Preliminary Literature Review
The Coleman Report, which was authored in 1966 during the Civil Rights Era to investigate which strategy was more likely to equalize educational opportunities for poor minority students-compensatory education or racial integration? For this study Coleman used a large national sample that included almost 650,000 students and teachers in more than 3,000 schools. The study began with the controversial and innovative premises that equalize educational opportunities “should be assessed by equality of outcome rather than equality of input” (Gordon, 1998). Data was collected on the educational resources available to different groups of children, but also on students ' achievements measured by test scores (Coleman et …show more content…
A 2010 report by Mickelson & Bottia, found that “students of all socioeconomic statuses, races, ethnicities, and grade levels were likely to have higher mathematics performance if they attended socioeconomically and racially integrated schools” (Mickelson and Bottia, 2010). Most studies relating to the benefits of socioeconomically integrated schools focus on the benefits of the minority students, but only a handful have done extensive research on how the other parties benefit. In this case Mickelson and Bottia researched a group of students who were in socioeconomically integrated schools and observed their mathematical test scores. The minority students test scores increased because of the better resources available to them and the positive environment, but the non-minority students test scores either stayed the same or increased. Their study demonstrated that integrated education leads not only to achievement improvement in math and reading for minority student, but also improved college enrollment, less legal and criminal problems, and a greater tendency for graduates of integrated schools later in life to live in integrated neighborhoods, have friends from many races and ethnic groups, and to be employed in diverse workplaces …show more content…
Cambridge made socioeconomic status the main factor in its controlled choice program in 2001. All the schools in Cambridge have been assigned as magnet schools with varying specialties in order to attract middle and higher class students into high poverty areas. Parents rank which schools they prefer and their children are assigned to the school chosen as long as the school has 15 to 40 percent of free or reduced lunch (Conneely, 2008). Cambridge’s plan is called controlled choice. Data collected shows that low income third grade students in Cambridge scored better than low income students statewide (Conneely, 2008). The difference between this study and the prior ones is that researchers have collected data for the middle class students. The data collected has been shown to disprove what many opponents of socioeconomic school integration feared would happen if less prepared and low income studied with middle class students. Instead of bringing down the scores of middle class students, the data shows that middle class student are neither hurt nor affected academically by low income minority students (Conneely, 2008). Since school districts are not allowed to use race as a factor for admission or assignment to schools, many have been worried how both minority and non minority students would be affected by using anything else
The Coleman Report, which was authored in 1966 during the Civil Rights Era to investigate which strategy was more likely to equalize educational opportunities for poor minority students-compensatory education or racial integration? For this study Coleman used a large national sample that included almost 650,000 students and teachers in more than 3,000 schools. The study began with the controversial and innovative premises that equalize educational opportunities “should be assessed by equality of outcome rather than equality of input” (Gordon, 1998). Data was collected on the educational resources available to different groups of children, but also on students ' achievements measured by test scores (Coleman et …show more content…
A 2010 report by Mickelson & Bottia, found that “students of all socioeconomic statuses, races, ethnicities, and grade levels were likely to have higher mathematics performance if they attended socioeconomically and racially integrated schools” (Mickelson and Bottia, 2010). Most studies relating to the benefits of socioeconomically integrated schools focus on the benefits of the minority students, but only a handful have done extensive research on how the other parties benefit. In this case Mickelson and Bottia researched a group of students who were in socioeconomically integrated schools and observed their mathematical test scores. The minority students test scores increased because of the better resources available to them and the positive environment, but the non-minority students test scores either stayed the same or increased. Their study demonstrated that integrated education leads not only to achievement improvement in math and reading for minority student, but also improved college enrollment, less legal and criminal problems, and a greater tendency for graduates of integrated schools later in life to live in integrated neighborhoods, have friends from many races and ethnic groups, and to be employed in diverse workplaces …show more content…
Cambridge made socioeconomic status the main factor in its controlled choice program in 2001. All the schools in Cambridge have been assigned as magnet schools with varying specialties in order to attract middle and higher class students into high poverty areas. Parents rank which schools they prefer and their children are assigned to the school chosen as long as the school has 15 to 40 percent of free or reduced lunch (Conneely, 2008). Cambridge’s plan is called controlled choice. Data collected shows that low income third grade students in Cambridge scored better than low income students statewide (Conneely, 2008). The difference between this study and the prior ones is that researchers have collected data for the middle class students. The data collected has been shown to disprove what many opponents of socioeconomic school integration feared would happen if less prepared and low income studied with middle class students. Instead of bringing down the scores of middle class students, the data shows that middle class student are neither hurt nor affected academically by low income minority students (Conneely, 2008). Since school districts are not allowed to use race as a factor for admission or assignment to schools, many have been worried how both minority and non minority students would be affected by using anything else