The original version of this tool included a bug that erroneously reversed which districts were labeled as allowing charter schools, magnet schools, and specialized schools (corrected 9/2/2026).
Diverse, integrated schools benefit the learning and long-term well-being of all students. But racial and ethnic segregation persists in public schools across the US, inequitably distributing resources and limiting educational opportunity and future upward mobility among children of color.
These disparities could continue to grow, as some federal and state officials claim that court-ordered desegregation is no longer necessary and more communities try to leave their current school districts.
In recent decades, some states and school districts have sought to use two levers to create integrated schools: school attendance boundaries and school choice policies.
Drawing fair attendance boundaries can help districts avoid reinforcing housing segregation—one of the many causes of school segregation—when they assign students to schools. Meanwhile, school choice policies can give students the opportunity to attend schools outside their neighborhood.
But how states and districts design, implement, and update these policies varies widely. Likewise, school boundary policies at the state level can limit a district’s policy choices or amplify their effects.
In an analysis of the nation’s 100 largest school districts by student enrollment, we find that districts with similar boundary and school choice policies have a wide range of school segregation levels. A district with a boundary-drawing process that involves a large amount of community input can have the same segregation level as a district that doesn’t consider community input. Likewise, districts that provide students transportation to their charter, magnet, or specialized school of choice can have high levels of segregation between white students and students of color.
Using the data tool below, school district officials, state policymakers, and researchers can explore school segregation, boundary-making policies, and school choice policies on a broad scale. Rather than determining the effects of individual policies, this tool offers insight into the complex interplay of state and district policies shaping whether students end up in integrated schools.
Note: This tool doesn’t include New York City’s public school district, as its size and unique set of policies make it difficult to compare with other districts.
Key Takeaways
School boundary and school choice policies have the potential to create more integrated school districts, but it matters how leaders design and combine policies and how these interact with state and local contexts.
We find that though each of the 100 largest school districts provides some form of school choice, levels of school segregation vary. Similarly, some districts with more transparent school boundary processes have higher levels of segregation. These findings underscore the importance of how policies are implemented and the need for more research on which policies and implementation practices lead to desegregation.
Twenty-one of the 25 states in this dataset and Washington, DC, have an interdistrict or intradistrict open enrollment policy or both. As such, 86 of the 100 largest districts are located in states with some type of open enrollment policy. More than a third of districts (37 districts) are located in states with mandatory interdistrict enrollment, while more than half of districts (51) are in states with mandatory intradistrict enrollment.
Though districts in states with no inter- or intradistrict open enrollment policy have modestly higher segregation values, the direction of this relationship is unclear and differences are small. Further research is needed to understand whether open enrollment policies drive integration, respond to existing segregation, or simply reflect broader state-level political and demographic contexts.
More than two-thirds of districts in states with voluntary intra- and interdistrict open enrollment policies have experienced increasing student enrollment in recent years, counter to national trends. This association could reflect that voluntary policies are more common in areas experiencing population growth, or that enrollment flexibility attracts families to certain states or districts.
Though some districts have limited control over their school choice policies, most of the 100 largest school districts are exercising their ability to set school attendance boundary policies. We find 88 districts have a boundary transparency score of 3 or higher, meaning they publish information on how they draw boundaries, consider several factors when redrawing boundaries, and offer one or more opportunities for community input. Sixty-six districts have formal boundary review processes published online.
Still, segregation among white students and students of color persists in almost all districts, with an average segregation value of 0.21 out of 1, where 1 represents completely segregated schools. Across all districts, segregation is, on average, highest between white and Black students (0.27) and lowest between students with low incomes and others (0.20).
This suggests that transparent boundary-making processes that offer opportunities for community input do not necessarily increase integration and outcomes may vary across certain groups. Previous research has found that school boundary changes are often met with community resistance, especially from groups that have enjoyed exclusive access to the best public schools.
Further research is needed to disentangle the relationships between states’ and districts’ school choice policies, districts’ boundary policy transparency, and school segregation. A longitudinal analysis tracking boundary policy changes alongside open enrollment policy shifts could help clarify what factors contribute to integration. Other research could explore how demographic shifts, enrollment pressures, and wider community segregation factor into school segregation and districts’ policy choices.
Understanding how state laws shape what policies school districts can implement, how districts design and implement their school assignment and school choice policies, and the nuances of policy intent and policy outcomes can help school district officials, policymakers, and researchers ensure all students have the opportunity to thrive.
ABOUT THE DATA
This tool examines the boundary policies, school choice policies, and levels of segregation in the nation’s 100 largest school districts by student enrollment as of 2023. We omit the New York City Department of Education from our analysis, as its size and unique set of policies makes it difficult to compare with other districts.
To collect boundary and school choice policy information, we manually searched through each school district’s website. We completed data collection in December 2025.
We looked at the following aspects of boundary policies:
- whether the district had publicly available information on how it draws school boundaries;
- how many factors districts consider when drawing new boundaries, including enrollment rates and student demographics;
- whether and how the community can provide input during the process; and
- whether the district had redrawn its boundaries in 2022 or more recently.
To easily compare districts, we developed a boundary transparency score, where 1 means little to no information is available about a district’s boundary-drawing process and the factors it considers. A maximum score of 5 indicates a district has information about its boundary processes online, weighs several factors during the process, offers multiple methods of community input, and has recently redrawn its boundaries.
We use the Education Opportunity Project at Stanford University’s Normalized Exposure Index to measure segregation within school districts. It represents the difference in exposure between two population groups. Take segregation between white and Black students. A value of 0 means all schools in the district have the same proportion of white and Black students, while a value of 1 means white and Black students in the district are segregated in different schools. The index also measures segregation between students with low incomes and other students using eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch as a proxy.
This tool categorizes two districts as having the same school choice policies when both their state and district policies match based on the policy categories we identified during data collection. This does not necessarily mean two districts have verbatim laws or identical implementation approaches in practice.
We use National Center for Education Statistics Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates data to group districts by region and urbanicity.
PROJECT CREDITS
This data tool was funded by the AIR Opportunity Fund. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings or the insights and recommendations of Urban experts or the underlying methodology. Further information on the Urban Institute’s funding principles is available here. Read our terms of service here.
RESEARCH Jay Carter, Shana Metcalf, Ariella Meltzer, Emily Gutierrez
DESIGN Brittney Spinner
DEVELOPMENT Rachel Marconi, Gabe Morrison, and Lydia Nguyen
WRITING Dana Ferrante
EDITING David Hinson
