Study: Segregation rife at charter schools

[tonysam]

No surprise:

De facto segregation is alive and well in public schools in virtually every state, but is more common in charter schools - an educational option increasingly endorsed in state and national reform efforts, according to a national study released Thursday.

The trend is particularly severe for African American students, the UCLA researchers found.

Nearly 3 out of 4 black students who attend charters are in "intensely segregated" schools with student populations that are at least 90 percent minority, according to the study by the UCLA Civil Rights Project. That's twice the rate of regular public schools.

Almost a third of those black students are in what the researchers called "apartheid schools," where 0 to 1 percent of their classmates are white. Charter schools in the Bay Area and California have similar rates of racial isolation.

More

[county worker]

1. I thought parents chose what charter school to send their kids to.

How are students placed in the segregated schools?

[barb162]

3. That's what I thought. n/t

[paulsby]

5. your belief is not inconsistent with the article's conclusion

do you know what "de facto" means?

[county worker]

9. Yes I do, but I didn't say what was on my mind for fear of being attacked.

If parents choose to send their kids to a segregated school, what's the issue? What are we thinking we should do about it? Should we make the decision for the parents because we think they make bad decisions or something?

[paulsby]

10. oh, ok

i agree. for example, i know within some high schools kids do (for better or worse) voluntarily segregate themselves, both along racial lines, as well as "group lines" (e.g. jocks, nerds, gamers, stoners, etc.

while de facto segregation is i guess, 'bad' in some ways, the reality is that it is a reality that some parents will voluntarily choose to segregate their kids at a school that is predominantly one race or the other. over time, that can cascade and cause significant de facto segregation, i think we could agree

[county worker]

13. Yes I agree.

[sandnsea]

15. Except that isn't what the article said

It said charter schools go into minority areas where the failing public school is already highly segregated. Nobody is choosing these schools because they're segregated, they're choosing them because they're performing better than the local public school. I suppose it's possible for a minority charter school to "counsel out" white kids, but I just don't think that is going on in very many schools.

[mzteris]

20. and they're going into those areas because . . .

the kids are poor and at risk and the "public school" isn't cutting it for them. . .

You wouldn't have to "counsel out" "white kids" - they probably just wouldn't apply.

[mzteris]

6. because they WANT to go there

they APPLY!

so they can get an education without the institutionalized racism that exists in some (not all) traditional public schools.

[Hannah Bell]

46. that's the ticket. uh-huh. it's the lack of institutionalized racism in segregated schools that's

so terribly attractive.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. And charters refuse to admit certain kids

[MountainLaurel]

16. It's a more complicated issue

Some charters have an extensive application process, or require parents to turn in the application in person during working hours. If you're a parent/guardian who can't miss time from work or have a 4th grade reading level, and in a large portion of the U.S. that disproportionately applies to minorities, there's no way you're going to even be able to apply. Or, if your child has a learning disability, you're going to be steered away from that school. Again, minority children fall in the special education category in disproportionate numbers.

The Times-Picayune in New Orleans (which has been Ground Zero for the charter movement since Katrina) has done some great stories on this subject.

[sandnsea]

21. So how are these charters minority only?

If minorities can't apply to charters, how did the Bay Area end up with so many minority only charter schools?

[Sabriel]

24. You forgot to add transportation

The charter schools in my area require parents to transport their kids if they want them to attend. I doubt many two-working-parent families or no-car families can do that.

[barb162]

2. Do you see this as a neighborhood issue

that is, if a charter school is in a certain neighborhood, the students of that charter school tend to be whatever race(s) is in that neighborhood as parents tend not to send their children great distances.

[mzteris]

8. no -

from the article:

"Unlike forced segregation in the South before the civil rights movement, de facto segregation is often a product of the demographics of the community in which the school exists. Charter schools, however, are not considered neighborhood schools and are open to all students regardless of where they live.

The study looked at traditional and charter school data from 40 states and the District of Columbia, focusing on metropolitan areas with large numbers of charter schools.

Charter schools were "havens for white re-segregation" in some cases, but predominantly white student bodies occur more often in traditional public schools, the researchers found.

. . . "The civil rights issue here is the persistent achievement gap and high dropout rates for these students when they are left to languish in traditional schools that fail to meet their academic needs," said Jed Wallace, CEO and president of the California Charter Schools Association, in a statement. "Parents and students, who have lost faith in the system, choose to enroll in charter schools."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/05/MNBN1BSOIL.DTL#ixzz0ehsAlUil

[barb162]

12. What about distance? People just don't want their kids

going 10 or 20 miles if there's a school five blocks a way. I wonder if they examined that parameter.

[sandnsea]

14. Kids who "languish in traditional schools"

choose to enroll those kids in charter schools. When charters go into minority neighborhoods, because that's where kids are languishing in broken schools, it only stands to reason there won't be an influx of white kids from suburban schools. They can go if they want, charters are open to all kids. But a charter school in a minority neighborhood is going to draw predominantly minority kids. It has absolutely nothing to do with racism in the charter schools.

[sandnsea]

4. NEA says to "address inequities"

So these charter schools went in and addressed the inequities in inner-city schools -- and now you want to call them racists? Unreal. This is why the left, and I say the left, loses. Democrats just don't jumpt to these kinds of nonsensical "conclusions".

"Yet at the Achieve Academy charter school in Oakland, nearly 90 percent of the 224 students are Latino. The school is part of the Education for Change network made up of three Oakland charter schools. Achieve Academy posts higher test scores on average than those of Latino students statewide...

"Like all charter schools, Achieve offers equal access to any family that wants their child to attend the school. Latino families flock to the school. Others don't...
Yet many charter schools set up shop in specific neighborhoods hoping to serve a specific subset of children - often at-risk, low-income, minority students.

"That might sound like a noble goal, but it is not one that adheres to the fundamental promise of equity in a public education, said UCLA Professor Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project.

"You can't decide to just serve one group of kids," Orfield said. "If you're taking public funds, you're subject to civil rights laws."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/05/MNBN1BSOIL.DTL#ixzz0ehiifrtd

[mzteris]

7. anyone can still apply and go -

if people don't apply, it's not the charter that's discriminating.

Hispanic heavy schools are offering BETTER education due to dual language issues. You know darn well that ESL "programs" for the most part well and truly suck in most schools. Having a program that meets those educational needs is a GOOD thing, is it not?

[azurnoir]

49. +1,000

in my area and in many others minority kids are written off before they ever set foot in school

[Reader Rabbit]

17. File this under "No shit, Sherlock."

That's the whole point of any kind of separate educational facility: My kid shouldn't have to rub shoulders with the riff-raff!

[noamnety]

18. -- says the person living in Portland

demographics: 82% white, 8% black


Note: I'm not faulting you for living there, I'm sure it's lovely. Just pointing out that people with money move away from the neighborhoods with "riff-raff" as you put it, and pretend they are somehow better than others who can't afford to move out of neighborhoods with shitty schools.

The poor need to keep their kids in substandard inner city minority schools to prove they aren't racist. The working/middle class and up just conveniently move to whiter neighborhoods - and that's totally different.

As I pointed out in the cross posted thread, shitty schools exist in predominantly minority (i.e. segregated) neighborhoods because those areas are historically underfunded due to generational poverty/discrimination. So that's where alternative schools spring up. Newsflash: the kids going to charter schools in highly segregated areas (minority areas) didn't have the option of going to another integrated public school - their neighborhood schools were already highly segregated.

The article is using poor statistical analysis by comparing the charters the students attend to a bunch of schools those same kids aren't even allowed to attend, instead of comparing the demographics to the schools they would have been attending if charters didn't exist.

[Reader Rabbit]

22. What does where I live have to do with anything?

Would you harp on that irrelevancy if I still lived in Chicago? Or Oakland? Or Los Angeles? Because my opinion on charter schools wasn't formed just since I moved to Beervana. But if denigrating my experience as a public school teacher who has seen her share of snake-oil charter "schools" spring up helps you rationalize your elitism, go for it.

I teach in a school that you would probably consider "shitty" because our student population comes from among the lowest SES in the metro area. Teachers at our school bust their butts for our kids, all the while watching our district sink assloads of money into "alternative" schools for parents who want to be able to brag how smart or special their kid is.

Don't feed me crap about charter schools helping the underprivileged. Any school that has the right to exclude whomever they want is not going to benefit kids like my students. That's the whole problem with creating "special" schools for kids who "deserve" a good education—it implies there are a load of kids out there who don't deserve a good education, and that's just crap.

If we can create a new school that is so damned good, why can't we simply do the same thing for all the old schools that are supposedly so damned bad?

[noamnety]

23. My point about where people live

is that people decide all the time to live in neighborhoods with better schools if they can afford it. Everyone wants to raise their kids in a nice safe neighborhood with schools that are well funded and well respected. Everyone wants the best education possible for their own child.

Sometimes I see double standards and a whole lot of privilege on display when people who opt to live in segregated (*cough* primarily white) areas start pointing fingers at other people for sending their kids to a school which happens - because of location - to be segregated (primarily serving minorities). Many of the loudest critics of charters would never dream of living someplace that would cause their own kids to have to attend one of the worst schools in the country.

[Hannah Bell]

25. portland = 7% black. about the same as seattle, san diego,

san antonio, san francisco, fresno, etc.

[noamnety]

26. Yep.

And when people decide where to live, and where to buy real estate, one of the main concerns is how good the schools are in that area. So if they are looking to put their kids in a good school instead of taking their luck of the draw and ignoring that aspect of the decision ... and as a result end up moving to a neighborhood with a school which is disproportionately white, are they being racist?

Are they being more or less racist than a family in a minority neighborhood who moves their kids from one segregated school to another, because the second option has a better environment?

The thing about being working/middle class (and especially white) is that the motivations for the decisions we make can be masked under all kinds of privileges and rendered invisible. No?

[Hannah Bell]

29. yes. however, the fact that a poster lives in portland has nothing to do with the credibility of

their opinion on the topic. nor does it mean the poster moved to portland, moved to portland fleeing black people, or moved to portland in order to put their kids into "white" schools.

[Reader Rabbit]

27. You seem to be making the assumption that white people can't be poor.

That's a pretty big and dangerous assumption to make.

[noamnety]

28. Nope, not making that assumption at all.

The article talks about how charters are located in predominantly minority segregated areas. That happens because those schools have been hit with the double whammy of being poor AND minority neighborhoods. If you don't think student success/school success is tied to poverty AND race, you haven't looked at the statistics close enough. With multiple generations of blacks being legally excluded from living in certain neighborhoods, being excluded from certain schools, receiving inequitable funding in their schools and elsewhere in their communities, and being marginalized in our curriculum, a school which is black and poor has a unique combination of problems. Institutional racism brings an additional set of problems to the existing problem of poverty.

[Hannah Bell]

30. no, it happens because politically, poor minority neighborhood schools are the easiest to take

over.

yes, we already *know* income/race are the #1 factors correlated with "school success".

what we don't know is wtf difference charters make in this equation, or how resegregation helps. or how privatizing schools helps, or how turning schools into for-profit prisons helps.

[noamnety]

31. The biggest difference

is probably just having smaller schools, to be honest.

But try convincing a traditional school district of that - mostly what you'll get is an explanation of why it's financially better (not emotionally, but financially) to have larger schools - end of story.

[Hannah Bell]

32. the small schools research showed no significant difference in outcomes.

small classrooms maybe -- small schools, no.

the second part of your post is a sweeping generalization.

[noamnety]

33. Absolutely, it was a sweeping generalization.

Isn't that what this thread is for? Sweeping generalizations? My generalization is that traditional public schools in this country are too large to function as true communities. And even though they know that such large schools are detrimental to some students' well being, they insist on trying to force it as a one-size-fits-all solution that all kids should adapt to, instead of providing a range of choices within a public school district.

Aside from that, though - despite what you wrote there is in fact a body of research concerning community size and how effective communities run in terms of acting right due to respecting each other, vs. acting right because of authoritarian approaches. See Dunbar's number for a start point if that's a new concept for you.

If you want to put the only measure of a school's success on test scores, then I guess I'd agree that test scores aren't appreciably different at one type of school vs. another. I personally don't believe a school's success or teacher's success should be tied entirely to test scores. That's been one of my complaints about NCLB and RTTT. Do you think test scores should be used as the single measure of effectiveness? Your post implies it should be.

[Hannah Bell]

34. When last I checked "test scores" were precisely what was being used to justify moving to charters.

Can't have it both ways.

Besides which, Gates Foundation 10-year "small schools" push, very well-funded, measured outcomes other than test scores.

The US has many small traditional public schools. Some do well, some do poorly in turning out students who, e.g. get accepted to college & perform well there. School size isn't an important corollary.

Besides which, a "big school" is maybe 1000-2000 students - the size of a very, very small town -- the kind of small town in which everyone knows everyone & their history 3 generations back. "Community" is possible in this size school, & "community" doesn't necessarily correlate with highly educated young people either, as anyone who's seen some "small schools" in e.g. Appalachia can testify to.

[noamnety]

35. I don't know anyone who goes to a charter because of test scores.

I know many families who go because of the overall environment. I've never justified charters because of test scores - it's always been because different environments work better for different people. We're all wired that way. We know instinctively, for instance, that we don't all want cubicle jobs, we don't all decide which career to go into based solely on salary. The work environment and a thousand other little factors mesh with our personality - or don't.

My view: you are the one trying to have it both ways, arguing that test scores shouldn't be the measure of a school's success, and then claiming charter schools aren't successful because the test scores don't prove they are successful. Why not at least admit an obvious truth - there are other reasons a person might select a specific school. Just like I opted to go to a small college - 300 students. My daughter decided to follow that same path. Maybe it's how I raised her, maybe it's genetic, but for some reason we thrive better in the smaller communities.

Your answer though shows that I wasn't too far off in my sweeping generalization. When people say school size is important to them, traditional public school advocates (and districts) stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to acknowledge that as a legitimate point of view. They are dismissive. (Your issue is simply not important. End of story. That's the attitude I've seen again and again.)

And then they scratch their heads wondering why parents opt for charters, when they are convinced a traditional school can offer the same experience. If you (broad you, not you as an individual) refuse to listen when you are getting feedback, then there's not much a person can do except build another system.

If I tell you I don't like pasta, and all you serve is pasta - and you insist on telling me how pasta is as nutritional as any other meal I'm having, I'm just being too dense to see that ... well, guess what? I'm going to another restaurant, and if there isn't one, I'll cook at home. And you'll be left standing there pissed off at how irrational I am being because you know pasta is a good meal, and it's cost effective.

[Hannah Bell]

36. the reasons some individual schmuck sends their kid to a charter have *absolutely nothing* to do

with *why* charters are being promoted. nothing whatsoever.

nor has the charter school movement emerged due to some grassroots movement of the "little people".

it's been *funded* by big, big money from day one.

you can keep on ignoring this piece if you like, keep pretending it's all "about the children," but the sponsorship of the charter movement by the superrich is by far the most important fact about it.

[noamnety]

37. It's a combination of factors

If there weren't a market for it, if people were satisfied with the schools in their neighborhoods, people wouldn't be looking for other solutions.

I think you've correctly identified that test scores are comparatively equal at schools defined by residency, and charters. So one can only conclude there is another reason people are flocking to them.

You can refuse to acknowledge that people are saying the large schools aren't working for them and refuse to listen to direct feedback on why people prefer the smaller schools, or regular public schools can decide they want to be responsive to the needs of their communities. You can't be responsive to a community's needs by refusing to listen to their concerns and insisting that what you've created will work for them.

It's possible that another restaurant might be motivated by their own business model, but on an immediate personal level, if I don't like pasta, I won't be eating at your spaghetti factory. You can address the menu, or not.

If a school is destructive to a child on an immediate and personal level, the parents will look for alternatives. That doesn't make them schmucks. It makes them normal parents. Insulting them and dismissing their concerns won't woo them back to your school, it will only confirm for them what they already suspected.

[Hannah Bell]

38. no, it's money. there's always some level of dissatisfaction with just about everything.

it takes funding to turn dissatisfaction into a "movement," & political connections to hand schools over to private parties.

bullshit as you will, the superrich are driving this train.

but i'm sure they have your best interests in mind, sucker.

[noamnety]

39. You didn't address the reason people leave,

only the reason management companies want to start charters.

Until public schools are willing to ask the hard questions about why the FAMILIES want to pull out, they will continue to bleed students.
And as long as public schools continue to respond to their community members with personal insults rather than addressing their actual concerns, momentum for charters will continue to grow.

If the public schools were responsive instead of defensive, there could be a real dialog and some of the concerns might be addressed without having to move outside the system. But it's clear (sweeping generalization borne out in your replies) that's there's not an interest in discussing the ways and reasons that schools aren't meeting everyone's needs. Such concerns are met with denial.

[Hannah Bell]

40. it doesn't matter why people leave. give me 10 billion & i'll get people to leave their children.

& i'll get their children to worship satan. people are herd animals.

it's not about dialogue. it's not about fixing public schools, or improving education.

it's about what rich people want. you bought their schtick.

[noamnety]

41. I'm glad people can read these responses.

It's a great demonstration of why some parents have given up trying to work within the system.

[Hannah Bell]

42. since i'm not a teacher, administrator, or staff person in the public schools, nor have i ever been,

i'm not sure what relevance my posts have to "why parents have given up trying to work within the system."

i'm glad people can read these posts too, since they illustrate how charter school supporters refuse to follow the money, & pretend it's all about how the public schools have failed them & their demand for "choice".

the ordinary schmuck i believe, but posters at du know better.

too disingenuous. but go on, keep pretending it's about me, or teachers, when it's about 30 years of funded, targeted movement-building & propaganda. you don't want to go there, because people don't take kindly to being played for dunces.

[noamnety]

43. We don't need to "pretend" public schools are failing us

When the graduation rate for boys in Detroit is less than 20%.

[Hannah Bell]

45. so in your opinion, detroit represents the typical school district in the us? how dishonest.

you pick the worst case & pretend it's the norm.

detroit has many, many problems, starting with population loss & unemployment & poverty far above average.

be that as it may, detroit's schools don't need to be turned over to charters to be improved.

and i'd bet good money that 5 years into the program, they'll be no different that they are now.

charters aren't about improving the life chances of the poor, but of the rich.

[noamnety]

47. Incorrect statement: "you pick the worst case & pretend it's the norm."

I didn't claim Detroit was the norm. That's your statement not mine - please don't attribute things to me that I didn't say.

Nor did I go out of my way to pick the worst case scenario. I picked Detroit because that's where I am located. Believe it or not, sometimes the simplest explanation - without malice - is the correct one.

No, it doesn't represent a typical school district in the US in many ways. And charter schools often do not move into "typical" school districts, which is stated pretty clearly in the article in the OP. They often are concentrated in the areas where poverty is far above average, and where a location has a number of unique problems. Absolutely.

It takes an unfathomable amount of unrecognized privilege to demand that other people have an obligation to "support democracy" by sending their child to a school where they have an 80% chance of never finishing a basic high school education. My thought - if you think it's so critical to send kids to schools like that, offer up your own kids first. Make a point of supporting those families by moving to an area where that's the graduation rate, so you can bring more funding to that school and so your above-average kids can bring up the level of education for others in that district. If you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is and take that risk for your kids for the benefit of the greater good, don't demand that others do it.

[Hannah Bell]

53. your statement was ambiguous, as "we" hadn't previously been talking about "your" district,

& the referent for your "we" was thus unclear.

& since you don't like people putting words in your mouth, please link me to the post where i asked anyone to "support democracy" by sending their child to a substandard public school, or any kind of school.

thus the rest of your rant has nothing to do with this conversation or any other conversation i've had with you.

charter schools came to low-income schools first because:
1. low-income schools are often poor-performing schools - easy targets.
2. low-income schools are, politically & economically, more vulnerable to outside pressure -- easy targets.

you continue to ignore the points:

1. There are numerous other ways to improve the quality of education in detroit or other low-income schools -- without charters.
2. The charter school movement is being funded by the super-rich for their own reasons -- not for kids.
3. Charter schools don't, on average, improve student performance.

But according to you, it's all about *me* - my personal character -- my hypocritical unwillingness to send my kid to Detroit public schools (if i actually *lived* in detroit, or ever *had* a kid -- which i don't ) not about the facts.

Because making it about *me* lets you avoid dealing with facts.

[Catshrink]

44. It's easier to cast blame than to accept responsibility.

Don't you know, it's always the teacher's fault? A student might be lazy, unmotivated, unable, disruptive, abusive, or uncooperative but it's always the teacher's fault. If not, whose? Surely not the parents for God's sake!

[noamnety]

48. This is one of the problems in discussions.

I haven't been critiquing teachers. I've been critiquing the system.

But people are so defensive that they translate every critique of The System into "teacher bashing." Read my posts - I'm not bashing teacher's skills in the classroom. I'm stating that school systems need to recognize that the current model of schools is not serving everyone equally well, and they should be listening to the concerns of the community and being responsive to those concerns rather than shutting down, insulting, and otherwise dismissing any view contrary to "a large school is the best environment for all students; students in rich neighborhoods should have first priority for limited seats at well funded schools (and poor kids can attend if we have any left overs)."

People aren't idiots, they know that a school of thousands of kids, with crumbling walls and collapsing ceilings, and a graduation rate of 20% is not equivalent to the education kids get at Grosse Pointe. They don't have an obligation to accept that under a pretense it's serving a noble goal of democracy. We can see it's part of Two Americas - one education for one set of kids, another for the rest of us.

[mzteris]

51. +1mill for all of your posts.

Though I can't read the specifics of your correspondent - what you're saying is exactly on target.

You've made a much more eloquent plea than any I've done. But I'm afraid that the knee-jerk fear is still there for them.

What I can't understand is why they take it so PERSONALLY! Especially when they've not been in the position that other parents have been in when they made these decisions. They really can not possibly comprehend what is going through our minds with regards to our children's educational experience - yet they want to damn us for "hating them all".

If some teachers would stop being so defensive and try to have a dialogue about this then MAYBE we could get somewhere. Though of course there are THOUSANDS of teachers who have left the PS for a REASON - and have participated in starting - or working with - other school options.

[Hannah Bell]

54. "knee jerk fear" -- lol. says the person who gets her stats from walmart.

[azurnoir]

50. Said the pot to the kettle n/t

[Catshrink]

52. Huh? That makes no sense.

[Dinger]

19. Kick & Rec #4