Education is one of the main agents of socialization and is foundational to our social and psychological development. Our educations shapes who were are as adults. Further, numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship between education and positive social outcomes. As such, racial inequalities within that institution are at the root of racism and the foundation for social inequalities. One of the ways racism is produced and maintained in the educational system is through the rise of charter schools. The proliferation of charter schools is increasing racial inequality by closing inner city schools in poor neighborhoods, increasing racial segregation in schools, and falsely promoting the rhetoric of ‘choice’ for blacks and low-income Americans.
Closing of public schools in urban areas also poses another ethical problem by increasing racial inequality. The Journey for Justice Alliance published a report, Death By A Thousand Cuts: Racism, School Closures, and Public School Sabotage, that considered the role of public school closures in reproducing racial inequality. The Journey for Justice Alliance captured it clearly by stating, “closing of schools limits the ability of some in the community – typically concentrated in low-income communities of color – by creating ‘education deserts’, entire communities without a single school” (11). In other words, these new charter schools prevent families of color from access the resources of traditional schools. Often it is the most disadvantages students who suffer the most. As the article notes, “charter schools typically enroll fewer students with disabilities and English language learners than the surrounding public schools” (11). These disadvantaged students are the ones with the greatest need for educational resources, yet they are left in the traditional schools that lack the funding and resources necessary to compete (Journey for Justice Alliance, 11). The article goes on further to state, “Many charter schools also exclude students who are not perceived to be high-achievers or academically inclined” (Journey for Justice Alliance 11). Bifulco and Ladd note that “the more motivated and advantaged students will sort into high quality schools with other students largely like themselves, thereby concentrating less motivated, more disadvantaged students in lower quality educational environments” (1). This kind of segregation leaves results in the disadvantaged students getting less resources when they would actually need greater resources.
These charter schools also worsen conditions for the disadvantaged students that are left behind. Charter schools and the power of choice make it very easy to over stock new schools with the best performing students who have the least amount of educational development problems (Journey for Justice Alliance) . This makes the new charter schools look like they are performing very well and they do not have to use the same amount of resources on students with disabilities or non-English speaking students.
More ethical harm is caused by the reduction of resources for minority and disabled students. Charter schools are run like a business and they have to worry about their bottom line (Chapman, Thandeka and Donnor). One way they deal with overpopulation and less resources is by cutting extracurricular activities. Charter schools often lack various clubs and sports, academic resource materials, and higher level courses that contribute to students’ overall educational experiences. The curricula and resources of charter schools minimally compare with comprehensive urban and suburban high schools. Comprehensive high schools provide an array of extra-curricular options for students to develop different talents and leadership skills, but charter schools struggle to provide basic education components. And with the amount of students in the same class, there is not one-on-one time with students who need help.
The push for charter schools also deteriorates the community by displacing students (Journey for Justice Alliance 12). Parents are not able to send kids to school in their own neighborhoods, forcing them to travel much further away and rely on public transportation. They are moved to schools that are not “academically stronger” (Journey for Justice Alliance 12), and their performance does not increase, but instead suffers. According to the Journey for Justice Alliance this is evident in the dramatic increase of classes resulting in overcrowding of these new schools (12). Saporito argues that school choice policies ultimately lead to greater racial and economic segregation, resulting in worsening conditions for the disadvantaged students left behind in public schools.
Additionally, the Journey for Justice Alliance argues that public schools are the anchors of the community, a local source for activities and events, and centers of pride and shared history. When public schools close, they disrupt the community and leave a gap, particularly for urban youth. The Journey for Justice Alliance notes that schools build communities, so without them there is a “gaping hole in the neighborhood” (Journey for Justice Alliance 18). When schools close in neighborhoods, the children and families lose valuable resources. The Journey for Justice Alliance notes that “residents lose community services housed in schools, such as pre-K programs, before- and after-school programming, adult education classes, and health clinics” (19). Further, they note that housing prices decline. Ultimately, they suggest that “ man of our communities experience a massive outflow of economic and human capital, which they can ill afford considering they were already substantially under-resourced” (Journey for Justice Alliance 19).
Proponents of school choice often argue that charter schools will decrease the educational achievement gap between blacks and white, however the data does not suggest this. Bifulco and Ladd argue that racial segregation in schools influenced racial achievement gaps (1). The authors examine black families in North Caroline that use the state’s charter school program to attend more integrated school and ways this impacts the racial achievement gap (Bifulco and Ladd 1). Bifulco and Ladd note that charter schools increase racial segregation and as a result widen the black-white test score gap.
Most parents tend to send their children to schools that are more racially and socioeconomically similar, resulting in low racial diversity in schools. Bifulco and Ladd found that black families prefer their children attend schools with other black students, specifically 50 percent black, while white families prefer schools with lower rates of black students, specifically 15 percent (14). Both families value peers with higher levels of achievement. Schools are social learning environments and the type of peers you have can lift you up, or drag you down. Chapman, Thandeka and Donnor argue that advocates of market theory, or the theory of school choice, fail to consider the role of a racial lens. They note that parents create “blueprints” or frameworks for education based on their experiences. As such, white parents will want schools that exude qualities associated with academic achievement and thus predominately white. However, “poverty, violence, and recent negative histories with public schools in poor urban communities compel parents of color in urban areas to cultivate somewhat different blueprints for a quality education” (Chapman, Thandeka and Donnor 142). Chapman, Thandeka and Donnor argue that “based on the analysis conducted in this article, it seems that charter schools are a veiled attempt to maintain the educational status quo and enrich society’s elite by providing a limited form of opportunity for racially marginalized groups under the guise of creating a fair market for education” (150). Saporito argues that individual choice is central to the segregation of schools. Saporito notes that the reason for this economic and racial segregation is that white families tend to avoid schools with higher rates of non-whites and wealthy families avoided schools with high poverty rates.
Further, charter schools are considered “superior” to public schools but only in low income communities of color because they are rarely in predominately white districts (Journey for Justice Alliance). Additionally, charter schools were meant to take on students who presented greater challenges however those appear to be the students left behind in public schools.
Bifulco and Ladd use complex data models to figure out what the actual achievement gap is from public schools to charter schools. In these tests, the data indicates that the typical charter school student suffers a substantial loss in achievement as the result of attending a charter school (23). In the subject of math, there are negative effects shown in both white and black students, however, the negative effects are nearly 40 percent larger for blacks than for whites (22).One of the models states that black students whose parents are or less educated are the group that is most adversely affected by charter schools. More specifically stated in the article, “the negative effect of charter schools on the math achievement of black students whose parents do not have a four year college degree is 0.209 standard deviations per year, twice as large as the already substantial loss experienced by white students with college educated parents, which is 0.104 standard deviations per year” (Bifulco and Ladd 23). Among reading test scores, the negative effects are not as great as with the math scores. Bifulco and Ladd found that since there are a greater number of black students in charter schools than whites, charter schools tend to cause negative effects on student achievement, suggesting that the introduction of charter schools as increase the black-white test gap in North Carolina (23). As such, segregation in charter schools matters for student achievement.
Having an influx of “new” charter schools seems like it brings in more educational options for parents, but instead falsely promotes the rhetoric of “choice”. Wealthier parents have the means to move their children to the schools that suit their needs such as the ones that test the best or have the most similar students (Saporito). This “choice” leaves the underprivileged and the failing students behind at underfunded, over-crowded, worse performing charter schools or out of schools altogether (Saporito).
Another way it falsely promotes choice is the fact that school choice is constrained by not just current policy, but by historic policy as well (Erickson). Charter schools offer parents “choice” in where they send their children to get the best education, but the constraints on that choice are massive, are based in historic and current policy, and yet are rarely acknowledged. Erikson talks about the history of desegregation and its complexity with exercising choice by stating, “the courts may have compelled desegregation, but white parents made choices that undermined these mandates. Those with the means to do so moved to less diverse or less actively desegregating districts or sent their children to private schools. Exercising this choice, they helped remake the demographics of urban schools from the 1950s through the 1980s”(41). This means there was a long amount of time where it was normal behavior to choose to keep your child in a school setting that is the most similar racially and socioeconomically, making it much harder to change in the public eye, especially if it mean giving up having the power of choice in America.
With more “choice” of where to go, charter schools options are increasing racial segregation (Journey for Justice Alliance). Erickson notes that charter schools respect district lines, leaving residential stratification unchallenged. Despite claims implying broad mobility for students, most charter schools remain creatures of the school district in which they reside. Charter admissions practices also respect the jurisdictional boundaries that separate city districts from suburban ones or wealthier from poorer suburbs. This leads to the application process being weighted toward better performing and more similar students selected. Few state charter laws prohibit charter schools from enrolling out-of-district students, but most give priority to applications from students living in the district. This furthers the separation of the class demographic between rich and poor (Erickson).
This is an ongoing issue that has no easy solution, but I would propose a move to promote the use of traditional schools, and draw interest of community members and policy makers to invest more funds into public schools instead of building more charters. We also must move past this rhetoric of choice and consider the structural inequalities that are at the foundation of this issue. Policy makers, community activists, and academics should focus on the ways we can reduce structural inequality in all areas. For example, we cannot solve racial inequality within education without first considering residential segregations. It is neighborhood and housing inequalities that largely intensify this issue. Policies will thus need to address some of the neighborhood and housing inequalities first. Further, we need to better educate parents, community members, activists, and policy makers to dismantle unsuccessful educational models, whether in public schools or charter schools. Collaboration is needed from all the stakeholders to increase the quality of schools instead of closing them. If money is going to be shifted to charter schools, we must also find ways access the charter school models to see if they are even feasible for traditional public schools. More data should be collected in order to recognize what works in schools and attempt to implement them in a way that is not such a sacrifice from teacher and student resources. Moreover, we should offer tax incentives to improve inner city schools before moving to charter school education. Additionally, more published work needs to be made available for the public. Most of the work on this subject is largely written for well-educated individuals. This issue is a public issue that mostly impacts uneducated, low income families. The information should be more accessible to them since they have the most stake in the issue. By making the information more accessible, community leaders and families could play a larger role in the decision-making. Further, we need to help parents recognize the qualities of a successful school and give them more agency in the issue. We also must recognize what works in suburban areas may not be appropriate for urban areas (Chapman, Thandeka and Donnor).
One option, as discussed by Bifulco and Ladd, is the use of manage choice programs. In this program, parents are offered a set of choices that “provide families choice among a range of schools and that take into account both family preferences and public policy goals in determining student assignments hold out more promise for reducing school segregation and academic achievement gaps” (29). Saporito argues that we may need to implement regulations that restrict student movement based on race.
Ultimately, we need to halt the opening of charter schools and invest in community schools. We need to stop closing schools and invest in public school education. We need a “just system [that] would provide our children with the resources that would help them address the many social, physical, and emotional needs they bring with them to school and that actively impede their learning. It would ensure that all of our children were receiving individualized attention and a well-rounded, enriched, engaging, and culturally relevant curriculum, delivered by experienced and well-supported teachers in a stable learning environment” (Journey for Justice Alliance 25).