K-12 Education: Better Use of Information Could Help Agencies Identify Disparities and Address Racial Discrimination
Released: 2016-05-17T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Federal Civil Rights Laws, School Desegregation Litigation, and the Federal Role

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.

Racial and Socioeconomic Demographics of Schools

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.

Research on Student Outcomes

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.

The Percentage of High-Poverty Schools with Mostly Black or Hispanic Students Increased over Time, and Such Schools Tend to Have Fewer Resources

High-Poverty Schools with Mostly Black or Hispanic Students Represent 16 Percent of All K-12 Public Schools

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).

High-Poverty Schools with Mostly Black or Hispanic Students Generally Have Fewer Resources and More Disciplinary Actions Than Other Schools

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.

Academic and College Preparatory Courses

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.

To Address Racial Imbalances and Demographic Shifts, Selected Districts Reported Taking Various Actions to Increase Diversity of Schools

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.

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

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.

Analyses of Civil Rights Data by School Groupings Could Help Education Discern Further Disparities

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.

Justice Addresses Discrimination by Conducting Investigations, Issuing Guidance, and Taking Legal Action

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.

Justice Does Not Systematically Track Key Data to Inform Actions on Open Desegregation Cases

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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.

Analysis of Federal Datasets

Population Focus and Definitions

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.

Analysis of the Common Core of Data

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.

Analysis of the Civil Rights Data Collection

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.

School District Site Visits

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.

Review of Federal Actions to Address School Diversity

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.

Research on Student Outcomes

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.

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

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.

Additional Analyses of Schools and Students Using CCD

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.

Additional Analyses of Schools and Students Using the Civil Rights Data Collection

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).

Appendix III: List of Studies on Student Outcomes We Reviewed

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).

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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.