ED 128 546 DOCUMENT RESUME UD 016 473 AUTHOR Gordon
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 128 546 95 UD 016 473 AUTHOR Gordon, Edmund W.; And Others TITLE A Comparative Study of QualityIntegrated Education. Final Report. INSTITUTION Columbia Univ., New York, N.Y. Inst. for Urban and Minority Education. SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. BUREAU NO BR-3-1495 PUB DATE Jun 76 CONTRACT NE-C-00-3-0156 NOTE 691p. EDRS PRICE MF-$1.33 HC-$36.83 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Case Studies; *Comparative Analysis; Educationally Disadvantaged; *Educational Quality; Equal Education; Integration Effects; Integration Methods; *Integration Studies; Minority Groups; Negro Education; Race Relations; Racial Factors; Racial Integration; *Racial Segregation; Research Methodology; Research Problems; School Districts; *Echool Integration; Site Analysis; SiteSelection IDENTIFIERS Alabama (Birmingham); Minnesota (Minneapolis); New Jersey (Ewing); North Carolina (Durham); North Carolina (Goldsboro); South Carolina (Orangeburg) 'ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to identify and document processes that are associatedwith effective desegregation in six seaool districts enumerated below; to examine theinterrelationships of these processes; and to identifycommonalities among the six districts which could provide guidelines formodels of effective school desegregation. The major question addressedby the study is what the major status and process variablesassociated with progress toward ethnic desegregation in the publicschools ar(!. The six case study districts are: Birmingham, Durham,Ewing, Goldsboro, Minneapolis, and Orangeburg. The introduction addressesthe following topics: background and significance of the study,definitions, procedures, criteria for selecting schooldistricts, site selection, preparation for site visits, and debriefing. Asection on methodological considerations examinesmethodological problems involved in the descriptive case study approach toresearch in the area of desegregation. These aresampling, documentation analysis, and generalization--areas for whichexisting research and evaluation methods are seen as not providing answers.Summaries of the case studies for the six cities form the conclusion of thestudy. (Author/AM) unpublished materials not available from other sources. ERICmakes every Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal encountered and this affecb the effort to obtain tho best copy available.Nevertheless, items of marginal reproducibility are often reproductions ERIC makes available via the ERICDocument Reproduction Service (EDRS). quality of the microfiche and hardcopy supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from EDRS is not responsible for the qualityof the original document. Reproductions the original. FINAL REPORT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF QUALITY INTEGRATED EDUCATION S. DE PARTMCN f OF HEALTH, EDUCATIDH & WELFARE Edmund W. Gordon, Ed.D. NATIONAL aNSTITUTE OF EOUCATION Principal Investigator THIS DOCUM4 . hS BEEN REPRO. DUCED EXAC,I.Y Ai flECEIVED FROM THE PERSOPi..0 OPC ..IIZATION ORIGIN- Institute for Urban andMinority ATING IT PUHTS Of v W OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NVCESSARILY REPRE- Education SENT OF /C, AL 34AT.ONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCf"ON POSITION OR POLICY Teachers College, Columbia University New York, New York10027 Submitted: June 1976 This report is submitted in fulfillment of the contract between theNational Institute of Education and TeachersCollege, Columbia Univerrliy ( Grant Number NE-G-00-3-0156, Project 3 - 1495).Points of view or opinions expressed here do not represent the official view or opinionsof Teachers College or the National Institute of Education. 3 PROJECT STAFF Principal Investiga tar: Edmund W . Gordon, Ed .D . Field Study Personnel: Effie Bynum Oscar Cotton Brian Estrada Eileen Goldstein Edmund T. Gordon William U. Harris Edward Hattauer Adelaide Jablonsky Mary Ann Lachat Robert Phillips Bonnie Smith Joseph Williams Robert Young The project staff acknowledges the time andeffort expended by Evelyn Abramson, June Kallos and Paula Russell, withoutwhom this report could not have been com- piled. Thanks are expressed to all if- individuals inthe schools and communities who gave freely of their time anc-)aperated with the investigating teams. TA3LE OF CONTgNTS 1 II. INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIES A. Birmingham II- 1 B. Durham 11-174 C. Ewing 11-287 D. Goldsboro 11-404 E. Minneapolis 11-454 F. Orangeburg 11-561 III. SUMMARIES OF CASE STUDIES 1 A. Birmingham III- 3 B. Durham III- 6 C. Ewing III- 9 D. Goldsboro III- /II- 12 E. Minneapolis F. Orangeburg III- 15 INTRODUCTIN Purpose of the Study In the twenty years that have passedsince the 1954 Supreme Courtdecision concerning desgregation inpublic schools there has been a proliferation of researchrelated to desegregation. These many studies have tended to emphasizethe outcomes of desegregation.Fairly consistently they have dealt withacademic ach'evement as the primary fldicator of theeffectiveness of the desegregation process. Generally, this research has addressed the occurrence L:f desegregation.That is, that an administrative decision has been made and efforts to implementthose decisions have been pursued. Little of that r, search has dealt with the process variables of desegregation descriptions of thecontext in wbich these processes occur. The purpose of this study we-, toidentify and document processes that are associated with effectivedesegregation in six school districts; to e-camine the interre'ltionshipsof these processes; and to identify Lommonalities amc 'he six districts which could provide guidelines for models of e cave school desegregation. The major question addressed by thestudy was: "What are the major status and process variables associatedwith progress toward ethniC desegregation in the public schools?" Background and Significance of the Study Over tne past two decades schooldesegregation has profoundly influenced the existence and operationof numerous public schools, especially in southern and border states. School districts, in varying degrees, have grappled with theproblem since the 1954 and 1955 Supreme Court decisions which heldthat segregation of students by race in the public schools violatesthe intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that d'cl school systems shouldbe disestablished, "with all deliberaU. 3peed." These decisic/A, and subsequent ones,have affected the equilibrium of matzy 1%gments of the public,threatening and, to some extent, changil4 ".he status quo. Some school districts chose not to consent to such radicalchanges as would accompany the de- that Segregation process. They chose to stand still, believing inertia would solve their dilemma. Or when face-to-face with reality most systems reluctantly compliedand a few sought to disengage threats and their operations. Other districts, in the throes of eruptions of violence, as well as otherunsettling conditions, yielded quietly with awareness thatthey could never return to the 6 uf th.1 tut ti:a confusion cf the pre3ent wculd 'Lc short lived. Until this decade attempts at desegregation were primarily made in and z:maller dj.strict,:, in southern and border states. Ecwever, tl:e last three years effcrtt3 at desegregation 1.11.hrLn ..21:7tri::t in the sr;uth and other ncv 1;e.m anu will continue tohe more co:nplex due to such variables as nseudodemocratic (but accepted) patterns of ethnic interaction, size, historic district 1Lies, and transportation. Recalcitrance, legal rationalization and vio.Lence have often, but not exclusively, accompanied the process in the north as well as io the south. The advent of many of these changes has resulted in numerous hypotheses about school desegregation. There has been an abundance of research produced which focused on thG tc,pic. Much of the research has addressed outcome variables. Fuch as achievement. Jablonsky (1973), identified more than one hundred pieceof such research done for di_ssertations during 1965-1970. A large number of citations in her document deal with outcome variables. A much smaller number of these studies include efforts at describing what happened during the desegregation process. Weinberg (1970), in his more comprehensive review of desegregation research, also verifies the popularity of researching those characteristics of students as they emerge from exposure to and experience with the desegreation process. A review by St. John (1970), which focuses exclusively on the relationships between ethnicity and school achievement, also reflects this emphasis. This heavy emphasis on the impact of school desegregation on pupil achievement reflects a concern with the validation of the effectiveness of the process rather than a concern with the elucidation of the quality of the process. These earlier studies may have been influenced by a perceived need to justify school desegregation. As the confused nature of the effectiveness data has become more apparent; as desegregation as a solution to the problems of equalization of education,1 opportunity is increasingly questioned; and as we try to improve the quality with which the strategies of desegregation are applied; the need for understanding the process and thevarious relr -7.onships between elements of the process and differential outcon:_ has Lecome paramount. The emergence of this need to understand rather than to prove effectiveness underscores the increasing necessity that we seriously look at the situational and process variables which are a part of ethnic de- segregation of the public schools. A focus on situational variables reflects a reaognition of the significance of the environmental