An interdisciplinary qualitative project funded by the Joyce Foundation
and conducted by the Institute on Race & Poverty at the University of Minnesota Law School. Published during May 2000

INTRODUCTION

The Educational Integration Initiatives Project (EIIP) is a multi-disciplinary study conducted by the Institute on Race & Poverty and funded by the Joyce Foundation, designed to capture the experiences of students in their educational environments, whether segregated, desegregated, or integrated. The object of the study is to enhance public understanding of students' perceptions of issues of race, education, and achievement, during an era of volatile national discourse on these important issues. Public opinion and policies, judicial doctrine, and decision making regarding race and education reflect an increasing ambivalence toward racial integration as a societal ideal and a decreasing emphasis on it as a strategy for achieving equality. Meanwhile, in spite of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, schools in the United States have never been fully desegregated, and are now moving toward a state of resegregation.

The EIIP seeks to inform the discussion regarding integration by focusing on those who are most impacted by it, namely students. The report captures the experiences of students and, to a lesser degree, teachers and administrators, by relating their experiences through their own words. A context for these experiences is provided through an examination of legal history, policy background, public discourse, school curricula, student placement, academic achievement, and educational attainment, but also personal development and sense of self -- both personally and in relation to the larger community.

The goal of the project is to explore whether the racial makeup, policies, and practices of the schools students attend affect their educational experiences, particularly with respect to students of color. This is accomplished through a combination of qualitative and quantitative elements. The heart of the research is interviews with students of varying backgrounds from 10 high schools in six major metropolitan areas: Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota; the San Francisco Bay area, California; and Washington D.C.

Each of these schools is viewed against a spectrum that moves from segregation to desegregation (schools with a numerical balance of racial groups) to integration (schools that are numerically balanced and that have implemented reforms designed to ensure true integration in classrooms and throughout the school). Interviews with school personnel and quantitative data on each school were examined to measure against the criteria for placement along the spectrum. Situating the schools along the spectrum provides context to student experiences and enables the EIIP to explore critical issues related to integration. At its core, this project sheds light on whether segregated, desegregated, or integrated environments affect the ability of public schools to fulfill their vital roles in our society: equality of opportunity through preparation for participation in the marketplace and society as a whole, and personal freedom through self-realization.

THE SPECTRUM:
SEGREGATION, DESEGREGATION, AND INTEGRATION

The EIIP evaluates how the qualitative experiences of students of color vary in different racial environments, and examines quantitative indicators of achievement. In doing so, the EIIP places participant schools against a continuum that runs from segregated to desegregated to truly integrated. Although these concepts do not lend themselves to precise, quantitative definition, they are defined in general and in relation to one another below.

Segregation: Still A Reality

"Segregated" schools are those with a high percentage of students of color and a high percentage of students in low-income families. The EIIP does not adopt the rigid categorization employed by other studies that any school that is less than half white is segregated, in recognition of the fact that "segregated" is a concept relative to the racial composition of the surrounding community. In some of the cities studied here, schools with minority populations around 50 percent are racially balanced relative to the population of the metropolitan area, affording students the opportunity to interact with students of diverse racial and economic backgrounds. Nevertheless, this opportunity diminishes significantly as the minority population increases above 50 percent, and few schools that are 70, 80, and 90 percent minority have substantial middle-class populations and racial and ethnic diversity.

Desegregation: A Crucial Step

"Desegregated" schools are those with racially and socio-economically balanced populations, reflective of the larger population. The EIIP takes a broader view of desegregation than that adopted by the courts concurrent and subsequent to Milliken v. Bradley, where desegregation means that schools within one school district have completed a desegregation plan. Instead, the EIIP conceives of desegregation as a balance that corresponds to the makeup of the school districts in the metropolitan area as a whole.

Milliken v. Bradley: Serious Setback for School Desegregation

Court-based remedies to school segregation today are limited in their scope by a Supreme Court decision from the 1970s, Milliken v. Bradley. In that case, the plaintiffs proved that the state of Michigan had intentionally segregated schools, and the district court responded to this by ordering a remedy that required the participation of not only the Detroit schools, but also schools in 53 surrounding districts. In this way, the metropolitan area would be desegregated. But the Supreme Court, in 1974, ordered that these broad, cross-district measures could not be implemented unless the plaintiffs proved that each of those districts outside of Detroit had intentionally segregated the schools. This requirement severely limited the implementation of metropolitan-wide desegregation efforts.

The results of the Milliken decision are that:

• Remedies ordered by the courts where intentional segregation is proved are limited;
• Levels of segregation are only measured within a municipality; and not the entire metropolitan area; and
• There is little to no recourse in the federal courts when whites cross district boundaries to separate themselves from students of color.

This decision created serious limitations for urban school districts because cities have become increasingly isolated from suburban communities by both racial segregation and concentrated poverty. Recognition and discussion of this decision and its effects must be considered in the contemporary debate on school desegregation.

Integration: The Goal

"Integrated" schools are schools that move beyond the numerical balance of desegregation to a transformation of the existing system to meet the needs of all students. Integration does not seek to assimilate students into a traditional, white-centered structure. Integrated schools are those that achieve diversity and inclusion throughout the school and its curricula, rather than those that attempt to assimilate students into a pre-existing educational environment or those that present multicultural materials as an occasional supplement to Euro-centric curricula.

How does a school avoid assimilating students and attempt to transform itself? An integrated school incorporates the historical, intellectual and cultural contributions of all ethnic groups into the daily lives of its students. This type of school daily employs teaching techniques that address the multitude of student learning styles and utilizes learning materials created by and about a host of racial and ethnic backgrounds, in order to have multicultural curricula that provide students with a well-rounded and relevant academic education. Integrated schools create an inclusive, supportive atmosphere to improve student self-esteem and motivation, and encourage positive interactions both within the school and beyond.

The goal of integrated schools goes beyond educating students in an inclusive and multicultural environment -- the desired result is to integrate the minds of students, to prepare them for a pluralist society by drawing out the diversity and relationships that have always been a part of the world.

How does the EIIP determine the presence of integration? We examined a host of characteristics, including school policies, multicultural curricula, ethnic clubs, and interracial activities and friendships are characteristics the EIIP considers in determining a school's degree of integration.

METHODOLOGY

The EIIP's approach is multidisciplinary - a composite of qualitative, on-site interviews. It is contextualized by the most recent data and information available for each school. On-site research was conducted at each school for one to two weeks. Between six and 12 interviews were conducted with individuals and small groups of students at each site, as well as with teachers and administrators. Those interviewed remain anonymous, as do the schools, which are identified with pseudonyms in the report. In its multi-site and multidisciplinary approach to obtaining increased understanding of school experience with desegregation, the EIIP considered both context and patterns. The results prove valuable to both evaluation and policy-making.

Findings

No school that participated in the EIIP was truly integrated, based on our definition. That is, none of the desegregated schools we examined was effective in:

• Providing its students with a truly multicultural education in a learning environment that was inclusive and supportive of various student learning styles,
  
• Adequately preparing students of all races both to continue on with higher education, and
  
• Providing students with background and skills to interact successfully in a multicultural society.

Nevertheless, there is no question that students attending desegregated schools enjoyed educational advantages that were unavailable to students in racially isolated schools. Students of color generally scored higher on standardized tests and were more likely to go on to college than were students of color in segregated schools. All students in these schools benefited from the opportunity broaden their educational experiences by interacting with people of other races and socioeconomic backgrounds. This fostered students' understanding of the importance of a multicultural curriculum.

Close interracial friendships among students were rare, even in the racially diverse schools, but positive interracial interactions both in and out of the classroom were not uncommon. Similarly, integrative programs, such as multicultural curricula, were often superficial or insufficiently developed at the desegregated schools.

Opportunities to learn about our diverse society in a multiracial environment and to form the relationships that will facilitate transition to integrated workplaces and neighborhoods are completely foreclosed for students in racially isolated schools.

Our findings agree with other research indicating that almost all segregated schools with large minority populations also have largely low-income student populations. Due to the demographics of our metropolitan areas, these schools are generally in urban-core school districts that are themselves impoverished. Concentrated poverty and racial isolation at both the school and district level combine to create obstacles to successful educational outcomes. Segregated minority schools must commonly deal not only with individual students facing situations that diminish their educational and life opportunities, but also with the deleterious effects of concentrated poverty. The cumulative effect of many students from impoverished families in one school creates a concentration of poverty that significantly affects the achievement of all students in that school and limits life opportunities for students.

Both teachers and students recognized the importance of familial support for and encouragement of education, with teachers in the segregated schools repeatedly citing their students' lack of familial resources as a major obstacle to their educational achievement. Parents who had limited educational opportunities and who struggle in poverty often have neither the financial, nor the personal, resources to support their children in the up-hill battle for educational equity.

Desegregated schools in the study faced fewer hurdles than segregated schools, but they still failed to provide their students with a truly integrated education and the opportunity to equitably obtain the higher goals of education. Through tracking and other disparate treatment, white students received access to more challenging classes than students of color. Students were very much aware of this disparity, and many were dissatisfied with it. A few of the schools were taking affirmative steps to ensure that advanced-level classes did not further segregate the student body. Some of the more integrated schools recruited students of color for advanced level classes or eliminated the classes altogether. In these schools, advanced classes were not abandoned. Rather, expectations for all classes were raised. This type of change reflects an attitude of confidence in and empowerment of all students, which should result in higher aspirations and greater self-confidence among the students.

One significant obstacle to true integration is that most integration programs begin at the high school level, by which time the opportunity to make lasting changes may have been lost. Research supports the logical conclusion that educational conditions, whether positive or negative, experienced early and for a longer period of time have a more significant impact than late-coming, short-lived conditions.

In virtually all of the schools studied for the EIIP, students were very much aware of race issues. Students also exhibited a remarkable interest in and understanding of the value of integration. In general, students valued diversity and were interested in multicultural curricula. None of the schools had curricula that daily, throughout the year, addressed the sensitive and complex interrelationships among cultures. Nor did most of the schools have strategies in place to help students deal with racial tensions arising among the students.

Schools that were moving toward a truly integrated system were the schools that affirmatively valued integration and were willing to invest their resources accordingly. The staff at these schools were more willing to talk about race and to adopt programs and policies to try to achieve this goal. However, even these schools encountered constraints from the larger society, such as curricula set by the district. Moreover, all schools are constrained by school districts that reflect residential segregation, and laws that preclude inter-district desegregation measures.

Recommendations

1. Link Education and Housing and Implement Region-wide Solutions

Desegregation efforts focused on schools alone will not produce lasting results - especially with the current push toward neighborhood schools. The problem is most detrimental in central cities, which are primarily composed of people of color and have high rates of poverty. EIIP schools located in areas that have proactively addressed residential segregation had distinct advantages over schools located in segregated areas. Local, state and national initiatives that combat residential segregation through fair-share housing laws, limits on urban sprawl and other regional strategies are the first important steps.

2. Address the Connection Between Race and Poverty

Minority students often live in neighborhoods segregated not only by race, but also by poverty. In such concentrated-poverty areas, students suffer the lack of opportunity structures along with their families and communities. The needs of these students cannot be met by the school systems alone. The community at large - not just disadvantaged neighborhoods, but the surrounding areas as well - must be engaged to address the crippling problems faced by inner-city schools and their students.

3. Improve Teacher Diversity and Training

The EIIP uncovered a widespread lack of understanding among teachers of the importance of an integrated education. Teacher education programs must place a priority on teaching both the value of integration and the means to create integrated schools. Additionally, teacher education programs must model integration by transforming their own programs into integrated systems. As a result, teachers will be supported with the information and understanding needed to implement integration within their schools.

4. Implement Structural, Curricular and Programmatic Changes

The first structural obstacle to equitable education that must be eliminated from schools is tracking. Such within-school segregation damages students' self-concepts and is detrimental to the academic and social education of all students. Other policy and programmatic factors, such as teaching methods and resources, extracurricular activities, class size, and community and parent involvement must more equitably address the needs of all students. Curricula must incorporate materials that represent the voices and experiences of a breadth of people. Such materials make up the curricula of an integrated system; they should not be tacked onto a traditional Eurocentric curriculum.

The full report is 120 pages long and goes into specific detail about all aspects of the Educational Integration Initiatives Project. It also includes extensive citations. If you are interested in receiving the full report, please contact Eric at (612) 624-2904. You may also E-mail your request to irp@umn.edu. The cost of each report is five dollars.