Charter Schools and Race: A Lost Opportunity for Integrated
Education
Erica Frankenberg
Harvard University
Chungmei Lee
Harvard University
Citation: Frankenberg, E. and Lee, C.
(2003, September 5). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunity
for integrated education. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
11(32).
Retrieved [Date] from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n32/.
Abstract
Segregation patterns in the nation's charter
schools are studied. After reviewing state charter legislation that directly addresses
issues of racial and ethnic balance of student enrollment, we briefly examine
the racial composition and segregation of the charter school population
nationally. School-level analyses, aggregated by state constitute the primary
method of studying segregation in charter schools. First, we look at racial
composition and segregation of charter schools by state. Then, we consider
the differences in segregation between non-charter public schools (or simply
"public schools" for convenience) and charter schools, as well as
segregation within the charter school sector. We conclude with a discussion
of the article's findings and recommendations to promote further racial
equity in this growing sector of public schools.
(Note 1)
|
Foreword
By Gary Orfield
Harvard University
Charter schools are one of the most important educational innovations of this
generation. They have spread rapidly across the country and are often supported
with fervent assurances that they can solve problems attributed to school
bureaucracies. They are usually small, deregulated, run, at first, by a
founder with a vision or a private company, and with faculties that are
not supposed to be afflicted with the burnout and cynicism found in some
high poverty schools with aging teachers. (Note 2) Embraced by both political parties, funded
from federal, state, and local budgets, approved by most state legislatures, featured in countless newspaper stories, hailed as the
potential antidote to all that is pathological in weak public schools, charter schools were put forward as something that combined the
independence and autonomy of the private schools with public support and free tuition of the public schools. Many communities have been
willing to try the experiment.
According
to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 2,348 charter schools during the 2001-02 school year. (Note 3) Although there was an early concern that charter schools would serve as a haven for white students to escape
diverse public schools, many minority parents have also expressed strong interest in alternatives to their local public schools and some
minority led civil rights organizations run charter schools. (Note 4)
This article looks at only one aspect of the charter school story—whether or not these schools offer a less segregated experience
than the public schools to the increasing numbers of students they serve. Obviously, this is but one of a number of dimensions on which
these schools should be examined. Public schools have struggled with the issue of racial segregation for the past 50 years. We are now
15 years into an era of resegregation of our nation's schools, and black and Latino students are more isolated than they have been for
three decades. This increasing isolation is not just isolation by race but also by poverty and, increasingly for Latinos and some Asian
groups, by language. As reported in our latest study on national segregation trends, nearly nine-tenths of intensely segregated black
and Latino schools have student bodies with concentrated poverty. (Note 5) The inequalities
inherent in schools that serve children with worse health care, weaker nutrition,
less educated parents, more frequent moves, weaker preschool skills, and often more non-English speakers are exacerbated by the fact
that these schools are also less likely to have credentialed and experienced teachers. Since there is a very strong general relationship
between segregation by race and poverty and educational inequality on many dimensions, this isolation can have serious consequences for
students.
This article details a disappointing set of findings regarding its central question— charter schools are largely more segregated
than public schools. Segregation is worse for African American than for Latino students, but is very high for both. In some states,
white student isolation in charter schools is as high as that of African Americans. The problems reported here may not be due either to
the intent or the desires and values of charter school leaders. They may reflect flaws in state policies, in enforcement, in methods of
approving schools for charters, or the location where charter schools are set up.
The justification for segregated schools as places of opportunity is basically a “separate but equal” justification, an
argument that there is something about the schools that can and does overcome the normal pattern of educational inequality that afflicts
many of these schools. Charter school advocates continually assert such advantages and often point to the strong demand for the schools
by minority parents in minority communities, including schools that are designed specifically to serve a minority population. It is
certainly true that minority parents are actively seeking alternatives to segregated, concentrated poverty, and low-achieving public
schools. (Note 6) White parents have also shown strong interest in educational alternatives as
evidenced by the strong demand for magnet schools.
Unfortunately, despite claims by charter advocates, there is no systematic research or data that show that charter schools perform
better than public schools. Since charter schools embody wildly different educational approaches and since charter and public schools
obtain their enrollment in very different ways, evaluation and comparisons between the two require very careful analysis. At a minimum,
it is certainly safe to say that there is little convincing evidence for the superiority of charter schools over public schools in the
same areas. In fact, some of the studies suggest that charter schools are, on average, even weaker. (Note 7)
Authorization of charter schools is different in each state that has approved them. Charters permit and even welcome an enormous variety
of innovative educational approaches, though they support very traditional approaches as well. Some of the charter founders are
idealistic education leaders with a great new idea, strong imagination and inexhaustible energy, while some are committed community
activists who have longed to run their own schools, or to serve only one group in a community, and many are managed by corporations that
hope to profit from their operation. For many charter school founders, there is an implicit assumption that less government control and
oversight will produce positive educational benefits.
One of the problems in evaluating the academic effectiveness of charter schools is that their effect is normally examined by comparing
them to regular public schools, but their student body and parent groups are not the same, which makes the comparison of academic
achievement inaccurate. Even if one were able to control for income, parent education, and other relevant, easily measurable family
resources, there are several kinds of selection bias that make such comparisons virtually impossible. First, the families who are
informed enough to choose a school and make the effort to get their child to a more distant school every day are not the same as the
families who do not. (Note 8) Second, charter schools commonly lack the expertise and programs to
serve students who are English Language Learners or severely disadvantaged children such as those in Special Education. As these
students tend to score lower on standardized tests, if students from lower achieving groups do not
enroll, the school's average scores will tend to rise. (Note 9) Third, many charters seek
applications from students they believe would succeed, or who would respond to their approach, while not recruiting others. Some schools
have screening procedures that public schools are prohibited from using because the public schools are required to serve all students.
These biases mean that even if there were higher test scores or lower dropout rates for charter schools it might well be because of
selective recruitment—students from families with more resources and/or fewer students with special needs—than because of the
school's superior educational approach.
Curiously, in an era in which tests and accountability have been the hallmark of education policy, there has been little serious
accountability for charter schools. Theoretically charter schools must meet the terms of their charter or they will be terminated. In
most states, however, there are few resources for oversight of schools and revocations of charters for educational failure, as opposed
to financial problems, are rare. (Note 10) Often their impact on racial segregation is ignored
by the policymakers, despite the growing body of research evidence that has documented a trend of segregation in charter schools. If
there is no real evidence linking superior performance to educational program rather than admissions selectivity, looking at general
characteristics of the student body that are usually linked to educational inequality, such as levels of segregation, certainly deserves
attention. On this front, there is little positive to say about these schools.
One might well think that charter schools would have a better chance to be integrated than public schools. Like magnet schools a
generation earlier, charter schools offer distinctive curricula and the opportunity to create and manage schools with freedom from many
normal constraints in large districts. Unlike magnet schools, charter schools have the added advantages of even greater freedom to
innovate and for the most part, are not tied to geographically fixed attendance boundaries in residentially segregated communities as
are neighborhood public schools but can draw from wherever interested students can be found (in some places where school districts grant
charters, they are limited to the school district boundaries.)
The high level of racial segregation in charter schools is not a surprise when viewed in light of segregation in many aspects of
American life. Those who think that charter schools are inherently likely to be free of racial inequality need to reflect on the racial
consequences of other markets operating in areas of housing, employment, health care, etc. , where the markets have worked more to
perpetuate and spread racial inequality than to cure it. One could accurately say that the normal outcome of markets when applied to a
racially stratified society is a perpetuation of racial stratification. This is why early educational choice programs were often found
to produce white flight from integrated schools and to contribute to segregation in many school desegregation trials. (Note 11) Those experiences were apparently unknown or overlooked by designers and supporters of
many charter school policies.
In looking at the data presented here it is worth considering the experience of magnet schools. There have been a handful of highly
selective schools in American public school systems, such as Boston Latin, San Francisco's Lowell High, and New York City's Stuyvestant
High, which have produced remarkable students for generations. Overall, however, choice of schools and specialized curriculum for
schools (except for vocational schools) were very rare in the U. S. until desegregation policies produced the magnet school movement in
the mid-1970s. Magnet schools, like charter schools, grew rapidly in response to federal grant programs. The magnet school programs
funded by the Emergency School Aid Act, however, had desegregation policies while the federal charter school law did not. The charter
school law was a movement backward to the unregulated choice policies common 40 years ago across the South and in many big cities. Those
did not work to produce integration and charter school policies do not either.
Racial segregation in charter schools needs to be considered as both a critical problem and a lost opportunity. Experience shows, that
segregation is not inevitable and that it is possible to produce quite different outcomes with appropriate civil rights policies. As we
approach the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, this issue should be addressed and resolved. If we are to be
serious about the impact of charters on minority opportunity in American schools, we need to look with considerable suspicion on
unfounded claims of sweeping benefits, insist that accountability be extended fully to this sector, and not reach conclusions on the
basis of assumptions rather than evidence.
This article should broaden the discussion of the future development of charter schools. Certainly any publicly funded schools should
not be run in ways that either intensify racial isolation or undermine integrated schools in integrated neighborhoods. Charter schools
offer opportunities, like good magnet schools, to create successful and voluntary diversity. Clearly there are some very ambitious and
attractive schools being created under these policies. But too many are separate and unequal. We hope that this article will stir
discussion and action to help develop the positive aspects of this innovation and to build into the charter school movement a commitment
to offering school opportunities to all students that better reflect the diversity in our society as well as the demands of colleges and
workplaces where they must eventually succeed.
|
Introduction
In the school year 2000-01, 1,855 charter schools were operating in 34 states that had passed legislation authorizing the creation of
charter schools. (Note 12) Charter schools educate fewer than one percent of all public school
students yet can have a substantial local impact on surrounding districts in terms of student enrollment. Most of these charter schools
are concentrated in a few states, and in most states are located in urban areas. Charter schools in the sixteen states covered in this
article (see Table 6 for list of states and their enrollments) make up more than 95% of the population of charter school students. (Note 13) Among different states there is great variation in the percentage of minority students
attending charter schools. (Note 14) One reason for this variation could be that charter school
reform has been supported by a diverse array of politicians and educators.
Nonetheless, as publicly-funded schools of choice, it is important to examine whether these schools offer white and minority students
interracial exposure when segregation across the country is increasing for black and Latino students, and white students are more
racially isolated than students of any other racial/ethnic group (Frankenberg, Lee & Orfield, 2003).
In the past, most educational choice options (such as magnet schools) arose from desegregation plans (American Institutes for Research,
1993). In l973 the U. S. Supreme Court extended desegregation requirements to northern and western cities. However, just a year later,
the Court rejected the lower Detroit court's proposition that integrating minority students in heavily minority and rapidly changing
districts required including the suburbs to produce long lasting desegregation. Big cities looking at demographic facts and seeing the
conflict over mandatory reassignments of students in cities such as Boston looked for a way to accomplish desegregation through
voluntary choice. The problem was that very few whites had ever voluntarily chosen to attend black schools or to transfer for
integration purposes. The idea of the magnet schools movement was to create specialized schools that could offer unique opportunities
that would create a demand for voluntary transfers from both white and minority students and
result in a student population that would
meet desegregation standards (American Institutes for Research, 1993). By establishing special programs and curricular offerings in
inner-city areas, school systems used magnet schools and programs to attract white students to predominantly minority schools. This
movement became central to the desegregation strategies of cities such as Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and Buffalo. Furthermore, a title was
written into federal law offering funds for such schools when they served desegregation purposes. The idea led to the creation of many
highly popular and often well-integrated schools in districts that had few such opportunities and was strongly supported by school
superintendents and boards. Because of the explicit emphasis on racial/ethnic balance, magnet schools are often among the most
integrated schools in their district (Blank, Levine and Steele, 1996). By 2001 there were a reported 1,736 magnet schools in the county
and there had been federal support for them for a quarter
century. They enrolled 3. 0% of American students, compared to the 1. 2% in charter schools (Hoffman, 2003). Thus, magnet schools were a
well-established model long before the charter school movement began.
Recently educational choice options have proliferated, through the growth of charter schools, vouchers, inter- and intra-district
choice, magnet schools, and private schools. Building on the increasing belief of the importance of parents to have choice in their
child's education, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) further expanded school choice by allowing students
in failing schools to transfer. (Note 15) The rationale is that the achievement of poor and
minority students will improve if they have access to schools that have demonstrated higher levels of student performance. It also
assumes that parents will be able to make decisions about what education is best for their children, which will force schools to
compete—and ultimately improve—to keep and/or attract students.
Charter schools, a form of school choice that is almost a decade old, represent a further attempt to institute school choice within the
public education sphere. A charter is merely a political, legal, administrative and financial arrangement of relative autonomy, created
in a somewhat different form in each state that has authorized them. The belief is that by introducing such choice options into the
public schools, students and their parents could choose the school that was most appropriate, which would create incentives for all
schools to improve in order to compete for students (Apple, 2001). Literature on school choice is mixed as to whether these assumptions
are correct and actually result in improved education for all (for a brief discussion see Kim and Sunderman, 2003).
Since its inception, the charter school movement has been politically charged for both its proponents and opponents. Even within the
charter school reform there is a diffuse group of supporters who favor charter schools for widely varying reasons; two of the major
driving forces behind the charter school reform have been the excellence movement including high standards for all students and
market-driven reforms aimed at making schools more efficient. Charter supporters say that such schools give important new options for
parents, allow for educational innovation, and are not constrained by typical school district boundaries and student assignment
practices that produce segregated patterns of schooling in many neighborhood school systems (Finn, Manno & Vanourek, 2000; RPP
International, 2000).
Politicians have also supported the rapid growth of charter schools: NCLB also provided monetary assistance to increase the number of
charter schools in states with charter legislation. (Note 16) In fact, while many public
schools and districts across the nation are facing substantial budget cuts, President Bush has proposed $700 million in spending for
charter schools.
Critics of school choice, however, argue that competition among schools will only improve student achievement if all schools are able to
compete and students are equally free to choose. Otherwise, those students who are left behind by those who choose or are chosen in more
competitive environments will have even less resources with which to compete (Arsen, Plank & Sykes, 1999). Those opposed also suggest
that choice systems can compromise the public good by educating students in isolation from others for their private good, often further
stratifying students along racial and socioeconomic lines (Cobb & Glass, 1999; Horn & Miron, 2000; Hochschild & Scovronick 2003).
Additionally, school choice policies can allow schools to exclude students with special needs if it does not fit within their mission
(Howe and Welner, 2002). The theory of market solutions rests on assumptions about choice in charters— that there is full
information for everyone, that there are not economic or other barriers to attendance, an
that the school will welcome students from all backgrounds. A great deal of experience with choice plans and magnet schools before the
charter experiment show that knowledge and access were often very unequal, that families with the most resources and information often
got access to the most highly regarded schools, that students from other races often felt unwelcome unless there were special efforts to
recruit and support them in the new school, and that free transportation was essential to assure choice and access for lower income
families (Fuller and Elmore, 1996). Choice plans that operate without these kinds of supports permit choice for only those who know what
the choices are, how to access them, and do not need support to get to school.
Given these claims and counterclaims about charter schools, there remain important questions that should be addressed, particularly in
the area of racial/ethnic segregation of students, which has been largely ignored in the overall debate about charter schools. Are
charter schools offering students better opportunities for interracial exposure than the increasingly segregated public schools?Past
research has shown that minority students attending integrated schools are more likely to attend and succeed in college, as well as to
live and work in interracial settings (Wells & Crain, 1994; Eaton, 2001; Braddock II, 1980). Additionally, recent research by The Civil
Rights Project has documented a number of important educational and civic benefits for students of all races in desegregated high
schools (Kurlaender & Yun, 2001).
Segregated minority schools, where minority students experience little interracial exposure, are highly correlated with schools of
concentrated poverty. Eighty-six percent of the students in all public schools that have greater than 90 percent black and Latino
students of their total enrollment are also in schools where at least half of the student body is poor. (Note 17) These schools are more likely to have lower average test scores, less qualified and experienced teachers,
and fewer advanced courses (Young & Smith, 1997). Moreover, research on charter schools has shown that charter schools with higher
proportions of minority students tend to have fewer resources and less academic curricula than charter schools serving mainly white
students (Fuller, Gawlik, Gonzales, Park & Gibbings, 2003). As publicly-funded schools, it is essential that charter schools provide
equal educational opportunity for all students.
Charter school proponents claim that charter schools provide options for low socio-economic students (Finn, Manno & Vanourek, 2000).
Preliminary analyses question whether charter schools are, in fact, achieving this goal of educating low-income students. At the
national level, in 1997-8, 39% of charter school students versus 37% of public school students received free and/or reduced lunch. Miron
and Nelson (2002) report that, based on data from half of Michigan charter schools, when examining the student poverty composition of
charter schools in comparison to their surrounding districts, charter schools serve a slightly lower percentage of low-income students;
there are similar and even stronger trends in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado (SRI International, 1997; Wood, 1999; Clayton
Foundation, 1999). At the district level, Ascher and colleagues (1999) found that only 35% of charter schools were socio-economically
diverse (between 20% and 80% of students on free/reduced lunch) as compared to 72% of
public schools in surrounding districts. However, it is difficult to determine the level of student poverty in charter schools because
many of these schools do not participate in the federal free/reduced lunch program, which is the most common measurement of the
socio-economic status of students (Wells, Holme, Lopez, & Cooper, 2000). (Note 18) More
analysis is needed to accurately ascertain the levels of student poverty in all charter schools—particularly in the many segregated
charter schools that exist across this country.
Research Questions
Recently, issues of accountability and equity for charter schools have come under greater scrutiny (Cobb & Glass, 1999; Wells, 2002).
However, as the 2001 RAND book, Rhetoric versus Reality: What We Know and Need to Know about Vouchers and Charter Schools,
concludes, given the different conditions under which charter schools operate, we really do not know much about the issue of racial
segregation in charter schools (Gill, Timpane, Ross, & Brewer, 2001). Because of their complexities—they are both public but also
independent from the public school system, they can choose their students but also need to attract students, and they are governed by
state charter legislation yet are influenced by their local context and mission—it is difficult to know how to even evaluate
charter schools.
There has been some research to suggest that black students have a relatively high level of access to charter schools (Wells, et al. ,
2000). Recent state evaluations have found that even though the aggregate racial composition of charter schools is similar to host
districts, there are great differences at the school level in enrollment compositions (Cobb & Glass, 1999; Miron, Nelson and Risley,
2002).
In this article, we address one key aspect of the multi-faceted charter school phenomenon with the following questions:
- What is the racial/ethnic composition of charter schools?
- What is the average exposure of charter school students to students of other races in their schools?
- How are charter school students distributed among the charter schools?
- Are students more racially isolated in charter schools than in public schools?
There is strong evidence that many Americans believe in the importance of integrated education. Sixty percent of blacks in 1998 and 34%
of whites believed that it is “absolutely essential” for schools to “have a diverse student body with kids from different
ethnic and racial backgrounds” (Farkas and Johnson, 1998). Further, a national poll in 1999 reveals that 68% of all respondents
believe that integration had “improved the quality of education” for blacks and 50% believe that it had made education better
for whites. By 1999, almost three-fifths of Americans believed that we needed to do more to integrate schools (Gallup, 1999). Certainly
there is also substantial support for choice policies; in 1993, 65% of the public were in favor of allowing students and parents to
choose what schools they attended, regardless of where they lived (Elam, Rose & Gallup, 1993). However, as subsequent discussion will
illuminate, despite many parents' preferences for
integrated schools and choice policies, many state charter laws are not explicitly supportive of racial diversity in charter
schools.
Data and Methods
We compare the racial composition of charter schools with that of all non-charter public schools by examining who is enrolled in charter
schools and the extent to which they are segregated. Although in 2000-01 charter schools enrolled fewer than one percent of all public
school students in the country, many of these schools are concentrated in certain areas and states, and can have a substantial local
impact on surrounding public school district enrollment and racial diversity. We focus on the sixteen states that had total statewide
charter enrollments of at least 5,000 students in 2000-01. Charter students in these sixteen states account for 95. 4% of the entire U.
S. charter school population. The data analyzed for this article are from the National Center for Education Statistics 2000-01 Common
Core of Data (CCD). The CCD is a comprehensive, yearly national dataset of all operational public schools and includes school
information on student characteristics such as enrollment and racial counts (Note 19) that are comparable across states and between charter schools (Note 20) and non-charter public schools.
In examining issues of charter school segregation, we use several measures to evaluate different school-level dimensions of segregation.
By aggregating the school-level data to the state level we are able to compare charter and public schools within a particular state as
well as charter school segregation across states. The exposure index provides an average picture of the interracial exposure of
students: the index can be interpreted as the percentage of students of a particular racial group in the school of the average student
of another group (Massey & Denton, 1988; Orfield, Bachmeier, James & Eitle, 1997; Reardon & Yun, 2002). For example, Michigan's charter
school white-black and white-white exposure rates (Note 21) of 16% and 78%, respectively,
(Table 8), mean that, on average, Michigan's white charter school students attend a school where 16% of students are black and 78% of
the students are white. If students were evenly distributed (e.g., no black-white
segregation), all Michigan charter school students would, on average, attend schools that are 54% black and 40% white, respectively, a
racial composition equal to the proportion of white and black students in Michigan's total charter school enrollment (Table 6). These
exposure indices demonstrate that white charter school students in Michigan, on average, attend schools that disproportionately enroll
high levels of white students and low levels of black students.
Examining the exposure index gives us an average picture of interracial exposure in charter schools. However, this measure, which is
essentially a weighted average of the racial composition of schools of students from each race, can mask the variation and distribution
of students in schools. For example, if black exposure to white students in charter schools is 50%, that could describe two schools that
are both 50% white, or could be one school that is 90% white and one school that is 10% white. These two examples would have very
different implications in terms of the interracial experience of students in charter schools. To explore the distribution of students in
charter school, we examine the concentration of students of all races in predominantly minority schools (greater than 50% of the student
body is non-white), intensely segregated minority schools (90-100% minority), and intensely segregated white schools (90-100% white).
Together, these measures portray both the actual level of interracial exposure i
schools as well as the percentage of students attending racially imbalanced and isolated schools.
It is important to note that using schools as our unit of analysis, this article analyzes the racial composition and exposure at the
state level. Previous studies at the district- and school- level have shown that when examined in terms of their local contexts
(comparing the racial enrollments of charter schools to that of the surrounding public school district or the closest public school),
charter schools are less racially diverse than local public schools and districts (Wells, et. al, 2000; Ascher, Jacobwitz, & McBride,
1999; Cobb & Glass, 1999). We recognize that the context of where schools are situated locally and how districts choose to interpret
state charter legislation are important considerations that likely influence the outcomes we examine. However, we do not specifically
address that in this article. One reason is because our data do not allow us to examine these questions at a more local level. However,
it is potentially misleading to look at charter schools at the district level, (Note 22) because in many states charters are not necessarily part of a school district or confined to
drawing students only from surrounding districts. (Note 23)
One characteristic common across all charter schools is the statewide nature of charter school legislation. This orientation influences
the context in which all charter schools throughout the state must operate. In addition, who can attend charter schools, how many can be
established, and by what means they enroll students are just some of the stipulations in charter school legislation that differ widely
among states. Demographic contexts of the entire state population also vary across the country and these variations can affect the
racial composition of the students in charter schools. Furthermore, although charter schools can enroll students across district and
county lines throughout metropolitan areas, charter schools do not enroll students across state lines. A comparison between charter
schools and public schools at the state level gives us important comparisons of the racial composition and segregation in the small but
growing sector of charter schools within legislatively defined geographic boundaries
Our purpose in this article is not to discount the variation that occurs at the district- and school-level, but simply to focus on
state-level observations of differences in racial composition between public schools and charter schools and how students are
distributed among charter schools.
Findings
In the sixteen states with charter school enrollments greater than 5,000, we find that charter schools in most of these states enroll
disproportionately high percentages of minority students, particularly African American students. Over half (56%) of all charter schools
in these states are located in central cities. Specifically, we find the following trends for charter school students by race:
- Seventy percent of all black charter school students attend intensely segregated minority schools compared with 34% of black public
school students. In almost every state studied, the average black charter school student attends school with a higher percentage of
black students and a lower percentage of white students.
- White students in every state studied attend schools with a much higher white percentage than their overall share of the charter
school population. In many states, however, white charter school students are exposed to substantial percentages of non-white students.
Furthermore, there are pockets of white segregation where white charter school students are as isolated as black charter school
students.
- The pattern for Latino segregation is mixed; on the whole, Latino charter school students are less segregated than their black
counterparts.
In sum, although many of the charter laws require compliance with desegregation orders or mandate specific racial/ethnic balance in
charter schools, there is little evidence of serious effort at the state level to ensure racial balance.
Charter Legislation
In a reform with such a diverse array of schools and ideologies, one of the few consistencies for the charter schools in a state are the
state charter school legislation and guidelines under which all schools are supposed to operate. This legislation and regulations vary
significantly among states. More than half of all states with charter school laws have policies that require charter schools to comply
with desegregation standards or reflect student racial/ethnic populations in the state (see Table 1). In most cases, the state or local
education agency (usually a school district or the state department of education but can vary in some states), and not the state itself,
authorizes the charter schools and reviews and regulates the schools.
Although the charter school reform is primarily governed by policies set by each state, there are federal regulations and programs that
may also affect the composition of the student body of charter schools. In 1994, a new federal grant program was implemented to support
charter schools as part of the Improving America's Schools Act. (Note 24) Charter schools can
receive funding through federal programs such as, the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act,
and the Perkins Occupational Education Act. However, federal funding can only be used if charter schools comply with federal civil
rights statutes such as Title VI. NCLB provides funding to schools with high levels of student poverty (formerly known as Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act) —but accepting NCLB money means that these schools must comply with federal civil rights
provisions. (Note 25) Likewise, althoug
states individually pass their own charter legislation, if charter schools receive money from the federal Public Charter Schools
Program, they are required to use a lottery to admit students in the event that there are more applicants than available slots for the
school.
Courts have held that in school districts under federal court desegregation orders, charter schools will not be allowed to impede
compliance with a court's or administrative entity's desegregation plan. (Note 26) However,
even in this instance, the federal guidelines as to the responsibilities of charter schools in such situations are unclear, at best. (Note 27) Moreover, there is not a general framework to support such efforts. Charter schools are
often given little support in implementing these guidelines, and in general, there is not a framework to support those who value
racially diverse schools (Wells, 2002). (Note 28)
Of all states with charter school legislation, nineteen states have specific racial/ethnic balance enrollment guidelines for their
charter schools (Table 1). (Note 29) Without these rules, charters have little incentive to
maintain racial/ethnic balance in their schools. Two of the four states with the largest enrollment of charter school students (Arizona
and Texas) have no racial/ethnic guidelines. There are also some states that include equity provisions—such as providing free
transportation to all students or requiring information to be widely available—that are important in ensuring that students from
all backgrounds are truly able to choose to enroll in charter schools. Nine states with racial balance policies are included in the
state-level analysis of this article (those states with charter enrollment greater than 5,000). Interestingly, six of the nine states in
our analysis that have specific racial/ethnic guidelines are southern states.
(Note 30) Among the seven southern states in our group of sixteen states with at least 5,000
charter students, only Georgia has no racial balance provision.
Moreover, the language of the racial/ethnic balance provisions varies from state to state. In some states, general guidelines regarding
non-discrimination on the basis of race is used; fewer than ten states require compliance with desegregation orders. We find that
despite the specific racial/ethnic balance guidelines in charter legislation, many states still have racially imbalanced enrollments.
Because many state regulations call for district proportionality and this analysis is primarily state-level, more research is needed at
the district level to determine the impact of the guidelines. Perhaps even state charter laws with racial/ethnic balance language are
still too weak; without other equity provisions built in to this market-based reform, charter schools are unlikely to overcome the
persistent segregation of our larger society.
Table 1
Racial/Ethnic Guidelines in State Charter School Legislation, 2003(Enrollment 2000-01)
| State |
Enrollment |
Charter Legislation |
| Alaska |
2,594 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Arizona |
45,596 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Arkansas |
708 |
Charters in districts under court-ordered desegregation plans must use a weighted lottery in student selection as
well as issues relative to funding. |
| California |
112,065 |
Charter must specify means by which a school's student body will reflect racial and ethnic balance of the general
population living in the school district granting the charter. |
| Colorado |
20,155 |
A charter school shall be subject to any court-ordered desegregation plan in effect for the school district in which
it operates. |
| Connecticut |
2,429 |
Charter must specify procedures to promote a diverse student body and state board will give preference to granting
charters in districts that have 75% or more minority students. |
| Delaware |
2,716 |
Charter school may not be formed to circumvent a court-ordered desegregation plan. |
| District of Columbia |
** |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Florida |
26,893 |
Racial/ethnic balance of charter school may not differ from district or community. |
| Georgia |
20,066 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Hawaii |
1,343 |
Charter must include plan for identifying, recruiting, and selecting students to make certain that student
participation is not exclusive, elitist, or segregative. |
| Idaho |
1,083 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Illinois |
7,552 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Indiana |
0 |
Charter school must have plan for compliance with any applicable desegregation order. |
| Iowa |
0 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Kansas |
67 |
Pupils in attendance at the school must be reasonably reflective of the racial and socio-economic composition of the
school district as a whole. |
| Louisiana |
3,212 |
Must comply with any desegregation order/regulation. |
| Massachusetts |
13,712 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Michigan |
54,751 |
Must comply with any desegregation requirements. |
| Minnesota |
9,395 |
If the charter school reflects the racial and ethnic diversity of the area, it may limit admission to a geographic
area of greater than average non-white population. |
| Mississippi |
367 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Missouri |
7,061 |
Admit district residents provided that such preferences do not result in the establishment of racially or
socio-economically isolated schools. |
| Nevada |
1,255 |
Racial balance of charter school may not differ from district by more than 10%. |
| New Hampshire |
0 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| New Jersey |
10,179 |
Charter must have a plan to enroll cross-section of school-aged population including racial and academic factors.
Commissioner of Education must assess whether charter will have segregative effect on district of residence of the charter school, and
after the charter is operating, Commissioner must assess whether charter has a segregative effect on other districts sending pupils to
the charter. |
| New Mexico |
1,335 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| New York |
*** |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| North Carolina |
15,523 |
After one year, charter school must reasonably reflect racial balance of district, and the school will be subject to
any court-ordered desegregation plan in effect for the school district in which it operates. |
| Ohio |
14,745 |
Community school shall achieve racial and ethnic balancereflective of the community it serves. |
| Oklahoma |
1,208 |
Charter school may not admit student who resides in school district under court desegregation order or relevant US
Department of Education OCR agreement if resident school district notifies charter school that admission of said student would violate
order or agreement. |
| Oregon |
559 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Pennsylvania |
18,981 |
School district may not approve charter application if charter school would place the school district out of
compliance with a desegregation order of a federal or state court order or a state human relations commission order. |
| Rhode Island |
557 |
Charter school must have a program to encourage the enrollment of a diverse student population, and the makeup of the
school must be reflective of the population of the district. |
| South Carolina |
483 |
Racial composition of charter school enrollment may differ by no more than twenty percent from school district or
targeted student population, but local school district may find charter school not operating in racially discriminatory manner without
regard to twenty percent requirement. |
| Tennessee |
0 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Texas |
37,978 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Utah |
537 |
State law contains no discrimination provisions other than general non-discrimination provision. |
| Virginia |
55 |
Charter must comply with any desegregation orders/regulations. |
| Wisconsin |
9,511 |
Racial balance of charter school may not differ from district. |
| Wyoming |
0 |
Racial balance of charter school may not differ from district, and the means by which this balance is to be achieved
must be specified in charter. |
Note: Some states as of 2000-01 had passed charter school legislation but there were no charter schools yet
operational. Thus, some states (e. g. , New Hampshire) have no enrollment as of 2000-01. Source: Statutes concerning charter schools are
found using Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis. The specific citations are available upon request from the authors.
** In 2000-01 District of Columbia had 33 charter schools, but did not report student data to NCES.
***In 2000-01, New York had 38 charter schools, but did not report student data to NCES.
National Trends (Note 31)
While they can mask considerable variation among the states' implementation of the charter school reform, national statistics provide a
helpful background in which to consider charter school students and their distribution among schools. In the 34 states with charter
schools in 2000-01, less than half (43%) of all charter schools students were white. Another one-third (33%) were black and one-fifth
(19%) were Latino. Asian and Native American students make up a very small percentage of the charter school enrollment. The national
non-charter public school population has a much higher percentage of white students (a difference of sixteen percentage points) and a
lower percentage of black students than charter schools (Table 2). (Note 32) The percentage of
black students in charter schools is almost twice the total black public school enrollment. The share of Latino students in charter
schools versus public schools is comparable.
The fraction of Asian students in charter schools is slightly less than their proportion of the total public school population, while
that of Native Americans is slightly more.
Table 2
Enrollment and Racial Composition of Charter and Public Schools, 2000-01
| |
Enrollment |
White(%) |
Black(%) |
Latino(%) |
Asian(%) |
Native American (%) |
| Charter |
444,825 |
43 |
33 |
19 |
3 |
2 |
| Public |
36,116,860 |
59 |
17 |
19 |
4 |
1 |
Almost ninety percent of black charter school students are in predominantly minority schools where minority students are more than 50%
of the student body (see Table 3). Seventy percent of all black charter school students, over 100,000 students, are in 90-100% minority
charter schools. This number is striking when compared to the 34 percent of black public school students who attend 90-100 % minority
schools. Although the public school figure (34%) is the highest it has been in three decades, the charter school distribution suggests
even more segregation. (Note 33) These numbers indicate that black students are not only
disproportionately over-enrolled in charter schools, but that they are enrolled at a much higher rate than other black public school
students in intensely segregated minority schools.
White charter school students are also more likely to be in predominantly minority and intensely segregated minority schools than white
public school students. The percentage of white students in such schools, however, is much lower than students of any other race, in
both charter and public schools. (Note 34) Higher percentages of Latino and Asian
charter school students attend intensely segregated minority schools than their public school peers, but their rates of attendance in
predominantly minority schools are similar.
Table 3
Percentage of Charter and Public School Students in Segregated Minority Schools, by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-01
| |
Charter |
|
Public |
| |
50-100% Minority |
90-100% Minority |
|
50-100% Minority |
90-100% Minority |
| White |
17 |
2 |
|
13 |
1 |
| Black |
89 |
70 |
|
71 |
34 |
| Latino |
78 |
42 |
|
77 |
37 |
| Asian |
57 |
21 |
|
56 |
14 |
| Native American |
65 |
45 |
|
47 |
19 |
Eighty-three percent of white charter school students are in majority white schools (Table 4). About one-fifth (22%) of all white
charter school students nationwide are in schools that have a student body that is more than 90% white, a rather high percentage due to
the fact that the majority of students in charter schools are minority students.
Not surprisingly, given their high concentration in minority schools, black charter school students are the least commonly found in
predominantly and intensely segregated white schools. Ten percent of black charter school students attend majority white schools and
only about one percent is in 90-100% white charter schools. These rates are substantially lower than those of students of other racial
groups except Latinos. Interestingly, Latino students are the most segregated from whites in public schools, but Latino charter
students—while still highly segregated from white students—are less segregated than black charter students. Just over
one-fifth (22%) of all Latino charter school students are in majority white schools, twice the percentage of black students in such
schools. While Native American public school students are exposed to a higher share of white students than students of any other
minority group, in charter schools, Asian students are more commonly enrolled in
white schools than other minority students.
Table 4
Percentage of Charter and Public School Students in Segregated White Schools, by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-01
| |
Charter |
|
Public |
| |
50-100% White |
90-100% White |
|
50-100% White |
90-100% White |
| White |
83 |
22 |
|
88 |
39 |
| Black |
11 |
1 |
|
29 |
2 |
| Latino |
22 |
1 |
|
23 |
2 |
| Asian |
43 |
5 |
|
44 |
6 |
| Native American |
36 |
3 |
|
54 |
8 |
Nationally, the average white charter school student attends a school that is 72% white. White exposure to black and Latino students is
fairly even: the percentage of black and Latino students in the average white charter student's school is 12 and 11 percent,
respectively (see Table 5). White exposure to other racial minorities is low, in part due to the small percentages of Asian and Native
American students attending charter schools.
On average, black and Hispanic students are disproportionately exposed to higher percentages of students of their own race in charter
schools. For example, the average black charter school student attends a school that is 73% black and only 14 percent white. The
percentages of Latino and white students in the charter school of the average Latino are 52% and 26%, respectively. Perhaps due to their
low enrollment in charter schools, Asians and Native Americans are exposed to more whites than are either black or Latino students.
Table 5
Racial Composition of Schools of the Average Charter School Student, by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-01
| Percent Race in Each Charter School |
Racial Composition of Charter School Attended by Average: |
| |
White Student |
Black Student |
Latino Student |
Asian Student |
Native American Student |
| % White |
72 |
15 |
26 |
43 |
32 |
| % Black |
11 |
73 |
18 |
16 |
7 |
| % Latino |
12 |
11 |
52 |
19 |
11 |
| % Asian |
3 |
1 |
3 |
20 |
2 |
| % Native American |
1 |
0. 4 |
1 |
1 |
48 |
| Total |
99 |
99 |
100 |
99 |
100 |
Note: Totals may not add to 100 due to rounding.
In sum, at the national level, blacks are over-enrolled and whites are under-enrolled in charter schools relative to public school
enrollment. Black charter school students are overwhelmingly found in intensely segregated minority schools, and are more segregated
from white students than black public school students. However, for white charter school students, the story is quite different. Because
whites make up a relatively small percentage of the charter school population, they are exposed to more blacks and Latinos and to fewer
white students in charter schools than in the public schools at the national level. (Note 35)
For Latino students, at the national level, public and charter school segregation rates are similar.
Because aggregation of racial composition and segregation at the national level can obscure more localized variation, it is also
important to see how these trends vary by state between charter and public schools. The over-enrollment of black students in charter
schools indicates segregation between charter schools and public schools; therefore, it is important to also examine the distribution of
students within the charter sector. This paper, then, looks at each of these issues in turn.
State-Level Trends: Racial Composition
In 2000-01 there were sixteen states with at least 5,000 students in charter schools, but the number of students enrolled in these
schools and the racial composition of the schools varied widely across states. California, the most populous state, has the largest
charter school population with over 100,000 students in charter schools during 2000-01. On the other end of the spectrum, there are 18
states whose charter school enrollment totals less than 5,000 and are not included in our state-level analysis. Of the sixteen states
with substantial charter school enrollment, nine have guidelines specifying racial balance in the state charter school legislation (see
Table 1 above for racial/ethnic balance guidelines in all states with charter legislation).
Among all public school students, only six states have a majority non-white student body (Frankenberg, Lee & Orfield, 2003). For charter school students, the picture is very different: only six of the states with a substantial
charter population have a majority of the charter school enrollment that is white (see Table 6). In fact, six states have charter
enrollments that are more than 50% black. Eight states have at least 15% of the charter school enrollment composed of Latino students.
Asian students account for a very small percentage of students enrolled in charter schools; only in California and Minnesota are Asian
enrollments greater than 5% of the total charter population. The Native American population is also small in all states except Minnesota
and Arizona. (Note 36)
Table 6
Enrollment and Racial Composition of Charter Schools by States with more than 5,000 Charter School Students, 2000-01
| State |
State Total |
White (%) |
Black (%) |
Latino (%) |
Asian (%) |
Native American (%) |
| Arizona |
45,596 |
56 |
8 |
27 |
2 |
8 |
| California |
112,065 |
42 |
18 |
34 |
5 |
1 |
| Colorado |
20,155 |
74 |
7 |
16 |
2 |
1 |
| Florida |
26,893 |
50 |
31 |
18 |
1 |
0 |
| Georgia |
20,066 |
64 |
28 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
| Illinois |
7,552 |
9 |
68 |
23 |
1 |
0 |
| Massachusetts |
13,712 |
54 |
27 |
15 |
3 |
1 |
| Michigan |
54,751 |
40 |
54 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
| Minnesota |
9,395 |
52 |
23 |
5 |
15 |
6 |
| Missouri |
7,061 |
9 |
85 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
| New Jersey |
10,179 |
12 |
71 |
15 |
2 |
0 |
| North Carolina |
15,523 |
53 |
43 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
| Ohio |
14,745 |
25 |
73 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Pennsylvania |
18,981 |
30 |
61 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
| Texas |
37,978 |
20 |
41 |
37 |
1 |
0 |
| Wisconsin |
9,511 |
48 |
38 |
8 |
5 |
1 |
In the sixteen states included in this study, charter schools were predominantly located in cities. Table 7 displays the location of
charter school students in each of the sixteen states, ranked by percentage of white charter students in each state. (Note 37) States with higher percentages of charter school students in cities were less likely to
have large white enrollments, similar to trends in large central city public school districts. (Note 38) Overall more than half of the charter school students in these sixteen states attended schools that were
located in central cities (56%) while a third (34%) were in schools located in suburban areas. Missouri (100%), Ohio (98%), Illinois
(94%), and Texas (87%) had the highest proportion of their charter school students in cities and were four of the five states with the
lowest percentage of white students of their total charter enrollment. Charter schools in these four states educated
almost one-sixth of all charter school students. Only three states, Florida (52%), Georgia (63%), and Colorado (46%) had greater
percentages of their charter school students enrolled in schools in suburbs than in cities. (Note
39) Generally, as can be seen from Figure 1, states with the lowest proportion of white students in their charter schools also had
the highest proportions of their charter school students in central city schools while states with the highest proportion of white
charter school students were those that have higher proportion of charter school students enrolled in suburban areas.
Table 7
Percentage of Charter Schools by Location and State, 2000-01 (Ranked by Percent White)
| State |
White (%) |
Urban (%) |
Suburban (%) |
Rural (%) |
| Illinois |
9 |
94 |
4 |
2 |
| Missouri |
9 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
| New Jersey |
12 |
61 |
37 |
2 |
| Texas |
20 |
87 |
11 |
3 |
| Ohio |
25 |
98 |
2 |
0 |
| Pennsylvania |
30 |
75 |
23 |
2 |
| Michigan |
40 |
50 |
39 |
11 |
| California |
42 |
47 |
43 |
10 |
| Wisconsin |
48 |
79 |
14 |
7 |
| Florida |
50 |
33 |
52 |
15 |
| Minnesota |
52 |
67 |
21 |
12 |
| North Carolina |
53 |
45 |
27 |
27 |
| Massachusetts |
54 |
64 |
29 |
7 |
| Arizona |
56 |
58 |
33 |
9 |
| Georgia |
64 |
9 |
63 |
28 |
| Colorado |
74 |
44 |
46 |
11 |
| Percent of Total |
|
56 |
34 |
10 |
Note:States with zero percent of charter schools in a given location may have less than three bars. For example, 100% of
Missouri's charter schools are in urban areas, so there is no suburban or rural bar for Missouri.
As mentioned above, the demographics of the states' populations and public school enrollments vary widely. Thus, we examine how the
state's charter school racial composition compares to the state's public school enrollment by race. In almost every instance, the white
percentage of charter school students is smaller than in public schools. In ten of these states, the white percentage in public schools
is at least twenty percentage points higher than the white share of total enrollment in charter schools. Half of these states are
Midwestern states. Missouri shows the starkest contrast between public and charter white enrollment: the white percentage of the public
school enrollment is more than eight times greater than the white charter school proportion. (Note
40) Four states have a greater proportion of white students in charter schools than in public schools (see Figure 2).
The reverse trend holds for black enrollment: in every state except Georgia, charter schools have a higher black enrollment share than
public schools (see Figure 3). For example, in New Jersey, Ohio, and Missouri, although black students are less than 20% of total public
school enrollment, black students make up more than 70% of charter students in these states, despite specific racial guidelines in the
state charter legislation in all three states. Interestingly, Georgia has the highest black percentage of total public school enrollment
and is the only state in which charter schools disproportionately enroll a lower proportion of black students.
In most states, the differences between Latino public and charter school enrollment are far smaller than for white and black students
(see Figure 4). The largest difference is in California, where the Latino portion of charter school enrollment (34%) is ten percentage
points lower than the Latino portion of public school enrollment (44%). The states with the largest under-enrollment of Latino students
in charter schools (California, Arizona, and Colorado) are all in the West.
Exposure to Students of Other Races
We have already documented that charter schools, when compared to public schools at the state level, disproportionately enroll higher
percentages of black students and lower percentages of white students relative to non-charter public schools, which suggests that
segregation between charter and public schools exists both nationally and state by state. It is critical to more closely examine these
distributions, to see whether students are enrolled evenly across charter schools or whether they are isolated in schools with students
of their own race. One commonly used measure of segregation is the exposure index, which describes racial composition of the school
attended by the typical student of a given race.
White Student Exposure
Within charter school sector
As seen in Table 8, white students in every state attend schools with a much higher white percentage than their overall share of the
charter school population. For example, although Missouri's white charter students are exposed to a lower percentage of white students
(23% on average), this is more than twice the white share of charter enrollment (9%). Even in states where they are only a small
percentage of charter school enrollment, whites are generally concentrated in schools with other white students and substantially
isolated from students of other races. For example, in Illinois, Texas, and Ohio, where less than one in four charter school students is
white, the average white charter student attends a school where more than 50% of the student body is white (Table 8). The isolation of
white students in Illinois is particularly marked. Despite white students comprising less than 9% of the overall charter enrollment, the
typical white student is in a school which is 54% white,
a percentage that is six times higher than the white share of the state's charter school enrollment.
As a result of these relatively high levels of white isolation in charter schools, white students, in general, are exposed to lower
percentages of students from other racial groups than would be expected by enrollment share alone. Except in four states with the
highest black enrollment share (i. e. , Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Ohio), the average white student attends a charter school
where fewer than one in five students is black. Even in states where over half the charter school population is black, white students,
on average, attend schools with more white students than black students. In Michigan, where over half (54%) of charter students are
black, the average white student is exposed to five times as many white students as black students (white students, on average, attend
charter schools that have 16% black students and 78% white students).
In most state, white exposure to Latino students in charter schools is lower than white exposure to black students, which might be due
to the lower enrollment of Latino students in charter schools in some states. The four exceptions are in the West (Texas, California,
Arizona, and Colorado). In ten states the average white charter school student attends a school with less than 10% Latino students. The
high isolation of white charter school students in Illinois, however, prevents substantial white exposure to Latinos despite a
relatively high charter school enrollment of Latinos. Illinois has the fourth highest percentage of Latino students in charter schools
(23%); yet the average white student in Illinois attends a school that is only 9% Latino.
Charter vs. public schools
Regardless of the type of school (i. e. , charter or public), the average white student attends a school with a higher proportion of
white students than the state's aggregate percentage of white students, which suggests some sort of segregation mechanism at work. (Note 41) However, as noted above, white charter students in ten states are less isolated than
public school students. This could be due to a lower percentage of white students enrolled in charter schools than public schools in
these states, which would make it more difficult to create schools that were predominantly white. However, in states where the white
share of total enrollment is similar in both public and charter schools (Note 42) (California,
Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia), the average white charter student is equally as isolated or more isolated in schools
with other white students
than the average white public school student. This provides support to the contention that it is not that charter schools are inherently
doing a better job of integrating students, but rather that low white enrollments are responsible for the lower levels of white racial
isolation in charter schools in most states. (Note 43)
In terms of white students' exposure to minorities in charter versus public schools, white students in most states, on average, are more
exposed to black students in charter schools than in public schools. In fact, the average white charter school student in all states
except Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia has greater exposure to black students (see Table 8) than does the average white
public school student. This could be due to the disproportionately high enrollment of black students in charter schools.
There are few differences between public and charter schools for white exposure to Latino students. In four states—mainly in the
West—white exposure to Latinos is lower in charter schools, than in public schools. However, these differences tend to be
small.
Table 8
White Exposure in Public and Charter Schools, by State, 2000-01
| States |
Percent White |
White Isolation |
White Exposure to Blacks |
White Exposure to Latinos |
| |
Charter |
Public |
Charter |
Public |
Charter |
Public |
Charter |
Public |
| Illinois |
9 |
60 |
54 |
82 |
34 |
7 |
9 |
7 |
| Missouri |
9 |
80 |
23 |
90 |
70 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
| New Jersey |
12 |
61 |
46 |
79 |
33 |
8 |
16 |
7 |
| Texas |
20 |
42 |
53 |
65 |
19 |
10 |
25 |
22 |
| Ohio |
25 |
81 |
64 |
91 |
33 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
| Pennsylvania |
30 |
79 |
75 |
90 |
19 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
| Michigan |
40 |
75 |
78 |
89 |
16 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
| California |
42 |
36 |
67 |
58 |
7 |
5 |
20 |
26 |
| Wisconsin |
48 |
81 |
76 |
89 |
13 |
4 |
7 |
3 |
| Florida |
50 |
54 |
71 |
69 |
15 |
17 |
12 |
12 |
| Minnesota |
52 |
83 |
83 |
89 |
7 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
| North Carolina |
53 |
61 |
79 |
71 |
18 |
22 |
1 |
4 |
| Massachusetts |
54 |
76 |
79 |
86 |
11 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
| Arizona |
56 |
53 |
74 |
70 |
5 |
4 |
16 |
21 |
| Georgia |
64 |
55 |
78 |
72 |
15 |
22 |
4 |
4 |
| Colorado |
74 |
68 |
81 |
77 |
4 |
4 |
12 |
15 |
Minority Student Isolation
Within the charter school sector
Black charter students are heavily isolated in overwhelmingly black schools. This could be due partially due to their disproportionately
high enrollment in charter schools relative to non-charter public schools. However, black isolation indices are well above proportional
representation (e. g. , black share of total enrollment), which suggest something in the structure of charter school enrollment that
acts to segregate black students, such as the large percentage of charter schools located in central cities. The exposure and isolation
indices for black and Latino students in charter and public schools are presented in Table 9. Except in two states (Arizona and
Colorado), black charter school students, on average, attend majority black charter schools. In almost half of the states, the average
black charter student attends a school that is at least three-quarters black. Illinois provides an interesting example. In Illinois, 68%
of the charter school
enrollment is black and the typical black charter student's school is 77% black. Despite the fact that whites comprise fewer than 9
percent of Illinois's charter school population, however, the average white charter student's school is 54% white and only 34% black
(Table 8).
Latino charter school enrollment patterns are mixed. In only eight of the sixteen states analyzed, Latinos comprise a higher percentage
of the total charter school enrollment than the state's public school enrollment. In some states (Texas, California, Arizona, and
Pennsylvania) there are relatively high levels of Latino isolation for the average Latino charter school student. Latino students in
Texas experience the highest isolation of all Latino charter students with the typical Latino charter student attending schools where
two-thirds of the student body is Latino. In most states, however, Latinos are less racially isolated than either black or white charter
school students.
Charter vs. public schools
Not surprisingly, given the higher proportion of black students enrolled in charter schools when compared to public schools, the average
black charter school student is more isolated than his or her public school counterpart. Georgia is the only state (Table 9) in which
black students are less isolated, on average, in charter schools than in public schools. This could be due to the fact that of all
states, Georgia has the lowest percentage of charter school students in central cities (see Table 6). Whereas in eight states, black
public school students attend schools where black students compose more than half of the student body, the typical black charter school
student attends a majority black school in fourteen states.
The pattern of segregation for Latino charter school students is more varied: in six states (Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Pennsylvania), Latino students are more isolated in charter schools than in public schools. For example, the
schools of the average Latino charter school student in Minnesota have three times as many Latino students as those of their Latino
public school counterparts. However, there are also eight states in which Latino charter students are less isolated than Latino public
school students. Overall, there is no clear pattern for Latino charter school student isolation.
Table 9
Minority Isolation in Public and Charter Schools, by Race/Ethnicity and by State, 2000-01(Ranked by Percent White of Charter School
Students)
| State |
Black Isolation (Black/Black Exposure) |
|
Latino Isolation (Latino/Latino Exposure) |
| |
Charter Schools |
Public Schools |
|
Charter Schools |
Public Schools |
| Illinois |
77 |
70 |
|
43 |
55 |
| Missouri |
88 |
61 |
|
21 |
10 |
| New Jersey |
83 |
52 |
|
34 |
45 |
| Texas |
72 |
40 |
|
66 |
66 |
| Ohio |
88 |
63 |
|
5 |
14 |
| Pennsylvania |
86 |
60 |
|
52 |
34 |
| Michigan |
86 |
74 |
|
25 |
22 |
| California |
51 |
24 |
|
55 |
63 |
| Wisconsin |
73 |
58 |
|
24 |
25 |
| Florida |
66 |
48 |
|
49 |
46 |
| Minnesota |
70 |
32 |
|
39 |
13 |
| North Carolina |
76 |
48 |
|
7 |
11 |
| Massachusetts |
60 |
34 |
|
43 |
39 |
| Arizona |
26 |
9 |
|
52 |
57 |
| Georgia |
55 |
64 |
|
13 |
19 |
| Colorado |
30 |
25 |
|
31 |
43 |
Minority Student Exposure to White Students
Within the charter school sector
Given the relatively high percentage of black students in charter schools and the levels of black isolation, we would expect to see low
black exposure to whites in charter schools. It is surprising that even in states where there are more white students than black
students in charter schools (e. g. , California, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Florida), the average black charter
school student still attends schools with three to four times more black students than whites (see Table 9 and Table 10). For
example, in Minnesota, where black students comprise fewer than one-quarter (23%) of all charter students (Table 6), the average black
charter school student attends a school that is 70% black (Table 9) and only 17% white (Table 10). The average white student attends a
school with a very different racial composition, one that is 83% white and only 7% black (Table 8).
In every state, Latino charter school students experience similar, or greater, exposure to white students when compared to the black
charter school students. There are five states in which the average Latino charter school student attends school where there are at
least 40% white students. While this could be due to the fact that in most states there is a much larger black share of charter school
students than Latino students, we see that in states such as Texas, where the Latino and black student composition is similar (37% and
41%, respectively), the average Latino student attends a school with a greater percentage of white students (14% versus 9%,
respectively).
Charter vs. public schools
When comparing charter schools to public schools for minority students, in every state except Georgia (which as mentioned earlier, is
the only state in which black charter student isolation is lower than black public student isolation), black exposure to whites is
higher in public schools than in charter schools (see Table 10). Black students in the public schools of these fifteen states, on
average, attend schools with substantially higher proportions of white students than the average black charter school student. In
Illinois, both black charter and public school students have the lowest exposure to whites than in any of the sixteen states. Whereas
the state's black public school student exposure to white students is just under 20%, black charter school student exposure to white
students is only 4%.
In eleven states, the average Latino student has lower exposure to white students in charter schools than public schools, and in some
states they are substantially less exposed to white students than in public schools. For example, in Texas, a Latino public school
student attends a school, which is, on average, 23% white; the typical Latino charter school student in this state has just over 14%
white students in his or her school.
Table 10
Minority Student Exposure to White Students in Charter and Public Schools, by Race/Ethnicity and State, 2000-01 (Ranked by Percent White
of Charter Students)
| State |
Black/White Exposure |
|
Latino/White Exposure |
| |
Charter Schools |
Public Schools |
|
Charter Schools |
Public Schools |
| Illinois |
4 |
19 |
|
3 |
29 |
| Missouri |
7 |
35 |
|
11 |
69 |
| North Carolina |
21 |
44 |
|
40 |
53 |
| Texas |
9 |
29 |
|
14 |
23 |
| Ohio |
11 |
34 |
|
35 |
64 |
| Pennsylvania |
9 |
30 |
|
16 |
41 |
| Michigan |
11 |
21 |
|
43 |
59 |
| California |
16 |
24 |
|
25 |
21 |
| Wisconsin |
16 |
30 |
|
40 |
54 |
| Florida |
25 |
36 |
|
34 |
33 |
| Minnesota |
17 |
45 |
|
31 |
66 |
| New Jersey |
5 |
26 |
|
12 |
29 |
| Massachusetts |
22 |
40 |
|
26 |
40 |
| Arizona |
35 |
44 |
|
34 |
33 |
| Georgia |
36 |
31 |
|
49 |
46 |
| Colorado |
39 |
44 |
|
54 |
46 |
In summary, the exposure and isolation indices suggest that, due to the disproportionately high enrollment of blacks and
under-enrollment of white students in charter schools when compared with public school enrollment, the average white charter student
attends a school with more minority students than the average white public school student. Conversely, because of the small proportion
of whites, the average black— and to a certain extent, the average Latino— student is generally more isolated in charter
schools than in public schools. Although white isolation among public school students is the highest, among charter school students,
black isolation is as high as white isolation. Even in states in which white enrollment is higher than black enrollment in charter
schools, blacks still attend schools with three to four times the number of white students. Latino charter school student segregation
from white students is lower
than that of black charter students, and is not uniformly more segregated in comparison to public school
students in these states. While Latino charter student exposure to whites is higher than blacks, in
most states it is still lower than that of Latino public school students.
Racial Segregation
Because the exposure index only shows what the average student experiences, we now turn to other
segregation measures that examine how students are distributed across schools. To gain a clearer
picture of the distribution of charter school students, we examine the percentage of students of
each race that attend predominantly minority schools, intensely segregated minority schools,
and intensely segregated white schools.
Predominantly Minority Charter Schools
Within the charter school sector
The proportion of white, black, and Latino students attending charter and public schools where more than 50% of the student body is
minority is presented in Table 11. The white share of enrollment in both charter and public schools—as well as the difference in
white enrollment between the two— are in columns 1 to 3. For example, 9% of Illinois's charter school enrollment is white and 60%
of its public school enrollment is white, a difference of 51 percentage points. Columns 4 to 6 show the percent of white, black, and
Latino students who are enrolled in charter schools that are predominantly minority. In Illinois, 32% of white charter school students,
98% of black charter students, and almost all Latino charter school students are enrolled in 50-100% minority schools. As columns 7 to 9
show, 8% of whites, 82% of blacks, and 74% of Latinos attend 50-100% minority public schools in Illinois. Regardless of race, a higher
percentage
of charter school students attend predominantly minority schools when compared to public school students, which is not surprising given
the much smaller percentage of white students in charter schools than in public schools in Illinois.
As discussed above, charter schools in twelve of the sixteen states enroll, in aggregate, a lower percentage of white students than
public schools. In some states, these differences are stark. As column 4 shows, low percentages of white students in many states attend
predominantly minority charter schools, regardless of the white share of enrollment. For example, charter school enrollment in
Pennsylvania is 30% white, yet only 13% of white charter school students attend predominantly minority schools (Table 11). In fact, ten
of the sixteen states have fewer than one-fifth of white charter school students attending predominantly minority schools. However,
there are variations. In New Jersey, white charter school students are exposed to large proportions of students from other racial
groups: 61% of white charter students in the state attend predominantly minority charter schools. This could be due to the small
percentage of whites in charter schools (12%).
Yet, in Illinois, a state with smaller proportion of white students in charter schools (9%), only 32% of white students attend
predominantly minority charter schools, which seems to indicate that the charter school segregation of whites and blacks in Illinois is
more extreme than in New Jersey.
For black students there is less variation in the percentage attending predominantly minority schools: in virtually every state there is
a majority—and often an overwhelming majority—of black charter school students that attend schools with at least 50% minority
students, regardless of the white proportion of the state's charter school enrollment (see column 5). In fact, in half of the sixteen
states, over 90% of black students attend predominantly minority schools. This may be due to the low white charter enrollment in some of
these states. However, even in some states where at least half of the charter school population is white (e. g. , Arizona, Georgia,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Minnesota), at least three out of every five black students attend predominantly minority charter
schools. In the case of Colorado, where 74% of the charter school enrollment is white, almost 60% of black students attend predominantly
minority schools.
Minnesota and North Carolina, states with racial guidelines in their charter legislation and where over 50% of the charter school
enrollment is comprised of whites, have an overwhelming percentage of black students attend predominantly minority charter schools (91%
and 83%, respectively).
As shown in column 6, Latino-white charter school segregation is less severe than black-white student segregation but is still high. For
example, 60% of Latino charter students in North Carolina attend predominantly minority schools, whereas 83% of black charter school
students attend such schools. By contrast, only 11% of white charter school students attend predominantly minority schools. Except in
two states (Georgia and Colorado), at least half of Latino charter school students are in predominantly minority schools. In most
states, however, a lower share of Latino charter students are in predominantly minority schools than are black charter school
students.
Charter vs. public schools
Comparing the enrollment rates of predominantly minority charter schools (columns 4 to 6) to that of predominantly minority public
schools (columns 7 to 9) illustrates that in a majority of states, regardless of race, students are more likely to attend predominantly
minority charter schools than predominantly minority public schools. This is especially true for black students. A higher proportion of
blacks attend predominantly minority charter schools than public schools in all except two states (Georgia and Colorado). For Latino
students, this is true in all except five states (California, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, and Colorado) (see Table 11). One possible
explanation could be the relatively higher enrollment of white students in charter schools in these |
