Public Schools Vs Charter Schools

In reviewing the literature surrounding charter school enrollment, it is essential to investigate potential relationships with other school-related variables, such as racial segregation, academic achievement, and academic opportunities. Moreover, the context of charter schools suggests that enrollment in charter schools are correlated with gentrification in some neighborhoods, thereby answering the question: Who exercises school choice? As per Jordan and Gallagher (2015), white upper-income parents are more likely to exercise school choice, since low-income families face several constraints that affect their ability to exercise school choice. Furthermore, Jordan and Gallagher cite various qualitative studies indicating that gentrifiers often
choose to send their children to schools with special programs or ‘enclaves’, and are more comfortable sending their children to schools with other gentrifier families. Therefore, while the variables discussed in subsequent paragraphs are correlated with trends in charter school enrollment, it is important to point out who are the most likely drivers of these trends and their consequential relationships. Ultimately, the review of related literature finds that charter school enrollment patterns tend to show high levels of racial segregation, students enrolled in charter schools do not show any significant academic benefits when compared with students enrolled in neighborhood public schools, and charter schools tend to exhibit limited opportunities for English Language Learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities.
Charter school enrollment patterns tend to show high levels of racial segregation for students of every race. In a study that used individual student and school data from the Pennsylvania Department of Education from 2008 to 2012, Kotok and colleagues (2015) discovered that the transfers of African American and Latino students from traditional public schools to charter schools were segregative in nature. African American students transferred to a charter school that was over 80 percent African American students, while Latinos enrolled in charters that were more than 55 percent Latino, on average. Moreover, the study found that that white students transferring within urban areas transferred to more racially segregated schools. While charter schools had a stronger association with racial isolation than traditional public schools, students of all racial groups attended charter schools with lower poverty concentrations. In their study of the North Carolina charter school sector between 1999 and 2012, Ladd and colleagues (2016) findings’ imply that “the charter schools in North Carolina have become segmented over time, with one segment increasingly serving the interests of middle class white families” (p. 28). In addition, trends in charter school data show that individual schools are becoming increasingly racially imbalanced, with some schools primarily composed of minority students and other schools mainly composed of white students. In a statistical analysis of 2007-2008 Common Core od Data (CCD), Frankenberg and colleagues (2012) found that charter schools have greater segregation than traditional public schools, and a higher percentage of charter school students of every race attend minority schools (50 to 100 percent minority students) or racially isolated minority schools (90 to 100 percent minority students) when compared to students in traditional public schools. All in all, quantitative studies in multiple urban school districts have reached similar results: charter school enrollment patterns tend to exhibit higher levels of racial isolation than traditional public schools, and these trends hold true for children of all races. Nonetheless, as students are gradually shifting towards de facto racially segregated schools, there seems to be little to no evidence that an inequitable distribution of academic opportunities is widening the academic achievement gap between charter schools and traditional public schools.
Students enrolled in charter schools do not show any significant academic benefits when compared with students enrolled in neighborhood public schools.
In their study of North Carolina charter schools, Ladd and colleagues (2016) discovered that while new students at charter schools tested at lower levels than their peers in traditional public schools, by the end of the academic period, the same charter school students surpassed their public school counterparts on standardized test scores. Nonetheless, they claim that charter schools are no more effective than traditional public schools in raising test scores of new students at public schools, ultimately implying that “the apparent gains in the test scores of charter school students over time have far more to do with selection than with the quality of the programs they offer” (p. 28). Similarly, in their review of literature, Frankenberg and colleagues (2012) posit that conclusions drawn from the literature on student achievement in charter schools are nebulous, largely due to discrepancies in charter laws and achievement tests across states. Furthermore, they echo Ladd and colleagues’ concerns of selection bias, as students who self-select into charter programs are not necessarily a representative sample of all public school students. Looking at student-level data in Chicago from 1993 to 2004, Keels and colleagues (2013) found that neighborhood public schools experience essentially no aggregate benefit from the socioeconomic
changes occurring around them. While this study does not directly involve charter schools, it supports the idea that changes in school and neighborhood composition are unrelated to changes in academic achievement. Therefore, charter schools may not show any significant academic benefits when compared with public schools; however, there are certainly trends displaying an unequal availability of opportunities – particularly for populations that are more costly to educate than the general public.
Charter school enrollment patterns tend to exhibit limited opportunities for “costly” student populations, such as English Language Learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities.
Buckley and Sattin-Bajaj (2011) used and analyzed data from the New York State School Report Cards and noticed that ELLs were consistently underrepresented in charter school populations across the three years of their study. Interestingly enough, they also claim that students who qualify for reduced-priced lunch are overrepresented. Frankenberg and colleagues (2012) came to s similar conclusion, implying that charter schools are linked with sorting students by socioeconomic status. Additionally, they pointed out that approximately one in four charter schools does not report data on low-income students, and there is a similar lack of information on ELLs. Moreover, the authors state that numerous state charter laws contain no provisions regarding ELLs, and charter schools educate significantly fewer students with disabilities than regular public schools. Frankenberg and colleagues reason that during the charter admissions process, academic counselors employ “counseling” mechanisms to deter students with disabilities to enroll in charter schools. In contrast, Winters (2015) found that “charter schools ‘counseling out’ students with disabilities enrolled in their schools does not appear to be a significant driver of the special education gap. In fact, students with disabilities are as or less likely to
exit charter elementary and middle schools than they are to exit traditional public schools” (p. 234). In her study looking at student-level data from Denver, Colorado, Winters did observe a significant difference in the percentage of students with disabilities in charter and traditional public schools, and this difference grows substantially from kindergarten through the eighth grade. However, she claims that the primary drivers of the special education gap are (a) the decreased likelihood of charter school students to be newly placed into special education programs, and (b) the movement of regular enrollment students in and out of the Denver public and charter school systems, thereby affecting the percentage of students with disabilities. All in all, charter schools tend to underserve “costly” student populations, thus widening the opportunity gap for numerous student populations that are already widely disregarded in the public education system.

STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESES
H1: Over time, increased charter school enrollment tends to produce greater racial segregation within charter schools. As is the case in the metropolitan areas discussed in the literature review, I expect charter schools in California to display higher rates of racial segregation and racial isolation than traditional public schools. Furthermore, while this trend is more significant for African American students, it will be interesting to examine the trends for Latino students in California, since Latino students make up over 50 percent of traditional public and charter enrollment (Frankenberg et al., 2012). Additionally, as per the related literature, I expect these trends to be more strongly correlated in larger urban areas, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.
H2: Charter schools will have a higher rate of underrepresented minorities (URMs) enrolled in AP/IB/Gifted and Talented programs than URMs in traditional public schools. While there is little data in the literature review that offers direct support of this hypothesis, the idea is that since these rigorous programs are more commonly offered in charter schools, the proportion of URMs in these programs will inherently be higher than in public schools, where they are less commonly offered.
H3: Charter schools will enroll fewer students classified under IDEA or as LEP than traditional public schools. As is the case in the metropolitan areas discussed in the literature review, I expect charter schools in California to enroll fewer students with disabilities or English Language Learners than traditional public schools. This area is particularly interesting to California, due to its high immigrant population and consequently, its high proportion of ELL students – in 2015, English Language Learners constituted 22.1 percent of the total enrollment in California public schools (California Department of Education, 2016).