Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 October 2020
Middle grades education has been the object of efforts to remediate US education to address an array of social problems. Districts have sought out K-8 models to create smaller learning communities, require fewer school transitions, and allow sustained student connections. This paper offers a historical analysis of K-8 schools, drawing on statistical and spatial methods and a DisCrit intersectional lens to illustrate how creating K-8 schools produced enclaves of privilege in one urban school district. K-8 schools in our target district became whiter and wealthier than district averages. Students with disabilities attending K-8 schools tended to be placed in more inclusive classrooms, where they were more likely to be integrated alongside nondisabled peers than counterparts attending traditional middle schools. We consider how the configuration of K-8 schools, which could be considered an administrative decision to better serve students, has obscured interworkings of power and privilege.
1 DisCrit is a a theoretical framework that incoporates analysis of both race and disability, drawing on disability studies and critical race theory. See, for example, Connor, David J., Ferri, Beth A., and Annamma, Subini A., DisCrit: Disability Studies and Critical Race Theory in Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 2015)Google Scholar.
2 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 USC 1412 § 61(a)(5)(A) (2004); and Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. 94–142, (1975).
3 The other principles are (1) free appropriate public education (FAPE), (2) nondiscriminatory evaluation, (3) individualized education plan (IEP) (4) parental participation, and (5) procedural safeguards.
4 Kurth, Jennifer A., Morningstar, Mary E., and Kozleski, Elizabeth B., “The Persistence of Highly Restrictive Special Education Placements for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities,” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 39, no. 3 (Sept. 2014), 232CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 US Department of Education, 40th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2018 (Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 2018), 55, 148, 157.
6 Affleck, James Q. et al. , “Integrated Classroom Versus Resource Model: Academic Viability and Effectiveness,” Exceptional Children 54, no. 4 (Jan. 1988), 342CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Baker, Janice M. and Zigmond, Naomi, “Are Regular Education Classes Equipped to Accommodate Students with Learning Disabilities?,” Exceptional Children 56, no. 6 (April 1990), 520CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Banerji, Madhabi and Dailey, Ronald, “A Study of the Effects of an Inclusion Model on Students with Specific Learning Disabilities,” Journal of Learning Disabilities 28, no. 8 (Oct. 1995), 518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Hanushek, Eric A., Kain, John F., and Rivkin, Steven G., “Inferring Program Effects for Special Populations: Does Special Education Raise Achievement for Students with Disabilities?,” Review of Economics and Statistics 84, no. 4 (Nov. 2002), 584CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oh-Young, Conrad and Filler, John, “A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Placement on Academic and Social Skill Outcome Measures of Students with Disabilities,” Research in Developmental Disabilities 47 (Dec. 2015), 89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; and Ryndak, Diane, Jackson, Lewis B., and White, Julia M., “Involvement and Progress in the General Curriculum for Students with Extensive Support Needs: K–12 Inclusive-Education Research and Implications for the Future,” Inclusion 1, no. 1 (June 2013), 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Julie Causton-Theoharis et al., “Does Self-Contained Special Education Deliver on Its Promises? A Critical Inquiry into Research and Practice,” Journal of Special Education Leadership 24, no. 2, (Sept. 2011), 72; Jennifer Kurth, Kiara Born, and Hailey Love, “Ecobehavioral Characteristics of Self-Contained High School Classrooms for Students with Severe Cognitive Disability,” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 41, no. 4 (Dec. 2016), 235; and Jane H. Soukup et al., “Classroom Variables and Access to the General Curriculum for Students With Disabilities,” Exceptional Children 74 no. 1 (Oct. 2007), 114.
8 Michael Foster and Erin Pearson, “Is Inclusivity an Indicator of Quality of Care for Children with Autism in Special Education?,” Pediatrics 130, supplement 2 (Nov. 2012), S182; Mason Haber et al., “What Works, When, for Whom, and with Whom: A Meta-Analytic Review of Predictors of Postsecondary Success for Students With Disabilities,” Review of Educational Research 86, no. 1 (March 2016), 155–56; Valerie Mazzotti et al., “Predictors of Post-School Success: A Systematic Review of NLTS2 Secondary Analyses,” Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 39, no. 4 (Nov. 2016), 208; Lynn Newman et al., The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities Up to 8 Years After High School (Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2011); Jay W. Rojewski, In Heok Lee, and Noel Gregg, “Causal Effects of Inclusion on Postsecondary Education Outcomes of Individuals with High-Incidence Disabilities, Journal of Disability Policy Studies 25, no. 4 (March 2015), 214; and Janis White and Jan Weiner, “Influence of Least Restrictive Environment and Community Based Training on Integrated Employment Outcomes for Transitioning Students with Severe Disabilities,” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 21, no. 3 (2004), 150.
9 Amanda L. Sullivan and Sherrie L. Proctor, “The Shield or the Sword? Revisiting the Debate on Racial Disproportionality in Special Education and Implications for School Psychologists,” School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice 10, no. 3 (Fall 2016), 278–88; and Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides, Edward Fergus, and Kathleen A. King Thorius, “Pursuing Equity: Disproportionality in Special Education and the Reframing of Technical Solutions to Address Systemic Inequities,” Review of Research in Education 41, no. 1 (March 2017), 61–87.
10 David J. Connor and Beth A. Ferri, “Integration and Inclusion–A Troubling Nexus: Race, Disability, and Special Education,” Journal of African American History 90, no. 1/2 (Winter 2005), 107–27; and Beth A. Ferri and David J. Connor, Reading Resistance: Discourses of Exclusion in Desegregation and Inclusion Debates (New York: Peter Lang, 2006).
11 Connor and Ferri, “Integration and Inclusion,” 107–27; David J. Connor and Beth A. Ferri, “Historicizing Dis/Ability: Creating Normalcy, Containing Difference,” in Foundations of Disability Studies, ed. Matthew Wappat and Katrina L. Arndt (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013), 29–67; Jason Ellis and Paul Axelrod, “Continuity and Change: Special Education Policy Development in Toronto Public Schools, 1945 to the present,” Teachers College Record 118, no.2 (Feb. 2016), 1–42; and Barry M. Franklin. “Progressivism and Curriculum Differentiation: Special Classes in the Atlanta Public Schools, 1898–1923,” History of Education Quarterly 29, no. 4 (Winter 1989), 571–93.
12 US Department of Education, 40th Annual Report to Congress, 52–56.
13 Waldo E. Martin, Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford St. Martin's Press, 1998), 199–229. See also Ferri and Connor, Reading Resistance, [48–49]; Beth A. Ferri and David J. Connor, “In the Shadow of Brown: Special Education and Overrepresentation of Students of Color,” Remedial and Special Education 26, no. 2 (March 2005), 97–98; and Daniel J. Losen and Gary Orfield, eds., Racial Inequality in Special Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2002).
14 Ellen Brantlinger, Dividing Classes: How the Middle Class Negotiates and Rationalizes School Advantage (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2003), 53.
15 Maia Bloomfield Cucchiara and Erin McNamara Horvat, “Perils and Promises: Middle-Class Parental Involvement in Urban Schools,” American Educational Research Journal 46, no. 4 (Dec. 2009), 975.
16 Cucchiara and Horvat, “Perils and Promises,” 975.
17 Brantlinger, Dividing Classes, 589.
18 Colin Ong-Dean, Distinguishing Disability: Parents, Privilege, and Special Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 44.
19 Ong-Dean, Distinguishing Disability, 41–42.
20 Ong-Dean, Distinguishing Disability, 45.
21 Ong-Dean, Distinguishing Disability, 121.
22 Ong-Dean, Distinguishing Disability, 114.
23 Cecil Fore et al., “Academic Achievement and Class Placement in High School: Do Students with Learning Disabilities Achieve More in One Class Placement Than Another?,” Education and Treatment of Children 31, no. 1 (Feb. 2008), 65; Kurth, Morningstar, and Kozleski, “Persistence of Highly Restrictive Special Education Placements,” 232; and Ryndak, Jackson, and White, “Involvement and Progress,” 34.
24 Syracuse City School District Board of Education Meeting Minutes, Sept. 14, 2005, School Board Records, Syracuse, NY. School Board documents are maintained in binders at the Syracuse City School District Board of Education main office.
25 Syracuse City School District Board of Education Meeting Minutes, Sept. 14, 2005, School Board Records, Syracuse, NY.
26 Gonzalez, “Roberts Elementary Parents,” B1.
27 James A. Beane, “Middle Schools Under Siege,” Middle School Journal 30, no. 4 (March 1999), 3.
28 Vaughan Byrnes and Allen Ruby, “Comparing Achievement between K–8 and Middle Schools: A Large-Scale Empirical Study,” American Journal of Education 114, no. 1 (Nov. 2007), 102; Thomas Dickinson and Deborah Butler, “Reinventing the Middle School,” Middle School Journal 33, no. 1 (Sept. 2001), 7–13; C. Kenneth McEwin, Thomas S. Dickinson, and Michael G. Jacobson, “How Effective Are K-8 Schools for Young Adolescents?,” Middle School Journal 37, no. 1 (Sept. 2005), 24; and Mary Beth Schaefer, Kathleen F. Malu, and Bogum Yoon, “An Historical Overview of the Middle School Movement, 1963–2015,” RMLE Online 39, no. 5 (May 27, 2016), 5.
29 Kelly Bedard and Chau Do, “Are Middle Schools More Effective?: The Impact of School Structure on Student Outcomes,” Journal of Human Resources 40, no. 3 (Summer 2005), 660.
30 Byrnes and Ruby, “Comparing Achievement,” 102; Dickinson and Butler, “Reinventing the Middle School,” 7; Paul S. George, “K-8 or Not? Reconfiguring the Middle Grades,” Middle School Journal 37, no. 1 (Sept. 2005), 9; and Schaefer, Malu, and Yoon, “An Historical Overview,” 5.
31 John W. Alspaugh, “Achievement Loss Associated with the Transition to Middle School and High School,” Journal of Educational Research 92, no.1 (Sept. 1998), 20–25; Jay C. Hertzog and P. Lena’ Morgan, “Breaking the Barriers between Middle School and High School: Developing a Transition Team for Student Success,” NASSP Bulletin 82, no. 597 (April 1998), 94–98; and Edward Seidman et al., “The Impact of School Transitions in Early Adolescence on the Self-System and Perceived Social Context of Poor Urban Youth,” Child Development 65, no. 2 (April 1994), 507–22.
32 Byrnes and Ruby, “Comparing Achievement,” 103; Martha Abele Mac Iver and Douglas J. Mac Iver, “Which Bets Paid Off? Early Findings on the Impact of Private Management and K-8 Conversion Reforms on the Achievement of Philadelphia Students,” Review of Policy Research 23, no. 5 (Sept. 2006), 1077–93; and Christopher C. Weiss and E. Christine Baker-Smith, “Eighth-Grade School Form and Resilience in the Transition to High School: A Comparison of Middle Schools and K-8 Schools,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 20, no. 4 (Dec. 2010), 825–39.
33 Weiss and Kipnes, “Reexamining Middle School Effects,” 239.
34 McEwin, Dickinson, and Jacobson, “How Effective Are K-8 Schools,” 27.
35 Weiss and Baker-Smith, “Eighth-Grade School Form,” 836; Alspaugh, “Achievement Loss,” 24; and Byrnes and Ruby, “Comparing Achievement,” 127.
36 Byrnes and Ruby, “Comparing Achievement,” 103; Mac Iver and Mac Iver, “Which Bets Paid Off?,” 1086; and Weiss and Baker-Smith, “Eighth Grade School Form,” 833.
37 Byrnes and Ruby, “Comparing Achievement,” 105–106; Seidman et al., “Impact of School Transitions,” 519; Debra Viadero, “Evidence for Moving to K-8 Model Not Airtight,” Education Week 27, no. 19 (Jan 19, 2008), para 10; and Weiss and Baker-Smith, “Eighth Grade School Form,” 828.
38 James A. Beane, “Middle Schools under Seige: Points of Sttack,” Middle School Journal 30, no. 4 (March 1999), 3–9; Nolan Blair, “A Comparative Study of the Effects of Grade Configuration on Middle School and K-8 School Value Added Scores” (EdD diss., Tennessee State University, 2007); Rolf K. Blank, Roger E. Levine, and Lauri Steel, “After 15 Years: Magnet Schools in Urban Education,” in Who Chooses? Who Loses?: Culture, Institutions, and the Unequal Effects of School Choice, ed. Bruce Fuller and Richard F. Elmore (New York: Teachers College Press, 1996), 154–72; and Christopher C. Weiss and Lindsay Kipnes, “Reexamining Middle School Effects: A Comparison of Middle Grades Students in Middle Schools and K–8 schools,” American Journal of Education 112, no. 2 (Feb. 2006), 239–72.
39 One K-8 school opened in 1984, another in 1993, and two others in 1995. The first K-8 was created in response to the planned closure of a local middle school and the second to create more stability and fewer transitions for students. Daniel Gonzalez, “Roberts Elementary Parents, Teachers Push for K-8 School,” Syracuse (NY) Herald-Journal, Feb. 13, 1995, B1.
40 Paul Jargowsky, “The Architecture of Segregation: Civil Unrest, the Concentration of Poverty, and Public Policy,” The Century Foundation, Aug. 7, 2015, https://tcf.org/content/report/architecture-of-segregation/, Regional Variation.
41 Subini Ancy Annamma, David J. Connor, and Beth A. Ferri, “Touchstone Text: Dis/Ability Critical Race Studies (DisCrit): Theorizing at the Intersections of Race and Dis/ability,” in Connor, Ferri, and Annamma, DisCrit, 14.
42 Verónica N. Vélez and Daniel G. Solórzano, “Critical Race Spatial Analysis: Conceptualizing GIS as a Tool for Critical Race Research in Education,” in Critical Race Spatial Analysis: Mapping to Understand and Address Educational Inequity, ed. Deb Morrison, Subini Ancy Annamma, and Darrell D. Jackson (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2017), 17.
43 Edward Soja, Seeking Spatial Justice (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 40; and Zeus Leonardo and Alicia Broderick, “Smartness as Property: A Critical Exploration of Intersections between Whiteness and Disability Studies,” Teachers College Record 113, no. 10 (Oct. 2011), 2220.
44 Federico Waitoller and Joshua Radinsky, “Geospatial Perspectives of Neoliberal Education Reform: Examining Intersections of Ability, Race, and Social Class,” in Morrison, Annamma, and Jackson, Critical Race Spatial Analysis, 155.
45 Vélez and Solórzano, “Critical Race Spatial Analysis,” 20.
46 Annamma, Connor, and Ferri, “Touchstone Text,” 14.
47 Brantlinger, Dividing Classes, 26–27; and Brantlinger, Ellen, Majd-Jabbari, Massoumeh, and Guskin, Samuel L., “Self-Interest and Liberal Educational Discourse: How Ideology Works for Middle-Class Mothers,” American Educational Research Journal 33, no. 3 (Sept. 1996), 589CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
48 Hogrebe, Mark and Tate, William, “Place, Poverty, and Algebra: A Statewide Comparative Spatial Analysis of Variable Relationships,” Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College 3, no. 2 (Fall 2012), 14Google Scholar.
49 Sean Mulvenon et al., “A Case Study: Using Geographic Information Systems for Education Policy Analysis,” Educational Research Quarterly 30, no. 2 (Dec. 2006), 48.
50 Hogrebe and Tate, “Place, Poverty, and Algebra,” 16.
51 Ducre, K. Animashaun and Moore, Eli, “Extending the Time Line of Environmental Justice Claims: Redlining Map Digitization Project,” Environmental Practice 13, no. 4 (Dec. 2011), 338CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Jargowsky, “Architecture of Segregation,” 8.
53 Gonzalez, “Roberts Elementary Parents,” B1.
54 Maureen Nolan, “Several at Forum Seek to Save Solace Elementary,” (Syracuse) Post-Standard, Feb. 12, 2003, B3.
55 Nancy Smothergill, “Look More Deeply at Ed Smith Before Blaming Teachers for Ills,” (Syracuse) Post-Standard, Sept. 2, 2002, A7.
56 Grant Reeber, “Preserving Diversity in City Schools,” (Syracuse) Post-Standard, Aug. 16, 2002, A11.
57 Ngoc Huynh, “Don't Judge School by Its Cover: Principals Tell Concerned Parents that Levy Middle School Is a Good Place for Children to Be Educated,” (Syracuse) Post-Standard, Oct. 9, 2003, 3.
58 Huynh, “Don't Judge School by Its Cover,” 3.
59 Huynh, “Don't Judge School by Its Cover,” 3; and Reeber, “Preserving Diversity in City Schools,” A11.
60 Nolen, “Several at Forum,” B3.
61 Ducre and Moore, “Extending the Time Line,” 327.
62 Light, Jennifer S., “Nationality and Neighborhood Risk at the Origins of FHA Underwriting,” Journal of Urban History 36, no. 5 (Sept. 2010), 635–36Google Scholar.
63 Federal Housing Administration, Underwriting Manual: Underwriting and Valuation Procedure Under Title II of the National Housing Act (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, April 1936), Part II, Secion 2, Para 229.
64 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1937), Area A-3, Records of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) Record Group 195.3, HOLC City Survey File, 1935–40, Librariy of Congress, Washington, DC. Digital copies are available through Robert K. Nelson, et al., “Mapping Inequality,” American Panorama, ed. Robert K. Nelson and Edward L. Ayers, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=11/43.008/-76.383&city=syracuse-ny.
65 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1937), Area A-3.
66 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1937), Area B-3.
67 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1937), Area B-7.
68 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1940), Area B-6.
69 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1940), Area B-15.
70 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1937), Areas C-10 and D-6.
71 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1937), Area C-13.
72 Federal HOLC Security Area Descriptions for City of Syracuse (1937), Areas D-2 and D-4.
73 Daniel Aaronson, Daniel Hartley, and Bhashkar Mazumder, “The Effects of the 1930s HOLC ‘Redlining’ Maps,” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Working Papers (Revised February 2019) (WP 2017–12), https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/working-papers/2017/wp2017-12.
74 Ian Appel and Jordan Nickerson, “Pockets of Poverty: The Long-Term Effects of Redlining,” Social Science Research Network (Oct. 2016), 2–3; and Bruce Mitchell and Juan Franco, HOLC “Redlining” Maps: The Persistent Structure of Segregation and Economic Inequality (Washington, DC: National Community Reinvestment Coalition, 2018), 4–5, https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/02/NCRC-Research-HOLC-10.pdf.
75 McLeskey, James et al. , “Are We Moving toward Educating Students with Disabilities in Less Restrictive Settings?,” Journal of Special Education 46, no 3 (Nov. 2012), 135Google Scholar; Morningstar, Mary, Kurth, Jennifer, and Johnson, Paul, “Examining National Trends in Educational Placements for Students with Significant Disabilities,” Remedial and Special Education 38, no. 1 (Jan. 2017), 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Skiba, Russell et al. , “Risks and Consequences of Oversimplifying Educational Inequities: A Response to Morgan et al. (2015),” Educational Researcher 45, no. 3 (April 2016), 222CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
76 Viadero, Evidence for Moving, para 10; and Weiss and Kipnes, “Reexamining Middle School Effects,” 241.
77 Annamma, Connor and Ferri, “Touchstone Text, 14.
