{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016116035455278, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032232070910556, 'mean_word_length': 5.861878453038674, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Schooling Closer to Home: Desegregation Policy and Neighborhood Contexts

This article uses census data, information collected by health and police departments, and GIS mapping software to analyze the neighborhood contexts surrounding schools in one Southern school district. When courts lifted Nashville’s desegregation order in 1999, the district agreed to implement a new student assignment plan geared toward neighborhood attendance and shorter bus rides—in short, schooling closer to home. The return to neighborhood schools is embedded in widespread assumptions about the power of the neighborhood as a potential source of school improvement and school quality. Neighborhood schools are expected to boost community attachment to schools, encourage resource sharing, and increase parent involvement and social capital. This article explores the implications of schooling closer to home by analyzing neighborhood contexts. What does “closer to home” mean and for whom? Our results suggest that geographic proximity does not necessarily translate into structurally supportive community contexts for children, and black children are much more likely to be reassigned to schools in high‐risk neighborhoods as crosstown busing is eliminated.