Not that markets and school-choice are fundamentally incompatible with equity-except in abstract theory, markets operate within institutional and programmatic constraints. It is almost certainly possible to design a progressively structured choice system that would favor minorities and the poor. Rather, the debate hinges on predictions about response to the needs of disadvantaged families in the rel-145 atively privatized and deregulated environment that a "markets over government" orientation is likely to develop and sustain. The concerns of market skeptics reflect both "demand-side" and "supply-side" dynamics. On the demand-side, they worry whether parents-particularly lowincome parents-have sufficient information to allow them to play the consumer role effectively and whether the values and preferences of racial and ethnic subgroups might lead them to voluntarily segregate into homogeneous school settings Proponents of school choice present market-based competition as a means of leveling disparities between race, class and performance in public school systems. Opponents see school choice as threatening to exacerbate this problem because competition for students will pressure individual schools into targeting students with the highest performance and the least encumbered with personal and social disadvantages. We suggest that some charter schools, by background and affiliation, are likely to be more market-oriented in their behavior than others, and test the proposition that market-oriented charter schools engage in cream-skimming while others disproportionately serve highly disadvantaged students. Comparing student composition in market-oriented charter schools, nonmarket-oriented charter schools, and traditional public schools in Washington, DC, we find little evidence that marketoriented charters are focusing on an elite clientele, but they are less likely than the other two types of schools to serve some high need populations. Rather than skimming the cream off the top of the potential student population, market-oriented charter schools may be "cropping off" service to students whose language or special education needs make them more costly to educate.
Objective. Debate about market-oriented school-choice proposals often centers on questions of whether they will help or hurt minorities and the poor. We examine the locational decisions of different types of charter schools in the District of Columbia (D.C.) to assess their distributional consequences. Methods. We employ ordered probit regression to estimate models of the degree to which census tracts are served by charters. Results. Charters are more likely to locate in areas with high proportions of African-American and Hispanic residents than in the predominantly white neighborhoods, and more likely to locate in neighborhoods with middle incomes and high home ownership than in either poor or wealthy areas of the city. This is especially true of those operated by for-profits and those chartered by the elected rather than appointed chartering body. Additionally, we observe charters taking political and practical considerations into account when deciding where to locate. Conclusions. Proponents claim that charter schools will locate where need is greatest, while critics fear they will shy away from neighborhoods housing disadvantaged and minority students. We find that both camps are oversimplifying. Locational patterns are more complex and appear to be sensitive to variations in the type of charter school as well as the institutional characteristics of the chartering agency. Although market incentives are important, so too are pragmatic factors and institutional context.Charter schools have erupted on the landscape of American education with a speed and scope that is surprising, especially in light of that sector's reputation for bureaucratic resistance to new ideas. The nation's first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1992. Eight years later, more than 2,000 charter schools, in 34 states and the District of Columbia, were serving over half a million students (Center for Education Reform, 2000).
No abstract
The authors analyze the census tract location of over 11,000 certificate and voucher households in Washington, D.C., and its suburbs, and compare those to the distribution of public housing and various other project-based subsidized housing developments such as Section 236. They find evidence that household mobility programs may be succeeding in the goal of dispersing affordable housing opportunities beyond the central-city boundary, but they also find evidence that market forces and personal choices may lead toward reconcentration of suburban voucher and certificate holders in neighborhoods with lower socioeconomic status and higher proportions of minorities.
Recent election cycles have seen growing attention to the role of “outside” money in urban school board elections. Using an original data set of more than 16,000 contributions covering election cycles from 2008 to 2013 in four school districts (Los Angeles, CA; New Orleans, LA; Denver, CO; Bridgeport, CT), we show how large national donors play a significant role. Our study links two dynamic fields that are rarely studied together: (1) the behavior of wealthy donors in a changing national campaign finance system and (2) the evolving politics of urban education. By examining donor networks, we illuminate the mechanisms behind the nationalization of education politics and national donor involvement in local campaigns. We show that shared affiliations through education organizations are significantly associated with school board campaign contributions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.