Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies


Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/   Manuscript received: 5/31/2021 
Facebook: /EPAAA  Revisions received: 12/8/2021 
Twitter: @epaa_aape  Accepted: 12/14/2021 

SPECIAL ISSUE  

Critical Policy Analysis in Education:  
Exploring and Interrogating (In)Equity Across Contexts 

 

education policy analysis 
archives 
A peer-reviewed, independent,  
open access, multilingual journal  
 
 
 
 
  

 Arizona State University 

 

Volume 30 Number 12  February 8, 2022 ISSN 1068-2341 

 

 

Language and Power Dynamics: A Critical Policy Analysis of 
Racial and Choice Discourses in School Integration Policies 

 

Sarah Diem 
Madeline Good 

Brittany Smotherson 
Sarah W. Walters 

&  
Vida Nana Ama Bonney 

University of Missouri 
United States 

 
Citation: Diem, S., Good, M., Smotherson, B., Walters, S. W., & Bonney, V. N. A. (2022). Language 
and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration 
policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(12). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6995  This article 
is part of the special issue: Critical Policy Analysis in Education: Exploring and Interrogating (In)Equity 
Across Contexts, guest edited by Sarah Diem and Jeffrey S. Brooks. 
 
Abstract: Although school segregation has been illegal for nearly seven decades, it persists in a 
public education context increasingly impacted by market-based ideologies. Indeed, many present-
day school integration policies are having to negotiate school choice while simultaneously trying to 
serve the public good. Through a critical policy analysis (CPA) of three policies in school districts 
with distinct histories of integration efforts, we examine these tensions by exploring how racial 
discourses are factors in contemporary school integration policies and how discourses of choice 

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6995


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
uphold or disrupt existing racial inequities. In our CPA, we pair Critical Discourse Analysis and 
interest divergence to better understand power behind and within discourse, and how discourses of 
race and school choice illustrate new but perhaps reminiscent shifts toward interest divergence. In 
doing so, we show how policies themselves cannot be disentangled from the rhetoric, power, 
accountability, and politics surrounding their development and implementation. 
Keywords: critical discourse analysis; critical policy analysis; educational policy; interest divergence; 
race; school choice; school integration 
 
Dinámica del lenguaje y el poder: Un análisis político crítico de los discursos sobre 
la raza y la elección en las políticas de integración escolar 
Resumen: Si bien la segregación escolar ha sido ilegal durante casi siete décadas, persiste 
en un contexto de educación pública cada vez más impactado por ideologías basadas en el 
mercado. De hecho, muchas políticas actuales de integración escolar deben negociar la 
elección de la escuela y, al mismo tiempo, intentar servir al bien público. A través de un 
análisis crítico de políticas (CPA) de tres políticas en distritos escolares con distintas 
historias de esfuerzos de integración, examinamos estas tensiones al explorar cómo los 
discursos raciales son factores en las políticas de integración escolar contemporáneas y 
cómo los discursos de elección defienden o interrumpen las desigualdades raciales 
existentes. En nuestro CPA, emparejamos el análisis crítico del discurso y la divergencia de 
intereses para comprender mejor el poder detrás y dentro del discurso, y cómo los 
discursos de elección de raza y escuela ilustran cambios nuevos pero quizás evocadores 
hacia la divergencia de intereses. Al hacerlo, mostramos cómo las políticas en sí mismas no 
pueden desenredarse de la retórica, el poder, la rendición de cuentas y la política que rodea 
su desarrollo e implementación. 
Palabras-clave: análisis crítico del discurso; análisis crítico de políticas; política educativa; 
divergencia de intereses; raza; elección de escuela; integración escolar  
 
Linguagem e dinâmicas de poder: Uma análise política crítica dos discursos sobre 
raça e escolha nas políticas de integração escolar 
Resumo: Embora a segregação escolar seja ilegal há quase sete décadas, ela persiste em 
um contexto de educação pública cada vez mais impactado por ideologias baseadas no 
mercado. De fato, muitas políticas atuais de integração escolar devem negociar a escolha 
da escola e, ao mesmo tempo, tentar servir ao bem público. Por meio de uma análise 
crítica de políticas (CPA) de três políticas em distritos escolares com histórias di stintas de 
esforços de integração, examinamos essas tensões explorando como os discursos raciais 
são fatores nas políticas de integração escolar contemporâneas e como os discursos de 
escolha sustentam ou interrompem as desigualdades raciais existentes. Em nosso CPA, 
combinamos a análise crítica do discurso e a divergência de interesses para entender 
melhor o poder por trás e dentro do discurso, e como os discursos de raça e escolha 
escolar ilustram mudanças novas, mas talvez remanescentes, em direção à dive rgência de 
interesses. Ao fazê-lo, mostramos como as próprias políticas não podem ser desvinculadas 
da retórica, poder, responsabilidade e política que cercam seu desenvolvimento e 
implementação. 
Palavras-chave: análise crítica do discurso; análise crítica de políticas; política 
educacional; divergência de interesses; raça; escolha da escola; integração escolar 
 
 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 3 

 

Language and Power Dynamics: A Critical Policy Analysis of Racial and 
Choice Discourses in School Integration Policies 

 
Near the end of President Obama’s second term in office, school integration proponents 

were excited about the potential of a new federal grants program, “Opening Doors, Expanding 
Opportunities,” that would assist school districts in increasing socioeconomic diversity in their 
schools (U.S. DOE, 2016). After years of federal policy agendas that wavered in their support of 
school integration, this program signaled a sense of new attention placed on what decades of 
research has long illustrated regarding the myriad benefits associated with school integration 
(Mickelson & Nkomo, 2012; Wells et al., 2016). Although the Trump Administration decided not to 
fund any of the school districts who applied to the program, there has been growing support for 
school integration at state and federal levels (Belsha & Darville, 2021; Promoting Racially Integrated 
Schools Act, 2021; Strength in Diversity Act, 2020). Moreover, there has been an increase in 
investigative reporting on school segregation and integration across media outlets (e.g., Glass, 2015a, 
2015b; Hannah-Jones, 2014; Knight, 2020a). Most importantly, school districts are continuing their 
pursuit of creating and maintaining diverse and inclusive schools despite the challenges that often 
thwart such efforts (Potter & Burris, 2020). 
 These efforts are critical today as U.S. public schools are both more diverse than ever before 
and increasingly racially and socioeconomically segregated (Orfield et al., 2019). This segregation is 
largely a result of legal and policy decisions that prevented the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) 
decision from being fulfilled, the persistence of residential segregation, and white supremacy and 
racism that is entrenched in society (Noguera, 2019). Horsford (2019) notes the importance of 
understanding “the empty promise of Brown as experienced by Black students, families, and 
communities; and the role that White racial policy attitudes and actors played in resisting and 
resenting desegregation” if we truly want to create school integration plans that work “for the 
populations it was intended to serve” (p. 258). Likewise, given that market-based approaches such as 
school choice, which were initially used by some to evade desegregation, are becoming more 
common in the education landscape yet are not significantly impacting educational outcomes and 
even increasing existent racial inequities (Horsford et al., 2019), we need to better understand how 
school districts are considering race and choice in their student assignment policies and the 
implications of these policies. 

The purpose of this study is to critically examine the racial and choice discourses of three 
districts’ school integration policies1––Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS), San Francisco 
Unified School District (SFUSD), and St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS)––and how they may play a 
role in perpetuating racial (in)equities in school districts. Two research questions guided our study: 1) 
How do racial discourses factor into contemporary school integration policies? 2) How are 
discourses of choice in school integration policies upholding or disrupting existing racial inequities in 
school districts? We framed our critical policy analysis (CPA) of the integration policies with critical 
discourse analysis (CDA) and interest divergence, a key component of critical race theory (CRT), 
which allows us to pay particular attention to power dynamics behind the discourses, policy rhetoric, 
and how race continues to be central in guiding policy interests. Across the school districts, the racial 
and choice discourses varied over time, pointing to the commitment to and divestment in 

                                                
1 Desegregation, integration, and student assignment are used interchangeably to describe the policies 
explored in this article. We intentionally used the terms as they were stated in the documents collected as we 
felt this provided fidelity to our analysis. We reference the policies collectively throughout the article as 
school integration policies as they are working to provide racial equity and inclusivity. 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
integration. We conclude by illustrating how historical and sociopolitical contexts play a key role in 
shaping school integration policy discourses and the importance of intentionally designing school 
integration plans that are high-quality and accessible to families. 

 

Critically Exploring School Integration Policies 
 

Scholars who engage in CPA do so because they view traditional approaches to policy 
analysis limiting. Traditional policy analysis assumes there is a linear approach to the policy process 
whereby a policy is adopted, implemented, examined, and evaluated, and empirical research is key to 
understanding and implementing effective policy (Diem et al., 2014; Young & Diem, 2017). 
Traditional approaches to educational policy also often rely on theoretically narrow, positivist onto-
epistemological approaches, which tend to be more descriptive and less concerned with how theory 
is central in explaining and predicting policymaking (Ball, 1994; Levinson et al., 2009; Nagel, 1984). 
Alternatively, theory plays a significant role in CPA. CPA scholars draw from several critical 
perspectives, including critical theories, critical race theories, queer theories, and feminist theories, to 
name a few, as well as multiple disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. Analyzing 
educational policies through critical theoretical frameworks results in more nuanced policy analyses, 
specifically when it comes to equity issues in general and racial issues in particular (Diem et al., 2014; 
Horsford et al., 2019; Ulmer, 2016; Young & Diem, 2018). Additionally, a traditional approach to 
educational policy analysis is inadequate in redressing racial justice as it fails to address the power 
imbalances in the policy process, which preserves white interests and dominant political ideals 
(Diem & Welton, 2021; Horsford et al., 2019). 

Those who use CPA as a framework to guide their policy analyses tend to focus on the 
following concerns: 1) differences between policy rhetoric and practiced reality; 2) how policy came 
to be, how it has changed over time, and its role in perpetuating the dominant narrative (i.e., policy 
roots and development); 3) distribution of power, resources, and knowledge; 4) social stratification 
and its impact on inequality and privilege; and 5) the resistance and engagement in the policy process 
by marginalized and minoritized individuals and groups (Diem et al., 2014). Critical policy scholars 
also work to ensure those in power are held responsible for their policy outcomes and seek to center 
the voices and viewpoints of those who are marginalized and minoritized in the policy process as 
their perspectives are important, valuable, and tend to go unheard (Horsford et al., 2019). As a 
result, CPA offers a more expansive, complex, and “realist perspective for analyzing policy,” 
particularly in a time of increasing racial and economic inequality (Horsford et al., 2019, p. 21; 
Weaver-Hightower, 2008). Indeed, we situate our study within a CPA framework as it helps to 
illustrate how policy discourses address racial inequities in school communities. 

Interrogating policy discourse is an appropriate method employed in CPA as it assists 
scholars in “unpacking assumptions” and examining ideas “underpinning the policy” and “sense 
making” of discourses (Diem et al., 2014, p. 1077). Critical policy scholars illustrate how power is 
(re)inscribed through policy discourses. In their CPA, Koyama and Chang (2019) examined how 
discourses of belonging and othering impacted the daily schooling of refugee students in two school 
districts that worked to uphold existing uneven power dynamics and not meet the students’ needs. 
Carpenter and Diem (2015) examined influential policy documents in shaping the preparation of 
school leaders to see how issues pertaining to equity were addressed and found a reluctance to 
explicitly use race and social justice in the texts in lieu of vocabularies such as diversity and equity. 
Exploring policies as both texts and broader discourses, actual physical documents and what is 
counted as truth and fact (Ball, 1994), helps us to understand how policies wield power through 
language. Moreover, de facto policies, not actual policies but other documents such as reports, 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 5 

 
books, and even media articles, can influence practice in the absence of formal policy (Weaver-
Hightower, 2008). 

Finally, a central component of CPA includes an understanding of the complex systems in 
which policy is designed and implemented (Young & Diem, 2017). Ball (1998) argued that “Most 
policies are ramshackle, compromise, hit and miss affairs, that are reworked, tinkered with, nuanced 
and inflected through complex processes of influence, text production, dissemination and, 
ultimately, re-recreation in contexts of practice” (p. 126). Weaver-Hightower (2008) emphasized 
how policies rest within various, complex political contexts that influence the policymaking process. 
Policies are not value-free, they serve the interests of particular stakeholders, typically those who are 
in power, do not follow a standard implementation path, and are influenced by historical and 
contemporary sociopolitical contexts (Diem, 2012; Prunty, 1985; Taylor et al., 1997). By 
understanding the contextual and systemic complexities of policy, we can develop a “more inclusive 
view of what policy is and can be” (Weaver-Hightower, 2008, p. 157). This is particularly important 
when examining contemporary school integration policies as the historical contexts in which these 
policies are situated (e.g., desegregation) play key roles in understanding their current iterations in 
contemporary policy contexts (e.g., school choice). Locating our study within the CPA literature, we 
explore how racial discourses factor into contemporary school integration policies, and how these 
policies use discourses of choice to uphold or disrupt existing racial inequities in their school 
districts.  

 

Critical Discourse Analysis and Interest Divergence as CPA 
 

As we concerned ourselves with “sense making” of discourses (Diem et al., 2014, p. 1077) 
through an examination of power, critical discourse analysis (CDA) became a natural 
complementary framework to CPA as both theory and a methodological approach. Those who 
employ CDA do not follow a step-by-step method but aim to critique the power in individual and 
interacting discourses to produce transformative work. Moreover, Fairclough’s (2014) application of 
CDA is fitting given the aforementioned concerns of critical policy scholars, particularly that of 
policy rhetoric versus practiced reality (Diem et al., 2014; Horsford et al., 2019). Fairclough (2014) 
views CDA as a method to critique “power behind discourse rather than just the power in discourse” 
(p. 4). In our study, the concern is more on interrogating the normative ideologies that shape any 
given discourse and social order overall, not just who controls what in a particular interaction or 
correspondence. Applied to CPA, in order to critically examine a policy and its “underpinning” 
(Diem et al., 2014, p. 1077), an emphasis must be on who holds power, how it is (re)inscribed, who 
is coerced or complacent in the power structure, and how this informs the policy rhetoric. 
Consequently, when reviewing relevant policy documents (e.g., school board minutes, policy briefs), 
this required a consideration of not just which authoritative figure said what to school families and 
the overall discursive interplay between the two parties. Rather, a focus must also be on why they are 
viewed or positioned as authorities in the first place and how that informs how both parties are 
entering and engaging in the space.  

Like CPA, theory plays a significant role in CDA as well (Wodak & Meyer, 2016). To help 
situate our CPA, we drew from a less widely used tenet of critical race theory (CRT), interest 
divergence, which at its core illustrates how white supremacy and racism are rooted into the fabric 
of society. According to Guinier (2004),  

race is used to manufacture both convergences and divergences of interest that track 
class and geographic divisions. The racialized hierarchies that result reinforce 
divergences of interest among and between groups with varying social status and 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
privilege, which the ideology of white supremacy converts into rationales for the 
status quo. (p. 114)  

 
By using race in this way, it prevents many people, low-income white people in particular, from 
having a clear understanding of how racism also hurts them both financially and psychologically as 
their whiteness maintains their belief of superiority (Bell, 1980; Guinier, 2004). Indeed, these interest 
divergences that have been constructed in the US have always existed and are further perpetuated 
when judicial rulings, legislation, and policies provide racially minoritized communities with some 
reprieve.  

In the context of school desegregation, while the Brown decision was a hopeful turning point 
in the country’s battle with school segregation as it declared separate to be inherently unequal in the 
public education system, it in no way rectified existent interest divergences. In his theory of interest 
convergence, a more commonly applied tenet of CRT in education research, Bell (1980) famously 
argued that Brown only occurred because the interests of white individuals converged with those of 
Black individuals. Bell reminded us that to understand Brown we had to consider “the decision’s 
value to whites, not simply those concerned about the immorality of racial inequality, but also those 
whites in policymaking positions able to see the economic and political advances at home and 
abroad that would follow abandonment of segregation” (p. 524). Conversely, Guinier (2004) 
contends that Brown actually 

intensified divergences between northern elites and southern whites, solidified the 
false interest convergence between southern white elite and southern poor whites, 
ignored interest divergences between poor and middle-class blacks, and exacerbated 
the interest divergences between poor and working-class whites and blacks. (p. 102)  

 
Bell (1980) warned us of these potential interest divergences around school desegregation, which we 
would later witness through school districts’ unwillingness to implement desegregation and court 
rulings that would subsequently dismantle school desegregation (Orfield & Eaton, 1996).  
 Pairing CDA and interest divergence in our CPA of present-day integration policies allows 
us to better understand how discourses of race and school choice illustrate new but perhaps 
reminiscent shifts toward interest divergence like those witnessed during the initial days of 
desegregation (Thompson Dorsey & Roulhac, 2019). It also aligns with Guinier’s (2004) call to be 
“more literate about the role racism continues to play in structuring and narrating economic and 
policy opportunity” (p. 117) by paying particular attention to the power behind discourses 
(Fairclough, 2104). In doing so, we highlight the importance of policy rhetoric and racial discourse 
in school integration policies. 
 

Collecting and Analyzing Data 
 

Site Selection 

 For this study, we chose to focus on three U.S. school districts across different regions and 
with distinct histories of desegregation and integration efforts to help us answer our research 
questions. Because we were interested in exploring how school integration is unfolding in different 
parts of the US, three plans were chosen for this study: Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) 
Diversity Management Plan, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Student Assignment 
Policy, and the St. Louis Student Transfer Program. It was important to select school districts that 
differ in size, demographics, geography, sociopolitical context, as well as policy design so we could 
draw conclusions about the impact of these factors in integration efforts. 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 7 

 
Table 1 shows population trends from 1970 to 2019 for the three school districts as well as 

the cities in which they are located. In terms of overall population, Nashville-Davidson County and 
San Francisco have both experienced fairly consistent growth over the last four decades. In St. 
Louis, the exact opposite is true as the population was over two times smaller in 2019 as compared 
to 1970. In St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS), the population decrease is even more dramatic as the 
district served almost six times as many students in 1970 as it did in 2019. In both MNPS and 
SFUSD the population has been steadily increasing over the last 20 years. 

 
Table 1 

Population of City/School District Sites, 1970-2019 
 

City/School District 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2019 

Nashville-Davidson County, TN 488,003 477,811 510,784 569,891 626,681 694,144 

Metro Nashville Public Schools 90,214 61,638 68,452 67,358 78,436 85,588 

San Francisco, CA 715,674 678,974 723,959 776,733 805,235 881,549 

San Francisco Unified School 
District 

82,757 57,433 63,506 59,979 55,571 61,031 

St. Louis, MO 622,236 435,085 396,685 348,189 319,294 300,576 

St. Louis Public Schools 111,233 62,759 43,284* 44,264 22,754 19,054 

Note. The data for Nashville-Davidson County, TN are from the U.S. Census (1970-2019). The data for 
Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) are from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center 
for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) (1990-2019), and MNPS 27-year analysis of 
enrollment patterns, Kelley, box 23, file 1996 (revised November 1996). The data for San Francisco, CA 
are from the Bay Area Census (1970-2010) and the U.S. Census (1970-2019). The data for San 
Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) are from the California Department of Education (1990-
2019), SFUSD (2012), and Quinn (2020). The data for St. Louis, MO are from the U.S. Census (1970-
2019). The data for St. Louis Public Schools are from Banks (2019, 2020), the Missouri Department of 
Elementary and Secondary Education (1991-2019), and Wells & Crain (1997). 
*Reflects data reported for the 1991-1992 school year. 

 
Table 2 provides details on the student population by race across each of the school districts. 

In MNPS, Black or African American students represent 38% of the population, followed by 28.1% 
Hispanic or Latinx, and 3.9% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander. In SFUSD, 32.4% of its students are 
Hispanic or Latinx, 29.4% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, and 7.8% Black or African American. 
The majority of students in SLPS are Black or African American (78.5%), while 5.7% are Hispanic 
or Latinx, and 2.8% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander. In all three districts, 0.3% or less of students 
are American Indian and Alaska Native and less than 1% are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 
Islander. In all of the districts, white students do not make up the largest percentage of the 
population. MNPS has the highest percentage of white students (27.4%), followed by SFUSD 
(14.5%), and SLPS (12.9%). 
 
  



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
Table 2 

School District Population by Race (percentage), 2019-2020 
  

Metro Nashville 
Public Schools 

San Francisco Unified 
School District 

St. Louis Public 
Schools 

 

% White 27.4 14.5 12.9 

% Black or African American 38 7.8 78.5 

% American Indian and 
Alaska Native 

0.1 0.3 0.1 

% Asian or Asian/Pacific 
Islander 

3.9 29.4 2.8 

% Hispanic or Latinx 28.1 32.4 5.7 

% Native Hawaiian or Other 
Pacific Islander 
 

0.09 0.8 - 

Note. The data for Metro Nashville Public Schools are from the U.S. Department of Education and National 
Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) (2019). The data for San Francisco Unified 
School District are from the California Department of Education (2019). The data for St. Louis Public 
Schools are from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2019). 
 

We felt it was important to include the city and school district population trends as it helps 
to better contextualize desegregation efforts over time. Importantly, school districts are operating 
under a much different context as they were following Brown, which can shed light on how context 
plays a role in the racial discourses in current iterations of school integration policies as well as how 
discourses of school choice factor into the policies. 

Metro Nashville Public Schools 

 The first school district included in our study is Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) 
located in Nashville, Tennessee. Since the Brown ruling, MNPS has had a long desegregation history. 
After a district-designed desegregation plan was deemed ineffective by the courts in 1970, a more 
comprehensive and productive plan, which included busing, was implemented (Erickson, 2016; 
Kelley et al. v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education, 1970). The busing plan was then expanded in 
1983 to include large swaths of the county, leading Nashville to maintain one of the highest levels of 
desegregation in the US through the 1990s (Erickson, 2016; Mickelson et al., 2021). In the early 
1990s, however, a new superintendent as well as a new mayor spurred the five-year process of 
ending federal oversight of the desegregation of Nashville public schools, with MNPS officially 
gaining unitary status in 1998 (Erickson, 2016). Within months, the return to neighborhood 
attendance areas and shorter bus rides began the resegregation of MNPS (Erickson, 2016; Goldring 
et al., 2006). Black families and community organizations continued to challenge the resegregation of 
the school district after attendance rezoning plans in the 2000s arguably worsened the situation, but 
rulings have yet to side with the local Nashville plaintiffs in addressing this racial and socioeconomic 
isolation in MNPS (Spurlock v. Fox, 2013).  

The district’s most recent integration plan, the “Diversity Management Plan”, was adopted 
in 2013, and aims to provide diverse learning environments to all students (MNPS, n.d.a, n.d.b). It 
specifically prioritizes managing and measuring diversity to avoid resegregation and racial isolation 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 9 

 
(MNPS, n.d.a; MNPS Board of Education, 2013). It defines “diversity” utilizing four student 
characteristics: “racial/ethnic”, “free or reduced meals”, “English language service”, and “disability” 
(MNPS, n.d.a, pp. 2-3). To identify which schools can be deemed “diverse,” a four-part approach is 
taken (MNPS, n.d.a, pp. 2-3). For part one, when compared to other schools within its tier (e.g., 
elementary, middle, or high school), it must meet one of three race/ethnicity metrics: no single 
racial/ethnic group represents more than 50% of school’s enrollment, at least three racial/ethnic 
groups are enrolled that each represent at least 15% of the school’s population, or at least two 
racial/ethnic groups are enrolled that each represent at least 30% of the school’s population. For 
parts two, three, and four, a school must maintain at least two-thirds of its tier’s average for the 
subsequent student characteristic types: free or reduced meals, English language service, and 
disability. Yet, they only need to meet metrics for two of these three categories. If a school does not 
achieve the guidelines within this four-part definition, the concerns will be “addressed as practicable 
by the central office,” and there is no timeline that dictates when all schools must reach an approved 
amount of student diversity (MNPS, n.d.a, p. 3).  

While school zoning and assignment policies influence this initiative, the Diversity 
Management Plan primarily relies on choice to incentivize and guide families into more diverse 
school settings (MNPS, n.d.a, n.d.b). Students are assigned to a zoned school based on their address, 
but they have other choices including charter schools, magnet schools, out-of-zone optional schools, 
and sometimes within-zone options schools (MNPS, 2016, 2021a, 2021b). There are also often 
transportation offerings based on student age, free and reduced-price lunch status, school choice 
location, and school choice type (MNPS, n.d.b). Importantly, the Diversity Management Plan is not 
a binding document, there is no “calendar end-point” regarding its implementation, and the district 
is required to hold itself accountable to ensure its success (MNPS, n.d.a, p. 1).  

San Francisco Unified School District 

San Francisco, California has a diverse population and a complicated history of segregating 
various racial and ethnic groups (Wollenberg, 1976), which has been impacted by the significant 
California de/segregation cases that predate Brown (e.g., Mendez v. Westminster, 1947; Tape v. Hurley, 
1885)2. Despite some initial policy and legal successes toward ending segregation, such as Governor 
Earl Warren repealing the state’s last school segregation statute in 1947, San Francisco did little to 
address desegregation in the immediate years following Brown (Wollenberg, 1976). The NAACP 
consequently sued SFUSD, subsequently placing the district under a desegregation order and 
requiring complete integration by the fall of 1971 (Johnson v. SFUSD, 1971; Quinn, 2020). The initial 
plan, a district-wide busing plan, was met with resistance from various community groups and 
politicians (Levitt & O’Connell, 2020b; Quinn, 2020). There was particular pushback from Chinese 
American parents who were concerned that busing would make their after-school language schools 
impossible and feared losing their children in the complicated transportation system (Wollenberg, 
1976). Through ongoing litigation, SFUSD desegregation went through five distinct iterations. 
However, under the 1983 consent decree (San Francisco NAACP v. SFUSD, 1983), the district’s 
desegregation reached its broadest success of reducing racial identifiability in 1992 (Levitt & 

                                                
2 Tape v. Hurley (1885) challenged Chinese segregation and exclusion in SFUSD. The ruling maintained the 
legality of separate but equal schools but resulted in SFUSD reopening a Chinese school after 15 years of 
exclusion. The Mendez v. Westminster (1947) decision struck down segregation of Mexican and Mexican 
American children in California public schools and would also set precedent for other state supreme court 
cases to end school segregation for Mexican American children. Further, the social and educational theory 
used in the arguments of Mendez would go on to influence Chief Justice Warren in the Brown decision 
(Wollenberg, 1976).  



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
O’Connell, 2020b; Quinn, 2020; San Francisco NAACP v. SFUSD, 2001). The Court released SFUSD 
from oversight in 2005, despite noting that resegregation seemed to be occurring, relinquishing local 
control to educational authorities (San Francisco NAACP v. SFUSD, 2005).  

The current student assignment policy relies fully on choice and uses a lottery system with 
the home address as the only self-reporting factor on the student’s application. When there are more 
student applications than a school has capacity to accept, the lottery uses tiebreakers to assign 
students. Tiebreakers include sibling preference, living in the school’s attendance area, and living in 
an area with the lowest average test scores (SFUSD, 2021e). The process has been critiqued for 
being opaque and stressful, in addition to being inequitable (Schwartz, 2018a). As SFUSD’s student 
assignment policy became less racially-conscious, resegregation has occurred and continues to be a 
challenge in a district composed of nine distinct racial/ethnic categories of students (Quinn, 2020; 
SFUSD, 2021d). Gentrification has also contributed to (re)segregation under the current student 
assignment policy (Goldstein, 2019; Quinn, 2020; SFUSD, 2021d). In 2020, the SFUSD School 
Board voted to develop a new elementary student assignment policy with integration as a prioritized 
goal (SFUSD, 2020, 2021a, 2021b; Tucker & Fancher, 2020). The implementation of the plan is set 
to begin with kindergarteners in the 2023-2024 school year. The new system will use zones, and 
students will have the opportunity to apply to schools within their zone, though the district does not 
guarantee choices to any applicant (SFUSD, 2021b). While the plan is still being developed, the 
policy suggests schools will be socioeconomically diversified by remaining close to the district’s free 
and reduced-price meal percentage. The zones will also be “conscious of other measurable 
characteristics, such as race/ethnicity, English proficiency, disability, and student academic 
performance” (SFUSD, 2020, p. 3). In recent months and years, the school board has made various 
efforts to address issues of inequity beyond integration, some of which have been more effective 
than others (Chotiner, 2021; Vainshtein, 2021). 

St. Louis Public Schools 

As one of the oldest and largest voluntary integration programs in the country 
(Benchaabane, 2018), the St. Louis Student Transfer Program, which is overseen by the Voluntary 
Interdistrict Choice Corporation (VICC), continues to serve as a policy example of unrealized 
potential. Due to the program’s size, age, nuanced evolution, and local relevance for a team of 
Missouri-based scholars, it was included in the study. After Brown, the racial composition of SLPS 
minimally changed due to the city’s long-withstanding housing practices supporting segregation 
through redlining and other housing tactics. Even after the Fair Housing Act of 1968, restrictive 
covenants remained legal until the 1972 Mayers v. Ridley case, keeping Black families from entering 
white communities and Black children from attending white schools. In the same year, Minnie 
Liddell and other Black St. Louis city parents filed suit against SLPS and the state of Missouri for 
violating Brown (Liddell v. Board of Education, 1972) and a series of legal proceedings began that are still 
ongoing, leading to what is now more commonly referred to as “the VICC program,” named after 
the governing body that oversees the desegregation plan (VICC, n.d.e). 

Since many legal and common practices maintained St. Louis’ racial segregation on a more 
permanent basis, the best attempt imagined meant integrating schools temporarily through busing. 
Rather than consolidating all of the metropolitan-area districts, the plan relied on interdistrict 
cooperation and the maintenance of separate, locally-controlled districts (Liddell v. Board of Education, 
1983; Wells & Crain, 1997). Originally, 23 suburban districts were required to participate in the 
desegregation program and SLPS students could choose to attend schools in any of these districts. 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 11 

 
SLPS families could apply to the program if their children were African American3 residents of St. 
Louis City and had no behavioral concerns reported by their school in the past two years. Students 
were accepted to the program if they met all initial requirements, space permitting. However, shortly 
thereafter, only 16 districts were involved and zoning areas were established as part of the plan. St. 
Louis County school districts opted out if their district had an African American student population 
of 25% or more (FOCUS St. Louis, 1999). By 1999, VICC peaked at over 14,000 students and was 
the largest desegregation program in the country (VICC, n.d.g). Over time, magnet and charter 
schools were created and considered a part of St. Louis’ larger integration efforts. This quickly 
shifted the discourse to one of choice where it was an individual family’s responsibility to correct 
racial education inequities as the state of Missouri began backing away from funding and promoting 
VICC as a racial inequity-based program (VICC, n.d.f; Wolff, 2016). By 2016, VICC received its 
final extension and will come to an end in the 2023-2024 school year, with the potential option to 
shift to an income-based program (Taketa, 2016). However, no proposal is being worked on 
currently. The 3,400 students that remain in the program are mainly siblings of older VICC students 
(VICC, n.d.g, The State of Integration in St Louis section, para. 4). When they graduate, St. Louis 
will still be racially segregated along city and county lines. 

Data Collection 

 Once the sites for our study were identified, data was gathered on the school districts and 
their integration policies. We began by critically investigating the context and history of school 
(de)segregation for each locale before moving on to the districts’ most recently implemented 
integration policies. Using CDA (Fairclough, 2014), the multimodal components of resources (e.g., 
pictures, audio, website layout) were considered as data as well as any adjacent or interacting 
discursive texts to desegregation (e.g., “redlining”). By utilizing the Google search engine along with 
online library resources, we searched the districts’ and cities’ names alongside key words such as 
“segregation,” “desegregation,” and “integration.” As we learned more about each location, we then 
searched site-specific terms, such as the name of certain policies (e.g., “Diversity Management 
Plan”), influential policy themes (e.g., “choice”), school zones/types (e.g., “neighborhood”), and key 
people and moments (e.g., “Liddell v. Board of Education”). A variety of documents and other 
resources were gathered both for future data analysis as well as to help contextualize the policies. 
These included 31 website pages, eight board meeting minutes, 26 policies/policy reports, 34 
academic journal publications, three monographs/dissertations, 52 online newspaper articles, six 
books, five podcasts/audio recordings, three court cases, and 11 video recordings (see Table 3). To 
aid in synthesizing our general understanding of each school district as well as begin exploring 
similarities and differences across the sites, memos were written for each district. These included the 
history of desegregation in each city/district, what happened during and after desegregation, when 
resegregation began and what it looked like, and an overview of the current integration policy. Using 
the specific terminology from the policy documents (e.g., race, ethnicity, etc.) was prioritized during 
the writing process to most accurately reflect the racial and choice discourses present within each 
context. Additionally, demographic data was compiled for each city and district to further 
contextualize the policies.  
 
  

                                                
3 “African-American” is the chosen identifying term for VICC. Other documentation pertaining to this plan 
uses “Black.” Although we are using them interchangeably because of the texts informing this work, we 
acknowledge they are not interchangeable as a default, including the Black communities of SLPS.  



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
Table 3 

Documents and Resources Collected for Analysis 
 

Types of Documents 

 

   School Districts 

 

 

MNPS SFUSD SLPS Total 
 

Website pages 8 5 18 31 
 

Board meeting minutes 7 1 0 8 
 

Policies/policy reports 6 4 16 26 
 

Academic journal publications 
 

0 20 14 34 
 

Monographs/dissertations 0 0 3 3 
 

Online newspaper articles 21 19 12 52 
 

Books 1 2 3 6 
 

Podcasts/audio recordings 1 1 3 5 
 

Court cases 1 1 1 3 
 

Video recordings 10 1 0 11 
 

Total 55 54 70 179 
 

 

Data Analysis 

 To aid in preliminary data analysis, we created distinct author pairings per district and 
created a data table to answer our study’s research questions. While filling out the table and engaging 
with discussions amongst the research team, we realized the initial research questions did not 
provide the most effective analysis of the districts and their policies, especially regarding school 
choice. Thus, the initial research questions were reconsidered and ultimately rewritten to form the 
two questions that are utilized within this article. After this reframing, 28 open codes emphasizing 
policy word choice regarding population signaling (e.g., urban/suburban), policy goals (e.g., 
challenge/maintain), and policy methods (e.g., zoning) were identified and compiled to see what 
potential topics emerged from the documents and resources. These codes were then organized into 
categories based on how discourses of race and choice were included within the policy documents as 
well as how the policies either upheld or disrupted the status quo regarding racial inequities in 
schools. Next, we analyzed the documents using theoretical coding based on the aforementioned 
tenets of CPA (Diem et al., 2014; Horsford et al., 2019) and interest divergence (Gillborn, 2013; 
Guinier, 2004), noticing that some of the theoretical tenets related to certain districts more than 
others. Our fundamental application of Fairclough’s (2014) CDA emphasized the power behind 
discourse and the roots of (de)segregation around race and racism. This spanned many policies, 
rhetoric, and decades in our data collection stage. However, select CPA tenets and interest 
divergence helped us to narrow our scope without dismissing the shaping discourses in which 
school choice now appears to be at the center. Lastly, overarching themes were constructed by 
identifying connections between the open and theoretical codes (e.g., choice + policy roots and 
development). These larger themes provided the primary basis for the findings section as they most 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 13 

 
effectively answered the research questions through the combination of both open and bounded 
analysis approaches. The research team routinely collectively read and discussed each pair’s findings 
to prioritize the documented and discoverable discourses of race and choice in the policies rather 
than the perceived intents and impacts of the policies. Evidence was often presented in several 
document formats (e.g., newspaper article, court case, and program webpage) per overarching theme 
to strengthen the analysis. 
 Our onto-epistemologies play integral roles in the research we choose to engage in and the 
ways in which we go about doing our research. Milner (2007) notes,  

How education research is conducted may be just as important as what is actually 
discovered in a study. Moreover, who conducts the research, particularly what they 
know, and the nature of their critical racial and cultural consciousness—their views, 
perspectives, and biases—may also be essential to how those in education research 
come to know and know what is known. (p. 397) 
 

We are five women, one of whom is a professor and the rest are doctoral students. One of us is a 
white woman from the U.S. Southwest whose research experience centers on district politics and 
policymaking, particularly school desegregation. One of us is a Black woman from St. Louis whose 
family has a complicated generational student herstory with the St. Louis City/County educational 
divide, and whose theoretical and methodological interests align with the subject of this study. Two 
of us are white cisgender women who previously taught in public schools, one in an urban context 
within a highly segregated metropolitan area and the other in more urban/suburban contexts with 
various levels of segregation across racial and socioeconomic lines. One of us is a Ghanaian woman 
who is new to the U.S. public education system and is interested in using CPA as an approach for 
immigration policy analysis as well as the lived experiences of international students. Collectively, we 
all have an interest in working toward better understanding how to make school systems more 
equitable in the United States. 
 

School Integration Across Contexts 
 

 The findings of our study point to the various racial and choice discourses school districts 
used when crafting integration policies and how the local contexts played a role in how these 
discourses were framed to address existing racial inequities. Specifically, we view the plans in each of 
the districts as following along a spectrum of explicitly centering race in their efforts with school 
choice being an integral component in each of the plans. In SFUSD, the district is more intentional 
about addressing race in their newly adopted, not yet implemented student assignment policy, 
whereas in MNPS, race is among the many factors included in the district’s diversity plan and is used 
interchangeably with other factors. Finally, in the desegregation plan that includes SLPS, race is still 
centered but the plan is scheduled to be phased out in the coming years with magnet schools and 
evolving discourses of choice being more of a key component. In this section, we present findings 
for each of the districts, focusing on how discourses of race and choice connect to tenets of CPA 
and interest divergence. 

Metro Nashville Public Schools 

While Nashville has a long history of desegregation, and more recently resegregation, our 
focus is on MNPS’s current attempt to address these concerns: the Diversity Management Plan. In 
this section, discourses of race and choice within and surrounding this policy are presented, 
especially regarding the policy’s roots, wordings, and solutions. By including discourses from board 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
members, guardians, students, and the policy documents themselves, we hope to shed light upon 
how MNPS attempted to improve, or at least maintain, integration while navigating the politics of 
race and school choice.  

Policy Roots and the Intersection of Race and Choice 

Roots of the Diversity Management Plan can be traced back to an August 2012 MNPS 
board meeting where debate took hold regarding a twice-denied charter school application (MNPS 
Board of Education, 2012a). Board members shared concerns regarding some of the charter school’s 
policies, primarily focusing on their lack of a diversity plan they feared would likely lead to further 
racial and socioeconomic isolation within MNPS. Most of the MNPS board felt it was an urgent 
issue, with member Ed Kindall arguing that “this great city can be a flagship by proactively 
maintaining and promoting diversity in all of our schools, or we can be the national model for 
developing tools to destroy it” (MNPS Board of Education, 2012a, p. 17). Yet, the Tennessee State 
Board of Education was notably less concerned as they pressured the MNPS school board to accept 
the application, regardless of their hesitations (MNPS Board of Education, 2012a). Resisting the 
pressure of the State School Board and Tennessee’s Education Commissioner, MNPS ultimately 
rejected the application for a third time, losing $3.4 million in funding from state retaliation (Strauss, 
2012). To provide protection from future racially and socioeconomically isolated charter schools 
that may attempt to join MNPS, the Diversity Management Plan was developed and ultimately 
approved by a unanimous 9-0 vote in February 2013 (MNPS Board of Education, 2013).  

From its inception, discourses of race and choice have been present within MNPS’s 
integration initiative. While there were board members concerned about the growing racial and 
socioeconomic isolation within the school district before August 2012, especially regarding an 
approved 2008 rezoning proposal that increased such isolation (MNPS Board of Education, 2008; 
Spurlock v. Fox, 2013), an integration plan was not proposed until this specific under-regulated choice 
option threatened to worsen social stratification across schools. Thus, it was not solely racial or 
choice-based discourses present within these exchanges, it was instead their intersection. For 
example, in August 2012, board member Anna Shepherd argued that this charter school application, 
alongside state pressure, was an example of “furthering private-interest, open-enrollment charter 
schools - or segregation by another name” (MNPS Board of Education, 2012a, p. 13). Board 
member Ed Kindall stated that, “if approved in its present form, it opens the floodgate for an 
unlimited number of racially and economically isolated charter schools throughout Nashville” 
(MNPS Board of Education, 2012a, p. 15). Vice Chair of the board Mark North even articulated 
concern that two distinct charter “systems” were being created, one “designed to isolate the 
minority, and the other system for wealthy students, designed for government-funded white-flight” 
(MNPS Board of Education, 2012a, p. 18). Each of these statements exemplifies how the 
combination of both race and choice discourses provided the foundation for resisting the 
admittance of the charter school that, if admitted, was feared to further stratify students across racial 
and socioeconomic lines.  

Problems, Solutions, and their Contradictions in Policy Wording 

Looking at the language within the document itself, the MNPS Diversity Management Plan 
utilizes “diversity” as a primary racial discourse when describing the purpose behind and definitions 
within the document. “Diversity” is defined using a four-part approach, which includes free or 
reduced meals, English language service, and disability status, along with student race/ethnicity. This 
follows the trends identified in the meetings leading to the policy’s creation where the term 
“diversity” was frequently used interchangeably with “race” and “socioeconomic status,” as well as 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 15 

 
alongside “desegregation” (MNPS Board of Education, 2012a, 2012b). In the policy document, 
however, race/ethnicity is centered in two primary ways. First, racial/ethnic isolation is specifically 
described as an “educational disadvantage” when justifying the importance of this document, 
without mentioning the other three characteristics of diversity that would be included later in the 
policy (MNPS, n.d.a, p. 1). Second, in the “diverse school” designation process, “diversity” is 
defined and measured via four parts. Yet the metric for racial/ethnic diversity is the sole 
characteristic that is included in all diversity designations, while a combination of only two of the 
other three characteristics is required (MNPS, n.d.a, 2019). 

Notable shifts occur, however, when descriptions of the policy’s implementation only utilize 
“race-neutral” solutions (MNPS, n.d.a, p. 6). Although the now-ended federal guidance on voluntary 
school integration plans likely influenced the inclusion of race-neutral approaches (U.S. DOJ & U.S. 
DOE, n.d.), this shift from race-conscious to race-neutral language is notable as it discursively 
diverges from the initial framing of the plan’s purpose: “reducing racial isolation and promoting 
diversity” (MNPS, n.d.b, p. 1). From the accessible data, discourses of choice continue to be present 
in the development of the Diversity Management Plan as well, but instead of primarily being the 
reason for resegregation concerns, choice options are proposed as the path to achieving integration 
success (MNPS, n.d.b). According to the Diversity Management Plan, when there are diversity 
concerns in schools, issues such as cluster configuration, zoning and rezoning, school openings and 
closings, and transportation services, will be addressed in a “race-neutral” way (MNPS, n.d.a, p. 6). 
Then “opportunities and incentives made available by the District” will hopefully lead parents to 
make choices that decrease the concerning school segregation rates (MNPS, n.d.a, p. 6). Thus, we 
are left to ponder a seemingly contradictory situation: how have the original concerns presented in 
2012 regarding a charter school application with little concern for race and diversity been addressed 
utilizing an integration plan that relies on race-neutral and choice-centered discourses? 

Choices and Their Limitations 

Since the creation of the Diversity Management Plan, local and state news outlets have 
illuminated ways that rezoning plans, school accessibility, long bus rides, and disjointed community 
knowledge about school options have maintained segregation levels in MNPS (Garrison, 2014; 
Knight, 2020a; Zelinski, 2014). Discourses of race, choice, and their intersections have been central 
themes throughout these publications. Seventh-grader Brandon Ramsey, whose mother moved to 
Nashville from the Dominican Republic, was a student who utilized the free transportation offered 
to low-income middle and high school students participating in choice schools (Zelinski, 2014). 
When discussing why his mother signed him up for the school district lottery system, Brandon 
stated, “At the beginning, I didn’t know why she wanted me at this new school [...] Once I realized 
the opportunities that I’ll be given in the next two years [...] I was like, ‘Oh, all right, this is probably 
what’s best’” (Zelinski, 2014, para. 77). While choice options gave Brandon the opportunity to enter 
a new school feeder pattern that his mom had heard provided more academic opportunities to their 
students, he also had to ride the public bus about 90 minutes each way to access it.  

It is important to note that Brandon may not necessarily represent the majority of Black 
student experiences, as local reporting has outlined the barriers racially marginalized communities in 
Nashville face accessing even nearby choices due to unequal distribution of knowledge and 
resources (Knight, 2020a). One Black father was quoted describing the inaccessibility of choice 
offerings for many Black and other racially minoritized families in MNPS, “I’m 6’2” in height, my 
daughter is 3-foot. If I put food at the top of the cabinet and say there’s plenty of choices there, why 
don’t you get some food? She can’t reach the food” (Knight, 2020b, 6:00). The discourses around 
white middle- and upper-class families, however, indicate that they have significantly easier access to 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
the choices present within MNPS (Knight, 2020a). MNPS Mom Susan Hawes, a self-described 
“anti-choice school proponent,” acknowledged that East Nashville has a “racial issue” that “nobody 
wants to admit,” where white parents take part in the choice system to avoid enrolling their children 
in predominantly Black- and racially minoritized-zoned schools (Zelinski, 2014, para. 20, 25). 
Although she argues, “We have great schools. We’re just so brainwashed into thinking it has to be a 
choice or it’s not adequate,” she still sends her students to out-of-zone choice schools (Zelinski, 
2014, para. 26). Thus, even white families in opposition of the racial stratification perpetuated by the 
MNPS choice system struggle to resist the allure of options.  

According to the 2018-2019 Annual Diversity Report, the percentage of schools that meet 
all of the criteria for achieving “diversity” has stayed nearly stagnant over the past four years, at 
around 45% (MNPS, 2019, p. 6). This partially may be due to the reliance on race-neutral choice to 
incentivize and guide families into more diverse school settings, especially since school choice 
initiatives have often proven to maintain or increase segregation rates (Bifulco & Ladd, 2007; 
Jennings, 2010; Kotok et al., 2017; MNPS, n.d.a, n.d.b; Saporito, 2003). It also may be influenced by 
the roots of the policy document itself since it was specifically written to protect the district from 
charter schools without plans to address diversity concerns, as opposed to reverse any segregation 
rates maintained at the time (MNPS Board of Education, 2012a). Recently, the MNPS Diversity and 
Equity Office, which publishes the accountability reports, closed due to budget cuts followed by the 
influence of the COVID-19 pandemic (Knight, 2019, 2020a). Consequently, integration efforts of 
MNPS are in an uncertain place. Yet, evolving district leadership, changes in federal 
incentives/oversight, and COVID-19 consequences have the potential to recenter diversity concerns 
in the coming years (Bartlett, 2020; Cooper, 2020; Knight, 2019). 

San Francisco Unified School District 

SFUSD has had five major desegregation plan iterations and is currently creating a new 
student assignment plan for elementary schools (SFUSD, 2020). In this section, expansion of choice, 
discursive racial complexity, institutional accountability, and tensions around inclusion of racially 
minoritized voices are reviewed to explore the new policy’s development and potential 
implementation. We focused on these findings as they illustrate continuous efforts by SFUSD to be 
more inclusive and responsive to the diversity of their community, although the outcomes of their 
efforts are yet to be seen. 

Enduring Im/balance of Choice and Integration  

Choice has long been a factor in the roots and development of school desegregation in San 
Francisco. While choice was initially a result of a legal decision establishing bilingual 
accommodations as a civil rights issue (Lau v. Nichols, 1974), it has continually been seen as a 
required mechanism to prevent “flight” and divestment from the public school system, especially by 
white and Chinese families (SFUSD, 2021d; Wollenberg, 1976).  

 Choice has evolved into an expansive and overarching component of SFUSD’s current 
plan. The student assignment policy is described as a full choice system but has abandoned the self-
reporting of extensive factors from the prior plans. While the district’s goal relied on the “theory 
that more choice would result in more integration, the opposite has turned out to be true” (Levitt & 
O’Connell, 2020b, Current Student Assignment System section). Additionally, for many guardians, 
the system “is a mixture of overwhelming, stressful and baffling” (Schwartz, 2018a, para. 6). One 
described the process as “a burden on every parent” (Schwartz, 2018a, para. 10). Even guardians 
who feel the system advantages their child, due for example to gentrification of neighborhoods with 
historically low test scores, understand the current system is not equitable. This was the case for 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 17 

 
Anne Zimmerman, a white parent who shared, “‘I feel so very conflicted’ about getting an 
advantage,” adding that, “‘The system was developed to equalize the playing field, and I don’t think 
it really has done it’” (Goldstein, 2019, para. 26). The challenges many families face under the 
current choice system, including inequitable access to choice, has led to broad dissatisfaction (Levitt 
& O’Connell, 2020a). 

To address inequitable access to choice, SFUSD is attempting to seek more community 
input in the new integration plan (SFUSD, 2021a, 2021b, 2021d). In 2020, the SFUSD School Board 
approved adopting a new assignment policy in which choice continues to be a factor, although the 
policy aims at balancing choice with goals of integration (SFUSD, 2020). The district website 
explains, “While we can’t guarantee that each child will be assigned to their top choice, we can 
provide families with the knowledge that their child will be assigned to one of the schools in their 
zone” (SFUSD, 2021b, New Elementary School Assignment Policy section). The discursive 
limitation on choice here indicates a shift away from the prioritization of choice which had been 
more beneficial for white and Asian families. While the discourses of choice have been a common 
thread in SFUSD desegregation policies, the degree to which choice has been prioritized has 
fluctuated. 

Racial Discourses Reflect Multiplicity  

Like choice, the discourses of race in SFUSD have been central to understanding its 
integration efforts. Racial discourses have shifted in SFUSD policies. While they were once explicitly 
exclusionary, they are now explicitly inclusive. Moreover, the racial discourses reflect the unique 
demographics of the city’s population, indicating a school integration that is beyond the Black/white 
dichotomy. The discourses, however, are not beyond critique, as there are places in the policy where 
the rhetoric does not meet the practiced reality. Race is included yet is not central in the planning of 
the newest SFUSD student assignment policy (SFUSD 2020, 2021b). The district explains they are 
trying to zone choices conscious of the complexity of racial and economic diversity, while allowing 
predictable and reliable choices within such zones (SFUSD 2021b). The new student assignment 
plan harkens back to the original 1971 mandated desegregation plan using contiguous zones and 
racial balancing goals. However, this time they purport to implement a more inclusive process 
(SFUSD, 2020, 2021a, 2021b, 2021d).  

Current SFUSD discourses indicate an expansive definition of diversity and equity beyond 
student assignment policies. Reflecting the multiplicity of racial and ethnic diversity in the district, 
SFUSD discourses around integration are conscious of racial complexity. For example, SFUSD’s 
“Vision” defines equity as  

The work of eliminating oppression, ending biases, and ensuring equally high 
outcomes for all participants through the creation of multicultural, multiethnic, 
multiracial practices and conditions; removing the predictability of success or failure 
that currently correlates with any social or cultural factor. (SFUSD, 2014, p. 16)  

 
While the definition includes a value of meritocratic outcomes and perpetuates current neoliberal 
discourse in education, it also frames equity as multi-faceted and pluralistic in its discursive 
description of diversity. SFUSD has a more racially diverse student demographic than the other 
school districts analyzed in this study, and the discourses in the policies reflect the multiplicity of this 
diversity. SFUSD has also conceived an expansive view of integration. In the above definition, 
SFUSD understands the work of equity to “eliminate oppression” (SFUSD, 2014, p. 16). It does 
not, however, acknowledge or challenge white supremacy as the structure of racist oppression. The 
goals of eliminating oppression and ending biases are not possible as absolutes, so this discourse 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
may be overly optimistic. Moreover, if SFUSD is communicating more inclusivity without centering 
equitable practices, this would indicate a fracture between rhetoric and reality. 

There are discourses to indicate some intended policies that meet the discourses they have 
set. For example, one of their listed goals is to “make social justice a reality by ensuring every 
student has access to high-quality teaching and learning” (SFUSD, 2021c, Our Universal Goals 
section). The robust discourses illustrate beliefs and intentions that integration goes beyond student 
assignment policies. Indeed, the discourses are pervasive across various policy documents. For 
example, SFUSD Vision 2025: Reimagining Public Education in San Francisco for a New Generation 
(SFUSD, 2014) directs the district toward “Cultural Competence and Multilingualism” as one of 
“Ten Big Shifts,” explaining “Students will be globally aware, multilingual and culturally competent, 
and fluent in a range of ‘second languages’ including sign language and computer coding. Our 
graduates will see diversity in its many forms as an asset” (p. 7). This shift shows a broad 
conceptualization of diversity, nuanced with goals toward cultural competence. The discourses 
throughout SFUSD’s myriad policy documents are in alignment with equitable, integrative, and anti-
oppressive values, especially compared to the other districts in this study. Still, it is worth noting, 
discourses were written and published by those in power. In practice, the policy documents may or 
may not address those whom the district purports to serve.  

Acknowledging Accountability in SFUSD Discourses  

In efforts to make the new student assignment plan more transparent and community-
serving, SFUSD has created a blog that provides information to constituents and invites community 
feedback as part of the planning of the new student assignment policy process (SFUSD, 2021d). The 
content on the blog also appears to reflect an ongoing and self-reflective accountability on the part 
of SFUSD. For example, the district details the history of desegregation policies in the district, 
including shortcomings and successes. Addressing SFUSD’s history directly and reflectively 
illustrates how the district publicly commits to taking accountability for making policies that are 
more equitable moving forward. In one blog post, the district writes: 

Over the past 50 years, SFUSD has maintained a goal to eliminate segregation and 
deliver an excellent education for every student. But despite our best intentions, our 
current plan has not worked. Today, we have a unique opportunity to take decisive 
action to reverse the troubling resegregation of our city’s schools, and ensure 
equitable educational access for children of all backgrounds. (Levitt & O’Connell, 
2020b, Conclusion section) 

 
The district discourse indicates reflection on the ways its past policies have created and sustained 
inequity. In addition, the district acknowledges its responsibility for creating policies and schools 
that in fact “reverse” segregation by including its goal of “reversing the trend of racial isolation and 
the concentration of underserved students in the same school” (SFUSD, 2010, p. 1) into the student 
assignment policy. Moreover, the district acknowledges the creation of a new student assignment 
policy is merely “one part of creating educational environments in which all students can flourish” 
(SFUSD, 2010, p. 1, emphasis in original). Although discursively SFUSD is taking steps towards 
including more voices and involving communities in decision making, a barrier that the district has 
failed to overcome in the past, balancing the needs of various groups in practice may continue to 
prove to be a challenge.  
  



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 19 

 
Inclusion of Marginalized Voices: Negotiating Power in Policymaking and Choice 

SFUSD has an ongoing history of trying to generate change through the creation of policies 
aimed at integration, often in collaboration with community members (Quinn, 2020; Wollenberg, 
1976). Despite aims at being inclusive in the past, SFUSD has struggled to achieve integration while 
making policies that include the voices of historically marginalized groups (Quinn, 2020; SFUSD 
2021d). Through all of SFUSD’s desegregation plans, the appeasement of affluent, mostly Chinese, 
Chinese American, and white families’ desire for choice has continued to disempower Black and 
Latinx students and limit equitable, integrative efforts. In the creation of the most recent assignment 
policy for elementary schools, the Board of Education seemingly solicited community input in 
several ways. Their efforts included “12 community workshops to gather public input, 4 virtual 
community information sessions, [and] dozens of additional conversations with San Francisco 
families and community groups” before creating a proposal to the Board (SFUSD, 2021b, 
Background section). Since the policy is still in development, it remains to be seen how effective 
negotiations will be between those in power and those who have historically and continually been 
disempowered.  

Building on a robust history of grassroots coalitions, many of which represented racially 
minoritized communities (Quinn, 2020; Wollenberg, 1976), SFUSD has attempted to integrate 
voices of racially minoritized individuals and groups in decision-making. For example, the SFUSD 
Office of Access and Equity established the African American Parent Advisory Council (AAPAC) in 
2013 (AAPAC, 2017, p. 2). AAPAC’s mission is to “provide a forum to hear the ideas of [SFUSD]’s 
African-American parent community, and respond to those ideas by educating and informing 
parents of district resources, policies, and programs” (AAPAC, 2017, p. 2). AAPAC seeks to 
“empower the lives of all African-American children and families” and “lift every parent voice and 
help less engaged parents find their choice through [AAPAC]” (AAPAC, 2017, p. 2). SFUSD has 
attempted to incorporate African American voices into their decision-making by making the group 
an official part of the district organization. Moreover, there is evidence that the district has 
responded favorably to AAPAC’s recommendations. At a March 2017 school board meeting, for 
example, AAPAC “share[d] Black family concerns and experiences when navigating SFUSD’s 
Student Assignment Process” (p. 3).  They also shared recommendations for SFUSD recruitment, 
placement, and retention (p. 15). Some of the recommendations, including developing high 
performing schools regardless of location and centering culturally responsive teaching and training, 
are reflected in other policy documents, not the least of which is the new elementary student 
assignment policy (SFUSD, 2021b). 

 In SFUSD, we found discursive evidence that the district aims at being more inclusive and 
responsive to diverse community input. However, in practice, tensions around decisions in prior 
policies may impact the implementation of the current plan. Moreover, some of the language used to 
describe the core values of the “Student-centered, Fearless, United, Social Justice, and Diversity-
driven” (SFUSD, 2021c) district have not always been evident in the district’s actions. Due to 
underlying factors such as the power structure and organizational composition of the school 
governance system, the realities of enforcing those policies may not always align with the district’s 
intended goals (Horsford et al., 2019). This is complicated and challenging work that is still ongoing. 

St. Louis Public Schools  

 St. Louis is one of the most segregated cities in the United States (Comen, 2019). Yet, the 
metropolitan area’s desegregation plan is coming to an end in a couple of years. It is in this context 
that the VICC program poses an existential question on their website homepage:  



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
How do we continue a program which has proven to be beneficial in light of the 
legal and financial challenges, given that racial segregation since the inception of the 
program has certainly not diminished and, in fact, has likely increased in many areas 
of metropolitan St. Louis? (VICC, n.d.g, The State of Integration in St Louis section, 
para. 4).  

 
For now, with no replacement on the horizon, there does not seem to be an answer to this question. 
In this section, we elaborate on three themes in the discourse of SLPS and the St. Louis Student 
integration plan, the VICC program, including: how the VICC program is discursively racially 
focused, which has contributed to its ultimate elimination; the discourses indicating 
(un)accountability of institutions involved in the VICC program; and discourses of choice used as a 
tool/solution to desegregation in the plan, eventually replacing integration efforts.  

Divergences: Racially Focused Yet Divested 

Race has been central to the plan to desegregate SLPS since the policy’s inception. However, 
the focus on race has also served as a catalyst for divestment by the various districts that SLPS 
would rely upon to desegregate its schools and is a primary reason noted as to why the VICC 
program is ending. In the broader context of St. Louis’ residential segregation, enduring divestment 
from St. Louis City has led to it being geographically surrounded by a predominantly white suburban 
society, St. Louis County, which created the division (French, 2002; Wells & Crain, 1997). It is 
important to note the city-county divide in St. Louis, which is the result of a long history of racist 
residential discrimination (Cambria et al., 2018). Thus, the VICC program was created for the unique 
geography of St. Louis.  

We acknowledge St. Louis’ pervasiveness with race-based decision-making provided multiple 
entry points to VICC’s policy roots since Brown. The most direct path is reflected in the Liddell 
decisions, which ultimately led to VICC’s creation in the 1983 desegregation agreement, a court-led 
plan providing accountability for the State of Missouri and SLPS’s wrongdoings and responsibilities. 
Because the Liddell case was initiated and won on the basis of race-based discrimination, the 
resulting settlement held race at its center. The plan allowed surrounding county school districts to 
retain their autonomy and local control of their tax dollars, while financially benefiting through extra 
funding (Liddell v. Board of Education, 1983; Wells & Crain, 1997). City magnet schools were also 
created and funded by the state to entice white county students to enroll in city schools to disrupt 
further segregation. Although the program’s design involved numerous stakeholders, SLPS and the 
State of Missouri were not fully supportive of the financial burden placed on their budgets. Ten 
years later, Missouri Attorney General (later Governor) Jay Nixon asked the court to declare unitary 
status in SLPS, end state funding, and end the court’s supervision of the court-ordered 
desegregation programs (FOCUS St. Louis, 1999). By 1999, local residents voted to offset the 
financial burden to the state with a state tax and Missouri legislators approved a bill authorizing the 
operation of charter schools in St. Louis and Kansas City (Liddell v. Board of Education, 1999; S.B. 
781). 

While the VICC program was explicit about using race as a factor, there has not been an 
enduring commitment to redress racial inequities. Indeed, the policies pertaining to VICC’s design, 
purpose, and support structures are constantly in flux. The plan was revised and removed from 
federal oversight in 1999 (Liddell v. Board of Education, 1999). By 2016, the VICC governing board had 
voted to begin eliminating the program, including such measures as decreasing its African American 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 21 

 
student acceptance4 into participating county/suburban schools. The VICC program is in its final, 
five-year extension with reduced enrollment following the 2018-2019 school year based on VICC’s 
belief that race-based school desegregation programs are not intended to continue in perpetuity and 
this one was originally designed to have a finite existence (VICC, 2016, para. 1). The VICC 
Executive Director said it is a legal requirement that the program have an ending date (Crouch, 
2016). One Superintendent of a VICC participating school district mentioned the VICC board 
needed to do something as a region based on family income because “poverty isn’t going away” 
(Crouch, 2016, Smaller Numbers section, para. 8)5. Again, there have been limited, contextual 
commitments to desegregation in St Louis, especially around the explicitly race-centered policy. 

“Downstream” from Power, Who Is Accountable? 

Since its inception, the VICC program has been voluntary, putting the onus on individuals’ 
decisions rather than creating systemic education changes. When settlement negotiations stemming 
from the Liddell case were occurring in the mid 1970s, it became clear the districts would either have 
to consolidate to achieve school desegregation, or another alternative would have to be agreed upon 
(Wells & Crain, 1997). If SLPS were to remain autonomous, then the desegregation plan would be 
dependent on the participation of the surrounding predominantly white school districts in St. Louis 
County (La Pierre, 1987; Wells & Crain, 1997). However, with the consent decree, county school 
districts felt a sense of victory in that they would be able to remain separate so long as they agreed to 
accept transfer students from the city (Liddell v. Board of Education, 1983; Wells & Crain, 1997). 
Instead of mandating desegregation of any of the districts, the plan was almost entirely one-
directional, placing most of the burden of desegregation on Black students and families of the 
predominantly Black SLPS district to desegregate the white suburban schools.  

Moreover, for the thousands of students who could not or did not participate6 in the transfer 
program, they were left to attend public schools that had little financial or political investments in 
the city. Prior to 1999, as part of the federal oversight of the VICC plan, the state was providing 
financial compensation to SLPS for half of the aid of each student who transferred to a participating 
suburban district (Liddell v. Board of Education, 1983; Wells & Crain, 1997). Unfortunately, this 
accountability was not enduring (Strauss, 2017). Since 1999, SLPS has not received funding from the 
state for the transfer students leaving its district, nor does it receive any additional funding for 
improving the quality of its schools. VICC, serving as the financial operations organization for the 
plan, encountered a financial reduction as well. St. Louis City residents were no longer able to attend 
any participating county school. Instead, zones were assigned to decrease transportation costs. 

                                                
4 Caps were placed on Black student enrollment from city to county schools, but no cap was placed on white 
student enrollment from county to city (magnet) schools (Taketa, 2016; VICC, n.d.f). 
5 “The VICC Board may commission a study in the future to transition over time to a more modern program 
that would potentially include additional districts and revise the student selection process from race to socio-
economic status which will achieve the goals of both racial integration and diversity as well as socio-economic 
diversity. There will be many issues that will have to be identified, discussed and resolved and, as a result, we 
do not anticipate any such transition occurring in the immediate future—possibly as late as after the final 
extension (2023/24) but possibly earlier than that if achievable. The implementation of a program with a 
revised student selection process would require the unanimous approval of all VICC districts as well as any 
new districts included in such Program” (VICC, n.d.f). 
6 “In order to participate in this program, the student applicant must be in good behavior standing in his or 
her current and/or previous school. If your child has demonstrated disruptive behavior in school during the 
last two years, as reported by the current or previously attended schools, your child could be turned down for 
a transfer” (VICC, n.d.b, para. 3). 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
Additionally, starting in the 2004-2005 school year, the funding received by participating suburban 
schools was capped to approximately $7,000. This also meant that “If full pupil cost reimbursement 
fails, a county district may give a one-year notice to opt out of the program” (VICC, n.d.c, para. 5). 
The lack of funding caused preventable disruptions to the educational experience of St. Louis City 
students, regardless of the school district in which they enrolled (Crouch & Moskop, 2014; Strauss, 
2017).  

Despite the ongoing challenges it faces, “The [VICC] program has a long track record of 
increasing the graduation rate, attendance rate, and achievement levels of students involved in the 
program” (VICC, n.d.g, The State of Integration in St. Louis section, para. 3). More than 70,000 
students have participated in the program since its inception. Still, it is important to note that there 
were also real negative consequences for Black students who participated in the program: long travel 
times on transfer buses as well as difficulties around code switching, social anxieties, feelings of 
isolation, microaggressions, and “soft racism” (Frenske, 2019; Glass, 2015a, 2015b; Rias, 2018).  

As the VICC program winds down, SLPS is having to make difficult decisions about its 
future. In December 2020, SLPS Superintendent Adams presented to the school board a proposal to 
close several schools due to budget constraints. During this presentation, Dr. Adams stated,  

Equity is a long-standing, systemic challenge of this region, and we are addressing it 
within our own system as one of the five pillars in our Transformation Plan (3.0). 
Still, there are forces at work that require political and financial investments beyond 
what the District can afford on its own: We operate downstream from political 
forces that have divested themselves of our neighborhoods and our children. 
(Adams & Miller, 2020, p. 3) 
 

Despite accountability on the part of the SLPS, the district is working in a political system that is not 
accountable to the students and families in the community. SLPS uses discourses that indicate they 
“own” their past (Adams & Miller, 2020, p. 3). However, the SLPS Superintendent’s statement 
suggests that it is the larger political forces outside the district that are not committed to integration. 
Furthermore, the broader systems continue to demonstrate a lack of responsibility to the students of 
SLPS. Instead, larger institutions outside of SLPS in Missouri have continued to use discourses of 
choice to evade integrative efforts and shift the blame of racial inequities to families rather than on 
governmental policies and institutions that created them (FOCUS St. Louis, 1999; IFF 2009). 

Choice and Its Contradictions for Desegregation  

“Choice” implies the availability (and not restriction of) options, where the limitations are 
imposed by the chooser, not the chosen. Applied to St. Louis, choice meant Black and white families 
could choose to integrate if they wanted, but the school districts and state put limits on what choice 
meant for Black families, while expanding it for everyone else,7 particularly white families. In reality, 
choice for Black families was only available if white families, school districts, and governmental 
officials chose to grant special, temporary permissions to them. The VICC website states, “This 
Settlement Agreement allows African-American students residing in the City of St. Louis to attend 
one of several school districts in St. Louis County provided certain requirements are met” (VICC, 
n.d.a, para. 1). As VICC references, Black families were “allow[ed]” to participate in the VICC 
program, showing VICC as inferring there was a larger choice made before choice arrived 

                                                
7 The policy states “non-African American” students, not white students exclusively. However, the origins of 
the Brown violations in the Liddell suit, as well as corresponding redlining practices, are an issue of Black and 
white segregation specifically in the St. Louis context. The largest county participation in magnet schools is 
from white students and the participating county schools are predominantly white districts (VICC, n.d.d). 



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 23 

 
“downstream” to them. And in this permission-granting choice, caps were set on Black city student 
enrollment since inception, with supportive funding decreasing over time, though white county 
students have choices, too. 

Choice was a compromise to maintain the separate school districts throughout the county, 
yet it has been used to evade school integration in SLPS, as the county school districts’ participation 
were voluntary and often ended once a district met its racial quota (FOCUS St. Louis, 1999; Wells & 
Crain, 1997). Further, the new settlement agreement in 1999 limited the full choice of Black students 
in the city with the addition of attendance zones restricting county school options (Liddell v. Board of 
Education, 1999; VICC, n.d.c). While choice options continued to expand for white county students 
with the addition of more magnet schools and shrink for Black city students with the zoning of 
VICC-participating county schools, SLPS was also shifting the ways in which it marketed and 
structured magnet schools. Additionally, the district restructured its high schools as 
“comprehensive” and began referring to them as choice schools (SLPS, 2021). This also 
demonstrates a major shift from racial discourse to choice discourse, as this alters the discourse 
from being city/county or Black/white to being that of choice and an individual’s responsibility to 
choose wisely. 

Missouri has a history of lacking support for public schools and a desire to eliminate school 
funding for the sake of lowering taxes (Wells & Crain, 1997). School choice is seen by some as an 
expression of individual liberty and personal freedom, values that are popular among many Missouri 
residents. Ironically, when it comes to desegregation in St. Louis, “the transfer of students across 
districts has been going on…but because it is labeled a desegregation plan and because black 
students have more choices than white students do, it is not as politically popular” (Wells & Crain, 
1997, pp. 74-75). So, school choice remains a value that is most popular when it is specific to white 
students. In the most recent legislative session, bills are seeking to expand charter schools and create 
open enrollment in Missouri’s public schools (Weinberg, 2021). With COVID-19 and other political 
agendas taking center stage in the Missouri legislature, it is uncertain what school 
segregation/integration will look like moving forward.   

 

Discussion 
 

 Discourse matters. The language used in school integration policies conveys meanings for 
multiple stakeholders, which makes it critically important when what text and words are considered 
to express even the best intentions. Our use of CPA (Diem et al., 2014; Horsford et al., 2019) and 
CDA (Fairclough, 2014) illuminates the complex aspects of each district’s approach to integration, 
including power dynamics, the context of each district, and the tensions between policy rhetoric and 
practiced reality. Regarding our first research question, various racial discourses were identified that 
were used within and surrounding the three district integration plans. MNPS consistently used the 
term “diversity” when discussing and developing their integration plan and their four-part definition 
of diversity within the policy document weighs race heavily. Yet the color-evasive language used 
when articulating “race-neutral” solutions potentially undermines their apparent dedication to racial 
equity, as evidenced by the local reporting of racially minoritized family experiences within MNPS. 
SFUSD instead focused consistently on racial multiplicity while including race in their student 
assignment policy as well as throughout district documents. Tensions still arise, however, between 
racial rhetoric used by SFUSD and their realized outcomes as larger power dynamics, such as state 
intervention, sometimes limit the district’s decision-making. SLPS centered race in their plan from 
its conception to directly address school segregation predominantly between African American and 
white students. Yet, even with this explicit use of racial discourse, the consistent divestment from 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
surrounding predominantly white districts and communities has left them with an unknown future. 
The slow dismantling of the VICC program makes it increasingly difficult for school and community 
leaders to address integration concerns that stem from decades of racialized divestment.  

Regarding our second research question, each school district has also relied upon various 
discourses of school choice to uphold and/or disrupt existing racial inequities in their schools. All 
three districts operate and rely upon systems of school choice within their most recent policies, yet 
each district’s distinct relationship with school choice influences how the discourses are utilized. In 
MNPS, concerns about an under-regulated choice charter school actually spurred the creation of the 
Diversity Management Plan. Choice, however, is still the central method articulated within the plan 
to ensure that all MNPS students had access to diverse school settings. Choice is interestingly 
framed as both the problem and the solution in MNPS, yet choice options may be more attainable 
for white Nashville residents, destabilizing the assumption that choice can help address school 
diversity concerns. SFUSD proves to be more skeptical of choice as an effective approach to 
improving school integration. Although they had also historically relied upon choice to integrate 
schools, they recently acknowledged the ways in which school choice initiatives fall short on this 
goal. SFUSD has now pivoted away from a heavy reliance on choice to a more balanced approach 
that aims to more effectively create integrated school settings. Similarly, SLPS relies upon choice to 
address school segregation within the VICC program, yet their “downstream” position makes choice 
entirely dependent on white families, other school districts, and government officials. Even with the 
explicit centering of race in the integration plan, discourses of race appear to be largely supplanted 
by discourses of choice within the larger policy context. This has arguably given the surrounding 
predominantly white suburban school districts much more “choice” in the matter, as they can 
voluntarily leave the VICC program once racial quotas are met.   

Interest divergence provides a fresh and meaningful lens to better understand how the use of 
race- and choice-based discourses influence the integration policies and realities (Gillborn, 2013; 
Guinier, 2004). The policy discourses in each of the school districts reflect varying degrees of 
interest divergence, including divestments from and commitments to school integration that have 
wavered and sometimes strengthened over time. While MNPS’s integration plan is not designed to 
address previous policy changes that perpetuated school resegregation, it was created as direct 
resistance to state-pressured interest divergence. Importantly, this resistance of interest divergence 
does not necessarily improve the schooling experiences of racially minoritized students, potentially 
due to its use of “race-neutral” discourses within the policy’s solutions as well as its reliance on 
school choice to address diversity concerns. SFUSD also makes efforts to resist interest divergence 
as they designed a new student assignment policy. They specifically acknowledge the failures of 
previous integration plans and are currently trying to “reverse” their district’s resegregation, which 
includes limiting the reliance on choice to integrate schools. SFUSD’s current vision and application 
reach farther than MNPS’s, as it wants to both resist interest divergence and address the ways that it 
has historically influenced racial stratification in their schools today. This is reflected in the explicit 
inclusion of racial discourses within its policies as well as its resistance to choice options as the 
primary integration solution. SLPS, however, is currently in limbo regarding school integration, 
providing an example of the power of interest divergence when it is left uninhibited. Perpetual 
divestment of St. Louis from both the predominantly white surrounding St. Louis County as well as 
larger state political forces has made SLPS’s “downstream” situation difficult to navigate. By 
centering choice as the integration solution and displacing discourses of race, interest divergence 
reigns supreme as the desires of predominantly white suburban school districts are prioritized over 
the needs of SLPS students and families.  



Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 25 

 
Analyzing discourses of race and choice through the lens of interest divergence shows how, 

in the three districts included in this study, policy discourse matters when working to address 
concerns about integration in schools. Race-centered language appears to be one way to resist 
interest divergence and ensure that “white power-holders” do not get to solely dictate the primary 
beneficiaries of an integration policy, as seen in SFUSD and partly in MNPS (Gillborn, 2013, p. 
478). Yet, choice programs may undermine even the most race-centered initiatives. Although choice 
policies are often framed as “creating educational opportunities and access for all students,” 
Thompson Dorsey and Roulhac (2019) argue they instead are “more about returning to centuries-
old laws and policies that racially segregate students, limit equal educational opportunities for low-
income students of color, and support White supremacy ideals” (p. 436). As school choice policies 
continue to permeate the U.S. educational landscape, we must identify how they position (or omit) 
race within their design and use the lens of interest divergence to identify the likelihood of white 
powerholders inevitably benefitting from their implementation. We must also acknowledge, 
however, the historical and political realities of school districts such as SLPS. Districts like these 
serve as examples of how engulfing interest divergence can be beyond the district’s control, making 
it a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to overcome.  

The three districts included in this study provide evidence that it is critical to look both 
within and beyond policy documents to understand the creation, implementation, and in some cases, 
dismantling of district integration initiatives. By utilizing interest divergence, CPA, and CDA in our 
analysis, we identified specific discourses within each of the policies, while also illuminating their 
strikingly different influences for each school district’s situated context. Indeed, policies themselves 
cannot be disentangled from the rhetoric, power, accountability, and politics surrounding their 
development and implementation. 

 

Implications and Future Research 
 

The research has bearings on implications for policy and practice. First, racial discourses 
need to be explicitly factored into integration policies if the goal is to seek racial diversity across 
school districts. Moreover, integration policies must be designed in a way that leads to all schools 
being racially, ethnically, linguistically, and economically diverse, as well as high-quality and appealing 
(Diem, 2012; Horsford, 2019; Parker, 2012; Wells, 2014). This has shifted over time, particularly 
given the growing popularity of the school choice movement and how these districts have had to 
navigate choice (Holme & Finnigan, 2018; Horsford et al., 2019). While SFUSD has taken a more 
holistic approach to looking at integration, hoping to actively manage choices that will lead to 
diverse schools, in SLPS, choice is overshadowing integration efforts, and the district’s vision of 
integration is increasingly being relinquished to unchecked choice. Without mitigating factors, choice 
can exacerbate inequities in a district (Diem & Welton, 2021; Horsford et al., 2019; Orfield & 
Frankenberg, 2013). Some have to increasingly market their schools to compete for students, which 
can have the damaging effect of commodifying student diversity and exploiting students of color 
rather than serving them (Turner, 2018).  

A second implication is the importance of understanding the racial discourses of the current 
policies and how historical and sociopolitical contexts in each site influence the discourses. Notably, 
in each of the district’s policies we analyzed, the state had recently undermined local control to 
encourage charter schools or school choice alternatives. State intervention in each of these districts 
on behalf of charter schools may speak to the continual evolution nationally towards school choice 
(Horsford et al., 2019; Orfield & Frankenberg, 2013; U.S. DOE, 2019), which some fear may be 
fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic (Ujifusa, 2021). However, historically, the role of the state in 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
desegregation efforts has varied across the districts we analyzed. All of these districts have long 
desegregation histories, but a couple have continued to push for integration intentionally. Meanwhile 
in St Louis, the future of school integration is still uncertain. If we think of the sociopolitical context 
as gears that function in a system, when the gears are aligned, there is a cohesive and clear trajectory 
for districts to create, implement, and sustain integrative and equitable policies. Yet, often, school 
districts must navigate shifting sociopolitical contexts that are rife with tensions, particularly when it 
comes to race and addressing racism in public schools. Understanding these complexities, however, 
may better position us to enact policies that realize racial equity and bring about meaningful change 
for school communities.  

Since our study focuses specifically on discourses of race and choice, there are many other 
areas of research that can be explored related to school integration policies. Future research could 
analyze the political landscape beyond and outside of education focusing on who is in office and the 
local understanding of and engagement with the school system. In addition, researchers might 
continue to interrogate these districts with a multimodal analysis by which other forms of discourse, 
especially considering the various stakeholder audiences of the diverse mediums, might expand on 
our findings. Moreover, researchers might apply this same framework across a variety of school 
district contexts to examine similar questions around how racial and choice-based discourses are 
relied upon in these contexts. In particular, it would be compelling to examine school districts that 
have attempted integration through other approaches, such as the Clinton Public School District in 
Mississippi, which uses a “community” approach that sorts students between buildings based on 
grade level instead of neighborhood (Elliot, 2017; Mader, 2016). Future research might also examine 
political agendas and policy alternatives by interrogating the non-linear historical trajectory of policy 
conception and implementation. In other words, why does a school integration policy get 
“momentum” or political will to be pushed through to implementation? Further, how are state-level 
policymakers prioritizing the needs of local students from racially marginalized communities in 
school integration policies to mitigate the influence of interest divergence and convergence in 
policymaking? Finally, what do the policies and discourses look like in our current reality with the 
COVID-19 pandemic continuing to disrupt educational environments and adversely affecting 
racially minoritized students at disproportionate rates (U.S. DOE, 2021)? School integration scholars 
need to critically ask, what needs to (not) happen for race to be centered over socioeconomic status 
today. Additionally, is interest divergence the normative ideology accepted (or coerced) by all? What 
coalition (guardians, students, policymakers, etc.) wields the most power in this sort of discourse? It 
is imperative for integration scholars to examine the “power behind” their own discourse, 
individually, and as applicable, as a research team, to address the racial imbalances in both the policy 
and policy analysis. 
 

References 
 

Adams, K. R., & Miller, C. C. (2020, December 1). Building a better St. Louis City school system 
[presentation slides]. https://www.slps.org/Page/43722 

African American Parent Advisory Council. (2017, March 8). AAPAC reflections on SFUSD’s student 
assignment policy [presentation slides].  
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/ad-hoc-committee-
student-assignment#28446  

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Open University Press.  
Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education 

policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050069828225 

https://www.slps.org/Page/43722
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/ad-hoc-committee-student-assignment#28446
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/ad-hoc-committee-student-assignment#28446
https://doi.org/10.1080/03050069828225


Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 27 

 
Banks, A. (2019). Special administrative board of the transitional school district of the City of St. Louis, Missouri 

(St. Louis Public Schools), comprehensive annual financial report for the year ended June 30, 2019. 
https://www.slps.org/ 

Banks, A. (2020). Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Missouri (St. Louis Public Schools), comprehensive 
annual financial report for the year ended June 30, 2020. https://www.slps.org/ 

Bartlett, K. (2020, April 14). ‘A gem’: Metro board enthusiastically approves Battle’s four-year  
contract as MNPS superintendent. Tennessean. 
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2020/04/14/mnps-superintendent-
adrienne-battle-contract/2991037001/  

Bay Area Census. (1970-2010). San Francisco city and county. 
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm 

Bell, Jr., D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law  
Review, 93(3), 518-533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546 

Belsha, K., & Darville, S. (2021, April 9). Biden proposes doubling Title I, sending even more  
money to high-poverty schools. Chalkbeat. 
https://www.chalkbeat.org/2021/4/9/22375692/biden-proposes-doubling-title-i-sending-
high-poverty-schools 

Benchaabane, N. (2018, November 1). Siblings of students in voluntary school desegregation have  
until Friday to apply for 2019. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/siblings-of-students-in-voluntary-school-
desegregation-haveuntil-friday-to-apply-for-2019/article_ef6e6156-b1e2-579e-9e0f-
ec6a900989d8.html  

Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2007). School choice, racial segregation, and test-score gaps: Evidence 
from North Carolina’s charter school program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(1), 
31-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20226 

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 
California Department of Education, Data Quest. (1990-2019). Enrollment multi-year summary by 

ethnicity, San Francisco Unified report. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/  
Cambria, N., Fehler, P., Purnell, J. Q., & Schmidt, B. (2018). Segregation in St. Louis: Dismantling the 

divide. Washington University in St. Louis. https://cpb-us-
w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.wustl.edu/dist/3/1454/files/2018/06/Segregation-in-St.-Louis-
Dismantling-the-Divide-22ih4vw.pdf 

Carpenter, B. W., & Diem, S. (2015). Guidance matters: A critical discourse analysis of the race-  
related policy vocabularies shaping leadership preparation. Urban Education, 50(5), 515-534. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914528719 

Chotiner, I. (2021, February 6). How San Francisco renamed its schools. The New Yorker. 
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-san-francisco-renamed-its-schools  

Comen, E. (2019, July 20). Detroit, Chicago, Memphis: The 25 most segregated cities in America. 
USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/20/detroit-chicago-
memphis-most-segregated-cities-america-housing-policy/39703787/ 

Cooper, J. [@repjimcooper]. (2020, September 15). Efforts to reduce racial and socioeconomic isolation in 
schools have stalled in cities like Nashville. Today the House passed my amendment that takes a step 
forward in ending segregation and racial injustice, and would reverse the cut in grant funding by 
@BetsyDeVosED [tweet]. Twitter. 
https://twitter.com/repjimcooper/status/1305961013611823109  

https://www.slps.org/
https://www.slps.org/
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2020/04/14/mnps-superintendent-adrienne-battle-contract/2991037001/
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2020/04/14/mnps-superintendent-adrienne-battle-contract/2991037001/
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm
https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
https://www.chalkbeat.org/2021/4/9/22375692/biden-proposes-doubling-title-i-sending-high-poverty-schools
https://www.chalkbeat.org/2021/4/9/22375692/biden-proposes-doubling-title-i-sending-high-poverty-schools
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/siblings-of-students-in-voluntary-school-desegregation-haveuntil-friday-to-apply-for-2019/article_ef6e6156-b1e2-579e-9e0f-ec6a900989d8.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/siblings-of-students-in-voluntary-school-desegregation-haveuntil-friday-to-apply-for-2019/article_ef6e6156-b1e2-579e-9e0f-ec6a900989d8.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/siblings-of-students-in-voluntary-school-desegregation-haveuntil-friday-to-apply-for-2019/article_ef6e6156-b1e2-579e-9e0f-ec6a900989d8.html
https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20226
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dataquest.asp
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.wustl.edu/dist/3/1454/files/2018/06/Segregation-in-St.-Louis-Dismantling-the-Divide-22ih4vw.pdf
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.wustl.edu/dist/3/1454/files/2018/06/Segregation-in-St.-Louis-Dismantling-the-Divide-22ih4vw.pdf
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.wustl.edu/dist/3/1454/files/2018/06/Segregation-in-St.-Louis-Dismantling-the-Divide-22ih4vw.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914528719
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-san-francisco-renamed-its-schools
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/20/detroit-chicago-memphis-most-segregated-cities-america-housing-policy/39703787/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/20/detroit-chicago-memphis-most-segregated-cities-america-housing-policy/39703787/
https://twitter.com/BetsyDeVosED
https://twitter.com/BetsyDeVosED
https://twitter.com/BetsyDeVosED
https://twitter.com/repjimcooper/status/1305961013611823109


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
Crouch, E. (2016, June 10). St. Louis desegregation program headed for phase out. The St Louis Post 

Dispatch. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/st-louis-desegregation-program-
headed-for-phaseout/article_9dadfa4c-3d49-5b80-b6ec-2b1c03d2e5c7.html  

Crouch, E., & Moskop, W. (2014, May 17). Poverty and academic struggle go hand-in-hand. The St. 
Louis Post Dispatch. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/poverty-and-
academic-struggle-go-hand-in-hand/article_944bf0f6-c13f-5bbc-9112-9ab9ae205607.html 

Diem, S. (2012). The relationship between policy design, context, and implementation in integration   
plans. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(23), 1-39. 
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n23.2012 

Diem, S., & Welton, A. D. (2021). Anti-racist educational leadership and policy: Addressing racism in public  
education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429487224 

Diem, S., Young, M. D., Welton, A. D., Mansfield, K. C., & Lee, P. (2014). The intellectual  
landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(9), 
1068-1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.916007 

Elliot, D. (2017). Restoring the promise of public education: The case of Clinton, Mississippi. The 
Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/allstate-2017/restoring-the-promise-of-
public-education/1181/  

Erickson, A. (2016). Making the unequal metropolis: School desegregation and its limits. The University of  
Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226025391.001.0001 

Fairclough, N. (2014). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.  
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250 

FOCUS St. Louis. (1999). Focus on desegregation: Questions and answers about the implication of the citywide  
vote on February 2, 1999. https://slpsfoundation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/focus_on_desegregation_quest.pdf 

French, A. D. (2002, October 3). Quiet conspiracy: The team four plan and the plot to kill North St. 
Louis. Public Defender. http://www.pubdef.net/2002/quiet_conspiracy.html 

Garrison, J. (2014, May 31). School rezoning plan misses racial diversity goals. Tennessean.  
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2014/06/01/school-rezoning-plan-
misses-racial-diversity-goals/9823637/  

Gillborn, D. (2013). Interest-divergence and the colour of cutbacks: Race, recession and the 
undeclared war on Black children. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(4), 
477-491. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2013.822616 

Glass, I. (Host). (2015a, July 31). The problem we all live with - part one (No. 562) [Audio podcast 
episode]. In This American Life. WBEZ Chicago. 
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one 

Glass, I. (Host). (2015b, August 7). The problem we all live with - part two (No. 563) [Audio 
podcast episode]. In This American Life. WBEZ Chicago. 
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/563/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-two  

Goldring, E., Cohen-Vogel, L., Smrekar, C., & Taylor, C. (2006). Schooling closer to home:  
Desegregation policy and neighborhood contexts. American Journal of Education, 112(3), 335-
362. https://doi.org/10.1086/500712 

Goldstein, D. (2019, April 25). San Francisco had an ambitious plan to tackle school segregation. It 
made it worse. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/san-
francisco-school-segregation.html 

Guinier, L. (2004). From racial liberalism to racial literacy: Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-
divergence dilemma. Journal of American History, 91(1), 92-118. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/3659616 

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/st-louis-desegregation-program-headed-for-phaseout/article_9dadfa4c-3d49-5b80-b6ec-2b1c03d2e5c7.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/st-louis-desegregation-program-headed-for-phaseout/article_9dadfa4c-3d49-5b80-b6ec-2b1c03d2e5c7.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/poverty-and-academic-struggle-go-hand-in-hand/article_944bf0f6-c13f-5bbc-9112-9ab9ae205607.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/poverty-and-academic-struggle-go-hand-in-hand/article_944bf0f6-c13f-5bbc-9112-9ab9ae205607.html
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v20n23.2012
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429487224
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.916007
https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/allstate-2017/restoring-the-promise-of-public-education/1181/
https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/allstate-2017/restoring-the-promise-of-public-education/1181/
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226025391.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250
https://slpsfoundation.org/wp-
https://slpsfoundation.org/wp-
http://www.pubdef.net/2002/quiet_conspiracy.html
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2014/06/01/school-rezoning-plan-misses-racial-diversity-goals/9823637/
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2014/06/01/school-rezoning-plan-misses-racial-diversity-goals/9823637/
https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2013.822616
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/562/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-one
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/563/the-problem-we-all-live-with-part-two
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1086%2F500712&data=04%7C01%7C%7Ca9f3b6377d0e485d9ab008d923d6bbc5%7Ce3fefdbef7e9401ba51a355e01b05a89%7C0%7C0%7C637580227446748407%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=sL7Fzmrdo6GHk9Tz2%2B9mg7Erbdsev33kyhmCslKaeew%3D&reserved=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/san-francisco-school-segregation.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/san-francisco-school-segregation.html
https://doi.org/10.2307/3659616


Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 29 

 
Hannah-Jones, N. (2014). School segregation, the continuing tragedy of Ferguson. ProPublica.  

https://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregation 
Holme, J. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2018). Striving in common: A regional equity framework for urban schools. 

Harvard Education Press.  
Horsford, S. D. (2019). Whose school integration? Voices in Urban Education, 49(1), 21-25. 
Horsford, S. D., Scott, J. T., & Anderson, G. L. (2019). The politics of education policy in an era of  

inequality: Possibilities for democratic schooling. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680682 

IFF. (2009). Public school in St. Louis: Place, performance, and promise. http://iff.org/wp- 
content/uploads/2017/05/STL-Place-Performance-Promise.pdf 

Jennings, J. L. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. 
Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710375688 

Johnson v. San Francisco Unified School District, 339 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1971).  
Kelley et al., v. Metropolitan Nashville Board of Education, 317 F. Supp. 980 (1970). 
Knight, M. (2019, September 20). Citing budget cuts, Metro Schools shuts its diversity and equity 

office. WPLN. https://wpln.org/post/citing-budget-cuts-metro-schools-shuts-its-diversity-
and-equity-office/  

Knight, M. (Host). (2020a). The promise [Audio podcast]. WPLN. https://wpln.org/programs/the-
promise/  

Knight, M. (Host). (2020b, October 12). Season 2, episode 7: The recruitment divide [Audio podcast 
episode]. In The promise. WPLN. https://wpln.org/post/season-2-episode-7-the-recruitment-
divide/  

Kotok, S., Frankenberg, E., Schafft, K. A., Mann, B. A., & Fuller, E. J. (2017). School choice, racial 
segregation, and poverty concentration: Evidence from Pennsylvania charter school 
transfers. Educational Policy, 31(4), 415-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815604112 

Koyama, J., & Chang, E. (2019). Schools as refuge? The politics and policy of educating refugees in 
Arizona. Educational Policy, 33(1), 136-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818807319 

La Pierre, D. B. (1987). Voluntary interdistrict school desegregation in St. Louis: The special 
master’s tale. Wisconsin Law Review, 1987(6), 971-1040. 

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).  
Levinson, B. A. U., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: 

Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767-
795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808320676 

Levitt, R., & O’Connell, H. (2020a, August 31). What’s happening with student assignment. SFUSD’s 
student assignment: Blog post #1. https://www.sfusd.edu/whats-happening-student-
assignment   

Levitt, R., & O’Connell, H. (2020b, September 16). Facing our past, changing our future, part II: Five 
decades of desegregation in SFUSD (1971-today). SFUSD’s student assignment: Blog post #3. 
https://www.sfusd.edu/facing-our-past-changing-our-future-part-ii-five-decades-
desegregation-sfusd-1971-today 

Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, MO., No 72C 100(1) (E.D. Mo. 1972). 
Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St Louis, MO., 567 F. Supp. 1037 (E.D. Mo. 1983). 
Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St Louis, MO., 731 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1983). 
Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St Louis, MO. (1999). Memorandum and order. 

https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/SD-MO-0001-0002.pdf 
Mader, J. (2016, April 18). How one Mississippi district made integration work. The Hechinger Report. 

https://hechingerreport.org/how-one-mississippi-district-made-integration-work/  

https://www.propublica.org/article/ferguson-school-segregation
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680682
http://iff.org/wp-
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710375688
https://wpln.org/post/citing-budget-cuts-metro-schools-shuts-its-diversity-and-equity-office/
https://wpln.org/post/citing-budget-cuts-metro-schools-shuts-its-diversity-and-equity-office/
https://wpln.org/programs/the-promise/
https://wpln.org/programs/the-promise/
https://wpln.org/post/season-2-episode-7-the-recruitment-divide/
https://wpln.org/post/season-2-episode-7-the-recruitment-divide/
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815604112
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904818807319
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0895904808320676
https://www.sfusd.edu/whats-happening-student-assignment
https://www.sfusd.edu/whats-happening-student-assignment
https://www.sfusd.edu/facing-our-past-changing-our-future-part-ii-five-decades-desegregation-sfusd-1971-today
https://www.sfusd.edu/facing-our-past-changing-our-future-part-ii-five-decades-desegregation-sfusd-1971-today
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/SD-MO-0001-0002.pdf
https://hechingerreport.org/how-one-mississippi-district-made-integration-work/


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
Mayers v. Ridley, 465 F.2d 630 (D.C. Cir. 1972).  
Mendez et al. v. Westminster School District of Orange County et al., 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947).  
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (1996, November). Twenty-seven year analysis of  

enrollment patterns. Kelley, box 23, file 1996. 
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2016, October 26). School choice in Metro schools presentation 

[video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnpCid-EYHk&t=1181s  
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2019, August). 2018-19 annual diversity report. 

https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Equity%20and%
20Diversity/2018-19%20Annual%20Diversity%20Report%20083019.pdf  

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2021a). Explore. https://www.mnps.org/learn/register-for-
school/school-options/explore  

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2021b). Quick guide to Metro schools.  
https://mnps.org/about/quick_guide  

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (n.d.a). Diversity management plan of the Metropolitan Nashville 
Public Schools (“MNPS”).  
https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Equity%20and%
20Diversity/Diversity%20Management%20Plan.pdf  

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (n.d.b). MNPS diversity initiatives.  
https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Departments/Eq
uity%20and%20Diversity/MNPS%20Diversity%20Initiatives.pdf  

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Board of Education. (2008, July 8). Metropolitan Nashville 
Public Schools Board of Education Minutes.  
https://www.mnps.org/cms/one.aspx?portalid=32970327&pageid=36545406  

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Board of Education. (2012a, August 14). Metropolitan Nashville 
Public Schools Board of Education Minutes.  
https://www.mnps.org/cms/one.aspx?portalid=32970327&pageid=36545406  

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Board of Education. (2012b, September 11). Metropolitan 
Nashville Public Schools Board of Education Minutes.  
https://www.mnps.org/cms/one.aspx?portalid=32970327&pageid=36545406  

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Board of Education. (2013, February 12). Metropolitan 
Nashville Public Schools Board of Education Minutes.  
https://www.mnps.org/cms/one.aspx?portalid=32970327&pageid=36545406  

Mickelson, R. A., & Nkomo, M. (2012). Integrated schooling, life course outcomes, and social 
cohesion in multiethnic democratic societies. Review of Research in Education, 36, 197-238. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X11422667 

Mickelson, R. A., Quinones, M., Smith, S. S., & Parcel, T. L. (2021, January). Public opinion, race, 
and levels of desegregation in five southern school districts. Social Science Research, 93, 1-16. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102477 

Milner, H. R., IV. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers  
seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388-340.  
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471 

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1991-2019). District demographic data,  
St. Louis City. https://dese.mo.gov/ 

Missouri State Legislature. (1998). Senate Bill 781 (1998).  
https://www.senate.mo.gov/98info/bills/SB781.htm 

Nagel, S. S. (1984). Contemporary public policy analysis. The University of Alabama Press.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1984.tb00495.x 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnpCid-EYHk&t=1181s
https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Equity%20and%20Diversity/2018-19%20Annual%20Diversity%20Report%20083019.pdf
https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Equity%20and%20Diversity/2018-19%20Annual%20Diversity%20Report%20083019.pdf
https://www.mnps.org/learn/register-for-school/school-options/explore
https://www.mnps.org/learn/register-for-school/school-options/explore
https://mnps.org/about/quick_guide
https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Equity%20and%20Diversity/Diversity%20Management%20Plan.pdf
https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Equity%20and%20Diversity/Diversity%20Management%20Plan.pdf
https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Departments/Equity%20and%20Diversity/MNPS%20Diversity%20Initiatives.pdf
https://www.mnps.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_32970243/File/About/Departments/Equity%20and%20Diversity/MNPS%20Diversity%20Initiatives.pdf
https://www.mnps.org/cms/one.aspx?portalid=32970327&pageid=36545406
https://www.mnps.org/cms/one.aspx?portalid=32970327&pageid=36545406
https://www.mnps.org/cms/one.aspx?portalid=32970327&pageid=36545406
https://www.mnps.org/cms/one.aspx?portalid=32970327&pageid=36545406
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X11422667
https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?yU3wk2
https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?yU3wk2
https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?yU3wk2
https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?yU3wk2
https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?yU3wk2
https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?yU3wk2
https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?yU3wk2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102477
https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X07309471
https://dese.mo.gov/
https://www.senate.mo.gov/98info/bills/SB781.htm
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1984.tb00495.x


Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 31 

 
Noguera, P. A. (2019). Why school integration matters. Educational Leadership, 76(7), 20-28. 
Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. 

The New Press. 
Orfield, G., Ee, J., Ayscue, J. B., & Frankenberg, E. (2019). Harming our common future: America’s 

segregated schools 65 years after Brown. The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles and 
the Center for Education and Civil Rights.  
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-
diversity/harming-our-common-future-americas-segregated-schools-65-years-after-brown 

Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (Eds.). (2013). Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and  
how to make schools fair. University of California Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520955103 

Parker, W. (2012). From the failure of desegregation to the failure of choice. Washington University 
Journal of Law & Policy, 40(1), 117-152. 

Potter, H., & Burris, M. (2020). Here is what school integration in America looks like today. The 
Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/school-integration-america-looks-like-
today/ 

Promoting Racially Integrated Schools Act, S. 305, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 192  
General Court. (2021). https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/SD2162 

Prunty, J. J. (1985). Signposts for a critical educational policy analysis. Australian Journal of  
Education, 29(2), 133-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494418502900205 

Quinn, R. (2020). Class action: Desegregation and diversity in San Francisco schools. University of Minnesota  
Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvwh8f1h 

Rias, H. C. (2018). St. Louis school desegregation: Patterns of progress and peril. Springer International  
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04248-6 

Saint Louis Public Schools. (2021). Magnet, choice, and comprehensive high schools.  
https://slpsmagnetschools.org/high 

San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School, Opinion and Order, 573 F Supp. 34 (1983).  
San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School, No. C-78-1445 WHO (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 

2001).  
San Francisco Unified School District. (2010). Board policy 5101: Student assignment. [Adopted October 

9, 2018]. https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sfusd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=B55QMC657423  
San Francisco Unified School District. (2012). Student enrollment––1967-68 to 2012-13.  

https://www.sfusd.edu/  
San Francisco Unified School District. (2014). SFUSD vision 2025: Reimagining public  

education in San Francisco for a new generation. https://www.sfusd.edu/about-sfusd/our-mission-
and-vision/vision-2025  

San Francisco Unified School District. (2020). Board Policy 5101.2: Elementary school student assignment. 
https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sfusd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=B55QMC657423#  

San Francisco Unified School District. (2021a). Ad hoc committee on student assignment. 
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/ad-hoc-committee-
student-assignment 

San Francisco Unified School District. (2021b). Changes to student assignment policy.  
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/student-assignment-
changes  

San Francisco Unified School District. (2021c). Our mission and vision. https://www.sfusd.edu/about-
sfusd/our-mission-and-vision 

https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/harming-our-common-future-americas-segregated-schools-65-years-after-brown
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/harming-our-common-future-americas-segregated-schools-65-years-after-brown
https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520955103
https://tcf.org/content/report/school-integration-america-looks-like-today/
https://tcf.org/content/report/school-integration-america-looks-like-today/
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/SD2162
https://doi.org/10.1177/000494418502900205
https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvwh8f1h
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04248-6
https://slpsmagnetschools.org/high
https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sfusd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=B55QMC657423
https://www.sfusd.edu/
https://www.sfusd.edu/about-sfusd/our-mission-and-vision/vision-2025
https://www.sfusd.edu/about-sfusd/our-mission-and-vision/vision-2025
https://go.boarddocs.com/ca/sfusd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=B55QMC657423
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/ad-hoc-committee-student-assignment
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/ad-hoc-committee-student-assignment
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/student-assignment-changes
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy/student-assignment-changes
https://www.sfusd.edu/about-sfusd/our-mission-and-vision
https://www.sfusd.edu/about-sfusd/our-mission-and-vision


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
San Francisco Unified School District. (2021d). Student assignment blog. 

https://www.sfusd.edu/student-assignment-blog  
San Francisco Unified School District. (2021e). Student assignment policy. 

https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy  
Saporito, S. (2003). Private choices, public consequences: Magnet school choice and segregation by 

race and poverty. Social Problems, 50(2), 181-203. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.181 
Schwartz, K. (2018a, January 11). How the San Francisco school lottery works, and how it doesn't. 

KQED. https://www.kqed.org/news/11641238/how-the-san-francisco-school-lottery-
works-and-how-it-doesnt-2  

Spurlock v. Fox, 716 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2013). 
Strauss, V. (2012, September 19). Tennessee punishing Nashville for refusing to open charter 

school. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/post/tennessee-punishing-nashville-for-refusing-to-open-charter-
school/2012/09/18/7b2f5548-01eb-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html  

Strauss, V. (2017, September 7). The sad story of public education in St. Louis. The Washington Post. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/09/07/the-sad-story-of-
public-education-in-st-louis/ 

Strength in Diversity Act, H.R. 2639, 116th Congress (2020).  
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2639/BILLS-116hr2639eh.pdf 

Taketa, K. (2016, November 18). Voluntary deseg program to close for new students in 2024. St.  
Louis Post-Dispatch. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/voluntary-deseg-
program-to-close-for-new-students-in-2024/article_8a8a0b54-c88c-532f-af8e-
8cebfe7fd487.html 

Tape v. Hurley, 66 Cal. 473 (1885). 
Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Educational policy and the politics of change. 

Routledge. 
Thompson Dorsey, D. N., & Roulhac, G. D. (2019). From desegregation to privatization: A critical 

race policy analysis of school choice and educational opportunity in North Carolina. Peabody 
Journal of Education, 94(4), 420-441. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1648953 

Tucker, T. & Fancher, E. (2020, December 9). San Francisco just approved a new public school 
assignment process. Here’s what you need to know. San Francisco Chronicle.  
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/San-Francisco-just-approved-a-new-
public-school-15789623.php  

Turner, E. O. (2018) Marketing diversity: Selling school districts in a racialized marketplace. Journal of 
Education Policy, 33(6), 793-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1386327 

Ujifusa, A. (2021, January 27). COVID-19 may energize push for school choice in states: Where  
that leads is unclear. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/covid-19-may-
energize-push-for-school-choice-in-states-where-that-leads-is-unclear/2021/01  

Ulmer, J. (2016). Diffraction as a method of critical policy analysis. Educational Philosophy and  
Theory, 48(13), 1381-1394. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1211001 

United States Census. (1970-2019). Nashville-Davidson County, San Francisco City, and St. Louis, City. 
https://www.census.gov/ 

United States Department of Education. (2016). Opening doors, expanding opportunities grants.  
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/odeo/index.html 

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). School  
choice in the United States: 2019. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/schoolchoice/index.asp  

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core  

https://www.sfusd.edu/student-assignment-blog
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/enroll/student-assignment-policy
https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.181
https://www.kqed.org/news/11641238/how-the-san-francisco-school-lottery-works-and-how-it-doesnt-2
https://www.kqed.org/news/11641238/how-the-san-francisco-school-lottery-works-and-how-it-doesnt-2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/tennessee-punishing-nashville-for-refusing-to-open-charter-school/2012/09/18/7b2f5548-01eb-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/tennessee-punishing-nashville-for-refusing-to-open-charter-school/2012/09/18/7b2f5548-01eb-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/tennessee-punishing-nashville-for-refusing-to-open-charter-school/2012/09/18/7b2f5548-01eb-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/09/07/the-sad-story-of-public-education-in-st-louis/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/09/07/the-sad-story-of-public-education-in-st-louis/
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hr2639/BILLS-116hr2639eh.pdf
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/voluntary-deseg-program-to-close-for-new-students-in-2024/article_8a8a0b54-c88c-532f-af8e-8cebfe7fd487.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/voluntary-deseg-program-to-close-for-new-students-in-2024/article_8a8a0b54-c88c-532f-af8e-8cebfe7fd487.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/voluntary-deseg-program-to-close-for-new-students-in-2024/article_8a8a0b54-c88c-532f-af8e-8cebfe7fd487.html
https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1648953
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/San-Francisco-just-approved-a-new-public-school-15789623.php
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/San-Francisco-just-approved-a-new-public-school-15789623.php
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1386327
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/covid-19-may-energize-push-for-school-choice-in-states-where-that-leads-is-unclear/2021/01
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/covid-19-may-energize-push-for-school-choice-in-states-where-that-leads-is-unclear/2021/01
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1211001
https://www.census.gov/
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/odeo/index.html
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/schoolchoice/index.asp


Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 33 

 
of Data (CCD). (1990-2019). Metro Nashville Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/  

United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The  
disparate impacts of COVID-19 on America’s students. 
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf  

United States Department of Justice & United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Guidance  
on the voluntary use of race to achieve diversity and avoid racial isolation in elementary and secondary schools. 
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.html  

Vainshtein, A. (2021, January 5). ‘San Francisco at its worst’: Schools renaming process blasted by 
advocacy group. San Francisco Chronicle.  
https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/San-Francisco-at-its-worst-Report-by-
15848397.php   

Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation. (2016). Press release. 
https://www.choicecorp.org/FuturePlans.htm  

Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation. (n.d.a). Answers to some frequently asked questions. Retrieved 
January 24, 2021, from https://www.choicecorp.org/FreqQuest.htm  

Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation. (n.d.b). Eligibility. Retrieved January 24, 2021, from  
http://www.choicecorp.org/CICOEligibility.htm   

Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation. (n.d.c). Historical background. Retrieved January 24, 2021, 
from http://www.choicecorp.org/HistBack.htm 

Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation. (n.d.d). St. Louis magnet schools. Retrieved January 24, 
2021, from http://www.choicecorp.org/COCI.htm 

Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation. (n.d.e). The history of the VICC program. Retrieved January 
24, 2021, from https://www.choicecorp.org/VICCHistory.pdf  

Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation. (n.d.f). Third extension FAQs. Retrieved January 24, 2021, 
from https://www.choicecorp.org/FuturePlans.htm  

Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation. (n.d.g). Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation 
(Homepage). Retrieved January 24, 2021, from https://www.choicecorp.org/ 

Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to  
complexity. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 153-167.  
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08318050 

Weinberg, T. (2021, February 20). School choice bills have been pushed in Missouri for years. Will 
the pandemic pave the way? Columbia Daily Tribune.  
https://www.columbiatribune.com/story/news/state/2021/02/20/school-choice-bills-
have-been-pushed-missouri-years-pandemic-pave-way/4518538001/  

Wells, A. S. (2014). Seeing past the “colorblind” myth: Why education policymakers should address racial and 
ethnic inequality and support culturally diverse schools. National Education Policy Center. 
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/seeing-past-the-colorblind-myth  

Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1997). Stepping over the color line: African-American students in white suburban 
schools. Yale University Press. 

Wells, A. S., Fox, L., & Cordova-Cobo, D. (2016). How racially diverse schools can benefit all students. The 
Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/how-racially-diverse-schools-and-
classrooms-can-benefit-all-students/ 

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies. SAGE.  
Wolff, M. (2016, May 26). How the Missouri legislature pitted SLPS against charter schools. The St. 

Louis American. http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/how-the-missouri-
legislature-pitted-slps-against-charter-schools/article_ba882486-21b8-11e6-8f43-
e701f5215876.html 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.html
https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/San-Francisco-at-its-worst-Report-by-15848397.php
https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/San-Francisco-at-its-worst-Report-by-15848397.php
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1agdctYzoW_pxCo9o2k_k_xKrMF88Ypg8
https://www.choicecorp.org/FuturePlans.htm
https://www.choicecorp.org/FreqQuest.htm
http://www.choicecorp.org/CICOEligibility.htm
http://www.choicecorp.org/HistBack.htm
http://www.choicecorp.org/COCI.htm
https://www.choicecorp.org/VICCHistory.pdf
https://www.choicecorp.org/FuturePlans.htm
https://www.choicecorp.org/
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08318050
https://www.columbiatribune.com/story/news/state/2021/02/20/school-choice-bills-have-been-pushed-missouri-years-pandemic-pave-way/4518538001/
https://www.columbiatribune.com/story/news/state/2021/02/20/school-choice-bills-have-been-pushed-missouri-years-pandemic-pave-way/4518538001/
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/seeing-past-the-colorblind-myth
https://tcf.org/content/report/how-racially-diverse-schools-and-classrooms-can-benefit-all-students/
https://tcf.org/content/report/how-racially-diverse-schools-and-classrooms-can-benefit-all-students/
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/how-the-missouri-legislature-pitted-slps-against-charter-schools/article_ba882486-21b8-11e6-8f43-e701f5215876.html
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/how-the-missouri-legislature-pitted-slps-against-charter-schools/article_ba882486-21b8-11e6-8f43-e701f5215876.html
http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/how-the-missouri-legislature-pitted-slps-against-charter-schools/article_ba882486-21b8-11e6-8f43-e701f5215876.html


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
Wollenberg, C. (1976). All deliberate speed: Segregation and exclusion in California schools, 1855-1975.  

University of California Press. 
Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (Eds.). (2017). Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond   

tradition. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39643-9 
Young, M. D., & Diem, S. (2018). Doing critical policy analysis in education research: An emerging   

paradigm. In C. R. Lochmiller (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and 
policy studies (pp. 79-98). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_5 

Zelinski, A. (2014, December 18). As students and parents opt out of their zoned schools, will the 
system entice them to find their way back? Nashville Scene.  
https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/article/13057331/as-students-and-parents-opt-out-
of-their-zoned-schools-will-the-system-entice-them-to-find-their-way-back  

 

About the Authors 
 
Sarah Diem 
University of Missouri 
diems@missouri.edu 
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0798-5220 
Sarah Diem is a professor of educational policy and leadership in the Department of Educational 
Leadership & Policy Analysis at the University of Missouri. Her research focuses on the 
sociopolitical and geographic contexts of education, paying particular attention to how politics, 
leadership, and implementation of educational policies affect outcomes related to equity, 
opportunity, and racial diversity within public schools. 
 
Madeline Good 
University of Missouri 
mewcq8@mail.missouri.edu 
Madeline Good is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy 
Analysis at the University of Missouri. Her primary research focuses on how policies interact with 
the sociological, political, and technological contexts of education, especially regarding issues of 
equity and teacher expertise. 
 
Brittany Smotherson 
University of Missouri 
smothersonb@missouri.edu 
Brittany Smotherson is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy 
Analysis at the University of Missouri, with an emphasis in higher education administration and 
certificates in qualitative research and education policy. Her research interests include higher 
education internationalization, Black women, and critical theories and methodologies.  

 
Sarah W. Walters 
University of Missouri 
sarahwalters@mail.missouri.edu 
Sarah W. Walters is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy 
Analysis at the University of Missouri. Her experience as a former public-school teacher has 
informed her research interests in policies and practices that address racial inequities in PK12 
schools.  

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39643-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_5
https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/article/13057331/as-students-and-parents-opt-out-of-their-zoned-schools-will-the-system-entice-them-to-find-their-way-back
https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/article/13057331/as-students-and-parents-opt-out-of-their-zoned-schools-will-the-system-entice-them-to-find-their-way-back
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0798-5220
mailto:sarahwalters@mail.missouri.edu


Language and power dynamics: A critical policy analysis of racial and choice discourses in school integration policies 35 

 
  
Vida Nana Ama Bonney 
University of Missouri 
va244@mail.missouri.edu 
Vida Nana Ama Bonney is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Human Development and 
Family Science at the University of Missouri. Her research interests are centered on the lived 
experiences of migrants, parenting, and child development in multicultural and multilingual families, 
and the effects of cultural and contextual factors on early childhood development. 
 

About the Editors 
 
Sarah Diem 
University of Missouri 
diems@missouri.edu 
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0798-5220 
Sarah Diem is a professor of educational policy and leadership in the Department of Educational 
Leadership & Policy Analysis at the University of Missouri. Her research focuses on the 
sociopolitical and geographic contexts of education, paying particular attention to how politics, 
leadership, and implementation of educational policies affect outcomes related to equity, 
opportunity, and racial diversity within public schools. 
 
Jeffrey S. Brooks 
Curtin University  
jeffrey.brooks@curtin.edu.au 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5742-3958 
Jeffrey S. Brooks is a professor of education and head of school of the School of Education at 
Curtin University. His research focuses on how leadership influences (and is influenced by) 
dynamics related to social justice, racism, and globalisation. 
 
 

SPECIAL ISSUE  

Critical Policy Analysis in Education: 
Exploring and Interrogating (In)Equity Across Contexts 

 education policy analysis archives 
Volume 30 Number 12  February 8, 2022 ISSN 1068-2341 

 

 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as 
the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes 
are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative 
Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. EPAA 
is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona 
State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0798-5220
mailto:jeffrey.brooks@curtin.edu.au
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5742-3958
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 30  No. 12    SPECIAL ISSUE 

 
Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research 
Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, 
SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). 

About the Editorial Team: https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/about/editorialTeam 

Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu  
 

Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter 
feed @epaa_aape. 

 

 

http://www.doaj.org/
https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/about/editorialTeam
https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/about/editorialTeam
mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu
https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE