Newspaper Page Text
The Augusta News - Review Januarv 19 1985
Thinking realistically about
integration
The National Institute of
Education, the research arm of the
Department of Education, recently
published School Desegregation
and Black Achievement, a collec
tion of papers that addresses one
of the great social science
questions of our time: Does racial
integration raise the achievement
levels of black students?
Public interest in this question
was first raised, of course, by the
series of court cases that
challenged the Plcssy v. Ferguson
doctrine of “separate but equal”
as it was applied to public schools.
As far back as the 19305, the
NAACP brought suits demanding
equal input—equal expenditures,
facilities, etc. —into black schools
with the expectation that
equalization would improve the
performance of black students.
That battle was won in the courts.
The NAACP then took its
argument one step further and
argued in Brown v. Board of
Education that no matter what the
input, segregated black schools
were inherently unequal. The
Supreme Court was unanimous in
believing that segregated schools
were unconstitutional. But they
were faced with a choice of groun
ds upon which their ruling should
rest. The Court ruled that assign
ment by race was self-evidently
unequal treatment and therefore in
clear violation of the 14th Amen
dment. But it also relied, at least
in part, on social science findings
as to the effect of segregated
schools on the “hearts and minds”
of the Black children. The Court
referred to social science studies by
psychologist Kenneth Clark and
others which purported to show
that Black children who attended
segregated schools had lower self
esteem than those who went to in
tegrated schools. It was
hypothesized that these feelings of
inferiority lowered Black students’
aspirations and thereby, their
academic achievement. The con
clusion: separate but equal was a
fiction.
As commentators at the time
and since have noted, resting the
decision about the meaning of
Constitutional language on
“modern authority’’ (Chief Justice
Earl Warren’s words) is risky
business. Today’s social science
wisdom could turn out to be
tomorrow’s folly.
In this particular instance, there
was cause from the outset to doubt
the findings of the studies relied on
by the Court. For example, Ernest
Van Den Haag pointed out in
court testimony in a subsequent
case, using Professor Clark’s own
measure of self-esteem
(e.g.—whether a child preferred a
Black or white doll), that research
indicated that Black students in in
tegrated schools had a lower sense
of self-worth than Black students
in segregated schools.
Whether integration has any ef
fect—positive or negative—on
Black achievement is not an
academic matter of concern only
to legal scholars. Assuming, as the
Court properly held in Brown that
segregation is unconstitutional, the
obvious remedy for a violation is a
desegregation order prohibiting
the assignment of students on the
basis of race. As lawyers for the
NAACP argued in Brown, what the
Constitution required is the
striking down of race as a basis of
assignment: “do not assign
(students)...on the basis of
race...lf you have some other
basis,...any other basis, we have
no objection. But just do not put
in race or color as a factor.”
Though often used inter
changeably, “desegregation” and
“integration” are not
synonymous. Desegregation is the
dismantling of an assignment
system based on race, whereas in
tegration requires a positive effort
at racial balancing. While it may
be within the equitable powers of
the courts to order integration as a
remedy upon a finding of illegal
segregation, integration in not and
never has been held to be a con
stitutional requirement when there
when there has not been a finding
of segregation. Therefore, it must
be judged by different criteria than
constitutionally-mandated dese
gregation. With respect to any in
tegration order, we need to ask two
separate and distinct questions.
One, will it increase the number of
whites and Blacks that attend
schools together? Two, will it
benefit the Black students whose
constitutional rights have been
violated? If not, it is an inap
propriate remedy.
Since the time of Brown, the
body of social science research on
the latter question has swollen.
But, the conclusions of the studies
have varied enormously. It was
for this reason that the NIE
decided to convene a panel of
social scientists to analyze past
studies on this subject. The panel
included two scholars (Robert
Crain and Paul Wortman) who
concluded from their own studies
that integration had positive effec
ts on Black achievement; two
(David Armor and Norman Miller)
who found negative effects; and
two (Herbert Walberg and Walter
Stephan) who discovered no
significant effects. The seventh
panel member, Thomas Cook, ser
ved as a methodological
policeman.
The panel as a body first weeded
out methodologically weak
studies. Among the 27 reasons for
eliminating a study from further
consideration were unknown sam
pling procedures, no control data
and different kinds of pre-and
post-tests. Out of the 157 studies
that were intially reviewed, all but
19 failed to pass methodological
muster, proof in and of itself of
the perils of putting too much faith
in the results of one, or even 100
research reports.
The 19 studies that survived the
cut were individually analyzed and
an analysis of these analyses was
made by Cook. It was hoped that
such an attempt at individual
analysis within the discipline of the
group—with its built-in
requriement of discussion, proofs,
criticism and rebuttal—would con
stitute a significant improvement
over previous attempts to draw
conclusions from the research
literature. With everyone looking
over each other’s shoulders, each
researcher would be as objective as
possible, and reach only those con
clusions that rigorous research
required.
While the panel was not asked to
address the question of self
esteem, two of the
panelists Miller and
Stephan—discussed the issue in
their papers and concluded that in
tegrated schools have no positive
effect on either self-concept or
level of academic aspiration.
Miller reported that recent resear
ch shows that “if school
desegregration does affect th&jself
esteem of Black children, its effec
ts, at least initially, are more likely
adverse than positive.” In so far
as academic aspiration is concer
ned, he found that the research
results were mixed. In any event,
Miller noted that “researchers
today would emphasize the impact
of school outcomes (academic per
formance and achievement) in
forming personality or creating
changes in it, rather than a casula
pattern in which changes in per
sonality cause subsequent shifts in
performance.”
On the main question of
educational achievement, the sub
ject of the study, there was a
variety of views: Armor: “The
conclusion is inescapable: the very
best studies available demonstrate
no significant and consistent effec
ts of desegregation on Black
achievement.”
Walberg: “School desegregation
does not appear promising in the
size or consistency of its effect on
learning of Black students.”
Stephan: “These results appear
to indicate that verbal achievement
improves somewhat but math
achievement shows little effect as a
result of desegregation.”
CHILD-SIZE
S RELIEF
aSii THE DORCOL"
thSM PEDIATRIC
H FORMULAS
Ki
i - i
< 1985 OOfiSEY LABORATORIES DIVISION OF SANDOZ INC
7 I I!. I'T .. I l«y
Corner Bth & Ellis
722-4507
CAPRI CINEMA
" —*
PfoT I
I MOVIES
| TITLES J
| anc * i
SHOW
TIMES
■ Call: t
722-4507
CAPRI
CINEMA \
ADULTS ONLY
Page 6
result of desegregation.”
Miller: “The desegregation
studies that met the NIE minimal
criteria show some moderate
academic benefit to Black children
when they attend desegregated
schools...the magnitude of these
effects translates into the rather
trivial increase of about twenty
points on the typical SAT...”
Wortman: “The effect size
found in both (math and reading)
analyses...indicates about a two
month gain or benefit for
desegregated students.”
Cook, the methodological wat
chdog: “desegregation—probably
does not increase math
achievement,... it probably raises
reading scores between two and six
weeks.”
Os the seven panelists, only
Crain came to significantly dif
ferent conclusions. And he was
specifically criticized by four of his
colleagues for using the data of
studies that the others threw out
for methodological deficiencies.
Both Armor and Cook pointed out
that if these weak studies were
eliminated from Crain’s analysis,
his conclusions would have been
roughly equivalent to those of
other panel members.
Assuming the NIE study to be
definitive, which it isn’t, these
conclusions would be discouraging
to those who have for over a quar
ter of a century touted integration
as an effective tool for improving
Black academic achievement. It
seems to do nothing to improve the
See Integration Page 2
|—“““ “1
WANTED
■TV Studio Technician with!
(experience in maintaining!
I cameras, RCA VTR and 3/4’’(
lU-matic. Send resume to:l
J Don Smith
(Chief Engineer, WRDW-TVJ
11301 Georgia Avenue (
■ North Augusta, S.C. 29841.(
■ A Television Station Partnersl
gStatiOn. Equal Opportunity Employer
u——— ——’
Sragrans
W W
- f Ot 1 ■- . |
■F? ■
B. *,
I JI 'liraHHS
Seagrams ■
Extra Org
Bl
AND BOTTIED 8*
•**•(•< (Bu»G .*tC lOU'SVME •'
KPflOO<
‘ roTmn '™* ! ■■ t’.®
B Bk H ■:<
~ BB
% Xs& j
. I
I I
t-Seagram distillers co, ny *ly. 100% neutral spirits 06TUED FROM grain so proof ~.•.v.^^v^.^v.v^^.%v.w.v.w.^•.•.•.•.•.•.•.x.x•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•>:•:•:•:•:•?•x•:<, K <•:^:S%W:•;
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Augusta will be accepting sealed bids
until 12:00 o’clock noon, Wednesday, February 20, 1985 for four (4) Advanced
Designed Transit Coaches, Spare component and related equipment for the Transit Dept.
■
Specifications may be obtained from the office of the undersigned.
Address all bids to the attention of the undersigned marking on the outside of the bid
“TRANSIT COACH BID”.
The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids.
Charles 0. Phillips Clerk of Council and Purchasing Agent
Room 806 Municipal Building
Augusta, Georgia 30911
I J
Keep your eyes on ]|J| £1
the numbers and v t
watch the savings /7c|
add up. Z 11
Learning how to read your IMR / S I
electric meter can really be worth ® i ! I
money to you. Z.nd it’s as easy to /
do as reading the speedometer in
a car. Once you know how, you I
can watch the amount of electricity I
you use daily and control it. ~ //A J ■
To get a free brochure on how I
to read your electric meter, ’ap' 111;| |$ I
call or stop by your local ;■' ■■■/' jEgWIUi |!fl
Georgia Power office. S; I■i ft I
Georgia Power <1 Irl l
oWj 0 9
Plugged Into Savings. 8 2 Q I
l 2 a sjx
55 4 J
© 1984 Georgia Power ■
DO IT WITH TASTE.
The smooth and refreshing taste of Seagrams Gin
makes the best drinks possible. Enjoy our quality in moderation.