Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Statement of American Social Scientists of Research on School Desegregation to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County

  • Published:
The Urban Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In June 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review two related cases originating from school districts in Louisville, Kentucky and Seattle, Washington that involved voluntarily adopted racial integration plans. Concerned about the outcome of these cases, 553 social scientists submitted a social science statement to the Supreme Court summarizing the large body of social science research supporting the school districts’ policies relevant to the Court’s determination. The statement, reprinted here, supports three interrelated conclusions: (1) racially integrated schools provide significant benefits to students and communities; (2) racially isolated schools have harmful educational implications for students; and (3) race-conscious policies are necessary to maintain racial integration in schools. Because of the overwhelming amount of scholarly data, social scientists argued, as the lower courts had found, that the schools boards have a compelling interest to promote racial integration and prevent racial isolation through choice-based school assignment policies that consider race as a factor. On June 28, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the school assignment plans on the grounds that the plans were not narrowly tailored to the interests that the school districts had asserted. In addition to affecting the ability of school districts to maintain racially diverse schools, the decision has broad implications for researchers who seek to help school districts in these efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007).

  2. 347 U.S. 483 (1954); See statement at Carter (1953).

  3. 443 U.S. 449 (1979).

  4. 112 S. Ct. 1430 (1992).

  5. 515 U.S. 70 (1995); For statement see Smylie et al. (1995).

  6. For more detailed description of the plan in Jefferson County, see the district court decision in the case, 330 F. Supp. 2d 834 (W.D. KY 2004).

  7. For a more detailed description of the Seattle School District’s plan, please refer to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the case, 426 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2005).

  8. 127 U.S. at 2759–2760.

  9. 127 U.S. at 2792–2793.

  10. 127 U.S. at 2792 (outlining options such as “strategic site selection of new schools; drawing attendance zones with general recognition of the demographics of neighborhoods; allocating resources for special programs; recruiting students and faculty in a targeted fashion; and tracking enrollments, performance, and other statistics by race).

  11. 127 U.S. at 2837.

  12. All parties have filed with the Court their blanket consent for the filing of amicus curiae briefs in these cases. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for amici curiae certifies that this brief was not written in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and that no person or entity other than amici curiae or their counsel has made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.

  13. A list of amici is included in the Appendix. Institutional affiliation is provided for identification purposes only and does not reflect the views of the institution.

  14. As noted in the appended statement, desegregation generally describes the creation of schools containing substantial percentages of students from two or more racial or ethnic groups. Integration refers to the positive implementation of desegregation with equal status for all groups and respect for all cultures.

  15. Amici are aware of two amici curiae briefs in support of petitioners that present opposite conclusions. See Brief of David J. Armor, Abigail Thernstrom, and Stephan Thernstrom as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners; Brief of Amici Curiae Drs. Murphy, Rossell and Walberg in Support of Petitioners. Amici do not intend to address the specific arguments in those briefs except to note that they rely on highly selective studies and outdated research to support their conclusions. For specific criticisms of the Armor et al. and Murphy et al. amici curiae briefs, see Brief of the American Educational Research Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents (discussing incomplete analyses of the research literature, flaws in methodological critiques, and reliance on studies that are outdated or inconsistent with more recent research findings).

  16. See, e.g., Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 634 (1950) (recognizing the importance of networks for occupational success).

  17. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 recognizes the importance of teacher quality for improving student achievement. See 20 U.S.C. § 6319(a) (requiring “highly qualified” teachers in every classroom). Additionally, NCLB requires that states develop a plan to ensure “that low-income students and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers.” 20 U.S.C. § 6312(c)(1)(L).

  18. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).

  19. Walter Stephan, “School Desegregation: An Evaluation of the Predictions Made in Brown vs. Board of Education,” Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978): 217-38; Walter Stephan, “The Effects of School Desegregation: An Evaluation 30 Years After Brown,” in Advances in Applied Social Psychology, ed. Michael J. Saks and Leonard Saxe (New York: Erlbaum, 1986): 181-206.

  20. Desegregation generally describes the creation of schools containing substantial percentages of students from two or more racial and ethnic groups. Integration refers to the positive implementation of desegregation with equal status for all groups and respect for all cultures.

  21. See Thomas Pettigrew, “Attitudes on Race and Housing: A Social Psychological View,” in Segregation in Residential Areas, ed. Amos H. Hawley and Vincent P. Rock (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1973): 21-84; Thomas Pettigrew, “Justice Deferred: A Half Century after Brown v. Board of Education,” American Psychologist 59, no. 66 (2004): 521-29; Nancy St. John, School Desegregation: Outcomes for Children (New York: Wiley, 1975); Elizabeth G. Cohen, “Design and Redesign of the Desegregated School: Problems of Status, Power, and Conflict,” in School Desegregation: Past, Present and Future, ed. Walter G. Stephan and Joe R. Feagin (New York: Plenum, 1980): 251-78; Sandra B. Damico, Afesa Bell-Nathaniel, and Charles Green, “Effects of School Organizational Structure on Interracial Friendships in Middle Schools,” Journal of Education Research 74, no. 6 (1981): 388-93; Vladimir T. Khmelkov and Maureen T. Hallinan, “Organizational Effects on Race Relations in Schools,” Journal of Social Issues 55, no. 4 (1999): 627-45; Melanie Killen, Nancy G. Margie, and Stefanie Sinno, “Morality in the Context of Intergroup Relationships,” in Handbook of Moral Development, ed. Melanie Killen and Judith Smetana (Mahwah, N. J.: LEA, 2006): 155-83.

  22. Melanie Killen and Clark McKown, “How Integrative Approaches to Intergroup Attitudes Advance the Field,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 26 (2005): 612-22.

  23. Willis D. Hawley, “Designing Schools that Use Student Diversity to Enhance Learning of All Students,” in Lessons in Integration: Realizing the Promise of Racial Diversity in America’s Schools, ed. Erica Frankenberg and Gary Orfield (Charlottesville, Va.: Univ. of Virginia Press, in press); Frances E. Aboud and Maria Amato, “Developmental and Socialization Influences on Intergroup Bias,” in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Relations, ed. Rupert Brown and Samuel L. Gaertner (Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers, 2001): 6585; Janet Ward Schofield and H. Andrew Sagar, “Peer Interaction Patterns in an Integrated Middle School,” Sociometry 40, no. 2 (1977): 130-38.

  24. Janet Ward Schofield, Black and White in School: Trust, Tension or Tolerance? (New York: Teachers College Press, 1989) (showing that behavior changed over time as kids became more comfortable with members of other racial groups and were less likely to avoid them).

  25. Peter B. Wood and Nancy Sonleitner, “The Effect of Childhood Interracial Contact on Adult Antiblack Prejudice,” Journal of Intercultural Relations 20, no. 1 (1996): 1-17.

  26. Sean F. Reardon and John T. Yun, “Integrating Neighborhoods, Segregating Schools: The Retreat from School Desegregation in the South, 1990-2000,” in School Resegregation: Must the South Turn Back?, ed. John C. Boger and Gary Orfield (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2005): 51-69.

  27. Michal Kurlaender and John T. Yun, “Is Diversity a Compelling Educational Interest? Evidence from Louisville,” in Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action, ed. Gary Orfield with Michal Kurlaender (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Publishing Group, 2001): 111-41; Pamela Perry, Shades of White: White Kids and Racial Identities in High School (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 2002).

  28. John T. Yun and Michal Kurlaender, “School Racial Composition and Student Educational Aspirations: A Question of Equity in a Multiracial Society,” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 9, no. 2 (2004): 143-68.

  29. Michal Kurlaender and John T. Yun, “Measuring School Racial Composition and Student Outcomes in a Multiracial Society,” American Journal of Education (forthcoming).

  30. Janet Ward Schofield, “Review of Research on School Desegregation’s Impact on Elementary and Secondary School Students,” in Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, ed. James A. Banks and Cherry M. Banks (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1995): 597616; Amy J. Strefling, “The Influence of Integrated and De Facto Segregated Schools on Racial Attitudes of White Students toward African Americans” (paper presented at Council for Administration Convention, St. Louis, 1998); Jomills Henry Braddock, Marvin P. Dawkins, and William T. Trent, “Why Desegregate? The Effect of School Desegregation on Adult Occupational Segregation of African Americans, Whites, and Hispanics,” International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 31, no. 2 (1994): 271-83.

  31. Alec Gallup, The Phi Delta Kappa Gallup Poll of Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Public Schools (Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa, 1985).

  32. Ellen Goldring and Claire Smrekar, “Magnet Schools and the Pursuit of Racial Balance,” Education and Urban Society 33, no. 1 (November 2000): 17-35; Teacher Opinions on Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Clark County School District, Nevada (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, 2002).

  33. Kelly Bagnashi and Marc R. Scheer, “Brown v. Board of Education: Fifty Years Later,” in Trends and Tudes Newsletter of Harris Interactive Youth Research 3, no. 6 (June 2004) (summarizing the findings of a Harris Interactive/Education Week poll).

  34. Claude M. Steele, Steven J. Spencer, and Joshua Aronson, “Contending with Group Image: The Psychology of Stereotype and Social Identity Threat,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Mark Zanna (New York: Academic Press, 2002): 379-440.

  35. Frances E. Aboud, Children and Prejudice (London: Blackwell Publishers, 1988); Lawrence A. Hirschfeld, “The Inheritability of Identity: Children’s Understanding of the Cultural Biology of Race,” Child Development 66, no. 5 (1995): 1418-37.

  36. See Frances E. Aboud, Morton J. Mendelson, and Kelly T. Purdy, “Cross-Race Peer Relations and Friendship Quality,” International Journal of Behavioral Development 27, no. 2 (2003): 165-73; Killen, Margie, and Sinno, “Morality in the Context of Intergroup Relationships,” 155–83; Christopher G. Ellison and Daniel A. Powers, “The Contact Hypothesis and Racial Attitudes among Black Americans,” Social Science Quarterly 75, no. 2 (1994): 385-400. See also Rebecca Bigler and Lynn S. Liben, “A Developmental Intergroup Theory of Social Stereotypes and Prejudice,” in Advances in Child Development and Behavior, vol. 34, ed. Robert V. Kail (San Diego: Elsevier, 2006): 39-89 (positing that segregation is a causal factor in stereotyping because merely seeing people sorted by some human attribute leads children to believe that the groups differ).

  37. Research focusing on children’s implicit attitudes – attitudes that reflect a racial bias, unbeknownst to the individual expressing the attitudes – has shown that white children attending racially homogeneous elementary schools were more likely to attribute negative intentions to peers based on race when evaluating ambiguous situations in school contexts than were white children attending racially heterogeneous schools. See Heidi Mcglothlin, Melanie Killen, and Christina Edmonds, “European-American Children’s Intergroup Attitudes About Peer Relationships,” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23, no. 2 (2005): 227-49.

  38. See Frances E. Aboud and Sheri Levy, “Intervention to Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination in Children and Adolescents,” in Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination, ed. Stuart Oskamp (Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000): 269-93; Killen, Margie, and Sinno, “Morality in the Context of Intergroup Relationships,” 155-83; Martin Patchen, Black-White Contact in Schools: Its Social and Academic Effects (West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue Univ. Press, 1982); Janet Ward Schofield, “The Impact of Positively Structured Contact on Intergroup Behavior: Does It Last under Adverse Conditions?” Social Psychology Quarterly 42, no. 3 (Sept. 1979): 280-84; Walter G. Stephan and Cookie W. Stephan, Improving Intergroup Relations (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2001); Hawley, “Designing Schools;” Linda Tropp and Mary Prenovost, “The Role of Intergroup Contact in Predicting Children’s Inter-Ethnic Attitudes: Evidence from Meta-Analytic and Field Studies,” in Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Developmental and Social Psychological Perspective, ed. Sheri Levy and Melanie Killen (Oxford, England: Oxford Univ. Press, in press).

  39. Killen, Margie, and Sinno, “Morality in the Context of Intergroup Relationships,” 155-83. Research suggests the critical importance of being aligned in collective teamwork to consistently attain positive benefits of intergroup contact. Schofield, “Review of Research,” 597-616.

  40. Recent research with adolescents in the Los Angeles area has shown that students who are enrolled in schools with high ethnic diversity are more likely to feel safe and experience less harassment in school than are students enrolled in schools with high racial isolation. Jaana Juvonen, Adrienne Nishina, and Sandra Graham, “Ethnic Diversity and Perceptions of Safety in Urban Middle Schools,” Psychological Science 17, no. 5 (May 2006): 393-400.

  41. When performing a meta-analysis, researchers attempt to find every study conducted on a particular topic; then, they statistically pool the results to examine the overall patterns of effects and to uncover additional variables that moderate those effects.

  42. Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp, “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (2006): 751-83.

  43. Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice, (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954) (discussing optimal conditions for intergroup contact).

  44. Tropp and Prenovost, “The Role of Intergroup Contact in Predicting Children’s Inter-Ethnic Attitudes.

  45. Damico, Bell-Nathaniel, and Green, “Interracial Friendships in Middle Schools,” 388-93; Shana Levin, Colette van Laar and Jim Sidanius, “The Effects of Ingroup and Outgroup Friendships on Ethnic Attitudes in College: A Longitudinal Study,” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 6, no. 1 (2003): 76-92.

  46. This is noteworthy because critics of contact theory suggest that those seeking out intergroup contact might already have lower prejudice, but an analysis that coded whether participants had “full choice” to engage in contact or “no choice” found that the effects of contact were comparably strong for both groups. See Pettigrew and Tropp, “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,” 757-58.

  47. Cookie W. Stephan and Walter G. Stephan, “Cognition and Affect in Cross-Cultural Relations,” in Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, 2nd ed., ed. William B. Gudykunst and Bella Mody (Thousand Oaks, Calif. Sage, 2002): 127-42; Pettigrew and Tropp, “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,” 751-83; Schofield and Sagar, “Peer Interaction Patterns,” 130-38; Robert E. Slavin, “Effects of Biracial Learning Teams on Cross-Racial Friendships,” Journal of Educational Psychology 71, no. 3 (1979): 381-87; Robert E. Slavin, Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd ed. (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1995).

  48. Roslyn A. Mickelson, “Subverting Swann: First- and Second-Generation Segregation in Charlotte, North Carolina,” American Educational Research Journal 38, no. 2 (2001): 215-52.

  49. See Carol Corbett Burris, Jay Heubert, and Henry Levin, “Math Acceleration for All,” Educational Leadership 61, no. 5 (2004): 68-71; Jo Boaler and Megan Staples, “Transforming Students’ Lives through an Equitable Mathematics Approach: The Case of Railside School” (paper presented at meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 2005).

  50. See Willis D. Hawley et al., Strategies for Effective School Desegregation (Lexington, Ma.: Lexington Books, 1983); Erica Frankenberg and Gary Orfield, ed., Lessons in Integration: Realizing the Promise of Racial Diversity in America’s Schools (Charlottesville, Va: Univ. of Virginia Press, in press).

  51. John D. Bransford and Dan L. Schwartz, “Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal with Multiple Implications,” in Review of Research in Education, ed. Asghar Iran-Nejad and P. David Pearson (Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1999): 61-101; Allan Wigfield et al., “Development of Achievement Motivation,” in Social, Emotional, and Personality, vol. 3, 6th ed. of Handbook of Child Psychology, ed. William Damon, Richard M. Lerner, and Nancy Eisenberg (New York: Wiley, in press).

  52. Hawley, “Designing Schools;” Jean Piaget, Biology and Knowledge (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971).

  53. See, e.g., Mitchell J. Chang et al., ed., Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Colleges and Universities (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 2003) as recognized by the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003).

  54. Patricia Gurin, “Expert Report of Patricia Gurin,” submitted in Gratz, et al. v. Bollinger, et al., No. 97-75231 (E.D. Mich. 1999) and Grutter, et al. v. Bollinger, et al., No. 97–75928 (E.D. Mich. 1999); see also Patricia Marin, “The Educational Possibility of Multi-Racial/Multi-Ethnic College Classrooms,” in Does Diversity Make a Difference? Three Research Studies on Diversity in College Classrooms, ed. American Council on Education & American Association of University Professors (Washington, D.C.: ACE & AAUP, 2000): 61-83; Jeffrey F. Milem and Kenji Hakuta, “The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in higher education,” featured report, in Minorities in Higher Education: Seventeenth Annual Status Report, Deborah J. Wilds (author) (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 2000): 39-67. Although these studies were more descriptive, experimental work in this area confirms that students exposed to racial diversity relative to those who are not, have improved outcomes. See Greg J. Duncan et al., “Empathy or Antipathy? The Consequences of Racially and Socially Diverse Peers on Attitudes and Behaviors,” Working paper, Joint Center for Policy Research, Northwestern University, 2003; Anthony Lising Antonio et al., “Effects of Racial Diversity on Complex Thinking in College Students,” Psychological Science 15, no. 8 (August 2004): 507-10.

  55. Much of that research was carried out during the 1960s and 1970s, when research on desegregation primarily was focused on black students attending formerly all-white schools, often examining data during one year, early in the implementation of desegregation plans.

  56. Most school reforms have little or no effect on improving students’ outcomes (see Richard Rothstein, Class and Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004); Jaekyung Lee, Tracking Achievement Gaps and Assessing the Impact of NCLB on the Gaps: An In-depth Look into National and State Reading and Math Outcome Trends (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, 2006)). Thus, the modest impact that desegregation has had on student achievement relative to these other reforms is substantial.

  57. Thomas D. Cook, “What Have Black Children Gained Academically From School Integration?: Examination of the Meta-Analytic Evidence,” School Desegregation and Black Achievement, ed. Thomas D. Cook et al. (Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, May 1984); Rita E. Mahard and Robert L. Crain, “Research on Minority Achievement in Desegregated Schools,” in The Consequences of School Desegregation, ed. Christine Rossell and Willis D. Hawley (Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple Univ. Press, 1983): 103-25; Schofield, “Review of Research,” 597-616.

  58. David J. Armor, “The Evidence on Desegregation and Black Achievement,” in School Desegregation and Black Achievement, ed. Thomas Cook et al. (Washington, D.C.: National Institution of Education, 1984): 43-67; Norman Miller and Michael Carlson, “School Desegregation as a Social Reform: A Meta-Analysis of Its Effects on Black Academic Achievement,” in School Desegregation and Black Achievement, ed. Thomas Cook et al. (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1984): 89-130; Paul M. Wortman, “School Desegregation and Black Achievement: An Integrative View.,” in School Desegregation and Black Achievement, ed. Thomas Cook et al. (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1984): 194-224.

  59. Mahard and Crain, “Research on Minority Achievement in Desegregated Schools,” 103-25.

  60. Walter G. Stephan, “Blacks and Brown: The Effects of School Desegregation on Black Students,” in School Desegregation and Black Achievement, ed. Thomas Cook et al. (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1984): 131-59; Lawrence A. Bradley and Gifford W. Bradley, “The Academic Achievement of Black Students in Desegregated Schools: A Critical Review,” Review of Educational Research 47, no. 3 (1977): 399-449.

  61. Whether standardized tests are a valid indicator of achievement or future success, particularly for African Americans, has been questioned when discussing student achievement in desegregated schools. Jacqueline Fleming, “Standardized Test Scores and the Black College Environment,” in Going to School: The African American Experience, ed. Kofi Lomotey (Albany, N.Y.: State Univ. of New York, 1990): 143-62; Christopher Jencks et al., Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America (New York: Basic Books, 1972).

  62. Kathryn R. Wentzel, “Adolescent Classroom Goals, Standards for Performance and Academic Achievement: An Interactionist Perspective,” Journal of Educational Psychology 81, no. 2 (1989): 131-42; Wigfield et al., “Development of Achievement Motivation;” Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne S. Eccles, “Students’ Motivation during the Middle School Years,” in Improving Academic Achievement: Impact of Psychological Factors on Education, ed. Joshua Aronson (San Diego: Academic Press, 2002): 160-85.

  63. Kathryn M. Borman et al., “Accountability in a Postdesegregation Era: The Continuing Significance of Racial Segregation in Florida’s Schools,” American Educational Research Journal, 41, no. 3 (2004): 605-31; Stephen J. Caldas and Carl Bankston, “The Inequality of Separation: Racial Composition of Schools and Academic Achievement,” Educational Administration Quarterly 34, no. 4 (1998): 533-57; Adam Gamoran, “The Stratification of High School Learning Opportunities,” Sociology of Education 60, no. 3 (1987): 135-55; Jeannie Oakes, Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 1990); Mark Berends et al., Examining Gaps in Mathematics Achievement Among Racial-Ethnic Groups, 1972-1992 (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 2005).

  64. David J. Armor, “Lessons Learned from School Desegregation,” in Generational Change: Closing the Test Score Gap, ed. Paul Peterson (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006): 115-42.

  65. Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, and Steven G. Rivkin, “New Evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The Complex Effects of School Racial Composition on Achievement,” Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., 2006.

  66. Specifically, the authors found that an increase of 1% of black students was related to a decrease of .0225 of a standard deviation in the test scores of black students, per year. Desegregating black students across Texas in grades 5-7 alone would close the achievement gap with whites by 15 percent.

  67. Richard R. Valencia, Martha Menchaca, and Rubén Donato, “Segregation, Desegregation, and Integration of Chicano Students: Old and New Realities,” in Chicano School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future, 2nd ed., ed. Richard R. Valencia (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002): 70-113.

  68. Schofield, “Review of Research,” 597-616.

  69. Catherine Horn and Michal Kurlaender, The End of Keyes – Resegregation Trends and Achievement in Denver Public Schools (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, April 2006).

  70. Patricia Gándara, Over the Ivy Walls: The Educational Mobility of Low Income Chicanos (Albany, N.Y.: State Univ. of New York Press, 1995).

  71. Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson, “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Performance of African-Americans,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, no. 5 (1995): 797-811; Patricia M. Gonzalez, Hart Blanton, and Kevin J. Williams, “The Effects of Stereotype Threat and Double-Minority Status on the Test Performance of Latino Women,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, no. 5 (2002): 659-70.

  72. Clark McKown and Rhona Weinstein, “The Development and Consequences of Stereotype-Consciousness in Middle Childhood,” Child Development 74, no. 2 (2003): 498–515. Studies have also confirmed the effect of stereotype threat for girls in math. Catherine Good, Stereotype Threat and Its Relation to Theories of Elementary Girls’ Mathematics Achievement and Task Choices (Austin, Tex.: Univ. of Texas, 2001); Barbara Muzzatti, “Gender and Mathematics: Attitudes and Stereotype Threat Susceptibility in Children,” (Ph.D. diss., Università degli studi di Padova, 2005); Nalini Ambady et al., “Stereotype Susceptibility in Children: Effects of Identity Activation on Quantitative Performance,” Psychological Science 12, no. 5 (2001): 385-90.

  73. Kira Alexander and Janet Ward Schofield, “Stereotype Threat: How Students’ Responses to Perceived Negative Stereotypes Undermine their Achievement,” in Migration Background, Minority-Group Membership and Academic Achievement: Research Evidence from Social, Educational, and Developmental Psychology, ed. Janet Ward Schofield et al. (Berlin: Social Science Research Center Berlin, 2006): 13-42.

  74. Borman et al., “The Continuing Significance of Racial Segregation in Florida’s Schools,” 605-31; Patchen, “Black-White Contact in Schools,” 182-84; Schofield, “Review of Research,” 597-616; Harry Singer, Harold B. Gerald, and David Redfearn, “Achievement,” in School Desegregation: A Long-Term Study, ed. Harold B. Gerard and Norman Miller (New York, Plenum Press, 1975): 69-87.

  75. Horn and Kurlaender, The End of Keyes.

  76. Janet Ward Schofield, “Maximizing Benefits of Student Diversity: Lessons from School Desegregation Research,” in Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action, ed. Gary Orfield with Michal Kurlaender (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Publishing Group, 2001): 99-141; Walter G. Stephan, “School Desegregation: Short and Long Term Effects,” in Opening Doors: Perspectives on Race Relations in Contemporary America, ed. Harry J. Knopke, Robert J. Norrell, and Ronald W. Rogers (Tuscaloosa, Ala.: Univ. of Alabama Press, 1991): 100-18. See Jonathan Guryan, “Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates,” American Economic Review 94, no. 4 (2004): 919-43 (results of a quasi-experimental study of the effect of school segregation on African-American students’ dropout rates found a modestly positive effect of desegregation on reducing dropout rates, after controlling for family characteristics); Robert L. Crain and Carol Sachs Weisman, Discrimination, Personality, and Achievement: A Survey of Northern Blacks (New York: Seminar Press, 1972).

  77. Anita-Yvonne Bryant, Nathan D. Martin, and Kenneth I. Spenner, The Campus Life and Learning Project: A Report on the First Two College Years (Durham, N.C.: Duke University, 2006); Victor B. Saenz, “Breaking the Cycle of Segregation: Examining Students’ Pre-College Racial Environments and their Diversity Experiences in College” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 2005).

  78. See W. E. B. DuBois, “Does the Negro Need Separate Schools?” Journal of Negro Education 4, no. 3 (July 1935): 328-35; Mark Granovetter, “The Microstructure of School Desegregation” in School Desegregation Research. New Directions in Situational Analysis, ed. Jeffrey Prager, Douglas Longshore, and Melvin Seeman (New York: Plenum Press, 1986): 81-100.

  79. See Jomills H. Braddock et al., “Applicant Race and Job Placement Decisions: A National Survey Experiment,” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 6 (1986): 3-24.

  80. Amy Stuart Wells and Robert L. Crain, “Perpetuation Theory and the Long-Term Effects of School Desegregation,” Review of Educational Research 64, no. 4 (1994): 531-55.

  81. Jomills H. Braddock and James M. McPartland, “How Minorities Continue to be Excluded from Equal Employment Opportunities: Research on Labor Market and Institutional Barriers,” Journal of Social Issues 43, no. 1 (1987): 5-39; Wells and Crain, “Perpetuation Theory and the Long-Term Effects of School Desegregation,” 531-55.

  82. Jomills H. Braddock, “Segregated High School Experiences and Black Students’ College and Major Field Choices” (paper presented at the National Conference on School Desegregation, Chicago, Ill., June 1987).

  83. Orley Ashenfelter, William J. Collins, and Albert Yoon, “Evaluating the Role of Brown vs. Board of Education in School Equalization, Desegregation, and the Income of African Americans,” Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., 2005.

  84. Robert L. Crain and Jack Strauss, School Desegregation and Black Occupational Attainments: Results from a Long-Term Experiment (Baltimore, Md.: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins Univ., 1985).

  85. Michael A. Boozer et al., “Race and School Quality since Brown v. Board of Education,” in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics, ed. Martin Neil Baily and Clifford Winston (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1992): 269-338.

  86. See also Guryan, “Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates,” 919-43.

  87. Jomills H. Braddock, Robert L. Crain, and James M. McPartland, “A Long-Term View of School Desegregation: Some Recent Studies of Graduates as Adults,” Phi Delta Kappan 66, no. 4 (1984): 259-64. See Jomills H. Braddock, “The Perpetuation of Segregation Across Levels of Education: A Behavioral Assessment of the Contact-Hypothesis,” Sociology of Education 53 (1980): 178-86; Julie E. Kaufman and James Rosenbaum, “The Education and Employment of Low-Income Black Youth in White Suburbs,” Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14, no. 3 (1992): 229-40; Jomills H. Braddock and James M. McPartland, “Assessing School Desegregation Effects: New Directions in Research,” Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization 3 (1982): 259-82.

  88. Susan Eaton, The Other Boston Busing Story (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 2001).

  89. Yun and Kurlaender, “School Racial Composition and Student Educational Aspirations,” 143-68.

  90. Michal Kurlaender and John T. Yun, “Fifty Years after Brown: New Evidence of the Impact of School Racial Composition on Student Outcomes,” International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice 6, no. 1. (2005): 51-78.

  91. Braddock, Crain, and McPartland, “A Long-Term View of School Desegregation,” 259-64; Jomills H. Braddock and James M. McPartland, “Social-Psychological Processes that Perpetuate Racial Segregation: The Relationship between School and Employment Discrimination,” Journal of Black Studies 19, no. 3 (March 1989): 267-89; Braddock, Dawkins, and Trent, “Why Desegregate?,” 273-83; Wells and Crain, “Perpetuation Theory and the Long-Term Effects of School Desegregation,” 531-55.

  92. Hawley, “Designing Schools.”

  93. Charles C. Moskos and John Sibley Butler, All That We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way (New York: Basic Books, 1997).

  94. Claire Smrekar et al., March Toward Excellence: School Success and Minority Student Achievement in Department of Defense Schools (National Education Goals Panel: Peabody Center for Education Policy, Vanderbilt Univ., September 2001): iii-v, 39, 43. See also “In Pentagon-Run Schools, the Achievement Gap Shrinks,” Education Week (29 March 2000): 1, 20-21.

  95. Diana Pearce, Breaking Down Barriers: New Evidence on the Impact of Metropolitan School Desegregation on Housing Patterns, Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. of America, 1980); Robert Crain, Reynolds Farley, and Diana Pearce, “Lessons Not Lost: The Effect of School Desegregation on the Rate of Residential Desegregation in Large Center Cities” (paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., April 1984).

  96. Myron Orfield and Thomas Luce, Minority Suburbanization and Racial Change: Stable Integration, Neighborhood Transition, and the Need for Regional Approaches (Minneapolis: Institute on Race & Poverty, 2005).

  97. Erica Frankenberg, Chungmei Lee, and Gary Orfield, A Multiracial Society with Segregated Schools: Are We Losing the Dream? (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, 2003).

  98. Charles T. Clotfelter, After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 2004).

  99. Erica Frankenberg and Chungmei Lee, Race in American Public Schools: Rapidly Resegregating School Districts (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, 2002).

  100. Pearce, Breaking Down Barriers.

  101. J. Dennis Lord and John C. Catau, “School Desegregation Policy and Intra-School District Migration,” Social Science Quarterly 57, no. 4 (March 1977): 784-796.

  102. Orfield and Luce, Minority Suburbanization and Racial Change. See also Hawley et al., Strategies for Effective School Desegregation.

  103. Richard Cole, “Fostering an Inclusive, Multiracial Democracy,” in Lessons in Integration: Realizing the Promise of Racial Diversity in America’s Schools, ed. Erica Frankenberg and Gary Orfield (Charlottesville, Va.: Univ. of Virginia Press, in press) (Lynn counsel of record discussing social science evidence supporting legal arguments in Comfort v. Lynn School Committee, 418 F.3d 1 (2005)).

  104. Orfield and Luce, Minority Suburbanization and Racial Change.

  105. Gary Orfield, “Metropolitan School Desegregation,” in In Pursuit of a Dream Deferred: Linking Housing and Education Policy, ed. John A. Powell, Gavin Kearney, and Vina Kay (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2001): 121-57.

  106. Bernard Michael, ed., Volunteers in Public Schools (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990): 18-20.

  107. Gary Orfield and Susan E. Eaton, ed., Dismantling Segregation (New York: The New Press, 1996).

  108. Gary Orfield et. al., City-Suburban Desegregation: Parent and Student Perspectives in Metropolitan Boston (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, 1997).

  109. 391 U.S. 430 (1968).

  110. 402 U.S. 1 (1971).

  111. Douglas N. Harris, “High Flying Schools, Student Disadvantage and the Logic of NCLB,” American Journal of Education (forthcoming).

  112. Evidence since the 1966 Coleman Report suggests that school reforms have larger impacts on more disadvantaged children compared with the more powerful home effects on privileged children, which may explain why desegregation studies often show minority gains in academic outcomes with no losses for white students. Daniel Monyihan and Frederick Mosteller, On Equality of Educational Opportunity (New York: Random House, 1972); Frederick Mosteller, Richard J. Light, and Jason A. Sachs, “Sustained Inquiry in Education: Lessons from Skill Grouping and Class Size,” Harvard Educational Review 66, no. 4 (1996): 797-842. Further, lower-achieving students have been found to have more substantial gains when they are surrounded by higherachieving peers. Julian Betts, Andrew C. Zau, and Lorien A. Rice, Determinants of Student Achievement: New Evidence from San Diego (San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2003); Caroline Hoxby, “Peer Effects in the Classroom: Learning from Gender and Race Variation,” Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., August 2000.

  113. Almost nine-tenths of intensely segregated black and Latino schools also have student bodies where a majority of students come from families below the poverty line. Gary Orfield and Chungmei Lee, Racial Transformation and the Changing Nature of Segregation (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, 2006). See also Salvatore Saporito and Deenesh Sohoni, “Mapping Educational Inequality: Concentrations of Poverty among Poor and Minority Students in Public Schools,” Social Forces (forthcoming).

  114. Massey and Denton, American Apartheid.

  115. Saporito and Sohoni, “Mapping Educational Inequality.”

  116. A recent report from the United Nations Human Rights Commission also suggested that de facto school segregation could violate international human rights treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory. Matthew Samberg, “U.N. Criticizes Segregation in U.S. Schools; Supreme Court to Hear Cases Challenging Integration,” National Access, 16 August 2006 at www.schoolfunding.info/news/litigation/8-16-06Unsegregation.php3 (accessed 29 September 2006).

  117. Benjamin Scafidi, David L. Sjoquist, and Todd Stinebrickner, “Race, Poverty, and Teacher Mobility,” Working paper, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series, Atlanta, Ga., August 2005; Susanna Loeb, Linda Darling-Hammond, and John Luczak, “How Teaching Conditions Predict Teacher Turnover in California Schools,” Peabody Journal of Education 80, no. 3 (2005): 44-70.

  118. Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff, “Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24, no. 1 (2002): 37-62; Susan Watson, Recruiting and Retaining Teachers: Keys to Improving the Philadelphia Public Schools (Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 2001)

  119. Daniel Mayer, John Mullens, and Mary T. Moore, Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2000): 5.

  120. Charles Clotfelter, Helen Ladd, and Jacob Vigdor, “Who Teaches Whom? Race and the Distribution of Novice Teachers,” Economics of Education Review, 24, no. 4 (August 2005): 377-92; Steven G. Rivkin, Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain, “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,” Econometrica 73, no. 2 (March 2005): 417-58.

  121. Camille E. Esch et al., The Status of the Teaching Profession 2005 (Santa Cruz, Calif.: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, 2005); Jennifer B. Presley, Bradford R. White, and Yuqin Gong, Examining the Distribution and Impact of Teacher Quality in Illinois (Edwardsville, Ill.: Illinois Education Research Council, 2005).

  122. Susanna Loeb and Michelle Reininger, Public Policy and Teacher Labor Markets: What We Know and Why it Matters (East Lansing, Mich.: The Education Policy Center at Michigan State Univ., 2004); Catherine Freeman, Benjamin Scafidi, and David Sjoquist, “Racial Segregation in Georgia Public Schools, 1994-2001: Trends, Causes and Impact on Teacher Quality,” in School Resegregation: Must the South Turn Back? ed. John C. Boger and Gary Orfield (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2005): 148-63; Stephen J. Carroll et al., The Distribution of Teachers among California’s School Districts and Schools (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 2000).

  123. U.S. Department of Education, Monitoring School Quality; Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, “Who Teaches Whom?” 377-92; Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain, “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,” 417-58.

  124. Meredith Phillips and Tiffani Chin, “School Inequality: What Do We Know?” in Social Inequality, ed. Kathryn Neckerman (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004): 467-519.

  125. Harry Ashmore, The Negro and the Schools (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1954); Juan Necochea and Cline Zulmara, “A Case Study Analysis of Within District School Funding Inequities,” Equity and Excellence in Education 29, no. 2 (1996): 69-77; Lawrence Picus, “Estimating the Determinants of Pupil/Teacher Ratio: Evidence from the Schools and Staffing Survey,” Educational Considerations 21 (1994): 44-55; The Education Trust, The Funding Gap 2005: LowIncome and Minority Students Shortchanged by Most States (Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust, Winter 2005).

  126. Ruth B. Ekstrom, Margaret E. Goertz, and Donald Rock, Education and American Youth (Philadelphia: The Falmer Press, 1988); Gamoran, “The Stratification of High School Learning Opportunities,” 135-55; Jeannie Oakes, Adam Gamoran, and Reba N. Page, “Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meanings,” in Handbook of Research on Curriculum, ed. Philip W. Jackson (New York: MacMillan, 1992): 570-608.

  127. Gary Orfield, “A Secret Success: Racial Equity and Integration in Indiana Schools” in Advances in Educational Policy, vol. 3 ed. Kenneth Wong (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1997): 225-48.

  128. John T. Yun and Jose F. Moreno, “College Access, K-12 Concentrated Disadvantage, and the Next 25 Years of Education Research,” Educational Researcher 35, no. 1 (2006): 12-9. See also Jeannie Oakes et al., Separate and Unequal 50 years after Brown: California’s Racial “Opportunity Gap” (Los Angeles: Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access, Univ. of California-Los Angeles, 2004).

  129. Ellen Goldring et al., “Schooling Closer to Home: Desegregation Policy and Neighborhood Contexts,” American Journal of Education 112, no. 3 (2006): 335-62.

  130. Russell Rumberger and Patricia Gándara, “Seeking Equity in the Education of California’s English Learners,” Teachers College Record, 106, no. 10 (October 2004): 2039-56.

  131. James Coleman et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966).

  132. Donna R. Clasen and B. Bradford Brown, “The Multidimensionality of Peer Pressure in Adolescence,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 14, no. 6 (1985): 451-67; Laurence Steinberg, Stanford M. Dornbusch, and B. Bradford Brown, “Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Achievement: An Ecological Perspective,” American Psychologist 47, no. 6 (1997): 723-29; Geoffrey D. Borman and N. Maritza Dowling, “Schools and Inequality: A Multilevel Analysis of Coleman’s Equality of Educational Opportunity Data” (paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 2003).

  133. Russell W. Rumberger, Patricia Gándara, and Barbara Merino, “Where California’s English Learners Attend School and Why it Matters,” UC LMRI Newsletter 15, no. 2 (Winter 2006): 1-2.

  134. M. Beatriz Arias, “School Desegregation, Linguistic Isolation and Access to English for Latino Students,” Journal on Educational Controversy 2, no. 1 (January 2007).

  135. Rothstein, Class and Schools.

  136. Richard D. Kahlenberg, All Together Now: Creating MiddleClass Schools through Public School Choice (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press, 2001); Russell W. Rumberger and Gregory J. Palardy, “Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition on Academic Achievement in High School,” Teacher’s College Record 107, no. 9 (2005): 1999-2045; Hoxby, “Peer Effects in the Classroom;” Janet W. Schofield, “Ability Grouping, Composition Effects, and the Achievement Gap,” in Migration Background, Minority-Group Membership and Academic Achievement Research Evidence from Social, Educational, and Development Psychology, ed. Janet W. Schofield (Berlin: Social Science Research Center Berlin, 2006): 67-95.

  137. This conclusion is not surprising given that segregated minority schools in metropolitan Boston have higher levels of student poverty (97% of minority schools vs. 1% of segregated white schools), lower shares of certified teachers (78% in high poverty, minority schools vs. 94% in low poverty, white schools), lower test scores, and lower high school completion rates. Chungmei Lee, Educational Outcomes in Metropolitan Boston (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, April 2004).

  138. Borman et al., “The Continuing Significance of Racial Segregation in Florida’s Schools,” 605-31.

  139. Roslyn A. Mickelson, Segregation and the SAT, 67 Ohio St. L. J. 157 (2006); Mickelson, “Subverting Swann,” 215-52.

  140. Howard E. Manning, “Letter Re: The High School Problem – Consequences,” Public School Forum of North Carolina, 3 March 2006 at http://www.ncforum.org/resources/collateral/030306-MANNING%20OPINION%20re%20High%20Schools%20with%20charts%203_3_06.pdf (accessed 29 September 2006).

  141. Christopher B. Swanson, Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t? A Statistical Portrait of Public High School Graduation, Class of 2001 (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2004).

  142. Christopher B. Swanson, Who Graduates in the South? (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2005).

  143. Robert Balfanz and Thomas C. West, “Racial Isolation and High School Promoting Power,” in Graduation Gap Policy Brief (Baltimore: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University, 2006). The study found that racial composition was a significant predictor after controlling for school resources (student-teacher ratio), free-lunch level, school size and urbanicity.

  144. Described as “dropout factories” in Robert Balfanz and Nettie Legters, “Locating the Dropout Crisis: Which High Schools Produce the Nation’s Dropouts?” in Dropouts in America: Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis, ed. Gary Orfield (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press, 2004): 85-106. One-third of these dropout factories have students who are 90% nonwhite even though 90-100% nonwhite schools account for only 8% of schools analyzed.

  145. Balfanz and West, “Racial Isolation and High School Promoting Power.

  146. Similarly, a study of high schools in metropolitan Boston found that only 45 percent of students in high-poverty, high-minority schools graduate on time, compared to more than three-quarters of their peers in low-poverty, low-minority schools. Lee, Educational Outcomes in Metropolitan Boston.

  147. Eric M. Camburn, “College Completion among Students from High Schools Located in Large Metropolitan Areas,” American Journal of Education 98, no. 4 (August 1990): 551-69.

  148. Haya Stier and Marta Tienda, The Color of Opportunity: Pathways to Family, Welfare and Work (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2001); Alice O’Conner, Chris Tilly, and Lawrence D. Bobo, ed., Urban Inequality: Evidence from Four Cities (New York: Russell Sage, 2001).

  149. Editorial Projects in Education, Diplomas Count: An Essential Guide to Graduation Policy and Rates (Bethesda, Md.: Editorial Projects in Education, 2006).

  150. Gary Orfield, ed., Dropouts in America: Confronting the Graduation Rate Crisis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press, 2004).

  151. Recent studies indicate that the U.S. higher education system will not be producing graduates fast enough even to replace retirees, let alone to fill new jobs requiring college education. Anthony P. Carnevale, “Discounting Education’s Value,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 22 September 2006, B6-B9.

  152. Janelle Scott, ed., School Choice and Diversity: What the Evidence Says (New York: Teachers College Press, 2005).

  153. See also Frankenberg and Lee, Race in American Public Schools; Martin Carnoy et al., The Charter School Dust-Up: Examining the Evidence on Enrollment and Achievement (New York: Economic Policy Institute & Teachers College Press, 2005). Research on international examples of school choice has also found in different contexts, educational choice produces stratification. See Edward B. Fiske and Helen Ladd, When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2000).

  154. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Southern School Desegregation, 1966-67 (Washington, D.C., July 1967). Ninety-eight percent of Southern blacks were confined to all black schools a decade after the Brown decision. See Gary Orfield, “The Evolution of Administrative Policy: from the Law to the Guidelines,” ch. 2 in The Reconstruction of Southern Education: The Schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (New York: John Wiley, 1969).

  155. Bruce Fuller, Richard F. Elmore, and Gary Orfield, ed., Who Chooses, Who Loses?: Culture, Institutions, and the Unequal Effects of School Choice (New York: Teachers College Press, 1996).

  156. Amy Stuart Wells et al., “Charter Schools as a Postmodern Paradox: Rethinking Social Stratification in an Age of Deregulated School Choice,” Harvard Educational Review 69, no. 2 (Summer 1999): 172-204; Betsy Levin, “School Choice and Students with Disabilities,” in School Choice and Social Controversy, ed. Stephen D. Sugarman and Frank R. Kemerer (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999): 266-99.

  157. Casey D. Cobb and Gene V. Glass, “Ethnic Segregation in Arizona Charter Schools,” Education Policy Analysis Archives 7, no. 1 (Jan. 1999) at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n1/ (accessed 29 September 2006); Erica Frankenberg and Chungmei Lee, “Charter Schools and Race: A Lost Opportunity for Integrated Education,” Education Policy Analysis Archives 11, no. 32 (Sept 2003) at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n32/ (accessed 29 September 2006).

  158. See Salvatore Saporito and Deenesh Sohoni, “Coloring Outside the Lines: Racial Segregation in Public Schools and Their Attendance Boundaries,” Sociology of Education 79, no. 2 (April 2006): 81-105 (finding in a study of 22 major school districts that the implementation of free-market choice systems led to further race/ethnic stratification in all districts except those districts with some race-conscious plan in place).

  159. A survey of a random sample of 1204 parents in Louisville showed that 86% of parents in the system and 92% of African American parents said it was important “that schools have students from different races and backgrounds in the same school.” Majorities also agreed that diversity would produce a “higher quality of education” for their own children. Significantly, parents also supported specific district mechanisms to create integrated schools while still giving them choices for their children. For example, over half of white parents and three fourths of black parents thought the district should “have guidelines to achieve racial balance.” Thomas Wilkerson, Student Assignment Survey: Summary of Findings (Louisville, Ky.: Wilkerson & Associates, July 1996).

  160. Teacher Opinions on Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Clark County School District, Nevada, (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project, 2002); Bagnashi and Scheer, “Brown v. Board of Education.

  161. The study also found clear evidence of academic gains only in the race-conscious high school magnet programs and suggested a broader and more targeted magnet program. Julian R. Betts et al., Does School Choice Work? Effects on Student Integration and Achievement (San Francisco: Public Policy Inst. of California, August 2006).

  162. Justine Hastings, Thomas Kane, and Douglas Staiger, “Parental Preferences and School Competition: Evidence from a Public School Choice Program,” Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 2005; Julie B. Cullen, Brian A. Jacob, and Steven Levitt, “The Effect of School Choice on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries,” Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 2003.

  163. Lauri Steel and Roger Levine, Educational Innovation in Multiracial Contexts: The Growth of Magnet Schools in American Education (Palo Alto, Calif.: American Institutes for Research, 1991): i-20.

  164. Amy G. Langenkamp, “Magnet Schools,” in Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. George Ritzer (Boston: Blackwell Publishers, in press).

  165. Steel and Levine, The Growth of Magnet Schools in American Education, i-20.

  166. Cambridge, Massachusetts is also often mentioned as an example of using socioeconomic integration, and while their student assignment plan does include socioeconomic status as one factor, it retains race as a factor in assignments where significant resegregation appears and is not a pure race-neutral plan.

  167. Wealth is distributed even more unequally among racial groups than is income. Black wealth is, on average, 10 cents for every dollar of white wealth. On an individual basis, this wealth gap between black and white families has grown to be more than $80,000. See Thomas M. Shapiro, The Hidden Cost of Being African-American (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004). Hispanic wealth is slightly higher, on average, than black wealth but is also much less than white wealth. Rakesh Kochhar, The Wealth of Hispanic Households: 1996 to 2002 (Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center, October 2004). These data thus indicate that a measure of socioeconomic status relying solely on poverty status would reveal only a small part of a family’s actual financial status. Although the available measures of class are flawed, obtaining a more complete measure would require intrusive questions about a family’s financial situation.

  168. Camille Zubrinsky Charles, “Can We Live Together? Racial Preferences and Neighborhood Outcomes,” in The Geometry of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America, ed. Xavier de Souza Briggs (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2005): 45-80.

  169. Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton, “Table 4.1,” in American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1993): 86; Joe T. Darden and Sameh H. Kamel, “Black Residential Segregation in the City and Suburbs of Detroit: Does Socioeconomic Status Matter?” Journal of Urban Affairs 22, no. 1 (2000): 1-13; John Iceland, Cicely Sharpe, and Erika Steinmetz, “U.S. Census Bureau Class Differences in African American Residential Patterns in U.S. Metropolitan Areas:1990-2000,” Social Science Research 34, no. 1 (March 2005): 252-66.

  170. Because of this fact, neighborhood-based assignment plans are also likely to produce segregated schools.

  171. John Logan, Separate and Unequal: The Neighborhood Gap for Blacks and Hispanics in Metropolitan America (Albany, N.Y.: Lewis Mumford Center, Univ. of Albany, October 2002). The average neighborhood lived in by blacks in 2000 had a much lower median income, even among affluent blacks, than whites of similar income bracket, according to an analysis of the 2000 Census.

  172. Massey and Denton, American Apartheid.

  173. Mary Pattillo-McCoy, Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among the Black Middle Class (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1999).

  174. Sean F. Reardon, John T. Yun, and Michal Kurlaender, “Implications of Income-Based School Assignment Policies for Racial School Segregation,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 28, no. 1 (Spring 2006): 49-75.

  175. See Duncan Chaplin, “Estimating the Impact of Economic Integration of Schools on Racial Integration” in Divided We Fail: Coming Together through Public School Choice, ed. Century Foundation Task Force on the Common School Report (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2002): 87-113.

  176. Reardon, Yun, and Kurlaender, “Implications of Income-Based School Assignment Policies for Racial School Segregation,” 49-75.

  177. Wake County Public School System, “2005–2006 Student Enrollment – District Schools,” http://www.wcpss.net/demographics/quickfacts/05/sys-05.html (accessed October 4, 2006).

  178. Susan Leigh Flinspach and Karen E. Banks, “Moving Beyond Race: Socioeconomic Diversity as a Race-Neutral Approach to Desegregation in the Wake County Schools,” in School Resegregation: Must the South Turn Back?, ed. John C. Boger and Gary Orfield (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2005): 261-80.

  179. Gerald Grant, Hope and Despair in the American City (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, forthcoming); Todd Silberman, “Wake Schools Find Diversity Hard to Maintain,” Raleigh News and Observer, 11 June 2006.

  180. See Orfield and Lee, Racial Transformation.

  181. 413 U.S. 189 (1973).

  182. Vivian Ikpa, “The Effects of Changes in School Characteristics Resulting from the Elimination of the Policy of Mandated Busing for Integration upon the Academic Achievement of African-American Students,” Educational Research Quarterly 17, no. 1 (1994): 19-29.

  183. Jennifer Jellison, Resegregation and Equity in Oklahoma City (Cambridge, Mass: The Harvard Project on School Desegregation, 1996).

  184. Roslyn A. Mickelson, The Academic Consequences of Desegregation and Segregation: Evidence from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 81 N.C. L.Rev. 1513, 1543 (2003).

  185. Roslyn Mickelson, “Are Choice, Diversity, Equity, and Excellence Possible? Early Evidence from Post-Swann Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 2002-2004,” in School Choice and Diversity: What the Evidence Says, ed. Janelle Scott (New York: Teachers College Press, 2005): 12944.

  186. In the year following the end of the desegregation plan, the percentage of black students in racially isolated black schools jumped eleven percentage points. Mickelson, The Academic Consequences of Desegregation and Segregation.

  187. Roslyn A. Mickelson and Stephanie Southworth, “When OptingOut is Not a Choice; Implications for NCLB from Charlotte, North Carolina,” Equity & Excellence in Education 38, no. 3 (2005): 1-15.

  188. R. Kenneth Godwin et al., “Sinking Swann: Public School Choice and the Resegregation of Charlotte Schools,” Review of Policy Research 23, no. 5 (2006): 983-97.

  189. Fuller, Elmore, and Orfield, ed., Who Chooses, Who Loses?; The Socioeconomic Composition of the Public Schools: A Crucial Consideration in Student Assignment Policy (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univ. of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights, January 2005).

  190. Horn and Kurlaender, The End of Keyes.

  191. Chungmei Lee, Denver Public Schools: Resegregation, Latino Style (Cambridge, Mass.: Civil Rights Project, January 2006).

  192. Horn and Kurlaender, The End of Keyes.

  193. Stuart Biegel, “Annual Report No. 22 of the Consent Decree Monitor, 2004-2005” submitted in San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., No. C-78 1445 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2005).

  194. Stuart Biegel, “Supplemental Report by the Consent Decree Monitoring Team Regarding The Achievement Gap and Related Issues in the San Francisco Unified School District,” submitted in San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., No. C-78 1445 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2004). See also William T. Trent, “The Effect of School Racial Composition on Student Outcomes in the San Francisco Unified School District” (Dec. 2005) (unpublished report, on file with San Francisco Unified School District).

  195. Stuart Biegel, “The Report of the Consent Decree Monitoring Team, Report No. 20, 2002–2003,” submitted in San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., No. C-78 1445 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2003). See also Trent, “The Effect of School Racial Composition” (finding an association between minority concentration and the test scores of African Americans and Latinos, even after controlling for other factors that might influence student achievement).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Los Angeles, USA

    Gary Orfield

  2. Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, USA

    Erica Frankenberg & Liliana M. Garces

  3. Michigan State Univesity College of Education, 349 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Erica Frankenberg

Authors
  1. Gary Orfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erica Frankenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liliana M. Garces
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erica Frankenberg.

Signatories

Signatories

Signed by 562 individuals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E. & Garces, L.M. Statement of American Social Scientists of Research on School Desegregation to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County . Urban Rev 40, 96–136 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-007-0073-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-007-0073-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation