Giving Compass' Take:

• By framing school integration only as a benefit for all students because of racial diversity, integration advocates are commodifying desegregation and limiting the conversation. 

• The author argues that integration should be framed as a moral obligation to end oppression against marginalized communities, with the added benefits of improving student outcomes. 

• Here are three myths about school integration. 

After New York City’s District 15 succeeded in advancing racial integration by removing admissions screens, the City Council required all NYC districts to develop integration plans. Districts have begun holding meetings for parents to have a voice in choosing those plans, and some parents have been pushing back.

Reminiscent of the 1960s white resistance to busing, some parents are protesting integration plans that would jeopardize their child’s current school enrollment. They want what’s best for their children, and they fear that integration will take that away.

Integration advocates respond to this resistance by pointing to research on the benefits of racial diversity. They try to appease these parents with assurances that desegregation will improve the quality of schools for all students and lead to more enriching educational experiences, or at least not harm white students. This response is wrongheaded.

We should not justify racial integration with the benefits of racially diverse classrooms because it commodifies integration, alienates families of color, limits the conversation and, ultimately, misstates the real purpose of desegregation. Instead of integrating schools to improve student outcomes, we should integrate because of the moral obligation to redress centuries of oppression to historically marginalized communities.

Don’t get me wrong; racially integrated schools substantially benefit students. They combat bias, defeat stereotypes, and reduce anxiety. In more traditional, academic outcomes, integrated schools also lead to higher test scores, fewer dropouts, and greater college enrollment.

But offering these results to justify integration concedes a problematic framing. Parents who oppose these plans worry their children will lose a spot at a coveted school and wind up at a low-performing one. To guard their positional advantage, they decry the low-performing schools, advocate for improving the quality of all schools, and shift the framing from desegregation to school quality.

Read the full article about school integration by Andrew Ford at Education Dive.