After Seattle: Social Science Research and Narrowly Tailored School Desegregation Plans

Abstract

Background/Context

In most judicial and social science debates about school desegregation, it is usually assumed that educational and social benefits, if significant, help establish a compelling purpose for school desegregation plans. Less thought has been given to whether the degree of benefits should factor into whether a plan is narrowly tailored according to Supreme Court standards. Hence, many were surprised when Justice Kennedy argued in the Seattle case that school desegregation meets the compelling purpose requirement but that desegregation plans that classified and assigned all students on the basis of race violated the narrow tailoring requirement.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of the Study

The essay offers a social science rationale for Justice Kennedy's views about narrow tailoring issues and suggests several approaches to desegregation plans that may meet narrow tailoring requirements in the future.

Setting

For illustrative purposes, the study uses student achievement data from Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, between 2001 and 2006. The data were obtained from the North Carolina Education Research Data Center at Duke University.

Population/Participants/Subjects

From a larger North Carolina data set, a cohort was drawn consisting of about 4,050 Black students from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg district who began third grade in 2000–2001 and completed the eighth grade in 2005–2006.

Research Design

This essay is primarily an analytic essay with a brief quantitative analysis of student achievement data.

Data Collection and Analysis

The quantitative analysis of achievement data utilized longitudinal methods, tracking socioeconomic-status-adjusted achievement trends for Black students over time.

Findings/Results

A modest relationship between school desegregation and Black student achievement (0.2 standard deviations over 5 years) masks a substantial overlap in test scores for individual students in desegregated versus segregated schools. That is, many Black students in segregated schools score higher than the typical desegregated Black student, and vice versa.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Using evidence from within social science, the authors find that the current design of most mandatory desegregation plans does not fit within the current Court's (especially Justice Kennedy's) view of narrowly tailored plans. However, there are several ways in which school boards and other policy makers can promote school desegregation: considering race when drawing attendance zones, building new schools, closing schools, and locating magnet schools in strategic areas. Further, magnet schools might meet narrow tailoring requirements if race is only one of several factors considered during the application and administration process.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

Alves

M. J.

, & Willie

C. V.

(1987). Controlled-choice assignments: A new and more effective approach to school desegregation. The Urban Review, 19, 67–88.

Armor

D. J.

(1995). Forced justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Armor

D. J.

(2002). Desegregation and academic achievement. In Rossell

C. R.

, Armor

D. J.

, & Walberg

H. J.

(Eds.), School desegregation in the 21st century (pp. 291–322). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Armor

D. J.

, & Duck

(2007a, February 8). Unravelling Black peer effects on Black test scores (Working Paper). University of Arkansas Education Working Papers Archive, Fayetteville.

Armor

D. J.

, & Duck

(2007b, May 28). The effect of Black peers on Black test scores. George Mason University, School of Public Policy, Fairfax, VA.

Armor

D. J.

, & Watkins

S. J.

(2006, July 28). School segregation and Black achievement: New evidence from the 2003 NAEP. In The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in elementary and secondary education (pp. 28–49). Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Bakke v. University of California, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

Becoats

(2001). Busing and academic achievement of Black students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

10.

Boozer

M. A.

, Krueger

A. B.

, & Wolkon

(1992). Race and school quality since Brown v. Board of Education (Brookings Institution Papers on Economic Activity). Microeconomics, 269–338.

11.

Braddock

J. H.

II , & McPartland

J. M.

(1982). Assessing school desegregation effects: New directions in research. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 3, 259–282.

12.

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

13.

Clotfelter

C. T.

(2004) After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

14.

Cook

T. D.

(1984). What have children learned academically from school integration? An examination of the meta-analytic evidence. In Cook

T. D.

and others, School desegregation and Black achievement (pp. 6–42). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education

15.

Crain

R. L.

, and others. (1989, January). Finding niches: Desegregated students sixteen years later. Unpublished manuscript, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.

16.

Crain

R. L.

, & Mahard

R. E.

(1978). School racial compositions and Black college attendance and achievement test performance. Sociology of Education, 51, 81–101.

17.

Crain

R. L.

, & Mahard

R. E.

(1982) Desegregation plans that raise Black achievement: A review of the research (Report No. N-1844-NIE). Santa Monica: Rand

18.

Eckland

B. K.

(1979). School racial composition and college attendance revisited. Sociology of Education, 52, 122–125.

19.

Godwin

R. K.

, Leland

S. M.

, Baxter

A. D.

, & Southworth

(2006). Sinking Swann: Public school choice and the resegregation of Charlotte's public schools. Review of Policy Research, 23, 983–997.

20.

Goodman

F. I.

(1972). De facto school segregation: A constitutional and empirical analysis. California Law Review, 60, 275–284.

21.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).

22.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

23.

Hanushek

E. A.

, Kain

J. F.

, & Rivkin

S. G.

(2002). New evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achievement (Working Paper No. 8741). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. (Revised February 2004)

24.

Hanushek

E. A.

, & Rivkin

S. G.

(2006, October). School quality and the Black-White achievement gap (Working Paper No. 12651). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau Of Economic Research.

25.

Kahlenberg

R. D.

(2001) All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

26.

Kahlenberg

R. D.

(2006). A new way on school integration. Washington, DC: The Century Foundation.

27.

Mickelson

R. A.

(2001). Subverting Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215–252.

28.

Mickelson

R. A.

(2003). The academic consequences of desegregation and segregation: Evidence from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1513–1562.

29.

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

30.

Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).

31.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, No. 05-908 U.S. June 28, 2007 (Seattle).

32.

Peoples

(2002, March/April). Desegregation plan to focus on income rather than race. The New Crisis. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3812/is_200203/ai_n9068133/

33.

Pettigrew

T. F.

, & Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.

34.

Rossell

C. R.

, & Armor

D. J.

(1996). The effectiveness of school desegregation plans, 1968–1991. American Politics Quarterly, 24, 267–302.

35.

Rossell

C. R.

, & Armor

D. J.

(2002). Attitudes on race and desegregation. In Rossell

C. R.

, Armor

D. J.

, & Walberg

H. J.

(Eds.), School desegregation in the 21st century (pp. 291–322). Westport, CT: Praeger.

36.

Rumberger

R. W.

, & Palardy

G. J.

(2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107, 1999–2045.

37.

St. John

(1975). School desegregation: Outcomes for children. New York: Wiley.

38.

Schofield

J. W.

(1995). Review of research on school desegregation's impact on elementary and secondary students. In Banks

J. A.

& Banks

C. A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 597–616). New York: Macmillan.

39.

Brief of 553 Social Scientists as Amicus Curia in Support of Respondents, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, No. 05-908 (2006).

40.

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

41.

Wells

A. S.

, & Crain

R. L.

(1994). Perpetuation theory and the long-term effects of school desegregation. Review of Educational Research, 64, 531–556.

42.

Wilkinson

H. J.

III (2007). The Seattle and Louisville school cases: There is no other way. Harvard Law Review, 121, 158–183.