Gentrification and Intentionally Diverse Charter Schools: Mapping Locational Decisions and Neighborhood Change

• In Event: 21.034 - Neighborhood Gentrification and Schools: Implications for Equity and Diversity

Abstract

In recent years, a growing number of “intentionally diverse” charter schools have been founded across the country (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2012; Russo, 2013). Unlike charter schools that exclusively target students of color, these schools aim to create racially and socioeconomically integrated environments (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2012).

In our previous research in two metropolitan areas (Authors, 2016), we found that diverse charters relied on their location as a key strategy for accomplishing those goals, often opening along the border between neighborhoods, or in communities that were undergoing demographic change. In some cases, diverse charters have relied on patterns of gentrification to help recruit diverse groups of students. In other cases, however, we found gentrification worked against schools’ efforts, as neighborhoods changed, pushing out lower-income residents.

Yet it is unclear how gentrification relates to the locational decisions of intentionally diverse schools on a larger scale. This study examines the relationship between school location, demographic change, and neighborhood gentrification. Specifically, we ask: (1) Compared to other charter schools, are diverse charter schools more likely to locate in (or in closer proximity to) gentrifying neighborhoods? (2) Are diverse charters more likely to either anticipate or follow gentrification, compared to charters more generally?

In this initial analysis, we focus on 125 “diverse-by-design” charter schools identified by a recent Century Foundation report (Potter & Quick, 2018). We geolocated school addresses and then spatially joined them to census tract shapefiles. We then examine whether those census tracts have experienced gentrification, using the measure developed in Hammel and Wyly (1996) and replicated in Wyly and Hammel (1999) and Bostic and Martin (2003), which considers median household income, college education levels, home ownership, race, age, and occupation. Those census tracts in each statistical area with the highest ranks were classified as gentrified. We conducted this analysis twice: between 2000 and 2010, and again between 2010 and 2016. Census data were used for 2000 and 2010, and the American Communities Survey was used for the 2016 data.

Overall, we find that, in the aggregate, diverse charters do not appear to be using locational strategies that differ from other charter schools. However, when looking at specific cities (Denver, San Francisco Bay Area, and Brooklyn), we see some intriguing patterns. First, it appears that most diverse charters locate near other charters, and near tracts that have gentrified or are eligible to gentrify, particularly in Denver and San Francisco. We also saw differences in our sites, with diverse charters in Brooklyn locating in neighborhoods that were different from those where other charters located. We also look at other characteristics of the neighborhoods in which diverse charters are located, including racial demographics and socioeconomic status.

This study contributes to research on diversity, gentrification, and the relationship between choice and segregation using geospatial analyses and a unique sample of schools. This study contributes to research on choice and privatization (Scott, 2009; Lipman, 2011), as well as research that has documented the relationship between choice and gentrification (Davis & Oakley, 2013; Yoon, Lubienski, & Lee, 2018).

Authors

• Huriya Jabbar, The University of Texas at Austin

• Terri S. Wilson, University of Colorado Boulder

• Michael R. Scott, The University of Texas at Austin

• Wagma S. Mommandi, University of Colorado - Boulder