Race, Place, and Risk: How Asian Americans Frame K-12 Selective Admissions Reforms

• In Event: “Spoilers” for or Against Equity? Implications of Asian American Racialization Across Regional and Institutional Contexts

Abstract

Objectives: Redistributive admissions policies such as affirmative action and the elimination of standardized admissions exams in higher education have been effective tools for increasing educational opportunity for historically marginalized students (e.g., Bleemer, 2023; Reardon et al., 2018). However, these policies face continual attack from conservative opposition groups, who have recently turned their attention to parallel K-12 policies. Similar to tactics from the Students for Fair Admissions cases, their latest strategy centers claims of anti-Asian discrimination (Fu & Blissett, 2024; Holloway, 2023; Liu et al., 2023). Yet, considerable gaps remain in our understanding of how Asian Americans themselves interpret and respond to these policies. Focusing on admissions controversies at San Francisco's Lowell High School, and Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (TJ) in Fairfax County, Virginia, this study asks: How do Asian Americans perceive selective admissions reforms at elite public high schools? What factors are most salient in shaping their policy positions, and why?

Data & Methods: This study focuses on 37 semi-structured, 90-minute interviews with Asian-identifying individuals from San Francisco (SF) and Northern Virginia (NoVA). Participants identify as East Asian, Southeast Asian, and South Asian, and as 1st-, 1.5-, 2nd-, 3rd-, and 4th-generation immigrants. Data analysis involved "flexible" coding of transcripts, thematic memoing, and construction of matrices and composite narrative profiles (Deterding & Waters, 2021; Emerson et al., 2011; Miles et al, 2019; Rodríguez-Dorans & Jacobs, 2020; Willis, 2019).

Theoretical Framework: I draw primarily on framing theory (Chong & Druckman, 2007), Poon et al's (2019) raceclass frames, Lee and Zhou's (2015) achievement frame, and Osamudia James's (2021) conception of education risk to analyze the "frames in thought" affecting participants' evaluations of admissions reform.

Preliminary Findings: Initial results uncover several most salient factors: beliefs and attitudes about a) merit, fairness, and the role of selective high schools; b) race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status; c) local school quality; d) the policy process and trustworthiness of local institutions; and e) specific policy design components (e.g., lottery, test). For instance, participants who accepted the special status of "elite" schools were more likely to oppose reform attempts, whereas those who rejected this status quo were more supportive and could envision even more radical redistribution of opportunity. Predominantly Chinese participants from SF who viewed public education as "riskier" were more likely to view the existence of selective schools like Lowell as necessary. In contrast, a more ethnically diverse group from NoVA largely felt that the generally high quality of the region's public schools made admittance to TJ (and the school itself) less important.

Significance: Findings highlight the need for precision in research and discourse regarding the racial histories and politics of specific school systems, and the exact design components of contested reforms. This context is critical to understanding how Asian Americans and other minoritized groups engage with K-12 education systems and what equity-oriented policies are most viable. These cases also highlight how conflating Asian Americans with affluence or high levels of education renders the experiences of lower-SES subgroups invisible, obscuring potential opportunities for interracial solidarity.

Author

• Shirley Hui Xu, Vanderbilt University