Source: https://tcf.org/content/report/bold-agenda-school-integration/?agreed=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:17:14+00:00

Document:
Racially and economically integrated schools promote the very purposes of public education—to foster social mobility and social cohesion—and do so in a way that is cost-effective.
In the face of rising school segregation, federal integration efforts have been anemic and have failed to properly support growing local and state interest in school diversity.
We need a robust federal school integration agenda that allocates $500 million in new Title I funds for integration; creates an Economic Fair Housing Act to integrate neighborhood schools; and requires federal pre-clearance of efforts by school districts to secede.
We should also pass the Strength in Diversity Act; double federal support for magnet schools that integrate students; end a federal prohibition on using funds to transport students for integration; remove the Title I funding penalty for school integration; and make diversity and teacher voice priorities in charter school programs.
At a time when our democracy is fractured along the fault lines of race, ethnicity, and religion, and when social mobility has stalled, high-quality integrated public schools could take us on a better path forward. Racial and socioeconomic school integration has proven to be one of the most powerful strategies known to educators to improve the lives of students and reduce national division.
Yet, in the face of growing school segregation, the federal government currently commits only a paltry amount of resources to support integration. To close the gap between the dire need for action and the absence of federal leadership, this report proposes a number of policy ideas for members of Congress to consider.
The first part of this report reviews the research on the powerful academic, cognitive, civic, socioemotional, and economic benefits of school integration. The second part outlines the evidence showing rising school segregation, and the relatively weak medicine the federal government currently brings to the problem; this section, however, also details some pockets of hope: a growing number of school districts that are taking steps to reduce segregation, as well as a few emerging federal and state proposals. The third and final part lays out long-term, medium-term, and short-term sets of policy initiatives that could make school integration a true federal priority, and, ultimately, a cornerstone in the renewal of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Students in socioeconomically and racially diverse schools have stronger academic outcomes, on average, than students in schools with concentrated poverty. This is true even after students’ individual socioeconomic status is taken into account.
Racially and socioeconomically diverse schools offer students of all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds important socioemotional benefits by exposing them to peers of different backgrounds. The increased tolerance and cross-cultural dialogue that result are beneficial for civil society.
Providing more students with integrated school environments is a cost-effective strategy for boosting student achievement and preparing students for work in a diverse global economy.
Even though there is a strong social science consensus among educators and researchers that school integration is better for children than school segregation, legislators and other policymakers have not taken sufficient action to promote school diversity. The absence of strong federal efforts in the face of a decades-long trend of rising school segregation is particularly troublesome. Thankfully, a number of courageous local leaders have taken steps to embrace diversity, pursuing efforts that are deserving of federal support.
There was a time when the federal government played a powerful role in desegregating schools, particularly in the South. Following the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Southern states resisted integration for more than a decade. But districts began to integrate after Congress passed key provisions in a pair of laws in the mid-1960s: Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for districts receiving federal funding to discriminate based on race; and Title I of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which for the first time provided substantial federal aid to education. Federal administrators used the threat of withholding Title I funds to make Southern schools the most desegregated in the nation.
In fiscal year 2019, the federal government appropriated just $105 million for magnet schools compared with $15.9 billion for the Title I program of compensatory education for high-poverty schools.
In the face of a federal retreat from desegregation and rising levels of segregation, a small but growing number of school districts are fighting back to create high-quality integrated schools for their students. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in 2007 curtailed the ability of school districts to use the race of individual students to pursue voluntary integration efforts, it left open the door to considering the racial makeup of neighborhoods, or the socioeconomic status of individual students.
Seeking to support these local efforts for school diversity, some state and federal policymakers have begun to generate proposals for voluntary integration.
Among the most promising state-level efforts are proposals in Maryland and New York.
Maryland Proposals for School Diversity. In Maryland, former teacher and state senator Bill Ferguson, a Baltimore Democrat, has long sounded the alarm about the opportunity gap created and sustained by school segregation. In 2015, Ferguson introduced SB 683, legislation that would establish Next Generation Schools, which would be run with the explicit intent of creating socioeconomically integrated, multi-jurisdictional schools.27 The following year, Ferguson proposed legislation to create the Maryland Education Development Collaborative (EDCo), which would make recommendations to the State Board of Education, the General Assembly, and local school systems about ways to diversify schools.28 Currently, the state’s Kirwan Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education recognizes the value of student and educator diversity when considering how to strengthen Maryland’s public schools.
New York State Integration Project—Professional Learning Community. To tackle school segregation and chronic school underperformance simultaneously, in 2015, then-New York State education commissioner John King (who later served as U.S. secretary of education) established the Socioeconomic Integration Pilot Program. Research suggests that school integration and magnet schools can be among the most effective school turnaround efforts.29 The program, which is still in existence but now called the New York State Integration Project, uses school-improvement funding from the federal government to turn around struggling schools by creating innovative and attractive magnet programs. According to Assistant Commissioner Ira Schwartz, the grant program aims to increase socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic diversity in schools, as well as encourage a better mix of students who have disabilities or are learning English. A portion of the funding, roughly $50,000 to $70,000 per district, is used to provide district leaders with education, training, and support as part of what the state describes as a “professional learning community” to pursue the best policies and practices for school integration.30 The first phase of grants are noncompetitive, with funds available for each of the eligible districts (which were selected based on criteria including having high levels of within-district or between-district segregation), if they choose to participate. The grants have proven popular.31 After this first phase of grants, interested districts can enter a competitive process to apply for more funding for implementation.
proposals from Senator Warren and Senator Booker to reduce housing segregation.
We discuss each of these proposals further below in the context of several ideas we propose for beefing up federal integration efforts.
School integration efforts can be a highly effective way of producing educational gains for students—sometimes even more cost-effective than compensatory spending.
Current levels and allocations of federal government spending on Title I do not comport with the research on the effectiveness of school integration efforts. As noted above, Title I allocates $15.9 billion in fiscal year 2019 for compensatory education in high-poverty schools, meant to mitigate the effects of poverty and school poverty concentrations, while the federal government allocated only $105 million for school integration efforts in the form of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. (See Figure 3, above.) Does it really make sense for the federal government to allocate 151 times as much money to addressing the effects of poverty and concentrated poverty as it does to supporting initiatives that prevent or undo concentrations of poverty in the first place?
Because we support increases—rather than decreases—in Title I funding, we recommend that Title I funding be increased by more than $500 million, with up to $500 million of the increase allocated to districts that wish to employ Title I funds for school integration. In this way, the traditional compensatory education function of Title I is held harmless. Allocating funds through Title I would avoid having districts compete against each other in order to participate, as they do under some other integration proposals. The allocation of Title I funding for school integration is analogous to what John King did in directing School Improvement Grant (SIG) funds toward the creation of the Socioeconomic Integration Pilot Program in New York.
The proposed $500 million allocation of Title I funds is modest enough in size to allow the U.S. Department of Education to quickly develop appropriate oversight protocols, but it is large enough to have a meaningful impact on school diversity. If successful, the allocation amount could be increased over time. Because most segregation in the United States is between school districts rather than within them,36 we recommend that the U.S. Department of Education prioritize requests to allocate funds for inter-district integration programs.
Today, roughly three-quarters of American schoolchildren attend neighborhood public schools, that is, one to which they were zoned.
The exclusionary intent behind many of these school district secession movements is only thinly veiled.
Such a preclearance framework could be useful in tackling school segregation. A documented history of de jure segregation and/or actual levels of segregation could qualify a school district for preclearance by either the Department of Justice or the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education. Redistricting, rezoning, or secession plans would be evaluated to ensure that policies did not have the intent or the effect of further segregating schools or otherwise creating separate and unequal educational systems for children according to race. Though preclearance is an aggressive tactic, Brown v. Board was rarely enforced with sufficient rigor, leaving America with an educational landscape that flies in the face of both its legal holdings and moral principles.
The bill allow grantees to adopt creative, tailored, evidence-based solutions to segregation. If passed, the bill would allow grantees to use funds for a variety of purposes: to study segregation within their region; evaluate current policies and develop evidence-based plans; revise school boundaries or establish equitable public school choice zones; create and expand innovative and magnetic school programs that would appeal to a diverse group of families; and recruit and train teachers that could support these schools and work with a diverse student population.
Adoption of the Strength in Diversity Act—the most prominent legislative effort to support school integration—would represent an enormous step forward for the country.
We are by no means opposed to charter schools; indeed, we believe that, with the proper incentives, charter schools can be a vehicle for school integration (see discussion below). But magnet schools deserve much stronger federal support than they currently receive. Researchers have found that integrated magnet schools can improve outcomes for students; one high-quality study comparing magnet school lottery winners and losers in Connecticut, for example, found that attending a socioeconomically and racially integrated magnet school boosted achievement among middle school and high school students alike.60 Evidence also suggests many families want what magnet schools have to offer. A 2017 national survey found that 67 percent of magnet schools report having waiting lists.61Currently, federal magnet school funding applies only to schools that avoid selecting students through tests. We support that current federal policy.
To advance school integration efforts—and meet parental demand—we recommend that Congress double magnet school funding, from $105 million to $210 million. The funding increase should be coupled to strengthen accountability to ensure that magnet schools reduce racial and economic isolation.
Since at least 1974, Congress has consistently included riders on appropriations bills that prohibited federal funding from going toward transportation for school integration purposes, undermining local control and flexibility. The anti-integration riders mean, for example, that the districts participating in the New York School Integration Project, which uses Title I funds, may not spend those federal funds to support transportation as part of a school improvement strategy designed to desegregate schools. A bipartisan coalition of elected officials has regularly sought to appease white constituents uneasy about their children being bused into predominantly black neighborhoods.62 Efforts to strike these provisions failed as recently as 2017, when Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) unsuccessfully championed their removal.
Finally, in September 2018, after advocacy from civil rights and education groups, Congress reached a funding agreement that included removal of Sections 301 and 302 anti-integration riders from the budget. Despite this positive movement, however, Section 426 of the General Education Provisions Act remains, essentially echoing the provisions in the now eliminated appropriations riders. We believe Congress should remove this stain.
As the National Coalition on School Diversity has noted, today, Title I’s funding priority for high-poverty schools can have the unintended consequence of discouraging integration in districts where an effort to reduce segregation could put a school below the Title I threshold for eligibility. We join the National Coalition’s call to “recalibrate the Title I funding formula so it does not penalize school districts or schools that seek to pursue integration.”63 It is critical to eliminate the perverse incentive to segregate, by creating a safe harbor for schools where integration efforts could risk the loss of Title I funds.
Make enrolling diverse student bodies an explicit part of the purpose of CSP, alongside its current priorities, which include increasing the number of high-quality schools, evaluating the impact of charter schools and communities, and expanding opportunities for underserved students.
Expand priorities for diversity. CSP currently includes a priority in the grants to charter management organizations (CMOs) that “plan to operate or manage high-quality charter schools with racially and socioeconomically diverse student bodies” as one of four priorities named in the law.69 However, there is no comparable priority for the grants to state entities (which make up the bulk of CSP funding) that would encourage states to include a similar priority in their sub-grants to charter schools, nor is there a priority in the federal grants to individual charter school developers in states without state entity grants.
Require submission of data on charter school demographics and analysis of impact on surrounding schools in both the state entity and CMO grants, and require the U.S. Department of Education to analyze charter schools’ impact on school integration as one of the outcomes of CSP.
At a time when American democratic values and public education are threatened, it is important to lift up and strengthen public schools that are serving our democracy well. A number of localities have stepped up to adopt policies to promote school diversity. But significant political and legal impediments stand in the way of achieving integrated schooling. The federal government has abdicated its commitment to civil rights. It is time to make school integration a cornerstone of the next iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
This section draws upon “The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially Integrated Schools and Classrooms,” The Century Foundation, https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-racially-integrated-schools-and-classrooms/.
National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), NAEP Data Explorer, 2011, retrieved from nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/; and C. Lubienski and S. T. Lubienski, “Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New evidence from NAEP mathematics data,” National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, January 2006 (rule of thumb that 10 NAEP points equates to roughly a year in learning).
G. Palardy, “Differential school effects among low, middle, and high social class composition schools,” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 19, no. 1 (2008): 37.
G. J. Palardy, “High school socioeconomic segregation and student attainment,” American Educational Research Journal 50, no. 4 (2013): 714.
R. Balfanz and N. Legters, “Locating the Dropout Crisis: Which High Schools Produce the Nation’s Dropouts? Where Are They Located? Who Attends Them?” Center for Research on The Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University, September 2004, http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techreports/report70.pdf.
R. A. Mickelson, “Twenty-first Century Social Science Research on School Diversity and Educational Outcomes,” Ohio State Law Journal 69 (2008): 1173–228; Geoffrey D. Borman and Maritza Dowling, “Schools and Inequality: A Multilevel Analysis of Coleman’s Equality of Educational Opportunity Data,” Teachers College Record 112, no. 5 (2010).
Gary Orfield, “Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation,” The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, July 2001, http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/schools-more-separate-consequences-of-a-decade-of-resegregation/orfield-schools-more-separate-2001.pdf.
A. Mantil, A. G. Perkins, and S. Aberger, “The challenge of high-poverty schools: How feasible is socioeconomic school integration?” in The Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2012), 155–222.
D. Card and J. Rothstein, “Racial Segregation and the Black-White Test Score Gap,” Working Paper 12078, The National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2006, https://www.nber.org/papers/w12078.pdf.
S. E. Page, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2008), http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8757.html; M. Chang, “The Educational Benefits of Sustaining Cross-Racial Interaction among Undergraduates,” Journal of Higher Education 77, no. 3 (May/June 2006): 430, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jhe/summary/v077/77.3chang.html; M. J. Chang, “The Positive Educational Effects of Racial Diversity on Campus,” in Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action, ed. G. Orfield and M. Kurlaender (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Publishing Group, 2001): 175–86, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED456190; M. Chang et al., ed., Compelling Interest; P. Y. Gurin, “Expert Witness Report in Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al,” 1998, http://diversity.umich.edu/admissions/legal/expert/gurintoc.html; K. Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” Scientific American 311, no. 4 (October 2014), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/; A. L. Antonio, M. J. Chang, K. Hakuta, D. A. Kenny, S. Levin, and J. F. Milem, “Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students,” Psychological Science 15, no. 8 (2004): 507–10; Brief of Amicus Curiae 553 Social Scientists, Parents Involved v. Seattle School District 551 U.S. 701 (2007) (No. 05-908); P. Marin, “The educational possibility of multi-racial/multi-ethnic college classrooms,” in Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education & American Association of University Professors, 2000), 61–68.
R. Bigler, and L. S. Liben, “A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudices,” Advances in Child Development and Behavior 34 (2006): 39–89; T. F. Pettigrew and L. R. Tropp, “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, no. 5 (2006): 751–83, http://www.iaccp.org/sites/default/files/pettigrew_tropp_2006_contact_theory_0.pdf. See also J. Boisjoly, G. J. Duncan, M. Kremer, D. M. Levy, and J. Eccles, “Empathy or antipathy? The impact of diversity,” American Economic Review 96, no. 5 (2006): 1890–1905.
“Brief of the American Educational Research Association et.al. as amici curiae in Support of Respondents in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin”; T. F. Pettigrew and L. R. Tropp, “A Meta-analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, no. 5 (2006): 751, http://www.iaccp.org/sites/default/files/pettigrew_tropp_2006_contact_theory_0.pdf; T. F. Pettigrew and L. R. Tropp, “How Does Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? Meta‐analytic Tests of Three Mediators,” European Journal of Social Psychology 38, no. 6 (2008): 922–34, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229779236_How_Does_Intergroup_Contact_Reduce_Prejudice_Meta-Analytic_Tests_of_Three_Mediators; K. Davies, L. R. Tropp, A. Aron, T. F. Pettigrew, and S. C. Wright, “Cross-Group Friendships and Intergroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 15, no. 4 (2011): 332–51, http://psr.sagepub.com/content/15/4/332.abstract.
K. J. R. Phillips, R. J. Rodosky, M. A. Muñoz, and E. S. Larsen, “Integrated schools, integrated futures? A case study of school desegregation in Jefferson County, Kentucky,” in From the Courtroom to the Classroom: The Shifting Landscape of School Desegregation, ed. C. E. Smrekar and E. B. Goldring (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Education Press, 2009), 239–70.
N. F. P. Gilfoyle, “Brief of amici curiae: The American Psychological Association in Support of Respondents in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin,” November 2, 2015, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-981bsacAmericanPsychologicalAssociation.pdf; “Brief of The American Educational Research Association, et.al. as amici curiae in Support of Respondents in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin,” October, 30, 2015, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-981bsacAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationEtAl.pdf.
“Brief of amici curiae: The American Psychological Association in Support of Respondents in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin”; N. A. Bowman, “How Much Diversity is Enough? The Curvilinear Relationship Between College Diversity Interactions and First-year Student Outcomes,” Research in Higher Education 54, no. 8 (December 2013): 874-894, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257658414_How_Much_Diversity_is_Enough_The_Curvilinear_Relationship_Between_College_Diversity_Interactions_and_First-Year_Student_Outcomes.
Marco Basile, “The Cost-Effectiveness of Socioeconomic School Integration,” in The Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg (New York: The Century Foundation Press, 2012), 127–54.
Heather Schwartz, “Housing Policy Is School Policy,” The Century Foundation, 2010, https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2010/10/16005437/tcf-Schwartz-2.pdf.
M. M. Chiu and L. Khoo, “Effects of Resources, Inequality, and Privilege Bias on Achievement: Country, School, and Student Level Analyses,” American Educational Research Journal 42, no. 4 (2005): 575–603, http://aer.sagepub.com/content/42/4/575.abstract; S. W. Raudenbush, R. P. Fotiu, and Y. F. Cheong, “Inequality of Access to Educational Resources: A National Report Card for Eighth- Grade Math,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 20 (1998): 253–67, http://www.ssicentral.com/hlm/techdocs/EEPA98.pdf; G. Orfield and C. Lee, “Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality,” The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, January 2005, http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/why-segregation-matters-poverty-and-educational-inequality/orfield-why-segregation-matters-2005.pdf; Mark Schneider, “Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes?” National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, November 2002, http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf; A. S. Wells, B. Baldridge, J. Duran, R. Lofton, A. Roda, M. Warner, T. White, and C. Grzesikowski, “Why Boundaries Matter: A Study of Five Separate and Unequal Long Island School Districts,” The Center for Understanding Race and Education (CURE), Teachers College, Columbia University, July 2009, http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/95995; M. Kalmijn and G. Kraaykamp, “Race, Cultural Capital, and Schooling: An Analysis of Trends in the United States,” Sociology of Education 69 (1996): 22–34, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2112721?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; J. Prager, D. Longshore, and M. Seeman, School Desegregation Research: New Directions in Situational Analysis (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1986), https://www.springer.com/us/book/9780306421518?token=gbgen&wt_mc=GoogleBooks.GoogleBooks.3.EN; P. DiMaggio, “Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Culture Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School Students,” American Sociological Review 47, no. 2 (April 1982): 189–201, https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/academic/social_sciences/sociology/Reading%20Lists/Stratification%20%28Gender%2C%20Race%2C%20and%20Class%29%20Copies%20of%20Articles%20from%202009/DiMaggio-ASR-1982.pdf.
Matthew Delmont, Why Busing Failed: Race, Media, and the National Resistance to School Desegregation (Oakland, Calif.: University of California Press, 2016), 50–52.
Christine H. Rossell, “Magnet Schools: No Longer Famous, but Still Intact,” Education Next 5, no. 2 (2005): 44–49, https://www.educationnext.org/magnetschools/.
Andrew Ujifusa, “Education Department Gets Small Funding Hike,” Education Week, October 9, 2018. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/10/10/education-department-gets-small-funding-hike.html.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
“K–12 Education: Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, April 21, 2016, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-345.
Using a different methodology—requiring intentionality and resulting levels of diversity—The Century Foundation has identified 125 charter schools that qualify as diverse by design. See Halley Potter and Kimberly Quick, “Diverse-by-Design Charter Schools,” The Century Foundation, May 15, 2018, https://tcf.org/content/report/diverse-design-charter-schools/.
“Stories of School Integration,” The Century Foundation, 2016, https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2016/10/13195652/StoriesOfSchoolIntegration.pdf.
“State Board of Education—Synopsis of Bills #2, Information Only,” Maryland State Board of Education, February 22, 2015, http://www.autismconnectmd.com/stateboard/boardagenda/02242015/Tabs-K1-K2-LegislativeUpdate.pdf.
“Next Generation Schools,” The New Deal, https://www.newdealleaders.org/next_generation_schools.
See Richard D. Kahlenberg, “Turnaround Schools that Work: Moving Beyond Separate but Equal,” The Century Foundation, November 12, 2009. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/turnaround-schools-that-work-moving-beyond-separate-but-equal/.
“Announcement of Funding Opportunity: 2018 Title I School Improvement Section 1003: New York State Integration Project—Professional Learning Community (NYSIP-PLC) Grant,” New York State Department of Education, http://www.p12.nysed.gov/funding/2018-title-1-nysip-plc/home.html.
Christina Veiga and Monica Disare, “In a Growing Push to Promote School Integration, NY Announces New Round of Grants,” Chalkbeat, November 14, 2017, https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2017/11/14/in-a-growing-push-to-promote-school-integration-new-york-announces-new-round-of-grants/.
“A School Integration Policy Agenda for 2019 and Beyond,” The National Coalition on School Diversity, February 2019, https://school-diversity.org/2019policies/.
“History of the ESEA Title I-A Formulas,” Congressional Research Service, July 17, 2017, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44898.html#_Toc488412045.
See Bruce D. Baker, “How Money Matters for Schools,” Learning Policy Institute, December, 2017, 14; Bruce D. Baker, “Does Money Matter in Education?” 2nd ed., Albert Shanker Institute, 2016, i; and Rucker C. Johnson and Sean Tanner, “Money and Freedom: The Impact of California’s School Finance Reform,” Learning Policy Institute, Research Brief, February, 2018, 9.
See Marco Basile, “The Cost Effectiveness of Socioeconomic School Integration,” in The Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy, ed. Richard D. Kahlenberg (New York: The Century Foundation, 2010), 133–39.
Charles T. Clotfelter, After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004), table 2.4.
“Public School Choice Programs,” National Center for Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6 (indicating that 13 percent of public school parents choose a school outside their neighborhood; roughly 10 percent use private school).
Richard D. Kahlenberg, “An Economic Fair Housing Act,” The Century Foundation, August 3, 2017, https://tcf.org/content/report/economic-fair-housing-act/. See also Richard D. Kahlenberg, “The Walls We Won’t Tear Down,” New York Times, August 3, 2017, https://tcf.org/content/report/economic-fair-housing-act/.
Jonathan Rothwell and Douglas Massey, “Density Zoning and Class Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” Social Science Quarterly 91, no. 5 (2010): 1123–143, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3632084/.
Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America (New York: Liveright, 2017), 204–06 (referencing proposal by Jack Boger).
Of course, the conditioning of federal funds would have to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).
Richard Kahlenberg, “Taking on Class and Racial Discrimination in Housing: Cory Booker’s big idea to rein in exclusionary zoning,” The American Prospect, August 2, 2018, https://prospect.org/article/taking-on-class-and-racial-discrimination-housing.
Elizabeth Warren, “My Housing Plan for America,” Medium, March 16, 2019.
Rachel M. Cohen, “Elizabeth Warren Introduces Plan to Expand Affordable Housing and Dismantle Racist Zoning Practices,” The Intercept, September 28, 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/09/28/elizabeth-warren-affordable-housing-bill.
Richard Kahlenberg, “Reviving the Fair Housing Act at 50,” The American Prospect, April 11, 2018.
Richard D. Kahlenberg, “Updating the Fair Housing Act to Make Housing More Affordable,” The Century Foundation, April 9, 2018, https://tcf.org/content/report/updating-fair-housing-act-make-housing-affordable/.
Henry Grabar, “Minneapolis Confronts Its History of Housing Segregation: By doing away with single-family zoning, the city takes on high rent, long commutes, and racism in real estate in one fell swoop,” Slate, December 7, 2018, https://slate.com/business/2018/12/minneapolis-single-family-zoning-housing-racism.html.
“Fractured: The Breakdown of America’s School Districts,” EdBuild, June 2017, https://edbuild.org/content/fractured/fractured-full-report.pdf.
Ibid.; Kimberly Quick, “Segregation’s History Repeats Itself in North Carolina’s HB 514”, The Century Foundation, June 26, 2018, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/segregations-history-repeats-north-carolinas-hb-514/.
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, Attorney General, et al., 570 U.S. 529 (2013), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf.
Justin Levitt, “Who Draws the Lines?” All About Redistricting, Loyola Law School, http://redistricting.lls.edu/who-fed10.php.
H.R.6722—Strength in Diversity Act of 2018, 115 Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6722; Andrew Ujifusa, “‘Strength in Diversity Act’ Would Create Federal Grants for Schools,’” Education Week, September 6, 2018, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2018/09/strength-diversity-federal-grants-socioeconomic-racial-isolation-schools.html.
“The Stronger Together School Diversity Act of 2016: Why Promoting Racial and Socioeconomic Diversity in our Public Schools is Vitally Important,” The National Coalition on School Diversity, https://school-diversity.org/pdf/Stronger_Together_School_Diversity_Act_of_2016_two-pager.pdf.
“Legislative Updates: Magnet Schools Funding and Appropriations,” Magnet Schools of America, https://magnet.edu/govt-relations/legislative-updates.
See “Characteristics of Traditional Public Schools and Public Charter Schools,” National Center for Education Statistics, April 2018, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cla.asp; and Ivan Moreno, “US Charter Schools Put Growing Numbers in Racial Isolation,” Associated Press, December 3, 2017, https://apnews.com/e9c25534dfd44851a5e56bd57454b4f5 (re segregation levels in charter schools). See also Andrew Ujifusa, “Education Department Gets Small Funding Hike,” Education Week, October 9, 2018, https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2018/10/10/education-department-gets-small-funding-hike.html (re charter school funding).
“Fast Facts,” Magnet Schools of America,magnet.edu/files/Magnet.Schools.Fast_.Factsv2.Web_.pdf; Rebecca David and Kevin Helsa, “Estimated Public Charter School Enrollment, 2017–18,” National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, March 18, 2018, https://www.publiccharters.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018-03/FINAL%20Estimated%20Public%20Charter%20School%20Enrollment%2C%202017-18.pdf.
See e.g. Robert Bifulco, Casey D. Cobb, and Courtney Bell, “Can Interdistrict Choice Boost Student Achievement? The Case of Connecticut’s Interdistrict Magnet Program,” Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31 (2009): 323–45.
Magnet Schools of America, “Fast Facts,” magnet.edu/files/Magnet.Schools.Fast_.Factsv2.Web_.pdf.
Mel Leonor, “Inside the Spending Deal That Will Fund the Educational Department,” Politico, September 14, 2018, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-education/2018/09/14/inside-the-spending-deal-that-will-fund-the-education-department-340453; National Coalition on School Diversity to The Honorable Tom Cole and The Honorable Rosa DeLauro of the House Appropriations Committee, May 31, 2018, https://school-diversity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NCSD-Letter-on-Anti-Integration-Appropriation-Riders-5-31-18-House.pdf.
“Crafting a Policy Agenda for 2019 and Beyond,” National Coalition on School Diversity, https://school-diversity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Policy-Handout_Draft6.pdf.
Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter, A Smarter Charter: Finding What Works for Charter Schools and Public Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 2014).
“Characteristics of Traditional Public Schools and Public Charter Schools,” National Center for Education Statistics, April 2018, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cla.asp.
Ivan Moreno, “US Charter Schools Put Growing Numbers in Racial Isolation,” Associated Press, December 3, 2017, https://apnews.com/e9c25534dfd44851a5e56bd57454b4f5.
“Unionized Charter Schools, 2016–17,” National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2018, https://www.publiccharters.org/sites/default/files/documents/2018-02/Unionized%20Charter%20Schools%202016-17_0.pdf.
Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2018 Congressional Action, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget18/18action.pdf.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 4305(b)(5)(A) (2018), https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Elementary%20And%20Secondary%20Education%20Act%20Of%201965.pdf.
Some states (Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) allow charter school teachers to bargain collectively but bar them from participating in the district union or other existing units. Other states currently ban all teachers from engaging in collective bargaining. See “Automatic Collective Bargaining Exemption” in Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Public Charter School Laws, 2019, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, January 2019, https://www.publiccharters.org/our-work/charter-law-database/components/14.
Richard D. Kahlenberg is director of K–12 equity and senior fellow at The Century Foundation with expertise in education, civil rights, and equal opportunity.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4305