The Relationship between Policy Design, Context, and Implementation in Integration Plans

Abstract

The decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) has forced school districts to begin thinking of new ways to integrate their schools without relying on race as the single factor in their assignment plans. While some school districts already have begun to implement race-neutral student assignments, others are just beginning the process and are looking to plans that have been able to maintain diversity despite the new limitations being placed on them. In an effort to understand factors critical in shaping racial and socioeconomic diversity in school districts given the new requisite limitations, this study examined the relationship between the design, context, and implementation of three different integration plans that rely on voluntary choice and socioeconomic status (SES). The findings suggest that geographic and political contexts matter in the shaping and adoption of integration plans based on voluntary choice and SES. Suggestions are offered to help maintain integration given the local sociopolitical context of the school districts.

Reorganizing a countywide school district: A critical analysis of politics and policy development toward decentralization

“…As critical scholars, we agree with the notion of interdependency, the importance of focusing more attention to the climate around policy and politics, and also recognizing policymakers' inability for rational decision-making, particularly in the current policy making context that has become increasingly complex and politically charged (Zohlnhöfer, Herweg, & Rüb, 2015). Indeed, one would not be able to understand how a policy proposal gets placed at the top of the agenda without examining the confluence off all three streams, the actors involved in each, and the sociopolitical context (Diem, 2012).…”

Political contestation and discourses of meaning: Revising Minnesota’s school integration revenue statute

“…Federal policies advanced by the Department of Education promise additional funds to support the creation of new magnet programs, with potentially positive impacts on integration, but have also heavily promoted the establishment of charter schools, which have been found to be more segregated than traditional public schools (Tefera et al, 2010). Diem (2012) specifically examined how many contemporary voluntary choice programs have used socioeconomic status as a proxy for race. That study found that although in certain cases a move to expand student characteristics and geographic measures used in school assignment programs can increase the nuance with which integration is considered, in other instances it serves to effectively erase the goals of interracial contact and mixing fundamental to previous desegregation policy goals (Diem, 2012).…”

“…Diem (2012) specifically examined how many contemporary voluntary choice programs have used socioeconomic status as a proxy for race. That study found that although in certain cases a move to expand student characteristics and geographic measures used in school assignment programs can increase the nuance with which integration is considered, in other instances it serves to effectively erase the goals of interracial contact and mixing fundamental to previous desegregation policy goals (Diem, 2012). Relatedly, DeBray, McDermott, Frankenberg & Blankenship (2015) identified a range of uses of federal funds designed to promote the benefits of diversity in locally specific ways; some districts implemented programs that maintained race-conscious approaches, while others shifted focus.…”

The influence of student, neighborhood, and school factors on college readiness : an examination of factors combined as a result of implementing a race- and socioeconomically-based student assignment plan.

“…School districts seeking student assignment that promotes diversity have the option of race-or socioeconomic-based student assignment (Diem, 2012;Frankenberg, 2013;Frankenberg et al, 2003;Kahlenberg, 2006Kahlenberg, , 2012Orfield, 2001;Orfield & Frankenberg, 2011;Orfield et al, 2008;Potter et al, 2016;Reardon et al, 2006;Tefera et al, 2011). Proponents of race-based assignment plans consider integrated schools beneficial to students and communities by promoting racial understanding, reducing prejudice, and properly preparing students for a diverse workforce (Orfield, 2001;Orfield et al, 2008;Orfield et al, 2012;Orfield et al, 2014;Tefera et al, 2011).…”

“…Proponents of race-based assignment plans consider integrated schools beneficial to students and communities by promoting racial understanding, reducing prejudice, and properly preparing students for a diverse workforce (Orfield, 2001;Orfield et al, 2008;Orfield et al, 2012;Orfield et al, 2014;Tefera et al, 2011). Those who support race-based plans seek an education that reaches beyond curriculum by creating a setting where students learn about cultural values along with curriculum (Diem, 2012;Diem & Frankenberg, 2013;Frankenberg, 2013;Frankenberg et al, 2003;Orfield, 2001;Orfield & Frankenberg, 2011;Orfield et al, 2008;Orfield et al, 2014;Reardon et al, 2006;Tefera et al, 2011). Specifically, race-based plans establish thresholds for school populations to create diverse student bodies and prevent schools from becoming segregated (Diem, 2012;Diem & Frankenberg, 2013;Frankenberg, 2013;Frankenberg et al, 2003;McDermott et al, 2014;Orfield, 2001;Orfield & Frankenberg, 2011;Orfield et al, 2008;Orfield et al, 2012;Orfield et al, 2014;Reardon et al, 2006;Tefera et al, 2011).…”