U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS The Benefits of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Elementary and Secondary Education NOVEMBER 2006 BRIEFING REPORT U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20425 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Visit us on the Web: www.usccr.gov The Benefits of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Elementary and Secondary Education A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, D.C., July 28, 2006 Briefing Report U.S. Commission on Civil Rights The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957. It is directed to: • Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices. • Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice. • Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. • Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress. • Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. Members of the Commission Gerald A. Reynolds, Chairman Abigail Thernstrom, Vice Chairman Jennifer C. Braceras Peter N. Kirsanow Arlan D. Melendez Ashley L. Taylor, Jr. Michael Yaki Kenneth L. Marcus, Staff Director U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 624 Ninth Street, NW Washington, DC 20425 (202) 376-8128 voice (202) 376-8116 TTY www.usccr.gov This report is available on disk in ASCII Text and Microsoft Word 2003 for persons with visual impairments. Please call (202) 376-8110. ii Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….………1 Summary of the Proceedings………………………………………………………………...……5 Findings…………………………………………………………………….................................15 The Outcomes of School Desegregation in Public Schools David J. Armor……….......................…………..………………………………………………..18 Appendix: School Segregation and Black Achievement: New Evidence from the 2003 NAEP David J. Armor and Shanea J. Watkins…………………………………..………28 Testimony Prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Regarding the Educational Benefits of Diversity in Elementary and Secondary Education Arthur L. Coleman...…………..………………………………………….……………………...50 Exhibit A: Power Point Presentation…………………………………………………….60 Exhibit B: From Desegregation to Diversity Edwin C. Darden, Arthur L. Coleman, and Scott R. Palmer ……………………….…….……………………………………....67 The Benefits of Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Elementary and Secondary Education Michal Kurlaender ………………………………………………………………...…………….79 Demographic Perspectives on Diversity, Racial Isolation, and the Seattle School Board's Plan to “Cure” Residential “Segregation” Stephan Thernstrom ……………………………………….………………………..…………...85 Dissenting Statement of Commissioners Arlan Melendez and Michael Yaki……….………….98 Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Michael Yaki……………………………….……..….103 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………105 Speaker Biographies……………………………………………………………………………112 iii Executive Summary On July 28, 2006, a panel of experts briefed members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on the putative benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in elementary and secondary education. Four experts presented written statements to the Commissioners that assessed the social science literature on this issue. They also addressed whether or not racial and ethnic diversity in public schools should be mandated by the state and whether the net benefits of state-mandated diversity are different from the benefits that this diversity may yield when achieved through purely voluntary behavior. The experts also presented a number of studies to the Commission assessing the putative educational and social benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in elementary and secondary education. A transcript of this briefing is available on the Commission’s website, www.usccr@gov, and by request from the Publications Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street, NW, Room 600, Washington, DC 20425, (202) 376-8128, [email protected]. The Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas1 dismantled state-enforced segregation in public schools. Since then, numerous cases, including the Court’s recently decided decisions concerning the University of Michigan2 have addressed what role, if any, race should play in obtaining access to schools and colleges. This fall the Supreme Court will once again decide to what extent race can be used in determining access to public schools. Two cases pending before the United States Supreme Court, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County (Ky.) Board of Education, continue the debate regarding the constitutionality of race-conscious decision-making at public educational institutions. More specifically, these cases will consider whether local governments have a compelling interest in reducing minority racial isolation (or increasing diversity) at elementary and secondary schools and whether certain, specific race-conscious student assignment policies are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In order to determine whether the government’s interest is compelling, it is necessary to determine the nature and extent of any net educational or social benefits arising from elementary and school student racial diversity. The panel convened to discuss the nature and extent of these benefits, and whether they justified race-conscious student assignment. Members of the panel were: • David Armor, Professor in the School of Public Policy, George Mason University • Arthur Coleman, Partner at Holland & Knight, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights • Michal Kurlaender, Assistant Professor of Education, University of California at Davis • Stephan Thernstrom, Winthrop Professor of History, Harvard University, and Senior Fellow, the Manhattan Institute Dr. Armor argued that data from the National Assessment on Educational Progress indicates a very weak relationship between school racial composition and African-American student 1 347 U.S.483 (1954). 2 See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). 1 performance. Furthermore, research has indicated no clear and consistent relationship between school racial composition and college attendance, working in desegregated settings, and social outcomes such as self-esteem, race relations, and racial attitudes. Armor also argued that while school integration is valuable, race-conscious student assignment is an inappropriate means to that end. Rather, he argued, magnet schools and open enrollment plans should be used to reduce racial isolation in schools. Mr. Coleman cited research he had collected for the National School Boards Association. He argued that this research, which helped to guide schools in meeting their diversity goals, revealed three benefits associated with the mission of elementary and secondary schools. According to Mr. Coleman, racial and ethnic diversity in elementary and secondary education promotes cross- racial understanding, breaks down stereotypes, and enables students to better understand persons of a different race. Based on these benefits, Coleman argued that state and local school districts should have discretion to pursue how best to create diversity as long as they are consistent with federal legal standards. Professor Kurlaender noted the methodological weaknesses and design limitations inherent in the earlier research on the impact of school racial composition on the short-term academic achievement of African-American students. However, she argued that more recent studies point to four broad categories of benefits associated with school racial and ethnic diversity: positive but modest effects on African-American students’ average reading achievement; higher occupational aspirations and a modest increase in degree attainment for African-American students, due in part to the greater educational and financial resources of integrated schools; increased interaction with members of other racial groups later in life and greater stability of interracial friendships; and a greater desire to live and work in multiracial settings. Kurlaender also noted that school plans that permit urban students to voluntarily transfer to suburban schools have a greater impact on African-American achievement than do mandatory school assignments. Professor Thernstrom considered the extent to which law and public authority should be used to create and enforce racially-balanced schools. According to Professor Thernstrom, state- compelled diversity causes two serious harms: unconstitutional and immoral race-based student assignment and the withdrawal of white children from public schools. He pointed to several flaws in Seattle’s student assignment plan. First, the plan enforces wholly arbitrary racial composition in its school—the school’s racial composition cannot