August 2002AcknowledgementsIntroductionResearch QuestionsAdditionally, this study looks specifically at districts that have, at various times, been under court-mandated desegregation plans. We examine districts in each of several categories pertaining to designs of desegregation plans: busing within city, magnFindingsThe racial trend in the school districts studied is substantial and clear: virtually all school districts analyzed are showing lower levels of inter-racial exposure since 1986, suggesting a trend towards resegregation, and in some districts, these declinPART ONEDistrict ResegregationRapidly Resegregating DistrictsTable 1—Most Rapidly Resegregating Districts, BlaDistrictsChangeTable 4—Districts with Largest Declines in White Districts with Stable Racial Exposure (Least Rapid Resegregation)Table 5—Districts with the Least Resegregation, BTable 6—Districts with the Least Resegregation, LWhite Exposure to Blacks, 1986-2000ChangeChangeTable 9--Exposure of Blacks to Whites in Districts with Various Desegregation PlansDistrictBusing within cityAll/Part Plan DismissedLos Angeles, CADallas, TXNorfolk, VAOklahoma City, OKAustin, TXWashington, D.C.Magnet PlansKansas City, KSMilwaukee, WICincinnati, OHPhiladelphia, PAChicago, ILBusing, Magnet, Voluntary SuburbanSt. Louis, MONo PlanNew York, NYAtlanta, GABaltimore, MDDeKalb County, GACity-SuburbanIndianapolis, INBroward County, FLHillsborough County, FLClark County, FLNashville, TNDuval County, FLCourt Rejected City-SuburbanSchool District Segregation Indices by Race, 2000-01White IsolationTable 13—Districts with Highest White Exposure to(Highest % Latino in school of avg. white)Black IsolationTable 15—Districts with Highest Black Exposure toLatino IsolationLatinos have the lowest exposure to whites in school districts in the West and in Texas, which is not surprising given the large percentage of Latino students in these areas. There are also several northern districts in which Latinos are isolated from wMany of the same districts in which Latinos are exposed to the highest percentage of white students are also districts where blacks experienced high levels of integration with whites. Table 17 shows that there are more Southern districts with higher levTable 16—Districts with Lowest Latino Exposure to(Lowest % white in school of avg. Latino)Table 17—Districts with Highest Latino Exposure t(Highest % white in school of avg. Latino)ConclusionRACE IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: RAPIDLY RESEGREGATING SCHOOL DISTRICTS ERICA FRANKENBERG AND CHUNGMEI LEE AUGUST 2002 THE CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT HARVARD UNIVERSITY 124 Mt. Auburn Street Suite 400 South Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Tel: (617) 496-6367 Fax: (617) 495-5210 E-mail: [email protected] www.law.harvard.edu/civilrightsACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to express our sincere thanks to everyone who has supported us in our research on this project, particularly the members of The Civil Rights Project. Special thanks to those who have given us invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this report. They include Gary Orfield, Cathy Horn, Michal Kurlaender, Patricia Marin, and John Yun. 1INTRODUCTION In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing state-mandated separate schools for black and white students.1 Since that decision, hundreds of American school districts, if not more, have attempted to implement desegregation plans. In the early years of desegregation most of these plans focused on the South and resulted in the most integrated schools being located in the South by the early 1970s.2 From the late 1960s on, some districts in all parts of the country began implementing such plans although the courts made it much more difficult to win desegregation orders outside the South and the 1974 Supreme Court decision against city-suburban desegregation made real desegregation impossible in a growing number of overwhelming minority central cities.3 We are now almost 50 years from the initial Supreme Court ruling banning segregation and more than a decade into a period in which the U.S. Supreme Court has authorized termination of desegregation orders. These plans are being dissolved by court orders even in some communities that want to maintain them;4 in addition, some federal courts are forbidding even voluntary desegregation plans.5 Given this context, it is crucial to continue to mark the progress of these policies and examine how their presence or absence affects the schooling experience for all students. Nationally, segregation for blacks has declined substantially since the pre-Brown era and reached its lowest point in the late 1980s. For Latinos, the story has been one of steadily rising segregation since the 1960s and no significant desegregation efforts outside of a handful of large districts. These changes in segregation patterns are happening in the context of an increasingly diverse public school enrollment. In particular, the 2000 Census shows an extraordinary growth of Latino population in the past decade.6 This change in overall population is reflected in the school population as well. High birth rates, low levels of private school enrollment and increased immigration of Latinos have resulted in a rise of Latino public school enrollment, which is now more than 7 million. Nationwide, the Latino share of public school enrollment has almost tripled since 1968, compared to an increase of just 30% in black enrollment and a decrease of 17% in white enrollment during the same time period. A smaller percent of students attend private schools than a half-century ago and white private school enrollment is lowest in the South and West where whites are in school with higher proportions of minority students.7 Yet, little attention has been 1 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). In this decision, the Court declared that separate but equal in public education was “inherently” unequal, and that segregated schools for black and white student must be eliminated. 2 Gary Orfield, Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation, (Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, July 2001). 3 Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974). 4 For example, see Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 269 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 1538 (2002), People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education School District No.