The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., America’s Non-White Youth,
and the Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage1
James H. Johnson Jr., Ph.D.
William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor
Kenan-Flagler Business School
Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1
Invited Address, Martin Luther King Triangle Interfaith Prayer Breakfast, Sheraton Imperial Hotel,
Research Triangle Park, NC, January 19, 2015.
Page 1
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
what I have come to call the triple whammy of geographic disadvantage—a circumstance that limits
educational and economic opportunities of mainly
Thank you very much for that most kind America’s non-white youth (see Ross, 2014; Cohen,
introduction. I consider it both a high honor and 2014)--would be near, if not at, the top of Dr.
a blessing to have the opportunity to share a few King’s social justice agenda were he alive today.
thoughts with all of you this morning on the occaHaving studied inequality in American socision of the 2015 Triangle MLK Interfaith Breakfast. ety for more than 30 years (see Appold and Johnson,
After accepting the planning commit- 2012; Bobo, Oliver, Valenzuela, & Johnson, 2000;
tee’s invitation to serve as the keynote speaker Johnson, Oliver, & Bobo, 1994), I am convinced
this morning, I immediately asked myself the fol- the recent egregious acts of violence and our justice
lowing questions: What would keep Dr. King system’s responses to them are deeply rooted in the
up at night were he alive today on this occa- hyper-segregation, educational disenfranchisement,
sion of his 86th birthday? That is, what pressing and economic marginalization that continue to charissue or set of issues would take priority on Dr. acterize non-white residential life in America today
King’s agenda for justice and fairness in America? (Sharkey, 2013). My assertion here is rooted, at least
in part, in my experiences as an expert witness in
I am certain—and sure most of you would the penalty phase of more than 50 capital murder
agree--he would be deeply troubled by the very ten- cases involving males of color over the past quaruous at best, and extremely volatile at worst, state ter century (see Johnson, Farrell, & Sapp, 1997a,b).
of relations between the police and the African
Against this backdrop, I respectfully ask for
American community in America today. I think Dr. King would be particularly aggrieved by the your indulgence as I first, briefly describe the two
events surrounding the untimely and tragic deaths colorful demographic processes that undergird the
of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, triple whammy of geographic disadvantage for young
and Tamir Rice. And, as a staunch advocate for people of color; second, graphically illustrate the
non-violent protest, I also firmly believe Dr. King nature, magnitude, and geographic scope of the three
would be equally troubled by the senseless acts dimensions of the problem; and third, conclude with
of violence that snuffed out the lives of the two an overview of the ameliorative strategies I believe
New York City police officers this past December. Dr. King would embrace if he were still with us.
1.0 Preamble and Purpose
Undoubtedly all of you can come up with 2.0 Critical Background and Context
a litany of other contemporary issues that you
think would probably preoccupy Dr. King’s atten- Two colorful demographic trends are dration. But for me, as demographer, I firmly believe matically reshaping U.S. communities today. Immi-
Page 2
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
gration, mainly from Asia, Latin America, and the
Middle East, is contributing to the ‘browning” of
America, while the aging of the U.S. native born
population is contributing to the “graying” of
America (Frey, 2010; Johnson, 2006, 2009; Johnson and Kasarda, 2011; Pew Hispanic Center, 2013).
Emblematic of the “browning” trend,
according to U.S. census data, people of color—Hispanics (15.2 million), Blacks (3.7 million), Asians
(4.3 million) and other non-white groups composed mostly of people self-identifying as biracial
or multiracial (1.4 million)—accounted for 92 per-
cent of U.S. net population growth during the first
decade of the new millennium (27 million) (Johnson and Kasarda, 2011; Pew Hispanic Center, 2013).
The “graying” of the American population
is driven principally by the aging of Baby Boomers—the 80 million people born between 1946
and 1964. On January 1, 2011, America’s first Baby
Boomer reached the age of 65 and became eligible
for a host of governmental benefits. Over the next
20 years, Boomers will continue to turn 65 at the
rate of 8,000 per day and are projected to live on
average another 18.7 years. Because fertility rates
Figure 1
RACIAL TYPOLOGY OF U.S. COUNTIES
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
Page 3
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
dropped sharply following the post-WWII baby
boom (especially among non-Hispanic whites),
this increased longevity—absent a continuous flow
of prime working age immigrants to support the
system—will severely challenge the nation’s ability
to sustain Social Security and other governmental social “safety net” programs (Johnson, 2013).
will have to propel our nation forward in the years
ahead--are at substantial risks of falling through
the cracks of our nation’s K-12 education system
and failing to acquire the requisite advanced skills
through post-secondary education to compete in the
unsparing global economy of the 21st century (Johnson, 2006; Johnson and Parnell, 2012; Johnson, et.
al., 2015). In defense of my assertion here, allow me
Moreover, the “browning” and “graying” to describe the three types of geographical sorting of
of America are ushering in dramatic shifts in the the U.S. population that have created this situation.
geographic distribution of the U.S. population, as
well as major changes in marriage patterns, living 3.1 The First Whammy
arrangements, and family and household composiFigure 1 portrays the nature and geotion (Taylor, et. al, 2010; Livingston and Parker, 2010; Tavernise, 2011; Krivickas and Lofquist, graphical extent of the problem as mani2011). These shifts create both opportunities and fested at the county level in America. It highchallenges for our nation (Johnson, et. al., 2015). lights four different county types which are a
product of the nation’s shifting demography.
3.0 The Triple Whammy of Geographic
Disadvantage
In part as a consequence of the residential settlement patterns that undergird these two
colorful processes, our nation’s nonwhite youth are
increasingly concentrated in U.S. counties, cities and
towns, communities and neighborhoods characterized by enormous cultural generation gaps (whammy
#1), high levels of race/ethnic re-segregation
(whammy #2), and extreme concentrations of poverty (whammy #3) (Craig and Richeson, 2014; Besl,
2011; Wiltz, 2014; Frey, 2011; Mather, 2007; Johnson
and Lichter, 2010). Owing to this state of affairs,
I contend, and believe Dr. King would concur, our
nation’s nonwhite youth—the new majority that
Page 4
Areas colored red in this map are “racial generation gap” counties. They form an elongated, curvilinear cluster extending from roughly Washington,
DC southward along the South Atlantic Seaboard
to South Florida and then turn westward winding
through the Deep South and the Southwest all the
way to California. There are also a few isolated clusters in the upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest
(Figure 1). In these counties, the <18 population is
predominantly nonwhite, while the over 65 population is predominantly white. Prior research has shown
that huge cultural/racial gaps exist in these counties
(Frey, 2011; Roberts, 2007; Maher, 2007; Blackwell,
2011; Wiltz, 2014). In fiscal matters, the whites, who
are mostly empty nesters, are more likely to advocate
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
for property tax cuts and retirement amenities than
to lobby for additional resources for public education
and other child and youth development activities
(Maher, 2007; Frey, 2011; Blackwell, 2011). Because
these aging empty nesters make up a majority of the
voters, only limited financial support exists at the local
level for the education of the predominantly minority youth in these “racial generation gap” counties.
Areas highlighted in orange in Figure 1,
which cluster along with the geographical distribution of the “racial generation gap” counties, are
“majority-minority” counties. In contrast to the
“racial generation gap” counties, the adult population (18+) and the youth population (<18) are both
predominantly nonwhite in these counties. Only
17% of the youth in these counties are non-Hispanic
white. As the voting age majority, nonwhite adults
are more likely than resident whites to lobby for
greater support for public education. But these are
mostly low-wealth counties and therefore the local
tax base is often too small to ensure the predominantly non-white youth a high-quality education.
Areas highlighted in white in Figure 1, which
are more widely dispersed throughout the U.S. than
the “racial generation gap” and “majority-minority”
counties, are “majority-majority” counties. The adult
population and the youth population are both predominantly white in these counties. But roughly
one-quarter of the youth in these counties are nonwhite. What distinguishes these counties is the level
of support for education; it is much stronger, especially among whites, than in the other two types of
counties. But many of the minority youth in these
counties, not unlike their counterparts in the “racial
generation gap” and “majority-minority” counties,
attend schools that are undergoing re-segregation
and thus do not fully benefit from the rich educational resources—financial and otherwise—that
exist in these “majority-majority” counties. And the
non-white youth who manage to attend resource-rich
schools in these “majority-majority” counties typically are under-represented in the college preparatory
tracks or curriculums (i.e., Honors, Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate programs)
(CollegeBoard, 2014; Theokas and Saaris, 2013).
Of the 3,144 U.S. counties and county equivalents, only five did not fit into one of the previous three
county types. Both the total and <18 populations in
these five counties are small, accounting for 0.0002%
and 0.02% of the respective totals. I have classified
these five counties in the “other” category in Figure 1.
Figure 2 displays how the U.S. <18 population is distributed by race and ethnicity across these
four county types. Among the nation’s 74.2 million
youth, 56% reside in “majority-majority” counties—
arguably the most advantageous situation—while
nearly all of the balance (43%) live and attend school
in either “racial generation gap” (33%) or “majorityminority” counties (10%)—arguably the least advantageous situations. The remainder of the <18 population resided in the “other” counties in this typology.
Looking at the distribution of youth by race/
ethnicity across these four county types reveals the
Page 5
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Figure 2
DISTRIBUTION OF <18 POPULATION BY RACE AND COUNTY TYPE
Source: American Community Survey, 2012
magnitude and depth of the disparities in the K-12 education opportunity structure in the U.S. While only
one-quarter of non-Hispanic white youth (24.6%) live
in either “racial generation gap” or “majority minority” counties, 62% of black youth, 73% of Hispanic
or Latino youth, 63% of Asian youth, 50% of other
race youth, and 49% of mixed race youth reside in
these types of counties. Only 38% of America’s black
youth, 27% of Hispanic youth, and 36% of Asian
youth attend school in “majority-majority” counties.
Youth of other races and mixed races attend schools
in “majority-majority” counties at higher rates—
47% and 51%, respectively—but their absolute numbers are much smaller (1.0 million and 4.2 million,
respectively) than those of Black (10.4 million), Hispanic (17.1 million), and Asian (3.2 million) youth.
Page 6
3.2 The Second Whammy
Making matters worse, a significant share of
America’s youth is growing up in neighborhoods that
are hyper-segregated -- that is, separate and unequal
(Massey and Denton, 1993; Wilson, 1987; Massey,
2007; Sharkey, 2013). To illustrate the impact of
this demographic dynamic on the nation’s <18
population, I classified U.S. census tracts—census
bureau-defined geographic units that approximate
residential neighborhoods—by levels of segregation.
Building on prior research, I classified census
tracts that were 60% or more white and census tracts
that were 60% or more non-white as hyper-segregated
(Massey and Denton, 1993). Census tracts falling in
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Figure 3
U.S. RACIAL SEGREGATION BY CENSUS TRACT, 2010
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
Figure 4
RACE/ETHNIC SEGREGATION OF NEIGHBORHOODS BY LEVEL OF SEGREGATION
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
Page 7
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
between these two extremes were classified as racially/
ethnically mixed or transitional neighborhoods.
Figure 3 illustrates the level of racial segregation that exists in the U.S. Paralleling the distribution of “majority/majority” counties in Figure 1,
large swaths of the nation are made up of predominantly white neighborhoods. The predominantly
non-white and mixed neighborhoods in Figure 3
parallel the distribution of “racial generation gap”
and “majority/minority” counties in Figure 1.
Looking at all youth, about sixty percent live
in predominantly white neighborhoods, about 28%
live in predominantly nonwhite neighborhoods, and
12% reside in mixed neighborhoods—as displayed
in Figure 4. Disaggregating the data by race/ethnic-
ity revealed the extent to which hyper-segregation is
experienced by our youth. In comparison to their distribution nationally, white children are grossly overrepresented in predominantly white neighborhoods
and grossly under-represented in predominantly nonwhite and mixed neighborhoods. The opposite is true
for non-white children: they are over-represented in
non-white and mixed neighborhoods and underrepresented in predominantly white neighborhoods.
Black and Latino youth, as Figure 5 shows,
are more likely than other youth to live in hypersegregated minority neighborhoods. Nearly sixty
percent of Black and Latino children reside in neighborhoods that are sixty percent of more non-white.
Asian and other race children are more evenly distributed between predominantly white and predomi-
Figure 5
DISTRIBUTION OF <18 POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD
RACIAL COMPOSITION
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
Page 8
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
nantly non-white neighborhoods. And mixed race
children are more likely to live in predominantly
white than either predominantly non-white or mixed
neighborhoods—not surprising given the high
rates of out-marriage among Hispanics and whites
and among Asians and whites (Taylor, et al., 2010).
3.3 The Third Whammy
as extreme-poverty neighborhoods. Those with
youth poverty rates in the 25% to 39% range were
labeled high-poverty neighborhoods. And those
with youth poverty rates below 25% were labeled
as low-poverty neighborhoods (Wilson, 1987). The
resulting geographical distribution appears in Figure
6 and the racial/ethnic composition of these three
types of neighborhoods is illustrated in Figure 7.
Further complicating matters, America’s nonwhite youth also are increasingly isolated in neighborhoods characterized by extreme and high poverty
-- that is, economically marginalized. I employed a
three-tier classification to assess U.S. youth exposure to poverty: census tracts in which 40% or
more of the <18 population lived in households
with incomes below the poverty level were labeled
Concentrated-poverty neighborhoods (i.e.,
extreme- and high-poverty areas) cluster mainly
in states experiencing the most rapid population
growth since 2000. For the most part, those states
are in the South and West regions (see Johnson, et.al.,
2015). Moreover, as Figure 7 shows, these areas of
concentrated poverty tend to be disproportionately
Black and Latino. Low-poverty areas are over-
Figure 6
U.S. <18 POPULATION POVERTY BY CENSUS TRACT, 2010
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
Page 9
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Figure 7
RACE/ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF NEIGHBORHOODS BY <18 POPULATION
POVERTY STATUS
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
Figure 8
DISTRIBUTION OF <18 POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND
NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY STATUS
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
Page 10
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Figure 9
FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD INSECURITY
whelmingly non-Hispanic white with above aver- the requisite resources and supports for healthy
age concentrations of Asian and mixed race youth. child and youth development (Wilson, 1987; Massey
and Denton, 1993; Sharkey, 2013). These are, for
Examining the poverty problem from the example, neighborhoods where food deserts—areas
youth as opposed to the neighborhood perspective, where residents have no car and no supermaras is done in Figure 8, the majority of our nation’s <18 ket within a mile of where they live--are prevalent
population (70 percent) live in areas with low rates of and food insecurity is all too common (American
child and adolescent poverty. Only 13% live in extreme Nutrition Association, 2011), as shown in Figure 9.
poverty and 17% lived in high poverty areas. However, these aggregate statistics mask a pernicious race/ Consistent with my notion of the triple
ethnic divide in the economic wellbeing of our youth. whammy of geographic disadvantage, there is a high
degree of overlap in the geographical distributions of
While 85% of Asian, 82% of White, and the “racial generation gap” and “majority minority”
71% of mixed race children live in low poverty counties in Figure 1, the hyper-segregated, predomiareas (many of these areas are actually neighbor- nantly nonwhite neighborhoods in Figure 3, and the
hoods of concentrated affluence), 52% of Black, extreme and high-poverty neighborhoods in Figure
44% of Latino, and 43% of other race children 6. The visual correlations across these three geolive in areas of either extreme poverty or high pov- graphical contexts are abundantly clear in Figure 10.
erty—areas that research has shown typically lack
Page 11
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Figure 10
THE TRIPLE WHAMMY OF GEOGRAPHIC DISADVANTAGE
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
In Table 1, I have classified America’s youth
from the most vulnerable to the least vulnerable
across these three geographical contexts. Colorcoded red, the most vulnerable youth—an estimated 9.8 million--are exposed to all three levels
of the triple whammy of geographic disadvantage.
Colored coded orange, an estimated 12.2 million
youth are exposed to two out of the three levels
of geographical disadvantage. Color-coded yellow,
20.0 million youth are exposed to only one out
of the three levels of geographical disadvantage.
personal and institutional networks that are keys
to ascertaining a high quality education. This
latter group, it might be argued, benefits from
the triple whammy of geographical advantage.
How would Dr. King likely respond to these
demographically driven education challenges. I
think he would draw heavily from the following
research findings, which are taken from a forthcoming paper prepared by my research colleagues
and I (Johnson, et al., 2015), to frame his response.
Color-coded light gray, the least vulnerable youth—an estimated 34.1 million—do
4.0 Responding to Demographicallynot reside in any of these three disadvantaged geoDriven K-12 Education Challenges
graphical situations. Rather, they reside in more
prosperous counties and neighborhoods with not Recent research conducted by the Center on
only the financial resources but also the diverse Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that 35 states
Page 12
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Table 1
DISTRIBUTION OF <18 POPULATION BY COMMUNITY TYPE
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
Page 13
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
are providing less funding for K-12 education today
(2013-14) than they were six years ago prior to onset
of the Great Recession in 2008 (Leachman and Mai,
2014). Based on the data compiled in Figures 1, 3,
and 6 and summarized in Figure 10, fifteen of the
states cutting funding for K-12 education have significant concentrations of young people who are
facing one or more levels of geographic disadvantage.
Since 2008, the funding cuts have exceeded 20% in
two of these states (OK & AL), 10% to 17% in nine
of the states (AZ, KS, SC, GA, CA, MS, VA, NM,
TX), and between 4% and 9% in the remaining four
states (LA, AR, NC, CO) (Figure 11). These cuts are
especially challenging because nationally on average
about 44% of total education spending comes from
the states (actual percentages vary from state to state).
Leachman and Mai (2014) have articulated in
a succinct and sobering way the options local school
districts with significant concentrations of vulnerable
young people have in addressing state level budget
cuts. They note that: “[c]uts at the state level mean
that local school districts have to either scale back the
educational services they provide, raise more local tax
revenue to cover the gap, or both.” However, they go
on to assert that “[l]ocal school districts typically have
little ability to replace lost state aid on their own.”
This is especially the case in the communities where the 9.8 million young people face the
triple whammy of geographic disadvantage. I
compare the characteristics of communities in
which youth have the triple whammy of geographical advantage and two instances in which
youth have the triple whammy of geographical disadvantage in Table 2 to illustrate the point.
Major disparities exist in educational attainment, labor force participation, mean usual hours
worked, unemployment rates, median income,
homeownership rates, and home values across these
three types of communities. As a consequence,
the real estate taxes paid--typically the primary
source of funding for public education--are much
lower in the two triple whammy geographically
disadvantaged communities ($1,240 and $1,955,
respectively) than they are in the triple whammy
geographically advantaged community ($2,218).
out,
Moreover, as Leachman and Mai (2014) point
Given the still weak state of many of
the nation’s real estate markets, many
school districts struggle to raise more
money from the property tax without raising rates, and rate increases
are politically very difficult [especially in “racial generation gap” and
“majority/minority”
communities].1
In addition, owing to higher levels of adult educational attainment and employment, triple whammy
geographically advantaged communities are better
positioned than their more geographically disadvantaged counterparts to leverage personal, private,
and/or philanthropic sources of capital to fill schoolbased funding gaps (Nelson and Grazley, 2014).
It is against this backdrop that K-12 school
leaders, especially those in districts where young
people are constrained by the triple whammy of
geographical disadvantage, must be able to make
both the demographic case and the business case
for continuing support for K-12 education. That
Leachman and Mail note further that “Localities collected 2.1 percent less in property tax revenue in the 12 month period ending in
March 2013 than in the previous year, after adjusting for inflating.”
1
Page 14
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Figure 11
PERCENT CHANGE IN SPENDING PER STUDENT, INFLATION-ADJUSTED,
2008-2014
Sources: CBPP budget analysis and National Center for Education Statistics enrollment estimates
is, they have to help policymakers and other key
stakeholders understand the link between societal
aging on the one hand and the browning of the
school-age population on the other (Johnson, 2013).
Arguing that this is the human capital asset
base that will have to propel our nation forward in the
coming decades, I have asserted elsewhere that the specific pitch must go something like this (Johnson, 2013):
Because of the huge wave of boomers
who will be exiting the labor market
over the next 20 years, we simply cannot
thrive and prosper as a nation in the
hyper-competitive global economy of
the 21st century if we do not embrace
immigrant newcomers and continue to
invest in our increasingly more diverse
school age population. And if we are
not globally competitive as a nation,
we will not be able to build the economy that will help to sustain the social
safety net programs that serve sen-
Page 15
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
iors and other vulnerable populations.
In other words, school leaders must convince policymakers and foundation executives as well as the general public that it is a form of enlightened self-interest for us—all of us—to invest in our young people.
In attempting to successfully educate the
increasingly demographically diverse clientele of
students described above, K-12 education institutions are typically long on mission and vision but
short on strategy. And most interventions that are
designed to improve educational and other outcomes
for our most vulnerable or disadvantaged youth
typically operate on an “everything is wrong with
you and I am going to fix it” deficit model (Glazer
and Moynihan, 1963; Kunjufu, 1990; Anderson,
1990; Miller, 1996; Jackson and Moore, 2008). As
Noguera (1997) points out, this approach treats race
and gender as explanatory factors, “resulting in an
explanation of the crisis facing [disadvantaged youth]
which focuses almost exclusively on cultural rather
than structural factors.” He goes on to note that
By focusing almost exclusively on
race and gender, other factors which
may be relevant to understanding
the causes of social problems like . . .
[poor] student performance . . . often
go ignored. Most important among
the omitted factors are the influence of class and geographic location.
Other research has demonstrated that deficitbased solutions typically involve punitive strategies (e.g., get tough on crime and education policies) that in retrospect have been shown to have a
disparate impact on disadvantaged youth, especially males of color (Grant and Johnson, 1995;
Page 16
Miller, 1996; Johnson and McDaniel, 2011).
To effectively address the triple whammy
of geographic disadvantage, K-12 education leaders must eschew the deficit model and embrace
instead an education intervention model anchored
in research on successful pathways in children’s
development (Weisner, 2005; Cooper, et. al., 2005).
Acknowledging that not all children who grow up
in dysfunctional families and economically distressed environments fail academically and in other
walks of life (Jarrett, 1995), this body of research
strives to identify the culturally-specific, social
and environmental determinants or pathways to
success. Two particularly salient findings have
emerged from the successful pathways research.
The first is that disadvantaged youth whose
daily routines involve sustained engagement in
activities in a mediating institution in their local
environment, such as the YMCA, YWCA, and the
Boys and Girls Club, are far more likely to be successful than their counterparts who are not involved
in such institutions (Jarrett, 1995; Putnam, 2004).
Such entities are called “mediating institutions”
because they discourage disadvantaged youth from
engaging in dysfunctional or anti-social behaviors
and encourage them to pursue mainstream avenues
of social and economic mobility (Johnson and
Oliver, 1992; Jarrett, 1995; Fernandez-Kelly, 1995).
The second is that disadvantaged youth
who are embedded in personal networks outside
their local neighborhoods—often characterized as
connected youth—are far more likely to succeed
academically and in other walks of life than youth
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
whose networks are limited to the local neighborhood environments—often referred to as isolated
youth. Connected youth are able to draw upon what
is referred to as “bridging” social capital—a geographically, racially or ethnically, and economically
diverse set of ties which enhance their knowledge
base and opportunities for upward mobility. Isolated youth, such as those identified above as growing up in racial generation gap and majority/minority counties as well as neighborhoods characterized
by hyper-segregation and concentrated poverty (see
Figure 10), have to rely primarily on what is known
as “bonding” social capital—a geographically and
otherwise limiting network of individuals who
share similar characteristics and circumstances and
thus do not significantly enhance their knowledge
or opportunities for advancement (Coleman, 1988;
Fernandez-Kelly, 1995; Jarrett, 1995; Putnam, 2004).
Before constructive education strategies can
be developed at the school district level, I believe
pre-k through grade 12 teacher education and professional development programs must be re-engineered
to reflect the changing demography, cultural backgrounds, and living arrangements of the school age
population (Bevan, 2013; Krivickas and Lofquist,
2011; Hutchinson, 1999; Fraser, 1998; Huston,
McLoyd, and Coll, 1994; Heath and McLauglin,
1993). Currently, the problem, at the most basic
level, is a fundamental lack of teacher knowledge
and understanding of the critical risk factors that
students from increasingly diverse backgrounds face
at various stages of the life course between birth
and late adolescence. More specifically, problems
arise when teachers do not understand and appreciate the cultural background, language, values, and
home environments of their students. Without the
benefit of this crucial information and a portfolio of
strategies to capitalize on their students’ strengths
and address known risk factors, teachers, not unlike
hiring agencies and prospective employers, often
view their students, especially students of color,
through negative stereotypical lenses (Kirschenman
and Neckerman, 1991). Among both educators and
employers, research shows, for example, that black
males are often viewed categorically as lazy, inarticulate, uneducable, un-trainable, and most importantly,
dangerous—and therefore unworthy of substantial
investments of time and energy to develop and/or
hone their skills (Wilson, 1987; Johnson, Farrell, and
Stoloff, 2000; Moss and Tilly, 1996; Miller, 1996).
In short, success-based approaches, in contrast
to deficit-based interventions, focus on constructive
strategies that can be employed to help vulnerable
youth navigate or overcome structural constraints
they face in their daily lives (Johnson, Farrell, and
Stoloff, 2000). Building upon this body of research,
it is therefore essential that K-12 leaders transform
schools from educational to mediating institutions,
especially in communities that lack youth serving
organizations, and develop effective strategies to
create bridging social capital for children growing up
in racially or ethnically and economically isolated environments. While it is very difficult, if not impossible,
to socially engineer integration in our public schools,
creating diverse and globe-spanning networks for Addressing the crisis in American education,
all, and especially our most vulnerable, youth are especially the racial achievement gaps, requires a
eminently achievable in the current digital age. radical restructuring of the content of both higher
Page 17
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Table 2
AMERICAN YOUTH FACING THE TRIPLE WHAMMY OF GEOGRAPHIC
ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE
Source: U.S. Decennial Census, 2010
education programs for aspiring teachers and in service professional development programs for existing
teachers. Building a bridge to success for an increasingly diverse student clientele, I contend, requires
greater emphasis in teacher education and professional
development programs in six disparate but related
theoretical domains and research paradigms—successful pathways theory, critical race theory, emotional regulation theory, race/cultural identity
theory, resiliency theory, and oppositional culture
theory—which are summarized in Table 3 (Johnson
and McDaniel, 2011). These theories underscore the
resiliency and strengths that our increasingly diverse
student body possess which need to be incorporated
Page 18
in classroom instruction and teachers’ interactions
and relationships (or lack thereof) with various subgroups of the school age population (e.g., black males).
Training and professional development can
lead to effective intervention models and curricular
strategies and innovations to overcome achievement
gaps that exist across the multiple geopolitical contexts and settings that America’s youth, as described
earlier, live and attend school in today. We—my
research colleagues and I--have developed a prototype
professional development program for the key influencers in the lives of school age children (see Figure
12) and a school-based successful pathways to opti-
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Figure 12
A PROTOTYPE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Source: Authors
Figure 13
SUCCESSFUL PATHWAYS TO OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MALES
OF COLOR GRADES K-12
Source: Authors
Page 19
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Table 3
CRITICAL DOMAINS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Source: Johnson and McDaniel (2011)
Page 20
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
mal child development logic model (see Figure 13).
Both models are evidence based, that is,
theoretically grounded and empirically anchored
in the latest research on how multiple and overlapping ecological factors and environmental stressors
can impede learning. Both models build bridges to
the educational mainstream through interventions
and operating principles which are anchored in four
core values—affection, protection, correction, and
connections—that research suggests are critical to
optimal development for all, but especially our most
vulnerable, children. And both models are being
beta-tested in a lab school—Global Scholars Academy--we have created for vulnerable children in an
impoverished section of Durham, North Carolina.2
In order for models such as the ones we have
developed to succeed, school leaders, to paraphrase
Good to Great author Jim Collins (2001), will have
to ensure that all school personnel are metaphorically on the bus, in the right seat, headed in the
right direction with the interventions and strategies that undergird the models. Here school leaders
can potentially benefit from the power of collective
ambition approach that some private sector corporations used to weather uncertainty and continued
to perform profitably during the economic downturn of the late 2000s (Ready and Truelove, 2011).
Collective ambition, according to Ready and
Truelove (2011, pp. 4-5), is a term used to summarize “...how leaders and employees think about why
they exist, what they hope to accomplish, how they
will collaborate to achieve their ambition, and how
their brand promise aligns with their core values.”
Ready and Truelove (2011, p. 5) note further that
companies that embrace this paradigm “don’t fall
into the trap of pursuing a single ambition, such
as profits; instead, their employees collaborate to
shape a collective ambition that supersedes individual goals and takes into account the key elements required to achieve and sustain excellence.”
There are, according to Ready and Truelove
(2011, p. 5), seven elements to an organization’s collective ambition, which can be summarized as follows:
1. Purpose: the organization’s reason for being or
core mission.
2. Vision: the status the organization aspires to
achieve within a reasonable or specified timeframe.
3. Targets and Milestones: metrics used to assess
progress toward vision.
4. Strategic and Operational Priorities: actions
taken or not taken in pursuit of the organization’s
vision.
5. Brand Promise: commitments to stakeholders
regarding the experience the organization will provide.
6. Core Values: the organization’s guiding principles, which dictate what it stands for in good time
and bad.
7. Leader Behaviors: how leaders act on a daily
basis as they seek to implement the organization’s
vision and strategic priorities, strive to fulfill the
Information about Global Scholars Academy (GSA), our laboratory school, can be accessed at www.globalscholarsacademy.org. GSA is
part of a much broader set of initiatives we have designed to address child and youth development challenges throughout the life course.
Information about the broader set of activities and initiatives is available at www.bridge2success.org.
2
Page 21
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
brand promise, and live up to its core values.
To achieve collective ambition, companies typically focus on two priorities: collaborative
engagement of all key stakeholders and disciplined
execution of the strategic roadmap for change
(Ready and Truelove, 2011). The former is the glue
and the latter is the grease that leads to successful outcomes. My research colleagues and I think
this is the ideal framework for K-12 education leaders to embrace in their efforts to weather funding
uncertainties, disruptive demographic trends, and
political gridlock at various levels of government.
5.0 Conclusion
Based on the evidence I have marshalled here,
I believe Dr. King would conclude that the vision
of America he articulated ever so eloquently in his
“I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial
during the 1963 March on Washington remains elusive—a dream deferred. With so many mainly nonwhite youth who, through no fault of their own, are
denied access to a well-funded, high quality, world
class education, Dr. King would probably repeat one
of the most powerful and memorable themes in his
“I Have a Dream” speech: Our children should not
be judged by the color of their skin, but, rather, by the
content of their character. Notwithstanding the well
documented uneasiness that exists among non-Hispanic whites about the disruptive demographic trends
that undergird the “browning” of America (Craig
and Richeson, 2014), Dr. King probably would assert
that educating the next generation of young people
who will have to propel our nation in the international marketplace is indeed a mission that is possible.
Page 22
But, in all likelihood, he also would hasten to add
that, given existing political realities, it is important
to frame these education challenges not solely as
social or moral imperatives; but, also, and perhaps
more importantly, as competitiveness issues for our
nation in the highly volatile global economy of the
21st century (Johnson and Appold, 2014). Finally,
in a gallant effort to mobilize the U.S. citizenry
around these issues, he would say enhancing educational outcomes for our most vulnerable youth
will not only improve the attractive of our nation
as a place to live and do business; it also will go a
long way toward ensuring that all of God’s children have equal access to opportunity in America.
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
6.0 References Cited
American
Nutrition
Association,
2011.
“USDA
Defines
Food
Deserts.”
Nutrition
Digest,
36(4),
available
at
ht t p ://a m e r i c a n n u t r i t i o n a s s o c i a t i o n . o r g /
n e w s l e t t e r /u s d a - d e f i n e s - f o o d - d e s e r t s .
Cohen, Patricia, 2014, “For Recent Black College Graduates, A Tougher Road to Employment,” The New York Times, December 24, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/
b u s i n e s s/f o r - r e c e n t- b l a c k- c o l l e g e - g r a d u a t e s - a - t o u g h e r - r o a d - t o - e m p l oy m e n t . h t m l
Coleman, James, 1988. “Social Capital in
Anderson,
Elijah,
1990.
Streetwise: the Creation of Human Capital,”American
of
Sociology,
94,
95-120.
Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Journal
Community. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
CollegeBoard. 2014, February. The 10th Annual AP
Besl,
J.,
2011.
Racial
and
Eth- Report to the Nation. http://media.collegeboard.
nic Diversity from the Bottom Up. The com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/rtn/10th-annual/10thCommunity Research Collaborative Blog, available at annual-ap-report-to-the-nation-single-page.pdf
ht t p://crcblog.t y pepad.com/crcblog/rac i a land-ethnic-diversity-from-the-bottom-up.html Collins, J. C., 2001. Good to Great: Why
Some Companies Make the Leap and
Bevan, Bronwyn, 2013. Lost Opportuni- Others Don’t. New York: Harper Collins.
ties:
Learning
in
Out-of-School
Time.
Springer,
Retrieved
from
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/939/
bok%253A978-94-007-4304-5.pdf?auth66=1407021
220_2431817c91448807290e25909fa2d61f&ext=.pdf
Blackwell,
Angela
Glover,
2011.
“Is
Our
Racial
Gap
Becoming
a
Generation
Gap?,”
Huffington
Post,
July
14,
Retrieved
from
h t t p : // w w w . h u f f i n g t o n p o s t . c o m /
a n g e l a- g love r -bl ack we l l/is- ou r -r ac i a lgapbecomin_b_897483.html
Cooper, C.R., Coll, C.G., Bartko, W.T., Davis, H.M.,
& Chatman, C., (Ed), 2005. Developmental Pathways Through Middle Childhood: Rethinking Contexts and Diversity as Resources. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Craig, M. A., Richeson, J. A., 2014. On the Precipice of a
“Majority-minority America: Perceived Status Threat
from the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White
Americans’ Political Ideology. Psychological Science,
3. Retrieved from http://pss.sagepub.com/content/
early/2014/04/02/0956797614527113.full.pdf+html
Bobo, Lawrence, Oliver, Melvin L., Valenzuela, Abel, Fernandez-Kelley, P., 1995. Social and Cultural
& Johnson, James H., Jr., 2000, Prismatic Metropolis: Capital in the Urban Ghetto: Implications for the
Inequality in Los Angeles. New York, Russell Sage. Economic Sociology of Immigration. In A. Portes
Page 23
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
(Eds.), The Economic Sociology of Immigration Jackson, Jerlando F. L. and Moore, James
(pp.213-247). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. L., III, 2008. “The African American Male
Crisis in Education; A Popular Media InfatuFraser, Mark (ed.), 1998. Risk and Resilience ation or Needed Public Policy Response,”
in Childhood. Washington, DC: NASW Press. American Behavioral Scientist, 51 (3), 847-853
Frey, W. 2011. “Counting Consequences,” National
Conference of State Legislatures Magazine. Retrieved Jarrett, R. (1995). “Growing Up Poor: The Family
from
http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Docu- Experiences of Socially Mobile Youth in Low
ments/magazine/articles/2011/SL_1211Census.pdf Income African American Neighborhoods.”
Journal of Adolescent Research, 10. 111-135.
Frey, W., 2010. “Baby Boomers and the New
Demographics of America’s Seniors.” Journal of Johnson, James H., Jr., Oliver, Melvin L.,
the American Society on Aging, 34 (3), 28-37. & Bobo, Lawrence, 1994, “understanding
Retrieved from http://www.frey-demographer. the Contours of Deepening Urban Inequalorg/reports/R-2010- 1_Gens_34_3_p_28_37.pdf ity,” urban Geography, Vol. 15, pp. 77-89.
Glazer Nathan and Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 1963.
Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans,
Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge,
MA: the M.I.T. Press and Harvard University Press.
Johnson, James H., Jr., Farrell, Walter C., Jr., &
Sapp, Marty, 1997a, “African American Males and
Capital Murder: A Death Penalty Mitigation Strategy,” Urban Geography, Vol. 18, pp. 403-433.
Grant, D. & Johnson, J. H., Jr., 1995. “Conservative Policy-Making and Growing Urban Inequality in the 1980s.” In R. Ratliff, M. Oliver, & T.
Shapiro (Eds.). Research in Politics and Society (pp. 127-160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Johnson, James H., Jr., Farrell, Walter C., Jr.,
and Sapp, Marty, 1997b. “A Contextualized
Death Penalty Mitigation Strategy: Evidence
from the State of North Carolina vs. Daniel
Green, aka As-Saddiq Al-Amin U’Allah,” Negro
Education Review, Vol. XLVII, pp. 94-115.
Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W., 1993. Identity
and Inner-City Youth: Beyond Ethnicity and Gender. Johnson, James H., Jr., 2013, “The Demographic Case
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. for Immigration Reform.” Ripon Forum, 47(3), 17-18.
Huston,
A.,
McLoyd,
V.,
and
Garcia
Coll, C., 1994. “Children and Poverty,”
Child Development, Vol. 65, pp. 275-282.
Hutchinson, Elizabeth D., 1999, Dimensions of Human
Behavior: The Changing Life Course. Pine Forge Press.
Page 24
Johnson, J. H., Jr. and Appold, S.J.,
2014.
Demographic
and
Economic
Impacts of International Migration to North Carolina. Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private
Enterprise and NC Bankers Association, April 15. .
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Johnson, H. H., Jr. and Parnell, A., 2012, North
Carolina in Transition: Demographic Shifts during
the First Decade of the New Millennium. Chapel
Hill: Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, Kenan-Flagler Business School,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Johnson, J. H., Jr. and Kasarda, J. D.,
2011.
Six
Disruptive
Demographic
Trends: What Census 2010 Will Reveal.
Chapel
Hill:
Frank
Hawkins
Kenan
Institute
of
Private
Enterprise,
KenanFlagler
Business
School,
University
of
North
Carolina
at
Chapel
Hill.
Johnson,
J.
H.,
Jr.,
2009.
“Changes
on
the
Horizon
for
Postsecondary
Education.” Career Education Review.
9-13.
Johnson, J.H., Jr., 2006. “People on the
Move:
Implications
for
U.S.
Higher
Education.” The College Board Review, 209, 49-48.
Johnson, James H., Jr. & McDaniel, M. 2011. The
Minority Male Bridge to Success Project. Chapel
Hill, NC: Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, Kenan-Flagler Business School,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Johnson, J. H., Jr., & Oliver, M. L. 1992. Structural
Changes in the U.S. Economy and Black Male Joblessness: A Reassessment. In G. E. Peterson & W. Vroman
(Eds.), Urban Labor Markets and Job Opportunity. (pp.
113-147). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Johnson, J.H., Jr., Farrell, W.C., Jr., & Stoloff, J.A., 2000.
“An Empirical Assessment of Four Perspectives on the
Declining Fortunes of the African American Male,”
Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 35, No 5, pp. 695-716.
Johnson, J.H., Jr., et. al., 2015. “Disruptive Demographics, the Triple Whammy of Geographic
Disadvantage, and Future of K-12 Education
in America,” in Educational Leadership Where
We’ve Been, Where We’re Going: Dimensions of
Research, Policy, and Practice, edited by Bruce
A. Jones and R. Anthony Rolle, forthcoming.
Johnson, K.M. & Lichter, D. T., 2010. “Growing Diversity among American’s Children and
Youth: Spatial and Temporal Dimensions.” Population and Development Review, 36, available at
h t t p : // o n l i n e l i b r a r y . w i l e y . c o m /
doi/10 .1111/j.172 8 - 4 457. 2 010 . 0 032 2 . x/p d f
Kirschenman, J. & Neckerman, K. 1991.
We’d Love to Hire Them, But . . . The Meaning of Race for Employers. In C. Jencks & P.
Petersen (Eds.), The Urban Underclass, 203-234
. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Krivickas, K. M. & Lofquist, D. (2011-November).
Demographics of Same-Sex Couple Households with
Children. Fertility and Family Statistics Branch,
U.S. Census Bureau, SEHSD Working Paper.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/Krivickas-Lofquist%20PAA%202011.pdf
Kunjufu, Jawanza, 1990. Countering the Conspiracy to Destroy Black Boys,
Vols. I, II,
and III. Publisher: African American Images.
Leachman, M. & Mai, C. 2014. Most States Funding Schools Less Than before the Recession.
Page 25
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved htt p://w w w.pewh ispan ic.org/f i les/2013/01/
from
http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-12-13sfp.pdf s t a t i s t i c a l _ p o r t r a i t _ f i n a l _ j a n _ 2 9 . p d
Livingston, G. & Parker, K. 2010. Since the Start of
the Great Recession, More Children Raised by Grandparents. Pew Research Social and Demographic
Trends. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/09/09/since-the-start-of-the-greatrecession-more-children-raised-by-grandparents/
Putnam, Robert D. 2004. Democracies in Flux:
The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ready, D. A. & Truelove, E., 2011. The
Power of Collective Ambition. Harvard
Business Review, December, available at
Massey, D. & Denton, N. 1993. American Apart- http://static.ow.ly/docs/The%20Power%20of%20
heid: Segregation and the making of the Under- Collect ive%20Ambit ion%2012-2011_qwq.pdf
class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Massey,
D.
2007.
Categorically
Une- Roberts, Sam, 2007, “New Demographic Racial
qual: The American Stratification System. Gap Emerges,” The New York Times, May 18,
New
York:
Russell
Sage
Foundation. available at http://www.nytimes.com/learning/
teachers/featured_articles/20070518friday.html
Mather, M. 2007 .”The New Generation Gap.” Population Reference Bureau, http://www.prb.org/Pub- Ross, Janell, 2014, “For Black Kids in America, A
lications/Articles/2007/NewGenerationGap.aspx Degree is No Guarantee,” The Atlantic, available at
h t t p : // w w w . t h e a t l a n t i c . c o m / e d u Miller, J. 1996. Search and Destroy: African c a t i o n / p r i n t / 2 0 1 4 / 0 5 / w h e n - a American Males and the U.S. Criminal Justice d e g r e e - i s - n o - g u a r a n t e e / 3 7 1 6 1 3 /
System. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in Place: Urban NeighborMoss, Philip and Tilly, Chris. 1996. “Soft Skills and Race: hoods and the End of
Progress Toward Racial
An Investigation of Black Men’s Employment Prob- Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
lems.” Work and Occupations, Vol. 23, pp. 252-276.
Taylor, Paul, et. al., 2010. Marrying Out: One-inNelson, A. A. & Gazley, B., 2014, “The Rise Seven New Marriages is Interracial or Interethnic.
of School-Supporting Nonprofits,” Educa- PewResearch Center, A Social and Demographic
tion Finance and Policy, Vol. 9, pp. 541-566. Trends Report, available at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/755-marrying-out.pdf
Noguera, P. 1997. “Reconsidering the “Crisis” of the
Black Male in America.” Social Justice, 24(2), 147-174. Theokas, C. & Saaris, R. 2013-June. Finding America’s Missing AP and IB Students.
Pew Hispanic Center, 2013, A Nation of Immi- The Education Trust, Shattering Expectations
grants. Pew Research Center, Retrieved from Series. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/
Page 26
The Triple Whammy of Geographic Disadvantage
sites/edtrust.org/f i les/M issing _ Students.pdf
Weisner, Thomas S., editor, 2005. Discovering
Successful Pathways in Children’s Development:
Mixed Methos in the Study of Childhood and
Family Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wiltz, T. 2014, July 27. Expanding Age Gap
between Whites and Minorities May Increase U.S.
Racial Divide. America’s Wire. Retrieved from
http://americaswire.org/drupal7/?q=content/
expa nd i ng -age-gap-bet ween-wh ites-a ndm i nor it ies-may-i ncrease-us-racia l- d iv ide
Page 27