Studies on "integrated schools"

[Anonymous]

In another thread, people provided links to studies showing students overall do better in integrated schools, and use these as evidence for what they think should be done on MCPS.

Here let's look at them and understand how rigorous these "studies" are. I am not going to go over all the links - just picked a few to show my point.

Let me state my conclusion first:

Most of these articles are not rigorous. This is not saying that their conclusions are wrong, and the opposites are correct. This is simply saying that their conclusions are not well grounded. They could be right or wrong, they just did not provide enough evidence to support those. The studies or reports they cited, may be more rigorous, yet whether those studies or reports give the same conclusions and/or use the same type of language, is an open question. This is quite understandable: scientists doing the studies/reports are typically more rigorous (in their writing) then reporters, and they tend not to give "conclusions" - they may imply things or suggest things, but not conclude things - when evidence is not strong enough. For reporters, that is a completely different story. They want to draw people's attention and want to make political correct statements.



You may or may not agree but let's see what the facts are and what reasonable conclusions people can get from the facts.


(1) https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/19/4460855...enefit-from-integrated-schools

In the article, the author(s) mentioned: "The federal government just released a report looking at the black-white achievement gap. It found something remarkable: "White student achievement in schools with the highest Black student density did not differ from White student achievement in schools with the lowest density."

If we look at that report released by the Fed Government (https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/studies/pdf/school_composition_and_the_bw_achievement_gap_2015.pdf) , we see this on page 4:


"The research in this report is exploratory. This report examines
whether there are associations between the percentage of
students in a school who were Black and the Black–White
student achievement gap, but it does not assess whether this
relationship is causal (e.g., this analysis does not and cannot
test whether higher Black student density causes lower
achievement). "

Anyone not seeing the contradiction here?



(2) https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-soci...ools-and-classrooms/?session=1 (exec summary of book, most quotes pulled from)


This is mostly a summary. It does not provide the real studies but only gives conclusions. So it is hard to say much about the rigorousness of the quoted studies. I am just going to pick on a few points on the summary itself:

(i) for "Academic and Cognitive Benefits". The article talks about affluent schools vs high poverty schools. However it does not specify the type of schools. In many parts of the country, a "school district" gets its
funding from the district itself. Therefore a more "affluent" school will of course have more funding. The situation in MoCo is different where schools in MoCo get funding from the county. Without that clearly stated, one cannot just assume these studies are valid for MoCo schools as well.

(ii) "Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity. " For that part, the article suggests: "We know that diverse classrooms, in which students learn cooperatively alongside those whose perspectives and backgrounds are different from their own, are beneficial to all students—including middle-class white students—because these environments promote creativity, motivation, deeper learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills." Yes, we probably "KNOW" that. But this is nothing more than "we know". It does not show any data/facts.

(iii) "Civic and Social-Emotional Benefits" an good example is: "According to one study, students who attend racially diverse high schools are more likely to live in diverse neighborhoods five years after graduation."
Students who attend racially diverse high schools are more likely originally from a racially diverse neighborhood. When they graduate, there is of course , a portion of the students who do not go to college, and a portion who returns home after college. If that portion is big enough (that depends on the school), it will certainly affect the results of whether they live in a "diverse neighborhoods five years after graduation." Without explicitly taking that correlation out, this does not mean anything.

(iv) "Economic Benefits" here some similar examples as in (ii) where the article uses "university officials and business leaders argue" yet not providing real data/facts (do I need you to do a study to show me there are people "ARGUING" that? Of course I know that).

(v) in the same "Economic Benefits" section, the article first cites a MoCo study (let's assume it uses the study correctly) showing that "students living in public housing randomly assigned to lower-poverty neighborhoods and schools outperformed those assigned to higher-poverty neighborhoods and schools". Sounds good, right? Well, a key question is, how do we know if the students received same level of educational effort from both schools (i.e. same teacher quality, etc.?) This question is very much valid since right after that example, the article mentions: "Integrating schools can help to reduce disparities in access to well-maintained facilities, highly qualified teachers, challenging courses" So if there are already "disparities" between the different schools selected in the MoCo study, of course student performance can differ due to that reason (instead of the "integration" effort).




(3) https://equitablegrowth.org/gerrymandered-school-d...ch-is-bad-for-economic-growth/


(i) "This lack of fiscal resources leads to low-income school districts finding it impossible to catch up. Owens’ research finds that even when funding formulas equalize spending, high-income districts’ residents regularly vote to spend more on schooling, adding additional resources to their classrooms while leaving low-income students in outside districts further behind."

Here one can see clearly the author(s) are talking about schools that are funded by the district (rather than MCPS where all schools in the county are funded by the county, not the "district" where that school serves).
Again, analysis on schools with completely different funding models than MCPS can't be used as good examples.

(ii) In the article it says:
"Another experiment for integration that came to essentially the same conclusion was in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which the city refers to as “controlled choice.” It converted all of the city’s Kindergarten through eighth grade schools into magnet schools and required parents to rank choices where to enroll their children. The district then placed students into schools with the goal of achieving a balance that resembled the city as a whole based on race and then further went on to integrate schools based on economic status. It found that 90 percent of students still received their top-choice school and today, the school district remains one of the top-performing in the country."

Ok, what does this say about performance? Nothing other than "the school district remains one of the top-performing in the country."

"Remains as one of the top-performing in the country", at most it can say that the performance did not change much. It cannot be used as evidence supporting the main idea of the article: segregation is bad, integration is good (i am not arguing against that. I am simply showing this piece of "important evidence" does nothing to support their conclusion).



Overall, if you believe something, that is fine. Using these articles will neither strengthen nor weaken your believes. Those many small issues show that those articles are far from good evidence to support anything.

[Anonymous]

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya.

Keep praying that the achievement gap goes away and ALL students get the same test scores. MCPS will make it happen!

[Anonymous]

Totally agree.


Obviously, the NPR stories are not really "studies" and some of the studies are hidden behind pay walls. Moreover, many of these don't actually directly support the
claims for which they are being cited. In addition, the case studies that people are claiming absolutely confirm that integrated schools are better for all students approach integration in different ways. Some of the school systems promoted economically desegregated schools by offering school choice, which potentially promotes buy in for higher SES families and allows motivated lower SES students the opportunity to learn in a more positive environment. You can't say that positive outcomes under those circumstances necessarily support forced redistricting to promote more diverse student populations.


If you actually read these studies and advocacy pieces, you will see that there is no consistently proven approach to "integration" and "diversity" and no definition of what these words actually mean. As you point out, some of the studies showing the benefit of greater "diversity" involve areas in which an entire school system is high poverty and an adjacent system is wealthy. which is not the case anywhere in this region. One study being cited to show that white students do not do worse in a school where the majority of students are minorities was controlled for socioeconomic status. So all that study shows is that when controlling for SES status, the skin color of classmates makes no difference. Duh.

In one of the sources cited, Richard Kahlenberg, a major proponent of school integration, stated the case educational integration, and said:

There are three reasons [why integrated schools are better]: the kids, the parents and the teachers.

Kids who have big dreams and are expecting to go on to college are less likely to cause disruption, cut classes and are more likely to be academically engaged.

On average, those peers are found more often in economically mixed than in high-poverty schools.

It's also an advantage to be in a classroom where your peers are high-achieving. For example, children of professionals have bigger vocabularies on average than low-income students, and that will rub off.

As for the parents, again, not attaching any blame, but middle-class parents are more likely to be PTA members and volunteer in class. That parental involvement benefits every child in a school.

And finally, the teachers deemed more effective are more likely to be found in economically mixed schools. That has to do with those first two factors. It's easier to teach in a school with fewer discipline issues and with parents who are there to help out.

So basically non poor families and students from those families create a better environment that helps to lift up disadvantaged students from lower SES families. That makes sense. Schools with too many poor kids are more likely to have problems associated with poverty and schools with fewer poor kids are more likely to have greater stability, higher expectations more involved parents, happier teachers, etc. That's the reason why we want economically integrated schools. But it doesn't prove that everything will be peachy for higher SES kids in high-poverty schools.

The article continues:

In New York City, where I live, as your report notes, 77 percent of students live in poverty. How do you create economically mixed schools if there aren't enough middle-class kids to go around?

I worked with Chicago Public Schools on their socioeconomic integration plan. The district is 85 percent low-income. My recommendation was not to ensure that every school was 85 percent low-income, because high-poverty schools are bad for students. In Chicago what they've done is to begin with magnet and selective-enrollment schools. You want to create a virtuous cycle where people can see examples of success.

[According to the recent report, Chicago's selective enrollment or "exam high schools" are much more racially balanced than their counterparts in Boston and New York City. And in those Chicago schools students from all backgrounds are keeping up academically and graduating at very high rates.]

It almost sounds like a chemistry experiment — you have to control the conditions very carefully and titrate your mixture until it hits that tipping point.

The long-term aspiration is that, as you develop more socioeconomically integrated schools, that the overall demographics of the public school system could shift. We saw that in Cambridge: Over time, more middle-class and white people came back into the district, stopped using private schools and stopped moving away once their kids got to be a certain age.

So, the leader of the school integration movement is not recommending that all schools have the same percentages of lower SES students, because high concentrations of poverty aren't good for any students. Keep that in mind.

The studies showing benefits are not applicable if moving students for greater socioeconomic diversity does create low poverty schools. I have not seen any studies showing that reducing poverty concentrations in a school from 70 to 60% would make any difference to poor students. If you are a student going from a low poverty school to that new 60% poverty school, you are now in what all studies suggest is a less than ideal learning environment and there is no justification for the move except for the assertion that it is good for students to learn to get along with different types of people (unless the justification is overcrowding at an adjacent school). It is not surprising that parents are concerned. The mere fact that you come from a stable family with educated parents does not guarantee success in school any more than being born poor guarantees failure. Based on personal experience at a school with a growing FARMS population, as that population has grown, so too have discipline and other problems. It is not every kid, but the frequency has increased. At some point, the balance tips to where the concentration of poverty is bad for everyone.

Given the way lower income housing is distributed, it would be impossible to make all schools low poverty without significant busing. That's a huge problem.

Another problem in this debate is that we are approaching it in a vacuum and that is what is making even reasonable parents who are concerned about boundary changes look like resource hoarding racists. If there were established perimeters and definitions on terms like "diversity" and "integration", debate could be more civil. What are people really afraid of? Some may be focused on real estate values but not everyone is. I just looked at a teacher survey in my county and saw that at the high school level, for the three high schools with the highest concentration of poverty, almost 90% of the teachers responding said that student behaviors interfere with student learning. The opposite was true in the low poverty schools. That's what worries parents about redistricting.

I am all for giving disadvantaged children better opportunities. From a personal standpoint, I'm willing to give up something for my family and my own children for the greater good. I don't live in Montgomery County, but I do live in a racially and economically diverse area. In fact, the population of the schools my kids attend mirrors that of the county. We chose our diverse community for many reasons and we love it. This means that the schools my children attend are not the Great Schools top ranked, but I believe in them and believe that my children can learn effectively there. I would not choose a top ranked school with no diversity, because I don't think that is a good environment for my family. I want them exposed to different types of people. At the same time, I didn't choose to live in Baltimore City for a reason and I would not want my children to attend the school with the highest concentration of poverty in the county.

Desegregation is good because high poverty schools are bad for everyone. But you can't write off concerned parents as racists just because they fear having their kids in an less desirable educational environment characterized by concentrated poverty. Some of you apparently have perfect kids who are destined to be model, high achieving students anywhere, but my kids need help in terms of outside tutors and parental guidance to stay on track. Studies have not necessarily shown that students with educated parents do well no matter what the concentration of poverty in their schools; in fact, studies show the opposite. It is true that parental education has been found to be one of the strongest factors in student success, but that also undermines support for improving outcomes through integrated schools. You can't have it both ways.

Many working parents are giving everything to support their kids in already diverse, lower poverty schools right now. Some of us have kids with anxiety or other special needs who have significant hurdles to overcome, even with economic advantages.

We have obvious inequities within our society and the education system alone cannot solve the problems associated with poverty. Small changes which allow more low income students to be educated in schools with low concentrations of poverty might be a step in the right direction supported by the vast majority. The studies suggest that buy-in to desegregation efforts is essential, so some level of choice or assurance that those who have scarified to live in a lower poverty environment will not see their children involuntarily moved to high poverty schools would go a long way toward focusing this debate and making it more productive. This is not to say that providing opportunities for poor kids does not matter. It is simply to say that we need to make changes over time. When adjustments are being considered, you have to be realistic about what is likely to be gained and what is being lost.

[Anonymous]

Thhere will never be studies that are "rigorous" enough to satisfy the people (like OP) who insist that there must first be rigorous studies, because

1. People aren't molecules.
2. It's not ethical nor feasible to experiment on children.

[Anonymous]

12:36, you don't live in Montgomery County. Why the effort for the long (very long) post?

[Anonymous]

You will have a hard time finding any rigorous and peer reviewed studies in education. Education research is poorly funded unlike other aspects of public policy, economics, or science etc. Education attracts the crowd with the lowest SAT scores out of all the academic disciplines and is seen as a lower tier academic department.

You will find lots of case studies suffering from selection bias in the supporting materials. If you are a conservative and like vouchers -well there are studies and case studies showing that vouchers help low income kids. If you are a liberal and like bussing -well there are studies that show bussing can help low income kids. None of these are correct in their interpretation, they simply cherry pick one aspect and one set of cases that supports their premise. They often confuse correlation with causation. Controls are completely missing. I'm not saying that it is easy. The variables that impact education are numerous and difficult to quantify. Long range studies are problematic due to demographic shifts, shifts within educational policy, economic changes, and a general inability to track students as study participants over time. However, universities should be embarrassed that they are putting out faux scholars who can't construct and complete a quality study.

[Anonymous]

Education is about politics not student outcomes. I'm surprised that in DC with all the political knowledge more people don't see this. The studies and data are really irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:36, you don't live in Montgomery County. Why the effort for the long (very long) post?

PP - sorry for the long post. I'm obsessed this this topic right now.

Having been through the redistricting process in the past, I found it to be hideous.

They are starting the same process again where I live, so I have been reading the studies and books about the education system for the last six months to help me understand the issues. I've been examining my personal biases and how my generally liberal beliefs line up when it comes to the welfare of my own kids. In that process, I tried to prove to myself based on studies that having my children sent to a higher poverty school is fine and/or that reducing concentrations of poverty is the right thing to do to give more disadvantaged students better opportunities. I also have children in public school and one in private, so I have been comparing the experiences in each setting.

Obviously there are trolls in the boundary study post, but it is annoying when people keep saying that multiple studies have shown that "integrated" schools are better for all. Yes, no and maybe.


By the way, my current conclusion is that our test driven education system is bad for all students and that all schools are generally doing a poor job at furthering the most important objectives of education, which should be to create informed citizens and live-long learners. As a naturally curious, nerdy person with varied interests who loved school when I was a kid, I've seen how the environment in public schools can overwhelm even the best teachers and cause many students (especially those who don't test well) to disengage from the learning process. School is a chore for teachers and students alike. That's another discussion, but my experience with my own kids is that my role as a guide and cheerleader, who is trying to keep them on track and get them excited about learning takes up a great deal of energy. I am in awe that any kids with uninvolved parents are able to succeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You will have a hard time finding any rigorous and peer reviewed studies in education. Education research is poorly funded unlike other aspects of public policy, economics, or science etc. Education attracts the crowd with the lowest SAT scores out of all the academic disciplines and is seen as a lower tier academic department.

You will find lots of case studies suffering from selection bias in the supporting materials. If you are a conservative and like vouchers -well there are studies and case studies showing that vouchers help low income kids. If you are a liberal and like bussing -well there are studies that show bussing can help low income kids. None of these are correct in their interpretation, they simply cherry pick one aspect and one set of cases that supports their premise. They often confuse correlation with causation. Controls are completely missing. I'm not saying that it is easy. The variables that impact education are numerous and difficult to quantify. Long range studies are problematic due to demographic shifts, shifts within educational policy, economic changes, and a general inability to track students as study participants over time. However, universities should be embarrassed that they are putting out faux scholars who can't construct and complete a quality study.

How about this? Teachers and students aren't variables. Each child is different; each teacher is different. A teacher with a spouse who's a high earner will most likely NOT be bullied into doing something that goes against his/her beliefs. Another teacher, who's a single parent, may feel the pressure. A teacher nearing retirement will have the strength to say no to some unethical calls as well. A new teacher is too clueless to know the difference.

So these studies can just go to hell.

Schools are shaped by some ridiculous national measures developed by morons who don't know anything about the classroom setting. People forget about community-run schools. Parents and the immediate community shape the culture. But when we destroy communities, we destroy cultures.

And that means that busing kids from low-income schools to wealthy, white schools sends the message that their communities are not valuable, and therefore, they, too, are not valuable.

When schools are run top-down, everyone loses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thhere will never be studies that are "rigorous" enough to satisfy the people (like OP) who insist that there must first be rigorous studies, because

1. People aren't molecules.
2. It's not ethical nor feasible to experiment on children.

1 is true, 2 is BS. There are ethical studies conducted on children all the same for educational and healthcare purposes.

It just happens that, as OP says, that's not the case with integrated schools/ programs.

If anything, the evidence would support the opposite -- see what countries are at the top of all international rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How about this? Teachers and students aren't variables. Each child is different; each teacher is different. A teacher with a spouse who's a high earner will most likely NOT be bullied into doing something that goes against his/her beliefs. Another teacher, who's a single parent, may feel the pressure. A teacher nearing retirement will have the strength to say no to some unethical calls as well. A new teacher is too clueless to know the difference.

So these studies can just go to hell.

Schools are shaped by some ridiculous national measures developed by morons who don't know anything about the classroom setting. People forget about community-run schools. Parents and the immediate community shape the culture. But when we destroy communities, we destroy cultures.

And that means that busing kids from low-income schools to wealthy, white schools sends the message that their communities are not valuable, and therefore, they, too, are not valuable.

When schools are run top-down, everyone loses.

Good thing nobody's proposing to do that, then, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How about this? Teachers and students aren't variables. Each child is different; each teacher is different. A teacher with a spouse who's a high earner will most likely NOT be bullied into doing something that goes against his/her beliefs. Another teacher, who's a single parent, may feel the pressure. A teacher nearing retirement will have the strength to say no to some unethical calls as well. A new teacher is too clueless to know the difference.

So these studies can just go to hell.

Schools are shaped by some ridiculous national measures developed by morons who don't know anything about the classroom setting. People forget about community-run schools. Parents and the immediate community shape the culture. But when we destroy communities, we destroy cultures.

And that means that busing kids from low-income schools to wealthy, white schools sends the message that their communities are not valuable, and therefore, they, too, are not valuable.

When schools are run top-down, everyone loses.

Good thing nobody's proposing to do that, then, isn't it?

boundary studies = "integration" = busing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How about this? Teachers and students aren't variables. Each child is different; each teacher is different. A teacher with a spouse who's a high earner will most likely NOT be bullied into doing something that goes against his/her beliefs. Another teacher, who's a single parent, may feel the pressure. A teacher nearing retirement will have the strength to say no to some unethical calls as well. A new teacher is too clueless to know the difference.

So these studies can just go to hell.

Schools are shaped by some ridiculous national measures developed by morons who don't know anything about the classroom setting. People forget about community-run schools. Parents and the immediate community shape the culture. But when we destroy communities, we destroy cultures.

And that means that busing kids from low-income schools to wealthy, white schools sends the message that their communities are not valuable, and therefore, they, too, are not valuable.

When schools are run top-down, everyone loses.

Good thing nobody's proposing to do that, then, isn't it?

boundary studies = "integration" = busing

Says who?

Now, as it happens, there actually is a boundary study going on - the Clarksburg/Seneca Valley/Northwest boundary study. And, as it happens, several of the options include rezoning kids FROM wealthy (or non-poor) white areas TO a low-income school. Since these kids are already taking buses to school, I wouldn't call it busing. Not to mention that in most of the options, the low-income school is geographically the closest.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, did I wake up in 1957?

The discussion is about economic integration.