October 24, 2016
Bookmark and Share

Charter Schools And Segregation

The Civil Rights Project was founded, in part, to bring rigorous social science inquiry to bear on
our most pressing civil rights issues. On-going trends involving public school segregation have
been a primary focus of the CRP’s research, and the expanding policy emphasis on school choice
prompted analysis of the much smaller – but politically potent - charter sector. In 2003, and
again this year, we have released reports examining charter school segregation. Both times we
have been subject to attacks, often for doing or saying things we never claimed to undertake in
the reports. On April 27, 2010, Education Next posted a re-analysis and commentary, by Gary
Ritter and several colleagues, of our February 2010 charter school report (available at
pdf). Below, we respond to the team’s claims, seeking to accurately explain what we did,
why we did it, and the actual nature of our conclusions. Before proceeding, however, it is
important to revisit what we know about the continued significance of school segregation.
Decades of social science research describing the harms of racially isolated schools and the
benefits of diverse schools has informed the development of federal policy—and even many
states’ charter school legislation.1 In 1954, the Supreme Court declared that separate was
inherently unequal, and as recently as 2007, a majority of Justices affirmed that there are
compelling reasons to voluntarily pursue integrated schools and to prevent racially isolated
schools. Though extraordinary high-poverty, high-minority schools exist, social science
repeatedly shows them to be the exception to the rule. The reason: racially and
socioeconomically isolated schools tend to have unequal educational resources, higher drop out
rates, and prepare students poorly for life after high school. Furthermore, schools of white
segregation - as well as those that concentrate students of color - do not provide the educational
opportunities for students to learn to challenge stereotypes and live and work in a diverse society.
These are vital skills for 21st century citizens and workers, and are among the reasons that it is
critical to consider not just whether families have access to schools, but also the demographic
composition of students in those schools.

Responding to Methodological Criticism
The major empirical distinction between our analysis and the Ritter team’s re-analysis is the
level to which we aggregated school-level student composition patterns. In other words, trends
in the racial makeup of charter schools were examined at different levels of geography. As we
describe in detail in our report, we aggregated school-level charter enrollment data to the
national, state, and metropolitan level. The use of the latter geographic unit, metropolitan areas,
stemmed from a deliberate methodological decision. As 1998 guidance from the U.S.
1 A number of states have legislation promoting or mandating the establishment of racially diverse charter schools.
See Frankenberg, E. & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2009). Equity Overlooked: Charter Schools and Civil Rights Policy. Los
Angeles: UCLA Civil Rights Project. Available at: http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/equityoverlooked-

Department of Education noted, “…charter schools often draw students from outside their home
district’s attendance boundaries and are sometimes treated as a school district or a separate
entity.”2 We also cited a study from Arizona that found that charter schools within one
traditional public school district pulled students from 21 distinct districts.3 Indeed, charter
advocates originally promoted not being attached to particular school districts as one of the
strengths of the movement.

Ironically, the Ritter team re-analysis used district boundary lines in an effort to justify the
charters’ segregated enrollments—even though charter schools are often not constrained by those
boundaries. They described their decision to compare the racial enrollment of charter schools to
central city schools as “the best available unit of comparison,” arguing that the geographic
concentration of charter schools in urban areas merits a comparison of schools only located
within urban districts.

We disagree. Given that charter schools can and do enroll students across traditional boundary
lines, our analysis took into account the demographic composition of students in the entire metro
area, as opposed to a single school district. Using a metropolitan area as point of comparison
allowed us to consider segregation within a smaller geographical area – compared to our statelevel
analysis - where students can conceivably choose to attend either traditional public or
charter schools.4 The urban concentration of charter schools is irrelevant if charter schools are
drawing students from across boundary lines. And, similar to the results from our analyses at the
national or state level, in many of the metro areas containing at least twenty charter schools,
minority segregation was higher in charter schools than in the metro’s regular public schools.
While the national, state, and metro area analysis comprised the bulk of our report, we did, in
fact, examine the segregation of students in charter and traditional public schools by
geography—comparing students in these school sectors within cities, suburbs, and rural areas.
Significantly, we found that the geographical skew of charter schools mitigates very little of the
differences in minority segregation. Fifty-two percent of city charter school students were in 90-
100% minority schools, compared to only 34% of traditional public school students—a
difference of eighteen percentage points, very similar to the overall difference of twenty
percentage points between the two sectors of schools (Table 22 on p. 63 of our report).
Even with a more circumscribed approach, the authors of the re-analysis still found that charters
are more segregated than traditional public schools—which themselves are extremely
segregated.5 This central finding, together with our study, only reinforces our ultimate
conclusion: it is critical to consider what kinds of choices we are offering families in urban,
suburban and rural areas across the country, and in charter or traditional public schools alike.
Currently, the data show that we are in the process of subsidizing an expansion of a substantially
2 U.S. Department of Education. The Charter School Roadmap: Finance and Funding (Archived information).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Roadmap/ch5.html.
3 Gifford, M., Ogle, M., & Solomon, L. (1999). Who is Choosing Charter Schools? A snapshot of
geography and ethnicity of charter school students. Center for Market-based Education.
4 In many states, considerable inter-district choice options also exist.
5 Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (January 2003). A multiracial society with segregated schools: Are we
losing the dream? Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University; Frankenberg E. (2009). The
demographic context of urban schools and districts. Equity and Excellence in Education 42(3): 255-271.
separate – by race, class, disability and possibly language6 - sector of schools, with little to no
evidence suggesting that it provides a systematically better option for families—or that access to
these schools of choice is fairly available to all.

Contextualizing our Report
Our study does not stand in isolation from the growing research consensus concerning
segregation in charter schools. Numerous studies, including six separate analyses by the U.S.
Department of Education (each of which relied on state-level data), have concluded that charter
schools are more segregated than traditional public schools.7 Ritter and his colleagues described
their findings as being similar to a recent report conducted by RAND. Our reading of the same
report led us to include the following statement in our literature review:

The [RAND] study determined that in five of the seven locales, the movement of black
students to charter schools meant these students attended more segregated schools (Zimmer,
et al., 2009; see also Bifulco & Ladd, 2007). In the remaining two locations, Chicago and
Milwaukee, black students attended slightly less segregated charter schools than they would
have if they remained in public schools, though both traditional school systems contained
very low percentages of white students (Zimmer, et al., 2009). The study also found more
mixed enrollment patterns for white and Latino students (p. 11).
Using a district-level comparison, then, the RAND study, like the Ritter et al. re-analysis, found
evidence of higher racial segregation among charters.

It is extremely important to emphasize that our report focused on a number of other civil rights
dimensions in charter schools, none of which have been addressed in these recent postings.
Although the racial composition of schools is critically important to student outcomes, we also
examined the extent to which charter schools are serving low-income and English Language
Learner students. California charter schools provided a stunning example of the gaps in the data
that exist for ELL students, reporting that just seven ELLs enrolled in state charter programs. We
also found that, depending on the data source, between 20 and 25 percent of charter schools
show no evidence of offering the National School Lunch Program, thus calling into question
whether they are enrolling low-income students. Schools not offering the subsidized lunch
program also tended to overlap with schools having a higher concentration of white students,
6 Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (February 2010). Choice without equity: Charter school
segregation and the need for civil rights standards. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos Civiles;
Mathis, W., Miron, G., Tornquist, E. & Urschel, J. (2010). Schools without Diversity: Education
Management Organizations, Charter Schools and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System.
EPIC/EPRU. Available at: http://epicpolicy.org/files/EMO-Seg.pdf. Finnegan, K., Adelman, N., Anderson, L.,
Cotton, L., Donnelly, M. B., & Price, T. (2004).Evaluation of Charter Schools Program: 2004 Final Report. U.S.
Department of Education. Policy and Programs Study Service. Available at:
9/d8/04.pdf. Nelson, B., Berman, P., Ericson, J., Kamprath, N., Perry, R., Silverman, D. & Solomon,
(2000). The state of charter schools 2000: Fourth-year report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
7 For a summary of these studies, please refer to pp. 9-13 in our report. Available at:
highly suggestive of the existence of a set of charter schools serving disproportionate numbers of
non-poor, white students.

Though charter schools, in many instances, have not yet successfully utilized choice as a means
to create diverse schools, we have longstanding evidence that it can be done. Across the country,
some of the most diverse, sought-after schools are magnet programs that combine choice with
civil rights provisions to insure access and integration. Inter-district magnet schools in
Connecticut provide a current example outside the scope of traditional school districts as to the
way charters might draw students across district boundary lines to create high-quality, integrated
schooling options. Today, existing school segregation typically occurs across district boundary
lines, so schools that enhance inter-district choice are extremely important. Charter schools have
the opportunity to contribute to integration across those lines, and our report offered concrete
suggestions for incorporating civil rights provisions into charters as the sector expands.
Having set forth our disagreements, we conclude by noting that we find common agreement with
Ritter and his colleagues on the need for more complete and accurate data on charter schools.
The data is essential if we are to fully understand the role charter schools play in the racial,
economic, and linguistic segregation of students. Based on a wealth of existing evidence,
however, we are unable to share in the team’s optimism that more complete data might show
narrower differences in segregation between charter and traditional public schools. We urge the
federal and state governments to improve publicly available data about charter schools and to
monitor the civil rights of all students who attend or wish to attend charters, in addition to further
examining the effects charter schools have on surrounding public schools.
Additional research on charter schools and segregation

Institute on Race & Poverty. (2008). Failed Promises: Assessing Charter Schools in the Twin
Cities. Minneapolis, MN: Institute on Race & Poverty at University of Minnesota Law
School. http://www.irpumn.org/uls/resources/projects/2_Charter_Report_Final.pdf
Miron, G., Urschel, J., Mathis W., and Tornquist, E. (2010) Schools Without Diversity:
Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic
Stratification of the American School System. EPIC/EPRU.

Back to top
| Back to home page

White House Live Stream
alsharpton Rev. Al Sharpton
9 to 11 am EST
jjackson Rev. Jesse Jackson
10 to noon CST


Sounds Make the News ®
Atlanta - WAOK-Urban
Berkley / San Francisco - KPFA-Progressive
Chicago - WVON-Urban
KJLH - Urban
Los Angeles - KJLH - Urban
WKDM-Mandarin Chinese
New York - WKDM-Mandarin Chinese
New York - WADO-Spanish
WBAI - Progressive
New York - WBAI - Progressive
Washington - WOL-Urban

Listen to United Natiosns News