FACTS SCHOOL INTEGRATION The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially Integrated Schools and Classrooms APRIL 29, 2019 https://tcf.org/topics/education/school-integration/ https://tcf.org/ Research shows that racial and socioeconomic diversity in the classroom can provide students with a range of cognitive and social benefits. And school policies around the country are beginning to catch up. Today, over 4 million students in America are enrolled in school districts or charter schools with socioeconomic integration policies—a number that has more than doubled since 2007. Here’s why the growing momentum in favor of diversity in schools is good news for all students: Academic and Cognitive Benefits On average, students in socioeconomically and racially diverse schools—regardless of a student’s own economic status—have stronger academic outcomes than students in schools with concentrated poverty. Students in integrated schools have higher average test scores. On the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) given to fourth graders in math, for example, low-income students attending more affluent schools scored roughly two years of learning ahead of low-income students in high-poverty schools. Controlling carefully for students’ family background, another study found that students in mixed-income schools showed 30 percent more growth in test scores over their four years in high school than peers with similar socioeconomic backgrounds in schools with concentrated poverty. Students in integrated schools are more likely to enroll in college. When comparing students with similar socioeconomic backgrounds, those students at more affluent schools are 68 percent more likely to enroll at a four-year college than their peers at high-poverty schools. Students in integrated schools are less likely to drop out. Dropout rates are significantly higher for students in segregated, high-poverty schools than for students in integrated schools. During the height of desegregation in the 1970s and 1980s, dropout rates decreased for minority students, with the greatest decline in dropout rates occurring in districts that had undergone the largest reductions in school segregation. Integrated schools help to reduce racial achievement gaps. In fact, the racial achievement gap in K–12 education closed more rapidly during the peak years of school desegregation in the 1970s and 1980s than it has overall in the decades that followed—when many desegregation policies were dismantled. More recently, black and Latino students had smaller achievement gaps with white students on the 2007 and 2009 NAEP when they were less likely to be stuck in high-poverty school environments. The gap in SAT scores between black and white students continues to be larger in segregated districts, and one study showed that change from complete segregation to complete integration in a district could reduce as much as one quarter of the current SAT scor ...

1. FACTS SCHOOL INTEGRATION
The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially Integrated
Schools and
Classrooms
APRIL 29, 2019
https://tcf.org/topics/education/school-integration/
https://tcf.org/
Research shows that racial and socioeconomic diversity in the
classroom can provide students with a range of cognitive and
social benefits. And school policies around the country are
beginning to catch up. Today, over 4 million students in
America are
enrolled in school districts or charter schools with
socioeconomic integration policies—a number that has more
than doubled
since 2007.
Here’s why the growing momentum in favor of diversity in
schools is good news for all students:
Academic and Cognitive Benefits
On average, students in socioeconomically and racially diverse
schools—regardless of a student’s own economic status—have

2. stronger academic outcomes than students in schools with
concentrated poverty.
Students in integrated schools have higher average test scores.
On the 2011 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) given to fourth graders in math, for example,
low-income students attending more affluent schools scored
roughly two years of learning ahead of low-income students in
high-poverty schools. Controlling carefully for students’
family background, another study found that students in mixed-
income schools showed 30 percent more growth in test
scores over their four years in high school than peers with
similar socioeconomic backgrounds in schools with
concentrated
poverty.
Students in integrated schools are more likely to enroll in
college. When comparing students with similar
socioeconomic backgrounds, those students at more affluent
schools are 68 percent more likely to enroll at a four-year
college than their peers at high-poverty schools.
Students in integrated schools are less likely to drop out.
Dropout rates are significantly higher for students in
segregated, high-poverty schools than for students in integrated
schools. During the height of desegregation in the 1970s

3. and 1980s, dropout rates decreased for minority students, with
the greatest decline in dropout rates occurring in districts
that had undergone the largest reductions in school segregation.
Integrated schools help to reduce racial achievement gaps. In
fact, the racial achievement gap in K–12 education closed
more rapidly during the peak years of school desegregation in
the 1970s and 1980s than it has overall in the decades that
followed—when many desegregation policies were dismantled.
More recently, black and Latino students had smaller
achievement gaps with white students on the 2007 and 2009
NAEP when they were less likely to be stuck in high-poverty
school environments. The gap in SAT scores between black and
white students continues to be larger in segregated
districts, and one study showed that change from complete
segregation to complete integration in a district could reduce as
much as one quarter of the current SAT score disparity. A
recent study from Stanford’s Center for Education Poli cy
1
2
3
4
5

4. 6
7
8
Analysis confirmed that school segregation is one of the most
significant drivers of the racial achievement gap.
Integrated classrooms encourage critical thinking, problem
solving, and creativity. 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.
Civic and Social-Emotional Benefits
Racially and socioeconomically diverse schools offer students
important social-emotional benefits by exposing them to peers
of
different backgrounds. The increased tolerance and cross-
cultural dialogue that result from these interactions are
beneficial for
civil society.
Attending a diverse school can help reduce racial bias and

5. counter stereotypes. Children are at risk of developing
stereotypes about racial groups if they live in and are educated
in racially isolated settings. By contrast, when school
settings include students from multiple racial groups, students
become more comfortable with people of other races, which
leads to a dramatic decrease in discriminatory attitudes and
prejudices.
Students who attend integrated schools are more likely to seek
out integrated settings later in life. Integrated schools
encourage relationships and friendships across group lines.
According to one study, students who attend racially diverse
high schools are more likely to live in diverse neighborhoods
five years after graduation.
Integrated classrooms can improve students’ satisfaction and
intellectual self-confidence. Research on diversity at the
college level shows that when students have positive
experiences interacting with students of other backgrounds and
view
the campus racial and cultural climate as affirming, they emerge
with greater confidence in their own academic abilities.
Learning in integrated settings can enhance students’ leadership
skills. A longitudinal study of college students found
that the more often first-year students were exposed to diverse
educational settings, the more their leadership skills

6. improved.
Meaningful relationships between individuals with different
racial or ethnic backgrounds impacts how people treat
racial and ethnic groups. Studies show that emotional bonds
formed through close cross-group relationships lead people
to treat members of their friends’ groups as well as they treat
members of their own groups. These types of relationships are
most commonly formed within schools that have greater levels
of racial and ethnic diversity.
Exposure to diversity reduces anxiety. Longitudinal studies in
Europe, South Africa, and the United .States. surveyed
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
students and found that positive intergroup contact predicts
lower levels of anxiety in relations with them.

7. Economic Benefits
Providing more students with integrated school environments is
a cost-effective strategy for boosting student achievement and
preparing students for work in a diverse global economy.
School integration efforts produce a high return on investment.
According to one recent estimate, reducing
socioeconomic segregation in our schools by half would
produce a return on investment of 3-5 times the cost of the
programs.
Attending an integrated school can be a more effective
academic intervention than receiving extra funding in a
higher-poverty school. One study of students in Montgomery
County, Maryland, found that students living in public
housing randomly assigned to lower-poverty neighborhoods and
schools outperformed those assigned to higher-poverty
neighborhoods and schools—even though the higher-poverty
schools received extra funding per pupil.
School integration promotes more equitable access to resources.
Integrating schools can help to reduce disparities in
access to well-maintained facilities, highly qualified teachers,
challenging courses, and private and public funding.
Diverse classrooms prepare students to succeed in a global
economy. In higher education, university officials and

8. business leaders argue that diverse college campuses and
classrooms prepare students for life, work, and leadership in a
more global economy by fostering leaders who are creative,
collaborative, and able to navigate deftly in dynamic,
multicultural environments.
Diversity produces more productive, more effective, and more
creative teams. Integrated schools and workplaces
support the conditions necessary to foster the core tenets of
deeper learning such as communication, inquiry, and
collaboration. Simply interacting with people from different
backgrounds encourages group members to prepare better, to
anticipate alternative viewpoints, and to be ready to work
towards consensus.
Children who attended integrated schools had higher earnings as
adults, had improved health outcomes, and were
less likely to be incarcerated. Researcher Rucker Johnson
tracked black children exposed to desegregation plans in the
1960s through the 1980s, and found a variety of positive
outcomes for the quality and longevity of life associated with
school integration.
16
17

9. 18
19
20
21
22
Adapted from How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms
Can Benefit All Students (2016) and A Smarter Charter: Finding
What Works for Charter Schools and Public Education (2014).
Notes
1. NAEP Data Explorer, National Assessment for Educational
Progress, 2017, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepda ta/;
and C. Lubienski and S. T. Lubienski, “Charter, private, public
schools and academic achievement: New evidence from NAEP
mathematics data,” National Center for the Study of
Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia
University, January
2006, https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/EPRU-0601-
137-OWI[1].pdf.
2. G. Palardy, “Differential school effects among low, middle,
and high social class composition schools,” School
Effectiveness and

10. School Improvement 19, 1 (2008): 37.
3. G. J. Palardy, “High school socioeconomic segregation and
student attainment,” American Educational Research Journal,
50,
no. 4 (2013): 714.
4. R. Balfanz and N. Legters, “LOCATING THE DROPOUT
CRISIS: Which High Schools Produce the Nation’s Dropouts?
Where Are
They Located? Who Attends Them?” Center for Research on
The Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins
Univfersity,
September 2004,
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techreports/report70.pdf.
5. R. A. Mickelson, “Twenty-first Century Social Science
Research on School Diversity and Educational Outcomes,” Ohio
State Law
Journal 69, (2008): 1173–228,
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/04/69.6
.Mickelson.pdf; G. D. Borman
and N. M. Dowling, “Schools and Inequality: A Multilevel
Analysis of Coleman’s Equality of Educational Opportunity
Data,”
Teachers College Record 112, (2010): 1201–246,
http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?Contentid=15664.
6. G. Orfield, “Schools More Separate: Consequences of a
Decade of Resegregation,” The Civil Rights Project, Harvard

11. University,
July 2001, http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-
education/integration-and-diversity/schools-more-separate-
consequences-of-a-decade-of-resegregation/orfield-schools-
more-separate-2001.pdf.
7. Ann Mantil, Anne G. Perkins, and Stephanie Aberger, “The
Challenge of High-Poverty Schools: How Feasible Is
Socioeconomic
School Integration?” in The Future of School Integration, ed.
Richard D. Kahlenberg(New York: The Century Foundation,
2012),
155–222.
8. D. Card and J. Rothstein, “Racial Segregation and the Black-
White Test Score Gap,” working paper, The National Bureau of
Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, 2006,
https://www.nber.org/papers/w12078.pdf.
9. Sean Reardon, Demetra Kalogrides, and Kenneth Shores,
“The Geography of Racial/Ethnic Test Score Gaps”, CEPA
Working
Paper No.16-10, May 2018.
10. S. E. Page, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity
Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies
(Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2008),
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8757.html; M. Chang, “The

12. Educational Benefits of
Sustaining Cross-Racial Interaction Among Undergraduates,”
The Journal of Higher Education 77, no. 3 (May/June 2006):
430,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jhe/summary/v077/77.3chang.html;
M. J. Chang, “The Positive Educational Effects of Racial
Diversity on Campus,” in Diversity Challenged: Evidence on
the Impact of Affirmative Action, ed. G. Orfield and M.
Kurlaender
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group, 2001):
175–86, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED456190; M. Chang, D. Witt, J.
Jones, and K. Hakuta, Compelling Interest: Examining the
Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Higher Education (Palo Alto,
CA:
Stanford University Press, 2003); P. Y. Gurin, “Expert Witness
Report in Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al,” 1998,
http://diversity.umich.edu/admissions/legal/expert/gurintoc.html
; K. Phillips, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” Scientific
American 311, no. 4 (October 2014),
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-
us-smarter/; A. L. Antonio,
M. J. Chang, K. Hakuta, D. A. Kenny, S. Levin, and J. F.
Milem, “Effects of Racial Diversity on Complex Thinking in
College

13. Students,” Psychological Science 15, no. 8 (August 2004): 507-
510, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/8/507.short; Brief of
Amicus Curiae 553 Social Scientists, Parents Involved v.
Seattle School District 551 U.S. 701 (2007) (No. 05-908); P.
Marin, “The
educational possibility of multi-racial/multi-ethnic college
classrooms,” in Does Diversity Make a Difference? Three
Research
Studies on Diversity in College Classrooms (Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education & American Association of
University Professors, 2000), 61–68.
11. R. Bigler, & L. S. Liben, “A Developmental Intergroup
Theory of Social Stereotypes and Prejudices,” Advances in
Child
Development and Behavior, 34 (2006), 39-89. T. F. Pettigrew,
and L. R. Tropp, “A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact
Theory”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, no.
5 (2006), 751–83. See also J. Boisjoly, G. J. Duncan, M.
Kremer,
D. M. Levy, & J. Eccles, “Empathy or Antipathy? The Impact of
Diversity,” American Economic Review, 96, no. 5 (2006), 1890-
1905; Heidi McGlothlin and Melanie Killen, “How Social
Experience Is Related to Children’s Intergroup Attitudes,”
European
Journal of Social Psychology 40, no 4 (2010): 625; Adam
Rutland, Lindsey Cameron, Laura Bennett, and Jennifer Ferrell,

14. “Interracial Contact and Racial Constancy: A Multi-site Study
of Racial Intergroup Bias in 3-5 Year Old Anglo-British
Children,”
Applied Developmental Psychology 26 (2005): 699–713,
https://kar.kent.ac.uk/26168/4/rutland%20et%20al%20JADP.pdf
; and
Amy Stuart Wells and Robert L. Crain, “Perpetuation Theory
and the Long-Term Effects of School Desegregation,” Review
of
Educational Research 64, no. 4 (1994): 531–55.
12. K. J. R. Phillips, R. J. Rodosky, M. A. Muñoz, & E. S.
Larsen, “Integrated Schools, Integrated Futures? A Case Study
of School
Desegregation in Jefferson County, Kentucky, ” in From the
Courtroom to the Classroom: The Shifting Landscape of School
Desegregation, ed. C. E. Smrekar, & E. B. Goldring,
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2009), 239-70.
13. N. F. P. Gilfoyle, “Brief of amici curiae: The American
Psychological Association in Support of Respondents in Fisher
v.
University of Texas at Austin,” November 2, 2015,
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-
981bsacAmericanPsychologicalAssociation.pdf; “Brief of The
American Educational Research Association, et.al. as amici
curiae in

15. Support of Respondents in Fisher v. University of Texas at
Austin,” October, 30, 2015, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/14-
981bsacAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationEtAl.pdf.
14. “Brief of amici curiae: The American Psychological
Association in Support of Respondents in Fisher v. University
of Texas at
Austin”; N. A. Bowman, “How Much Diversity is Enough? The
Curvilinear Relationship Between College Diversity
Interactions and
First-year Student Outcomes,” Research in Higher Education
54, no. 8 (December 2013): 874-894,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257658414_How_Muc
h_Diversity_is_Enough_The_Curvilinear_Relationship_Between
_College_Diversity_Interactions_and_First-
Year_Student_Outcomes.
15. Linda Tropp and Suchi Saxena, “Re-weaving the Social
Fabric through Integrated Schools: How Intergroup Contact
Prepares
Youth to Thrive in a Multicultural Society,” May 2018,
http://school-diversity.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/NCSD_Brief13.pdf.
16. S. Levin, C. van Laar, J. Sidanius, “The Effects of Ingroup
and Outgroup Friendship on Ethnic Attitudes in College: A
Longitudinal Study,” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,
6 (2003), 76-92; H. Swart, M. Hewstone, O. Christ, and A.

16. Voci,
“Affect Mediators of Intergroup Contact: A Three-Wave
Longitudinal Studies in South Africa,” Journal of Personality
and Social
Psychology, 101 (2011), 1221-1238.
17. M. Basile, “The Cost-Effectiveness of Socioeconomic
School Integration” in The Future of School Integration:
Socioeconomic
Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy, ed. R. D.
Kahlenberg (New York, NY: The Century Foundation Press,
2012), 127-154.
18. H. Schwartz, “Housing Policy is School Policy:
Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success
in Montgomery
County, Maryland,” in The Future of School Integration:
Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy, ed.
R. D.
Kahlenberg (New York, NY: The Century Foundation Press,
2012), 27-66.
19. M. M. Chiu and L. Khoo, “Effects of Resources, Inequality,
and Privilege Bias on Achievement: Country, School, and
Student
Level Analyses,” American Educational Research Journal 42,
no. 4 (2005): 575-603,

17. http://aer.sagepub.com/content/42/4/575.abstract; S. W.
Raudenbush, R. P. Fotiu, and Y. F. Cheong, “Inequality of
Access to
Educational Resources: A National Report Card for Eighth-
Grade Math,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 20
(1998):
253–67, http://www.ssicentral.com/hlm/techdocs/EEPA98.pdf;
G. Orfield and C. Lee, “Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and
Educational Inequality,” The Civil Rights Project, Harvard
University, January 2005,
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-
12-education/integration-and-diversity/why-segregation-
matters-poverty-and-educational-inequality/orfield-why-
segregation-
matters-2005.pdf; Mark Schneider, “Do School Facilities Affect
Academic Outcomes?” National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities, November 2002,
http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf; A. S. Wells, B.
Baldridge, J. Duran, R. Lofton, A. Roda, M.
Warner, T. White, and C. Grzesikowski, “Why Boundaries
Matter: A Study of Five Separate and Unequal Long Island
School
Districts,” The Center for Understanding Race and Education
(CURE), Teachers College, Columbia University, July 2009,
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/95995; M. Kalmijn
and G. Kraaykamp, “Race, Cultural Capital, and Schooling: An

18. Analysis of Trends in the United States,” Sociology of
Education 69 (1996): 22–34,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2112721?
seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; J. Prager, D. Longshore, and M.
Seeman, School Desegregation Research: New Directions in
Situational Analysis (New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1986),
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9780306421518?
token=gbgen&wt_mc=GoogleBooks.GoogleBooks.3.EN; P.
DiMaggio, “Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of
Status
Culture Participation on the Grades of U.S. High School
Students,” American Sociological Review 47, no. 2 (April
1982): 189–
201,
https://campus.fsu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/academic/social_
sciences/sociology/Reading%20Lists/Stratification%20%28Gen
der%2C%20Race%2C%20and%20Class%29%20Copies%20of%
20Articles%20from%202009/DiMaggio-
ASR-1982.pdf.
20. “Brief of amici curiae: Brown University et al. in Support of
Respondents in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.”
21. Katherine W. Phillips, “How Diversity Works,” The
Scientific American 311, no. 4, (October 2014), 42-47.
22. Rucker Johnson, “Long-Run Impacts of School
Desegregation and School Quality on Adult Attainments,”
NBER Working Paper

19. (Revised August 2015),
https://gsppi.berkeley.edu/~ruckerj/johnson_schooldesegregatio
n_NBERw16664.pdf.
A R T I C L E AUG 12, 2020
The Black-White Wealth
Gap Will Widen
Educational Disparities
During the Coronavirus
Pandemic
Less wealth makes it more di!cult for African American parents
to get reliable access to the internet
and devices for remote learning.
AUTHORS
Dania Francis
,
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
A student leans over her laptop while working on a project in
Oakland, California, in August 2017. (Getty/Aric Crabb)
!

20. With the fall fast approaching, schooling has moved front and
center in the public
debate. Despite repeated urging that public schools resume
in-person classes, many school districts have already due to
surging coronavirus cases across the United States. While a
necessary public health
measure, moving classes online raises significant racial equity
issues that state, local,
and federal policymakers must keep in mind as they craft
legislative solutions for the
fall. Black families and predominantly Black communities often
have fewer economic
resources—including less wealth and —to support remote
learning
and ensure students have access to the internet and necessary
devices such as
computers and other equipment. Due to this —and
combined with coronavirus-induced job losses and housing
insecurity—many Black
children could quickly fall behind their white peers this fall.
Divergent access to the necessary for successful remote
learning—such as
books, computers, and other equipment—could further worsen
. Due to systemic racism in the housing industry, predominantly
Black neighborhoods tend to have . This, in turn, means the
schools in these same neighborhoods have fewer financial
resources—and these
have only increased and during the
pandemic.
The flipside of underresourced schools is that parents will have
to provide more of the
resources themselves as schools transition to remote learning.

21. The pressure on parents
to provide these additional resources is greatest in communities
where families have
less wealth and thus less ability to support their children’s
online education. Unless
Congress provides the money so that local leaders and school
districts can make
necessary changes, many Black children are more likely to fall
behind their white peers
in education, stymying their educational progress.
How the racial wealth gap affects
educational attainment
In the United States, wealth and education already feed into
each other in an
intergenerational cycle. Families with more wealth are able to
provide more educational
opportunities for their children, who are in turn able to
capitalize on those
opportunities in ways that create more wealth. This
reinforcement of wealth through
education and of education through wealth—when combined
with the racially disparate
economic and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic—will
only further widen
existing racial wealth and education gaps. The intergenerational
transmission of racial
wealth inequality is playing out at rapid speed during the
pandemic.
Wealth—the di"erence between what people own and what they
owe—is key to
families’ immediate financial security and their long-term
economic mobility. During an
economic crisis, families with more wealth are better able to
protect themselves in the

22. event of adverse personal outcomes such as temporary layo"s or
more permanent job
losses. In communities that experience widespread job losses,
those who have better
economic standing to begin with are
. In the current pandemic, for example, wealth can provide
emergency
savings to help pay bills—especially rent or mortgage
payments, which are key to
maintaining housing stability.
Yet have a median wealth of about 10 cents to every dollar of
wealth of
the median white family. In 2016, the last year for which data
are available, the median
Black family had about $17,150 in wealth while the median
white family had about
$171,000 in wealth. Because wealth is often passed on from one
generation to the next,
this massive wealth gap between Black and white families . As
the authors of the comprehensive report “
” point out, “wealth begets more wealth.” Inheritances and gifts,
access to beneficial social networks, and education are all
mechanisms by which
families pass on wealth to their children. Put simply, white
families have more
opportunities than Black families to give their children a leg up
because they have
access to more wealth.
Recent job losses have exacerbated the

23. racial wealth gap
This past spring, school closures and the transition to online
learning, while a necessary
public health measure, required that families had access to
financial resources to help
pay for part of their children’s education. At the same time,
many of these same parents
lost part or all of their earnings from coronavirus-induced job
losses and cuts in hours.
Black workers, who tend to work in less stable jobs where they
are at higher risk of
getting laid o", are to feel the brunt of an economic downturn.
These jobs also make it more di!cult for people to buy a house .
African
American families then live in more financially precarious
situations because they are
and can be more easily evicted if they fail to pay their
rent and because they have fewer savings outside their house
than is the case for white
families. Less wealth—reflected, among other things, in lower
homeownership rates—
makes it more di!cult for Black families to a"ord reliable
internet service and
electronic devices, both of which are necessary for remote
learning.
African Americans have experienced particularly large job
losses in a labor market
characterized by persistent racism and inequality, as the
discuss in a recent report. Estimates based on
show that 54.8 percent of Black workers said that they had lost
incomes due to a
job loss or cut in hours from late April to early June, compared

24. with 45.8 percent of
white workers.
The labor market pain has created housing instability for Black
families to a much larger
degree than was the case for white families. Estimates based on
show that
more than one-third of African Americans who experienced job-
related income losses
said that they either didn’t pay their mortgage or deferred their
mortgage, compared
with only 16.9 percent for white families with earnings losses.
Among renters, 38.3
percent of Black families with income losses didn’t pay or
deferred their rent, compared
with 23.1 percent of white families in a similar situation.
Housing insecurity among Black families worsens the digital
divide
The sharp labor market decline this past spring the housing
stability of Black
families more quickly than it did for white families. This
discrepancy reflects
di"erences in emergency savings. , for example, show that 36.4
percent of African American homeowners and 56.4 percent of
African American renters
could not access $400 in an emergency in April 2020. In
comparison, 24.4 percent of
white homeowners and 50.9 percent of white renters had
di!culties coming up with
that amount in an emergency. Without emergency savings, many
more Black
homeowners and renters quickly faced trouble making their
monthly payments than
white homeowners and renters when they lost their jobs.

25. As a result, many Black families also had fewer savings to pay
for tools such as internet
access and electronic devices, which are crucial to maintaining
children’s education.
About 1 in 7 Black renters who have no trouble paying their
current rent only have
access to the internet for educational purposes sometimes,
rarely, or never. This is
almost three times as large a share as Black homeowners who
had no trouble paying
their mortgage. Importantly, most Black families rent rather
than own their home. And
the gap between Black homeowners and Black renters in having
reliable internet access
is much greater than among white homeowners and white
renters. The same is true
when it comes to access to electronic devices: Black renters are
much less likely than
either Black homeowners or white renters to have reliable
access to these devices. (see
Figure 1)
Homeownership is often a because
it allows families to have more predictable housing costs. Yet
most Black families rent
their homes, and many of those renters have had trouble paying
their bills amid the
current recession. These job losses have only exacerbated the
lack of access to the
internet and electronic devices. For example, 28.7 percent of
Black parents with
children in public or private schools who had trouble paying

26. their rent in the previous
month also said that they only sometimes, rarely, or never had
access to the internet.
And 36.8 percent of Black renters having trouble paying their
rent said that they only
sometimes, rarely, or never had access to devices for
educational purposes for their
children. (see Figure 1) These are much larger shares than for
any other group of Black
or white renters or homeowners. A lack of savings creates more
housing instability for
Black families, which leads to less access to the internet and
electronic devices for
remote learning.
The lack of reliable internet or an electronic device for remote
learning also correlates
with fewer hours per week of teaching time. (see Figure 2) This
correlation is much
larger among Black families than white families, where the lack
of reliable access to the
internet and to devices is less pronounced. Unreliable internet
access and a lack of
consistent access to electronic devices reduces families’ time
teaching children by two
to three hours among Black families but only by one to two
hours among white families.
(see Figure 2) White families without reliable internet or
devices are probably also less
likely to simultaneously experience job loss and a lack of
savings; as a result, they can
a"ord to spend additional time with their children to o"set the
lack of internet and
devices. While the short- and long-term impacts of coronavirus-
related school closures
and job losses on children’s educational outcomes cannot be

27. measured yet, it is already
clear that there are di"erential e"ects by race on access to
educational resources as a
result of the pandemic. In particular,
directly and immediately feeds into persistent educational gaps.
What schools and policymakers can do to
offset this
As the debate over school reopenings heats up, policymakers
must consider how wealth
disparities between Black and white families will a"ect
educational outcomes. Parents,
as well as teachers and sta", need to feel safe sending their
children back to school.
When in-person schooling is not possible, parents must have the
resources to help their
children learn remotely. Schools and local government can
provide reliable internet
service and electronic devices to children—but they need . State
and local governments will also need to ensure that families by
extending moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures.
Furthermore, Congress can do more to o"set increasingly
permanent job losses; for
example, Congress can extend added unemployment benefits
and protect public sector
employment by helping state and local governments address
large coronavirus-related
budget deficits. Congress and employers can also make sure that
parents can
from work to help their children with their education when
schools are closed
or remote learning is necessary. All of this assistance will be

28. especially valuable to Black
families, who often have much fewer savings than white
families to tide them over in an
emergency. Without targeted assistance to ensure that parents
can maintain a quality
education for their children, school closures and continued
remote learning will widen
the racial educational achievement gaps between Black and
white children for the
foreseeable future.
Dania Francis is an assistant professor in the Department of
Economics at the
University of Massachusetts Boston. Christian E. Weller is a
professor in the
McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies at
the University of
Massachusetts Boston and a senior fellow at the Center for
American Progress.
To find the latest CAP resources on the coronavirus, visit our
.
The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are
independent, and the findings and
conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A
full list of supporters is available .
American Progress would like to acknowledge the many
generous supporters who make our work
possible.
The Center for American Progress is an independent
nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to
improving the lives of all Americans through bold,

29. progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and
concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the
conversation, but to change the country.
Learn about our sister organization, the
, an advocacy
organization dedicated to improving the lives of
all Americans.
©2021 Center for American Progress
A U T H O R S Dania Francis
Senior Fellow
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Isolated and Segregated
May 31, 2017
, Perpetual Ba!our
Mental Health Support for
Students of Color During and
After the Coronavirus Pandemic
Jul 28, 2020
A Quality Education for Every
Child
Jul 2, 2019
Scott Sargrad, , Lisette
Partelow,

30. The Persistent Black-White
Unemployment Gap Is Built Into
the Labor Market
Sep 28, 2020
Olugbenga Ajilore
ALSO FROM CAP
Iowa Lawmakers Must Strengthen
Gun Laws To Lower Rising Rates
of Violence
Jan 13, 2022
, Matt Sinovic
Christians Have a Role To Play in
Defending U.S. Democracy
Jan 5, 2022
Budget Reconciliation Must
Support a Quality Education for All
Students
Sep 22, 2021
, , ,
Strategic Reengagement in the
Middle East
Dec 16, 2021
,
R E P O R T A R T I C L E R E P O R T A R T I C L E

31. A R T I C L E A R T I C L E R E P O R T R E P O R T
W.
Article
Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education
Linda Darling-Hammond Sunday, March 1, 1998
E.B. DuBois was right about the problem of the 21st century.
The color
line divides us still. In recent years, the most visible evidence
of this in
the public policy arena has been the persistent attack on
affirmative
action in higher education and employment. From the
perspective of many Americans
who believe that the vestiges of discrimination have
disappeared, affirmative action
now provides an unfair advantage to minorities. From the
perspective of others who
daily experience the consequences of ongoing discrimination,
affirmative action is
needed to protect opportunities likely to evaporate if an
affirmative obligation to act

32. fairly does not exist. And for Americans of all backgrounds, the
allocation of
opportunity in a society that is becoming ever more dependent
on knowledge and
education is a source of great anxiety and concern.
At the center of these debates are interpretations of the gaps in
educational
achievement between white and non-Asian minority students as
measured by
standardized test scores. The presumption that guides much of
the conversation is that
equal opportunity now exists; therefore, continued low levels of
achievement on the
part of minority students must be a function of genes, culture,
or a lack of effort and
will (see, for example, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s
The Bell Curve and
Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom’s America in Black and
White).
The assumptions that undergird this debate miss an important
reality: educational
outcomes for minority children are much more a function of
their unequal access to key

33. educational resources, including skilled teachers and quality
curriculum, than they are a
https://www.brookings.edu/
https://www.brookings.edu/search/?post_type=article
https://www.brookings.edu/author/linda-darling-hammond/
function of race. In fact, the U.S. educational system is one of
the most unequal in the
industrialized world, and students routinely receive dramatically
different learning
opportunities based on their social status. In contrast to
European and Asian nations
that fund schools centrally and equally, the wealthiest 10
percent of U.S. school districts
spend nearly 10 times more than the poorest 10 percent, and
spending ratios of 3 to 1
are common within states. Despite stark differences in funding,
teacher quality,
curriculum, and class sizes, the prevailing view is that if
students do not achieve, it is
their own fault. If we are ever to get beyond the problem of the
color line, we must
confront and address these inequalities.
The Nature of Educational Inequality

34. Americans often forget that as late as the 1960s most African-
American, Latino, and
Native American students were educated in wholly segregated
schools funded at rates
many times lower than those serving whites and were excluded
from many higher
education institutions entirely. The end of legal segregation
followed by efforts to
equalize spending since 1970 has made a substantial difference
for student
achievement. On every major national test, including the
National Assessment of
Educational Progress, the gap in minority and white students’
test scores narrowed
substantially between 1970 and 1990, especially for elementary
school students. On the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the scores of African-American
students climbed 54
points between 1976 and 1994, while those of white students
remained stable.
Even so, educational experiences for minority students have
continued to be
substantially separate and unequal. Two-thirds of minority
students still attend schools

35. that are predominantly minority, most of them located in central
cities and funded well
below those in neighboring suburban districts. Recent analyses
of data prepared for
school finance cases in Alabama, New Jersey, New York,
Louisiana, and Texas have found
that on every tangible measure—from qualified teachers to
curriculum offerings—
schools serving greater numbers of students of color had
significantly fewer resources
than schools serving mostly white students. As William L.
Taylor and Dianne Piche
noted in a 1991 report to Congress: Inequitable systems of
school finance inflict
disproportionate harm on minority and economically
disadvantaged students. On an
inter-state basis, such students are concentrated in states,
primarily in the South, that
have the lowest capacities to finance public education. On an
intra-state basis, many of
the states with the widest disparities in educational expenditures
are large industrial
states. In these states, many minorities and economically

36. disadvantaged students are
located in property-poor urban districts which fare the worst in
educational
expenditures (or) in rural districts which suffer from fiscal
inequity.
Jonathan Kozol s 1991 Savage Inequalities described the
striking differences between
public schools serving students of color in urban settings and
their suburban
counterparts, which typically spend twice as much per student
for populations with
many fewer special needs. Contrast MacKenzie High School in
Detroit, where word
processing courses are taught without word processors because
the school cannot afford
them, or East St. Louis Senior High School, whose biology lab
has no laboratory tables
or usable dissecting kits, with nearby suburban schools where
children enjoy a
computer hookup to Dow Jones to study stock transactions and
science laboratories
that rival those in some industries. Or contrast Paterson, New
Jersey, which could not
afford the qualified teachers needed to offer foreign language

37. courses to most high
school students, with Princeton, where foreign languages begin
in elementary school.
Even within urban school districts, schools with high
concentrations of low-income and
minority students receive fewer instructional resources than
others. And tracking
systems exacerbate these inequalities by segregating many low -
income and minority
students within schools. In combination, these policies leave
minority students with
fewer and lower-quality books, curriculum materials,
laboratories, and computers;
significantly larger class sizes; less qualified and experienced
teachers; and less access
to high-quality curriculum. Many schools serving low-income
and minority students do
not even offer the math and science courses needed for college,
and they provide lower-
quality teaching in the classes they do offer. It all adds up.
What Difference Does it Make?
Since the 1966 Coleman report, Equality of Educational

38. Opportunity, another debate
has waged as to whether money makes a difference to
educational outcomes. It is
certainly possible to spend money ineffectively; however,
studies that have developed
more sophisticated measures of schooling show how money,
properly spent, makes a
difference. Over the past 30 years, a large body of research has
shown that four factors
consistently influence student achievement: all else equal,
students perform better if
they are educated in smaller schools where they are well known
(300 to 500 students is
optimal), have smaller class sizes (especially at the elementary
level), receive a
challenging curriculum, and have more highly qualified
teachers.
Minority students are much less likely than white children to
have any of these
resources. In predominantly minority schools, which most
students of color attend,
schools are large (on average, more than twice as large as
predominantly white schools
and reaching 3,000 students or more in most cities); on average,

39. class sizes are 15
percent larger overall (80 percent larger for non-special
education classes); curriculum
offerings and materials are lower in quality; and teachers are
much less qualified in
terms of levels of education, certification, and training in the
fields they teach. And in
integrated schools, as UCLA professor Jeannie Oakes described
in the 1980s and
Harvard professor Gary Orfield’s research has recently
confirmed, most minority
students are segregated in lower-track classes with larger class
sizes, less qualified
teachers, and lower-quality curriculum.
Research shows that teachers’ preparation makes a tremendous
difference to children’s
learning. In an analysis of 900 Texas school districts, Harvard
economist Ronald
Ferguson found that teachers’ expertise—as measured by scores
on a licensing
examination, master’s degrees, and experienc—was the single
most important
determinant of student achievement, accounting for roughly 40
percent of the

40. measured variance in students’ reading and math achievement
gains in grades 1-12.
After controlling for socioeconomic status, the large disparities
in achievement between
black and white students were almost entirely due to differences
in the qualifications of
their teachers. In combination, differences in teacher expertise
and class sizes
accounted for as much of the measured variance in achievement
as did student and
family background (figure 1).
Ferguson and Duke economist Helen Ladd repeated this analysis
in Alabama and again
found sizable influences of teacher qualifications and smaller
class sizes on
achievement gains in math and reading. They found that more of
the difference
between the high- and low-scoring districts was explained by
teacher qualifications and
class sizes than by poverty, race, and parent education.
Meanwhile, a Tennessee study found that elementary school
students who are assigned

41. to ineffective teachers for three years in a row score nearly 50
percentile points lower on
achievement tests than those assigned to highly effective
teachers over the same period.
Strikingly, minority students are about half as likely to be
assigned to the most effective
teachers and twice as likely to be assigned to the least effective.
Minority students are put at greatest risk by the American
tradition of allowing
enormous variation in the qualifications of teachers. The
National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future found that new teachers hired
without meeting
certification standards (25 percent of all new teachers) are
usually assigned to teach the
most disadvantaged students in low-income and high-minority
schools, while the most
highly educated new teachers are hired largely by wealthier
schools (figure 2). Students
in poor or predominantly minority schools are much less likely
to have teachers who are
fully qualified or hold higher-level degrees. In schools with the
highest minority

42. enrollments, for example, students have less than a 50 percent
chance of getting a math
or science teacher with a license and a degree in the field. In
1994, fully one-third of
teachers in high-poverty schools taught without a minor in their
main field and nearly
70 percent taught without a minor in their secondary teaching
field.
Studies of underprepared teachers consistently find that they are
less effective with
students and that they have difficulty with curriculum
development, classroom
management, student motivation, and teaching strategies. With
little knowledge about
how children grow, learn, and develop, or about what to do to
support their learning,
these teachers are less likely to understand students’ learning
styles and differences, to
anticipate students’ knowledge and potential difficulties, or to
plan and redirect
instruction to meet students’ needs. Nor are they likely to see it
as their job to do so,
often blaming the students if their teaching is not successful.

43. Teacher expertise and curriculum quality are interrelated,
because a challenging
curriculum requires an expert teacher. Research has found that
both students and
teachers are tracked: that is, the most expert teachers teach the
most demanding
courses to the most advantaged students, while lower-track
students assigned to less
able teachers receive lower-quality teaching and less demanding
material. Assignment
to tracks is also related to race: even when grades and test
scores are comparable, black
students are more likely to be assigned to lower-track,
nonacademic classes.
When Opportunity Is More Equal
What happens when students of color do get access to more
equal opportunities’
Studies find that curriculum quality and teacher skill make more
difference to
educational outcomes than the initial test scores or racial
backgrounds of students.
Analyses of national data from both the High School and
Beyond Surveys and the

44. National Educational Longitudinal Surveys have demonstrated
that, while there are
dramatic differences among students of various racial and
ethnic groups in course-
taking in such areas as math, science, and foreign language, for
students with similar
course-taking records, achievement test score differences by
race or ethnicity narrow
substantially.
Robert Dreeben and colleagues at the University of Chicago
conducted a long line of
studies documenting both the relationship between educational
opportunities and
student performance and minority students’ access to those
opportunities. In a
comparative study of 300 Chicago first graders, for example,
Dreeben found that
African-American and white students who had comparable
instruction achieved
comparable levels of reading skill. But he also found that the
quality of instruction
given African-American students was, on average, much lower
than that given white

45. students, thus creating a racial gap in aggregate achievement at
the end of first grade.
In fact, the highest-ability group in Dreeben’s sample was in a
school in a low-income
African-American neighborhood. These children, though,
learned less during first grade
than their white counterparts because their teacher was unable
to provide the
challenging instruction they deserved.
When schools have radically different teaching forces, the
effects can be profound. For
example, when Eleanor Armour-Thomas and colleagues
compared a group of
exceptionally effective elementary schools with a group of low -
achieving schools with
similar demographic characteristics in New York City, roughly
90 percent of the
variance in student reading and mathematics scores at grades 3,
6, and 8 was a function
of differences in teacher qualifications. The schools with highly
qualified teachers
serving large numbers of minority and low-income students
performed as well as much

46. more advantaged schools.
Most studies have estimated effects statistically. However, an
experiment that randomly
assigned seventh grade “at-risk”students to remedial, average,
and honors mathematics
classes found that the at-risk students who took the honors class
offering a pre-algebra
curriculum ultimately outperformed all other students of similar
backgrounds. Another
study compared African-American high school youth randomly
placed in public housing
in the Chicago suburbs with city-placed peers of equivalent
income and initial academic
attainment and found that the suburban students, who attended
largely white and
better-funded schools, were substantially more likely to take
challenging courses,
perform well academically, graduate on time, attend college,
and find good jobs.
What Can Be Done?
This state of affairs is not inevitable. Last year the National
Commission on Teaching

47. and America’s Future issued a blueprint for a comprehensive set
of policies to ensure a
“caring, competent, and qualified teacher for every child,” as
well as schools organized
to support student success. Twelve states are now working
directly with the commission
on this agenda, and others are set to join this year. Several
pending bills to overhaul the
federal Higher Education Act would ensure that highly qualified
teachers are recruited
and prepared for students in all schools. Federal policymakers
can develop incentives,
as they have in medicine, to guarantee well-prepared teachers in
shortage fields and
high-need locations. States can equalize education spending,
enforce higher teaching
standards, and reduce teacher shortages, as Connecticut,
Kentucky, Minnesota, and
North Carolina have already done. School districts can
reallocate resources from
administrative superstructures and special add-on programs to
support better-educated
teachers who offer a challenging curriculum in smaller schools
and classes, as

48. restructured schools as far apart as New York and San Diego
have done. These schools,
in communities where children are normally written off to lives
of poverty, welfare
dependency, or incarceration, already produce much higher
levels of achievement for
students of color, sending more than 90 percent of their students
to college. Focusing
on what matters most can make a real difference in what
children have the opportunity
to learn. This, in turn, makes a difference in what communities
can accomplish.
An Entitlement to Good Teaching
The common presumption about educational inequality—that it
resides primarily in
those students who come to school with inadequate capacities to
benefit from what the
school has to offer—continues to hold wide currency because
the extent of inequality in
opportunities to learn is largely unknown. We do not currently
operate schools on the
presumption that students might be entitled to decent teaching
and schooling as a
matter of course. In fact, some state and local defendants have

49. countered school finance
and desegregation cases with assertions that such remedies are
not required unless it
can be proven that they will produce equal outcomes. Such
arguments against
equalizing opportunities to learn have made good on DuBois’s
prediction that the
problem of the 20th century would be the problem of the color
line.
But education resources do make a difference, particularly when
funds are used to
purchase well-qualified teachers and high-quality curriculum
and to create
personalized learning communities in which children are well
known. In all of the
current sturm und drang about affirmative action, “special
treatment,” and the other
high-volatility buzzwords for race and class politics in this
nation, I would offer a simple
starting point for the next century s efforts: no special
programs, just equal educational
opportunity.