.4

ED T17 252

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE PROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

Coleman, James S.; And Othe sTrends in School Segregati ,Urban Inst.,,Wastington D C.URI-722-03-01ling' 75

150p.Publications Office, The UrbanStreet, N.W., Washington,.D.t.

H. UD 015 653

1968-73.

Institute, 2100 M20037 ($3,50)

DIMS PRICE ME-$0.16 Ht-$6.97 Plus/Postaget

Educational Policy; ElementaryCivil Rights; *Compailtive bata Analysis;

mentary Gtades; MetropolitanDESCRIPTORS

Areas; *National Surveys; Racial Segregation;, SchoolDistricts; *School,Igtegration; *School Segregation.;Secondary Grades; So ial Discrimination'; StatisticalData; *Trend Analys s

Thisipaper repoi*s work in-progress concerningstudent desegregation among elementary and secon4Fy,schools indistricts regardless of the source of segregation, and between school.districts.for the period of 1968-73. The data sources, the.statistical reports collectedbby DREW, are stated to allbw.for adetailed statistical analysis of the status and trends in schoolsegregation by race throughout the U.S.' First; the state of racialintegration amongschdois within a district in 1968 is examined,'followed by an examination of the changes that occurred over theperiod 1968-1973, The differential changes that occurred over thatperiod of time in different kinds of school settings--in differentregions of the country, in school districts of different sizes, andin particular large cities -s -is seen, to be of special interest. Dataindicate.that, by 1968, desegregation of schools was a far fromaccomplished task in cities and towns of all sizes in the South, butthat in the largest cities, it was.equally *high in Many'places wheredual schOol systems had never existed: yet the trend for the next

ABSTRACT

V

..

4,,

four years tends toward desegregation. It is concluded (1) that theemerging problem With regard to school desegregation is the pioblemof segregation, between central city and, suburbs, and (2) that currentmeans by which school's are,beinTdesegregated are intensifying,_rather than reducing the-problem. (Author/AM)

*#************14****,*******************************3;******************- * ' Ddcuments acquired byERIC:include many informal unpublished *

* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every,efforA ** to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal *!!! reproducibility ate often enconntered and this affects the quality * t*,pf the microfiche and hardcoly reproductions ERIC makes available *,* Via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service pus), BpBs is not ***responsible-far the quality,of the original document. Reproductions ** supplies by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. **************************************************Ic*******************

ri;

Trends in School.Segregation, 1966-73 ,

James S. ColemanSara D. KellyJohn A. Moore

722-03-01.August,1975.

e

b s DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION A WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE 9F

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTSOF VIEW DR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

9

THE URBAN INSTITUTE'WASHINGTON, D.C.

I

.r

I.

Se

4..4

BOARD OF TRUSEES

William W. Scranton, ChairmanJean FairfaxEugene G. FubiniWiiliam GorhamKatharine GrahamRobert V.flansbergerVernon E. Jordan). Jr.Richard Llewelyn-DaviesBayless A. ManningStanley Marcus

Robert S..McNamara

Arjay MillePJ. Irwin MillerJohn D. Rockefeller, IVWilliam D. RuckelshausHerbert ScarfCharles L. Sch.ultie, Vice-ChairmanFranklin A. ThomasCyrus R. VanceJames Vorenberg

INSTITUTE OFFICERS

William Gorham, PresidentRobert Harris, Senior Vice-PresidentHarold W Guthrie, Vice-Preiident for ResearchHerman T. Boland, Jr., Vice-President for AdministrationEdward E Wallace, Controller

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit research corporation established in 1%8 tostudy problems of the nation's urban communities. independent and non-pdrtisan, the institute responds to current needs for disinterested analysesand basic information_ and attempts to facilitate the of this luxisvl-ette.14_ part of this iOnet ttt;t1;444: ;;lg- Qratrrii*;ltittik Met.

(*kit Write ii:10600ornitliiiiitifiltiathe general public.,-;\ The Institute's research findings and a broad range of interpretive view-ikAnti are, published as an educational service. Conclusions expressed inInstitute publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views of other staff members, officers or trustees of the Institute, or oforganizations which provide funds toward support of-Institute studies.

These research findings are made available in three series of publica-tions: Books and Reports, Papers, and Reprints. A current publications list isavailable on request. 4

.`,..1.11bIlcations *Office)

The Urban Institute2100 M Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20037

4.

7.

V 01,

Opinions expressed are those of die.authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of The Uiban Institute or its sponsors.

ISBN 87766 - 147 -02

UI 72'2-0401

PLEASE REFER TO URI-12300 WHEN ORDERING.

Available froi:

Publications OfficeThe Urban Institute2100 M Street, N. W.Washington, D. C. 20037.

List price: $3.5D

A/75/2000

A,

,

,INSERT FOR

TRENDS Ift.A110N., SEGREGATION, 1968-73

F - 0* James $. ColemanSara D. :Kelly

' John A. Moore

Urban Institute Paper 722-Q3-0

ti

4

.

40

'8

p

ERRATA AND MODIFIED-CALCULATIONS

After this report was printed, we pliscovered some errorsJand some places

where procedures used may have introduced a bias. We have recalculated, results

that might have been affected by. these, correcting errors and using procedures

which should eliminate the bias. The resulting changes affect some nupbers in

the text and tables, but with one exception, noted below, do not affect_the

general conclusions ofthe report. The modifications arise from sourad as

indicated below, with effects .as noted.

1. In the analysis of segregation at elementary and secos4iary.164fm1s, it

was originally decided, as explained in footnote 12, page 21, to measurksegrega-7

tion at elementary levels by,including all schools containing a sixth Ogde and

to measure segregation at secondary levels_ by including all schools Containing

a tenth grade. This was done for reisons descri6ed in foOtnote 12, page, 21.

This, as i.45,qrned out, was not a wise decision. A number of school

systems, pafticularly those undergoing desegregation of some sorts reorldnizea

their schools to cover different grade spans, or in some cases, to become un-

graded where 'the school had before.been a graded school. This reorganization

meant that for elementary/secondary analysis, different fractions of the

1students in the system and different fractions of the schools in4the system

were included in different years, in general a smaller fraction :of the'odhools

in later years because of the conversion from graded to ungraded schoAls, and.

t'. ,the ieduction in grade spans. Reorganization was primarily at the el entary

level. For example, in 1968 the OCR -data show that qallas had.125 shools

containing a sixth grade, 5 graded ejementerry schools ending below grade six,

q o ,,and 2 ungraded schools. In1970 this was 123 with a sixth grade; 13 :graded ,

...i,.J'!"6

2

ending below grade six 'and 1 ungraded. In 1972, the numbers were 109, 29,t

and 9. Thus in the later years, a.larger number of elementary schools was

excluded for being ungraded or failing to contain grade six.

In modifying the analysis, it was evident that because of school reorgan-..

ization, no gpcedure for including a school in the elementary school sample

or inthe..secondary school saae would be fully satisfactory. The procedure

.used for t)le modified calculitions contained here was to classify any school AS

.

a secondary school if it included 4grade 9, 10, 11, or 12. .X11 Olver schools

were claasified as elementary. Inspection of a number of systems which,I'

r.,J

undergone come reorganization indicated that this procedure would give fewest

misclassifications that might result in bias and that the amount of mfsclassi-

.0fication was very small. .

The effects of the revised procedure are given below:

la: On page 22, the numbers in Table 5 change as indicated in the

attached revised Tattle 5. The -revisions change no substantive

conclusions, and lead toidnly minor rewording on page 21 where

the table is described. 1

'lb: On pages 34, 35, and 36, Table 9, Figure 3 and Figure 4 change

as indicated in the attached. The substantive conclusions on

Nc.

Rage 34,about change at the two levfls are modified slightly.

. r"In the U.S. as a whole, the reduction in segregation was greater

at the secondary level, rather than equal to that in elementary, °

as stated there, But as described- At the original text, there

are opposite differences in diffeient regions, with greater

desegregation .occurring in the secondary schools than in the,

elementary in thq South, buts grdater resegregation occurring

in secondary schools io the North.1

WS

3

lc: On.page 47, Table 12 changes as shown in attached revised Table 12.

The conclusions on page 48 are affected somewhat. It is no longer

the case that in the 3 regions where within-district segregation :

was most reduced, between-district segregation increased more at

the elementary level. Thus the suggestion cannot be made here

that the movement of white families from a district in response

to desegregation appears to be greater at elementary level.

Id: On pages 77 and 78 are described the results of analyses at

elementary and secondary levels. This analysis must be deleted,

eliminating any conclusions about the relative.loss of whites at

elementary and secondary levels. This is the one most important

change affecting a general cbnclusion.of the report. That is,.result

number 10 on page 79inust be deleted. A comparable analysis has not

yet been carried out for elementary and secondary as redefined,, sv.

the question' of relative loss raised in that section c annot yetbe

answered. An attempt was made to get some idea abodthe answer to .

this question by examining white.loases,in the year of deiegregstion

in schools with a grade ten and those without in cities listed on

IRKpages 62 as having undergone a 'drop of more than .1clin segrega tion

A A .in .any one-year. This gave an average loss of 14% of whites at

secondary school and 13% at elementqry (with 14% for-all schools).

There *is greater lobe' in 5 of the 9 instances at secondary school,

acid `air 4 of the 9. in elementary school. From this analysis it would.1

app that the losses were about the same. However, this cannot be

interred because in general, desegregation was greater at tecondary. 0

aVals. In some cities, desegregation occurred primarily at tone or

8

4

the other level (e-g., in Dallas in 1971, primarily at the secondary

level Tend in San Francisco in 1971, at the elementary level). Thus

the question must be left ;open.

2. Seieral modifications have been made affectihg the analysis of the

size of individual segregating responses to desegregation, the section qn pages

53-80. In general the effects of these modifications are minor, but the,earli

calculations did contain.sources of biasor error, so that the recalculatio s are

,included here, even when they make little difference in overall interpre ation.

The first modification has to do with eliminating schools with ,teachers,

reported: For 1968-72 OCR obtained information on race of teacher , and we

included that in basic calculations of segregation though none .f'those results

are included in the report. When a school gave np report o teacherEl, the

school was eliminated from the anaiNio for that year. chools were not

identifiible from year to year, so that meant eliminaty on only for that year).

Thil- failure to report teachers was very.infrequen except in the case of a

`few districts, such as Los Angeles and-Greenvill , S.C., which gave no teacher

reports in 1969, and thus were eliminated front the analysis for that year.

This procedure would not in and of itself affect the analysis except that

in 1973 OCR no. longer obtained information on race of teachers so that all

-

schools were included in our analysis in 1973. Because this meant we used a

slightly different, procedure for retrieving information in 1968-72 and iii 1971,

it could `lead to possible biases! in the result. Because the difference was

very slight, the measures of changes in segregation were essentially unaffected.

But the analysis of white loss upon desegregation might be affected so those,

' analyses were recalculated. The effects on the results are indicated below.

However, first, twolother changes should be noted:4

5.

and 169, and separate elementary and secondary districts in subsequent years_.

s learned that the OCR, data on Tucson, one of the next 47 cities ,. ,

the largest 23, showed a combined elementary/secondary district in 1968

(There are in fact two separate districts, butgoverned under a single echool

board.) Because of Shift change in reporting,'Tucson was eliminated in the

'7*modified calculations. (the' "next 46"" designation, however, is correct for

the, modified calculations beicatise the designation should have been "next 47"

with Tucson, since Albuquerque from the first 23..replaced Richmond. See foot -

nOtrir5and 23 onpage 56).

An error was grade in tde lagged equatiOns for 71-73 and 72-13 reported in

Table 15. Although thirdid not affect concltisions drawn from the table, it

along with the changes discussed above, affectthe'calculatiOns.

The effects of these changes are given below:

Table 14 is changed as attached. The general effect of-the changes is

rather small, and will be described in discussion of the text on pages 60-65,

which elaborates those tables.

The effects shown in the simple equation, Equation 1 in Table 14, described

on pages 60-61, change fittie,,, with a very slight increase in estimated white

A

loss with a .2 reduction in segregation for the largest 21 (from 5.5% to 5.6%)

and a decrease from 1.8% to I.1% for the next 46. The greater changes for the

next 46 cities in these modified calculations,than for the largest 21 is due

to the.exclusion of Tucson and the inclusion of 1969 data for Greenville, S.C.

(the year befoie desegregation took place):

For Equation 2, discussed on page

For the largest 21., the lass becomes 6

6.0X and 3.9%, only 0.1% in the North).

63, the changes are slightly greater.,

.8%(foi South and 4.0% for North (from

For the next 46, the loss becOmes 4.8%

for South and no reliable estimate possible for the North,. replacipg2.6% for

0

6

0

.. . . ,I.

.s .,

_ ,.. . .

South and 0.2Z for North. the absence of a reliable estimate for the Noith for

the next 46" result's from the fact that nearly 411 desegregatio n occurred in thea

8uth, resulting in a correlation of .98 between R and R x South. (See' skein(

.

footnote 26, on page 65:) , A

The fact that the loss for the next 46 '(in the South) mm ettimated.by

Equation 2 and Equation 3 is so much greater than as estimated by Equation.1

results from the inclusion in Equation 2 and Ecination 3 of the between-district

segregation. This is especially low in some desegregating districts in. the

South,'thus depressing the white lots in those cities.

On page 64, there, are changes of,O.l; in nmObers in the ,tahulifion, with no

changes in interpretation. On page 64, the revised calculations from Equation 3

'.

, ,t.,,(see attached) shows somewhat stronger effects of desegregation on white lois .

.

than before for the smaller cities and.stronger intentification'Of.the desegreka-:

tion loss Uthinmrease in proportion black and between-distriit segregrition.

Revised calculations for Table 15 are attached with ho changes ininter-,

pretations resulting. Similarly on page 71 there are nuaeric changes which

do not_change interpretation (tee attached).

&i. .

Table 17 on page 72 changes as indicated- in the attached. As pointed iA .,

out in the footnote to the revised table, the estimated gains, for Houston and

2, ., .42 .DenVer are very likely spurious, due_tq territory anneited during the peridd. .- .

),

t.

of desegregation. Table 17 should, however, be taken with"sobe caution as

.

providing ao.c4trate estimates fqr individual cities tecause the high degree ofo . , - .

'.

aultic011inearity crAates some instability in estimates as described in foot$

note 26, page 65.. -

At strong caret :about %e projected long-term effects as estimated _on

' . 0_ -- . ' "

pages 74-75 should, be added. These estimates' must be regarded as conservative

eltimates,of the effect of desegregation, because of the liesSumption,, based on

4.

,,e,

,.

. . ,,,weak evidence, that the direct effect, of desegregatioii on-white loss is a one -,

year..

time ,effect which does not continue beyond, the year of_desegregation. The. $.

r ' ', iz..exprerience is not sufficient for strong infeiences. However, examination of, .44

... . . . .

. the losses in particular cities where desegregation occurred at a clear-cut...

. .Eoinasuggests theb possibility of a continuing effect riot shown by Table 15.

--,,

. For ,example, in Dallas, where the effect of desegregation in. 1971 was not

particularly strong (an increase in loss from 3% in 1970 to 8% in 1971) the

subsequent years showed losses comparable to that of 1971. (9% and 7%, and data

for 1974 not containa in the. OCR data shows a i gs of 9%). In Denver there was.

a steady growth in loss after the point of greatest reduction in segregationk +I.. /

(1969) from -2% to 7%. But_in general, there are simply not enough'data. WhitI '

is important to note, however, is that a 8011, but continuing irictement inI ( ,

1.1hite loss can have a much greater effect than the one-time loss. Thus the\-_,......

estimates of long-term impact of desegreation on pages 74 and 75 may be... . $

serious. underestimates. ,, I . .,

. The modified procedures described above lead also to changes in the. ..'

tabulations fOr the largo central 'city, districts in Appendix3.with minor\ .., .4

changes.. for all schools and major changes for the separate elementary and4 . . . .

secondary schools. Revr Appendix 3 may be obtained from The Urban Inst-'.

tute upon request.

12

i"

"4

(6

.

*

.

. -

TErrup. RE IONS

PO1. A.

Page' 21, line 4: ,..

/ ,.,: .

. ,

"As the table showselementaxy'schools are mere segregated than highschools, in every regionemeept the Sbutheast where within-district segre-gation at" the two leVelsAa.the same.r '.

'

''' < .' ' ,e ,.. , JPage 21, line 11: "...: only a fifth (0.20) ...."

_

%. ,..-, .

,,: .'.. ..

Page 34, lines 1-14: i . .I , ...

"The aftwwer at first,appeaFs to be that,the degree of desegregation wasgreater at the secondary level, for set:able, shows, the redUption in degreeof-segregation in the country as a wholeinis!greaer at the secondary'thanthe elementary level: . ..(' . . t .4. 3-'

However, this apparent greater reduction in segregation at the secondary'' 100. masks differences among regions.' Figures.3 and 4 show the. changes front' 1968472 1n-elementary and segondaXY 4.chools by .region,. In the two regions

where federal and court sett* toward integreation were strongest.,.. theSoutheast and West South Central` and in the Border states, the drop insegregation was greater inhighschoold thanilmelementary ones. ', Hut in:e:Ach of iheoth4r regions'thedecrease, in segregation Wasgreater in elemewr

_tary schools. 'In fact, in three Ot,the northern regions (New England, Middle

, , ., ,

Atalntic, East North Central), segregation increased among secondary schoolsfrom 1968 -70, while no region showe. d an increase in segregation among elemen-tary .schools." , . ,

. ,

-

4 7

Page 46/1ine,21:, pelete,"., ...but the Southeast-..."

.. .., .7!.,-.%.".

Page 48, lines' 4-18: ... -?

.

. ,.. . .

"When we look at Changes from 1968 to 1972, there is an increase in everyregion but Border states at both levels. But the increases vary by region,'and, by level. In all regions,. the increase was either the same at both ...

'levele pr greater atthe secondary level. . . . .'- . . .What appears to occur is ihis: -,As suggested_hy thp earlier data, the

general movement-ofyhites to areas 4th fel' blieks during this period wasgreater at ,the secondary level, v-ry,likelY due to the greater age and attic-7,

.ence of families with children of, gh school age. The result of that'greatermovement was to increase thebetwee district segregation-more among secondary...school students,than.among elementary students. Whether the loss of whiteChildren when desegregation occurred was greater,at secondary than at elementary

. .

1levels cannot, however, .)e inferred from these reauits: That.question will bediscuised again i.diubsequent,section."'. ,,,

.1.4

.

7

\rage 58, line 14; "large negative values for Ar

*Page 60, line 2 ihiotigh' page 61# line 6:3,. . tor a city with the average number of students,'with no blacks

. end,no reduction in segregintioia, the expected losskper year is:a) Largest 21: (gain of) 0.9% of whites present at beginning

of ,yeer (average huipber of students is 169,000)-b) Next 46: 1.2% of whites present at beginning of year

(average number of 'students is 58,0(50)

2. Additional expected loss if the city is 50% black:a) -Largest 21: 6.8% cif whites ptesent at beginning of-year

.,b) Next 46: ..4.5% of whitesepresent at beginning of year3. Additionarexiected loss if the city experiences a decrease, of,

.2 in the index of segregation in that esr:25.,a) Largest 21:..5.6% of whites at beginning of yearb) Next 46: 14% of whites at beginning of year

4. Additional expected- lose' ice city were twice its size:a) . Largest 21: 0% of whites present at beginning .

of yearb),. Next 46: 2'.9% of whites present at beginning of year

Taking the first three losses together, the expected loss of whitesfrOm a city system with 50% blacks would-be:For the largest 21:-

with. reduction of .2 in segreation: 0.9% + 6. 8%' + 5:6% = 11.5%. With no change in segregation: (-) 0.9%* 6.8%'= '5.9%For the next '46:

with'reduction of .2 in segregation: 1.2% + 4.5% + 1.1% = 6.8t'-With no ChangeAn segregation: 1.2k -1- 4.5% =I

Page 63, -line 11 trough 'page 64, line 7:"Estimated increase in loss of whites in one year as a 'functionof reductibn :2.-in ,index of segregation:.

South ;.North

taigest 21 6. 8Z 4.0%1*.Next 46' 1.9% *, ...,*No reliable estimate for the North can bemade since the correlation

between Ar 'and Arx South is,.983 (i.e., nearly all changes in, segre;gation occured in the. South in these 46 Pities). See footnote 26 for

, . .. 'further .er discussion. '' ' .-" ....

.4-4 These results show that indeed there has been a greater los,s of whites when,. desegregation has ,taken place in large southern cities than when it has taken

place in large northern cities, with the esimate nearly twice for the south-ern. cities what it is for northern ones. For the smaller cities, there is a.smaller loss for the Southern cities though no effect can/be estimated for _the North in these smaller cities. '

' Fax ttlis analysis with the two. additiontil variables, we can also ask..A4 3; J 4

, ,-, r

t,

what differences in loss of whites are associatedmithAdifferencelpetween0 and 50% black in the city schools mild a difference betweer0 between-district segregation and .4' between - district segregation;:,,

-

Estimated increase iikoss of whites in one, year as i'lunctioi:of50% black in city school district and between - district segregationof .4:

Between-district ,50% black egregation of .4

largest 21 2.2%. 6.6%....Next 46 1.7% 4.4%

'. Page 65, tabulation in center of page:

.

Between-district): . Largest 21,segregation proportion black

,25 .50,,.'05.

Next 46proportion black'.25' -.50 .75

0. 2% 10% 17% ; `.3% 6% . 9%.2 9 3.6 24 lit AI 15,.4 15 t 23 30 14 17 20

- . -,,,

t.

Page 66, lines 1. thrbash 3: ' . . - , ,/.

"These estimates arefor.a city in the South. In the North thee losses... .at the time of reduction in segregation are estimated to be3,6% less in the. ,

largest 21 Cities with no reliable estimate possible in the next 46.

.. . -,,,.

A

Page 66, line 22: "and. three more equat-ions,' w

'

Page 71, lines 10 through 12: .

"The results ;of the analysis give coefficient's for Ar of .262 (.057) for

the largest, 21 city districts, an0 .098 (.025) for the smaller cities.29"

!Page 71, footnote 29:

."R

2in these equations are .65 and .60 respectively."

., .4,/

.

.

,

Pages 77 and 78:' Delete ection on-Elementary and tecondary Sehools, Whichcontinues through sixth line from bott6m on page 78. -

Page 79: Delete number 10.

y1I

- t22

Revised Table 5. BLACK-WHITE CONTACT AND SCHOOL SEGREGATION IN 1968 BY.J. REGION, POR-.ELE14ENTARY SCHOOLS'AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

.

. proportion ' SchoolmatesBlack-whitesegregation.

.

. white black

.whites for

average black

blacks foraverage :white

withindistrict 'total

.. . -ElempntarySecondary --

:78

*81"

.16

;15,.1 -

es

.20

.25

:_',

.04,-

.05 ,-

* t

.66

.59.....

,

, ..'75..69

..,

New England-

ElementarySec'ondary

.92

.95

.06

.04.

... .

.42 .

.674,_

' .03.03 -

'.42,

.16

.55

.29

.

Middle, Atlantic

,. ElementarySecondary

- .78

.85

.16'

.12

.26

.42

' -:05'

.06 ..

.

.50 ---",

.30

.67

-.50

,B der . ,ElementarySecondary-

.77Al

.22:19 '

:IV ..31, .

".

.06

..07....4-

-, -

.53

.41

-,,71'

.62

-

.- . .

--Soutliekse:-

-- Elenentary-Secondary,

. _.

. 1.70,...4-8 /

- .28 -. .31 .

.15

.16

.

.

,' .

.06

.07

.

-..

.74

-.74 s,

.78

.76

, West South Central

Elementary'Secondary

t''''.)7

'- 1-8,

. t.16

.15

.-..- ,--'

.1.,

...' : '. F

:03

.9.4 ' .. r's-

%

.73

.63

.80

.71

East North Central

ElementarySecondary

,

.87

..88

...,.

' -.12.12

.

..25.

.35

-:, -

.:04.

0-5,.

,,

...".,....

.50 .60 ..

West North Central

Elementary.

Secondary

.87

.93

.

-.11.06

.22-

.44.

:.

.

`

,

.03

,03.

..-..,

.67:.44**'4..

.75

.153

.,

Mountain

ElementarySecondary

.79

.84

.

,03.02

.29

.53 .

,..

.01

.02 ,'.57

.3-2

.64

.37

PacificElementarySecondary

.

.77

.80

.

.08

.07

.23

.30

' '

.

.02 '

.03

,..59

.50.

. .71'.62

6

,

4

A

I

Page 34: Revised Ta. e 9.... ithin-di,stris.t Segregation in 1968? 70,

72 at El nta and Secondary Levels ,for the U.S'. as a Whole

ElementarySedondary

1968 1970 1972 1972-68,

.66 ..48 ..42 -.24

..59 .33 .29 -.30

Page 4 : Revised Table 12. Between-district Segregation in 1968 and.1972 in Each Region for Elementary and. Secondary Schools

aY

- Elementary , Secondary

1968 - 1972 Change 1968 1972 &sage(1) (2) ((3) - (4) . (5) , -(6) 1

United ttates .34 ' .37 +.03 .11 .' .34 +,80k..

New England V.20 .34 +.06 -17 . - .23 '-W.06 /-Middle Atlantic ,, .42 .46 +.04 .33 .41 +:.04''

Border 2 . 4.49 .48 . -.01 . .45 -`.47 +.Q2Southeast .21 .23 +.02 .20 .22 . --I-62

West South Central .34 -.-38 +.04 .29 .34 .05

East:North Cehtral .31 .32 +.01` .29 :33 +.04

West 'North Central .39 -.41 +.02 .27 .35 , +.08

\Mountain .19 .20 +.01 .09 ,324/ +.03

Pacific .31 .34.- +,03 .29 3*/-0.05

4

la

k

35'tI

t4

, %

1970,

Figurt 3 (Revised),

- Within - district Elementary School Setegatimi,-'by' Region

-SE

1972

t:19

.70

.60

.50

:To

36

OP,

0

-- 1970I

ky Figure 4 (Revised)

- Mtr:NE

.Within-district Secondary School Segregation,- by Region*

20

SE

1972

-:-. .

.

,_

Page 59: 'Revised Table 14. Regression Coefficients ,for Analysds

offthite Student Loss to Central 0kties

Equation 1

,All .

Prop. blackIn NConstant -R2Nu:Ober ,of

Observations

'Largest,21

). --

'Meat 46

.279 (.062)

-.133 (:028).000 (App..013,.29

(105)',

.t.

.056'(.026)-:090 (.014)-.042 (.010.452

..:' .26

l''

; (226)v- 4

Acludingriter-district aegregationil SMSA, and inter-action of desegregation with South: :

Equation 2

1MR .'

Prop. black.In N

R SMSAAR x t'Constant

.

v-).199 (.156) -,:g6 (.157)

(.039) -;.035 (.016)-.044.066 (,008) --.041 (.010)

-4165 (.050) -.110 (.021)-.143 (.170) .242 (.47).-.059 ,.418 ,--

.R2 .36 . .35.

,

.

Including interactions of desegreOtion with proportionblack And inter-district segr4atinn; and also includingSouth-as a dUinmy variable: , '

. .

Equation 3

AR ,-.459 (.184)Prop. blank. .051-(.037)In N .003 (.006),

R SMSA -.210 (.044)OR x South '.148 (.198)AA x Pepp...111 ck 1.770 (.307):JRx*RSMSA , -.561 (.494)South .., '!-.00e(.010).'

Constant'', -.039 .-.,

;

1.1

174-349 '(.151)

-.026 (.019)

,-.039'(.009)-I -.102 (.025)

r :244*(.145).511 (.215) ..894 0.314)

-.002 (.L06).-

.414

.40

2i. .

a

"4,

Pare : Ravised,Tproportion.

Barge 21'

Tears of d

I '5

le' 15, F4rther Analysis Results (Equationes include ,black, and inter- district segregation)

AR - ARVSk'\2,

egrep;ation

69-7370-73 I71-73 i72-7.

46 . !

69-7370-7371=7A'72=73 1

f

-ARt

.320.(:060)'.330 (.069), .009 (.OSO).279 (.065) -.035 (.078) -.022 (.075) .43..603 (.096) :082 (..068) ,-.048 (070) ;71

7

f-

R2

.

.35

.089 (025)

.076 (.026)

.102 (.032)

.130 (.050)'

:034 (.026.024 (.025)

.051 (.033)

timated Added losses of whites due to deSegregatid segregation, in second year and third,year, ass

Secondyear

in-segregatiOn index.*

'First

year-

Larg 21 7.7%'Nfxt 46 .

*Unwei htederrors ere

averages of above estimates were usednearl alike.'

\ .34

4,, .31

-.024 (.027)..42-.045 (..020N..40'

\, ,

n in first year ofng reduction of

Third.year

v

.0.7%(gain)11, 9,7X(gain)

because standard

7

4

v

Page 72: Revised T lXe 17. Eatiiated Additional Loss of ,White Studentsin Speci ed Cities

i

. ..

(L s during4esegegation in cities which tad a 'Ar in oneear of-1-.1, beyond general loss of whites in those cities.Desegregation assumed is Ar = -.2.)

S

4

City, ,

.

....--

. --

, _

!..-

,

Estimated 1pss as a percentof'white students presentat beginning of year .t

Houstone

t)ailas

MemphisTampaIndianapolisAtlantaDenveiSan -Francisco.

__. ....... ...

Average

(gain)

.

, .....

,,,A

.(gain)

.

,

9.1%7.9%

15.6%2.6%6.7%16.7%CO%5.1%

5u2%

..

.

NOTE: Professor Reynolds Farley (personal communication 10 September,1975) has pointed out to us that Houston, Dallas, Memphis, and ,Denver annexed substantial.amounts of territpry during thepericid 1970 -73, so that the losbes for those cities maybeunderestimated due to an undetermined numbg of white childrenadded through annexation., Thus the apparent gains for Houston.and Denver may well be due to annexation.

,

V

23

4

a

-CONTENTS

4

' PREFACE..

TABLES... ..

FIGURES..

Introduction

' The'Measures of School integration'

- ,1* iii

vii

.....: . ....

........Integration In 1968

Within-District Segregation 4041600Regional .Variations . ge6oa000Variation by Size of District Y400006.0 . *00

. .

et Variation in Segregation by District Size ein Eich Region., .....Segregation at-Elementary.and Secondary.Racial Contact and Segregationin'the 22 Largest CentDal

City Districts.... ,

Trends in Within-System Segregation... o40000sChanges in Segregation at Elementary and Secondary LevelsChangei in 22 Largest Central-City Districts.

v..- . sA , .

Changes in Total Segregation and 'Segregation Between Districts.....

Within- and

.4

The Size of

. REFERENCES

APPENDIX f:

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 3:

iit

7

11,

1214'

1618

20

-.

Between-District Segregation in Metropolita&-Axeas. ..-... 49..

indiv1;dual ',SegregatingResponses to Desegregation ... . 53

0 .....Office for Civil Rights. *piing Plan and ReportForm, 1968, ...,....

Aiterritte Use of SI;b" ...........

Basic Data for. 70 Largest Central City School Districts- -All Schools, EleMentaty and Secondary, 1968-73.. ... .

. 24

4.

-

-a

IL

Proportion of Schoolmates from Each'Group

- -ofEich Group

for the Average Chil 12

- 2- Black-White Contact "."and School Segregation'in 1968b'', Region' 15

*-

3, Black - White Contact. and School Segregatiorvin 1968 by District. . T7

,

, .

,...;,.--

, -,

Size ...., . . ...,. - , .--.)

`Avarage Within-Disttict Segregation in 1968-in,Each legion- '-- 19

According to Dis-triCt -,: .:

'

7,5'Black-White Contact and School Segregation in 1968 by Region 12t2

,

fOr Elementary and . - ,and,. Schools'',-, ,...

,. . ,

Contact, 6,

Black-White ontact and School.-Sdgregation in 196$". for 22 Largaat.

24

'Central City SChool Districts ,"/":-''- ,,

,..',,,:,,,

--.,---- N,

..*,

Black - White. Contact and SChool Segregatienjp1972shy.Region:

8 Average Within-District Segregation in 1972 in Each Region

Accordinkto District. Size

33

5'

:lathin-District-Segregation in 1968, 1970, 1972 at Elementary s 34 '

and Secondary Levels for the U.S. as a Wfible

. - , , , , e

10 :4

Black-White. Segregation afid Contact of ,Blacks with Whitea'A.n 38

, . 22 Largest Central, SchOol DiatriCts, 196.8 -73A.. .

- e .--1 .7..Z->

11 Changes in Within-Districtand Betweem-District Segregation,,91.;

1968 and;1972 in _Each 'Region : 4k'

\ . !, 11

.'2, Between-District Segregation, in 1968 and 19'12 in Each Region 47

for Elementary and Secondary Schools .

. lt Blaqk-White Segregation among Schools within Central Cities and 50'

Betwaen-Distrits in the.Metropolitan Area" ,

45'

14 Regression Coefficients for Analysis of White StUdent Loss to 59

Central Cities

15 giirther Analysis Results

16 Reduction in Segregation 1968-73,'EXpected and Actual-Loss of

White Students 1969 -73, 22 Largest Central City School Districts

17 ',Estimated Additiona1fLoss of}White Students jn Specified Cities

1,1 '2'vii

68

70

'72'

.

M

I4

FIGURES

#

Average Within-Dist ilci 4egiegation,fl968-72 .by Region--(Alaska 'andcHavaii:omittedl '\

,2 'Avergge Within-District Segregation, 1968-72:by DistrictSize

Average Within - District, Elementary School. Segregation

by Region,..1168-72

30

31'

35

Average Within-District Secondary School SegregatiOn.by Region. 1968-72 36

5 Average Total Segregation by ,Region, 1968-72.4SAlaska andliawali omitted)

4

2G

44

1

.

I

INTR ODUCTION .

School desegregation has. been a major issue in the United States, in

the 1980's and 1910's. In 1954, the Supreme Court decision -iii the Browri

case initiated.a set of activities which has culminated in the -current.

desegregation efforts in large cities of .the North.

"Desegregation" has-.meant meat things during. the period since 1954.

The term initially referred to elimination

which one set of attendatce zones was used

of dual school 67sCems, in

to assign white children

set of schbals, and a second set of attetidanCe zones' was used to assign

black children to a different set of schools. The classic and plaintive

ne.

query of the black mother in the .8duth was why shoUld her 'ch be busSed

to a school far away, past al nearby school, merely because of the color of,

his skin...The extent 'of -ohangeAs that tbe sate plaintive query is now

,.heard; primarily from white- mothers,, primarily in large cities, where

bussing has begun to be4ised,, uPt to segregate children by race, but to

integrate the-M.

This change is reflected in a change in meaning of the term -desegre-z<

gation. From the initial Raaninvapt eliminating a system of dual assign-

ment, the term desegregati9n has come to mean reduction of any segregation

within a system, and in the strongest meaning-of the term, elimination of

any racial ,imbalance.among -schools in the sygtem. Thus desegregation,.

which initially meant abolition of a ,Jegally-impOsed segregation, has c,ome,

.ta.mead., in many cases, affirmative integration.4

2. ,

I,

However, except for one court case (in Detroit) which was,later

xs-

reversed in the Suprebe Court, desegregation' has not come to mean

fion of racial imbalance between school districts. Nor, except in, a few.1_

-instances; have two or more school systems combined or cooperated to

reduce segregation due to residence indifferent districts. Thus social

policy in school desegregation, althOugh changing over time andndifferent

,..,.

in different districts4has almost wholly been confined to desegregation

, of sch6ols within a schoolistrict.

..

.,....,,

.

'Given the policies that have been applied, by local.school systeMs,

by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and by the courts,

we can ask a series of questions concerning the actual state of racial

integration in schools, and recent,trends in that state. For actions

,taken by one branch of government and at one level of government interact -

with actions taken by individuals and by other branches and levels of

goriernmene. The actual State a sc io`o a tie az. ron- lila

. interaction. It is different thati it would be in the absence of theN.

policies designed to bring about integration; but it is more taan a simple

consequence of the policies. Inteed, there are numerous examples of

government policy in which. the resul of the interaction between policy

and ,response is precisely the opposite of the result intended by those

initiated the policy, It is especially important in the case of schoo

desegregation to examine this interaction, because many of the actit6ns

taken by individuals, and some'of those taken by their local go ernMent,

bodies, have precisely the opposite e4fect on school desegregation to

that inelended.by federal government policy. The most ob ious suchindivid-,

who

ual action, of cmurse, is a move of *residence to flee sehool integration.

ion ie Jr.. _kr.

3

To examine the status and trends in school segregStion, the`primary (and

virtually singular) data source are the statistical reporti'collected bY the:

'Department of Health, Education,jand Welfare. Beginning in 1968 and continuing

its

to the present, theOffice for Civil Riihts.,(OCRYafTIEW has obtained from school;

systems throughout the United States statistics showing the racial compositiOn

of each school in the district, the racial composition of teaching staffs, and. V.

related information* The data.,for 1968, 694 70, 71, 72, and 73 have been

processed and are available for fmalysis.- These data allow a detailed.-

statistical,ana ysis of the Status and trends in school segregation by

r ce throughout, the United States; They Are unique in(this; and -the

opportunity they ogg= is the opportunity to' examine what has actually

occurred throughout the period 1968-73 during which there have been

policies-at local, state, and federal levels, in courts, legislatures,

executive and administrative. branches of government related- to 'school"

desegregation. }lost of these policies have been aimed at bringing about

desegregation., though in a few cases, st h as anti-bussing actions in

4

Congress, they have,, been aimed at preventing certain kinds of desegregation.

Not all the questiOns surrounding-pchoel desegregation can be answered

by these data, as will be evident in subsequent pages, but pome,*n be, in. ,

. . -

a mare complete` way than before. -- .

Of the various policy aims that have been the objects of school desegt

regation policies, these statistical data can give evidence only on a subset

-of the aims. And fram this subset, we will examine a still smallet subset:

'. 4

the aim of eliminating racial, segregation among schools within a system,40,

whatever its source, and the aim of, eliminiting racial segregation between

districts.. The data gathered by OCR allow elect for the examination of

teacher assignment, and thus racial segregation siang Staff and

29

4

etween staff ati_studentt. However, we will not pursue that ewamination-

.'.

.. ..

' The data do 'not allow, on, the other hand, for a study of segregation t.. . .

among/classes within a school (often known as '!tracking"), because there is _

:no good information on pupil assigmmentto classes Within a,

00004 The---.

. .

Office for Civil Rights attempted,, in its 1971 qutsiionnaire,.-to obtain

I

,.

.

....$

...k, ...

.-. .these data from school systems,,.but abandoned the effort in 1971. A ?

more detailed and ihtensive modepl ...;//

4/

if dat of sufficient quality on

of data collection ,is probably' necessary_

assignments within school are to be obtained.

/to implication is attended by the examination_to be.carried opt below

that, the policSr aim; of eliminating, segregation among schools -with a'system,

-whatever.its-source, 1s the "correct" one, and.other policies whin would_

161th-eV go less far (such as eliminating only that school segregation not flue

."to residence) ors further (such as eliminating all segregation amont classes

b P ). .4'.

within a school) are not correct. The question' of what is the correct.

. -_pogcy depends not only on the

,

implicitly aimedfor social consequences,; .

,

but ,upon the palmrof legitimate authority of the governmental units .b

a

' applying the policy: .This in turn depends just which individual rights

citizens, have vested in. their goVernmelit for collective use, throUgh the

4'Constitution and legislative acts. For example,'tb.aaconplish the policy

r ,

aim, of-iiiminatingall segrogatip among schools, whatever its source,c ,,,

the most Offectiive iFplementation would be federally-specified pupil

-

assignment to'schools to create' precise racial balthice, disregarding

school district and state] lines. However, such a policy would be using

collectively certain rightsthat individuals have retained to themselves

or vested in a More local level of, government. At another example,

3 0.

YAW

6.

citizens have vested certain authority in the court,isuch as constitutional

p'rotection, but a wider Lange of authority in elected legidlatures. Thus

certain,policy ams such as elimination of segregation _ among schools

whatever its source may be appropriate for legislative action if it achieves

_certain desired consequences, but not appr Rriate for court action, which...

must be directed not toward achieving desirSble cial'goils, but insuring

. -.

. ..

tt..

constitutional, protection for; all citizens. It useful alsoto pdfut."

..

.7:

.

out that data such as these whiCh show the indiiect and unintended conse-,

.

, . - r.. .

quences of school desegregation actions may be relevant for certain

desegregation decisions, but not for others. Tbey,Ale-relevant for an-

.

t.

.;.= .

executive or legislative body which is attempting in its action to achieve. ,

A....desirable _sol*A-ccmsequenCe. They are not relevant for a court

decision which is acting to insure eqUal protection. der the 14th.

-Amendment.

, Despite the. fact th

-

-tt only. two _aims, stvd.enticlepegregation arao'rig

stole In. a.district regat le4s*of the source of segregation, and

desegregation between scho districts, can be studied there 'are -a number.

ff important questions that an be answered with these data. In patiicular,'. .

these data show the result of vernment desegregdtion actions and.individ-,

41.1a1 segregating actions taken together, and fallow some assessment of the

effects of.each. In' this way, they suggest the limits- of government

policytot at least the limits of policies' carrlol'out in the Conflict. ,

mode that has characterized school desegregatiOn'policy.,

or,

We will begin by examining the state of rSCIal'integration among Schools

within ndistrict in 1968, and then move to an examimation'of the'chihges

that,occurred over the period 1968-1973. What will beiofspecial interest

31

41,

6

. 1

I ..

is the diff ential changes that occurred over t at period of time in differ-

ent.kinds:df schdol settings: id different-regions of the country, in

school,dfstricts of different sizes,.and in particdlar large cities. For

different, things were happening in different places,during this time,

giving/riseo very different trends .in different, places./

For much of the analysis in examining trends, two separat. e s eries must

be used., The even years, 1968, 1970, 1972, constitute a census of U.S.

. .. .

-school districts, coverin4 90% of the'childr in school; and excluding only.. ,

. . -

,

r a few very small districts. . The odd years include only a sample of school

/systems, representing those districts in which most minority pupils are

4

found.' When examining Vends over time districts tthe odd-

numbered years can be safely included, because each district is either.4

included .4s.a whole, orPexcluded. Butfor average across

across regions, across states, and even metropolitan areas

:

cannot be included, and the series must end with 1972.-

'See Appendix rfOr OCR sampling plan.

.". V

f.

,

4

0,

the country,

; the odd yegrs

5

03,

1

THE MEKSURESOF sumac. INTEGRATION

A principal consequence of school desegregation that is of major

societal in st is the amount of contact between children of different

40

racial groups.2

Furthermore, most of the attention has been focussed on

the amount of contact of "minority" children (principally blacks and

SpanishJAmertcan children.3). with "majority whites." Much attention both

of courts and legislatures has been directed toward eiiMination of patterns

f, -

that result in schools which are overwhelmingly or predominantly minority.

, -..For these reasonsa directly. relevant statistical measure on a

.. ,

school systeni is_the proportion of white chtldren in e same school with

the, average black child. This giveg a measure of t e experience of the4 -

"average black child" in that school district with whites. 'A similar

2A different consequence may be of legal interest:, the degree towhich segregation resulting from action of any level of government(thus failing-to provide equal protection under the 140 Amendment)is eliminated. Still other consequences are of interest to particular'groups, and these may depend on the particular way that segregationor integration arises. For example, if either segregation or integra-tion is achieved through assignment of-children to schools at somedistance because of their race, theh the parents affected may feel agreater deprivation of rights than in the case when such assignmentdoes not occur;'even if the school's racial composition does not

_ differ. However a study of the kind carried out here cannot eXamine,these consequences.

t -A

1 CR surveys measure enrollments of the following categories:We s, American Indian, Oriental, Spanish Surnamed Americans, and

er. White non7minCirity And undesignated minority groups are .

included in the category "Other."J

',-,, .

tt.

337

8

..

measu4 may be calculated for thfliroportio4 of children of each racial. 4. .

t ,, *

group in the school of the average child from each radial: group.4

This measure is affected not only by the degree of segregation between

two groups in different schools in the system, but also by the overall

proportion of children in each group. If there are few white children in

the system, for example, then whether or not there is the same proportion

of whites in each school, the average black child will have a small propor7,,

tion of white children in his school. Because of this, it is valuable

also to have a measure of just how far from an even distribution across?-7:N

the schools the actual distribution is, that is, a measure that is stare-

4

dardized for the number of whites in the system. Such a measure can 15Pei,

constructed, having a value of 0 if there is, no segregation between the4.

4Themeasure of interracial school contact may be constructed as follows:If we number the schools ikthe system I, ...k, ...n, and consider the firstschool, there is a given proportion of whites in this school,. Call this

pu. There are a certain number of blacks in the school. Call this nib.

Then for this number of blacks, the proportion. of Whites in their school is

piw. If we average this proportion over all schools, weighting by the

number of blacks, we obtain the desired' measure, which we may call sbre

the proportion of white children in the school of the average black childOpt more generally, labelling the group i and j for generality):

E

S '2..k nkbPkw 1

(1.) 3

.,

bw ,* E

k nkb 4-." or fpr any groups i and j

1 E

14,nkiPki(2)

sib ck nki

d

34

to*

I

I

"^--. two groups in

It is imp

uestion, and a value of 1.0 if segregation is complete.5

rtant to note, however, that although the standardized mea-

sure is a measure of,segregation of children in one, group from those of

.another, it is the =standardized measure which measures directly theF.

presence orChildren of a group in schools attended by children of another

group. Thus the proportion of white schoolmates for the average black

child may be low, as in Washington, D.Ct, where only 3% of the children

are white, without' the measure of segregation being especially high.6

5 The standardized measure of segregation is constructed as follows. If

the same proportion of children froii63roup j were in each school, then,

sij (see preceding footnote for notation) would be equal to pj ..If, the

children of group j were all in schools by themselves, totallyAsolated

from children of group i, sij

would be 0.' Thus a measure of how far sij

is from pj. is (pj s jj)/p.. this we will call rij'which may be thought

9

of as a measure of the degree of segregation, or the degree to which

segregation between schools is responsible for the value of sij. 'The

formula is

p - s

rij = 3sij

pi

6For some purposes, ft is preferable not to standardize sijto create a

, . .

"measure of segregation," rij

, but rather to let sij

be a dependent vari-4,

,

able in an 'analysis, with one of the independent variables the proportion

of group j in the System. Using this alternative, we a not begin with a

concept of "begregation," but rather with a concept of proportion Of the,

average member of group i's'schoolmatet that are of group j. The degree

to which this is accounted for by the proportion of group j in the systemis a measure of the integration-of group i with j. In a regression

equation, if the coefficient on the propOrtion of group j is 1, there is

no segregation. ',Insofar as it is belmel, there is.

4

I

U

INTEGRATION IN 1968

In 1968 in the United States, 15% of the children in public schools

(grades 1-12) were black, 6% were of another minority, and 79% were majority

whites. But the average black child in U.S. schools went to a schoOl which

4,4

had 74% black children in it, and-only 22% white children (and 4% other

minorities). Meanwhile, the average majority white child was in a school

.which was 93% white and only 4% black.

These numbers show' that the interracial contact in American schools

in 1968 was quite low. Black children had more contact with whites than

whites had.with blacks, due to the disparity in overall numbers; but the

separation was quite marked. Using the standardized measure described. ,

earlier, rij, the segregation between blacics and whites is .72.7

Although in the subsequent examination we will focus exclusively on

black-white segregation, it is useful to note here the proportion of

schoolmates. from each.of the five racial-ethnic groups fbr the average,

child from-eacil group. Table 1 shows this for 1968.8

As this .table shows, the average white child it the U.S.-has far less

contact with any minority children than any of the minorities have with child-.

ren from other groups. Among the4ainorities,. black children,have least con-\,

tact with children from.other groups. Construction of standardized measures

-7 Using'equation (3), this is calculated as r =

.75 .2i- .72 .

bw .79t ,i

8(Ustng equation (3), standardized measures of segregation may be calculatedfor each pair of groups, from the mbulatiori presented.

11

.3G

Tattle 1.

s-

412 ,

PROPO6ION OF'SCHOOLMATES FROM EACH GROUP .F THE AVERAGE CHILD OF EACH GROUP

Proportion of schoolmates who are:

For theAverage:

----,

American.

-r Indiane

1

, r

Negro'

704

Oriental'American

0+

SpanishSurname

.

.06

Majority

White

,

.59

Sum

1.00

AmericanIndian .31

Negro- °

I

5.74 0+ .03 .22 .99

,......f..

D'rl, enial

American .11

.

.11.

.12.

.66 1.00

Spanish /Surname /-

,

.

0+ .11

0

.01

.

.43:

.44 .99

MajorityWhite 0+'

-,

.04 0+ , .03 .93 1.00

.

Proportionof each group .0035 .1530

.

.0047

_

.0466 .7923

of segregation frot these figures would show that blacks and whites are the

most segregated, both from one another and from the other groups.

6-'

Within-district segregation

The segregation reflected it the value of .72 for'black-white segregation

is composed of two parts: segregation among schools within the same school

district; and segregation due to blacks and whites living in different school

3 IIS

\

13

districti. Thd average of the within-district segregation, when- weighted

according to the number of blacks in the distriCts, is' somewhat lower, at

..63. However, this figure represents a degree of segregation nearly as

large as that for total segregation. (If everydistrict in which blacks

. lived had the same racial composition; then eiven this same segregation

of .63 within districts, the average black child would have had 29%

white schoolmates, rather than 227.. This would have been somewhat more

contact, bit still not a high amount.9)

A different picture is evident when we examine/the ,,averagf within-

district segregation weighted by the -number' of whxites in the district.

This figu're is .23. The low number compared the high .63 for the

average weighted by the number of blacks reaects/thb fa at most

whites live in smaller districts with few blacks, while most blacks-.in districts with many whites. If segregation in the smaller districts

was low in 1968 (as we shall see shortly it was), then the within-district

__sggr.egat4en-fer-the-avera-ge black would be high. Or to ,put it differently,

the segregation within the districts where most blacks live is high, while

the segregation within the districts where most whites live is much lower.

This reflects also the fact that most whites live in districts different

from those in which Rost blacks live.

We shall .use as a measure of the average within-district segregation

in the subsequent analysis the average weighted by numbprs of black ,

students, since desegregation policy within districts has focussed on the

districts with many blacks, and upon the interracial contacts of blacks.

9The value of 29% is calculated by use of equation (3) with rbw = 6.3.79 - sb

pw = . Thus .63 = .79 w , or sbw = .29 .

38 , 1

14 SA

Mb

Regional Variations

However, the degree -of bc 0oI uegregation differed considerably atong

regions of the country in 1968., Table 2 shoWs,.-for the Census geographicA

-

,regiong,-the-contact of blacks and "whites, and the segregation, in each of.

the regions.10

-

.=Table 2 shows, 'comparing columns 1 and 3, the disparity betweenthe

proportion white in each region and the propaitton white among theaverage

black'ssChooimates. AlthOugh the proportion white ranges from .69 io :93,

in no region except the Outlying states does the 'average black have a majority

of white schoolmates. Only in New England does the proportion approach -this.

Comparing columns 2 and 4 shows a similar disparity for.whites:' although...-

the yroportion black reaches .29 in one region, in no region does the 6efrage

white have more tha 7% black/4choolmates.

These disparities a shown in column

J.

the measure of-total segre-

gation. It is greatest in the.two Southern regioni, though not so much. .

t Agreater than several northern regions as might be expected, given

Ihistoric

al .., .,

differences between North and South in school policy. With-this relative. . 1

similarity betOeen total segregation in North and South in 1968,/it'is some-

.

what puzAling that when the goals of desegregation shifted froM elimination,

of'dual systems to more ambitious ones, attention continued to be concentrated

on the South until the early 1970's. The ex6lanation'probably lies in the

16Several regions have been reclasiified, because' the character of racialSegregation has differed.within the region. Hawaii Alaska have beenseparated as "outlying" states from.the Pacific regi6.4; and the SouthAtlantic. and East South Central havegoeen combined and redivided intoBorder (Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky) and Southeast (allothers in these two regions). It all tabulEitions'beyond Table 2, theOutlying states,'Hawaii and Alaska, are dropped, because as Table 2shoWs, there is no black-whitesegregation in theirachoOls, and thenumberiof placIs in those states ,is very small.

I

39.

*

15

Table 2. *BLACK-WiiITE, CONTACT AND SCHOOL SEGREGATION IN 1968 BY REGION

PiOportiOn. - . ' Schoolmates

Blackt-white .,,segregatiou

1

white

2

black

k.3 ,'whites foraverage 41ack.

4, blaaks foraverage white

5withindistrict

6

totak,

U.S. .79:7 .15 t.22 - .04 ,.63.. ,

.72

New England.

.93-.-

,.., 4 05....:.,',

-, -...

. .49 : .03\,. -.:..-..;

'". .34 .47 :

Middle -Atlantic .81

. .7

v14 .31

.

.05 .43

r ,.

:62

Border.

.79 .21 .26

'

.07 .48 .67 ,:.*-4

Southeast .69 .29 . .16..

.

,---. .07

,..,

...:75 -.77

-West South ..,

Central .78

r

.16

I

.18 . -.134- .69 .77

East North.,

Central

C .

.

-

.12 .29J

',..t,

',- .04-.

' .58,

.67

' .

West NorthCentral ,

.. ,c,

.09 4. .27

. -ca.'.03

. .,..t,

. ', 4c ,

.61 .10''

Mountain . .03 -.36".'

3.01. .49 .*-.56':.:>

Pacific' .:..r

,.i5 ., .02'; .56 ._. -- .68-, .,

a

Outlying'.

, 413 .83 {'.,

.,,.,,, ..

. 035

(-).04 .

.) .05

?r,

:.,, . ..--, -, ,-,. . ..,.. , _ . . .copflitt surrounding desegregation: The desegregation movement was part of. . ,.,.;, 4 I -..,-,--4.

..,, .a larger 'Movement of th,e1.960' s of liberating the southern Negro. Only wits_ . . ._,.. -.,

4:1

the success of 'that movement' did attention turn. to:the North.

In the 'measure Of within-district segregation..(c .0 the. two. .

- .,southern regions are more' distinct frpia the northern regions..., The,

..-..southeast shows the c).asSic at tern of southern segregatio'n, with nearli,-,..

- ..,..,,!,-,..r. .-, . . . .. ,.all the segregatf occurringwithin districts, while ',New England, Middle

.

Atlantic, and Birder regions show what lea emerged as .th4, northern. p4te'rn.-A

of segregationsegregation...due to' blacks and whites attending schools in;.,,

different distriCts. 'Ili those three, reiiOns, the, fatio. 44f the within- district

segregation to the, total segregation . ,lowest, to .7*; '',. .t.:,, , ,.,.

s -Variatfon by ,$).ze of districtV,-.

r ,The policies .of desegilhation; as weltas the individual r:eqpiinses

,

go ,t, vary gieatly.ty ,iiStrict size. Desegregation in an urban,district

different pro ese froia. that in *small district inn-a rural ar. 4 - ,:. .

astlt is important., to examine regional variations (bee,ause of

sf

.

fferenos and because of the different desegregation policies applied* in

;

earea is a vety- .F.:.,

eat .Thus, just ...', Y ,,

- .NOrth.and.SOuth),;, it is iiPottant tp'.examine ,variations by:,.distriCt,`-..

, , :SinCe cliitricr` bounciaties..ract'Ot* Often.coincide' with central ci4!., boundaries,

;--, , '"variationa' in districl. sizk' are _largely cOincident With itariatian in city_,.

,.. , .. ., ,...:size.,

14hawathe IVO interracial contact and,,se.gregatioil by diatrici

..

, t'' -'size , T);(e 'cOiruMns have the Same_ meaning as columns 1-5 of 'able,,, 2., "tOoluMn

,.._''':-

6 itt, not inaticied iiefe 'sinde iltotal segregatiOn' has meaning only for a .-', \ .' .' ::::',..,,, ,:: s4

g'

ao.

g' r... a.,--

P, h i c

't ; ;tr...'

i.%

f i,

t.,

i#

"4S.

U,g,

h -'.,,.. ,M.

,

. SA'.'' \

o'.

r r eli.:.,-, o,n . .,

'r,

g,., t , tolumrts ana t'.-.2,.Is'h

s

ow

the tiy. ,sizes,the smalle*the district, the....

t e r the t. op or t io n white and 8.,th,ane.ra4propOt0on. Maces, resultt ti 4. ,, .,. 1 .' I

..

' s t,461

:

-.*

O

"..

'"!.

"ar!

*-f

.Table

4fac.F:wgt.yp..copt4tT AND SCHOOL sggRgctafl0rlIN,X966.13Y DZATItit9T,SIZE*

.,

Fv

qf.

7

r

:.:

,:

,'-:

%::

. -..-

.-

tFop

ozgl

..an-

WI'

:7: a

ll tia

liiiia

indistricts af-,9':',-.:c1;rst,rict-of

ii

-"

.-..;

..et Zs- site_

..,,,

;,,:.

..

'-Proportion .qf

n .f

ail liiicks JAI

this

site

-- %

.4.

,

:4*.

Txp

p,?-

rt10

13"

- ;

=',:

:.,

. ',

..;> pchoolmates

.

.

.5Blac4.-whitg

,

within

district

1i:"

2--:::

'whi

t-bl

ack

-blic

ic--

...3iihites for.t'

'''.

average-bl,aujc.

,,.,

-....

.-

Irigacks for

."-

-average white

segregation

f. g

.14

.'

3..0

- -.

4.-

4.00

.9:

5:

,...-

.:-

2,=

.63

.

.4 ''

'l''

'..

D'istrictiliie

'''''..

....i

',

:1

.;*.

-:-

., .

-:,

.e4.;

.,

-...

,,. .. ...

%

..::.:-

.

."

.4.

8 '.

.12.

....

,

*-.L

,-.... '

.

.09

..7

1.

. -

..

,,..

,,,

.,

. ,,...-

.!>

'100

',O

W).

" `

.'..

.-...

).-,

'''"

.,''.

1-...

.-'

2$7,

100,

0g0

.._

,....

.t*-,

-.:::

;,...,

-- - -.

. ?

.

.* -

'',.:,--,...,

r

,%

.a3

,.

- .... ::.

.,

,.

.-.-

'.73

.20

..

:.:1-r; '.

.,

.22

,

.

., 06

. .66

'...

.

-.

i'l.P

:2$?

00 0

:, ,....:-.;

.- .

-4 .1

24,\

,

.:,..

',I4.

'...

....:,

.... 11...

'..

.. .' .3

. 0;

S.6

4.

/

.54

5-10

;63

f 7.

'i.

.1'.8

..

'''-

.11

.9.0

4

,

...-.59

2.5-5,000.

.

.

..

. -..,

1 /1

7.."

.:.

4.

-.09

....

,...

,.*

09

.34

.

.03

.

. 56

<.2

,500

c...

.16

,.06

.90

.06

.35

/.40

244

,

S

* The size classification for districts was carried out only once, forcomparabikity across years.

Sizes are based on 197-.nrollments.

18

of this is shown in columns 3 and 4: the average black child has as in-

creasing proportion of white schoolmates as district size decreases, and the

average white has .a decreasing proportion of black schoolMates as district'

size decreases.

'Column 5r shows thatgiyen the racial distributions in the districts,

the average segregation is_greatest within the largest diStricts and declines

somewhat as district size, decreases. Ibus not all the increase in the pro-

portion of white schOOlmites for the average black child in smaller districts

is due totthe greater proportion of whites in those districts. Part is due

to the lesser segregation in'the smaller districts.J

Variations in segregation by district size in each region

The differing patterns of segregation in North and'South suggest the

uf3efulness of examining segregation in different size districts in each of

the regions. Table"4 shows the measure of segregation (column 5 in Tables

2 and 3). in each size class in each region. First, lucking at the largest

districts, the most striking point is that segregation is high not only ina

! .

the two southern regions; it is equally high in three of the five northern

. .

regions. Only in Middle Atlantic and Border states is the degree of segre-

gation in the largest districts lower.

As district s1ze decreases, however, segregation decreases markedly out-

side the two Southern regions. In the Southeast, segregation remains almost

constant among all size disVricts, appi in the West South Central region, it

declines only slightly as distOct size decreases. Thus in 1968, the dif-

ference between South and North in segregation is not at all 1n the largeSt

cities, but in the smaller cities and towns. A caution should be introduced,

however: the measures of segregation do not tellithe levels of contact be-

41

TAW A4.- AVERAGE WITHIN-DISTRICT SEGttEGATION IN 1968 IN EACHREGION ACCORDING TO DISTRICT SIZE

District

Size (000)

U.S.

New

England

Middle

Atlantic

Border

ISouth-

,east

..

West

South

Central.

East

North

Central

West'

North

Central

Mountain

.

.Pacific

>100

..71 t

---

.53

.

..

.84

.19

.79

.82

__

.84-

25-100

.66

j?,48

.54

sf46

i

.77

.74

.61

.64

..

.56

.45

10-25

.54'

'

.28

''

.30

.23

'.69

..61

'

.33

.22

.44

.35

. 5-10

'.59

,.08

s.15

,.

.24

.74

.64

.18

..

.45

.20

2.5-5

.56

.06

.08

.13

.74

,.52

.09

.19

.

.11

.08

2.5

.44

.01

4.04

.04 -

.70

'

.36

.02

.09

.

.06

.05

p

.

,

Ir

4,

420

tween the two racial groupR: as Table 2 showed, the average white' child in

the Southeast has, despite the higher levelslof segregation, a higher propor-,.

tion of black schoolmates than in-any other region, except in the Border states

whete it is equal. These tables suggest, in fact, that it.is the poten-

tially high proportion of black schoolmates, due to a high proportion black

in the region or district, that generates high leVelof segregation. Table

2 shows a rather strong relation between the proportion black in a region,

and the total or within district segregation..

Segregation at elementary and secondary levels

In the tabulations up to this point, allustudents iii all. schools were

included, whatever grade they werein: However, inmost localities, schools

s.

are divided into, different levels,"at least into an elementary.school and

high school, though sometimes into three levels (a 6-3-3 plan, with junior

high schools,, or a 4-4-4 plan or a 5-3-4 plan).11

Elementary schools are

characteristically smaller than high schools, having smaller geogra i

attendance zones, with several elementary schools feeding.into asingle

high -school. Because of,residentfal segregation by race, we would expect

. .

the attendance zones of elementary schools to be more racially homogeneous,, ..-

and thus to be more segregated than high schools.

;

11In recent years, the &fart to achieve. integration without bUssing hasled. to even finer divisions in some cases,*with a school building whichonce covered. the four years of high school, for example, now coveringonly two years, with twice as large an attendance,zone.

.

45

e

r

fe-

#c_.

(

Table 5, which is comparable to the first six columns of Table 2,

show the degree of interracial contact and the degree of segregation

for t e U.S. as a whole and for each region, in elementary and seconciary.

21

schools. As the table show, elementary schools are more segregated than high

schools; in every region. Only in the Southeast is the segregation at the

--two levels nearly the same. This reflects the remains of 'the historical de

jure segregation of the South,Jihich.segregates beyond the segregation induced

by residence, and thus segregates the high schools .as fully, as elementary.

.

The erence in segregation.at elementary and secondary levels is rather

subsirtial in most regiohs, and in the U.S. as a whole: the average black ele-

'mentary school child has only a sixth (0.17) of his schoolmates white, while the

average black secondary' school child has a quartei.(0.25) of his schoolmates

white. Whether the greater segregation at the elementary level includes a

greater tendency, on the part of whites to segregate their elementary school

children, beyond the due tb small attendance zones, cannot be inferred from

these data. However, the examination .of trends from 1968-72 -in a subsequent

section will give some indications of different processes at elementary and

,

.

12Because of the varying organization of sChoold intolevels, and because of.the way,data were collected by OCR (the grade levels covered by each schooland the ;Lumbers of each racial group in each school, but not by grade level)a fiked rule for classifyink a schools as "elementary" or "secondary" wasrequired. This was to count every school with a sixth grade as elementary,and every school with a tenth grade as secondary. This excluded some schoolswith less than the first six grades; but to inclUde them along with thesixth7grade schools for which they were feeders would have incorrectlyassessedsegregation between, say, a,grade 1-4 school and a 5-8 school,rather than segregation across all sdhople serving a- given .grade level.Soule schools in email communities, which cover grades 1-12, are includedboth aselementary and secondary, uUsing this method, however, we obtainthe segregation at,two levels in the community, the 6th and 10th grade level.

4.6

22'

Table .imAckwHrrE CONTACT AND SCHOOL SEGREGATION IN 1968 BY4;.'REGION., FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

,

. .

-Proportion

.

. Schoolmates,Black-whitesegregation

1.

white'

2

black3 whites for.

average black

.

4. blacks foraverage white

.

5 withindistrict

,

6total

U.S.

--iltimentary

Secondary.77

.81,'

I. .

.17_

.15

-,--..

.

.

- .17'

.25.

.

.04.

.05

. .70

.61

.78

.70.

New England

SlementarySecondary

.92

.95.

,

.06

-, .04.43.68

- .

.03

.03

.

,,

.40

.14,..53

.29

Middle Atlantic

ElementarySecondary

'

.79

.87

.15

.10 , ty

: .05

.05

.

.50

.27'''A

-.67

.46

.

Border. .

ElementarySecondary

.78

.85

.

. .21

.1\

.

.

. .21

.39

. i

.06

.07

.

.56

.35

.73

.54

Southeast

ElementarySecondary

.

.66

.67

.32

.32

. .12

.15

.

.06

.07

,

4

.79

.75, .81

.78'. .

West South Central

Elementary

. Secondary.76

.81 _

.18

.15

.14-

.23 ,

,

. .03

.04

.

.76

.63

:

1g

East North.Central..-

ElementarySecondary .

.86

.90

.13.

.10.24

.41

. .04

'.04

,

a

.

.

.65

.43

.32

.55

West North Central

ElementarySecondary

,

.89

.93

.10 ''''

.06

.22

..38

.

,03.03

.,

, .66

.47.75

.59

.

Mountain

Element'ary

Secondary

.

.80

.83

.03

..'.02-

-

.28

.53 ,

'.01

.01 ..

. :

.59

..32

.

.66

.36

Pacific

ElementarySeco npry

.7

.

.s

.08

.0 .

,

.21

.36

Y

.02

.02

Y'^

.

,

.62

.44

'%- .'

.73

.57

.

47

t

23.et

secondary levels.

Racial contact and segregation in the 22 largest central-city districts

As Tables 3 and 4 show, segregatiOR is most pronounced in the largest

11,-,- t.school districts, which tend to be located in the largest cities. Table 6,

'in the same format as columns 1-6 of Table 2, shows for the twenty-two laig- .

est central-city districts (1972 enrollment) the proportion of schoolmates

of the other race in columns 3 and 4,1.and the measure of segregation in

13column 5, The first seventeen of these are in the 100,000+ size category

in Tables 3 and 4; the last five are in the 25-100,000 class. In only three-

cities (Columbus, Boston, and San Diego) did the average black child have more

,than a quarter of his achoolmateswhitynd in only six cities(Philadelpbia,.

Detroit,.Baltimore New Orleans, New York, and San Francisco,,pgcluding

Washington, D.C., which is an aberrant case, almost racially homogeneous) did

the 'average white child have more than 15% of hia schoolmates black. This

v,law degree of contact is reflected by the segregation measures, eight of which

are .80 or above, and only three of which are beloil .60. These figures re- c.

emphasize what Table 4 shows: that segregation in large cities in 1968

was not concentrated in any region of the country, but appeared to a similar

degree. in all regions.

Altogether, the picture of racial segregation in U.S. schools in 1968

is one with several components:

13. .

,

-These 22 largest central city. school districts are classified accordingto 1972 enrollment and So Office of Education metropolitan status 'Class-ification. They represent 22 of the 23 largest central city districts;Albuquerque is excluded (the 22nd largest) becaUse it is not among the .largest 50 cities' in total. population. , ,

1-.

ti

24

Table 6: BLACK-,:IHIT CONTACT MID SCHOOL SEGREGATION IN 1968FO-R- 22 LARGEST CENTRAL CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS

(Districts ranked by 1972. Enrollment)-

.

. .

Proportion-

Schoolmates. ,,

Segre-gatiotwithindistrict

.

1While 2BlackWhites foraverage black

Blacks foraverage white

1. New York

2. Los Angeles.

3. Chicago

4. Philadelphia1

5. Detroit

6. Houston

T. Baltimore

8. Dallas

9. Cleveland

10. Wash., D.C.

11.« Memphis..

12. Milwaukee

13. San DiegoP

14. Columbus .-

--,

15. Tampa ...'

/6. Se..Louis

17. New Orleans.

18. Indianapolis

19. Boston

20. Atlanta

21. Denver

22. San Francisco

'

..

.44

6. /

.54

.3&

.39

.39

N.53

.35

.61

.42

.06

.46-

v.73

.76

.74

.74

.36.

.31

.66

.68

.38

.66

.41

;

.31'

.23

\ .53

.59

. .

.59

.33

.65

.31

....56

.93.

.54

.24

- ,-,12

.26

.19

.64

.67

.34

.27

-..16i

414

.28'

.

_.

-

'.31

.67.

..05

.14"..

'.I.

.06

.10

.06

.06

.03

,04

.18

.26

.30

..16

.07

.09

.22

..27

06,*

.20

.25

)

.

0

r

.17

.03

.08

., ..2L

.20

Y.04

.19..c

.03

.09 --

.44

.04,

.06

.04

.10

.04

.12

.' .19

.11

.11

.09

.04

.17'

.

...

,

.

e

.

4'

-

.

'

.47

.86-'

.86

.64f

.66

.89

al.91

.85

.53, ..

.92

.75

:66

.60

I

.78

.82 ,'

.72

.67

.60

.85

.69

.38

-

9

49 /

4 . 25

1. High segregation in the largest cities of the country, where, the

proportions of blacks are greatest;

Sharply lower segregatiod in smaller'districts everywhefe-butqhb.

South (and slightly lower there),

blanks in these smaller districts

but much smaller proportions of

-- except in the South;

3. A large contribution.to total segregation in some northern regions --

due to blacks and whites living in diff4rent districts, so that the

'difference in total segregation between North and South is consider-

ably less than their diff,erence.in segregation within districts;

4. Greater. segregation, at elementary than at secondary levels, 'due

_ aCleast in part col the smaller, more homogeneous areas served_by

elementary schools.L . .-

5. A seeming,paradox: the region with the highest degree of segrega-

-tion, the Southeast, is also the region in which thelaverage white

child had the highest proportion of black schoolmates (.07). The

reason, of course, lies in the higher proportion of blacks in. the

Southeast., .......

..,

.. :;

''. It is clear from .these data that by 1968,-desegregation.of schools was

a far from accomplished task in cities and/towns of_all sizes in the South;

but that in the largest cities it

school systems had never existed.

Pthe major thrust of desegregation

was equally high in many places where dual

But this was the picture in 1968, before

id schools had'occurred: The next four

years show strong trends toward desegregation. It is these trends to which

. We now turn.

... 50 4

.,

27

TRENDS EN.WITHiN-SYSTEM SEGREGATION

Between'1968 and 1972, there was a sharp reduction in black -white

segregation in the United States. In 1972, 16% of public school children

Were black, and 77% white. The average'black ckild in 102 went to a school

that was 61% black compared to 74% in 1968) and 34% white. And the average

majority white child was in a school which was 89% white and 7% black: The

"comparison below shows the change from 1968 to 1972:

1968

.

1972

Proportion»

, SchoolmatesBlack -white

I segregation

white black

.

whites for .average black ,

blacks foraverage white

.

,

witdis

inrict

.,.,

Total

.79

.77'

".15

;16

.

.

,22

,

.34

.04

.07 -

.63

.37

l

.72.

.

, .56

The change from 1968 to 1972 is substantial. Indeed, the averaie with-

"in- district segregation in 1972 between blacks and whites may not be greater

than that between some, pairs of white ethnic groups. But the change from

168 to 1972 consists of very different changes in,different locales. or

reference in making comparisons with Table 2, Table 7 shows the irit rracial

Table 7.

BLACK - WHITE CONTACT AND

SCI;

4.,001 SEGREGATION IN 1972.5fRiGION

0.

.,

Prollortio

Schoolmates

Black,-White

segregation

IWhite

2Black

,-;White's for

'average black

Blacks for

'average wh1te

Within

district

s'Total

U.S.

New England

.,

,

Middle Atlantic

Border,

South

t

West"South Central

.

East. North Central

West North Central

Motilatain

Paciff.c

4,1

.77

.92

.78

:79

.68

.76

.86

.89

.80

.75

.16

.06.

.16

.21--

.30

.17

.13

.09

.03'

.08

-%

,

.34

.47.

.28

.28

.28

.

.28

.30

.

.52

.29

.

`

.07

.03

.b6

.07

-.19.

.06

.03

.02

.03

,

, 2. .

\,

e37

.

.33

.43

'.44

.19

.48

.57

.56

-....

-.-

.25

...42

,..6.5

.'.;-35

.56

.49

.64

.35

.63

.67

,

.-6

.61

I.

29

contact and the segregation in each of the regions. But the varying changes

"

can best be seen via a graph. figure 1 shows the trends i \...n average segre-. ,

. , .

gation within school districts(comparable to column 5 of Table 2 and Table,- , ,

7) in each region over the three points in time, 1968, 1970, and 1972. There

is a radical drop in the Southeast; froth highest at .75 in 1968 to lowest