SACRAMENTO – Most of the attention following the United States Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. has focused on the court’s ruling that race cannot be used as a “tiebreaker” in assigning students to certain schools. Less discussed, but just as important from an education standpoint, was the court’s debate over how best to ensure quality education for all children.
In the case, the Seattle and Louisville public school systems had instituted programs to ensure racial balance in schools by using race to limit student transfers or as a tiebreaker to decide which students would be admitted to particular schools. Parents in both districts sued, arguing that these race-based programs violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, sided with the parents saying that racial balancing is unconstitutional discrimination.
In an opinion joined by four out of the five members of the court majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that prior to the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision “schoolchildren were told were they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin.” Similarly, in this case, he asked, “What do the racial classifications at issue here do, if not accord differential treatment on the basis of race?” The chief justice declared, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer took several tacks. First, he argued that it was permissible to treat people differently based on race if the intentions of the school districts were noble. Chief Justice Roberts retorted effectively, warning: “Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal does not mean they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it, or that their racial classifications should be subject to less exacting scrutiny.”
Breyer also said that school boards have a compelling interest in racially balancing schools because such programs can improve the educational outcomes of minority students. Breyer admitted, however, that the social science on this question is far from clear. Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion to Chief Justice Roberts, noted, “In reality, it is far from apparent that coerced racial mixing has any educational benefits, much less that integration is necessary to black achievement.” Not only do analyses of existing research show little educational benefit resulting from race balancing and integration in schools, Thomas pointed out that several important studies showed that minority students can achieve at high levels in schools that are “racially isolated.”
For example, Thomas cited They Have Overcome: High-Poverty, High-Performing Schools in California, a study by the Pacific Research Institute. Thomas observed that the PRI study chronicles “exemplary achievement in predominantly Hispanic schools in California.” The PRI study analyzed the instructional and learning models used at these schools to understand why they were succeeding while so many schools with similar demographics were failing. According to the PRI study, “excuses such as low income, family background, racial diversity, limited English proficiency, and standardized test bias are invalid and should be ignored.” (emphasis added)
Lance Izumi is the director of Education Studies for the Pacific Research Institute. This article is excerpted from a column he wrote for PRI’s Capital Ideas series.
