Linking Charter School Emergence to Urban Revitalization and Gentrification: A Socio-Spatial Analysis of Three Cities

ABSTRACT:

The link between neighborhood quality and school quality is long-standing and well established. Over the last two decades there have been several federally sponsored initiatives aimed at revitalizing the urban core; initiatives that emerged around the same time as charter schools. Despite the changing urban context that has occurred alongside charter school emergence, little research has addressed the link between urban revitalization efforts and charter school emergence. Using three cities that have experienced massive urban core revitalization and metropolitan growth since the early 1990s (Atlanta, Chicago, and Philadelphia), we examine whether demographic changes resulting from urban revitalization and gentrification are associated with the opening of a charter school. Our findings illustrate a somewhat mixed account. We find some evidence to support this link in Chicago and Philadelphia, whereas we find little support for it in Atlanta.

Notes

1 The discussion on charter schools has not been without debate and controversy. Although a major idea compelling charter school growth is that they increase achievement through their increased accountability for student performance, research indicates that charter schools do not lead to increased academic performance (American Federation of Teachers, 2004; Bifulco & Ladd, 2006b; Carnoy et al., 2005). Moreover, some argue that charters are not held accountable for poor student performance, and tend to be closed by authorizing agencies for reasons related to financial mismanagement far more often than for poor academic performance (Ravitch, 2010).

2 Varady et al. (2005) note that housing authority–school partnerships did not materialize in Louisville because it was under a desegregation order that detached school assignments from residential locations, making efforts to improve schools through urban revitalization largely superfluous and unnecessary.

3 It is important to note the differences between magnet and charter schools. Magnet schools are public schools of choice that were first introduced in the 1970s as a means of generating racial balance by attracting White students to high-minority schools through innovative curricular themes or special academic programs (e.g., mathematics and science, fine arts, business, and foreign language; Blank, Levine, & Steele, 1996). Unlike charter schools, magnets are not autonomous from the governance of local education agencies and, with the exception of their specific curricular foci, are run like traditional public schools.

4 Although charter schools sometimes limit enrollment to specific neighborhoods or geographic boundaries, in other cases enrollment boundaries may include the entire school district or city proper. Because charter schools are autonomous and are not necessarily operated by each school district, enrollment policy varies from school to school within any single city. In each of the three cities we analyze, some schools require that students reside in a particular neighborhood or geographic zone of the city, whereas other schools attach enrollment to residence in the district or city boundaries. However, even though charters may be drawing students from the entire school district or city, they are also likely to enroll neighborhood children, and may be viewed even more favorably by neighborhood residents; hence they enroll many neighborhood children because of their proximity to home.

5 We thank an anonymous Journal of Urban Affairs reviewer for this insight.