Segregation of people has been ubiquitous in the history of the United States. The U.S. government made a few promising strides in “establishing and protecting” civil rights for black Americans right after the end of the Civil War (Arndt 2). The United States Government created these laws, later known as the Jim Crow Laws. These laws racially segregated people solely on race, but were justified with the “separate but equal” doctrine (Edwards 152). Even though they were equal under this doctrine, it was clear that desegregation had not yet been achieved.
The Supreme Court attempted to eliminate segregation in the United States through the decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka of 1954 where the “separate but equal doctrine” was struck down. The decision stated that separate but equal educational facilities were unequal, and that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment (Duignan 1). This meant that educational facilities could not be segregated based on race. Based on this decision, it would be expected to not see segregation in the United States, but despite this decision, more than 200 school desegregation cases remain open today (Conniff 5). This gives attention to the fact that segregation is still present today. Even though many would expect segregation to decreased due to the decisions made in previous cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, segregation clearly has remained as part of our society…
Segregation is present in the modern day, and it can be seen in Educational Systems where students are still segregated from one another.. An example of segregation in today’s society can be seen in New York City. In this city, public schools continue to be segregated. There exists a branch of public high schools, that determine admission based on a single test- the Specialized High School Admission Test.
Stuyvesant High Schools is one of the eight specialized high schools in New York City. Shockingly, for the Fall of 2019, only 7 black students were accepted to this school. Given that New York City is known to be one of the most diverse cities in the world, and the fact that Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka abolished the separate but equal doctrine, it would be expected to find an equal amount of students from different backgrounds and races attending these schools. However, most of the specialized high schools have not accepted equal amount of students from different races in recent years (Shapiro):
The image above, based on a study from The New York Times, exhibits the wildy segregated schools in New York City. The majority of students accepted were Asian and White and the minority of students are from Black and Latino backgrounds. However, it can also be seen that this is not something that is only seen for the students admitted for the Fall of 2019. The previous years also demonstrate the same pattern of a greater amount of White and Asian students being accepted than Latino and Black students. This, therefore, demonstrates how these specialized high schools do not represent all populations equally, as they segregate students based on their ability to take a single test, which leads to the segregation of students based on race as a collateral effect.
This segregation is the result of many factors that affect the lives of students and their families. However, the information above shows that the students that make up the minority populations in these specialized high schools come from low-income families, which can therefore imply that segregation in these schools could be due to family income. The question now is, how is segregation in New York City’s public schools the result of family income?
Family income correlates to the neighborhood in which families live in. Property taxes and neighborhood value dictate who can afford to live in any given neighborhood (Kornblau 25). The prices on different neighborhoods vary, and that therefore has an effect on who can afford to live in certain neighborhoods.
School zones in New York City are drawn geographically, they thus necessarily include students of similar socioeconomic status (Kornblau 25). An example of this is District 7 of the Bronx, where every school is made up of at least 90% black and Latino students, and 95% of the students “skew towards lower incomes” (Kornblue 28). This therefore means that students that come from low-income families, are more prone to come from the same racial background. This also means that students coming from the same economic status receive the same type of education due to where they live, which is the result of the income of their families.
A study on the effects of participatory budgeting on the allocation of capital funding among areas of different income levels within New York City council districts shows that participatory budgeting in New York City redirects funds to the next to the lowest income census tracts, but not the lowest income ones (Shybalkina 21). In participatory budgeting people decide how to allocate part of a municipal or public budget.
Additionally, in New York City, the neediest 25 percent of elementary and middle schools serve a student population where 96 percent of students, in contrast to the lowest-need schools (45 percent), come from low income (Zimmerman 4). However, despite having “more than twice as many low-income students, highest-need schools receive just 15 percent more funding” (Zimmerman 4). These statistics clearly show that there is some disparity as to where the funding goes to. This also means that the lowest-income families and, thus, the students receive less funding in schools. By receiving less funding, the schools are less able to provide a better academic aid, and a better environment for the students to learn in. Their environment they learn in affect their mental health and therefore develop a sense of inferiority compared to other communities which “limit their potential for professional and economic success” (Kornblau 5).
A report written by Neeraj Kaushal and published by Princeton University-Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs states that parents with higher income have more resources to invest in their children. This means that low-income parents are less able to invest in education-related items and activities for their children. Given that children that come from a more affluent family can benefit from certain academic aid, they have resulted to do better in school and have better attendance records (Kaushal 35).
These are some effects of family income in the academic career of the kids attending public schools in New York City. However, what does this have to do with Specialized High Schools being segregated?
The Specialized High School Admission Test is the only factor that is looked at in the process to be admitted to a specialized high schools. However, to be admitted to these specialized high schools, there are many factors that need to be considered. One of the most important factors is how well prepared are the students to take this test.
Students are not directly helped to be ready to take this test by their regular teachers, which means that they have to prepare by themselves. Keeping in mind that low-income families live in neighborhoods in which school are limited to their funding, these low-income students would have a harder time finding a program from their school to help them. Even though it is relatively costless to take the test, to get a higher score, or even to just get in, it takes the implementation of test-preparation. This makes the families to find private institution for test-prep, which could be unavailable to some students that belong to low income families, as the prices range from $1000-$3000 (Jones 5).
Another reason why some students cannot get any aid towards the preparation of this test is due to the fact that parents from low-income families are not as involved in the education of the students. This therefore leads to parents not seeing the value of this aid towards the academic preparation of the students. In an interview with five specialized high schools students, that currently are seniors attending Brooklyn Technical High School, Sebastian Meza, one of the five seniors that claimed to come from low-income families, said “I want to elaborate on one thing,” when referring to his response on how he prepared for the SHSAT, “My dad is a tutor and sees the value in tutoring” which is why he was able to prepare for the SHSAT. This is a clear example of how being involved in the education of the students can greatly affect the academic preparedness for these students. This however, does not represent others. Mahir Sadman, another of the seniors attending Brooklyn Technical High School stated that he did not prepare in any way for the SHSAT as he “could not afford specialized tutoring”. Moreover, even if some students want to prepare by themselves, test-prep books are still expensive. This means that many families that struggle economically could not be able to afford them, and therefore, students cannot have an equal chance at the education that they should be entitled to have.
Lastly, the New York City Department of Education “has never shown that the content on the SHSAT is connected to what students are learning in middle school” (Jones 6). This means that even though the students are being prepared to take state tests by their schools, it does not mean that what they are learning has a direct correlation to what they are being tested in school.
Given that low-income students attend schools that are underfunded, and therefore unable to provide as much academic aid as those schools that are funded more, and the idea that the parents cannot help them academically or economically to be prepared to take certain tests, this clearly exhibits that the income of family matters, and results with the segregation of these students in the New York City public school system.
Many would ask if nothing is being done, or has been done to end this segregation. Others would ask if students are aware of the segregation taking part in their school system. The answer to these questions is yes. Mayor de Blasio introduced a plan which would remove the Specialized High School Admission Test, but the state legislature failed to bring it up for a floor vote (Vohra 7). When Richard A. Carranza was appointed Chancellor, he made his top priority to desegregate schools, however, as time has passed he has not yet achieved this goal (Vohra 3).
Attempts have been made to desegregate New York City’s public school systems, however, many students believe that these attempts are not enough and they demand desegregation, and equality. Many students are aware of the segregation in the educational system that they are part of, and many have started to act against this segregation as they have not yet seen changes against segregation. Some students have locked themselves in buildings to protest against segregation, they have followed Mayor de Blasio all the way to Iowa to confront him against the suspension of students of color, and others have called Mayor de Blasio’s radio show demanding integration of schools (Shapiro 1-2). These students have started a movement, as they have tried to look for a way to desegregate schools, not only for them, but for the rest of the students that want an equal chance at an education as the “elite”. They are looking for a way to fight against this new form of segregation, the new Jim Crow Laws.
It is clear that many students want segregation to be scrapped from their school system. When asked about whether the specialized high schools in New York City were segregated due to family income, four out of five of the seniors from Brooklyn Technical High School were interviewed answered “yes” to this answer. The only student that answered “no” to this question claimed to belong to the middle socio-economic class. Given that the number of students is not large enough to connect it to the rest of students attending public schools in New York City, it cannot be concluded that low-income students feel the same way as these four seniors. However, it can be seen that some students are aware of this segregation taking part in New York City’s public school system and that they demand change.
Literature Cited
Arndt, Neena. ONSTAGE , 30 Apr. 2018,
http://www.onstage.goodmantheatre.org/2018/04/30/separate-but-equal-a- brief-history-of-jim-crow-laws/.
Conniff, Ruth. “Brown v. Board sixty years later.” The Progressive, May 2014, p. 8+. Gale In
Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A372451693/OVIC?u=cuny_ccny&sid=OVIC&xid=87646886. Accessed 27 Oct. 2019.
Duignan, Brian. “Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.” Encyclopædia Britannica,
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 10 May 2019, https://www.britannica.com/event/Brown-v-Board-of-Education-of-Topeka#targetText=Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, case in which,any person within their jurisdictions.
Edwards, Frances L., Thomson, Grayson Bennett, The Legal Creation of Raced Space: The
Subtle and Ongoing Discrimination Created through Jim Crow Laws, 12 Berkeley J. Afr.-Am. L. & Pol’y 145 https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=bjalp (2010).
Jones, David R. “City’s Elite High Schools Perpetuating Inequality.” City’s Elite High Schools
Perpetuating Inequality | Community Service Society of New York, https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/citys-elite-high-schools-perpetuating-inequality1.
Kaushal, Neeraj. “Intergenerational payoffs of education.” The Future of Children, Spring 2014,
p. 61+. Gale Academic Onefile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A367544552/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=a2e0e11a. Accessed 20 Oct. 2019.
Kornblau, Gabrielle. “SEPARATE BUT (STILL UN) EQUAL: CHALLENGING SCHOOL
SEGREGATION IN NEW YORK CITY.” Fordham Urban Law Journal, June 2019, p. 641+. Gale Academic Onefile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A592339982/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=f515dc43. Accessed 14 Oct. 2019.
Rebell, Michael A., and Joseph J. Wardenski. “Funding quality education in New York.
(Rewriting a flawed formula).” The CPA Journal, Feb. 2002, p. 30+. Gale Academic
Onefile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A83486541/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=AONE&xid=eea4
f47f. Accessed 14 Oct. 2019.
Shapiro, Eliza. “Lock-Ins and Walkouts: The Students Changing City Schools From the Inside.”
The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Sept. 2019,
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/nyregion/student-activists-nyc-schools.html?rref=c
ollection/byline/eliza-shapiro&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion&module
=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection.
Shapiro, Eliza. “Only 7 Black Students Got Into Stuyvesant, N.Y.’s Most Selective High School,
Out of 895 Spots.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Mar. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/nyregion/black-students-nyc-high-schools.html?module=inline.
Shybalkina, Luliia, and Robert Bifulco. “Does Participatory Budgeting Change the Share of
Public Funding to Low Income Neighborhoods?” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), 26 Nov. 2018, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/pbaf.12212.
Vohra, Sweta. “The Fight to Desegregate New York Schools.” The New York Times, The New
York Times, 18 Oct. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/the-weekly/nyc- schools-segregation.html.
Zimmerman, Alex. “NYC Schools with Greatest Share of Low-Income Students Lag in Funding,
Report Finds.” Chalkbeat, 17 Sept. 2018,
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2018/09/17/nyc-schools-with-high-share-of-low-inco
me-students-lag-in-funding/.
