Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

The evolution of educational policy and its intent in the United States : from the war on poverty to… Ramprashad, Oakley 2017-12

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Ramprashad_Oakley_NURS_595_Evolution_educational_United_States_war.pdf [ 812.89kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0362921.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0362921-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0362921-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0362921-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0362921-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0362921-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0362921-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0362921-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0362921.ris

Full Text

	 1					THE	EVOLUTION	OF	EDUCATIONAL	POLICY	AND	ITS	INTENT	IN	THE	UNITED	STATES:	FROM	THE	WAR	ON	POVERTY	TO	THE	WAR	ON	BLACKS			 by		OAKLEY	RAMPRASHAD		BA,	Cornell	University,	2016		A	GRADUATING	PAPER	SUBMITTED	IN	PARTIAL	FULFILLMENT	OF	THE	REQUIREMENTS	FOR	THE	DEGREE	OF		MASTER	OF	EDUCATION		in		THE	FACULTY	OF	GRADUATE	STUDIES			(Society,	Culture,	and	Politics	in	Education)								 					THE	UNIVERSITY	OF	BRITISH	COLUMBIA		December,	2017		 ©	Oakley	Ramprashad,	2017					 2	Table	of	Contents:	I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………....4		II. The	lead	up	to	Brown	and	the	Civil	Rights	Act..…....…………………………..7	a. Redlining,	Restrictive	Covenants,	and	Separate	but	(Un)Equal…..7	b. Brown	v.	The	Board	of	Education	and	the	Civil	Rights	Act	of	1964..................................................................................................................11	III. The	Great	Society	Programs…………………………………………………………..15	a. The	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act	of	1965…………….16	b. The	AIR	Study…………………………………………………………………………...19	c. Federalism	and	White	Flight…………………………………………………….24		IV. Ronald	Reagan……………………………………………………………………………….26		a. The	Education	Consolidation	and	Improvement	Act	of	1981……30	b. A	Nation	at	Risk………………………………………………………………………..35		c. Dropouts,	Delinquency,	Isolation,	and	the	Age	of	Zero	Tolerance…………………………………………………………………………………36		d. Reaganomics…………………………………………………………………………….44		V. The	Era	of	Mass	Incarceration……………………………………………………….47		a. The	War	on	Drugs:	a	War	on	Blacks………………………………………….48	b. The	War	on	Crime:	Reaffirming	a	War	on	Blacks………………….…..53		VI. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………..55	VII. Works	Cited…………………………………………………………………………………...58				 3	List	of	Figures:	Ø Fig	1:	Federal	Title	I	Spending	(1966-1980)	in	2017	Dollars………………18		Ø Fig	2:	Pre	and	Post	Homework	Helper	Grade	Achievement	Level	(elementary	Age	Children)………………………………………………………………….21		Ø Fig	3:	Pre	and	Post	Homework	Helper	Grade	Achievement	Level	(High	School	Age	Tutors)……………………………………………………………………………...22		Ø Fig	4:	Federal	Title	I	Spending	(1980-1988)	in	2017	Dollars……………...33		Ø Fig	5:	Title	1	Spending	in	Michigan	(1980-1988)	in	2017	Dollars……….34		Ø Fig	6:	High	School	Status	Completion	Rates	18-24	year	olds	between	1972-1990…………………………………………………………………………………………..36		Ø Fig	7:	Number	of	High	School	Graduates	in	Michigan	(1980-1990)……..38	Ø Fig	8:	Michigan	High	School	Staff	Numbers	(1980-1987)…………………….43	Ø Figure	9:	African-American	Unemployment	Rate	(1972-2000)…………..46												 4	I.	Introduction	The	United	States	of	America	claims	to	be	the	land	of	the	free,	the	home	of	the	brave,	and	a	place	where	all	men	are	created	equal.	Yet	the	land	of	the	free	has	the	highest	incarceration	rate	in	the	world.1	These	high	levels	of	incarceration	are	a	recent	phenomenon,	with	the	number	of	incarcerated	people	in	the	US	rising	from	roughly	300,000	in	1980	to	over	roughly	1.5	million	people	today.2	This	period	of	a	greater	than	500	per	cent	increase	in	the	prison	population	over	forty	years	has	come	to	be	known	by	many	scholars	as	the	era	of	Mass	Incarceration.3	This	paper	does	not	set	out	to	discuss	the	Mass	Incarceration	phenomenon	as	it	pertains	to	the	present.	Many	scholars	have	already	done	so,	providing	compelling	evidence	as	to	how	the	long	term	effects	of	the	War	on	Drugs	policies	during	the	administration	of	Ronald	Reagan,	as	well	as	the	War	on	Crime	policies	of	the	Bill	Clinton	administration,	accounted	for	the	rise	in	the	incarceration	rate	of	minorities	that	continues	to	this	day.4	Instead	this	paper	sets	out	to	examine	another	factor	that	contributed	to	the	environment	in	which	those	policies	‘successfully’	incarcerated	such	a	significant	proportion	of	underrepresented	minorities,	especially	men.	This																																																									1	I	would	like	to	acknowledge	the	gendered	nature	of	that	slogan,	as	well	as	the	gendered	landscape	within	which	I	will	be	working.	This	paper	will	exclusively	deal	with	incarceration	as	it	pertains	to	the	African	American	male	population.	2	“Key	Statistics:	Prisoners.”	Bureau	of	Justice	Statistics,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=488.	3	According	to	census	data,	the	United	States	population	was	at	226.5	million	people	in	1980	with	the	projected	number	being	308.7	million	in	2020.	This	is	a	roughly	26	per	cent	increase,	which	of	course	is	dramatically	less	than	the	percentage	increase	in	the	prison	population,	demonstrating	that	population	increase	cannot	be	an	explanation	for	the	prison	population	increase.	Census	data	taken	from,	“A	Look	at	the	1940	Census.”	United	States	Census	Bureau,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/1940census/CSPAN_1940slides.pdf.		4	See	Michelle	Alexander,	The	New	Jim	Crow:	Mass	Incarceration	in	the	Age	of	Colorblindness	(New	Press,	2012).	and	James	Forman	Jr.,	“Racial	critiques	of	mass	incarceration:	Beyond	the	new	Jim	Corw,”	NYUL	Rev.	87,	(2012):	accessed	December	13,	2017,	heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nylr87&div=5&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals.		 5	paper	will	discuss	education	and	educational	funding,	and	the	role	that	the	reduction	of	federal	educational	funding	played	in	creating	an	environment	in	which	the	era	of	Mass	Incarceration	could	begin.5		To	do	this,	I	examine	four	periods	of	US	political	and	educational	history.	First,	I	look	at	the	years	leading	up	to	the	landmark	1954	Supreme	Court	case,	Brown	v.	The	Board	of	Education	of	Topeka	(which	I	will	from	now	on	refer	to	as	Brown),	and	the	1964	signing	of	the	Civil	Rights	Act.6	These	marked	significant	achievements	in	the	quest	for	racial	equality	as	desegregation	and	discrimination	on	the	basis	of	race	was	deemed	illegal.	The	years	leading	up	to	them,	however,	were	scarred	by	extreme	racial	segregation	in	almost	all	facets	of	life.	While	in	its	extreme	form	this	segregation	was	located	primarily	in	the	South,	segregated	life	still	affected	African-Americans	living	in	the	northern	states.	For	the	purposes	of	this	paper	I	will	focus	on	housing	and	education	segregation.	Next,	I	examine	the	Great	Society	Policies	of	Lyndon	B.	Johnson,	and	the	continued	push	for	civil	rights	and	racial	equality	post-Brown.	President	Johnson’s	policies	represented	a	conscious	and	concerted	effort	to	enact	some	type	of	affirmative	action,	especially	in	the	arena	of	education,	and	included	the	enactment	and	implementation	of	the	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act	of	1965,	which	gave	extra	funding	to	low-income	and	disadvantaged	schools,	among	other	things.																																																										5	Arguments	supporting	this	claim	have	been	made	in	such	works	as,	Ansley	T.	Erickson,	Making	the	Unequal	Metropolis:	School	Desegregation	and	Its	Limits	(Chicago:	University	of	Chicago	Press,	2017).	6	Legal	Information	Institute:	Cornell	Law	School,	“Brown	v.	Board	of	Education	of	Topeka,”	Cornell	Law	School,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/483.and	Singed	into	law	by	President,	“Civil	Rights	Act	of	1964,”	Public	Law	88	(1964):	6.		 6	The	movement	in	the	direction	of	racial	equality,	especially	in	the	context	of	education,	was	short-lived.	The	third	time	frame	that	is	the	focus	of	this	paper	begins	with	the	election	of	President	Ronald	Reagan,	who	ushered	in	a	federal	agenda	aimed	at	decreasing	federal	responsibility	and	funding	for	education	and	other	social	benefits.7	As	I	will	explore	in	the	context	of	his	conservative	ideology	Reagan	believed	the	federal	government	was	providing	too	much	funding	for	education.	More	than	that,	his	policies	revealed	that	he	fully	understood	that	already	disadvantaged	minorities	would	be	disproportionately	(further)	disadvantaged	by	the	de-funding.	The	effects	of	these	educational	cutbacks	were	far	reaching	and—coupled	with	a	bad	economy—resulted	in	large	numbers	of	young	African-American	men	out	of	school	and	without	a	job,	leaving	them	especially	vulnerable	to	the	racist	and	predatory	policies	of	the	War	on	Drugs	and	War	on	Crime.	In	the	final	section	of	this	paper,	I	examine	the	time	period	that	ran	concurrently	with	the	Reagan	administration	and	continued	after	it,	tracing	the	effects	of	his	policies	during	the	era	of	Mass	Incarceration.	This	was	a	time	in	which	young,	under-educated	and	unemployed,	African-American	men	turned	to	the	sale	of	drugs	or	other	illegal	activities	in	order	to	survive.	Coupled	with	police	practices	that	targeted	their	communities	in	particular	ways,	Mass	Incarceration	politics	and	policies	have	created	untold	violence	and	virtually	insurmountable	barriers	to	racial	equality	for	large	percentages	of	the	US	population.	This	paper	ultimately	sets	out	to	show	that	this	low	quality	education	in	low-income	neighborhoods	and	general	feelings	of																																																									7	Richard	S.	Williamson,	“A	New	Federalism:	Proposals	and	Achievements	of	President	Reagan’s	First	Three	Years,”	The	Journal	of	Federalism	16,	no.	1	(1986):	11,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	academic.oup.com/publius/article/16/1/11/1819419.		 7	alienation	among	young	African-American	men	by	their	schools	were	a	result	of	the	educational	policies	of	the	Reagan	Administration,	and	contributed	to	the	creation	of	an	outcast	marginalized	group	that	has	been	the	victim	of	Mass	Incarceration	policies.		II.	The	lead	up	to	Brown	and	the	Civil	Rights	Act	The	history	of	the	United	States	is	stained	with	the	subjugation	and	oppression	of	all	minorities,	but	in	particular	African-Americans.	Although	slavery	ended	with	the	conclusion	of	the	Civil	War	and	the	ratifying	of	the	Thirteenth	Amendment,	Jim	Crow	laws	maintained	the	status	quo	of	segregation	and	white	supremacy	up	until	the	beginning	of	the	Civil	Rights	movements	in	the	1950s.	Of	the	many	racist	policies	of	the	time,	two	practices	are	of	particular	importance	to	the	discussion	of	schooling.	The	first	of	these	practices	was	known	as	Redlining	or	Red	Line	Mortgages.	The	second	was	known	as	Restrictive	Covenants.	These	two	practices	worked	together	to	create	‘ghettos’	all	over	the	US,	but	primarily	in	large	cities.	By	restricting	where	African-Americans	could	live	(through	Redlining	and	Restrictive	Covenants)	and	segregating	schools	(the	segregation	of	schools	had	been	deemed	acceptable	due	to	the	Supreme	Court	case	Plessy	v.	Ferguson),	African-Americans’	lives	were	in	many	ways	confined	to	the	neighborhoods	they	lived	in.			a.	Redlining,	Restrictive	Covenants,	and	Separate	but	(Un)Equal	Redlining	was	a	practice	that	took	place	all	over	the	United	States	but	some	of	the	clearest	examples	took	place	in	major	cities	with	large	and	quickly	growing		 8	African-American	populations,	such	as	Detroit,	Chicago,	and	Baltimore.	This	population	growth	in	the	beginning	of	the	twentieth	century	was	a	result	of	out-migration	from	the	southern	states.	Known	as	the	Great	Migration,	this	period	was	marked	by	the	noticeable	establishment	of	large	African-American	communities	in	major	northern	Cities.8	These	large	African-American	communities,	once	established,	were	solidified	through	the	practices	of	Redlining	and	Restrictive	Covenants.	Redlining	“entail[ed]	the	denial	of	credit	to	low	income	and	minority	communities.”9	The	term	‘redlining’	came	from	the	actual	color	assigned	to	low-income	and	minority	neighborhoods	on	mortgage,	housing,	or	planning	maps.	According	to	the	Federal	Housing	Administration	(FHA),	there	were	four	main	colors	green,	blue,	yellow,	and	red.	10	Quite	literally	a	red	line	would	be	drawn	on	a	map	to	demarcate	where	banks	and	other	institutions	would	not	lend	or	invest.11		 	Organizations	such	as	the	National	Association	of	Real	Estate	Boards	and	the	FHA	were	instrumental	in	the	execution	of	this	practice	by	discouraging	lending	in	urban	communities,	which	had	the	highest	concentration	of	poor	and	minority	populations.12	The	FHA	published	the	Underwriting	Manual	in	1934,	which	through																																																									8	James	N.	Gregory,	The	southern	diaspora:	How	the	great	migration	of	black	and	white	southerners	transformed	America	(North	Carolina:	University	of	North	Carolina	Press,	2006),	15.	9	Robert	Mark	Silverman,	“Redlining	in	a	majority	black	city?:	Mortgage	lending	and	the	racial	composition	of	Detroit	neighborhoods,”	Western	Journal	of	Black	studies	29,	no.	1	(2005):	531,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	https://search.proquest.com/openview/c3ee44a7b4038f3529415b3368859d8a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=47709	10	Alexis	C	Madrigal,	“The	Racist	Housing	Policy	That	Made	Your	Neighborhood,”	The	Atlantic,	Atlantic	Media	Company,	2014,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/.	11	“1934–1968:	FHA	Mortgage	Insurance	Requirements	Utilize	Redlining.”	Fair	Housing	Center	of	Greater	Boston,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1934-1968-FHA-Redlining.html.	12	Ibid	531.		 9	coded	and	not-so-coded	language	demonstrated	the	racialized	nature	of	mortgage	lending	at	the	time:		Protection	against	some	adverse	influences	is	obtained	by	the	proper	zoning	and	deed	restrictions	that	prevail	in	a	neighborhood...some	adverse	influences	maybe	immediately	noticeable	while	others	arise	gradually	or	are	destined	to	occur	after	a	certain	number	of	years…	the	more	important	among	these	adverse	influential	factors	are	the	ingress	of	undesirable	racial	or	nationality	groups…13	This	practice	was	most	evident	in	the	early	part	of	the	twentieth	century,	however	its	effects	would	last	much	longer.	These	policies	in	many	ways	created	‘ghettos’,	by	confining	African-Americans	to	particular	neighborhoods	and	not	allowing	them	to	gain	any	equity	in	the	property	of	those	neighborhoods.	The	evidence	seems	to	support	that	race	was	a,	“significant	predictor	of	mortgage	lending,”	as	was	evident	in	studies	conducted	in	Detroit,	Chicago,	and	parts	of	Ohio.14			 	Large-scale	mortgage	discrimination	was	coupled	with	a	much	more	localized	practice	as	well.	Restrictive	Covenants	were	agreements	written	into	housing	contracts,	made	possible	by	laws	and	values	that	supported	‘freedom	of	contract’	among	private	parties.	The	agreements	followed	a	similar	pattern	of:	I	will	sell	my	house	to	you	on	the	condition	that	you	never	sell	it	to	an	African-American.	These	agreements	were	made	by	whole	neighborhoods	in	order	to	keep	them	White.15	This	practice	affected	more	affluent	African-Americans,	even	more	than	Redlining.	Thomas	Sugrue,	an	urban	US	historian,	made	this	argument	about	Detroit,	which	was	one	of	the	cities	most	affected	by	this	practice:	“Although	Detroit	had	a																																																									13	Richard	C.	Stearns,	“Racial	Content	of	FHA	Underwriting	Practices,	1934-1962,”	Memorandum	for	Jenkins	Files	13,	(1983):	4-5,	Used	with	permission	of	the	University	of	Baltimore	14	“Redlining	in	the	Majority	Black	City?”	532.		15	Thomas	J.	Sugrue,	The	Origins	of	the	Urban	Crisis:	Race	and	Inequality	in	Postwar	Detroit	(Princeton	University	Press,	2014),	34.		 10	stock	of	well-built	if	modest	homes	that	blue-collar	workers	could	afford,	blacks	were	systematically	shut	out	of	the	private	real	estate	market.	White	real	estate	brokers	shunned	black	clients	and	encouraged	restrictive	covenants	and	other	discriminatory	practices	that	kept	blacks	out	of	most	of	the	city’s	single-family	houses.”16		The	practice	of	including	racist	restrictive	covenants	in	real	estate	contracts	lasted	longer	than	Redlining	in	cities	such	as	Detroit,	due	to	the	unwillingness	of	courts	to	intervene	to	abolish	prejudice	in	the	context	of	private	property.17	Essentially	courts	upheld	the	argument	that	homeowners	have	every	right	to	protect	their	property	against	elements	(people)	that	they	found	distasteful.18	Local	courts	in	Michigan	were	overruled	on	this	decision	in	1948	when	the	Supreme	Court	decided	in	Shelley	v.	Kramer	that,	“private	agreements	to	exclude	persons	of	designated	race	or	color	from	the	use	or	occupy	of	real	estate	for	residential	purposes…[violated]	the	equal	protection	clause	of	the	Fourteenth	Amendment[.]”19		However	despite	restrictive	covenants	being	deemed	unconstitutional,	racial	housing	segregation	persisted	throughout	the	1950s,	60,	and	70s.20	Between	1960	and	1970	a	very	minimal	amount	of	racial	desegregation	took	place	in	cities	such	as	Detroit.	SMSAs	or	Standard	Metropolitan	Statistical	Areas	are	segregation	scores	given	to	large	metropolitan	areas,	with	a	higher	score	meaning	higher	levels	of																																																									16	Ibid	34.	17	Clement	S.	Vose,	Caucasians	Only:	the	Supreme	Court,	the	NAACP,	and	the	Restrictive	Covenant	Cases	(University	of	California	Press.,	1973),	1.	18	Ibid	1.	19	Joe	T.	Darden,	"Black	residential	segregation	since	the	1948	Shelley	v.	Kraemer	decision,"	Journal	of	Black	Studies	25,	no.	6	(1995):	680,	accessed	December	6,	2017,	http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002193479502500603	20	Ibid	681.		 11	segregation.	Between	1960	and	1970	SMSA	scores	in	the	US	decreased	from	75.4	to	69.5	a	decrease	of	only	5.9	percentage	points,	significantly	less	than	expected	in	the	wake	of	the	1948	decision	of	Shelley	v.	Kramer.21					 Prior	to	Brown,	African-American	children	in	many	parts	of	the	country	attended	officially	segregated	schools	on	the	ideas	put	forth	in	the	Supreme	Court	case	Plessy	v.	Ferguson	in	1869	(which	I	will	refer	to	as	Plessy).22	The	case	itself	has	to	do	with	railroad	cars,	but	the	conclusion	reached	had	a	profound	impact	on	all	aspects	of	segregated	life.	The	court	decided	that	segregation	was	acceptable	as	long	as	the	facilities	provided	were	equal,	which	is	where	the	iconic	phrase,	“separate,	but	equal”	comes	from.23	Housing	segregation	created	the	conditions	for	discrimination	ostensibly	based	on	class	but	actually	based	more	profoundly	on	race	that	resulted	in	a	need	for	federal	educational	subsidies.	Thanks	to	the	various	housing	policies	and	conclusion	of	Plessy	v.	Ferguson,	African-Americans	were	confined	to	both	housing	and	educational	‘ghettos’.			b.	Brown	v.	The	Board	of	Education	and	the	Civil	Rights	Act	of	1964	In	deciding	the	case	before	them,	the	Brown	Court	was	guided	by	a	firm	conviction	as	to	the	value	of	public	education:	Today,	education	is	perhaps	the	most	important	function	of	state	and	local	governments.	Compulsory	school	attendance	laws	and	the	great	expenditures	for	education	both	demonstrate	our	recognition	of	the	importance	of	education	to	our	democratic	society.	It	is	required	in	the																																																									21	Ibid	682.	22	Legal	Information	Institute:	Cornell	Law	School,	“Plessy	v.	Ferguson,”	Cornell	Law	School,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537	23	Ibid.		 12	performance	of	our	most	basic	public	responsibilities,	even	service	in	the	armed	forces.	It	is	the	very	foundation	of	good	citizenship.	Today	it	is	a	principal	instrument	in	awakening	the	child	to	cultural	values,	in	preparing	him	for	later	professional	training,	and	in	helping	him	to	adjust	normally	to	his	environment.	In	these	days,	it	is	doubtful	that	any	child	may	reasonably	be	expected	to	succeed	in	life	if	he	is	denied	the	opportunity	of	an	education.	Such	an	opportunity,	where	the	state	has	undertaken	to	provide	it,	is	a	right	which	must	be	made	available	to	all	on	equal	terms.	We	come	then	to	the	question	presented:	Does	segregation	of	children	in	public	schools	solely	on	the	basis	of	race,	even	though	the	physical	facilities	and	other	"tangible"	factors	may	be	equal,	deprive	the	children	of	the	minority	group	of	equal	educational	opportunities?	We	believe	that	it	does.24	In	the	court’s	view,	separate	and	equal	was	not	possible.	Yet	despite	this	landmark,	narrative-altering	decision,	schools	did	not	suddenly	desegregate.	For	one	thing,	years	of	housing	discrimination	and	ghettoization	and	mandated	school	segregation	made	it	impossible	for	desegregation	to	occur	without	state	intervention.	For	another,	even	the	Civil	Rights	Act	of	1964	did	not	take	the	necessary	proactive	steps	to	eliminating	racial	imbalances	in	schooling	that	also	constituted	segregation.	The	Act	stated	that:	“desegregation	means	the	assignment	of	students	to	public	schools	and	within	such	schools	without	regard	to	their	race,	color,	religion,	or	national	origin,	but	desegregation	shall	not	mean	the	assignment	of	students	to	public	schools	in	order	to	overcome	racial	imbalance	(emphasis	added).”25	Consequently,	segregation	may	have	no	longer	been	legal,	but	the	positive	state	action	required	for	desegregation	was	not	forthcoming.	Instead,	the	weaker	concept	of	‘school	choice’	was	introduced	into	a	segregated	housing	environment	as	a	way	of	empowering																																																									24	Legal	Information	Institute:	Cornell	Law	School,	“Brown	v.	Board	of	Education	of	Topeka,”	Cornell	Law	School,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/483.	25	Singed	into	law	by	President,	“Civil	Rights	Act	of	1964,”	Public	Law	88	(1964):	6.	[emphasis	added]		 13	African-Americans	to	choose	to	attend	previously	all-White	or	mostly-White	schools.		However,	low-income	and	minority	students	had	no	means	of	traveling	to	these	schools,	which	often	lay	outside	their	racially	segregated	neighbourhoods,	and	as	a	result	were	forced	to	stay	in	their	once	legally	segregated	school.26		There	were	attempts	in	the	late	1960s	and	even	into	the	early	1970s	to	combat	the	racial	and	racialized	effects	of	redlining	and	restrictive	covenants	on	the	potential	for	desegregation	and	meaningful	school	choice.	The	case	of	Green	v.	County	School	Board	of	New	Kent	County,	“tested	whether	freedom-of-choice	plans	that	did	not	rely	explicitly	on	race	were	constitutional[.]”27	The	Supreme	Court	decided	that	the	school	system	in	New	Kent	County,	Virginia	had	an	“affirmative	duty”	to	eliminate	discrimination	and	desegregation	and	that	its	existing	freedom	of	choice	plan	to	not	fulfill	that	duty.28	Another	example	of	Supreme	Court	intervention	into	the	lasting	effects	of	educational	segregation	was	the	case	Swann	v.	Charlotte-Mecklenburg	Board	of	Education	in	1971.	In	the	Charlotte-Mecklenburg	decision	the	court	examined	if,	“[t]he	past	discriminatory	conduct	of	a	school	board	might	have	contributed	to	the	creation	and	maintenance	of	segregated	residential	patterns	which,	when	coupled	with	the	present	use	of	geographic	proximity	as	the	basis	for	assignment,	produced	segregated	schools.”29	The	court	was	in	essence	verbalizing	what	I	have	argued	to	this	point—that	school	assignment	based	on	neighborhood,																																																									26	James	Forman	Jr.,	“The	secret	history	of	school	choice:	How	progressives	got	there	first,”	Geo.	LJ	93,	(2004):	1311,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/glj93&div=42&id=&page=	27	Ansley	T.	Erickson,	Making	the	Unequal	Metropolis:	School	Desegregation	and	Its	Limits	(Chicago:	University	of	Chicago	Press,	2017),	152.	28	Ibid	152.	29	Owen	M.	Fiss,	“The	Charlotte-Mecklenburg	case:	Its	significance	for	northern	school	desegregation,”	The	University	of	Chicago	Law	Review	38,	no.	4	(1971):	700,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1598869.pdf		 14	coupled	with	racist	housing	policies,	meant	that	even	in	a	post-Brown	world	school	segregation	remained	a	reality.	The	court’s	decision	in	this	case	was	to	institute	a	program	that	would	1)	institute	a,	“massive,	long	distance	transportation	program,”	and	2)	assign	students	living	in	the	inner	city	to	schools	in	the	suburbs	and	students	living	in	the	suburbs	to	inner	city	schools.30	The	courts	ordered	bussing	within	the	Charlotte-Mecklenburg	school	district	to	overcome	school	and	residential	segregation.	This	was	a	breakthrough	against	de	facto	segregation,	however	as	I	will	discuss	shortly,	in	many	cities	later	cases	were	argued	before	the	courts	that	would	result	in	them	reverting	back	to	de	facto	segregation.31		 This	is	not	to	diminish	what	was	truly	a	watershed	moment	in	confronting	racism	in	the	US.	Equality	was	now	written	into	law,	and	although	in	practice	it	may	not	have	been	a	reality,	there	was	marked	departure	from	past	ways	of	thinking	about	race.	This	was	due	in	large	part	to	Civil	Rights	activists	and	African-American	lawyers	and	citizens	who	started	to	put	pressure	on	the	administration;	it	was	also	attributable	in	part	to	Lyndon	B.	Johnson.	President	Johnson	was	progressive	when	it	came	to	race,	poverty	and	education,	and	had	extra	motivation	from	groups	lobbying	for	equality	and	Civil	Rights.	Johnson	along	with	fellow	educational	progressives,	such	as	the	man	who	would	be	instrumental	in	the	creation	and	implementation	of	the	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act,	Francis	Keppel,	were	not	so	much	responsible	for	dealing	with	the	racial	imbalance	among	schools																																																									30	Ibid.	702	31	Ibid	152.		 15	across	the	US,	but	were	instrumental	in	dealing	with	the	funding	imbalance	among	schools	across	the	US.32			III.	The	Great	Society	Programs		 The	Great	Society	Programs	were	so-called	as	a	result	of	a	speech	given	by	President	Johnson	at	the	University	of	Michigan	in	1964,	in	which	he	had	a	very	clear	message	that	would	inform	major	policy:		For	in	your	time	we	have	the	opportunity	to	move	not	only	toward	the	rich	society	and	the	powerful	society,	but	upward	to	the	great	society.	The	great	society	rests	on	abundance	and	liberty	for	all.	It	demands	an	end	to	poverty	and	racial	injustice—to	which	we	are	totally	committed	in	our	time	but	that	is	just	the	beginning.	The	great	society	is	a	place	where	every	child	can	find	knowledge	to	enrich	his	mind	and	enlarge	his	talents…	we	must	give	every	child	a	place	to	sit	and	a	teacher	to	learn	from.	Poverty	must	not	be	a	bar	to	learning,	and	learning	must	offer	an	escape	from	poverty.33	Johnson	was	a	firm	believer	in	the	power	of	education	to	change	one’s	socio-economic	status	and	knew	education	was	crucial	to	his	War	on	Poverty;	but	he	was	aware	of	the	difficulty	of	desegregating	schools,	and	of	the	achievement	gap	between	White	and	African-American	students.	Major	documents	like	the	Equality	of	Educational	Opportunity	Report	(1966),	written	by	James	Coleman,	a	Professor	of	Social	Relations	at	Johns	Hopkins,	quite	clearly	demonstrated	the	significant	achievement	gap	between	races,	and	its	roots.	Coleman	found	that	the	school	facilities	were	not	the	issue	and	there	was	no	difference	in	innate	intelligence																																																									32	Irving	Bernstein,	Promises	kept:	John	F.	Kennedy's	new	frontier	(Oxford	University	Press,	1991),	245.	33	Lyndon	B.	Johnson,	“Great	Society	Speech,”	Public	Papers	of	the	Presidents	of	the	United	States,	(1964):	230.		 16	between	the	races.	The	largest	indicator	of	achievement	was	a	student’s	socioeconomic	position.34	Other	researchers	findings	supported	Coleman’s	conclusions	stating,	“that	children’s	ability	to	learn	in	school	was	impaired	by	the	effects	of	poverty	and	racial	prejudice”;	however	there	were	additional	findings	that	not	only	was	achievement	affected	by	a	student’s	socio-economic	background,	but	that,	“catastrophic	damage	was	inflicted	on	the	ego,	the	self-esteem,	and	the	motivation	of	the	child	who	lived	in	a	black	community	such	as	Harlem.”35	In	addition,	researchers	like	James	Conant	concluded	that,	even	if	facilities	themselves	were	not	of	as	high	importance,	resources,	and	in	particular	staff,	were	crucial	to	minority	student	achievement	and	happiness	in	school.36	President	Johnson	understood	these	issues	and	concluded	that	compensatory	education	or,	“intensive,	individualized	instruction	in	an	encouraging,	supportive	environment	[which	require	money]—in	other	words,	good	education,”	was	what	was	necessary	to	close	the	achievement	gap.37		a.	The	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act	of	1965		 One	of	Johnson’s	most	important	pieces	of	legislation	in	his	War	on	Poverty,	the	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act	(ESEA)	was	signed	into	law	in	1965.	While	the	Act	had	many	sections,	for	the	purposes	of	this	paper	I	will	examine	Title	I	of	the	ESEA,	which	was	created	with	the	purpose	of,	“[providing]	all	children																																																									34	James	S.	Coleman,	"Equality	of	educational	opportunity,"	(1966):	20,	Accessed	December	6,	2017,	https://eric.ed.gov/?id=Ed012275	35	Diane	Ravitch,	The	Troubled	Crusade:	American	Education,	1945-1980	(New	York,	NY:	Basic	Books,	Inc,	1983),	151.	36	Ibid	151.		37	Ibid	153.		 17	significant	opportunity	to	receive	a	fair,	equitable,	and	high-quality	education,	and	to	close	educational	achievement	gaps.”38	Demonstrating	a	deep	understanding	of	the	issues	affecting	minority	students,	Johnson	and	ESEA	did	not	simply	throw	money	at	an	issue	with	hopes	that	it	would	resolve	itself.39	The	funding	was	distributed	with	the	goal	of	making	sure	low-income	and	minority	students	not	only	achieved	academically	but	also	felt	secure	and	cared	for	while	at	school.	This	decision	harkened	back	to	the	research	conducted	by	Coleman	and	Conant	among	others;	feeling	emotionally	and	physically	cared	for	while	at	school	was	crucial	to	achievement.	To	realize	this,	money	was	set	aside	to	hire	state-licensed	and	state-certified	mental	health	professionals	as	well	as	significant	numbers	of	guidance	counsellors	who	were	qualified	to	“provide	mental	health	services	to	children	and	adolescents.”40																																																											38	United	States.	Elementary	And	Secondary	Education	Act	of	1965	:	H.	R.	2362,	89th	Cong.,	1st	Sess.,	Public	Law	89-10.	Reports,	Bills,	Debate	and	Act.	[Washington]	:[U.S.	Govt.	Print.	Off.],	1965.	8.	39	Francis	Keppel,	"The	Emerging	Partnership	of	Education	and	Civil	Rights,"	The	Journal	of	Negro	Education	34,	no.	3	(1965):	204-208,	accessed	December	18,	2017,	http://www.jstor.org/stable/2294191		40	Ibid	217.		 18				Above	is	a	graph	of	Title	I	funding	(in	2017	dollars)	after	the	signing	of	the	ESEA.41	Although	funding	amounts	varied	slightly	on	an	annual	basis,	there	is	a	clear	upward	trajectory	in	the	amount	of	federal	educational	funding,	which	resulted	from	Title	I	of	the	ESEA.	While	this	graph	does	not	reflect	each	local	program	that	was	funded,	it	does	give	a	sense	of	the	influx	of	federal	funding	distributed	into	low-income	and	minority	schools.																																																													41	Graph	uses	funding	numbers	taken	from	The	United	States,	“Education	Department	Budget	History	Table:	FY	1980—FY	2016	President's	Budget	.”	Budget	History	Tables,	US	Department	of	Education.	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html.	and	The	United	States,	The	United	States	Government,	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government,	(Washington:	1969-1980)	accessed,	December	13,	2017,	<babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%20u.s.%20government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bothPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22>.	and	was	created	on		“ChartGo	Create	Graphs	Online.”	ChartGo.com,	ChartGo,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.		www.chartgo.com/modify.do.,	inflation	was	calculated	using	a	CPI	inflation	calculator	at	CPI	Inflation	Calculator.	US	Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.		Figure	1:	Federal	Title	I	Spending	(1966-1980)	in	2017	dollars		 19	b.	The	AIR	Study		 In	the	wake	of	the	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act,	feedback	on	its	effectiveness	was	mixed.	Initial	studies	were	not	encouraging,	showing	little	to	no	closing	of	the	achievement	gap	and	no	significant	jump	in	students’	happiness	or	satisfaction	with	their	education.42	However,	government	officials	soon	realized	that	those	studies	were	improperly	conducted.	Poor	data	collection	and	poor	analysis	lead	to	inconclusive	results	and	an	incomplete	picture	of	the	effectiveness	of	the	ESEA.43	Legislators	then	called	upon	the	American	Institute	for	Research	(AIR)	to	conduct	a	study	of	the	compensatory	programs	established	using	Title	I	funding.	In	the	words	of	the	noted	education	policy	scholar,	Milbrey	McLaughlin:	Through	an	extensive	literature	search	and	follow	up	site	visits,	AIR	identified	a	number	of	potentially	successful	compensatory	programs.	Programs	with	inadequate	data	were	weeded	out	in	the	literature	screen;	field	visits	eliminated	programs	that	in	practice	did	not	conform	to	program	evaluation	reports.	In	this	way,	the	AIR	staff	uncovered	sufficient	data	to	document	successful	compensatory	strategies	and	to	imply	that	schools	are	devising	new	and	effective	programs	for	disadvantaged	youngsters	as	legislators	had	hoped	with	the	passage	of	ESEA.44		The	AIR	Study	(1968)	provided	insight	into	a	number	of	successful	compensatory	programs	across	the	US.	Two	in	particular,	in	New	York	City	and	Detroit,	provide	examples	of	targeted	and	effective	compensatory	education	programs.																																																										42	Milbrey	Wallin	McLaughlin,	Evaluation	and	Reform:	The	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act	of	1965.	Title	I	(Santa	Monica,	CA:	Rand	Corporation,	1974),	82.	43	Ibid	83.		44	Ibid	83.		 20		 The	first	of	these	was	the	Homework	Helper	Program	of	New	York	City.45	This	program	aimed	to	assist	students	of	all	ages	in	low-income	and	minority	neighborhoods	by	having	high	school	age	students	tutor	and	assist	elementary	school	age	children.46	Children	in	this	program	lived	in	the	Lower	East	Side	of	New	York	City,	an	area	where,	“one-third	of	the	housing	was	classified	in	1964	as	substandard,”	and	where,	“[t]he	median	family	income	at	the	time	was	an	estimated	$69	a	week.”47	Over	the	course	of	the	study	it	was	clear	a	number	of	objectives	were	being	reached.	The	first	objective	was	to	get	effective	tutors.	This	was	done	by	paying	the	tutors,	which	not	only	motivated	them	to	be	effective	but	also	allowed	them	to	supplement	their	family’s	income.	They	could	make	as	much	as	thirty	five	dollars	a	month	tutoring	after	school.48	The	second	objective	was	to	raise	the	achievement	level	of	the	elementary	school	children.	Standardized	tests	were	given	to	the	children	before	and	after	participating	in	the	program	and	there	were	noticeable	improvements:49																																																										45	American	Institutes	for	Research,	David	Graham	Hawkridge,	Albert	B.	Chalupsky,	and	A.	Oscar	H.	Roberts,	A	study	of	selected	exemplary	programs	for	the	education	of	disadvantaged	children	(Office	of	Program	Planning	and	Evaluation,	1968),	133.	46	Ibid	133.	47	Ibid	133.	48	Ibid	135.	49	Ibid	143.		 21				While	those	tutored	were	not	reaching	the	national	norm	for	their	perspective	grade	levels	over	the	course	of	one	year	the	students	were	making	significant	strides	towards	closing	the	achievement	gap.	This	graph	quantifiably	demonstrates	the	positives	of	individualized	and	targeted	compensatory	education	by	showing	increased	achieved	grade	level	for	students	in	the	program,	and	the	way	in	which	schooling/education	mitigated	the	worst	of	segregation.				 What	was	so	significant	about	this	program	was	not	just	that	it	had	a	positive	effect	on	the	achievement	of	elementary	school	age	children.	The	study	also	showed	that	it	also	had	positive	effects	on	the	tutors.	Like	the	studies	of	children	in	the	program,	tutors	were	also	separated	into	groups,	with	Group	A	being	the	group	of	tutors	and	Group	B	being	the	control	group	of	high	school	age	children	who	were	Figure	2:	Pre	and	Post	Homework	Helper	grade	achievement	level	(elementary	age	children).	Reprinted	with	permission	from	AIR		 22	not	tutoring.	“[I]n	the	seven	months	of	tutoring	between	testings,	the	experimental	sample	[Group	A]	averaged	3.4	years	of	achievement	as	measured	by	the	Iowa	Test,	while	the	control	sample	[Group	B]	gained	1.7	years	on	average.”50	This	meant	that	not	only	were	the	tutoring	groups	approaching	the	national	norm,	as	the	tutored	groups	were,	the	high	school	students	who	tutored	were	passing	the	national	norm	as	a	result	of	teaching	or	tutoring	others:51					The	Home	Work	Helper	Program	was	very	successful	in	helping	to	close	the	achievement	gap	between	African-American	students	in	low-income																																																									50	Ibid	146.	51	Ibid	147.	Figure	3:	Pre	and	Post	Homework	Helper	grade	achievement	level	(high	school	age	Tutors).	Reprinted	with	Permission	from	AIR		 23	neighbourhoods	and	the	national	norm.	While	this	New	York	City	program	was	more	focused	on	academics,	there	was	a	program	in	Detroit	that	ran	concurrently	that	also	focused	on	academics	but	more	so	placed	an	emphasis	on	the	social-emotional	aspects	of	education	and	schooling	that	affected	low-income	and	minority	students.			 In	1968	the	Communication	Skills	Center	(CSC)	Project	in	Detroit	had	nearly	3,000	children	enrolled,	80-85	per	cent	of	which	were	African-American.52	The	center	focused	on	finding	the	underlying	reasons	for	reading	deficiencies,	again	harkening	back	to	Conant	and	Coleman	who	believed	low	socio-economic	background	affected	student’s	self-esteem	and	that	there	were	no	African-American-White	differences	in	innate	intelligence:	Remedial	reading	therapy	at	the	CSC	centers	began	with	diagnoses	of	the	pupils’	reading	deficiencies.	Following	this,	pupils	were	placed	in	small	classes	(six	to	ten	pupils	per	class)	for	instruction.	Using	a	variety	of	specialized	remedial	reading	materials	and	equipment,	CSC	teachers	strove	to	individualize	instruction	to	meet	each	pupil’s	needs.	Children	whose	reading	disabilities	appeared	to	be	related	to	underlying	problems	of	personal	or	social	maladjustment	were	referred	to	the	social	therapist	or	to	the	psychologist	for	further	diagnosis	and	counselling	(emphasis	added).53	A	large	emphasis	was	placed	on	the	importance	of	counsellors	and	their	place	in	education.	During	the	school	year	studied,	roughly	300	pupils	went	to	see	a	counsellor	for	at	least	one	individual	counselling	session.54	This	concern	for	the	emotional	well-being	of	the	students,	just	as	much	as	for	their	academic	well-being,	contributed	to	significant	improvements	in	their	school	classrooms.	At	the	end	of																																																									52	Ibid	284.	53	Ibid	285.	54	Ibid	286.		 24	the	school	year	a	questionnaire	was	given	to	the	regular	classroom	teachers	of	144	randomly	selected	CSC	students.	“The	majority	[of	them]…showed	noticeable	signs	of	improvement	in	attitudes	and	behavior	in	their	regular	school	classrooms.”55		This	is	a	significant	finding,	because	it	shows	a	change	in	views	towards	school.	No	longer	was	there	a	sense	of	alienation	among	African-American	children,	and	their	background	perhaps	did	not	have	as	large	of	a	negative	impact	on	their	school	life.	These	positive	attitudes	towards	school	were	especially	prevalent	in	the	upper	grades,	according	to	the	questionnaire.56	Like	the	Home	Work	Helper	Program,	the	CSC	Program	required	funding.	It	was	estimated	that	the	cost	of	the	CSC	Program	was	$264	per	pupil,	which	in	2017	would	equate	to	just	over	$1,800	dollars.57	That	is	not	a	small	number;	in	2014	the	US	was	spending	just	over	$12,000	per	pupil,	so	an	additional	15	per	cent	was	being	spent	on	each	pupil	in	this	Detroit	program	and	that	extra	funding	was	dependent	on	Title	I	funding.58	What	this	shows	is	that	with	appropriate	funding	and	expertise,	Black	children	excelled	at	school	–	these	programs	show	this	–	so	the	lack	of	appropriate	levels	of	funding	is	substantially	the	problem.			c.	Federalism	and	White	Flight		 From	the	mid	to	late	1970s,	until	Ronald	Reagan	was	elected	president	in	1980,	two	events	took	place	that	would	have	a	dramatic	effect	on	the	education	of																																																									55	Ibid	293.	56	Ibid	290.	57	Ibid	294.	and	inflation	was	calculated	at	CPI	Inflation	Calculator.	U.S.	Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.		58	Stephen	Q.	Cornman,	“Revenues	and	Expenditures	for	Public	Elementary	and	Secondary	School	Districts:	School	Year	2013-14	(Fiscal	Year	2014).	First	Look.	NCES	2016-303,”	National	Center	for	Education	Statistics	(2017):	3,	accessed	December	6,	2017,	https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572662		 25	minorities.	First	was	the	“White	Flight”	phenomenon,	which	was	White	people	moving	to	the	suburbs	for	better	jobs,	housing	opportunities	and	to	escape	their	urban	neighborhoods	that	were	becoming	more	racially	integrated,	leaving	large	cities	such	as	Detroit	even	more	segregated.59	This	took	place	as	early	as	1950,	with	it	peaking	in	the	late	1960s	and	early	1970s.	By	1970	over	half	of	the	once	urban	White	population	in	the	Northern	States	had	moved	out	to	the	suburbs.60	As	William	Frey	argued,	“[g]iven	the	relatively	static	boundaries	of	the	central	city,	movements	of	non-poor	individuals	toward	greater	housing	and	job	opportunities	in	the	suburbs	have	led	to	even	further	deterioration	of	the	economic	and	environmental	conditions	within	the	city	political	unit.”61	With	Whites	leaving	the	city,	the	racial	make	up	of	schools	within	the	city	changed,	becoming	even	more	minority	dominant	than	they	had	already	been.62			 This	phenomenon	was	worrisome	enough.	It	was	made	much	more	troubling	by	Reagan’s	federalism.	In	his	first	inaugural	address	Reagan	communicated	a	clear	picture	as	to	what	he	envisioned	as	the	role	of	the	federal	government:	It	is	my	intention	to	curb	the	size	and	influence	of	the	Federal	establishment	and	to	demand	recognition	of	the	distinction	between	the	powers	granted	to	the	Federal	government	and	those	reserved	to	the	states	or	to	the	people.	All	of	us	need	to	be	reminded	that	the	Federal	government	did	not	create	the	states:	The	States	created	the	Federal	Government.63																																																									59	William	H.	Frey,	“Central	city	White	Flight:	Racial	and	nonracial	causes,”	American	Sociological	Review,	(1979):	5-6,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2094885.pdf	60	Charles	T.	Clotfelter,	"The	Detroit	Decision	and"	White	Flight","	The	Journal	of	Legal	Studies	5,	no.	1	(1976):	100,	accessed	December	6,	2017,	http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467546?journalCode=jls	61	“Central	City	White	Flight:	Racial	and	Nonracial	causes,”	6-7.	62	“The	Detroit	Decision	and	“White	Flight”,”	99.	63	“A	New	Federalism:	Proposals	and	Achievements	of	President	Reagan’s	First	Three	Years,”	11-12.		 26	Not	only	did	Reagan	want	to	limit	federal	intervention	and	responsibility,	he	wanted	to	limit	federal	funding	to	the	states.	In	an	article	from	The	Journal	of	Federalism	essentially	a	public	relations	document,	Reagan’s	withdrawal	of	federal	support	for	schools	was	portrayed	as	attempt	to	end	federal	interference	and	as	being	a	benefit	to	the	states:	A	major	step	in	the	Reagan	administration's	campaign	to	return	authority	and	revenue	to	state	and	local	governments	was	to	cut	the	size	of	the	federal	government	itself.	To	cut	the	growth	of	Washington's	role	in	the	federal	system,	the	president	intended	to	halt	and	then	reverse	the	dominance	of	federal	aid	and	federal	interference	in	state	and	local	governments.64		As	we	will	see	in	the	next	section,	these	funding	cuts	to	federal	spending	had	a	significant	impact	on	the	funding	of	low-income	and	minority	schools.	The	combination	of	White	Flight	and	Reagan’s	federalism	meant	that	heading	into	the	1980s,	schools	were	very	much	segregated	(in	large	cities)	and	the	federal	government	had	a	renewed	commitment	to	cut	federal	funding.		IV.	Ronald	Reagan				 Ronald	Reagan	came	into	office	with	a	mentality	of	reduction.	That	meant	reducing	federal	spending	and	reducing	taxes.	These	two	cuts	had	the	greatest	impact	on	low-income	and	minority	people	and	families.65	His	cuts	to	federal	spending	had	significant	impact	in	many	arenas	of	society,	with	education	being																																																									64	Ibid	12.		65	Howard	Zinn,	A	Peoples	History	of	the	United	States	(New	York:	New	Press,	1998),	543-44.		 27	heavily	affected.	It	is	important	to	keep	in	mind,	as	I	have	showed,	that	desegregation	was	never	a	reality	in	the	US.	This	was	true	even	during	the	Johnson	administration;	however,	then	at	least,	the	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act	compensated	for	this.	In	the	late	1970s	and	early	1980s	the	issues	of	school	segregation	still	plagued	the	US.			 Segregation	of	schools	and	housing	meant	that	a	decrease	in	federal	subsidies	directly	affected	minority	and	low-income	students.	As	mentioned	above,	there	were	attempts	made	and	court	cases	decided	aimed	at	desegregating	schools.	However	throughout	the	1960s	and	into	the	1970s	the	intersection	between	housing	and	schooling	policies	perpetuated	school	segregation—one,	or	even	two,	decades	after	Brown	had	struck	it	down	legally.66	Tennessee	Senator	Avon	Williams	was	particularly	cognizant	of	this	ongoing	relationship.	He	echoed	the	sentiments	of	North	Carolina	Judge	James	McMillan	who	was	quoted	as	saying	(in	a	discussion	of	school	locations,	public	housing	construction,	and	segregating	actions	in	zoning),	“there	is	so	much	state	action	embedded	in	and	shaping	[these	policy	areas]	that	the	resulting	segregation	is	not	innocent	or	‘de	facto’,	and	the	resulting	schools	are	not	‘unitary’	or	desegregated.”67		The	battling	in	the	courts	spoke	to	a	much	more	pervasive	and	systemic	view	that	greatly	affected	the	reality	of	school	desegregation.	Dating	back	to	Brown,	White	Americans	were	staunchly	opposed	to	the	integration	of	the	school	system.	In	the	wake	of	Brown	this	opposition	and	fear	materialized	in	the	form	of	violence.	White																																																									66	Erickson,	Making	the	Unequal	Metropolis:	School	Desegregation	and	its	Limits,	154.	67	Ibid	155.		 28	violence	against	African-Americans,	especially	in	the	South,	had	begun	to	decline	at	the	turn	of	the	century.68	Yet	in	the	wake	of	Brown,	between	1954	and	1959,	there	were	over	200-recorded	incidences	of	violence	against	African-Americans	including	murder,	assault,	and	bombings.69	This	reaction	by	Whites	showed,	“the	uniquely	sensitive	place	that	schools	were	to	maintain	in	the	forthcoming	battles	over	race	relations.”70		White	parents	in	both	the	North	and	South,	at	the	time	of	Brown	and	in	the	years	following,	always	maintained	a	fear	of	desegregation;	their	“justifications”	for	this	were	academic	and	social,	but	also	racist.	Fear	over	the	lower	levels	of	education	their	children	would	receive	as	a	result	of	integration	as	well	as	interracial	relationships	motivated	pushback	to	the	courts.71	A	1956	article	entitled	“Mixed	Schools	and	Mixed	Blood”	put	into	words	the	fears	of	racial	mixing,	stating	that	mixed	mating	was	thought	of	as	disagreeable	and	repugnant,	so	school	could	not	be	a	place	where	the	two	races	interacted.72	The	concern	and	pushback	from	White	parents	can	be	explained	by	a	principle	referred	to	as	interest	convergence.	The	principle	of	interest	convergence	states:	“The	interest	of	blacks	in	achieving	racial	equality	will	be	accommodated	only	when	it	converges	with	the	interests	of	Whites.”73	Educational	equality,	beginning	with	Brown,	began	to	infringe	on	the	interests	of	Whites,	meaning	that	in	reality	despite	cases	such	as	Charlotte-Mecklenburg	and	Green	that	went	to	lengths	to	desegregate	schools	and	to	not	allow																																																									68	James	T.	Patterson	and	William	W.	Freehling,	Brown	v.	The	Board	of	Education:	A	civil	rights	milestone	and	its	troubled	legacy	(Oxford	University	Press,	2001),	87.	69	Ibid	87.	70	Ibid	88.	71	Ibid	88.	72	Ibid	87.	73	Derrick	A.	Bell	Jr,	“Brown	v.	Board	of	Education	and	the	interest-convergence	dilemma,”	Harvard	Law	Review	(1980):	523,	accessed	December	6,	2017,	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1340546.pdf		 29	housing	and	school	assignment	to	hinder	it,	passionate	feelings	about	educational	segregation	among	White	parents	and	people	in	general	provided	the	pushback	necessary	to	maintain	the	status	quo	of	school	segregation	in	the	US	in	the	post-Brown	world.	Parents	lobbying	for	segregation	had	their	desires	codified	by	two	additional	Supreme	Court	cases	in	the	1970s.		The	first	of	these	cases	was	San	Antonio	Independent	School	District	v.	Rodriguez	(1973).		This	case	dealt	with	the	local	funding	of	schools.	In	the	US	a	significant	percentage	of	school	funding	comes	from	property	tax.74	This	means	that	there	can	be	huge	discrepancies	in	the	amount	of	funding	a	school	receives	depending	on	which	neighbourhood	it	is	in.		Of	course	this	disproportionately	affects	low-income	and	minority	schools	in	poorer	neighbourhoods	with	lower	property	values.	Essentially	in	this	case,	the	Supreme	Court	ruled	that	the	inequality	that	results	from	property	tax	funding	does	not	violate	the	equal	protection	clause	of	the	Fourteenth	Amendment.75		The	second	Supreme	Court	case	to	have	an	effect	on	preserving	segregation	was	Milliken	v.	Bradley	(1974),	which	dealt	once	more	with	transportation	among	schools.	The	issue	arose	around	wanting	busses	in	Detroit	that	could	transport	kids	from	minority	neighborhoods	to	other	school	districts	lying	across	metropolitan	borders,	i.e.	from	the	city	into	the	suburbs,	in	order	to	desegregate	schools	in	both																																																									74	"How	Do	We	Fund	Our	Schools?"	PBS,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/blog/finance-how-do-	we-fund-our-schools/197/.	75	Peter	D.	Roos,	“The	potential	impact	of	Rodriguez	on	other	school	reform	litigation,”	Law	&	Contemp.	Probs.	38	(1973):	569,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lcp38&div=39&g_sent=1&casa_token=-WOMRPkSK50AAAAA:GpZ5D26U44dAIv_48j5ZkO7M85Xh6J81bJqlOf-Fm9B7nr5if-e8fF2T7n4hXNjjIUFL3Z_g&collection=journals		 30	places.	However,	the	Supreme	Court	in	Milliken	ruled	that	segregation	was	not	illegal,	if	it	was	‘involuntary’	and	based	‘merely’	on	place	of	residence.	As	a	result,	there	was	no	constitutional	requirement	to	desegregate	across	metropolitan	(urban-suburban)	boundaries.	Bussing	could	take	place	only	within	districts,	the	position	Swann	v.	Charlotte-Mecklenburg	established,	but	not	beyond	them,	as	was	being	attempted	in	the	Detroit	metropolitan	area.	76	These	cases	are	important	to	our	story	because	they	reaffirmed	residential	and	school	segregation,	which	coupled	with	Ronald	Reagan’s	educational	cuts	would	create	an	environment	in	which	efforts	to	redress	inequality	were	rolled	back.			a.	The	Education	Consolidation	and	Improvement	Act	of	1981		 In	1981	Reagan	signed	into	law	the	Education	Consolidation	and	Improvement	Act	(ECIA),77	the	first	of	two	significant	pieces	of	educational	legislation	that	he	would	enact.	Not	only	did	this	act	mark	a	change	in	attitudes	about	funding,	it	(coupled	with	A	Nation	at	Risk	which	I	will	discuss	later)	marked	a	change	in	attitudes	about	who	deserved	education.	The	majority	of	the	text	spoke	to	ways	in	which	federal	funding	would	be	rolled	back:	Under	Title	I	of	the	superseded	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act,																																																									76	Robert	A.	Sedler,	“The	Profound	Impact	of	Milliken	v.	Bradley,”	Wayne	L.	Rev.	33	(1986):	1695,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr33&div=81&g_sent=1&casa_token=AqvdniTcgjUAAAAA:9_FF3OQtL64y-WHhkJ3XzR3wtODDTRu9nL8d1YQK4wjbqQgH0xAJxD8cgMQ4AQwBcB9EacQl&collection=journals	77	Education	Consolidation,	“Improvement	Act	of	1981,	Pub,”	(1981):	95.			 31	federal	compensatory	education	aid	was	distributed	to	states	and	local	districts	according	to	a	formula	based	on	the	low-income	index,	including	the	Orshansky	poverty	level,	a	count	of	pupils	covered	by	the	Aid	to	Families	with	Dependent	Children	(AFDC)	Program,	and	a	count	of	publicly	supported	children	living	in	foster	homes	or	institutions.	The	formula	includes	additional	allocations	for	migratory	children,	handicapped	students	in	state	institutions,	and	neglected	and	delinquent	students…	Chapter	I	funds	will	be	disbursed	according	to	the	same	basic	formula	as	Title	I	funds.	Current	appropriations	for	Chapter	1,	however,	will	be	substantially	lower	than	those	under	Title	I	(emphasis	added).78			While	the	language	may	have	remained	similar,	the	funding	was	going	to	change.	Not	only	would	the	funding	change,	but	also	those	who	were	selected	to	receive	funding	i.e.	those	who	needed	it	the	most	were	no	longer	guaranteed	it:		…the	needs	assessment	ensures	that	the	most	educationally	needy	children	in	either	schools	or	attendance	areas	with	the	lowest-income	students	would	be	selected	for	services…Chapter	1	states	that	the	annual	‘needs	assessment	permits	selection	of	these	children	who	have	the	greatest	need	for	special	assistance,’	but	does	not	require	that	those	children	be	selected	(emphasis	added).79	Chapter	1	of	the	ECIA	reduced	and	redistributed	federal	funding,	and	these	dramatic	changes	were	immediate	with	funding	cuts	being	enacted	and	observed	in	Reagan’s	first	fiscal	year	as	president.80	Reagan	cut	the	proposed	fiscal	year	education-																																																								78	Linda	Darling-Hammond	and	Ellen	L.	Marks,	The	New	Federalism	in	Education:	State	Responses	to	the	1981	Education	Consolidation	and	Improvement	Act	(Santa	Monica,	CA:	The	Rand	Corporation,	1983),	27.	79	Ibid	28.	80	Deborah	A.	Verstegen,	“Redistributing	federal	aid	to	education:	Chapter	2	of	the	Education	Consolidation	and	Improvement	Act	of	1981,"	Journal	of	Education	Finance	10,	no.	4	(1985):	518,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40703466.pdf		 32	funding	budget	of	his	predecessor,	Jimmy	Carter,	by	nearly	30	per	cent.81		The	losses	that	resulted	from	the	consolidation	of	educational	funding	were	not	felt	equally	across	the	United	States.	The	Mid-Atlantic	and	Great	Lakes	(Michigan)	areas	were	among	those	most	heavily	affected.	A	study	using	regression	analysis	was	conducted	to	determine	the	effects	that	the	move	to	Block	Grants	under	the	ECIA	from	previous	educational	funding	policies	(ESEA)	had	on	children	living	in	poverty.	It	found	that,	“states	sustaining	the	greatest	losses	(FY	1980	to	FY	1982)	generally	were	the	same	states	that	hard	large	numbers	of	poor	children.”82	More	specifically,	the	consolidation	of	education	funding	under	the	ECIA	had	a	profoundly	negative	impact	on	minorities	living	in	the	poor	states.	“[T]he	findings	of,”	Deborah	Verstegen’s	analysis,	“showed	that	those	states	that…had	high	concentrations	of	minority	group	children,	sustained	the	largest	reductions	under	the	Education	Block	Grant.”83		Chapter	2	of	the	ECIA	added	insult	to	injury	(for	lack	of	a	better	phrase),	as	it	was	the	creator	of	Block	Grants.	If	nothing	else,	we	learned	from	the	AIR	study,	as	well	as	from	scholars	of	the	time,	that	individualized	and	specific	educational	programs	were	a	necessity	in	1)	closing	the	achievement	gap	between	races	and	2)	making	minority	students	feel	welcome,	accepted,	and	happy	at	school.	As	a	result	of	Chapter	2	of	the	ECIA	over	forty	of	the	specific	aid	programs	that	were	established	during	the	Great	Society	were	repealed	and,	as	the	name	of	the	Act	would	suggest,																																																									81	Ibid	518.	82	Ibid	520.	83	Ibid	520.		 33	consolidated	into	one	block	grant	that	each	state	received.84	The	specialized	programs	that	had	proven	to	be	successful	were	now	eliminated,	and	what	remained	was	under	funded.	These	funding	cuts	were	dramatic	as	is	evidenced	by	the	figures	below:85																																																											84	Ibid	517.	85	Graphs	use	funding	numbers	taken	from	The	United	States,	Department	of	Education,	Education	Department	Budget	History	Table:	FY	1980—FY	2016	President's	Budget,	(Washington:	2017)	16	Aug.	2017	<https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html>	and	were	created	on		“ChartGo	Create	Graphs	Online.”	ChartGo.com,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.chartgo.com/modify.do.,	Inflation	was	calculated	using	a	CPI	inflation	calculator	at	CPI	Inflation	Calculator.	U.S.	Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.			Figure	4:	Federal	Title	I	Spending	(1980-1988)	in	2017	dollars		 34				Notice	how	similar	the	trends	are	nationally	and	on	the	state	level	in	Michigan.	The	most	dramatic	decline	took	place	between	Fiscal	Years	1980	and	1983,	which,	as	mentioned	above,	was	the	result	of	dramatic	cuts	made	by	Reagan	immediately	following	his	election.	I	use	Michigan	because	of	the	roles	it	has	played	in	the	story	up	until	this	point.	Detroit	had	some	the	most	extreme	examples	of	segregation	(through	redlining),	was	at	the	center	of	Milliken	v.	Bradley,	and	experienced	extreme	examples	of	White	flight.	This	was	a	city	and	state	that	needed	federal	funding	to	help	the	large	low-income	minority	population	that	it	had.				 					Figure	5:	Title	I	Spending	in	Michigan	(1980-1988)	in	2017	dollars		 35	b.	A	Nation	at	Risk			 The	second	major	educational	contribution	of	the	Reagan	administration	was	a	report	that	came	out	in	1983	entitled	A	Nation	at	Risk.	This	alarmist	document	was	concerned	with	the	state	of	education	in	the	US:		Our	Nation	is	at	risk.	Our	once	unchallenged	preeminence	in	commerce,	industry,	science,	and	technological	innovation	is	being	overtaken	by	competitors	throughout	the	world.	This	report	is	concerned	with	only	one	of	the	many	causes	and	dimensions	of	the	problem,	but	it	is	the	one	that	undergirds	American	prosperity,	security,	and	civility.	We	report	to	the	American	people	that	while	we	can	take	justifiable	pride	in	what	our	schools	and	colleges	have	historically	accomplished	and	contributed	to	the	United	States	and	the	well-being	of	its	people,	the	educational	foundations	of	our	society	are	presently	being	eroded	by	a	rising	tide	of	mediocrity	that	threatens	our	very	future	as	a	Nation	and	a	people.	What	was	unimaginable	a	generation	ago	has	begun	to	occur--	others	are	matching	and	surpassing	our	educational	attainments…If	an	unfriendly	foreign	power	had	attempted	to	impose	on	America	the	mediocre	educational	performance	that	exists	today,	we	might	well	have	viewed	it	as	an	act	of	war.	As	it	stands,	we	have	allowed	this	to	happen	to	ourselves.86		This	panic	that	the	US	was	falling	behind	in	education	in	some	way	was	heavily	debated	and	by	no	means	a	certainty,	despite	what	Reagan	and	the	authors	of	the	report	believed.87				 																																																											86	United	States,	Department	of	Education,	A	Nation	at	Risk:	The	Imperative	for	Educational	Reform	(Washington	DC:	1983)	9.	87	Curtis	J.	Good,	“A	nation	at	risk:	Committee	members	speak	their	mind,”	American	Educational	History	Journal	37,	no.	1/2	(2010):	383,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	https://search.proquest.com/openview/19d2acf70175dffa43bdfbd7bd0f6434/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=29702		 36	c.	Dropouts,	Delinquency,	Isolation,	and	the	Age	of	Zero	Tolerance		 A	Nation	at	Risk	and	the	ECIA	marked	a	significant	departure	from	the	Great	Society	era’s	educational	philosophy.	What	had	been	education	for	the	purpose	of	social	mobility	and	an	overall	betterment	of	one’s	self,	at	least	rhetorically,	had	now	been	co-opted	by	the	ideals	of	Reaganomics.	At	this	time	not	only	was	funding	cut	but	empathy,	understanding,	tolerance,	and	any	attempt	to	search	for	root	of	behavioural	or	achievement	issues	were	also	cut.			 Now,	I	would	be	remiss	if	I	did	not	bring	attention	to	the	fact	that	dropout	rates	nationally	across	races	did	not	decline	during	the	Reagan	administration,	in	fact	they	rose	as	if	evidenced	by	figure	6.88																																																													88	Chris	Chapman	et	al,	“Trends	in	High	School	Dropout	and	Completion	Rates	in	the	United	States:	1972-2009.	Compendium	Report.	NCES	2012-006,"	National	Center	for	Education	Statistics	(2011).	23,	accessed	December	6,	2017,	https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524955.pdf	Figure	6:	High	School	Status	Completion	Rates	of	18-24	year	olds	between	1972-1990		 37	What	the	Reagan	administration	witnessed	during	their	tenure	was	statistics	that	reaffirmed	and	justified	their	beliefs	in	their	own	educational	policies,	but	were	in	fact	very	misleading	for	a	number	of	reasons.			 First,	and	perhaps	most	obvious,	is	that	African-Americans	like	any	group	of	people	were	not	and	are	not	a	homogenous	group.	The	ECIA	and	A	Nation	at	Risk	had	very	different	effects	on	people	depending	on	geographic	location,	family	income,	and	number	of	parents	to	name	a	few	different	groups.	One	example	of	this	was	African-American	female-headed	households.	Between	1973	and	1994	the	number	of	Single	African-American	female-headed	households	in	the	US	increased	from	38	per	cent	to	54	per	cent.89	This	statistic	is	important	for	a	number	of	reasons.	It	was	the	result	of	a	phenomenon	I	will	discuss	later,	the	Mass	Incarceration	of	African-American	men	(fathers,	husbands,	and	partners).	But	also,	African-American	teenagers	in	single	female-headed	household	were	more	likely	to	drop	out.90		Now	I	would	like	to	pause	to	emphatically	state	that	I	am	in	no	way	suggesting	that	single	mothers	were/are	incapable	of	taking	care	of	their	children;	this	was	a	very	special	circumstance	where	families	were	torn	apart	and	single	mothers	had	to	enter	the	workforce	at	an	unprecedented	rate.91	Second,	the	national	statistics	cover	up	the	realities	of	graduation	numbers	on	a	state-by-state	basis.	In	Michigan,	for	instance,	according	to	census	data	the	high	school	age	population	did	not	grow	between	1980	and	1990.	There	was	a	decline	in	that	population	of	about																																																									89	Robert	M.	Hauser	et	al.	“High	School	Dropout,	Race-Ethnicity,	and	Social	Background	from	the	1970s	to	the	1990s,"	(2000):	11,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449277.pdf	90	Ibid	abstract.		91	Women’s	Bureau	United	States,	“Women’s	Bureau	U.S.	Department	of	Labor:	Working	Mothers	Issue	Brief,”	U.S.	Department	of	Labor,	(2016):	accessed	December	13,	2017,	https://www.dol.gov/wb/resources/WB_WorkingMothers_508_FinalJune13.pdf			 38	11	per	cent.92		So	it	would	make	sense	to	see	a	similar	decline	in	the	number	of	high	school	graduates	over	that	time	period	if	there	were	no	external	factors	influencing	high	school	graduation	(or	non-graduation).	However,	over	the	course	of	the	decade	the	number	of	high	school	graduates	in	Michigan	declined	by	roughly	25	per	cent;	that	number	was	higher	in	urban	areas.93	Figure	7	shows	the	decline	in	the	number	of	high	school	graduates	across	Michigan	between	1981	and	1990:94																																																												92	US	Department	of	Commerce.	1980.	General	Population	Characteristics:	Michigan	[Bureau	of	the	Census].	17,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1980/1980censusofpopu80124uns_bw.pdf		and	US	Department	of	Commerce.	1990.	General	Population	Characteristics:	Michigan	[Bureau	of	the	Census].	21,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	https://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-24.pdf	93	Thomas	D.	Snyder	and	Charlene	M.	Hoffman,	State	Comparisons	of	Education	Statistics:	1969-70	to	1996-97	(US	Government	Printing	Office,	1998),	56.	94	Ibid	56,	using	“ChartGo	Create	Graphs	Online.”	ChartGo.com,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.chartgo.com/modify.do.		Figure	7:	Number	of	High	School	Graduates	in	Michigan	(1980-1990)		 39		 Second,	there	was	and	continues	to	be,	much	debate	as	to	the	proper	way	to	calculate	dropout/completion	rate.	What	causes	this	confusion	is	the	debate	about	how	to	properly	define	the	term.	Different	studies	have	shown	that	its	definition	can	change	according	to	the	source	of	the	calculations.	There	are	five	main	areas	that	contribute	to	this	“definitional	confusion:”	1. There	is	variation	in	the	grade	level	and/or	the	age	of	student	who	are	classified	as	dropouts.		2. Different	calculation	of	drop	out	rate	vary	in	amount	of	time	a	student	can	miss	before	there	are	considered	to	be	a	drop	out		3. A	“[v]ariation	in	the	length	of	the	accounting	period	during	which	dropout	is	calculated.”	4. The	exclusion	of	student,	like	those	receiving	special	education,	from	the	drop	out	calculation	5. And	finally	there	is	dramatic	variation	in	defining	what	counts	as	being	enrolled.	Certain,	“calculations	include	students	enrolled	in	GED	programs,	night	school,	or	alternative	programs,	and	some	only	include	those	enrolled	in	traditional	days	schools.”95	As	Camila	A.	Lehr	and	research	partners	have	argued,	the	problems	are	not	isolated	to	definitional	issues.	Communication	issues,	as	well	as	simple	clerical	ones,	make	it	very	difficult	to	ascertain	true	dropout	statistics	as	well:		The	lack	of	effective	communication	and	tracking	procedures	between																																																									95	C.	A.	Lehr,	D.	R.	Johnson,	C.	D.	Bremer,	A.	Cosio,	and	M.	Thompson,	Essential	tools:	Increasing	rates	of	school	completion:	Moving	from	policy	and	research	to	practice	(Minneapolis,	MN:	University	of	Minnesota,	Institute	on	Community	Integration,	National	Center	on	Secondary	Education	and	Transition,	2004),	9.	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/dropout.pdf		 40	public	and	private	schools,	and	within	school	districts	and	across	districts,	leads	to	misidentification	and	inaccurate	calculations.	For	students	with	emotional/behavioral	disabilities	who	change	schools	often,	accurate	documentation	of	exit	and	entrance	into	schools	over	time	may	be	especially	challenging.96	While	the	national	average	of	high	school	completion	rates	of	American-Americans	may	have	been	on	the	rise	during	the	Reagan	Administration,	a	number	of	factors	complicated	the	legitimacy	of	that	statistic.	Whether	it	was	specific	groups	or	regions	that	did	not	align	with	the	national	average	or	the	questioning	the	legitimacy	of	the	calculation	of	national	averages,	the	dropout	rates	nationally	among	African-Americans	were	not	indicative	of	the	school	environment	they	were	experiencing	and	the	many	ways	in	which	they	were	being	“pushed	out”	of	education	by	Reagan’s	policies.						 Changes	to	school	discipline	and	behavior	management	were	perhaps	the	most	significant	change	that	took	place	in	the	school	during	the	Reagan	Administration.	Dubbed	the	Age	of	Zero	tolerance,	in	the	1980s	schools	moved	away	from	the	rehabilitative	model	of	the	previous	generation	to	a	stricter	and	more	punitive	model.97	These	changes	in	punishment	became	known	as	the	pushout	phenomenon,	where	harsher	punishment	for	behavioral	issues,	that	used	to	be	dealt	with	by	counsellors	and	school	psychologists,	were	now	being	dealt	with	by	suspension.	In	urban	areas	this	was	seen,	“as	a	means	of	encouraging	certain																																																									96	Ibid	9.	97	Russell	J.	Skiba	et	al.,	“African	American	disproportionality	in	school	discipline:	The	divide	between	best	evidence	and	legal	remedy."	NYL	Sch.	L.	Rev.	54	(2009):	,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nyls54&div=54&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals		 41	students	to	drop	out	of	school.”98	These	policies	had	a	much	larger	impact	on	African-American	students.	During	this	period,	the	number	of	African-American	students	in	the	“general	student	population”	who	were	suspended	more	than	doubled.99	An	additional	result	of	underfunding	was	students	who	at	one	point	would	have	received	counselling	for	“under-achieving”	or	behavior	issues	were	being	labeled	as	mentally	challenged.	Nationwide,	African-American	students	were/are	three	times	as	likely	to	be	labeled	as	mentally	disabled.100	And	among	students	labeled	as	having	disabilities,	African-Americans	students	were	three	times	more	likely	than	White	students	to	be	suspended	during	the	Age	of	Zero	Tolerance.101		 This	rise	in	school	suspension	(from	1.7	million	a	year	in	1974	to	over	3	million	annually	in	1997)	had	a	number	of	adverse	effects	on	African-American	students.	Increased	time	spent	out	of	school	meant	a	loss	of	academic	work	and	did	nothing	to	help	close	the	achievement	gap.102	Not	only	did	it	affect	academic	achievement	but	also,	“[s]tudies	have	shown	that	a	child	who	has	been	suspended	is	more	likely	to	be	retained	in	grade,	to	drop	out,	to	commit	a	crime,	and/or	to	end	up	incarcerated	as	an	adult.	Indeed,	many	schools	are	further	expediting	the	flow	of																																																									98	Ibid	1077.	99	Johanna	Wald	and	Daniel	J.	Losen,	“Defining	and	redirecting	a	school-to-prison	pipeline,"	New	Directions	for	Student	Leadership,	no.	99	(2003):	3,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eb44/edc9e73139794847e33ac9f9a3c6953acc55.pdf	100	Ibid	2.	101	Ibid	3.	102	“Dismantling	the	School-to-Prison	Pipeline.”	NAACP	Legal	Defense	and	Educational	Fund,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.naacpldf.org/files/publications/Dismantling_the_School_to_Prison_Pipeline.pdf.		also	Mary	Frances	Berry,	“Discipline	in	Michigan	Public	Schools	and	Government	Enforcement	of	Equal	Education	Opportunity,”	Michigan	Advisory	Committee	to	the	US	Commission	on	Civil	Rights	also	Russell	J.	Skiba	et	al.,	“African	American	Disproportionality	in	School	Discipline:	The	Divide	Between	Best	Evidence	and	Legal	Remedy”	NYL	Sch.	L.	Rev.	2009.				 42	children	out	of	the	schools	and	into	the	criminal	justice	system	by	doling	out	a	double	dose	of	punishment	for	students	who	misbehave.”103	As	lawyers	at	the	NAACP	have	argued,	The	Age	of	Zero	Tolerance	was,	in	many	ways,	attributable	to	a	lack	of	resources:		In	addition	to	impacting	students’	behavior,	the	lack	of	sufficient	resources	in	our	schools	also	creates	perverse	incentives	for	school	officials	to	remove	children	from	school.	Ironically,	some	of	the	hallmarks	of	modern	education	re-	form—including	demands	for	greater	accountability,	extensive	testing	regimes,	and	harsh	sanctions	imposed	on	schools	and	teachers—actually	encourage	schools	to	funnel	out	those	students	whom	they	believe	are	likely	to	drag	down	a	school’s	test	scores.	Rather	than	address	the	systemic	problems	that	lead	to	poor	educational	performance,	harsh	discipline	policies	provide	schools	with	a	convenient	method	to	remove	certain	students	and	thereby	mask	educational	deficiencies.	Second,	the	overuse	of	suspensions,	expulsions	and	arrests	is	itself	a	reflection	of	this	lack	of	resources.	Many	well-intentioned	educators	want	to	help	troubled	students.	Yet,	due	to	a	lack	of	guidance	counsellors	and	useful	intervention	programs,	they	feel	that	they	have	no	alternatives	at	their	disposal.104		This	reduction	in	funding	and	as	a	result	in	resources	was	in	large	part	due	to	Reagan	era	policies	like	the	ECIA	and	A	Nation	at	Risk	and	its	effects	were	made	clear	by	this	newfound	inability	or	unwillingness	to	deal	with	behavioral	issues.		What	is	more,	over	this	time	period,	educational	expenditures	in	states	such	as	Michigan	were	on	the	decline	as	a	result	of	the	loss	of	federal	subsidies,	and	as	a	result	staff	numbers	sharply	declined	and	only	partially	recovered:105																																																										“Dismantling	the	School-to-Prison	Pipeline.”	NAACP		Legal	Defe	nse	and	Educational	Fund,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.naacpldf.org/files/publications/Dismantling_the_School_to_Prison_Pipeline.pdf.		also	Mary	Frances	Berry,	“Discipline	i		 43			This	was	a	period	of	educational	chaos.	Funding	was	taken	away,	standards	were	raised,	and	the	easier	route	for	teachers	whose	schools	were	being	depleted	of	staff	was	to	punish	students	who	were	not	performing	which	in	many	cases	were	African-Americans	students.	Whether	the	result	was	dropping	out	or	not	is	relatively	unimportant;	school	was	alienating	African-American	teenagers	in	the	1980s.	They	were	being	pushed	out	of	education,	and	given	the	economic	climate	of	the	time	not	having	a	high	school	education	was	devastating:	When	a	young	person	drops	out	of	school,	judgments	are	often	made	as	to	his	or	her	moral	character	and	potential	for	success	in	later	life.	Those	messages	are	powerful,	and	they	may	intensify	already	existing	negative	patterns	of	behavior	and	self-perception.	In	addition,	in	the	labour	market	that	demands	increasing	levels	of	education	and	skills	to	cope	with	contemporary	technology,	the	economic	impact	of	school	“leavers”	maybe	Figure	8:	Michigan	High	School	Staff	Numbers	(1980-1987)			 44	to	vast	to	ignore.106		d.	Reaganomics		 The	term	Reaganomics	is	infamous.	It	has	come	to	have	many	well-deserved	negative	connotations.	While	in	a	paper	about	education,	it	may	seem	that	a	discussion	of	economics	is	out	of	place,	I	argue	it	is	necessary	component,	coupled	with	education,	in	explaining	the	climate	of	the	1980s	and	the	effects	of	the	War	on	Drugs.	In	his	own	words,	Reagan’s	economic	program	was:	…based	on	the	fundamental	precept	that	government	must	respect,	protect,	and	enhance	the	freedom	and	integrity	of	the	individual.	Economic	policy	must	seek	to	create	a	climate	that	encourages	the	development	of	private	institutions	conducive	to	individual	responsibility	and	initiative.	...My	program-	a	careful	combination	of	reducing	incentive-stifling	taxes,	slowing	the	growth	of	federal	spending	and	regulations,	and	a	gradual	slowing	of	the	expansion	of	the	money	supply-seeks	to	create	a	new	environment	in	which	the	strengths	of	America	can	be	put	to	work	for	the	benefit	of	us	all.107	This	program	subtly,	or	perhaps	not	so	subtly,	meant	an	era	of	deregulation.	Much	like	it	did	when	it	came	to	education,	the	federal	government,	under	Reagan,	was	going	to	retreat	as	much	as	possible.		Tax	reforms	are	a	very	telling	indicator	of	the	reality	of	his	economic	programs.	Two	“remarkable	fiscal	facts,”	indicate	the	changes	of	this	time.	First,	the	top	marginal	tax	rate	for	income	tax	was	reduced	from	70	per	cent	to	28	per	cent;																																																									n	Michigan	Public	Schools	and	Government	Enforcement	of	Equal	Education	Opportunity,”	Michigan	Advisory	Committee	to	the	US	Commission	on	Civil	Rights	also	Russell	J.	Skiba	et	al.,	“African	American	Disproportionality	in	School	Discipline:	The	Divide	Between		Best	Evidence	and	Legal	Remedy”	NYL	Sch.	L.	Rev.	2009.			omy:	The	successes,	failures,	and	unfinished	agenda	(ICS	Press,	1987),	51-52.		 45	and,	second,	the	national	debt	more	than	doubled	during	the	Reagan	administration.108	Reagan	vowed	that	he	would	balance	the	budget	because	the	tax	cuts	he	had	instituted	would	stimulate	the	economy	(this	would	come	to	be	known	as	trickle-down	economics).	However,	experts	such	as	Wassily	Leontief,	a	Nobel	Prize	winning	economist,	were	quoted	as	saying,	“[t]his	is	not	likely	to	happen.	In	fact,	I	personally	guarantee	that	it	will	not	happen.”109	Income	tax	was	not	the	only	tax	that	became	dramatically	less	progressive	under	Reaganomics:		…	the	Social	Security	tax	became	more	regressive.	That	is,	more	and	more	was	deducted	from	the	salary	checks	of	the	poor	and	middle	classes,	but	when	salaries	reached	$42,000	no	more	was	deducted.	By	the	early	1990s,	a	middle-income	family	earning	$37,800	a	year	paid	7.65	percent	of	its	income	in	Social	Security	taxes.	A	family	earning	ten	times	as	much,	$378,000	paid	1.46	percent	of	its	income	in	Social	Security	taxes.110	Like	so	many	of	the	policies	that	have	already	been	discussed,	these	economic	reforms	disproportionally	affected	African-Americans.			 By	the	end	of	the	1980s	one	third	of	African-Americans	lived	below	the	poverty	line,	and	young	African-Americans	were	unemployed	at	a	rate	of	30	to	40	per	cent.111	Nationally,	and	across	the	entire	population	of	working	age	African-Americans,	the	unemployment	rate	spiked	at	over	20	per	cent	in	the	early	1980s	and	remained	relatively	high	until	the	end	of	the	decade:112																																																										108	Ibid	50.	109	A	Peoples	History	of	the	United	States,	540.	110	Ibid	543-544.	111	Ibid	544-545.	112	“Labor	Force	Statistics	from	the	Current	Population	Survey.”	U.S.	Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006.		 46			The	unemployment	rate	increased	in	dense	urban	areas.	In	the	early	1980s	Detroit	had	the	highest	African-American	unemployment	rate	in	the	country.113	This	rate	decreased	as	one	started	to	move	away	from	central	Detroit	into	the	suburbs—and	so	did	the	African-American	population.114	By	1990,	African-Americans	in	large	cities	such	as	Detroit	or	Chicago	were	significantly	more	likely	than	non-Hispanic	Whites	to	be	unemployed,	with	the	unemployment	gap	between	the	two	groups	widening	to	14	per	cent	by	1990.115		The	policies	of	the	Reagan	administration	had	a	dramatic	effect	on	two	entangled	arenas	of	life,	education	and	the	economy.	The	ECIA	cut	federal	funding	to	under-privileged	children	and	began	a	philosophical	shift	away	from	education	for	social	mobility.	A	Nation	at	Risk	reaffirmed	this	shift,	inundating	education	with	neo-																																																								113	A	Peoples	History	of	the	United	States,	544.	114	Ted	Mouw,	“Job	relocation	and	the	racial	gap	in	unemployment	in	Detroit	and	Chicago,	1980	to	1990,”	American	Sociological	Review,	(2000):	730,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2657544.pdf	115	Ibid	750.	Figure	9:	African	American	Unemployment	Rate	(1972-2000)		 47	liberal	ideas	of	only	caring	about	results	and	fostering	competition	at	the	expense	of	people.	As	a	result	of	these	policies,	the	pushout	phenomenon	took	hold	as	African-American	students	were	given	up	on.	This	mentality	coupled	with	the	declining	economy	of	the	1980s	resulted	in	a	huge	number	of	unemployed	African-American	men	(men	and	women	but	for	our	purposes	I	will	focus	on	men),	unable	to	be	a	part	of	the	traditional	economy.	As	a	result,	it	should	not	be	a	surprise	to	find	that	the	underground	economy	began	to	grow	in	the	1980s.	This	would	be	the	environment	in	which	Reagan	could	enact	his	War	on	Drugs;	or,	as	Kenneth	Nunn	calls	it,	his	War	on	Blacks.116			V.	The	Era	of	Mass	Incarceration		 While	this	is	the	final	section	of	our	story,	it	is	important	to	note	that	this	era	runs	concurrently	with	the	educational	policies	that	Reagan	instituted.	What	I	have	attempted	to	do	up	this	point,	is	to	show	how	a	new	demographic	was	being	created	in	the	US	in	the	1980s,	at	the	same	time	that	a	very	new	kind	of	crime	policy	was	being	created.	The	group	that	emerged	throughout	the	1980s	and	into	the	1990s	was	a	large	group	of	African-American	men	who	received	low	quality	and/or	minimal	education,	in	a	time	of	economic	recession.	This	is	not	to	say	these	elements	on	their	own	had	not	existed	before,	but	all	of	these	factors	had	not	occurred	at	the	same	time	before.	It	was	a	“perfect	storm”	if	you	will:	low-income	African-American																																																									116	Kenneth	B.	Nunn,	“Race,	crime	and	the	pool	of	surplus	criminality:	Or	why	‘The	War	on	Drugs’	was	a	‘War	on	Blacks’,”	J.	Gender	Race	&	Just.	6,	(2002):	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jgrj6&div=19&g_sent=1&casa_token=FgXM3xBfAKcAAAAA:BYPx-hhvdITfAbtrE9sGr1X_VVwOxhmpFmBLESS_m4Dedhb_dxnc0NlU6nTRqd5GQ-mKvHAk&collection=journals			 48	men	were	being	pushed	out	of	schools,	at	a	time	of	great	recession	with	little	to	no	job	opportunities,	while	at	the	same	time	predatory	racist	policy	was	being	enacted	to	incarcerate	that	exact	demographic.		The	era	of	Mass	Incarceration	can	be	applied	to	the	last,	almost	forty	years	of	US	history.	Over	that	period	the	prison	population	in	the	country	has	risen	from	roughly	300,000	to	somewhere	between	1.5	and	2	million.117	While	this	fact	on	its	own	is	overwhelming	and	upsetting,	it	only	furthers	those	emotions	when	you	realize	the	racial	dimension.	As	Michelle	Alexander	states,	“[n]o	other	country	in	the	world	imprisons	so	many	of	its	racial	or	ethnic	minorities.	The	United	States	imprisons	a	larger	percentage	of	its	black	population	than	South	Africa	did	at	the	height	of	apartheid.”118	The	numbers	are	staggering	and	I	will	return	to	them	later,	but	what	is	crucial,	is	understanding	the	policies	that	were	put	in	place	that	made	this	happen—	Reagan’s	War	on	Drugs	and	Clinton’s	War	on	Crime—and	the	reasons	that	African-Americans	fell	victim	to	these	predatory	policies.				a.	The	War	on	Drugs:	a	War	on	Blacks		 The	defunding	of	education	and	the	devaluing	of	educating	low-income	African-American	students	during	the	Reagan	Administration	could	simply	be	seen	as	an	expression	of	the	president’s	deep	belief	that	education	is	purely	a	state	issue,	and	that	his	decisions	possessed	no	racial	element.	This	era	and	those	educational,																																																									117	Michelle	Alexander,	The	New	Jim	Crow:	Mass	Incarceration	in	the	Age	of	Colorblindness	(New	Press,	2012),	6.		118	Ibid	6.			 49	drug,	and	crime	policies,	between	the	start	of	Reagan’s	presidency	and	the	end	of	Clinton’s,	was	one	of	deepening	institutionalized	government	sanctioned	racism.119	If	the	War	on	Drugs	is	thought	of	as	just	that,	a	war,	then	it	becomes	much	easier	to	understand	the	racial	nature	of	it.	As	Nunn	so	poignantly	stated:		“[T]he	War	on	Drugs	should	be	understood	as	a	special	case	of	what	war	has	always	been-the	employment	of	force	and	violence	against	certain	communities,	and/or	their	institutions,	in	order	to	attain	certain	political	objectives.	Race	has	played	an	important	role	over	the	years	in	identifying	the	communities	that	became	the	targets	of	the	drug	war,	consequently	exposing	their	cultural	practices	and	institutions	to	military-style	attack	and	police	control.”120			 When	Reagan	declared	his	War	on	Drugs,	usage	rates	of	recreational	drugs	in	the	US	were	actually	in	decline.121	This	fact	lends	credence	to	the	belief	that	the	target	of	this	war	was	never	truly	drugs.	While	there	are	many	other	events	or	decisions	that	reveal	the	racial	nature	of	this	war,	four	significant	ones	that	spanned	the	1980s	and	1900s	are	particularly	telling.	The	first	actually	took	place	in	1968	with	the	Supreme	Court’s	decision	in	the	case	of	Terry	v.	Ohio.	In	Terry,	the	court	established	what	has	come	to	be	known	as	the	stop-and-frisk	rule,	essentially	saying	that,	“so	long	as	a	police	officer	has	‘reasonable	articulable	suspicion’	that	someone	is	engaged	in	criminal	activity	and	dangerous,	it	is	constitutionally	permissible	to	stop,	questions,	and	frisk	him	or	her—even	in	the	absence	of	probable	cause.”122	This	would	establish	a	precedent	that	would	be	the	basis	for	policies	and	decisions	during	the	1980s,	the	Supreme	Court,	“had	begun	its	slide	down	a	very	slippery																																																									119	See	Michelle	Alexander,	The	New	Jim	Crow:	Mass	Incarceration	in	the	Age	of	Colorblindness	(New	Press,	2012).	120	“Race,	Crime	and	the	Pool	of	Surplus	Criminality”	386.	121	The	New	Jim	Crow,	5.	and	“Race,	Crime	and	the	Pool	of	Surplus	Criminality”	389.	122	The	New	Jim	Crow,	62.			 50	slope,”	of	facilitating	the	violation	of	the	fourth	amendment.123					Second,	Operation	Pipeline	was	“administered	by	over	three	hundred	state	and	local	law	enforcement	agencies.”124	What	this	operation	allowed	was	for	law	enforcement	officers	to	use	pre-textual	traffic	stops	to	search	motorists	and	their	vehicles.	Officers	learned	how	to,	“lengthen	a	routine	traffic	stop…obtain	consent	from	reluctant	motorists,	and	how	to	use	drug-sniffing	dogs	to	obtain	probable	cause.”125	As	Ricardo	Bascuas,	a	law	professor	at	the	University	of	Miami,	noted,	“Operation	Pipeline	is	exactly	what	the	Framers	[of	the	constitution]	meant	to	prohibit:	a	federally-run	general	search	program	that	targets	people	without	cause	for	suspicion,	particularly	those	who	belong	to	disfavored	groups.”126		Third,	was	the	Whren	v.	The	United	States	decision,	in	which	the	Supreme	Court	decided	that	a	law	enforcement	officer’s	“subjective	motivations	for	a	stop	were	irrelevant	to	Fourth	Amendment	Analysis.”127	In	laymen’s	terms,	the	Whren	decision	meant	that	as	long	as	an	officer	could	provide	an	“objective”	reason	for	an	arrest,	it	did	not	matter	if	the	real	reason	for	the	stop	was	racist.128			The	final	decision	is	Illinois	v.	Wardlow.	It		had	to	do	with	running	from	police.	A	middle-aged	African-American	man	ran	from	a	police	caravan	and	was	then	detained	and	searched	as	a	result	of	his	flight.	The	court	deemed	this	to	be	acceptable	essentially	establishing,	“a	per	se	rule	that	flight	equals	reasonable																																																									123	Ibid	63.	124	Ibid	69.		125	Ibid	69.			126	Ibid	69-70.	127	“Race,	Crime	and	the	Pool	of	Surplus	Criminality”	403.	128	Ibid	403-404.		 51	suspicion.”129	In	the	view	of	the	court	and	the	majority,	African-Americans	had	no	reason	to	fear	police	officers	and	therefore	no	reason	to	run.130	Throughout	the	end	of	the	twentieth	century	the	courts	took	every	opportunity	to	“eviscerate”	the	fourth	amendment	in	an	effort	to	facilitate	the	War	on	Drugs.131	So	much	so	that	during	this	period	there	was	believed	to	be	a	“drug	exception”	in	the	Bill	or	Rights.132	These	three	points	are	meant	to	offer	a	limited	idea	of	the	ways	in	which	the	government	was	facilitating	the	harassment	and	arrest	of	minorities,	regardless	of	guilt	or	innocence.		Policies	were	enacted,	and	decision	were	made,	so	that	when	drug	related	crime	did	begin	to	rise	police	officers	were	already	“hunting”	in	African-American	neighborhoods.	It	was	not	until	1985	the	crack	epidemic	really	started.133	And	drug	related	crimes	did	not	rise	by	choice.	That	is	to	say,	the	sale	of	drugs	was	a	last	resort	for	much	of	the	African-American	population	that	engaged	in	it.	The	sharp	decline	of	legitimate	job	opportunities	in	cities	increased	the	motivation	to	sell	drugs,	as	a	means	of	survival.134	Whereas	in	the	1970s	upwards	of	70	per	cent	of	African-Americans	living	in	large	urban	areas	held	industrial	blue-collar	jobs,	by	1987	that	number	had	dropped	to	28	per	cent.135	African-Americans	were	isolated	in	neighborhoods	with	low-quality	and	poorly	resourced	education—as	I	have	shown—	and	no	job	opportunities	and	suddenly	a	way	to	make	money	arose.	As	Michelle	Alexander	puts	it,	“[j]oblessness	and	crack	swept	inner	cities	precisely	at																																																									129	Ibid	403.	130	Ibid	403.	131	The	New	Jim	Crow,	60.		132	Ibid	60.	133	Ibid	50.	134	Ibid	50.		135	Ibid	50.		 52	the	moment	that	a	fierce	backlash	against	the	Civil	Rights	Movement	was	manifesting	itself	through	the	War	on	Drugs.”136		Scholars	such	as	Western	and	Petit,	Freeman,	and	Duster,	all	reaffirm	Alexander’s	conclusion	that	as	a	result	of	declining	job	opportunities	African-American	men	had	to	turn	to	an	underground	economy	to	survive.137		While	Mass	Incarceration	has	had	profound	consequences	for	all	African-Americans,	it	has	been	felt	most	acutely	by	the	population	that	I	have	attempted	to	trace	throughout	this	paper:	urban,	poor,	African-American	men.	As	James	Forman	states,	“[it	does	not]	make	sense	to	talk	about…concepts	such	as	‘how	the	criminal	justice	system	harms	black	people.’	We	must	identify	which	portions	of	the	black	community	we	are	talking	about[.]”138	The	African-American	prison	population	over	this	time	period	was	primarily	male,	and	it	also	consisted	of	the	least	educated	and	least	wealthy	section	of	the	African-American	community.139	By	1999,	among	African-American	men,	60	per	cent	of	those	who	had	dropped	out	of	high	school	had	been	incarcerated.140	Those	who	fell	victim	to	the	predatory	policies	of	the	War	on	Drugs	were	overwhelmingly	African-American	and	overwhelmingly	without	a	high	school	education.																																																											136	Ibid	51.	137	Becky	Pettit	and	Bruce	Western,	“Mass	imprisonment	and	the	life	course:	Race	and	the	class	inequality	in	US	incarceration,”	American	Sociological	Review	69,	no.	2	(2004):	accessed	December	12,	2017,	http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000312240406900201	138	James	Forman	Jr.,	“The	black	poor,	black	elites,	and	America’s	prisons,”	Cardoza	Law	Review	32,	(2010):	794,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cdozo32&div=25&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals.		139	Ibid	794.		140	“Mass	Imprisonment	and	the	life	course”	151.		 53	b.	The	War	on	Crime:	Reaffirming	the	War	on	Blacks	The	Violent	Crime	Control	and	Law	Enforcement	Act	of	1994	was	the	second	significant	piece	of	legislation	that	reaffirmed	and	continued	the	Reagan	era	War	on	Blacks.141	The	Crime	Bill,	as	it	is	popularly	known,	greatly	expanded	prisons	and	law	enforcement.	As	Alexander	states	it,	“created	dozens	of	new	federal	capital	crimes,	mandated	life	sentences	for	some	three-time	offenders,	and	authorize	more	than	$16	billion	for	state	prison	grants	and	expansion	of	state	and	local	police	forces.”142	As	a	result	of	this	bill,	the	US	saw	the	largest	increase	in	both	state	and	federal	prison	inmates	in	its	history.	Similar	to	those	incarcerated	during	the	Reagan	era,	those	incarcerated	in	the	Clinton	era	were	overwhelmingly	African-American	and	had	very	low	levels	of	education.143	To	give	an	example	of	the	racialized	nature	of	the	Crime	Bill:		Despite	the	pronounced	racial	disparities	in	the	infliction	of	the	death	penalty	in	both	state	and	federal	capital	cases,	Congress	refused	to	include	the	Racial	Justice	Act	as	part	of	the	crime	bill.	The	Racial	Justice	Act	was	a	fairly	modest	proposal	that	would	have	at	least	required	courts	to	have	hearings	on	racial	disparities	in	the	inflection	of	the	death	penalty	and	look	behind	the	disparities	to	determine	whether	they	are	related	to	race	or	some	other	factor.144	The	Racial	Justice	Act	was	not	needed	or	wanted	because	the	bill	was	created	with	the	intention	of	targeting	race.	Just	like	the	War	on	Drugs	policies,	or	the	ECIA,	the																																																									141	Darren	Wheelock	and	Douglas	Hamilton,	“Midnight	basketball	and	the	1994	crime	bill	debates:	the	operation	of	a	racial	code,"	The	Sociological	Quarterly	48,	no.	2	(2007):	316,	accessed	December	13,	2017,	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40220101.pdf	142	The	New	Jim	Crow	55,	and	Stephen	B.	Bright,	“The	Politics	of	Crime	and	the	Death	Penalty:	Not	Soft	on	Crime,	but	Hard	on	the	Bill	of	Rights,"	Louis	ULJ	39	(1994):	479,	accessed	December	6,	2017,	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/stlulj39&div=24&g_sent=1&casa_token=azfCYXGETDgAAAAA:AXoW62QN2499CCuUo8YvN_Bmy4mEvLgH54z-ADatKyaenBLIlEGxx9-DheGjROLqGWvUf13B&collection=journals	143	The	New	Jim	Crow,	56.	144“	The	Politics	of	Crime	and	the	Death	Penalty,”	481		 54	Crime	Bill	was	enacted	without	African-Americans’	wellbeing	in	mind.	The	bills	were	enacted	with	the	purpose	of	re-establishing	a	racial	hierarchy	that	the	Civil	Rights	Movement	had	threatened.	Crime	and	drug	polices	were	enacted	and	court	decisions	were	made	that	allowed	law	enforcement	to	ignore	the	Bill	of	Rights.	Educational	policies	were	enacted	that	cut	funding	and	pushed	African-American	teens	out	of	school.	In	a	time	of	economic	recession	where	jobs	were	limited,	especially	without	a	high	school	diploma,	this	particular	section	of	the	African-American	population	had	to	satisfy	their	most	basic	Maslovian	needs.	Unable	to	be	a	part	of	the	“above	ground”	economy	they	turned	to	the	“underground”	economy.									VI.	Conclusion		 Throughout	this	paper,	I	have	covered	a	number	of	practices,	policies,	and	decisions—each	with	a	profound	impact	on	segregation,	housing,	education,	and	the	criminal	justice	system.	I	began	with	an	examination	of	the	practice	of	Redlining	and	Restrictive	covenants.	These	two	practices	effectively	continued	racial	segregation	in	the	post	Jim	Crow	world	by	isolating	African-Americans	to	particular	neighborhoods.	This	era	ended,	at	least	superficially	however,	with	the	beginning	of	the	Civil	Rights	movement.	In	1954,	the	Brown	decision	was	announced,	desegregating	schools	and	overturning	the	Plessy	decision,	while	emphatically	stating	that	separate	was	not	equal.	This	period	was	capped	off	with	the	greatest	achievement	of	the	Civil	Rights	Movement,	the	signing	of	the	Civil	Rights	Act	in	1964.	While	segregation	was	now	illegal,	the	Civil	Rights	Act	made	it	clear	that	when	it	came	to	education,	segregation	being	illegal	did	not	mean	proactive	desegregation		 55	efforts	were	mandatory.	Even	though	schools	remained	segregated	in	reality,	the	Great	Society	Programs	of	Lyndon	B.	Johnson	attempted	to	close	the	education	gap	among	races.		 Whether	it	was	due	to	the	realization	that	true	desegregation	would	be	very	difficult	or	not,	Johnson	decided	that	compensatory	education	for	low-income	and	underprivileged	students	was	one	solution	to	the	achievement	gap	between	African-American	and	White	students.		To	accomplish	this	he	signed	the	ESEA	in	1965.	It	provided	funding	for	many	aspects	of	education,	including	library	funding	and	school	lunches.	But	perhaps	most	significantly,	it	supplied	funding	to	establish	programs	designed	to	help	minority	students.	I	focused	on	two	of	these,	one	in	Detroit	and	one	in	New	York	City.	Both	programs,	the	AIR	Study	demonstrated,	generated	improvement	in	their	participants.	What	these	various	programs	did	was	not	only	focus	on	academic	achievement,	but	also	social-emotional	well	being,	allowing	children	access	to	counsellors	and	psychologists.	The	understanding	was	that	behavioural	or	academic	issues	were	a	result	of	some	external	force	and	were	not	innate	to	race.	As	a	result	of	this	more	holistic	approach	to	education,	minority	students	began	to	excel	academically	but	also	reported	a	most	positive	attitude	towards	school.	This	push	towards	educational	equality	in	the	wake	of	the	Civil	Rights	Act	was	short-lived,	however.		 President	Ronald	Reagan	took	office	in	1981,	running	on	a	tax-cutting	federalist	platform.	He	wanted	to	withdraw	federal	responsibility	and	give	states	more	power.	In	the	realm	of	education	this	took	the	form	of	the	ECIA.	The	Act	cut	funding	that	had	been	given	by	the	ESEA,	as	well	as	general	federal	education		 56	funding.	This	was	followed	up	by	the	A	Nation	at	Risk	report,	which	demonstrated	a	shift	in	the	aims	of	education	in	the	US.		As	a	result	of	funding	cuts,	staff	and	counselors	in	schools	in	large	cities	like	Detroit	were	let	go.	Behavioral	and	academic	issues	that	had	once	been	attributed	to	difficulties	outside	of	school	were	now	ignored,	and	those	students	were	isolated,	suspended,	or	thery	dropped	out.	Concurrently,	Reagan	put	into	place	dramatic	tax	reform,	which	put	the	US	into	a	recession.	The	unemployment	rate	rose,	especially	among	urban	African-Americans.	As	this	new	demographic	of	unemployed	and	poorly	educated	African-Americans	emerged,	Reagan	put	into	place	his	War	on	Drugs	policies.	These	policies	in	the	1980s	coupled	with	Bill	Clinton’s	Violent	Crime	Control	and	Law	Enforcement	Act	of	1994	led	to,	what	is	now	known	as,	the	era	of	Mass	Incarceration.	Huge	numbers	of	African-American	men,	the	majority	of	whom	did	not	have	a	high	school	diploma,	were	arrested,	primarily	for	drug	offenses.145	African-American	men	without	a	high	school	diploma	could	not	get	a	job	in	the	inner	city,	and	to	survive	had	to	turn	to	crime.	Turning	to	crime	was	not	a	choice,	but	a	necessity	after	being	rejected	from	the	“above	ground”	economy.		 The	demographic	that	fell	victim	to	the	predatory	policies	of	the	War	on	Drugs	and	War	on	Crime	was	the	same	demographic	that	was	affected	by	Reagan’s	educational	funding	cuts.	Low-income,	inner	city	African-Americans	relied	heavily	on	the	funding	their	schools	received	under	of	the	ESEA.	That	Act	and	the	programs	it	funded	were	predicated	on	the	acceptance	that	the	achievement	gap	between	the	races	was	by	no	means	biological	or	genetic;	it	was	the	product	of	environment.	The																																																									145	The	New	Jim	Crow,	7.		 57	genuine	belief	in	the	ability	of	all	students,	and	the	money	to	do	something	about	it,	was	a	new	phenomenon	and	one	that	had	a	profoundly	positive	impact	in	low-income	and	minority	neighborhoods.	In	the	same	way	that	believing	in	those	students	affected	them	positively,	not	believing	in	them	affected	them	negatively.	In	the	1980s,	African-American	students	in	low-income	areas,	and	in	under-resourced	school	who	were	not	achieving	what	the	federal	government	believed	they	should,	were	abandoned	and	alienated.	It	was	this	group,	“the	poorest	and	least	educated[,]”	African-Americans	who	were	incarcerated	at	an	unprecedented	and	nearly	unfathomable	rate.146	It	was	here	that	the	schools	to	prison	pipeline	opened	up.	It	still	flows.																																																																																										146	“The	Black	Poor,	Black	Elites,	and	America’s	Prisons,”	794.		 58	VII.	Works	Cited:			Alexander,	Michelle.	The	New	Jim	Crow:	Mass	Incarceration	in	the	Age	of	Colorblindness.	New	Press,	2012.	Bell	Jr,	Derrick	A.	"Brown	v.	Board	of	Education	and	the	interest-convergence	dilemma."	Harvard	Law	Review	(1980):	518-533,	Accessed	December	6,	2017.	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1340546.pdf	Bernstein,	Irving.	Promises	kept:	John	F.	Kennedy's	new	frontier.	Oxford	University	Press,	1991.	Berry,	Mary	Frances	et	al.	Discipline	in	Michigan	Public	Schools	and	Government	Enforcement	of	Equal	Education	Opportunity.	Michigan	Advisory	Committee	to	the	U.S.	Commission	on	Civil	Rights,	1996.		Bright,	Stephen	B.	"The	Politics	of	Crime	and	the	Death	Penalty:	Not	Soft	on	Crime,	but	Hard	on	the	Bill	of	Rights."		Louis	ULJ	39	(1994):	479,	Accessed	December	6,	2017.	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/stlulj39&div=24&g_sent=1&casa_token=azfCYXGETDgAAAAA:AXoW62QN2499CCuUo8YvN_Bmy4mEvLgH54z-ADatKyaenBLIlEGxx9-DheGjROLqGWvUf13B&collection=journals	Boskin,	Michael	J.,	and	Herbert	Stein.	Reagan	and	the	economy:	The	successes,	failures,	and	unfinished	agenda.	ICS	Press,	Institute	for	Contemporary	Studies,	1987.	Chapman,	Chris,	Jennifer	Laird,	Nicole	Ifill,	and	Angelina	KewalRamani.	"Trends	in	High	School	Dropout	and	Completion	Rates	in	the	United	States:	1972-2009.		 59	Compendium	Report.	NCES	2012-006."	National	Center	for	Education	Statistics	(2011).	,	Accessed	December	6,	2017.	https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524955.pdf	Clotfelter,	Charles	T.	"The	Detroit	Decision	and"	White	Flight"."	The	Journal	of	Legal	Studies	5,	no.	1	(1976):	99-112,	Accessed	December	6,	2017.	http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467546?journalCode=jls	Coleman,	James	S.	"Equality	of	educational	opportunity."	(1966).	Accessed	December	6,	2017.	https://eric.ed.gov/?id=Ed012275	Consolidation,	Education.	"Improvement	Act	of	1981,	Pub."	(1981):	95.	Cornman,	Stephen	Q.	"Revenues	and	Expenditures	for	Public	Elementary	and	Secondary	School	Districts:	School	Year	2013-14	(Fiscal	Year	2014).	First	Look.	NCES	2016-303."	National	Center	for	Education	Statistics	(2017).	Accessed	December	6,	2017.	https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572662	Darden,	Joe	T.	"Black	residential	segregation	since	the	1948	Shelley	v.	Kraemer	decision."	Journal	of	Black	Studies	25,	no.	6	(1995):	680-691,	Accessed	December	6,	2017.	http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002193479502500603	Darling-Hammond,	Linda,	and	Ellen	L.	Marks.	The	New	Federalism	in	Education:	State	Responses	to	the	1981	Education	Consolidation	and	Improvement	Act.	Publications,	The	Rand	Corporation,	1700	Main	Street,	Santa	Monica,	CA	90406,	1983.		 60	Erickson,	Ansley	T.	Making	the	Unequal	Metropolis:	School	Desegregation	and	Its	Limits.	University	Of	Chicago	Press,	2017.	Fiss,	Owen	M.	"The	Charlotte-Mecklenburg	case:	Its	significance	for	northern	school	desegregation."	The	University	of	Chicago	Law	Review	38,	no.	4	(1971):	697-709,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1598869.pdf		Forman	Jr,	James.	"The	black	poor,	black	elites,	and	America's	prisons."	Cardozo	L.	Rev.	32	(2010):	791,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cdozo32&div=25&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals.	Forman	Jr,	James.	"The	secret	history	of	school	choice:	How	progressives	got	there	first."	Geo.	LJ	93	(2004):	1287,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/glj93&div=42&id=&page=	Forman	Jr,	James.	"Racial	critiques	of	mass	incarceration:	Beyond	the	new	Jim	Crow."	NYUL	Rev.	87	(2012):	21,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nylr87&div=5&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals.	Frey,	William	H.	"Central	city	White	flight:	Racial	and	nonracial	causes."	American	Sociological	Review	(1979):	425-448,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2094885.pdf	Good,	Curtis	J.	"A	nation	at	risk:	Committee	members	speak	their	mind."	American	Educational	History	Journal	37,	no.	1/2	(2010):	367,	accessed	December	13,		 61	2017.	https://search.proquest.com/openview/19d2acf70175dffa43bdfbd7bd0f6434/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=29702		Gregory,	James	N.	The	southern	diaspora:	How	the	great	migrations	of	black	and	white	southerners	transformed	America.	Univ	of	North	Carolina	Press,	2006.	Hauser,	Robert	M.,	Solon	J.	Simmons,	and	Devah	I.	Pager.	"High	School	Dropout,	Race-Ethnicity,	and	Social	Background	from	the	1970s	to	the	1990s."	(2000):	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449277.pdf	American	Institutes	for	Research,	David	Graham	Hawkridge,	Albert	B.	Chalupsky,	and	A.	Oscar	H.	Roberts.	A	study	of	selected	exemplary	programs	for	the	education	of	disadvantaged	children.	Office	of	Education,	Office	of	Program	Planning	and	Evaluation,	1968.	Hawkridge,	D.	G.,	Chalupsky,	A.	B.,	&	Roberts,	A.	O.	H.	(1968).	A	study	of	selected	exemplary	programs	for	the	education	of	disadvantaged	children:	Part	II	(Diagram	3,	Gains	in	Average	Reading	Age	for	Three	Samples	of	Pupils	in	the	Homework	Helper	Program,	p.	143).	Palo	Alto,	CA:	American	Institutes	for	Research.	Hawkridge,	D.	G.,	Chalupsky,	A.	B.,	&	Roberts,	A.	O.	H.	(1968).	A	study	of	selected	exemplary	programs	for	the	education	of	disadvantaged	children:	Part	II	(Diagram	4,	Adjusted	Gains	in	Average	Reading	Age	for	Two	Samples	of	Tutors	in	the	Homework	Helper	Program,	p.	147).	Palo	Alto,	CA:	American	Institutes	for	Research.		 62	Henkin,	Louis.	"Shelley	v.	Kraemer:	Notes	for	Revised	Opinion."	U.	Pa.	L.	Rev.	110	(1961):	473,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/pnlr110&div=34&g_sent=1&casa_token=vQWb803OdBkAAAAA:WF7xCE43zq5ZG6KcsvjOAwghRDKAnSQYLGioTAEbvJqT_vLjDukNKzp4rCgB8vKCZbb8EC8Z&collection=journals	Into	law	by	President,	Signed.	"Civil	rights	act	of	1964."	Public	Law	88	(1964):	352.	Johnson,	Lyndon	B.	"Great	society	speech."	Public	Papers	of	the	Presidents	of	the	United	States	(1964).	Keppel,	Francis.	"The	Emerging	Partnership	of	Education	and	Civil	Rights."	The	Journal	of	Negro	Education	34,	no.	3	(1965):	204-208.	Accessed	December	18,	2017,	http://www.jstor.org/stable/2294191	Legal	Information	Institute:	Cornell	Law	School,	“Brown	v.	Board	of	Education	of	Topeka.”	Cornell	Law	School,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/483.	Legal	Information	Institute:	Cornell	Law	School,	“Plessy	v.	Ferguson.”		Cornell	Law	School,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537	Lehr,	C.	A.,	Johnson,	D.	R.,	Bremer,	C.	D.,	Cosio,	A.,	&	Thompson,	M.	Essential	tools:	Increasing	rates	of	school	completion:	Moving	from	policy	and	research	to	practice.		Minneapolis,	MN:	University	of	Minnesota,	Institute	on	Community	Integration,	National	Center	on	Secondary	Education	and	Transition	(2004).		 63	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/dropout/dropout.pdf		Madrigal,	Alexis	C.	“The	Racist	Housing	Policy	That	Made	Your	Neighborhood.”	The	Atlantic,	Atlantic	Media	Company,	2014.	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/.	McCaul,	Edward	J.,	Gordon	A.	Donaldson	Jr,	Theodore	Coladarci,	and	William	E.	Davis.	"Consequences	of	dropping	out	of	school:	Findings	from	high	school	and	beyond."	The	Journal	of	Educational	Research	85,	no.	4	(1992):	198-207,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941117	McLaughlin,	Milbrey	Wallin.	Evaluation	and	Reform:	The	Elementary	and	Secondary	Education	Act	of	1965.	Title	I.	Santa	Monica,	CA:	RAND	Corporation,	1974.		Mouw,	Ted.	"Job	relocation	and	the	racial	gap	in	unemployment	in	Detroit	and	Chicago,	1980	to	1990."	American	Sociological	Review	(2000):	730-753,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2657544.pdf	Nunn,	Kenneth	B.	"Race,	crime	and	the	pool	of	surplus	criminality:	or	why	the	war	on	drugs	was	a	war	on	blacks."	J.	Gender	Race	&	Just.	6	(2002):	381,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jgrj6&div=19&g_sent=1&casa_token=FgXM3xBfAKcAAAAA:BYPx-hhvdITfAbtrE9sGr1X_VVwOxhmpFmBLESS_m4Dedhb_dxnc0NlU6nTRqd5GQ-mKvHAk&collection=journals		 64	Patterson,	James	T.,	and	William	W.	Freehling.	Brown	v.	Board	of	Education:	A	civil	rights	milestone	and	its	troubled	legacy.	Oxford	University	Press,	2001.	Pettit,	Becky,	and	Bruce	Western.	"Mass	imprisonment	and	the	life	course:	Race	and	class	inequality	in	US	incarceration."	American	sociological	review	69,	no.	2	(2004):	151-169.	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000312240406900201	Ravitch,	Diane.	The	Troubled	Crusade:	American	Education,	1945-1980.	Publication	Sales,	Basic	Books,	Inc.,	10	East	53rd,	New	York,	NY	10022,	1983.	Roos,	Peter	D.	"The	potential	impact	of	Rodriguez	on	other	school	reform	litigation."	Law	&	Contemp.	Probs.	38	(1973):	566,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lcp38&div=39&g_sent=1&casa_token=-WOMRPkSK50AAAAA:GpZ5D26U44dAIv_48j5ZkO7M85Xh6J81bJqlOf-Fm9B7nr5if-e8fF2T7n4hXNjjIUFL3Z_g&collection=journals	Sedler,	Robert	A.	"The	Profound	Impact	of	Milliken	v.	Bradley."	Wayne	L.	Rev.	33	(1986):	1693,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/waynlr33&div=81&g_sent=1&casa_token=AqvdniTcgjUAAAAA:9_FF3OQtL64y-WHhkJ3XzR3wtODDTRu9nL8d1YQK4wjbqQgH0xAJxD8cgMQ4AQwBcB9EacQl&collection=journals	Silverman,	Robert	Mark.	"Redlining	in	a	majority	black	city?:	Mortgage	lending	and	the	racial	composition	of	Detroit	neighborhoods."	Western	Journal	of	Black		 65	Studies	29,	no.	1	(2005):	531,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	https://search.proquest.com/openview/c3ee44a7b4038f3529415b3368859d8a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=47709	Skiba,	Russell	J.,	E.	Eckes	Suzanne,	and	Kevin	Brown.	"African	American	disproportionality	in	school	discipline:	The	divide	between	best	evidence	and	legal	remedy."	NYL	Sch.	L.	Rev.	54	(2009):	1071,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nyls54&div=54&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals	Snyder,	Thomas	D.,	and	Charlene	M.	Hoffman.	State	Comparisons	of	Education	Statistics:	1969-70	to	1996-97.	US	Government	Printing	Office,	Superintendent	of	Documents,	Mail	Stop:	SSOP,	Washington,	DC	20402-9328.,	1998.	Stearns,	Richard	C.	"Racial	Content	of	FHA	Underwriting	Practices,	1934-1962."	Memorandum	for	Jenkins	Files	13	(1983).		Sugrue,	Thomas	J.	The	Origins	of	the	Urban	Crisis:	Race	and	Inequality	in	Postwar	Detroit.	Princeton	University	Press,	2014.	United	States.	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government.	Dept.	ed.,	1969.	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%20u.s.%20government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bot	hPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22.			 66	United	States.	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government.	Dept.	ed.,	1971,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%20u.s.%1820government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bot	hPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22.		United	States.	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government.	Dept.	ed.,	1972,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%20u.s.%20government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bot	hPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22.		United	States.	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government.	Dept.	ed.,	1973,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%20u.s.%20government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bot	hPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22.		United	States.	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government.	Dept.	ed.,	1974,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%20u.s.%20government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bot	hPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22.		United	States.	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government.	Dept.	ed.,	1976,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%2	 67	0u.s.%20government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bot	hPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22.		United	States.	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government.	Dept.	ed.,	1977,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%20u.s.%20government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bot	hPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22.19		United	States.	Budget	of	the	United	States	Government.	Dept.	ed.,	1980,	Web.	16	Aug.	2017.	babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?a=srchls;anyall1=all;q1=budget%20of%20the%20u.s.%20government;field1=title;op3=AND;lmt=ft;yop=before;pdate_end=1980&facet=bot	hPublishDateRange:%221960-1969%22.		United	States.	National	Commission	on	Excellence	in	Education.	Department	of	Education.	A	Nation	at	Risk	:	the	Imperative	for	Educational	Reform	:	a	Report	to	the	Nation	and	the	Secretary	of	Education,	United	States	Department	of	Education.	Washington,	D.C.	:The	Commission	:	[Supt.	of	Docs.,	U.S.	G.P.O.	distributor],	1983.	Print.	United	States.	Elementary	And	Secondary	Education	Act	of	1965	:	H.	R.	2362,	89th	Cong.,	1st	Sess.,	Public	Law	89-10.	Reports,	Bills,	Debate	and	Act.	[Washington]	:[U.S.	Govt.	Print.	Off.],	1965.	United	States,	Women's	Bureau.	“Women’s	Bureau	U.S.	Department	of	Labor:	Working	Mothers	Issue	Brief.”	U.S.	Department	of	Labor,	(2016):	1–14,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.		 68	https://www.dol.gov/wb/resources/WB_WorkingMothers_508_FinalJune13.pdf	U.S.	Department	of	Commerce.	1980.	General	Population	Characteristics:	Michigan	[Bureau	of	the	Census].	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1980/1980censusofpopu80124uns_bw.pdf	U.S.	Department	of	Commerce.	1990.	General	Population	Characteristics:	Michigan	[Bureau	of	the	Census].	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	https://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-24.pdf	Verstegen,	Deborah	A.	"Redistributing	federal	aid	to	education:	Chapter	2	of	the	Education	Consolidation	and	Improvement	Act	of	1981."	Journal	of	Education	Finance	10,	no.	4	(1985):	517-523,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40703466.pdf	Vose,	Clement	E.	Caucasians	Only:	the	Supreme	Court,	the	NAACP,	and	the	Restrictive	Covenant	Cases.	University	of	California	Press.,	1973.	Wald,	Johanna,	and	Daniel	J.	Losen.	"Defining	and	redirecting	a	school-to-prison	pipeline."	New	Directions	for	Student	Leadership	2003,	no.	99	(2003):	9-15,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eb44/edc9e73139794847e33ac9f9a3c6953acc55.pdf	Wheelock,	Darren,	and	Douglas	Hartmann.	"Midnight	basketball	and	the	1994	crime	bill	debates:	the	operation	of	a	racial	code."	The	Sociological	Quarterly	48,	no.		 69	2	(2007):	315-342,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40220101.pdf	Williamson,	Richard	S.	“A	New	Federalism:	Proposals	and	Achievements	of	President	Reagan’s	First	Three	Years.”	The	Journal	of	Federalism	16,	no.	1	(1986):	11–28,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	academic.oup.com/publius/article/16/1/11/1819419.	Zinn,	Howard.	A	people's	history	of	the	United	States.	New	York:	New	Press,	1998.	“ChartGo	Create	Graphs	Online.”	ChartGo.com,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	www.chartgo.com/modify.do.		CPI	Inflation	Calculator.	U.S.	Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.		“Dismantling	the	School-to-Prison	Pipeline.”	NAACP	Legal	Defense	and	Educational	Fund,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	www.naacpldf.org/files/publications/Dismantling_the_School_to_Prison_Pipeline.pdf.		“Education	Department	Budget	History	Table:	FY	1980—FY	2016	President's	Budget	.”	Budget	History	Tables,	US	Department	of	Education.	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html.		"How	Do	We	Fund	Our	Schools?"	PBS.	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/blog/finance-how-do-	we-fund-our-schools/197/.		 70	“A	Look	at	the	1940	Census.”	United	States	Census	Bureau,	Accessed	December	13,	2017,	www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/1940census/CSPAN_1940slides.pdf.		“Key	Statistics:	Prisoners.”	Bureau	of	Justice	Statistics,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=488.	“Labor	Force	Statistics	from	the	Current	Population	Survey.”	U.S.	Bureau	of	Labor	Statistics,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006.		“1934–1968:	FHA	Mortgage	Insurance	Requirements	Utilize	Redlining.”	Fair	Housing	Center	of	Greater	Boston,	Accessed	December	13,	2017.	www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1934-1968-FHA-Redlining.html.		

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0362921/manifest

Comment

Related Items