Knowing that school districts do not operate in isolation, it becomes important to situate districts as institutional actors within the larger social, political, and economic context in which they exist to best understand how an equity-based reform like school integration can be initiated, implemented and sustained. The conceptual framework developed for this research allows for a nuanced examination of the context in which urban district leaders in the four districts being studied influenced and continues to impact the leadership practices and structures district leaders used to design and initiate, implement, and sustain integration programs in their districts. The conceptual framework guiding this study is primarily based on Rorrer et al.'s (2008) four essential roles of districts in reform. Elements of Vang’s (2012) research on implementation of equity legislation in California are also included, as are elements of Carter (2018) and Siegel-Hawley’s (2020) research on external/hard and internal/soft structures to support the creation and sustainability of integrated schools and districts.
The data for this comparative case study was collected in two ways: a document review of publicly available information about the district’s school integration plan and semi-structured interviews with two current district leaders in each of the four identified urban school districts. I identified current district leaders whose primary responsibility is supporting or leading the integration program in the district and, where possible, have been in the district for an extended period.
Prior to conducting interviews with district leaders, publicly available documents were reviewed to gather as much background information about the districts’ integration programs as possible using the document review protocol found in Appendix C. If the district leaders interviewed did not have a significant understanding of the historical and socioecological context for the initiation and implementation of the integration program, I conducted additional research about the district to understand the context in which the integration program began. During the document review for each district I reviewed state policies, school board policies pertaining to the districts’ integration programs, each district's strategic plan, school choice and transportation information found on each district’s website, and news media articles about the districts’ integration programs.
Demographic information about documents was collected and noted on the document review form and included descriptors such as title, author, date produced, document source, and as feasible, audience, purpose, context, and related documents. Tracking this demographic information for the documents reviewed allowed me to later analyze the documents in relation to one another, as well as ensure that there was not an overrepresentation of any one demographic feature of the documents (Gross, 2018). Direct and inferred patterns in district leadership practices and organizational structures during the initiation of the integration program, initial implementation of the program, and sustained implementation of the program were identified and noted using the document review protocol (Bretschneider et al., 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). More specifically and in alignment with the conceptual framework driving this study, documents were reviewed to determine how district leaders establish policy coherence, manage operations and logistics, generate will among stakeholders, and provide instructional leadership.
The information learned from the document review was then used to support, supplement, and/or follow up on interview questions. The semi-structured interviews helped to build a more complete understanding of the leadership practices and organizational structures district leaders used to initiate, implement, and sustain their integration programs in the context of their district. Open-ended questions were created and asked to provide current district leaders the opportunity to explain the rationale behind their leadership practices and decision-making given the context of their specific school district, as this is information the document review was not always able to provide (Hatch, 2002). As with the document review, patterns and themes in district leadership practices and organizational structures were identified through inductive and deductive coding. Interview responses were also used to confirm and contrast patterns and themes in district leadership practices and organizational structures identified during the document review.
As part of the interview process, several district leaders also pointed me to and in some cases shared additional internal documents relevant to the examination of the leadership practices and organizational structures used to initiate, implement, and sustain their integration programs. These documents were also examined to identify patterns and themes in district leadership practices and organizational structures using a document review protocol.
Data from both the document review and district leader interviews was analyzed and coded in alignment with the code book. The codes used to analyze data reference the four essential practices of district leaders detailed in the conceptual framework: establishing policy coherence, managing operations and logistics, generating will among stakeholders, and providing instructional leadership.
One theme that has emerged from the findings of this study is that the history, and more specifically, the origin of the integration programs seems to have a systemic impact on both the evolution of the program over time and the integration programs in their current forms.
A second theme that emerged from the findings is that in all districts studied, district leaders mediated federal policy and programs, for example the MSAP grant guidelines, as well as state and local policies, procedures, and systems to further the integration programs in their districts. As another example, of establishing policy coherence focuses on aligning cross-sector policies, specifically housing, transportation, and education policies supported the ability of districts to sustain their integration programs.
A third theme is that In the absence of specific school integration policy goals, managing operations and logistics around school choice is the primary tool district leaders have used to sustain integration programs in these districts, whether this be through school planning or lottery mechanisms, structures, and processes.
A fourth theme that emerged is that leaders indicated that getting students integrated into a school is only one step and once students are in integrated schools, one of their responsibilities as district leaders is to ensure that students both feel welcomed and have strong educational opportunities.
Johnson and Nazaryan (2019) stated “the how of school reform matters as much as or more than the what. In other words, beyond identifying which policies work on their own…one must thoroughly investigate the inner workings of how the policy was implemented, and determine why it did or did not work” (p. 139). It has been established that socioeconomic integration of schools benefits all students academically and socially and this study examined how district leaders in four districts across the US have sustained school integration programs in their varying local contexts and more specifically, the leadership practices and organizational structures they have used to sustain their unique programs. Hypotheses about why integration programs have evolved over time into the current iteration in each district were also discussed, as were recommendations that other district leaders, education leadership programs, and other researchers might take from this study. Understanding the what, how, and why of these four integration programs is crucial to advancing equity through school integration. Equally important is the courageous leadership of district leaders with the determination and dedication to developing sustainable integration solutions and policy to support equitable and excellent academic and social outcomes for all students.
AASA | American Association of School Administrators. (n.d.). Retrieved December 31, 2022, from https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=740
Anstreicher, G., Fletcher, J., & Thompson, O. (2022). The long run impacts of court-ordered desegregation. http://www.nber.org/papers/w29926
Austermuhle, M. (2019, November 19). DCPS will give at-risk students a leg up in admissions lottery for new school [News]. WAMU. https://wamu.org/story/19/11/19/dcps-will-give-at-risk-students-a-leg-up-in-admissions-lottery-for-new-school/
Ayscue, J. B., Barriga, D., & Uzzell, E. M. (2023). Resegregation will not happen on our watch: The political and social context surrounding voluntary integration in Wake County Public School System. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7464
Ayscue, J. B., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2019). Magnets and school turnarounds: Revisiting policies for promoting equitable, diverse schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(70–72), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4248
Basile, M. (2012). The cost-effectiveness of socioeconomic school integration. In The Future of School Integration (p. 25). The Century Foundation Press.
Bierbaum, A. H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2021). School desegregation, school re-zoning, and growth management in two Maryland counties. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(August-December), 165. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6111
Bifulco, R., Cobb, C. D., & Bell, C. (2009). Can interdistrict choice boost student achievement? The case of Connecticut’s interdistrict magnet school program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709340917
Bishop, J. P., & Noguera, P. A. (2019). The ecology of educational equity: Implications for policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(2), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2019.1598108
Bloch Rubin, R., & Elinson, G. (2018). Anatomy of judicial backlash: Southern leaders, massive resistance, and the Supreme Court, 1954–1958. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(3), 944–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12316
Bretschneider, P. J., Cirilli, S., Jones, T., Lynch, S., & Wilson, N. A. (2017). Document review as a qualitative research data collection method for teacher research. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957435
Bridges, K., Plancher, A. K., & Toledo, S. D. (2019). Good Governance and the Influence of the Superintendent. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 16(2), 35–42. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson).
Brown, E. (2017, March 29). Trump’s education department nixes Obama-era grant program for school diversity. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/03/29/trumps-education-department-nixes-obama-era-grant-program-for-school-diversity/
Brown, E., & Strauss, V. (2018, March 10). It was hailed as the national model for school reform. Then the scandals hit. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-school-scandals-tell-me-that-its-not-great-and-that-youre-dealing-with-it/2018/03/10/b73d9cf0-1d9e-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html
Cambridge Public Schools. (2013). Controlled choice plan (p. 51). Cambridge Public Schools. https://cdn5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3042785/File/Migration/ControlledChoice.pdf
Cardona, M. A., & Rodríguez, R. J. (2023). The state of school diversity in the United States (p. 16). US Department of Education.
Carter, P. L. (2018). The multidimensional problems of educational inequality require multidimensional solutions. Educational Studies, 54(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1409225
Coffin, C. (2018). Landscape of diversity in D.C. Public Schools (3; Changing Schools in a Growing City, p. 58). D.C. Policy Center. https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Landscape-of-diversity_final.pdf
Coffin, C. (2019, February 6). Racial and ethnic diversity over time in D.C.’s schools. D.C. Policy Center. https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/racial-and-ethnic-diversity-over-time-in-d-c-s-schools/
Coffin, C., & Mason, H. (2024, January 31). The first year of Equitable Access: An examination of common lottery outcomes for at-risk students - D.C. Policy Center. https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/first-year-of-equitable-access-dc/
Cross, J. R., Frazier, A. D., Kim, M., & Cross, T. L. (2018). A comparison of perceptions of barriers to academic success among high-ability students from high- and low-Income groups: Exposing poverty of a different kind. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738050
Dallas Independent School District. (2022a). Magnets and special programs. https://www.dallasisd.org/magnets
Dallas Independent School District. (2022b). Transformation and innovation schools. https://www.dallasisd.org/Page/57250
Dalton, E. L., & Carmichael, B. E. (1964). Peaceful Desegregation in Chattanooga. The Phi Delta Kappan, 45(8), 388–392.
Davies, G. (2007). Richard Nixon and the desegregation of southern schools. Journal of Policy History, 19(4), 367–394. https://doi.org/10.1353/jph.2008.0003
DC Council. (2021, July 15). D.C. law library—§ 38–2901. Definitions. Code of the District of Columbia. https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/38-2901.html
DC Public Schools. (2019). Family and community guide to the DC Public Schools budget. DC Public Schools.
DCPS Equitable Access Designated Seats | dcps. (2022, November). https://dcps.dc.gov/page/dcps-equitable-access-designated-seats
DCPS Equitable Access Program for SY24-25 | dcps. (2023, December). https://dcps.dc.gov/page/dcps-equitable-access-program-sy24-25
Debray, E., & Frankenberg, E. (Eds.). (2011). Federal legislation to promote metropolitan approaches to educational and housing opportunity. In Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation. University of North Carolina Press.
DeLuca, S., & Dayton, E. (2009). Switching social contexts: The effects of housing mobility and school choice programs on youth outcomes. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 457–491. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120032
Diem, S., Cleary, C., Ali, N., & Frankenberg, E. (2014). The politics of maintaining diversity policies in demographically changing urban-suburban school districts. American Journal of Education, 120(3), 351–389. https://doi.org/10.1086/675532
Diem, S., & Pinto, R. (2017). Promoting racial and socioeconomic integration in public schools (Equity by Design). Midwest & Plains Equity Assistance Center (MAP EAC). http://glec.education.iupui.edu/Images/Briefs/diem_socioeconomic.pdf
Domina, T., Carlson, D., Carter, J., Lenard, M., McEachin, A., & Perera, R. (2021). The kids on the bus: The academic consequences of diversity‐driven school reassignments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(4), 1197–1229. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22326
Felton, E. (2019, April 17). School district secession gathers speed in several states. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/school-district-secessions-gather-speed-a-new-report-shows/
Foner, E., & Kennedy, R. (2004). Brown at 50. Nation, 278(17), 15–17.
Ford, D. Y., Wright, B. L., & Trotman Scott, M. (2020). A matter of equity: Desegregating and integrating gifted and talented education for under-represented students of color. Multicultural Perspectives, 22(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2020.1728275
Fractured: The accelerating breakdown of America’s school districts. (2019). EdBuild. https://edbuild.org/content/fractured/fractured-full-report.pdf
Frankenberg, E. (2017). Assessing segregation under a new generation of controlled choice policies. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 219S-250S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216634462
Frankenberg, E., Diem, S., & Cleary, C. (2017). School desegregation after Parents Involved: The complications of pursuing diversity in a high‐stakes accountability era. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(2), 160–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12309
Freidus, A., & Noguera, P. A. (2017). Making difference matter: Teaching and learning in desegregated classrooms. The Teacher Educator, 52(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017.1294925
Frey, B. B. (2018). The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139
Goodrick, D. (2020). Comparative case studies. In SAGE Research Methods Foundations. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036849021
Graham, K. (2021, October 6). Philly’s magnet school admissions are being overhauled—In the name of equity. The Philadelphia Inquirer. https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia-district-magnet-schools-criteria-admissions-changes-20211006.html&outputType=app-web-view
Gross, J. (2018). Document Analysis. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. Teachers College Press.
Hartney, M. T., & Hayes, S. D. (2021). Off-cycle and out of sync: How election timing influences political representation. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 21(4), 335–354. Academic Search Complete.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press.
Hellawell, D. (2006). Inside–out: Analysis of the insider–outsider concept as a heuristic device to develop reflexivity in students doing qualitative research. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874292
Hilbert, J. (2018). School desegregation 2.0: What is required to finally integrate America’s public schools. Northwestern Journal of Human Rights, 16(1), 92–130.
Horowitz, J. M. (2019, May 8). Americans see advantages and challenges in country’s growing racial and ethnic diversity. Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/05/08/americans-see-advantages-and-challenges-in-countrys-growing-racial-and-ethnic-diversity/
Houck, E. (2011). Resource allocation post-Parents Involved. In Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation (In E. Frankenberg & E. Debray (Eds.),). The University of North Carolina Press.
Huntington-Klein, N., & Ackert, E. (2018). The long road to equality: A meta-regression analysis of changes in the black test score gap over time. Social Science Quarterly, 99(3), 16.
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. 12.
Jellison Holme, J., Diem, S., & Cumings Mansfield, K. (2011). Regional coalitions and educational policy: Lessons from the Nebraska learning community agreement. In E. Frankenberg & E. Debray (Eds.), Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation. The University of North Carolina Press.
Johnson, R. C., & Nazaryan, A. (2019). Children of the dream: Why school integration works (First edition). Basic Books.
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2012). Introduction: Socioeconomic school integration. In The Future of School Integration. The Century Foundation Press.
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2013, February 7). Why Is Obama’s Agriculture Department Standing in the Way of School Integration? The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/why-is-obamas-agriculture-department-standing-in-the-way-of-school-integration/
Kahlenberg, R. D., Potter, H., & Quick, K. (2019). A bold agenda for school integration (p. 19). The Century Foundation. https://production-tcf.imgix.net/app/uploads/2019/04/05130945/School_Integreationfinalpdf.pdf
King, M. L. (1991). A testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (J. M. Washington, Ed.). HarperCollins.
Labaree, D. (2010). Someone has to fail: The zero-sum game of public schooling. Harvard University Press.
LB1067 - Change Provisions Relating to Learning Communities and Funding for Education, LB1067, Nebraska Legislature 104, 2nd Session (2016). https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_actions.php?DocumentID=28839 https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=28839
Learned-Miller, C. (2016, October 14). Dallas Independent School District: Integration as innovation. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/dallas-independent-school-district/
Linney, J. A., & Seidman, E. (1978). Court-ordered desegregation- shuffling the deck or playing a different game (p. 19). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED171860
Loh, T. H., Coes, C., & Buthe, B. (2020). The great real estate reset. Separate and Unequal, 10.
Mancini, M. (2021, December 19). Philly school district will keep new magnet school admissions policy despite concerns. Philly Voice. https://www.phillyvoice.com/philadelphia-school-district-magnet-lottery-policy-special-admissions/
Mantil, A., Perkins, A., & Aberger, S. (2012). The challenge of high-poverty schools: How feasible is socioeconomic integration? In The future of school integration: Socioeconomic diversity as an education reform strategy (In Kahlenberg, R. D. (Ed.), pp. 155–222). The Century Foundation Press.
Marzano, R., Zaffron, S., & Zraik, L. (1995). A new paradigm for educational change. Education, 116(Winter 95), 162–173.
McKim, C. (2023). Meaningful Member-Checking: A Structured Approach to Member- Checking.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley and Sons.
Mickelson, R. A. (2016). School integration and K-12 outcomes: An updated quick synthesis of the social science evidence: Vol. Research Brief No. 5. Updated. National Coalition on School Diversity. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED571629
Mickelson, R. A., & Nkomo, M. (2012). Integrated schooling, life course outcomes, and social cohesion in multiethnic democratic societies. Review of Research in Education, 36(1), 197–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X11422667
Mucerino, A. J. (2023). Caught in the crosshairs. School Administrator, 80(10), 33–37. Education Research Complete.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Public School Revenue Sources. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cma.
Orfield, G. (2014). Tenth annual Brown Lecture in Education Research: A new civil rights agenda for American education. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14547874
Orfield, G., Ee, J., Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2016). “Brown” at 62: School segregation by race, poverty and state. Civil Rights Project / Proyecto Derechos Civiles. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565900
Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2010). Integrated schools: Finding a new path. Part of a Special Issue: Closing Opportunity Gaps, 68(3), 22–27.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. 47.
Papillion La Vista Community Schools. (n.d.). Learning Community Overview. Retrieved July 13, 2022, from https://www.plcschools.org/Page/2015
Pitre, P. E. (2009). Parents involved in community schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: Policy implications in an era of change. Education and Urban Society, 41(5), 544–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124509333785
Politics & voting. (2024, May 4). Best Places. https://www.bestplaces.net/voting
Potter, H., & Burris, M. (2020, December 2). Here Is what school integration in America looks like today. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/school-integration-america-looks-like-today/
Reardon, S. F., Yun, J. T., & Kurlaender, M. (2006). Implications of income-based school assignment policies for racial school segregation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028001049
Regional School Choice Office. (2021). Family guide to school choice in the greater Hartford region. Connecticut State Department of Education. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/School-Choice/RSCO/RSCOFamilyGuide.pdf
Richardson, J. (1996). Judge to end court monitoring of San Diego desegregation...: Education Week. Education Week, 15(16), 14.
Richmond Public Schools. (n.d.). School applications. Retrieved July 13, 2022, from https://www.rvaschools.net/students-families/enroll/school-applications
Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08318962
Rosiek, J. (2019). School segregation: A realist’s view. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(5), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719827536
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America (first). Liveright Publishing Corporation.
San Diego Unified School District. (2024). Magnet Programs. Magnet Programs. https://sandiegounified.org/departments/magnet_programs
Schwartz, H. (2010). Economically integrative housing promotes academic success in Montgomery County, Maryland (p. 57). The Century Foundation.
Shoenfeld, S. (2019, April 23). Mapping segregation in D.C. D.C. Policy Center. https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/mapping-segregation-fha/
Siegel-Hawley, G. (2011). Is class working? Socioeconomic student assignment plans in Wake County, North Carolina and Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation (In E. Frankenberg&E. Debray (Eds.),). University of North Carolina Press.
Siegel-Hawley, G. (2014). Race, choice and Richmond Public Schools: New possibilities and ongoing challenges for diversity in urban districts. The Urban Review, 46(4), 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0277-6
Siegel-Hawley, G. (2016). When the fences come down: Twenty-first-century lessons from metropolitan school desegregation. The University of North Carolina Press.
Siegel-Hawley, G. (2020). A single garment: Creating intentionally diverse schools that benefit all children. Harvard Education Press.
Siegel-Hawley, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2016). Review of “The integration anomaly: Comparing the effect of K-12 education delivery models on segregation in schools.” In National Education Policy Center. National Education Policy Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED583021
Siegel-Hawley, G., Frankenberg, E., & Ayscue, J. (2017). Can socioeconomic diversity plans produce racial diversity in K-12 schools? Research Brief No. 12. In National Coalition on School Diversity. National Coalition on School Diversity. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED603710
Sohoni, D., & Saporito, S. (2009). Mapping school segregation: Using GIS to explore racial segregation between schools and their corresponding attendance areas. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 569–600. ERIC.
Stanford University. (2022, May 16). New “Segregation Index” shows American schools remain highly segregated by race, ethnicity and economic status. Stanford Graduate School of Education. https://ed.stanford.edu/news/new-segregation-index-shows-american-schools-remain-highly-segregated-race-ethnicity-and
Swanson, E. (2017). Can we have it all? A review of the impacts of school choice on racial integration. Journal of School Choice, 11(4), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1395644
Tegeler, P. (2011). Finding common ground: Coordinating housing and education policy to promote integration. In Poverty & Race Research Action Council (NJ1). Poverty & Race Research Action Council. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED538400
Title I - Improving the Academic achievement of the disadvantaged. (2005, December 19). [Laws]. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html
Toch, T. (2020, March 31). Disrupted. Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/disrupted-public-education-reform-nations-capital-washington-d-c/
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts. (2024, May 4). Quickfacts.
US Department of Education. (2023, October 19). Biden-Harris administration awards $14 million under first-ever fostering diverse schools demonstration grant program. Deparment of Education Office of Discretionary Grants. https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-discretionary-grants-support-services/school-choice-improvement-programs/fostering-diverse-schools-program-fdsp/
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Public school choice programs (NCES 2018-070; Digest of Education Statistics, 2018). US Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=6
Vang, M. (2012). Forty acres and a mule: A critical audit of California’s Williams legislation implementation and the implications for educational leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 22(5), 1024–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461202200508
Villegas, M. (2003). Leading in difficult times: Are urban school boards up to the task? Policy Trends. (WestEd) [Reports - Descriptive]. WestEd; ERIC. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED478513&site=ehost-live
Wells, A. S., Duran, J., & White, T. (2011). Southern graduates of school desegregation: A double consciousness of resegregation yet hope. In Integrating schools in a changing society: New policies and legal options for a multiracial generation (In E. Frankenberg&E. Debray (Eds.),). University of North Carolina Press.
Whitaker, M. (2022). Public school equity: Educational leadership for justice. W. W. Norton & Company.
Williams, S. (2012). The politics of maintaining balanced schools: An examination of three districts. In The future of school integration: Socioeconomic diversity as an education reform strategy (In Kahlenberg, R. D. (Ed.),). The Century Foundation Press.
Other presentations in this group:
Back
Trips and Tours