« Samantar and the TVPA | Main | "So" Hits the Big Time »

Saturday, June 05, 2010

My New Book: "Acting White"

Thanks to my old friend and law school classmate Dan Markel for allowing me to guest-blog here.  

In this and a few subsequent posts, I will describe the thesis of my book Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation, published by Yale University Press on May 25, 2010. 

“Go into any inner-city neighborhood,” Barack Obama said in his address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004, “and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” A May 2009 report from Newsweek noted that Michelle Obama “described the ridicule she faced from neighborhood kids for ‘acting white’ when she got good grades” as a child. 

 The Obamas are far from alone in their observations. Many people in recent years–most famously, Bill Cosby–have pointed out that black children often seem to think of schoolwork as a “white” activity. Anecdotal evidence abounds in newspaper articles and on the Internet. One black valedictorian in Virginia, for example, told a newspaper that “as I’ve gone through my whole school career, people have called me white because I’ve made good grades and didn’t conform to the stereotype.” As well, many academic studies have shown that some black children think of doing schoolwork as “acting white,” and a study by Roland Fryer–a black Harvard economist–shows that black children nationwide become less popular if their grade-point average rises above 3.5. 

“Acting white” has been discussed so often in the popular press that it no longer comes as a surprise. But it should. If we look at the historical record, there is no evidence that black schoolchildren back in the days of slavery or Jim Crow accused a studious schoolmate of “acting white.” To the contrary, white people occasionally accused educated blacks of trying to be white. A Northerner who had moved to Georgia after the Civil War noted that “in the days of Slavery, the masters ridiculed the negroes’ efforts to use good language, and become like the whites.” 

Yet today, the “acting white” criticism that was once occasionally used by racist whites has been adopted by some black schoolchildren. This is a mystery, is it not? What happened between the nineteenth century and today? 

The answer, I believe, springs from the complex history of desegregation. Although desegregation arose from noble and necessary impulses, and although desegregation was to the overall benefit of the nation, it was often implemented in a way that was devastating to black communities. It destroyed black schools, reduced the numbers of black principals and teachers who could serve as role models, and brought many black schoolchildren into daily contact with whites who made school a strange and uncomfortable environment that was viewed as quintessentially “white.” 

Numerous scholars and commentators have observed that the “acting white” criticism arose during the 1960s–precisely the time when desegregation actually happened. Indeed, many black people recall that they were first accused of “acting white” or “trying to be white” during the desegregation experience.

Among many examples in the book, author Kitty Oliver notes that “there was a time when black students wouldn’t dare tease a student, but rather would applaud them for their achievements.” But then, “desegregation created a clearer division of white and black. Once black and white students started attending school together, the association shifted and black students began to tease one another by pushing their smart peers into the ‘white’ category.” Similarly, Bernice McNair Barnett of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign recalls that she was “isolated and cut off from the world of my former Black peers (who saw my school desegregation choice as ‘trying to be White’) as well as my new White peers (who were both hate filled bullies and otherwise good hearted but silent bystanders).”

TO BE CONTINUED . . . 

Posted by Stuart Buck on June 5, 2010 at 12:54 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0133f03436e3970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My New Book: "Acting White":

Comments

With all due respect, RateMyProfessors.com could include student comments indicating that Professor Rosenthal is so awful he makes Hannibal Lecter look like a kindly old vegan, and I wouldn't pay much attention. It's perhaps the only publicly available metric that is less reliable than US News and World report.

That said, I do long for the good old days when a friendly blog side chat among professors didn't have the tenor and tone of a fierce prosecutor with all the power of the US government behind him up trying to intimidate a wavering cooperating witness.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 8, 2010 1:15:21 AM

I "Googled" "Shaker Heights syndrome" and the best I could come up with is an article by Peter Wood, "The Norm of Minimum Effort" dated May 28, 2003, from www.frontpagemag.com that discusses a study by Prof. John U. Ogbu "Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement" of Black students in Shaker Heights. While Wikipedia has posted on the Stockholm Syndrome, which may have broad acceptance, I don't know if "Shaker Heights Syndrome" has comparable acceptance outside Shaker Heights.

In connection with a research project, I recently read Peter P. Hinks' "To Awaken My Affected Brethren: David Walker and the Problem of Antebellum Slave Resistance" (1997-Penn. State Univ. Press) regarding efforts of Walker during the 1820s with his "Appeal to the Colored Citizen of the World" to arouse his black brethren and the reactions of the slave masters to his efforts, including the adoption of laws making unlawful writings such as Walker's "Appeal." Such reactions were productive in the slave South up to the Civil War.

Consider what I have referred to in earlier comments as the counterinsurgencies following Brown v. Board of Education (and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s) and Richard Nixon's 1968 Southern Strategy that continues to this day. Might such contribute to the problems of desegregation other than "Acting White"? Perhaps the counterinsurgents do not wish to refight the Civil War, but perhaps they wish to re-litigate Brown v. Board of Education by suggesting that "separate but equal" under Plessey may have been better. But I don't think it's going to happen. Perhaps the counterinsurgents are concerned with demographic changes of color by 2050-60. "Acting White" may fit within the category of code words from the past.

My comments are not on the contents of the book but on the contents of the posts and comments at this Blog, as well as with the book's provocative title (that might make it more marketable).

Posted by: Shag from Brookline | Jun 7, 2010 10:34:44 PM

In view of Prof. Rosenthal's contentious tone, I decided to Google his name to see what would come up. I found the following of interest:

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=861724

His faculty page also indicates, "To his great embarrassment, Professor Rosenthal was named by Chicago Magazine as one of “Chicago’s 25 Toughest Lawyers”. Since then, he tries to be nicer."

http://www.chapman.edu/law/faculty/rosenthal.asp

The above-linked observations seem to be consistent with the way that this thread has unfolded. I know neither Mr. Buck nor Prof. Rosenthal, but I was disappointed as I scrolled through the comments. I was expecting a vibrant, civil exchange of the sort that usually characterizes this blog. I was disappointed to see snide remarks, strawmen, etc.

Two points:

1. I actually had never heard of Mr. Buck or his book until this post, but I feel that characterizations like "Although scholars far more impressive than Mr. Buck" and "Mr. Buck is apparently impervious to data" are unnecessary and unhelpful. If his thesis is unworthy, then demonstrate why that is the case.

2. In demonstrating why someone's thesis is unworthy, you may actually want to fight against the thesis itself (to the extent that it was even spelled out in this post), rather than fighting against a strawman.

Posted by: anobservation | Jun 7, 2010 10:07:51 PM

Brando -- I took a quick look at the policy brief. Here's why I think the "acting white" phenomenon is a bit more important:

Roland Fryer's research was based on a large nationally representative survey. In contrast, the Tyson et al. study was an ethnography based on 8 North Carolina schools, and the researchers didn't even ask about "acting white" directly. The Cook/Ludwig and Ainsworth-Darnell/Downey studies were both based on NELS, which is indeed a national survey, but which relies on self-reported information about both grades and popularity (Fryer's study was based on a survey that asked students to name their own friends, and if someone is named by lots of other people as a friend, that is more objective than asking someone how popular he is).

In addition, here are more studies (not based on national surveys) that found "acting white" in various locations:

Donna Y. Ford, “An Investigation of the Paradox of Underachievement Among Gifted Black Students,” Roeper Review 16 no. 2 (1993): 78-84.

Donna Y. Ford, “Determinants of Underachievement as Perceived by Gifted, Above-Average, and Average Black Students,” Roeper Review 14 no. 3 (1992): 130-136.

Donna Y. Ford, “Underachievement Among Gifted and Non-Gifted Black Females,” Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, Winter 1994/1995: 165-175.

Jan Collins-Eaglin and Stuart A. Karabenick, “Devaluing of Academic Success by African-American Students: On ‘Acting White’ and ‘Selling Out.’” Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia, 12-16 April 1993.

Laurence Steinberg, Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform Has Failed and What Parents Need To Do (New York: Touchstone, 1996). This book reports the results of a multi-year study that surveyed some 20,000 high school students as well as hundreds of parents and teachers. Quote: “we heard variations on the ‘acting White’ theme many, many times over the course of our interviews with high school students.”

Roslyn Arlin Mickelson and Anne E. Velasco, “Bring it On! Diverse Responses to ‘Acting White’ among Academically Able Black Adolescents,” in Beyond Acting White: Reframing the Debate on Black Student Achievement, Erin McNamara Horvat and Carla O’Connor, eds. (Rowman & Littlefield, Inc., 2006).

Ronald F. Ferguson, “New Evidence on Why Black High Schoolers Get Accused of ’Acting White’,” at p. 2, available at http://agi.harvard.edu/events/download.php?id=104.

Annette Hemmings, “The ‘Hidden’ Corridor,” High School Journal, 83 no. 2 (Dec. 1, 1999): 1.

Angela M. Neal-Barnett, “Being Black: New Thoughts on the Old Phenomenon of Acting White,” in Forging Links: African American Children, Clinical Developmental Perspectives, Angela M. Neal-Barnett, Josefina M. Contreras, & Kathryn A. Kerns, eds. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001), p. 82;

Tarek C. Grantham and Donna Y. Ford, “A Case Study of the Social Needs of Danisha: An Underachieving Gifted African-American Female,” Roeper Review, 21 no. 2 (1998);

Grace Kao, “Group Images and Possible Selves Among Adolescents: Linking Stereotypes to Expectations by Race and Ethnicity,” Sociological Forum 15 no. 3 (2000): 407-30;

Amanda Datnow and Robert Cooper, “Peer networks of African American students in independent schools: Affirming academic success and racial identity,” Journal of Negro Education 66 no.1 (1997): 56-72.

Karolyn Tyson, “The Making of a ‘Burden’: Tracing the Development of a ‘Burden of Acting White’ in Schools,” in Beyond Acting White: Reframing the Debate on Black Student Achievement, Erin McNamara Horvat and Carla O’Connor, eds., (Rowman & Littlefield, Inc., 2006), p. 57.

David A. Bergin and Helen C. Cooks, “High School Students of Color Talk About Accusations of ‘Acting White,’” The Urban Review 34, no. 2 (2002): 113-134.

Frank A. Petroni, Ernest Hirsch, and C. Lillian Petroni, 2, 4, 6, 8: When You Gonna Integrate? (New York: Behavioral Publications, 1970).

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 7, 2010 3:07:41 PM

Brando -- thanks for the kind words. I agree that there are lots of other factors that affect education and the achievement gap in particular; as I say in the book, there isn't any one single explanation (racism both current and historical, education spending, quality of teachers, family poverty, neighborhood concentration of poverty, etc., etc., etc.).

The largest policy change I suggest is ditching grades and replacing them with inter-school academic competitions. I'll discuss that further in a future post.

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 7, 2010 2:49:38 PM


I co-wrote a policy brief about "acting white" with recommendations to combat it to the extent that it exists.
Here it is: http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/assets/documents/publications/BRIEF%20Acting%20White.pdf

I'm not so sure it really exists to any large degree, to be honest, though it might be a problem within a certain range of socioeconomic factors. I never experienced this growing up, but of course, that doesn't disprove anything. I do think, in any event, that this issue is grossly overstated. It dovetails perfectly with the “blacks and self-sabotage” angle that is very sexy in today’s America, which is why it is given a greater air of authenticity than it deserves.

In my policy brief, I offer small changes but it seems to me that you want to make large changes to our education policy because of this, no? But using the “acting white” phenomenon as a reason to reconstruct the American educational system might be destructive. Of course our education system needs reformation. But, if you misdiagnose the problems then you are not going to solve anything and might worsen conditions. Of all the issues in educating black children, “acting white” ranks, like, tenth. What you’re suggesting is like changing an ugly outfit because you don’t like the socks. It’s a minor issue to my mind, but you seem to be selling it as a big deal, no? I don’t want to misrepresent you.

In any event, I think your book is important because it gets people talking about how to best remedy the black/white achievement gap. I’d like to see how someone on the other side of the debate would respond to your arguments. Congrats on the book!

Posted by: Brando Simeo Starkey | Jun 7, 2010 2:29:39 PM

Mr. Rosenthal --

We are told that there is no empirical evidence that the "acting white" phenomenon adversely affects student achievement, in fact, we are to be rebuked for requesting such evidence.

In point of fact, Fryer's paper included an estimate for how much "acting white" hurts student achievement, but I'm dubious of that figure myself because of the difficulty in properly measuring peer effects. What I rebuke is the implication that everything can be empirically measured or else it shouldn't be discussed.

The only quantitative evidence that we are provided

There's lots more evidence in the book. (You do realize this is a short blog post about a book? I'm always puzzled when commenters criticize a book because they haven't been "provided" with enough "evidence" in a short blog post, as if the blog post ought to have been 200 pages long.)

is evidence that getting good grades adversely affects student popularity, and that this effect is greater among African Americans than whites (in a study that controls for some but not all variables affecting student popularity and ignores many demographic variables other than race).

Have you read the Fryer paper? I'd suggest the longer and more technical version: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/fryer_torelli.pdf


We are also told that the problems associated with "acting white," that is, lower popularity for students with higher grades, cannot be documented in schools with an African-American population exceeding 80%,

Yes, you are told this by a study from a respected Harvard economist looking at a nationally representative database.

although we are not supposed to concern ourselves with the fact that these schools are the worst performing in the nation.

The fact that all-black schools today tend to be low-performing (although not always) is because of all the many factors that affect educational performance OTHER THAN "acting white." That is still consistent with the fact that "acting white" drags down performance where it occurs, and that if it were more common in all-black schools, it would drag down performance even more.

Nor is there any evidence that African-American students with good grades at these highly segregated schools perform any better than students at integrated schools.

For reasons I have already explained many times, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be troubled by the fact that there isn't evidence for something that I never predicted or suggested in the first place.

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 7, 2010 12:05:59 PM

Nor is there any evidence that African-American students with good grades at these highly segregated schools perform any better than students at integrated schools.

If we are going to use medical metaphors here, one has to wonder whether Mr. Buck's cure is worse than the disease.

Oh my God, he didn't say that schools should be segregated. Why is this hard to understand? I'm so confused as to what went wrong on this thread.

Posted by: anon | Jun 7, 2010 10:48:00 AM

So let's review the bidding -- We are told that there is no empirical evidence that the "acting white" phenomenon adversely affects student achievement, in fact, we are to be rebuked for requesting such evidence. The only quantitative evidence that we are provided is evidence that getting good grades adversely affects student popularity, and that this effect is greater among African Americans than whites (in a study that controls for some but not all variables affecting student popularity and ignores many demographic variables other than race). And we are told that integration has had other adverse side effects, although these cannot be measured, but instead are appropriately illustrated through a selective presentation of cherry-picked anecedotal evidence. We are also told that the problems associated with "acting white," that is, lower popularity for students with higher grades, cannot be documented in schools with an African-American population exceeding 80%, although we are not supposed to concern ourselves with the fact that these schools are the worst performing in the nation. Nor is there any evidence that African-American students with good grades at these highly segregated schools perform any better than students at integrated schools.

If we are going to use medical metaphors here, one has to wonder whether Mr. Buck's cure is worse than the disease.

Larry Rosenthal
Chapman University School of Law

Posted by: Larry Rosenthal | Jun 7, 2010 10:40:14 AM

Fryer's:

"This finding, along with the fact that I find no evidence of acting white in predominantly black schools, adds to the evidence of a 'Shaker Heights' syndrome, in which racially integrated settings only reinforce pressures to toe the ethnic line."

requires a closer look at this syndrome. In racially integrated settings, there may be not only different races but also different ethnic groups, such that the "pressures to toe the ethnic line" may work on both sides of the line(s), racial and/or ethnic. Fryer's "finding" seems to "blame" integration for "acting white."

Fryer's reference to:

"I also find that acting white is unique to those schools where black students comprise less than 80 percent of the student population."

perhaps needs more empirical examination, e.g. different ranges up to 80%. What is his definition of "predominantly black schools" - 80% or higher?

Posted by: Shag from Brookline | Jun 7, 2010 9:14:35 AM

I should probably add that Roland Fryer's empirical work found this:

I also find that acting white is unique to those schools where black students comprise less than 80 percent of the student population. In predominantly black schools, I find no evidence at all that getting good grades adversely affects students’ popularity.

. . . In fact, the effect of acting white on popularity appears to be twice as large in the more-integrated (racially mixed) schools as in the less-integrated ones. Among the highest achievers (3.5 GPA or higher), the differences are even more stark, with the effect of acting white almost five times as great in settings with more cross-ethnic friendships than expected. Black males in such schools fare the worst, penalized seven times as harshly as my estimate of the average effect of acting white on all black students!

This finding, along with the fact that I find no evidence of acting white in predominantly black schools, adds to the evidence of a “Shaker Heights” syndrome, in which racially integrated settings only reinforce pressures to toe the ethnic line.

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 7, 2010 8:04:15 AM

Apparently to understand Mr. Buck's "Acting White" hypothesis (it is not up to the theory level, is it?) it is necessary to first understand his suggestion of "a failure in the way desegregation was implemented, not a criticism of Brown itself." Was there a right way to implement desegregation? Consider the extensive opposition (counterinsurgencies) to desegregation that continue to this day, including resulting resegregation. Perhaps it is the counterinsurgents pointing the accusing fingers of "Acting White" - not Blacks - to challenge African-Americans who have benefitted from desegregation and are perceived as challenging the counterinsurgents. Is it to early to consider a Mr. Buck's sequel: "Acting Black: The Ironic Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education"?

Posted by: Shag from Brookline | Jun 7, 2010 6:41:53 AM

"If Mr. Buck's thesis the "side effects" of integation [sic] were correct, one would expect demographically similar samples of African-American students to perform better at more highly segregated schools."

Why would this be? Wouldn't, to the contrary, the peer pressure to not "act white" by doing well academically be greater the more dominant the peer group was that imposed that pressure? Wouldn't academically achieving minorities in more integrated schools have a better chance of finding a refuge with whites who didn't hold the view that academic achievement should be disparaged? Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I naively would have thought that Mr. Buck's argument (about which I express no overall view) would tend to be supported, not refuted, by this piece of data.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 6, 2010 9:22:36 PM

Shag -- Does the title suggest failure of desegregation? Or is this a critique of Brown v. Board of Education?

I mean to suggest a failure in the way desegregation was implemented, not a criticism of Brown itself.

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 6, 2010 4:29:01 PM

If Mr. Buck's thesis the "side effects" of integation [sic] were correct, one would expect demographically similar samples of African-American students to perform better at more highly segregated schools.

That's quite a leap, Larry. Stuart appears to be saying that the "acting white" phenomenon is one side effect of school integration. If there were other, positive effects -- which is at least implicit in his contention that desegregation was the right thing to do for a number of reasons -- then you'd be more likely not to see what you're suggesting.

Posted by: anoners | Jun 6, 2010 1:41:53 PM

The third paragraph of Mr. Buck's latest post appears to concede that there is no statistical evidence supporting his thesis.

I'm still not sure what you think my "thesis" is, except that it's probably something that I've specifically disavowed saying. In any event, if you're talking about the precise effect of "acting white," you're demanding precise statistical evidence where none could exist -- even with sophisticated surveys and student-level longitudinal databases. Peer effects are notoriously hard to measure (as Charles Manski showed in a famous article), but it would be foolish to conclude that they therefore do not exist and cannot be discussed.

As for this:

As for the studies Mr. Buck cites, surely he knows that a sample of students who switch from conventional public schools to charter schools proves nothing unless one controls for demographic characteristics. There is ample reason to think that the sample of those who switch is not representative of the sample of all public school students. That is precisely why the Stanford study's methodology was so powerful

You've got matters completely backwards here. As can be seen in the very quote I provided, the RAND study looked at students who switch from charter middle schools to charter high schools -- not from public schools to charter schools (as you falsely claim). The researchers did this precisely to avoid the selection effects that you describe (i.e., all students in their sample did at some point did select into a charter school). In addition, the RAND study did control for demographic characteristics as well.

Nor is it true that the Stanford study's methodology was all that powerful. That was precisely the study that compared traditional public school students to those who had switched into a charter school, and this raises the selection effect problem (which, contrary to your suggestion, does not go away by controlling for demographic characteristics). But if you think the Stanford study was so powerful, why would you ignore its showing that charter students are better off the longer they stay in charter schools?

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 6, 2010 1:21:54 PM

The third paragraph of Mr. Buck's latest post appears to concede that there is no statistical evidence supporting his thesis.

As for whether Diane Ravitch's view of the Stanford study is fair, here is the first sentence of the Stanford press release summarizing its own study: "A new report issued today by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that there is a wide variance in the quality of the nation’s several thousand charter schools with, in the aggregate, students in charter schools not faring as well as students in traditional public schools."

As for the studies Mr. Buck cites, surely he knows that a sample of students who switch from conventional public schools to charter schools proves nothing unless one controls for demographic characteristics. There is ample reason to think that the sample of those who switch is not representative of the sample of all public school students. That is precisely why the Stanford study's methodology was so powerful

Larry Rosenthal

Posted by: Larry Rosenthal | Jun 6, 2010 11:25:04 AM

Mr. Rosenthal,

As an initial matter, I'd appreciate a more civil tone.

one would expect demographically similar samples of African-American students to perform better at more highly segregated schools.

No, one wouldn't, and this is another straw man. There may be many benefits of desegregation that (in a study of test scores) would outweigh the effect of "acting white." The claim isn't that students in segregated schools do "better" right now, but that students in desegregated schools could be doing even better than they are. Would you suggest that life in desegregated schools is perfect for minorities, and that there isn't anything about their educational experience that could be improved?

On the school choice point: Diane Ravitch's description of the CREDO study is misleading. She's talking about the overall average findings. But the more important takeaway from the study is this: "Students do better in charter schools over time. First year charter students on average experience a decline in learning, which may reflect a combination of mobility effects and the experience of a charter school in its early years. Second and third years in charter schools see a significant reversal to positive gains."

In other words, if you average together first-year charter students (loss in learning) with second- and third-year students (gains in learning), you get a mixed picture of achievement. But the real lesson is that more students do better if put in charters for longer. That doesn't support the anti-choice position.

Moreover, I referred to graduation rates. A RAND monograph from last year used a good technique to control for selection effects -- otherwise a huge issue -- and found that charter schools in Florida and Chicago (the two places studied) led to large increases in graduation: "In Chicago, students who switched from a charter middle school to a charter high school were 7 percentage points more likely to earn a regular high-school diploma than their counterparts with similar observable characteristics who attended a traditional public high school. The graduation differential for Florida charter schools was even higher at 12 to 15 percentage points, depending on whether a four- or five-year window for graduation is used."

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 6, 2010 9:30:27 AM

The title of Mr. Buck's book - "Acting White: The Ironic Legacy of Desegregation" - conveys what message and to whom? Perhaps this provocative title is intended to attract attention - but is there an intended target audience? The use of the word "ironic" may not be appropriate. The use of the word "legacy" might seem more apt in describing slavery and its subsequent segregation. Does the title suggest failure of desegregation? Or is this a critique of Brown v. Board of Education?

Posted by: Shag from Brookline | Jun 6, 2010 4:47:55 AM

If Mr. Buck's thesis the "side effects" of integation were correct, one would expect demographically similar samples of African-American students to perform better at more highly segregated schools. No study of which I am aware has found such a result, and Mr. Buck cites no such study.

Beyond that, if Mr. Buck's analysis of the evidence of the "side effects" of desegregation is as selective as his analysis of the evidence on school choice, there is not much reason for optimism. The most rigorous study to date of school choice was a 2009 study conducted by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University examining student achievement at charter schools in fifteen states and the District of Columbia. Using a longitudinal sample of students from charter schools compared to demographically comparable samples of students attending public schools, the study concluded that 17% of charter schools provide superior achievement, nearly half produced comparable results, and 37% produced achievement significantly lower than public school performance.

It was this study that induced Diane Ravitch to change her view on student choice. Mr. Buck, on the other hand, is apparently impervious to data.

Larry Rosenthal

Posted by: Larry Rosenthal | Jun 6, 2010 1:22:17 AM

"If there are adverse side effects of integration, it is impossible to identify them in the statistical evidence."

Two of the best summaries of desegregation studies come from Thomas Cook and Janet Schofield. In a meta-analysis conducted in the early 1980s, Cook noted “that reading effects [were] positive but quite small and not educationally significant in all but a few studies” -- specifically, about two-to-six weeks’ worth of instruction -- and that while “the studies . . . tell us nothing about whether segregation created the Black-White achievement gap,” “they do tell us that [integration] by itself will not close it to any important degree.” Writing in the mid-1990s, Schofield reviewed some 250 studies of desegregation, and found that “desegregation has had some positive impact on the reading skills of African American youngsters,” that “the effect is not large, nor does it occur in all situations,” and that math skills “seem generally unaffected by desegregation.”

So we know that desegregation had a very modest impact on academic skills. (Desegregation remained the right thing to do, and it led to other non-academic benefits). What you seem to be asking for is statistical evidence as to exactly how peers may have prevented desegregation from having as much positive impact as was expected -- how much better students would have done in a hypothetical world in which certain forms of peer pressure didn't exist.

Exactly what form do you suppose such evidence would take? We don't have the option of randomly assigning students to live in a different world with different forms of peer pressure, nor do we have the option of re-running history and carrying out desegregation minus all of the ways in which black teachers and principals were undermined.

* * *

Finally, there have been literally dozens of rigorous statistical studies of vouchers and charter schools, many of which find positive benefits (to the students' own test scores or graduation rates, as well as to the public school system).

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 5, 2010 10:24:17 PM

lawanon: I am making no claims of causation. I am demanding some sort of objective evidence to support Mr. Buck's claims. All I seem to get is a highly selective presentation of anecdotal and ethnographic evidence. If the adverse "side effects" of integration on African-American students existed, shouldn't we expect some tangible evidence of their existence? In fact, the more segregated the school, the lower is the level of African-American achievement. If there are adverse side effects of integration, it is impossible to identify them in the statistical evidence. Anyone can make an anecdotal and ethnographic case in the service of some ideological agenda -- just ask the school voucher or charter school people. Should they also be relieved of any obligation to present statistical evidence to support their claims?

Larry Rosenthal

Posted by: Larry Rosenthal | Jun 5, 2010 7:43:55 PM

Larry: Stuart never said integration hurt black students on balance -- he said integration had an unintended consequence. For this, ethnographic evidence is entirely appropriate, since we cannot measure the unintended consequence that Stuart identified.

Meanwhile, you keep claiming that your correlation "refutes" Stuart's point that he never made, and then keep drawing entirely unwarranted causal inferences from that correlation. The fact that black students who attend more segregated schools are doing worse than black students who attend integrated schools does not mean integration caused the difference. It is quite likely, for example, that (a) school integration succeeds more in districts with lower racial gap in performance (that's why white parents don't pull their kids out of those schools and keep them integrated), or (b) black parents who are more interested in promoting their kids' education move to integrated districts, in which case school integration is merely a proxy for more academically-inclined black parents. I can give many more non-causal explanations. I am surprised you cannot.

Posted by: lawanon | Jun 5, 2010 7:19:44 PM

"If, as Mr. Buck claims, integration has been on balance harmful to African-American students, one should expect some data to support that claim."

We have a crucial misunderstanding here. I am NOT arguing that integration was on balance harmful. My previous post said as much, and I go out of my way to state that in the book, precisely so as to avoid misreadings. That's why I use the term "side effect" -- a drug that saves your life (and is hence a benefit "on balance") may nonetheless have side effects that should be addressed, not ignored.

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 5, 2010 5:05:23 PM

" ... but 'acting white' is a side effect."

The premise of this post is that this "acting white" is from the view of other African-Americans. But perhaps some whites look upon this as "acting white" as well, similar to the use of "uppity."

Posted by: Shag from Brookline | Jun 5, 2010 5:02:46 PM

lawanon: I'm afraid you have it backwards. Although scholars far more impressive than Mr. Buck have advanced a theory of causation that explains the gains in African-American achievement during the period of increasing integration, for present purposes that is quite beside the point. If, as Mr. Buck claims, integration has been on balance harmful to African-American students, one should expect some data to support that claim. In fact, the data shows the opposite -- the more segregated the school an African-American attends, the worse the educational outcome. As far as I can tell, Mr. Buck's case is almost entirely anecdotal and ethnographic. Perhaps, lawanon, as an intellectual exercise, you might try to consider whether there is any reason to view the work of graduate students who try to prove a thesis with anecdotal and ethnographic "evidence" with skepticism. If segregation is harming African-American students, where is the data to support that conclusion?

Larry Rosenthal

Posted by: Larry Rosenthal | Jun 5, 2010 4:50:05 PM

Larry: as an intellectual exercise, try to come up with an explanation that would be consistent with the facts you mentioned and yet not involve causation. I can think of half a dozen off the top of my head. Can you?

Posted by: lawanon | Jun 5, 2010 4:17:15 PM

What?

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 5, 2010 3:51:07 PM

Well, once we dispense with the notion that a theory ought to be supported by data, I suppose anything is fair game.

Larry Rosenthal

Posted by: Larry Rosenthal | Jun 5, 2010 3:48:43 PM

1. Correlation, not causation.

2. More importantly, as I discuss in great detail in the book, "acting white" is far from the only thing that happened with desegregation, as well as far from the only phenomenon that affects educational outcomes. Desegregation was the right thing to do for a number of reasons, but "acting white" is a side effect.

Posted by: Stuart Buck | Jun 5, 2010 3:25:30 PM

The data shows that the racial achievement gap narrowed during the 1970s and most of the 1980s -- the period in which the proportion of African-American students attending integrated schools increased. When integration stalled out in the late 1980, the achievement gap stopped narrowing.

Larry Rosenthal
Chapman University School of Law

Posted by: Larry Rosenthal | Jun 5, 2010 3:22:37 PM

The "one-drop" rule came to mind as I read this post.

Posted by: Shag from Brookline | Jun 5, 2010 8:01:59 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.