A panel took place recently that explored segregation in Kansas City. The guest speakers were Michelle Wimes, Mayor Sly James, Arthur Benson, and Tanner Colby. It’s important that this conversation took place here and that the focus was on Kansas City. Too often, Kansas City avoids this discussion, and would rather assume what is happening across the country is not the same as what is happening here.

Let’s break down a few of the points that were made regarding segregation in education.

Tanner Colby expressed that even for parents looking for an integrated school, there were few options. How do we define an integrated or segregated school?  Which Kansas City schools are integrated? There is no one formula that districts, cities, or states use. Here are a few of the ways different ways that question has been answered:

NEW YORK

From Equity and Excellence for All: Diversity in New York City Public Schools: “Given that black and Hispanic children make up 70% of our students citywide, we consider a school racially representative if black and Hispanic students combined make up at least 50% of the student population but no more than 90% of the student population.”

“We consider a school to be economically stratified if its economic need as measured by the Economic Need Index1 is more than 10 percentage points from the citywide average. A school can be stratified in either direction – by serving more low-income or more high-income children.”

“How do we define inclusive?  Schools where a significant, representative number of students who speak a language other than English at home are welcomed and served effectively. Schools where a significant, representative number of Students with Disabilities are welcomed and served effectively.  Rate equivalent to the borough population for high school and the district population for middle school.”

HARTFORD

In Hartford, “the desegregation standard requires that white and Asian students account for at least 25 percent of the student body. For the past two years, court settlements have required that 47.5 percent of black and Latino Hartford students receive a “reduced-isolation” education. With that nearly 50-50 figure, supporters of the Sheff desegregation lawsuit frequently use the familiar half-filled glass analogy when describing the status of the suit 20 years after their Supreme Court victory. It is a reflection of both their pride in the multitudes of students who have been helped, and their despair that a majority of Hartford students still attend unconstitutionally segregated neighborhood schools.”

“Overall, state officials touted in December that they had placed 49 percent of Hartford’s black and Latino students in reduced-isolation settings this school year — up from 45.5 percent the year before. “The latest numbers show that more Hartford students than ever before are attending school in diverse settings,” State Education Commissioner Dianna Wentzell said.

“But, in reality, the state lost ground compared to last year, with all of the reported gains coming from new waivers granted to schools that did not meet the Sheff integration standard. Had the state calculated its progress using the same rules in place last year, it would have reported 300 fewer Hartford students in integrated schools.”

LOUISVILLE

In Louisville, “Even after the Milliken decision, a panel in December of 1974 ordered the integration of the city and county schools to continue in the region. Beginning in 1975, students were sorted alphabetically and bused to different schools around the county. Under the order, schools in the county had to be between 15 and 50 percent black.”

“Currently, the district puts schools in “clusters,” which are groups of diverse neighborhoods. Parents fill out an application listing their preferences for certain schools in the cluster, and the district assigns students to certain schools in order to achieve diversity goals. It does this by ranking census blocks on a number of factors, including the percentage minority residents, the educational attainment of adults, and household income, and mixing up students from various blocks. Parents can appeal the school assignments, but have no guarantee of getting their top choice. They can also apply for magnet schools and special programs such as Spanish-language immersion.”

KANSAS CITY

Federal Judge Clark decreed in 1985 that Kansas City Public Schools should work towards establishing a ratio of 60% minority and 40% white enrollment at each of their schools. For reference, public school enrollment in 1990 in Kansas City was 34,850 students, with minorities making up 75% of students.

In 1992, the Christian Science Monitor reported:

“As part of the desegregation plan, Kansas City schools are expected to change the current 74 percent black, 26 percent white ratio to 60/40. Each magnet is supposed to increase the number of whites by 2 percent a year. The court monitoring committee and a judge evaluate student achievement test scores and black/white ratios every year.”

“We’re looking at the year 1998 to get to 65/35, and so I would think sometime after ’98 we should have 60/40 if we’re successful,” [said] Walter Marks, the district’s superintendent [at the time].”

The NY Times reported in 1995:

“For its part, the [Kansas City] school system, which wants the desegregation order to remain in effect, will argue that the full desegregation plan has been in place only three years — too little time to show marked academic improvement. Only about a fourth of the city’s schools meet the Federal court’s recommendation that enrollment be 65 percent members of minorities and 35 percent white.”

Next up, Mayor Sly James assessed that charter schools in Kansas City do a better job of offering an integrated education. However, looking at census data and stats from Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), it becomes clear that overall, charter schools are not doing a better job at providing integrated school choices in Kansas City.

RACIAL SEGREGATION

District-wide census data in Kansas City shows the under 18 population 2011-2015 was:

32% White
46% Black
2.8% Asian
6.6% Multiracial
12% Other
22% Hispanic origin (of any race)

District-wide public school enrollment as reported in SY16-17 DESE data, shows that children enrolled within KCPS boundaries (at both charter and district schools) was:

9.8% White
57% Black
2.3% Asian
1.2% Multiracial
26% Hispanic

And here’s what the school breakdown looked like:

53 school buildings had a white student enrollment of less than 10%. 31 of these schools were charters, 22 of these schools were KCPS.

57% of minority students were enrolled in schools where less than 10% of students are white. 25 of these schools were charters, 11 of these schools were KCPS.

100% of white students were enrolled in schools where at least 10% of minority students were enrolled.

Of the 15 school buildings where enrollment included at least 10% white students, 9 were KCPS schools, and 6 were charters.

Of the 14 school buildings where enrollment was at least 10% each of white and black students, 8 were KCPS schools, and 6 were charter schools.

Of 10 school buildings where enrollment was at least 10% each of white, black, and Hispanic students, 6 were KCPS schools, and 4 were charter schools.

ECONOMIC SEGREGATION

District-wide 2011-2015 data shows that 28% of residents are low-income. However, comparing economic segregation among schools was difficult, as many schools report that data differently. Missouri DESE Building Reports often provided different figures on the number of students at each school that qualify for free/reduced lunch, than the figures reported on Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) reports, for example.

It did become clear that there are systematic inequities at Kansas City schools and that the schools with the highest percentages of white enrollment closely mirror those with the lowest number of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch.

In our public schools (district+charters):

5 public school buildings have 19%-26% of enrolled students eligible for free/reduced lunch.

8 buildings have 32%-50% of students eligible for free/reduced lunch.

55 buildings where free/reduced lunch eligibility ranges from 50%-98%.

Finally, Wimes’ quote, “…any community that’s serious about diversifying should take that kind of self-intensive, reflective analysis.”