Scholars have debated whether students' enrollment in private schools changes levels of racial segregation across urban school districts. The authors examine this issue by comparing the actual racial composition of schools with the racial composition of school-aged children living in the corresponding attendance areas. They do so by linking maps of school attendance boundaries with 2000 census data, the Common Core of Data, and the Private School Survey for the 22 largest U.S. school districts. The results show that public schools would be less racially segregated if all children living in a school district attended their neighborhood schools. In addition, private, magnet, and charter schools contribute to overall racial segregation within many school districts. The effects are particularly striking for segregation between white and Hispanic children. Finally, a few school districts with desegregation policies have succeeded in reducing racial segregation. The analyses contribute to debates regarding recent proposals to eliminate desegregation programs while simultaneously expanding "free-market" educational reforms that promote students' mobility across public, private, and charter schools.

No abstract

We examine whether student enrollment in nonneighborhood schools changes levels of racial segregation in public schools across urban school districts by comparing the racial composition of schools and their corresponding attendance area. This comparison was made possible by using geographic information systems (GIS) to link maps of elementary, middle, and high school attendance boundaries with 2000 census data, the Common Core of Data, and the Private School Survey for the 22 largest school districts. Results show that public schools would be less racially segregated if all children living in a school district attended their local, neighborhood schools. Similarly, findings reveal that private, magnet, and charter schools contribute to overall racial segregation within most school districts. Finally, while segregation levels in school catchment areas become lower from elementary to middle to high schools, the difference in segregation between catchment areas and the schools that serve them remains constant across all levels. For the past several decades scholars and educational policy makers have debated the extent to which the enrollment of children in private, charter, and magnet schools affects racial segregation in traditional neighborhood public schools. While researchers investigating residential racial segregation consistently find that race influences neighborhood choice (

This article examines media representations of immigration in Williamsburg, Virginia, a 'new immigrant destination' in the USA. Through a content analysis of coverage in Williamsburg's local newspaper, we explore how reporters, columnists and readers draw on nationally and internationally circulating discourses to produce public interpretations of immigration issues and construct symbolic boundaries between and among in-groups and 'others' in the community. 'National boundaries drawn locally' captures how media actors use nationally recognizable frames to interpret local issues and define the parameters of community and national belonging. 'Localized symbolic boundaries' take their meanings from place-based, cultural understandings, specific economic conditions and demographics in the local setting. Newspaper discussions in Williamsburg distinguish between 'deserving' foreign student workers (primarily from Eastern Europe and Asia) and 'undeserving', racialized, Latino 'others'. Our analysis advances theories of boundary construction and holds implications for the politics of belonging more generally in other immigrant-receiving contexts.

In this article, I use state‐level anti‐miscegenation legislation to examine how Asian ethnic groups became categorized within the American racial system in the period between the Civil War and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. I show how the labels used to describe Asian ethnic groups at the state level reflected and were constrained by national‐level debates regarding the groups eligible for U.S. citizenship. My main point is that Asian ethnic groups originally were viewed as legally distinct—racially and ethnically, and that members of these groups recognized and used these distinctions to seek social rights and privileges. The construction of “Asian” as a social category resulted primarily from congressional legislation and judicial rulings that linked immigration with naturalization regulations. Anti‐miscegenation laws further contributed to the social exclusion of those of Asian ancestry by grouping together U.S.‐born and foreign‐born Asians.