A CASE OF EDUCATIONAL APARTHIED, A MAGNET FORTRESS, &
COMMUNITY RESISTANCE AT CENTRO VALLEY HIGH: A RACE, CLASS, &
GENDER STANDPOINT ANALYSIS
Maribel Rosendo-Servin
B.A., California State University, Sacramento, 2008
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
SOCIOLOGY
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2011
A CASE OF EDUCATIONAL APARTHIED, A MAGNET FORTRESS, &
COMMUNITY RESISTANCE AT CENTRO VALLEY HIGH: A RACE, CLASS, &
GENDER STANDPOINT ANALYSIS
A Thesis
by
Maribel Rosendo-Servin
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Manuel Barajas, Ph. D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Mridula Udayagiri, Ph. D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Maribel Rosendo-Servin
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Department Chair ___________________
Judson Landis, Ph. D.
Date
Department of Sociology
iii
Abstract
of
A CASE OF EDUCATIONAL APARTHIED, A MAGNET FORTRESS, &
COMMUNITY RESISTANCE AT CENTRO VALLEY HIGH: A RACE, CLASS, &
GENDER STANDPOINT ANALYSIS
by
Maribel Rosendo-Servin
The purpose of this study is to understand the current context of magnet programs in the
21st century and the advancement and accessibility to quality public secondary education.
This exploratory study examines how participants and non-participants of magnet
programs feel about their involvement or non-involvement with the magnet program, and
how theses insights offer guidance to improving future implementations. This case study
focuses on the expansion of a magnet program in a particular northern California High
School, where students/alumni became involved in either its support or opposition. The
major goals of this research is to explore (1) why this particular magnet program caused
so much controversy with its proposed expansion, and (2) whether perceived educational
equity is mediated by various social factors such as race/ethnicity, class, and gender.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Manuel Barajas, Ph. D.
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I like to thank my mom and dad, my brother Hector, my sisters Diana and Bere,
and Rafa my partner for their unconditional love, patience, and support throughout these
years. I like to dedicate this work to my abuelitas and abuelitos, all my family in the U.S.
and Mexico, and friends for their support and inspiration. I like to thank Professor
Manuel Barajas, Professor Elvia Ramirez, Professor Margarita Berta-Avila, Professor
Eric Vega, and Professor Mridula Udayagiri for guiding me along the way. I am blessed
to have worked with such supportive professors that have inspired and motivated me to
continue my education, and have instilled in me the commitment to social justice. In
addition, this work could not have been possible without the help of the students/alumni
and teacher who participated in this study, and the work of students and community
members that organized for educational equality.
In memory of all the people we love that passed away, and my abuelito Cristobal
Rosendo Padilla and my cousin Rosy Cabrera Servin.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v
Chapter
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................ 1
Significance .................................................................................................................... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 9
Social Political History of Education ........................................................................... 10
Integrated Framework: Race, Gender, and Class Analysis .......................................... 15
Standpoint Theory ........................................................................................................ 28
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 31
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 31
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 34
Centro Valley District and Federal Desegregation Mandate ........................................ 35
Centro Valley High School Campus............................................................................. 38
International Baccalaureate Program Expansion .......................................................... 45
Students’ Perceptions of Quality of Education at the District and Campus ................. 47
Labels: IB and Non-Magnet Students and Teachers .................................................... 54
Discourses of Segregation among IB and Non-Magnet Students ................................ 56
Hostility on Campus ..................................................................................................... 61
Student Resistance Against the Magnet Expansion...................................................... 65
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 70
Appendix A Consent to Participate in Research ............................................................... 73
Appendix B Interview Questions for Recent Graduates and Alumni ............................... 74
Appendix C Interview Questions for Administrators and Faculty ................................... 77
References ......................................................................................................................... 80
vi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Educational inequality persists in American society in the 21st century, as
reflected by unequal access to qualified teachers, curricula, school materials, and
adequate/functional buildings/facilities. Mandated under the Brown decision, school
districts were to be desegregated; however, policies to end segregation took a different
turn when forced desegregation plans were met with resistance by generally White
parents. A specific example was the creation of magnet programs, as an alternative to
forced desegregation and as voluntary integration that would racially balance schools.
These programs resulted from the school choice movement in the context of the rise of
neo-liberalism and colorblind ideologies in the 1970s (Bonilla-Silva 2001). Magnet
programs are generally located in predominately urban public districts and were
originally intended to attract White students and “integrate” them into the urban schools,
rather than desegregate through busing some students of color to white schools and some
white students to urban schools. They ranged from whole school sites to partial-site
programs. Partial-site magnet programs serve a small number of students at a public
school, and differentiate participants with the rest of the students in curriculum, teachers,
and resources, creating a school with in a school (Staiger 2004). This study focused on
the effects of partial-site magnet programs. This research was guided by a case study in
which a partial-site magnet program proposed to expand and was met with resistance by
non-magnet students at the campus. Thus, after over 20 years of existence, magnet
2
programs need to be reassessed to determine whether the original objectives were
achieved, i.e., a reduction of educational inequities for students of color, and racially
balanced districts.
In the 1990s, magnet programs enrolled 1.2 million students nationwide in urban
school districts; about 20% were high school students (Archbald 2004). The
effectiveness of magnet programs to reduce segregation and educational advancement for
all students has been at the center of debate in magnet programs research. As studies
show, students continue to be racially segregated as reflected by the housing market and
income levels in neighborhoods (Rossell 2003). Staiger (2004) finds that partial-site
magnet programs re-segregates students within a school, creating unequal access to
resources and causing the psychological effects segregation had on students that the
Brown decision found to be damaging to students. Thus, there is evidence that
segregation continues to this day; however, understanding how it is concealed was an aim
of this study and explored through the voices of the most marginalized, through nonparticipating students of the magnet program. The historical context of education and
segregation is significant to understanding how magnet programs constitute a “racial
project” along Omi and Winant’s (2004) racial formation theory and how educational
inequities intersect along the social constructs of race, class, and gender (Staiger 2004).
The partial-site program in this study relates to racial formation, based on a specific
context of political struggle where by the meaning of race is fluid and emergent
contingent on power inequalities, thus making historical context a significant component
to our understanding of current social inequalities (Omi & Winant 2004).
3
The Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) outlawed
overt educational segregation based on race and marked the Civil Rights Movement that
challenged formal and manifest racial inequalities. In our Post-Civil Rights Era,
institutional inequalities persist de facto (in practice) through colorblind racism that
secures intersectional inequalities based on race, class, and gender (Bonilla-Silva 2001;
Lewis 2004). In this era of colorblindness, racial inequality is perpetuated via the
discourse/practice of neo-liberal principles: individual choice, deregulation, competition,
privatization, and free market (Bonilla-Silva 2002; Harvey 2005; Lewis 2004). It was in
this context that magnet programs were introduced into predominately low-income and
racial minority schools with the expressed mission of integrating schools (as opposed to
desegregating) by means aligned with the neoliberal ideology that has dominated for over
30 years, i.e., choice within unequal structures of opportunities.
In 1976, President Ford redirected federal funds for desegregation from busing
efforts to families’ free-choice integration incentives such as magnet programs and
charter schools (Rosenbaum & Presser 1978; Staiger 2004). In effect, busing children for
racial desegregation was terminated, and integration became a family’s choice; thus, the
re-segregation trend grew (Rosenbaum & Presser 1978). Education reformers argued that
free choice incentives would provide accessible quality education to all students
regardless of physical district boundaries. However, some scholars find that partial-site
magnet programs conceal segregation within the schools and justify the emergent
inequities through colorblind and whiteness ideologies (Staiger 2004). Thus, this study
4
interrogated the popular image of the magnet programs by examining its stated objectives
and success in advancing access to quality education for all.
Educational inequality has changed from its legal institutional discriminatory
forms to colorblind structural forms in the Post-Civil Rights era. Magnet programs have
been implemented primarily in racially segregated districts throughout the nation. The
New York Times affirmed the Supreme Court decision in the 2007 case Parent Involved
in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, which eliminated race as an
admission requirement for specialized programs mandated for racial balancing schools
(Greenhouse 2007). The district assigned students to these schools based on racial quotas
to meet racial balancing demands. Students were mandated to attend assigned schools
and reformers indicated that forced desegregation plans would help prevent the White
flight occurring after the Brown decision (Rossell 2003). However, in this case parents
argued on parents’ rights to choose the school their children attended and that race was
no longer relevant since everyone had an equal opportunity. Magnet programs only serve
a small number of students in districts, specifically in partial-site programs, where a
select few are offered a qualitatively superior education. The case of Williams v.
California (2004) reflected students’, parents’, and community interests and contested
unequal conditions of public schools for low-income communities of color (UCLA’s
Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access 2004). The case challenged the state of
California to ensure a quality education by providing qualified teachers, school materials,
and adequate buildings and facilities. Undermining the Williams v. California case, the
2007 Supreme Court decided that race was no longer relevant. Magnet programs, thus,
5
became represented as an alternative way of achieving equity and of contributing to the
advancement of quality of education for all by way of parents’ rights to choose
(Rosenbaum & Presser 1978). Thus, this research is significant because the inequality of
education continues and Chicanos/Latinos and Blacks remain at the bottom of the
educational pipeline (see Duncan-Andrade 2005). This study explores how inequities get
reproduced by exploring student perspectives on the quality of education they received
and by analyzing how social location of the participants mediates their perception of
fairness and accessibility to quality education.
Significance
The study was based on a recent case in a North California School District where
a partial-site magnet program segregated educational resources and opportunity. The
magnet program studied was the International Baccalaureate Program in the Centro
Valley of California. The students were physically segregated by different bell schedules
in the school year 2009-10, creating a school within a school. It was the first year it
occurred at the high school, which makes it important to study the standpoints of the
students who were at the campus before and during the segregation of the magnet
program to measure the effectiveness of the magnet expansion, i.e., advanced quality
education in exchange for integration. The analysis of this case study was guided by
standpoint methodology (Harding 2004; Storz 2008), examining the experiences and
interpretations of the students and community vis-à-vis those most privileged by the
hegemonic structure of racial and class inequality. The historical context of the school
and district is included to compare the current educational conditions for students. My
6
interest in this social problem arose from my relationship to students and families of the
affected school. This led to my participation in a student and community effort to
organize opposition to the expansion of the particular magnet program due to the high
school administration’s lack of information and research provided to the students and
parents not included in the magnet program (as will be elaborated). The questions
guiding this study arose from students and community members concerned about the
magnet program expansion and segregation on students within the campus.
This research aimed to advance the sociological analysis by providing a critical
theoretical framework will contribute to previous research on magnet programs. The
research evaluated partial-site magnet programs but with the general idea and intent
behind magnet programs. Previous research on magnet program schools are
predominantly quantitative with an overview of district figures and magnet schools based
on race, specifically Black and White, in the eastern region of the U.S (Rosenbaum &
Presser 1978; Rossell 2003; Saporito 2003). This macro-level research is needed to
determine overall racial numbers in the magnet programs and schools and magnet
program effectiveness with desegregation efforts. However, the quantitative research on
magnet programs does not provide the overall numbers for partial-site magnet programs,
whether these students continue to be racially segregated, and if there is meaningful
interaction within the campuses between magnet and non-magnet students. Most
literature on magnet programs is focused on a White-Black binary that does not
sufficiently explain the realities of other racial minority groups (magnet and non-magnet).
Although important to understand the significant impact of segregation, the
7
understanding of other minority groups will advance the knowledge of magnet programs
in diverse settings, especially in California where Chicana/os/Latina/os make up over
50% of the K-12 grade population and are the most educationally segregated, racializedethnic group.
The racial formation theory in this research plays an important contribution to the
work of partial-site magnet programs, as demonstrated by Staiger’s (2004) work that
reveals that giftedness is associated with Whiteness. This finding demonstrates that
although race was ruled as no longer relevant according to macro level statistics, race
continues to be enacted through the context of colorblind ideologies and everyday
experiences. However, race does not exist in isolation, Evelyn Nakano Glenn’s (2002)
integrated framework analyzes the social construct of race, class, and gender at three
levels: representational, micro-interactional, and structural. This integrated analysis of
race, class, and gender is also informed by intersectionality theories that state race, class,
and gender exist simultaneously and not in isolation (Collins 2003; Crenshaw 1992;
Glenn 2002). Standpoint theory/method complements these conceptual frameworks, and
helps examine colorblind and Whiteness ideologies, as belief systems and institutional
practices that reproduce social inequality. This study specifically aimed to conceptualize
how magnet programs normalize and produce colorblind ideologies within a diverse high
school (Staiger 2004) and draw on student perspectives to understand how inequality is
reproduced in relation to magnet programs.
The research explored the perspectives of students, alumni, and faculty,
specifically, how their intersectional social location (i.e., race, class, and gender) shaped
8
their acceptance or rejection of the partial-site magnet program. The central research
question was how do partial-site magnet programs reproduce race, class, and gender
inequality? This question addresses why the expansion of the Centro Valley High
School’s International Baccalaureate Program caused so much attention, both support and
opposition. This qualitative study relied on in-depth interviews of recent graduates,
alumni, and faculty about their perspectives on the quality of education and the expansion
of a magnet program (both those against it and for it). Newspaper articles, district
documents, and information on the campus website was examined for additional
information. My own observation of events and experiences at the campus were essential
in identifying colorblind discourses and comparing them to the students’ experiences.
The discourses of students, in particular, were essential to understand how they
understood and experienced the quality of education and were significant to the
advancement of political change (Storz 2008).
9
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The development of magnet programs addressed Federal Government’s courtordered desegregation plans and local agencies’ goal of voluntary “meaningful
interaction among students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, beginning at the
earliest stage of such students’ education” (U.S. Department of Education 2004). In
addition, magnet programs sought to ensure that all students have equitable access to high
quality education, and to continue to desegregate and diversify schools “by recognizing
that segregation exists between minority and nonminority students as well as among
students of different minority groups” (U.S. Department of Education 2004). In support
of desegregation efforts, the federal and state governments fund magnet programs to
provide equal opportunity for all students in public school districts, with the mission to
make quality education and resources accessible. The specialized curriculum and the
emphasis on student support are purposively constructed to attract (this is where the name
magnet comes from) students from outside district boundaries (California Department of
Education 2010).
The literature review examines that follows the implications of magnet programs,
keeping in mind the historical background. First, this introduction reviews the history of
educational inequality and relevant court cases from the civil rights period to the current
Post-Civil Rights era (e.g., colorblind racism and neo-liberalism domination). Second,
this chapter provides a critical theoretical framework that helps explain the current
context of magnet programs. The racial formation theory helps evaluate the magnet
10
programs resulting from political struggles that define race and race relations in the PostCivil Rights era. Feminist women of color developed intersectional theory to capture
how race, class, and gender are mutually constituted and from interrelated systems of
oppression (Crenshaw 1991, Collins 2003, Glenn 2002). Complementing intersectional
theory, Glenn’s (2002) integrated framework elucidates how race, class, and gender are
reproduced at three societal levels: structure, representation, and micro-interaction.
Finally, the standpoint methodology helps maximize the objective understanding of the
educational inequality by analyzing the perceptions of students and faculty (non-magnet
and magnet) in a context of unequal power relations. This comprehensive framework is
absent in the research of magnet programs, and, therefore, adds to the sociological
understanding of partial-site magnet programs in the 21st century.
Social Political History of Education
The United States has a long history of changing race relations. However, this
nation has a history of White supremacy manifested in overt ways to more concealed
forms (Bonilla-Silva 2001, Omi & Winant 2004). Omi and Winant state, “race has been
a matter of political contention. This has been particularly true in the United States,
where the concept of race has varied enormously over time without ever leaving the
center stage of US history” (2004: 21). The social concept of race has been imbedded in
the U.S. social order where Whites have been the dominant race and opportunities have
been segregated. Omi and Winant argue:
Once we understand that race overflows the boundaries of skin color, superexploitation, social stratification, discrimination and prejudice, cultural
domination and cultural resistance, state policy (or of any other particular social
relationship we list), once we recognize the racial dimension present to some
11
degree in every identity, institution and social practice in the United States-once
we have done this, it becomes possible to speak of racial formation (2004: 19).
This critical analysis of the historical contention of race has been experienced in
educational institutions through laws such as “separate but equal,” segregating
opportunities and resources. This political contention was most extreme during the late
19th to mid-20th centuries (Menchaca 1995).
Federal and state government policies segregated the educational system along
race, class, and gender lines (Daniel 2004, Menchaca 1995, San Miguel 1987). As an
example, in 1855, the California legislature passed a law prohibiting school boards from
the use of state funds to educate non-White students (Menchaca 1995). In 1864, public
education was finally extended to non-Whites through the construction of non-White
schools in California. Menchaca observes, “One of the main reasons school segregation
was institutionalized was to ensure that racial minority groups would not come into
contact with Anglo Americans” (1995: 59), and to maintain the white race pure. In the
late 19th century, educational segregation was based on de jure discrimination in which
the Supreme Court Plessey v. Ferguson (1896) decision formalized the racist doctrine of
“separate but equal” in public institutions (Daniel 2004, Valverde 2004). However, the
segregated schools were not equal. Racial minorities received fewer resources,
inadequate learning facilities and teachers, and biased curricula (Menchaca 1995,
Valverde 2004).
For indigenous and immigrant groups, educational segregation sought to
assimilate (Americanize) the children (San Miguel 1987). The inequalities were
challenged by the community that helped reform education in the United States. Several
12
court decisions challenged de jure discrimination in the education system. During the
early 1900s, the Chicano organizations and communities in Texas and California
organized demonstrations against the unequal and segregated systems of Mexican
students (San Miguel 1987). Historically, Mexican students, after political debate in the
early 1900s, were categorized as White and segregated according to school districts based
on language, even though some Mexican students did not speak Spanish (Valverde 2004).
The first case, the Independent School District v. Salvatierra (1930), ruled in favor of the
school district that argued that linguistic deficiency justified separate classrooms and
buildings (Valverde 2004). The second case, Mendez v. Westminister School District
(1946), challenged school segregation of Mexican students in California. The state court
ruled that separate schools did not meet the laws under equal protection and ordered
desegregation of schools (Valverde 2004). San Miguel mentions that this case signified
the “climax of several social factors that questioned the wisdom about segregation and its
effects on individuals” (1987: 6). Although the Mendez decision ordered California to
desegregate, the state did not do so in other states and the case was followed by another
state court case Delgado v. Independent School District (1948) in Texas. The court
affirmed the school board’s segregation practices were unconstitutional (Valverde 2004).
Most conclusively, in 1954, the United States Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of
Education (1954) ordered the desegregation of students based on race in the nation’s
public schools (Daniel 2004, Valverde 2004). Brown v. Board of Education marked the
civil rights movement that challenged the equity of the “separate but equal” doctrine.
This ruling began the movement for racial integration and educational equality.
13
These court cases are significant in the history of education for minority students
because it created a context where racial discrimination in education institutions went
from a legal to a de facto expression (e.g., manifested in subtle and covert forms) (Muñoz
1989, Valverde 2004). The federal court mandated schools to desegregate minority
students through busing to predominately White schools (Daniel 2004, Valverde 2004).
Valverde (2004) mentions that in some cases Black students were integrated in schools
with predominately Mexican students because historically Mexicans were categorized as
White but were segregated according to districts due to language. However, Menchaca
(1995) finds that indigenous Mexican students were also placed in schools with fewer
resources and inadequate facilities, vis-a-vis white skinned Mexicans and that White
Mexicans’ cultural proximity to the typical Mexican resulted in their segregation. The
classification of White in the context of the conquest of Mexicans was largely symbolic
and reserved for elite Mexicans (i.e., more racially European) who were essentially a
minority in number among a predominately indigenous and mestizo population. After
much White resistance to busing, busing was discontinued and alternative options were
sought to promote educational integration and equity for all (Valverde 2004).
The federal government created funds such as Title 1 for schools and created
specialized programs under the Brown decision. The funds were allocated to low-income
schools. However, research indicates that students continue to be segregated based on
residential housing patterns and school zoning practices (Valverde 2004). The
educational inequality continues to exist between Whites and racial minorities, in
particular Blacks and Chicanos/Latinos (Duncan-Andrade 2005, Valverde 2004,
14
Valenzuela 1999). As part of the school choice initiatives, specialized magnet programs
were designed to promote voluntary racial integration. Some scholars argued that the
ability of parents to choose where their children go to school would give an opportunity
of equitable education and argued that low-income minority children would not be
restricted to their district school zones (Archbald 2004, Bush et al. 2001, Saporito &
Sohoni 2006, Rosenbaum & Presser 1978). Behind the magnet programs was a political
agenda against desegregation plans to begin with. This agenda was part of the school
choice movement, essentially supported the privatization of education for a small few
within the public system through charter schools, private schools, and magnet programs.
The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education efforts to desegregate schools have been
weakened by school choice initiatives and now colorblind ideologies. In 2007, the New
York Times reported that that public school systems can no longer seek to achieve or
maintain integration through explicitly taking into account students’ race, mandated by
the Supreme Court case Parent Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District
No. 1 ruled by a margin of 5-4 ( Greenhouse 2007). Along the same arguments that did
away with Affirmative Action, this case determined race should not be a factor for
admission into specialized programs that serve to create racial balance in districts. The
case was brought forward by parents in the Seattle School District who wanted to transfer
their children to other schools but were restricted by the racial balance guidelines of the
specialized schools/programs. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued that
all specialized programs should be colorblind to protect equal opportunity under the 14th
Amendment. Instead, the Supreme Court has suggested that when new schools are built,
15
racial demographics should be taken in consideration, also suggesting reconstructing
district zones, and/or providing resources to specialized programs, but not specifically
based on individual student race. Opposing Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Beyer
argued that race is a factor in any admission policy, and this decision will have a
detrimental effect in educational desegregation plans. He argued the decision undermines
the Brown v. Board decision. Magnet programs are directly affected by this decision as
they were specifically instituted to desegregate public schools. Therefore, this research
investigates how magnet programs reproduce segregation based on race, gender, and
class.
Integrated Framework: Race, Gender, and Class Analysis
A comprehensive integrated framework that includes race, gender, and class
analysis will help evaluate magnet programs in the past and present contexts. Its
intersectional analysis does not evaluate race, gender, and class as separate areas of study
but rather as factors simultaneously experienced and reproduced within institutions and
power structures (Collins 2003, Crenshaw 1991, Glenn 2002). This analysis will add to
the magnet program body of literature and, given that race and gender are generally
studied as separate fields, and it will help uncover the complexity of the education
structure in the Post-Civil Rights era.
Defining race, gender, and class historically and currently will help understand
how they exist in the institutional settings, such as magnet programs. The integrated
framework will help identify how the intersectional systems of domination get
reproduced/challenged at the following various sociological levels: structure of education
16
and magnet programs, representation (discourse/views) of magnet programs at the school
and district levels, and the micro-interaction of participants and non-participants with the
program. This comprehensive framework is absent in the research of magnet programs;
therefore, this study will add to the sociological understanding of magnet programs in the
21st century. This section first defines race and gender and how they intersect. Second,
the integrated framework guides the analysis of the magnet programs and, finally,
standpoint theory and method help analyze the subjects of this study in a context of social
inequalities.
Defining Race and Gender
The integrated framework and the intersectionality theory (Collins 2003,
Crenshaw 1991, Glenn 2002) define race and gender as social constructs with specific
social historical origins that have changed in meaning and content in various political
contexts (Omi & Winant 2004, Glenn 2002). This approach will be useful to the research
of magnet programs, as opposed to using one viewing race in essentialist perspectives
where race and gender are defined merely in terms of biology (Glenn 2002, Omi &
Winant 2004). Generally in the literature of magnet programs, an analysis of gender is
absent; thus, the intersectionality theory will expand the analysis of magnet programs.
This section defines race and gender and presents them as intersecting social constructs.
Omi and Winant argue, “Race is indeed a pre-eminently socio-historical concept.
Racial categories and the meaning of race are given concrete expression by the specific
social relations and historical context in which they are embedded” (2004: 23). Race as
a social and fluid construct is embedded in the magnet programs though its expression
17
has changed (from explicit to subtle forms), giving its historical context (from civil rights
to colorblind neo-liberalism). Simply, magnet programs as racial projects reflect racial
formation processes, whereby racial hierarchies are reproduced (Staiger 2004). Magnet
programs originated from a long history of racial segregation in education; thus the
reformist racial desegregation constitutes racial projects (Staiger, 2004). For example,
working with racial formation theory, documents how partial-site magnet programs
produce and organize the categories of “White” and “gifted” and how educational
resources are distributed along these lines (Staiger 2004:162).
The inclusion of the study on Whiteness is important here because of the current
context/rhetoric of colorblindness entailing symbolic and material privileges (Lewis
2004, Staiger 2004). Understanding the role Whiteness plays in racial hierarchies and
how it is also part of a racialized process in which the dominant group’s norms become
invisible, i.e., their particular cultural styles and values become the point of reference
and/or standard (Lewis 2004). Whiteness, however, should not be homogenized or
essentialized as a group experience (Lewis 2004). Lewis quotes W.E.B. DuBois,
The problem of the 20th century will be the problem of colorline, one author has
argued that “the problem of the twenty-first century will be the problem of color
blindness- the refusal of legislators, jurists, and most of American society to
acknowledge the causes and current effects of racial caste” (2004: 624).
Thus, colorblind ideologies play an important role in the current discussion of
race, where race is denied significance contributing to covert inequalities (Bonilla-Silva
2001). This discussion of racial formation via colorblindness is significant to magnet
programs, because it helps evaluate how such an ideology/practice of Whiteness affects
access to quality education.
18
Furthermore, Glenn (2002) draws parallels of the racial formation process to
gender formation. She also integrates gender as central to the social analysis, just as
“Omi and Winant assert that race is a central organizing principle of social institutions,
focusing especially on the ‘racial state’ as an arena of creating, maintaining, and
contesting racial boundaries and meanings” ( 2002: 12). Glenn observes,
gender thus provides an overarching framework from which to view historical,
cultural, and situational variability in definitions of womanhood and manhood, in
meanings of masculinity and femininity, in relationships between men and
women, and in their relative power and political status (2002:8).
As with race, gender is understood to be a concept that is not fixed in its meanings and
serves to understand how social institutions organize resources/values around gender.
Because gender is generally absent in the research of magnet programs, the intersectional
and integrated frameworks will make race, gender, and class central to social analysis and
allow for the exploration of their intersection and reproduction in magnet programs.
Intersectionality: Race, Gender, and Class
In the Post-Civil Rights Era, as noted, it is not enough to solely examine race and
gender as separate fields of study. Multi-racial feminist theorists point to the intersection
of race, class, and gender to comprehend the structural context that shape people’s lives
(Glenn 2002). This intersectional approach is valuable because, generally, race has been
understood in terms of men of color and gender as White women’s experiences
(Crenshaw 1991, Glenn 2002). By studying gender and race in isolation as separate
fields marginalizes “major segments of the communities they claimed to represent”
(Glenn 2002: 6). Collins (2003) indicates the intersection of race, gender, and class is a
new category of analysis and insight about the structures of oppression. Crenshaw
19
(1991), who first popularized the intersectional approach, explored the experiences of
women of color with violence, and she critiqued the general approaches of feminist and
antiracist scholars who failed to consider the intersectional experiences of women of
color. For example, in the case of male violence (assault and rape) against women,
women of color’s experience with both racism and sexism simultaneous, women are
exploited by men, and racialized victims devalued by mainstream society/authorities.
Crenshaw states,
The failure of feminism to interrogate race means that the resistance strategies of
feminism will often replicate and reinforce the subordination of people of color,
and the failure of antiracism to interrogate patriarchy means that antiracism will
frequently reproduce the subordination of women. (1991: 1252)
The intersection of racial, class, and gender experiences was prevalent in civil
rights movements, and women of color at the bottom of the social hierarchy contested the
limits of inclusiveness in various groups, i.e., leftists, feminists, and anti-racists groups
(Pulido 2006, Harding 2004, Hurtado 1998, Zavella 1991). Simply, these groups’ justice
projects were too narrow, and women of color proposed a more comprehensive social
justice agenda informed by intersectional and standpoint analysis. Therefore, an
intersectional framework will be valuable to the study of magnet programs and helps
explore who is being included and left out of the educational enrichment programs.
Recent studies demonstrate that partial-site magnet programs at multi-racial
campuses have created segregation and unequal distribution of resources within the
schools, particularly between non-magnet and magnet students (Bush et al. 2001, Staiger
2004). Applying intersectional theory to the magnet program can help analyze students’
educational experiences and whether principles of equity and fairness are being violated.
20
The very existence of magnet programs originates from the effort to desegregate and
improve access to equal education for racial minorities. However, in the Post-Civil
Rights era where colorblind and neoliberal ideologies are entrenched, systems of
privilege (i.e., race, gender, and class) are experienced more than ever before. Focusing
only on race obscures the systemic inequalities being reproduced in magnet programs at
all levels. For example, the quantitative research on magnet programs suggests that the
programs have succeeded in integration because racial minorities constitute half the
students in such programs across the nation (Goldring & Smrekar 2000). However,
exploring the intersection of race, class, and gender reveals that those at the bottom of the
educational systems are poor, working-class, racial-minority men and women (DuncanAndrade 2005), and that while non-minority, privileged students make up less than a
fraction of the student population on campuses with magnet programs, they make up
about half the participants.
Duncan-Andrade (2005) further identifies that in the educational system working
class Black and Chicano/Latino males experience a more difficult time in the system
because of negative stereotypes. The oppression of working class males of color is an
intersectional one, where they are represented as relational opposites and threats to the
white patriarchal and class order; and thus they are dehumanized as oppositional to
mainstream society. The intersectional perspective of magnet program study is
significant because most of the research on magnet programs theorizes solely on the issue
of race and class as separate identities. While educational institutions are more
21
diversified than in the past in terms of teachers and students based on race, the
intersectional inequities persist.
Those in the most privileged positions define inequality merely in terms of race
and do not recognize the normalized racist ideologies/practices intersecting with other
systems of oppression that continue to be reproduced (Lewis 2004). Within a largely
racially segregated school, other intersectional structures of inequality manifest
themselves in the disproportionate advantaging of those who approximate the hegemonic
norm, i.e., Whiteness, masculinity, and middle class. Therefore, a comprehensive
integrated framework was used to understand how intersectional inequalities are
manifested in magnet programs at the structural, representational, and micro-interactional
levels (Glenn 2002).
Magnet Programs at the Structural Level
The structural level processes of racialization and engendering occurs in the
allocation of power and resources (Glenn 2002). Intersectional inequities have been
transformed whereby discrimination is no longer overt but rather framed as race-neutral
or colorblind such that the institutionalized standard of Whiteness becomes associated
with meritocracy and equal opportunity, and, hence, material and symbolic privileges
(Lewis 2004). It is no longer a battle with explicitly racist teachers, school board, and
policies that students around the country demonstrated against in the 1960s (Muñoz
1989).
Michel Foucault (1977) explains that power is manifested as invisible. For
example, in Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison, the essence of
22
punishment and discipline is the enactment of power and how power has been
transformed through more complex disciplinary actions that entail modes of knowledge.
One of the main arguments is that power and knowledge are intimately linked. This
differs from other theorists’ idea of power as manifest and forceful, because this form
power is not explicitly coercive. Instead it becomes normalized and embedded in the
culture of institutions. The Panopticon exemplifies this notion of power (Foucault 1977)
whereby domination is invisible but secured through the disciplining of the mind and
body. For example, the Panopticon, a prison structured to discipline by inducing inmates
“state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of
power” (Foucault 1977: 201). Foucault’s concept of power is exercised throughout
society in a variety of institutions such as schools, hospitals, and prisons. Foucault (1977)
states that discipline is enforced through the normalization of judgment within the
architecture structures. He mentions that schools are one of these structures because of
these institutions ability to control the activities through “impose particular occupations,
and regulate the cycles of repetition,” for example hall monitors, school administration,
and teachers (Foucault 1977: 148).
In the same way intersectional inequities have been transformed, discrimination is
covert and subtle. While framed as race-neutral and colorblindness, the standard of
Whiteness is institutionalized and associated with meritocracy and giftedness (Lewis
2004). It is no longer a battle against the racist teachers, board district, and policies the
students in LA demonstrated against. The racial ideology of the U.S. changed after the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it outlawed the Jim Crow style (de jure) of maintaining
23
White supremacy; however, it was replaced by more subtle, “apparently non-racial, and
institutionalized” de facto forms (Bonilla-Silva 2002: 42). Thus, Whiteness and
masculinity are practices and assumptions within institutional structures taken for granted
and generally seen as natural to both dominant and subordinate individuals (Glenn 2002).
For example, Staiger (2004) finds that partial-site magnet programs justify the
distribution of education resources because students reflect the normalized Whiteness
ideals that are then associated with giftedness.
The federal government provided school choice programs that would serve as
alternatives to school preferences restrictions based on district zones. As part of the
project, magnet programs were created in 1976 to establish specialized programs in
schools with predominately racial minority students to promote integration of White
students as opposed to busing racial minorities into White schools (Rosenbaum & Presser
1978). The programs were designed to attract White upper-class communities into
predominately minority schools (Rosenbaum & Presser 1978, Staiger 2004). However,
in more recent years, magnet programs have taken a different approach. Magnet schools
or partial-site magnets have eliminated race as an admission requirement in compliance
with the Supreme Court decision of Parent Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
School District No. 1 (2007), reproducing/affirming the colorblindness ideology.
Bonilla-Silva outlines four major themes for the colorblind ideology:
1. the extension of the principles of liberalism to racial matters in an abstract
manner, 2. cultural rather than biological explanation of minorities’ inferior
standing and performance in labor and educational markets, 3. naturalization of
racial phenomena such as residential and school segregation, and 4. the claim that
discrimination has all but disappeared (2002: 42).
24
The colorblind racism is reproduced through the public discourses of magnet
programs through the ideologies of choice, individualism, and meritocracy. Lewis argues,
“in suggesting that racial inequality has all but been eliminated within a context in which
racial inequities are still rampant, colorblind ideology serves both to explain and to
protect the current racial formation” (2004: 636). In today’s social context, capitalistic
ideas emphasize that everyone has the same opportunities and freedoms to progress in
this society; however, such a neo-liberal corporate view neglects the actual structure of
society that is heavily racialized and privileges the few powerful elite, overwhelmingly
White and masculine (Harvey 2005). Those at the lower end of the economic structure
are disproportionately racial minorities. This racialized and gendered trend dismantles
the fictitious notion that everyone progresses based on their individual efforts.
Propagating the notions of equal opportunity and meritocracy, magnet programs
are part of the school choice movement that reflects the neo-liberal context and rhetoric.
Thus, the school choice initiatives focused on free-market related initiatives that would
help reduce inefficiencies in the way education is delivered. Doing so would improve
educational outcomes, and the choice would give parents more control over the education
of their children (Archbald 2004, Goldhaber 1999, Rossell 2003). However, school
choice, such as with magnet programs, are largely reflecting colorblind ideals as
mentioned above (Bonilla-Silva 2002, Bush et al. 2001, Staiger 2004). Thus, the
segregation of students is viewed as natural given the personal school choice is meritbased achievement (Archbald 2004).
25
At a macro level, magnet schools have shown to proportionately integrate White
and Black students (Rosenbaum & Presser 1978). Proponents of magnet schools suggest
that magnet programs do not create re-segregation because the communities in which
they are located are already segregated, and the attraction of White students serves to
diversify (Goldhaber 1999, Nield 2004). Other scholars argue that the magnet program
purpose was to desegregate on the basis of providing access to quality education, and this
intent has not been achieved because the individuals primarily benefiting from
specialized program are White, middle-class students. Disparities in the distribution of
resources within public school districts have been benefiting magnet programs as
opposed to the general public schools (Nield 2004, Staiger 2004).
Representational Level: Images of Magnet Programs
Magnet programs reproduce social inequities at the representational level through
“symbols, language, and images to express and convey race/gender meanings” (Glenn
2002: 12). Thus, magnet programs reproduce colorblindness ideals under the school
choice movements, reflecting material/academic privileges, and symbolic privileges
(Bonilla-Silva 2002, Lewis 2004, Staiger 2004). Saporito (2003) agrees with the fact that
magnet programs are academically superior; however, the program’s individual choice
orientation has created segregation of educational opportunities with some students being
more advantaged with access. Staiger (2004) employs racial formation theory to evaluate
the reproduction of Whiteness and colorblind ideologies. She interviews teachers and
non-magnet and magnet students, getting their perspectives of the quality of education
and taking into account the history and structure of the magnet program and how the
26
district represents it. Through this methodology, colorblind discourses are identified that
serve to protect and reflect the normalization of Whiteness in magnet programs (Staiger
2004).
Archbald finds, “School choice inevitably creates a sorting process of children
among schools with uncertain consequences for social stratification and the distribution
of educational opportunities” (2004: 284). He continues, “choice would liberate their
children from their identified inferior school if they chose to take advantage of it”
(Archbald 2004: 286). The magnet programs’ admissions criteria have targeted students’
individual talents, while racially balancing the school (Rosenbaum & Presser 1978).
However, with the 2007 Supreme Court’s elimination of race as a factor for admission,
magnet programs have moved to lottery selections, or those based on academic talent.
Although magnet programs present an image of promising integration and access
to quality education for all, lower-income children are less likely to be in the programs
because, in some cases, admission requires students categorized as gifted or who have
high test scores (Archbald 2004, Nield 2004, Staiger 2004). Studies have shown that
standardized testing and giftedness predominately benefit White, middle-class students
(Staiger 2004). Moreover, research also questions how information of magnet programs
for admissions are inequitably distributed. Archbald (2004) agrees that magnet program
students have higher test scores compared to those in non-magnet schools, but the
admission process to these programs is questionable. Neild (2004) argues that parents
with less education and from a low-income background are less likely to access
information and go through admission processes of magnet programs. Administrators
27
report inclusiveness and success of integration and access to all, but researchers indicate
that the labels of gifted or talented and placement in different classrooms does not create
meaningful interaction and, in fact, creates intra-campus segregation and social distance
(Staiger 2004).
Micro-Interaction Level
Micro-interaction is “the application of race/gender norms, etiquette, and spatial
rules to orchestrate interaction within and across race/gender boundaries” (Glenn 2002:
12). Studies demonstrate that magnet schools and partial-site magnet programs at a
micro-level lack meaningful interaction among students. Goldring and Smrekar (2000)
find that magnet schools are racially integrated on a macro level; however, in classes or
in cafeteria settings, students demonstrate re-segregation. A view naturalizing resegregation is that since magnet programs bring students from outside of district
boundaries, social distance is already present among students reproduced in terms of the
different neighborhoods in which they reside (Goldring & Smrekar 2000). However,
administrators hide these findings to meet a federal court order to (superficially)
desegregate, rather than to promote meaningful interaction.
Partial-site magnets differ from magnet schools in that they utilize only a segment
of the school. Research finds that partial-site magnet programs create a school within a
school, resulting in re-segregation of students (Bush et al. 2001, Staiger 2004). Bush et
al. (2001) find that magnet programs re-segregate students seen in classrooms where
magnet and non-magnet students spent the majority of their time separated by different
class courses. Students identify differences with the quality of teachers, the treatment of
28
students of color, and the access to resources (Bush et al. 2001, Staiger 2004). Kimberley
West (as cited in Staiger 2004) finds,
Racial segregation within partial-site magnet schools is particularly damaging to
the minority students who constitute the non-magnet portion of the school,
because it labels them as inferior to the white transfer students who constitute the
bulk of the magnet students within the program (2004: 161).
This particular evidence demonstrates a psychological damaging effect on minority
students that motivated the Brown v. Board Education decision to dismantle de jure
segregation.
Overwhelmingly existing research use race and class analysis as separate fields of
study, and therefore this study advances magnet program research by examining the
intersections of race, class, and gender (Collins 2003, Crenshaw 1991, Glenn 2002).
Thus, this research is significant because the inequality of education continues and
Chicanos/Latinos and Blacks continue to be at the bottom of the educational pipeline
(Duncan-Andrade 2005). Moreover, the standpoint methodology will help evaluate more
than just the racial makeup of the school and will closely examine the nature of
integration within the campus by listening to the voices of those most privileged and
disadvantaged by the partial-site magnet program (Bush et al. 2001).
Standpoint Theory
The standpoint theory grounds subjects’ perceptions by considering their social
locations to understand how multiple systems of oppression intersect. In effect,
standpoint theory argues for “starting off thought from the lives of marginalized
peoples,” because it is from the margins that oppressive and unfair structures are most
likely to be contested (Harding 2004: 127). Standpoint theory originated from feminist
29
scholars who questioned dominant ideologies that reflected a White male perspective and
argued that the experiences of those at the margins can maximize objective knowledge
(Harding 2004). Therefore, standpoint theory is significant for analyzing how racial
inequality has been normalized; whereby some students think their school resources and
academic achievement are based on their own efforts and attitudes towards school, there
is a racialized (gendered/class) pattern of success/failure (Staiger 2004). Storz (2008)
states that it is important to evaluate student voices to define how they conceptualize and
perceive their education, as racial minority students fall to the margins of structures of
opportunity and to the bottom of the policy decisions.
The voices of students are important because they are the individuals most
proximate to and affected by the educational system. Storz (2008) mentions that the
quality (or lack of quality) of education is perceived differently among students based on
curriculum, quality of teachers, and resources. Student voices allow administrators and
teachers to have a better understanding of their needs. While educational attainment may
be affected by the choices of the student and parents, Storz argues that students generally
dismiss this idea. In particular, he mentions, “the students articulate an awareness of
issues of equity and fairness and a belief that these issues are having an impact on the
quality of their educational experiences” (2008: 250).
The perspectives of students in this study will help evaluate the propositions
posed by administrators and faculty on how the expansion of the IB program would
benefit the surrounding community and the Centro Valley high students. Storz argues,
“when the voices of students are routinely unsolicited or ignored amid reform planning
30
and implementation, the directions assumed by teachers and administrators can be
misguided” (2008: 249). Valenzuela (1999) finds that there is a disconnection among
teachers, administrators, and students, students raise the issue that teachers do not care,
and some teachers believe students do not want to learn. Understanding how various
members at a campus evaluate the needs of students is important to the evaluation of the
educational conditions. Therefore, the standpoint theory will inform how students
perceive the quality of education on their campus and how magnet programs reproduce
race, gender, and class inequalities.
31
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This case study explores the perspectives of graduating students, alumni, and
faculty on whether a partial-site magnet program advanced the quality of education at a
particular high school. This case study focused on the expansion of a magnet program
where students, alumni, administration/faculty/staff, and parents supported or opposed it.
The high school campus recently experienced the program expansion where magnet and
non-magnet students were physically segregated through bell schedules and buildings.
This study is to explore two central questions: (1) why this particular program caused so
much controversy with its proposed expansion, and (2) whether perceived educational
equity is mediated by various social factors such as race/ethnicity, class, and gender.
Data Collection
This qualitative case study includes 12 in-depth open-ended interviews and
participant observation documentation. Secondary sources, such as newspaper articles
and educational reports, are used to help identify key themes for analysis. The subjects
for this study include 11 high school graduates/alumni and one teacher from Centro
Valley High in Northern California. All participants were 18 or over, and had a previous
involvement with the high school in the study. Based on the researcher’s past
participation with the high school, she chose the subjects based on their connection to the
International Baccalaureate Program and/or magnet program expansion (both in
opposition and/or in favor), and/or involvement with the high school. Not only those
involved with the magnet program were studied, but also recent graduates and alumni
32
that were not in the program, as their experiences also provide important insights. The
analysis of this case study is guided by standpoint methodology (Bush et al. 2001,
Harding 2004, Storz 2008), examining the experiences and interpretations of the students
vis-à-vis those most privileged by the hegemonic structure of racial, class, and gender
inequality. The historical context of the school and district helps one understand the
existing educational conditions.
The students/alumni and the teacher were selected for this study through
purposive and snowball method. The researcher’s familiarity with students and
administration at the high school facilitated the selection of the sample particularly
knowing its past involvement with the expansion of the International Baccalaureate
Middle Years Program and/or the high school. They were invited to participate through
email and/or a phone call. Participation was on a voluntary basis. There was no conflict
of interest because the researcher did not work in any related position at the campus or
district. Moreover, the researcher kept her opinion on the matter to herself during the
interviews.
The subjects were given a consent form that ensures confidentiality (see
Appendix A). They were informed about the nature of the questions, which covered
themes about work, family, relationships with peers/colleagues, and community.
Subjects were notified that no identifying names would be on the written reports. No
identifying labels of the participants would be applied to the audio cassettes, only an
identification number that was kept in a secure file by the principal researcher. The
researcher was the only manager of the data and personally transcribed the interviews.
33
Once the transcription was completed, the audio cassettes were destroyed. Furthermore,
no names were on the response data sheet as information was gathered, and no
identifying information is on the research report. Pseudo names were given to all
participants to protect their identities. Moreover, the name of the campus and city is not
disclosed to further protect the privacy and safety of the subjects. The campus name is
referred to as “Centro Valley High.”
In this study there were two questionnaires, one for students/alumni, and one for
faculty (see Appendix B). The questionnaires included general questions on background
information, perceptions of the school, magnet program, and the expansion of the magnet
program such as whether they participated in it, supported it or not, why or why not, and
what they would like to see changed. The researcher felt it was important to focus on the
voices of the students (magnet and non-magnet).
34
Chapter 4
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
After the Brown v. Board of Education mandated schools to desegregate, civil
rights policymakers believed that forced mandatory desegregation plans were the most
effective for diversifying schools, while those who resisted these policies believed that
creating incentives, such as magnet programs and charter schools, would be more
effective (Rossell 1990). Generally, the literature evaluating magnet programs has
focused on a Black-White paradigm. While this paradigm has been essential to the
analysis of magnet programs, it falls short of explaining the realities of youth from
various ethnic groups in California in the 21st century. This study highlights the
experiences of students, in particular Chicana/o Latina/o students, using an intersectional
approach (race, class, and gender analysis) to evaluate a partial-site magnet program on a
diverse campus.
The key findings in this study demonstrate how racial formation is produced at a
racially diverse district and campus in the 21st century, how a partial-site magnet program
creates a school within a school (Omi & Winant 2004, Staiger 2004), and reveals that
students’ quality of education is closely related to the partial-site magnet program on
campus. In addition, through the researcher’s own participation and observation, she
evaluated how inequities and segregation within the school were concealed through
colorblind ideologies and secured by Whiteness. Thus, the magnet expansion at Centro
Valley High (both support and opposition) demonstrates how the current context of race,
class, and gender relations in U.S. institutions is experienced. This study also finds that
35
race holds a different meaning than that of the early Post-Civil Rights era, supporting the
idea that race is fluid based on the political struggle of the era (Omi & Winant 2004,
Bonilla-Silva 2002, Lewis 2002). Examining the standpoint of those at the margins and
the historical context of reveals how magnet programs are racial projects that shape how
resources and privileges within education are experienced in the 21st century (Omi &
Winant 2004, Staiger 2004).
Centro Valley District and Federal Desegregation Mandate
In 1978, the California Supreme Court case Hernandez v. Board of Education
argued that schools in the Centro Valley District were highly segregated and racially
imbalanced (Findlaw 2011). In 1970, the California Rural Legal Assistance took on the
case of Victor Hernandez along with other Mexican-American and African American
families who petitioned to end segregation in the Centro Valley School District. Twentysix of the 30 elementary schools were racially imbalanced and three out of the four high
schools were racially imbalanced, meaning they were identified as majority minority
compared to the district percentages. Petitioners, students, and parents from racial
backgrounds and low-income households argued that segregation denied them equal
education under the 14th Amendment, and the court found de facto segregation in
violation of the California Constitution Article 1 Section 1 (Findlaw 2011). In 1978,
Centro Valley School District was forced to desegregate implementing busing plans (one
should note that it was 24 years after the Brown v. Board Education outlawed
segregation). However, this institutional mandatory integration was short-lived and soon
replaced by the politics of individual choice and anti-government interventions.
36
In 1991, the Centro Valley High implemented voluntary integration magnet
programs in the district to provide equal opportunity to education for all giving parents
the “choice.” Voluntary integration plans ended mandatory reassignment plans and faced
resistance from the White community from the outset. As an alternative to attract White
students, magnet programs were made academically challenging and attractive. Rossell
states, “Although whites support the principle of integration, they overwhelmingly
oppose the most widely used method of desegregating schools-mandatory reassignment
or ‘busing’” (1990: 12). In the Central Valley, the White flight was visible between the
years of 1973 and 2008. The court found
The Centro Valley School District, in the 1973-74 school year, had a total student
enrollment of 29,160. Of that, 82 (0.28%) were American Indian, 4,359 (14.9%)
were Black, 969 (3.3%) were Asian, 7,115 (24.4%) were Spanish Surname, 822
(2.8%) were Filipino, 487 (1.7%) were other minorities, and 15,327 (52.6%) were
Anglo (Findlaw 2011).
In 1992-93, 19.6% were White students, 24.1% were Asian, 13% were Black, and
36.6% were Hispanic (Educational Data Partnership 1993). In 2000-01, 14.1% were
White, 17.1% were Asian, 14.3% were Black, and 46% were Hispanic (Educational Data
Partnership 2001). In 2008-09, 9% were White, 11.2% were Asian, 12.6% were Black,
and 57.7% were Hispanic (Education Data Partnership 2009). According to the
Education Data Partnership (2008), the Centro Valley District is classified as having a
majority Hispanic/Chicano population, while the Norte District in the north side of the
city is classified as a White majority district. According to these numbers, the school
district has experienced a demographic change, as a result of increased natural growth
37
and immigration from Chicana/os and White flight. Apparently, racial segregation has
not ended in the district but has instead gotten worse.
In 2004, the Hernandez v. Board of Education was dismantled by those against
mandatory desegregation plans. The anti-integration forces argued that the Centro Valley
district had reached racially balanced schools and suggested that race was no longer an
issue. The school district opted to use race as a basis of admission to the magnet
programs with the settling case that declared the school district as a “unitary,” meaning
that desegregation mandates were met. According to the local newspaper, “Magnet
schools --- so called because they aim to attract students from throughout a district's
boundaries --- were developed as a way to resolve the racial segregation that troubled
many public school systems.” The article concludes that the district uses random lottery
instead of considering a child’s race, with the argument that “In recent years, however,
magnet schools have offered [Centro Valley] Unified and other public school districts
another kind of benefit: competitiveness with charter schools that, increasingly, offer
families new options in free education” (Torres 2007). The timeline in Table 1
demonstrates the legal actions in the district.
District Timeline
APRIL 1970: Victor Hernandez and other Black and Mexican-American students
file a lawsuit to desegregate the Centro Valley Unified District.
OCTOBER 1974: Judge finds intentional segregation in the city schools.
APRIL 1978: Judge commands school district to adopt a plan to desegregate school
by busing, the creation of magnet programs, and other measures.
38
JANUARY 1992: Centro Valley Unified and attorneys for parents of the students
agree to end mandatory busing and return schools to the city.
OCTOBER 2002: As the district negotiates an end to the desegregation plan, four
parents file a lawsuit asking a judge to end the plan and declare the district racially
integrated.
APRIL 2003: District reaches agreement to phase out desegregation plan; a judge
approves the deal and declares the district “unitary.”
March 2004: Four parents file an appeal trying to end the agreement and return
control immediately to the Centro Valley Unified.
(Tone 2004)
Centro Valley High School Campus
The very conditions of the high school are reflective of a long history of
marginalization and segregation practices based on race, class, and gender. Out of a total
of 2,360 students at Centro Valley High School, 62% were Latino, 10.9% African
American, 10.4% Asian, 8% White, and 6.9% American Indian (Education Data
Partnership 2008). The high school students are from a predominantly working class
background, as suggested by the 71% of who receive free/reduced meals (Education Data
Partnership 2008). Significant changes have occurred as a result of the mandate to
desegregate the high school campus. This case study uncovers several themes only
highlighted through experiences of those at the margins of inequality, in this case the
students. The data for the school campus and district, along with statistics for California,
indicate a demographic shift, where Chicana/o/Latina/o children are the majority in
public education. Therefore, the magnet program at Centro Valley High is evaluated to
determine whether it meets the needs of students, according to demographic shifts.
39
California statistics show that in 2009-2010 Chicano/Latinos make up 50.4% of
the student population in the K-12 public schools (California Department of Education
2010); yet being the largest group, Chicanos/Latinos have the lowest number of 12thgrade graduates that complete all courses that meet the UC and/or CSU requirements,
with only 22.5% (Education Data Partnership 2008). Moreover, Chicano/Latinos
(18.7%) and African American (18.5%) males have the lowest percentage of graduates
who meet the UC and/or CSU requirements. This is a crisis in the State of California,
and the statistics at Centro Valley High school reflects this. Although, Chicanos/Latinos
make up the largest group on campus with 62%, only 12% of these students graduate
meeting the college requirements (Education Data Partnership 2008).
The educational crisis for Chicanos/Latinos and African American youth is not
new; it is a continuation of inequalities despite educational policy to improve the
education for all (Duncan-Andrade 2005). Some educational reformers argue racial
inequities are alleviated through the magnet programs by giving the parents the choice of
a good education; others state that only through the required desegregation plans do
students gain an equal opportunity (Rossell 1990). Thus, magnet programs as racial
projects secure resources and privileges for a small few and are products of the context of
the political struggle in the 21st century (Staiger 2004).
Centro Valley High is considered a partial-site magnet school. For many years
the campus was part of the busing efforts to desegregate the district. Now, the school has
only one magnet program called the International Baccalaureate Program. At one point,
the school offered three different magnet programs, all with different structures and
40
curricula. Moreover, due to the end of the desegregation mandate in 2004, the magnet
program is no longer promoted to racially diversify the campus and district (Tone 2004).
The educational inequities can be best understood through an intersectional framework
and critical analysis of colorblind discourses and policies. The voices of students help
identify how the partial-site program continues to be a “racial project.” Students are the
individuals affected by policy change, and their voices are often left out of these reforms.
Thus, their experiences with the magnet program are starting points for analyzing the
effectiveness of these programs in the 21st century.
International Baccalaureate Program
After the desegregation effort of busing ended in the district in 1991, the
International Baccalaureate (IB) program was established at Centro Valley High School
as an alternative effort toward racial integration. An important distinction of this
particular program from the other magnet programs on the campus is that it is
international and its grade point average system is based on a 5.0 scale, meaning that an
“A” counts as 5 points versus a 4-point scale like the rest of the students. The IB
program is an international program founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1968 as a nonprofit educational foundation. The IB program is in 2,816 schools in 138 countries
(International Baccalaureate Organizaiton 2010). The main website for the IB program
indicates it encourages “international-mindedness” and exists to create a positive attitude
to learning through high quality education (International Baccalaureate Organization
2010). The mission statement of the program is as follows:
The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and
caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through
41
intercultural understanding and respect. To this end the organization works with
schools, governments and international organizations to develop challenging
programmes of international education and rigorous assessment. These
programmes encourage students across the world to become active,
compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their
differences, can also be right.
Magnet programs provide a challenging curriculum to all students who are
interested. In partial-site magnet campuses, such as Centro Valley High, the curriculum
of the program is different from that of the rest of the campus. As the mission statement
of the IB program at Centro Valley High indicates, each magnet program has a specific
focus, and are all geared to prepare students academically. However, given the history
and purpose of why magnet programs were established at campuses like Centro Valley,
desegregation through voluntary plans is no longer a requirement for the district and
campus.
The IB program’s mission statement indicates, “These programmees encourage
students across the world to become active, compassionate, and lifelong learners who
understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right” (International
Baccalaureate Organization 2010). This idea of the program indicates that it values the
experiences and differences of others. Along this concept of creating hierarchies of
intelligence or knowledge at a campus, at Centro Valley High, the IB program reproduces
this through its motto “IB therefore I think.” Thus, the questions and concerns brought
forward by students against and in favor of the expansion of this magnet program brought
to the surface student issues such as differential treatment and segregation. Magnet
programs were initially designed to reduce segregation.
42
According to district documents, social capital seems to play an important factor
in the decision of administration with regard to accepting students in magnet programs.
Besides random selection or an application process, students are accepted to the magnet
programs if they have siblings in the programs. Social capital is important; if students
have family in the program they are already ahead of other students who do not have that
direct connection.
According to Rossell, analysis of desegregation policies states, “some fourteen
years after Brown, simply forbidding discrimination did not dismantle the dual system
because whites and blacks did not transfer to opposite-race schools despite the repeal of
segregation laws and the adoption of freedom of choice” (1990: xii). The IB program,
under mandated segregation laws, has not demonstrated that the campus is integrated nor
that segregation has declined or been done away with. The IB program is a great
academic program nationwide because of its curriculum, mission, and teachers; however,
the critique of the program at Centro Valley High is not directed toward the program but
toward its title as a partial-site magnet program. As a partial-site magnet program, the IB
program has created segregation concealed on the high school campus. In my
observations, the discourses of administration and faculty versus students differ.
Students are most often at the bottom of decision making of policies and are the most
affected, thus, this study aims to highlight the importance of student perspectives in
decision-making processes, particularly in terms of the expansion of a partial-site magnet
program.
43
Student Voices
In studies of desegregation policy, specifically of magnet programs, the voices of
students are often left out. Very few studies focus on student perspectives about their
education and whether partial-site magnet programs have affected them in any way (both
non-magnet and magnet students). Also, fewer studies on magnet programs focus on the
perspectives of those not in magnet programs. This is significant because students not in
such programs uncover the issue of equity. Moreover, school officials and hegemonic
reformers, claiming that every individual has an equal opportunity, suggests the notion of
a colorblind world. This study evaluates the perspectives of the school administration
and faculty through the discourses of students and how they perceive their school reality.
Thus, this study analyzes the standpoint of students and how their voices can impact
policy changes and reveal intersectional inequities (race, class, and gender).
At the Centro Valley High process of expanding the magnet program, student
voices underscore their perspectives and feelings about educational equity at the campus,
issues administration and faculty did not raise as issues of concern if the proposal passed.
How students and administration/faculty defined equity was a point the researcher felt
needed to be examined. Analyses of in-depth interviews reveal common themes
underpinning the question of educational equity for all students (magnet and non-magnet
students). Their opinions and general well-being, therefore, should inform policies. This
research clearly demonstrates that a student’s views and experiences of education come
from a very different standpoint than those of a teacher, administrator, or policymaker.
44
In this study, the standpoint of the students are the primary focus because, as the
researcher observed in the expansion of the magnet program at Centro Valley High, the
perspectives of students toward the expansion were not taken as significant evidence of
the inequity students identified at the school and the magnet program. Storz quotes,
“students can provide clear messages about what occurs in classrooms…the voices of
students should impact not only the efforts of teachers but should be considered more
directly in the process of school change” (2008: 249). Storz (2008) interviewed over 250
urban young adolescents about the quality of education they were receiving to identify
beliefs and ideas of students towards their education. Planning and implementation of
school reforms may be misguided by the directions assumed by teachers and
administrators on what students’ needs are if student voices are not taken into account. In
the case of Centro Valley High, student perspectives/experiences highlight issues that
administration and faculty neglected to address or understand during the decision to
expand the magnet program and current issues the campus faces.
The students both in my interviews and in my observations demonstrated that
segregation was one of the main concerns resulting from partial-site magnet programs on
campus. While students in the magnet program indicated they had supportive teachers,
education, and the necessary support to go to college, students not in magnet programs
have the opposite experience most of the time. The salient themes in the interviews
include the following: the quality of education at the district and campus, campus
environment, resources, magnet program on campus, and magnet expansion. In addition,
45
they had the opportunity to talk about any other issues they felt were relevant to their
everyday experience at the high school.
International Baccalaureate Program Expansion
The magnet program directors presented a proposal to the Centro Valley School
District Board of Trustees to expand the magnet program by bringing sixth to eighth
graders to the high school campus as part of a new IB Middle Years Program. At the
time, only 17% of students (400) on the campus benefited from the IB program, and nonmagnet students made up over 2,000 in 2007-08. The proposed expansion required a
physical segregation of IB and non-magnet students. In effect, the augmentation of new
students on campus was addressed by calling for the appropriation of the main campus
building as the primary location. Those not in the program would be transferred to other
schools (School District Document 2008). The proposal passed on March 10, 2009 with
a 4-3 vote at the Education Board of Trustees’ meeting. The Centro Valley School Board
of Trustees passed the initiative without reviewing and receiving the proposal itself. The
educational outcome was very visible: local and scarce resources of a marginalized
school were reorganized to benefit a very few students.
The IB Middle Years Program would serve as a feeder program to prepare
incoming high school freshmen. Program directors felt students were not ready for the
existing magnet program given the challenging and rigorous curriculum, and, thus,
created a feeder program that would help with the preparation and the transition of
incoming freshmen.
46
The proposal brought several concerns to students, parents, and community. The
concerns were twofold: first, students from sixth to eighth grade on a high school campus
raised issues of safety and second, the expansion of the program would segregate students
and exacerbate the unequal distribution of resources. The issue of safety questioned who
exactly was the threat to these students. Some parents felt their students would be
influenced by the older students. A board member brought statistics from the police
department that indicated the area had a high number of incidents in the area. As the
campus administration segregated IB students (6-12 grades) safety concerns were
associated with the interaction with non-magnet students. The magnet expansion was
justified as follows:
The students now entering the program at grade 9 are academically unprepared.
Other attempts to establish 6-7-8 feeders have failed. Establishment of an
academically rigorous feeder program is essential to the survival of the Diploma
Program at Centro. (School District 2008)
In my participant observation, the concerns were with the effects of student
segregation, the displacement of students, and the privatization of the building. The
principal and the IB directors at that time were the ones who introduced the expansion
proposal. Parents whose kids were not part of the program were not notified about the
expansion and how it would affect their kids’ education. Parental notification was crucial
because the program was to be funded by public tax dollars. Students/alumni organized
in opposition to the expansion of the program, not the IB 9-12 program. In that process,
other questions and issues were raised. As students/alumni presented questions about
educational equity and unfair privilege (i.e., expansion benefitting primarily a group that
already has many resources). These concerns were countered with claims that
47
participation in the program was based on individual choice, and that every student had
the opportunity to apply.
Some IB students mobilized to support the magnet expansion and argued that
being in IB was a choice of wanting academically challenging courses. Some teachers
and administrators also stressed individual choice and underscored their valuation of
meritocracy and equal opportunity on campus. The program director at the time stated,
For example, the former coordinator was quoted in the local newspaper stating, "People
complain because kids in the program have more. If they have more, and I'm not sure
they do, it's because somebody worked hard to get it for them - whether it's a parent, a
teacher or themselves" (Phillips 2009). These dominant views justified the expansion of
the magnet program, but not all agreed with these claims, particularly those excluded
from the program.
In my findings, students highlight the inequities faced by those not in the IB
program and question the mission and purpose of magnet programs. In what follows,
students reflect on the quality of education they have received, and offer their perceptions
of the IB program on campus.
Students’ Perceptions of Quality of Education at the District and Campus
Non-magnet students viewed the quality of education as a good one and
mentioned that it depended on what teachers they had and what classes and programs
they were in. Overall, for both IB and non-magnet students, the quality of education was
attributed to the quality of teachers, access to resources, and campus environment. Most
students agreed the IB program challenged students academically with good teachers.
48
Significantly, students, both non-magnet and IB, distinguished a vast difference between
the quality of education for “IB students” (in magnet programs) and “regular students,” as
called by faculty, students, and administrators. Students who demonstrated more
awareness of these differences were the partial IB students, meaning they took both IB
classes and regular classes or had been in the IB program before. Susana, first-generation
Mexican student, describes the of quality education at the district as follows:
In my opinion I think fairly [education is] bad… I’ve had great teachers but I get
transferred out of classes when I don’t think a teacher is good enough…some
teachers don’t have the heart for it, a lot of the teachers aren’t into it and nobody
is really doing much about that.
Another student, Jimmy, a non-magnet student who also took IB courses (the only
Hmong student among the interviewees), identified the quality of education as follows: “I
liked it I didn’t feel anything wrong with it. I guess it was okay, I can’t really tell because
I don’t have outside experience, to me it’s good.”
Students who attended other districts had a source of comparison, which allowed
them to analyze the district more critically than students who attended all their schooling
in one district. Among the student interviewees, two students attended elementary during
in Mexico, and another student attended a charter elementary. Josh, who attended the
charter elementary in the northern side of the city, identified the quality of education
poor, based on its pedagogical approaches and the academic curriculum. He stated:
Yeah I wasn’t in the school district the whole time, I was in IB in Hamilton and
up to Freshmen then I got out. It is hard to say if the education process is what it
is because of how people teach, or how people teach just in high school, my
experience at Hamilton and Centro Valley High were both, I don’t know… never
did I walk in those doors looking for knowledge it was never, it was not me as
kid, it’s just that school was not made as an educational it didn’t look that, it
wasn’t shape like that, people didn’t work like that, it just wasn’t there.
49
Josh attended an elementary where its pedagogical approaches differed from that
of public education in urban settings. He came from a family in which both parents
obtained higher education and are considered to live outside of the Centro Valley High
School district zone. Nevertheless, he made a critical observation in the public schooling
when he mentioned he did not expect to receive knowledge in most of his classes.
Magaly, a 2010 graduate non-magnet student, critically stated, “I think it is okay [quality
of education], but it could be better cause it seems that certain schools don’t get the same
opportunities as other schools, like Centro Valley High being more of a low income
school, we don’t get more of AP programs, honors classes, and stuff like that.”
Magaly was cognizant that public schools are funded based on the income
background of the community. She stated, “like Linden High, I know they have a lot of
AP programs they have a lot of honor classes for students to take and it’s open to
everybody not just a certain group of people.” Magaly concluded this statement with an
idea that is very common and will be discussed more in detail later on and that is that the
IB program at the campus is for “certain types of people.”
Lupe was an IB student and her opinion about the quality of education reflected
her experience in the IB program during her high school years:
I think it was good I mean, I don’t have anything like to compare it to cause I
never went to school outside of …the District, but the education that I have gotten
has been pretty well…if it wasn’t for the IB program, or like my teachers there
like you I don’t know if I would have gone a different path you know. But I think
I stayed focused still like studying, but I don’t know if I would’ve gone to UOP or
stuff like that.
50
Lupe mentioned that her experience in specialized programs provided her with the
help and support to go to college. Lupe was brought to the United States at the age of 10,
thus starting school in the district in fifth grade. She attributed her success in school with
the support of the program. She, however, mentioned the separation among students
based on programs when defining the quality of education.
At Centro Valley I did feel like we were kinda separated. IB students here…and
maybe the regular students might have felt like just because we were titled… they
probably felt outcast or kinda not smart themselves because they weren’t in that
program. I don’t think it should haven’t been that way, but I know some students
felt like that.
High school experience for all the students/alumni was one that highlighted
different social issues, such as good and bad education, discrimination, social experiences
and context, relationships, and policies they felt were unjust. As Storz (2008) mentions,
students are well aware of issues happening on campus. Although students did not
always contextualize their experiences while in school, they nevertheless felt some things
were not right, such as differential treatment of students by their teachers, staff, and
administration. Not all students were familiar with the choice of being in a magnet
program; most students had awareness of the magnet programs at the campus through
family and friends. Social capital played a significant role in having the opportunity to be
in magnet programs at the campus (Staiger 2004). In fact, the district’s admission
requirements state that student admits are by random selection or by having sibling/s in
the programs.
51
Teachers Equal Quality of Education
Most often, students/alumni attributed the quality of education to their teachers,
i.e., their relationship with teachers, the treatment, and their pedagogical approaches.
Most often, students underscored the concept of caring. All teachers as a whole were not
categorized under one category. Students reflected awareness that there were good
teachers and others who were not so good.
Students were asked to describe the quality of their teachers and whether a
difference between an IB and non-IB teacher existed. The teachers for non-magnet
students were described as being a significant issue to the academic success of their
education. Some teachers were described as primarily serving a disciplinary role, as
opposed to serving an educational one. Some teachers, some non-magnet students noted,
were there to get paychecks and were not invested in teaching or caring about students.
These concerns are alarming on a campus where more than 2,000 students are not in
magnet programs, 61.2% are of Chicano/Mexican descent, and only 12% of graduating
seniors met CSU and UC requirements (Education Data Partnership 2009). The student
stories about teachers not caring brings into question the quality of education offered.
Some students thought that being challenged academically (being in IB) was a
choice, while others mentioned not knowing what magnet programs are (some nonmagnet students). Academically challenged was associated with choosing good teachers,
learning, and taking college prep-courses. Students indicated that to be challenged
academically, one needs to be in a specialized program, such as the IB or Honors/AP.
Unfortunately, the campus for the year of 2008-present does no longer offers AP or
52
Honors because of the lack of qualified teachers and the assignment of teachers to the IB
program only.
Students/alumni were critical about what made a teacher good or bad. They were
well aware of what good teaching entailed. Overall student/alumni identified that a good
teacher is respectful, has good teaching styles/pedagogical approaches, is approachable to
ask questions, and treats the diverse students fairly. Respect was a significant concept for
most students because it was considered the proper way to treat students in the classroom
versus discipline. Kassandra, a 2010 graduate non-magnet student, gave a critical
evaluation about teachers and their pedagogical approaches. She wants to be a teacher
herself, and although she had good grades and did not have a problem in her classes, she
was very cognizant of the way some teachers unfairly/inequitably approached their
students in the classrooms. Kassandra stated:
I think there are really good teachers, well I know for a fact that there are really
good teachers, and there are really bad teachers, they were just not meant to teach.
I mean they even say it themselves, so it’s not just my opinion…That teaching
was not their first choice, and that they’d rather not be teaching at the moment.
Kassandra gave an example of how the use of discipline in the classroom versus
respect affects the learning environment. She reflected on her personal experience in a
program that required students to work with a teacher while having the opportunity to
prepare a lesson plan and teach it:
Okay when I was a mentor, well I had a math teacher as a mentor, his main focus
was discipline I guess, and like it just didn’t feel like a learning environment, it
just felt like he was focused on like you know you have to behave and stuff, and
there was really no learning, there was no learning period...my English teacher
there was just automatic respect for him in the room, he never had to send anyone
out, he never threatened anybody with sending them to the principal or anything
like that, his main focus was education and English…like we just had respect for
53
him just because that was what he was portraying that education was the most
important…And I think the teachers that aren’t IB teachers, I think they feel like
they have to focus on discipline a
lot, they feel like that’s really big issue, but
when they don’t think about discipline as much like education, when education is
the first, their main goal I think that everything falls into place and discipline is
not even an issue.
Following up with the discussion of the quality of teachers, students/alumni were
asked whether there was a difference between IB and non-IB teachers. Non-magnet
students and students who were in magnet programs indicated a difference between
teachers, most evidently between IB teachers and non-IB teachers. However, the label of
non-IB teacher is not to be associated with being a bad teacher. However, teachers more
likely to be bad were some “regular” teachers who told their students that teaching was
not their primary choice or were those who focused more on discipline than education.
Lalo, a non-magnet first-generation Mexican student who graduated in 2005 reflected:
To tell you the truth, when I was in TLC and 10th grade the quality education, I
know it was real good, something that was going take me somewhere, teach me a
lot, but when I was… out of TLC I seen that the quality was really poor. The
quality as in the teachers were lazy at times, sometimes, you just they wouldn’t
teach right…, overall it’s tough, there could have been stuff that could have been
done, but overall quality was good.
For Lalo, the quality of education is defined by the quality of teachers.
Associated with the quality of teachers were the pedagogical approaches, the treatment
and relation to students, whether students were learning the material, and the motivation
students had in the classrooms as a result.
Raquel, a 2010 graduate non-magnet student, had a similar response to the
question of whether there was a difference between IB and non-IB teachers. Raquel
stated, “I think IB has more of the advanced teacher, the teachers that push all that stuff
54
and I think it’s like that just cause they want to have the kids that are in IB, and they have
a preference for IB.”
When asked to describe what a non-IB teacher was, she answered the following:
“They are more… laid back kinda, they teach if you are there to learn… they don’t care if
you don’t.”
What Raquel, Kassandra, and Lalo, mentioned was insightful because it brings
into question the labeling of teachers and students. The labels on students and teachers
reflected the way students were treated, thought of, or taught in the classroom. Did
teachers teach based on the assumptions they have of the students? To this question, it
depended on whether students were labeled as an IB or non-IB student.
Labels: IB and Non-Magnet Students and Teachers
IB and non-IB students reflected on the vast differences between each other that
are also reproduced among teachers and their peers. During the interviews, students
revealed a pattern of labels used to refer to each other and teachers. There is a dialectical
relationship on the campus, the “IB” and the “regular,” us and them. These labels inform
the conflictive relationships because they are associated with damaging assumptions of
what the students and teachers are like. Students labeled IB were considered to be smart
students that cared about their education, while regular students were thought of as
students that do not care much about school or their education at all. Simply, IB students
are labeled good, and the regular ones as bad.
For example, Roberto is a 2002 graduate non-magnet student who immigrated to
the U.S. at the age of 13 and has been tracked into lower level course because of his
55
categorization as an English Learner. When asked whether there was a difference in the
way teachers treated students based on whether they were IB or non-IB, commented:
Yes I had couple of teachers that taught IB classes and I mean some of the
teachers would even talk like you know ‘this is my class they do really good’ this
and that… like making us feel bad cause we were in a regular class, and he was
teaching you know the IB students, he would always put them way on top you
know and then he would kinda of put us down… they would get a lot of credit, he
praised them a lot, I never heard him say ‘oh you know this is a good class, I like
teaching you’ I never heard his desire he always spoke about his IB students.
The teachers in the IB program were considered to be really good, including
teachers in the learning community of TLC (a program no longer considered a magnet
program but instead a learning community), and, as one student mentioned, if you get
lucky you will get a good teacher if you are a “regular” student. A significant finding,
which correlates with Staiger’s (2004) work, is that the experiences in the IB program or
TLC strongly differed from those had by students in “regular” classes.
Students were asked if there were general characteristics that distinguish IB from
non-IB students. There were several similar characteristics mentioned by
students/alumni when answering this question. Overall, most students did mention there
was a difference between students, but how they interpreted those differences varied. In
general, they identified the differences through motivation toward school, dress attire,
language, and family background.
One of the most common characteristics associated with being an IB student is
caring about education and being challenged academically. Carolina, a 2009 graduate,
one of the IB students in this study, described, “Well you can tell, the IB people were
56
more concerned about school, while the normal people, the normal kids or whatever, they
were just like whatever, they just needed to graduate and that is it.”
Kassandra’s answers highlights the students are not so different because they are
in the program, but these students are from different neighborhoods, from the northern
side (more affluent) of the city. Consequently, dress and language would be different
because the city itself is segregated by race and class. Kassandra mentioned:
I think there are really good teachers, well I know for a fact that there are really
good teachers, and there are really bad teachers, they were just not meant to teach. I
mean they even say it themselves, so it’s not just my opinion…That teaching was
not their first choice, and that they’d rather not be teaching at the moment.
The fact that there are labels on the campus has had a damaging effect on students at
the campus, for both IB and non-IB students. Students/alumni were very aware of the
issue of being categorized; in most cases this labeling on campus was associated with
segregation and a tension felt between students. This observation is significant to the
research on partial-site magnet programs because one of the desegregation goals was to
do away with segregation. In the following discussion of segregation, the discourses of
students/alumni reveal how segregation at the racially diverse campus is concealed and
how administration hides it through its colorblind discourses.
Discourses of Segregation among IB and Non-Magnet Students
Both IB and non-magnet students reported that segregation existed on the campus
and it had consequences. The segregation reflects the intersectional factors of race, class,
and gender. Students felt segregation in the magnet programs within the campus such as
class schedules and curriculum, the use of colored lanyards to differentiate students
within programs, and, lastly, the physical segregation that occurred with the magnet
57
expansion in 2009-2010. The campus underwent policy changes over the years, and
students expressed feeling segregated from their peers in magnet and non-magnet
programs.
Although students identified that race was not a problem at the campus, they note
that during lunch, groups separate by their race, but it is not seen as a conflict or a
problem. Instead, the segregation of being either a regular or IB student, through the
differential treatments and campus policies, was said to cause a feeling of privilege
among students. However, students/alumni mentioned segregation by racial/cultural,
class, and gender factors associated with non-magnet students and IB students. Given
that the campus is diverse and White students are the minority, they felt there is no
discrimination based on race, but when examining intersectional factors, segregation is
very real.
The segregation of the magnet program entitles its participants as intellectually
superior. Some students not in the program, say that only the “smart kids” are part of it,
associated themselves in a way that disconnected themselves from the campus. They
literally took on the identity of not being smart, and the treatment of teachers and
administration contribute significantly to the construction of such identities. As Juan
mentioned before, the differential treatment toward students caused a sense of superiority
or lower self-esteem. As an example, Juan recalled a comment made by one of his soccer
teammates who was in the IB program. He stated:
I had a friend and… he was like trying to put us down and like ‘I am more smarter
than you cause I am in IB’ and like you guys suck pretty much. I mean at first we
were like what are you talking about, we just got use to it. But we had that feeling
that it was like that they were like the special students, they were like the really
58
special students, they would get all the attention like they would get all the
benefits and we were just like…you know…like regular students. We were
considered, they would consider us like a regular student and they were
considered like IB…the really high class students.
The IB student above lived in the poor area and was also Mexican. As Juan
reflected, he mentioned the construction of identities students take on. It is significant
because, although in the year 2008-09 Mexican students made up the majority in the
program, the identities of intellectual superiority for some Mexican students presented a
divide among the Mexican students. As Staiger (2004) finds in her study, students take
on the identity of giftedness, which is strongly associated with Whiteness. Thus, taking
on the identity of IB is one that entails privileges and cultural and class differences. For
example, Lalo answered the following about his experience being a teacher’s assistant in
an IB Spanish course. He stated:
Well very different people, it didn’t seem like Centro to me, cause the students
racial groups… The reason why I think these students were different, cause like I
said it was different it didn’t seem like Centro to me like there was white people,
not just any white people but white people who don’t really care like how they
look like or dress like, you know they are not from the ghetto [working, class, and
ethnic/racial minorities], you know right away that most people, not just white
people you had Mexican too Asian, Black people not much though, it just seemed
those kinda people who you wouldn’t imagine going to Centro, not ghetto and
they talk so different they don’t talk ghetto they talk proper [Anglocized, middleclass English], they were loud students don’t get me wrong but yet at the same
time they weren’t as disruptive they were always doing their work... I mean yeah I
noticed it was different way different from other classes.
What Lalo mentioned is significant because he saw and felt the difference in the
classroom. He recognized a class and cultural difference among the students. When he
mentioned they were not from the ghetto, it meant they were not from the side of town in
which Centro High is located. As he described the fact the IB students did not care about
59
what they were wearing, he meant they did not dress like everyone else on campus.
When Lalo was further asked how his interaction was with the students in the IB
classroom, he shared:
They really didn’t [interacted with him] just one of them out of everybody…I
knew him cause I played soccer with him, yeah he was the only one that I
interacted with, and this other girl, I didn’t speak to her as much. But other than
that nobody really interacted with me, probably cause I was older, I don’t I always
had my big white T’s I don’t know.
What Lalo reveals in his reflection about social interaction with others in the IB
program was that he was in-between, or as Patricia Hill Collins’ (2004) interprets
minorities in hegemonic spaces, “an outsider within.” Lalo is somewhat in between the
hegemonic norm of the IB program (i.e., white, middle class) and the Centro norm (i.e.,
racial minority, and working class), feeling a sense of non-belonging, “no one really
interacted with me”… “I don’t always wear my big white T-shirts” [markers of working
class, Mexican-barrio culture].
Lupe, who was in the IB program, mentioned the lack of interaction with
“regular” students during the day. She mentioned that all six classes throughout the day
were with IB students and rarely had regular students in them. She mentioned there was
more interaction in sports. Many of the other students who did sports, like Lalo and Juan,
also mentioned they had interactions with IB students through sports and not during
school hours. In addition, Lupe mentioned her friendships outside the IB program were
because she lived in the neighborhood and those who did not live around the area were
less likely to interact with the rest of the students.
60
Interestingly, students who attended Centro Valley High before the magnet
expansion, mentioned they remembered seeing more White and Asian students as the
majority in the program, like Lalo mentioned. When the IB directors and school district
administration were asked for racial statistics of students in the IB program from at least
three to four years back, they stated the information was not available. The only statistics
available were from 2007-08, which indicated that 60% of the students were Mexican,
and that only 7% were White, making the White students the minority in the program (IB
Document 2009). The lack of previous years data makes these statistics weak. According
to the researcher’s experience and observations of the IB program, and interviews with
alumni who attended several years ago, indicate that the majority group in the IB
program for many years were White and/or middle class students who did not live in the
neighborhood. Along with the 2007-08 IB data, the program had a 64% drop out rate, but
did not specify the percentage based on racial groups or students who lived /not lived in
the neighborhood. This meant that giftedness has become associated with Whiteness and
thus the unearned privileges through unequal access to resources and good teachers
(Staiger 2004). Although the percentages for the program given for that year reflect the
program has diversified and, according to former program directors there is no longer an
issue of racial inequality, student voices from both IB and non-magnet observe a
continued inequity through segregation of resources and students.
The segregation and labels of students have led to a very hostile environment for
students, more specifically for non-magnet students, as the IB students are sheltered and
protected by their program directors and administration as seen through the magnet
61
expansion. Non-magnet students mentioned their experiences and reflected that the
conditions for regular students were unequal and unfair vis-à-vis the small few in the IB
program.
Hostility on Campus
Many students indicated that some teachers did not care. The teacher interviewed
for this study Mr. Vasquez had a conversation about the relationship between students
and teachers. Growing up on the south side of town and attending school in one similar
to Centro Valley made a difference in his awareness of the experiences of students. He
mentioned some teachers and administrators unfamiliar with the area or who have not
worked in a diverse setting come with preconceived notions of the students and the
community from which they come. He stated:
I think if they are new they will maybe come scared, they are not going to want to
work here, but if they come from a different neighborhood from ours, they will
possibly come with a negative mindset because it has happened already, when we
had a meeting with one of the principals and he made a negative comment
towards this neighborhood that in this neighbor ‘what do we expect other than all
students who are in gangs and drug addicts’, he was talking about this
neighborhood and his error was a big error because he was talking to us the
teachers in a meeting.
Juana, a non-magnet student, had a similar conversation with another teacher
about a similar topic. They discussed how certain teachers viewed students, in particular
White teachers not familiar with the neighborhood. These examples suggest students at
this campus are highly misunderstood. Juana mentioned a conversation she had with one
of her closest teachers:
One of my teachers, she and I are close and she told me she goes to the meetings,
the school meetings you know where all the teachers meet and talk about … how
to improve the school and the grades and test scores and all that stuff. And she
62
told me that in one of the meetings they mentioned that it was all the Latinos
bringing down the grades ‘it’s all those kids who don’t care’, and that all the
teachers, she was like I’m not going to mention names, but she was like all the
teachers that you think are sweet, all the white teachers they are the ones telling us
that is all Mexicans that are bring down our test scores, it’s all the lazy Mexican
or lazy Black people, it’s crazy that they tell all this stuff… and I believe it’s not,
I believe they would say something like that because some of the kids don’t really
apply themselves because nobody really helps them, how are you going improve
your life if nobody helps you , if nobody gives you the materials.
These experiences demonstrate that teachers and administrators do not mention
what happens when policy or changes are occurring at the campus. Students who are
stereotyped as not caring about their education are often the “regular” students, i.e.,
minority (Mexican) and working class. Almost all students mentioned had at least one
teacher they thought challenged them academically and whom they respected. Thus,
students’ experiences in the classroom with the teacher play a significant role in their
perceptions of the quality of education they receive. They are aware of what is a good
and bad education based on academic challenge and pedagogical approaches from their
teachers.
In addition to the academic environment on campus, some students/alumni talked
about the campus being a hostile environment based on race, class, and gender. In
general, the topic of gangs as distractions was a common concept among the male youth;
however, while talking about issues on campus, male youth, in particular, mentioned the
hostility they felt from campus monitors. In addition, a student by the name of Juana, a
2010 graduate non-magnet student, mentioned the hostility from teachers and
administration when she wrote an article in the school newspaper about her experiences
63
of being lesbian. Juana’s experience with faculty and administration demonstrated how
open or closed they were toward students from marginalized communities.
Working class urban males of color experience “controlling images” [powerful
stereotypes] (see Patricia Hill Collins 2004) normalized on the campus and working to
push them from school. For example, when testifying at a community town hall at the
campus regarding questions on how the magnet expansion would affect the rest of the
campus, two of the alumni who testified against the program expansion were publicly
accused of being gangsters, undermining their legitimate concerns and distorting who
they were. In addition, in a district meeting, the issue of dressing styles was brought up
by a marketing firm CEO hired through a contract by the district. His argument to the
alumni about being called “gangsters” was that it was due to their dress attire and for
people to respect what a person is saying at a public hearing, dress attire is important.
The CEO exemplifies bias in favor of standards of Whiteness and by relation intolerance
for diversity, hybridity, and other non-hegemonic forms.
The aforementioned incidents brought the topic of racial profiling youth who
dress and look a certain way. In the interviews, the male Chicano youths mentioned
constant harassment by campus officials and feeling targeted through campus policies.
As an example, the campus has a policy of wearing lanyards, all a different color to
reflect the learning communities to which they belong. Students most often mentioned it
was a way to identify what type of student each was and a way to segregate individuals.
Thus, Edgar, a recent 2010 White graduate, mentioned that those in IB were less likely to
be harassed because they were clearly identified through their lanyards, whereas the
64
others were most likely to be hassled by campus monitors, given the labels attached to
being an IB student versus a “regular” student. Moreover, other policies prohibited the
wearing of white shirts in addition to red and blue. This brought interesting discussion
from Edgar, as he stated:
I just don’t like how they put a dress code on us, I like to be free. I can’t wear red,
blue and now I heard you can’t wear white shirts. So you can’t be yourself
anymore you just got to go to school like a robot…you have to do everything they
tell you to do, you got to wear dress code, you got to wear their id’s, and then
you’re segregated with a necklace code like whatever color your necklace is that
is what you are.
These policies are targeting particular youth. As students talked about these
policies, they did not feel safe and saw the campus climate having other social dynamics
other than an academic one. Joshua also had the same reaction to these lanyards. He
stated:
Oh god, I wish you were interviewing when I was back when we first got id’s and
I was hugely against that, that is like the Jewish star right there, I felt like…there
is different colors for different kids, IB has different colors lanyards and this
lanyards and…we had to wear our id’s around our neckline, we were like
prisoners.
Four of the students mentioned constant harassment and hostility by a particular
campus monitor and certain teachers. Campus monitors are at the campus to keep
students safe and enforce campus policies. However, students felt unsafe and targeted
because of what they interpret to be biased campus monitors. When Juana was asked if
she had ever felt discriminated, she mentioned her experience of when she came out
about her sexuality to her peers through the school newspaper article. She provided an
interesting topic of how sexuality is regarded at the campus and the reaction of campus
teachers and administrators. She stated:
65
Yes, I always felt okay since I started writing my article for the paper. I felt like a
lot of the teachers got really hostile with me and wouldn’t even want me around
their rooms and stuff like that, and even Mr. Stephon stopped talking to me for a
while because one of my articles because I had mentioned the teacher, and he
stopped talking to me for a while and have you ever heard of Mrs. Longs? I had
mentioned her name in here and I never said she was homophobic or she didn’t
like gay people, I only mentioned something that had happened right, and I don’t
know everybody just made big deal out of that. I would hear her Sgt. Martinez,
Mr. Stephons, Mr. Sheard, I think Sheard was there, but he was there cause I
know Sheard, and some other teachers. I remember seeing them talking about me,
cause Sgt. Martinez said ‘oh she is coming’, and I was walking that way I was
like oh my god that is so rude, it was terrible.
What Juana shared is significant because it is the reaction of professionals toward
the lived experiences of students. If students feel hostility from teachers and
administration, who can they trust then? There were teachers who were understanding
and were supportive, but the fact that many other teachers and administrators were not is
quite concerning. As Staiger (2004) mentions, the reproduction of such hostility on
campus is the result of partial-site magnet programs, as they create negative issues to be
associated to non-magnet students and the IB students are protected as good students.
Thus, the proposal to expand the IB program by bringing sixth to eighth graders
brought to the surface issues that were felt but not talked about at the campus, such as
segregation and inequality on campus. In many years, issues of inequality had not been
brought forward to the District Board Members, other than the 2004 demands to end with
the mandatory desegregation plans, which resulted in concealing the inequalities at a
macro level.
Student Resistance Against the Magnet Expansion
Student resistance against the magnet expansion played an important role in
creating some changes on the campus. Students/alumni spoke at board meetings, passed
66
flyers on campus and in the community, met with district officials, and collected over 500
signatures in petitions. Requests to meet with program directors and the principal at the
time were never answered. Student organizing made a difference in what followed after
the passage of the proposal. As a result of organizing, the principal and program
directors were reassigned. However, the exact reasons for reassignments are not known.
Who leads the campus and program is important in the role the program takes. At the
campus, it had turned into an elitist program where it created a hierarchy of
intellectualism associated with Whiteness (Staiger 2008).
Five students/alumni in the interviewees were part of the student resistance, along
with other community members. When Kassandra was asked why she got involved, she
stated:
Just the fact that the message like I said I didn’t think it would be fair for our
campus to have students that aren’t from the area, the majority aren’t from our
area, so why should they get the nicest part when that school was built there for
the surrounding community. That is just like we are giving them the best part of
our community our campus, and I didn’t want that for myself or for other
generations, or other classes I guess.
Ernesto, a non-magnet Mexican student, mentioned that his involvement was opposing
the segregation of students. His younger brother was in the program, and he mentioned
his awareness of the program through his brother’s experience, but saw the inequality
through his own of not being part of IB. He stated:
Well it’s just I don’t think it was right they were ending up splitting us, splitting
people apart, and them getting better education than us…people that weren’t in
IB. So it’s always been a thing for me like I would actually want people to be
equal and I don’t want other people thinking they are good than me.
67
Not all students were familiar with the choice of being in a magnet program; most
students had awareness of the magnet programs at the campus through family and
friends. Social capital played a significant role in having the opportunity to be in magnet
programs at the campus (Staiger 2004). In fact, the district’s admission requirements
state that student admits are by random selection or by having sibling/s in the programs.
Non-magnet students who had knew about the IB program mentioned they they chose not
to participate or get out because of its culture, time commitment, and separation from the
rest of the students on campus. Lalo also was involved in the organizing, and was
cognizant of the privileges the IB program had over the rest of the campus, he reflected:
Just that IB is trying to take over, so that is another reason like that made me get
out there and try to do something about that cause I didn’t agree with that part
either, and like I said I did what I could. They did say they were going to take
over the building and that’s not right, so I did what I could.
Student and community resistance results from a direct experience with and
awareness of social locations of marginalization within society. This standpoint
perspective informs why, throughout history, student activism has shaped educational and
civil rights policies, such as in this case study. According to Carlos Muñoz (1989),
students had a significant influence in the Civil Rights Movement, the Chicano
Movement, other anti-war movements, and many others. They have been part of political
change within the educational system that has translated into policy. An example is the
passing of the Westminster v. Mendez and Brown v. Board Education, which outlawed
segregation based on race in the educational system. Student activism resulted from their
marginalized social locations, feelings of indignation, and desires for self-determination
to challenge the overt discrimination (Muñoz 1989, Soldanteko 2003). Along with
68
students’ efforts, the community and parents played a vital role in creating change in the
educational system.
Muñoz mentions, “The decade of the 60’s was unique, however, because it
marked the first time that youth played a central role in the shaping of oppositional
movements aimed at those in power” (1989: 1). Student activism challenged institutions
responsible for the perpetuation of the racial inequality at home and military intervention
abroad. Muñoz states, “Youth protest led to the creation of student movements that
helped to shape larger struggles for social and political equality” (1989:1). Student
activism and community struggle during the Civil Rights Movement led to the Civil
Rights Act 1964 and Voting Rights Act 1965. A specific example of resistance to
educational inequality and student and community resistance is that of the Chicano
student blowouts of the 1960s. Mexican students, families, and the community took
action for educational justice, and organized against the inequality that was occurring in
the schools of Los Angeles where the majority were of Mexican descent.
At Centro Valley High, student and community resistance played an essential role
in the changes that occurred at the campus. Teachers at the campus had already brought
forward the issue that it was not fair to privilege one program over the rest of the
students; however, the involvement of students created political change. This is an
example of how significant students’ voices are towards making change at their campus.
Paulo Freire (2000) explains that only the oppressed can create political change for
themselves through a process of consciousness and praxis, the students at Centro Valley
High exemplify these. Student and community organizing resulted in the following: the
69
individuals leading an elitist agenda (former principal and program coordinators), were
reassigned; a new principal was hired and did away with the physical segregation through
bell schedules; a community committee was established at the district level; displacement
of students was prevented; and the main building was not privatized for just IB .
The activism needs to continue to achieve a more equitable education for all. In
the 21st century student activism needs with a diverse group students, because
discrimination is concealed through colorblind ideologies and overt discrimination no
longer exists like in the 1960’s (Muñoz 1989). Organizing in a context of colorblind
ideologies was a challenge for student organizing at Centro Valley High, some
administration, school board members, and teachers did not see discrimination.
70
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
As long as race, class, and gender inequality continue to exist, magnet programs
will not provide equal education for all but for a small few. Partial-site magnet programs
do not resolve issues of educational equity. While they do provide opportunities for
students, it is a hierarchical project that protects the interests of those who are privileged
on the basis of race, class, and gender social locations (Staiger 2008). It reproduces the
psychologically damaging effects the Supreme Court case Brown found as unjustifiable
outcome of segregation. Race still matters, and educational inequities are reproduced
through race, class, and gender.
Paulo Freire’s (2000) concept of problem solving in education is true educational
equity, which includes the empowerment of those at the margins, and that empowerment
and liberation from oppression can only be created by those at the margins, in this case,
students who do not benefit from magnet programs and do not have the social capital that
allows them to navigate the system. True equity means providing these individuals the
tools and resources to become critical thinkers and constructive actors for improving the
world in which they live through a critical education (i.e., comprehensive,
historical/contextual, reflexive, and praxis-oriented). Although the IB program indicates
students are taught to be open-minded toward world issues, participants in this study felt
the program reproduces the banking concept, where the teacher is solely responsible for
the knowledge production, and students are not taught to think critically about the world
around them. For example, IB students and, in many cases some IB teachers, did not see
71
the inequality, and believed success was based on individual efforts. Moreover, the grade
point system in essence provides privileges only accessible to a small number of students,
who generally benefit from unearned (non-merit based) advantages such as race, socioeconomic background, and cultural capital.
Student resistance to such aristocratic programs based on unearned advantages
(race, class, and gender) is needed to advance educational reform and justice. The
student resistance at Centro Valley High demonstrates the power of a student movement
that brought to the surface issues that no one but those at the margins of the educational
system could see. Intersectional inequities exist and are justified by the colorblind
rhetoric claiming race is no longer an issue at a racially diverse campus in the 21st
century. District officials and some teachers refuse to acknowledge that at a city level the
percentages at Centro Valley High reveal higher levels of segregation than ever, and
correspondingly, the failing of students as measured by the low rates of students
graduating and/or eligible to go to college. This educational problem is a crisis for the
state given that Chicanas/os/Latina/os make up over 50% in the K-12 public schools. An
educational reform is needed that does not create elitist hierarchies and instead works
toward the empowerment and success of all students, rather than focusing on a small
privileged few within a school through partial-site magnet programs.
72
APPENDICES
73
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate in Research
I am Maribel Rosendo-Servin, a graduate student in the Department of Sociology at
California State University, Sacramento. You are being asked to participate in a study regarding
your experience with the high school and IB program. The purpose of this study is to understand
the current context of magnet programs in the 21st century and the advancement and accessibility
to quality public education. This exploratory study will produce knowledge about how
participants and non-participants of magnet programs feel about their involvement or noninvolvement with the magnet program, and how these insights might offer guidance to improving
future implementations of such programs that will produce greater satisfaction among all the
school communities (participants/non-participants). Moreover, the advancement of this study will
assist me in completing my master’s thesis, and your collaboration will be greatly appreciated.
The interview will consist of open-ended questions regarding your experiences with the
high school and magnet program. Questions will be asked about family, relationships with
students, administration/faculty, and parents at the campus. All interviews will be confidential; no
identifying information will be disclosed. The researcher will be the only one reviewing the
interviews. To obtain the most accurate research data the interview will be audio recorded. The
tapes will be protected through several steps: (1) they will not be identified with names but an
identification number, (2) they will be stored in a lock-secured file box until they are transcribed
to paper (which will take approximately about one-two months), and (3) once transcribed the
tapes will be destroyed. To ensure complete confidentiality pseudo names will be assigned and
any identifying information will not be mentioned in any written report, only general experiences.
The interviews will take approximately one to two hours.
Participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You may choose not answer questions
that you do not feel comfortable with, and you are free to stop the interview at anytime. The
responses will be highly confidential at many levels (i.e., personal, school, and community), and
the level discomfort of the questions (if any) should be minimal. While some questions may be
sensitive such as the questions of equity, access, and diversity, participants will not be more
discomforted than what they have already experienced by being directly involved with the
program or campus, and will not experience discomfort beyond their daily experience. Should
you experience emotional distress after the interview, please contact the San Joaquin Mental
Health Services at 209-468-8700.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact Maribel Rosendo-Servin
at xxx-xxx-xxxx or Dr. Manuel Barajas at 916-278-7576 or by email mbarajas@csus.edu. Thank
you for time.
Your signature below indicates that you have read this page and agree to participate in this
research, and that you are 18 years of age or older.
___________________
Signature of Participant
____________________
Date
74
APPENDIX B
Interview Questions for Recent Graduates and Alumni
Background
1. Ethnic/race background
2. Age
3. Gender
4. What part of town do you currently reside in?
Background
1. Year Born?
2. Place of Birth?
3. Family Household income
a. 0-15,000
b. 15,001- 25,000
c. 25,001- 35,000
d. 35,001-45,000
e. 45,001-55,000
f. 55,001-65,000
g. 65,001-75,000
h. 75,001-over
4. Education
a. High School Diploma
b. Some College
c. Bachelors
d. Masters or more
e. Other________________
5. Political View
a. Democrat
b. Independent
c. Republican
d. Green
e. Socialist
f. Other
6. Generation
a. First (immigrant)
b. Second (first born here)
c. Third (parent(s) born here)
d. Fourth (grandparent(s) born here)
e. Other______________________
Family
75
1.
2.
3.
4.
What would you identify your ethnic/race background?
What do your parents do for a living?
What is your mother’s level of education? Father’s?
How involved are your parents in your education? How so?
School
1. How is the quality of education in the district?
2. How would you describe the quality of education for students at the campus?
3. How do you receive information about college resources and the application
process?
4. How well prepared did you feel about applying to college?
5. Who do you ask for help when you have an academic question? And how helpful
are they?
6. Do you like your classroom textbooks and/ or school materials? And are they
useful? Are they enough?
7. In your opinion what is the quality of education you are receiving in your classes?
8. How would you describe the interaction of racial/ethnic groups at the campus?
Magnet Program
9. How would you describe the purpose of magnet programs in the district?
10. Where do students get information about the IB program or other magnet
programs?
11. What is your involvement with the IB program?
12. How familiar are you with the IB program?
13. How would you describe the quality of teachers at the campus? Is there a
difference between IB teachers and non IB teachers?
14. Were you enrolled in the IB program? Why or why not?
15. How diverse do you feel is the program? How so?
16. How would you describe the interaction with students in and out of the program?
Explain
17. How would you describe the interaction of racial/ethnic groups in the program?
18. How would you describe your interaction among students from different racial
backgrounds?
19. What general characteristics distinguish IB from non-IB students? Are there
differences between them?
Magnet Expansion
1. How did you find out about the proposal to include IB MYP at the campus?
2. What is your opinion on the inclusion of IB MYP 6-8th graders at the campus?
Explain.
3. How informed were your parents about the inclusion of IB MYP?
4. How was information about the IB MYP proposal distributed?
5. Was there any problem with the expansion of the IB MYP at your campus? Why?
76
6. How do you feel about the District Board Members role in the proposal and
decision? Explain.
7. Were you involved in any activities to support or oppose the expansion? How so?
8. If involved, what motivated you to be involved?
9. What do you think about the physical segregation of the IB students?
10. In your opinion, are there any effects with segregation on students in and out of
the program?
11. What would you want different in regards to the program?
12. What would you want different in regards to your education and school?
13. What are your future goals in terms of education? Career?
77
APPENDIX C
Interview Questions for Administrators and Faculty
Background
1. Ethnic/race background
2. Age
3. Gender
4. What part of town do you currently reside in?
5. What is your professional position in the district?
6. What is your area of expertise?
7. Where did you go to school?
8. Do you have any children enrolled in this school district?
Background
5. Year Born?
6. Place of Birth?
7. Family Household income
a. 0-15,000
b. 15,001- 25,000
c. 25,001- 35,000
d. 35,001-45,000
e. 45,001-55,000
f. 55,001-65,000
g. 65,001-75,000
h. 75,001-over
8. Education
a. High School Diploma
b. Some College
c. Bachelors
d. Masters or more
e. Other________________
5. Political View
a. Democrat
b. Independent
c. Republican
d. Green
e. Socialist
f. Other
6. Generation
a. First (immigrant)
b. Second (first born here)
c. Third (parent(s) born here)
78
d. Fourth (grandparent(s) born here)
e. Other__________________
School
20. How would you describe the involvement of parents with their children’s
education at this campus?
21. How is the quality of education in the district?
22. How would you describe the quality of education for students at the campus?
23. How do students receive information about college resources and the application
process?
24. How well prepared did you feel students are for applying to college?
25. Who do students ask for help when they have an academic question? And how
helpful are they?
26. Do you like your classroom textbooks and/ or school materials? And are they
useful? Are they enough?
27. In your opinion what is the quality of education students are receiving in the class
room?
28. How would you describe the interaction of racial/ethnic groups on campus?
29. How would you describe your interaction among students from different racial
backgrounds?
Magnet Program
30. How would you describe the purpose of magnet programs in the district?
31. Where do students get information about the IB program or other magnet
programs?
32. What is your involvement with the IB program?
33. How familiar are you with the IB program?
34. How would you describe the quality of teachers at the school? Is there a
difference between IB teachers and non IB teachers?
35. How diverse do you feel is the program? How so?
36. How would you describe the interaction with students in and out of the program?
Explain
37. How would you describe the interaction of racial/ethnic groups in the program?
38. What general characteristics distinguish IB from non-IB students? Are there
differences between them?
Magnet Expansion
14. How did you find out about the proposal to include IB MYP at the campus?
15. How informed were parents about the inclusion of IB MYP?
16. How was information about the IB MYP proposal distributed?
17. What is your opinion on the inclusion of IB MYP 6-8th graders at the campus?
Explain.
18. How do you feel about the District Board Members role in the proposal and
decision? Explain.
79
19. Was there any problem with the expansion of the IB MYP at your campus? Why?
20. Were you involved in any activities to support or oppose the expansion? How so?
21. If involved, what motivated you to be involved?
22. What do you think about the physical segregation of the IB students?
23. In your opinion, are there any affects with segregation on students in and out of
the program?
24. What would you want different in regards to the program?
25. What would you want different in regards to the district education and school?
80
REFERENCES
Archbald, Douglas A. 2004. “School Choice, Magnet Schools, and the Liberation Model:
An Empirical Study.” Sociology of Education 77(4): 283-310.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil Rights Era.
Boulder London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
—. 2002. “The Linguistics of Color Blind Racism: How to Talk
Nasty about Blacks
without Sounding ‘Racist’.” Critical Sociology 28(12): 41-64.
Bush, Lawson; Hansel Burley and Tonia Causey-Bush. 2001. “Magnet Schools:
Desegregation or Resegregegation? Students’ Voices from Inside the Walls.”
American Sedcondary Education 29(3): 33-49.
California Department of Education. 2009. “Magnet Programs & Schools Program
Summary.” Retrieved May 6, 20101
(http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/eo/mt/mtprogramssummary).
—. 2010. “Statewide Enrollment by Ethnicity.” Retrieved May 6, 2011
(http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrollEthState.asp?Level=State&TheYear=200910&cChoice=EnrollEth1&p=2).
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2003. “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as
Categories of Analysis and Connection.” The Social Construction of Difference
and Inequality. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics,
and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241-1299.
81
Daniel, Philip T. K .2004. “Accounting and Desegregation: Brown and Its Legacy.” The
Journal of Negro Education 73(3): 255-267.
Duncan-Andrade, Jeffrey M. R .2005. “An Examination of the Sociopolitical History of
Chicanos and its Relationship to School Performance.” Urban Education 40(6):
576- 605.
Education Data Partnership. 1993. “District Report.” Retrieved November 05, 2010
(http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!botto
m=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/fiscal/districtprofile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNu
mber=16&County=39&fyr=9293&District=68676#4).
—. 2001.“School Report.” Retrieved November 05, 2010
(http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!botto
m=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?tab=1&level=06&ReportNumber=16&Co
unty=39&fyr=0001&District=68676).
—. 2008. “School Report.” Retrieved November 05, 2010
(http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!botto
m=/_layouts/E dDataClassic/profile.asp?level=07).
—. 2009. “District Report.”Retrieved November 05, 2010
(http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!botto
m=/_layouts/E dDataClassic/profile.asp?level=06).
Findlaw. 2011. “Hernandez v. Board of Education of Stockton Unified School District.”
Retrieved May 23, 2011 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-ofappeal/1445643.html).
82
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline & Punishment: The Birth of the Prison System. New
York: A Division of Random House, Inc.
Freire, Paulo. 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York and London: Continuum.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 2002. “Integrating Race and Gender.” Chapter 2 In Unequal
Freedom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Goldhaber, Dan D. 1999. “School Choice: An Examination of the Empirical Evidence on
Achievement, Parental Decision Making, and Equity.” Educational Researcher
28(9): 16-25.
Goldring, Ellen and Claire Smrekar. 2000. “Magnet Schools and the Pursuit of Racial
Balance.” Education and Urban Society 33(1): 17-35.
Greenhouse, Linda. 2007. “Justices Limit the Use of Race in School Plans for
Integration.” The New York Times, June 29. Retrieved May 2, 2010
(http://www.nyt.com).
Harding, Sandra. 2004. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is ‘Strong
Objectivity’?” Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader, edited by Sandra Harding.
New York: Routledge.
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Hurtado, Aida .1998. “Sitios y Lenguas: Chicanas Theorize Feminisms.” Hypatia 13(2):
134-161.
International Baccalaureate Organization. 2010. “Mission and Strategy.” Retrieved
November 5, 2010 (http://www.ibo.org/mission/index.cfm).
83
Lewis, Amanda E. 2004. “ ‘What Group?’ Studying Whites and Whiteness in the Era of
“Color Blindness.” Sociological Theory 22(4): 623-646.
Menchaca, Martha.1995. The Mexican Outsiders: A Community History of
Marginalization and Discrimination in California. Austin, Texas: University of
Texas Press.
Muñoz, Carlos Jr. 1989. Youth, Identity, Power: The Chicano Movement. New York:
Verso Books.
Neild, Ruth Curran. 2004. “The Effects of magnet Schools on Neighborhood High
Schools: An Examination of Achievement Among Entering Freshmen.” Journal
of Education for Students Placed at Risk 9(1): 1-12.
Phillips, Roger. 2009. “Equity Debate at Franklin High School.” Stockton Record, May 2.
(http://www.recordnet.com).
Pulido, Laura. 2006. Black Brown Yellow & Left: Radical Activism in Los Angeles.
Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 2004. “Racial Formations.” Rethinking the Colorline.
Edited by Charles A. Galleagher: McGraw Hill Press.
Rossell, Christine H. 1990. The Carrot or the Stick for School Desegregation Policy:
Magnet Schools or Forced Busing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
—. 2003. “The Desegregation Efficiency of Magnet Schools.” Urban Affairs Review
8(5): 697-725.
Rosenbaum, James E. and Stefan Presser. 1978. “Voluntary Racial Integration in a
Magnet School.” The School Review 86(2):156-186.
84
San Miguel Jr, Guadalupe. 1987. “The Status of historical Research on Chicano
Education.” History of Education Quarterly 57(4): 467-480.
School District Document. 2008. “IB Proposal November.” Retrieved from District
Office.
—. 2009. “March 10 Minutes.” Retrieved from District Office.
Soldatenko, Michael. 2003. “Mexican Student Movements in Los Angeles and Mexico
City, 1968.” Latino Studies 1:284-300.
Saporito, Salvatore. 2003. “Private Choices, Public Consequences: Magnet School
Choice and Segregation by Race and Poverty.” Social Problems 50 (2): 181-203.
Saporito, Salvatore and Deenesh Sohoni. 2006. “Coloring Outside the Lines: Racial
Segregation in Public Schools and Their Attendance Boundaries.” Sociology of
Education 79(2): 81-105.
Staiger, Annegret.2004. “Whiteness as Giftedness: Racial Formation at an Urban High
School.” Social Problems 51(2): 161-181.
Storz, Mark G. 2008. “Educational Inequity from the Perspectives of Those Who Live it:
Urban Middle School Students’ Perspectives on the Quality of Their Education.”
Urban Review 40:247-267.
Tone, Joe. 2004. “Parents Ask to Phase Out School Plan: Desegregation Funds’ use
Cause of Debate.” Stockton Record, May 16. (http://www.recordnet.com).
Torres, Jennifer. 2007. “Attracting Students to School: Magnet Programs offer Science,
Journalism, Arts Education—and Give Parents Options.” Stockton Record,
January 28. (http://www.recordnet.com).
85
UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, & Access. 2004. “Williams versus
California” (http://www.JustSchoolsCalifornia.org).
U.S. Department of Education. 2004. “Part C. Magnet Schools Assistance.”
Retrieved May 6, 2010
(http://www2.ed.gov/print/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg65.html).
Valenzuela, Angela. 1999. Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of
Caring. New York: State University of New York Press.
Valverde, Leonard. 2004. “Equal Educational Opportunity Since Brown: Four Major
Developments.” Education and Urban Society 36(3): 368-378.
Zavella, Patricia. 1991. “Reflections on Diversity among Chicanas”. Frontiers 12(2): 7385.