ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÊÓ

The missing link in conversations about choice is around the types of school communities these policies will create: integrated and diverse communities, or segregated, economically isolated ones. By discussing choice without considering diversity and integration within schools, we inevitably miss the mark on equity. The current administration’s tendency to and is a prime example of this perilous approach. Granted, this administration has not shown itself to be overly concerned with equity, but if it were, it might reframe its choice agenda to also attend to diversity and integration.

Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of synergy right now between advocates of school choice and proponents of school integration. Recently a number of scholars, educators, and have been revisiting school integration as a path to closing the achievement gap. But rather than considering how school choice can support the creation of more diverse schools, some school integration proponents, like the UCLA Civil Rights Project and the NAACP, regularly and . But the real story is complicated. Though many charter schools serving the most at risk de facto reinforce economic and racial isolation, many of them are . Furthermore, at the intersection of integration and choice live some powerful solutions to improving educational outcomes for all students. Across the country, intentionally diverse charter schools (like ours, ) are emerging and are .

There are some spaces ( and the ) in which people who care about choice, equity, and integration can come together to seek solutions. But these spaces remain niche, and their influence is limited. The prevailing dialogue is divided and divisive, and it does not serve the cause of equity very well. In good conscience, we cannot advance a conversation about choice without addressing equity of access and diversity, and we will not achieve integration without leveraging a variety of public school models, which are now a real and permanent part of our educational landscape.

I’m not going to spend time defending school integration, which is done well , , and , or the importance of choice, which is in a failing district who wants the best for their child. Let’s all agree for a moment that equity is important, that students in integrated schools perform better, and that families need choices because all kids are different and not all schools work, or work for every kid. If we believe those precepts, we need to stop the infighting and collectively commit to changing the way we discuss school systems.

I propose three ways we can change the conversation to speak equity to choice:

When proponents of integration collaborate with advocates of choice, charter schools and other innovative structures can offer a direct path to integrated schools. Large traditional districts often lack the collective will to take on controversial redistricting or open enrollment initiatives. Conversely, school choice models that do not control for diversity tend to reinforce patterns of economic isolation and segregation. Investments in schools for segregated neighborhoods produce segregated schools. So why not reach across this divide and leverage the variety of school choice models to achieve the diversity our students need and deserve?

We need to stop relying on individual parents and families to know what their options are, much less to choose an integrated or diverse option. Many parents, particularly in the lowest-income communities, may not know what their options are or how to navigate systems of choice. In Los Angeles, for example, Parent Revolution’s initiative helps parents find the best schools for their children. The Los Angeles “unified” school system is so obtuse and the enrollment processes are so convoluted that the only way they have been able to help is through one-to-one assistance. How can we ever ensure equitable access if everyone needs their own “school choice coach” to figure it out? Furthermore, experiments in housing and school choice have shown us that when individuals are given the choice, (especially white, middle-class people), . “A growing body of school choice research has shown that when school choice policies are not designed to racially or socioeconomically integrate schools, that is, are ‘colorblind’ policies, they generally manage to do the opposite, leading to greater stratification and separation of students by race and ethnicity across schools and programs” (American Journal of Education, 2013). In other words, school choice in a free market can be antithetical to integration.

Choice must exist in a well-coordinated, controlled system, with clear information, and provisions to ensure diverse schools. Some districts (, , , and others) have experimented with universal enrollment, in some cases with a controlled choice system that factors diversity into the equation. Others have deliberately redrawn school attendance boundaries to increase integration. Still others invest in magnet schools that can be engineered for diversity. We need to pay closer attention to these models and find examples where parent choice and diverse schools can co-exist and even mutually enhance each other.

We need to spend less time fighting about who is responsible for failing and segregated public schools (see above reference to the and the ), and more time working together to create high-quality integrated options for families. Proponents and funders of school choice (yes,  you, , , and ) need to consider how choice in a free market exacerbates segregation. Their investments and innovations need to attend to increasing effective school options and interrupting segregation for students in every community.

These issues comprise a tangled web that needs to be unraveled and rewoven as a safety net for all students. This shift will require bold and daring leadership decisions, honest conversations about who has access to choice and how people make choices for their kids, and the collective humility to recognize that there is no one path to equity.