An increasing number of central cities across the U.S. are experiencing a growth in white middle-class population, which is associated with gentrification in historically disinvested and racially segregated urban neighborhoods. These changing neighborhood dynamics are starting to shift the context of urban schooling in some districts across the nation. While we know that racial and socioeconomic demographic shifts are associated with neighborhood and school gentrification, there is little conceptual clarity about how school gentrification unfolds over time and the varying conditions of schools in gentrified neighborhoods. To advance scholarship on the topic, researchers need an organizing framework. This study addresses this gap by drawing on existing research, 16 years of Census and American Community Survey data, and 6 years of district data in Austin, Texas. Highlighting Austin, an urban city with growing neighborhood gentrification, we put forth a typology to explain the experiences of schools in the district. We conclude with implications for future research.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Gentrification is happening in cities all across the United States. Consequently, some Black communities that were intentionally segregated and under-resourced are experiencing capital investments and demographic changes. These gentrification-induced racial and socioeconomic shifts impact many local institutions, namely school districts. Given this, there is an emerging body of research on schools and gentrification. However, less research has examined the actions of school districts as institutional actors in gentrification. This study examines how two school districts’ actions mediate school gentrification. Using a theorization of gentrification as a process of racial capitalism, we draw on interviews with 26 principals across both districts. Our findings suggest that districts’ actions influence school gentrification by mediating the movement of Black and other youth of color to various schools through cycles of differential investments across the districts. We conclude with implications for future research.