Commentary

Abstract

Although guided by powerful ideals of equal opportunity, American schools are deeply unequal. As historians of education have taught us, children of different racial, ethnic, and class backgrounds have traditionally attended different schools. As well, most reform efforts have had limited impact in eroding this pattern. Today, most American children continue to attend the “catchment” school where they live (Lareau & Goyette, 2014), and U.S. neighborhoods remain very inequitable (Bader & Warkentien, 2016; Sharkey, 2013).

However, as Anna Rhodes and Siri Warkentien remind us in this issue of AERJ, the world is changing. While older, inner-ring suburbs are becoming racially integrated, the pattern of “chocolate cities and vanilla suburbs” is shifting. Recent research predicts that over a number of years approximately one-third of these integrated suburban neighborhoods will be transformed into racially segregated neighborhoods (often dominated by Latino/a residents), while others will maintain a level of integration (Bader & Warkentien, 2016). Conversely, some middle-class families are also moving into cities, feeling compelled to undertake a frantic search to find a “good” kindergarten (Lareau, Evans, & Yee, 2016).

Yet, even as neighborhoods and policies change, some patterns remain the same. Rhodes and Warkentien’s qualitative study shows that Whites’ suburban moves paid off; the families were content. But only 3 of the 13 Black families in the suburbs were satisfied with their school option. Although both the Black and White families in Rhodes and Warkentien’s study wanted to “couple their residential and school choices” (what they term “the package deal”), the Black families were much less likely to find their move to the suburb satisfactory. While the Black families more likely encountered the structural barriers (i.e., racial segregation, discrimination) to entry into suburban neighborhoods, their limited knowledge about neighborhoods and schools led them to a less satisfying school choice even after they moved to a suburban neighborhood.

Hence there is a pattern of persisting inequality in school choice even as parents move into the suburbs. Yet, the exact mechanisms through which these patterns are sustained are not fully understood. Social networks appear to be very important, but we need more studies in order to illuminate the mechanisms for the maintenance of inequality. For example, there are signs that parents conduct little research but rather end up in neighborhoods where trusted ties tell them to go (Weininger & Lareau, 2015). Furthermore, in Rhodes and Warkentien’s study and in others, social networks as well as the information that people have about neighborhoods not only help to steer families to neighborhoods but also reinforce racial segregation in neighborhoods and schools (Lareau & Goyette, 2014). Therefore, we should study the ways in which these networks function. We need to understand what, exactly, parents learn from others, how they learn it, and when they learn it. Moreover, all parents claim to want good schools, but we don’t fully understand what they mean by “good schools” (independent of the characteristics of the children who attend the school). What is well documented, however, is White parents’ aversion to majority Black schools (Lareau & Goyette, 2014). In an increasingly diverse social landscape, we have much to learn about how parents decide about the reputations of schools, the elements that predict the reputations, and how they change over time. In all likelihood, social networks are a powerful force in sustaining these patterns of inequality, and we need a better understanding on their role.

In addition, we should think about how we can reduce inequality through educational policies. For instance, the experiences of other countries reveal that other policies are possible. South Korea has reduced differences between schools by controlling school enrollment patterns and minimizing the variance between schools (Park, 2013). The majority of Korean school districts have, since the mid-1970s, adopted the High School Equalization Policy, which assigns students in the same neighborhood to different high schools regardless of their family backgrounds and students’ academic performance. Most private schools also follow this policy. At the same time, through the centralized education system, the Korean government seeks to equalize the quality of schools. For instance, there is standardization of school facilities as well as the educational curriculum. Furthermore, training and recruitment of teachers are centralized, and deployment to schools occurs on a rotating basis within a province, helping to ensure that all students have equal access to qualified teachers. Of course, key elements of the structure of schooling in the United States, namely its decentralized governance and funding, would mitigate against a direct replication of Korea’s policies. However, the past several decades have increased standardization in the United States, and Korea’s example suggests that in some areas standardization can reduce inequality.

By pointing to the challenges of finding a good school in suburban communities, Rhodes and Warkentien have helped to broaden the conversation. As AERJ moves into the next 100 years of research, the shifting racial and ethnic patterns in the country as a whole will shape schools. In addition to documenting the outcomes, scholars need to help us understand the mechanisms through which race and class educational stratification continues. History suggests that race and class inequality has been powerful and is likely to continue to be powerful, but the exact form it takes matters (Duncan & Murane, 2014). At the same time, studies on educational inequality should consider policy interventions that might attenuate this American tradition.

Footnotes

Annette Lareau is the Stanley I. Sheerr Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, 113 McNeil Building, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6299; e-mail: alareau@sas.upenn.edu . She is the author of Home Advantage and Unequal Childhoods. In 2011, she published a second edition of Unequal Childhoods, which contains follow-up data on the youth into adulthood. More recently, with Kimberly Goyette, she edited the book Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools. She is the past president of the American Sociological Association.

Hyejeong Jo is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. She is interested in how educational institutions facilitate and impede social mobility. Based on one year of ethnographic research at a high school in South Korea, her dissertation shows how teachers actively support the transition to selective universities of a small number of working-class students who are academically advanced. However, teachers’ selective organization of support ironically leaves most working-class students without support, making their transition to college haphazard.

References

Bader

M. D. M.

Warkentien

(2016). The fragmented evolution of racial integration since the Civil Rights Movement. Sociological Science, 3, 135–166.

Duncan

Murane

(2015). Restoring opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lareau

Evans

S. A.

Yee

(2016). The rules of the game and the uncertain transmission of advantage: Middle-class parents’ search for an urban kindergarten. Sociology of Education, 89(4), 279–299.

Lareau

Goyette

(Eds.). (2014). Choosing homes, choosing schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Park

(2013). Re-evaluating education in Japan and Korea. New York: Routledge.

Sharkey

(2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Weininger

Lareau

(2015, August). Drifting into neighborhoods: Social ties and residential decisions. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.