A Multi-Pronged Plan to Disenfranchise Black and Brown Communities in Urban Settings: State Takeovers of Public Schools as Evidence
This post was written by Steven L. Nelson, J.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor/Department Chair, Educational Psychology, Leadership, & Higher Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
This year the Local Solutions Support Center will feature in-depth blog features authored by the members of our 2023 Research Cohort. Each month, a member of our Research Cohort will explore a different topic and its connection to preemption.
Introduction
State takeovers of public schools and even entire districts are nothing new. Since the late 1980s, state legislatures have intervened in school districts experiencing financial distress or insolvency. Generally, these financial interventions proved successful. In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) initiated a new phase of state interference in public education, encouraging states to take over public schools and districts unilaterally for purported academic ineptitude. Post-NCLB, state takeovers of public schools expanded even more. This expansion resulted in continued academic inequity and injustice. For instance, schools in urban settings—which tend to serve more diverse and/or marginalized student populations—were disproportionately targeted for state takeover. To that end, 85% of state takeovers of public schools and districts impacted school districts that served predominantly Black and Brown communities. The magnitude of these state interventions, and the significant inequities that result from them, should not be viewed in isolation.
Voting Rights, Education, and Race
The retrenchment of voting rights through state preemption is a significant concern. LSSC and others have noted how abusive state preemption targets the voting rights of Black and Brown voters in urban communities. Related, and not surprisingly, local politicians have criticized state efforts to take over public schools and districts. These policymakers raise concerns about being targeted for political and racial reasons and the potential disenfranchisement of peoples of color. At that same time, federal and constitutional laws are of little use to those resisting states’ efforts to disenfranchise Black and Brown communities. For instance, the Voting Rights Act, especially after the Supreme Court gutted it in Shelby County v. Holder, is inadequate protection against this form of voter disenfranchisement. At the same time, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not sufficient protection against this form of discriminatory conduct. In a previous paper, I explored these two topics, finding that discriminatory conduct must far exceed racial slurs before the federal courts would intervene once an appointed board is seated. Thus, states can leverage state takeover legislation to restrict voting rights for Black and Brown communities in urban settings through ostensibly racially neutral legislation with a long history of racially disparate impact.
Recent efforts by conservative states to take over public schools have targeted districts in liberal-leaning jurisdictions that disproportionately serve Black and Brown communities. Louisiana’s 2005 takeover of New Orleans’ public schools targeted the democratic hub of the state and the Blackest city in the state (and one of the Blackest in the nation). The same can be said of state takeovers in Detroit and Memphis. Arkansas’ state takeover of the Little Rock School District targeted the city with the largest Black population in the state. Arkansas’ and Louisiana’s takeovers of their Blackest cities mirror Texas’ impending takeover of the Houston Independent School District and its efforts to take over public schools in Austin. The takeovers were political, targeting democratic-voting, Black and Brown communities in urban settings. For instance, Louisiana moved to take over the New Orleans Public Schools after Hurricane Katrina, when New Orleanians were displaced and unable to resist such efforts. Arkansas implemented its state takeover of the Little Rock School District almost immediately after the city elected a predominantly Black school board for the first time. The state cited the school board’s history of underperformance as a reason for the takeover, never explaining why it did not seize control of the schools when the school board was predominantly white (given the long history of underperformance). In the current culture wars, it is unsurprising that Texas targets Houston and Austin—two liberal-leaning cities—for state takeovers. The conservative state legislature will likely face the most challenges in its racist, homophobic, and transphobic efforts from these cities. Displacing the current, popularly elected school boards and replacing those boards with conservative (or conservative-leaning) policymakers will facilitate the states’ efforts to discriminate while also disrupting liberal efforts to push back against discriminatory powers. In this case, the state takeover of public schools and districts is useful in disenfranchising political opponents.
A Multi-Pronged Approach to Diluting Resistance to Oppressive Legislation
State takeovers of public schools and districts is one prong of a multi-prong approach to dismantling resistance to oppressive legislation. Another prong in this effort is to restrict the possibility of sparking social justice-oriented actions in the first place. In a previous white paper, I discussed how states use curricular preemption to stymie future efforts to resist conservative efforts to oppress Black and Brown communities in urban settings. Efforts to prevent discussions of social justice include attacks and bans on social justice theories, gender identity, and books that cover any topic that might offend white people and conservative Christians.
Finally, a third prong of the recent attacks includes conservative states’ efforts to expand access to private school vouchers and charter schools. Both private school vouchers and charter schools bring into question constitutional and federal rights for students suffer societal marginalization. For instance, using private school vouchers results in students foregoing many constitutional rights since private schools are not typically state actors and are therefore not required to abide by some of the most cherished constitutional and federal protections. While charter schools are, in fact, public, I have previously predicted that charter schools would claim they are not state actors. That prediction proved accurate. Thus, Black and Brown students are still vulnerable or have their constitutional and federal protections questioned in even public charter schools.
“State takeovers of public schools and districts is one prong of a multi-prong approach to dismantling resistance to oppressive legislation. ”
Conclusion
State efforts to take over public schools and districts are not isolated attempts to improve academic outcomes for Black and Brown students. There is no proof that state takeovers as an intervention will improve academic outcomes. In fact, decades of research has revealed scant evidence of any state achieving sustained academic improvement of districts subject to state takeover. Yet, federal and state policies continue to allow, promote, and even mandate state takeovers of public schools and districts. For example, the Every Student Succeeds Act requires states to address their lowest-performing schools, citing state takeover as an example of effective policy intervention at the state level. And many states have passed legislation requiring state departments of education to seize control of struggling schools, stripping those communities of involvement in the politics of education and setting education policy agendas. The result is readily apparent - removing Black and Brown peoples’ voices leads to disenfranchisement and estrangement from the political process. Thus, the state takeover of public schools will have long-lasting negative impacts – not solely on student achievement but also on efforts to resist curricular preemption and the rollback of the Voting Rights Act.