impact of free/reduced lunch school composition on student ... · demonstrating that high-poverty...

In the following report, Hanover Research discusses the increasing trend of economically integrating schools and the potential impact of economic integration on student achievement. The report includes profiles of three exemplar districts with long-standing policies of economic integration.

Impact of Free/Reduced Lunch School Composition on Student

Achievement

February 2013

Hanover Research | February 2013

© 2013 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary and Key Findings ............................................................................... 3

KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 3

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 4

Section I: Literature Review .............................................................................................. 5

RESEARCH ON POVERTY AND ACHIEVEMENT ..................................................................................... 5

OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS ......................................................................... 9

Section II: District Profiles .............................................................................................. 10

LA CROSSE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WISCONSIN ..................................................................................... 10

CAMBRIDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MASSACHUSETTS ............................................................................. 11

WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NORTH CAROLINA ........................................................................ 13



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS The economic integration of schools is an often-overlooked but increasingly popular approach to raising the achievement of low income students, viewed by many researchers and advocates as a policy successor to racial integration. Policy advocates argue that the benefit of economic integration is supported by more than 40 years of research demonstrating that high-poverty schools negatively impact student achievement and that all students perform at a higher level in middle-class schools. In this report, Hanover Research reviews research on the impact of free and reduced-price lunch eligible student enrollment on student achievement within the context of economic integration. Additionally, Hanover profiles the three school districts most frequently discussed in the literature on economic integration policies: La Crosse School District in Wisconsin, Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts, and Wake County Public Schools in North Carolina, evaluating similarities, differences, and challenges faced. KEY FINDINGS

A significant body of research suggests that the socioeconomic composition of a school’s student population can affect student achievement, regardless of the socioeconomic status of the individual student. Thus, low-income students tend to perform better in middle-income schools, while even middle-income students may perform more poorly when placed in high-poverty schools.

Estimates of the maximum proportion of low-income students permissible within a school while retaining the benefits of a middle-class environment range from 40 to 60 percent. One study estimates that for every 1 percent of middle-class student enrollment, low-income student achievement improves by 0.5 to 0.8 percent, varying by subject.

As of 1996, only one school district practiced economic integration. By early 2012, 80 school districts nationwide had an economic integration policy, impacting 4 million students. Economic integration is most often discussed in the context of racial integration, and socioeconomic status is sometimes viewed as a proxy for race in research and decision-making. Some districts adopted economic integration policies in anticipation of the 2007 Supreme Court decision disallowing the consideration of race in making school assignments.

Of the three districts profiled in this report, the most prominent examples of districts with economic integration policies, those in La Crosse, Wisconsin and Wake County, North Carolina both faced serious controversy over the policies within their communities, leading to battles for control of the local school board. Anti-integration movements in both districts were able to elect enough likeminded board members to overturn the district economic integration policies. In La Crosse, the economic integration policy ultimately prevailed, while the more recent controversy in Wake County remains unsettled.



DISCUSSION There are strong correlations between the ratio of low-income and middle-class students in a school and student achievement. Both student populations perform best in schools with a majority of middle-class students, and several studies demonstrate a clear link between increasingly greater populations of low-income students and subsequently decreasing levels of achievement for both middle-class and low-income students. To maximize the effectiveness of economic integration, the enrollment of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch should comprise no more than 50 percent of a school’s student population, though studies show that the greater the percentage of middle-income students is, the higher overall achievement will be. In establishing an economic integration policy, a school district should designate a clear target for the proportion of low-income and middle-income students for all district schools. Repeatedly, school districts enforcing economic integration through establishing strict attendance zones have faced significant political backlash. Controlled choice is a less abrasive option, providing parents a role in choosing their child’s school while allowing districts the ability to compose economically diverse school enrollments. Economic integration is considered most politically palatable in majority-middle-class and majority-white school districts.



SECTION I: LITERATURE REVIEW In this section, Hanover Research reviews research on the impact of free and reduced-price student lunch enrollment on student achievement within the context of the economic integration of schools. RESEARCH ON POVERTY AND ACHIEVEMENT In 1966, James S. Coleman’s report Equality of Educational Opportunity determined that the most important predictor of academic achievement is the socioeconomic status of a student’s family, while the second most important predictor is the socioeconomic status of the student’s classmates at school.1 The report’s conclusion states that “disadvantaged black children learn better in well-integrated classrooms.” This study, widely considered the most important education study of the 20th century, led to the forced racial integration of public schools through the mass busing of students.2 The policy of integrating public schools by income is largely absent from the current education reform debate.3 There is broad consensus, however, that low-income students (as identified by free or reduced-price lunch eligibility) exhibit greater levels of achievement in predominantly middle-class schools in comparison to predominantly low-income schools. Below, we summarize recent research on the relationship between the proportion of low-income students in a school and achievement. A September 2001 Washington Post study of 50,000 students in the third through eighth grade in Montgomery County, Maryland schools found that:4

[T]he overall performance of individual students differed dramatically depending upon the overall level of poverty in the school they attended. Lower income students performed their worst at schools where the student population was overwhelmingly poor. But when lower-income students attended schools where most of the students were more affluent, they achieved higher scores -- matching or exceeding the county average.

A 2002 study of the Madison and Dane County public schools in Wisconsin by David Rusk found that for every 1 percent increase in middle-class classmates, low-income students improved “0.64 percentage points in reading, 0.50 percentage points in language, 0.72

1 Kahlenberg, Richard D. The Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy.

February 27, 2012. Century Foundation Books (Century Foundation Press). http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-School-Integration-Socioeconomic/dp/0870785222

2 Kiviat, Barbara J. “The Social Side of Schooling.” April 2000. Johns Hopkins Magazine. http://www.jhu.edu/jhumag/0400web/18.html

3 Aberger, Stephanie, Blair Brown, Ann Mantil, and Anne Perkins. “Closing the student achievement gap: The overlooked strategy of socioeconomic integration.” November 20, 2009. Socioeconomic Integration of Schools. http://a100educationalpolicy.pbworks.com/f/Closing+the+Achievement+Gap+-+Socioeconomic+Integration.pdf

4 Quoted in Kahlenberg, Richard D. “Economic School Integration: An Update.” 2002. The Century Foundation Issue Brief Series. http://tcf.org/publications/2002/9/pb420



percentage points in math, 0.80 percentage points in science, and 0.74 percentage points in social studies.” Rusk states that the difference between a low-income student attending a school with 45 percent middle-class students and the same student attending a school with 85 percent middle-class students “would typically be a 20 to 32 percentage point improvement in that low-income pupil’s test scores.” Statistical analysis additionally showed a decline in middle-class pupils’ test scores as a school’s percentage of low-income classmates increased, though the rate of decline for middle-class students was less than half the rate of improvement for low-income students. Rusk states that this decline likely reflects the changing composition of “middle-class” in schools with increasingly high proportions of low-income students, arguing that middle-class students in schools with higher low-income enrollment are from blue-collar rather than professional families, and that this factor is responsible for lower test scores rather than the presence of low-income students. Once schools passed a 60 percent low-income threshold, both low-income and middle-class scores declined significantly.5 A study of third, fourth, and fifth grade students in Denver, Colorado published in May 2002 by Dianne Lefly, research manager of the Denver Public Schools Assessment and Testing Department, determined that low-income elementary school students performed significantly better on standardized tests when attending schools where fewer than 50 percent of students were poor. The analysis additionally determined that the academic progress of affluent students deteriorates in schools where the percentage of low-income students is higher than 50 percent.6

Figure 1.1: Free and Reduced Lunch Students, Grades 3-5

Source: The Piton Foundation

5 Rusk, David. “Classmates Count: A study of the interrelationship between socioeconomic background and

standardized test scores of 4th grade pupils in the Madison-Dane County public schools.” July 5, 2002. p. 3. http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/Unifiedfinalreport.pdf

6 Gottleib, Alan. “Economically Segregated Schools Hurt Poor Kids, Study Shows.” May 2002. The Term Paper. http://www.piton.org/Documents/term2.pdf

53%

54%

42%

33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Less than 25% subsidized lunch students

26%-50% subsidized lunch students


75% + subsidized lunch students

Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Above

Scho

ols b

y Fr

ee a

nd R

educ

ed L

unch

Pe

rcen

tage



As Figure 1.1 shows, while 53 to 54 percent of low-income students attending schools where fewer than 50 percent of classmates were low-income had proficient or advanced reading scores on the Colorado Student Assessment program, only 33 percent had such scores in schools with more than 75 percent low-income students. Figure 1.2 reveals that middle-class student achievement rises as the proportion of low-income students declines, from 49 percent proficiency in high-poverty schools to 83 percent proficiency in schools where no more than 25 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. Middle-class students in high-poverty schools had lower proficiency ratings (49 percent) than low-income students in middle-class schools (53 to 54 percent).

Figure 1.2: Non-Free and Reduced Lunch Students, Grades 3-5

Source: The Piton Foundation A 2002 study of students in Escambia County, FL, using data from the 2000 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, found that “low-income children posted higher scores at schools where the majority of students came from working- or middle-class homes than they did where more than 60 percent of students were poor enough to qualify for the federal free lunch program.”7 In September 2005, Russell W. Rumberger of UC-Santa Barbara and Gregory J. Palardy of the University of Georgia used data from the National Education Longitudinal Survey of 1988 to estimate academic growth between eighth and ninth grade for a sample of 14,217 students attending 913 high schools. The authors determined that:8

The average socioeconomic level of students’ schools had as much impact on their achievement growth as their own socioeconomic status, net of other background

7 Quoted in Kahlenberg. “Economic School Integration: An Update.” Op. cit. 8 Rumberger, Russell W. and Gregory J. Palardy. “Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition

on Academic Achievement in High School.” September 2005. Teachers College Record. http://www.acri.org/blog/wp-content/does_segregation_still_matter.pdf

83%

76%

67%

49%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Less than 25% subsidized lunch students



75% + subsidized lunch students

Percentage of Students Scoring Proficient or Above

Scho

ols b

y Fr

ee a

nd R

educ

ed L

unch

Pe

rcen

tage



factors. Moreover, school socioeconomic status had as much impact on advantaged as on disadvantaged students, and almost as much impact on Whites as on Blacks, raising questions about the likely impact of widespread integration. The impact of socioeconomic composition was explained by four school characteristics: teacher expectations, the amount of homework that students do, the number of rigorous courses that students take, and students’ feelings about safety. The results suggest that schools serving mostly lower-income students tend to be organized and operated differently than those serving more-affluent students, transcending other school-level differences such as public or private, large or small.

A March 2006 study by Florida State University professor Douglas Harris found that schools with fewer than 50 percent of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch were 22 times as likely to be consistently high-performing as schools with 50 percent or more of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch.9 In explaining the benefits of middle-class schools for low-income students, many researchers highlight the influence of peers, parents, and teachers on student achievement, and the differing impact of these stakeholders in middle-class and high-poverty schools. Researchers observe that “middle-class schools are marked by more motivated and well behaved peers, more active and influential parents, and by the very best qualified teachers.”10

Peers: In a study of Texas students, Harvard professor Caroline Hoxby determined a positive peer influence associated with being in classes with high achievers. Students surrounded by peers scoring one point higher on standardized assessments increased their own scores by 0.10 to 0.55 points.11

Parents: Parents of middle-class students are viewed as a greater asset to schools than parents of low-income students because of their propensity to “volunteer in class, push for high expectations, and ensure adequate resources.”12

Teachers: A number of studies have attested to the increased quality of teachers in middle-class schools in comparison to low-income schools. A University of Pennsylvania study of teacher attrition over one year found that 20 percent of teachers left high-poverty schools, while only 12.9 percent of teachers left low-poverty schools in the same year. Another study found that in high-poverty secondary schools 34 percent of teachers teach out of their field of expertise, compared to 19 percent in low-poverty schools. Yet another study, in 2001, found that teachers tend to move to schools with fewer minority and low-income students.13

9 Harris, Douglas N. “Ending the Blame Game on Educational Inequity: A Study of “High Flying” Schools and NCLB.”

March 2006. Education Policy Studies Laboratory. p. 22. http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/EPSL-0603-120-EPRU.pdf 10 Kahlenberg. “Economic School Integration: An Update.” Op. cit. 11 Hoxby, Caroline M. “The Power of Peers.” Summer 2002. EducationNext. http://educationnext.org/the-power-of-

peers/ 12 Kahlenberg. “Economic School Integration: An Update.” Op. cit. p. 5. 13 Ibid.



OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS In 2007, the Supreme Court prohibited districts from taking race into consideration when assigning students to public schools in the decision for Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. 14 Many researchers and administrators view economic integration as a successor to racial integration, and two of the three districts profiled in this paper explicitly established economic integration policies to replace racial integration policies. La Crosse School District in Wisconsin implemented the nation’s first economic integration policy in the early 1990s, and as of May 2012, economic integration was being pursued in 80 school districts nationwide, encompassing a collective 4 million students.15 Some districts force integration by creating attendance zones, while others pursue integration through controlled choice programs, often involving the creation of magnet programs in schools with a majority of low-income students to attract middle-class students. In determining target proportions of low-income and middle-class student enrollment, school districts generally take two approaches: either setting maximum low-income enrollment, as in Wake County Public Schools in North Carolina (40 percent); or establishing a range of plus or minus a certain percentage of the district average, like Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts, where schools must be within 10 percent of the district average. Some articles cite research stating that schools take on the characteristics of a high-poverty school past the 40 percent mark,16 while others suggest that the tipping point is 60 percent or more of low-income students.17 Overall, research finds that middle-class students are not negatively impacted by attending school with low-income students as long as “a critical mass of students are middle-class.”18 As one source states, “This is true in part because the majority is what sets the tone in a school, and because research finds that middle-class children are less affected by school influences (for good or ill) than low-income children.”19

14 “Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1.” Cornell University Law School Legal

Information Institute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZS.html 15 Kahlenberg, Richard D. “Room for Debate: Integrating Rich and Poor Matters Most.” May 21, 2012. The New York

Times. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/20/is-segregation-back-in-us-public-schools/integrating-rich-and-poor-matters-most

16 “The Effect of School Poverty Concentration in WCPSS.” March 2001. Wake County Public School System Evaluation and Research Department: Research Watch. pp. 1-2. http://www.wcpss.net/results/reports/2001/0123_Poverty.pdf

17 Rusk. Op. cit. p. 43. 18 Kahlenberg, Richard D. “Rescuing Brown v. Board of Education: Profiles of Twelve School Districts Pursuing

Socioeconomic School Integration.” June 28, 2007. The Century Foundation. http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/pb618/districtprofiles.pdf

19 Ibid.



SECTION II: DISTRICT PROFILES As of spring 2012, there were 80 school districts across the United States with an economic integration policy, encompassing 4 million students.20 This section presents profiles on the three school districts most frequently mentioned in the literature: La Crosse School District in Wisconsin, Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts, and Wake County Public Schools in North Carolina. There are interesting similarities and contrasts between the three profiled districts and their experiences with economic integration. La Crosse School District and Wake County Public Schools established attendance zones to ensure the necessary mix of students to meet goals for economic diversity, while allowing limited parental choice. In contrast, Cambridge Public Schools emphasizes the role of parental choice in the school assignment process. La Crosse and Cambridge are both small districts, mitigating the impact of busing, while the size of Wake County resulted in some students spending up to two hours daily on school buses. While varying demographically, all three districts are majority white and majority middle-income, though the percentages of non-white and low-income students in each district have increased since economic integration policies were first approved. While Cambridge Public Schools’ controlled choice policy has not faced serious contention, both La Crosse School District and Wake County Public Schools experienced significant disagreement over district economic integration policies. Both districts underwent contentious school board elections which threatened the reversal of economic integration policies. Under parental pressure, La Crosse School District ultimately implemented the economic integration plan. Wake County’s plan was overturned after a Republican takeover of the school board in 2009, following a decade of economic-based integration. However, this led in turn to an electoral backlash that reinstated a Democratic majority on the current board. While this board rejected the Republican-controlled board’s parental choice plan, it has not reinstated the economic integration policy, instead adopting a conventional, geographically-based school assignment policy. LA CROSSE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WISCONSIN La Crosse School District, located in La Crosse, Wisconsin, enrolls 6,932 students in 21 schools: 12 elementary schools, six middle schools, and three high schools.21,22 In 1981, La Crosse School District became the first school district in the United States to integrate its schools by income rather than by race when it redrew the attendance zones for

20Kahlenberg, Richard D. “Integrating Rich and Poor Matters Most.” Op. cit. 21 “La Crosse Scho9ol District.” National Center for Education Statistics.

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&details=1&InstName=La+Crosse&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4&DistrictType=5&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&NumOfStudentsRange=more&NumOfSchoolsRange=more&ID2=5507530

22 School District of La Crosse. http://www.lacrosseschools.com/



its two high schools based on neighborhood socioeconomic status.23 Ten years later the district expanded this approach to elementary schools. As late as 1996, La Crosse was the only school district integrating schools by family income.24 In 1981, the school board voted five to four in favor of redistricting the district’s two high schools to achieve economic integration. The deciding vote was cast by a parent who knew the plan would shift her child from the predominantly middle-class school to the predominantly low-income school.25 While the measure provoked community opposition, there was never a serious threat to the policy. In 1992, the board voted eight to one to expand economic integration to district elementary schools. The decision launched widely-reported backlash, including the recall of four pro-busing committee members, the election of seven anti-busing committee members, and attempts to oust the pro-busing district superintendent and two top deputies.26 Ultimately, however, the plan was upheld. In 2002, a detailed account of the history of economic integration in La Crosse School District was published.27 Following the adoption of economic integration in all district schools, “student achievement steadily improved.”28 ACT scores surpass the state average and the district dropout rate has decreased.29 Integration of the two high schools is particularly regarded as a success, with the two schools regarded as equals with comparable curriculums and test scores.30 However, some critics have argued that the demographics of the La Crosse School District, which is largely white and middle-income, limit its usefulness as a model for urban districts.31 CAMBRIDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MASSACHUSETTS Cambridge Public Schools, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, enrolls 6,019 students across 17 schools: 12 elementary schools, four upper schools (serving grades six through eight) and one high school. 32,33

23 Aberger. Op. cit. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Mial, Richard. “La Crosse: One School District’s Drive to Create Socioeconomic Balance.” October 2002. Divided We

Fail, pp. 115-6. http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/pb377/mial.pdf 27 Ibid. 28 “Comments: Is Economic Integration the Fourth Wave in School Finance Litigation?” 2007. Emory Law Journal.

http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/56/6/Adams.pdf 29 Ibid. 30 Kahlenberg. “Rescuing Brown v. Board of Education: Profiles of Twelve School Districts Pursuing Socioeconomic

School Integration.” Op. cit., p. 22. 31 Witte, John F. and John E. Coons. “Try, Try Again: Forced busing didn’t work the first time.” Fall 2001.

EducationNext. http://educationnext.org/try-try-again/ 32 “Cambridge.” National Center for Education Statistics.

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=Cambridge&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4&DistrictType=5&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&NumOfStudentsRange=more&NumOfSchoolsRange=more&ID2=2503270&details=1

33 “Schools at a Glance: 2012-13.” 2012. Cambridge Public Schools, p. 4. http://www3.cpsd.us/media/theme/Pro-Cambridge/network/10516/media/CPS%20Redesign/documents/Schools_at_a_glance_2012_13.pdf?rev=1



In 2001, the Cambridge Public Schools Board of Education unanimously voted to refocus its controlled choice plan on economic diversity over racial diversity.34 The controlled choice program in Cambridge “is designed to create diverse, socially-just, and academically rigorous schools with equal access to educational resources.”35 The program emphasizes socioeconomic integration in assigning students to school, while also allocating extra resources to low-income schools, hoping to both raise achievement and attract more middle-class parents.36 The district highlights the following benefits of the controlled choice policy:37

Choice promotes academic excellence in all schools.

Parents are not limited to their neighborhood school, and have the ability to seek out a location, structure, schedule, and teaching approach that fits their children’s needs.

Choice eliminates the need to redraw boundaries due to changes in housing and demographic patterns throughout the district.

Choice offers parents and students an assurance that if they move to another residence within the city, they won’t need to switch schools.

Choice allows the district to monitor class size at each building. Today, the goal of the district’s controlled choice policy is for individual schools to be within 10 percent of the district-wide percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.38 In addition to student socioeconomic status (as indicated by free or reduced lunch eligibility), the district considers the following when assigning students to schools: presence of siblings in the school, proximity to the student’s home, race or ethnicity, special education status, English language learner status, and gender.39 When registering a student for school, the family lists three schools as preferences. Only about 10 percent of families do not get one of their top three choices.40 Children not assigned to their first choice school are automatically placed on waitlists for their preferred school(s), and a child may be on up to three waitlists. When a seat becomes available at a school with a waitlist, school officials determine whether the seat is a Paid Lunch or a Free/Reduced Lunch seat and offer the seat to the first eligible family on the list.41 The New

34 Aberger. Op. cit. 35 “About Controlled Choice.” Cambridge Public Schools.

http://www3.cpsd.us/department/frc/about_controlled_choice 36 Rimer, Sarah. “Schools Try Integration by Income, Not Race.” May 8, 2003. The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/08/us/schools-try-integration-by-income-not-race.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

37 Quoted from source: “About Controlled Choice.” Op. cit. 38 “Schools at a Glance: 2012-13.” Op. cit. p. 8. 39 “Controlled Choice Plan.” December 18, 2001. Cambridge Public Schools, p. 7-11.

http://www3.cpsd.us/media/theme/Pro-Cambridge/network/10516/media/CPS%20Redesign/documents/Policies/ControlledChoice.pdf?rev=1

40 Rimer. Op. cit. 41 “Waitlists & Transfers.” Cambridge Public Schools. http://www3.cpsd.us/department/frc/faqs_transfers_wait_list



York Times reported on an elementary school with vacancies for 47 middle-income students while maintaining a waitlist for low-income students.42 The December 2001 Cambridge Public Schools Controlled Choice Plan describes the district’s economic integration policy in detail:43

Section II, “Student Recruitment,” identifies student recruitment strategies that the CPS will implement at both the District and school level to attract diverse groups of students to each school within the District.

Section III, “Program Improvement,” discusses the process that will be used by CPS to improve achievement for students of all racial, ethnic and socio-economic groups and programmatic changes to address schools that are under-chosen and those that do not attract diverse groups of students.

Section IV, “Student Assignment Methodology,” details the diversity factors, preferences and process that will be used to assign students to schools.

Section V, “Hardship Appeals,” describes the process by which parents/guardians may appeal a student assignment or a student transfer if the parents/guardians believe that such student assignment or student transfer constitutes a hardship for their child.

Section VI, “Annual Review,” explains how the CPS will monitor and review the implementation of the revised Plan.

WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NORTH CAROLINA Wake County Public Schools (WCPS), located in Wake County, North Carolina, enrolls 144,173 students in 169 schools: 105 elementary schools, 36 middle schools, and 27 high schools, along with several alternative options.44,45 In January 2000, following a 30-year history of busing students to achieve racial integration, WCPS began to integrate schools with regard to income rather than race. The district determined the socioeconomic status of students by neighborhood, as opposed to individual characteristics, and mapped out 700 “neighborhood zones” to classify students for assignment purposes. In 2000, the Wake County Schools Board of Education unanimously voted to cap low-income enrollment at 40 percent at any individual school (as defined by neighborhood aggregate free and reduced-price lunch eligibility),46 and no more than 25 percent of students scoring below grade level on standardized tests.47 In

42 Rimer. Op. cit. 43 “Controlled Choice Plan.” Op. cit. 44 “Wake County Schools.” National Center for Education Statistics.

http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&details=1&InstName=Wake+County&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4&DistrictType=5&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&NumOfStudentsRange=more&NumOfSchoolsRange=more&ID2=3704720

45 “School Directory.” Wake County Public School System. http://www.wcpss.net/school-directory/index.html 46 Aberger. Op. cit. 47 Kahlenberg. “Economic School Integration: An Update.” Op. cit.



2005, all but 22 of 139 schools were within the 40 percent guideline.48 This policy was enforced primarily through attendance zone boundaries but also through magnet schools and choice.49

WCPS was a prominent model of an economic integration policy, with experts calling the plan the “most ambitious” and “most successful” of its kind.50 The district is frequently profiled in related literature, and as of 2010 was the largest school district with an economic integration policy.51 The district was considered a good candidate for the policy because of “a history of busing, a countywide system that includes an urban core and surrounding suburbs, and a manageable percentage of low-income students (27 percent free and reduced lunch).”52 Following economic integration, students of all races continued to outperform state and national averages on standardized assessments and improved on average SAT scores and end-of-year assessments.53 While test scores of black and Hispanic students showed improvement, an achievement gap remained.54

Over 10 years of policy implementation, discontent emerged. From 2000 to 2010, district size expanded from 101,000 students to 143,000 students, and students were increasingly reassigned to schools, both because of district expansion and to maintain socioeconomic balance—it was not exceptional for a student to attend two schools before the fifth grade.55 Some parents became frustrated with students bused to schools many miles from home rather than attending neighborhood schools.56

In fall 2009, four Republican-backed candidates opposing the economic integration policy were elected to the local school board with 64 percent of the vote, flipping the school board’s composition from eight to one in support of busing to five to four in opposition.57 In March 2010, the board voted to abandon the economic integration policy in favor of neighborhood schools, with increased funding to schools in low-income areas.58 There was significant national response to this decision, including a civil rights complaint filed by the NAACP and an ensuing investigation by the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights,59 and a protesting letter to the editor by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan published in The Washington Post.60 48 Finder, Alan. “As Test Scores Jump, Raleigh Credits Integration by Income.” September 25, 3005. The New York

Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/education/25raleigh.html?pagewanted=all 49 Aberger. Op. cit. 50 Finder. Op. cit. 51 Brown, Robbie. “District May End N.C. Economic Diversity Program.” February 27, 2010. The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/28raleigh.html 52 “Comments: Is Economic Integration the Fourth Wave in School Finance Litigation?” Op. cit, p. 1638. 53 Brown. Op. cit. 54 Finder. Op. cit. 55 Winerip, Michael. “Seeking Integration, Whatever the Path.” February 27, 2011. The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/education/28winerip.html?pagewanted=all 56 Finder. Op. cit. 57 Brown. Op. cit. 58 Winerip. Op. cit. 59 Lee, Trymaine. “The Koch Brothers and the Battle Over Integration in Wake County’s Schools.” August 15, 2011. The

Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/14/the-battle-for-wake-count_n_926799.html 60 Duncan, Arne. “Maintaining racial diversity in schools.” January 13, 2011. The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/13/AR2011011305529.html



Ultimately, the new school board moved to adopt a new school assignment plan that allowed for parental choice. The plan, formally approved by the board in October 2011, resembled the controlled choice program in Cambridge. Parents were to be given a list of schools from which they could choose, composed mainly of schools close to where their family resided. The district would attempt to give parents their top choices, using factors such as keeping siblings together and geographical proximity to determine priority. The opportunity for “students from low-performing areas to attend a high-performing school” would also have been a factor in determining priorities. Schools that were “under-chosen” would be assisted with resources to make themselves more attractive, e.g., by creating magnet programs.61 The parental choice plan was to begin implementation with the 2012-2013 school year. However, in a backlash to the dramatic change in the economic integration policy, Democratic-backed candidates swept into control of the Wake County school board in the fall of 2011, just as the new board was adopting its parental choice plan.62 Approximately one year later, the Democratic-controlled board replaced the parental choice plan with a plan that assigns students to schools based on their home addresses.63 The plan retains some flexibility for students to transfer to other schools, in particular where that would allow siblings to attend the same school. Magnet schools will continue to be used to try and relieve pressure on crowded schools or “high-performing areas,” by giving students coming out of them priority for magnet school admission.64 Given the turbulence in the WCPS in recent years, it is difficult to say what the long-term effects of the current or of any future plan for school assignment may be. However, early feedback has indicated that “integration is slipping” in the district and that “the poorest schools were getting poorer at a much higher rate than more affluent schools.” Advocates have called for enrollment trends in the district to be “closely monitored” in the future for any impacts of the changes in school assignment policies.65

61 Hui, T. Keung. “Wake school board approves student assignment plan.” News & Observer (Raleigh, NC). October 18,

2011. http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/10/18/1578159/wake-school-board-approves-student.html 62 Hui, T. Keung. “Democrats again control Wake school board.” News & Observer (Raleigh, NC). November 9, 2011.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/09/1629974/democrats-again-control-wake-school.html 63 Hui, T. Keung. “Wake school board approves 2013-2014 assignment plan.” News & Observer (Raleigh, NC).

December 11, 2012. http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/11/2539222/wake-school-board-approves-2013.html

64 Hui, T. Keung. “Explaining the new Wake assignment plan.” News & Observer (Raleigh, NC). December 16, 2012. http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/15/2541343/explaining-the-new-wake-assignment.html

65 Sturgis, Sue. “Political controversy roils N.C. school system at center of resegregation fight.” Institute for Southern Studies. September 27, 2012. http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/09/political-controversy-roils-nc-school-system-at-center-of-resegregation-fight.html



PROJECT EVALUATION FORM Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds member expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every member. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php



1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20006

P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585 www.hanoverresearch.com