Equality of Educational Opportunity

749 Pages·1966·36.652 MB·English

by  James Samuel Coleman

O
E
R
P
T
R
E
U
R
M
S
E
S
ED 012 275
UD 002 122
EQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY.
COLEMAN, JAMES S.
AND OTHERS
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
STATISTICS (DHEW)
REPORT NUMBER 0E-36001
PUB DATE
6 6
-mog
mr-4000,
EDRS PRICE
mom
HC
2. ig
30 3-6
7404-
DESCRIPiuRS- *NEGROES, *ETHNIC GROUPS, *PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, *EQUAL
EDUCATION, *SCHOOL SEGREGATION, Ck.L.:ASIAN
STUDENTS, TEACHER
CHARACTERISTICS, STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS, SCHOOL
INTEGRATION,
ACHIEVEMENT, SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES,
HIGHER EDUCATION, STUDENT ENROLLMENT,
ACHIEVEMENT TESTS,
TABLES (DATA), MOTIVATION, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY,
EDUCATIONAL
POLICY, NEGRO TEACHERS
THE PRODUCT OF AN EXTENSIVE SURVEY
REQUESTED DY THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, THIS REPORT
DOCUMENTS THE
AVAILABILITY OF EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS FOR MINORITY GROUP NEGROES, PUERTO
RICANS,
MEXICAN-AMERICANS, ORIENTAL-AMERICANS, AND
AMERICAN INDIANS,
AS COMPARED WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR MAJORITY GROUP
WHITES.
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATES ARE MADE ON A REGIONAL
AS WELL AS ON A
NATIONAL BASIS. SPECIFICALLY, THE REPORT
DETAILS THE DEGREE
OF SEGREGATION OF MINORITY GROUP PUPILS
AND TEACHERS IN THE
SCHOOLS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS'
ACHIEVEMENT,
AS MEASURED.BY ACHIEVEMENT TESTS, AND THE
KINDS OF SCHOOLS
THEY ATTEND. EDUCATIONAL QUALITY IS ASSESSED
IN TERMS OF
CURRICULUMS OFFERED, SCHOOL FACILITIES
SUCH AS TEXTBOOKS;
LABORATORIES, AND LIBRARIES, SUCH ACADEMIC PRACTICES
AS
TESTING FOR APTITUDE AND ACHIEVEMENT, AND THE
PERSONAL,
SOCIAL, AND ACADEMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TEACHERS
AND THE
STUDENT BODIES IN THE SCHOOLS. ALSO IN THE
REPORT IS A
DISCUSSION OF FUTURE TEACHERS OF MINORITY GROUP
CHILDREN,
CASE STUDIES OF SCHOOL INTEGRATION, AND
SECTIONS ON HIGHER
EDUCATION OF MINORITIES AND SCHOOL NONENROLLMENT
RATES.
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE SURVEY'S RESEARCH
PROCEDURES IS
APPENDED. NOTABLE AMONG THE FINDINGS ON THE
SURVEY ARE THAT
NEGRO STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ARE LARGELY AND
UNEQUALLY
SEGREGATED FROM THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS, AND THAT THE
AVERAGE MINORITY PUPIL ACHIEVES LESS AND IS MORE
AFFECTED DY
THE QUALITY OF HIS SCHOOL THAN THE AVERAGE
WHITE PUPIL. THIS
DOCUMENT TS ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF
DOCUMENTS, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20402, FOR $4.25.
(AH)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE
.
POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION
POSITION OR POLICY.
MALTY
EDUCATION
L
PP EMT?
0E -38001
OF
EQUAL:TY
EDUCATION
CPPCrUITTY
Johns Hopkins University
By James S. Coleman,
and
Vanderbilt University
Ernest Q. Campbell,
Office of Education
Carol J. Hobson, U.S.
U.S. Office of Education
James McPartland,
Office of Education
Alexander M. Mood, U.S.
U.S. Office of Education
Frederic D. Weinfeld,
Office of Education
Robert L. York, U.S.
WELFARE
EDUCATION, AND
OF HEALTH,
U.S. DEPARTMENT
Secretary
John W. Gardner,
Commissioner
Harold Howe II,
OFFICE OF EDUCATION,
rTVC.197:drn
jf
Section I of this report was issued previously
as a slightly different Summary
A publication of the
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL STATISTICS
A. M. MOOD, Assistant Commissioner
F. O. Nessurre, Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Superintendent of Documents Catalog No. FS 5.238:38001
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON :
1966
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $4.25
-7777.4rwiPFTrw-
STATES
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
HOUSE
THE SPEAKER OF THE
402 of the Civil
submitted in response to Section
The attached report is
Rights Act of 1964:
the President
conduct a survey and make a report to
SEC. 402. The Commissioner shall
concerning the lack of
of the enactment of this title,
and the Congress, within two years
of race, color,
opportunities for individuals by reason
availability of equal educational
all levels in the United States,
public educational iastitutions at
religion, or national origin in
the District of Columbia.
its territories and possessions, and
Its major
conducted.
this legislation has been
The survey requested it
For
of this report.
form in the summary section
findings will be found in brief
presentation is
iuformation, a comprehensive
those desiring more detailed
The full report also describes
of the full report.
provided in the eight sections
of tests used; it con-
and procedures and the types
in detail the survey design
principals,
administered to superintendents,
tains copies of the questionnaires
of the study.
teachers, and students as part
racial and ethnic
attention was paid to six
In carrying out the survey,
living
Americans, Puerto Ricans
American Indians, Oriental
groups: Negroes,
and whites other than
States, Mexican Americans,
in the continental United
"majority" or simply
Ricans often called
Mexican Americans and Puerto
not used in the
anthropological
These terms of identification are
"white."
identify
people in the United States
social categories by which
sense, but reflect
by others.
themselves and are identified
itself to four major
the survey addressed
Stated in broadest terms,
questions.
segregated
which the racial and ethnic groups are
The first is the extent to
schools.
from one another in the public
equal educational op-
whether the schools offer
The second question is
regarded as good
of other criteria which are
portunities in terms of a number
this elusive question
The attempt to ar,,,wer
indicators of educational quality.
of the schools.
involves describing many characteristics
textbooks,
numbers of laboratories,
Some of these are tangible, such as
curriculums offered
Some have to do with the
libraries, and the like.
such as the
and with academic practices
academic, commercial, vocational
by presumed
tests and "tracking"
administering of aptitude and achievement
They include the charac-
tangible.
Other of these aspects are less
ability.
their education,
the schoolssuch things as
teristics of the teachers found in
and indications of
salary level, verbal ability,
amount of teaching experience,
assessed, so far
student bodies are also
The characteristics of the
attitudes.
descriptions
study, so that some rough
within the framework of the
as is possible
education
of the students, the
the socioeconomic backgrounds
can be made of
toward themselves and
attitudes the pupils have
of their parents, and the
aspirations.
destinies, as well as their academic
their ability to affect their own
iii
Only partial information about equality or inequality of opportunity for
education can be obtained by looking at the above characteristics, which
It is necessary to look also at their out-
might be termed the schools' input.
putthe results they produce.
The third major question, ichen, is addressed
to how much the students learn as measured by their performance on stand-
ardized achievement tests.
Fourth is the attempt to discern possible relationships between students'
achievement, on the one hand, and the kinds of schools they attend on the
other.
My staff members and the consultants who have assisted them on this
project do not regard the survey findings as the last word on the lack of equal
But they do believe that
educational opportunities in the United States.
sufficient care has gone into this survey and into the interpretation of its
results to make the findings useful to those who are concerned with public
education in the United States.
The report does not include any recommendations of what policies or
programs should be mounted by Federal, State, or local government agencies
in order to improve educational opportunity in the light of the findings.
In the months ahead, the U.S. Office of Education will use its own staff and
seek the help of advisors to determine how it can use the results of the survey
to enhance the educational opportunities of all citizens of the United States.
W. encourage other public and private groups to do likewise, and we will
gladly cooperate with others who are seeking constructive courses of action
based on the survey reported here.
HAROLD HOWE II,
U.S. Commissioner of Education.
JULY 2, 1966.
Contents
Page
Letter of transmittal
iii
The survey
1
Summary report
3
1.0
Segregation in the public schools
3
1.1
The schools and their characteristics
8
1.2
Achievement in the public schools
20
1.3
Relation of achievement to school characteristics
21
1.4
Other surveys and studies
23
1.5
35
School environment
2.0
36
Overview
2.1
School facilities, services, and curriculums
2.2
66
Characteristics of staff
2.3
122
Characteristics of fellow students
2.4
183
The metropolitan North and West
202
2.5
The metropolitan South
205
2.6
The nonmetropolitan South
209
2.7
Other minorities
212
2.8
The outlying territories
213
2.9
Pupil achievement and motivation
217
3.0
Outcomes of schooling
218
3.1
Relation of school factors to achievement
290
3.2
Integration and achievement
330
3.3
_
Future teachers of minority groups
334
4.0
Higher education
5.0
367
General description of data
368
5.1
Tabular presentation of data
370
5.2
Variations in colleges by proportion Negro in student body
418
5.3
Proportions awarding earned doctorate, budgeting for organized research,
5.4
and housing chapters of AAUP and PBK
437
Distribution of minorities by type of institution
442
5.5
Nonenrollment
6.0
446
Nonenrollment as measured by the 1960 census
447
6.1
Nonenrollment rates of 16- and 17-year-olds in October 1965
452
6.2
Nonenrollment rates of 14- to 19-year-olds in October 1965
6.3
457
Case studies of school integration
460
7.0
Leek of information
461
7.1
Performance of minority group children
463
7.2
Compliance in a small community
467
7.3
7.4 A voluntary transfer plan for racial balance in elementary school
469
Desegregation and redistricting at the junior high school level
474
7.5
7.6 A plan for racial balance at the high school level
480
Segregation at a vocational school
485
7.7
Relation of a university to school desegregation
488
7.8
Special studies
490
8.0
Project H eadstart
491
8.1
Disadvantage associated with foreign language in the home
8.2
523
Guidance counselors
529
8.3
Vocational education
8.4
545
V
Page
9.0
Appendixes_..
548
9.1
Official correspondence
549
9.2
Sample design
550
9.3
Data collection and processing
554
9.4
Computation of estimates
558
9.5
Sampling variability
561
9.6
Response rate
565
9.7
Reliability of questionnaire
responses
568
9.8
Technical details for the regression
analysis
571
9.9
Survey instruments
575
9.10 Correlation tables (separately
bound)
vi
!MI=5i-91
The Survey
J Collins, Abraham Frankel, Jacqueline Gleason,
In view of the fundamental significance of edu-
Forrest Harrison, Eugene Higgins, Harry Lester,
cational opportunity to many important social
Francis Nassetta, Hazel Poole, Bronson Price,
issues today, Congress requested the survey of
James K. Rocks, Frank L. Schick, Samuel Schloss,
educational opportunity reported in this document.
Ivan Seibert, El lease Thompson, Edward Za-
The survey is, of course, only one small part of
browski, and Judith Zinter.
extensive and varied activities which numerous
The Educational Testing Service of Princeton,
institutions and persons are pursuing in an effort
N.J., was the contractor for the major public
to understand the critical factors relating to the
school survey under the direction of Rcbert J.
education of minority children and hence to build
It provided exist-
Solomon and Joseph L. Boyd.
for improving
a sound basis for recommendations
ing published tests for use in the survey and carried
Probably the main contribution
their education.
out the administration of these tests and of special
of the survey to this large and long-range effort
questionnaires developed by the Center staff.
will be in the fact that for the first time there is
Albert E. Beaton of Educational Testing Service
made avail-Me a comprehensive collection of data
conducted the computer analysis in accordance
gathered on consistent specifications throughout
with specifications supplied by the staff of the
the whole Nation.
Center.
Some brief analyses of the data have been made
Florida State University was the contractor for
by the Office of Education in the few months
the nonenrollment study carried out by Charles
available since the data were collected in the latter
Nam, Lewis Rhodes, and Robert Herriott.
The
The results of this effort to deter-
part of 1965.
Bureau of the Census administered this survey as
mine some of the more immediate implications of
part of its October 1965 Current Population Sur-
the data are included in this report. A small staff
vey and processed. the data.
in the Office of Education will carry out a con-
Raymond W. Mack of Northwestern University
More importantly,
tinuing program of analysis.
directed the team of sociologists who did the case
the data will be made available to research workers
studies of education for minorities in the 10
everywhere so that they can perform their own
The members of this team were
analyses and can apply the data to their own
American cities.
Troy Duster, Michael Aiken, N. J. Demerath III,
special areas of investigation.
Margaret Long, Ruth Simms Hamilton, Herbert
The survey was carried out by the National
R. Barringer, Rosalind J. Dworkin, John Pease,
Center for Educational Statistics of the U.S. Office
G. W.
Bonnie Remsberg, and A. G. Dwcrkin.
In addition to its own staff the
of Education.
Foster of the University of Wisconsin directed the
Center used the services of outside consultants
team of lawyers who did case studies of the legal
James Coleman of Johns Hop-
and contractors.
and political problems of de facto segregation in
kins University had major responsibility for the
The members of this
seven American cities.
design, administration, and analysis of the survey.
team were William G. Buss, Jr., John E. Coons,
Ernest Campbell of Vanderbilt University shared
William Cohen, Ira Michael Heyman, Ralph
this responsibility and particularly had major
Reisner, John Kaplan, and Robert H. Marden.
Staff mem-
responsibility for the college surveys.
Other persons outside the Office of Education
bers of the Center assigned full time to the survey
who contributed to the report were David Armor,
McPartland, Frederic
were Carol Hobson, James
Cutright, James Fennessey, Jeanette
Staff members as-
Phillips
Weinfeld, and Robert York.
Hopkins, Nancy Karweit, Jimmer Leonard. John
signed part time to the survey included Gordon
O. Jean
Tukey of Princeton University provided consulting
Adams, Richard Barr,
L.
Bischoff,
assistance in the design of the regression analysis.
Brandes, Keith Brunell, Marjorie Chandler, George
1