Princeton is renowned as a place of education. Although this reputation stems from the University, the town also takes pride in the arts and culture that can be found here and in the achievements of its public school system, the Princeton Regional Schools. Seventy percent of the Princeton Regional Schools faculty posses a masters degree and five percent posses a doctoral degree. In an age when the quality of schools is judged by the dollar amount spent per students, the Princeton Regional School District spends an average of 25% more per student than the state average and has a times spent almost twice the state average. The schools have been recognized for their high standards of academic excellence, for the high test scores if its students, the large number of National Merit Scholars it produces, its ninety percent college attendance rate, and the prestigious colleges attended by many of its graduates. However, its minority students, the Black and Latino students in particular, often have not and still do not share equally in these accomplishments. They have traditionally been overrepresented in special education and remedial classes, and they have significantly lower grades and test scores. Minorities across the country have faced similar situations, but the problems have been concentrated in urban areas where such disparities are linked to poor school systems and the social problems of the inner-city. Yet, these problems have persisted in Princeton, where resources are abundant and the social problems exist on a much smaller scale.
In order to fully understand the problems faced by minority students in Princeton today, it is necessary to understand the demographics of the community and the history of minority students within it. Princeton consists of a Borough of 1.76 square miles, surrounded on all sides by a Township of 16.25 square miles. Although politically separate, the Borough and the Township have come to form one community. In 1965, the two school systems united to form the current Princeton Regional School District. Princeton has become multi-racial and multi-ethnic over the years. Blacks have been in Princeton since colonial times, a strong Italian community emerged in the early 1900's, and more recently a sizable Asian population, and a large, but transient group of Latino residents, have moved here. This paper will be a comparative work, focussing primarily on the Black and Latino populations. While each group faces similar problems in the schools today, each has its own distinct history and has faced its own obstacles which have contributed to the current experience of its children in the Princeton Regional Schools.
The 1990 census showed that out of a total population of 25,214, the black population in Princeton is 1,920, or 7.5 percent, and the Latino population is 1,141, or 4.5 percent. Because each of these populations is younger on average than the white population, the racial composition of the schools includes a higher percentage of each of these groups. In the 1995-96 school year, the overall school population was 10.5 percent Black and 8.1 percent Latino. Although Princeton is a relatively affluent town, there is a large socio-economic gap between the races in Princeton. While the median income per family is $60,927, there is a 9.6 percent poverty rate. The median income for white families is $71,763 while that for black families is $29,261. The percent of white families living in poverty s 1.9 percent compared to 11.9 percent for black families. Among those over twenty-five years of age, 92.2 percent of whites have a high school diploma as compared to 65 percent of blacks. Because of the relatively small percentage of Latinos in the Princeton community, the U.S. Bureau of the census did not record many of their statistics, but as largely unskilled workers, the Latino population resembles the Black community more closely than the white community in these characteristics. [try to find local stats at PPL]
Minority students in Princeton have seemingly done worse than their white peers for many years. In a 1967 address to the entire Princeton Regional Schools staff, black parent Shelby Rooks articulated the suspicions of the black community concerning the education of their children in the following statement:
I don=t know a single black person, parent or child, in this community who doesn=t believe black children are discriminated against in the school system. Not a single one...the suspicion is universal that this school system practices a kind of covert racism of which it is sometimes unaware and which it consistently reuses to face...Have you wondered why such a small percentage of black children perform in the upper 50 percent of their class in every grade? Surely if 50 percent of the white children are in the upper portion of the class, 50 percent of the black children ought to be...Have you wondered why the black child, beginning in kindergarten with white Princeton children, using the same textbooks, having the same teachers, winds up consistently two to four grades behind in academic achievement by the time he reaches twelfth grade? Those are the facts.@
Although concerns were voiced numerous times since then, the first concrete data demonstrating the achievement gap between white students and minority students was not collected until 1991, when board member Gerald Groves requested that the board gather data to determine the validity of claims that such gap did indeed exist. The Board agreed to study this and in October of 1991 the first of two Cross-Sectional Studies comparing achievement levels of Black, white, Asian, and Latino students was completed. Although the original intent of the endeavor was to begin a longitudinal study of this issue, the second and final of these studies came out in 1992.
The first cross-sectional study, entitled The First Phase of a Study of Minority Student Program Participation and Academic Performance, was based upon data collected during the 1990-91 school year, including test scores and grades in Math and English/Language Arts. Test data are from the first semester of 1990-91, where available or from the school year 1989-90. Test scores included the CAT for students in grades K-8, and the ERB test as well as math and verbal SAT for the high school students. The data was broken down into Black, white, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander. The findings are as follows:
In the spring of 1991, minority students made up 27.8% of the District student population of 2,528. There were 341 Black students (13.5%), 189 Asian/Pacific Islanders (7.5%), and 173 Hispanic/Latinos (6.8%). (The percentages changed slightly for the high school alone with 11.5% (92), 6.4% (51), and 6.4% (51) respectively.) Black and Latino students were overrepresented in special education classes, where the district wide the special education population was 31.1% black, 11.8% Latino, 5.6% Asian, and 51.5% white.
The average Math and English grades show a marked difference in the performance of whites and Asians as compared to that of blacks and Latinos, with almost a full letter grade difference in English. On a 4.0 scale, average English grades were 3.0 for whites, 3.0 for Asians, 2.4 for Latinos, and 2.1 for blacks, for an overall average of 2.9. Average Math grades were 2.9 for whites, 2.9 for Asians, 2.4 for Latinos, and 2.2 for blacks, for an overall average of 2.8.
The analysis also broke the scores down by quartile to give insight into the distribution of grades within groups. Comparison of the top quartile (the top 25% of each group), revealed smaller differences between each racial group. Top quartile English grades were as follows: 3.9 for whites, 4.0 for Asians, 3.5 for Latinos and 3.4 for blacks. Top quartile Math grades were 3.8 for whites, 3.9 for Asians, 3.6 for Latinos and 3.4 for blacks.
However, analysis of the bottom quartile revealed greater differences. Average English grades were 2.0 for whites, 1.7 for Asians, 1.4 for Latinos, and 0.6 for blacks. Average Math grades were 1.8 for whites, 1.9 for Asians, 1.2 for Latinos, and 0.9 for blacks.
High school Math and English grades were similar to those of the middle school, with a full grade difference between white and Asian students as compared to black and Latino students. Average English grades were 2.9 for whites, 3.4 for Asians, 2.0 for Latinos and 1.9 for blacks. Average Math grades were 2.7 for whites, 3.4 for Asians, 1.8 for Latinos, and 1.9 for blacks.
Similar to the middle school trend, there was less of a difference between the races among students in the top quartile. Average English grades were 3.8 for whites, 3.9 for Asians, 3.1 for Latinos, and 3.4 for blacks. Average Math grades were 3.9 for whites, 4.0 for Asians, 2.9 for Latinos, and 3.4 for blacks.
Again, among students in the bottom quartile, there was a larger gap between the races. Average English grades were 1.6 for whites, 2.6 for Asians, 0.8 for Latinos, and 0.3 for blacks. Thus, the bottom quartile of black students was over one full letter grade below the bottom quartile average of 1.4. Average Math grades were 1.3 for whites, 2.4 for Asians, 0.2 for Latinos and 0.7 for blacks.
Scores for blacks, Latinos, and all other students, were compared on the Language, Reading, and Math sections of the California Achievement Test (CAT). Results showed that the average score for black students in each of the three sections was between the 30th and 50th percentile. The average score for Latino students was between the 30th and 60th percentile. The average score for all other students was consistently at or above the 80th percentile.
Although scores for whites and Asians remained nearly constant throughout their years of schooling, scores for black students seemed to increase from second to sixth grade, drop in the seventh grade, and rise again in the eighth grade. The pattern for Latino students was more uneven, perhaps because of the transiency of the population.
Scores for 11th and 12th graders on the ERB, which measures aptitude, verbal and quantitative skills, were similar to those of the primary grades on the CAT. Black students scored between the 30th and 50th percentiles. Latino students scored between the 50th and 60th percentiles in the 11th grade and dropped to about the 30th percentile in the 12th grade. All other students scored around the 80th percentile.
For both blacks and Latinos, the gap between their scores and the scores of the white/Asian student population widens between the 11th and 12th grades.
Black students, although 11.5% of the total high school population, accounted for only 3% of the 9th and 10th grade enrollment in accelerated or advanced courses and 4% of the 11th and 12th grade enrollment in such classes.
Black students were overrepresented in basic skills courses. They made up 40% of the enrollment in compensatory writing and math proficiency, and 30% of the enrollment in developmental reading. Statistics for Latino students were not presented in these two areas.
Of the 372 students who participated in performing arts at the high school in 1990-91, there were two black students participating in instrumental music, five in vocal music, and one in drama. No Latino students participated in any of these programs.
All high school students are required to pass the state mandated High School Proficiency Test (HSPT) in order to graduate. The test is first given in the 9th grade. While only 3% of the white students who take the test fail on their first attempt, 27% of black students and 31% of Latino students fail the test during its first administration.
The report recommendations included stating the need to discuss the implications of the data among administration, staff, Board, parents and others, and suggesting the District follow through with its intent to use the desegregation grants as stated, to develop the data base.
In October of 1992 the second phase of the Cross-Sectional Study, Performance in Princeton Regional Schools By Students of Four Ethnic Groups, 1991-92, was released. Although very similar to the Phase I study, it was slightly more detailed in its scope. Not surprisingly, findings were very similar to those of the Phase I study; a large gap still existed between the achievement levels of black and Latino students and white and Asian students. There was minimal change in certain areas. For example, there was a slight narrowing of the gap in middle school standardized test scores, but the differences in grades between black and Hispanic students and white and Asian students in middle school increased.
Phase II also stressed the Aneed for a reliable data base so that truly longitudinal studies can be conducted,@adding that a student data base was being developed in order to allow the District to answer questions about the importance and effectiveness of various programs designed to influence the achievement levels of minority students. The report concluded that APrinceton can become a leader in the country in trying to understand the differential performance of its minority students, the variance in performance within ethnic groups, and the relative success of intervention strategies that are applied.@
Blacks have been in the Princeton community since colonial times. Although Princeton was founded by Quakers, who claimed a strong tradition of abolitionism, the earliest history of Blacks in Princeton was one of slavery. In his will, Richard Stockton, grandfather of the Richard Stockton who signed the Declaration of Independence and head of one of the five founding families of Princeton in 1696, left to his wife Susanna Athe use of all his negro slaves, except Dinah which he gave to his brother Philip Phillips; every one of his sons as they came of age to have on slave.@ There were also a number of free blacks in Princeton prior to emancipation. Blacks and whites worshiped together in the same congregation of the Presbyterian Church until 1846, when blacks sought permission to form their own church. The reception of blacks in the white church, and most likely their reception in the larger white community, is illustrated by the description of the duties of the church sexton. In addition to maintaining the overall cleanliness of the church, he was required to Aattend church in divine service and keep it in order; take care that the people sit in their proper places, and if any misbehave to report-if free to the trustees, and if slave, to their master or mistress-their names and conduct.
After the Civil War, the situation for blacks in Princeton was not much improved. Referring to Princeton at the turn of the century, Paul Robeson stated
Athe Princeton of my boyhood (and I don=t think it has changed much since then) was for all the world like any small town in the deep South...Rich Princeton was white: the Negroes were there to do the work. An aristocracy must have its retainers, and so the people of our small Negro community were, for the most part, a servant class-domestics in the homes of the wealthy, serving as cooks, waiters and caretakers at the university, coachmen for the town and laborers at the nearby farms and brickyards.@
This southern mentality shaped both Princeton=s black and white community in many ways. At the turn of the century, Princeton developed into a business center as well as a major university, drawing many new business-people as well as academics. There was consequently an increased need for servants, and these new job opportunities drew large numbers of African Americans from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Between 1890 and 1910, the black population nearly doubled from five hundred and eighty five to one thousand one hundred and forty eight. Blacks were restricted to low-wage positions as servants, launders, and other unskilled workers. These jobs elicited little respect from the white community.
Except when working, the black population could be found only in a small residential area bounded by a business street on the south side, a cemetery on the east side, a park on the north side, and high fences and hedges on the west side (Nassau, Witherspoon, John, and Clay Streets, respectively). In a 1920 doctoral thesis entitled ASome Unsolved Problems of a University Town,@ Arthur Evans Wood wrote about the poor and crowded housing condition in Princeton=s black neighborhood, which had contributed to the second highest rate of typhoid fever for cities it=s size in the state of New Jersey between 1910 and 1915. The effects of this residential segregation are still present today, with the majority of the black population residing in the John-Witherspoon neighborhood.
Later, as whites wanted access to land, blacks were pushed out of their homes in the name of urban renewal. One attempt at urban renewal in the 1950's was only halted by strong resistance from the black community, which resulted in the appointment of a Mayor=s Advisory Committee on Housing. The Committee pointed out that Athe underlying problem of the Witherspoon-John Streets residents is not so much the existence of substandard housing in the area as >the almost insuperable difficulties Negroes face in securing alternate housing in the Princeton area.=@
The Princeton schools were segregated until 1948, when they were integrated under the renowned APrinceton Plan,@ in which the Nassau Street School, the white elementary school, would hold all students in grades kindergarten through five, and the Witherspoon Street School For Colored Children would now hold grades six through eight. However, no plans were made to assist with the adjustments necessary in the midst of such a radical change. Neither teachers nor students were prepared to enter a desegregated learning envirnomet. As a result, black students faced many problems, problems which continue to plague the schools today.
The Latino community has a much newer history than the African-American community.
Its population has significantly increased over the past decade. In the 1982-83 school year there were 49 Latino students enrolled in the Princeton Regional Schools, constituting 2 percent of the total school population. In the 1995-96 school year, there were 247 Latino students enrolled in the district, constituting 8.1 percent of the total school population. Most Latinos in Princeton are new immigrants, arriving especially from Guatemala, Mexico, and Colombia. Although there are some that do, very few Latinos come to Princeton as educated, English proficient professionals. Most have completed some primary or secondary education. Latinos are residentially segregated, with a significant portion of new Latino immigrants residing in the historically black John-Witherspoon neighborhood. Overcrowded housing is a serious problem among Latinos in this area and has led the Borough to approve legislation which would allow the Borough to pay residents in overcrowded housing to move out of Princeton and subsidize their rent for the ensuing year. Many of the Latinos are agricultural or migrant workers and do seasonal work and landscaping in Princeton. Others work in unskilled positions as busboys, drivers, maids, or in child care. In many ways, including socio-economic status, jobs, and housing situations, the current Latino community mirrors that of the Black community in the of the early 1900's, and to a lesser extent, the Black community of today. Hence, it is difficult to analyze the place the Latino population occupies within the larger Princeton community without placing it in the context of the history of race relations in Princeton, and more specifically, the history of Blacks in Princeton. Latinos enter the Princeton schools as ethnic minorities, language minorities and socio-economic minorities. As teachers see them as such, they are bound to have reactions similar to those they display with Black students.
Although the 1990 Census estimated the Latino population in Princeton at 4.5 percent of the total population (1,141 out of 25214), Latinos make up a significant portion of the student population today. The Latino population in the schools more than doubled between the 1991-92 school year and the 1992-93 school year. The overall school population in the 1995-96 school year was 8.1 percent Latino, as compared with 10.5 percent Black. As shown above, both Blacks and Latinos exhibit a marked underperformance of their peers at all grade levels. Although both groups display similar patterns of academic achievement, the contributing factors in these patterns differ in many ways.
Perhaps the most significant problem faced by Latino students in the Princeton schools is the language barrier. A large portion of the Latino population is English proficient. According to the 1990 census, 84 percent of the Latino population in Princeton (963 out of 1,141) spoke Spanish at home. Of these, 65% spoke English Avery well@ or Awell.@ However, a significant proportion, 35 percent, spoke English Anot well@ or Anot at all.@ Students who are not proficient in English are dealt with in one of two ways in New Jersey. Usually students who are not proficient in English are enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, which are taught only in English and which concentrate specifically on teaching the language. The state of New Jersey requires that each school district acquiring a population of more than twenty students who speak the same native language establish a separate bilingual program for those students. Classes in the bilingual program are taught in the students= native language and are designed both to teach English and to keep the students caught up in their other courses. Social isolation is a negative effect of this Apull-out@ program in which children are removed from their classrooms and peers.
Language is a problem for as significant number of Latino students, and although it may not be dealt with in the most effective way, it is being dealt with. However, language is not a problem for many other Latino students, nor is the language the only problem Latino students face in the schools. Latino students face cultural isolation as they are not accepted into the dominant culture and often feel rejected from their native land.
As in the Black community, there is lack of parental involvement from parents in the Latino community. Some reasons for this are similar to those in the Black community. Many times parents work schedules may leave less time for involvement than those for white students. They may conflict with school meetings. Others may be intimidated by the schools because of their own educational level, or may feel unrespected or belittled in their interactions with teachers and school officials. Other reasons for non-participation are different from those found in the Black community. Although translators are provided by the district to assist in conferences, the language barrier prevents many parents from feeling comfortable dealing with teachers and administrators. Some parents may not be aware of the difficulties their children are having in the schools and may assume that the schools know how to and are effectively handling their students, both in academics and in discipline, because that may be how schools operated in their native country. Some Latino immigrants are afraid to confront the schools because they come from paises where to speak out against an establishment is to risk a life. Finally, undocumented immigrants will have a fear of interaction with the schools.