Toward a Multivocal Research Agenda on School Gentrification: A Critical Review of Current Literature

Abstract

Debates on gentrification’s effects on public education motivated two independently conducted literature reviews about (a) how the increasing presence of middle- and upper-class residents affected public schools in gentrifying communities, and (b) what were gentrification’s effects on the schooling experiences of students who resided in the communities prior to changes in neighborhood demographics (i.e., long-term and racial and ethnic minority families). Drawing from 32 peer-reviewed studies, we find that, contrary to assumptions about gentrification’s universal benefits, the lower income and minority children of long-time residents did not always benefit from investments that usually accompany gentrification. Further, low-income and minority parents were often marginalized from middle- and upper-class social networks, and central office and school personnel were less responsive to their concerns and needs. Findings from this review reveal that existing research largely centers the perspectives of (mostly white) middle- and upper-class families in gentrifying communities. We propose a research agenda that centers critical perspectives and multivocal literatures to expand the field’s understanding of gentrification’s effects on a broader array of stakeholders and on public schools.

Notes

1 Frey (2014) refers to cities as the “major city” in a given metropolitan area and refers to suburbs as all other territory in that metropolitan area (see also Hayden, 1995; Tilly, 1998; Hudnut, 2003; Press, 2003; DeSena & Ansalone, 2009).

2 The definition of “gentrifier” is contested in both scholarship and popular discourse, and in the United States, who is and who is not a gentrifier is frequently defined by income and race. This paper uses a broad definition of gentrifiers based on residents’ income and class position and defines “parent gentrifiers” as newly arriving middle- and upper-class residents whose children are—or are approaching—school age (i.e., children between the ages of 4 and 17), and whose presence raises a neighborhood’s perceived socioeconomic status.

3 Neil Smith (1996) links the modern conception of gentrification to 17th century events, such as the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 by Louis XIV that led to “wholesale displacement . . . at the hands of landlords, merchants, and wealthier citizens” (p. 33).

4 Derek Hyra (2017) uses the term “diversity segregation” to describe a neighborhood that, on the surface, appears integrated, but is socially segregated. He writes, “diversity segregation occurs when racially, ethnically, and economically disparate people live next to one another, but not alongside one another” (Hyra, 2017, p. 9). This distinction is similar to Ansley Erickson’s writing on the difference between creating statistically desegregated schools and integrated schools with “with an egalitarian ethos in schools, social learning between young people, or full equality of opportunity and outcomes across racial categories” (Erickson, 2016, p. 21, see also, Roda, 2015; Tienda, 2013).

5 The right to the city is an idea first defined by Henri Lefebvre (1968). David Harvey (2008) described this right as “far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual right since this transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of urbanization. The freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights” (p. 23).

6 By 2005, HOPE VI had distributed nearly $6 billion in funding through 446 federal block grants. Jeff Cheng (2016) and others (see also Crowley, 2009; Sharkey 2013) have criticized HOPE VI for accelerating neighborhood resegregation, because “the replacement housing also reduced population density, exacerbating the shortage of affordable housing. Worse, only a portion of the new public housing went to old residents. The rest were forced to find affordable housing on their own. Many were scattered to the suburbs” (Cheng, 2016, p. 124).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bradley Quarles

Bradley Quarles is a doctoral student in education policy studies in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. His research interests include critical geography, segregation and educational opportunity; the politics of school choice; space, place and identity; and school exclusion.

Alisha Butler

Alisha Butler is a doctoral student in education policy studies in the College of Education at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests include the role of geography in educational opportunity, how neighborhood composition influences students’ and families’ experiences in schools, and the politics of parent engagement.