Your search found 233565 results.

Descriptors:
School Desegregation; Educational Policy; School Districts; Student Diversity; Race; Socioeconomic Status; Desegregation Plans; School Choice; Voluntary Desegregation; Desegregation Litigation; Program Implementation; Policy Formation; Case Studies

Abstract:
The decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1" (2007) has forced school districts to begin thinking of new ways to integrate their schools without relying on race as the single factor in their assignment plans. While some school districts already have begun to implement race-neutral student assignments, others are just beginning the process and are looking to plans that have been able to maintain diversity despite the new limitations being placed on them. In an effort to understand factors critical in shaping racial and socioeconomic diversity in school districts given the new requisite limitations, this study examined the relationship between the design, context, and implementation of three different integration plans that rely on voluntary choice and socioeconomic status (SEAS). The findings suggest that geographic and political contexts matter in the shaping and adoption of integration plans based on voluntary choice and SES. Suggestions are offered to help maintain integration given the local sociopolitical context of the school districts. (Contains 3 footnotes and 3 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (355K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
School Desegregation; School Segregation; Racial Segregation; Politics of Education; School Policy; Housing; Neighborhoods; Public Housing; Educational Policy; Housing Needs; Research Reports; Alignment (Education); Access to Education; Educational Quality; Evidence; Public Schools; Federal Legislation; Educational Opportunities; Opportunities; Neighborhood Improvement; Transportation; Desegregation Methods; Social Integration; Desegregation Plans; Regional Planning; Diversity (Institutional); Ethnic Diversity; Public Policy; Urban Renewal; School Community Programs; School Community Relationship; Social Services

Abstract:
The powerful, reciprocal connection between school and housing segregation has long been recognized. The housing-school link was a key element in both the 1968 Kerner Commission Report and in the legislative history of the Fair Housing Act. The relation of school and housing segregation was also explored in a series of school desegregation cases beginning in the 1970s. Yet in spite of Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) duty to "affirmatively further fair housing," and the parallel "compelling government interest" in the reduction of school segregation, there have been few examples of effective coordination between housing and school policy in the intervening years. Instead, for most of the past 40 years, efforts to promote housing and school integration have proceeded along separate tracks. This report grew out of a "Research and Policy Roundtable" discussion sponsored by PRRAC in February 2011 that included leadership and staff from several divisions at Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education, along with representatives from the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. In the six months since the roundtable concluded, HUD and USDOE have made some progress in linking school and housing integration policy, but much more needs to be done, and hopefully this report will continue this important dialogue. This report is divided into four main parts: (1) The "Reciprocal Relationship" Between Integrated Housing and Education; (2) The Housing Voucher Program as a Bridge to Better Schools; (3) Sustainable Communities and Choice Neighborhoods: Coordinating Schools, Housing and Transportation Planning in Support of Racial and Economic Integration; and (4) Conclusion and Policy Recommendations. Each part contains related articles. Each article contains figures, tables and endnotes. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (3628K)

Descriptors:
Public Schools; School Districts; School Desegregation; School Resegregation; Enrollment; Desegregation Plans; Desegregation Litigation

Abstract:
In this paper, we investigate whether the school desegregation produced by court-ordered desegregation plans persists when school districts are released from court oversight. Over 200 medium-sized and large districts were released from desegregation court orders from 1991 to 2009. We find that racial school segregation in these districts increased gradually following release from court order, relative to the trends in segregation in districts remaining under court order. These increases are more pronounced in the South, in elementary grades, and in districts where prerelease school segregation levels were low. These results suggest that court-ordered desegregation plans are effective in reducing racial school segregation, but that their effects fade over time in the absence of continued court oversight. (Contains 3 figures, 17 footnotes, and 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Equal Education; Achievement Gap; Charter Schools; Evidence; School Choice; School Desegregation; Racial Segregation; Social Integration; Desegregation Methods; Desegregation Plans; Social Change; Social Class; Metropolitan Areas; Suburban Schools; Urban Schools; School Restructuring; Racial Discrimination; Federal Government; Government Role; Race; Educational Policy; Politics of Education

Abstract:
Despite the growing ideological divisions, there has been a surprising political convergence on some issues related to urban policy, social services, and housing. From the spread of charter schools and school choice to the expansion of home ownership through financial deregulation, it is apparent that liberals and conservatives agree. Yet these points of agreement hide or exacerbate racial and economic segregation, and geographically concentrate its deleterious consequences. The Obama Administration's embrace of urban charter schools and school choice is emblematic of this convergence, yet in fact, charter schools are even more segregated than regular public schools. Despite lack of evidence of their efficacy, and strong empirical support for benefits of school integration, Administration officials fail to describe the achievement gap as a reflection of metropolitan segregation. Establishing racially homogenous charter schools in urban neighborhoods, even where charter schools are successful, is but the latest example of what George Romney's allies dismissed as "gilding the ghetto." George Romney had a better approach. He understood that the suburbs themselves must be desegregated so that disadvantaged children could attend predominantly middle class schools in their own neighborhoods. He was defeated in his efforts, and partly because of this defeat, the achievement gap between black and white children has not narrowed nearly as much as it might have done in the last half century. It is unlikely to narrow much further without revisiting the imperative of residential integration in the metropolitan areas. (Contains 126 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (494K)

Descriptors:
Desegregation Plans; School Desegregation; School Segregation; Racial Segregation; Poverty; African American Students; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Hispanic American Students; Social Bias; White Students; Asian American Students; Trend Analysis

Abstract:
The South remains the most desegregated region in the country for black students, but along every measure of segregation and at each level of geography, gains made during the desegregation era are slipping away at a steady pace. This report shows that the segregation of Southern black students has been progressively increasing since judicial retrenchment on "Brown" began in the early 1990s. Though the Supreme Court granted desegregation rights to Latino students in the 1973 "Keyes" case, many Southern desegregation plans were dissolved without ever recognizing Latino rights. Latino students in the South were seldom included in desegregation orders, and have undergone increases along multiple measures of segregation over the past four decades. Black and Latino students in the South attend schools defined by double isolation by both race and poverty. The South reports high overall shares of students living in poverty, but students of different racial backgrounds are not exposed equally to existing poverty. The typical black and Latino student in the region goes to a school with far higher concentrations of low-income students than the typical white or Asian student. In this report, the authors present an in-depth treatment of Southern trends that are merely summarized in the accompanying larger report, "E Pluribus... Segregation." Key findings are highlighted. Appended are: (1) Data Sources and Methodology; and (2) Additional Data Tables. (Contains 4 figures, 21 tables and 55 footnotes.) [For the main report, ""E Pluribus"... Separation: Deepening Double Segregation for More Students," see ED535442. For related report, "Western States: Profound Diversity but Severe Segregation for Latino Students," see ED535610.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1203K)

Descriptors:
Busing; Public Schools; Civil Rights; School Desegregation; Federal Legislation; Racial Segregation; Poverty Programs; Educational Policy; Policy Analysis; Politics of Education; Desegregation Effects; Desegregation Litigation; Desegregation Methods; Desegregation Plans

Abstract:
In 1982 civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson criticized President Ronald Reagan's attacks on busing to coerce school desegregation for targeting "not the bus, but us." Two decades later, the United States Supreme Court ended the thirty-two-year-old Charlotte, North Carolina, plan which had launched the era of court-ordered busing (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools). The same year, President George W. Bush signed the "No Child Left Behind Act," which authorized federal funding and state testing of the nation's public school students. In lieu of busing, this law was also targeting "us," the largely minority underclass for whom Jackson purported to speak in 1982. Yet this time the Republican president was not implicitly assaulting minorities; he was seeking to aid them. Despite this significant change in policy, however, one outcome remained the same: public schools increasingly divided by race and class. This article provides a brief history of the school desegregation policies of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower through Bill Clinton, based on secondary and primary sources, then examines the initial school desegregation efforts of President George W. Bush, based largely on contemporary primary sources. It argues that the early returns on the Bush Presidency show that despite his genuinely good intentions, President Bush, like his predecessors, has been unable to overcome this difficult history of racial segregation in the nation's public schools. George W. Bush would become the first Republican president to fight a "war on poverty," yet only the latest president of either party to struggle in the battle for school desegregation. In many ways, for a variety of reasons, this battle was over before it began. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (88K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Community Leaders; Rural Schools; Elementary Secondary Education; School Districts; Leadership; Case Studies; School Community Relationship; Interviews; Community Attitudes; Community Surveys; Position Papers; Administrator Attitudes; Administrator Evaluation; Central Office Administrators; Administrative Principles; Minority Groups; School Desegregation; School Organization; Parochial Schools; Group Dynamics; Content Analysis; School Surveys; School Administration; Educational Policy; Community Characteristics; Institutional Characteristics

Abstract:
How do a school and a community interact? This question guided this dissertation examining one rural school and community. The purpose of this case study was to investigate the relationship between the rural Marceline R-V School District (a K-12 school system) and its community, Marceline, Missouri. The framework for this study included the time-honored theories of Ferdinand Tonnies, with the contemporary work of Joyce Epstein and Mavis Sanders. With structure provided by Bolman and Deal, this document examined both the school and community. This study included artifacts and documents of both the community and school. Documents and artifacts included yearbooks, newspaper articles (school and community), photographs, school board and city council minutes, and other city and state records. In addition, twenty-three residents were interviewed. The interviewees fell into two distinct tiers. In tier-one, interviewees were identified because of a leadership role or job they held in either the community or school district: school administrators, school board members, businesses owners, church officials, the city manager, and city council members. Upon conclusion of the first-tier interview, participants were asked to identify additional school and/or community leaders who may or may not hold titles. These interviewees were identified as second-tier interviewees. Those second-tier participants were asked virtually the same questions asked of tier-one participants. Additionally, in order to more fully analyze the school and community using the theories of the aforementioned sociologists and researchers, I created a parent-category, sub-category system for coding all elements of the research. The categories were community-centered, family-centered, school-centered, student-centered, gesellschaft (society), and gemeinschaft (community). Analysis of the data revealed four themes: consolidation, desegregation, minorities, and parochial education. Beyond the basic premise that one would not exist without the other, the influence of the town's heritage and mutual history was undeniable. Marceline, the school, decided how it would react to state-driven educational mandates because of the community. The school shaped the community by offering a means of achieving gesellschaft (society) through gemeinschaft (community). [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Hearings; Federal Legislation; Federal Regulation; Government Role; Government School Relationship; Politics of Education; Elementary Secondary Education; Compliance (Legal); School Districts; Recordkeeping; School District Autonomy; Public Schools; Coordination; Information Management; Cost Effectiveness; Superintendents

Abstract:
This paper presents the Committee on Education and the Workforce's hearing examining the adverse impact extensive federal regulations and reporting requirements have on teachers, administrators and students in elementary and secondary schools. Too many schools and school districts are overwhelmed by unnecessary paperwork requirements. Currently, the paperwork burden imposed by the Department of Education is larger than that of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Interior and the Department of Justice. Members testifying before the committee were: Honorable Duncan Hunter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; and Honorable Dale E. Kildee, ranking member, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Witnesses testifying before the committee were: Charles Grable, assistant superintendent for instruction, Huntington County Community School Corporation (HCCSC); Robert P. Grimesey, Jr., Ed.D., superintendent, Orange County Public Schools; Jennifer A. Marshall, director, domestic policy studies, the Heritage Foundation; and James Willcox, chief executive officer, Aspire Public Schools. (Contains 23 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (465K)

Descriptors:
Higher Education; Public Colleges; Desegregation Litigation; Enrollment Trends; Educational Policy; Desegregation Effects; School Desegregation; Enrollment Influences; Performance Factors; Racial Integration; Desegregation Plans; Desegregation Methods; Case Studies; Data Analysis; Student Records; Interviews; Meetings; Disproportionate Representation

Abstract:
Using Mississippi and North Carolina as cases, the author examines progress made toward the desegregation of enrollments in public colleges and universities. Enrollment trends are analyzed in the context of contemporary social, legal, and educational policy initiatives intended to desegregate dual systems of public higher education. Despite more than 50 years of desegregation litigation, findings show that enrollment by race across institutional sectors remains considerably segregated. White enrollment at historically Black colleges and universities remains minuscule. Black enrollment at predominantly White institutions has increased noticeably in Mississippi but less so in North Carolina. The discussion is dedicated to understanding what factors most significantly influence policy efforts and distinguishing the notion of integration from desegregation mandates. (Contains 2 tables, 6 figures, and 1 note.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Minority Group Children; School Desegregation; Federal Aid; Grants; Teacher Improvement; Elementary Secondary Education; Federal Legislation; Racial Composition; Financial Support; Race; Racial Differences; Language Usage; Magnet Schools; Charter Schools; School Districts; Educational Innovation; Public Schools; Competition; Child Care; Low Income Groups; Student Diversity

Abstract:
The Secretary of Education has expressed strong support for school diversity and reduction of racial isolation in speeches and in the Joint Guidance on Voluntary School Integration, and the Department of Education (DOE) has included a general preference for school integration among its permissible funding preferences. However, this support for school integration is not yet reflected in the requirements and point systems of many key competitive grant programs, where it might make the most difference. In the long struggle for Congressional agreement on an ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) reauthorization bill and a collective understanding that the primary achievement goal of No Child Left Behind could not be achieved as originally defined, USDOE has offered states flexibility to commit to their own, federally approved plans in exchange for waivers from 10 ESEA requirements. In terms of flexibility for Highly Qualified Teacher Improvement plans and the principle of Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership, the flexibility does not exempt states from the ESEA requirement of ensuring that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other students by less desirable teachers. (Contains 51 footnotes.) [Additional research for this paper was provided by Michael Hilton.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (525K)