Skip to content
  • News
  • Events
  • Law Library
  • Giving
  • Alumni
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • bCourses Overview
    • bCourses Link
    • Business Services
    • Schedule of Classes
    • View Evaluations
    • Identity Resources
    • RoloLaw
    • COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Faculty & Staff

    Support

    • Reporting Potential COVID-19 Cases
    • COVID-19 Remote Teaching Resources
    • Computing Support
    • Event Services
    • Faculty Services (Library)
    • Human Resources & Academic Personnel
    • Instructional Technology
    • Phones
    • Room Reservations
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • b-Line
    • Berkeley Law Facebook
    • Financial Aid
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Teaching Evaluations
    • Final Exam Review Session Schedule
    • Exams
    • Final Exam Schedule
    • CalCentral
    • COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Students

    Student Services

    • Reporting Potential COVID-19 Cases
    • Student Services Office
    • Academic Skills Program
    • Student Organizations
    • Student Journals
    • Commencement
    • Frequently Asked Questions & Rule Clarifications
    • Bookstore
    • Wellness at Berkeley Law
    • Mindfulness at Berkeley Law
    • Registrar
    • University Health Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Search for People at Berkeley Law

Berkeley Law
    • Academics Home
    • Areas of Study
      • Social Justice and Public Interest
        • Curriculum
          • J.D. Path
          • LL.M. Path
        • Social Justice+Public Interest Community at Berkeley Law
          • Public Interest and Pro Bono Graduation
      • Business and Start-ups
        • Business Law Curriculum
        • Business Law Faculty
      • Law and Technology
        • Student Activities
        • Law and Tech Curriculum
        • Law and Tech Faculty
      • Environmental Law
      • Criminal Justice
      • International and Comparative Law
        • Centers, Clinics, and Programs
        • Faculty
        • Student Activities
      • Constitutional and Regulatory
      • Law and Economics
        • Faculty
        • Prospective Students
        • Visiting Scholars
        • Law and Economics Fellowship
    • J.D. Program
      • First-Year Curriculum
      • Concurrent Degree Programs
      • Combined Degree Programs
      • Berkeley-Harvard Degree Programs
    • LL.M. Programs
      • LL.M. Executive Track
        • LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
        • Engage with Berkeley Law Online Courses
      • LL.M. Traditional Track
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Thesis Track
        • LL.M. Thesis Track Student Profiles
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • Courses
      • Certificates of Specialization
      • Application & Admission
        • Eligibility & Admission Standards
        • Application Instructions
        • Admissions Policies
        • Check Application Status
      • Tuition & Financial Aid
        • Cost of Attendance
        • Scholarships
        • Financial Aid
          • Financial Aid Checklist for LL.M./J.S.D. Students
        • FAQ Financial Aid
      • Professional Development
      • Admitted Students
        • Visas
        • Housing for LL.M. Students
        • Cancellation & Refund Policies
      • Join an Event & Connect with LL.M. Staff
        • Recruiting and Informational Events
        • Visit Us!
        • Contact Us
      • Meet Our Students
      • Meet Our Partners
      • Questions? Start Here
    • Doctoral Programs
      • J.S.D. Program
        • Application & Admissions
          • Eligibility & Admission Standards
          • Application Instructions
          • Check Your Application Status
        • J.S.D. Tuition & Financial Aid
          • Cost of Attendance for JSD
          • Robbins J.S.D. Fellowship
        • J.S.D. Student Profiles
          • Zehra Betul Ayranci
          • Ella Corren
          • Silvia Fregoni
          • George Lambeth Vicent
          • Sylvia Si-Wei Lu
          • Natsuda Rattamanee
          • Youngmin Seo
          • Abdullah Alkayat Alazemi ’21
          • Mehtab Khan ’21
          • Maximilien Zahnd ’21
          • Shao-Man Lee ’20
          • Alvaro Pereira ’20
        • Contact Us
      • Ph.D. Program – Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP)
        • Events Calendar »
    • Executive Education
    • Schedule of Classes
      • Two Year Curriculum Plan
    • Current Academic Calendars
      • 2021-2022 Academic Calendar
      • 2022-2023 Academic Calendar
      • Past Academic Calendars
        • 2020-2021 Academic Calendar
        • 2019-2020 Academic Calendar
        • 2018-2019 Academic Calendar
        • 2017-2018 Academic Calendar
        • 2016-2017 Academic Calendar
        • 2015-2016 Academic Calendar
        • 2014-2015 Academic Calendar
        • 2013-2014 Academic Calendar
        • 2012-2013 Academic Calendar
        • 2011-2012 Academic Calendar
        • 2010-2011 Academic Calendar
        • 2009-2010 Academic Calendar
        • 2008-2009 Academic Calendar
    • Registrar
      • Order of the Coif and Dean’s List
      • Academic Rules
        • Supplemental Academic Rules for Traditional and Thesis Track LL.M. Students
        • Academic Honor Code
        • Academic Rules Petition
        • Academic Rule 3.06 – applies to the Class of 2010 and before
        • Credit Hours
      • Registration
      • Transcripts
      • Verification of Attendance
      • Registrar’s Forms
      • Ordering a Diploma »
      • J.D. Academic Guidance
        • 3L Requirements FAQ
        • 3L Degree Worksheet
      • Registrar’s Student FAQ
      • Bar Information
        • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony Information
    • Admissions Home
    • J.D. Admissions
      • Applying for the J.D. Degree
        • Ready to Apply
        • After You’ve Applied
        • FAQs
      • Entering Class Profile
      • Connect with Admissions
        • Meet Our Team
        • View the Prospectus
        • Webinars
        • Recruiting and Information Events
        • Contact LL.M. Admissions
        • Contact J.S.P. Admissions
      • Meet Our Students
      • Diversity at Berkeley Law
        • Diversity News
      • The Berkeley Experience
        • U.C. Berkeley Campus
        • Berkeley and the Bay Area
      • Concurrent & Combined Degree Programs
      • Faculty Admissions Policy
      • Financial Aid
        • Prospective and Entering Students
          • Entering Student Registration & Financial Aid Information
          • Financial Aid for International J.D. Students
          • Financial Aid for Undocumented J.D. Students
          • Legal Resident Information
        • Types of Aid
          • Scholarships
          • Loans
          • Work-Study
        • How to Apply
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Incoming Transfer Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Entering Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Continuing Students
        • Fees & Cost of Attendance
          • Cost of Attendance Adjustments
        • PDST-Increase Offset Awards (PIOAs)
        • Forms
        • Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP)
          • LRAP Eligibility Guidelines
          • LRAP Eligibility Calculator
          • How to Apply for LRAP
          • LRAP Application Forms
          • Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
          • News & Updates
          • COVID-19 & Student Loans
          • LRAP FAQs
          • LRAP Glossary of Terms
        • Info Sessions & Presentations
        • Financial Literacy
        • Financial Aid – J.D. Concurrent Degree Programs
        • FAQ & Glossary
        • Requesting a Financial Aid Award for a Student
        • About Our Team
      • Outreach Partnerships
      • Admitted Students – First-Year »
      • Admitted Students – Transfer & Visitor Status »
      • For Current Berkeley Law Students
      • Admissions Policies
      • ABA Required Disclosures »
      • Our Role in Dismantling Systemic Racism
    • LL.M. Admissions
    • J.S.D. Admissions
    • Ph.D. (JSP) Admissions
    • Visiting Scholar and Visiting Student Researcher Admissions
    • Faculty & Research Home
    • Faculty Experts by Topic
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Deans Emeritus Lecturers
    • Recent Faculty Scholarship
    • Awards and Honors
    • Faculty in the News
    • Featured Research
    • Centers, Institutes & Initiatives
    • Experiential Home
    • Clinical Program
      • Apply to the Clinics
      • Death Penalty Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Alumni
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Death Penalty Clinic Amicus Curiae Briefs
          • Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Discriminatory Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors
        • Information for Students
        • Resources and Publications
          • Capital Defense Internships and Jobs
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • East Bay Community Law Center
      • Environmental Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Newsletters
        • Clinic News
        • Student Voices
        • Faculty and Staff
        • Alumni
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • International Human Rights Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Alumni
          • Faculty and Staff
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Accountability and Transitional Justice
          • Promoting Human Rights in the United States
          • A Rights-Based Approach to Combating Poverty: Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
          • Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights
        • Independent Investigation of the Murder of Berta Cáceres
        • Living with Impunity: Unsolved Murders in Oakland and the Human Rights Impact on Victims’ Family Members
        • A New Border Vision
        • Who Will Be Left to Defend Human Rights? Persecution of Online Expression in the Gulf and Neighboring Countries
        • Resources and Publications by Focal Area
        • Information for Students
          • Student Self-Reflection
        • IHRLC 20th Anniversary
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • New Business Community Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Our Work
        • Services to California’s Central Valley
        • New Businesses
        • Events
        • Apply for Services
        • Donate to the Clinic
        • 2014 Fall Startup Workshop Series
      • Policy Advocacy Clinic
        • About Us
        • People
        • Clinic News
        • Juvenile Fee Abolition in California
          • COVID-19 Action on Juvenile Fees
        • Resources and Publications
        • Information for Students
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
        • About
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Clinic Alumni
          • Partners
        • Clinic News
        • Our Work
        • Information for Students
      • Clinical Program Annual Report
        • Annual Report Archive
      • The Brian M. Sax Prize for Excellence in Clinical Advocacy
        • Brian M. Sax
        • Recipients
    • Pro Bono Program
      • The Pro Bono Pledge
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Log Your Pro Bono Hours
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects (SLPS)
        • How To Apply
        • Current Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • Animal Law and Advocacy
          • Arts and Innovation Representation
          • Berkeley Abolitionist Lawyering Project
          • Berkeley Immigration Group
          • Berkeley Law Anti-Trafficking Project
          • Berkeley Law and Organizing Collective
          • California Asylum Representation Clinic
          • Clean Energy Leaders In Law
          • Consumer Protection Public Policy Order
          • Contra Costa Reentry Project
          • DA Accountability & Participatory Defense Project
          • Digital Rights Project
          • Disability Rights Project
          • East Bay Dreamers Project
          • Environmental Conservation Outreach
          • Food Justice Project
          • Foster Education Project
          • Free The Land Project
          • Gun Violence Prevention Project
          • Homelessness Service Project
          • International Human Rights Workshop
          • International Refugee Assistance Project
          • La Alianza Workers’ and Tenants’ Rights Clinic
          • Legal Automation Workshop
          • Legal Obstacles Veterans Encounter
          • Name and Gender Change Workshop
          • Native American Legal Assistance Project
          • Palestine Advocacy Legal Assistance Project
          • Police Review Project
          • Political and Election Empowerment Project
          • Post-Conviction Advocacy Project
          • Prisoner Advocacy Network
          • Reentry Advocacy Project
          • Reproductive Justice Project
          • Startup Law Initiative
          • Survivor Advocacy Project
          • Tenants’ Rights Workshop
          • Wage Justice Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic
          • Youth Advocacy Project
        • How to Start a New SLP
        • Inactive Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • AI Legal Workshop
          • Berkeley Immigration Law Clinic
          • Berkeley Students in Support of Arts and Innovation
          • Civil Rights Outreach Project (CROP)
          • Community Restorative Justice Project
          • Juvenile Hall Outreach
          • Karuk-Berkeley Collaborative Legal
          • Local Economies and Entrepreneurship Project
        • SLPS Champions
      • Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
        • Current Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
          • Atlanta
          • Central Valley
          • Hawaii
          • Mississippi
        • Inactive Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips
          • Kentucky
          • Los Angeles
          • South Texas
          • Tijuana
      • Call for Necessary Engagement in Community & Timely Response (CNECT)
        • Berkeley Law Afghanistan Project
        • Current & Past CNECT Partners
          • Hub for Equity in Administrative Representation
          • Racial Justice Legal Research Bank Project
        • CNECT News
      • Independent Projects
      • Opportunities for LL.M. Students
      • Supervising Attorneys
      • Pro Bono Spotlights
        • Malak Afaneh ’24
        • KeAndra Hollis ’24
        • Maripau Paz ’24
        • Lucero Cordova ’23
        • Bharti Tyagi ’21
        • Benji Martinez ’23
        • Will Morrow ’23
        • Stephanie Clemente ’23
        • Francesco Arreaga ’21
        • Armbien Sabillo ’21
        • Kelsey Peden ’21
        • Jennifer Sherman ‘22
        • Professor Khiara M. Bridges
        • Professor Kristen Holmquist
      • Awards
      • Law Firm Pro Bono Programs
      • New York Bar Pro Bono Requirement
      • For Public Interest & Pro Bono Providers
    • Professional Skills Program
      • Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program
      • Elective Skills Courses
      • Advocacy Competitions Program
        • Tryout Procedures
        • Student Eligibility & How to Contact Us
        • Internal Competitions
          • McBaine Honors Moot Court
          • Halloum Negotiations Competition (Spring)
          • Halloum Business Competition (Fall)
          • Bales Trial Competition
          • Pahlke Internal Trial Competition (PINT)
          • The Pircher, Nichols & Meeks Joint Venture Challenge
        • External Competitions
          • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Team
          • Moot Court Team
          • Trial Team
        • Writing Competitions
        • 2021 ABA Negotiation Competition
        • Travel Reimbursements
        • Our Supporters
    • Field Placement Program
      • Testimonials
      • Judicial Externships
      • Civil Field Placements
      • Criminal Field Placements
      • Away Field Placements
        • Berkeley Law in The Hague
        • INHR Program
        • UCDC Law Program
      • For Supervisors and Host Organizations
        • BACE: Bay Area Consortium on Externships
      • How to Apply
      • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Startup@BerkeleyLaw
      • Law Students
      • Entrepreneurs
        • Resources
        • How to Start a Startup @ Cal
        • FORM+FUND
          • FORM+FUND Fall 2020 Video Library
          • FORM+FUND Fall 2021 Video Library
          • FORM+FUND Spring 2021 Video Library
        • BerkeleyBase
        • Startup Law Initiative
      • Investors
    • Domestic Violence Law Practicum
      • About the Director
      • How to Apply
      • Companion Seminar
      • Former Students
      • Impact of DVP
      • Domestic Violence Field Placement Internships
      • News
      • Photos
      • Student Writing
    • Veterans Law Practicum
    • Careers Home
    • For J.D. Students
      • Appointments and Drop-in Hours
      • Private Sector Careers
        • Explore Private Sector Careers
        • Find Private Sector Jobs
          • 2022 OCI: EIW & FIP
          • OCI Alternatives
          • SIP – Spring 2022
      • Public Interest Careers
        • Explore Public Interest
        • Find Public Interest Jobs
          • PI/PS Interviewing Resources
          • Using Interview Programs to Land Your 1L Summer Job
          • Post-Graduate Public Interest Fellowships
          • CDO PIPS Videos
        • Finance Your Public Interest Career
          • Summer Funding for PI/PS Internships & Judicial Externships
          • Berkeley Law Bridge and Public Interest Fellowships
      • Public Sector Careers
        • Federal Government Careers
        • State & Local Government Careers (incl. CA)
        • Careers in Policy/Politics
      • Judicial Clerkships
        • Application Instructions and Materials
        • OSCAR Resources
        • Clerkship and Interview Evaluations
        • Other Clerkship Resources
        • Videos of Clerkship Programs
        • State Court Resources
      • Judicial Externships
      • Academic Careers
        • FAQ
        • Further Reading
        • Alumni Contacts
        • Links
        • Webcasts
      • Alternative Careers
    • For LL.M. Students
    • For Employers
      • Berkeley Law Recruiting Policies
      • Employer Resources for Virtual Internship Programs
      • Non Discrimination and Non Harassment Policies
      • Grading Policy
      • Interview Programs
      • Posting Job Listings
      • Reaching Berkeley Law J.D. Students
    • PSJD »
    • For Alumni
      • Enrichment Opportunities for Recent Grads
      • CDO Online Resources
      • Alumni Resource Collection
      • Help the CDO
      • For Recent Graduate Job-Seekers
    • About CDO
      • CDO Staff News
    • Career Resource Library
    • Employment Outcomes
      • Employment Statistics
      • Judicial Clerkship Placement Statistics
      • 2018 Clerkship Yearbook
  • Racial Justice
Home Articles News Op-Eds – ARCHIVAL How, after 60 years, Brown v. Board of Education succeeded – and didn’t

How, after 60 years, Brown v. Board of Education succeeded – and didn’t

  • Share article on Facebook
  • Share article on Twitter
  • Share article on LinkedIn
  • Email article

By Richard Rothstein, The Washington Post

May 17 is the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 decision that prohibited Southern states from segregating schools by race. The Brown decision annihilated the “separate but equal” rule, previously sanctioned by the Supreme Court in 1896, that permitted states and school districts to designate some schools “whites-only” and others “Negroes-only.” More important, by focusing the nation’s attention on subjugation of blacks, it helped fuel a wave of freedom rides, sit-ins, voter registration efforts, and other actions leading ultimately to civil rights legislation in the late 1950s and 1960s. But Brown was unsuccessful in its purported mission—to undo the school segregation that persists as a central feature of American public education today. This issue brief highlights key elements of the American education system that have evolved in the wake of Brown:

• Although Brown stimulated a civil rights movement that desegregated many facets of American society, it was least successful in integrating education, the decision’s aim.

• Initial school integration gains following Brown stalled and black children are more racially and socioeconomically isolated today than at any time since data have been available (1970).

• Academic achievement of African Americans has improved dramatically in recent decades, but whites’ has as well, so racial achievement gaps remain huge.

• Schools for black children had enormous resource shortages in 1954. Inequalities still exist in some places, although they are much smaller. But resource equality itself is insufficient; disadvantaged students require much greater resources than middle-class white students to prepare for success in school.

• Expensive but necessary resources include high-quality early childhood programs, from birth to school entry; high-quality after-school and summer programs; full-service school health clinics; more skilled teachers; and smaller classes.

• Even with these added resources, students can rarely be successful in racially and economically isolated schools where remediation and discipline supplant regular instruction, excessive student mobility disrupts learning, involvement of more-educated parents is absent, and students lack adult and peer models of educational success.

• Schools remain segregated today because neighborhoods in which they are located are segregated. Raising achievement of low-income black children requires residential integration, from which school integration can follow. Education policy is housing policy.

• Federal requirements that communities must pursue residential integration have been unenforced, and federal programs to subsidize movement of low-income families to middle-class communities have been weak and ineffective.

• Correcting these policy shortcomings is essential if the promise of Brown is to be fulfilled.

Brown and desegregation

Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court’s unanimous school desegregation decision whose 60th anniversary we celebrate on May 17, had enormous impact. Its narrow result was to annihilate the “separate but equal” rule, previously sanctioned by the Supreme Court in 1896, that permitted states and school districts to designate some schools for “whites-only” and others for “Negroes-only.”

But more important, the Brown decision focused the nation’s attention on black subjugation in a fashion not seen since Radical Republicans attempted to reconstruct the South after the Civil War. Brown’s 1954 success in highlighting the nation’s racial caste system gave encouragement to a wave of freedom rides to desegregate interstate transportation, to national support for Rosa Parks’ determination to desegregate local buses and other public facilities, to lunch counter sit-ins to desegregate restaurants and other public accommodations, to heroic efforts to register African Americans in the Deep South to vote, and to confrontations over admission of African Americans to southern universities. It also spurred civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965, and 1968 that, in combination, undid the nation’s legal support for race-based status. None of this would have taken place without Brown.

But Brown was unsuccessful in its purported mission—to undo the school segregation that persists as a modal characteristic of American public education today. When the Supreme Court handed down its decision on May 17, 1954, Thurgood Marshall, head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) and chief attorney for the plaintiffs, predicted that there would be “no organized resistance” to the Supreme Court’s order and that schools nationwide would be fully desegregated “in up to five years,” ensuring that black children throughout the nation would have educations that would gain them entry to skilled jobs and colleges on an equal basis with whites.

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court where he spent the next 24 years in a fruitless struggle to prevent the perpetuation of school segregation, and indeed its exacerbation, after an initial rollback.

Today, things are getting worse. The typical black student now attends a school where only 29 percent of his or her fellow students are white, down from 36 percent in 1980. Subsequently, the courts, over Marshall’s and other pro-integration justices’ objections, began to free southern school districts from orders compelling them to adopt deliberate policies to integrate. In fact, black children are more racially and socioeconomically isolated today than at any time since data have been collected.

Of course, Brown did accomplish a great deal, even with respect to school desegregation. Although today, typical black students in Southern states attend schools where only 29 percent of their fellow students are white, in 1954 the percentage was zero. (Here, too, however, we are now going backwards: In 1980, the percentage for Southern states was 40 percent.) This progress from 1954 to the present is shamefully inadequate, but it is not nothing.

Black student achievement and the achievement gap

Black student achievement, nationwide, and in every state, has improved at a spectacular rate since Brown. Although we don’t have a reliable measure of achievement going back very far in time, we have good data for the last few decades, from the federal sampled test of math and reading, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). It shows, for example, that black fourth-graders now have average math scores that are better than average white math scores only a generation ago. Yet because average white achievement has also improved, the gap between black and white achievement remains. The average black student still performs better than only about 25 percent of white students, making the goal of equal qualification for the labor market a distant and daunting goal.

It is too easy to forget that the Brown decision was propelled not merely by a principled objection to the idea of “separate but equal,” but by Southern states’ unrestrained contempt for the “equal” part of the formula. Black students were not only segregated but wholly denied meaningful educational opportunity. Schools 60 years ago were separate but not equal. In Clarendon, South Carolina, the school system at the heart of the Brown collection of cases, per pupil spending in schools for whites was more than four times the rate in schools for blacks. The capital value of schools for whites was nine times the value of shacks for blacks. The pupil-teacher ratio in schools attended by whites was 28-to-1, for those attended by blacks it was 47-to-1. There were flush toilets in schools for whites and outhouses at schools for blacks; buses transported white students to school while black students walked; schools for whites had janitors while schools for blacks were cleaned by teachers and students themselves. High school vocational programs for whites included typing and bookkeeping, but high school vocational programs for blacks consisted of agriculture and home economics. And so on.

All that ended with Brown. Although not the intent of the Legal Defense Fund, Marshall, or the other plaintiff attorneys, the case did provoke Southern states to make schools for blacks and whites more nearly equal, if still largely separate.

We are today considerably more knowledgeable about the challenges to student achievement posed by race and social class status than we were in 1954, if less motivated to do much to address them. Here is some of what we now know:

Resource equality is not enough

Per-pupil spending on black and white students today is now roughly equal (compared with the disparities of 60 years ago), but students who come to school with the handicaps of lower-social-class status need a lot more resources, not just a little more, and certainly not the same as those enjoyed by white middle-class students.

• Children whose parents have less educational attainment and lower literacy levels hear less complex language at home, and are read to less frequently. Narrowing the difference between their school readiness and that of middle-class children requires provision of high-quality early childhood programs, from birth. As a nation, we’ve barely begun to recognize this; public discussion, such as it is, mostly concerns only provision of prekindergarten classes beginning at age 3 or 4, not birth. High-quality early childhood programs (with trained professionals, low child-caregiver ratios, and spacious play areas), as well as nurse home-visiting programs that support mothers to be more effective caregivers, will be very expensive to implement.

• New research has shown that the most important predictor for young children of later academic success is the general background knowledge with which they come to school. For very young children, having visited a zoo better predicts reading ability than knowing how to sound out letters that spell animal names. High-quality early childhood programs can help with this for young children from lower-social-class families. For older youth, participation in equally high-quality after-school and summer programs is necessary to boost achievement. Such programs do not stop at academic remediation and homework help, but include field trips, club activity, music, art, and dance, and organized athletics comparable to what middle-class children take for granted. These programs, too, are expensive.

• We also now know that for young minority children from lower-social-class backgrounds, smaller class sizes can boost achievement because in such classes, children get more adult attention. Middle-class children, typically from smaller families, not only get academically supportive adult attention at home, but more of it. Lowering class sizes for children who need it most is also very expensive. So is ensuring that such children have teachers who are more skilled than teachers of middle-class children. And children who come to school stressed from segregated neighborhoods with more crime and violence need added support services in school, like counselors and social workers. This, too, is expensive.

• Racially isolated neighborhoods typically have fewer primary care physicians, so children living in those neighborhoods typically receive less routine and preventive health care (even if they have Medicaid or private health insurance), contributing to greater absenteeism. They also have unique health problems contributing to lower achievement—for example, iron-deficiency anemia and lead poisoning, or asthma from living in less healthy environments. They tend not to get corrective lenses for vision problems. Putting full-service health clinics, with pediatric nurse practitioners, dentists and dental hygienists, and optometrists, in schools serving disadvantaged students is also an essential component of a narrowed achievement gap.

Integration remains essential

In the Brown case, psychologist Kenneth Clark travelled to Clarendon County (and to other school districts whose cases were combined with Brown) to test the self-concept of young black children. He gave them black and white dolls from which to choose and concluded that the children had more positive feelings about the white dolls. The plaintiffs used his evidence to support their demand for desegregation. Chief Justice Earl Warren was sufficiently impressed to cite it in the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision.

In retrospect, the study seems flawed for the purpose for which it was used: When Clark conducted the same exercise with black students in Northern integrated schools, he got similar results, suggesting that it was not school segregation, but a more generalized caste system, present in the North as well, that produced what Warren characterized as a “feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

Today, we know much more about how school segregation itself produces lower achievement for children from lower-social-class backgrounds. Feelings of inferiority are but a small part of the explanation.

• When a few children in a classroom come from homes with less literacy, and without the benefit of high-quality early childhood care, a skilled teacher can give those children special attention. But when most children in that classroom have these disadvantages, the average instructional level must decline. The most skilled teachers must devote more time to remediation, less to new instruction.

• When most or even many children in a classroom are sorely stressed, having endured life in a violent neighborhood, teachers must devote more time to discipline, less to learning.

• When children have been exposed to few college-educated adults (except for their teachers), these children’s own ambitions are inevitably constrained. Parents in such schools do not have the educational backgrounds themselves to be able to monitor curricular decisions. Parent involvement, an essential ingredient of successful schools, consists in such schools mostly of fundraising support and chaperoning field trips.

Segregated neighborhoods lead to segregated schools

The schools black children attend today, in North and South, East and West, are segregated mostly because their schools are located in segregated neighborhoods. In some small cities and towns, schools can be integrated by adjusting attendance zones, establishing magnet schools, or implementing controlled choice programs. But in major metropolitan areas, places like Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, New York, St. Louis, and so on, distances between ghetto and suburb are too great, and school district jurisdictional lines too established, for these methods to accomplish significant integration. Schools cannot be integrated unless the neighborhoods where they are located are integrated; in particular, by making housing opportunities for low-income, black, urban residents available in white middle-class suburbs.

As it turns out, the most important school policies are housing policies, and we pursue too few of them, and too weakly. Low-income working families are eligible for vouchers to supplement their rental payments up to market rates, even in middle-class communities, but the voucher program is barely funded, and when families do get vouchers, landlords in middle-class communities typically refuse them, so the vouchers perpetuate rather than reduce segregation.15 Suburbs maintain zoning ordinances that prevent construction of low- and moderate-income housing, rendering federal subsidies for such housing less useful to combat segregation. Government programs encourage the destruction of public housing ghettos but make inadequate provision for rehousing the displaced residents, many of whom are then forced to leave their gentrifying neighborhoods to seek homes in newly segregating inner-ring suburbs.

It is now apparent that we are stuck. Unless we desegregate neighborhoods, we can’t desegregate schools, and unless we desegregate schools, the doors to opportunity for too many black students will continue to be closed.

In a short while, following the conclusion of a comment period, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to issue a rule requiring all municipalities, including white suburbs, to abide by the 1968 Fair Housing Act’s requirement that they follow policies to “affirmatively further fair housing,” i.e., to integrate.

Whether and to what extent this rule is enforced will determine whether the failed promise of Brown can be fulfilled.  

04/24/2014

News

  • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information
    • Berkeley Law COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
  • Transcript Magazine
    • Transcript Archive
      • Transcript Spring 2021 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2017 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2016 Online Edition
  • Podcasts
  • On Display
  • Media Highlights
  • News Archive
    • 2022 Archive
    • 2021 Archive
    • 2020 Archive
    • 2019 Archive
    • 2018 Archive
    • 2017 Archive
    • 2016 Archive
    • 2015 Archive
    • 2014 Archive
    • 2013 Archive
    • 2012 Archive
    • 2011 Archive
    • 2010 Archive
    • 2009 Archive
    • 2008 Archive
    • 2007 Archive
    • 2006 Archive
    • 2005 Archive
    • News Briefs
    • Alumni Newsletter
  • Trailblazing Women
  • Social Media
  • Communications Office
    • Identity Resources
      • Ordering Printed Supplies
    • Media Release Form
  • Law School Images »
Berkeley Law
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Instagram
  • Flickr
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • About
  • Getting Here
  • Contact Us
  • Job Openings
  • ABA Required Disclosures
  • Feedback
  • For Employers
  • Accessibility
  • Nondiscrimination
  • Privacy Policy
  • UC Berkeley

© 2022 UC Regents, UC Berkeley School of Law, All Rights Reserved.

Notice – Berkeley Law COVID-19 Protocols