Desegregation decrees versus the NCLB choice provision: Implications for resegregated schools

Journal of School Choice

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 63-75

  Eckes, Suzanne E ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Desegregation; NCLB choice provisions; Unitary status

Indexed keywords

EID: 36649008311     PISSN: 15582159     EISSN: 15582167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J467v01n03_08     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Acree v. County Board of Education (2002a). Civil Action No. CB-1179.
2. Acree v. County Board of Education (2002b). Civil Action No. CB-1179.
3. Acree v. County Board of Education (2003). Civil Action No. CB-1179.
4. Acree v. Drummond v. County Board of Education, 336 F. Supp. 1275 (S.D. GA, 1972).
5. Baradaran-Robison, S. (2003). Kaleidoscopic consent decrees: School desegregation and prison reform consent decrees after the prison litigation reform act and Freeman-Dowell. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2003(1), 1333-1372.
6. Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991).
7. Boger, J. C. (2003). Willfull colorblindness: The new racial piety and the resegregation of public schools. North Carolina Law Review, 78 6), 1719-1796.
8. Bradley v. Pinellas County School Board, (2000).
9. Bradley v. Pinellas County School Board, Case no. 8:64-CV-98-T-23B (2004a). (Proposed Order on Defendant's Motion for Relief from Court Order Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §200.44(c))
10. Bradley v. Pinellas County School Board, Case no. 8:64-CV-98-T-23B (2004b). (Motion for Relief from Court Order Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 200.44(c)
11. Bradley v. Pinellas County School Board, Case no. 8:64-CV-98-T-23B (2004c). (Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Relief from Court Order Pursuant to 34 CFR §200.44(c)
12. Brown v. Board of Education, 384 U.S. 886 (1954).
13. Chemerinsky, E. (2003). Separate and Unequal: American Public Education Today. American University Law Review, 52(6), 1461-1477.
14. DeBray, E. (2005). NCLB accountability collides with court-ordered desegregation: The case of Pinellas County, Florida. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 170-188.
15. DeBray, E. (2004, November). The equitable powers of the judge: The conflict between No Child Left Behind and court-ordered desegregation in Richmond County, Georgia. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(3), 264-277.
16. Eckes, S. (2005). The perceived barriers to educational integration in the Mississippi Delta. Journal of Negro Education, 74(2), 1-26.
17. Eckes, S. & Plucker, J. (2005). Charter schools and gifted education: Legal obligations. Journal of Law and Education, 34(3), 421-437.
18. Frankenberg, E., & Lee, C. (2003). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunity for integrated education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project. Retrieved October 10, 2004 from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/ Charter_Schools03.pdf
19. Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2003). A multiracial society with segregating schools: Are we losing the dream? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project. Retrieved August 11, 2003, from: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/ research/reseg03/AreWeLosingtheDream.pdf
20. Frankenberg E. & Lee C. (2002). Race in American public schools: Rapidly resegregated school districts, The Civil Rights Project, 4.
21. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992).
22. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).
23. Jenkins v. Missouri, 639 F.Supp. 19 (W.D. Mo. 1985).
24. Lewin, N. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The triumph of school choice over racial desegregation. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 12(1), 95-134.
25. McMullen, D. J. & McMullen I.R. (1993). Stubborn facts of history - The vestiges of past discrimination in school desegregation cases. Case Western Reserve, 44(1), 75-121.
26. Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977).
27. Missouri v. Jenkins (III), 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
28. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002). Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 State. 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 seq.
29. Olson, L. (2005). NCLB choice option going untapped, but tutoring picking up. Education Week, 24(27), 1-21. http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/reseg04/ resegregation04.php
30. Orfield, G. (2001), School more separate: Consequences of a decade of resegregation. Cambridge: The Civil Rights Project. Retrieved from: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/ separate_schools01.php.
31. Paige, R. L. (2002, June 14). Dear Colleague. Retrieved January 8, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020614.html
32. Parker, W. (2003). The decline of judicial decisionmaking: School desegregation and district court judges. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1623-1658.
33. Poser. S. (2002). Termination of desegregation decrees and the elusive meaning of unitary status. Nebraska Law Review, 81(1), 283-363.
34. Public School Choice, 34 Code of Federal Regulation §200 (2002).
35. Rapp & Eckes (in press). Dispelling the myth of "white flight": An examination of minority enrollment in charter schools. Educational Policy.
36. Ryan J. (2003). What role should courts play in influencing educational policy?: The limited influence of social science evidence in modern desegregation cases. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1659-1702.
37. Tacorda, R. (2003). Acknowledging those stubborn facts of history: The vestiges of segregation. UCLA Law Review, 50(6), 1547-1572.
38. Title I, §1116 (b)(E)).
39. Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenburg, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
40. U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2000). Applying federal civil rights laws to public charter schools: Questions and answers. Retrieved May 17, 2005 from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/ data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/21/eb/22.pdf.
41. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Introduction: No Child Left Behind. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 2, 2004 from http://www.nclb.gov/next/overview/index.html