K-12 Education: Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination
Published: 2016-04-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Recent literature shows that poor and minority students may not have full access to educational opportunities. GAO was asked to examine poverty and race in schools and efforts by the Departments of Education and Justice, which are responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws prohibiting racial discrimination against students.
This report examined (1) how the percentage of schools with high percentages of poor and Black or Hispanic students has changed over time and the characteristics of these schools, (2) why and how selected school districts have implemented actions to increase student diversity, and (3) the extent to which the Departments of Education and Justice have taken actions to identify and address issues related to racial discrimination in schools.
GAO analyzed Education data for school years 2000-01 to 2013-14 (most recent available); reviewed applicable federal laws, regulations, and agency documents; and interviewed federal officials, civil rights and academic subject matter specialists, and school district officials in three states, selected to provide geographic diversity and examples of actions to diversify.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The percentage of K-12 public schools in the United States with students who are poor and are mostly Black or Hispanic is growing and these schools share a number of challenging characteristics. From school years 2000-01 to 2013-14 (the most recent data available), the percentage of all K-12 public schools that had high percentages of poor and Black or Hispanic students grew from 9 to 16 percent, according to GAO's analysis of data from the Department of Education (Education). These schools were the most racially and economically concentrated: 75 to 100 percent of the students were Black or Hispanic and eligible for free or reduced-price lunch—a commonly used indicator of poverty. GAO's analysis of Education data also found that compared with other schools, these schools offered disproportionately fewer math, science, and college preparatory courses and had disproportionately higher rates of students who were held back in 9th grade, suspended, or expelled.
In the three districts GAO reviewed as case studies, officials reported implementing various actions to increase economic and racial diversity to address racial or other demographic shifts in school composition. For example, in one predominantly low-income, Black and Hispanic school district, the state and district created state-of-the-art magnet schools to attract students from more economically and racially diverse groups. However, these three districts faced challenges. For example, one state devoted funding to magnet schools while the district's traditional schools declined in quality, according to local officials. Further, according to officials, some magnets with openings could not accept minority students because doing so would interfere with the ratio of minority to non-minority students that the district was trying to achieve.
The Departments of Education and Justice have taken a range of actions to identify and address racial discrimination against students. Education has investigated schools, analyzed its data by student groups protected under federal civil rights laws, and found discrimination and disparities in some cases. GAO analyzed Education's data among types of schools (charters, magnets, and traditional public schools) by percentage of racial minorities and a proxy for poverty level and found multiple disparities, including in access to academic courses. Education does not routinely analyze its data in this way. Conducting this type of analysis would enhance Education's ability to target technical assistance and identify other disparities by school types and groups. The Department of Justice (Justice) has also investigated discrimination claims, and it monitors and enforces 178 open federal desegregation court cases to which it is a party, many of which originated 30 or 40 years ago to remedy segregation. However, GAO found that Justice does not track key summary case information, such as the last action taken in a case. As a result, some may unintentionally remain dormant for long periods. For example, in one case the court noted there had been a lack of activity and that if Justice had “been keeping an eye” on relevant information, such as test score disparities, the issue could have been addressed in a more timely way. Federal internal control standards state that agencies should use information to help identify specific actions that need to be taken to allow for effective monitoring. Without tracking key information about open cases, Justice's ability toward effectively monitor such cases is hampered.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that Education more routinely analyze its civil rights data to identify disparities among types and groups of schools and that Justice systematically track key information on open federal school desegregation cases to which it is a party to better inform its monitoring. In response, both agencies are considering actions in line with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: After the landmark 1954 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in  Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which found racial segregation in  public schools to violate the U.S. Constitution, many schools were  required to take action to desegregate. Subsequent federal legislation,  including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was enacted to prohibit racial  discrimination in public schools; the workplace; and in places that serve  the public, such as hotels, restaurants, and theaters. While much has  changed in public education in the decades following this landmark  decision and subsequent legislative action, research has shown that  some of the most vexing issues affecting children and their access to  educational excellence and opportunity today are inextricably linked to  race and poverty. At the backdrop of these issues, a history of  discriminatory practices has contributed to inequities in education for  some students. Further, efforts to increase the diversity of schools are  hampered sometimes because the composition of neighborhood schools  is often a microcosm of children’s neighborhoods. Thus, children who live  in neighborhoods with a high minority population and with high levels of  poverty tend to go to schools mirroring these demographics.
To shed light on this topic, you asked us to explore issues related to the  racial and socioeconomic composition of students in K-12 public schools.  This report examines (1) how the percentage of schools with high  percentages of poor and Black or Hispanic students has changed over  time and the characteristics of these schools, (2) why and how selected  school districts have implemented actions to increase student diversity,  and (3) the extent to which the Departments of Education and Justice  have taken actions to identify and address issues related to racial  discrimination in schools.
To determine changes in the percentage of schools with specific  socioeconomic and racial characteristics over time, we analyzed the  Department of Education’s (Education) Common Core of Data, a national  dataset on all K-12 public schools in the United States. Using this dataset,  we analyzed data on schools with different levels of poverty and different  levels of Black or Hispanic students from selected school years from  2000-01 to 2013-14, which were the most recent data available. In this  report, we used students’ eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch as a  proxy commonly used to identify poverty levels among schools. We  focused on Black and Hispanic students because they are the two largest  minority groups in U.S. public schools, and literature shows that these  groups experience disparities across a range of areas critical to success  in school and the workforce. Further, to compare characteristics of  schools with high poverty and high concentrations of Black or Hispanic  students to other schools, we analyzed another national Education  dataset—the Civil Rights Data Collection—for school year 2011-12. This  dataset offered the most recent point-in-time data for all U.S. K-12 public  schools for certain data elements, including student characteristics,  course offerings, and disciplinary incidents. We determined that the data  from both datasets were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report  by reviewing documentation about the systems used to produce the data,  and interviewing Education officials. Our analyses of Education’s data in  this report are intended to describe selected characteristics of these  schools; they should not be used to make conclusions about the  presence or absence of unlawful discrimination.
To illustrate why and how selected school districts have taken actions to  increase the student diversity of their K-12 public schools, we interviewed  (and in two locations visited) officials from one school district in each of  three states (one in the Northeast, South, and West). We selected states  to include different regions of the country, and we selected school districts  within these states that had taken action to increase diversity. We relied  on recommendations from subject matter specialists and a review of  available information to select school districts. Within these districts, the  schools we visited were selected to include a mix of grade level  (elementary, middle, and high school), school type (traditional public and  magnet), and location (urban and suburban). We interviewed different  stakeholders in each district, such as school district superintendents,  school board members, state education officials, community leaders, and  school officials. While not generalizable to all schools, districts, or to all  actions schools could take to diversify, they illustrate a variety of actions  districts have taken to increase student diversity.
To describe the actions taken by the Departments of Education and  Justice to address issues related to racial discrimination against students  in K-12 public schools, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations,  and agency documents, and interviewed agency officials. We assessed  agencies’ actions using GAO standards for internal control in the federal  government as well as agency guidance and strategic plans. We also  discussed school diversity issues with representatives of civil rights  organizations and academic subject matter specialists.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2014 through April  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. See appendix I for more  detailed information on our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Federal Civil Rights Laws, School Desegregation Litigation, and the Federal Role
paragraphs: On May 17, 1954, in its Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision,  the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that state laws  establishing “separate but equal” public schools for Blacks and Whites  were unconstitutional. Ten years after this decision, a relatively small  percentage of Black children in the Deep South attended integrated  schools. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in schools,  employment, and places of public accommodation, and created a new  role for federal agencies. Both the Department of Education’s (Education)  Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Justice’s (Justice) Civil  Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section have some  responsibility for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which  prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in  programs or activities that receive federal funding, including educational  institutions. In addition, Title IV of the Act authorizes Education to  provide technical assistance to states or school districts in preparing,  adopting, and implementing desegregation plans, to arrange for training  for school personnel on dealing with educational problems caused by  desegregation, and to provide grants to school boards for staff training or  hiring specialists to address desegregation. Title IV of the Act also  authorizes Justice to file suit in federal court to enforce the civil rights of  students in public education, and Title IX of the Act authorizes Justice to  intervene—that is, become a party—in federal discrimination lawsuits  alleging constitutional violations. Further, Justice has responsibility for  enforcing the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which among  other things, prohibits states from denying equal educational opportunity  to individuals, including deliberate segregation of students on the basis of  race, color, or national origin.
To aid it in its enforcement and oversight of federal civil rights laws,  Education also collects data from school districts about student  characteristics and academic offerings, among other things, and compiles  these data into a dataset referred to as the Civil Rights Data Collection (or  Civil Rights Data). In school year 2011-12, for the first time in about a  decade, Education collected these data from all K-12 public schools in the  United States. It makes its Civil Rights Data available to the public so  that researchers, states, and districts can conduct their own analyses.  Beyond its enforcement of federal civil rights laws, Education funds  several programs to support diversity in schools. Through its Magnet  Schools Assistance Program, Education provides grants to local  educational agencies to establish and operate magnet schools that are  operated under an eligible desegregation plan. These grants are  intended to assist in the desegregation of public schools by supporting  the elimination, reduction, and prevention of minority group isolation in  elementary and secondary schools with substantial proportions of  minority group students. Additionally, through its Excellent Educators of  All Initiative, Education launched a 50-state strategy to enforce a statutory  provision that required states to take steps to ensure that poor and  minority students are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of- field teachers at higher rates than other students.
Justice also monitors and enforces the implementation of any open  school desegregation court order to which Justice is a party. In court  cases where school districts were found to have engaged in segregation  or discrimination, courts may issue orders requiring the districts to take  specific steps to desegregate their schools or otherwise comply with the  law. These “desegregation orders” may include various requirements,  such as creating special schools and redrawing attendance zones in such  a way as to foster more racial diversity. A federal desegregation order  may be lifted when the court determines that the school district has  complied in good faith with the order since it was entered and has  eliminated all vestiges of past unlawful discrimination to the extent  practicable, which is commonly referred to as achieving unitary status.  According to Justice officials, the onus is on the school district, not  Justice, to seek unitary status because Justice cannot compel a district to  ask the court to lift its order. In general, if a district seeks to have a  desegregation order lifted, it must file a motion for unitary status with the  court. According to information we reviewed, some districts may choose  to keep their order in place, even though they have successfully  desegregated. Among other things, these orders, according to experts,  can help to ensure that schools will not resegregate. Some of the cases  that originally ordered districts to desegregate their schools back in the  1960s and 1970s are still open today.
School districts that are not subject to a desegregation order may  voluntarily take actions to increase the racial diversity of their schools.  Court decisions have also shaped such efforts. For example, in 2007, in  Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1,  the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several school districts’ student  assignment plans that relied on racial classification. The Court held that  the districts failed to show that the use of race in their student assignment  plans was necessary to achieve their goal of racial diversity, noting  among other things that the racial classifications used had minimal effect  on student assignments and that the districts had failed to consider race- neutral alternatives to increase diversity.
section_title: Racial and Socioeconomic Demographics of Schools
paragraphs: The composition of the student population in U.S. K-12 public schools has  changed significantly over time. In 1975, approximately a decade after  enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Black students were the largest  minority group in schools, comprising 14 percent of students and with a  poverty rate of about 40 percent. In school year 2013-14, Hispanic  students were the largest minority group in schools (25 percent Hispanic  students compared to 16 percent Black students), and both groups  continue to have poverty rates two to three times higher than the rates of  White students. The link between racial and ethnic minorities and poverty  is long-standing, as reflected in these data. According to several studies,  there is concern about this segment of the population that falls at the  intersection of poverty and minority status in schools and how this affects  their access to quality education. Of the approximately 93,400 K-12 public  schools in the United States, in school year 2013-2014 90 percent of  them were traditional schools (which are often located within a  neighborhood or community to serve students residing there), 7 percent  were charter schools, and 3 percent were magnet schools.
section_title: Research on Student Outcomes
paragraphs: An extensive body of research over the past 10 years shows a clear link  between schools’ socioeconomic (or income) composition and student  academic outcomes. That is, the nationally representative studies we  reviewed (published from 2004 to 2014) showed that schools with higher  concentrations of students from low-income families were generally  associated with worse outcomes, and schools with higher concentrations  of students from middle- and high-income families were generally  associated with better outcomes. For example, one study we reviewed  showed that as the average family income of a school increased, the  academic achievement and attainment of students of all racial  backgrounds increased. The converse was also true. For example,  another study found that students attending schools with lower average  family income learned at a slower pace than students attending schools  where income was higher.
The studies, however, paint a more nuanced picture of the effects of  schools’ racial composition on student academic outcomes. Specifically,  while some of the studies found that having higher percentages of Black  or Hispanic students resulted in weaker student outcomes, those effects  were often confounded by other factors, including family income, and  sometimes the racial composition of schools affected students differently.  For example, one study concluded that the average family income of a  school had a stronger and more negative effect on academic outcomes,  but it also found that, after controlling for other factors, as the percentage  of minority students increased in a school, Hispanic students were more  likely to graduate from high school, and Asian students were less likely to  graduate compared to White students. In another example, a 2010  study found that, after controlling for characteristics such as average  family income in the neighborhood, the percentage of Black students in a  school had no effect on the likelihood of high school graduation for  students of all racial groups and had a small positive effect for all  students’ chances of earning a bachelor’s degree. See appendix III for  the list of studies we reviewed.
section_title: The Percentage of High-Poverty Schools with Mostly Black or Hispanic Students Increased over Time, and Such Schools Tend to Have Fewer Resources
subsections: section_title: High-Poverty Schools with Mostly Black or Hispanic Students Represent 16 Percent of All K-12 Public Schools
paragraphs: Over time, there has been a large increase in schools that are the most  isolated by poverty and race. From school years 2000-01 to 2013-14  (most recent data available), both the percentage of K-12 public schools  that were high poverty and comprised of mostly Black or Hispanic  students (H/PBH) and the students attending these schools grew  significantly. In these schools 75 to 100 percent of the students were  eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 75 to 100 percent of the  students were Black or Hispanic. As shown in figure 1, the percentage  of H/PBH schools out of all K-12 public schools increased steadily from 9  percent in 2000-01 (7,009 schools) to 16 percent in 2013-14 (15,089  schools). See table 3 in appendix II for data separately breaking out  these schools by the percent that are majority Black students and the  percent that are majority Hispanic students. While H/PBH schools  represented 16 percent of all K-12 public schools, they represented 61  percent of all high-poverty schools in 2013-14. See table 4 in appendix II  for additional information on high-poverty schools.
Further, at the other end of the spectrum, the percentage of schools that  were low poverty and comprised of fewer Black or Hispanic students  (L/PBH) decreased by almost half over this same time period. In L/PBH  schools, 0 to 25 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced- priced lunch, and 0 to 25 percent were Black or Hispanic.
In addition, more students are attending H/PBH schools than in the past.  As shown in figure 2, the number of students attending H/PBH schools  more than doubled, increasing by about 4.3 million students, from about  4.1 million to 8.4 million students (or from 10 percent to 17 percent of all  K-12 public school students). Also, the percentage of Hispanic students  is higher than that of Black students in these schools. Hispanic students  tend to be “triply segregated” by race, income, and language, according  to subject matter specialists we interviewed and, according to Education  data, are the largest minority group in K-12 public schools. The U.S.  Census Bureau projects that by 2044, minorities will be the majority in the  United States.
Further, among H/PBH schools, there is a subset of schools with even  higher percentages of poverty and Black or Hispanic students, and  growth in these schools has been dramatic. Specifically, according to our  analysis of Education’s data, the number of schools where 90 to 100  percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and  90 to 100 percent of the students were Black or Hispanic grew by 143  percent from school years 2000-01 to 2013-14. In school year 2013-14,  these schools represented 6 percent of all K-12 public schools, and 6  percent of students attended them (see appendix II for additional  information on this subset of schools).
H/PBH schools are largely traditional schools; however, the percentage of  H/PBH schools that are traditional schools decreased from 94 percent to  81 percent from school years 2000-01 to 2013-14. In contrast, the  percentage of such schools that were charter schools and magnet  schools increased over that time period from 3 percent to 13 percent and  from 3 percent to 5 percent, respectively (see fig. 3). In addition, with  respect to the socioeconomic and racial composition of charter schools  and magnet schools, both are disproportionately H/PBH schools. For  example, in 2013-14, 13 percent of H/PBH schools were charter schools,  while 5 percent of L/PBH schools were charter schools. To comply with  federal law, some districts may have converted low-performing public  schools to charter schools, which may have contributed, in part, to the  growth among high-poverty and minority populations in charter schools.  Further, 5 percent of H/PBH schools were magnet schools, while 2  percent of L/PBH schools were magnet schools.
In terms of school type, the percentage of students who attended H/PBH  schools decreased for traditional schools but increased among charter  and magnet schools. For traditional schools the percentage of students  dropped from 95 percent to 83 percent, even though there was an  absolute increase in the number of students at H/PBH traditional schools  (from 3.9 million to 6.9 million students, according to our analysis of  Education’s data). The percentage of students who attended H/PBH  charter schools increased from 1 percent to 9 percent (55,477 to 795,679  students), and those who attended H/PBH magnet schools increased  from 4 percent to 8 percent (152,592 to 667,834) (see fig. 4).
section_title: High-Poverty Schools with Mostly Black or Hispanic Students Generally Have Fewer Resources and More Disciplinary Actions Than Other Schools
paragraphs: Research shows that lower levels of income were generally associated  with worse student educational outcomes (see app. III). Our analysis of  Education data also showed that schools that were highly isolated by  poverty and race generally had fewer resources and disproportionately  more disciplinary actions than other schools. As shown in figures 5  through 9, when comparing H/PBH schools to L/PBH schools and all  other schools (i.e., schools that fall outside of these two categories),  disparities existed across a range of areas in school year 2011-12, the  most recent year for which these data were available. Further,  disparities were even greater for the subset of H/PBH schools in which 90  to 100 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price  lunch and 90 to 100 percent of the students were Black or Hispanic,  across most areas analyzed. In addition, comparing just the H/PBH  traditional, charter, and magnet schools, we also found differences. (See  app. II for additional data, including data comparing schools in which 90  to 100 percent of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price  lunch and 90 to 100 percent of the students were Black or Hispanic to  other schools). As previously mentioned, although our analyses of  Education’s data showed disparities across a range of different areas,  these analyses, taken alone, should not be used to make conclusions  about the presence or absence of unlawful discrimination.
The Importance of Middle School Algebra, STEM courses, and AP and GATE  Programs  Several academic courses and programs are especially beneficial in preparing students  for college and successful careers. Among these are middle school algebra; courses in  Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields; Advanced  Placement (AP) courses; and Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) programs.  According to the Department of Education, access to algebra in middle school—that is,  in 7th or 8th grade—positions students to complete higher-level courses in math and  science in high school, which is critical to preparing students for college and careers.  Therefore, access to a full range of STEM courses in high school, such as calculus,  chemistry, and physics, is important in preparing students for college and careers in  high-demand fields. In addition, rigorous academic programs, such as AP and GATE,  can improve student achievement and build skills that help students move toward  college- and career-readiness. AP courses help prepare high school students for  college-level courses and upon passing the AP exam, may enable students to receive  college credit.
subsections: section_title: Academic and College Preparatory Courses
paragraphs: According to our analysis of Education’s data, lower percentages of  H/PBH schools offered a range of math courses, with differences greatest  for 7th or 8th grade algebra and calculus, and differences less evident for  algebra II and geometry compared to L/PBH schools and all other schools  (see fig. 5). According to Education, access to algebra in 7th or 8th grade  positions students to complete higher-level courses in math and science  in high school, which is critical to preparing students for college and  careers. Among just the H/PBH schools, a higher percentage of magnet  schools offered these four math courses. Between just H/PBH traditional  schools and charter schools, a higher percentage of traditional schools  offered 7th or 8th grade algebra and calculus, while a higher percentage of  charter schools offered algebra II and geometry (see app. II for additional  data).
Similarly, with respect to science courses—biology, chemistry, and  physics—our analyses of Education data show disparities, with a lower  percentage of H/PBH schools offering these courses compared to L/PBH  schools and all other schools, with differences most evident for physics.  Among just the H/PBH schools, a higher percentage of magnet schools  offered all three science courses. Between just H/PBH traditional schools  and charter schools, a higher percentage of charter schools offered  biology and chemistry (see fig. 6).
With respect to AP courses, there were also disparities, as a lower  percentage of H/PBH schools offered these courses compared to L/PBH  schools and all other schools. Differences were the greatest between  H/PBH schools (48 percent of these schools offered AP courses) and  L/PBH schools (72 percent of these schools offered these courses).  Among just the H/PBH schools, a higher percentage of magnet schools  (83 percent) offered AP courses than did the traditional schools (50  percent) or charter schools (32 percent) (see fig. 7). In addition, among  schools that offered AP courses, a lower percentage of students of all  racial groups (Black, Hispanic, White, Asian, and Other) attending H/PBH  schools took AP courses compared to students of all racial groups in  L/PBH schools and all other schools. Specifically, among schools that  offered AP courses, 12 percent of all students attending H/PBH schools  took an AP course compared to 24 percent of all students in L/PBH  schools and 17 percent of all students in all other schools.
In addition, with respect to Gifted and Talented Education programs, or  GATE, a lower percentage of H/PBH schools offered these programs  compared to all other schools; however, a higher percentage of H/PBH  schools offered GATE programs compared to L/PBH schools. Looking at  just H/PBH schools, almost three-quarters of magnet schools and almost  two-thirds of traditional schools offered this program, while less than one- fifth of charter schools offered it (see fig. 7).
Students in H/PBH schools were held back in 9th grade, suspended (out- of-school), and expelled at disproportionately higher rates than students  in L/PBH schools and all other schools. Specifically, although students in  H/PBH schools were 7 percent of all 9th grade students, they were 17  percent of all students retained in 9th grade, according to our analysis of  Education’s data (see fig. 8). Further, with respect to suspensions and  expulsions, there was a similar pattern. Specifically, although students in  H/PBH schools accounted for 12 percent of all students, they represented  22 percent of all students with one or more out-of-school suspensions  and 16 percent of all students expelled (see fig. 9 and fig. 10). For  additional information comparing students in schools with different levels  of Black, Hispanic, and poor students, and by school type (traditional,  charter, and magnet schools), see tables 20 and 21 in appendix II.
H/PBH schools have large percentages of Hispanic students and, as  expected, have a disproportionately greater percentage of students who  were English Learners (EL). With respect to students with disabilities, our  analysis of Education’s data showed small differences across two of the  school groupings we analyzed. Specifically, L/PBH schools had 19  percent of all students and 17 of the students with disabilities, and all  other schools had 69 percent of all students and 71 percent of the  students with disabilities, according to our analysis of Education’s data.  Further, while these comparisons show some slight differences by school  in the percent of students with disabilities, Education’s own analysis of  these data by race showed there are differences among racial groups,  with Black students overall being overrepresented among students with  disabilities.
section_title: To Address Racial Imbalances and Demographic Shifts, Selected Districts Reported Taking Various Actions to Increase Diversity of Schools
paragraphs: Because their schools were largely isolated by race and poverty or had  experienced large demographic shifts, the three school districts we  reviewed—located in the Northeast, South, and West—reported  implementing a variety of actions in an effort to increase racial and  socioeconomic diversity in their schools. However, in implementing  these efforts aimed at increasing diversity, school districts struggled with  providing transportation to students and obtaining support from parents  and the community, among other things.
School District in the Northeast. The district in the Northeast, an urban,  predominantly low-income, Black and Hispanic district surrounded by  primarily White suburban districts, had tried for over two decades to  diversify its schools, according to state officials. Despite these efforts,  continued racial isolation and poverty among schools in the district  prompted a group of families to file a lawsuit against the state in state  court, alleging that the education students received in the urban district  was inferior to that received in the more affluent, largely White suburban  schools. The plaintiffs argued that the state’s system of separate city and  suburban school districts, which had been in place almost a century, led  to racially segregated schools. The state supreme court ruled that the  conditions in the district violated the state constitution, requiring the state  to take action to diversify the urban district and its surrounding suburban  schools.
In response, the state and district took a variety of actions. In particular  the state provided funding to build several new or completely renovated  state-of-the-art magnet schools within the region to attract suburban  students. To attract students from the city and suburbs, the magnet  schools used highly specialized curriculum. For example, one newly  renovated environmental sciences magnet school we visited offered  theme-based instruction that allowed students to work side-by-side with  resident scientists to conduct investigations and studies using a variety of  technologies and tools. Other magnet schools in this area offered  different themes, such as aerospace and engineering or the performing  arts. To further facilitate its efforts at diversity, the state provided funding  for transportation to magnet schools, enabling suburban and urban  students to more easily attend these schools. In addition, according to  officials, consistent with the court order, the state required the district’s  magnet schools to maintain a student enrollment of no more than 75  percent minority students.
However, the district faced several challenges with respect to its magnet  schools. For example, officials said maintaining a certain ratio of non- minority students posed challenges. According to the district  superintendent, even if there were openings, many minority students in  the district were unable to attend certain magnet schools because doing  so would interfere with the ratio of minorities to non-minorities the state  was attempting to achieve. In addition, because assignment to magnet  schools was done through a lottery, students were not guaranteed a slot  in a magnet school. Officials told us that in those cases where there was  not enough space in a magnet school or where admitting more minority  students would disrupt the ratio of minorities to non-minorities, these  students would attend their traditional neighborhood school. Because the  lottery did not guarantee all students in the urban district a magnet school  slot, a student also had to designate four other school options.  However, without a similar infusion of funds that was available for the  magnet schools, officials we spoke to said that the neighborhood schools  in the urban district declined. As a result, families that did not gain access  to well-supported magnet schools resented resources spent on these  schools, according to officials. Also, because the neighborhood schools  were not required to maintain a specified percentage of minority students  like the magnets, they, as well as the charter schools in the urban district,  continued not to be very diverse, according to officials.
The state also enabled students from the urban district to enroll in  traditional schools (non-magnet) in the suburbs by drawing four  attendance zones around the urban district. Creation of these zones  reduced bus travel times for students and facilitated relationships  between parents in the community whose children were attending the  same suburban school, according to officials. Parents could apply for  these traditional, suburban schools through the lottery, selecting up to five  participating suburban school districts that are designated within their  zone. If a student was not placed in one of these schools, they would  attend a school in their urban district. In addition to providing  transportation so that students could attend suburban schools, the state  offered suburban schools grants of up to $8,000 per student, an  academic and social support grant of up to $115,000 per school district,  and a capital funds grant of up to $750,000 per school district. Despite  these incentives, according to officials we interviewed, some families  chose not to enroll their children in the suburban schools and instead  opted to stay in close-by neighborhood schools, dampening the effects of  the efforts to diversify.
School District in the South. The district in the South had previously been  under a federal desegregation order and experienced major demographic  changes going from a district serving primarily Black and White students  to one serving many other races and ethnicities as well as immigrant  populations. Students in the district represented about 120 different  nationalities and languages, and according to officials, this included  students from Somalia and Coptic Christians and Kurds from Egypt. To  address the major demographic changes and help achieve diversity  across more schools in the district, the district did away with its previous  school attendance zones, which had generally assigned students to  schools located in their geographic area or neighborhood. In its place,  the district created new student assignment zones for its schools, and  also hired an outside expert to help implement a new diversity plan.  Specifically, under the new student assignment plan, the new zones were  intended to provide greater socioeconomic and racial diversity nearer to  where students lived, according to school district officials we interviewed.  Under the new plan, parents were allowed to choose among schools  within their attendance zones, which allow greater choice of schools for  children closer to their neighborhoods. The plan also supported students  who chose to attend schools outside of these zones by providing public  transit passes, while school bus transportation was provided to students  who attended schools within their attendance zones.
According to documents we reviewed, this district experienced challenges  implementing its revised student assignment plan. Parents’ choices of  schools resulted in resegregation of students, prompting a complaint  leading to a Department of Education investigation, as well as a federal  lawsuit. According to Education officials, their investigation of the  complaint found that after the school choice period was completed and  students were enrolled for the school year, there was a significant  increase in racial isolation in some of the schools in particular urban and  suburban areas. In addition, several families and a nonprofit  organization filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the implementation of the  school district’s revised student assignment plan was causing  unconstitutional racial segregation in the district. The court upheld the  plan, finding that although the plan had caused a “segregative effect” in  the district, there was no discriminatory intent by the officials in adopting  and implementing the plan. To address the concerns raised in the  lawsuit, the district hired an expert to refine and develop a school diversity  plan. Under this diversity plan, student diversity was defined broadly, to  include language and disability, as well as race/ethnicity and income (see  text box). However, even after implementing the new diversity plan,  officials told us that some families in their district sent their children to  private schools, rather than attend the district’s public schools. These  officials also said that, in their opinion, some White families in their district  were less eager to have their children attend diverse schools.
Diversity Plan in a School District in the South  According to district documents, a school in the district is “diverse” if it meets  at least one of the following measures:  enrolls multiple racial/ethnic groups, and no single group represents more than 50  percent of the school’s total enrollment;  enrolls at least three racial/ethnic groups, and each represents at least 15 percent of  the school’s total enrollment; or  enrolls at least two racial/ethnic groups, and each represents at least 30 percent of  the school’s total enrollment; and   at least two of the following measures:  percentage of students eligible for free or reduced meals is at least two-thirds the  average of other schools,  percentage of English Learners is at least two-thirds the average of other schools, or  percentage of students with a disability is at least two-thirds the average of other  schools.
The district measures schools within their grade tier level. The typical grade tier levels are  elementary school (Pre-K–4th grade), middle school (5th-8th grade), and high school (9th- 12th grade).
As part of the new diversity plan, the district is also hiring staff that reflect,  to the extent possible, the diversity of the student body. Further, when  making decisions about a range of matters, such as drawing school  boundary lines, placement of new schools, providing student  transportation, and recruiting and training school staff, the plan calls for  them to consider the impact of those decisions on diversity. In addition,  the district is in the process of allocating school resources with a goal of  better reflecting the different needs of students in the schools (e.g.,  English Learners).
School District in the West. The district we visited in the West is located in  a state with an “open-enrollment” law, which gives parents a significant  degree of choice in determining the schools their children attend,  including schools outside of their neighborhoods. District officials told us  that, in their opinion, as a result of the state law, White students often  choose not to attend certain schools in the district. District officials told us  that this left a largely Hispanic and low-income student population in  those schools, prompting the district to implement several actions in an  attempt to diversify. Specifically, the district, led by the school board,  converted some of its existing public schools into magnet schools.  Further, to meet diverse student needs, the state provided additional  funds for high-needs students, such as those eligible for free or reduced- price lunch, English Learners, or foster care youth.
According to officials, this district struggled to diversify because parents  have a significant degree of choice in where to enroll their children,  magnet schools give priority to children in their neighborhood, and  funding was limited for some schools. After the district implemented its  diversity efforts, district officials told us that, in their opinion, some White  families continued to choose schools outside the district and many other  families chose to keep their children in neighborhood schools where  diversity was low. In addition, the magnet schools gave priority to  neighborhood children, which further hampered attempts at diversity.  Further, although the district converted some of its schools to magnet  schools to attract students, they provided no transportation for students,  and some of the schools were converted without any upgrades to the  facilities, as state funding for education declined due to an economic  recession. One principal we interviewed at a converted magnet school  expressed frustration that his school did not have the proper signage or  visual appeal to attract families. Further, principals and other school  district officials we interviewed said that they struggled to reach capacity  in some of their schools. In contrast, one of the magnet schools we visited  had a waiting list and was a state-of-the-art facility, with Wi-Fi, computers  for every student, and 3D printers. Unlike the other magnet schools, this  school has been operating as a magnet for nearly 20 years, and at the  time of our review, had a waiting list. In further contrast, this school  received most of its funding from private donations at a level significant  enough to fund the technology focus of this school.
section_title: Education and Justice Have Taken a Range of Actions to Address Racial Discrimination against Students, although Better Use of Available Data May Enhance These Efforts Education Addresses Discrimination by Conducting Investigations, Issuing Guidance, and Providing Technical Assistance
paragraphs: Education has taken a range of actions to address racial discrimination in  schools. For example, Education has conducted investigations on its  own initiative as well as investigations in response to complaints or  reports of possible discrimination. Depending on the outcome of these  investigations, Education may enter into agreements, called resolution  agreements, which establish the actions a school or school district agrees  to take to address issues found during an investigation. Education also  may withhold federal funds if a recipient is in violation of the civil rights  laws and Education is unable to reach agreement with the parties,  although officials told us that this rarely happens.
Education’s agency-initiated investigations, which are called compliance  reviews, target problems that appear particularly acute. Education’s Office  for Civil Rights launched 32 compliance reviews in fiscal years 2013 and  2014 across a range of issues related to racial discrimination. For  example, in 2014 Education completed a compliance review of an entire  district’s disciplinary practices. As a result of that review, Education found  that Black students were disproportionately represented among students  subject to suspensions, other disciplinary actions, and referrals to law  enforcement and that Black students were disciplined differently from  White students for similar offenses. In one instance, Education cited an  example of an 8th-grade White student who was given detention for  leaving class without permission while an 8th-grade Black student was  suspended 3 days for skipping a class even though this student had no  such prior incidents. Education entered into a resolution agreement with  the district to resolve the issues it identified, which, among other things,  required the district to collect data to monitor its disciplinary practices for  potential discrimination. The agreement also required the district to assign  a staff person responsible for ensuring that disciplinary practices are  equitable and to provide training for teachers and staff. In 2013, another  compliance review initiated by Education of a district found that Black and  Hispanic students were under-represented in high school honors and AP  courses, as well as elementary and middle school advanced courses and  gifted and talented programs. To resolve these issues, Education entered  into a resolution agreement with the district which, among other things,  required the district to identify potential barriers to student participation in  these courses, such as eligibility and selection criteria, hire a consultant  to help address this issue, and provide training for district and school staff  on how to encourage and retain student participation in these courses.  The agreement also required the district to collect and evaluate data on  an ongoing annual basis of its enrollment policies, practices, and  procedures to determine whether they are being implemented in a non- discriminatory manner.
Further, Education has also conducted more narrowly-focused  investigations in response to complaints of discrimination, which can be  filed by anyone who believes that an educational institution that receives  federal funds has discriminated against someone on the basis of race,  color, or national origin. According to Education, it received about 2,400  such complaints in fiscal year 2014. For example, in response to a 2011  complaint alleging that a high school’s football coach subjected Black  players to racial harassment and that the district failed to address it,  Education launched an investigation of the district. Education found that  the football coach directed racial slurs at Black players, and players who  complained were harassed by their fellow students and staff, who  supported the coach. Education also found that the coach did not assist  Black players with obtaining athletic scholarships, even stating that  athletic scholarships are for White players and financial aid is for Black  players. To resolve these findings, Education negotiated a resolution  agreement with the district that required the district to review and revise  its harassment and discrimination policies and take appropriate steps to  remedy the harassment by the coach, including appointing a new coach  and offering counseling for the students.
Education has also issued guidance to schools on their obligations under  the federal civil rights laws, and its decision to issue such guidance may  be prompted by factors such as its findings from investigations or  developments in case law. For example, Education issued guidance  jointly with Justice in 2014 on school discipline to assist states, districts,  and schools in developing practices and strategies to enhance the  atmosphere in the school and ensure those policies and practices comply  with federal law. The guidance included a letter on applicable federal  civil rights laws and discipline that describes how schools can meet their  obligations under federal law to administer student discipline without  discriminating against students on the basis of race, color, or national  origin. Also in that year, Education issued guidance addressing the issue  of equitable access to educational resources. Specifically, in its  guidance, Education states that chronic and widespread racial disparities  in access to rigorous courses, academic programs, and extracurricular  activities and in other areas “hinder the education of students of color  today” and strongly recommends that school districts proactively assess  their policies and practices to ensure that students are receiving  educational resources without regard to their race, color, or national  origin. In addition, Education issued guidance jointly with Justice in 2011  following the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved that  addressed districts’ voluntary use of race to diversify their schools. This  guidance sets forth examples of the types of actions school districts could  take to diversify their schools or avoid racial isolation, consistent with this  decision and the federal civil rights laws. It states that districts should first  consider approaches that do not rely on the race of individual students,  for example, by using race-neutral criteria such as students’  socioeconomic status, before adopting approaches that rely on individual  racial classifications. For approaches that do consider a students’ race as  a factor, districts should ensure their approach closely fits their goals and  considers race only as one factor among other non-racial considerations.  Further, Education also offers technical assistance, through various  means, such as conducting webinars, sponsoring and presenting at  conferences, and disseminating resource guides to schools and school  districts. For example, at a 2015 magnet school workshop, Education  officials discussed the benefits to improving diversity in the schools and  the ramifications of relevant court decisions related to diversifying  schools. They also offered examples of actions schools can take  consistent with these court decisions to promote greater school diversity.
subsections: section_title: Analyses of Civil Rights Data by School Groupings Could Help Education Discern Further Disparities
paragraphs: Education uses its Civil Rights Data to identify patterns, trends,  disparities, and potential discrimination by performing analysis of  particular groups of students, such as by race and ethnicity, and could  further enhance its current efforts by also more routinely analyzing data  by school types and groupings. Analyzing data by schools may help  discern patterns and trends occurring in different types of schools, such  as the disparities our analysis revealed in high-poverty schools comprised  of mostly Black or Hispanic students. For example, through its analysis  of its Civil Rights Data, Education identified an issue nationwide with  disproportionately high suspension and expulsion rates of certain groups  of students by race, among other characteristics. Education uses these  analyses to inform its investigations and guidance. For example, its  analysis of its Civil Rights Data, which showed disparities across groups  of students by race and other factors in students’ access to academic  courses (such as algebra and AP courses), helped inform an investigation  and resulted in guidance. According to Education, it typically analyzes  its data by student groups to help it identify disparities or potential  discrimination against students on the basis of race, color, or national  origin, consistent with the civil rights laws it enforces.
While these analyses, by specific groups of students, are important to its  enforcement responsibilities, by also more routinely analyzing data by  different types and groupings of schools, other patterns might be  revealed, as our own analyses show. In addition, although socioeconomic  status is not a protected class under the U.S. Constitution or federal civil  rights laws, research has shown that poverty (socioeconomic status) and  race overlap (see app. III). By examining these two phenomena in  tandem, Education has another lens for examining any possible issues at  the school level. Education has used its Civil Rights Data to publish a  2014 “data snapshot” on school discipline that highlighted disparities by  race, ethnicity, and English Learner status, among other characteristics.  To illustrate where Education might enhance such an analysis, our  analysis of the same data also found disparities and differences between  groups of schools—with disparities most evident for H/PBH schools.  Further, Education’s data snapshot on college and career readiness, also  based on its analysis of Civil Rights Data, showed disparities in access to  core subjects, such as algebra I and II, geometry, biology, chemistry, and  AP courses by various student groups. Again, analyzing the same data,  we also found these disparities, but we found them among schools  grouped by level of poverty and among Black and Hispanic students, with  disparities most acute among H/PBH schools. In addition, our analyses  showed further disparities when we grouped schools by types— traditional, charter, and magnet schools. For example, one of our  analyses of Education’s school year 2011-12 data showed that, among  H/PBH schools, a higher percentage of magnet schools (83 percent)  offered AP courses than did the traditional schools (50 percent) or charter  schools (32 percent). While Education’s analyses of its Civil Rights Data  provide critical information to aid its enforcement of civil rights laws, also  analyzing these data by different groupings and types of schools could  provide Education with an additional layer of information that, as we  found, further illuminates disparities and could enhance their efforts.  Federal internal control standards state that agencies should use  operational data to ensure effective and efficient use of agency  resources. By analyzing its data by groupings and types of schools,  Education has an opportunity to enhance its efforts and better inform  guidance and technical assistance to the groups and types of schools that  need it most.
section_title: Justice Addresses Discrimination by Conducting Investigations, Issuing Guidance, and Taking Legal Action
paragraphs: The Department of Justice’s Educational Opportunities Section of the  Civil Rights Division has taken several actions to address racial  discrimination against students. Similar to Education, Justice conducts  investigations in response to complaints or reports of possible violations.  Depending on the outcome of its investigation and the circumstances of  the case, Justice may take a number of actions, which could include  entering into a settlement agreement with the district or initiating litigation  to enforce the civil rights laws. For example, Justice investigated  complaints in 2011 alleging that a student had been subject to racial  harassment at a high school, which included receiving race-based death  threats and retaliation for reporting the harassment. The investigation  found that the district failed to adequately investigate, address, and  prevent recurrence of the harassment, which resulted in the student  leaving the district out of fear for her safety, and that other Black students  had experienced racial harassment and retaliation. Justice entered into a  settlement agreement with the district that included making revisions to  the policies and procedures for handling racial harassment complaints.  Justice has also intervened, that is joined in and became a party, in  discrimination lawsuits. For example, in 2000 Justice intervened in a civil  rights lawsuit against a district, alleging the district failed to appropriately  address harassment of a pair of students by other students. The alleged  harassment included racial slurs, including some within earshot of  teachers, and racial graffiti on walls and desks. Further, one of the  students was the victim of a racially motivated assault. The parties  negotiated an agreement, which was adopted by the court as an order,  that required the district to, among other things, maintain written records  of each harassment allegation received, investigation conducted, and  corrective action taken by the district to ensure a consistent and effective  review of allegations. Further, as previously mentioned, Justice has  issued guidance jointly with Education to ensure states and school  districts understand their responsibilities to prevent and address racial  discrimination in schools.
Justice also monitors and enforces open federal school desegregation  cases where Justice is a party to the litigation. According to Justice  officials, as of November 2015 there were 178 of these cases. Justice  officials told us they routinely work with districts (and other parties to the  desegregation case) to close out those cases where the school district  has met its statutory and Constitutional duty to desegregate. For  example, in January 2015, Justice completed its compliance monitoring  visits for a school district that had been operating under a series of  consent orders since 1970, most recently one from 2012. Justice  determined that the district had complied with the terms of the  desegregation order. The parties agreed, and in May 2015 the court  declared the district unitary, thus allowing the desegregation order to be  lifted. Justice has also recently engaged in active litigation in several open  desegregation cases. For example, in 2011, as a party to another long- standing desegregation case, Justice filed a motion asking the court to  find that the district had violated its obligations under several prior  desegregation orders. In 2012, the court determined, among other things,  that although the district had made significant progress, two  predominantly Black schools had never been desegregated, and the court  ordered the district to draft a plan to improve integration at those  schools. Justice officials said that they initiate action on an open  desegregation case in response to various factors, including requirements  from the court, complaints or inquiries they receive, or issues raised in  media reports. According to Justice officials, the agency also conducts  agency-initiated “affirmative reviews” of districts under open  desegregation orders, which could include requests for additional  supplemental data, site visits, and initiation of negotiations if compliance  issues are identified, among other things.
section_title: Justice Does Not Systematically Track Key Data to Inform Actions on Open Desegregation Cases
paragraphs: As noted above, Justice is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the  178 open federal desegregation orders to which it is a party—many of  which originated 30 or 40 years ago. However, it does not systematically  track important summary information on these orders. As a consequence,  the potential exists that some cases could unintentionally languish for  long periods of time. For example, in a 2014 opinion in a long-standing  desegregation case, the court described a long period of dormancy in the  case and stated that lack of activity had taken its toll, noting, among other  things, that the district had not submitted the annual reports required  under the consent order to the court for the past 20 years. Although the  court found certain disparities in educational programs and student test  results, based on the record at the time it was unable to determine when  the disparities arose or whether they were a result of discrimination. The  court noted that had Justice “been keeping an eye” on relevant  information, such as disparities in test scores, it could have brought it to  the court’s attention more quickly, allowing the court and district to  address the issue in a timely fashion. While Justice officials told us that  they maintain a system to track certain identifying information about each  case, which includes the case name, the court docket number, the  identification number generated by Justice, and the jurisdiction where the  case originated, officials were unable to provide more detailed summary  information across all of the open cases, such as the date of the last  action, or the nature of the last action taken. Justice officials said that to  obtain such information they would have to review each individual case  file, some of which are voluminous and many of which are not stored  electronically. Thus, Justice officials were unable to respond with  specificity as to when or the nature of the last action taken on the open  orders within broad time frames of 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years ago.
According to Justice’s Strategic Plan, the agency has a goal to protect the  rights of the American people and enforce federal law. This Plan  includes an objective for implementing this goal—to promote and protect  American civil rights by preventing and prosecuting discriminatory  practices. According to this Plan, Justice seeks to address and prevent  discrimination and segregation in elementary and secondary schools. The  Plan states that the extent to which societal attitudes and practices reflect  a continuing commitment to tolerance, diversity, and equality affect the  scope and nature of Justice’s work. In addition, federal internal control  standards state that routine monitoring should be a part of normal  operations to allow an agency to assess how the entity being monitored is  performing over time. These standards also state that agencies should  use information to help identify specific actions that need to be taken and  to allow for effective monitoring of activities. Specifically, the standards  state that information should be available on a timely basis to allow  effective monitoring of events and activities and to allow prompt reaction.  Also, the standards state that information should be summarized and  presented appropriately and provide pertinent information while permitting  a closer inspection of details as needed. In addition, the standards state  that agencies should obtain any relevant external information that may  affect achievement of missions, goals, and objectives.
Without a systematic way to track key information about all of the open  desegregation cases, such as the date of the last action or receipt of  required reports, Justice may lack the summary information needed to  monitor the status of its orders. This may affect the agency’s ability to  effectively manage its caseload and to promote and protect civil rights.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: More than 60 years after the Brown decision, our work shows that  disparities in education persist and are particularly acute among schools  with the highest concentrations of minority and poor students. Further,  Black and Hispanic students are increasingly attending high-poverty  schools where they face multiple disparities, including less access to  academic offerings. Research has shown a clear link between a school’s  poverty level and student academic outcomes, with higher poverty  associated with worse educational outcomes. While the districts we  contacted in different areas across the nation have efforts under way to  help improve the quality of education for students, the Departments of  Education and Justice have roles that are critical because they are  responsible for enforcing federal laws that protect students from racial  discrimination and ensuring schools and districts provide all students with  equitable access. In doing so, both agencies can better leverage data  available to them to aid their guidance, enforcement, and oversight  efforts. Education has ongoing efforts to collect data that it uses to identify  potential discrimination and disparities across key groups of students, but  it has not routinely analyzed its data in a way that may reveal larger  patterns among different types and groups of schools. As a result, the  agency may miss key patterns and trends among schools that could  enhance its efforts. In addition, Justice is a party to 178 federal  desegregation orders that remain open, but Justice does not track key  summary information about the orders that would allow them to effectively  monitor their status. Without systematically tracking such information, the  agency may lack information that could help in its enforcement efforts.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Education direct Education’s  Office for Civil Rights to more routinely analyze its Civil Rights Data  Collection by school groupings and types of schools across key  elements to further explore and understand issues and patterns of  disparities. For example, Education could use this more detailed  information to help identify issues and patterns among school types  and groups in conjunction with its analyses of student groups.
We recommend that the Attorney General of the United States direct  the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to systematically  track key summary information across its portfolio of open  desegregation cases and use this data to inform its monitoring of  these cases. Such information could include, for example, dates  significant actions were taken or reports received.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education and  Justice for their review and comment. Education’s written comments are  reproduced in appendix IV, and Justice’s written comments are  reproduced in appendix V. Education also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
In its written comments, Education stated that its Office for Civil Rights  already analyzes its Civil Rights Data Collection (Civil Rights Data) in  some of the ways we recommend, and in light of our recommendation, it  will consider whether additional analysis could augment the Office for  Civil Rights’ core civil rights enforcement mission. Specifically, Education  said it is planning to conduct some of the analysis suggested in our  recommendation for future published data analysis based on the 2013- 2014 Civil Rights Data and will consider whether additional analysis  would be helpful. Education also stated it is committed to using every tool  at its disposal to ensure all students have access to an excellent  education. In addition, Education stated that when appropriate, the Office  for Civil Rights often uses the types of analyses recommended by GAO in  its investigations. It also noted that racial disparities are only one potential  element for investigations of potential discrimination. Education also said  that it publishes reports based on the Civil Rights Data, referring to the  Office for Civil Rights’ published data snapshots on College and Career  Readiness and Teacher Equity, which we reviewed as part of this study.   We found they do provide some important information about schools with  high and low levels of minority populations. Further, Education stated that  the disaggregations of the data that we presented in our report were the  type of specialized analysis that the Office for Civil Rights encourages  users outside the agency to explore.
While we recognize the important ways Education is currently using its  data and the additional analyses it is considering and planning in the  future, it was our intent in making the recommendation that Education  more routinely examine the data for any disparities and patterns across a   key set of data elements by the school groupings we recommended.  Further, while we support the engagement of researchers and other  interested stakeholders outside the agency, we also believe that  Education should conduct these analyses as part of its mission to provide  oversight. We believe that by doing so, Education will be better positioned  to more fully understand and discern the nature of disparities and patterns  among schools.
In light of Education’s response about its data analysis efforts, which we  agree are consistent with good practices to use agency resources  effectively and efficiently, we modified the recommendation and report  accordingly. We now specify in the recommendation that Education  should “more routinely” analyze its Civil Rights Data across key elements  in the ways recommended by our report to help it identify disparities  among schools. We believe that such analysis will enhance current efforts  by identifying and addressing disparities among groups and types of  schools—helping, ultimately, to improve Education’s ability to target  oversight and technical assistance to the schools that need it most.
In its written comments, Justice stated it believes its procedures for  tracking case-related data are adequate. Nevertheless, consistent with  our recommendation, Justice said it is currently developing an electronic  document management system that may allow more case-related  information to be stored in electronic format. Justice agreed that tracking  information concerning its litigation docket is important and useful and  that it shares our goal of ensuring it accurately and adequately tracks  case-related information. However, Justice also stated that our report fails  to appreciate the extensive amount of data the agency maintains on its  desegregation cases, which it maintains primarily for the purpose of  litigation. Justice stated that it tracks and preserves information received  from school districts and all case-related correspondence and pleadings,  and because the data it collects are used to litigate each individual case,  it does not track such data across cases. We understand Justice’s need  to maintain voluminous case-specific evidentiary files, some of which are  maintained in hard copy. It was out of recognition for the extensive nature  of these files that we recommended Justice also have a way to track key,  summary information across its cases. Such summary information would  allow for timely and effective monitoring and for prompt reaction, in  accordance with federal standards for internal control. Further, Justice  said various terms in our recommendation, such as “systematically” or  “key” were not clear or well defined. In deference to the agency’s  expertise, in making the recommendation, we intentionally used broad  language that would allow Justice to make its own judgments about what  would best serve its mission.
Justice also said it is concerned that the report could be read to suggest  that racial disparities within a public school district constitute per se  evidence of racial discrimination. Although our report does not make this  statement, we have added additional language to further clarify that data  on disparities alone are not sufficient to establish unlawful discrimination.
With respect to the report’s description of a selected desegregation case,  Justice stated it was concerned with the emphasis we placed on one  comment in the lengthy court opinion (“…if Justice had ‘been keeping an  eye’ on relevant information…”), which it said was based solely on the  absence of entries on the court’s docket sheet. Justice said in this case  and in many others, it is engaged in a range of related activities, such as  site visits and settlement agreements, which are not recorded on the  courts’ docket sheets. We appreciate that courts may not be aware of all  of Justice’s activities in any one case; however, we believe this case  illustrates how important it is for Justice to have timely information about  its cases and how better information tracking could help the agency better  manage and oversee its caseload. Also, with respect to this case, Justice  commented that the existence of disparities in test scores alone is not  sufficient to trigger a remedy under Justice’s legal authority, and Justice  must consider multiple factors before taking action in a case. We have  clarified in the report that data on disparities taken alone are insufficient to  establish unlawful discrimination. While we understand that tracking such  information may not necessarily trigger action by Justice in any particular  case, the case described was selected to serve as an example of the  potential benefits of more proactive tracking of information in these cases.
Further, Justice said it was concerned the report could be read to suggest  that some cases have remained dormant or languished for long periods of  time as a result of Justice’s tracking system, without sufficient  appreciation for the responsibilities of the school districts and courts in  advancing and resolving the cases (such as by achieving unitary status).  In the draft report on which Justice commented, we stated that the onus is  on the district, not Justice, to seek unitary status. We have amended the  final report to state this more prominently. However, while we  acknowledge the key roles of the districts and the courts in resolving and  advancing a desegregation case, the focus of our report is on the federal  role, and Justice, too, plays an important role in litigating these cases—a  role we believe would be enhanced by improving its tracking of  information about the cases.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education and  the Attorney General, and other interested parties. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this study were to examine: (1) how the percentage of  schools with high percentages of poor and Black or Hispanic students has  changed over time and the characteristics of these schools, (2) why and  how selected school districts have implemented actions to increase  student diversity, and (3) the extent to which the Departments of  Education (Education) and Justice (Justice) have taken actions to identify  and address issues related to racial discrimination in schools.
subsections: section_title: Analysis of Federal Datasets
subsections: section_title: Population Focus and Definitions
paragraphs: To answer our objectives, we analyzed the (1) poverty level of schools  and (2) Black and Hispanic student composition of schools, as a basis for  grouping and comparing schools. We measured poverty level at the  school level using the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch. A student is generally eligible for free or reduced-price lunch  based on federal income eligibility guidelines that are tied to the federal  poverty level and the size of the family. We focused on Black and  Hispanic students because they are the two largest minority groups in  U.S. K-12 public schools, and existing research has suggested that these  groups experience disparities in school. The thresholds and measure of  poverty discussed here and below was commonly used in the literature  and also aligns with how Education analyzes its data.
We categorized schools for our analysis based on both the percent of  students in a school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and the  percent of Black or Hispanic students collectively in a school (see table  1). We divided our data into three school groups as follows:  1.  Schools whose student populations were comprised of 0 to 25 percent  students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (i.e., low-poverty) and  0 to 25 percent Black or Hispanic students (referred to as “L/PBH  schools”),  2.  Schools whose student populations were comprised of 75 to 100  percent students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (i.e., high- poverty) and 75 to 100 percent Black or Hispanic students (referred to  as “H/PBH schools”), and  3.  Schools that fall outside of these two categories (referred to as “all  other schools”).
Because the literature also suggests that schools with even higher levels  of Blacks and Hispanics and poverty face disparities that are even more  acute, we also analyzed the group of schools in which 90 to 100 percent  of the students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 90 to 100  percent of the students were Black or Hispanic. These schools represent  6 percent of all K-12 public schools and are included in appendix II for  further comparison. Our analyses of Education’s data in this report are  intended to describe selected characteristics of these schools; they  should not be used to make conclusions about the presence or absence  of unlawful discrimination.
section_title: Analysis of the Common Core of Data
paragraphs: To describe how the percentage and characteristics of schools with  different levels of poverty among students and Black or Hispanic students  has changed over time, we analyzed schools with both the highest and  lowest percentages of poverty and Blacks or Hispanics and schools with  all other percentages of these groups (see table 1). We used Education’s  Common Core of Data (CCD) from school years 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010- 11, and 2013-14, the most recent year of data available for these  analyses. CCD is administered by Education’s National Center for  Education Statistics, which annually collects non-fiscal data about all  public schools, as well as fiscal and non-fiscal data on public school  districts, and state education agencies in the United States. The data are  supplied by state education agency officials describing their schools and  school districts. Data elements include name, address, and phone  number of the school or school district; demographic information about  students and staff; and fiscal data, such as revenues and current  expenditures. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed  technical documentation and interviewed relevant officials from  Education. Based on these efforts, we determined that these data were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. The data in the CCD represent the  full universe of all U.S. K-12 public schools. To further understand the  trends underlying the growth or decline of these categories of schools, we  examined whether any variation in growth existed by region  (Northeastern, Midwestern, Southern, and Western areas of the United  States) and school type (traditional neighborhood schools, charter  schools, and magnet schools). For our analysis of the CCD, we excluded  schools that did not report information on (1) free or reduced-price lunch,  which we used as a proxy to categorize the poverty level of the school or  (2) the number of Black or Hispanic students, which we used to  categorize the level of Black or Hispanic students in the school. For  school year 2000-01, we included 78,194 schools and excluded 16,520  schools; for school year 2005-06, we included 91,910 schools and  excluded 8,717 schools; for school year 2010-11, we included 94,612  schools and excluded 7,413 schools; and for school year 2013-14, we  included 93,458 schools and excluded 7,633 schools. Because CCD  collects information on the universe of schools, these exclusions would  not affect our overall findings.
There are several sources of non-sampling error associated with the  CCD, which is self-reported and collected from the universe of schools  and school districts. Non-sampling errors can be introduced in many  ways. For example, they can result from data processing or data entry,  when respondents misinterpret survey questions, do not follow survey  instructions, or do not follow the item definitions correctly. Further, while  CCD’s coverage of traditional public schools and school districts is very  complete, coverage of publicly funded education outside of traditional  school districts has varying levels of coverage within different states and  jurisdictions. Some states do not report schools that are administered by  state organizations other than state educational agencies. Examples  include charter schools authorized by an organization that is not a school  district, schools sponsored by health and human services agencies within  a state, and juvenile justice facilities. In recent years, Education has  increased efforts to identify schools that may be underreported by state  educational agencies. Further, because this information is self-reported,  there is also the potential for misreporting of information. Education  attempts to minimize these errors in several ways, including through  training, extensive quality reviews, and data editing.
section_title: Analysis of the Civil Rights Data Collection
paragraphs: To examine additional characteristics about schools the students  attended, we analyzed data from the public use file of Education’s Civil  Rights Data Collection (referred to as the Civil Rights Data in this report)  for school year 2011-12, which was the most recent year of data  available. The Civil Rights Data—collected on a biennial basis—consists  of data on the nation’s public schools, including student characteristics  and enrollment; educational and course offerings; disciplinary actions;  and school environment, such as incidences of bullying. To assess the  reliability of these data, we reviewed technical documentation, and  interviewed relevant officials from Education. Based on these efforts, we  determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. The  Civil Rights Data is part of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ overall  strategy for administering and enforcing the federal civil rights statutes for  which it is responsible. While this information was collected from a  sample of schools in previous years, it was collected from the full  universe of all U.S. K-12 public schools in 2011-12. By analyzing these  data across the school categories in table 1, we were able to present data  on the differences in the availability of courses offered among schools  with different levels of poverty among students and Black or Hispanic  students. For example, we were able to analyze differences among  schools with respect to school offerings, such as advanced math and  science courses—as well as advanced academic programs, Advanced  Placement courses, and Gifted and Talented Education programs. We  were also able to examine differences in the level of disciplinary  incidents—such as more than one out-of-school suspension, arrests  related to school activity, and bullying—and the percentage of English  Learners and students with disabilities. We also examined the numbers of  full-time teachers with more than one year of experience, licensed and  certified teachers, and teacher absences. The data also allowed us to  analyze differences by type of school—traditional neighborhood schools,  charter schools, and magnet schools (see app. II). For this analysis we  matched schools in the Civil Rights Data for school year 2011-12 (the  most year recent for which Civil Rights Data are available) to schools in  the CCD for school year 2011-12 and excluded schools for which there  was not a match. Further, from the Civil Rights Data, we also excluded  schools that did not report (1) free or reduced-price school lunch, which  we used as a proxy to categorize the poverty level of the school or (2) the  number of Black or Hispanic students, which we used to categorize the  level of Black or Hispanic students in the school. As a result, our analysis  of the Civil Rights Data for school year 2011-12 included 95,635 schools  and excluded 5,675 schools. In the report, we present different years for  the Civil Rights Data and CCD and, as a result, the numbers and  percentages of schools and students derived from these two sets of data  will not match.
As with the CCD, the school year 2011-12 Civil Rights Data collected the  full universe of schools and districts, with 99.2 and 98.4 percent response  rate, respectively. These data are also subject to non-sampling error, and  because these data are self-reported, there is also the potential for  misreporting of information. For these data, Education put in place quality  control and editing procedures to reduce errors. Further, for the school  year 2011-12 Civil Rights Data, respondents were to answer each  question on the Civil Rights Data survey prior to certification. Null or  missing data prevented a school district from completing their Civil Rights  Data submission to Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Therefore, in cases  where a school district may not have complete data, some schools or  districts may have reported a zero value in place of a null value. It is not  possible to determine all possible situations where this may have  occurred. As such, it may be the case that the item response rates may  be positively biased. Further, within this dataset there are outliers that  likely represented misreported values. These outliers had the potential to  heavily influence state or national totals. To ensure the integrity of the  state and national totals, the Office for Civil Rights suppressed outliers  identified by data quality rules. These rules flagged inconsistent and  implausible values for suppression. To mitigate the potential for  suppressions that distort aggregate totals, suppressed data were  replaced with imputed data where possible. For example, where the  number of students disciplined exceeded the number in membership, the  number was set to the number of students in membership.
section_title: School District Site Visits
paragraphs: We selected a school district in each of three states (one in the Northeast,  South, and West) and interviewed officials to describe why and how  selected school districts have taken actions to address the diversity of  their schools. We selected states to include different regions of the  country, and we selected school districts within these states that had  taken action to increase diversity. Within these districts, the schools we  visited were selected to include a mix of grade level (elementary, middle,  and high school), school type (traditional public and magnet), and location  (urban and suburban). To select districts, we relied on recommendations  from subject matter specialists and a review of available information. For  example, we reviewed the school districts that had participated in  Education’s Voluntary Public School Choice grant program. Information  from the districts we contacted is illustrative and not meant to reflect the  situation in other districts with similar efforts.
In the districts we selected, we interviewed different stakeholders, such  as school district superintendents, school board members, state  education officials, community leaders, and school officials. We  conducted these interviews in person (in two locations) or by phone.  During our interviews, we collected information about issues related to  racial and socioeconomic diversity in public schools, including types of  actions implemented to increase diversity, reasons for implementing the  actions, challenges faced in implementing the actions, and comments  about federal actions in this area. In addition to interviewing officials, in  some locations we toured schools to learn more about how and why  various actions were implemented at those schools. We provided the  relevant sections of a draft of this report to the appropriate officials from  each district for their review. We did not assess the extent to which the  selected districts have achieved any diversity goals or complied with any  applicable court orders. Because we selected the school districts  judgmentally, we cannot generalize the findings about the actions officials  took to address diversity to all school districts and schools nationwide.
section_title: Review of Federal Actions to Address School Diversity
paragraphs: To assess the actions taken by the Departments of Education and Justice  to address issues related to racial discrimination in schools, we  interviewed agency officials and reviewed relevant federal laws,  regulations, and agency documents. With both agencies, we interviewed  officials about each agency’s responsibilities with respect to federal civil  rights laws and regulations, as well as the actions the agencies took to  enforce them. With Education officials, we discussed the agency’s  investigations, guidance, and data collection, and we reviewed agency  procedures, selected documents from recently concluded investigations,  and guidance documents. With Justice officials, we discussed the  agency’s litigation activities, investigations, and guidance and reviewed  agency procedures and guidance documents, as well as certain  documents from selected court cases, including selected desegregation  orders. We assessed agencies’ actions using guidance on internal  controls in the federal government related to oversight and monitoring as  well as agency guidance and strategic plans.
We also interviewed representatives of civil rights organizations and  academic experts to discuss issues related to racial and socioeconomic  diversity in public schools, including actions taken by school districts to  increase diversity and federal actions to enforce federal civil rights laws  with respect to race in public schools.
section_title: Research on Student Outcomes
paragraphs: We identified studies about the effect that the racial and socioeconomic  composition of K-12 public schools has on various student outcomes,  using specific terms to search several bibliographic databases. From  these searches, we used studies published between 2004 and 2014 on  U.S. students, as these studies are more reflective of current students  and their outcomes. We looked at studies concerned primarily with the  effect of socioeconomic composition of schools, or racial composition of  schools, or both factors together. The studies selected were based on  nationally representative samples of students that allowed us to examine  the socioeconomic or racial composition of the schools, and the studies  analyzed the effect these school-level characteristics had on student  academic outcomes, such as test scores, grade point average, high  school graduation or dropout rates, and/or college enrollment using  research methodologies that controlled for potentially confounding  factors. We excluded from consideration some studies based on factors  including outdated data, limited scope, or research methods that failed to  control for multiple factors when assessing outcomes. Although the  findings of the studies we identified are not representative of the findings  of all studies looking at whether a school’s racial or socioeconomic  composition affects student outcomes, they provide examples of  published and peer-reviewed research that used strong research designs  to assess these effects. See appendix III for the list of studies we  reviewed.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2014 through April  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Additional Analyses of Schools with Different Levels of Poverty and Black or Hispanic Students and Their Students, Using Common Core of Data and the Civil Rights Data Collection
paragraphs: This appendix contains the results of our additional analyses to examine  trends and disparities among schools with different levels of poverty  among students and Black or Hispanic students. For these analyses, we  used school- and student-level data from both the Common Core of Data  (CCD) for selected school years from 2000-01 to 2013-14 and the Civil  Rights Data Collection (Civil Rights Data) for school year 2011-12. This  information is presented as a supplement to the findings presented in this  report; however, we noted in the report when the information in these  tables helped inform our findings.
subsections: section_title: Additional Analyses of Schools and Students Using CCD
paragraphs: These tables present the results of our additional analyses that used  school- and student-level data from the Common Core of Data for  students attending K-12 public schools. The tables include data on  schools by different poverty levels and different concentrations of Black or  Hispanic students, and data on students who attend these schools. For  both schools and students, we present additional data by school type  (traditional, charter, and magnet schools) and by region of country.
section_title: Additional Analyses of Schools and Students Using the Civil Rights Data Collection
paragraphs: These tables present the results of our additional analyses that used  school- and student-level data from the Civil Rights Data Collection. The  tables provide data on academic courses and programs offered, including  advanced math and science courses and Advanced Placement and  Gifted and Talented Education Programs. We also present school- and  student-level data on retention and disciplinary incidents, including out-of- school suspensions, expulsions, reports of bullying, and school-related  arrests, as well as data on special populations, such as English Learners  and students with disabilities. We also present data on teaching-related  variables, including teacher experience, certification and licensing, and  absences. We present these data by different levels of poverty, Black or  Hispanic students, and school type (traditional, charter, and magnet  schools).
section_title: Appendix III: List of Studies on Student Outcomes We Reviewed
paragraphs: The following studies examined the effects of poverty and/or racial  composition of schools on student outcomes:  Aikens, Nikki L. and Oscar Barbarin. “Socioeconomic Differences in  Reading Trajectories: The Contribution of Family, Neighborhood, and  School Contexts.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 100, no. 2  (2008): 235-251.
Berends, Mark and Roberto Peñaloza. “Increasing Racial Isolation and  Test Score Gaps in Mathematics: A 30-Year Perspective.” Teachers  College Record, vol. 112, no. 4 (2010): 978-1007.
Borman, Geoffrey D. and Maritza Dowling. “Schools and Inequality: A  Multilevel Analysis of Coleman’s Equality of Educational Opportunity  Data.” Teachers College Record, vol. 112, no. 5 (2010): 1201-1246.
Condron, Dennis J. “Social Class, School and Non-School Environments,  and Black/White Inequalities in Children’s Learning.” American  Sociological Review, vol. 74, no. 5 (2009): 683-708.
Crosnoe, Robert. “Low-Income Students and the Socioeconomic  Composition of Public High Schools.” American Sociological Review, vol.  74, no. 5 (2009): 709-730.
Goldsmith, Pat Rubio. “Schools or Neighborhoods or Both? Race and  Ethnic Segregation and Educational Attainment.” Social Forces, vol. 87,  no. 4 (2009): 1913-1941.
Harris, Douglas N. “Lost Learning, Forgotten Promises: A National  Analysis of School Racial Segregation, Student Achievement, and  ‘Controlled Choice’ Plans.” Center for American Progress. Washington,  D.C; 2006.
Logan, John R., Elisabeta Minca, and Sinem Adar. “The Geography of  Inequality: Why Separate Means Unequal in American Public Schools.”  Sociology of Education, vol. 85, no. 3 (2012): 287-301.
McCall, Martha S., Carl Hauser, John Cronin, G. Gage Kingsbury, and  Ronald Houser. “Achievement Gaps: An Examination of Differences in  Student Achievement and Growth.” Northwest Evaluation Association.  Portland, OR; 2006.
Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin, Martha Cecilia Bottia, Richard Lambert. “Effects  of School Racial Composition on K–12 Mathematics Outcomes: A  Metaregression Analysis.” Review of Educational Research, vol. 83, no. 1  (2013): 121-158.
Owens, Ann. “Neighborhoods and Schools as Competing and Reinforcing  Contexts for Educational Attainment.” Sociology of Education, vol. 83, no.  4 (2010): 287-311.
Palardy, Gregory J. “High School Socioeconomic Segregation and  Student Attainment.” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 50, no.  4 (2013): 714-754.
Palardy, Gregory J. “Differential School Effects Among Low, Middle, and  High Social Class Composition Schools: A Multiple Group, Multilevel  Latent Growth Curve Analysis.” School Effectiveness and School  Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice,  vol. 19, no. 1 (2008): 21-49.
Riegle-Crumb, Catherine and Eric Grodsky. “Racial-Ethnic Differences at  the Intersection of Math Course-Taking and Achievement.” Sociology of  Education, vol. 83, no. 3 (2010): 248-270.
Rumberger, Russell W., “Parsing the Data on Student Achievement in  High-Poverty Schools.” North Carolina Law Review, vol. 85 (2007): 1293- 1314.
Rumberger, Russell W. and Gregory J. Palardy. “Does Segregation Still  Matter? The Impact of Student Composition on Academic Achievement in  High School.” Teachers College Record, vol. 107, no. 9 (2005): 1999- 2045.
Ryabov, Igor. “Adolescent Academic Outcomes in School Context:  Network Effects Reexamined.” Journal of Adolescence, vol. 34 (2011):  915-927.
Ryabov, Igor and Jennifer Van Hook. “School Segregation and Academic  Achievement Among Hispanic Children.” Social Science Research, vol.  36 (2007): 767-788.  van Ewijk, Reyn and Peter Sleegers. “Peer Ethnicity and Achievement: A  Meta-Analysis Into the Compositional Effect.” Tier Working Paper Series  (2010).
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant  Director), Linda Siegel (Analyst-in-Charge), Rachel Beers, Lisa Brown,  Grace Cho, Sarah Cornetto, Camille Henley, John Mingus, Anna Maria  Ortiz, and David Reed made key contributions to this report. Also  contributing to this report were Deborah Bland, Holly Dye, Farrah  Graham, Kirsten Lauber, Mimi Nguyen, and Cady Panetta.