Too Many White Ping-Pong Balls: The Difficulty of Diversity Maintenance in Prestige Charter Schools

• In Event: How Public Are Desirable Urban Public Schools? Theme Schools and Equity, School Choice, and Gentrification

Abstract

Prestige charter schools have a curricular theme; an admissions waitlist; and are perceived as desirable by advantaged white professionals. This paper seeks to examine how neoliberal education policies—specifically policies that promote gentrification, policies that manage charter school choice, and assessment driven reform—have made it difficult for these schools to maintain a diverse population.

In theory, school choice establishes more options for all children (Chubb and Moe, 1990), but in practice these choices are associated with a families’ educational and socio-economic background leading to more segregation (Teske, Fitzpatrick, and Kaplan, 2007; Weiher and K. Tedin, 2002). As a school of choice gains a desirable reputation, low-income students’ access may be jeopardized by the high demand of savvy middle-class parents (Cucchiara 2013; Kimelberg and Billingham 2013; Posey-Maddox 2014; Roda & Wells 2013; Stillman, 2012).

Neoliberal high-stakes accountability initiatives also influence the demographics of schools by narrowing the curricular goals of district public schools (Apple, 2006) which in turn influences advantaged parents to the alternative, prestige charter schools. The same neoliberal forces can be seen in urban development with policies that pave the way for the advantaged (Goetz, 2011; Hackworth, 2007; Lipman, 2011). The intersection of gentrification initiatives, school choice reforms, and high stakes accountability adversely marginalize certain groups who overtime become underrepresented in prestige charter schools.

This study is a comparative case study of two progressive prestige charter schools in neighboring gentrifying cities. The researchers conducted 3.5 years of ethnographic research in the communities in which these schools reside and examined existing historical school level demographic data. They conducted formal interviews with stakeholders. Stakeholders include: founders, parents, teachers, and administrators from the two schools (n =33) as well as non-charter school parents and parents, teachers, and leaders from other prestige charter schools in these communities (n= 35).

Homegrown and unaffiliated with larger CMOs or EMOs, advantaged community members founded both charters in the late 1990s with the intention to create racially and socio-economically diverse schools with progressive curricula. Yet, overtime, as the founders concur, their mission has not always been met [see figure 1]. Both communities were in the throes of gentrification when the schools were founded and the demographic changes made the applicant pools more white and advantaged.

While charter schools themselves are part of the neoliberal movement they also face challenges as a result of neoliberalism. The increasing reliance and use of test scores as accountability measures further narrows their demographic diversity as they attract parents seeking refuge from low performing district schools that parents perceive focus increasingly on testing. Due to localized control from their charters, these prestige charter schools were able to preserve curricular integrity further attracting advantaged families.

In these communities, neoliberal high-stakes testing, pro-gentrification policies, and charter school policies (such as lottery dates and loss of transportation) adversely limit opportunities for low-income students of color to attend prestige charters. Similarly, this intersection of neoliberal policies increases the number of what one charter school founder described as “white ping pong balls” in the lottery.

Authors

• Elizabeth Brown, William Paterson University

• Molly V. Makris, Guttman Community College - CUNY