In 2000, the Minneapolis Branch of the NAACP and the State of Minnesota reached a settlement
involving the Minneapolis Schools which provides for up to 2,000 low-income Minneapolis
students to attend schools in one of several suburban districts. Because of the state’s existing
open enrollment law, busing urban students to suburban schools had been occurring for many
years. But the settlement was still significant because it was akin to official recognition that the
high-poverty schools of Minneapolis lacked in comparison to their lower-poverty suburban
counterparts. In terms of the academic achievement of the suburban transfer students, as will be
discussed below, the results of the suburban transfer program to date have been mixed.
However, this paper suggests that allowing students from high poverty urban districts the
opportunity to attend suburban schools should be viewed as one component of contemporary
urban education policy.
Concentrated Poverty and Urban Schools
The politics of urban school reform has received extensive scholarly attention in recent years
(Henig et al., 1999; Henig and Rich, 2004; Howell, 2005; Portz et al., 1999; Stone, 1998; Stone
et al., 2001). Urban districts, heavily segregated by race and socioeconomic class, face
numerous obstacles when attempting to make substantive changes. As a result, in cities such as
Minneapolis, students are increasingly opting out of the public schools by choosing to attend
charter, suburban, or private schools, and in some cases even choosing home schooling over the
traditional public schools. These patterns necessitate an examination of urban students selecting
these other schooling options.
For several reasons, students in high-poverty schools suffer from low achievement.
Students in low-income areas suffer from lower levels of resources and investments at both the
family and school levels, which substantially affect educational outcomes (Roscigno et al, 2006).
A family’s economic well being can shape a child’s cognitive development in the early years,
2