Because this is a mostly middle-class country, why can’t we adjust school boundaries and provide transportation to let all low-income students have these role models and protectors?
People who ask that question get quizzical looks from self-important pundits like me. Don’t you remember the ’70s? We tried putting poor black kids into affluent white neighborhood schools and vice versa. It was a well-intentioned, disheartening failure. Voters rebelled against boundary changes and busing. Affluent parents abandoned socioeconomically integrated schools. Politicians local and national, Democratic and Republican, gave up on the idea.
But Kahlenberg hasn’t, and his point of view has made headway. In his new piece, “From All Walks of Life: New Hope for School Integration,” he describes a small but increasing number of successful experiments in socioeconomic balance. Skeptics like me should at least acknowledge that many affluent American parents want their children to mix with low-income students, so long as everyone is getting a challenging education.
I asked Kahlenberg how Washington area schools might move in this direction. In suburban districts such as Montgomery County, he said, “greater integration could be facilitated by creating whole school (as opposed to within-school) magnet programs to attract more affluent students into schools located in tougher neighborhoods. Likewise, money could be used to provide a financial bonus for wealthier schools to accept low-income student transfers.” School boundary adjustments could help. Local activists, and even D.C. Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson, have shown interest in such approaches.
With socioeconomic integration still difficult to arrange, conscientious educators have tried instead to bring the habits and expectations of rich schools to poor ones. They hire only principals and teachers with high expectations for inner-city kids. They make the school day and year longer to compensate for the lack of middle-class enrichment at home. They insist on students obeying the same attendance and classroom behavior rules found in affluent schools. They prepare all students for college, as private schools do.
They are, in essence, embracing Kahlenberg’s point, that middle-class values produce better students. So I think Kahlenberg wastes time in his piece casting doubt on the achievement gains in such schools. He is irked by the good publicity received by the KIPP charter school network, a favorite of mine. KIPP is not perfect, but many researchers have verified its progress, and Kahlenberg’s arguments are weakened by old data and unexamined assumptions.
He is much better highlighting the growth of socioeconomic integration. When he started work on his 2001 landmark book, “All Together Now,” there was only one district, with 8,000 students, using that approach. Now, there are 80 districts, with 4 million students. Wake County, in North Carolina, which briefly abandoned its experiment, has returned to socioeconomic integration because parents refused to let it go.
Teachers having success in schools without socioeconomic integration are rooting for Kahlenberg, as am I. We should pursue every possible way to help poor kids learn, including Kahlenberg’s enlightened explanations of how to give our schools a better mix of family incomes.
To read previous columns, go to washingtonpost.com/jaymathews.