Controlled-Choice Desegregation Plans
Christine H. Rossell
Abstract
Christine H. Rossell
Abstract
Supporters of controlled choice argue that it is a superior desegregation tool and a superior educational reform. This author addresses the first of these claims in a sample of 20 school districts above 30% minority and finds that controlled-choice plans are almost as unpopular as mandatory-reassignment plans. In addition, they produce more white flight than magnet-voluntary plans but less than mandatory-reassignment plans. Finally, controlled-choice plans produce less interracial exposure than do voluntary desegregation plans with magnets. Thus there is no evidence for the superiority of controlled choice as a desegregation tool for urban school districts.
OpenAlex reports 14 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Supporters of controlled choice argue that it is a superior desegregation tool and a superior educational reform. This author addresses the first of these claims in a sample of 20 school districts above 30% minority and finds that controlled-choice plans are almost as unpopular as mandatory-reassignment plans. In addition, they produce more white flight than magnet-voluntary plans but less than mandatory-reassignment plans. Finally, controlled-choice plans produce less interracial exposure than do voluntary desegregation plans with magnets. Thus there is no evidence for the superiority of controlled choice as a desegregation tool for urban school districts.
Key concepts: Desegregation, Public administration, Political science