Study Attacks School District

Despite a recent storm of criticism, a post-doctoral students and a Harvard professor did not refrain from attacking the desegregation policies of a Maryland school district in the final copy of a study released yesterday.

Gary A. Orfield, professor of education and social policy, and Susan E. Eaton, a visiting scholar at Harvard, were publicly blasted last month by the Montgomery County school district.

The criticism came after a preliminary copy of Eaton's study on the district's desegregation efforts was leaked to the media.

But despite a harshly worded letter from the district's superintendent to the researchers, Eaton and Orfield ultimately wrote that they had found fault with Montgomery's desegregation policies.

The central argument of the report, entitled "Slipping Towards Segregation," is that the policies of a school district undergoing integration on its own--that is, without order from court decisions or explicit laws--may have limited effects on demographic change.

"The...self-regulated policies designed to foster racial integration are unreliable and ineffective means for achieving desegregate schools and maintaining racial integration over the long term," Eaton wrote in the final report's executive summary.

This theme was also central in the preliminary report--and drew criticism from the Montgomery School officials.

Superintendent Paul L. Vance

wrote that the preliminary copy reflected "moreof an 'advocacy research' approach to this topicrather than unbiased scholarly research."

"I was disappointed by the sheer lack ofsufficient perspective, comprehension and analysisrequired to evaluate an issue so complex andsensitive," Vance wrote.

His letter, which was written after Eaton senthim a preliminary copy and asked for suggestions,was the subject of a front page article in theWashington Post. The Post also ran an editorialcritical of the preliminary study.

But yesterday, Eaton and Orfield released astatement criticizing the media for being quick tojudge their study.

"Editorial writers have been especially quickto negatively judge our still incomplete reportand our professional capabilities, rather than towait until the final report was finished," the twosaid in a statement.

Eaton and Orfield also accused MontgomeryCounty officials of trying to deflect attentionfrom the district's problems.

"The official 'response' to our report wasreally not a response at all but a strategydesigned to win negative publicity about ourreport, to discredit our research project anddamage our reputations," they said in thestatement. "We find it is common for localofficials to criticize reports that raisesensitive racial issues."

Eaton and Orfield also offered a point-by-pointresponse to each of Vance's complaints.

Montgomery County spokesperson Brian J. Porteryesterday reiterated Vance's earlier criticism.

"This document has additional information, butthe overall commentary continues the same advocacyresearch," Porter said.

"There are some things we've found that wesimply do not agree with," he added, declining tobe more specific.

Porter said he would wait before giving a moredetailed response, noting that the district hadreceived the study only yesterday.

He objected to the charges that Vance's letterwas intended only to draw negative publicity forthe report.

"That's absurd," Porter said of theaccusations. "Our letter was not released to thenews media; it was requested by the newsmedia...and all our correspondence is publicrecord."

Porter also said Vance did not give the letterto the Post until a week after he sent it toOrfield and Eaton. He also said the letter wasonly written because Orfield and Eaton hadrequested it.

Eaton, an honorary visiting scholar at theSchlesinger Library, is the author of the study.Orfield, who is the director of the HarvardProject on School Desegregation, supervised thereport and wrote a foreword

wrote that the preliminary copy reflected "moreof an 'advocacy research' approach to this topicrather than unbiased scholarly research."

"I was disappointed by the sheer lack ofsufficient perspective, comprehension and analysisrequired to evaluate an issue so complex andsensitive," Vance wrote.

His letter, which was written after Eaton senthim a preliminary copy and asked for suggestions,was the subject of a front page article in theWashington Post. The Post also ran an editorialcritical of the preliminary study.

But yesterday, Eaton and Orfield released astatement criticizing the media for being quick tojudge their study.

"Editorial writers have been especially quickto negatively judge our still incomplete reportand our professional capabilities, rather than towait until the final report was finished," the twosaid in a statement.

Eaton and Orfield also accused MontgomeryCounty officials of trying to deflect attentionfrom the district's problems.

"The official 'response' to our report wasreally not a response at all but a strategydesigned to win negative publicity about ourreport, to discredit our research project anddamage our reputations," they said in thestatement. "We find it is common for localofficials to criticize reports that raisesensitive racial issues."

Eaton and Orfield also offered a point-by-pointresponse to each of Vance's complaints.

Montgomery County spokesperson Brian J. Porteryesterday reiterated Vance's earlier criticism.

"This document has additional information, butthe overall commentary continues the same advocacyresearch," Porter said.

"There are some things we've found that wesimply do not agree with," he added, declining tobe more specific.

Porter said he would wait before giving a moredetailed response, noting that the district hadreceived the study only yesterday.

He objected to the charges that Vance's letterwas intended only to draw negative publicity forthe report.

"That's absurd," Porter said of theaccusations. "Our letter was not released to thenews media; it was requested by the newsmedia...and all our correspondence is publicrecord."

Porter also said Vance did not give the letterto the Post until a week after he sent it toOrfield and Eaton. He also said the letter wasonly written because Orfield and Eaton hadrequested it.

Eaton, an honorary visiting scholar at theSchlesinger Library, is the author of the study.Orfield, who is the director of the HarvardProject on School Desegregation, supervised thereport and wrote a foreword