The education problem we refuse to solve
Everyone agrees that the way we enroll students in public schools is wrong. Why hasn't it changed?
In a nation that prides itself on equality, opportunity, and the pursuit of dreams, realizing that one's educational destiny can be dictated by mere geography is jarring. The zip code—a mere combination of numbers—holds an alarming power, shaping the trajectory of young minds and determining their access to quality education. At the heart of America's promise of freedom lies a stark incongruity: an education system still ensnared by the chains of residential boundaries, echoing historical racial and economic segregation patterns.
It should go without saying, but no free country should use residential addresses as a way to determine what learning opportunities young people will get in their growing years.
And, in that way, we are not a free country. The quality and resourcing of “public” education are cruelly tied to zip codes, and zip codes are tied to income.
The most glaring shame of public education, and the thing that should indict it more than anything else, is that gerrymandered school district boundaries and weirdly inequitable state laws diminish its promise.
And a new boundary is concerning, the one that makes homeschooling for the growing number of Black families that choose it more difficult by cutting them off from accessing public school resources.
We can’t catch a break. Inequity is like the wooden Russian dolls that contain a doll, inside a doll, inside a doll, inside a doll. One boundary after another boxing us into limited educational potential
The research stares us in the face and asks us what the hell we’re going to do about it. It’s one thing to lament how Latino and Black students are segregated into schools with more early career teachers, face more surveillance, have less access to school counselors, and often get fewer resources.
Together, the many ways we set bear traps for students hampers them unnecessarily.
Liberals, centrists, and conservatives have offered different versions of these same sentiments about the boundaries tied to education. Few policy insights enjoy this level of triangulated support. So why is education redlining and academic NIMBYism a law on par with gravity?
Perhaps the problem is we believe something so big is unfortunate but unfixable, given who would lose by open borders in schooling.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
The problem is the function of poorly conceived public policy, but public policy is changeable.
The liberal angle
If you are a progressive reading this, the best angle is the one concerning America’s history with racial and economic segregation. Education apportioned by residence was a decisive tool for separating black and white students. And thus, savage inequalities ensued.
The Century Foundation provides detailed background on this topic (see it here).
They tell us that in 1954, a big decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case "Brown v. Board of Education." Most American schoolkids (about 85%) were White then. Black students made up about 12%, and other races were about 4%. Most Black students, especially in the South, went to schools with only Black students.
Today, we have 48% White students, 27% Hispanic, 15% Black, 6% Asian, and many others. But even with this mix, many students still go to schools with kids mostly of their own race. In 2018-19, one out of six students went to schools where 90% of students looked like them. Also, many schools are separated by how much money the students' families make. This is because of how neighborhoods are set up and because of the choices parents have about where to send their kids to school.
Here's what the data tells us:
On average, there's still a lot of separation between White and non-White students.
Black and White students are separated the most in many areas, more than any other races.
Schools also separate students based on their families’ income. They use information like who gets free or reduced lunch at school.
White students often go to schools with fewer poor students compared to Black and Hispanic students.
Overall, the biggest reason for racial separation is different school districts. For economic separation, the reasons are more mixed.
There's still a lot of school separation in the U.S., both by race and by money. We need to understand this better so that all students can learn together.
The Centrist Angle
Writing for the Washington Post, Jay Matthews says we must “must shed old fears of changing school boundaries to help poor and minority kids.” There once was a strong push for racially and economically integrated schools. But, by the 1980s, efforts were going downhill due to court decisions. Instead of moving low-income students to better schools, the focus shifted to improving schools in poorer neighborhoods.
Matthews points us to a study by Tomás Monarrez, and Carina Chien highlights that many school boundaries, which determine where students go to school, actually mirror the "redlining" maps from the 1930s and 1940s. These maps separated neighborhoods based on race and income.
School boundaries don't just separate students by race or ethnicity. They also cause differences in school resources, programs, discipline rates, and test scores. The researchers argue that it's the government's job to fix these unfair boundaries since they made them.
There are many ideas for making schools fairer. Some suggest that schools should have seats for students from outside their area or let families pick any school close to their home. Others argue that where a child lives shouldn't decide their school.
I get the premise, but history has repeatedly shown us the invisible but inescapable resistance to boundary changes that mix students who have different levels of privilege.
There is one bright spot. Matthews also talked to Derrell Bradford, president of the education advocacy group 50CAN, who points out that many charter schools and other types of schools don't enroll students based on a child's home address.
The Conservative Angle
Last month an email hit my inbox with a tantalizing opening line: “Imagine a world where public schools are as flexibly accessible as other public services, an institution which does not discriminate on the basis of ZIP code, race, gender, or family income.”
Ok. You got my attention.
Tell me more.
The email was from Yes. Every Kid, an advocacy group that bird-dogs the school boundaries issue. Their report “Public Education Your Way” answered my few most important questions about what states do differently with policies to open opportunities for kids regardless of where they live. I live in a state (Minnesota) that ranks highly. And yet, a kid in Minneapolis lives an entirely different life in school than in Minnetonka.
If we’re among the best, God help us.
I’ll try my best to summarize the report for you (but please read it). It emphasizes the right of children to education experiences tailored to their unique aspirations. It likens this to how Americans choose public services like libraries, parks, etc.
Here are some details
The study scans 50 states and provides a comprehensive breakdown for each state based on measures of public education access, including the existence of public education access statutes, mandatory access, student rights to enroll, and funding methods.
Current Landscape
10 states view public education access as a student right.
15 states mandate districts to let nonpublic students access public schools.
24 states clearly define a policy allowing nonpublic students to access public schools.
Top 5 Recommendations for Policymakers
Universality: All students, including home-schooled, nonpublic, and those from other districts, should access all public schools.
Mandatory Access: It should be compulsory for districts to have "Public Education Your Way" policies, ensuring clarity and minimal ambiguity.
Comprehensive Access: Students should be allowed to attend all courses and activities, including electives and extracurriculars, at the same level as full-time students.
Clear Definitions: States should clearly define what accessing a school on a course-by-course basis means.
Limited District Discretion: Districts shouldn’t be able to prioritize certain students over others.
Several states, including Idaho, Washington, and New Hampshire, have established policies that provide explicit provisions for public education access. The level of access differs across states.
Out of 24 states with a partial enrollment policy, 14 fund students proportionately, two offer a flat rate, and eight don’t specify a funding method. The best practice is proportional funding, where students are funded based on the number of courses they enroll in. Arizona and Alaska are cited as state examples of this approach.
This angle opens doors for nonpublic students to remain engaged in public schools, which is good for diversity even if it doesn’t solve all the problems with zip code supremacy.
Erasing Lines, Expanding Opportunity
Whether seen through a liberal, centrist, or conservative lens, the crux of the issue remains the same: our future generations are held captive by an archaic system that limits their potential based on where they live or the wealth they inherit. But as we've seen, a growing consensus, cutting across political lines, acknowledges this problem. If diverse voices from various backgrounds can converge on this issue, surely we have the collective will to rewrite this narrative. The inertia of history and long-standing policy should not deter us. Instead, let it serve as a clear call for less lip service and more action.
We’ll never be great until we ensure that every child, irrespective of race, gender, or economic status, gets a fair shot at a bright future.