Seventy years after Brown v. Board of Education, many U.S. school districts remain divided by race and class. Segregation is often particularly prevalent in large, urban school districts like New York City (NYC). In 2018, 77% of Black and Hispanic students in NYC attended schools that were less than 10% white. In contrast, only 43% of Asian students and 11% of white students attended such schools.
To counter the effects of residential segregation, many large urban districts, including NYC, allow students to attend schools outside of their neighborhoods. Segregation in these school choice systems varies depending on two factors: family preferences and school admissions criteria. For example, family preferences for low transportation time and local connections may limit families’ willingness to send their students to schools outside of their segregated neighborhoods. Similarly, schools that enroll students based primarily on their residence (geographic screening) or test scores (academic screening) may be more homogenous.
Some districts have attempted to reduce school segregation by changing admissions criteria. In 2019, NYC District 3—on the Upper West Side—and District 15—in Northwest Brooklyn—reduced academic screenings in an effort to diversify schools. Both school districts are more diverse and faced more segregation prior to 2019 than the average New York City district. To reform their admissions criteria, District 3 retained some academic screening, but for a quarter of each school’s seats, they prioritized students with low academic achievement who were eligible for subsidized lunch. District 15 went further, eliminating academic screenings and giving students who were homeless, low-income, or English language learners priority for around half of each school’s seats.
Lessons on Integration from Two District Policies
In our recent project, “Understanding the Impact of Integration Policies in New York City Public Schools,” we partnered with New York City Public Schools (NYCPS) to evaluate these two policies’ effects on school integration and to predict the effects of hypothetical citywide policy reforms.
Overall, both district policies increased school diversity, though the magnitude of the effect was larger in District 15. After the reforms, public school students in District 15 attended middle schools that were 30% less economically segregated and 13% less racially segregated. In District 3, the reduction was smaller; students attended schools that were 8% less economically segregated, and no less racially segregated.
However, the change in admissions policy also resulted in some students leaving the public school system, a finding of particular relevance given concerns over nationwide declining enrollment. In Districts 3 and 15, white and higher-income students were 6–8 percentage points more likely to leave the public school system rather than attend the school they were admitted to. In contrast, Black, Hispanic, and Asian students were no more likely to exit the public school system than they were before the admissions reform.
Nonetheless, the reduction in segregation in both districts may translate into positive outcomes for students in the long term. Research has shown that attending diverse schools may have academic and psychological benefits for students.1 For example, studies have found that Black students who attended desegregated schools in the 1970s and 1980s had lower high school dropout rates and greater educational attainment, earnings, and health outcomes.1
Modeling Citywide Admissions Changes: Predictions and Limitations
To expand on these results, we developed a model to predict changes in student application and enrollment behavior following citywide changes to admissions criteria. We predict that removing academic screenings citywide would reduce segregation modestly, whereas removing geographic screenings would reduce segregation more.
However, the impact of changing admissions criteria is limited, as our research shows that only about half of school segregation stems from admissions criteria. School segregation also results from families’ preferences for schools near their homes and for different schools depending on their racial and socioeconomic background. Our findings suggest that admissions reforms are unlikely to reduce segregation in NYC middle schools by more than 50%. Efforts to address families’ preferences—for example, by providing families with more information about high-quality schools—may be necessary to further reduce school segregation. Eroding residential segregation itself, perhaps through innovative housing policies, would be another avenue to reduce school segregation.
Looking Ahead: New Questions on Desegregation
Over the last 70 years, large urban school districts like NYC have sought ways to reduce school segregation. In partnership with NYCPS, we have determined that district policies that change admissions criteria can boost integration. Removing criteria that prioritize students who live near the school would reduce segregation most effectively. However, school segregation in NYC does not stem solely from admissions policies.
To better understand how to reduce segregation in NYC and other large, urban school districts, it’s critical to further research how families decide which schools to send their children to. For example, are some families’ decisions affected by a lack of information about high-quality schools? How do families’ decisions differ across race and socioeconomic status? Our newest research has begun to address these questions, and future research could continue to explore these topics in NYC and beyond.
Photo: New York City Department of Transportation / Flickr
Editor’s Note:
The Foundation’s interest in reducing inequality spans dimensions and domains. In this piece, a team of economists from MIT share findings from a causal analysis of district-level policies implemented to decrease school segregation and reduce racial and economic inequalities. Grantees across domains have examined programs, practices, and policies to address academic inequalities that result from residential and school segregation. Here are a handful:
Community-Driven, Technology-Guided School Rezoning to Reduce Economic Segregation
School Rezoning and Educational Inequality: Narratives, Processes, and Outcomes
- Billings, S. and Hoekstra, M. (2019). Schools, Neighborhoods, and the Long-Run Effect of Crime-Prone Peers. Technical Report w25730, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA; Guryan, J. (2004). Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates. The American Economic Review, 94(4):33; Guryan, J. (2004). Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates. The American Economic Review, 94(4):33.; Johnson, R. C. (2019). Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works. Hachette UK.
- 2 Guryan, J. (2004). Desegregation and Black Dropout Rates. The American Economic Review, 94(4):33; Johnson, R. C. (2019). Children of the Dream: Why School Integration Works. Hachette UK.
