School districts with transfer policies that consider socioeconomic diversity generally give preference to school transfer requests that would increase the socioeconomic diversity of affected schools, or give a priority to economically disadvantaged students when reviewing transfer requests. As with magnet- and charter-based strategies, an integration approach based on transfer policies is not likely to promote integration in all schools across a district.
However, policies to encourage integration goals through school transfers can provide an important check on open enrollment policies. As of , nearly every state had passed an open enrollment law allowing students to apply for interdistrict transfer; that is, between school districts. As of , thirty-two states also had passed intradistrict transfer laws, allowing families to transfer to other schools within a district. And since , all districts nationwide have been required under the federal No Child Left Behind Act to provide intradistrict transfer options for Title I students in failing schools.
Research shows, however, that transfer programs that do not explicitly pursue socioeconomic diversity actually wind up making matters worse.
The majority of interdistrict transfers through open enrollment laws serve to increase school segregation, on average, because the students using this option tend to be relatively more advantaged students trg out of low-performing districts. We identified seventeen districts with transfer policies that consider socioeconomic status.
Four of these districts have policies designed to increase socioeconomic integration in both inter- and intradistrict transfers, eight have policies applying to intradistrict transfers only, and five have policies addressing interdistrict transfers only. When seeking to manage enrollment, one of the most important questions schools face is how to measure socioeconomic status.
Districts and charters striving to create greater socioeconomic integration have to decide whether to look at individual student information, or rely on neighborhood-level data. They then must figure out whether they can simply use data that is already collected and available to them, or how they can collect additional information, if needed.
The majority of the districts and charter schools we identified used data on eligibility for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program—whether at the student, school, or neighborhood level—as the only or main marker for socioeconomic status. This is not surprising, as free and reduced-price lunch eligibility is the main measure of socioeconomic status used throughout education policy and research. Nevertheless, recent federal guidance from the U.
Department of Agriculture regarding privacy of student data has been interpreted by some as an instruction to avoid use of individual free and reduced-price lunch eligibility in student assignment.
- Beat Depression And Anxiety And Live A Worry-Free Life: The Great Revelations On How To Live A Worry Free Life. Plus, Overcome Anxiety And Find Solutions ... Compulsive Personality Disorder And More!;
- La vache pourpre (French Edition)!
- Race and Reality: What Everyone Should Know About Our Biological Diversity!
- A New Wave of School Integration;
- About This Item?
Along with our colleague Richard Kahlenberg, we believe this is a misreading of federal law. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has confirmed that it is acceptable to use free and reduced-price lunch data in student assignment as long as children cannot be identified. However, there are important and increasing limitations to using free and reduced-price lunch as a socioeconomic marker.
Eligibility for the federal school lunch program is determined based solely on family income. Children from families earning up to percent of the poverty line are eligible for free lunch, and those earning — percent of the federal poverty line are eligible for reduced-price lunch.
In addition, the data is self-reported, and therefore not always accurate. One study found that 15 percent of school lunch applicants received benefits greater than their eligibility, while 7. In , Congress approved a new process to allow whole schools or entire districts to qualify for free meals for all students by meeting a certain number of other criteria based on the percentage of students participating in other public assistance programs. For these reasons, the other measures of socioeconomic status that districts and charters have used are worth paying close attention to. Some districts, such as Chicago Public Schools, look at census data for neighborhoods, measuring factors such as educational attainment, household income, percentage of owner-occupied homes, percentage of single-parent homes, and percentage of households where a language besides English is spoken.
Some programs also look at student achievement when considering transfers, seeking to create a mix of student achievement levels within a school, or to give students in lower-achieving schools chances to move to higher-achieving schools. While not technically a measure of socioeconomic status, we have included these achievement-based measures in our inventory, since they target one of the key levers through which socioeconomic integration promotes student achievement—by encouraging positive peer effects when students from different socioeconomic backgrounds and different achievement levels learn side by side.
Click here for additional data and information on sources. Public education serves a dual purpose: Diversity of both income and race is essential in order for public education to fulfill either of these goals. More concretely, we know that integrated schools boost individual student achievement, as well as attract and retain stronger teachers.
The list presented in this report represents districts and charters that maintain policies that have the potential to maximize academic achievement and social competency among their students. As more researchers begin to recognize the necessity of school integration, we will likely discover more information about which types of integration methods pair best with districts that present different demographic profiles.
And we still require more information before deciding which of the districts on our list should be considered success stories: Many of the districts on our list are continuing to tweak their own plans in order to achieve their desired results, and thus their current levels of socioeconomic integration may not fit with their ideal goal.
- Andante and Rondo - Score?
- Student Diversity, Choice, and School Improvement - omyhukocow.tk.
- Wunder einer Winternacht: Die Weihnachtsgeschichte (German Edition);
- Rational Expectations and Efficiency in Futures Markets.
- Locations of Identified Districts and Charters with Socioeconomic Integration Policies.
- Citation Tools.
- Einführung in die Zahlentheorie (Springer-Lehrbuch) (German Edition).
Moving forward, we need more research to address remaining questions: Which districts are successful, and in what ways do their sizes, population densities, and levels of homogeneity influence their methods of integration? Will the design of one plan have similarly positive results in a district with a different population?
How have districts struggled to construct their plans, and what were the sources of their obstacles? The data we have so far is hopeful. Some districts with longstanding programs, such as Cambridge Public School District with its controlled choice plan, have seen steadily rising scores on state and national tests, as well as elevated high school graduation rates. These results align with the findings of numerous studies that decry policies that sustain concentrated poverty in schools and make a case for economically mixed spaces.
We know, for example, that integrated schoolhouses do not guarantee diverse classrooms. The degree to which socioeconomic school integration encourages the integration of classrooms and academic programs remains unclear, and represents an opportunity for further research.
omyhukocow.tk : Student diversity, choice and school improvement () : : Books
Integration is a social justice imperative, carrying with it a long history of experimentation. Board of Education , the legal landscape for school integration has transitioned from active judicial intervention and oversight to limitations on the use of race as an assignment factor. Politically, efforts to integrate schools—and thus maximize fairness—have triumphed over massive resistance, anti-busing protests, and school board battles.
Socioeconomic school integration is the next step in a storied history of demanding justice for all children, of seeking to fulfill the American promise that education can be a great equalizer in a society that remains highly stratified. To this end, we hope that this report encourages districts to build on their current efforts to diversify their schools, and to continue to establish policies that maintain the levels of diversity once they reach the ideal balance.
Halley Potter is a fellow at The Century Foundation, where she researches public policy solutions for addressing educational inequality. Kimberly Quick is a policy associate at The Century Foundation working on education policy. Elizabeth Davies is a doctoral student in political science at the University of Chicago and was an education policy intern at The Century Foundation in the summer of Gary Orfield and Erica Frankenberg, Brown at Paul Jargowsky, Architecture of Segregation: The Century Foundation, August 7, , http: Anthony Lising Antonio, et al.
Seattle School District, No. Pettigrew and Linda R. The Shifting Landscape of School Desegregation, ed. Smrekar and Ellen B. Harvard Education Press, , pp. Kahlenberg, All Together Now: Century Press, ; Richard D. Kahlenberg, Rescuing Brown v. Board of Education New York: The Century Foundation, , http: Kahlenberg, Turnaround Schools That Work: The Century Foundation, , https: Carl Chancellor and Richard D.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District 1 ; and U. Century Press, , 87— It should be noted, however, that socioeconomic integration does not guarantee racial integration. University of North Carolina Press, , — The goal of this report is to provide a tool that will help policymakers, education leaders, researchers, and advocates understand the broad landscape of socioeconomic integration strategies currently in use—not to provide legal guidance about the adoption of particular strategies by particular districts or charters.
We have summarized integration plans in lay terms. Amy Stuart Wells, Bianca J. Princeton University Press, For more information on inter-district integration plans, see Halley Potter, Charters without Borders: We considered rezoning efforts to be sufficiently recent to affect current enrollment as long as we could not find evidence that they had been reversed by more recent rezoning decisions without socioeconomic considerations.
The Century Foundation, , 3—4, http: The Century Foundation, , Appendix, 20—21, https: The Century Foundation, , Appendix, —11, http: Teachers College Press, , ; Madeleine F. Green, Minorities on C ampus: American Council on Education, , ; Jacinta S. Must t he South Turn Back? Equity, Quality, a nd Feasibility , ed.
Hawley Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, , 39; and Kevin G. Department of Education, , Table The Century Foundation, , 14—15, http: Department of Education, , —15, Table A, http: Farrell, Choices and Challenges: Harvard Education Press, , Bergin and Garvey, Robert Bifulco, Casey D. The authors advise school districts convicted for operating segregated schools on how to make all schools schools of choice that must compete for students who enroll in them. And it discusses ways of being fair and just in the distribution of educational resources to affluent as well as poor students and to white students as well as students of color.
School systems that are reluctant to use racial fairness guidelines in the enrollment process are advised to use socioeconomic fairness guidelines, because the absence of any enrollment fairness guidelines tends to result in the return to segregation and a dual school system helpful to a few but harmful to many students.
This book suggests ways of empowering parents and professional educators and it discusses how to achieve a good outcome for urban as well as rural school districts and for large as well as small school systems. Admirably, they spell out how an effective choice plan not only targets desegregation, but also develops and repairs the least desired schools in a district, and how this improvement-which temporarily deprives capital from already resource-rich schools-can be made palatable to all stakeholders. Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support? Learn more about Amazon Prime. Read more Read less. Prime Book Box for Kids. Praeger; 1 edition March 30, Language: Be the first to review this item Amazon Best Sellers Rank: Related Video Shorts 0 Upload your video.
What the evidence says pp. School choice and segregation by race, class, and achievement. Education Policy Research Unit: The new and improved sorting machine: The extent of classroom segregation within desegregated schools. Center for Social Organization of Schools Report Creating hope and opportunity for American education. National Center for Education Statistics. Trends in the use of school choice: New York City Department of Education. More than misapplied technology: A normative political response to Hallinan. Sociology of Education, 67, 84 - How schools structure inequality.
Consequences of a decade of resegregation. Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Orfield, G, Frankenberg, E. Statement of American social scientists of research in school desegregation to the U. Supreme Court in Parents v. Urban Review, 40, 96 - Teacher assignment, hiring, and preparation: Minority teachers in New York City. Urban Review, 22 1 , 17 - Schools strike a nerve. School choice, charter schools, and white flight.
Social Problems, 52, - Beyond college for all: Careers paths for the forgotten half. The effectiveness of desegregation plans.
City considers lottery system for admission to top schools. Gifted classes will soon use uniform test, Klein decides. Private choices, public consequences: Magnet school choice and segregation by race and poverty.
School Choice and Segregation
Social Problems, 50, - School selection as a process: The multiple dimensions of race in framing educational choice. Social Problems, 46, - Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Beyond the tipping point: Issues of racial diversity in magnet schools following unitary status. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, - School choice in urban America: Magnet schools and the pursuit of equity.
My Shopping Bag
Educational innovation in multiracial contexts: The growth of magnet schools in American education. American Institutes for Research. Community composition and collective action: Analyzing initial mail response to the Census. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, - School choice, the constitution, and civil society. School choice and market failure: How politics trumps economics in education and elsewhere. Journal of School Choice, 4, - America at the crossroads of school choice policy. Stepping over the color line: African American students in White suburban schools.
Where school desegregation and school choice policies collide. Montera Charter High School. Potential pitfalls of systemic reform: Early lessons from research on detracking. Sociology of Education, 69, - White parents, diversity and school choice policies: Where good intentions, anxiety, and privilege collide.