Gary Orfield, the head of the UCLA Civil Rights Project, has faced a barrage of attacks from charter school supporters in recent days, after his center published a study looking at the high incidence of racial isolation in many charter schools. He's now responded, via the Education Experts blog at National Journal. He and I have also been having an e-mail conversation this week, and he agreed to let me share it.
It started when I sent him my post from the other day??in which I??argued that both charter supporters and civil rights groups like Orfield's are "elitist" (or "paternalistic" if you like) because we aren't willing to let parents make unfettered educational choices. The charter camp wants to close down low-performing charter schools (even if they are popular with parents), while Gary wants to limit charters that are racially isolated (i.e., serve nothing but black and Hispanic children). Gary wrote back, and we soon got into this very interesting??back-and-forth:
Me: Here's the big question: let's assume that the KIPPS and Achievement Firsts??and other high flying charters really are getting great results with high??concentrations of poor and minority kids. (In other words, set aside the??concerns about creaming.) Is that worth celebrating?
Gary: YES
Me: Replicating?
Gary: SURE
Me: Your report implies that they are doing something wrong by not trying to be??integrated.
GARY: I HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF KIPP TEACHERS--ONE THING YOU CANNOT LEARN IN A SEGREGATED SCHOOL AND NEIGHBORHOOD IS HOW TO LIVE AND WORK WITH UNDERSTANDING AND SKILL IN DIVERSE HEAVILY WHITE COLLEGES, JOBS AND NEIGHBORHOODS. DIVERSE SCHOOLS ARE AN EDUCATIONAL VALUE IN MANY WAYS.
Me: And it's true, they are not trying to be integrated.
Gary: ALL SCHOOLS SHOULD HAVE POLICIES THAT WELCOME AND REACH OUT FOR ALL GROUPS OF STUDENTS AND DIVERSITY IS VALUABLE BY CLASS AND BETWEEN "MINORITY" GROUPS AS WELL AS IN THE TRADITIONAL SCHOOLS. IF THE POLICIES CANNOT WORK IN A GIVEN SITUATION WHEN REASONABLY EMPLOYED I WOULD CERTAINLY NOT CLOSE A SCHOOL. ORGANIZING AN INTENTIONALLY SEGREGATED SCHOOL WITH PUBLIC FUNDS IS, OF COURSE, ILLEGAL.
Me: In fact,??some of these schools are upset that white, middle class families are??starting to enter their lotteries, because they see their mission as serving??at risk youth. They view "gentrification" as something to fight, to avoid. And you can see their argument: They have figured out how to serve a highly??disadvantaged population very well, and they want to replicate and serve more of that population. Why give away any of their coveted spots to kids who have lots of other options?
Gary: THIS WOULD BE A VERY GOOD CONVERSATION.??I THINK THAT IT IS WRONG TO THINK ABOUT SCHOOLS OF CHOICE AS INHERENTLY LIMITED AND THAT THERE MUST BE A FORCED AND UNFORTUNATE DECISION BETWEEN SEGREGATION AND LIMITED SPACE FOR DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS. IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER TO EXPAND THE SUPPLY OF THIS KIND OF GOOD CHOICE AND TO MAKE THE LARGER OR DUPLICATED SCHOOLS BOTH DIVERSE (WHICH OFFERS MANY ADVANTAGES TO HISTORICALLY EXCLUDED S WELL AS WHITE AND ASIAN STUDENTS) AND OF REAL SERVICE TO POOR AND MINORITY STUDENTS.
Me: So my read of your report is that you think these CMOs should stop expanding??unless they start to integrate their schools. True? And if so, why? For the foreseeable future, lots and lots of poor and minority kids are going to be in racially and economically isolated schools. Aren't we better off if those schools are excellent?
Gary: OF COURSE, [SO LONG AS THEY HAVE REASONABLE CIVIL RIGHTS POLICIES. I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT WE MUST BOTH STRUGGLE TO IMPROVE OPPORTUNITY WITHIN SEGREGATION WHILE ATTACKING THE BARRIERS THAT SUSTAIN A SYSTEM THAT IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL IN A DEEPLY STRATIFIED AND SEGREGATED SOCIETY.]*
Interesting, don't you think? Maybe??there's common ground here, after all.
* Text within brackets added at Gary's request at 11:00 a.m. on February12th.
-Mike Petrilli
