Cambridge Schools Fail to Achieve Racial Balance

The flags of 73 nations are displayed in the main hallway of Cambridge's King Elementary School--a sign of the pride which the city takes in its diversity. Yet the city's racial and socioeconomic diversity may not be truly reflected in the city's elementary schools despite Cambridge's celebrated "controlled-choice" program.

Cambridge has long been praised for its school choice program that both achieves a racial balance in the city's elementary schools and allows parents to have some choice in which school their child will attend.

But this effort to balance the schools in terms of white and "minority" students has not been entirely successful in achieving either a racial or socio-economic balance between schools.

Although the percentage of minority students at each of Cambridge's 13 elementary schools is fairly constant, the mixture of individual races--Asian, Black, Hispanic or Native American--varies widely from school to school.

According to the Massachusetts Department of Education's October 1990 statistics, the most recent available, while Graham and Parks School is 44.0 percent Black it is only 3.4 percent Asian and 4.9 percent Hispanic. But at the Peabody School the enrollment is 13.7 percent Asian, but only 7.3. percent Hispanic and 27.9 percent Black.

And similarly, the number of children receiving free or reduced lunches--a barometer of the economic diversity of a school--runs from a low of 16.7 percent at the Agasiz School to 76.8 at the Kennedy School.

The Choice System

Cambridge's controlled-choice program--the first of its kind in the nation--was put into place in 1981 as a voluntary effort to racially integrate the city's public elementary schools without implementing mandatory busing. All attendance zones, or districts, were abolished, allowing parents to list their top three choices for the kindergarten through eighth grade elementary schools.

After parents submit their requests, student assignment officers allot slots in a particular school. Although there are several criteria used in determining to what school children will be assigned, race is the primary deciding factor.

The Cambridge system has won praise and has been used as a model for school districts as for away as Minneapolis and Seattle. Under the system more than 90 percent of parents have received one of their three choices and most schools are close to the city average of 52.1 percent minority.

But the system is not flawless. Cambridge makes no distinction between different minority groups; a student is either classified as white or minority. This was less of a problem when the controlled choice system was initially conceived, according to officials. But increases and changes in immigration patterns over the past decade have changed the racial makeup of Cambridge schools.

Michael J. Alves, who was the desegregation planner for the Massachusetts Department of Education when the controlled-choice plan was unveiled in 1981, says adjustments in Cambridge's system may be necessary.

"Over time we've seen an increase in Hispanic and Asian immigration significant enough to warrant a third racial category," he says.

Alves said it might be helpful to examine Boston's choice system and its methods of allocating seats to students. "In Cambridge, you're either white or minority." he says. "In Boston, seats are allocated for whites, Blacks, and others."

It is not just that the Cambridgecontrolled-choice system fails to correct racialimbalances in the school; it actually causes them,says Jeanette Collier, a Boston school teacherwhose child attended a Cambridge public elementaryschool.

Collier, whose daughter now attends a privatehigh school, said the concentration of bilingualprograms in certain schools is a form of"institutional racism."

"In Cambridge today, if there's an overt victimof racism, I think it's the Haitian community andother linguistic minorities," she says. "They'reenrolled in schools where they're isolated inbilingual programs."

The presence of the Spanish bilingual programat the Longfellow School contributes to the factthat 35.5 percent of its students are Hispanic,which is considerably higher than the average of14.2 percent among all Cambridge elementary-schoolstudents.

However, in order to maintain a balance betweenwhite and non-white students, this concentrationof Hispanic students necessarily limits thenumbers of other minorities in the school.Consequently, the percentage of Black students,15.1 percent, at the Longfellow School is lessthan half of the elementary-school average of 30.6percent.

Similarly, the King School--which houses theKorean and Chinese bilingual programs--is 16.1percent Asian, over twice the Cambridgeelementary-school and population average. The highnumber of Asians at the King School contrasts withthe situation at the Fletcher, Kennedy and MaynardSchools, which are each less than 1 percent Asian.

The relatively high number of Asians in theKing school may contribute to thedisproportionately low number of Hispanicstudents, 7.1 percent, that are enrolled in theschool.

Economic Disparity

Alves says that while Cambridge was fairlyracially integrated in 1981, the schools were"highly segregated by social class"--a situationthat although improved, still exists today.

The socio-economic disparities between thevarious elementary schools shows in the number ofstudents in each school who are eleigible for freeand reduced lunches. For a family of four to beeligible for free lunch, they must make less than$17,420 a year. To meet reduced-lunch guidelines,a family of four cannot earn more than $24,790 ayear.

Nearly 50 percent of all Cambridge elementaryschool students receive free and reduced lunch.But four elementary schools fall more than 20percentage points away from that mean. At theHarrington and Kennedy Schools, more than 70percent of the students receive free or reducedlunch. But only 16.9 percent and 28.9 percent ofthe students receive such aid at the Agassiz andTobin Schools.

The Neighborhood School

Observers say the criteria used to assignstudents to schools contribute to the differencesin the economic and racial make-up of individualschools.

After the initial consideration of race,Cambridge's current system gives placementpriority to students who live near the school orhave older siblings there, according to Albert H.Giroux, public relations director for theCambridge School Department.

This becomes a problem because some parentschoose schools that are near-by or have alreadysent their older children to schools with acertain reputation and are unwilling to branch outand try new schools.

"Closeness is a major factor when parentschoose schools," Linda J. Rings, theearlychildhood resource specialist at the MorseSchool says. "Lots of people still love the ideaof the neighborhood school."

Michal Jasienski, a resident tutor at WinthropHouse, says proximity was the only factor heconsidered in choosing the King School for hisson.

"I didn't investigate any other schools,"Jasienski says. "I wanted to walk to school withmy son Adam Every day."

The preference shown toward children who livein the neighborhood and those with siblings in aparticular school prevents the abolition of schoolstereotypes, says Farah M. Ravanbakash, a formerparent liaison at the Tobin School.

"The neighborhood school concept does hinderdiversity--both racial and socio-economic," shesays.

Reputation

Like the old choice system the Harvard Housesused to operate under, Cambridge'scontrolled-choice plan has failed to abolish thedifferent reputations given to various elementaryschools.

The Morse School's Rings says some parentsstill choose schools based on "hearsay." "There'sdefinitely a reputation for schools--whether thoseare deserved or undeserved," she says. "I thinkpeople need to be much more objective than theyare."

James J. Coady, principal of the Morse School,said the high proportion of immigrants in certainschools is due to a feeling of "comfortableness."

"Most of the immigrant families naturally,either through their churches or support groups,try to go to a certain school," he says.

The necessary creation of bilingual facilitiesin these schools reinforces the clustering ofminorities, says Marilyn McGinn, principal of theFletcher School.

But some parents attribute the clustering andgrouping of different minorities in differentschools to racism, both subtle and overt.

According to Jeanette Collier, there are waysof discouraging low-income parents from choosingcertain schools. "I know of instances where parentliaisons would be outright rude to mothers ofchildren who lived in low-income areas," she says.

Today, the schools are far more balanced withrespect to their white to minority ratio, thanthey were before 1981. It is generally agreed thatthe controlled-choice system has improved theelementary schools across the board. The systemhas also helped educate and empower parents byexpanding their educational options.

"Ten years ago, even activist parents--half ofthem couldn't name five schools, usually the verybad or very good ones," Alves says. "Now inCambridge, every school gets a lot of attention."

Cambridge's controlled-choice system is a modelprogram. But clearly, complete racial and economicdiversity within the individual elementary schoolshas not yet been attained.Crimson GraphicNancy E. GreeneA Matter of Class Percentage of studentsreceiving free or reduced lunch in Cambridgeelementary schools. Source: Cambridge SchoolDepartment, 1991 figures

It is not just that the Cambridgecontrolled-choice system fails to correct racialimbalances in the school; it actually causes them,says Jeanette Collier, a Boston school teacherwhose child attended a Cambridge public elementaryschool.

Collier, whose daughter now attends a privatehigh school, said the concentration of bilingualprograms in certain schools is a form of"institutional racism."

"In Cambridge today, if there's an overt victimof racism, I think it's the Haitian community andother linguistic minorities," she says. "They'reenrolled in schools where they're isolated inbilingual programs."

The presence of the Spanish bilingual programat the Longfellow School contributes to the factthat 35.5 percent of its students are Hispanic,which is considerably higher than the average of14.2 percent among all Cambridge elementary-schoolstudents.

However, in order to maintain a balance betweenwhite and non-white students, this concentrationof Hispanic students necessarily limits thenumbers of other minorities in the school.Consequently, the percentage of Black students,15.1 percent, at the Longfellow School is lessthan half of the elementary-school average of 30.6percent.

Similarly, the King School--which houses theKorean and Chinese bilingual programs--is 16.1percent Asian, over twice the Cambridgeelementary-school and population average. The highnumber of Asians at the King School contrasts withthe situation at the Fletcher, Kennedy and MaynardSchools, which are each less than 1 percent Asian.

The relatively high number of Asians in theKing school may contribute to thedisproportionately low number of Hispanicstudents, 7.1 percent, that are enrolled in theschool.

Economic Disparity

Alves says that while Cambridge was fairlyracially integrated in 1981, the schools were"highly segregated by social class"--a situationthat although improved, still exists today.

The socio-economic disparities between thevarious elementary schools shows in the number ofstudents in each school who are eleigible for freeand reduced lunches. For a family of four to beeligible for free lunch, they must make less than$17,420 a year. To meet reduced-lunch guidelines,a family of four cannot earn more than $24,790 ayear.

Nearly 50 percent of all Cambridge elementaryschool students receive free and reduced lunch.But four elementary schools fall more than 20percentage points away from that mean. At theHarrington and Kennedy Schools, more than 70percent of the students receive free or reducedlunch. But only 16.9 percent and 28.9 percent ofthe students receive such aid at the Agassiz andTobin Schools.

The Neighborhood School

Observers say the criteria used to assignstudents to schools contribute to the differencesin the economic and racial make-up of individualschools.

After the initial consideration of race,Cambridge's current system gives placementpriority to students who live near the school orhave older siblings there, according to Albert H.Giroux, public relations director for theCambridge School Department.

This becomes a problem because some parentschoose schools that are near-by or have alreadysent their older children to schools with acertain reputation and are unwilling to branch outand try new schools.

"Closeness is a major factor when parentschoose schools," Linda J. Rings, theearlychildhood resource specialist at the MorseSchool says. "Lots of people still love the ideaof the neighborhood school."

Michal Jasienski, a resident tutor at WinthropHouse, says proximity was the only factor heconsidered in choosing the King School for hisson.

"I didn't investigate any other schools,"Jasienski says. "I wanted to walk to school withmy son Adam Every day."

The preference shown toward children who livein the neighborhood and those with siblings in aparticular school prevents the abolition of schoolstereotypes, says Farah M. Ravanbakash, a formerparent liaison at the Tobin School.

"The neighborhood school concept does hinderdiversity--both racial and socio-economic," shesays.

Reputation

Like the old choice system the Harvard Housesused to operate under, Cambridge'scontrolled-choice plan has failed to abolish thedifferent reputations given to various elementaryschools.

The Morse School's Rings says some parentsstill choose schools based on "hearsay." "There'sdefinitely a reputation for schools--whether thoseare deserved or undeserved," she says. "I thinkpeople need to be much more objective than theyare."

James J. Coady, principal of the Morse School,said the high proportion of immigrants in certainschools is due to a feeling of "comfortableness."

"Most of the immigrant families naturally,either through their churches or support groups,try to go to a certain school," he says.

The necessary creation of bilingual facilitiesin these schools reinforces the clustering ofminorities, says Marilyn McGinn, principal of theFletcher School.

But some parents attribute the clustering andgrouping of different minorities in differentschools to racism, both subtle and overt.

According to Jeanette Collier, there are waysof discouraging low-income parents from choosingcertain schools. "I know of instances where parentliaisons would be outright rude to mothers ofchildren who lived in low-income areas," she says.

Today, the schools are far more balanced withrespect to their white to minority ratio, thanthey were before 1981. It is generally agreed thatthe controlled-choice system has improved theelementary schools across the board. The systemhas also helped educate and empower parents byexpanding their educational options.

"Ten years ago, even activist parents--half ofthem couldn't name five schools, usually the verybad or very good ones," Alves says. "Now inCambridge, every school gets a lot of attention."

Cambridge's controlled-choice system is a modelprogram. But clearly, complete racial and economicdiversity within the individual elementary schoolshas not yet been attained.Crimson GraphicNancy E. GreeneA Matter of Class Percentage of studentsreceiving free or reduced lunch in Cambridgeelementary schools. Source: Cambridge SchoolDepartment, 1991 figures