The Provisions for Hispanics, Asians and Other Minority Groups in Desegregation Plans in Major American Cities. Report No. 8424 [microform] / Wesley C. Pugh.
Analysis of the provisions for Hispanics, Asians, and other minority groups (excluding Blacks) in the desegregation plans of 13 cities (Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle) suggests a number of tr...
Saved in:
| Online Access: |
Request ERIC Document |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Corporate Author: | |
| Format: | Microfilm Book |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[S.l.] :
Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse,
1984.
|
| Subjects: |
| Summary: | Analysis of the provisions for Hispanics, Asians, and other minority groups (excluding Blacks) in the desegregation plans of 13 cities (Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle) suggests a number of trends: (1) These groups have not been classified as Black; in voluntary plans they have been classified on a percentage formula related to the groups as "separate identifiable groups" (i.e., neither White nor Black); in mandatory plans they have been classified as White; district size has not affected classification; and a high percentage of a group in a system has led to classification as a "separate identifiable group," while a low percentage has led to classification White. (2) District size has had little effect on language provisions; in districts with a high percentage of these groups, government bilingual requirements, at a minimum, have been carried out, and State requirements have led to extensive language support programs; in the case of mandatory plans bilingual provisions have been implemented, but in most cases implementation has been independent of desegregation plans and has often resulted from State and Federal guidelines. (3) The minority community has reacted to the plan whatever the group's percentage in the system, whether the plan was voluntary or mandatory, and whether or not it had provisions for language support. Appended are a summary chart of the study, a list of the cities profiled, a reproduction of the research agenda, and a map of the cities. (CMG) |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | ERIC Note: Presented at the Achieving Excellence in Education Conference, School of Education, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA, November 8-10, 1984). ERIC Document Number: ED256850. |
| Physical Description: | 55 p. |
| Reproduction Note: | Microfiche. |
| Action Note: | committed to retain |