EXPLORING CLASSIFICATION OF BLACK-WHITE BIRACIAL STUDENTS IN OREGON SCHOOLS by DENA M. JAMES A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2012 ii DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Dena M. James Title: Exploring Classification of Black-White Biracial Students in Oregon Schools This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership by: Kathleen Scalise Chairperson Keith Hollenbeck Member Ron Beghetto Member Naomi Zack Outside Member and Kimberly Andrews Espy Vice President for Research and Innovation Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded December 2012 iii © 2012 Dena M. James iv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Dena M. James Doctor of Philosophy Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership December 2012 Title: Exploring Classification of Black-White Biracial Students in Oregon Schools Multiracial children constitute one of the fastest growing racial groups in the United States. However, biracial children, in particular Black-White biracial children, often are not recognized in the educational system. For instance, the current classification of Black-White biracial students in the state and federal educational systems is not disaggregated and does not allow for analyses of educational outcomes for this population. Not only is this population invisible in state education data, the demographic data at the school level often fail to represent this population. Not acknowledging multiple heritages dismisses the identity and experiences of students who are multiracial and thus symbolically negates a part of who they are. Additionally, multiracial students may be classified in a single category by administrators for the purposes of schools and funding. This study offers the perspective of administrators and current state and federal policies on this issue as applied to Black-White self-identified children and describes the complexities and relevance of addressing multiracial policies in educational systems. An ecological theoretical framework is used to explore four research questions in this area. Data were collected from seven school district administrators across Oregon through semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Relationships in the data between v responses and procedures from the seven sampled school districts are examined. Results suggest that across the seven school districts in this study, implementation of the policies and procedures of racial and ethnic categorization varied substantially. Furthermore, even though this revised race and ethnicity reporting policy was in part created to more accurately represent the multiracial population, it may actually be obscuring the multiple identities of these students. Detailed policy implications are discussed in further details in the Conclusions chapter. vi CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Dena M. James GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene Pacific University, Eugene, OR DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, 2012, University of Oregon Master of Arts in Teaching, 1998, Pacific University Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, 1996, University of Oregon AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Diversity and Equity Cultural Competency in Education Racial Categorization and Policy Multiracial Families and Children in Education PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: University Instructor, University of Oregon College of Education, September 2011-June 2012 Tutoring Services Coordinator, University of Oregon: College of Education, June 2009 – June 2011 Research Assistant, University of Oregon Center for Applied Second Language Studies, September 2008 – June 2009 Teaching Assistant, University of Oregon College of Education, September 2005- June 2008 Research Assistant, University of Oregon Behavior and Research in Teaching, September 2006-June 2007 Family and Community Specialist, Head Start of St. Joseph County, South Bend, Indiana. July 2004-June 2005 Assistant Branch Manager, St. Joseph County Public Library, South Bend, Indiana. August 2001-September 2003 Substitute Teacher, Reynolds School District, Portland, Oregon 2000-2001 vii GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Golden Key International Honor Society, 2012 Clare Wilkins Chamberlin Memorial Award and Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2011 Doctoral Research Award, University of Oregon, 2011 Diversity Building Scholar, University of Oregon, 2007 Paul Jacobson Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2007 Silvy Krause Presidential Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2006 Nontraditional Student Award, University of Oregon, 2006 Student Parent Award, University of Oregon, 2006 PUBLICATIONS: James, D. L., & Clark, M. (2010). Computerized assessment of proficiency (CAP) articulation report. Report 2010-1. Eugene, OR: Center for Applied Second Language Studies. viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express sincere appreciation to my advisor and chair Dr. Kathleen Scalise for her assistance and care in the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, general gratitude to editing services for Mary Sharon Moore who aided me in organizing my thoughts on paper. I would additionally like to thank my other committee members Dr. Ron Beghetto, Dr. Keith Hollenbeck and Dr. Naomi Zack who patiently encouraged me through my many challenges and changes in completing this project. Lastly, I would like to extend extreme gratefulness to Dr. Kassia Dellabough and future Dr. Nargas Oskui-Tabrizi for their enduring support and encouragement throughout my entire doctoral program, especially towards the end when I needed them the most. ix DEDICATIONS I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my four beautiful and amazing children who have inspired me and provided me with the greatest love and life that I could ever dream of. Thank you, Rylee James, my oldest child, who never hesitates to make me feel like the most amazing mom ever. To Yunis Luworo, who gives me the most loving notes and asks me the most interesting questions. To my oldest son, Jibandi Luworo, who continues to work hard and gives me the sweetest kisses on the cheek. And to my youngest child, Zachariah Luworo, who amazes me with his brilliant mind and work ethics. I love you all so very much and can’t imagine doing this without all of you. x TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................... 1 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 2 Significance of Study ............................................................................................. 2 Required Collection and Reporting of Race and Ethnicity .................................... 4 Bioecological Framework of Urie Bronfenbrenner ............................................... 6 Structures of the Bioecological Framework .................................................... 7 The Microsystem. ...................................................................................... 9 The Mesosystem. ....................................................................................... 9 The Exosystem. .......................................................................................... 10 The Macrosystem ....................................................................................... 10 The Chronosystem. .................................................................................... 11 Definitions of Terms .............................................................................................. 11 History of Black-White Multiracial Categorization .............................................. 12 One-drop Rule or the Rule of Hypodescent. .................................................... 12 The Jim Crow Laws ......................................................................................... 13 Eyeballing ........................................................................................................ 13 Lower Status and Social Value ........................................................................ 14 The Mulatto Culture ......................................................................................... 15 Identification of Race ....................................................................................... 16 U.S. Society and Culture .................................................................................. 16 xi Chapter Page Data Collection of Multiracial Individuals. ................................................................. 17 Multiracial Data and Schooling Issues. ........................................................... 19 Lack of Recognition in Systems of Measurement. .......................................... 21 School Policy and Public Schools in the U. S. ...................................................... 23 Reducing the Achievement Gap. ..................................................................... 23 Relevancy of Racial Categorization by Teachers. ........................................... 24 Public Schools and Lack of Multiracial Representation in Curriculum... ....... 25 Parent Input and Influence on Teachers and Policy ......................................... 26 Identity Development of Multiracial Children... ................................................... 27 Self-identification in Racial Classification Systems... ..................................... 27 Family Influence on Racial Identification of a Black-White Biracial Child... 29 Schools: Racial Categorizations and Expectations….. .......................................... 30 Teacher Expectations.... ................................................................................... 30 II. METHODS.............................................................................................................. 33 The Research Questions and the Ecological Framework ...................................... 33 Research Question 1 .............................................................................................. 33 Research Question 2 .............................................................................................. 34 Research Question 3 .............................................................................................. 35 Research Question 4 .............................................................................................. 35 Study Design .......................................................................................................... 37 Phase 1: The Sample ........................................................................................ 37 xii Chapter Page Location... .................................................................................................. 38 Size and Multiracial Population... .............................................................. 38 Phase 2: Contact Protocol... ............................................................................. 39 Phase 3: Interview Questions and Interview Protocol... .................................. 41 Question 1: Collection and reporting procedures.... .................................. 42 Question 2: Communication and Requests for Self Report ....................... 42 Question 3: Training .................................................................................. 43 Question 4: Documents Requiring Reporting on Race and Ethnicity ....... 43 Question 5: More than One Race ............................................................... 43 Phase 4: Coding of the Districts....................................................................... 44 Research Questions and Evidence Allen Table ..................................................... 44 Research Questions: Independent and Dependent Variables ................................. 45 Phase 5: The Interviews .................................................................................. 45 Phase 6: Interview Data Reduction and Analysis ........................................... 48 Validity ............................................................................................................ 50 Reliability ......................................................................................................... 50 Phase 7: Document Study at the School Level ................................................ 50 III. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 53 Phase 5: The interviews ......................................................................................... 53 Phase 6: Interview Data Results ............................................................................ 55 Written Procedures for Collecting and Reporting Race and Ethnicity ............ 55 Observer Identification .................................................................................... 58 xiii Chapter Page Training ............................................................................................................ 60 Initial Training ........................................................................................... 60 Continued Training and Evaluation ........................................................... 63 Education and Communication with Students and Families ........................... 64 Reclassification of All Students ....................................................................... 67 Initial Reclassification of All Students ...................................................... 66 Yearly Reclassification of All Students…………… ................................. 69 The Reporting of Black-White Multiracial Students ....................................... 69 Results of Analysis B: Document Review ............................................................. 73 IV. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 75 Research Question 1: What Are the Collection and Reporting Procedures for Students That Do Not Self-identify Their Race and/or Ethnicity? ........................ 76 Education and Communication with Parents and Students ............................. 80 Research Question 2: How Is Observer Identification Used to Racially/Ethnically Categorize? ............................................................................................................ 81 Research Question 3: Is There Initial and Continuous Training? .......................... 85 Research Question 4: How Are Black and White Multiracial Students Reported? ............................................................................................................... 88 Reclassification of All Students ....................................................................... 91 Implications for School Districts, Policy Makers, and the Public ......................... 92 Trends by Size, Diversity, and Geography ...................................................... 95 Inconsistencies in Written Procedures and Training ....................................... 96 Recommendation Regarding Policies and Procedures of Racial Categorization ........................................................................................................ 96 xiv Chapter Page Limitations ............................................................................................................. 97 Implications for Further Research ......................................................................... 98 Summary ................................................................................................................ 100 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 103 A. NAEP GRANT PROPOSAL ............................................................................ 103 B. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FINAL GUIDANCE ............................... 104 C. CONTACT PROTOCOL DIAGRAM .............................................................. 118 D. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .............................................................................. 119 E. SIX-STEP PROCESS ........................................................................................ 121 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 123 xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Racial Classification System within Bronfenbrenner’s’ Ecological Model .......... 8 2. Research Questions within Bronfenbrenner’s’ Ecological Model ......................... 9 3. Under 18 Multiracial Population by Census Year ................................................. 19 xvi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of Previous and New U.S. Department of Education Race and Ethnicity Data Reporting Standards ....................................................................... 4 2. Research Questions within the Bronfenbrenner Framework: Dependent and Independent Variables ........................................................................................... 36 3. Districts Displayed by Size and Multiracial Population ........................................ 39 4. Districts Displayed by Number of Districts within District Size and Multiracial Population .............................................................................................................. 39 5. Districts by Size, Multiracial Population, and Location ........................................ 44 6. Evidence Allen Table Describing the Research Questions, Sample, Methods, Instruments, and Analysis ...................................................................................... 46 7. Independent Variables (IVs) and Dependent Variables (DVs) Addressed in Survey, Including Predictions and/or the Study of Relationships Among Variables ................................................................................................................ 47 8. Summary Table of Themes that Emerged from Interviews ................................... 56 9. Written Process for District Staff and Administrators to Follow When Students and Families Do Not Self-identify Race and/or Ethnicity ..................................... 58 10. Use of Observer Identification in the School Districts .......................................... 60 11. Extent of Initial Training in the School District .................................................... 62 12. Extent of Continued Training in the School District ............................................. 64 13. Communication and Education of Students and Families ..................................... 66 14. Initial Racial and Ethnicity Reclassification of All Students ................................ 68 15. Yearly Enrollment and Reclassification Opportunity for All Students ................. 70 16. Reporting of Black and White Multiracial Students .............................................. 72 17. List of Documents and General Descriptions ........................................................ 74 xvii Table Page 18. Research Question 1: What are the Collection and Reporting Procedures for Students that do not Self-identify their Race and/or Ethnicity? ........................... 77 19. Research Question 2: How is Observer Identification Used to Racially/Ethnically Categorize? ............................................................................................................ 83 20. Research Question 3: Is there Initial and Continuous Training? ........................... 87 21. Research Question 4: How are Black and White Multiracial Students Reported? ............................................................................................................... 90 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW As the Federal government moves toward a more inclusive racial categorization system for individuals with multiple races and ethnicities (Census, 2000; Census, 2010), state departments of education and school districts in some states, such as the State of Oregon, continue to report their multiracial student population in a singular category (Oregon Department of Education, 2010). This ambiguous categorization system may not allow for the recognition, support, and services for the sub-populations of multiracial youth in public schools. Not only is the racial status of these children invisible at the state level, but school level demographics may offer little or no representation of the unique multiracial populations. The invisibility of mixed race youth, in particular Black-White biracial children, can potentially influence school practice, including the lack of addressing specific issues of children from multiracial backgrounds in curriculum, school policies, academic performance, and cultural competency measures (Caballero, 2007; Root, 2004). This dissertation examines the ways in which school districts in Oregon are utilizing and implementing policies on gathering and reporting on race and ethnicity in their school districts. The study explores how seven school districts in Oregon implement the Federal racial categorization mandates in their data collection and reporting procedures. In addition, this study considers the ways in which districts are adopting the suggested, yet not required, recommendations of this process set forth by the Oregon Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education. Requirements and recommendations include training of relevant district staff, how the districts conduct 2 observer identification when students do not self-identify, what communication takes place regarding the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity to parents and students, and what reporting practices exist for students who are identified as both Black and White racially. Research Questions Four research questions are designed to address the goals of this study and are discussed in greater detail and integrated with the conceptual framework later in this chapter: RQ1: What are the school collection and reporting procedures for students that do not self-identify their race and/or ethnicity? RQ2: How is observer identification used to racially/ethnically categorize? RQ3: Is there initial and continuous training? RQ4: How are Black and White multiracial students reported? Significance of Study Implementation of guidelines should be consistent with Federal racial categorization guidelines, which are described in the next section. Compliance may offer greater visibility for multiracial students, increased accuracy of reporting of students’ racial identities, more information on the diversity of student populations, and alterations in funding for students who identify as two or more races. The significance of this study is to identify the approaches the case study school districts are using to comply with these race and ethnicity categorization guidelines, along with the fidelity of implementation. I expect to find that compliance with the guidelines and recommendations by the U.S. Department of Education and State of Oregon will vary across the school districts 3 examined. Where the recommendations are implemented with greater fidelity, I expect to find greater opportunity for students to self-identify their own race and ethnicity. For example, when implementing a written procedure to use within districts as well as an explicit training process, increased opportunity to self-report can occur and therefore greater accuracy within data reporting. Another important factor to consider is the fact that school districts are required to report on the race and ethnicity of each student. While students and students’ parents are highly encouraged to self-identify to provide greater accuracy in reporting, when this does not occur school districts are required to conduct Observer Identification to fulfill this mandate. On one hand this requirement may help to address civil rights and equity issues within the school district, however, it does not permit families the option to refuse the participation of their children in this racial classification system. School districts may experience discomfort and perhaps non-compliance to some degree when required to notify the families that this is a required component of the US Department of Education. Additionally, some districts may believe that completing Observer Identification is an infringement on the rights and an inaccurate representation of the families and individual students. In exploring the implementation of collection and reporting of race and ethnicity, there are likely to be varying degrees of implementation and interpretation of the guidelines and recommendations. It is important to look at the fidelity of implementation as well as the motivation of school districts to adopt new policies. 4 Required Collection and Reporting of Race and Ethnicity In 1997 the U.S Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised its policies on the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on race and ethnicity. These new standards replaced the five categories for race with a seven option requirement for reporting (Table 1). The U.S. Department of Education (USED) proposed a plan in August 2006 to adopt these Federal Guidelines and in October 2007 the USED released Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education (Appendix A). States and districts were required to begin using these new guidelines in collecting and reporting aggregated data by Fall 2010. Table 1 Comparison of Previous and New U.S. Department of Education Race and Ethnicity Data Reporting Standards Previous Federal Reporting Standards (Choose One) New Standards Outlined in USED’s Final Guidance (Select yes or no for ethnicity, and choose one or more for race) American Indian or Alaska Native Same (American Indian or Alaska Native) Asian or Pacific Islander Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American Same (Black or African American) Hispanic or Latino Same, except that individuals are now asked to choose an ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino or not Hispanic or Latino) as the first part of a two- part question, as well as race(s). White Same (White) 5 On February 22, 2012, initial contact was made by this researcher to the Oregon Department of Education requesting information on documentation regarding policies and procedures of reporting race and ethnicity for Oregon public schools. The response from the State of Oregon stated that all documentation can be found on the State of Oregon Web site (https://district.ode.state.or.us/search) using ethnic as a search term. On this site a total of 14 documents were available for download. The State of Oregon representative said that these were the same documents that were provided to the school district for training and implementation purposes of the revised race and ethnicity guidelines. One of the documents, mentioned previously, included the Final Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the U.S. Department of Education (United States Department of Education, 2007). The Final Guidance states: Summary: The Secretary is issuing final guidance to modify the standards for racial and ethnic data used by the Department of Education (Department). This guidance provides educational institutions and other recipients of grants and contracts from the Department with clear and straightforward instructions for their collection and reporting of racial and ethnic data” (Federal Register, p. 59266) The Final Guidance outlined the new process for Federal reporting on race and ethnicity. It stated that “educational institutions and other recipients will be required to report aggregated racial and ethnic data in seven categories: (1) Hispanic/Latino of any race; and for individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only; (2) American Indian or Alaska Natives; (3) Asian; (4) Black or African American; (5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; (6) White, and (7) Two or more races. These options are to be collected in a two-part question in which the first part offers two options to report whether or not the respondent is Hispanic or 6 Latino. The second part provides the opportunity for the respondent to report his or her race. For purposes of data collection, all students must select at least one racial group. If two or more responses from the race categories are selected, then the respondent is placed for reporting purposes into an additional two or more races or multiracial category. This is done at the State level after districts have reported the mono or multiple racial groups to which the respondent has identified. In the previous racial and ethnic categorization system, the category that “most closely reflects the respondent’s recognition in his community should be used for purposes of reporting on persons who are of mixed racial and/or ethnic origins” (National Forum on Educational Statistics, p. ix). Simplified and draft versions of the Final Guidance are also posted on the State of Oregon’s Web site. Additional documents included copies of the revised Race/Ethnicity Codes, Race/Ethnicity Reporting Guidelines, Racial and Ethnic Reporting Subgroups (modifications), the USED Revised Race/Ethnicity Codes Implementation Proposal, and USED Revised Race/Ethnicity Codes Implementation Schedule. Bioecological Framework of Urie Bronfenbrenner A bioecological framework developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1986; 2005) will be used as the theoretical framework to examine the empirical literature as well as to provide a frame of reference for this study. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model suggests that “development involves interaction between organism and environment” (2005, p. 177). Hence, the organism, or individual, internalizes the external or environmental influence, and therefore changes. This changed organism can then influence the environment as 7 well. The bioecological framework is therefore an evolving interactive development model. I will describe the relevant nested levels of this framework, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, which will be explored in this synthesis of literature in relation to Black-White biracial children. Structures of the bioecological framework. The structures within the ecological framework are referred to as the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). In this study framework, shown in Figures 1 and 2:  The microsystem is the immediate environment in which an individual experiences relationships and interactions, such as within the classroom or the immediate family.  The mesosystem is the structure that encompasses the microsystem, and consists of relationships that do not necessarily have a direct impact on the individual, however influences the dynamics of the microsystem, such as the school culture and policies influence teachers, effecting the teacher interactions with the child. parents.  The exosystem is a social or psychological setting in which the individual may not be physically present; however, it affects the experiences of that person, such as the educational system the social expectations of a racial categorization system.  The macrosystem is the larger system encompassing the most remote influences such as society values, beliefs, and culture.  The chronosystem is the developmental influence over time from the environments in which the individual interacts. (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) 8 Figure 1. . Racial Classification System within Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model Based upon Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Framework. This model exemplifies the influence of external environments on the functioning of the racial classification and experiences of multiracial students. The influence can also function from the inside out, and the interactions produce change over time. The chronosystem is not pictured here, but is implicit in this model as working throughout all of the systems. For this study, the systems examined and research questions explored will fall primarily within the exosystem and mesosystem. Findings will help to suggest implications of the policies and procedures of racial categorization embedded in the exosystem and mesosystem on the microsystem, which is the student. The chronosystem will not be directly addressed in this research. Each of these systems is taken up in more detail in the following section. 9 Figure 2. Research Questions within Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model. The research questions are placed within this framework in the boxes, and each research question is embedded within the systems of the framework where they have varying degrees of influence. The microsystem. Bronfenbrenner defines the microsystem as “a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting with particular physical and material characteristics” (2005, p. 22). Three features of this system include the tasks or operations that an individual experiences or sees others engaging in as an observed experience. The second feature is the perceived connectedness between individuals in the setting whether they are involved in shared, complementary, or independent activities. The third feature is the notion of the role that each individual plays, including behaviors and expectations associated with that role. The mesosystem. According to Bronfenbrenner (1986), the mesosystem of the development of a person includes the “principal context in which human development 10 takes place” (p. 723). This context includes several settings; for children it is most often the home, neighborhood, and school. The influence of these settings on a child’s development is interactive: one influences the other, and the other returns its influence. For example, events at school can affect experiences at home, and vice versa. The mesosystem can be thought of as a sum of the microsystems. The exosystem. The exosystem in this framework is the external environments of the mesosystem, where events can occur in which the developing individual is not directly involved but which have influence over the individual’s environment. These external settings affect those people close to the child, and therefore affect the psychological development of the child. This setting could be the professional development or personal life of their teacher, or the social circles and work settings of their parent. These environments are external to the child, but affect the child through the interactions. The policy level effect on students is placed within the exosystem of this conceptual framework. External settings of children in the same school and neighborhood peers have a great influence on individuals as well (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 203). The macrosystem. The macrosystem in the bioecological framework is the outermost ring of the nested systems. “It encompasses the overarching patterns of stability, at the level of the subculture or culture as a whole, in forms of social organization, and associated belief systems of lifestyles” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 47). For the purpose of this study, the macrosystem will consist of the similar everyday experiences as part of this larger culture. This includes issues of race, class, history and gender that are part of the United States culture as a whole. The macrosystem affects the individual as it 11 influences with the exosystem, the mesosystem, and therefore the microsystem, in which the individual operates. The chronosystem. Finally, the chronosystem in this bioecological framework refers to the passage of time. This system makes it possible to examine the “influence on the person’s development of changes (and continuities) over time in the environments in which the person is living” (Bronfenbrenner, 1986, p. 724). This study assumes that this chronosystem is implicit throughout the other systems. With the nested systems of the bioecological framework in mind, the history, interactions, experiences, choice of identification, and perceptions of Black-White biracial individuals can be seen as evolving and interactive. As the historical context of Black-White biracial people in the United States is discussed in the following sections, it will be important to consider these environment and systems, and how history has evolved to the current state of educational experiences of Black-White biracial students. Definitions of Terms People who identify as two or more specifically defined racial groups have been referred to in literature and society in differing terminology. For the purpose of this study I will be referring to individuals with two or more racial identities as multiracial. This term is very broad as it can include, for example, any student who identifies as at least two of the U.S. Department of Education defined racial groups as referenced in Table 1; American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Black or African American, and White. Individuals categorized as one racial group are considered monoracial or uniracial. Another term that has been used to describe individuals with exactly two racial 12 identities is biracial. I will not be referring to this term to describe the multiracial population as it is limited to only two racial groups. When discussing the new policies, any individual with two or more races is considered multiracial, yet not necessarily biracial. I am therefore using multiracial because it is more inclusive of the populations discussed in this study. A person who identifies as two or more ethnicities, such as Japanese (Asian) and Korean (Asian), can be considered multiethnic but not multiracial according to the federal guidelines. A multiethnic person can however be multiracial as well, such as a Kenyan (Black) and Swedish (White). Other terms that are commonly used for people of more than one racial group are also mixed, interracial, and mixed race. History of Black-White Multiracial Categorization This section will discuss some major historical aspects of racial classification of multiracial people in the United States. This condensed history and the understanding of what race means is embedded in the macrosystem of the Bronfenbrenner framework within this study. It is relevant to consider how the history of race and of Black and White multiracial individuals in the United States has evolved and in what ways historical attributes persist with regards to racial categorization. This literature review examines the historical context of Black-White biracial people in America, the development of identity of Black-White biracial individuals, and racial categorization by others, followed by the experiences of Black-White biracial students compared to other students in the U.S. educational system. One-drop rule or the rule of hypodescent. In 1661, slavery was declared legal in Virginia. Slavery in colonies throughout the south followed soon after (Jackson, 2007). In 13 1662, colonial lawmakers deviated from their established law of children assuming the ethnic categorization of the father, and declared that mulatto children born to Black women assumed the status, or categorization of their mothers (Brown, 2001). This also aided in providing additional slaves, since then all biracial Black-White children would be classified as Black (Korgen, 1999). After that time, the treatment of an individual who had “one drop” of African American blood in their ancestral line was classified as Black. The norm or rule of hypodescent evolved during the years of slavery and is another name for the one drop rule: any amount of African ancestry classified a person as Black (Rocquemore & Brunsma, 2002). This prevented biracial descendants from obtaining the status of Whites and challenging the existing social hierarchy and political powers. The Jim Crow Laws. Another significant part of the history of Black-White multiracial people in the United States was the implementation of the Jim Crow Laws in the early 1900”s. This new racial segregation legislation allowed southern states to define what amount of Black blood constituted an individual to be considered Black. And by 1915 “the one-drop rule had become universally backed by whites, in the South and North.” (Davis, 1995, p. 12). Initiatives of the Jim Crow laws included racial segregation within public places including schools as well as within the political, economic and legal realms. The Civil Rights movements in the 1950’s and 1960’s abolished much of the Jim Crow Laws, however, the perception of Blacks according to the One-Drop rule persisted. (Davis, 1995). Eyeballing. The US Department of Education issued a pamphlet outlining the connection between the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and compliance by the US Department of Education. It was within this document that the US Department of 14 Education was validated in utilizing a monoracial categorization system as well as embedding policy to allow school districts the freedom to determine the race of their students by assigning them to a race group for which a student “appears to belong” or “is regarded in the community as belonging to” (Chiong, p. 65).It was the perception of the teachers and other school personnel, or the practice of eyeballing, that determined the monoracial group to which a student belonged. There was no priority for students to self- identify or the opportunity to identify as multiracial, multiracial students rights to identify in a personally preferred manner was denied (Chiong, 1998). The practice of eyeballing continues with the mandate and preference of the US Department of Education to have school districts conduct Observer Identification when a student does not self-identify, rather than allowing the individual the right to choose not to report their race or ethnicity. Lower status and social value. Historically, this established that the “multi-racial person is assigned to the group with the lowest social value among the race groups represented by his/her ancestry” (Herman, 2002, p. 9). U.S. society has traditionally placed individuals according to race and skin tone in a hierarchical classified position (Root, 1996), with according to Roots, Whites placed at the top of this social hierarchy ladder, followed by Asian populations, then Hispanic and Native American populations, and finally at the bottom, Blacks. Blacks have continued to hold the lowest position in this hierarchy (Root, 1996). In earlier history, this theory provided validation for slavery; exclusion of Blacks from voting, schooling, and other rights of White Americans; banning of intermarriages; and violence against Blacks including lynching and rape (Korgen, 1999). 15 Herman (2002) affirms that multiracial individuals with Black ancestry are placed near the bottom of this social hierarchy much like monoracial Blacks. The treatment of Black-White biracial individuals is therefore similar to the treatment of Blacks. She argues that “such treatment … leads to similar racial identification and developmental outcomes for part-black biracial” people (p. 9). The Mulatto culture. The term “Mulatto” is a controversial term. Mulatto literally translates as offspring of a horse and a donkey or mule (Brown, 2001). It refers to an individual who is half Black and half White, or is a mixture of both ethnicities. Current American research literature does not use the term Mulatto, except when referring to a historical epoch when the term Mulatto was the norm. According to Lee and Edmonston (2005), early U.S. Census data referred to multiracial children as “mulatto and mixed-blood Indians” (p. 3). Mulatto was the first explicitly mixed-race group to appear in the U.S. Census in 1850. During that year, the upper South had approximately 200,000 mixed-race persons and about 90,000 in the lower South. Mulatto persons of the upper South in the mid-1800s tended to be treated as Blacks both economically and legally. In the lower South, the light skin Mulattos were “in a different caste than blacks” (Korgen, 1999, p. 13). The Mulattos, according to Brown (2001) were in a higher position than Blacks in the social hierarchy and “enjoyed psychological and social privileges that were denied to uniracial blacks” (p. 16). The late 1800s brought with it the notion that Blacks were inferior genetically and that those with blood of African descent were deemed mentally, morally, and physically inferior to Whites (Zack, 2001). As the Civil War approached, slavery was adamantly defended by promoting the supposed inferiority of blacks. 16 Following the Civil War, Mulattos began to create elite social clubs, and admission to these clubs was based on the lightness of one’s skin. In 1890, Quadroon (1/4 th Black) and Octoroon (1/8 th Black) were added to the census. By 1900, the Mulatto categories were absent in the census, reappeared for a brief time in 1910, and in 1920 listed as “all persons having some proportion or perceptible trace of Negro blood.” The categories were deleted from subsequent census data collection (Morning, 2003, p. 46, as cited in Nobles, 2000). American society categorized those with any apparent African blood as Black according to the U.S. Census, regardless of their White ancestry. Identification of race. Race is commonly regarded as a social construct, sometimes used to describe people based on their phenotypes, or physical characteristics, such as hair color, hair texture, body types, skin color and facial features. This perception of race, according to Texeira (2003), is “founded not so much on biology as on the economic and social climates of the particular time and place” (p. 22). Researchers, social activists, multiracial families, and scholars often support use of racial categorization, as well as promoting further breakdown of data on multiracial individuals. Multiracial children cannot be examined as part of a “biracial” group, “multiracial group,” or “2 or more races” group, as evidence exemplifies the sometimes subtle and other times apparent variations in the multiple racial subgroups from which multiracial children originate. Great variation also exists in how multiracial individuals identify themselves and how they are identified by others in their family, school, peer groups, community, and society at large. U.S. society and culture. The summary of the historical context for Black-White biracial individuals provides a backdrop for integration of a bioecological framework in 17 the current state of societal and cultural issues for Black-White biracial youth. According to Bronfenbrenner (1979), the macrosystem consists of the wider realm in which individuals function. The values of society, societal expectations, and acceptable behavior and habits are included in this realm. The values of our society also comprise the limitations and compulsion to racially categorize members of its population. Data Collection of Multiracial Individuals The United States is a nation that strongly values categorization and categorizing people into racial groups. The norms of society and values are slowly changing, yet the historical and social background of categorization is essential when examining why multiracial children and particularly those of Black-White heritage may have experiences unlike other students (Brunsma, 2006; Harris, 2002; Kao, 1999). An examination of data on Black-White biracial and other multiracial individuals in the United States sheds light on societal values and norms. One of the greatest challenges in gathering statistics for the multiracial and Black- White biracial population is the lack of specificity in racial categorization in schools, school systems, population reports, and most other data collection systems. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' 1995 Current Population Survey Supplement on Race and Ethnicity and the Census Bureau’s 1996 National Content Survey reported that nationwide less than two percent of the population self-identified as multiracial. The total multiracial population is rapidly growing. In the 2010 US Census the multiracial population accounted for approximately 9 million or 2.9% of the US population. There are a total of 57 possible multiracial combinations on the 2010 U.S. Census. The “most common racial combination is Black and White,” growing 134% 18 since the 2000 Census, and estimated to be 1.8 million Americans in the 2010 Census, or a little more than 20% of the multiracial population (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25race.html). The 2010 Census finds the multiracial youth population to be 4.2 million, an increase of about 50% since Census 2000. Results from the 2000 Census reported close to 2.5% of the population of multiracial youth and around 1.8 million or “nearly 4% of people younger than 18 were described by two or more races” (Morning, 2003, p. 58). For the younger population, each parent identified as a race different than his or her spouse. The 2000 Census was the first census opportunity for individuals to self-report as two or more races since the census of 1970 when 460,000 children reported living in a mixed race household; the multiracial population has doubled for each consecutive census (See Figure 3). In the 1980 Census, that number increased to 996,070. By 1990, it doubled to almost two million in (Lee & Edmonston, 2005; Morning, 2003). These numbers may be an approximation of children who identify as two or more races. If this pattern continues, as some research suggests, the under 18 multiracial population could approach 8 percent of the U.S. population shortly (Morning, 2003). Beliefs about Black-White biracial identification by policy makers, political activists, and educators vary. Some groups oppose further delineation of racial categories feeling that “historically, traditionally, and culturally society has viewed biracial people, particularly black/white biracial, as black and these individuals experience the world as black people” (Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002, p. 107). Other groups believe it is necessary for further delineation in order to fully understand our diverse population and 19 Figure 3. Under 18 Multiracial Population by Census Year. Note that in the year 1990, this is an estimate as referenced in the text. how the subgroups are operating within our society, including academic achievement (Brunsma, 2005; Harris, 2002; Kao, 1999). Regardless of how individuals and groups prefer to categorize multiracial people, categorization will continue, resulting in important issues to consider. Multiracial data and schooling issues. When data has been disaggregated, studies have indicated that Black-White biracial children have academic performance closer to that of the Black population than the White population (Kao, 1999). It is unclear whether or not schools are continuing to recognize the Black-White students by their minority race and including them in the efforts to reduce the achievement gap between Whites and Blacks. If this is occurring, several concerns emerge, including the persistence of adoption by schools’ and educators’ adherence to the one drop rule of 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,000 U n d er 1 8 P o p u la ti o n CENSUS YEAR Under 18 Multiracial Population by Census Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 20 racial categorization. In addition, if multiracial students are clumped together in the available data sets, it is not possible for districts to distinguish the success of their program to close the achievement gap for the Black-White multiracial population. In a study conducted for The Civil Rights Project of Harvard University, authors Lee and Orfield (2006) advocate for reconsideration of the new policy of gathering race and ethnicity data according to the U.S. Department of Education Final Guidance. They specifically oppose that students of multiple backgrounds will now be placed into a single race category. Lee and Orfield state: This is in contrast to the U.S. Census policy of reporting the racial combinations of multiracial individuals so that researchers can look at a category, for example, of blacks and black mixed race students or Asians plus those with mixed Asian and Pacific Islander backgrounds. Since “mixed race” does not define any kind of ethnic community, it will be impossible to interpret statistics that will combine unknown groups of students from extremely different backgrounds. (2006, p.4) Where multiracial categories are not available in data collection approaches, one possibility for schools is that Black-White students are dually classified according to the needs and/or convenience of the school systems. However, this can over-count the total number of students at a school or district site. Another possibility is to classify multiracial students according to one of their self-identified ethnicities. School policies may not specify what approaches are to be taken, resulting in inconsistencies not only in data but ultimately in services and support provided. Elementary and middle school children who have dual parentage of one White parent and one Black parent are often confronted with unique challenges that require support. Some of these barriers and experiences are not typical for children of other mixed races or for monoracial individuals. The historical context for interracial relationships and 21 children from interracial unions have unique aspects for Black-White biracial people in the United States, and are marked by centuries of strife and discrimination. Black-White biracial students and families are affected by racial categorization, racial stereotyping, and perceptions of their phenotypic attributes, including skin color, hair texture and color, and perceived facial features. Lack of recognition in systems of measurement. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) does not aggregate the academic achievement of Black- White biracial youth or multiracial youth. Other research by scholars indicates that academic performance of Black-White biracial youth is between the performance of their monoracial counterparts, and usually closer to the Black population (Kao, 1999). Currently, NAEP uses the racial/ethnic categories of White, Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan Native. The Nation’s Report for 2007 claimed that between 2005 and 2007 the Black-White achievement gap narrowed in the 8th grade mathematics assessment, but the 4th grade achievement gap narrowed only in 2007 (Lee et al., 2007). In the area of reading, only the White – Black gap at grade 4 was smaller in comparison to the gaps in 2005 and 1992 (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2007). Meyer’s (1995) NAEP research project suggested that NAEP is moving towards using categorization that is more inclusive of the diverse and growing subgroup populations of K-12 students (see Appendix A). This data set may indicate similar trends for Black-White biracial students; however, further research utilizing disaggregated data is necessary in order to establish the trend for this population. Multiracial individuals may be underrepresented in data when it is available for at least five reasons. First, many multiracial individuals may not have awareness that they 22 are technically more than one race. Second, a great number of multiracial individuals chose not to acknowledge racial categorization at all, and do not mark their race (Brunsma, 2006). Third, other mixed race individuals chose to identify with one of their monoracial parents, and most often from the “minority race” (Harris, 2002; Lee & Edmonston, 2005; Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002). Fourth, many statistics are gathered considering the marital unit in the household and the race of each parent. Only about 21% of Black-White children live with both biological parents (Harris, 2002). This finding was based on Harris’s analysis of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health from 1994 and 1995 with a weighted sample size of 8,373 multiracial middle and high school students. A significantly different finding in Brunsma (2005) found that 48.2% of Black-White children in his study of 4 to 6 year olds and their families live with both their biological monoracial parents. The fifth and final reason that multiracial students are underrepresented is due to a lack of systematic data collection especially in the area of academic achievement outcomes of Black-White biracial youth at earlier grade levels and throughout elementary education. Most studies utilized participants that are in high school and older (Brown, 2001; DeBose & Winters, 2003; Harris, 2002; Herman, 2002). Others included middle school age and older (Milan & Keiley, 2000; Udry et al., 2003). Considering that youth 18 and under represent almost half of the multiracial population, 4.2 million, and it is one of the fastest growing populations entering our school systems, scholars suggest trend data is needed at younger age ranges (Brown, 1995; Census 2010; Harris, 2002; Morning, 2003). 23 School Policy and Public Schools in the U.S. It remains uncommon to find mention of mixed race or biracial children in educational policy. According to Caballero et al. (2007), “mixed race pupils were still not recognized or targeted, despite … data showing that this group was one of the most, if not the most, underachieving and over-excluded” (p. 355). Kao (1999) states that multiracial status may have important policy implications and may threaten race-based policies designed to protect minorities. Kao describes an example of a multiracial youth in the California school system. The child had identified as Black for the school records, and was having learning difficulties. At that time and under the policies of that school district, the child’s White mother would have had to change the child’s racial category to White in order to have an IQ test given, as it was illegal to administer to Black students due to increased risk of being labeled as “Mentally retarded” (p. 224). Public policies and school policies do not appear to be considering erasing the socially constructed racial categorization of school children anytime soon (Zack, 1995). Therefore, school children and families can continue to recognize this categorization policy, but if so then Black-White biracial students and other multiracial students should have the opportunity to claim their multiple heritages. Reducing the achievement gap. With an increasing trend of Black-White biracial children identifying as biracial or of two or more races, fewer are therefore identifying as their minority race (Root, 2004). Some educational programs, such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, were designed to bridge the achievement gap between Whites and Blacks. The Black-White biracial population is not considered in the targeted programs designed to improve academic achievement of minorities, unless they choose to 24 identify solely as Black or African American. Regarding the biracial child, Caballero’s analysis of research yielded similar findings of “almost total neglect of this category of pupils in educational policies” (2007, p. 352). Academic achievement of Black-White biracial students is closer to the achievement of African Americans than White Americans (Herman, 2002; Kao, 1999). This is not true of other biracial students such as Asian-White and Native American- White, the later achievement more comparable to that of White Americans. Kao (1999) analyzed the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 and found that “biracial black youth perform significantly lower in standardized mathematics tests than their monoracial white counterparts from comparable family socioeconomic backgrounds” (p. 323). In addition, Herman (2003) found that academic variables in her study were not significantly different between those Black-White biracial students who identified as White and those who identified as Black. This research intends to highlight the possibility that the understanding of academic achievement and of Black-White multiracial students may be sliding through the cracks. Whereas it is important to recognize the multiple heritages of multiracial youth, it is likely that students who identify as Black and White may continue to have lower academic performance, yet are not flagged for intervention, and these group- specific dynamics therefore remain invisible. Relevancy of racial categorization by teachers. Everyday tasks and experiences with teachers and the school community are part of the mesosystem. Teachers also interact within the microsystem of their students and play a major integral role and influence in how a child develops. A teacher’s prior knowledge and experience with 25 diverse populations may influence how the teacher behaves in these experiences and interactions. Additionally, these interactions may encourage multiracial students to adopt one identity over another, and influence how a child racially identifies. Teachers are role models for thinking critically about race. According to Root (2004), teachers who do not have specific training or life experience to examine their assumptions about race may be “likely to replicate conventional meanings of race and reinforce standard racial identities that alienate an increasing number of students” (p. 122). Results in Brown (2001) found evidence that “in some schools…teachers were not only ignorant about the special needs of interracial children, but they failed to confront racist abuses” (p. 87). It can be difficult to gather data in this area; uprooting politically incorrect biases and prejudices that teachers and school personnel bring with them to their profession can be a challenge. Public schools and lack of multiracial representation in curriculum. It is rare to find the discussion of mixed race as part of the mainstream curriculum in public schools, or introduced into the classroom by teachers. Caballero affirms this perception stating that “across the schools in general, it was rare to find the issue of mixed race addressed” (p. 354). Even the mixed students in schools oftentimes feel invisible: “Pupils demonstrated an awareness of their invisibility within the school curriculum and culture and expressed a desire to have specific acknowledgement of their mixed background” (Caballero, p. 354). Teachers continue to infuse recognition of African Americans, Native Americans, and other ethnic groups into their curriculum, yet it is rare, and nonexistent in most classroom environments, to find a discussion and discourse focused on the contributions and experiences of multiracial people. 26 Parent input and influence on teachers and policy. An additional element is the lack of voice of the parents of Black-White biracial youth in elementary and middle schools (Fernandes, 2005), particularly in white majority communities. I conducted five individual interviews with parents of children who had one White parent and one Black parent. I also gathered five parents of Black-White biracial children into a focus group to discuss some of the prominent concerns that emerged from the initial individual interviews (James, 2008). Parents experienced feelings of isolation from school activities, lack of networking opportunities with other parents, avoidance by other parents and school personnel to discuss racial issues, curriculum changes, and racial incidents within the school such as teasing by peers and their children being used by the teachers as the minority example in classroom lessons. The bioecological implications would consider these interactions, or lack of interactions, as a deficit in influencing teacher behaviors as well as school policies around these and other issues. In order to broaden the knowledge base of teachers and influence changes in policy, parents should have the opportunity to share their experiences and knowledge. Many parents of mixed race children in Cline et al. (2002) were pleased to offer personal insights to foster awareness of a range of cultures in the schools. However, “few of the teachers appreciated…the readiness of some parents to foster both the minority identity of their own child and the understanding and celebration of diversity by white members of the school” (p. 165). Perhaps it is more difficult to integrate this practice due to the discomfort of race conversations. It may also be that even armed with the understanding of their students’ multiracial background, teachers are not supported in the policies and curriculum regarding multiracial history and experiences. Therefore, even if 27 the conversations were fostered, the tools to integrate discussions and curriculum around multiracial identity and individuals are not readily supported. Identity Development of Multiracial Children. The mesosystem of a Black-White biracial child’s development consists of the child’s everyday experiences at home, with peers, at school, and for some, at church. Identity development for Black-White biracial youth, from an ecological framework, considers the interactions between these settings as part of the development process. Many researchers have traditionally claimed that biracial children have a more complex identity process than monoracial children (Brown, 1993; Brunsma, 2005; Gillem et al., 2001;Udry et al, 2003). In these cases, the difficult psychological adjustment and well- being of multiracial children has been attributed to personal struggles of individuals in their development of who they are and what to call themselves in terms of racial categorization and identity, rather than a static result of interactions with his or her environment. Self-identification in racial classification systems. The way Black-White biracial individuals racially identify appears to be greatly influenced by their interactions with their environments or multiple ecological systems. Rockquemore and Brunsma (2002) propose four identity types in their survey data from 177 college students. They do not elaborate on how these key variables were constructed, but do provide a framework for recognizing the different ways some White-Black individuals categorize themselves, and also provide evidence to support the majority opinion that biracial youth are underrepresented in statistics and research data. 28 According to these authors, individuals with one Black and one White parent may choose to identify in several ways: a) exclusively black or exclusively white; b) a “border” identity or biracial identity; c) fluctuate between identifying as black, white, or biracial in different situations; or d) a transcendent path of not acknowledging any race at all. The way in which biracial youth self-identify is impacted by their home environment, school environment, and community, and their choice of how they identify is relational to their school performance. Academic performance is associated with the way a multiracial youth self identifies; this is particularly true for White-Black biracial. Kao (1999) found that “subjective identification plays an important role in determining academic performance of black biracial, but not Asian biracial” (p. 238). Black-White biracial youth identify their race differently depending on whether they are reporting from the school environment, or with in-home interviews (Harris, 2001). Harris found that Black-White biracial students living in predominately White communities more consistently self-identify as multiracial. On the other hand, Black- White students living in more diverse or predominately Black neighborhoods are more likely to identity as Black in school. A similar study by Brunsma (2005) analyzed data from the 2000 Census and The Survey of Biracial Experience (Rockquemore and Brunsma, 2002) to produce correlations between public categories of race and individuals’ private and socially embedded understanding of their racial identity. Results indicated that identity choices by Black-White biracials were found to differ significantly when comparing different 29 regions of the United States. Most commonly, though, he found that the “border” identity, or biracial, was how most individuals chose to identify. Family influence on racial identification of a Black-White biracial child. Parents of Black-White children may identify them in several ways. According to a study by Brunsma (2005) parents of majority-minority multiracial children, (Black-White biracial children, for example) are more likely to identify their children with the norms of hypodescent, by selecting the minority designation. Brunsma explores three ways parents may identify their multiracial children. First, in an effort to move towards a categorization that has the least negative value in American society, parents may prefer to identify their child as multi-racial or White. In addition, as the author noted, parents from higher socioeconomic statuses are also more likely to identify as multiracial or White, rather than the minority counterpart. Finally, depending on the social context in which the multiracial family lives, a school community with a minority that is the majority enrollment may increase the likelihood that the parents will identify their children as the minority race (Bratter, 2007; Herman, 2004). From the perspective of the microsystem of parent-child relationships, there can be certain expectations and behaviors associated with the role of the Black-White child. Black-White biracial youth’s denial of White roots can lead to resentment and tension with the White parent. At the same time, “failure to negate their whiteness seemed to elicit guilt and shame for betraying black parents, relatives, and friends” according to the findings from in-depth interviews by Brown (2001, p. 47). Parents who encourage their children to explore both of their monoracial counterparts, and do not constrict their children to one or the other, relax the expectations on their Black-White child. Under 30 such conditions, children who related to the interracial identity have significantly diminished conflict in issues of identity (Brown, 2001), supporting the bioecological framework as well as acknowledging the influence of the systems on the individuals’ development. Schools: Racial Categorizations and Expectations Limited research exists on teacher and school staff conducting racial categorization. Literature supports the tendency for Black-White multiracial students to be perceived as their minority race (Brunsma, 2005; Herman, 2004). Therefore, when teachers or school staffs are required to document the race of their students, they may adopt the racial designation based on their belief system and perceptions. What does this mean for schooling interactions in the life of the Black-White biracial child? If teachers are responsible for racially categorizing multiracial children who do not self-identify, their perception of the Black-White child identity would be especially influential in consideration of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework. Teacher expectations. Although most teachers want all of their students to succeed in their education, several factors impede teachers’ ability to fully incorporate this desire with mixed race students. In Cline et al. (2002) the teachers interviewed observed other educators and classes wanting to “treat all children equally” (p. 112), and avoiding acknowledgement of ethnic or cultural differences. Furthermore, lack of recognition of ethnicity and race by a multiracial child’s teacher can be detrimental to the child’s positive self-concept (Schwartz, 1998). Additional findings by Cline et al. (2002) noted a “tendency for teachers in mainly White schools to play down and even ignore ethnic and cultural differences among their pupils” (p. 162). 31 How schools classify interracial children may additionally affect teacher perceptions (Chiong, 1998, p. 35). Some researchers have found academic achievement for Black- White biracial students can be affected due to “low expectations of teachers based on a stereotypical view of the pupils’ ‘confused’ identities and fragmented home backgrounds, as well as negative perceptions from teachers, their White and Black peers and wider society which centered on their ‘mixedness’” (Caballero et al., p. 348). Low expectations may also be tied to historical references to children of mixed race, and those of Black-White parentage in particular. School systems “continue to reflect historical values and beliefs, including racial stereotypes and prejudice” (Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, p. 293). Teachers who function within these school microsystems are likely, based on the viewpoint of an ecological framework, influenced by these values and beliefs. Low expectations from teachers can be looked at from the view of the marginal man hypothesis, believing that multiracial children are fated to experience social and psychological stress (Park, 1928). This hypothesis has had a great impact on American racial thought. Some teachers believe that multiracial children struggle with more severe issues of identity that can lead to negative outcomes in academic achievement. Kao (1999) states that self-esteem and academic achievement are positively correlated, however, her study found that these minor differences in self-esteem did “not account for the difference in academic achievement between biracial Asians and Asians nor biracial Blacks and Whites” (p. 234). Teachers often assume that individual biracial children come from one-parent families of lower socioeconomic status and less education (Caballero, 2007, Shih, 2007). 32 While statistically this may represent some aspects of the populations (Census 2000; Harris, 2002), for individuals the indirect impact of such teacher assumptions may be reflective in their school outcomes. Kao (1999) describes the link of children’s self- esteem to academic performance. Negative perceptions of teachers and administrators could impact the self-esteem of the Black-White biracial student, resulting in lower academic performance. Tenenbaum (2007) states that “teachers’ expectations may influence students’ future achievement through the process of self-fulfilling prophesies” (p. 254). More research directly measuring teachers’ assumptions, values, and beliefs relating to multiracial children and their families is necessary to provide empirical evidence for a causal relationship; while the topics is noted here due to the interaction with categorization policies in schools, this research is outside the scope of this dissertation project but will be noted in Chapter IV regarding implications for future work. 33 CHAPTER II METHODS This policy analysis was designed to assess the ways in which some school districts in Oregon are implementing required and recommended policies and procedures for collecting and reporting on race and ethnicity, in particular for how children who identify as more than one race are identified and represented. The methodological chapter will explore (a) how the research questions are associated with the ecological framework and therefore to dependent and independent policy variables of interest for data collection, (b) the study design and sampling used to examine and inform on these policies and their implementation in the study context, (c) the collection and analysis of the data. The Research Questions and the Ecological Framework Table 2 presents the four research questions introduced in Chapter I, and connects them to the ecological framework for the study. This table also describes the anticipated dependent variables and some of the expected written data sources to be used to address the results of the research questions. This study was developed to investigate the variation and degrees to which selected school districts across Oregon are implementing and adapting to these policies, in particular, how they have chosen to collect data on and report on those students who choose not to report their race and/or ethnicity. Research Question 1 The first research question examined the specific policies and procedures in place for those who do not self-report their race and ethnicity. Procedural requirements and 34 recommendations for data collection and reporting on race and ethnicity in Oregon school districts will be further explored, and their relationship to (a) the U.S. Department of Education policies and recommendations, and (b) the State of Oregon requirements and recommendations will be considered. Federal and State policies are embedded within the exosystem of the ecological model. How the districts and schools interpret these policies are communicated between the exosystem and the mesosystem. Thus, implementation also influences the microsystem and individual student in the microsystem during the data collection and communications with families. In consideration of this, I explored whether or not districts had explicit written policies and documentation available, and utilized by staff, to implement this process. The assumption is that with written documentation, there is greater reliability and consistency with implementation of policies. Interviews were also conducted, as described below. An additional component to this question included how the districts requested information from their students and families. Research Question 2 The second question focused on how Observer Identification is used to racially and ethnically classify students. This question addresses whether or not the school district practices Observer Identification, how, and to what extent. This can depend on the environment of the exosystem in which the observers are employed. I considered, for example, whether the districts created policies to select individuals closest to student within the microsystem to conduct Observer Identification like a teacher. Alternatively, another process that is outside the microsystem such as an Observer Identifier from an 35 administrator may be employed, who may not have had direct interactions with the student. This question is also relevant to this paper in exploring whether or not Observer Identification practices lead to identification based on a descendent of the “one-drop rule” described in Chapter I, such as if a student appears to be at least in part of African- American descent, being categorized as “Black” (Ho, A. K, Sidanius, J., Banaji, M.R., Levin, D.T., 2011). Research Question 3 The third question concerned whether or not there was initial and continual training. This question was designed to explore the importance and emphasis which districts placed on making sure the district staff and teachers were aware of and accurately following the revised procedures and policies, as well as more accurately representing their student populations. I wanted greater details on the training available or required for staff on the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity. Furthermore, I wanted to know what this training consisted of for the given school district. Training falls at the level of the exosystem based on the system-level specifications of the Federal Final Guidance. School districts within the same system can choose to adapt recommendations. If trainings occur, they are likely to be with the school personnel within the mesosystem and to possible include those with direct interactions with the student in the microsystem. Research Question 4 The fourth and final research question examined more specifically how students who were racially identified as Black and White are reported within the school district, on forms, or even in schools. This question was also intended to explore how these 36 students are reported to the State of Oregon, and to consider how the state uses and represents that data. Inquiry into this question may also provide implications of how important this issue is to the school districts. Policies from the U.S. Department of Education, residing in the exosystem, specify a system to allow for Black and White students within the microsystem to check boxes for both races. The policies and procedures for these Federal policies interact from the outside (exosystem) to the inside (microsystem) within the ecological model as data are collected. Then, as data are reported out, the process begins within the microsystem, through the mesosystem and is collected and analyzed by the state and Federal government in the exosystem. Table 2 Research Questions within the Bronfenbrenner Framework: Dependent and Independent Variables Research Question Framework Dependent Variables Data Sources 1. What are the Collection and Reporting Procedures? Exosystem Mesosystem Microsystem A specific procedure is in place for districts to collect and report race and ethnicity data. National, State, District and School Policies, leadership decisions, Forms 2. How is Observer Identification used to racially/ ethnically categorize? Exosystem Mesosystem (Microsystem) Administrators/Staff will or will not be able to racially/ ethnically categorize their students. District Policy protocol, Federal Policy, Leadership decision in school 3. Is there Initial and Continuous Training? (Exosystem) Mesosystem Microsystem Whether or not district has written or explicit training, time, motivation. Policies, Leadership, Funding, Interest from staff 4. How are Black and White Multiracial Students reported? Exosystem, Macrosystem Microsystem Whether or not students are reported by multiple races or by one category. Restrictive forms, database capacity, policy, state reporting protocol, family and student identification 37 Study Design The methodology utilized in this study is a descriptive cross-case analysis. A case is defined as a school district as the unit of analysis in this policy implementation study (see Sampling section). Interview questions were designed to explore the data collection and procedural process utilized in seven school districts across Oregon with regard to racial categorization of multiracial students. Descriptions will be based on findings from document analysis and interviews of key personnel in the districts. The study design consisted of seven phases, described below. Each phase is examined in more detail in an upcoming section of this methodology chapter:  Phase 1: The Sample  Phase 2: Contact Protocol  Phase 3: Interview Questions  Phase 4: Coding of the Districts  Phase 5: The Interviews  Phase 6: Interview Data Reduction and Analysis  Phase 7: Document Study at the School Level Phase 1: the sample. In addition to initial contact made with the Oregon Department of Education, seven public school districts across Oregon were contacted and interviewed for this policy analysis as well as individual consultation with an Education Service District representative serving an additional 13 school districts not included in the seven in the sample. The seven school districts were purposive samples based on location, size of school district, and percentage of multiracial population. 38 Location. The selection of the location of the seven school districts represented five distinct locations in Oregon. One school district was located in a large urban city in northern Oregon; a second school district was located in eastern Oregon; a third school district was located in southern Oregon; and a fourth school district was located in a coastal region in western Oregon. Three school districts in the Willamette Valley were also part of this sample. Size and multiracial population. The second factor that was considered when selecting the school districts was the population size of the school district and the multiracial diversity within the district. A four-part categorization scheme was designed to place districts in a continuum of district size by multiracial population size (See Table 3). For this sample a school district with more than 6,000 students was considered a Big District, whereas those with less than 6,000 students were Small Districts. Consequently, small school districts were those that had only one primary high school, and large school districts had at least two major high schools. School districts that had a multiracial student population of 4.7% or more were considered High Multiracial, and those with a multiracial population of less than 4.7% were considered Lower Multiracial. This percentage of 4.7 is based on the average percentage of multiracial students in Oregon Public Schools in the 2011-2012 school year (Oregon Department of Education, 2012). The cross classification of the resulting four groups on the two dimensions is displayed in Table 3. The number of districts in the sample that are in each of the four groups is displayed in Table 4. High Multiracial districts are oversampled at an approximate rate of 2.5:1 to better represent the Multiracial population in the state, while still collecting data representative of the range of Oregon schools. 39 Table 3 Districts Displayed by Size and Multiracial Population District Size High Multiracial (H) Lower Multiracial (L) Big District (B) Student Population ≥ 6,000 and Multiracial Population ≥ 4.7% Student Population ≥ 6,000 and Multiracial Population < 4.7% Small District (S) Student Population < 6,000 and Multiracial Population ≥ 4.7% Student Population < 6,000 and Multiracial Population < 4.7% Table 4 Districts Displayed by Number of Districts within District Size and Multiracial Population District Size High Multiracial (H) Low Multiracial (L) Big District (B) 2 districts 1 district Small District (S) 3 districts 1 district Phase 2: contact protocol. A contact protocol was designed in order to systematically contact and schedule interviews with the selected school districts (see Appendix 3). Key contact personnel were selected based on several factors, including both personal recommendations from district administrators and/or secretaries, and formal job descriptions as noted on school district Web sites. On several occasions the initial key contact person referred me onto another administrator or staff person within the school district, and this is noted in the data collection and reporting. The contact protocol is described in this section. Round one was initial contact of all seven school districts and was conducted on March 28th with a scripted email. The 40 email was sent to each of the seven school districts requesting an interview regarding their district’s policies and procedures on collecting and reporting using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines, this email also described the purpose of the study and my credentials and contact information . Five potential responses were possible after the emails were sent to the targeted interviewees. The expected responses from round one included: No Response (NR), Referred On (RO) (to another district staff member), Requested More Information (RMI), Agreed to Meet (AM) (for interview), and Provided Documents (PD). Depending on which five of the responses occurred a follow-up protocol was defined, this was round two. Exactly one week after initial contact, the round two contact occurred on April 4 th , 2012. The process for the second round of contact was as follows: (a) if the round one response was NR, then a second email was sent (SSE); (b)if the round one response was RO, then an e-mail was sent to the new contact person (ENC); (c)if the round one response was RMI, then a second email was sent providing the additional information requested and requesting a meeting for the interview; (d) if the round one response was AM, then I emailed back to set up a meeting (SM); and (e) if the round one response was PD, then a follow up email was sent requesting school contact (FURS). The protocol for round two allowed up to one week for responses, and a 3rd round of contact commenced a week following round two on April 11, 2012. The third round was slightly different; (a) if the round two response was NR, I placed a phone call directly to the respondent; (b) if the round two response was RO, I placed a phone call directly to the referred individual; (c) if the round two response was RMI, I placed a phone call directly to the respondent; (d) if the response from round two was AM, then I 41 emailed back to set up a meeting; (e) if the round two response was PD, then a follow up email was sent requesting school contact (FURS). A fourth and final round of contact was made on April 18, 2012. This fourth round was (a) if the round three response was NR, I placed a phone call directly to the respondent and an email; (b) if the round three response was RO, I placed a phone call directly to the referred individual and an email; (c) if the round three response was RMI, I placed a phone call directly to the respondent and an email; (d) if the response from round three was AM, then I emailed back to set up a meeting; (e) if the round three response was PD, then a follow up email was sent requesting school contact (FURS). Following this fourth and final round of contacts, respondents were given the week to reply in which I would respond according to the round four protocol. Interviews were to be completed by or scheduled by April 25 th , 2012. Any interview meetings confirmed were allowed to be scheduled past the final date of responding to contacts. (Note that as reported in the Results chapter, 100% of response by the sampled districts was achieved through this Contact Protocol.) Phase 3: interview questions and interview protocol. The initial introductory portion of the interview transcript was adapted from a template provided by the University of Oregon’s’ Office for Protection of Human Subjects. In this section I was introduced as the researcher, a background of the study was described, and contact information for me, faculty member overseeing the research, as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects contact information was provided. Respondents were also informed that at any time during the interview they can request to skip questions or ask for additional information. The interview script was designed as a semi-structured in- 42 person or phone interview by the researcher based on guidelines as outlined in Powney and Watts, (1987) Interviewing in Educational Research and Rubin and Rubin’s (1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. The design of the semi-structured interview included a set of five major questions, several with follow-up questions and a list of probes and prompts, see Appendix D for the protocol instrument. A main intention of the semi-structured interviews was to be conversational while allowing for the opportunity for systematic data collection, permitting the respondent to answer the question while allowing for the respondent to speak freely if he or she felt there was additional important information to be shared. Most of the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed following the interview, and field notes were completed on all interviews. Question 1: Collection and reporting procedures. The first question setin the interview was designed to get a better understanding of the collection and reporting procedures utilized by the district when students and/or their families chose not to report on their race and/or ethnicity: What are your district’s collection and reporting procedures for students who don’t self-report race and/or ethnicity? Is there written documentation from your district regarding this? Can you provide me the available documents? Question 2: Communication and requests for self-report. The second question was designed to further the understanding of how the districts communicate with students and their families when requesting race and ethnicity data. This question asked: How does the school district request ethnic/racial demographics from students and/or their families? (Letters, phone calls, emails, form sent home from school, a specific process of 43 steps, etc.). . After completing the first two interviews, it became evident that this question was somewhat redundant to Question 1 and oftentimes was addressed in Question 1; however the question was retained for systematicity of data collection. Question 3: Training. The third question set was designed to establish the level of training that was offered or required as well as identify the staff and administration that were active recipients of the training. The questions asked were: Is training available for staff on reporting of race and ethnicity? What does this look like? Question 4: Documents requiring reporting on race and ethnicity. The fourth question set was designed to form a general idea of the number and types of forms used by the school district that utilize the new USED mandated seven part race and ethnicity guidelines. In addition, this question addressed the means by which this data collection was then reported to the state. The questions asked were: What documents/assessments/enrollment forms, etc., require the reporting of a student’s race and ethnicity? How is this requested from the schools? (Email to secretary, built into the assessments, will call the school if data missing, etc.) Question 5: More than one race. The fifth and final question set in the semi- structured interview was designed to gain information on the issue of reporting procedures and documentation for students who reported more than one race. This question is more specific to the topic of this dissertation and is intended to reveal what happens to the data of students who report as two races, and more specifically as Black and White. The questions asked were: On documents requiring reporting of race/ethnicity, how do your reports reflect students who report as Black and White? (Example: Black, multiracial, other, etc.). Does this look the same on assessments such 44 as (the) OAKS tests? How about enrollment forms? Reporting on free and reduced lunch? Can you think of any forms, documents, or tests/assessments that we haven’t talked about which require reporting of race and ethnicity? Phase 4: coding of the districts. Each school district was coded according to its physical location as well as where it was placed in the four-part categorization scheme (See Table 4). The districts henceforth will be referred to as Coastal, Urban, South, Eastern, Mid1, Mid2, and Mid3 (See Table 5). These schools may also be displayed with an attached reference to their size. For example, Coastal (SH) describes this district as Small with a High Multiracial population. Table 5 Districts by Size, Multiracial Population and Location District Size High Multiracial (H) Low Multiracial (L) Big District (B) Mid2 and Mid3 (BH) Eastern (BL) Small District (S) Southern, Coastal, and Urban (SH) Mid1 (SL) Research Questions and Evidence Allen Table The research questions, which were discussed in greater detail in chapter one, are described again in Table 6, the Evidence Allen Table. Within this table, a brief overview of the sample, the methods, the instruments, and the analysis techniques used to address each question are described. 45 Research Questions: Independent and Dependent Variables In addition to the Evidence Allen Table and analysis conducted, a table exploring the possible independent and dependent variables associated with the research questions was created and included in this table. The predictions and relationships of the possible response outcomes were proposed. The independent and dependent variable and predicted outcomes are described in Table 7. Phase 5: the interviews. The preferred method to complete the interviews was to be in-person in depth interviews. As previously discussed, the questions were designed to be answered within a semi-structured interview protocol which allowed for discussion and further probing when deemed appropriate. The contact protocol framework allowed some flexibility for setting up interview appointments and the researcher was able to travel to the school district offices in Oregon in order to complete the interviews. Additionally, the interview questions and protocol were designed in such a way that the interview would only require 30 to 60 minutes to complete if time was a factor for the respondent. The researcher provided the option to meet at the office of the District representative, a meeting room, or a neutral location. This researcher was flexible in permitting the meeting place to be the preferred location of the respondent. When respondent was unable to meet in person, a phone interview was requested. If the respondent was not able to accommodate a phone interview, the last resort to gain the highest response rate with the sample school districts was to permit responses to the interview questions with emails and clarification or prompts with follow up emails. 46 Table 6 Evidence Allen Table Describing the Research Questions, Sample, Methods, Instruments, and Analysis Research Questions Sample Methods Instruments Analysis Techniques 1. What are the Collection and Reporting Procedures for students that do not self- identify their race and/or ethnicity? Seven School Districts in Oregon public schools based on size and diversity. District representatives recruited from the seven districts. Qualitative: Document review, Interview responses Semi-structured interview questions 1, 2, and 4, document requests Field note review, Cross-case analysis using coding, summary tables, interpretation and descriptions of findings 2. How is Observer Identification used to racially/ethnically categorize? Same sample as above Qualitative: Document review, Interview responses. Semi-structured interview question 1, document requests Field note review, Cross-case analysis using coding, summary tables, interpretation and descriptions of findings 3. Is there Initial and Continuous Training? Same sample as above Qualitative: Document review, Interview responses. Semi-structured interview question 3, document request Field note review, Cross-case analysis using coding, summary tables, interpretation and descriptions of findings 4. How are Black and White Multiracial Students reported? Same sample as above Qualitative: Document review, Interview responses Semi-structured interview questions 4 and 5, document request Field note review, Cross-case analysis using coding, summary tables, interpretation and descriptions of findings 47 Table 7 Independent Variables (IVs) and Dependent Variables (DVs) addressed in the survey, including the predictions and/or the study of the relationships among variables Research Questions IVs DVs Prediction and/or Study of Relations Among Variables 1. What are the Collection and Reporting Procedures for students that do not self- identify their race and/or ethnicity? National, State, District and School Policies, leadership decisions, Restrictive reporting/forms Districts and school personnel will or will not have this opportunity to record race. The IVs may be the boundary in which school personnel are able to report race. Some may have knowledge of these policies and forms, and others may not. There may be conflicts across policies, forms, and decisions. 2. How is Observer Identification used to racially/ethnically categorize? Restrictive reporting/forms, Policy protocol Districts and school personnel will or will not conduct Observer Identification Prediction may suggest that there are currently opportunities to implement Observer Identification and this process will vary by district. 3. Is there Initial and Continuous Training? District Forms District Policies, State and Federal Policies Districts and school personnel will have access, opportunity, or guidelines that implement training. Findings might suggest that district personnel may have varying access and opportunity to training, and variety in breadth and depth of training. 4. How are Black and White Multiracial Students reported? Restrictive forms, multicultural competency, policy, leadership influence, social acceptability Districts and school personnel will define which racial category they may place multiracial students, black-white students, and specific reasons they may do so. Prediction may include that district personnel make this selection based on what choices are available; some may make decisions based on what will be of most benefit for the school/district/state, or perhaps based on what they deem is socially acceptable. 48 Phase 6: interview data reduction and analysis. Analyzing the data from this descriptive cross-case analysis first involved a “thick description” recording the results of the interview process data collection in full transcripts and field notes. Responses to the interview questions were digitally audio recorded and the researcher additionally took extensive field notes during the interviews. The audio recordings were then transcribed and converted into a written transcription. Field notes were reviewed and summary material developed over the course of the interview rounds process described above. Sampling of the relevant interview transcripts and field notes and representing attributes of the interview transcripts and field notes, as well as the findings, was completed using methods of integrative research (Jackson, 1980). Miles and Huberman approaches to data reduction and display were used for this portion of the transcript synthesis (1994). First, for early steps in the analysis, each relevant interview transcript was reviewed for aspects found to be associated with the research questions designed for this study. Miles and Huberman explained the guiding questions for this review process as “the main concepts, themes, issues, and questions” noticed throughout the review (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 51). Special consideration was given to being perceptibly attentive of the purposes of the study as well as application of the conceptual lenses described by Miles and Huberman. The purpose of the study in this instance was to gather evidence from the interview transcripts that would help to address responses to the interview questions and, more importantly, the research questions. Therefore, characteristics in the interview 49 transcripts that were associated with the research questions and purpose of this study were selected for further analysis. In reviewing the transcripts and field notes, using thematic analysis can assist the researcher in progressing to a second level of a more general or explanatory description of attributes of interest. Miles and Huberman discussed examining data records such as these using data reduction through identifying “emergent theme, configuration, or explanation” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 69). This allows for material to be grouped into more noteworthy and simplified units of analysis. First-level review as described here is the process for “summarizing segments of data” via iterative examination and summary of the field notes and transcripts, whereas placing those summaries into subgroups, themes, or constructs is referred to as pattern coding. For the purpose of this study, common themes were allowed to surface from the pattern coding as ideas repeated within the interview transcripts. All instances of similar characteristics between case study responses to the same question were noted. Some responses were coded as “yes” or “no” and more specific characteristics to some case responses elicited additional information which pattern coding evolved into distinct components. Other interview questions were framed to allow for more open ended responses, and pattern coding was utilized to target the similar and divergent attributes of the transcripts across cases. Once the general grouping of themes had been completed, the data was then integrated into a framework to address the four research questions. This framework consisted of tables displaying all the cases, and the themes that emerged from the interview transcripts of these cases, and how they related to answering the research 50 questions, see the Results chapter. Specific text was selected from each case as appropriate to illustrate the narrative of the thematic analysis, and displayed in the tables. Text was selected as representative of similar and divergent attributes, and because it most clearly demonstrated the thematic attributes acquired in the pattern coding expressed by the individual cases (case is a school district for this analysis). Validity. Issues of validity were addressed by taking accurate and descriptive field notes, electronically recording all seven interviews, and transcribing them. Construct validity was supported by using multiple sources of evidence from the seven districts. External validity was supported by utilizing replication logic in the multiple district sites. With replication logic, the original findings from multiple cases can be considered more robust and worthy of further investigation or interpretation (Yin, 2003). Reliability. Reliability was supported by carefully following case study and semi- structured interview protocol. Case study protocol included making careful observations and taking extensive field notes addressing specific research questions of this study, including which racial category is being selected for multiracial students in the seven study districts and why. Each district representative interviewee received their own copy of the interview protocol, so as we went through the interview the district representative was able to follow along and ask questions or provide further comments regarding the interview questions. Each respondent was offered a copy of their interview transcript; however, a follow up check of accuracy with the respondents was not built into this study. Phase 7: document study at the school level. The study design included examination of documents from the seven Oregon school districts and how they were 51 collecting and reporting on race and ethnicity. This document study looked at how school districts interpreted and implemented the revised policies on maintaining, collecting, and reporting on racial and ethnic data according to the Department of Education’s Final Guidance published in 2007. In particular, I wanted to gather explicit evidence of the written procedures utilized to request race and ethnicity data from students and students’ parents or guardians. A follow-up question to Question 1: Collection and Reporting Procedures asked districts to provide any documents they may utilize within their district in regard to their procedures for reporting the race and ethnicity of their student population. The first part of this three-part interview follow-up question asked: What are your district’s collection and reporting procedures for students who don’t self-report? This was followed by: Is there written documentation from your district regarding this? The researcher then followed those questions with a document request: Can you provide me the available documents? These documents were collected for evidence of written procedures, letters to families and/or staff, FAQs sheets, use of the Final Guidance or other documents relevant to Question 1. I was also examining to what extent these districts had adopted the recommendations of the Final Guidance and the Education Enterprise Steering Committee (2010) in utilizing written procedures of the implementation process, the Letters to Family Templates, and the FAQs sheet. A similar integrative approach as described above for the interview data analysis was employed for the document analysis. Analysis of the written documentation provided by each district in response to the follow-up interview question described above was 52 completed using methods of integrative research (Jackson, 1980). Miles and Huberman approaches to data reduction and display were employed (1994). First, for early steps in the analysis, each relevant document was reviewed for aspects found to be associated with the research questions designed for this study. Special consideration was given to being perceptibly attentive of the purposes of the study as well as application of the conceptual lenses. The purpose of the study in this instance was to gather evidence from the documents that would help to address responses to the research questions. Therefore, characteristics in the interview transcripts that were associated with the research questions and purpose of this study were selected for further analysis, in iterative analysis cycles as described above. The document analysis was incorporated into the thematic analysis of the interviews as applicable, and used in large part to address the research question on written documentation but also to inform other aspects of the study, see the Results chapter for further information. 53 CHAPTER III RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the study, organized by phases and research questions. Results omit Phase 1 through 4 as they were completed as part of the instrument development or study design, and are previously fully described within the methodology section. Results here are for Phases 5-7: Phase 5: The Interviews A total of five in-person interviews were granted and completed with site visits to the district, one interview took place via phone call and email, and the last interview took place entirely via an email process. 100% of the sampled districts provided interviews via these processes. The districts in which in-person interviews were conducted were Eastern, Mid1, Mid2, Urban, and Mid3. During these site visits I met with the district representative either in his or her office or in a meeting room. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the districts and their representatives, the researcher has chosen not to disclose the job title specific to each responder. This decision was made for several reasons; (a) two of the respondents were Diversity and Equity representatives from their respective districts and there are fewer than 10 districts in Oregon that employ individuals in this position and (b) due to the descriptions of the school sizes, diversity of students within their district, and region specificity of the district, disclosure of the title of the respondent may provide evidence for identification.. Besides the two Diversity and Equity specialists, there was one Superintendent, two Data or Technology Managers, one Director of Student Services, and one Director of Student 54 Services, Assessment, and Technology completing the interview process on behalf of the district. For the in-person interviews, I introduced myself according to the scripted interview protocol and asked permission to audiotape the interview. In all five cases, permission was granted to complete the audiotaping. In-person interviews lasted between 45-60 minutes each. A sixth interview with Coastal district was granted and completed with a phone call and an email response. It was during this phone conversation that the researcher asked the interview questions and the call was completed in about 25 minutes. This interview was not audiotaped, and detailed field notes and direct quotes were noted in the transcriptions of Coastal districts responses to the interview questions. After reviewing the field notes from the Coastal interview, several questions required clarification. An e- mail requesting clarification was sent to the Coastal District representative, it was responded to promptly, and clarified the responses. The seventh interview with Southern was provided with email responses to the interview questions. The respondent declined an in-person interview due to other commitments and deadlines, and did not have time to meet within this studies Contact Protocol and Procedures time frame. After declining the in-person interview, the respondent was recontacted with an email that included the interview questions. The respondent answered the questions promptly and a second follow-up email was sent and responded to in order to further clarify some responses. 55 Phase 6: Interview Data Results Upon completion of all the interviews, all notes were reviewed, and the audio tapes for the five districts were transcribed. From several reviews of the notes and transcriptions, general themes began to emerge across cases, as described in the Methods chapter. An initial variable-oriented strategy was implemented and a case-level display table was created to explore the themes across cases, shown in Table 8. Most or all of the schools in the study displayed some similar characteristics or variables of varying degrees. I provided a general summary of the variables displayed in Table 8 and then examined the findings relating to each of these variables as separate components. The emerging six themes were as follows: (1) the presence or lack of an explicit written procedure utilized by the school district for collecting and reporting on race and ethnicity; (2) the Utilization and Degree of Utilization in Applying Observer Identification; (3) Initial and Continual Training of Staff in Collecting Data on Race and Ethnicity; (4) Education and Communication with Students and Families; (5) Initial and Yearly Reclassification of All Students; and (6) Reporting of students with 2 or more races identified. Written procedures for collecting and reporting race and ethnicity. The first major theme to emerge was whether or not school districts had specific written procedures for administrators and staff members to follow when collecting and reporting on race and ethnicity, especially when a student or students’ parent or guardian did not report the race and/or ethnicity of the student (see Table 9). Responses varied from highly 56 Table 8 Summary Table of Themes That Emerged from Interviews School District Written Process Observer ID (OI) – No self- report Initial Training of Staff Ongoing Training of Staff Education of Parents & Students Reclassified All Students Yearly Registration- reclassification Opportunity Black- White Students Racially Identified Southern (SH) No Yes Low Yes Yes No No Unclear Eastern (BL) No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Multiracial Mid1 (SL) Yes No + Process High Yes Yes Yes Yes Multiracial Coastal (SH) No Yes Low No -- Yes Yes More than one race Mid2 (BH) Yes- High No + Process High Yes Yes Yes No Multiracial Urban (SH) No Yes No No Yes Yes No Multiracial Mid3 (BH) No No + Process Mid No Yes Yes No Mostly Multiracial --Superintendent interviewed was not in district when implemented, couldn’t answer question. 57 specific and written policies regarding this issue to a complete absence of written or verbal policy. The seven school districts were asked if they had written documentation outlining their districts collection and reporting procedures for students who do not self- report race and/or ethnicity. Five of the seven school districts reported that they do not have a written procedure for this. Out of those five, two stated that they “must” report this information and it is not an option. Three of the five who had no written process explained that an unwritten procedure does exist. For example, the respondent from Eastern district discussed a three-step process that is used in that district: The first step is an opportunity for the student to report this information on the enrollment form; the second step, if the race/ethnicity information is not completed, is a call home; and the third step is observer identification by the building principal. Out of the seven school districts, two districts said that they do have a written procedure for those students who do not self-report their race and/or ethnicity. Mid1 district explained a written six-step process that they created and utilized. The second district, Mid2, which has a written procedure, has an explicit six-step process that is to be followed in the case of non-reporting and staff is not allowed to use Observer Identification (see Appendix E). The size of the school district did not seem to effect whether or not districts utilized a written process. Three small districts did not have written procedures (75%) while one did (25%), and one large district did (33.3%) while the two others did not (66.6%). The diversity of the school demonstrated some differences. One school with low diversity had written procedures (50%), while the other low diversity district did not (50%). Meanwhile, four high diversity schools (80%) had written procedures while one did not (20%). 58 Table 9 Written Process in Place for District Staff and Administrators to Follow when Students and Families Do Not Self-Identify Race and/or Ethnicity. School District Written Process The Written or Nonwritten Process Southern (SH) No Utilized State and Federal Documents. “Students must report race and ethnicity.” Eastern (BL) No 1 st step on student enrollment form, 2 nd step call home, 3 rd step final decision based on principal observation. On registration form “If parent/guardian/student decline to identify ethnicity and Race, (Eastern) school’s staff by law will complete the information & registration process based on observation.” Mid1 (SL) Yes Explicit six-step or more process (did not receive copy). Coastal (SH) No First try to gather data from the families, and then Administrators use their training to “guess.” Mid2 (BH) Yes-High Explicit six-step process in place (see Appendix E). Urban (SH) No No district policy or procedures documents for non-self- reporters. “They have to fill everything out on the enrollment form.” Mid3 (BH) No “Principals instructed when new students decline marking, have secretaries take (incomplete) document to records clerk, they talk to families about why we need info.” Observer identification. The second major theme to appear in the interviews was the means in which Observer Identification (OI) was used in each of the seven school districts. Under the Final Guidance of the Department of Education (2007), districts are required to conduct Observer Identification when students or students’ parent or guardian do not self-identify. Observer Identification is recommended to be utilized as “last 59 resort”, and “self-identification is preferable” according to the NFES Forum Guide (p. 28). The Forum Guide also provides suggestions for procedures to be followed prior to Observer Identification such as following up with parents by phone or email. School districts implemented this mandate in different ways (see Table 10). The degree to which districts conducting Observer Identification utilized this mandate, as well as additional comments and perspectives, are discussed in this theme. Additionally, several of the districts commented on how this information is displayed in their reporting systems. Out of the seven school districts interviewed, five districts utilized the procedure of Observer Identification. Two of these districts reported that Observer Identification was ultimately the responsibility of the building principal. The other three districts were not as specific as to who is assigned the role to conduct the Observer Identification. One district said that it is done “when needed”, according to Southern district, or as in Mid1 district, “Administrators can go back and see what families have picked in the past.” All four small districts utilized Observer identification (100%), while only one big district did (33.3%), the other two big districts did not (66.6%). Both low diversity districts (100%) utilized Observer Identification, while only three out of the five high diversity districts did, 60% and 40%. Two districts chose not to utilize Observer Identification. One of these districts, Mid2, reported that “nobody in (the) building is allowed to identify.” The second of the districts, Mid3, had a specific procedure to avoid the use of Observer Identification, “all students become non-Hispanic or Latino…will check all boxes.” The student who did not self-report would automatically become multiracial as all the race option boxes were checked. 60 Table 10 Use of Observer Identification in the School Districts School District Observer Identification Responses When Not Self-identified Southern (SH) Yes “When needed.” Eastern (BL) Yes “Final decision based on principal observation.” “Schools did have the authority to identify students if the individual did not self-identify.” “There is an Observer ID check box.” Mid1 (SL) Yes “Administrators can go back and see what families have picked in the past. … In past records” or "Kids get checked for every single one.” Coastal (SH) Yes “I am not happy with the system. … There is a strong feeling that how we are doing it is the way the State wants it to be done.” Mid2 (BH) No “Nobody in building is allowed to identify.” Urban (SH) Yes “It is not the school secretaries’ responsibility. … It is actually the building principals’ responsibility.” Mid3 (BH) No “All students become non-Hispanic or Latino. … Will check all boxes.” Training. The third major theme to develop concerned district training on the revised policies and procedures for reporting on race and ethnicity. Responses to this topic included initial training as well as continual training and evaluation of the new policies. Participation of districts with training and differences in training were markedly varied. In addition, variance existed in key participants’ training. Furthermore, the degree to which districts emphasized or practiced continual training and evaluation of the use of the new collecting and reporting policies is explored. Initial training. Initial training of staff and administration varied. Training ranged 61 from little or unclear training, such as distribution of State documents and verbal explanations from school secretaries, to a high degree of initial training including workshops that had the new implementation policies as a key component of the discussions (see Table 11). The NFES Forum Guide (2008) states that “training and communication, available to state-, district-, and building-level staff, are essential to successful implementation of the new race and ethnicity standards” (p. 15). Six districts reported compliance with some level of training, while a seventh district, Urban, did not confirm compliance. Of the six compliant districts Eastern, Mid1, Mid2, and Mid3 reported compliance of moderate to high degree, specifying multiple groups involved in the training, or frequent trainings and/or workshops. Two of the districts reported more minimal training; Southern reported unspecified participants in their school district watching a video training, and Coastal reported that the training administrators received in that district was insufficient. Three of the four small districts (75%) completed initial training while one (25%) did not. Both of the big districts (100%) reported initial training. The two low diversity districts reported initial training (100%) while four of the high diversity districts (80%) reported this as well, and one high diversity did not (20%). Initial training of the staff and administration occurred in six of the seven school districts. Southern district reported that their training consisted of watching a State of Oregon WebEx video. I was unable to obtain a copy or find an online link to this resource. Other districts, such as Eastern were more elaborate and consisted of end-of- year and start-of-year workshops for their registrars and “key folks” involved in the data 62 Table 11 Extent of Initial Training in the School District School District Did Initial Training Occur? What Did This Look Like Southern (SH) Yes (minimal) “We watched their (the State of Oregon) WebEx training” Eastern (BL) Yes End-of-year workshops and back-to-school workshops with registrars and key folks with student information system concerning procedural and legal changes in system. “That would have been one of the big ones we talked about back then.” Mid1 (SL) Yes With building principals and secretaries. “Those were the two that had the most hands on involvement with this process.” “With the principals it was training them on the steps and processes.” Coastal (SH) Yes (minimal) “Prior to my arrival all administrators received the training required by the State. … I did not receive it, but am told it is insufficient.” Mid2 (BH) Yes Training occurred with teachers, data teams, counselors. Urban (SH) No “It depends on what you define as training, in that I probably took 10 minutes to kinda explain it to them. … Sure.” Mid3 (BH) Yes Monthly secretary meetings to “get instruction on how to ask for the information.” Note: According to the Federal Registers Final Guidance and the National Forum on Educational Statistics (NFES) Forum Guide there is no “required training” by the state. The NFES does provide a “broad framework for training and communication” on the state level (p. 15) and the Final Guidance in the Federal Register explains procedures; however, it does not outline “required” training procedures. management systems in which this training component was a key part. Mid2 school district had specific trainings with teachers, counselors, and data team members, while Mid1 had trainings with the building principals and secretaries, stating that “those were the two that had the most hands on involvement with this process.” The other two schools 63 that acknowledged initial training were Mid3 which integrated this into their monthly secretary meetings and Coastal district which reported an undefined training that occurred before the interviewee joined the school district. The one school that did not positively affirm the existence of a purposeful training was Urban district in which the interviewee stated, “It depends on what you define as training, in that I probably took 10 minutes to kinda explain it to them…sure.” Continued training and evaluation. Some of the districts emphasized the importance of continual training as well as reevaluation of their recent adoption of the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity. Out of the seven school districts, two stated that there was an ongoing training and evaluation; four districts claimed there was no ongoing training; and one district did not explicitly state the existence of ongoing training. The two districts that used continued training and evaluation of these procedures were Mid1 and Mid2 school districts. Mid1 district shared that they integrated this into their monthly administrative council meetings as well as a long-term process of integrating the training and evaluation over a two-year period. On the other hand, Mid2 discussed a process of working with school counselors and data team members on a regular basis, stating: “We are not there yet…some buildings have taken it up…need to evaluate how process is working.” Table 12 describes in simplified form the findings of this theme. Southern was not explicit in their explanation of whether that had continual training, saying they hold “monthly meetings with registrars and office managers” and at some point made use of ODE and Federal Government materials as well as local 64 registration forms in staff training. It was not apparent if this specific training suggested in this interview question was ongoing or occurred in the past. Out of the four small districts, two (50%) reported no continual training, while one reported continued training (25%). The response for the fourth small district was unclear (25%). On big district (33.3%) had continued training and two did not (66.6%). The two low diversity schools were divided; one reported continual training (50%) while the other did not (50%). Three of the high diversity schools did not have continual training (60%), while one did (20%). The fifth high diversity response was unclear (20%) Education and communication with students and families. A fourth major theme focused on the education and communication of the revised policies to the students and their parents or guardians. Resulting responses from districts and methods of communication with families were explored. Table 12 Extent of Continued Training and Evaluation in the School District School District Is Training Ongoing? What Does This Look Like? Southern (SH) Maybe (not explicit) “I meet monthly with our registrars and office managers. … We’ve utilized ODE and Federal government materials and our local registration forms to train staff.” Eastern (BL) No “Now there is no time for workshops. … Staff come back only 2 to 3 days before school starts.” Mid1 (SL) Yes Administrative Council once a month. Two years of training. Coastal (SH) No “If there is a missing piece administrators will call.” 65 Table 12 Contined School District Is Training Ongoing? What Does This Look Like? Mid2 (BH) Yes “(We are) working with counselors to understand cultural identity development” and “working with data teams…how this affects students.” “We are not there yet…some buildings have taken it up.” “Need to evaluate how process is working (selecting all for non- self-reporters). This is an evaluation year.” Urban (SH) No “No, I think that, well first of all I don’t have a lot of secretarial turnover, but if someone new were to come in, they would be getting this whole big bunch of training anyway, but, I wouldn’t probably think to include (this) as part of it.” Mid3 (BH) No “Not much on that, secretaries know the rules.” “We don’t really have any set training because we don’t really have much turnover.” “No ongoing. … And same with our principals. … Not much turnover. … Already understand what is going on.” Districts communicated the new Racial and Ethnicity categorization mandates to families in diverse ways. The Forum Guide (2008, NECS) recommended several options for communicating with parents and the public including in their publication examples of letters that could be sent out to families, as well as Frequently Asked Questions handouts. Many of the districts in this study utilized at least one these methods in their communications with students and their families. Several of these districts such as Eastern, Mid1, and Mid3 explicitly stated that they sent families information about these changes. Table 13 shows an overview of district responses to the question of communication with families. 66 Small districts and large districts alike implemented a range of resources to communicate with families. The high and low diversity schools did as well. Exact numbers for each group could not be calculated because Southern referred to “documents” from ODE, with no exact numbers. Eastern referred to a mailer, which may have been multiple documents and Coastal was not able to report on what communication and education to families looked like in their district. Table 13 Communication and Education of Students and Families School District How were the New Policies Communicated to Students and Families? Comments Southern (SH) Used documents from ODE “We used documents from ODE when the changes were first implemented to explain the changes to parents. Generally, folks no longer question the issue.” Eastern (BL) Initial mailer “District paid for mailer sent home to families initially.” Mid1 (SL) In the yearly enrollment packet: a letter from the superintendent explaining the Final Guidance, a FAQs sheet, a list of the new race and ethnicity options and procedures for completing, Web site, newsletter. “A letter was sent home to all families, information was posted on the school Web site and in the newsletter home.” Coastal (SH) Not explained; superintendent interviewed was not in district upon implementation. None Mid2 (BH) Letter was sent to all families from school district prior to implementation. A new and separate race and ethnicity form was created and sent to families; this form is part of the enrollment packet now. “Two years ago all (students) had to answer form.” 67 Table 13 Continued School District How were the New Policies Communicated to Students and Families? Comments Urban (SH) An overview of the race and ethnicity data collection in (Urban) school district. (Adopted from the U.S. Department of Education) “When we did the conversion from the 5 to the 7 the year before last, we had sent those out to everyone.” Mid3 (BH) Identification form, FAQs sheet, website “A one-time identification form sent home to all families, all students plus a FAQ sheet and it is on Web site… secretaries can (also) hand (this) out.” Reclassification of all students. The fifth theme describes the procedures of reclassifying or reidentifying the race and ethnicity of the student population upon adoption of the revised guidelines. An additional component that some districts implemented was a yearly re-enrollment process that allowed students and their families to reidentify their race and/or ethnicity if they desired. Initial reclassification of all students. Upon adopting the revised race and ethnicity category guidelines, school districts were encouraged, though not mandated, to reclassify all of their existing as well as new students with these revised race and ethnicity categories. “The Final Guidance encourages agencies to give all students (or their parents/guardians) and staff members the opportunity to re-identify their race and ethnicity according to the new categories” (2008, Forum Guide, p. 25). Even though reidentification was not mandated by the Final Guidance due to potential high cost, it was 68 required for all existing records to be updated to reflect the 1997 OMB Standards (United States Department of Education, 2007). Six of the seven districts interviewed chose to follow the recommendations of the Federal Final Guidance and provided opportunities for their entire student population to reidentify their race and ethnicity. Only one of the districts opted out of this recommendation (See Table 14). Three of the four small districts (75%) conducted initial reclassification while one (25%) did not. All three of the large districts (100%) implemented initial reclassification. Both of the low diversity schools (100%) reclassified all of their students, and four of five (80%) of the high diversity schools as well. Table 14 Initial Racial and Ethnicity Reclassification of All Students School District Initial Reclassification of All Students Comments Southern (SH) No “Only those that needed to be reclassified.” Eastern (BL) Yes No additional comments. Mid1 (SL) Yes Every year reenrollment. Coastal (SH) Yes Every year reenrollment. Mid2 (BH) Yes Two years ago all had to fill out new race/ethnicity form. Urban (SH) Yes “When we did the conversion from the 5 to 7. … We sent those out to everyone.” Mid3 (BH) Yes “Reidentification of entire student population, all active students.” 69 Yearly reclassification of all students. The State of Oregon and the Federal Department of Education do not require race and ethnicity reclassifications each year. However, some districts have chosen to reenroll or reregister all students in the district yearly and provide the opportunity for students and families to reclassify the race and/or ethnicity of their students through this yearly reenrollment process. Out of the seven school districts in this study, only two have chosen this process of yearly reenrollment of all students (see Table 15). Coastal district has selected this option, as has Mid1 which said that “each student in every building reregisters each year.” Eastern, Mid2, Urban, and Mid3 have only initial enrollment for students in their school district. Urban district stated that “it is just part of the registration form.” Two small districts conducted yearly race and ethnicity reclassification of their entire student population (50%), one did not (25%), and the fourth was unclear (25%). None of three big districts conducted yearly reclassification (100%). Low diversity schools were divided, one conducted reclassification (50%) while the other did not (50%). Three of the high diversity school did not reclassify (60%), one did (20%), and the fifth was unclear (20%). The reporting of Black-White multiracial students. The sixth and final theme that is described in the results is how districts report the race of students who identify as both Black and White. All of the school districts are required to collect data on the multiple race groups in which students identify (United States Department of Education, 2007). For example, in all of the data collection systems students who report as Black and White have both boxes marked and the data is sent to the State of Oregon with the 70 Table 15 Yearly Enrollment and Reclassification Opportunity for All Students School District Yearly Enrollment and Reclassification Opportunity for All Students Comments from District Southern (SH) NA Not specified. Eastern (BL) No Just upon initial enrollment in district. Mid1 (SL) Yes “Each student in every building reregisters each year.” Coastal (SH) Yes Registration for enrollment every year. Mid2 (BH) No No additional comments. Urban (SH) No “It is just part of the registration form.” Mid3 (BH) No No additional comments. multiple races specified. The state then codes and publicly reports these students as multiracial regardless of the specific racial groups that were identified. So, even though all of the districts are gathering data on the multitude of racial groups that students identify with, these data is not explicitly being utilized by the state. It states in the Federal Register (United States Department of Education, 2007) that “when the student has one African American parents and one Hispanic parent, the school may continue to identify the student as African American for AYP (Annual Yearly Progress) determinations” ( p. 59272). It is not stated in the Federal Register whether or not students who identified as African American and one or more other races could also 71 be accounted for in Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) reporting. However, in the school districts for this study, it was indicated that once multiple races were selected, the students then became part of the single category multiracial. When I asked the question to the districts about how their reports reflect the population of students who identify racially as Black and White, the responses were diverse (See Table 16). Five of the seven districts reported that Black and White students were usually reported as multiracial. Out of these five, several shared that they send the complete data sets to the State of Oregon, including the multiple responses as they are entered into their databases, yet when the State reports the collected data the Black and White student is reported at the state level as multiracial (Eastern and Mid1). The response for Southern district was unclear, stating: “Any State or Federal data; Post- secondary data sets, some Legacy reports have a category for multiple race. Most, including State reports and assessments, have been upgraded to allow and reflect multiple responses.” This answer was not specific enough to provide a definitive response in the reporting table. A second district, Coastal, had an unclear response as well, describing more of what seemed like the collection procedures rather than the reporting procedure, saying: “They can select more than one race/ethnicity or use the other line and write in their race/ethnicity.” Mid3 reported that in some cases for reports such as grants, they do provide disaggregated data displaying all races that were identified. Small districts reported Black and White students as multiracial in two districts (50%), while the other two districts reported using more than one race (25%) and multiple race (25%). All three big districts reported using the category multiracial 72 Table 16 Reporting of Black and White Multiracial Students School District How Do your Reports reflect Students who Report as Black and White? Comments Southern (SH) Unclear – Perhaps “Multiple Race” “Any State or Federal data; Post- secondary data sets, some Legacy reports have a category for multiple race. Most, including State reports and assessments, have been upgraded to allow and reflect multiple responses.” Eastern (BL) Multiracial “So much data sent to state that isn’t used.” Mid1 (SL) Multiracial “Flagged multiracial. … More than one box checked (they) become multiracial.” “When reporting to (the) State they get all the information, the State is coding as multiracial.” Coastal (SH) More than one race* “They can select more than one race/ethnicity or use the other line and write in their race/ethnicity.” Mid2 (BH) “Multiracial” “For me that is a problem (kids lose their specific multiracial characteristics, grouped into a single category.)” Urban (SH) Reported as multiracial, Black and White “reported as multi.” when we switched to the seven.” “We will have stopped looking.” “Having to tease out, if a kid is listed as multi, having to tease out which columns he or she is checking to make him or her multi could be a pain in the butt.” Mid3 (BH) Mostly as multiracial “Provide reports for grants that disaggregate racial subgroups.” * Note: This district did not provide documents and it was unclear if filling in their own race/ethnicity was in addition to the seven required options according to the Final Guidance. 73 (100%). Both low diversity schools used the term multiracial (100%), and three of the five high diversity schools used multiracial (60%). One high diversity school reported Black-White students as more than one race (20%) and the other stated they use multiple race (20%). Results of Analysis B: Document Analysis Documents presented to the researcher as well as documents acquired by the researcher to address this question are displayed in Table 17. When districts did not provide documents, the researcher searched the district website for relevant document associated with registration, FAQs on race and ethnicity, policies and procedures for collecting race and ethnicity information, and any other relevant data related to Question 1 of the interview protocol. Several of the districts provided specific and personal forms and documents. Mid1, Mid2, and Mid3 all provided at least three documents: letters or information sheets for families, race and ethnicity form or student enrollment form, data form, and Mid2 even included their six-step process for collecting data on students who do not self- identify. For those districts which did not provide documents (Southern, Coastal, and Urban), the researcher spent one hour following each completed interview and conducted a search of the districts website and located no documentation relevant to interview Question 1. 74 Table 17 List of Documents and General Descriptions School District Documents Provided Comments Southern (SH) Did not provide. Researcher completed a search on district website and found no relevant documentation. Eastern (BL) 1. Current enrollment form; 2. Final Guidance Short Version (see comments). Final Guidance Short Version can be acquired on ODE website using ‘ethnic’ as search term. Mid1 (SL) 1.Letter to Family from Superintendent; 2. Race and Ethnicity Form sent to parents; 3. School A specific Student data sheet; 4. Enrollment Form; 5. School B specific student data sheet. All materials provided to researcher as email attachments within a week of completing in person interview. Coastal (SH) Did not provide. Researcher completed a search on district website and found no relevant documentation. Mid2 (BH) 1. Six-Step Process (see comments); 2. How to complete the Race & Ethnicity Form for families; 3. Race and Ethnicity Information Form. Included date specific timeline as well as schematic diagram, two pages. Urban (SH) Did not provide. “No documentation about how to make that guess”. Mid3 (BH) 1. ESIS printout of Blank screenshot of data entry form (see comments); 2. FAQs sheet for Families and Students; 3. Student Information form. The ESIS 75 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION Racial categorization policies and procedures for multiracial students in the public school system introduce opportunities and challenges. Whereas the new policies were designed to better account for the identities of multiracial students, responses from the school districts in Oregon indicate that even with the new policies and procedures, the unique identities of multiracial students become invisible in a single category termed multiracial. Findings further indicate that consistency and depth of policy implementation varied substantially across the seven Oregon school districts. Overall, racial categorization policies, mandated by the U.S. Department of Education, are embedded within the exosystem of the ecological framework discussed in Chapter I. In the sections below, the discussion for each research question examines how Federal policy from the exosystem interacts with the schools and communities within the mesosystem as mandates are implemented and modified. As part of this discussion, summary tables are provided here aggregating into new displays the disaggregated results information previously provided in Chapter III. The implementation of these policies and procedures impacts the microsystem as districts and schools communicate with students and parents or guardians regarding these policies. Influences flow back through the system as well. The summary tables are intended to show and discuss this exosystem viewpoint in this chapter. 76 Research Question 1: What Are the collection and Reporting Procedures for Students That Do Not Self-identify Their Race and/or Ethnicity? When inquiring about the collection and reporting procedures of the sampled Oregon school districts, several results emerged. The first of these was the varied ways in which school districts incorporated written documentation to explain the new policies and procedures to their employees and staff within the school district. Some districts had very specific written document that explained the stages and steps that were to be taken when a student or a student’s parent or guardian did not specify the race and/or ethnicity of the student, whereas others did not. The best example of this was the six-step process from Mid2; each of the six steps included the roles of which office or person was responsible for the action, the second part was a full explicit description of the action to take, and the third part was the time frame in which the action was to occur.. The final step of this six- step process also included the last resort procedures to be followed if parents still to not identify the race or ethnicity of their child. An exosystem summary of responses from the districts relevant to Research Question 1 is displayed in Table 18. The themes of written procedures as well as communication and education of family are displayed in this table. I have included both of these themes because they most accurately address Research Question 1. The Final Guidance (United States Department of Education, 2007) recommends that students have “adequate opportunity” to report their own race and ethnicity. It goes on to say that this opportunity can be validated by providing a thorough and explicit written process (p. 59276): 77 Table 18 Research Question 1: What Are the Collection and Reporting Procedures for Students That Do Not Self-identify Their Race and/or Ethnicity? Collection and Reporting Procedures Family Communication School District Written Oral Only State or Federal Documents Letter or Mailer Home FAQ’s Newsletter New Race & Ethnicity Form Web- site State or Federal Documents Southern (SH) No .No Yes No No No No No Yes Eastern (BL) No Yes No Yes No No No No No Mid1 (SL) Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Coastal (SH) No No No -- -- -- -- -- -- Mid2 (BH) Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Urban (SH) No No No No No No No No Yes Mid3 (BH) No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No 78 If all individuals are not provided the opportunity to identify their race and ethnicity in a manner that is consistent with the 1997 Standards, data within schools, school districts, and States will not accurately reflect the diversity of the population Mid2 school district explicitly stated at the heading of their six-step process: “(Mid2 school district) has developed the following six-step process to inform, facilitate, support and validate families in the racial and ethnic identification of their students” Even with a defined process of collecting race and ethnicity data on students, it is important to note that “individuals are not required to self-identify their race or ethnicity” (Final Guidance, p. 59268). One school district, Southern, did not have an explicit written process and stated in the interview process that it was not an option for their students to decline to report their race and ethnicity: “students must report race and ethnicity.” Urban school district had a similar response and no written process as well, stating “they have to fill everything out on the enrollment form.” These examples illustrate that over interpretation of demands for identification can also be a form of non-compliance. Several of the districts that had explicit written procedures and those that had procedures in place but not written, such as Eastern, acknowledged that it was not required of students to identify. Eastern, for instance, engaged in a form of informed consent by explicitly stating on its enrollment form that “if parent/guardian/student decline to identify ethnicity and Race (the) schools staff by law will complete the information & registration process based on observation.” Overall, the school districts that implemented a written procedure, and even an unwritten but explicit process of steps, seemed to have developed a greater understanding of the Final Guidance regarding policies for students and parents who choose not to 79 identify their race and ethnicity. This can be seen by the six-step process of Mid2 as well with Mid1. Mid 1 has demonstrated in Table 18 that they not only had a written process for implementing procedures to follow when a student does not self-identify, but they also utilized many forms of communication to families that were suggested. These districts transformed the policies and procedures created within the exosystem of state and Federal policies into a practical format and explicit design that directly impacted the interactions within the microsystem. One concern that lingered was the absence of the rights of a family to choose not to identify by race or ethnicity, instead, a forced identification by self or others is imminent according to this system. Based on these results, the recommendation from the Final Guidance for school districts to develop an explicit written process seems well warranted to increase the opportunity for greater validity and accountability in collecting and reporting, as well as to provide opportunity for internal conversations and processing of the policies. Having a written process that includes informed consent practices regarding Observer Identification can also provide evidence that adequate opportunity was provided to students to self-report their race and ethnicity. Furthermore, consideration should be given to students and families who do not want to be identified by race or ethnicity whether by self or Observer Identification. As part of this written process, communication with parents and children was a significant component as “identification of a student’s race and ethnicity is to be primarily made by the parents or guardians of the student” (Final Guidance, p. 59267). This communication is discussed further in the next section; however, it was included in some of the written procedures as well. 80 Education and communication with parents and tudents. The Education Enterprise Steering Committee (EESC) recommends “significant outreach to families, staff and communities about the changes must be undertaken for best results. Best results = accurate data, least question/concerns, least changes to demographic data, relational trust built” (EESC, p. 10). This manual was developed as a school resource collaboratively by Lane ESD, Oregon Department of Education, Coalition of Oregon School Administrators, and the Oregon School Employees Association. It also provides schools and school districts with Letter to Parent templates to explain the new policies and procedures. This manual was also a means by which policies and guidelines established within the exosystem were paraphrased and restructured to be more accessible to transmit the information through the mesosystem and microsystem. In interview Question 2, I asked how the school districts requested ethnic and racial data from their families, a summary of responses is displayed in Table 18. Most of the districts sent out some kind of mailer or letter to notify families of the changes. Many also specifically stated that they utilized documents provided by the Oregon Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education such as the FAQs sheet, a list of the new race and ethnicity options, a personal letter from the school district or superintendent, and the overview of the new race and ethnicity data collection requirements. Mid1 and Mid2 stated that they posted the information on their Web site. Mid1 was the most thorough in its communication with families as they included in their communications a letter from the superintendent, FAQs sheet, newsletter, Web site, and a list of the new race and ethnicity options. Much of this information continues to be sent 81 out in the yearly enrollment packet. Most of the districts provided this information only prior to implementation or in the initial stages. Communicating with families with personal letters, FAQs, and specifics of the new mandates may aid in providing the opportunity for multiracial students and families to feel more visible in the educational and ecological system. This is an explicit recognition that students are coming from diverse backgrounds and may have multiple heritages with which to identify. Milan & Keiley (2000) state: The failure of societal institutions to acknowledge biracial children has profound implications for the individual and family: If one does not exist in language, how important can one be to others? If language does not validate all elements of one’s family, how valid can the family be? (p. 310). Research Question 2: How Is Observer Identification Used to Racially/Ethnically Categorize? Observer Identification is required if the students and parents do not self-identify the race and ethnicity of the child. The Forum Guide states that self-identification “is found to be the most consistent and accurate mode of racial and ethnic data collection” (National Forum on Educational Statistics, 2008, p. 28). However, as last resort when self-report does not occur, Observer Identification is preferable to no data at all according to USED Final Guidance. The Forum Guide and USED Final Guidance also specifically state that school districts should have a policy that indicates the steps taken prior to having an observer complete this selection process. Furthermore, the Forum Guide recommends designating an administrator to conduct Observer Identification on the students’ behalf. Out of the districts interviewed, I explored the ways in which they were following the recommendations outlined in the NFES Forum Guide as well as the suggestions 82 directly from the U.S. Department of Education Final Guidance (see Table 19). Some of the results in this area were contradictory or unclear. For example, Southern stated: “Students must report on race and ethnicity.” Yet, when responding to whether or not they utilized Observer Identification, they acknowledged using it “when needed.” This district did not have a written process for ensuring students have adequate opportunity to self-report. Urban district had a similar response, stating: “They have to fill everything out on the enrollment form” and even made specific suggestions to Hispanic and Latino families to select certain racial groups if they were having difficulty deciding: When someone was in need of guidance we said most likely you are some combination of White and Native American, because if you are in the (Urban) school district and you are Hispanic, you are probably Central American and you are probably some mixture of Spanish and Native American. So, feel free to mark White and Native American. According to the Final Guidance, representatives from an educational institution are not permitted “to tell an individual how that individual should classify himself or herself.” (p.59269). Even though suggesting a classification is not necessarily an order, when it comes from a person of authority within a school or school district, a parent who is not familiar with the subject matter may feel it is appropriate to comply with the suggestion. Urban district did affirm that they complied with using Observer Identification as well and that the responsibility was with the building principal. On the other hand, Eastern district established that they implement Observer Identification and the final decision is made by the building principal. Furthermore, they had a specific three-step process to ensure adequate opportunity for self-identification. This district took an additional recommendation to make the Observer Identification component visible in their data sets. A separate box was checked when student data was 83 Table 19 Research Question 2: How is Observer Identification Used to Racially/Ethnically Categorize? Observer Identification School District Building Principal Check All Other Admin or Staff Not Explicit or Don’t Use Southern (SH) No No No Yes* Eastern (BL) Yes No No No Mid1 (SL) No Yes Yes No Coastal (SH) Yes No No No Mid2 (BH) No Yes No No Urban (SH) Yes No No No Mid3 (BH) No Yes No No Note: Southern stated that students ‘must’ report race and ethnicity; however, they also stated that Observer Identification is used ‘when needed’. Therefore their answer was not explicit, and did not describe who is assigned as Observer Identifier. \ entered to indicate that Observer Identification was used to complete the race or ethnicity data. This was an additional recommendation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Final Guidance. Several districts stated that they did not use Observer Identification within the buildings, but had created another process to complete the racial and ethnicity data. Mid1 stated that they will use what students have reported in the past as a fifth step, or in the case of no previous records, these students get checks in every race category as a sixth step. Before Observer Identification occurs in Mid1, the first four steps of the written 84 process must be followed: (1) Registration forms sent home (include race and ethnicity categories); (2) Secretary or Principal will call home and ask for identification; (3) Principals send a letter home; and (4) follow-up phone call from building principal. Mid2 follows a similar policy but does not allow administrators in the school to conduct Observer Identification; Mid3 will check all the boxes as well after they have selected non-Hispanic or Latino. Based on my results, when districts had an explicit written procedure in place, such as Mid1 and Mid2, they were less likely to report using Observer Identification. And in the case of Mid3, they used a families previous self-report rather than an actual observation or assumption about the students race or ethnicity. Instead, they created multi-step systems to gather self-identification from students and families. So, even though these districts demonstrated greater compliance with creating a written process and communicating with families, they implemented a system to avoid using Observer Identification. Mid1 stated that they created their system because they “wanted to know who these families were…a bit of relationship building and outreach”. Furthermore, prior to implementing their six-step process, when building principals first heard of the recommendation that they should be the Observer Identifiers, “it freaked a few of them out.” As mentioned previously in this chapter, it is necessary to consider permitting families the opt out opportunity to not have the race or ethnicity of their child collected or reported. When districts had the multi-step process for students and their families to self- report race and ethnicity, students were more likely to have an adequate opportunity to self-report within the microsystem. Errors, such as making recommendations to families 85 on what boxes to check (Urban) and the assumptions that all families are required to report race and ethnicity (Southern) did not exist in the four districts that had explicit procedures on collecting and reporting race and ethnicity (Mid1, Mid2, Mid3, and Eastern). Research Question 3: Is There Initial and Continuous Training? The U.S. Department of Education, the Oregon Schools Employees Association, the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators, ESDs statewide (exemplified here by Lane), and the Oregon Department of Education all help communicate the importance of training of school staff and administers in the area of implementing the Federal race and reporting guidelines. These organizations, as part of the exosystem, collaboratively have agreed that an administrator in each building is designated and trained as the Observer Identifier. This administrator is within the mesosystem of the school and has opportunities for direct interactions with the microsystem of the child. These groups also agree that all staff should be provided thorough guidelines and training on race and reporting guidelines (Education Enterprise Steering Committee, 2010). This collaborative assistance manual further states: All staff should be prepared and encouraged to help students, families and individuals understand the guidelines including the choices and their outcomes in reporting. Staff should be prepared to explain that Observer Identification is required in the event that self-identification is withheld, and to refer further concerns to the designated Observer Identifier in their building. Staff should receive training appropriate to their level of contact and responsibility. (p. 10) The districts in this study reported that initial training occurred in varying degree, and an exosystem summary of findings of initial and continued training can be seen in Table 20. Southern, Coastal, and Urban were found to have very minimal training that 86 likely would not cover the recommendations found in the EESC Assistance Manual because it consisted of a single WebEx video for Southern, undefined “required” training for administrators at Coastal, and a brief explanation to staff at Urban. In alignment with this trend on Research Question 3, these were the same districts that did not have explicit written or verbal processes in place on the prior research questions for administrators and staff to follow when collecting data on race and ethnicity. Those districts with more training specifically commented on the involvement of key personnel in their district and buildings. Eastern emphasized the multiple workshops that covered procedural and legal changes, and the participation by key personnel and registrars. Mid3 had monthly secretary meetings and Mid2 had significant training with their relevant staff as well. Mid1 specifically mentioned the trainings on steps and processes with the building principals. All of these districts had explicit written or verbal processes. Most of the districts reported that they were not involved in continuous training or evaluation of the newly implemented policy of reporting on race and ethnicity. Some stated that the existing staff was already trained, that there was not enough time, or that they will be contacted if questions arise. Others stated that training to some extent continues in monthly registrar, council, data team, office manager, or counselor meetings. One school district in particular, Mid2, stood out as being invested in continual training, in addition to continual evaluation of how its policies and procedures for implementing this process were working. Continuous training, and evaluation of the implementation of the race and reporting guidelines, allows the opportunity for greater transparency and visibility 87 Table 20 Research Question 3: Is There Initial and Continuous Training? Initial Training Continual Training School District More Wide- spread Minimal Unsure or None Monthly One or More Times a Year Formal Evaluation Unsure or None Southern (SH) No .Yes No No* No* No Yes* Eastern (BL) Yes No No No No No No Mid1 (SL) Yes No No Yes Yes No No Coastal (SH) No Yes Yes No No No No Mid2 (BH) Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Urban (SH) No Yes Yes No No No No Mid3 (BH) No Yes No No No No No Note:* Southern stated they meet monthly with registrars and office managers and that they have used ODE and Federal materials to train staff. This respondent was unable to explicitly state the purposeful and ongoing nature of training. 88 throughout the ecological systems. Multiracial students and families may have more voice through the types of feedback cycles often in place in continuous improvement approaches, and more opportunity to receive reliable and consistent information regarding the policies due to responsive processes. This could support feeling more empowered and recognized. Research Question 4: How Are Black and White Multiracial Students Reported? One of the purposes, as indicated in the Final Guidance, of implementing the new guidelines on reporting on race and ethnicity was “to obtain more accurate information about the increasing number of students who identify with more than one race” (U. S. Department of Education, p. 59267). Therefore, these new policies would seem to assist in allowing students with multiple racial heritages an opportunity to become more visible and acknowledged in the school systems and in the data sets. When I inquired as to how multiracial students, more specifically Black-White students, were reported and reflected in the school districts, it became apparent that the invisibility of the multiracial child continued. An exosystem summary of these results is seen in Table 21 on the next page, along with the summary of reclassification opportunities. I have chosen to display these two themes together because I am looking at whether or not multiracial students are having the opportunity to self-report their multiple heritages. Providing students multiple opportunities to report supports this. Most districts reported that even though their students checked multiple boxes to self-identify race, once they marked more than one box they become collected into a single category called multiracial. Most of the districts had an understanding that Black-White multiracial students would become categorized as multiracial. Mid2 interviewee expressed concern 89 that those students lose their unique characteristics stating: “For me that is a problem.” Several schools noted that in certain instances such as grant reports, disaggregated racial subgroups are part of their data sets. One district, Urban, felt it would be a burden to consider the multiple racial sub-groups within their district. If indeed the disaggregated subgroups are now combined and represented as a single classified group called multiracial, what is the purpose of having more accurate representation of the student population being met? The policy question becomes whether we have just replaced one flawed system with another one differently flawed. The point is that children who identify with more than one racial group have relationships with not only one, but multiple heritage groups. Disconnecting them from not only part of their heritage relationships as was done in the past is now replaced by disconnecting them from all of their heritage relationships. This would seem to exacerbate the problem rather than remedying it. The multiracial population, and in particular the Black-White multiracial population, continues to grow quickly. This paper has already discussed how academic indicators of the performance of Black-White multiracial students often lag behind that of other majority racial groups such as White and Asian, and probably other multiracial subgroups according to Kao (1999). When all the racial subgroups are placed in a single category, not only are heritage relationships disregarded but disaggregated academic progress becomes impossible to track and support if a need arises. Lee and Orfield (2006) shared this concern as the reporting of these students in a single category is contrary to the U.S. Census policy of reporting the racial combinations. They state: “It will be 90 Table 21 Research Question 4: How are Black and White Multiracial Students Reported? How Black-White are Reported Reclassification School District Multiracial or Multiple Race Some Reports Include Both Races Other Initial Yearly Other Southern (SH) Yes Yes No No No Not specified Eastern (BL) Yes No No Yes No Mid1 (SL) Yes No No Yes Yes Coastal (SH) No No Yes* Yes Yes Mid2 (BH) Yes No No Yes No Urban (SH) Yes No No Yes No Mid3 (BH) Yes Yes No Yes No 91 impossible to interpret statistics that will combine unknown groups of students from extremely different backgrounds” (p. 4). Reclassification of all Students. In order to gather student racial and ethnic data using the current system, the USED recommended that all school districts provide to their entire student population the opportunity to re-identify their race and ethnicity according to the new policies and racial categories. Out of all the school districts, only one, Southern, chose not to comply with this recommendation. Southern did not offer the opportunity for all students to reclassify, instead offering this for “only those that needed to be reclassified.” The respondent did not expand on what was meant by ‘need’ nor how this decision was made. This procedure of only selectively offering opportunity to reclassify is problematic in several areas. First, the district made assumptions that students who identified one way in the previous system would not choose to identify differently now that they have new options. For example, in the previous system a Black-White student may have chosen to identify as Black rather than White. And with the new system, they may want to identify with both of their heritages. If a district does not allow for this opportunity, their own perceptions and assumptions are what guide the identification process, and students are not provided the adequate opportunity to self-identify according to the Final Guidance (United States Department of Education, 2007). Zach (1995) asked this question: “How should anyone determine the ‘race’ of another person?” (p.125). Expanding on this question, how should anyone determine what individuals are in need or do not need to be reclassified? 92 Secondly, how students and students’ parents or guardians choose to identify racially can fluctuate (Rockquemore & Brunsma, 2002). This is especially true in the middle school and high school years, which is a time of rapid development of identify formation. When conflict arises between what the student selects and what the parent or guardian selects, districts are to consider the latter’s selection, according to EESC recommendations. In the case where the parent does not identify, but the student does, it is usually best to use the self-identification of the student before Observer Identification. The EESC New Federal Race and Ethnicity Reporting Assistance Manual (2012) states: “If a parent refuses to identify the race or ethnicity of a student, but the student later volunteers to self-identify him- or herself, the data should be used” (Appendix E-2).If the parent or guardian does not make the selection; the student’s self-identification supersedes any Observer Identification. Some districts offered that they choose to reenroll or reregister students every year. This provides the students and parents or guardians the opportunity to make amendments, to alter how they may have identified in the past, or correct any mistakes that had been made. Implications for School Districts, Policy Makers, and the Public School districts and states are required to report the aggregate data of the student population. This means that if families mark yes for Hispanic or Latino, that will be their one data point required to report at the state level, even though they are required to mark their racial designation as well. If they mark no for Hispanic or Latino, then they will be reported as one of the five racial groups or if two or more racial designations are marked, 93 they become part of a sixth racial category called two or more races or multiracial . The National Forum on Educational Statistics (2008, p.2) explains this clearly: Regardless of the race combinations of individuals, each individual must be counted in exactly one of the following race and ethnicity combinations when being reported to ED or other federal agencies:  American Indian or Alaska Native  Asian  Black or African American  Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander  White  Two or more races  Hispanic of any race. This new categorization system does allow for multiracial students to have a different classification beyond a primary race group; for example previous reporting allowed a Black-White multiracial student to be reported as Black. However, it does not necessarily represent the unique and multiple racial identities of the student. Simply based on the numbers, as Black-White multiracial students are placed in the multiracial category, the minority population of previous “major racial groups” declines (U.S. Department of Education, p. 59272). This has large implications across the levels of the ecosystem. Previously, Black-White multiracial children and young adults were most often considered as their minority race “Black” for purposes of civil rights identification (see Chapter I) as well as accountability in the areas of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), TITLE 1, and Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). School districts and states are now given the option to allocate “multiple race responses that combine one minority race and White” as their minority race utilizing previous response categories. In the interviews with the seven school districts in Oregon, 94 none of them acknowledged utilizing this system. Most of the school districts explicitly stated that their Black-White multiracial students were reported as multiracial on most reports. There is no consistency or regulation that tracks which school districts and states are disaggregating their multiracial populations to ensure civil rights compliance as well as to secure funding, obtain the intended resources for students with need, and provide accountability such as in special education, Title 1 programs, AYP and other services. Furthermore, the No Child Left Behind Act has a crucial requirement of tracing data trends over time in order to comply with civil rights and IDEA (Lee & Orfield, 2007) but such trends are obscured when data are collected in such a way as cannot be meaningfully disaggregated for the intended purposes. Thus, the multiracial category lacks transparency and visibility for understanding whether Black-White students are being placed in special education at higher rates, whether their graduation rates are on par, whether their dropout rates are higher, or whether their academic performance is lagging behind other students. Nor does this multiracial category provide the additional funding for states and school districts to support these students that may be available to them by law. Since districts are required to collect the subgroup data of the multiracial population, districts and states should also be recommended or required to analyze this subgroup data, especially for groups of students that have traditionally been marginalized and that have demonstrated lower achievement and graduation rates that qualify for support services. 95 Lee and Orfield (2006) state that the “most appropriate method of implementing an accounting solution that would reflect the growth of multiracial families would be to use the procedures for data collection and reporting adopted by the U.S. Census” (p. 5). States and the Federal agencies should request disaggregated categories of multiracial students, instead of the single category of two or more races or multiracial as is currently required. This type of accounting system within the exosystem would prevent data from subgroups of multiracial students from being considered as a single racial group. Treating multiracial students as a single category in the exosystem is from this perspective not an improvement, especially when policies were meant to address such inequities as using a monoracial categorization scheme in which the “ghost-like assumption of racial purity, with its implicit biases against non-White individuals, is still reflected in the categories of race established by the federal government and used by school administrators to report student racial data today” (Reid & Henry, 2, pp. 564-565). Trends by size, diversity, and geography. For the most part in this study there were not obvious trends in the results of research questions one through four by the sampling characteristic of size of school district. However, one trend I noted was all the small school districts implemented Observer Identification while this was not consistent across the large schools. Nonetheless, the large school districts all conducted initial reclassification of their students while none of these large school districts implemented a yearly reclassification. No obvious trends were noted with the diversity dimension among the sampled sites, with the two districts serving less diverse populations showing a similar range in different aspects of implementation and process as did the districts serving the more diverse populations. Regarding the geographical sampling, the one trend 96 noted was that school districts in the Mid region had utilized and implemented their written policies and procedures in a similar way, probably due at least in part to the shared training from an expert in the local service district office. Inconsistencies in written procedures and training. The results show that implementation of a written procedure and formal training of district staff and key personnel involved in the collection and reporting on race and ethnicity could be strengthened. Training is important because it ensures that data is being collected and reported in a consistent manner and that the mandated and recommended procedures are communicated. Additionally, when incorporating a written procedure, staffs have a template to follow to ensure that appropriate and adequate steps are followed. This template also can be used to train and educate new staff members in the district. Another advantage to having written procedures and training is the opportunity to evaluate the procedures, provide accountability, and make adjustments and accommodations for improvements. Without an explicit process and training, evaluation of the implementation of this process is very difficult. Recommendation Regarding Policies and Procedures of Racial Categorization First and foremost regarding recommendations from these results, schools and school systems need to provide an appropriate classification category for Black-White and other multiracial students in all forms, assessments, and data gathering. This would allow for a deeper understanding of our school populations and more specifically the academic achievement of Black-White biracial children. Such improvements are necessary for data to be disaggregated for policy and school considerations, and the new recommendations have not sufficiently addressed the need; indeed, may have exacerbated the problem. 97 Limitations Limitations that may have affected the results in this study include the diverse perspectives of the school district representatives interviewed. The roles the individuals fulfilled in their district and their responsibilities varied. Interviewees ranged from Superintendent to Data specialist, Community and Diversity Coordinator, and Multicultural Coordinator, and others. The professional position and responsibilities of the district representative may have influenced the motivation of implementation as well. Additionally, it may have been beneficial to interview several individuals with different positions in the district. This could provide a more robust description of how the district is implementing the race and ethnicity guidelines. A further limitation of this study was its small size, a purposive sample of seven school districts in Oregon. Although I sampled districts from varying regions, different population sizes, and varying racial and ethnic diversity of students according to systematic variation over two dimensions of school size and diversity as well as geographic location, Oregon has over 200 school districts, and a larger sample could yield greater generalizability. An additional limitation of the study was the lack of depth and breadth in some responses. For example, one of the interviews was completed through emails. This did not allow me as much flexibility in follow-up prompts although the exchange of emails did provide follow-up opportunities to expand on responses. Several factors could have improved the reliability of this study. First, it would have increased reliability of this study to have a second coder for the interview transcripts. Another way to improve the reliability would have been to have each of the 98 respondents review a copy of their transcripts for accuracy; this linkage check could have been built into the study as a follow up protocol. Implications for Further Research This study shows considerable difference in how the policies and procedures for the collecting and reporting of race information are followed in the sampled districts in the State of Oregon. Several implications for further research are indicated by this study. First, a full program evaluation examining the level of implementation of policies and procedures utilized in school districts across the state would be helpful. Evaluation questions should inform on the key personnel involved, communication and satisfaction within the community (families and staff), allocation of funding for multiracial population subgroups, and ways in which the district utilizes its racial data for multiracial subgroups, including how data are aggregated and analyzed. Secondly, I recommend further study of teacher perceptions and expectations of Black-White multiracial students within the microsystem, and how this affects the academic achievement of these students. It has been confirmed in a study by Tenebaum & Ruck (2007) that “teachers held lower expectations for African American Students … than for European American students” (p. 253). Do teachers additionally have lower academic expectations for those with Black and White heritage, continuing the historical trend of recognizing individuals based on their marginalized race? What are the implications for Black-White multiracial students? Without disaggregated data from the Oregon Department of Education within the exosystem, it will be difficult to know whether this group is achieving below their potential. Therefore, this microsystem study 99 would allow for a greater understanding of a more directly influential component, the teacher, on the development of the student. As the interviews proceeded, I began to build an understanding that the depth of the policy implementation might be somewhat related to whether the district was motivated internally by the student population and school climate or motivated by the Federal and State regulations and policies. A third future research question could consider this topic. Such research might inform us on whether more internally motivated districts were perhaps more likely to implement more of the recommendations proposed in the Final Guidance. These recommendations included those that were discussed in the research questions such as written procedures, conducting OI, and training. I did note some trends. For example, Southern District had no written process, used State and Federal documents, claimed students “must” report/ethnicity, used OI “when needed,” trained with only a WebEx video, was unclear about continued training, and used ODE documents for communication with families. In future work this might be considered a Weakly Implemented profile (WI) as compared to others that might show a more Strongly Implemented profile (WI). This is beyond the scope of this data collection and study, but is generative research suggested by this study. Finally, it could be important to institute an accountability study in the state. This should examine how the newly recommended reporting practices may be impacting student identification for programs and services for which they qualify. Refinement may be in order to the school implementations of the federal recommendations, in order to avoid detrimental effects and unintended consequences. The reporting changes were 100 intended to be in the best interests of students and parents, and to support voice, visibility and respect for the growing numbers of students with multiple racial heritages. Unintended consequences could derail the effort if students are simply aggregated into new groups of limited meaningfulness. Summary The primary purpose of this study was to explore the ways in which the sampled school districts in Oregon understood and implemented policies and procedures for the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity, especially as related to multiracial students. A motivating factor was that as Black-White multiracial children become a more visible part of our communities, it is important that policies mandated by the Federal government move through the ecosystems and provide the opportunity for multiracial students to self- identify their multiple heritages. The multiple ways in which students identify can then be collected and reported back through the layers of the ecosystem. Therefore, those within the microsystem become more empowered and visible at the macrosystem level. Findings revealed that policies and procedures are mandated or recommended at the macrosystem level, claiming to allow a more accurate representation of the multiracial population. Yet, even though this data is reported out at microsystem by the student and students’ parent or guardian, it halts at the mesosystem level, not permitting the representation of multiracial subgroups to become visible or recognized within the exosystem. if information often so carefully collected is tossed aside it can seem deprecating and pointless to the multiracial student and families, and does not create a better or more accurate system for collecting data on the multiracial population. The revised 101 categorization system was “designed to obtain more accurate information about the increasing number of students who identify with more than one race” (Final Guidance, p. 59267). Based on the results of this study, this purpose is not being met in Oregon. Racial categorization continues to be a social construct within the macrosystem of the United States, and some have theorized that ‘race’ has “evolved out of a historical need to create a hierarchy that would maintain the status quo of White supremacy and privilege in the United States” (Gillem, et al., 2001, p. 183). As the racial categorization systems continue, and attempts are made to make this system a more accurate representation of our population, there continues to be discontent. Caballero et al (2007) further explains this saying “there is a tension between wishing to avoid reproduction of essentialist categories and wanting to reflect and analyze lived experiences of those who identify – or are identified – as inhabiting these categories” (p. 357). With this in mind, it is important to realize that the population is not made up of monoracial individuals and those who can readily be classified together into a single category. In order to confront inequities in the school system it is necessary to examine all subgroups of the multiracial population, especially Black-White multiracial students who have historically been considered and often self-identified as Black based upon the ‘one drop rule’ or norms of hypodescent (Brunsma, 2006). Multiracial youth represent an increasingly growing population and should be visibly and formally recognized for all parts of their heritage. Gillem et al (2001) states: “biracial people demonstrate internalized oppression if they reject either part of their heritage” (p. 183). It is even more important that students and their families are not only provided this opportunity, but that 102 this disaggregated data is utilized and made visible to researchers, families, institutions, educators, and society as a whole that function within this exosystem. 103 APPENDIX A NAEP GRANT PROPOSAL NAEP GRANT PROPOSAL for 1995 Name of Institution: James Madison University Principal Investigator: Joseph P. Meyer RFA Goal: Measurement Title: A Comparison of Bridging Methods in the Analysis of NAEP Trends with New Race and Ethnicity Subgroup Definitions Purpose: The new federally mandated race and ethnicity categories may affect the composition of all race and ethnicity subgroups in future national assessments. This project will evaluate the extent to which the new multiracial reporting format may impact NAEP long-term trends and test four bridging methods that may help preserve existing NAEP subgroup trends. Data: 1990–1999 NAEP nine-year-old reading trend data and simulated data sets projecting NAEP trend data for five assessment cycles. Population(s): U.S. nine-year-old public and private school students in the 1990–1999 assessment years. Key Measures: Five standard NAEP trend categories for student race and ethnicity; new mandated race/ethnicity categories allowing for multiracial and ethnic affiliation; other background variables from NAEP will be identified during the study which support the classification of students into “parent” categories which facilitate linking assessments across years. Data Analytic Strategy: This project consists of two studies. Study one is an exploratory analysis of the NAEP long-term trend data for nine-year-olds in reading from 1990–1999. This study is identifying the relationships among background items, race/ethnicity subgroup membership and plausible values and tracking how these relationships have changed over time. Study two is creating simulated NAEP data sets for five future years which include the multiracial and ethnicity categories and applying four possible bridging methods to link the simulated long-term trend data back to the NAEP trend data. Bridging methods are being used to classify simulated students who selected the multiracial and ethnic categories into “parent” categories that can be linked to past NAEP trend data. Four bridging methods will be compared in study two: two non-background information methods, one background information method, and one “two or more races” method. The efficacy of each bridging method can be determined by comparing its classification of simulated students to the known parent groups used to create the simulated data. The best of the four bridging methods will be determined by a fully crossed factorial ANOVA of their classification accuracy. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/researchcenter/naepgrants2005onward.asp 104 APPENDIX B DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FINAL GUIDANCE 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 APPENDIX C CONTACT PROTOCOL DIAGRAM Inital Contact with Oregon School Districts March 28, 2012 No Response (NR)(5) Send Second Email (SSE) 2nd Contact with Oregon School Districts April 4, 2012. Referred On (RO)(1) Requested More Info (RMI)(1) Agree to Meeting (AM)(1) Provided Documents (PD)(0) E-mail New Contact (ENC) Send 2nd Email- Provide Info & request meeting (SSERM) Set Meeting (SM) Follow up email- request school contact (FURS) 3rd Contact with Oregon School Districts April 11, 2012. NR Phone Call RO Phone New RMI Phone Call AM SM PD FURS NR Phone Call RO Phone New RMI Phone Call AM SM PD FURS Have MeetingNR Phone Call RO Phone New RMI Phone Call AM SM PD FURS 4th and Last Contact with Oregon School Districts April 18, 2012. NR Phone Call and Email RO Phone Call and Email RMI Phone Call and Email AM SM PD FURS Contact Completed with Oregon School Districts April 25th, 2012 (if appointments are set, contact can extend beyond this date but must be completed by June 10, 2012) Arrange visit with school in district Call and Set visit with school in district 119 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Semi-Structured Interview for Race/Ethnicity Categorization Dissertation Introduction My name is Dena Luworo and I am a doctoral candidate in Educational Leadership at the University of Oregon. I am conducting a policy analysis and gathering documentation on policies and collection/reporting procedures on racial categorization in Oregon Public schools. I am most interested in the policies around self-reporting and reporting of students with two or more races, in particular those students who identify as Black and White. My research has been cleared by the U of O Internal Review Board (IRB) and my approved Human Subjects Protocol is on file and current (12172010.012). Please contact Office for Protection of Human Subjects at 541-346-2510 or my advisor Dr. Kathleen Scalise at kscalise@uoregon.edu for further information. If you are unsure about any response or you choose not to answer any question, please let me know and we can skip the question. Please let me know if you have questions at any time. I will be recording our conversation so that I can take more accurate notes, no one else will have access to the recording or notes. Do you have any questions or concerns at this time? New Federal Requirements for reporting race and ethnicity were adopted by the US Department of Education and in October of 2007 these adoptions became part of the Federal Registry. In 2008, the National Forum on Educational Statistics Published “Managing an Identity Crisis: Forum Guide to Implementing New Federal Race and Ethnicity Categories”. It is this document that the state of Oregon uses as a guide for their school districts and schools to collect and report on race and ethnicity for their student populations. These guidelines allow for students to report their multiple racial heritages when applicable, such as Asian and White or American Indian and Black. Some school districts began to implement these changes almost immediately, while others allowed several years to adopt these revisions. The purpose of this policy analysis is to better understand how a sample of school districts and schools across Oregon have been implementing these policies, as well as how the collection and reporting procedures are implemented. The following questions will help me to get a general idea of how this data collection and reporting process work in your particular school district or school. Part of this includes what type of documents require reporting of race and ethnicity data, what type of training or literature is available to staff and administrators who are responsible for making sure race and ethnicity are reported (especially when selecting appropriate categories for students who are not self-reported), and what reporting of children who are identified multiple races (such as Black and Caucasian) looks like at school and district levels. Question 1: COLLECTION AND REPORTING PROCEDURES What are your districts collection and reporting procedures for students who don't self- report race and/or ethnicity? Is there written documentation from your district regarding this? 120 Probes-“what you’re saying is...”, “anything else you can think of?”, “MmmmHmm…”, “Go on...”, “Interesting, what else can you think of?”, “tell me more about that”, “thank you for that information, can I now ask you about-------“ Question 2: COMMUNICATION AND REQUESTS FOR SELF-REPORT How do the school district’s request ethnic/racial demographics from students and/or their families? (Letters, phone calls, emails, form sent home from school, a specific process of steps, etc..) Probes-“what you’re saying is...”, “anything else you can think of?”, “MmmmHmm…”, “Go on…”, “Interesting, what else can you think of?”, “tell me more about that”, “thank you for that information, can I now ask you about-------“ Question 3: TRAINING Is training available for staff on reporting of race and ethnicity? What does this look like? Probes-“what you’re saying is...”, “anything else you can think of?”, “MmmmHmm…”, “Go on..”, “Interesting, what else can you think of?”, “tell me more about that”, “thank you for that information, can I now ask you about-------“ Question 4: DOCUMENTS REQUIRING REPORTING ON RACE/ETHNICITY What documents/assessments/enrollment forms, etc. require the reporting of a student’s race and ethnicity? How is this requested from the schools? (Email to secretary, built into the assessments, will call the school if data missing, etc.) Probes-“what you’re saying is...”, “anything else you can think of?”, “MmmmHmm…”, “Go on...”, “Interesting, what else can you think of?”, “tell me more about that”, “thank you for that information, can I now ask you about-------“ Question 5: MORE THAN ONE RACE On documents requiring reporting of race/ethnicity, how do your reports reflect students who report as Black and White? (Example: Black, multiracial, other, etc...). Does this look the same on assessments such as Oaks tests? How about enrollment forms? Reporting on Free and Reduced lunch? Can you think of any forms, documents, or tests/assessments that we haven’t talked about which require reporting of race and ethnicity? Probes-“what you’re saying is...”, “anything else you can think of?”, “MmmmHmm…”, “Go on.”, “Interesting, what else can you think of?”, “tell me more about that” END OF INTERVIEW Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and talk about these issues. Would you be willing to have me contact you if there are follow up questions or to confirm information we talked about today? Yes No Would you like me to email you a copy of the notes from today? Yes No Again thank you for your time and expertise, please feel free to contact me at dluworo@uoregon.edu or call/text me at 541-337-8917 121 APPENDIX E SIX-STEP PROCESS 122 123 REFERENCES CITED Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2005). The association between implicit and explicit prejudice: The moderating role of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 361-366. Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742. Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed) (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, U. M. (1995). Black/White interracial young adults: Quest for racial identity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 125-130. Brown, U. M. (2001). The interracial experience: Growing up Black/White racially mixed in the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger. Brunsma, D. L. (2005). Interracial families and the racial identification of mixed-race children: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Social Forces, 84, 1131-1157. Brunsma, D. L. (2006). Public categories, private identities: Exploring regional differences in the biracial experience. Social Science Research, 35, 555-576. Caballero, C., Haynes, J, & Tikly, L. (2007). Researching mixed race in education: Perceptions, policies, and practice. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10, 345-362. Cline, T., de Abreau, G., Fihosy, C., Gray, H., Lambert, H., & Neale, J. (2002). Minority ethnic pupils in mainly white schools (London, Department for Education and Skills). Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design; Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit Attitude Measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science, 12, 8. 124 Daniel, G. (1996). Black and white identity in the new millennium: Unsevering the ties that bind. In Root, M. P. (Ed.), The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier (pp. 121-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davis, F. J. 1995). The Hawaiian alternative to the one-drop rule. In Zack, N. (Ed.), American Mixed Race: The Culture of Microdiversity (pp. 115-131). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. DeBose, H. L., & Winters, L. I. (2003). The dilemma of biracial people of African American descent. In New faces in a changing America: Multiracial identity in the 21 st century, edited by L. I. Winters and H. L. DeBose. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Education Enterprise Steering Committee (EESC) (2010). New Federal Race and Ethnicity Reporting Assistance Manual. Retrieved from Education Enterprise Steering Committee website: http://www.oregoneesc.org/content/federal-race-and- ethnicity-reporting-assistance-manual Fernandes, R. M. (2005). The schooling experiences of Black-White biracial youth: When gray matters more than black and white. (Doctoral dissertation, Emory University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 1601. Fowler, F. J. (2002).Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gillem, A. R., Cohn, L. R. (2001). Black identity in biracial Black/White people: A comparison of Jacqueline who refuses to be exclusively Black and Adolphus who wishes he were. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 182-196. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.7.2.182 Harris, D. (2003). Review of Beyond Black: Biracial identity in America by Kerry Ann Rockquemore & David L. Brunsma. Social Forces, 82, 436-437. Harris, D. & Sim, J. (2002). Who is multiracial? Assessing the complexity of lived race. American Sociological Review, 67, 614-627. Harris, D. (2002). Does it matter how we measure? Racial classification and the characteristics of multiracial youth. In the New Race Question, edited by J. Perlmann and M. Waters. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Harris, D. (2001, March). The educational costs of being multiracial: evidence from a national survey of adolescents. Paper presented at annual meeting of Population Association of America, Washington, D.C. Herman, M. (2004). Forced to choose: Some determinants of racial identification in multiracial adolescents. Child Development, 75, 730-758. 125 Herman, M. (2002). The Black-White-Other test score gap: Academic achievement among mixed race adolescents. Working Paper at Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, 1-41. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Levin, D. T., & Bananji, M. R. (2011). Evidence for hypodescent and racial hierarchy in the categorization and perception of biracial individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 492-506. Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta- analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self- report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385. James, D. M. (2008, March). Schooling of the Black-White child. Poster session presented at the conference of American Education Research Association (AERA). New York, NY. Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 33, 14-26. Kao, G. (1999). Racial identity and academic performance: An examination of biracial Asian and African American youth. Journal of Asian American Studies, 2, 223-249. Korgen, K. O. (1999). From Black to biracial: Transforming racial identity among Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger. Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (2006). Data Proposals Threaten Education and Civil Rights Accountability. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2007. Downloaded on November 11, 2007 from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ pubs/main2007/2007494.asp Lee, S. M. & Edmonston, B. (2005). New marriages, new families: U.S. racial and Hispanic intermarriage. Population Bulletin, 60, 3-36. McClurg, L. (2004). Biracial youth and their parents: Counseling considerations for family therapists. The Family Journal, 12, 170-173. McLoyd, V. C., Cauce, A. M., Takeuchi, D., & Wilson, L. (2000). Marital processes and socialization in families of color: A decade review of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1070-1093. Milan, S., & Keiley, M. (2000). Biracial youth and families in therapy: Issues and interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26(3), 305-315. 126 Nobles, M. (2000). Shades of citizenship: Race and the census in modern politics. Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2007). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2007. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2007/2007494.asp National Center for Educational Statistics (2001). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001/ National Forum on Education Statistics, Race/Ethnicity Data Implementation Task Force. (2008) Managing an Identity Crisis: Forum Guide to Implementing New Federal Race and Ethnicity Categories (NFES 2008-802). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. National Opinion Research Center (2002). University of Chicago. Accessed online at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Website/Browse+GSS+Variables/Collections/ Oregon Department of Education (2012). 2011-2012 Enrollment by Student Ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/sfda/reports/r0067Select2.asp Park, R. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 881-892. Princeton Survey Research Associates (2003). Public Agenda Issue Guides, Race: Bills and proposals; Most Americans do not object to interracial dating or marriage. Survey sponsored by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved November 10, 2007, from www.publicagenda.org/issueshome.cfm Reid, E. & Henry, G. (2000, February). Waiting to excel: Biraciality in the classroom. In National Association of African American Studies & National Association of Hispanic and Latino Studies 2000 Literature Monograph Series (pp. 555-586). Houston, TX. Rockquemore, K. A. (2002). Negotiating the color line: The gendered process of racial identity construction among Black/White biracial women. Gender Society, 16, 485- 503. Rockquemore, K.A. & Brunsma, D.L. (2002). Beyond Black: biracial identity in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Root, M. P. (2004). Multiracial families and children: Implications for educational research and practice. In J. A. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education 2nd edition, (pp. 110-124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 127 Root, M. P. (Ed.) (1995). The multiracial experience: Racial borders as the new frontier. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sands-O’Connor, K. (2001). Why are people different?: Multiracial families in picture books and the dialogue of difference. The Lion and the Unicorn, 25, 412-426. Schein, E. H. (1995). Kurt Lewin’s theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Retrieved February 15, 2010 from http://www.a2zpsychology.com/articles/kurt_lewin's_change_theory.htm Schwartz, W. (1998). The schooling of multiracial students (Report No. 138). New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425249). Shih, M., Bonam, C., Sanchez, D., & Peck, C. (2007). The social construction of race: Biracial identity and the vulnerability to stereotypes. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 125-133. Spencer, M.B. & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity Processes among Racial and Ethnic Minority Children in America. Child Development (61), 290–310. Tenenbaum, H.R. (2007). Are teachers’expectations different for racial minority than for European American student? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253-273. Texeira, M.T. (2003). The new multiracialism: An affirmation of or an end to race as we know it? In H. DeBose & L. Winters (Eds.), New faces in a changing America: Multiracial identity in the 21 st century. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Udry, J., Li, R. M., & Hendrickson-Smith, J. (2003). Health and behavior risks of adolescents with mixed race identity. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1865- 1870. U.S. Census Bureau (2000). People Who Reported Two or More Races Are Young and Tend to Live in the West. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/census_2000/cb01cn192.html U.S. Census Bureau (2010). 2010 Census Data. Retrieved from http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ United States Department of Education. (2007). Final Guidance on maintaining, collecting, and reporting racial and ethnic data to the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007- 4/101907c.pdf 128 Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zack, N. (2001). American mixed race: The U.S. Census and related issues. Harvard Blackletter Law Journal, (17), 33-46. Zack, N. (1995). Mixed black and white race in public policy. Hypatia, 10(1), 120-132.