magnet schools
mrsishman
Magnet schools: Desegregation or resegregation? Students' voices from inside the walls Bush, Lawson;Burley, Hansel;Causey-Bush, Tonia American Secondary Education; Spring 2001; 29, 3; ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection pg. 33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
MAGNET SCHOOLS:
DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
STUDENTS' VOICES FROM INSIDE THE WALLS
AUTHORS
LAWSON BusH V, PH.D., is Assistant Professor in the Division of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
HANSEL BURLEY, PH.O., is Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Tonia Causey-Bush is a Ph.D. Candidate at Claremont Graduate University at Claremont, CA.
ABSTRACT
The literature is inconclusive concerning the effectiveness of magnet schools in achieving desegregation, particularly in the case of school-within-school programs. The uncertainty in this matter is supported by the dearth of literature that looks beyond the racial make up of an overall school setting to examine the racial compo- sition of classrooms. Toward this end, this present qualitative study employs four student participants to analyze the condition of desegregation at their magnet high school. We used interviews, journals, and throwaway cameras to collect data. In short, we found that though the entire school setting is significantly racially hetero- geneous, the classes are racially segregated and are maintained systematically, structurally, and by the attitudes and behaviors of teachers and administrators.
Forty-five years after the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education ( 1954) decision,
scholars are still sifting through the pros and cons of this historical event as school
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001 DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
districts continue with the practice of desegregation, or perhaps more appropriate
for this present research, the appearance of desegregation. With this in mind, this
present article uses the voices of four students to examine whether a school district's
magnet program at Jefferson High School 1 in a mid-sized Southern city is currently
successful at desegregation. As a starting point, we define successful school deseg-
regation as the achievement of racially heterogeneous schools and classrooms.
Whether children, particularly bicultural or historically excluded students, are
successful with respect to educational outcomes in desegregated settings, such as
magnet schools, is another issue.
Nevertheless, the fact that we have chosen to: a) move beyond just counting the
overall racial population at a school site as a measurement in determining the
success of desegregation plans, b) hear the voices of students in this matter makes
this work distinctive from other inquiries and significant to the social foundations of
education. Moreover, and beyond the field of education, the axiomatic impact of
the Brown decision to the social dynamics in the United States is immeasurable
(Kluger, 1975; Orfield & Eaton, 1996). Thus, social scientists need to continuously reexamine, discuss, and reflect on this matter.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Much of the body of literature regarding magnet schools and desegregation focuses
on whether these schools have achieved a predetermined racial balance on the
overall school site through either voluntary or involuntary plans (Black, 1996; Fife,
1992, 1994; Lyons & Walton; Monti, 1986; Reynolds, 1986; Rossell, 1979, 1985,
1988, 1990a; Rossell & Clarke, 1987). It is generally accepted in the literature that
voluntary magnet school programs will achieve greater long-term interracial expo-
sure when compared with involuntary programs that produce greater white flight
(Rossell, 1990a). However, this position has been challenged by others (Armor,
1995; Fife, 1994) who contend that over a period of time voluntary plans end up
with the same amount of white flight as involuntary desegregation plans.
Nevertheless, while quantifying the actual number of different racial groups on
a campus and determining which method creates the greatest racial balance are
both necessary to the study of school desegregation, these methods are not a suffi-
cient approach to depict the full range of human experience in these settings. The
aforementioned literature only explores desegregation in terms of examining
magnet schools as a whole rather than within specific classrooms.
In fact, Rossell (1990a), whose work saturates the magnet school literature
defined the term interracial exposure as "the percentage White in the average
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRINC 2001
BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
minority child's school" (p. 486). However, a predecessor of the term interracial
exposure was the term racial balance that was used in the Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) decision, which essentially stated that a
school must reflect the racial make-up of the school district or system. Moreover,
the Swann decision maintained that mathematical ratios were possible but not an
absolute requirement. Thus, with respect to magnet schools, racial balance is
commonly defined as plus or minus 20 or 25 percentage points from the overall
racial composition of a school (Armor, 1995). We find that such definitions and
methods completely ignore the constitution and dynamics of magnet school
classrooms.
Some scholars (Eyler, Cook & Ward, 1983; Feld & Carter, 1998; Rossell, 1990b; Russo & Talbert-Johnson, 1997) saw the above criteria and method for evaluating
school desegregation as being problematic, particularly in magnet programs such as
the one in our present study, that are classified as a "program within a school" or
"school within a school." This type of magnet program is embedded in the context
and building of a regular school. Consequently, Rossell (1990b) asked two ques-
tions that are germane to our present examination: ''Are the resident students really
in a desegregated school if they only see the opposite race magnet students for part
of the day? To what extent are resident students al lowed to use the resources of the magnet program?" (p. 56)
Using the aforementioned questions to examine the body of literature
concerning school within school magnet programs, we find many accusations and
suppositions but few studies. Much has been written about the tracking of
Bicultural students into lower academic tracks and white students into honor or
higher academic tracks in regular school settings (Oakes, 1985). Thus, scholars
using these findings, generalized the occurrence of tracking to include magnet
programs. With this in mind, Eaton (1996), in, perhaps the most exhaustive work on
school resegregation entitled Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of
Brown v. Board of Education, asks "are secondary magnet schools desegregated?"
(p. 218). Drawing predominately on Gordon's 1990 report entitled A Study of
Minority Student Achievement in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) Eaton
discusses how many secondary magnet schools reinforce patterns of racial desegre-
gation. Looking closely at Gordon's work, we find that in order to examine bicul-
tural achievement in MCPS Gordon and his associates analyzed more than 10
district-wide positions and programs, none of which included the magnet program.
Yet, in almost as an aside to the report, Gordon includes some statements for some
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
students who express their discontent with segregation in magnet programs and the
inequitable allocation of resources. Building on Gordon's work and the earlier work of Schofield (1982) who exam-
ined racial tension between Blacks and Whites in magnet schools, we decided to
talk with students on a high school campus where there is a "school within a
school" magnet program. It was our aim to discover, among other things, how the
students define desegregation. Moreover, did they view their "school within a
school" program as being segregated or desegregated? Lastly, we wanted to find out
the students' perspectives on the social, political, and academic repercussions
fostered by the dynamics of their schooling situation.
BACKGROUND
The school district where Jefferson H ighschool is located has used magnet schools
to attempt racial balance for 21 years. The white flight of the 1970s and 1980s that
made new areas of the Jefferson district and other school districts surrounding the
city grow significantly is being followed by a significant migration of Blacks and
Latinos to the same areas. Still, because of housing patterns, there are primarily
Black and Latino schools. Of the four high schools, one is primarily Latino and one
is primarily Black. Three forces appear to have shaped the racial makeup of the
schools: forced busing, a magnet program, and quickly changing housing patterns.
White students make up 50 percent of students in the district, and all other
groups, primarily Black and Latinos, make up the balance. The district has used
both majority-to-minority and minority-to-majority transfer strategies. Twelve of the
district's 42 campuses are magnet schools, and all but one require that out-of-neigh-
borhood majority students compete to enter the programs (alternative and special
campuses are not included). The one exception is a minority-to-majority school
whose attraction is a program that allows struggling but motivated seventh graders to take special classes that allow them to skip the eighth grade. In general, students
must have a 3.2 GPA and pass both the reading and mathematics portion of the
annual statewide assessment. However, neighborhood students have first choice for
a seat in any magnet program. Transportation is provided for all students living more than two miles from their chosen school.
Jefferson High School is situated in a predominately Black and Latino neigh-
borhood. The school's population is 51 % Latino, 40% White, 7% Black, and 3% Asian. The majority of the White students are bused in to attend the Jefferson
Exemplary Program UEP) ~ a school within a school majority-to-minority magnet program that began in the early 1980s with one of its reported aims to create a
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
desegregated school setting. Close to 40% of the school's approximately 1,800
students are in JEP. To be considered for JEP, students must have an overall GPA of 3.5 with no grade below a B, letters of recommendation, and must have passed all
portions of the state assessment test.
METHOD
Our literature review revealed that the common method of gathering information
about the attractiveness and success of desegregation programs is the use of surveys
administered to parents. We find this methodology of surveying parents problem-
atic becau·se surveys are usually inflexible and limit in-depth answers, explana-
tions, and the examination of experiences that influence how a participant answers
questions; and the voices of students or children, the most important component
of the desegregation paradigm, are ignored. According to Nieto (1994), there is a
dearth of research focusing on student perspectives. Moreover, she contends that
student participation is invaluable to the process of school reform and change.
Therefore, we decided to engage students as participants to bring in their necessary
voices to the school desegregation discourse by employing qualitative methods.
We gathered seven names of potential participants through a process called
community nomination, whereby the names of the participants were solicited
through individual contacts with the community (Foster, 1997). We selected four
students based on their availability and whether they participated in JEP: two of our
participants were JEP students.
We used three methods to collect data that included open-ended interviews,
student journals, and pictures taken by the participants. One author facilitated all
interviews. The initial interviews were face-to-face and tape-recorded lasting
approximately one and one half-hour each. During the initial interview, partici-
pants received a journal and a camera and were asked to chronicle events that underscored information they offered in the interview. There was a second inter-
view that was face-to-face and tape-recorded lasting approximately one hour each.
We conducted follow-up interviews that lasted 15 minutes by telephone after receiving the journals and cameras. During the fall semester when we conducted
the study, unscheduled and non structured phone conversations took place when 3
of the 4 participants would call in to report occurrences that they thought would be
of interest to us. Qualitative analysis of the data occurred through a process of open and axial coding whereby the data were first deconstructed and labeled randomly
then selectively categorized (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The majority of the data used for analysis came from the interviews. The
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
pictures the students took were mainly of their peers in classrooms for the purpose
of collaborating their contentions concerning the state of desegregation. One
student wrote extensively in her journal while the other three only had a page or two of entries: we included this data in our analysis. The authors on several occa-
sions visited the campus for various reasons. We went to a funeral and to football
games and talked with administrators and teachers. While our visits and conversa-
tions with school personnel are not part of the data analysis, they provided us with
information about the school's dynamics.
RESULTS As noted in our literature review, the meaning of school desegregation with respect to how it is actually practiced in educational settings is dialectical. Some meas-
urements of school desegregation have focused on the overall racial composition of
the entire school site while other assessments examined the racial distributions
within classrooms. Aaron, a biracial 17-year-old (he is White and Latino but iden-
tifies himself as being Latino) JEP student, explains how he would define desegre-
gation in this context: (Some of our participants use nonstandard English but their
meanings are clear and should not confuse the reader. Therefore, we chose not to
use sic in order to affirm and validate the participants' way of communicating).
(All names have been changed to protect the identity of the school and participants.)
Aaron: I would define desegregation by the classroom. There would be at
least an equal number or at least more than what I have experienced
so far in my JEP classes.
Interviewer: Why would you define it that way?
Aaron: Well, I have seen in my JEP classes - maybe on one hand, I can count
the number - the number for three years of Latino and African-
American students that I have had in my classes with me and they have
all been the same students.
Interviewer: mmm
Aaron: And that I don't consider it to be desegregated, because it sti II is all the
white majority in the classes at a high school where Whites aren't the
majority - they are the minority.
Like all of the participants, Leon, a 17-year-old Black male student in regular classes also agrees that one should determine whether a school is desegregated by
looking at the racial composition of classrooms. Moreover, he took pictures of
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001 BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
classes to underscore Aaron's and all the participants' contention that Jefferson High
School is racially segregated. Leon said, "You see, man, I would look at the classes
[to define desegregation]. I see classes where there is nothing but Whites - no
Mexicans, no Black, no Chinese - just White, White people, you know."
We underscored the word regular in the above paragraph because it was a term
given to us by the participants. The term appeared in our data more than 80 times
to refer to regular classes, students, or teachers, although this word did not appear
in any of our questions. With respect to our interviews, it is important to note that,
though we had a predetermined set of questions, all of our interviews opened with
the item: Tell me about your school. From this single open-ended item students
began to tell the story of schooling through their eyes and needed only probing and
summary questions to support the dialogue. Thus, the term regular emerged
embodying pejorative connotations. Alexandra, a 17-year-old White student taking
regular classes, and Delilah, a 17-year-old Black JEP student expounds on the usage
of the term regular:
Interviewer: The term regular, is this your term or do ...
Alexandra: Oh no.
Interviewer: I mean do teachers use this term?
Alexandra: Yeah, well they use this term, yeah, because we're the regular
students ...
Interviewer: . . . and they say this out loud? Alexandra: ... right ...
Delilah: Just a regular student, they don't have ... you'd just be in regular classes.
Interviewer: Regular classes. Now, is that the title - regular classes or? Delilah: Yes, it's just regular classes.
Both from pictures and interviews, the participants describe those who are the
regular students at Jefferson High School.
Interviewer: Who are the students in the regular program?
Aaron: I've never been in too many regular classes before so I wouldn't ... Interviewer: What's your general impression? Aaron: Well, from what I can ascertain, there are more students who are
minorities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001 DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
Interviewer: OK, who would be in the JEP program? Aaron: From the students that I've seen, there are mostly White.
Interviewer: And the students in your regular classes are ... Alexandra: A lot. A lot of Hispanics.
Interviewer: Is there a difference? What's the difference between regular classes and ... ?
Delilah: Umm, JEP classes you may find, maybe, and this is really stressing it, maybe one or two minorities and regular classes you'll find all of them [Bicultural students].
To this point the participants voice, what we categorized and labeled in data analysis as systemic segregation. Systemic segregation is the consequence of a system that produces racially homogeneous classrooms within a school setting that is significantly heterogeneous. According to the students, a student's grade point average and scores on the annual statewide assessment determine his or her place- ment in academic programs. We will examine this method of tracking students more closely in the discussion section of this present article. Below, however, we present what emerged from the data as another category that we call attitudinal/behavioral reinforcement of segregation.
Alexandra: I'm best friends with this guy I know and he is like JEP straight across theboard. Everyone loves him. The teachers just let him out of class whenever he wants, you know.
Alexandra also adds these statements below that speak to the attitudinal/behavioral reinforcement of segregation:
Interviewer: So, you're saying this teacher is an exception, but most of the teachers would rather teach ...
Alexandra: Yeah . Interviewer: . . . the JEP students. Alexandra: Yeah. Interviewer: And they just tell you? How do you get the sense? How do ... ? Alexandra: What, uh, I get a pretty good idea since they kind of just don't care
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
(giggle) in the regular classes, they're just like whatever ... you could
do some worksheets or ...
Interviewer: So it's the method they use, they use worksheets or ...
Alexandra: Yeah.
Interviewer: or it's also like how to ...
Alexandra: I think the general perception, like I had one teacher tell me that the
reason I was doing so bad in class was because I was in class with all
these lazy Mexicans, you know, so I don't think, I think the teacher's
attitude is a little different than mine.
Leon's statements support Alexandra's contentions in that he says that the
students not in the regular program "just get treated better." When asked why this
dynamic occurs, Leon responded, "Cuz you know, they just JEP program. They're
smarter than everybody, you know. I think they more - I can't find the words - they think they more organized than other people and more wiser or learn quicker, you
know, at a faster rate - that's how it is."
While Leon and Alexandra's statements are critical to our understanding of
student perspectives in schools, it is important to note that they are both students in
the regular program. We understand the social dynamics of high school settings in
which groups can harbor resentment toward other groups for a variety of reasons.
Nevertheless, Leon and Alexandra appeared to have no animosity toward students
in other programs. Moreover, our two JEP participants supported Leon and
Alexandra's statements about differential or preferential treatment.
At this juncture, it should be clear that Bicultural students in this setting are
overwhelmingly represented in the regular program and that they are under repre-
sented in high level programs, particularly in JEP. Undercurrents of the deferential attitude and behavior voiced by the students are the issues of race, racism, and prej- udices as mechanisms that foster unequal treatment. This can be best characterized
in Alexandra's teacher saying that she was in class with "all these lazy Mexicans."
Yet, although the issue of race surfaces as an apparatus of stratification, Deli la h's
statements further illuminate the dynamics at Jefferson High School by bringing
another factor that may also contribute to attitudinal/behavioral segregation.
Delilah: Umm, I think you have more respect if you are in the gifted and
talented programs.
Interviewer: By whom? Delilah: Respect from the teachers, respect from the principals, because I know,
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001 DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
and then again it matters where you come from. Like I mean when the
first time I walked into Jefferson High it was like they didn't have any
respect for me, I guess because I'm black, I don't know .... and then
when I said 'I'm a transfer student from Columbus High' they were
like,"Oh, my gosh!"And then they were like - just fall to their feet.
Delilah is aware of attitudinal and behavior distinctions made because of race.
For example, she writes the following referring to a school administrator: "I feel that
he watches the Black and Hispanic students more than he does the White ones.'' In
support of this statement she also writes that Black girls are reprimanded for wearing
items such as bandannas, whereas, White girls are allowed to wear them. However,
while she recognizes race as a factor, her statements indicate that class is also a mechanism that generates attitudinal and behavior reinforcement of segregation. In
her words, when the school administration discovered that she was from the more
affluent and predominately White side of town, it engendered significantly better
service and treatment. This class and track distinction is also evident in the class-
room among teachers:
Delilah: Like umm, respect as in she [the teacher] pays a whole lot more atten-
tion to me and she make sure she sees me, she makes sure she sees me,
she makes sure she looks over my shoulder and makes sure I am doing
something. If I do things, because I do math a different way from every-
body else, and if I do it a different way and it so happens that she has
the wrong answer and I go, "Oh, your answer's wrong." Well the other kid who was in her class before I came in her class would tell her, "Oh
this is wrong. Well she is like, "No the book is right." But if I tell her
it is wrong, she'll go, "Oh, OK let me do it again."
With teachers in mind, we move to our third category called structural segregation that emerged from our data analysis.
Interviewer: Just in your opinion, how are the students in the regular program treated as opposed to the ones in the JEP?
Aaron: That's something I wouldn't begin to know too much about. I do
know some of the teachers on the lower end of the program that I've
had experience with in the honors and the regular ones were definitely not the same quality teacher as those in the JEP program.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
BusH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
Interviewer: What do you mean by quality? Aaron: Umm, the teachers in the JEP programs were better at teaching, I mean
they just seemed to hold a better concept of how to teach students,
how to get students to respond.
Interviewer: Is there a different age in these teachers, I mean are the teachers older,
or are there first year teachers teaching JEP students, or are there first
year teachers teaching regular students or is it just ... ?
Aaron: Most of the teachers I've had have to been older, I haven't had any first-
year teachers.
Other respondents have already voiced a difference in the quality of teaching, which we noted in our presentation of the attitudinal/behavior category. Yet Aaron's
statements deal with the assignment of teachers rather than how they treat students.
His contentions maintain that certain programs are assigned better and more expe-
rienced teachers. Therefore, the practice of teacher assignment presents itself as a
structural barrier of desegregation by denying access to those benefits received from
superior schooling such as the admission to academic programs within, out of, and
after one's experience at Jefferson High School.
Working also as a means to continue segregation is the structure of the school
building and where the students are assigned. Aaron's statements speak to this situation:
Interviewer: Is there encouragement from teachers and/or administration to mix JEP
students with students that are not involved in this program?
Aaron: I haven't seen any such encouragement. Um, the one thing I have seen
towards discouragement, that is, the regular classes are on the first
floor, and all the JEP classes are on the second or third floor or on
the west wing of the school. So I mean there is not a whole lot of intermingling.
Similarly, Leon describes the same type of isolation and segregation:
Leon: The only thing I like, I mean I'm talking about it, the building, you know what I'm saying. I don't think it's UEP] even in the building, it
might be, but I don't see none of them people. Interviewer: hmm Leon: They all be, they all with the same people but in, you know, the same
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001 DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
classes but they got their own little class and there are two different
buildings almost: How to meet people? Look, it's like, my classes are all right together. I go like this here (he draws a square in the air and
laughs). It's like they don't want you to meet nobody, you know.
Lastly, with respect to the category of structural segregation, we will look at the allo-
cation of resources. The students say that Jefferson High is ahead of most schools
when it comes to technology. They also report that, though there are no restrictions
on who could use equipment that they knew of, the non regular students were more likely to use it. The most salient responses with respect to differential allocation of
resources came from Alexandra and Leon concerning field trips:
Alexandra: Yeah the JEP always goes on trips and has big field trips, and I think
they get a lot more than the regular students, like uh, they [regular
students] get a lot of worksheets and a lot of busy work.
Leon: That's how it is with the JEP students. Like one day I came in and there
was a big ole crowd of White people; they was all crowded by the
band hall, you know, just real crowded and they was all going- I don't
know where they were going. They get to go on this trip and that trip;
they spend more time on trips than in school and we just the opposite of that. The trip, I guess they say, is educational or something, I don't
know.
In conclusion, we asked the participants to articulate some of the political, social, and educational consequences of the school setting that they presented and
have experienced .
Aaron: . . . those are the students you normally hang around with and do
things with so you tend to ignore other students. So you tend to form
groups and those groups end up being formed on the basis, more of
color than anything else because the classes that you're in that is what
you are exposed to. Futuristically, you won't, that won't give you the opportunity to be diverse when you get into the job field because the student who was in the JEP program and was only around White
students - what do they do when all of a sudden they are put into a
classroom in college or on the job when all the other students around them are of color? They might not necessarily know what to do.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
Interviewer: That's social, are there consequences?
Aaron: When I would see students in the regular classes, which are more
minority, students tend to see themselves as not being on the same pier
as JEP students so they're not as good as JEP students and so there, I
would see that as more of a way of discouragement from necessarily
going further into education, and then this would be something that I
carry down, um, well your father was in the regular classes, you should
just stay in the regular classes, it's easier way and it would just be a
domino effect and it would be very hard to break out of.
Delilah: I think, what it is now, has been affecting teenagers now; most people
may not agree with me, but this is the way I see it - I see it as um, the
White people that hang out with the White people think they are better
than everybody and the Black people that hang out with just the Black
people they want to be, I don't know, the White people. And I think
the effects that it has on us in the future would be this: Our country
will be ran by the White people and the Black and Hispanic people
will be stuck, the ones that are like this now. I know some people and
they say in other states that it's not like this, but those of us, well I
should say, in this state, it'd be ran by a White person, or a Black or Hispanic person that wants to be White.
Interviewer: Is this school working to change this dynamic or .... ?
Delilah: I don't think they want to.
Leon: Everything will be the same ole, same ole - the same old stuff, you
know. Alexandra: Like come on, what are most students really going to do with a regular
education?
While all participants responded to the question in their own unique manner,
they also drew similar conclusions concerning their general schooling experience and political, social, and educational outcomes. The respondents maintain that,
though they attend a racially heterogeneous school, the classes remain purposely
segregated. Therefore, currently, there is little interaction with different racial groups
in and outside of the classroom. Limited racial contacts coupled with unequal teacher expectations and treatment will not only uphold current asymmetrical
power relations, but will also perpetuate disenfranchisement along the lines of race and tracking in the future.
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001 DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
DISCUSSION
Revisiting one of our research focus questions, which we drafted out of the litera-
ture (Rossell, 1990b), we asked the following question: "Are the resident students
really in a desegregated school if they see the opposite race magnet students for only
part of the day" (p. 56)? Clearly the participants contend that both resident and
magnet students attend segregated classes. This circumstance influences the
amount of desegregation in situations out of the classroom, which the students
suggest are limited and not encouraged in either setting. Thus, the respondents
rebuff the predominant practice of only looking at the entire racial composition of
a school setting rather than examining specific classroom populations.
From the data, we conclude that segregation is maintained systematically, struc-
turally, and with individual and collective attitudes and behaviors of people in
authority. With respect to maintaining segregation systematically, we briefly
discussed that the main factors for being admitted into JEP are the annual statewide
assessment test scores and GPA.
Research in the school district where Jefferson is located indicates that the free
or reduced-price school lunch is the best predictor of outcomes on the state assess-
ment test. In other words, those students who are involved in the school lunch
program are more likely not to pass the state test (Burley & Butner, 1998). Clearly,
Bicultural children are disproportionately represented school lunch programs. Thus,
JEP could be eliminating potential Bicultural prospects with qualifying GPAs on the
basis of state test scores, which do not appear to have a significant correlation either
with SAT scores or success in college (Colvin, 1999).
Using the phrase - a school within a school - from the literature to describe
magnet programs situated on regular campuses can be taken literally at Jefferson
High School, according to the participants. Structurally, Jefferson has three floors
with wings or attached buildings on each side of the long hallways on each floor.
This arrangement works effectively to segregate students. We found that tracks are
relegated to specific parts of the building for a day and perhaps for an entire four-
year high school experience.
Tatum (1997) calls the systematic and structural maintenance of a system of
privileges racism. In other educational literature, systematic and structural disen-
franchisement is described in terms of access to opportunity (Mac Iver, Reuman, &
Main, 1995). Three out of the four measures of educational opportunity permeate our data:
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
(al students' access to college-preparatory, accelerated, and advanced place-
ment courses, (b) students' access to information and anticipatory socialization experiences
needed to successfully negotiate the complexities of the lengthy college
preparation and application process, and (c) students' access to courses where the teachers "teach for understanding"
and emphasize the development of higher order knowledge instead of
emphasizing the drill, practice, and recall of facts (p. 376)
Systematic and structural mechanisms could work by themselves to ensure the
status quo or what Leon calls "the same ole same ole" in society and at Jefferson.
Notwithstanding the importance of these factors, we find that the respondents
focused more on the individual and collective attitudes and behaviors of people in
authority as being the catalyst that buttresses and justifies segregation.
The respondents voiced notable distinctions in treatment and academic expec-
tations of students based on the intersecting factors of track, class, and race.
Teachers taught differently, gave different types of assignments such as worksheets,
and openly expressed discontentment for teaching particular students due to the
aforementioned factors. These happenings, according to the students, are not
esoteric or covert; rather, they are known to teachers, students, and administrators
and are audaciously part of the school's culture. When we asked Delilah about the
possibility of that culture's being changed by administrators and teachers, her
response was "I don't think they want to." This phenomenon where the attitudes and behaviors of administrators and teachers constitutes the catalyst that buttresses
and justifies segregation is not very particular in schools where Bicultural students
desegregate traditional White schools and is well documented in the literature (Oakes, 1985; Schofield, 1988; Wei I & Crain, 1997).
Looking at the second question asked in the literature concerning the allocation
and use of resources at schools within schools settings, we found discrepancies in
two areas. However, we noted previously that the students reported equal access
to technological equipment. Nevertheless, two of the students contend that JEP
students are afforded many more educational experiences outside of school than
other students experience. Superseding this account, however, is the differential allocation of human resources. JEP students, according to the participants, have
more experienced, capable, and qua I ified teachers.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001 DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
Juxtaposing the students' responses with respect to consequences of the picture
they construct concerning school within school programs against the desegregation
literature, we find that their responses challenge the foundation and rationale for
continuing school desegregation programs. Wells and Crain (1994) analyzed 21
studies to determine the long-term effects of school desegregation. They concluded
that their "review supports the theory that interracial contact in elementary or
secondary school can help Blacks overcome perpetual segregation" (p. 552). In
short, they write that perpetual segregation limits opportunities for Blacks to
network with White classmates and teachers that may lead to future employment
and excludes them from educational resources (Wells & Crain, 1994).
We agree with Well and Crain's and others' (see Braddock, 1980; Granovetter,
1983; McPartland & Braddock, 1981) assertion that perpetual segregation may limit
networking opportunities for Blacks and other Bicultural students. However, we
cannot assume as a result of this present research that meaningful racial contacts
occur in desegregated settings. Our respondents describe perpetual segregation in
the context of a desegregated school site; thus, we call this situation resegregation.
Resegregation, according to the students, facilitates the same deleterious circum-
stances created from being excluded from resources and having limited interracial
contacts in traditional segregated schools.
CONCLUSION
We see the educational enterprise as having four major players: the parents,
teachers, administrators, and students. Like legs of a table, we need the participa-
tion of all four entities for education to work most effectively. Too many times we
use standardized test scores as the only means of listening to students. Thus, it is
one of the aims of this present article to validate the need for educators to listen to
the voices of students particularly at a time when many educational agencies appear
to be engaged in massive reform.
With respect to reform, it is time to examine the practice of school desegrega-
tion more closely. In other words, we must get past the numbers, which is the focus
of much of the body of literature, and investigate the experiences of students partic-
ularly as more districts utilize magnet schools and school-within-schools programs
as a means to desegregate. With the experiences of our respondents in hand,
through reform efforts, the possible structural and systematic resegregation of
students in magnet schools as suggested here by our participants can be remedied
if there is a desire to do so, which the respondents and others question.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001 BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION?
We realize a more comprehensive study involving teachers, parents, adminis-
trators, and students is needed to give our present work additional validity.
Nevertheless, the school administrators in the present study seemed unaware of the
issues raised by the students and by our analysis. Thus, beyond any critique
concerning the validity of our methodology and findings, we hope that practicing
administrators can begin to look at their magnet school programs with the questions
and issues raised here in mind.
REFERENCES Armor, D. (1995). Forced justice: School desegregation and the law. ,'..Jew York: Oxford University
Press.
Black, S. (1996). The pull of the magnets. The American School Board Journal, 7 83, 34-36.
Braddock, J. (1980). The perpetuation of segregation across levels of education: A behavioral assess- ment of the contact-hypothesis. Sociology of Education, 53, 178-186.
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (19541
Burley, H. & Butner, B. (1998). The power of poverty and its influence on 8th grade TAAS math scores. Texas Study of Secondary Schools, 7, 24-27.
Colvin, R.L. 11999, July 6). Texas: Rising test scores gain national attention and skepticism. Los Angeles Times, p. A 1, p. A 17.
Eaton, S. (1996J. Slipping toward segregation: Local control and eroding desegregation. In G. Orfield and S. Eaton (Eds.J, Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown ~: Board of Education (pp. 265-285). New York: ,'..Jew Press.
Eyler, J., Cook, V., & Ward, L. (1983). Resegregation: Segregation within desegregated schools. In C. H. Rossell and W. D. Hawley, (Eds.), The consequences of school desegregation (pp. 126- 162). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Feld, S. & Carter, W. (1998). When desegregation 'reduces' interracial contact: A class size paradox for weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 7 03, 1165-86.
Fife, B. (19921. Desegregation in American schools: Comparing intervention strategies. New York: Praeger.
Fife, B. (19941. Comparing desegregation intervention strategies. Urban Education, 29, 320-340.
Foster, M. ( 1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York: New Press.
Gordon, E. (1990). A Study of Minority Student Achievement in Montgomery County Public Schools. Pomona, NY: Gordon and Associates in Human Development.
Granovetter, t,t (1983). The strength of weak ties. A network theory revisited. In R. Collins (Ed.), Sociological Theory. ipp. 201-2331. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kluger, R. 11975). Simple justice. New York: Random House.
Lyons, J & Walton, K. (1988). Magnet attractions: Desegregating a minority school district. Educational Record, 68, 32-34.
Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D., & Main, S. (1995). Social structure of the school: Studying what is, illu- minating what could be. American Review of Psychology, 46, 375-400.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AMERICAN SECONDARY EDUCATION 29 (3) SPRING 2001
DESEGREGATION OR RESEGREGATION? BUSH, BURLEY & CAUSEY-BUSH
McPartland, J. & Braddock, J. (1981 ). Going to college and getting a good job: The impact of deseg- regation. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), Effective school desegregation: Equality, quality and feasi- bility. (pp. 141-154). London: Sage.
Monti, D. (1986). Brown's velvet cushion: Metropolitan desegregation and politics of Illusion. Metropolitan Education, 1, 52-64.
,\Jieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 392-426.
Oakes, ). (1985). Keeping Track: How schools structure inequalities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Orfield, G. & Eaton, S. I 19961. Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. rs:ew York: New Press.
Reynolds, W. I 1986). Education alternatives to transportation failures: The desegregation response to a re segregation di lemma. Metropolitan Education, 1, 3-14.
Rossell, C. H. (1979). Magnet schools as a desegregation tool: The importance of contextual factors in explaining their success. Urban Education, 14, 303-320.
Rossell, C. H. 11985). What is attractive about magnet schools? Urban Education, 20, 7-22.
Rossell, C. H. (19881. Is it the busing or the blacks? Urban Affairs Quarterly, 24, 138-148.
Rossell, C. H. (1990a). The carrot or the stick for school desegregation policy? Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25, 474-499.
Rossell, C. H. (1990b). The carrot or the stick for school desegregation policy: Magnet schools or forced busing? Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Rossell, C.H. & Clarke, R. C. (1987). The carrot or the stick for school desegregation policy? (Report to the 1\lational Institute of Education!. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 279 781).
Russo, C. & Talbert-Johnson, C. I 1997). The overrepresentation of African American children in special education: The resegregation of educational programming? Education and Urban Society, 29, 136-48.
Schofield, J. (1982). Black in white school: Trust, tension, or tolerance? New York Praeger. Schofield, J. (1988, February). Social relations in desegregation. Equity and Choice, pp. 15-17. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Pub I ications.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971)
Wells, A. & Crain, R. I 1994). Perpetuation theory and the long-term effects of school desegregation. Review of Educational Research, 64, 531-555.
Wells, A. & Crain, R. (1997). Stepping over the color line: African-American Students in White suburban schools. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tatum, B. 11997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversa- tions about race. New York: Basic Books.
50