Educational justice requires equal opportunities to access a limited supply of excellent schools. And yet, most of the 69 percent of elementary and secondary school students enrolled in assigned public schools are subject to a residential assignment model. It's a simple and familiar concept. Elected school boards formulate attendance zones and require students who live within them to report to designated schools. It’s been a feature of American schooling for centuries, and it is entirely indefensible.
The residential assignment model restricts access to desirable schools based primarily on income. For upper-income families, it is a magnificent arrangement. They have the means to locate in neighborhoods with top-notch schools and amenities. For those of limited means, residential choices are limited to neighborhoods with affordable rent and access to public services. The quality of the assigned schools is often subpar in lower-income areas, and there is little recourse for poor or working-class families. A study published by the Social Capital Project found that “the average U.S. ZIP code associated with the highest quality (A+) public elementary school has a 4-fold ($486,104) higher median home price than the average neighborhood associated with the lowest quality (D or less) public elementary schools ($122,061).” Through the use of residential school assignments, the “Wellingtons” created an astonishingly efficient way to keep the “Washingtons” in a state of perpetual serfdom.
I am not the first to point out that the residential assignment model creates a structural barrier that reproduces socioeconomic advantages across generations. That is why dozens of policy prescriptions exist to try to mitigate its effects. Unfortunately, few solutions designed to address the deficiencies of the residential assignment have been successful. Housing vouchers, rent assistance, and zoning reform have shown some promise, but housing supply is often too limited to assist all of the families that could benefit from it. Another option is forced busing. But as Senior fellow at the Century Foundation Richard Kahlenberg points out, “No one is really for compulsory busing today. Public opinion was never for compulsory busing.” Why does public opinion matter? Politics.
Indeed, even if we developed an ideal public policy solution, we could not overcome the practical problem of politicians behaving like politicians. Elected officials have little incentive to draw equitable attendance zones or liberalize zoning policies when their election depends on campaign contributions and votes from residents of the geographic area that they represent. Even the most progressive, equity-obsessed school board members are hesitant to implement programs that, for example, reassign groups of low-income children to schools in high-income areas. Such policies are considered too disruptive by an electorate weary of measures that resemble forced busing. I have seen this scenario play out in my home county in North Carolina.
Surely school choice, despite its shortcomings, is a better – and more just – system than a politician-controlled scheme of ZIP code assignment that economist Julianne Malveaux called one of the “vestiges of enslavement.” The opposite of enslavement is freedom. And freedom is the lifeblood of school choice.