hancock Place |
1,823 |
21.5 |
75.5 |
63.3 |
17.3 |
|
Kirkwood |
5,249 |
22.5 |
74.8 |
14.9 |
16.0 |
|
Ladue |
3,814 |
17.0 |
66.9 |
7.9 |
12.0 |
|
Lindbergh |
5,448 |
13.1 |
83.7 |
13.5 |
15.1 |
|
Mehlville |
11,616 |
12.4 |
84.4 |
17.1 |
17.6 |
|
Parkway |
19,304 |
16.9 |
71.5 |
12.3 |
16.2 |
|
Pattonville |
6,096 |
25.1 |
68.2 |
30.0 |
13.4 |
|
Ritenour |
6,293 |
34.2 |
56.8 |
54.0 |
17.2 |
|
Rockwood |
22,135 |
11.8 |
83.4 |
10.2 |
16.4 |
|
Valley Park |
1,075 |
26.7 |
66.2 |
40.0 |
14.1 |
|
Webster
Groves |
4,177 |
25.0 |
72.2 |
17.0 |
14.7 |
|
Suburban Range |
21,275 |
22.5 |
27.6 |
55.4 |
6.0 |
Source: Missouri
Department of Education, 2013; National Center for Education Statistics, 2013a,
2013b
Data
on the community variables (Table 4)
obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau found that St. Louis residents were, on
average, poorer, less White, and had less educational achievement than the
residents of the participating suburban districts. Average median family income was
approximately $45,000 less in St. Louis, average median home values were
approximately $100,000 less in St. Louis, and there were approximately 17% more
families living in poverty in St. Louis than in the participating suburbs. The percentage of Black families in the suburbs
is almost negligible, averaging 5.6% across the ten years (while the average
percentage of Black students in the suburban schools averaged 20%).
Table 4. Community
Variables, 1999-2009 Averages
|
School District |
Med Home ($*) |
Med FamInc ($*) |
%BA |
%Fam Pov |
%Black District |
%White District |
Distance |
|
SLPS |
108,538 |
40,870 |
13.7 |
20.9 |
50.3 |
44.0 |
- |
|
Suburban Average |
208,849 |
85,999 |
25.0 |
3.8 |
5.6 |
89.3 |
14.8 |
|
Affton |
156,960 |
70,182 |
22.6 |
4.9 |
4.0 |
90.9 |
11.2 |
|
Bayless |
148,461 |
69,806 |
17.4 |
2.9 |
0.5 |
95.5 |
10.0 |
|
Brentwood |
328,330 |
115,307 |
32.2 |
2.7 |
9.6 |
84.5 |
9.5 |
|
Clayton |
328,330 |
115,307 |
32.2 |
2.7 |
9.6 |
84.5 |
11.5 |
|
Hancock Place |
126,182 |
55,228 |
12.1 |
7.4 |
1.9 |
95.0 |
9.8 |
|
Kirkwood |
220,936 |
98,332 |
30.9 |
2.2 |
3.7 |
93.5 |
17.5 |
|
Ladue |
328,330 |
115,307 |
32.2 |
2.7 |
9.6 |
84.5 |
12.4 |
|
Lindbergh |
148,461 |
69,806 |
17.4 |
2.9 |
0.5 |
95.5 |
15.3 |
|
Mehlville |
163,619 |
71,837 |
17.5 |
4.4 |
1.4 |
95.9 |
12.9 |
|
Parkway |
220,206 |
94,497 |
33.0 |
3.0 |
3.7 |
86.9 |
19.9 |
|
Pattonville |
136,883 |
67,166 |
17.4 |
4.2 |
11.1 |
84.7 |
16.4 |
|
Ritenour |
91,618 |
50,605 |
11.1 |
8.9 |
20.1 |
75.1 |
14.8 |
|
Rockwood |
301,121 |
115,000 |
33.0 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
92.5 |
28.2 |
|
Valley Park |
195,217 |
86,981 |
32.9 |
4.1 |
3.5 |
88.0 |
21.2 |
|
Webster
Groves |
238,088 |
94,624 |
33.2 |
2.6 |
3.0 |
93.1 |
11.3 |
|
Suburban Range |
236,712 |
60,079 |
22.1 |
7.0 |
19.6 |
20.4 |
18.4 |
*Inflation-adjusted
2009 dollars
Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, 2013a
As
evidenced by the range in the community variables among the suburban districts,
there is, again, evidence of significant variation. The difference in median home values among
the suburban districts was over $200,000 (twice as much as the difference
between the SLPS and suburban averages), while the range in median family
income reached approximately $60,000 (about $25,000 more than the difference
between the SLPS and suburban averages).
There were also noticeable differences in educational attainment among
suburban families, ranging from 11% to 33%.
Interestingly, although the percentage of Black families averaged 5.6%
in the suburban communities overall, four districts averaged approximately 10%
while another two averaged 20%, indicating increasing suburban diversity.
Conclusion
Tiebout (1956) explained that consumers will relocate based
on their preferences, and will choose a community that best satisfies said
preferences. Parents with financial
means can choose to relocate to better, higher-achieving school districts or
place their children in private schools, while those parents who cannot must
continue to send their children to their assigned schools or find other
options, which includes joining the lottery of their local charter school in
hopes of being selected.
The
voluntary interdistrict desegregation program in St. Louis presents a feasible
(and popular yet limited) school choice option for those families in urban
communities that do not have the means to physically relocate to the suburbs,
unlike the families who participated in the Gautreaux and MTO programs. This investigation, intended to contribute to
the past studies done on several voluntary transfer program by Armor (1972),
Crain and Strauss (1985), Eaton (2001, 2006), Orfield et al. (1998), and Wells
and Crain (1997), illustrates the need for continued research to bridge the gap
between race and place, between cities and suburbs, and between schools and
society.
The
analyses of the spending and district variables find that the
suburban districts had higher average per pupil revenue from property taxes and
higher average per pupil teacher salary used for instruction, with lower
average per pupil expenditures and lower average tax efforts despite larger
average class sizes. Suburban schools
were also less diverse on average, both racially and socioeconomically. Data on the community variables finds that St. Louis residents are, on average,
poorer, less White, and have less educational achievement than the residents of
the participating suburban districts. The
community variables were included in
this analysis with the understanding that although transfer students do not
have the direct access to those particular variables, they may experience an
increase in their social and/or cultural capital through sustained interactions
with the resident students and teachers.
Families participating in the urban-to-suburban segment of
the voluntary interdistrict desegregation program in St. Louis cannot chose the
district in which their children are enrolled—they may indicate
preference based on attendance zones but assignments are made on a space
available basis. These analyses indicate
that, depending on the suburban district some transfer students have access to
increased school resources, affluent communities, and potentially have
increased access to suburban social and cultural capital. In some suburban districts, however,
education spending and revenue was lower than in St. Louis Public Schools.
The question of how much a high-quality education costs may
not be answered any time soon, especially regarding students from traditionally
underserved backgrounds, but the study presented here continues the line of
research on the geography of opportunity
by investigating in the differences in education spending between city and
suburban communities, and among suburban communities. Despite declining enrollment and little say in
which district their children enroll, Black parents in St. Louis continue to
choose the voluntary transfer program as an educational option. Future analyses must include long-term
achievement outcomes, college retention and current employment, allowing
researchers to begin to understand the effects of increased (or in some cases,
decreased) resources on student achievement under these specific circumstances.
References
Acevedo-Garcia, D., Osypuk, T. L.,
McArdle, N., & Williams, D. R.
(2008). Toward a policy-relevant
analysis of geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in child health. Health
Affairs, 27, 321-333.
Angrist, J.D., & Lang, K. (2004). Does school
integration generate peer effects? Evidence from Boston’s METCO Program. The
American Economic Review, 94(5), 1613-1634.
Armor, D. J. (1972).
The Evidence on Busing. The Public Interest, 28, 90-126.
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2003).
What the research says about
unequal funding for schools in America.
San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Briggs, X. d. S. (2005). More pluribum, less unum? The Changing geography of race and
opportunity. In X. d. S. Briggs (Ed), Geography of opportunity: Race and housing choice in metropolitan
America (p. 17-44). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institute.
Briggs, X. d. S., Ferryman, K. S., Popkin, S. J., &
Rendon, M. (2008). Why did the Moving to Opportunity experiment
not get young people into better schools?
Housing Policy Debate, 19,
53-91.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Campbell, E. Q. (1973).
Defining and attaining equal educational opportunity in a pluralistic
society. Vanderbilt Law Review, 26, 461-486.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson,
C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., … York, R. L. (1966).
Equality of educational
opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Crain, R. L., & Strauss, J. (1985).
School desegregation and black
occupational attainments: Results from a long-term experiment. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Center for Social Organizations of Schools.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903).
The souls of black folk. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Duncan, G. J., & Zuberi, A. (2006).
Mobility lessons from Gautreaux and Moving to Opportunity. Northwestern
Journal of Law & Social Policy, 1,
110-126.
Eaton, S.
(2001). The other Boston busing story: What’s won and lost across the boundary
line. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Eaton, S.
(2006). The children in room E4: American education on trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel
Hill.
Eaton, S. & Chirichigno, G. (2011).
METCO merits more: The history and
status of METCO. Boston, MA: Pioneer
Institute.
Galster, G. C., & Killen, S. P. (1995).
The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and
conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate, 6, 7-43.
Gamoran, A., & Long, D.A.
(2006). Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40-Year Retrospective. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education
Research.
Heaney, G. W., & Uchitelle, S. (2004).
Unending struggle: The long road
to an equal education in St. Louis.
St. Louis, MO: Reedy Press.
Liddell v. Board
of Education of City of St. Louis. 491
F. Supp. 351 (1980).
Logan, J. R., Oakley, D., & Stowell,
J. (2003). Segregation
in neighborhoods and schools: Impacts on minority children in the Boston
region. Paper presented at the
Harvard Color Lines Conference, Cambridge, MA.
Mann, H.
(1848). Twelfth Annual Report to the Massachusetts State Board of Education. Retrieved from
usinfo.org/docs/democracy/16.htm.
Missouri Department of Education. (2013).
Missouri comprehensive data system. Retrieved from
http://mcds.dese.mo.gov/quickfacts/SitePages/DistrictInfo.aspx.
National Advisory Commission on Civil
Disorders (1968). Summary of report. Retrieved
from http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf
National Center for Education
Statistics. (2013a). Common
core of data - Local education agency (school district)
finance survey (F-33) data. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/f33agency.asp.
National Center for Education
Statistics. (2013b). Common Core of Data: Local education agency
(school district) finance survey (F-33) data.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/f33agency.asp.
Orfield, G., Arenson, J., Jackson, T.,
Bohrer, C., Gavin, D., Kalejs, E.
(1998). Summary of “City-Suburban
Desegregation: Parent and student perspectives in Metropolitan Boston,” a
Report by the Harvard Civil Rights Project.
Equity & Excellence in
Education, 31, 6-12.
Sahr, R. (2013). Inflation
conversion factors for years 1774 to estimated 2023, in dollars of recent
years. Retrieved from http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/sahr/sahr.
Sanbonmatsu, L., Kling, J. R., Duncan, G.
J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Neighborhoods and academic achievement:
Results from the Moving to Opportunity experiment. The
Journal of Human Resources, 41, 650-691.
St. Louis County Department of
Revenue. (2013). Tax
rates summary. Retrieved from
http://revenue.stlouisco.com/collection/TaxRates.aspx.
Squires, G. D. & Kubrin, C. E. (2005).
Privileged places: Race, uneven development and the geography of
opportunity in urban America. Urban Studies, 42, 47-68.
Tiebout, C.
M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal
of Political Economy, 64, 416-424.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013a).
American fact finder. Retreived from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013b).
Cartographic boundary files. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/geo/www/cob/cs_metadata.html.
Voluntary Interdistrict Choice
Corporation. (2013). Voluntary
interdistirict choice corporation.
Retrieved from http://www.choicecorp.org/default.htm.
Wells, A. S., Baldridge, B. J., Duran, J.
D., Grzesikowski, C., Lofton, R., Roda, A., …White, T. (2009).
Boundary crossing for diversity,
equity and achievement: Inter-district school desegregation and educational
opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Charles
Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice.
Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1997).
Stepping over the color line:
African-American students in white suburban schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1987).
The truly disadvantaged: The inner
city, the underclass, and public policy.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Yosso, T. J. (2005).
Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1),
69-91.