Education Student Assignment Policy
by
Eric A. Houck
  • LAST REVIEWED: 28 April 2017
  • LAST MODIFIED: 15 December 2011
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0043

Introduction

Student assignment is a topic of study in educational policy that focuses on the processes by which students are allocated into schools and classrooms. In this subfield of educational policy studies, scholars also study the results from such decisions. Student assignment polices have been influenced historically by federal litigation but remain local decisions in American public school governance. As a result, student assignment policies are highly localized in scope and sensitive to broader district contexts. Historically, student assignment policies have been made with regard to geography and transportation efficiency: students attended schools that were closest to their residences. This changed in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, when the US Supreme Court ruled that willful assignment of African American students into separate and inferior schools was unconstitutional. From that time forward, student assignment policies in many districts in the American South have been made with regard to student body racial composition. Beginning in the mid-1990s numerous districts began petitioning for a designation of unitary status, indicating that any student segregation was not related to prior discriminatory practices of the past, or confronting legal challenges on the use of race as a factor in determining a child’s school assignment. These district-led initiatives were given even more importance by the US Supreme Court’s ruling that race could not be used as a primary criterion in student assignment decisions, effectively reversing critical aspects of the Brown ruling. As a result of these developments, districts have begun to look at criteria other than student racial composition to create student body diversity within schools. Some of these approaches have included widening school attendance zones in order to draw from a more diverse population of students, using student socioeconomic status or level of academic performance in assignment policies to create diversity within schools along academic and economic dimensions, or leveraging alternate school types, such as magnet schools, to draw wealthier parents from suburbs into majority-minority urban schools. One important topic seeks to understand the politics of creating student assignment polices. Another topic focuses on primary outcomes, such as academic performance, socialization, and future economic earnings. A third topic examines secondary outcomes, such as teacher and leader quality associated with the student body composition of a school, that are assumed to be correlated with increased student-level academic productivity.

General Overviews

Unlike other well-defined policy arenas in education, such as curriculum, finance, supervision, and law, student assignment policies draw from a variety of approaches and disciplines. In fact it may be safe to assert that there is no well-defined and codified canon of scholarship around the policy issue of student assignment. Further, the fact that student assignment policies are created locally yet are subject to adjudication in state and federal courts requires educators and policymakers seeking to understand student assignment policies to approach the topic with a foundation in educational politics and policymaking. Therefore this section reviews important works in the fields of politics of education and educational policy studies. Wirt and Kirst 2005 provides a cogent review of the role of politics and political players in local, state, and federal educational policymaking. Ravitch 1985 provides an overview of the failure of many school reform policies during the decades leading up to the gestation of the current standards-based reform agenda. The new direction in education and education reform is charted in Clune 1994, noting a shift from equity-oriented policies to outcome-oriented policies in school finance, but the piece speaks clearly to the broad expanse of educational reform. This perspective is articulated in Fuhrman and Elmore 2004, which confronts one of the key challenges of the outcome-oriented standards-based reform movement. The larger context for these trends is provided in Cooper, et al. 2004, which reviews key theories and trends in educational policymaking, and in Guthrie and Schuermann 2009, which reviews trends and issues in educational leadership. Roza 2010 provides details of the resource allocation inequities at the school level with some discussion of the manner in which student assignment policies impact school-level resource allocation. Two historical pieces provide context for consideration of the links between the desegregation movements of the 1970s and current student assignment policies. Formisano 2004 and Cecelski 1994 provide interesting perspectives on resistance to desegregation as practiced in the 1970s by white blue-collar Bostonians and rural African American southerners, respectively.

  • Cecelski, D. S. 1994. Along freedom road: Hyde County, North Carolina, and the fate of black schools in the South. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.

    DOI: 10.5149/uncp/9780807844373Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Traces efforts of the African American community of a rural North Carolina county to resist efforts to desegregate their community school.

    Find this resource:

  • Clune, W. H. 1994. The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational Policy 8.4: 376–394.

    DOI: 10.1177/0895904894008004002Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An analytic essay charting the broad movement in educational policymaking from a focus on inputs and equity to a focus on outcomes and adequacy of systems.

    Find this resource:

  • Cooper, B. S., L. D. Fusarelli, and E. V. Randall. 2004. Better policies, better schools: Theories and applications. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A text used to introduce key concepts in the policymaking process and their role in educational policymaking specifically.

    Find this resource:

  • Formisano, R. P. 2004. Boston against busing: Race, class, and ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Historical book that traces white resistance to school integration in Boston in the early 1970s.

    Find this resource:

  • Fuhrman, Susan H., and Richard F. Elmore, eds. 2004. Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A series of essays addressing the manner in which accountability policies and structures can be reconfigured to meet the challenges of standards-based reform.

    Find this resource:

  • Guthrie, J. W., and P. J. Schuermann. 2009. Successful school leadership: Planning, politics, performance, and power. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A textbook outlining challenges and strategies for modern educational leaders.

    Find this resource:

  • Ravitch, D. 1985. The troubled crusade: American education, 1945–1980. New York: Basic Books.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Historical piece outlining perceived failures of educational policy to sustain excellence in a period of equity.

    Find this resource:

  • Roza, M. 2010. Educational economics: Where do school funds go? Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A consideration of how federal and state policies interact with the unintended consequence of systematically underfunding high-needs students.

    Find this resource:

  • Wirt, F., and M. Kirst. 2005. Political dynamics of American education. 3d ed. Richmond, CA: McCutchan.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides an overview of political interest groups and the use of power in educational policymaking at the local, state, and national levels.

    Find this resource:

Key Court Cases

The court cases in this section trace the use of student race as a factor in school assignment from 1954 to 2007. Perhaps the most famous education-related court case, Brown v. Board of Education, declared separate schools as an “inherent” violation of the US Constitution. The cases Greene v. County School Board of New Kent County, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, and Keyes v. School District Number 1 buttressed the impetus of Brown. The first enumerated the factors that would be considered when assessing the integration of a school, the second allowed crosstown busing as a legitimate means of student assignment, and the third demanded remediation for de facto as well as de jure segregation. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Milliken v. Bradley, and Freeman v. Pitts represent a legal retreat from the sweeping language of Brown. Rodriguez, a school finance case, denied poor students the same protections afforded to racial minority students, thereby keeping the question of student assignment focused solely on the dimension of race. Milliken limited the extent to which integrationist policies could be deployed across regions by blocking an attempt by Detroit city schools to integrate with nearby suburban districts. Freeman finally outlined a path through court-ordered desegregation by outlining the manner in which a district could be declared unitary through its improvement along the factors outlined in Green. Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and Parents Involved in Community Schools Petitioner v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. represent the court’s turn away from the notion of using race as a factor in student assignment policies. Although it was only a Fourth Circuit Court case, Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools foreshadowed a legal retreat from race by finding that districts, in using race, could not discriminate against white students in assignment policies. Parents Involved in Community Schools Petitioner v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. is the formal walk back of the Brown decision that, while leaving the door open for the use of race in student assignment in some cases, removed it as a primary factor.

  • Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Declared de jure school segregation by race to be unconstitutional.

    Find this resource:

  • Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. 57F. Supp. 2d 228, 232 (W.D.N.C. 1999).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Declared that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg system was “unitary”—exhibiting no residual racism from prior segregationist policies—and therefore prevented from busing students to achieve racial integration.

    Find this resource:

  • Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467 (1992).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Allowed districts to be declared partially unitary via use of the six factors listed in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County.

    Find this resource:

  • Green v. County School Board of New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430 (1968).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Outlined a set of standards for measuring progress toward desegregation, for instance, equality in student assignment, faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities.

    Find this resource:

  • Keyes v. School District Number 1. 413 U.S. 189 (1973).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Held that integration was necessary to remediate the effects of de facto segregation based on residential housing patterns as well as de jure segregation.

    Find this resource:

  • Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717, 94S. Ct. 3112, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1069 (1974).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Restricted busing of students for integration to districts only, removing the consideration of moving students across district boundaries to achieve racial balance.

    Find this resource:

  • Parents Involved in Community Schools Petitioner v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. 551 U.S. 701 (2007).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Declared that racial diversity was not a compelling interest in district student assignment policies but left the door open (via dissent) for a consideration of race in student assignment policies.

    Find this resource:

  • San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. 411 U.S. 1 (1973).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Held that poor students did not constitute a suspect class, thereby removing federal consideration of wealth from school finance and all other state-level education policies.

    Find this resource:

  • Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 402 U.S. 1, 91S. Ct. 1267, 28 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1971).

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Declared that busing was an appropriate means of student assignment to create integrated schools across a district.

    Find this resource:

Student Body Composition and Outcomes

One area of research on student assignment policies examines the results of policies that locate students into schools. There are two strands of this research. One strand seeks to evaluate the effects of desegregation on a battery of short- and long-term outcomes for students. Linn and Welner 2007, Trent 1997, and Wells and Crain 1994 fall into this strand, and all findings report mixed short-term results but definite long-term benefits to desegregated schools in terms of economic productivity, general life stability, and affective dispositions, such as open-mindedness. Wells 2009 follows this up with a study on the effects of desegregation on a generation of students who experienced it firsthand, confirming the assertions of the author’s earlier work. A second strand of research examines more closely the marginal effects of a student’s classroom peers on that student’s performance. Economists such as E. A. Hanushek and C. M. Hoxby represent inroads into this type of research, which generally finds that a student’s classmates matter to the academic achievement of that student (Hanushek, et al. 2009; Hoxby 2000). Angrist and Lang 2002 and Hoxby and Weingarth 2008 complicate these findings by reporting slight or no peer effects at all in differentiated student assignment polices in Boston (intradistrict choice) and Raleigh, North Carolina (assignment by socioeconomic diversity).

  • Angrist, J. D., and K. Lang. 2002. How important are classroom peer effects? Evidence from Boston’s METCO program. American Economic Review 94.5: 1613–1634.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Examines the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity (METCO) program in Boston, which allowed African American students from Boston to transfer to low-minority suburban schools. This article reports slight peer effects for elementary grade minority females and demonstrates that METCO students contributed to increasing diversity and declining academic performance at receiving schools.

    Find this resource:

  • Hanushek, E. A., J. F. Kain, and S. G. Rivkin. 2009. New evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achievement. Journal of Labor Economics 27.3: 349–383.

    DOI: 10.1086/600386Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Uses Texas data to determine a negative effect on achievement of higher percentages of African American children and an insignificant effect on nonminority students. Indicates that segregation by race may impact the academic achievement of minority students.

    Find this resource:

  • Hoxby, C. M. 2000. Peer effects in the classroom: Learning from gender and race variation. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 7867.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Paper reports findings of peer effects on achievement that are stronger within a particular race than across race.

    Find this resource:

  • Hoxby, C. M., and G. Weingarth. 2008. Taking race out of the equation: School reassignment and the structure of peer effects.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Examines the Wake County (North Carolina) student assignment policies before and after a shift from race-based to income-based student assignment. Findings indicate small changes in the overall distribution of peers between the two policies and the students having very little effect on their peers’ academic achievement.

    Find this resource:

  • Linn, R. L., and K. G. Welner, eds. 2007. Race-conscious policies for assigning students to schools: Social science research and the Supreme Court cases. National Academy of Education Committee on Social Science Research Evidence on Racial Diversity in Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This summary document reviews all research on the relationship between integration and outcomes. The report finds overall academic and social benefits of integrated education and that desegregation is best implanted as a policy through race-conscious approaches as opposed to race-neutral approaches.

    Find this resource:

  • Trent, W. T. 1997. Outcomes of school desegregation: Findings from longitudinal research. Journal of Negro Education 66.3: 255–257.

    DOI: 10.2307/2967164Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Reviews research and presents findings of positive long-term outcomes for African American students from racially integrated schools.

    Find this resource:

  • Wells, A. S. 2009. Both sides now: The story of school desegregation’s graduates. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Reviews desegregation over time through interviews with students graduating in 1980 chosen across six desegregated school systems. Discusses the manner in which desegregation was handled in schools in the 1970s and the way desegregation impacted the adult lives of these students.

    Find this resource:

  • Wells, A. S., and R. L. Crain. 1994. Perpetuation theory and the long-term effects of school desegregation. Review of Educational Research 64.4: 531–555.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Review of twenty-one studies argues that desegregation is best assessed on its long-term effects instead of short-term policy outcomes.

    Find this resource:

Teacher Quality

Another strand of research in student assignment seeks to determine how student assignment policies impact other components of the educational system. To this end, a series of studies has examined relationships between school-level student characteristics and teacher qualifications. Overall findings indicate that schools with higher proportions of poor and minority students are more likely to be staffed with higher proportions of new teachers, less-experienced teachers, and less-credentialed teachers. This dynamic is particularly important when combined with the use of a single-salary schedule, as it results in the creation of state-supported gaps in investment at the school level that are inequitably related to the student body composition of those schools. Contributing to this overall finding are Ingersoll 2001, reporting higher turnover rates at high-poverty schools; Lankford, et al. 2002, reporting fewer credentialed teachers for high-need students; and Scafidi, et al. 2007, linking teacher turnover to student racial characteristics. Jackson 2009 addresses the relationship between teacher quality and student characteristics over the course of implementing a change in student assignment policy. Falch and Strom 2005 provides evidence of the relationships between teacher mobility and student characteristics from an international perspective, using data from the Norwegian school system.

Methods of Assignment—School Choice

Part of the growth and interest in the study of student assignment policy in the late 20th and early 21st centuries has been the development of multiple models of student assignment. Each of these is articulated and subsequently evaluated in the research literature. However, this area of study is relatively new. As a result, many of these studies are highly localized and contextualized. Hankins 1989 articulates a vision for allowing interdistrict choice among school districts as an integration mechanism. Another approach involves creating controlled choice plans via computer modeling that are able to respond to multiple assignment parameters simultaneously. In this vein, Abdulkadiroglu and Sonmez 2003 and Alves and Willie 1987 describe theoretical and practical outlines of these types of programs. Willie, et al. 1996 evaluates the use of such plans in Boston. Regarding alternatives, Kahlenberg 2001 outlines theoretical and empirical arguments for the socioeconomic integration of students. Reardon, et al. 2006 (cited under Resegregation) indicates that socioeconomically based assignment plans are poor proxies for racial integration across districts. Price and Stern 1987 outlines a theoretical argument in favor of magnets that deserves consideration. Later evaluative work in Bifulco, et al. 2009a indicates positive academic outcomes, while Smrekar and Goldring 1999 provides an overview of controversies surrounding the use of magnets in urban systems. However, Bifulco, et al. 2009b shows that some parental choice drives resegregation in districts.

  • Abdulkadiroglu, A., and T. Sonmez. 2003. School choice: A mechanism design approach. American Economic Review 93.3: 729–747.

    DOI: 10.1257/000282803322157061Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Outlines an economic model of school choice predicated on theoretical understanding of how parents work with preferences in a school-choice framework.

    Find this resource:

  • Alves, M., and C. Willie. 1987. Controlled choice assignments: A new and more effective approach to school desegregation. Urban Review 19.2: 67–88.

    DOI: 10.1007/BF01121341Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Outlines the parameters of controlled-choice student assignment as a middle-ground policy between neighborhood schooling and top-down assignment mandates.

    Find this resource:

  • Bifulco, R., C. D. Cobb, and C. Bell. 2009a. Can interdistrict choice boost student achievement? The case of Connecticut’s interdistrict magnet school program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31.4: 323–345.

    DOI: 10.3102/0162373709340917Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Using data from Connecticut, this study reports findings of positive magnet-school experiences of students at the middle school and high school levels.

    Find this resource:

  • Bifulco, R., H. F. Ladd, and S. L. Ross. 2009b. Public school choice and integration evidence from Durham, North Carolina. Social Science Research 38.1: 71–85.

    DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.10.001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This article asserts that the advantaged parents will choose schools in a manner that promotes resegregation and dominates the choices that disadvantaged parents might make that would lead to integration.

    Find this resource:

  • Hankins, G. G. 1989. Like a bridge over troubled waters: New directions and innovative voluntary approaches to interdistrict school desegregation. Journal of Negro Education 58.3: 345–356.

    DOI: 10.2307/2295667Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Focuses on a historical overview of school desegregation around the Milwaukee (Wisconsin) school desegregation plan, which is based on voluntary interdistrict student transfers.

    Find this resource:

  • Kahlenberg, R. D. 2001. All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides an overview and argument for integrating schools along lines of socioeconomics instead of race.

    Find this resource:

  • Price, J. R., and J. R. Stern. 1987. Magnet schools as a strategy for integration and school reform. Yale Law and Policy Review 5.2: 291–321.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Outlines an argument for the use of magnet schools to assist in drawing parents into underused schools as a method for interdistrict school integration.

    Find this resource:

  • Smrekar, C., and E. Goldring. 1999. School choice in urban America: Magnet schools and the pursuit of equity. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides a comprehensive review of key issues and controversies surrounding the use of magnet schools.

    Find this resource:

  • Willie, C. V., M. Alves, and G. Hagerty. 1996. Multiracial, attractive city schools: Controlled choice in Boston. Equity and Excellence in Education 29.2: 5–19.

    DOI: 10.1080/1066568960290202Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides a narrative overview of the controlled-choice plan implemented in the Boston public schools.

    Find this resource:

Desegregation

A number of studies and articles have assessed policy implementation of desegregation plans from both a functional perspective and an evaluative perspective. Brown and Knight 2005 reviews the setting of school boundaries for more traditional student assignment plans. Welner 2006 also shares this overview but with an eye toward the fields of policy and law. Mickelson 2001; Eyler, et al. 1982; and Dickens 1995 provide the perspective that within-school tracking may blunt the effects of desegregation plans, as students are segregated by classes within schools, while Russo and Talbert-Johnson 1997 focuses specifically on the role of special education as a mechanism by which this segregation may occur. Wraga 2006 provides a critical perspective on the role of desegregation from a macropolicy perspective.

  • Brown, A. K., and K. W. Knight. 2005. School boundary and student assignment procedures in large, urban, public school systems. Education and Urban Society 37.4: 398–418.

    DOI: 10.1177/0013124505277736Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Examines school boundaries and student assignments in large urban school districts across the nation compared to procedures used in Broward County, Florida, which is the sixth largest school district in the United States.

    Find this resource:

  • Dickens, A. 1995. Revisiting Brown v. Board of Education: How tracking has resegregated America’s public schools. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 29:469–506.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A legal review of the links between the practice of tracking and within-school segregation of students by race with a focus on key court cases and legal implications.

    Find this resource:

  • Eyler, J., V. Cook, and L. Ward. 1982. Resegregation: Segregation within desegregated schools. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Univ.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Originally a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York. Identifies how the policy of ability grouping allows for racial segregation within desegregated schools.

    Find this resource:

  • Mickelson, R. A. 2001. Subverting Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. American Educational Research Journal 38.2: 215–252.

    DOI: 10.3102/00028312038002215Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Uses data from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) schools to examine the manner in which teacher and track placement serve to segregate African American students within schools.

    Find this resource:

  • Russo, C. J., and C. Talbert-Johnson. 1997. The overrepresentation of African American children in special education: The resegregation of educational programming? Education and Urban Society 29.2: 136–148.

    DOI: 10.1177/0013124597029002002Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Describes the manner in which policies for identifying special-needs students may work against the cultural norms of high-needs students and their potential conflicts with middle-class teachers, thereby increasing minority representation in special-needs classes.

    Find this resource:

  • Welner, K. G. 2006. K–12 race-conscious student assignment policies: Law, social science, and diversity. Review of Educational Research 76.3: 349–382.

    DOI: 10.3102/00346543076003349Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Reviews the laws regarding student assignment and the links to the social science research base in light of the impending 2007 Supreme Court decision in PICS (Parents Involved in Community Schools).

    Find this resource:

  • Wraga, W. G. 2006. The heightened significance of Brown v. Board of Education in our time. Phi Delta Kappan 87.6: 425–428.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Argues for a reconsideration of the critical role that the 1954 Brown decision has had on the democratization of education in America. Also considers the consequences for the loss of the democratically based school reform and legal movements that Brown has engendered.

    Find this resource:

Resegregation

In addition to critiques of standard desegregation policies, a number of studies have tracked the policy shift away from desegregation as a policy prescription and the subsequent resegregation of schools in a new, standards-based policy context. Orfield 2001 and Orfield, et al. 2003 chart the developing resegregation in American schools. Boger and Orfield 2005 provides a solid series of essays documenting the complexity of the issue of resegregation in southern states. Boger 2003 links resegregation to resource allocation issues and to the current standards-based reform paradigm. Goldring, et al. 2006 and Houck 2010 represent the case-based approaches to researching student assignment that defines the new scholarship on the issue. Fife 1997 presciently outlines stresses on then-current student assignment policies. Reardon, et al. 2006 provides an overview of the efficacy of assignment polices based on socioeconomic status.

  • Boger, J. 2003. Education’s “perfect storm”? Racial resegregation, high-stakes testing, and school resource inequities: The case of North Carolina. North Carolina Law Review 81.4: 1375–1462.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Links school resegregation in the South with school finance and accountability policies.

    Find this resource:

  • Boger, J. C., and G. Orfield. 2005. School resegregation: Must the South turn back? Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.

    DOI: 10.5149/uncp/9780807856130Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Essays address the politics and dynamics of the resegregation of southern schools.

    Find this resource:

  • Fife, B. L. 1997. School desegregation in the twenty-first century: The focus must change. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Outlines stressors on then-current desegregation policies and the pressures building for a changed approach to student assignment.

    Find this resource:

  • Goldring, E., L. Cohen-Vogel, C. Smrekar, and C. Taylor. 2006. Schooling closer to home: Desegregation policy and neighborhood contexts. American Journal of Education 112.3: 335–362.

    DOI: 10.1086/500712Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Uses census data to examine the community resources present for neighborhoods surrounding schools in Nashville, Tennessee. Findings indicate that high-poverty schools are located in geographic zones with relatively fewer neighborhood resources.

    Find this resource:

  • Houck, E. A. 2010. Teacher quality and school resegregation: A resource allocation case study. Leadership and Policy in Schools 9.1: 49–77.

    DOI: 10.1080/15700760802630210Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Using data from the Nashville, Tennessee, public schools, this study finds that, although Nashville students from poor and minority backgrounds received additional resources from the district in the form of reduced pupil-teacher ratios, they faced challenges in the form of higher percentages of inexperienced teachers and reduced average teacher salaries.

    Find this resource:

  • Orfield, G. 2001. Schools more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard Univ.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Describes resegregation as a process that has already been occurring in American schools and tracks the consequences of this movement as they pertain to groups such as Hispanic students and a rising African American middle class, both of which are affected by this resegregation.

    Find this resource:

  • Orfield, G., E. D. Frankenberg, and C. Lee. 2003. The resurgence of school segregation. Educational Leadership 60.4: 16–20.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Describes the early-21st-century state of school resegregation and traces possible causes, including legal, demographic, and policy matters.

    Find this resource:

  • Reardon, S. F., J. T. Yun, and M. Kurlaender. 2006. Implications of income-based school assignment policies for racial school segregation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 28.1: 49–75.

    DOI: 10.3102/01623737028001049Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Suggests that income-based student assignment policies may not provide any racial integration benefits but that these relationships are highly contextualized for districts.

    Find this resource:

back to top

Article

Up

Down