Search

Passed in 2001, the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) codified the use of educational accountability systems that rely on largely quantitative measures -- standardized tests, especially -- to assess student learning outcomes, rank order districts and schools according to these outcomes, and prescribe sanctions for schools and districts not meeting achievement targets. At the same time, American public schools have rapidly resegregated (Frankenberg et al., 2019) since reaching the height of statistical desegregation in 1988 (Orfield et al., 2014). A 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that more than one-third of all K-12 public school students attend a school where at least 75 percent of the enrollment comes from the same racial background. This brief examines recent empirical research to consider what, if any, relationship exists between systems of accountability and the persistence of school segregation. It attempts to answer the following questions: (1) What does empirical evidence suggest about the relationship between contemporary accountability systems and trends in school segregation? and (2) How, if at all, might accountability systems be refined in order to contribute constructively to real integration?

In general, controlled school choice policies that aim to integrate schools along the lines of race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status are most often successful in achieving that goal. Unregulated systems of school choice, however, tend to exacerbate school segregation (Cobb & Glass, 2009). This research brief summarizes research about charter schools and segregation and finds that the evidence shows that if school choice programs cannot or do not pay attention to social class and race, they generally increase segregation among schools. [This brief is adapted from "Public and Private Education in America: Examining the Facts" by Casey D. Cobb and Gene V Glass, published by ABC-CLIO in September 2021.]

The benefits of attending diverse schools accrue to children from all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. The benefits include, but are not limited to, higher academic achievement. These gains continue into adulthood, leading to higher levels of social cohesion and civic engagement; reduced racial prejudice; and less segregation in neighborhoods, colleges, and workplaces. Social science also demonstrates the democratic value of meaningful, sustained cross-racial contact among youth. The Biden/Harris Administration has many opportunities to demonstrate concrete support for efforts to build cross-racial understanding and facilitate more equitable distribution of resources and power through school integration. The policy brief outlines a broader, longer-term school integration agenda for the administration's first term.

As educators across the country make a valiant effort to meet the needs of their students in response to the coronavirus crisis, the educational impacts of disparities in family resources and school funding are apparent. The crisis also reminds us of the many roles that schools play beyond academics. When students eventually return to school, will we merely continue our current policies, or might we make some progress in developing a fairer public school system, including, potentially, a more integrated one? State governments are in the best position to reverse the tide of increasing racial and socioeconomic segregation in our public schools, if the political will is present. The federal government, through the Every Student Succeeds Act ("ESSA"), provides significant compensatory funding for lower-income schools in Title I. Related sections of ESSA can also provide funding incentives for school integration, as could Congress. But for the past few decades, Congress has been reluctant to impose any real accountability for integration on state and local governments. This leaves a very large policy vacuum for state governments to fill. The model policies in this policy brief represent small but meaningful steps that state legislatures can take to begin to bring students and communities back together. These policies would begin to provide greater flexibility and support for districts that understand the value of racial and socioeconomic integration, and greater accountability for segregation both within and across districts. They propose funding for a variety of voluntary integration efforts, put stronger limits on school district secession, require assessments of the segregation impacts of significant capital investments, and institute systems of measurement for school segregation--something only a handful of states currently require. [These model state policies were written with the assistance of Sue Lin from Hogan Lovells.]

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the single largest federal investment in K-12 schools, making it a key tool for driving opportunity and closing the achievement gap. Title I provides financial assistance to schools based on the number of low-income students they enroll. Schools receiving the grants are required to comply with federal non-discrimination statutes, theoretically incentivizing equity in schools and districts across the country. The precise amount of Title I funds a school receives per low-income student depends on several factors. Two key factors are district size and the level of concentrated poverty in the district and school. While well intentioned, these and other more complicated factors in Title I's funding formulas can disincentivize innovative interdistrict programs that promote racial and economic integration. In short, Title I allocations can shrink as districts reduce their overall levels of school poverty. These formulas may also discourage districts from taking steps to integrate schools internally, within the district. This brief urges Congress to change the formula, stating that Title I's funding formulas provide incentives for school districts to maintain high poverty levels and no incentive to deconcentrate poverty or foster voluntary transfer or assignment policies with surrounding districts.

For the last 50 years, social, educational, and behavioral scientists investigating the relationships among school socioeconomic (SES) composition and educational outcomes have demonstrated time and again that schools with higher concentrations of students living in poverty provide less than optimal teaching and learning conditions, and they are especially harmful to the most vulnerable students who are, most often, youth living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty and low-income students of color. Concentrated poverty in schools creates and sustains disparities in academic outcomes. High concentrations of students living in poverty complicate learning and teaching in schools, and reduce the effectiveness of other educational interventions designed to address gaps in academic outcomes. Short-term, "band-aid" solutions may improve some outcomes for some students in a particular school in a given year, but any gains are not sustained in the long-term. This research brief summarizes recent research about school SES composition effects on educational outcomes, with a focus on whether this enormous cross-disciplinary body of research supports claims that school poverty "thresholds" or "tipping points" exist.

Schools remain one of the few social institutions that have the potential to bring youth together across racial and ethnic lines. New social science research demonstrates the importance of fostering sustained interracial contact between youth in order to prepare them to thrive in a multiracial society. This brief aims to summarize much of this new evidence, with special attention to its practical implications for the social relations and contexts within schools.

For years, a negative view held by many local realtors about the quality of schools in California's Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) remained largely unchallenged, and these negative attitudes effectively discouraged new residents from considering PUSD as a viable option for their children's education. PUSD has stabilized over time from its complicated past, but it is still only capturing approximately 55% of the school-age population residing within its boundaries. The result is a student population that does not reflect the communities it serves. Thanks to an innovative realtor outreach program sponsored by the Pasadena Educational Foundation (PEF), perceptions of PUSD are changing for the better. The realtor initiative has three goals: (1) to help realtors now and in the future see PUSD's public schools as they really are; (2) to equip realtors with current information about PUSD's schools; and (3) to encourage realtors to be active ambassadors for PEF, the Pasadena Education Network, and the PUSD.

Given what is known about the distinct benefits of racial diversity in schools (see National Coalition on School Diversity (NCSD) Research Brief #5 (ED571629)), alongside the growing interest in and evidence for promoting socioeconomic status (SES) diversity (see NCSD Research Brief #10 (ED603698)), we need to understand whether SES diversity plans can also produce racial diversity, which types of SES plans have the best chance of achieving racial integration, and how SES and neighborhood racial demographics can be effectively combined. The K-12 evidence on whether or not SES diversity plans effectively produce racial diversity is still emerging, largely because policy shifts toward SES-based diversity plans are recent and limited in scope, making it difficult to definitively understand whether these plans can produce racial diversity across multiple contexts. With affirmative action bans in several key states, though, there is evidence on the relationship between SES-focused diversity efforts and racial diversity in higher education. In order to consider the strongest evidence possible, this brief reviews those studies here as well. The survey of existing research indicates that both policy design and local context matter when it comes to whether or not socioeconomic diversity plans will produce racial diversity--and that considering SES and neighborhood racial factors together may be the best way forward.

Across the nation, school districts are intentionally integrating students of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds in order to increase access to educational opportunity, boost achievement, and prepare students to be thoughtful and collaborative citizens in our multiracial society. Some districts have developed interdistrict integration programs in order to bring students together from neighboring towns or even an entire region. While the benefits of interdistrict programs are many, district leaders must ensure the social emotional well-being of students who are attending schools outside of their home communities. This brief highlights successful interdistrict integration programs and the practices their leaders and practitioners have employed to create welcoming and inclusive learning environments for their students.

"Brown v. Board of Education" declared in 1954 that racially segregated schools were unequal, invalidating laws requiring segregation of black and white students in seventeen states. Since then, legal decisions have furthered racial desegregation in schools and more recent decisions have arguably impeded it. This research brief explores what is known about the importance of both racial and economic diversity in K-12 schools. The authors first review research on the benefits of racial diversity, then research about the benefits of socioeconomic status (SES) diversity. Finally, the authors examine the research findings regarding the benefits of racial diversity when accounting for SES. This review of the research suggests that both racial and SES diversity are beneficial to students, particularly low-income students and students of color, especially when within-school practices like classroom assignment ensure equal access to opportunity. The authors also find that research supports the conclusion that the benefits that flow from racial and SES diversity are not interchangeable. Policies should ensure that schools are both racially and economically diverse in order to produce maximal benefits to students and their communities.

Montgomery Count Public School (MCPS) has experienced substantial demographic change since magnet and special academic programs began in the 1970s. MCPS is experiencing tremendous growth of approximately 2,500 students per year, with the fastest growing segment of students being Latino. Similar to many other districts that created magnet programs in the 1970s and 1980s, MCPS designed many of its magnets and special academic programs as a voluntary approach to achieve desegregation. Magnet schools are public "schools of choice"--schools that offer alternatives to students other than their neighborhood public schools. With Latino, black, and low-income students having been largely excluded from the district's magnet and special academic programs, this report looks at how district leaders are working to increase equity and access.

The National Coalition on School Diversity has updated this review of federal support for school integration during the tenures of Secretaries Arne Duncan and John King, who both served during the Obama Administration. While much remains to be done, the Obama Administration has made concrete progress on school integration policy. This overview begins with the Administration's 2011 Guidance on voluntary school integration, and covers the Department's K-12 competitive grants, preschool programs administered cooperatively with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department's handling of state waivers under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and new legislative developments. This Review is divided into four sections: (1) Administrative guidance and action supporting school diversity; (2) School diversity language and incentives in U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) competitive grant programs for K-12 education; (3) School diversity language and incentives in Early Childhood Education programs; and (4) Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and "Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility." [This brief was written with Derek Black and Phil Tegeler.]

Some sixty years after the 1954 "Brown" decision declared separate schooling inherently unequal, America's student population is much larger and more demographically diverse. For many decades court mandated desegregation plans were implemented, but today public schools are again largely segregated by race, ethnicity, and family socioeconomic status (SES). Does this resegregation of schools matter? The preponderance of high quality social, educational, and behavioral science research disseminated since the late 1980s is clear and consistent: the racial and SES composition of schools influences short- and long-term outcomes. And segregation is harmful for all students. This brief reports on a quick synthesis of the empirical evidence from almost four decades of high quality social, educational, and behavioral science research and suggests that an integrated education can fosters greater adherence to democratic values and enhances a person's propensity for civic engagement.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the latest reauthorization of the country's premier K-12 education law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Under ESSA state education agencies (SEAs), along with local education agencies (LEAs) and the communities they serve assume significant new responsibilities, ranging from the formulation of state accountability systems to determining interventions in persistently low-performing schools. ESSA also includes the requirement that state and local education agencies engage in "timely and meaningful consultation" with a variety of stakeholders while developing many aspects of Title I plans and school accountability systems. This issue brief summarizes opportunities for supporters of school diversity to engage in the ESSA implementation process at the state and local level to maximize the potential school integration impact of the new law. Sample letters to state and local education agencies are appended.

Across the U.S., urban school districts are in a deepening state of crisis. Problems of academic failure, financial debt, and enrollment loss have been reported in many of the nation's largest cities. In local and national policy debates, there are two distinct explanations about the reasons for these crises. One explanation for school failure presents a lack of fiscal and academic accountability. Another, different explanation for school failure comes from outside the mainstream education policy discourse, that is urban districts facing decades of discriminatory policy decisions that created deep inequities between urban school districts and their surrounding suburbs. Policy solutions emerging from this diagnosis focus on addressing the inequality and inefficiency created by multiple jurisdictions within metropolitan areas with policies that aim to connect cities and suburbs. These policies are commonly referred to as inter-district school integration policies. They are premised upon the idea that segregation and racial isolation between school districts are a fundamental cause of educational inequality. They seek to address this root cause of failure by allowing students to move across the boundaries of districts both to create more integrated learning environments and to provide students the opportunity to access greater resources, academic and social opportunities, and networks. Research has found these programs yield significant academic and social benefits for participants. This brief takes the opportunity to describe some inter-district integration program and the research on outcomes.

This Issue Brief states that, in spite of the obvious "reciprocal relationship" between housing and school policy, government housing and education agencies have rarely collaborated to promote the common goals of racial and economic integration. Recent efforts to promote collaboration among housing and school agencies have focused on place-based interventions to enhance the learning environment for low income children in segregated, high poverty schools and neighborhoods, However government housing and education planners can do more to address the underlying conditions of segregation and poverty concentration that are a major contributor to unequal neighborhood and school conditions. Housing and school integration can have a strong mutually reinforcing effect, if they adhered to the following recommendations to: (1) Encourage collaboration between state housing and education departments to promote housing and school integration; (2) Incorporate school integration into ongoing regional planning efforts; (3) Site new assisted housing in low poverty, high performing school districts; (4) Link housing and school integration in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program; and (5) Build school integration into existing HUD-Department of Education collaborations on Choice Neighborhoods and Promise Neighborhoods.

Nearly six decades of multi-disciplinary social science evidence points to important academic, social and civic benefits for low income students of color who attend high quality, diverse schools. Research briefs highlighting key studies that document these beneficial outcomes are summarized in prior "Research Briefs" in this series (see www.school-diversity.org). Some of this research has also pointed to benefits accruing to students of all races and ethnicities attending integrated schools. Less direct attention has been paid to the ways in which "white" students are advantaged by racially diverse school settings. As described in this research brief, diverse schools benefit white students by providing far better learning outcomes. Enrollment in racially integrated schools is also associated with important social and psychological advantages that improve productivity in an increasingly diverse workplace. Recognizing that sustained support for school diversity on the part of white families is central to the creation of stable, integrated schools, this research brief outlines the best evidence to date on the benefits of racially diverse K-12 experiences for white students.

The Secretary of Education has expressed strong support for school diversity and reduction of racial isolation in speeches and in the Joint Guidance on Voluntary School Integration, and the Department of Education (DOE) has included a general preference for school integration among its permissible funding preferences. However, this support for school integration is not yet reflected in the requirements and point systems of many key competitive grant programs, where it might make the most difference. In the long struggle for Congressional agreement on an ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) reauthorization bill and a collective understanding that the primary achievement goal of No Child Left Behind could not be achieved as originally defined, USDOE has offered states flexibility to commit to their own, federally approved plans in exchange for waivers from 10 ESEA requirements. In terms of flexibility for Highly Qualified Teacher Improvement plans and the principle of Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership, the flexibility does not exempt states from the ESEA requirement of ensuring that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other students by less desirable teachers. (Contains 51 footnotes.) [Additional research for this paper was provided by Michael Hilton.]

The Administration's "Blueprint For Reform," and FY 2011 budget proposal set forth an education agenda that would make the expansion of charter schools a cornerstone of the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Likewise, HR 4330 would promote charter schools as a central catalyst for education reform. Without clearer guidelines, charter school expansion could exacerbate racial and socio-economic isolation, and would also miss an opportunity to promote diversity. The recommendations presented in this paper urge Congress to pair federal support for charter school expansion with incentives that would create and sustain racially, economically and linguistically diverse charter schools; safeguards to ensure that the civil rights of all children are protected; and funding increases that would provide for the expansion or replication of effective, diverse magnet school models. (Contains 25 endnotes.)

Today, public schoolchildren are more racially isolated than at any time in the past four decades. And, racially isolated schools are overwhelmingly high-poverty schools: indeed nine out of ten of highly segregated schools serving African-American and Latino students are schools of concentrated poverty. With rare exception, racially isolated, high-poverty schools remain unequal--by any measure--and fail to provide students with the skills necessary to participate in the economy and society. To close the achievement gap and prepare students to participate meaningfully in the democracy and global economy, all students must learn to live and work together across race and class lines. Reflecting the high importance that schools and communities have placed on efforts to unlock concentrated disadvantage and segregation in schools, the United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged that promoting diversity and avoiding racial isolation are compelling interests that schools can and should pursue. Accordingly, the reauthorization process must take account of the fact that race and class still matter deeply in the education schoolchildren receive, and efforts to address the impact of concentrated poverty and racial isolation in schools can and should be of paramount importance.

This policy brief addresses several key provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that provide policy support and funding to states and localities seeking to deconcentrate poverty and reduce racial isolation in schools. These "choice" programs which include the Magnet Schools Assistance Program and the Voluntary School Choice Program, provide low-income and minority students with opportunities to go to higher-performing schools outside of their traditional school assignment boundaries. A large body of research demonstrates that students attending low-poverty and diverse schools experience more positive academic outcomes and greater opportunities in post-secondary education and career. For this reason, the National Coalition on School Diversity has also encouraged the federal government to promote deconcentration of poverty and racial diversity in the Charter Schools Program, another key "choice" program within the ESEA. As Congress approaches the reauthorization of ESEA, it should adopt the recommendations presented in this paper to ensure that the law's choice programs can continue to support high-quality and efficacious programs that reinforce the law's goals of equity and diversity. (Contains 5 endnotes.)

This research brief outlines six major studies of magnet school student outcomes. Magnet schools are programs with special themes or emphases designed to attract families from a variety of different backgrounds. They were originally established to promote voluntary racial integration in urban districts. The studies are located within a much broader body of research that documents the benefits of attending racially and socioeconomically diverse schools. Some of what is known from the literature on the benefits of racial diversity indicates that students of all races who attend diverse schools have higher levels of critical thinking, an ability to adopt multiple perspectives; diminished likelihood for acceptance of stereotypes, higher academic achievement, more cross-racial friendships, willingness to attend diverse colleges and live in diverse neighborhoods, access to more privileged social networks, higher feelings of civic and communal responsibility, higher college-going rates, more prestigious jobs. The research discussed in this brief is relatively recent, but older studies suggest that magnet schools are associated with increased student achievement, higher levels of student motivation and satisfaction with school, higher levels of teacher motivation and morale, and higher levels of parent satisfaction with the school.

Given the common practice of assigning students to neighborhood schools, any serious hope of integrating America's public education system requires the consideration of not only educational policies and practices, but also the demography of neighborhoods and the housing policies that contribute to residential integration or segregation. Most American students live in communities that are dominated by families from one race and socioeconomic status. Public schools typically reflect their neighborhood demographics because most students are assigned to schools based on their residence. These straightforward dynamics underlie the relationship between the integration or segregation of schools and their feeder neighborhoods. The links between integration or segregation of schools and neighborhoods are also reciprocal. This essay summarizes the social science evidence on the reciprocal relationship between integrated schooling and integrated housing. The synergistic nature of this relationship unfolds across the life course. This brief contains a figure that illustrates the connections between housing and school integration and the intergenerational and reciprocal nature of their relationship.

The goals of promoting integration and avoiding racial isolation in K-12 education were recently reaffirmed as compelling government interests. The importance of avoiding racial and economic segregation in schools is important not just for its own sake, but because of the documented benefits to students that flow from more racially integrated, lower poverty schools. Studies over the past twenty years have demonstrated that integrated education leads not only to achievement gains in math and reading for African American and Latino children, but also to increased occupational attainment, less involvement with the criminal justice system, 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. While additional research continues on this subject, this brief reports on the positive effects of K-12 school integration on college attendance rates, college graduation, and intergenerational perpetuation of poverty.

This is the first in a series of three research briefs summarizing findings from the newest and most rigorous research related to racial and socioeconomic diversity in public schools. The studies on which this brief is based were published recently in three special issues of the peer-reviewed journal, "Teachers College Record," edited by Professors Roslyn Arlin Mickelson of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Kathryn Borman of the University of South Florida. The weight of evidence from these studies demonstrates that racially isolated, high-poverty schools tend to negatively influence math and science course-taking patterns and achievement as measured by test scores. Meanwhile, under certain conditions, lower poverty schools and schools that do not enroll highly disproportionate shares of African American and/or Latino students tend to be positively associated with math and science achievement. This research augments an already extensive body of work in this area, which has reached similar conclusions. However, the work published this year in "Teachers College Record" is particularly rigorous. It draws from several strong data bases and employs cutting-edge statistical methods. This comprehensive collection of studies pays meticulous attention to separating the discrete contributions that schools, teachers, families and students themselves make to a variety of important educational outcomes, such as test scores and graduation rates. The authors urge courts, policymakers, education rights lawyers, educators and others to use this new work as a guide in decisions and advocacy related to diversity, schooling and equal opportunity. [For the second report in this series, see "How the Racial and Socioeconomic Composition of Schools and Classrooms Contributes to Literacy, Behavioral Climate, Instructional Organization and High School Graduation Rates. Research Brief No. 2. Updated" (ED571626). For the third report in this series, see "The Impact of Racially Diverse Schools in a Democratic Society. Research Brief No. 3. Updated" (ED571627).]

This is the third in a series of briefs summarizing findings from the newest and most rigorous research related to racial and socioeconomic diversity in public schools. The studies on which this brief is based were published recently in three special issues of the peer-reviewed journal, "Teachers College Record," edited by Professors Roslyn Arlin Mickelson of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Kathryn Borman of the University of South Florida. For more than two decades, the success of school desegregation has been judged mainly by the degree to which it benefits individuals, either through academic achievement or social mobility. This research augments an already extensive body of work in this area, which has reached similar conclusions. However, the work published this year in "Teachers College Record" is particularly rigorous. It draws from several strong data bases and employs cutting-edge statistical methods. This comprehensive collection of studies pays meticulous attention to separating the discrete contributions that schools, teachers, families and students themselves make to a variety of important educational outcomes, such as test scores and graduation rates. It is urged that courts, policymakers, education rights lawyers, educators and others use this new work as a guide in decisions and advocacy related to diversity, schooling, and equal opportunity. [For the first report in this series, see "School Racial and Economic Composition & Math and Science Achievement. Research Brief No. 1. Updated" (ED571622). For the second report in this series, see "How the Racial and Socioeconomic Composition of Schools and Classrooms Contributes to Literacy, Behavioral Climate, Instructional Organization and High School Graduation Rates. Research Brief No. 2. Updated" (ED571626).]

This is the second in a series of briefs summarizing findings from the newest and most rigorous research related to racial and socioeconomic diversity in public schools. The studies on which this brief is based were published recently in three special issues of the peer-reviewed journal, "Teachers College Record," edited by Professors Roslyn Arlin Mickelson of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Kathryn Borman of the University of South Florida. This brief considers the relationship between the racial and socioeconomic composition of a school and/or classroom and a variety of important educational measures. This research augments an already extensive body of work in this area, which has reached similar conclusions. However, the work published this year in "Teachers College Record" is particularly rigorous. It draws from several strong data bases and employs cutting-edge statistical methods. This comprehensive collection of studies pays meticulous attention to separating the discrete contributions that schools, teachers, families and students themselves make to a variety of important educational outcomes, such as test scores and graduation rates. It is urged that courts, policymakers, education rights lawyers, educators and others use this new work as a guide in decisions and advocacy related to diversity, schooling and equal opportunity. [For the first report in this series, see "School Racial and Economic Composition & Math and Science Achievement. Research Brief No. 1. Updated" (ED571622). For the third report in this series, see "The Impact of Racially Diverse Schools in a Democratic Society. Research Brief No. 3. Updated" (ED571627).]

The November 13, 2009 Conference of the National Coalition on School Diversity brought together more than 300 people from across the nation. This included parents, teachers, school administrators, local and state elected leaders, long time civil rights advocates, community organizers, and government officials. Participants engaged in a substantive, compelling dialogue with representatives from the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), the Justice Department, the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), Congressional staff, and the White House Domestic Policy Council. Participants expressed their collective concerns about the slow pace of support for voluntary school integration in the new Administration. This Statement summarizes the most important steps they believe the federal government must take in the next two years to support voluntary school integration in American public schools. It is not intended as an exhaustive recap of all the research and policy proposals presented. (Contains 5 footnotes.)

In 2009, Congress allocated $2.5 million for a competitive federal grant program, "Technical Assistance for Student Assignment Plans" (TASAP), that aimed to increase diversity in public schools, but which had only limited success. The Obama Administration's "Stronger Together" 2017 budget proposal (and the accompanying Stronger Together School Diversity Act of 2016) shows that the U.S. Department of Education (USED) has learned from the experience of TASAP. This issue reports on some of these lessons.