Does Segregation Matter?

As I said in this post, A Vision Statement, we need to spend more time together with people who are not like we are. We need to combat the paralyzing, dangerous stereotypes that the media passes out like candy at an Easter parade. How do we do this? As I said, there are very few -- if any -- non-commercial spaces where people can do this, except one: public schools.

Public schools today are largely segregated on the basis of the socioeconomic context of their surroundings. So, inner-city schools are made up largely of low-income minority students and rural and suburban schools are made up of white students. But rural and suburban schools often have large populations of low-income children, the majority of whom are white. And rural and suburban schools are undergoing rapid change, as new waves of immigrants flood into the country and move into the zone between the suburban and rural areas (often referred to as "the exurbs" or "exurbia"). For the first time, these school districts are faced with the challenge of educating children who do not speak English as their first language and who do not share the same cultural associations as their native-speaking peers.

So we have two things going at the same time:

1. rural, suburban, and exurban schools are becoming increasingly diversified
2. inner-city schools are becoming increasingly segregated

For the rural, suburban, and exurban schools, there is no choice about dealing with difference and diversity. The growing difference and diversity in their schools is right there in front of them.

And for the inner-city schools, there seems to be no choice either about dealing with the lack of difference and diversity. The growing homogenization in their schools is right there in front of them.

So is that a problem? In other words, is there something inherently wrong with low-income minority children, i.e., blacks and Latinos, going to school with other low-income minority children and never going to school with any other child from any other socioeconomic strand?

Yes, there is.

It's wrong because these children never get a chance to interact with anyone outside their socioeconomic realm. They have no knowledge of white people outside what they see on TV.

Many people in public school reform reject this isolation. They say there's nothing that any of us can do about it, that we can't just make these neighborhoods into something they aren't, and that we can't force white students to go to school there. They cite the experiments with desegregation programs and mandatory busing programs that moved white and black kids all over the place and conclude, "We tried that and it didn't work. So now we have to make the best of it."

In short, life has given these children lemons. The best we can do is make lemonade.

Schools like KIPP and Edison have a nifty way of justifying the fact that they make segregated schools work and continue to support their existence. They say, "Our schools serve the population of students who live in the area." Nice. Clean. No edges. It's not their problem. They simply serve the children who are there.

But why are these children there? And what are the odds that they will make it out of there? Why are their parents there? And why were their parents and their parents' parents there?

"Saving" a few kids does not make the pernicious cycle of poverty and misery go away. It simply sugar-coats it. It makes it more palatable to once guilt-ridden policy-makers who can now blame all those inner-city children for not pulling themselves out of the ghetto through their own efforts. These policy-makers and educational reformers now have license to abandon efforts to eradicate systemic poverty and inequality and proclaim instead, "If they can do it, why can't you?!?!"

Segregation matters because it serves to remind us that we have a long, long way to go on the path to social justice. Any effort that takes our focus off this problem leads us off the path. We must not be distracted.