Majority-minority Educational Success Sans Integration: A Comparative-International View

Abstract

Strategies for tackling educational inequality take many forms, though perhaps the argument most often invoked is school integration. Yet whatever the promise of integration may be, its realization continues to be hobbled by numerous difficulties. In this paper we examine what many of these difficulties are. Yet in contrast to how many empirical researchers frame these issues, we argue that while educational success in majority-minority schools will depend on a variety of material and non-material resources, the presence of these resources does not require school integration; indeed sometimes the most crucial resources are easier to foster in its absence. To that end, we briefly canvass the evidence from the United States on high performing majority-minority schools serving poor and minority students. Yet because these debates are so contentious in the American context, we pivot away from the U.S. to consider a different country, the Netherlands. We invite the reader to consider an analogous case where racial injustice and educational inequality are just as serious, yet where differences in the state school system might prove instructive concerning how some majority-minority schools choose to respond to existing segregation, but more importantly how educational success can occur in the absence of integration.

Caught in a school choice quandary: What should an equity-minded parent do?

“…Both views are also predicated on an empirically weak foundation, leaving us bereft of useful information needed for resolving the moral quandary. For instance, there are ample reasons to question their belief concerning how the social capital of more privileged children will benefit less privileged children, given the evidence concerning (a) the heavily tracked institutional design of most schools beyond the primary years (Merry and Boterman 2020; Domina et al, 2017; Shavit and Blossfeld, 1993; Van der Werfhorst 2019); (b) the homophily effect among peers (Angrist and Lang, 2004; Fiel, 2013; McPherson et al, 2001); (c) how privileged parents game the system 4 by insisting on their own child being advantaged (Calarco, 2018; Dumont et al, 2019; Saatcioglu and Skrtic, 2019), particularly when the school is mixed in terms of socioeconomic status and ethnicity/race (Diette et al, 2021; Francis and Darity, 2021; Lewis and Diamond, 2015; Merry and Agirdag, 2023); and finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, given (d) what we know about the somewhat limited impact on inequity that schools have relative to what occurs outside of schools, specifically in families and communities (Downey, 2020; Weininger et al, 2015). In the twenty-first century, this also includes a burgeoning and global multi-billion dollar shadow education 5 industry (Entrich, 2020; Zhang and Bray, 2020), which serves to reinforce – rather than mitigate – existing structural inequalities, largely because the educational services are strictly available to those able to pay.…”

“…This is because even when the material resources may be present, the non-material resources necessary for improving the educational performance of the disadvantaged are not. These resources, which often are found in schools that have tactically turned spatial concentration to advantage, include strong leadership, high teacher expectations, shared academic goals, a value-centered learning environment, empathic care, role-modeling and mentoring, and camaraderie among ethnic and racialized minority peers (Merry and Agirdag, 2023). Moreover, what 'solidarity' requires is complicated in a multicultural society.…”