Desegregation and Integration

by

Jennifer Ayscue, Erica Frankenberg

• LAST REVIEWED: 21 April 2021
• LAST MODIFIED: 25 February 2016
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0139

Introduction

In the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that racial segregation was unconstitutional and “inherently unequal.” At that time, desegregation efforts focused primarily on the South and the desegregation of black and white students. The South received attention because most of the seventeen states that had de jure, or legally sanctioned, segregation were located in the South; efforts were concentrated on black and white students because they comprised the majority of public school students at that time. Today, school segregation is a national issue that reaches across all regions of the country and stratifies what is now a multiracial student population by race, class, and language. School desegregation history in the United States is characterized by several decades of progress, peaking in the 1980s, and a subsequent retreat; this pattern is evident in both the judicial support of desegregation and the trends measuring progress in desegregation. Segregated schools are consistently linked to unequal educational opportunities and outcomes, while desegregated and diverse schools are associated with numerous benefits for students of all races. The causes of school segregation (and the re-segregation of previously desegregated schools) are complicated; they include residential segregation, legal constraints, termination of court orders, student assignment policies that deprioritize diversity, structural features of school and district boundaries, and unregulated forms of school choice. Given this complexity, it is not surprising that the policies for addressing segregation are similarly complex and must be carefully tailored to the local context and demography. Since the 1950s, school districts across the nation have implemented desegregation efforts in various ways, both voluntary and mandatory, with varying levels of success. However, creating and maintaining desegregation is not sufficient for truly achieving integration, which can occur through a comprehensive and deliberate structuring of classrooms and learning environments. “Desegregation” refers to a legal or political process of ending the separation and isolation of different racial and ethnic groups. Desegregation is achieved through court order or voluntary means. “Integration” refers to a social process in which members of different racial and ethnic groups experience fair and equal treatment within a desegregated environment. Integration requires further action beyond desegregation. This bibliography incorporates social science research from education, law, policy, and sociology to explore desegregation history, policies, trends, causes, and effects. It also reviews the arguments that have been made in opposition to desegregation.

Key Court Cases

This section traces the legal history of desegregation beginning with legally sanctioned school segregation for sixty years, little progress in the first decade following Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 1954 and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 1955 before rapid progress through 1973, and a subsequent retrenchment and loss of desegregation tools during the subsequent four decades. In 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson established the “separate but equal” doctrine that allowed for racial segregation in public schools. In 1947, the federal case Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County held that the segregation of Mexican American students in California was unconstitutional and helped to influence Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was the first major US Supreme Court case to rule that segregation was unconstitutional. The Court concluded that separate schools were “inherently unequal.” From 1968 to 1973—and earlier in certain Circuit Courts— the Supreme Court continued to rule in ways that were supportive of desegregation efforts. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County specified the ways in which desegregation must occur and forbid the use of choice plans that did not create much desegregation. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education approved busing as a tool for desegregation, and Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1 extended the rights of desegregation to Latino students and was the first case outside the South. However, during the mid-1970s, a shift occurred that began to limit the extent to which desegregation could and would occur. Milliken v. Bradley limited interdistrict remedies for addressing segregation, Board of Education of Oklahoma v. Dowell held that once a district was declared “unitary” it no longer had to maintain desegregation, and Freeman v. Pitts allowed school districts to be released from court order even if full desegregation had not been achieved. Most recently, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts could not consider the race of an individual student when assigning students to schools. Together, the legal cases of the last four decades have constrained the ways in which school districts can attempt to achieve desegregation.

• Board of Education of Oklahoma v. Dowell. 498 U.S. 237 (1991).

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In Oklahoma v. Dowell, the Supreme Court ruled that a school district could achieve unitary status when the district demonstrates that it no longer operates a dual, segregated school system, has complied in good faith with desegregation orders, and has eliminated past vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable as measured by compliance with the Green factors (Green v. County School Board of New Kent County). Once unitary, the district is no longer under judicial oversight. This decision meant that districts could be released from court order even if they were not actually desegregated.

  Find this resource:

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

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This landmark Supreme Court decision struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, which had been in place since 1896. Brown ruled that segregation was unconstitutional and concluded that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

  Find this resource:

• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. 349 U.S. 294 (1955).

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Also known as Brown II, in this case, the Supreme Court required that desegregation occur with “all deliberate speed.” However, because enforcement of the ruling was vague, the “all deliberate speed” provision of Brown II did not occur until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 placed sanctions on districts that were not in compliance (see also Legislative/Executive Approaches to Desegregation).

  Find this resource:

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

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In Freeman v. Pitts, the Court ruled that in order to be released from desegregation orders, school districts did not have to demonstrate compliance with all of the Green factors at the same time.

  Find this resource:

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

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Green limited the use of freedom-of-choice plans, which allowed black students the choice to transfer to a predominantly white school. Instead, Green required segregation to be dismantled “root and branch.” The Green factors specified that desegregation must occur in six areas: student body, faculty, staff, facilities, extracurricular activities, and transportation.

  Find this resource:

• Keyes v. Denver School District No. 1. 413 U.S. 189 (1973).

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Keyes was the first school segregation case outside of the South. The Court held that if intentional segregation was found in part of the district, desegregation had to occur throughout the district. Keyes also explicitly extended the rights of desegregation to Latino students for the first time.

  Find this resource:

• Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County. 64 F. Supp. 544 (S.D. Cal 1946), aff’d, 161 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1947) (en banc).

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In 1947, in Mendez v. Westminster, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the segregation of Mexican American students into separate schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision ended the segregation of Mexican American students in California.

  Find this resource:

• Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717 (1974).

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In ruling that suburbs could not be included in metropolitan-wide desegregation plans if the suburbs were not guilty of intentional discrimination, Milliken limited the ability of predominantly minority central-city school districts to achieve desegregation by using interdistrict remedies that would cross district lines to include the suburbs. This decision made desegregation difficult in the North, which often had highly fragmented metropolitan areas, and was the first since Brown to limit what was required to desegregate.

  Find this resource:

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

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In Parents Involved, the Court reasoned that voluntary race-based student assignment policies in Seattle and Louisville violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that school districts cannot take an individual student’s race into account when assigning students to schools. It also held that districts have a “compelling” interest in creating diverse schools or reducing racial isolation but to do so districts must use different approaches.

  Find this resource:

• Plessy v. Ferguson. 163 U.S. 357 (1896).

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The Supreme Court ruled that state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities were constitutional as long as the separate facilities were equal. The “separate but equal” doctrine allowed for segregation in public schools for the next sixty years even though separate schools were rarely equal.

  Find this resource:

• Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 402 U.S. 1 (1971).

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Swann required that districts desegregate their schools to the greatest extent possible and approved busing as a tool for achieving desegregation. This ruling was important for allowing students to be transported out of their neighborhoods in order to thoroughly desegregate schools.

  Find this resource:

Legal History

These books combine to illustrate the long road of using the judicial system to advocate for racial integration and equality in US public schools. Kluger 1975 is a detailed recounting of the development of the legal strategy in the 1930s, its subsequent implementation by Legal Defense Fund lawyers to challenge the Plessy v. Ferguson precedent requiring racially segregated schools, the journey through the lower courts, and finally the story behind the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision (see also Key Court Cases). Gaillard 2006 chronicles desegregation in Charlotte, North Carolina, emphasizing the build-up and impact of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. Other books in this section describe the unraveling by the courts to fulfill the promise of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Orfield and Eaton 1996 focuses on the impact of the Milliken v. Bradley decision (see also Key Court Cases) and three 1990s Court decisions. Smrekar and Goldring 2009 looked at local districts, with a focus on the lifting of court orders. Ryan 2010 used two Richmond, Virginia–area districts to illustrate the inequality of the Court’s desegregation and school finance. Likewise, Irons 2002 utilized the districts that were part of the four cases consolidated in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision to argue that political developments since 1954 have dramatically limited the promise of desegregation. McDermott 2001 illustrated some political challenges arising from the changing legal rationale for diversity in both K-12 and higher education.

• Gaillard, Frye. 2006. The dream long deferred: The landmark struggle for desegregation in Charlotte, North Carolina. 3d ed. Columbia: The Univ. of South Carolina Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Written by a former journalist at The Charlotte Observer, this book chronicles the fifty-year struggle for desegregation in Charlotte. He illustrates the difficult position of district court judges who had to fashion remedies in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. In the third edition, Gaillard updates earlier editions with a more contemporary history of the unitary status decision and its aftermath.

  Find this resource:

• Irons, Peter. 2002. Jim Crow’s children: The broken promise of the Brown decision. New York: Viking.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Using the experiences of children in the school districts of the four cases that were combined in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case, this book traces the fight for desegregation and subsequent political developments that have fought to limit desegregation.

  Find this resource:

• Kluger, Richard. 1975. Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s struggle for equality. New York: Vintage.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book is an in-depth history of the challenge to legal segregation in US schools. The story begins with the training of lawyers and the development of legal strategy. It describes the challenges of trying these cases, illustrating the creativity and wisdom of NAACP lawyers, bravery of African American communities, and the wrestling that judges had, all of which culminated in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision.

  Find this resource:

• McDermott, Kathryn A. 2001. Diversity or desegregation? Implications of arguments for diversity in K-12 and higher education. Educational Policy 15:452–473.

  DOI: 10.1177/0895904801015003006Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Since the 1990s, there has been a shift from the “separate-cannot-be-equal” to the “compelling-interest-in-diversity” rationale for integration. This article compares the use of the diversity rationale in K-12 and higher education and uses Connecticut as an example of the challenges that arise in using a diversity rationale in K-12 education.

  Find this resource:

• Orfield, Gary, and Susan E. Eaton, eds. 1996. Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: The New Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book describes the unraveling of the legal effort to implement Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, beginning with the 1974 Milliken decision through three Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s regarding school desegregation. Using case studies of districts’ desegregation efforts, it describes the shift in judicial thinking and the consequences.

  Find this resource:

• Ryan, James E. 2010. Five miles away, a world apart: One city, two schools, and the story of educational opportunity in modern America. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book helps to illustrate the impact of Supreme Court jurisprudence through the uneven applications of contemporary education policy in an urban and adjacent suburban district. Because of the Court’s failure to consolidate these districts for desegregation purposes as well as refusing to find a constitutional right to education, urban minority students have fewer opportunities than their nearby suburban peers.

  Find this resource:

• Smrekar, Claire E., and Ellen B. Goldring, eds. 2009. From the courtroom to the classroom: The shifting landscape of school desegregation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This edited volume analyzes legal and educational issues related to the end of court-ordered desegregation and a return to neighborhood schools. Using multiple case studies and empirical analyses, the authors discuss why desegregation matters, the legal and policy context for post-unitary student assignment plans, and the academic and long-term effects of re-segregation.

  Find this resource:

Legislative/Executive Approaches to Desegregation

In part because of the slow progress in desegregating Southern schools via the courts in the decade after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (see Key Court Cases), civil rights advocates sought legislation to more quickly and uniformly accomplish desegregation, which was successful under a supportive presidential administration (Johnson) and less so under Richard Nixon. Orfield 1969, Orfield 1978, and Orfield 2000 have been the leading analytic reports of the changes wrought by these federal policies, first describing the dramatic changes in Southern schools because of the Civil Rights Act and Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1969. Cascio, et al. 2010 uses historical data from Southern school districts to analyze the widespread impact this legislation had on increasing racial desegregation. Orfield 1978 and Orfield 2000 detail the complexity of maintaining such gains as opposition to desegregation grew in the federal government and desegregation increasingly got wrapped up in the politics of busing. Finally, Stevens 1990 and Hawley 1983 describe what a federal approach to promoting desegregation might look like.

• Cascio, Elizabeth, Nora Gordon, Ethan Lewis, and Sarah Reber. 2010. Paying for progress: Conditional grants and the desegregation of Southern schools. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 125.1: 445–482.

  DOI: 10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.445Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This article utilizes archival data during the 1960s to conclude that federal enforcement of the Civil Rights Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act led to widespread token desegregation in Southern schools. Moreover, prior to 1970, federal enforcement carried a larger burden than the courts in furthering desegregation.

  Find this resource:

• Hawley, Willis D. 1983. Quality integrated education: With or without federal help. The Phi Delta Kappan 64.5: 334–338.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Within the context of reduced federal support for desegregation efforts, Hawley describes four relatively inexpensive and non-intrusive ways in which the federal government could support desegregation efforts. However, Hawley identifies twelve strategies that schools and districts could implement to create effective integrated learning environments, even without federal support.

  Find this resource:

• Orfield, Gary. 1969. The Reconstruction of Southern education: The schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Through two case studies, this book analyzes both the possibilities of federal legislation and enforcement to dramatically shift local practice around desegregation in the South as well as the limits of this approach through the inability to affect northern racial imbalance.

  Find this resource:

• Orfield, Gary. 1978. Must we bus? Segregation and national policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book examines the legal and political breakdown in civil rights consensus as desegregation compliance was increasingly polarized around the issue of busing and a resulting disagreement about what the federal government’s responsibility was to remedy school segregation. Although Congress prevented the repeal of civil rights laws, it was unable to prevent some limiting of what federal agencies could do to enforce desegregation.

  Find this resource:

• Orfield, Gary. 2000. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and American education. In Legacies of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Edited by Bernard Grofman, 89–128. Charlottesville: Univ. of Virginia Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter examines the legacy of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, finding that the law’s longevity owes to the fact that those opposing the law never controlled all three branches of federal government, preventing repeal despite the revolutionary nature. It concludes that the law works only when implementation is fully enforced by the President and federal agencies, and supported by the courts.

  Find this resource:

• Stevens, Leonard B. 1990. The dilemma of metropolitan school desegregation. Education and Urban Society 23.1: 61–72.

  DOI: 10.1177/0013124590023001004Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This article describes demographic reasons that would favor metropolitan desegregation efforts, highlights a few small-scale initiatives, and describes what a federal program to promote metropolitan desegregation would look like in terms of incentives needed and what research would help to improve such efforts.

  Find this resource:

Policies to Achieve Desegregation

Because of the unique local politics and demographics—and changing legal understanding over time of what desegregation required—policies to achieve desegregation are quite varied. One of the first comprehensive volumes on this topic was Hawley, et al. 1983, which synthesizes a wide range of contemporary research to explore strategies thought to be effective in desegregating schools. Hochschild 1984 helps illuminate the tradeoffs in crafting desegregation between wider community participation and achieving more far-reaching desegregation. In the aftermath of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. (see Key Court Cases), districts and civil rights advocates have searched for legally permissible and effective strategies. Reardon, et al. 2006 theoretically analyzes the possibility that race-neutral policies might achieve racially diverse schools, which is considered one popular alternative to race-conscious policies. The Frankenberg and DeBray 2011 and Kahlenberg 2012 volumes offer a variety of potential solutions and assessments of their viability. Diem 2012 looks at district contexts to try to understand under what circumstances voluntary integration policies might be effective.

• Diem, Sarah. 2012. The relationship between policy design, context, and implementation in integration plans. Education Policy Analysis Archives 20.23.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The author finds that the district’s geographic and political context shapes the adoption of integration policies after Parents Involved. Specifically, she suggests that it is important to tailor the policy design to the district’s demographics and take account of prior desegregation experiences. Policies using multiple diversity measures may be more successful.

  Find this resource:

• Frankenberg, Erica, and Elizabeth DeBray, eds. 2011. Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation. Chapel Hill: The Univ. of North Carolina Press.

  DOI: 10.5149/9780807869208_frankenbergSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This edited book focuses on policies to pursue racial integration amid a changing demographic, legal, and political landscape. It combines legal analysis, cases studies of successful local efforts, and social science to propose solutions given recent setbacks to diversity efforts.

  Find this resource:

• Hawley, Willis D., Robert L. Crain, Christine H. Rossell, Janet W. Schofield, R. Fernandez, and W. P. Trent. 1983. Strategies for effective desegregation: Lessons from research. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This is an early synthesis of research about how to maximize the benefits of diverse schools that stems from two large desegregation research projects. It discusses the assumptions about desegregation and strategies that are effective for developing and then subsequently implementing desegregation.

  Find this resource:

• Hochschild, Jennifer L. 1984. The new American dilemma: Liberal democracy and school desegregation. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book argues that the experience with desegregation showed that the most successful means of desegregating schools were more rapid, extensive changes imposed with limited community input and non-popularly elected officials because of the deeply entrenched nature of racism in society that may be unacknowledged by whites.

  Find this resource:

• Kahlenberg, Richard D., ed. 2012. The future of school integration: Socioeconomic diversity as an education reform strategy. New York: The Century Foundation.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This compilation of chapters is edited by the foremost proponent of socioeconomic integration and assesses the viability of one of the most popular race-neutral alternatives suggested as a less risky replacement for race-conscious integration policies. It focuses on the benefits of socioeconomic integration plans as well as the politics of such approaches.

  Find this resource:

• Reardon, Sean F., John T. Yun, and Michal 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 »

  This article theoretically assesses the probability that racial integration would occur with the implementation of income-only student assignment policy. Given contemporary race and income inequality and segregation they find that income-based policies may not result in racial integration; racial integration is most likely to be an ancillary benefit under certain district conditions and when there is a more robust measure of income than is the case in most current policies.

  Find this resource:

How to Structure Integration

Though much of the legal attention focused on getting students of different races into the same schools, educators and social scientists have also focused on how to structure diverse schools so they are equitable for all to achieve maximum benefits. Allport 1954 suggested important conditions for structuring integration, which has been subsequently tested and affirmed by Pettigrew and Tropp 2006. Specific structural issues within schools have received attention for their importance in creating inclusive environments: Burris and Welner 2007 addresses detracking, Parker 2009 highlights the importance of diverse teaching staffs, and Sleeter 2007 discusses training teachers for diverse student populations. Hawley 2007 offers a comprehensive assessment of what is needed in the 21st century’s diverse schools and Pollock 2004 also points out the challenges of talking openly about race in schools.

• Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This work specified conditions that are necessary to realize the benefits of intergroup contact to reduce prejudice (referred to as “the Contact Hypothesis” and developed by Allport). They are as follows: authority sanction of norms, equal status of groups, common goals, and intergroup cooperation.

  Find this resource:

• Burris, Carol C., and Kevin G. Welner. 2007. Classroom integration and accelerated learning through detracking. In Lessons in integration: Realizing the promise of racial diversity in American schools. Edited by Erica Frankenberg and Gary Orfield, 207–227. Charlottesville: Univ. of Virginia Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter describes a district’s effort at detracking course offerings through eliminating low-level classes at a racially diverse high school and provides evidence regarding the success for all students. It also describes some of the political challenges detracking efforts face.

  Find this resource:

• Hawley, Willis. 2007. Designing schools that use student diversity to enhance learning of all students. In Lessons in integration: Realizing the promise of racial diversity in American schools. Edited by Erica Frankenberg and Gary Orfield, 31–56. Charlottesville: Univ. of Virginia Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter synthesizes several decades of empirical research and theory to suggest ways of effectively structuring learning environments to build classrooms and schools that will benefits students of all racial/ethnic backgrounds. Two important conditions, he argues, are believing the importance of a range of positive outcomes that stem from diverse classrooms and identifying and implementing strategies that are known to enhance students’ development.

  Find this resource:

• Parker, Wendy M. 2009. Desegregating teachers. Washington University Law Review 86.1: 2–53.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Analyzing 157 school districts, the article finds that teachers are much more likely to teach students of their same race. By demonstrating the link between segregation and unequal resources, namely, teachers, the author argues that the segregation of teachers is a barrier to structural equality.

  Find this resource:

• Pettigrew, Thomas F., and Linda R. Tropp. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90.5: 751–783.

  DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Based on intergroup contact theory, this meta-analysis of more than 500 studies confirms that increased contact between members of different groups can have positive impacts on all groups by reducing prejudice, negative attitudes, and stereotypes while at the same time increasing friendships among members of different groups.

  Find this resource:

• Pollock, Mica. 2004. Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in an American school. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This in-depth study of a school in California illustrates the everyday dilemmas that students and adults in the school community have in whether they use racial labels or not, and how to use them. The challenges and hesitance around discussions of race, Pollock argues, can perpetuate racial inequality within schools.

  Find this resource:

• Sleeter, Christine E. 2007. Preparing teachers for multiracial and historically underserved schools. In Lessons in integration: Realizing the promise of racial diversity in American schools. Edited by Erica Frankenberg and Gary Orfield, 171–189. Charlottesville: Univ. of Virginia Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter draws on the author’s experience as a teacher educator as well as a range of studies to propose how to train teachers in preparation programs to build upon the assets that racially and economically diverse students have. She suggests immersion experiences for preservice teachers, excellent mentors, and more time as practicing teachers in diverse classrooms.

  Find this resource:

Effects of Desegregation

This section identifies key works that detail the effects of desegregation: academic, short-term, and long-term. In a foundational work in the field of sociology of education, Coleman 1966 identifies the importance of the racial and socioeconomic composition of a student’s classmates in impacting academic achievement. Braddock and McPartland 1989 and Wells and Crain 1994 focus on the long-term, perpetuating effects of desegregation. Using a nationally representative data set, Johnson 2011 further examines the long-term effects of desegregation on adult outcomes. Schofield 1995, the social science statement (Brief of 553 Social Scientists as amici curae in support of respondents, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1), Linn and Welner 2007, and Mickelson and Nkomo 2012 provide comprehensive literature reviews that discuss the range of effects of desegregation on individuals and society. Taking a different perspective, Smith 2004 argues that the effects of desegregation have been more consequential for the economic development and vitality of the city of Charlotte, not the students and schools.

• Braddock, Jomills H., and James M. McPartland. 1989. Social-psychological processes that perpetuate racial segregation: The relationship between school and employment desegregation. Journal of Black Studies 19.3: 267–289.

  DOI: 10.1177/002193478901900301Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In this piece, the authors shift the focus from short-term to long-term effects of desegregation. Perpetuation theory posits that segregation repeats itself across different stages of life; when individuals have early and sustained experiences in desegregated schools, they are more likely to live and work in desegregated environments later in life.

  Find this resource:

• Brief of 553 Social Scientists as amici curae in support of respondents, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1, 2006 WL 2927079 (U.S. 2006).

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This amicus brief from Parents Involved was signed by 553 scholars who urge the Court to permit the continuation of voluntary race-conscious student assignment policies. The statement reviews research related to the benefits of desegregation, the harms of segregation, and the necessity of race-conscious policies for maintaining racially desegregated schools.

  Find this resource:

• Coleman, James S. 1966. Equality and achievement in education. Boulder, CO: Westview.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Commissioned by the US Department of Education to research educational equality, this was one of the largest studies in history. Spurring intense controversy, “The Coleman Report” found that attributes of other students are more important in determining the achievement of minority students than are any attributes of schools.

  Find this resource:

• Johnson, Rucker C. 2011. Long-run impacts of school desegregation and school quality on adult attainments. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. 16664.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Using the longest running nationally representative data that tracks children born between 1945 and 1970 through adulthood in 2011, this study identifies the long-term effects of desegregation on adult socioeconomic and health outcomes. For black adults, desegregation is associated with improved educational and occupational attainment, college quality and adult earnings, lower probability of incarceration, and improved health.

  Find this resource:

• Linn, Robert L., and Kevin G. Welner, eds. 2007. Race-conscious policies for assigning students to schools: Social science research and the Supreme Court cases. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Based on twenty-seven amicus briefs filed in Parents Involved, this report reviews social science research related to academic achievement, near-term intergroup relations, long-term effects of school desegregation, the critical mass question, and race-neutral alternatives. The report concludes that academic and social effects of racial diversity are likely to be positive.

  Find this resource:

• Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin, and Mokubung Nkomo. 2012. Integrated schooling, life course outcomes, and social cohesion in multiethnic democratic societies. Review of Research in Education 36:197–238.

  DOI: 10.3102/0091732X11422667Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This recent review synthesizes educational, social, and behavioral science research about the short-term and long-term academic and nonacademic effects of desegregation. The authors argue that diverse schools result in various outcomes that develop the attitudes and structural conditions necessary for social cohesion in a multiethnic, democratic society such as the United States.

  Find this resource:

• Schofield, Janet W. 1995. Review of research on school desegregation’s impact on elementary and secondary students. In Handbook of multicultural education. Edited by James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks, 597–616. New York: Macmillan.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter reviews early literature on the effects of school desegregation. The main findings are that desegregated schools have a positive effect on reading achievement, emerging research suggests that desegregated schooling can break the perpetuation of segregation and isolation, and findings on intergroup relations are inconclusive.

  Find this resource:

• Smith, Stephen Samuel. 2004. Boom for whom? Education, desegregation, and development in Charlotte. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Using urban regime theory, this book argues that although busing had positive consequences for desegregation in Charlotte’s schools during the 1970s and 1980s, the more enduring consequence of busing was the economic development of Charlotte, which benefitted the business elite rather than black students in the schools.

  Find this resource:

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

  DOI: 10.3102/00346543064004531Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Drawing from twenty-one studies, the authors identify three areas of long-term impact for black students who attended desegregated schools: occupational aspirations and expectations, choices of college and educational attainment, and occupational attainment and adult social networks. They conclude that attending desegregated schools allows black students to overcome the perpetual cycle of segregation.

  Find this resource:

Trends in Desegregation

The pieces in this section trace the trajectory of school desegregation efforts from the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision (see Key Court Cases) through the present day. Orfield 1983 documents the initial phases of desegregation across the nation. Clotfelter 2004 analyzes trends during the first half century following Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Orfield, et al. 2012 extends the previous works by examining trends through 2010. Using similar measures of segregation, these pieces find early progress toward desegregation, particularly for black students in the South, and then deepening segregation since the mid-1980s into the present day, particularly for Latino students and in regions outside of the South. Reardon, et al. 2000 is a detailed look at the use of a different measure of segregation, providing important methodological contributions to desegregation research, as well as documenting trends in major metropolitan areas during the early 1990s.

• Clotfelter, Charles T. 2004. After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book documents the course of school desegregation during the fifty years following Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Clotfelter analyzes interracial contact at the regional level, in metropolitan areas, and in school districts; within schools based on classroom-level data; in private schools; and in higher education.

  Find this resource:

• Orfield, Gary. 1983. Public school desegregation in the United States, 1968–1980. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political Studies.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This report was the first to analyze federal racial data for schools on a metropolitan level. Major findings indicate substantial progress on desegregation in the South but increasing isolation of Hispanic students, particularly in the North and the West.

  Find this resource:

• Orfield, Gary, John Kucsera, and Genevieve Siegel-Hawley. 2012. E pluribus. . .separation: Deepening double segregation for more students. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This comprehensive analysis describes the racial and ethnic transformation of the nation’s schools and identifies trends in desegregation by race and poverty between 1970 and 2010. The report examines data at the national, regional, state, and metropolitan levels and provides policy recommendations for addressing intensifying segregation.

  Find this resource:

• Reardon, Sean F., John T. Yun, and Tamela M. Eitle. 2000. The changing structure of school segregation: Measurement and evidence of multiracial metropolitan-area school segregation, 1989–1995. Demography 37.2: 351–364.

  DOI: 10.2307/2648047Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  By describing how to measure multigroup evenness and how to partition out components of the total segregation measure, this article contributes methodologically to desegregation research. Between 1989 and 1995, the average level of segregation in 217 metropolitan areas remained stable, but segregation between districts and segregation between white students and all other racial groups increased.

  Find this resource:

Re-segregation

Desegregation across the nation reached its peak in the mid-1980s. Since that time, segregation has been increasing, resulting in a re-segregation of schools in many parts of the United States. “Re-segregation” refers to the process of increasing racial or ethnic isolation and separation after progress has been made in decreasing the isolation and separation of racial or ethnic groups. The pieces in this section explore re-segregation in different parts of the country, including the South, suburbia, and districts throughout the nation that were once under court-ordered desegregation plans. Boger and Orfield 2005 focuses on the South, the region that had made the most progress in school desegregation; despite the re-segregation that has occurred there, it remains the most desegregated region of the country. Frankenberg and Orfield 2012 focuses on re-segregation in suburbia, where most Americans reside and an area of rapid racial and economic transformation with limited policies and experience in dealing with this type of change. Reardon, et al. 2012 looks at school districts across the country that were once under court-ordered desegregation but have been released from judicial oversight since the 1990s, finding that without continued oversight, re-segregation is likely to occur. Using Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools as a case study, Mickelson, et al. 2015 details how a district that had been a highly successful national symbol of school desegregation in the past has since experienced re-segregation. Wells, et al. 2009 interviews students in desegregated schools at the height of desegregation, who despite appreciating the benefits of such interracial exposure, somewhat regretfully reflect on the ways in which they are now living less integrated lives.

• Boger, John C., and Gary Orfield, eds. 2005. School re-segregation: Must the South turn back? Chapel Hill: The Univ. of North Carolina Press.

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

  This book explores trends toward re-segregation in the South, where the most progress in desegregation had been achieved. The authors discuss the negative effects of re-segregation, and the role of policies, such as standardized testing and race-neutral approaches to desegregation, in contributing to re-segregation and its negative impacts.

  Find this resource:

• Frankenberg, Erica, and Gary Orfield, eds. 2012. The re-segregation of suburban schools: A hidden crisis in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book highlights the transformation of suburbia into more racially and socioeconomically diverse communities. Using case studies of seven suburban districts, the authors document a range of attempts to address racial change in order to provide stably integrated schools rather than allow the impending threat of re-segregation to occur.

  Find this resource:

• Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin, Stephen Samuel Smith, and Amy Hawn Nelson, eds. 2015. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow: School desegregation and re-segregation in Charlotte. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Using a multidisciplinary approach, this book explores Charlotte’s desegregation experience prior to being declared unitary in 2002 and the subsequent return to racially and socioeconomically isolated schools. It examines the relationship between structure and agency throughout the process of desegregation and re-segregation in a once highly successfully desegregated district.

  Find this resource:

• Reardon, Sean F., Elena Grewal, Demetra Kalogrides, and Erica Greenberg. 2012. Brown fades: The end of court-ordered school desegregation and the re-segregation of American public schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31.4: 876–904.

  DOI: 10.1002/pam.21649Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Between 1991 and 2009, more than 200 school districts were released from court-ordered school desegregation plans. Based on their review of these districts, the authors state that racial segregation in these districts has gradually increased since their release from mandatory desegregation, suggesting that re-segregation is likely to occur in the absence of continued oversight.

  Find this resource:

• Wells, Amy Stuart, Jennifer Jellison Holme, Anita Tijerina Revilla, and Awo Korantemaa Atanda. 2009. Both sides now: The story of school desegregation’s graduates. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This is an in-depth study of more than 500 graduates from six racially diverse high schools in 1980 who assess how their desegregation experiences shaped their post–high school lives. It illustrates the important ways in which interracial contact positively affects students, as well as reflecting on the backlash against desegregation efforts including their lives as parents living in less diverse environments.

  Find this resource:

Multifaceted Nature of Segregation by Race, Class, and Language

Although racial segregation has been the focus of most of the research on desegregation, racial segregation is often linked to other forms of segregation, including segregation by poverty and language. Orfield and Lee 2005 examines the relationship between segregation by race and segregation by poverty. Gifford and Valdés 2006 explains the problematic nature of segregation for English Language Learners (ELLs). It also documents the hypersegregation of ELLs in California, while Gándara and Orfield 2010 examines segregation of ELLs in Arizona and Vasquez. Heilig and Holme 2013 describes the nature of segregation for ELLs in Texas. All four pieces document trends in segregation by race, class, and/or language while also citing literature that explains the additional harms of segregation for students who are segregated not only by race, but also by class or by language.

• Gándara, Patricia, and Gary Orfield. 2010. A return to the “Mexican room”: The segregation of Arizona’s English learners. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project, Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Focusing on Arizona in 2007, this study finds that Latino students were segregated with disproportionately high shares of English Language Learners. After ELLs were isolated for instruction in an English Language Development class, there was difficulty reintegrating them into the whole school environment, often resulting in continued segregation for the entire school day.

  Find this resource:

• Gifford, Bernard R., and Guadalupe Valdés. 2006. The linguistic isolation of Hispanic students in California’s public schools: The challenge of reintegration. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 105.2: 125–154.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7984.2006.00079.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This piece explains how linguistic isolation limits an English Language Learner’s opportunity to develop English language skills and acquire academic English. Segregated ELLs are exposed to few models of native English speakers and they also have few friends or neighbors who speak the language well and can serve as models.

  Find this resource:

• Heilig, Julian Vasquez, and Jennifer Jellison Holme. 2013. Nearly 50 years post-Jim Crow: Persisting and expansive school segregation for African American, Latina/o, and ELL students in Texas. Education and Urban Society 45.5: 609–632.

  DOI: 10.1177/0013124513486289Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This Texas study from 2011 documents a triple segregation of English Language Learners by race, class, and language. It finds that ELLs attend schools with large shares of students who are black or Latino, economically disadvantaged, and other ELLs. Segregation is attributed to both residential segregation and education policies, including school choice and clustered bilingual programs.

  Find this resource:

• Orfield, Gary, and Chungmei Lee. 2005. Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This report documents the relationship between racial segregation and poverty, finding that black and Latino students attend high poverty schools at much higher rates than do white and Asian students. The report also synthesizes literature demonstrating the unequal educational opportunities provided to students in high poverty schools.

  Find this resource:

Within-School Segregation

Many studies of desegregation examine the extent to which students are segregated between schools (see Trends in Desegregation and Re-segregation). While the removal of barriers so that students are no longer isolated in separate schools is an essential first step, it is insufficient to achieving integration. The persistence of segregation within schools is a barrier to achieving fully integrated schools. Even though students attend diverse schools with students of different racial, socioeconomic, and linguistic backgrounds, they might still be segregated in different classrooms or different groups within the school, making the benefits associated with desegregation (see Effects of Desegregation) less attainable. In a study of twenty-five schools, Oakes 2005 demonstrates that segregation within schools often occurs through the process of tracking. Mickelson 2001 refers to this type of within-school segregation as “second-generation segregation” and demonstrates the negative effect it has on academic outcomes, even within desegregated schools. Lewis, et al. 2015 uses an in-depth case study of one high school to describe how tracking not only is related to unequal educational opportunities but also reinforces racial disadvantage.

• Lewis, Amanda E., John B. Diamond, and Tyrone A. Forman. 2015. Conundrums of integration: Desegregation in the context of racialized hierarchy. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1.1: 22–36.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This case study highlights how, within a school that has been desegregated for decades, institutional and everyday discrimination results in a racialized academic hierarchy of tracks. Tracking results in inequitable access to educational opportunities and reinforces racial disadvantage. The authors conclude that desegregation is not an endpoint, as it does not produce true integration.

  Find this resource:

• Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin. 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 »

  Examining segregation in eleven high schools, Mickelson differentiates between first-generation segregation—between-schools segregation—and second-generation segregation—segregation between tracks within schools. Black students are more likely to be enrolled in lower-track classes, which offer less rigorous instruction, more limited curriculum, and less qualified teachers, undermining the potential benefits of school-level desegregation.

  Find this resource:

• Oakes, Jeannie. 2005. Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. 2d ed. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Tracking, or the practice of separating students for instruction by achievement or ability, often re-segregates students within diverse schools. In a study of twenty-five schools, Oakes finds that poor and minority students were assigned to lower tracks, which was related to inequities in learning opportunities, instruction, classroom climate, and students’ attitudes.

  Find this resource:

Relationship between School Segregation and Residential Segregation

Because public schools are organized by local communities, school segregation is tied to residential segregation. The Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (see Key Court Cases) decision recognized that school and neighborhood segregation patterns have a reinforcing, reciprocal effect on each other The articles/books in this section explore this relationship in several ways. Massey and Denton 1993 is a detailed analysis that describes the creation and perpetuation of segregated neighborhoods by governmental policies. De Souza Briggs 2005 outlines the ways in which housing policy has furthered inequality and suggests regional efforts to improve housing and educational opportunity. Liebowitz and Page 2014 examines how the student assignment policy shift in a local district shifts white demand for housing toward neighborhoods near white schools. Lareau and Goyette 2014 illustrates the complex interplay between housing and schools demographic characteristics in family decision-making, affirming the findings of Dougherty, et al. 2009 about the growing importance of race in families’ school choice decisions. Schwartz 2010 and Siegel-Hawley 2013 describe how housing integration efforts in local communities illustrate promise for lower school segregation.

• de Souza Briggs, Xavier, ed. 2005. The geography of opportunity. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This edited volume argues that expanding housing opportunity is critical to the success of any policy effort to equalize opportunity. Chapters illustrate the ways in which housing segregation relates to educational inequality, and suggests that regional solutions offer the most promise.

  Find this resource:

• Dougherty, Jack, Jeffrey Harrelson, Laura Maloney, et al. 2009. School choice in suburbia: Test scores, race, and housing markets. American Journal of Education 115.4: 523–548.

  DOI: 10.1086/599780Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This study analyzes quantitative data on families’ school choices in a diverse suburban district and finds that the racial composition of elementary schools became a more influential factor in the prices of nearby homes (more so than objective quality indicators like test scores).

  Find this resource:

• Lareau, Annette, and Kimberly Goyette, eds. 2014. Choosing homes, choosing schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Contributors to this edited volume illustrate how families make decisions about how to choose schools and the relationship between housing choices and school-related decisions. A key premise of this volume is the interrelationship between school and housing racial and economic characteristics in families’ decisions and how they reinforce one another.

  Find this resource:

• Liebowitz, David D., and Lindsay C. Page. 2014. Does school policy affect housing choices? Evidence from the end of desegregation in Charlotte–Mecklenburg. American Educational Research Journal 51.4: 671–703.

  DOI: 10.3102/0002831214541046Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This article examines how the shifting student assignment policy in Charlotte-Mecklenburg—after school desegregation ended—affected community demand for houses based on the type of school for which the neighborhood was zoned. In particular, after desegregation ended, white families were more likely to move to zones with high percentages of white students.

  Find this resource:

• Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In this book, the authors systematically describe how residential segregation was created and perpetuated by governmental policies. The book includes numerous detail tables analyzing the growth of segregation during the 20th century in major US cities.

  Find this resource:

• Schwartz, Heather. 2010. Housing policy is school policy: Economically integrative housing promotes academic success in Montgomery County, Maryland. New York: The Century Foundation.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This report examines a promising way to try to improve the outcomes for low-income students: inclusionary housing policy. Schwartz illustrates how Montgomery County, Maryland’s policy of requiring the construction of low-income housing in low-poverty areas facilitates economic integration and access for students from poor households into high-quality schools.

  Find this resource:

• Siegel-Hawley, Genevieve. 2013. City lines, county lines, color lines: An analysis of school and housing segregation in four Southern metropolitan areas, 1990–2010. Teachers College Record 115.6: 1–45.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This quantitative and spatial analysis of four metropolitan areas finds that those in which there were more extensive efforts to implement school desegregation policies and reduce boundary separation resulted in more school and housing integrations. Implications suggest the importance of educational policy for reducing residential segregation.

  Find this resource:

Boundaries/Metropolitan Desegregation

Given the way in which desegregation law has been developed and implemented (see Key Court Cases and Legal History), desegregation remedies are largely contained within school districts, which has made the role of district boundaries more meaningful. Indeed, most segregation now is between districts instead of within districts. The authors in this section examine the role of school district boundaries in segregation and efforts to possibly overcome such stratification. Weiher 1991 argues that boundaries are socially constructed in ways that are used to try to recruit certain families into given jurisdictions in ways that exacerbate inequality. Bischoff 2008 empirically tests the notion of how the proliferation of school districts affects segregation and finds that metropolitan areas that are more deeply fragmented have increased segregation. Such findings, in part, led to an important state-level desegregation case in Hartford, Connecticut, that Eaton 2007 describes in which the state was found liable for existing segregation because of the way in which school district boundaries were established. The US Commission on Civil Rights 1977 report details a variety of governmental policies, like in Connecticut, that established metropolitan segregation and offers remedies to address this. Eaton 2001 and Wells, et al. 2013 describe promising cross-district efforts to provide desegregated schooling experiences for some urban and suburban students in a handful of metropolitan areas.

• Bischoff, Kendra. 2008. School district fragmentation and racial residential segregation: How do boundaries matter? Urban Affairs Review 44.2: 182–217.

  DOI: 10.1177/1078087408320651Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This analysis of school district enrollment in 304 metropolitan areas finds that highly fragmented metropolitan areas increase the area’s multiracial segregation. She also concludes that the construction of boundaries is a significant mechanism in reducing access to opportunity for students of color.

  Find this resource:

• Eaton, Susan E. 2001. The other Boston busing story: What’s won and lost across the boundary line. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Former METCO students, who are now adults, discuss their experiences with the voluntary interdistrict transfer program that began in Boston in 1966. They reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of participating in METCO; sixty-one of sixty-five participants said they would choose to participate in METCO again.

  Find this resource:

• Eaton, Susan E. 2007. The children in room E4: American education on trial. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book is an in-depth exploration of a state-level legal case in which plaintiffs successfully argued that the way in which the state drew school district boundary lines violated students’ rights because it resulted in segregation.

  Find this resource:

• US Commission on Civil Rights. 1977. Statement on metropolitan desegregation. Washington, DC: US Commission on Civil Rights.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This report argues that because of governmental policies and actions in creating heavily minority central cities and largely white suburbs, if desegregation is to be realized, it will need to extend beyond city boundaries. This report has a lengthy description of the federal, state, and local governmental policies to date that helped to created metropolitan segregation and inequality.

  Find this resource:

• Weiher, Gregory R. 1991. The fractured metropolis: Political fragmentation and metropolitan segregation. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book analyzes metropolitan areas and argues that the construction of political boundaries, which subsequently help to structure families’ decision-making, also sort access to resources, and ultimately cause metropolitan segregation and inequality.

  Find this resource:

• Wells, Amy Stuart, Miya Warner, and Courtney Grzesikowski. 2013. The story of meaningful school choice: Lessons from interdistrict transfer plans. In Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair. Edited by Gary Orfield and Erica Frankenberg, 187–218. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

  DOI: 10.1525/california/9780520274730.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In this first review of research about the use of interdistrict transfer programs to achieve desegregation, the authors describe the origin, purpose, policy design, and programmatic features of interdistrict transfer programs. The authors find that interdistrict programs are associated with improvement in student achievement, racial attitudes, and long-term outcomes.

  Find this resource:

School Choice

For decades, choice has been a central component of the educational landscape. As early freedom-of-choice plans were developed in response to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (see Key Court Cases) and then subsequently declared insufficient in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (see Key Court Cases), different forms of choice have served both as tools for achieving desegregation and as additional barriers to desegregation efforts. Many forms of choice, including magnets, interdistrict transfer programs, controlled choice, charters, and vouchers, exist today. While some of these choice options, such as magnet schools, interdistrict transfer programs, and controlled choice, have been used and continue to be used as mechanisms for achieving diverse schools, others have no such aims. Therefore, it is essential to be clear about which choice policies tend to be used to further the goals of desegregation and under what conditions these goals can be accomplished. Orfield 2013 provides an overview of the history of numerous forms of educational choice and how different types of choice are related to desegregation progress. The edited volumes Fuller and Elmore 1996 and Scott 2005 examine a variety of school choice options and the effects those options have on school segregation and diversity. Goldring and Smrekar 2000; Frankenberg, et al. 2011; and Kahlenberg and Potter 2014 focus more specifically on two of the most popular school choice options—magnet and charter schools. Goldring and Smrekar 2000 highlights magnet schools as a choice option that can be used to successfully facilitate desegregation. On the other hand, charter schools, the fastest-growing segment of schools of choice, tend to be associated with more segregated schooling environments. Frankenberg, et al. 2011 identifies trends in charter school segregation at the regional, state, and metropolitan levels. Kahlenberg and Potter 2014 acknowledges the strong relationship between charter schools and segregation and proposes ways in which charter schools could be used to promote diversity in schools rather than exacerbate segregation.

• Frankenberg, Erica, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, and Jia Wang. 2011. Choice without equity: Charter school segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives 19.1: 1–96.

  DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v19n1.2011Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This comprehensive analysis of charter schools in forty states finds that charters tend to be more racially segregated than traditional public schools. This study identifies trends in different regions of the country and major metropolitan areas; it also includes fact sheets that detail charter segregation trends in six states.

  Find this resource:

• Fuller, Bruce, and Richard F. Elmore, eds. 1996. Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of school choice. New York: Teachers College Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  The authors in this edited volume use empirical evidence to test claims made about the effects of school choice programs by both choice advocates and opponents. The editors conclude with four main propositions, the first of which states that increasing educational choice is likely to result in increased social stratification.

  Find this resource:

• Goldring, Ellen, and Claire Smrekar. 2000. Magnet schools and the pursuit of racial balance. Education and Urban Society 33.1: 17–35.

  DOI: 10.1177/0013124500331003Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Using Cincinnati and Saint Louis as case studies, this article explores the successful use of magnet schools for maintaining racially diverse schools. Parents and teachers agree that the benefits of desegregation outweigh any costs. The authors also address the complexity of using magnet schools to achieve desegregation within current legal constraints.

  Find this resource:

• Kahlenberg, Richard D., and Halley Potter. 2014. A smarter charter: Finding what works for charter schools and public education. New York: Teachers College Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book details the history of the charter school movement. The authors review research on academic outcomes, the role of teachers, and the tendency for charters to be racially and economically segregated. They describe a study of eight charter schools across the country, in which they identified potential strategies for establishing diverse charters.

  Find this resource:

• Orfield, Gary. 2013. Choice and civil rights: Forgetting history, facing consequences. In Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair. Edited by Gary Orfield and Erica Frankenberg, 3–35. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This chapter provides an overview of the history of choice options in the United States and the inconsistency of laws related to choice. Orfield argues that unless choice policies explicitly take race into consideration and have the goal of achieving integration, they are likely to make segregation worse.

  Find this resource:

• Scott, Janelle, ed. 2005. School choice and diversity: What the evidence says. New York: Teachers College Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This volume explores the ways in which various choice options, including controlled choice, magnet schools, charter schools, single-gender schools, and private schools, either increase or decrease student diversity. A common theme is that the social, legal, and political contexts in which school choice plans are implemented are responsible for determining student diversity.

  Find this resource:

Arguments against Desegregation

Not long after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (see Key Court Cases), Kilpatrick 1962 discusses the perspective of Southerners who opposed desegregation. More recent scholarly sources, such as Rossell 1990 and Armor 1995, oppose mandatory desegregation, arguing against several decades of prior research that had concluded mandatory desegregation was more effective than voluntary approaches. A book by critics of affirmative action in higher education, Thernstrom and Thernstrom 2003 argues that rather than trying to address segregation, a term they question the definition of, schools should focus on improving their academic culture. Caldas and Bankston 2015 asserts that many of the prevailing beliefs about desegregation are wrong and efforts at social engineering through school desegregation should not continue. Eaton and Rivkin 2010 features a debate on issues related to desegregation, offering two different perspectives regarding the historical successes of desegregation and potential for continued desegregation efforts.

• Armor, David J. 1995. Forced justice: School desegregation and the law. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book describes desegregation policy and law, critiques “the harm and benefit thesis,” explores residential segregation, and questions the effectiveness of both voluntary and involuntary desegregation plans, concluding that mandatory plans are less effective because they lead to white flight and re-segregation. An “equity choice” policy is proposed to combine desegregation and choice.

  Find this resource:

• Caldas, Stephen J., and Carl L. Bankston III. 2015. Still failing: The continuing paradox of school desegregation. 2d ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book argues that school desegregation efforts have been coercive and self-defeating attempts to redesign American society. Instead of pursuing desegregation policies, which have largely failed, this book advocates for a return to neighborhood schools.

  Find this resource:

• Eaton, Susan, and Steven Rivkin. 2010. Is desegregation dead? EducationNext 10.4: 51–59.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  In this forum, Eaton and Rivkin offer two differing viewpoints about the successes and failures of the school desegregation movement, the benefits of desegregation, and the feasibility of desegregation today.

  Find this resource:

• Kilpatrick, James J. 1962. The Southern case for school segregation. Springfield, OH: Crowell-Collier.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  A “Virginia Conservative,” Kilpatrick was a columnist and editor of The Richmond News Leader. Several years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka declared segregation to be unconstitutional (see Key Court Cases), Kilpatrick wrote this extended essay to explain what he calls “the South’s case” against desegregation, arguing that African Americans were inferior.

  Find this resource:

• Rossell, Christine H. 1990. The carrot or the stick for school desegregation policy: Magnet schools or forced busing. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  Using data from 119 school districts, this book concludes that voluntary desegregation plans with magnet schools create more interracial exposure than do mandatory plans, contradicting decades of prior research that found mandatory reassignment plans were better. The author argues that magnet plans are superior in terms of equity, effectiveness, and efficiency.

  Find this resource:

• Thernstrom, Abigail, and Stephan Thernstrom. 2003. No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning. New York: Simon & Schuster.

  Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

  This book argues that addressing the academic culture of a school—rather than racial segregation, inadequate resources, or lower-quality teachers—makes the greatest difference in addressing the racial achievement gap. The authors contend that schools are not segregated nor are they re-segregating, but rather, they are racially imbalanced, which cannot be addressed because of residential patterns.

  Find this resource: