The Integration Report, issue 14

October 20, 2008

This issue of TIR covers recent and continuing developments in Tucson, Arizona’s desegregation case. A 1978 Settlement Agreement guided desegregation efforts in Tucson until last spring, when a district court1 declared the school system unitary, pending court approval of a post-unitary status plan.2 Several important implications flow from this decision. First, both parties – Tucson school officials and the African American and Latino plaintiffs – have been given the responsibility of working to develop a comprehensive plan that strives to ensure equal educational opportunities for district students before the judge issues his final order.3 Depending on the direction taken by the district, these efforts may help guide other school systems seeking unitary status in the post-PICS era or illustrate the difficulties inherent in this approach. Second, Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) is a western district with a sizeable Latino and Black population. The lawsuit (discussed below) represents a collaboration between these two racial/ethnic groups, and it serves as a significant example of a desegregation plan explicitly formulated to address the isolation of both Latino and African American students. The events surrounding the recent developments in the Tucson case help illuminate prominent issues in a period of increasing racial diversity and unitary status proceedings.4

Spotlight on Desegregation in TUSD

In 1909, the territory encompassing the Tucson school district passed legislation legally mandating the segregation of black and white students.5 A segregated black school opened four years later, serving until 1951 as the official elementary and junior high for the district’s African American students. Black students were allowed to attend the comprehensive public high school in Tucson (Tucson High), but were placed in segregated homerooms and banned from participation in many after-school activities.6 Mexican American students were also intentionally segregated in certain schools,7 and experienced many decades of oppression based on their home language. Efforts to punish students who used Spanish in the classroom were widespread, along with the practice of tracking Hispanic and African American students into lower-level classes.8

A significant shift in district policies occurred with the 1942 arrival of Superintendent Robert Morrow, who championed more equal conditions – including an end to segregated homerooms – for African American students attending Tucson High.9 Morrow also appeared before the Board of Education to publicly protest the state law mandating the segregation of Black students. In 1951, the state repealed the law and Tucson became the first desegregated district in the state, three years prior to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.10 Desegregation in this period was largely about ending absolute barriers, not, as the law would later require, about actually creating significant interracial schooling.

Despite Tucson’s early initiative, there was no system-wide desegregation plan and patterns of segregation persisted in the school district. The federal government’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) intervened in 1968 – directly after the retirement of Superintendent Morrow – and demanded a more comprehensive remedy for observed racial discrimination and imbalance. The OCR intervention followed closely on the heels of the Supreme Court’s Green decision, which sought to eradicate the root and branch of segregated schooling.11 Existing neighborhood school policy at the time exacerbated racially segregated housing patterns characterized by pockets of minority settlement along the Santa Cruz River.12 The district responded to OCR concerns with a voluntary ethnic transfer program designed to improve racial balance at certain schools, in addition to halting the construction of new schools in an effort to recognize the role of housing segregation in perpetuating school segregation.13 Additionally, Tucson school officials instituted a Bilingual Education program in 1970 to better serve the Mexican American student population.14 These reforms, though promising, did little to disrupt patterns of racial segregation in Tucson. After six years under the supervision of OCR, the school district still contained at least 28 racially identifiable out of approximately one hundred schools operating in TUSD.15 The voluntary and fragmented approach to desegregation in the district did not appear to be working.

In 1977, four years after the Keyes decision, in which the Supreme Court supported district-wide desegregation efforts for both black and Latino students in cities with a history of racial discrimination, African American and Mexican American parents in Tucson filed a consolidated lawsuit against the district. The plaintiffs lodged a variety of complaints against the school system, including tri-ethnic segregation of the school system, race-based tracking, and failure to take into account linguistic differences.16 Initial reaction by the district – in spite of a positive precedent under Morrow – was harsh. Officials shied away from claiming responsibility for the racial imbalance, citing existing patterns of housing segregation. A no-holds-barred campaign erupted in an effort to prevent ‘forced busing.’17 Nevertheless, one year after the 1977 lawsuit was filed, District Judge Frey ordered the initial desegregation of nine schools in the district.

Settlement Agreement of 1978

Tucson school officials complied with the judge’s ruling, deciding against an appeal process that would have further delayed desegregation or that might have risked a more sweeping district-wide mandatory plan of the sort ordered in the Keyes decision. In a further sign of district cooperation, a Settlement Agreement was reached that expanded the scope of Judge Frey’s orders beyond the nine original schools. Racial balance targets for students and faculty were set for the district, a pilot program in phonics instituted for Mexican American first graders, and district personnel received sensitivity training in order to ameliorate the overrepresentation of minority students in lower tracked classes.18 Additional efforts to desegregate – including magnet schools – were included in subsequent phases of the plan.

The Agreement included a provision allowing the school district to file a motion and dissolve the settlement after five years, as long as racial balance was attained by 1979-80.19 Tucson school officials opted against dissolving the plan for many years, a decision that – according to the district judge – may have been partially motivated by state and federal funding received for desegregation and magnet school purposes.20

In 2004, twenty-six years after TUSD entered the Settlement Agreement, the district court ordered both parties to demonstrate why the case should remain open. This was a highly unusual judicial move, issued without a hearing on the status of compliance and without the customary findings suggesting that a desegregation order has been fulfilled (as outlined in the Supreme Court cases on unitary status). If the parties were unable to show good cause, the court ordered them to outline what was required in order to attain unitary status. A series of legal proceedings followed, largely defined by a quest for data and information regarding the effectiveness and accomplishments of the Agreement. Judicial precedent established in the 1990s requires a district to show ‘good faith’ in carrying out the terms of a desegregation order or agreement before unitary status can be granted.21 TUSD was asked to present evidence to support their ‘good faith’ intentions during the years of the Settlement Agreement and the district court summarized this evidence in the petition for unitary status (see next section).

Evidence on the Impact of Desegregation in TUSD

Student demographics play an important role in determining levels of segregation in a district. In 2004-2005, 63% of students enrolled in the district were minorities. These numbers break down further: 54% of students identified as Hispanic; nearly 7% identified as African American, and just under 3% were Asian.22 While calculations of ‘racial balance’ can vary, depending on the definition being used, demographic evidence submitted to the court showed clear signs of continuing segregation in the district.23 For example, in 2004-05, using a measure that defines a school as racially imbalanced if the percentage of minority students is fifteen points above or below the district average for minority students (under 48% or over 78% in this case), TUSD contained 31 racially identifiable elementary schools, and 20 of those schools were considered hypersegregated.24 For the same year, 11 of the 19 (roughly 60%) middle schools in TUSD were racially imbalanced.25 High schools in the district faced a similar situation, with over half reporting patterns of racial isolation.

A study commissioned by the school district found that the various tactics employed to alleviate patterns of segregation (magnet programs and open enrollment) had ‘no net effect on middle school desegregation in TUSD’ and a neutral effect on elementary school desegregation.26 The failure to monitor and review the effectiveness of the various desegregation policies employed by the district – including a student transfer policy that was rarely implemented once it became clear that students might leave the TUSD altogether if they were unable to transfer from a low performing school – may have contributed to the relative ineffectiveness of the overall program.27 The above facts, along with an array of data regarding the racial/ethnic breakdown of student achievement, gifted and talented courses, special education classes, and faculty assignments, among other categories,28 played into the court’s determination of whether the district had acted in good faith in complying with the desegregation agreement.

Good Faith?

The district court handed down a controversial decision in the spring of 2008. TUSD would be eligible for unitary status – following the submission of a post-unitary plan – though the judge suggested that certain areas of the Settlement Agreement had not been handled with the requisite ‘good faith.’ Specifically, TUSD was reprimanded for a failure to ‘monitor, track, review, and analyze its programmatic changes.’29 The judge noted that millions of dollars had been spent on desegregation in the district without a clear analysis of the effectiveness of various programs implemented over the years.30 Finally, the district was chastised for gathering data in a less-than-timely fashion, after prompting from both the plaintiffs and the court.31 The court’s role in pushing for unitary status without proceedings and in spite of its own negative findings suggests that this court somehow viewed the limits on voluntary desegregation outlined in the PICS decision as a general directive to lower courts to terminate desegregation plans without mandatory requirements.

Importantly, the harsh judicial assessment of the implementation of desegregation in TUSD was coupled with a stipulation that the post-unitary plan includes provisions for furthering diversity and holding the district accountable to all TUSD students.32 The post-unitary status plan presented to the judge in April ’08 failed to satisfy the plaintiffs’ demands for district accountability, and the two parties were ordered to meet to help craft a mutually satisfying plan of action for the district.

District officials, including the incoming superintendent, and plaintiffs met in early June with two experts selected by the plaintiffs, Dr. Gary Orfield, professor of education at UCLA, and Dr. Leonard Stevens, consultant and monitor in desegregation cases. By many accounts the meetings were fruitful, establishing several over-arching goals for the district in its post unitary status phase.33 However, in a surprise course of action several days after the meeting, the lawyers representing the school district suspended future conversations with the plaintiffs’ counsel.
34 After the plaintiffs’ requested that the court intervene in the matter, the court responded firmly that a joint agreement between the two parties was required, given that cooperation between the two sides had important ramifications for the future success of desegregation in the district.

What’s Next for TUSD?

The district is currently in the process of developing a new post unitary status plan for unveiling later this fall. Both the court and the plaintiffs have shown determination in ensuring that schoolchildren in TUSD will have access to equal educational opportunities in the future.

These events unfolding in Tucson over the past six months are a reminder that desegregation cases often follow an uneven path in both their implementation and termination. Many different elements come together to further or, in some cases, impede progress towards racially integrated schools and equality of educational opportunity. Tucson Unified School District ended consideration of race in its assignment policy last year, prior to the final decision in PICS. Now under a district court directive, school officials must engage in discussions with the plaintiffs regarding other possible mechanisms to preserve diversity. What is certain is that Tucson Unified School District, if unitary status is granted, will have to comply with new restrictions on the use of race in student assignments – making it that much more difficult to racially desegregate their system. Thus, school districts may want to weigh the pros and cons of unitary status carefully before urgently pursuing it. In the meantime, TIR is closely monitoring the undetermined post-unitary policies in TUSD and will keep you updated on new developments.

For next time…
The next issue of TIR examines the relationship between free transportation and desegregation policy in schools. Recent and proposed transportation cuts that may adversely impact racial diversity at school systems around the country will be spotlighted.

Genevieve Siegel-Hawley
The Integration Report

1 It is worth mentioning here (though noted later in this article) that the district court in 2004 ordered both parties to show just cause for continuing the Settlement Agreement. If they were unable to do so, the requirements necessary for obtaining unitary status were to be outlined.
2 Fisher v. Lohr and Mendoza v. TUSD 7490(2008) at 58.
3 In the aftermath of PICS, the restrictions placed on the use of race in student assignment policies are negated by the presence of a court order. For this reason, districts that remain under court order should carefully consider the potentially segregating effects of those restrictions before choosing to pursue unitary status.
4 See TIR, issue 2 for a more detailed explanation of unitary status.
5 Cooper, James F. The First Hundred Years The History of Tucson School District 1, Tucson, Arizona 1867-1967. 51.
6 Bridging Three Centuries, The History of the Tucson Unified School District 1867-1993, “One of the Most Progressive and Advanced Systems in the United States 1940-1959”. Tucson Unified School District, retrieved on September 23, 2008 from
7 Fisher v. Lohr and Mendoza v. TUSD (June 20, 2008), 12.
8 Bridging Three Centuries, “The Desegregation Question 1968-1983”. Tucson Unified School District, retrieved on September 23, 2008 from
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Bridging Three Centuries, “The Desegregation Question 1968-1983”. Tucson Unified School District, and Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid, and Bridging Three Centuries, “The End of One Era, The Challenges of the Next 1960-1979 Part 3”, retrieved on October 8, 2008 from
16 Mendoza v. TUSD (1980), 17.
17 Bridging Three Centuries, “The Desegregation Question 1968-1983”.
18 Ibid.
19 Fisher v. Lohr and Mendoza v. TUSD (2008), 2.
20 Ibid.
21 Freeman v. Pitts, 89-1290.
22 Common Core of Data, 2004-2005.
23 Fisher v. Lohr and Mendoza v. TUSD (2008), 16.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Fisher v. Lohr and Mendoza v. TUSD (2008), 16.
27 Ibid, 20.
28 Ibid, 20-55.
29 Ibid, 56.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Fisher v. Lohr and Mendoza v. TUSD (2008), 3.
34 Ibid.


Click to navigate to desired section.

News Summary

Please send us your news
Please send reports, documents, and decisions from your community to The Integration Report, Editor Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, at Include web links if they are available.

No decision on LISD desegregation order
A closed meeting discussion by Longview Independent School District trustees about its 1970 federal desegregation order yielded no vote on Monday (September 9, 2008)

Parties to cooperate on unitary status
U.S. District Court Judge Samuel H. Mays Jr. has asked the parties in the desegregation lawsuit against the Nashville school system to put together a joint application for partial unitary status and to report back to him on Oct. 8 (September 9, 2008)

School choice options could temper rezoning debate
A group of district policy changes recently proposed to Nashville’s school board could, if approved, open enrollment at many Metro schools (September 15, 2008).

Kindall moves to discuss, not reconsider, school district rezoning
Instead of the motions he’d planned to make asking members of Nashville’s Board of Education to reconsider a school district rezoning plan, board member Ed Kindall on Tuesday said he’d rather see — at least for now — a meeting between the board and school administrators to discuss plan logistics (September 24, 2008).

Board wants school rezoning details
The Nashville board will meet with administrators to sort out specifics on how the plan, passed in July, will be funded and what the new busing policy for certain students will be. Opponents fear the move to zone students into schools closer to where they live will result in a racially segregated system (September 24, 2008).

Rezoning foe makes savvy move for kids
Opponents of the rezoning plan that passed called it the resegregation of Nashville schools. Proponents said it would bring the return to real neighborhood schools (September 25, 2008).

Jefferson Parish Schools await effects from desegregation redistricting
While buses are running on time and students are gearing up for another year of learning, the aftereffects of the 2007-08 school year are still being felt throughout the Jefferson Parish Public School System (September 8, 2008)

The end of busing marks the end of an era
Over the next few years, Norfolk, VA will likely decide what – finally – to do about busing students for racial balance, a morning and afternoon legacy of an ugly time in this city (September 8, 2008)

Schools search for racial balance
Shakopee schools have many more minority students than the neighboring Jordan and Prior Lake-Savage districts in Minneapolis, MN (September 10, 2008)

Public gets an hour to discuss school plan
After the Opelousas, LA School Board has held a series of hours-long, hidden meetings to come up with a desegregation plan, the public will get an hour to be heard on the plan (September 10, 2008).

Thousands of DeKalb students may lose bus service
DeKalb County (Georgia) school officials may end the practice of busing students beyond their neighborhood campus — a controversial decision that would end decades of service to magnet and other choice schools that began with desegregation (September 11, 2008).

Out-of-county student policy amended by BOE
The Crisp County (Georgia) Board of Education unanimously adopted an amended non-resident student policy earlier this week and directed BOE attorney James Hurt to move forward on unitary status for the school system (September 11, 2008).

Board OKs 3 deseg plans
It took three votes and four motions for a majority of the St. Landry Parish School Board to agree Thursday to submit all three elementary desegregation proposals to federal court (September 12, 2008).

Carthage ISD still complying with desegregation bus order
Carthage Independent School District (Texas) still is complying with a desegregation order, even though the district had the decision overruled two years ago (September 17, 2008).

County school district falls short on desegregation, monitors conclude
The Pulaski County Special School District (Arkansas) is out of compliance with its desegregation plan in significant areas and probably is not in a position to be released from federal court supervision, federal monitors said Wednesday (September 18, 2008).

Board submits desegregation plans
The St. Landry Parish School Board submitted proposals to reorganize the its public school system a day before Friday’s court-mandated deadline (September 22, 2008).

Crowd at meeting favors neighborhood schools
That was the message firmly delivered from a standing-room only crowd gathered at Codington Elementary School Tuesday evening to discuss New Hanover County (Wilmington, NC) Schools’ redistricting options for the upcoming year (September 23, 2008).

Court to weigh in on city schools’ deseg efforts
An upcoming judicial hearing will decide the fate of Chicago’s public schools desegregation efforts and may end the decree that makes them mandatory (September 24, 2008).,17180

Parents want magnet schools to remain integrated
Parents from Drummond Montessori Magnet School in Bucktown Chicago say they’re concerned about what could happen to their integrated school if a federal desegregation order is ended (September 24, 2008).

Judge Harold Barefoot Sanders symbolized civil rights
Legendary U.S. District Judge Harold Barefoot Sanders Jr., who oversaw the desegregation of Dallas schools, directed the overhaul of state schools for mentally disabled people and served as a legislative counsel to President Lyndon Johnson, died Sunday at his Dallas home after battling an infection. He was 83 (September 22, 2008).

Magnet policy changes approved
The city school board of Pittsburgh voted Wednesday night to develop new admissions policies for magnet programs so they conform to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision (September 25, 2008).

New Jefferson school plan: Is it constitutional?
A panel of local and national experts yesterday debated whether the new student assignment plan of Jefferson County Public Schools is constitutional and can withstand a challenge (September 26, 2008).

Longview ISD zone plan would increase diversity
District statistics show that three of Longview ISD’s (Texas) elementary schools that are governed by attendance zones would see increased diversity under a proposal to change them to neighborhood schools (September 27, 2008).

Opinions on busing run strong
Feelings about busing — and what it might have accomplished — still run strong, even though the court order was lifted 13 years ago, and the Neighborhood Schools Act of 2000 put an exclamation point on that decision in Wilmington, DE (September 28, 2008).

Bumpy but promising ride
No one quite knew what to expect when the buses began to roll 30 years ago after court-ordered desegregation in New Castle County (Wilmington, DE), especially after similar efforts to integrate schools in places such as Louisville, Ky., and Boston were met with violence and widespread protests (September 28, 2008).

Schools change as parents choose
Parents’ choices — whether they leave their child in a neighborhood elementary or opt for a charter or even private school — are fueling the resegregation of schools in Wilmington and its suburbs, the very situation a court-mandated busing order was meant to correct 30 years ago (September 28, 2008)

District aims to improve diversity
Over the next few months, the Plainfield School District (Chicago Metro) will draft a diversity master plan aimed at improving cultural awareness and diversity throughout the district (September 29, 2008).,4_1_JO29_PFSCHOOLS_S1.article

Jeff magnet plan up for vote today
Under pressure to submit a plan to the federal courts, the Jefferson Parish School Board is expected to approve a systemwide magnet school proposal today that attempts to accommodate a swelling student population while equalizing facilities and services on either side of the Mississippi River (October 1, 2008)

Crowd assails Wake’s busing policy
Wake County school board members and their supporters got an earful of criticism Wednesday about the district’s diversity policy (October 2, 2008).

Madison schools enrollment policy challenged
A parent of a Madison East High School student on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages from the Madison School District (Wisconsin) on behalf of all students whose requests to transfer out of the district were denied on the basis of race (October 2, 2008).

Rise in black majority schools not the issue
The racial balance in several Pinellas public schools is quickly eroding under the district’s new “close-to-home” student assignment plan, undoing decades of integration efforts (Oct. 4, 2008).

Collection of Transportation Articles

Bus rides to magnet schools may be history
Students enrolled in secondary magnet programs who relied this year on the Marion County School District (Florida) for bus transportation may not have that option in August. School District officials have recommended $4.6 million in transportation cuts for the 2008-09 school year (May 14, 2008).

Dade School Board meeting likely to be contentious
Hundreds of parents and employees representing a cross-section of interests within the Miami-Dade School District are expected to show up at Wednesday’s board meeting to fight for their piece of the district’s budget. (May 21, 2008)

Students march against bus cuts: School system canceling routes for special high school programs
Napp wants to ride a bus this upcoming school year from his Citronelle home to Mobile, Alabama’s Murphy High School, as students have been able to do in years past.
But due to systemwide budget cuts — including $400,000 in transportation costs — he won’t be able to. (July 3, 2008).

Magnet school transportation: New plan involves consolidated bus stops
Consolidated bus stops, rather than a drop-off depot at one of the lower schools, is a potential solution school administrators are now considering to solve the magnet school transportation issue in Redding, Connecticut. (July 6, 2008).

School districts in seek savings as fuel prices for buses soar
If gas prices stress you out, imagine how Harold Laflin feels. He’s the director of transportation for Buncombe County Schools (North Carolina) and manages a fleet of 290 buses that travel more than 16,600 miles a day transporting 16,100 students. (August 6, 2008)

Broward Schools face cutbacks as new year gets closer: Support staff is cut; magnet bus routes are consolidated
Kids who spent much of their summer watching their parents save money will step into Broward County classrooms on the first day of school and feel the squeeze of district’s penny-pinching. Transportation also is affected by money woes. District officials consolidated bus routes between magnet schools, causing up to three schools to share one bus instead of each school having its own. (August 10, 2008)

Bus service just one of cuts DeKalb schools weighing: District may lose another $10.5M in state funds
As parents and community leaders responded Thursday to draft plans by DeKalb County (Georgia) to save money by no longer busing students beyond their neighborhood schools, officials sorted through more bad funding news. The move to end out-of-zone busing would affect about 5,600 of the district’s 99,600 students, including those who may be enrolled in magnet schools, charter schools and academic theme schools or who transferred from lower-performing campuses. (September 11, 2008).

Please send us your news
Please send reports, documents, and decisions from your community to The Integration Report, Editor Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, at Include web links if they are available.

Return to top

Additional Resources for School Integration

**NEW** Site: – The Web site completes Attorney Richard Cole’s transition to private sector civil rights work after 16 years of civil rights service in the Massachusetts Office of Attorney General.

Message from Richard Cole: I invite each of you to navigate the entire site to learn more about the unique and varied civil rights consulting and legal services I am offering. I also welcome your comments and advice. For your information and participation, the site will also update you on my upcoming statewide, regional, and national programs and workshops.

The consulting and legal services I am offering are based on my more than three decades of extensive civil rights experience as Assistant Attorney General and Civil Rights Division Chief in the Massachusetts Office of Attorney General, a private practice civil rights litigator, and a legal services litigator and manager.

**NEW** Book: Everyday Antiracism: Getting Real About Race In School

The New Press announces the publication of Everyday Antiracism: Getting Real About Race In School, edited by Mica Pollock.
How should teachers and parents respond when children ask challenging questions about race? How should teachers handle the use of the “N-word” or discuss “achievement gaps” with colleagues? How can teachers avoid unwittingly making children of color speak on behalf of their entire group? While numerous books exist about race and race theory, Everyday Antiracism puts theory into practice by offering specific strategies for combating racism in the classroom. This book is available to order through or

Sheff Web site
For more information regarding the Sheff desegregation case in Connecticut, please visit To view the results of a recent statewide poll revealing broad based support for interdistrict desegregation programs, please visit

BuildingChoice Web site
This Web site is designed to help implement and maintain public school choice programs. Included are promising practices from a range of programs, tools, and links to many additional resources to support your choice efforts.

The School Law Blog
Visit the School Law Blog for an important discussion of news and analysis of legal developments affecting schools, educators, and parents. Mark Walsh has been covering legal issues in education for more than 15 years for Education Week. He writes about school-related cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and in lower courts.

Still Looking to the Future: Voluntary K-12 School Integration; A Manual for Parents, Educators and Advocates. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles (CRP) are distributing the 2nd edition of their K-12 school integration manual which addresses the practical questions of what can be done to promote diversity and address the harms of racial isolation in schools.
To download the manual, visit or
To request hard copies or CDs of the manual and supplemental materials, please send an e-mail with your contact information and the number of copies requested to

Preserving Integration Options for Latino Students. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) and the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles (CRP/PDC) are currently disseminating their collaboratively-written guide for parents, advocates and educators interested in promoting diversity and addressing the harms of Latino racial isolation in their schools.
To download the manual or for additional information, please visit CRP/PDF’s Web site at

Return to top

The Integration Report – Staff Members

Editor: Genevieve Siegel-Hawley
Editorial Assistant: Jared Sanchez
Legal Research: Hadley Van Vector
Editorial Committee: Erica Frankenberg, Gary Orfield, Laurie Russman
Webmaster: John Khuu

Return to top

Key Terms

Hypersegregated – schools enrolling nonwhite populations of 90% or more are usually considered hypersegregated. This phenomenon may work in the reverse as well, where schools enrolling white populations of 90% or more can be considered hypersegregated.

PICSParents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court in June, 2007. The decision limited the use of race in student assignment plans.

Racially identifiable schools – schools that fall outside of the racial balance of a given school district (the range and percentages vary by district).

Unitary (or Unitary status) – a school district can be declared unitary once it has shown good faith in eliminating all vestiges of its previously segregated, or dual system.

Return to context

Return to top

The Integration Report is produced by the Initiative on School Integration at The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, and is supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute.

Logo for The CRP/PDC

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: