1
Impact of Brown on Multicultural Education of
Hispanic Americans
Contreras, A Reynaldo
This article suggests that many forces, including
various branches of the federal government, in
confusing and often conflicting ways, have constructed
and influenced the Hispanic identity and educational
status. Moreover, this unique identity of Hispanics is
important because of their common cultural experience
in the United States-an experience that is both distinct
from and common to that of African Americans.
School desegregation, however, has collapsed the
Hispanic narrative, rendering it homeless in a "Black-
White" binary that was the legacy of Brown, and, then,
rendering it invisible in a "White-Non-White" binary
that was the legacy of Keyes v. School District No. 1
(Denver, Colorado), which held that Hispanics
"constitute an identifiable class for purposes of the
14th Amendment." Recognizing Hispanics as a distinct
group would threaten the privilege connected to those
binaries. Nevertheless, Hispanics are a significant
percentage of our nation's population and are
becoming a greater percentage every day. Allowing for
the greater educational segregation of Hispanics is
inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of Brown.
INTRODUCTION
Few issues in American education have drawn
more intense attention and controversy than school
segregation. More than a century after the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson made
racial segregation the law of the land, and 50 years
after the Court overturned that decision in Brown v.
Board of Education, segregation still exists in U.S.
schools. Furthermore, contemporary trends point to a
return to widespread segregated schooling. This article
provides an overview of U.S. national trends in school
segregation and summarizes the results of this author's
research on the impact of Brown on multicultural
education.
The 2000 Census tells us that Hispanics have
become the largest minority group in the United States
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Unfortunately,
Hispanic school enrollment exploded during the post-
civil rights era, and very little has been done to provide
desegregated education for Hispanic students. They
have been more segregated than Blacks for a number
of years, not only by race and ethnicity but also by
poverty (Orfield, 2002). There is also serious
segregation developing by language.
Most Hispanics are concentrated in high poverty,
low-achieving schools and face by far the highest
dropout rate. Also, since many are concentrated in the
large states where affirmative action for college is now
illegal and with high stakes high school graduation
tests (California, Texas, and Florida), the concentration
of these students in schools with a poor record of
graduating students and sending them onto college
raises important national issues.
The Hispanic population changed and became more
diversified throughout the 20th century. Between 1900
and 1980, the composition, social-class status, and
ideological orientation of the Hispanic population
underwent dramatic transformation. It became more
heterogeneous and included multiple groups with a
range of views and experiences with education.
Between 1848 and 1940, Mexican-descent individuals
were the predominant and, in some areas, the only
group of Hispanics in the United States. Most of these
individuals were concentrated in the Southwest.
During the 1920s, Mexican-descent individuals began
to migrate to other parts of the United States,
especially the Midwest. During the 1940s, the United
States experienced a tremendous influx of Hispanics
from Puerto Rico. Beginning in 1959, the United
States again experienced another tremendous influx of
Hispanics. This time they were from Cuba. Beginning
in the mid-1960s and later spurred by political conflict
and economic instability in their homelands during the
1970s, there was a tremendous influx of immigrants
from Central and South American countries, such as
Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Peru. Despite the
tremendous influx of Hispanics immigrants from
Central and South America in the past three decades,
Mexicans, both citizen and non-citizen, continued to
be the largest and oldest residing group of Hispanics in
the United States.
As Orfield (2002) noted, there is very little national
attention being devoted to what may be the most
decisive set of social choices now being made in the
United States. The United States is in the midst of a
demographic transformation, which our Census Bureau
believes will lead to a Hispanic population of 100
million people by mid-century. This population is
growing prodigiously. It is also heavily concentrated in
the large metropolitan areas of a huge "postindusfrial'"
society increasingly dominated by "knowledge-based"
service, but it is not connecting effectively with the
educational system. Nine-tenths of Hispanics lived in
metropolitan areas in 2000 (Orfield, 2002). Unless this
connection is made, the Hispanic community, which
by mid-century will be some three times as large as the
present Black community, will be severely excluded.
EDUCATION OF HISPANICS IN THE 20TH
CENTURY
The roots and patterns of contemporary Hispanic
education can be found in the Spanish, Mexican, and
Anglo conquests of North America. The original
Spanish influence extended from the Carolinas and
Florida on the East Coast, down through the Gulf
Coast and on to the western part of the United States.
By the early 180Os, the vast majority of Spanish
subjects were concentrated in Indian-controlled lands
of what was known as the Southwest: California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Informal learning
was the norm during the years of Spanish rule.

Emerging Needs
Schooling began to emerge during the 19th century
to meet the growing needs of the Hispanic population
for literacy and socialization. A variety of public,
parochial, and private secular schools were established
during this period. The schools provided, however,
were limited in many respects. They were segregated,
assimilationist, nonacademic in orientation, and
inferior to those provided for other children. No higher
education facilities were provided for Hispanic
children. In the early 20th century and until 1965,
public education became the dominant form of
learning in the Hispanic community. Private forms of
schooling existed, but the community, augmented by
an influx of immigrants from Puerto Rico, began to
increasingly support public education over other types
of schooling. However, due to their subordinate status
in the society where they were concentrated, Hispanics
were provided with segregated and inferior forms of
public education.
During the contemporary period, from 1965 to the
present, public education continues to be the dominant
form of schooling for the Hispanic population. As a
result of various pressures, the schools have become
more sensitive to the academic, cultural, and linguistic
needs of the Hispanic population. However, the
patterns of inequality have continued. Unequal access
to unequal schools continues to characterize the
schooling of Hispanics. Unlike the past, the Hispanic
community has become more diverse and includes a
significant number of immigrants from all areas of the
Spanish-speaking world, including Mexico, Puerto
Rico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South
America.
Hispanic education underwent many significant
transformations that in many ways reflected the
changes underway in American life. These
transformations affected and were affected by the
cultural developments occurring. Despite these
changes, the patterns of Hispanic education formed in
the latter part of the 19th century did not change
significantly. The schools continued to be exclusionary
and discriminatory.
Throughout the 20th century, Hispanics continued
to be educated by a variety of formal and informal
institutions. Parochial and private secular schools
provided essential knowledge, values, and skills for
Hispanic achievement. Schooling, especially public
education, assumed a new importance as it became the
dominant form of education for all groups, including
Hispanics. Increased state support for public schooling,
as well as pressures from industry and from Hispanics,
made this institution the dominant form of education in
the 20th century.
Public education changed dramatically. So did the
composition, status, and ideological orientation of the
Hispanic population. Between 1900 and 1980, the
goals, structure, and content of public education were
2
transformed as a result of pressures from various
sources. Education was extended to individuals from
all racial, national, gender, and age groups.
Governance structures were altered to benefit middle-
class individuals. New innovations in educational
administration, such as standardized testing, were
introduced. The curriculum was diversified to meet the
varied needs of the heterogeneous student population.
Educational programs were standardized. Instructional
methodology was revolutionized through the
introduction of a new psychology and more
sophisticated learning theories. One-room schools in
rural areas were consolidated into larger units for
efficiency, and schools became articulated from
elementary to the postsecondary grades.
The Hispanic population, with the exception of
Cubans, is composed of a large poor and working-class
sector and a small but increasing group of middle-class
individuals. As a group, Hispanics are politically
powerless, economically impoverished, and socially
alienated. Most of them live in highly segregated
communities, tend to speak Spanish as a group, and
live in dismal housing conditions. Hispanics are
predominantly a cheap source of labor for American
industry. Despite their "common lot," the Hispanic
population has a range of views and experiences with
education that has affected their schooling in the
United States. Some, such as the first wave of Cuban
immigrants in 1959, were middle class in status and
had benefited from education in their country. They
embraced all forms of education and actively sought
schooling in the United States. Others, such as
Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, have more diverse
experiences that range from no schooling of any sort to
college degrees. They, unlike the Cubans, are more
ambivalent about education in general and public
schools in particular. A large proportion of those who
migrated from poor rural areas in Mexico have no
formal school traditions and tend to be indifferent or
distrustful of education in the United States. Still
others, including the small but growing middle class
and the more stable sectors of the working class,
actively seek educational opportunities and take
whatever measures are needed to obtain them.
The range of views and experiences with education,
as well as the diversity of Hispanic groups, posed
significant challenges for public education over the
decades. Public schools, however, did not meet these
challenges. For the most part, schools and those who
shaped them ignored the particular needs of the
heterogeneous Hispanic student population or else
interpreted them in such a way that the differences
brought by these children had to be eliminated. In
many cases, the schools responded not to the genuine
needs of this diverse group of children but to those of
other stronger political and economic interests. As a
result of these contextual realities, the 19th century
pattern of inequitable, segregated, and inferior

schooling was extended and strengthened over time.
Hispanic students were provided with access to
schools, but they were inequitable. The schools they
were provided also were inferior, segregated, and
academically weak.
School Access
Hispanics were provided in the 20th century with
increasing albeit inequitable access to the elementary,
secondary, and postsecondary grades of the public
schools. In the first half of the century, Mexican
American school-age children gained access to public
education in large part owing to the increasing
availability of school facilities, their migration to urban
areas, greater economic stability, and, especially, their
resolve and desire to educate their young. Increased
access to public education became apparent by 1930.
In 1900, for example, slightly less than 50% of the
Hispanic students, that is, school-age children between
five and 17 in New Mexico were enrolled in the public
schools. By 1930, Hispanic enrollment in the public
schools had increased to 74% in New Mexico. Data
from other parts of the Southwest, although
incomplete, show that the proportion of Hispanic
children enrolled in school also increased during these
30 years. In Texas at the turn of the century, for
instance, less than 18% of the Hispanic school-age
children were enrolled in any type of school, much less
public ones. By 1930, close to 50% of Hispanic
school-age children in Texas were enrolled. In that
same year, the proportion of Hispanic school-age
children enrolled in public schools of California stood
at 58%.
Access to public education stemmed from a variety
of forces, including increased district ability to finance
the establishment of schools, local willingness to
expand educational opportunities to all levels of
society, and political support for the enactment and
enforcement of child labor and school attendance laws.
Community resolve was also an important factor in
increased school enrollment. Hispanics had, as did
most other groups, diverse views regarding education.
Some Hispanics, especially those from the poorer
classes and recent immigrants from Mexico, were
unaware of the importance of education as an
instrument of mobility. They were distrustful of the
assimilationist role of public education. They were
unable to send their children to school for economic
reasons. But there were other Hispanic individuals and
groups within the community who were supportive of
education and took whatever actions they could to
enroll their children in the schools. Although the
majority of those in support of education came from
the wealthier sector of the community, there were also
working-class individuals. The number of working-
class Hispanic individuals and groups who, despite
their grim circumstances, made great sacrifices to
educate their children increased over time. During the
early 20th century, a larger number of them began to
3
send their children to the public schools. An increasing
stability in employment, migration to urban areas
within the Southwest, and a slight increase in their
ability to send their children to school encouraged
these trends.
Despite the increasing access to education, a large
proportion of Hispanic students continued to be out of
school, largely because of poverty, mobility associated
with rural employment, and discrimination on the part
of educational policymakers. Three major groups of
students were denied full access to public education
during the first half of the 20th century: agricultural
migrants, secondary school-age students, and
postsecondary school-age students. School officials
excluded these children from the public schools or else
took little positive action to encourage their
enrollment. In the 1920s and early 1930s, for instance,
local officials refused migrant and rural children
admission to the elementary grades. Although special
laws were passed in areas such as California and New
Mexico for the education of migrant children, no
significant action was taken by public officials to
ensure their enrollment. During the second quarter of
the 20th century, largely from 1925 to 1950, local
officials also excluded older Hispanic students from
gaining access to the secondary and postsecondary
grades. Local officials refused to allow Hispanic
students admission into Anglo high schools or failed to
establish sufficient secondary schools for them. Higher
education officials also failed to recruit or allow
Hispanics entry to postsecondary educational
institutions.
After World War II, Hispanic access to the public
schools increased so significantly that by the third
quarter of the 20th century this group gained parity in
elementary and secondary school enrollment. Data
from Texas, for instance, indicate that between 1942
and 1960 the proportion of Hispanic school-age
children enrolled in public schools skyrocketed from
53% to 79%. Hispanic enrollment in the other states
also became significant and ranged between 84% in
Arizona to 91% in California. Enrollment continued to
increase so that by 1980 the overwhelming majority of
Hispanic students in the Southwest were enrolled in
the elementary and secondary grades. By 1980, the
proportion of Hispanic school-age children enrolled in
the public schools increased to slightly over 91%.
Increased educational access during this period was
spurred by a variety of forces, including the continued
expansion and extension of public educational
opportunities to all levels of society, the vigorous
enforcement of child labor and school-attendance laws,
and the addition of new curricula aimed at working-
class children. Added vigor in Hispanic resolve was
also an important factor in increased school
enrollment. The increased support by Hispanics for
public education as well as their greater involvement in
challenging the exclusionary and discriminatory

character of public education likewise led to increased
access.
Despite the increased access by Hispanics during
the post-World War II period, there was still a
significant proportion of these children who were not
enrolled in the public schools. Two major groups of
students continued to be excluded or denied full
admission to the schools: non-citizens and college
students. In the early 1970s, local officials, led by the
state of Texas, excluded the children of undocumented
workers from enrolling in public schools. Although
this exclusionary practice was challenged and
overturned by the courts, there were still thousands of
children, both citizens and non-citizens, who were not
allowed in the schools. As noted earlier, by the 1970s,
notwithstanding lingering inequities, Hispanics had
reached parity with the total school-age population in
the elementary and secondary grades, but not in
postsecondary school enrollment. For this reason, the
central issue by the 1970s was no longer access to the
elementary and secondary grades but rather access to
quality educational services within the public schools
and access to higher education.
School Facilities
While access to public schools for Hispanic
children increased over time, owing to their
subordinate status, they were provided with segregated
and unequal facilities. Although segregation originated
in the mid-19th century, it expanded significantly in
the 20th century. Segregation grew in existing
communities in the Southwest in the first quarter of the
20th century and expanded to the rest of the country by
mid-century. Because of the high withdrawal rates of
Hispanic children from the public schools in the early
decades of the 20th century, segregation was confined
to the elementary grades. However, once Hispanic
children began to seek access to secondary schooling,
local officials established segregated facilities in these
grades. The number of segregated secondary schools
increased significantly after World War II.
Politics and prejudice were key in establishing
segregated facilities, but culture and class became
crucial in maintaining and extending this practice over
time. State officials played an important role in the
expansion of school segregation by sanctioning its
presence and by funding local requests for increased
Hispanic segregation. Residential segregation,
demographic shifts in the population, and economic
conditions likewise greatly affected the expansion of
segregation in the 20th century. In addition to being
separate, these schools were unequal in many respects
to those provided for Anglo children. The facilities, for
the most part, were older and more dilapidated than
those for Anglos. Recreation space was usually
minimal and substandard in comparison to Anglo
schools. The school equipment was generally less
adequate for the students' needs. Per-pupil
expenditures in the Hispanic schools were extremely
4
low. Finally, the staff of these schools were less
appropriately trained, qualified, and experienced than
those in Anglo schools.
School Administration
Another major pattern of Hispanic education was in
school administration. Local officials developed
administrative measures that were discriminatory
toward these children. This can be seen in the
evolution of assessment and placement practices and in
the pattern of interaction between Hispanic students,
their peers, and the teaching staff. Hispanic children,
similar to other working-class, immigrant, and racially
different children, were (a) consistently diagnosed as
inferior, retarded, or learning-disabled, (b) channeled
into low-track classes, and (c) deprived of
opportunities for success. Their mental, emotional, and
language abilities were assessed on the basis of biased
instruments and used to classify Hispanic children as
intellectually inferior, culturally backward, and
linguistically deprived. Class and racial biases and
economic imperatives shaped these assessments. Once
classified as inferior, Hispanic children were
systematically placed in "developnientally appropriate"
instructional groups, classes, or curricular tracks. At
the elementary level, Hispanics were assigned to
mostly slow-learning or nonacademic classes. At the
secondary level, administrators assigned these
culturally different children to vocational or general
education courses and discouraged them from taking
academic classes. Tracking of Hispanics originated in
the late 1920s and expanded after World War II. The
policies, procedures, and practices utilized by school
administrators to assess and classify students, place
them in classes, or promote them through the grades
served to stratify the student population according to
various categories and to reproduce the existing
relations of social and economic domination in the
classroom.
The discriminatory treatment of Hispanic children
was also apparent in the communication amongst
them, their peers, and the instructional staff. Local
educators provided Hispanic children with schools that
were staffed by instructors who were insensitive or
oblivious to the cultural and special educational needs
of these children. Although some of these teachers
were caring instructors, the majority had low
expectations of the children's learning abilities, and
they discouraged, at times unwittingly, Hispanics from
achieving. They also ridiculed them for their culturally
distinctive traits. Many Hispanic children were
punished simply for speaking Spanish at school or in
the classroom. Teachers also interacted with Anglo
students more and had less praise for Hispanic
children. The peers of Hispanic students, likewise,
mistreated and ostracized them over time (Laosa,
1999; Orfield, Bachmeier, James, & Eitle, 1997).
Curricular Policy

Throughout the 20th century, public officials
continued to provide Hispanic children with a
curriculum that was culturally partial toward Anglos
and linguistically subtractive, despite minority efforts
to reintroduce language and culture into the schools.
Local educators also provided these children with a
curriculum that was academically imbalanced. The
curriculum for Hispanic schoolchildren originally was
comprised of the "three Rs" (reading, writing, and
arithmetic) and some socialization, but, in the early
decades of the 20th century, it began to change.
Sometime in the early 190Os, the Hispanic curriculum
began to emphasize socialization and nonacademic
concerns at the expense of academic ones. At the
elementary level, Hispanic education shifted its
emphasis from the three Rs to focusing more on the
teaching of common cultural norms, civics instruction,
and command of the English language. At the
secondary grades, the emphasis was shifted to
vocational and general education. Although composed
of some elements of the three Rs, the curriculum for
Hispanics in the secondary grades came to have larger
doses of more applied instruction.
In addition to becoming academically imbalanced,
the curriculum also was linguistically and culturally
intolerant. Intolerance was reflected in instructional
materials and school textbooks, which, for the most
part, either omitted or distorted the Hispanic cultural
heritage. Linguistic intolerance was reflected in the
English-only policies and anti-Spanish practices found
in most public school systems throughout the country.
Both cultural and language exclusion were opposed by
Hispanics and other groups and at times challenged by
them. The history of language policy in the United
States illustrates this process of Hispanic challenges to
assimilationism in the schools. The curriculum for
Hispanics was by the second decade of the 20th
century increasingly intolerant of diversity. It had
negatively evaluated and rejected the Spanish language
and the Hispanic cultural background of these children.
This form of intolerance was reflected in curricular
language policies and in the passage of English-only
laws. English-language policies, however, were
consistently questioned or challenged over the years by
various groups, including Hispanics. The repeal of
prescriptive laws by the Supreme Court in the 1920s,
the modification of prescriptive English-only laws in
the Southwest during the 1930s and 1940s, and the
introduction of foreign languages into the elementary
schools during the 1950s illustrate the result of added
legal pressures in support of language diversity in
American public life. The most significant attempt to
confront the ideology of assimilationism in the schools
and in American life was initiated by various groups,
especially Hispanics, during the period from 1965 to
1980. These groups viewed political empowerment
and cultural resurgence as the key to academic and
socioeconomic success. As a result of their awareness
5
and growing political strength, these new forces began
to challenge the cultural and political hegemony of the
dominant groups by promoting significant educational
reforms and by supporting the reintroduction of
language, culture, and community into the public
schools. Specific language reforms were proposed by
activists, including the elimination of the English-only
laws and the enactment of federal and state legislation
supporting the use of non-English languages in the
conduct and operation of public schools.
Hispanics and their allies were quite successful in
accomplishing these goals and in promoting increased
tolerance toward Spanish and other non-English
languages in the schools, as well as in other aspects of
government. Their efforts more particularly led to the
repeal of subtractive language policies and to the
enactment of more tolerant ones. Federal policies, for
instance, began to recognize and urge the utilization of
non-English languages in the schools. The United
States Congress enacted bilingual education
legislation, the Supreme Court forbade English-only
instruction and sanctioned the use of native-language
instruction in the schools, and the executive branch of
government issued various documents supporting the
use of non-English languages in educational services.
These actions served as catalysts for the increased
support of bilingualism in the schools at the local and
state levels. Between 1967 and 1980, for instance,
more than 24 states passed some form of legislation
either permitting or requiring the use of a language
other than English in its public institutions, especially
the public schools.
The increased use of non-English languages in the
public schools led to much confusion over the goals of
bilingual education and whether this program should
be aimed at promoting bilingualism or English fluency.
Although prominent educators and government
officials argued that the ultimate goal of bilingual
education was to promote bilingualism and
biculturalism among schoolchildren, formal policy was
geared toward the learning of English. In practice,
English became the dominant language used in
bilingual education programs. During the last two
decades, various reports found empirical evidence of
this fact (Comptroller General of the United States,
1978; Crawford, 1989). According to these reports, the
vast majority of bilingual programs in the United
States, usually over 80% of them, discouraged the use
of minority children's native language and helped to
facilitate language shift among them. Non-English
languages then were rarely used in bilingual programs.
Despite the dominance of English in bilingual
policy and practice, even during its prime in the 1970s,
individuals and groups began to oppose the idea of
non-English language use in public life. In the 1980s,
assimilationism once again, as in the 1920s, resurfaced
with a vengeance owing to, in many respects, the
growing number of individuals and groups (such as the

U.S. English and English First) who were opposed to
pluralist and egalitarian ideologies. They have
successfully led efforts to repeal bilingual policies and
have enacted English-only laws. Although Hispanics
continue to support bilingualism in American
institutional life, the forces of assimilation have
become once again dominant in today's world,
including the public schools.
School Performance
A major educational consequence of inferior
schooling as well as unfavorable socioeconomic
circumstances in the 20th century was the
establishment of a pattern of skewed academic
performance characterized by a dominant tradition of
underachievement and a minor one of success. The
pattern of poor school performance has been
documented over the decades by social scientists and
scholars in general. The dimensions of the pattern of
poor school performance can be documented by
analyzing various measures, such as achievement test
scores, withdrawal rates from school, and the median
number of school years for the population age 25 years
and older. For the most part, Hispanics have had lower
test scores, higher withdrawal rates, and lower median
number of school years than Anglos or the general
population (Puma, Jones, Rock, & Fernandez, 1993;
U.S. Department of Education, 1993). Although there
has been some improvement in these scores over the
decades, the gap between these two groups has not
changed significantly over time and continues into the
contemporary period. Additionally, according to
reports in 1991 (Brooks-Gunn, Denner, & Klebanov,
1995; U.S. Department of Education, 1997), the
Hispanic dropout rate was significantly higher than
that of other ethnic groups at 35.3% compared to 8.9%
of Whites and 13.6% of Blacks. The case of Hispanics
in Texas illustrates this continuing pattern of poor
school performance. In the 1920s, an overwhelming
majority of Hispanics in Texas, approximately 75% of
them, withdrew from school by the third grade. During
the 1940s, half of the Hispanic student population
withdrew from the public schools before reaching the
secondary grades. Withdrawal rates were still
abysmally high in the 1960s and 1970s, ranging
anywhere from 40% to 80%, depending on local and
state circumstances.
Not all Hispanic students have done poorly in
school. Contrary to popular and scholarly opinion, a
small proportion has done extremely well in
achievement test scores, received a high school
diploma, and continued into postsecondary education
(Crawford, 1989). This small group, of which we
know little, experienced a pattern of school success,
not academic failure. This group is composed of those
individuals who completed postsecondary education
during the 1960s and 1970s. Considering that the
overwhelming majority of Hispanic students dropped
out between the third and sixth grades prior to the
6
1950s, completion of secondary school can be viewed
as one aspect of academic achievement. The
emergence of a professional and intellectual group of
Hispanics likewise indicates scholastic achievement
that has gone unrecorded. The existence of high school
graduates in the past and college graduates in the
contemporary period refutes the myth of
unprecedented underachievement and suggests a more
diverse pattern of school performance in the Hispanic
community, Hispanics, then, have had a checkered
pattern of academic performance, not merely one of
underachievement. The pattern of success needs to be
explored substantially in order to better understand
how these students overcame what were obviously
tremendous odds.
The national debate about school segregation has
typically been framed exclusively in terms of race, and
more specifically in terms of only two groups (i.e.,
Black and White). That view, however, overlooks
other significant forms of present-day school
segregation, including segregation by socioeconomic
level, ethnicity or national origin, and native language.
Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that
Hispanics have a special stake in these concerns. In
Keyes v. School District No. 1 (1973), the Court held
that Hispanics "constitute an identifiable class for
purposes of the 14th Amendment" of the U.S.
Constitution, having agreed that Hispanic and African
American students "in Denver suffer identical
discrimination in treatment when compared with the
treatment afforded Anglo students," and concluded that
schools with a predominant proportion of Hispanic
students are classifiable as "segregated schools in their
own right." National statistics show, for example, that
school segregation trends for Hispanics differ from
those for African Americans. School segregation of
African American children declined dramatically from
the mid 1960s through the early 1970s-as a result of
the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court Brown decision and the
ensuing struggles culminating in the 1964 Civil Rights
Act-and then remained largely stable until the mid
1980s when, in a reversal of this trend, it began to rise.
In sharp contrast, school segregation of Hispanic
children has been steadily increasing since at least the
mid 1960s, when national statistics on the subject were
first collected (Orfield & Yun, 1999).
In fact, national statistics now show higher levels of
school segregation for Hispanics than for African
Americans (Orfield & Yun, 1999; U.S. Department of
Education, 1997). Since 1980, Hispanics have been
more likely than African Americans to attend
predominantly minority schools. For example, in the
1968-1969 school year, 77% of African American and
55% of Hispanic children attended predominantly
minority schools. By 1996-1997, 69% of African
American and 75% of Hispanic children were
attending predominantly minority schools (Orfield &
Yun, 1999).

Although the level of school segregation of
Hispanic students is high across the country, it is
highest for the substantially Puerto Rican population of
the Northeast U.S., but it is rapidly rising in other parts
of the country with high concentrations of Hispanics
(Orfield & Yun, 1999). As social institutions, schools
are "ecologically" embedded in individual
communities, part of a larger social, cultural, political,
and economic environment. The characteristics of each
school will be determined in part by this ecology.
Particularly in the U.S., vast ecological differences
exist among schools-differences that raise questions
about the role of schools in creating or maintaining
socioeconomic stratification and ethno-cultural or
linguistic isolation. These critical ecological attributes
of schools include the student body's racial/ethnic,
linguistic, and socioeconomic composition. These
considerations bear especially on children from
immigrant and other ethno-cultural and linguistic
national minorities. For many of these children, the
school is the first-and perhaps the only-influential
point of direct experience with a "mainstream"
socializing institution.
The noted school segregation, indeed, has
underlying causes that are complex and in need of
further examination. Regardless of the causes,
however, the observed patterns of segregation give
cause for concern, for the following reasons.
Separation and Equality. The research by Laosa
(2001) shows that separate is not equal. School
segregation by race/ethnicity and language is closely
associated with school segregation by poverty and by
parental education. Furthermore, racial/ethnic and
linguistic segregation are associated with crowded
schools. A child in a school with a relatively high
concentration of pupils who are Hispanic or native
speakers of Spanish is more likely to be in a school
with a high concentration of pupils from economically
impoverished and poorly educated families and more
likely to be in a crowded school located in a poor
inner-city area. In contrast, a focal child in a school
with a relatively high proportion of White pupils is
likely to be in a school with relatively few students
from economically impoverished or poorly educated
families, and a school that is not located in an
economically depressed or highly urbanized area. The
relationship of school segregation to poverty takes on
added significance in the light of research generally
suggesting an influence of the student body's
socioeconomic status (SES) on scholastic achievement.
That is, the higher a school's concentration of
economically impoverished students, the higher the
incidence of low academic achievers. Although SES
typically refers to the background of individuals, a
growing body of research suggests that the SES of a
child's school's student body may be as critical an
influence on the child's academic achievement as is the
7
SES of the child's household (Puma et al, 1993; U.S.
Department of Education, 1996).
It is also likely that the ecology of schools can
affect a child's long-term social development. For
instance, a neighborhood with a high unemployment
rate will likely provide limited exposure to
successfully employed role models (Brooks-Gunn et
al, 1995; Wilson, 1995). Children in such schools are
largely excluded from a range of options and
opportunities commonly available in middle-class
schools.
The findings raise crucial questions concerning
equality of educational opportunity, fairness, and
social justice-concerns that urgently need the attention
of educators, parents, and policymakers. Equal
educational opportunity is the fundamental American
answer to social and economic inequality, but de facto
school segregation by race, ethnicity, or language
concentrates poverty and low academic achievement in
schools that are not equal, which is a historical and
contemporary fact. Such schools are often vulnerable
to becoming overwhelmed with problems of
economically impoverished and poorly educated
families isolated in neighborhoods lacking many of the
opportunities typically available in other schools. High
priority must be given to the challenging task of
providing access for these children to appropriate and
effective schooling so that every student can have a
fair chance of becoming a full participant in American
society.
Opportunities for Interaction and Exposure to
Diversity. When students are isolated from peers of
different racial/ethnic, linguistic, or socioeconomic
backgrounds they are deprived of appropriate
occasions for inter-group interactions. They are also
deprived of the opportunity to develop the socio-
cultural knowledge, shared understandings, and
behavior patterns that they will need as adults in order
to function harmoniously and productively in
ethnically heterogeneous settings-a serious problem for
a society as increasingly diverse as the USA (Laosa,
1999). Viewed from a research perspective, the
observed differences among the schools in levels of
ethno-linguistic segregation constitute a series of
naturally occurring experiments, which raise questions
in need of study. For example, on the one hand, will a
Spanish-speaking child's motivation to learn English
be stronger in a school in which the majority of the
pupils are monolingual speakers of English than in a
school in which native speakers of Spanish
preponderate? On the other hand, will the child's socio-
emotional development and psychosocial adaptation be
easier in the latter school? Are particular educational
approaches more or less effective depending on the
linguistic composition of the school's student body?
Research addressing these and other issues concerning
the increasing segregation of children in our nation's
schools is greatly needed.

JUDICIAL TRENDS
Separate Is Not Equal
The thin disguise to which Justice Harlan referred
endured for a half century, until African American
plaintiffs in a series of court cases challenged the
constitutionality of school segregation. These cases
culminated in the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court landmark
decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education.
The plaintiffs were African Americans who sought
admission to the public schools of their community on
a non-segregated basis. These plaintiffs were attacking
not only inequality, but also segregation itself (Orfleld,
Eaton, & the Harvard Project on School
Desegregation, 1996). In its decision in Brown v.
Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed
a constitutional trend begun long before Plessy. The
Chief Justice, Earl Warren, delivering the Court's
unanimous opinion in favor of the African American
plaintiffs, stated, "We conclude that, in the field of
public education, the doctrine of 'separate but equal'
has no place. Separate educational facilities are
inherently unequal." The plaintiffs had therefore been
"deprived of the equal protection of the laws
guaranteed by the 14th Amendment" of the U.S.
Constitution; consequently, intentional segregation in
public schools was unconstitutional. By thus ruling
that de jure segregation was unlawful, the Brown
decision effectively reversed the Plessy decision,
which rested on the principle that there could be
"separate but equal" treatment of people. Central to the
promise inherent in the Brown decision is the belief
that racial/ethnic segregation in public education has a
detrimental effect on children and "may affect their
hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone"-
not because racially/ethnically segregated institutions
are inherently inferior, but due to continuing structural
inequities directly attributable to racial/ethnic
prejudice and discrimination (Jones, 1996).
Questions for the Courts
Although the Supreme Court's decision in Brown
greatly encouraged many Hispanics, it did not offer
definitive guidance on how to combat discrimination
against them. Various judicial issues have arisen in
desegregation litigation involving this racial/ethnic
group, particularly including issues regarding the
identifiability of the group and of its members. A
central question the courts have asked in judging
whether the isolation of Hispanic students violates the
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is
whether Hispanics constitute a group (i.e., a "class")
that should be legally treated in the same manner as
African Americans. In other words, are Hispanics a
group such that discrimination against them violates
the equal protection clause? Schools, courts, and
policymakers were uncertain how to categorize
Hispanics for the purposes of civil rights (Gonzalez,
1982; Laosa, 1984). An important key to questions of
how to combat discrimination against Hispanic
8
students appeared in the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which required cutting off federal funds to school
districts and other institutions that discriminate
(Gonzalez, 1982). This law established a legal basis to
regulate matters pertaining to national-origin
discrimination in addition to race. Title VI of the Act
states, "No person in the United States shall, on the
grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Despite this country's long history of persistent school
segregation and other forms of discrimination against
Hispanic students (see Laosa, 1984), the task of
proving to the courts that these discriminatory
practices are de jure rather than de facto was
frequently more difficult for this racial/ethnic group
than for African Americans.
In cases involving discrimination against African
Americans in the South, previous state statutes or
constitutional provisions requiring segregation of this
group had usually existed, and they were widely
known and understood and could be readily
documented. In order to establish a case of unlawful
segregation, therefore, African American plaintiffs
have needed merely to show the continued presence of
school segregation in school systems formerly
segregated by law. In contrast, Hispanic plaintiffs have
frequently been hindered by a lack of systematic
documentation concerning the magnitude of
educational exclusion of their group and by unclear
understandings of the policies underlying the group's
marginalization (González, 1982; Laosa, 1984;
Levin, Castaneda, & Von-Euler, 1977; Orfield, 1978).
In the absence of a statutory history of de jure
segregation, Hispanic plaintiffs in segregation cases
have been required to show that they are segregated
and that the segregation is attributable to intentional
action by school officials or other state authorities. In
other words, proving to the courts that the isolation of
Hispanic students constitutes a violation of the equal
protection clause has required a showing of de jure
segregation attributable not to statute but instead to the
action of school officials.
For example, in United States v. Texas Education
Agency (1972), the circuit court found intentional
segregative action by the school district, particularly in
the choice of school sites, construction of schools,
drawing of attendance zones, and student assignment
and transfer policies. Thus, despite the absence of a
previous statute requiring segregation of Hispanic
students, the court found de jure segregation of this
racial/ethnic group, and stated that discrimination in
this case was "no different from any other school
desegregation case." Once the necessary intentional
segregative actions were found, coupled with a high
concentration of Hispanic students in some schools, a

prima facie case of unlawful segregation was
established (Levin et al., 1977; Roos, 1977).
Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School
District (1970) is the first circuit court case to hold that
Hispanics must be considered an identifiable minority
group for purposes of desegregation-that is to say, that
the principles enunciated in Brown v. Board of
Education apply to Hispanics as well as to African
Americans. This decision prevented school officials in
Corpus Christi, Texas, from claiming that they had
desegregated a school by placing in it only African
American and Hispanic (i.e., Mexican American)
students (Gonzalez, 1982; Levin et al., 1977).
The U.S. Supreme Court tried to untangle the
problem of school segregation as it relates to Hispanics
in 1973, in the case of Keyes v. School District No. 1
(1973) in Denver, Colorado. In Keyes, the Supreme
Court recognized the problem but did not solve it
entirely, seemingly saying that at least some Hispanics,
in some regions, under some conditions, should be
recognized as a distinct class (Gonzalez, 1982; Levin
et al., 1977; Roos, 1977). Specifically, the Court
recognized that Hispanics and African Americans in
Denver "suffer identical discrimination in treatment
when compared with the treatment afforded Anglo
students," and held, therefore, that Hispanics
"constitute an identifiable class for purposes of the
14th Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution, and that
schools with a predominant proportion of Hispanic
students are classifiable as "segregated schools in their
own right" (Keyes v. School District No. 1). Although
a narrow reading of the Keyes decision could indeed
limit applicability to Hispanics in the Southwest, in
applying Keyes, the courts have often "interpreted this
aspect of the holding expansively, neither restricting
application of the term Hispanic to Chicanes in the
Southwest nor requiring a showing of 'identical
discrimination.'"
Subsequent to Keyes, courts in school
desegregation cases have typically treated children
from other Hispanic groups as "minority" students. For
example, federal judges in New York and Boston
decided that desegregation could be extended to
Hispanic groups that were primarily Puerto Rican
(Teitelbaum & Hiller, 1977). More broadly, Keyes is
also significant because it expanded desegregation
requirements to the North and West. Before 1970,
legal developments had not affected racial segregation
patterns outside the South. Because the North and
West lacked a history of racially discriminatory laws,
segregation there had usually been characterized as de
facto. In the 1970s, however, the courts were finding-
as the Supreme Court did in the Keyes case in Denver-
that much northern urban segregation was de jure
segregation based not on statute but instead on specific
acts or policies of school boards and other school
officials (Brown, 1995).
CONCLUSION
9
May 2004 marked the 50th anniversary of the
landmark Brown v. Board of Education court decision,
which struck down "separate but equal" education. On
this 50 anniversary, it is an appropriate time for the
nation to reflect on the progress made in increasing
educational opportunities for America's children over
the last half a century and to unite in an effort to fulfill
the promise of the Brown decision.
The Brown decision has led to important gains in
the area of education for the Hispanic and African
American communities. On the heels of Brown,
Congress passed important legislation, including the
Elementary and secondary Education Act and the
Bilingual Education Act, which expanded educational
opportunities for millions of Hispanic and African
American children. The Brown decision was also
followed by several important court cases directly
benefiting language-minority children, including
Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby
(1989) and Edgewood Independent School District v
Menof(l995).
In the 50 years since the Brown decision, Hispanic
and African American school children have made great
strides. Prior to Brown, in many communities in the
Southwest the Hispanic dropout rate exceeded 80%.
While the current Hispanic dropout rate of 30% is far
too high, there is no question that public education
investments stemming from Brown contributed to this
improvement. However, it is clear that the high
Hispanic dropout rate continues to require a serious
response.
However, passage of the legislation alone will do
nothing to raise the academic achievement and
attainment levels of the fastest-growing, ethnic
population in our nation's public schools. The true test
of commitment to these children and to genuine reform
is to provide the resources necessary to make the No
Child Left Behind Act work. Unfortunately, the Bush
Administration has failed this test in the years
subsequent to NCLB's passage. Congress once again
has an opportunity to turn this around by providing
adequate funding for education programs contained in
NCLB, including programs for English language
learners and parental involvement.
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic
intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor's degree
attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Denner, J., & Klebanov, P. (1995).
Families and neighborhoods as contexts for education. In E.
Flaxman & A. H. Passow (Eds.), Changing populations,
changing schools. Ninety-fourth yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education Part 2 (pp. 233-252).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347
U.S. 483 (1954).
Brown, K. (1995). Revisiting the Supreme Court's
opinion in Brown v. Board of Education from a

multiculturalist perspective. Teachers College Record, 96,
644-653.
Carter, T. P., & Segura, R. (1979). Mexican Americans
in the public schools: A history of neglect. Princeton, NJ:
College Entrance Examination Board.
Chavez, L. (1998). The color blind: California's battle, to
end affirmative action. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Comptroller General of the United States. (1978).
Bilingual education: An unmet need. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Crawford, J. (1989). Bilingual education: History,
policy, theory, and practice. Trenton, NJ: Crane Publishing.
Edgewood Independent School District v Kirby, 777
S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1989).
Edgewood Independent School District v. Menof, 893
S.W. 2d 450 (Tex. 1995).
Garter, D. T., (1995). The politics of rage: George
Wallace, the origins of the new conservatism, and the
transformation of American politics. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
González, J. M. (1982). Hispanics, bilingual education
and desegregation: A review of major issues and policy
directions. Unpublished Report to the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights.
Halperin, S. (Ed.). (1998). The forgotten half revisited.
Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Hendrie, C. (1997, April 30). Without court orders,
schools ponder how to "pursue diversity." Education Week,
pp. 1 & 36.
Huckfeldt, R., & Kohfeld, C. W. (1989). Race and the
decline of class in American politics. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Jones, E. R. (1996). Foreword. In G. Orfield, S. E. Eaton
& the Harvard Project on School Desegregation (Eds.),
Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v.
Board of Education (pp. vii-ix). New York: The New
Press/Norton.
Key, Jr., V. O., (1949). Southern politics in state and
nation. New York: Knopf.
Keyes v. School District, No. 1, 413 U.S. 195-198
(Denver, 1973).
Laosa, L. M. (1984). Social policies toward children of
diverse ethnic, racial, and language groups in the United
States. In H. W. Stevenson & A. E. Siegel (Eds.), Child
development research and social policy (pp.1-109). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Laosa, L. M. (1999). Intercultural transitions in human
development and education. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 20, 355-406.
Laosa, L. M. (2001). School segregation of children who
migrate to the United States from Puerto Rico. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Levin, B., Castaneda, S., & Von-Euler, M., (1977).
Legal issues related to school desegregation and the
educational concerns of the Hispanic community. In
Desegregation and education concerns of the Hispanic
community, conference report (pp. 75-89). Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
Meier, K. J., & Stewart, J. (1987). The politics of
Hispanic education. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10
Moreno, J. E. (Ed.). (1999). The elusive quest for
equality: 150 Years of Chicana/Chicana education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Review.
Orfield, G. (1978). Must we bus? Segregated schools and
national policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Orfield, G. (2002). Commentary. In M. M. Suarez-
Orozco & M. M. Paez (Eds.), Hispanics: Remaking America
(pp. 389-397). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Orfield, G., Bachmeier, M., James, D. R., & Eitle, T.
(1997). Deepening segregation in American public schools.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on School Desegregation,
Harvard University.
Orfield, G., Eaton, S. E., & the Harvard Project on
School Desegregation. (1996). Dismantling desegregation:
The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New
York: The New Press/Norton.
Orfield, G., & Yun, J. T. (1999). Resegregation in
American schools. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project,
Harvard University.
Orland, M. E. (1994). Demographics of disadvantage:
Intensity of childhood poverty and its relationship to
educational achievement. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating
(Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our
nation's schools (pp. 43-58). New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Puma, M., Jones, C. C., Rock, D., & Fernandez, R.
(1993). Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of
educational growth and opportunity. Interim report prepared
for the U.S. Department of Education, Planning and
Evaluation Service. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
Reinhard, B. (1997, May 21). Judge blocks bid to ax
quotas in S.F. schools. Education Week, p. 3.
Roos, P. (1977). Issues in desegregation remedial order
for Hispanics. In proceedings of the conference on
Desegregation and education concerns of the Hispanic
community (pp. 29-35). Washington, DC: National Institute
of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
Rumbaut, R. G. (1995). The new Californians:
Comparative research findings on the educational progress
of immigrant children, In R. G. Rumbaut & W. A. Cornelius
(Eds.), California's immigrant children: Theory, research,
and implications for educational policy (pp. 17-70). San
Diego: University of California.
Selingo, J. (2003, January 27). The broad reach of the
Michigan cases. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Teitelbaum, H., & Killer, R. J. (1977). Bilingual
education: The legal mandate. Harvard Educational Review,
47, 138-170.
U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Digest of
education statistics, 1993 (pp. 93-292). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education (1994). National
Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88/94), Data
Analysis System: Author
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Urban schools:
The challenge of location and poverty. Executive Summary.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
U.S. Government Printing Office: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Findings from the
condition of education 1997: No. 10. The social context of
education (NCES 97-981, by B. A. Young & T. M. Smith).
 11

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,

U.S. Government Printing Office: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Integrated
postsecondary education data surveys. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government
Printing Office: Author.
Wilson, W. J. (1995). Jobless ghettos and the social
outcome of youngsters. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr. & K.
Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on
the ecology of human development (pp. 527-543).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
A. Reynaldo Contreras San Francisco State University
AUTHOR
A. REYNALDO CONTRERAS is Professor of
Education in the College of Education at San Francisco
State University.
All queries or comments regarding this article should be
addressed to arc@sfsu.edu.
Copyright Howard University Summer 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning
Company. All rights Reserved
FindArticles > Journal of Negro Education, The >
Summer 2004 > Article > Print friendly
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_200
407/ai_n9468079