Lots of things in the quoted passage.

All the districts mentioned had some “affirmative desegregation” plan that to one degree or another explicitly used race (and a goal of racial integration) in school assignments and in drawing boundaries. Madison’s has been pretty weak and indirect (the school pairs, one of seven non-weighted criteria in drawing boundaries). Others, like a 1965 Massachusetts state law were more pro-active.

The Madison practices should survive a legal challenge; they appear to be within the limits Justice Kennedy laid out (with the exception of the State inter-district transfer stuff…Madison followed the law, but that is gone now).

Evanston is the case I know best. In their k-8 schools for years they have followed a 60% guideline, with the rule that no school can have more than 60% of any racially identifiable group. This has resulted in much busing and controversy over the years (some about the idea of busing for integration, some about who is bused and who gets a neighborhood school). I am not sure the current status.

Don’t know much about John Powell, but here are some links:

CV

Kirwanin Institute

TJ

Finally got around to reading my hard copy of piece last night.

Was curious about this one paragraph and wondered if you could give us some more background, perhaps as an update, if warranted.

“Todd and her planners wanted to tackle the problem, she says, but they were mindful of going too far in their efforts and losing the support of parents. In other districts — including Cincinnati, Evanston, Ill., Bibb County, Ga., and Madison, Wis. — the reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling had been to move to dismantle racial-integration programs. Todd and other school officials didn’t want integration redefined to turn into no integration all. To get a handle on a new plan, Todd turned to an heir of James Coleman: the researcher John Powell.”

TJM

Thanks, Susan