U. S. Charter Schools and Ethnic Segregation:
Inspecting
the Evidence
Casey D. Cobb
University of Connecticut
Gene V Glass
Arizona State University
Among the major concerns surrounding school choice programs is
their potential to stratify students along the dimensions of race,
ethnicity, or socioeconomic class (Corwin & Flaherty, 1995; Elmore, 1988;
Henig, 1995; Moore & Davenport, 1990; O'Neil, 1996; Thrupp, 1999;
Wells, 1993a; Wells & Crain, 1992; Willms, 1986). Related concerns are
that they will "cream" academically talented students off of the public
schools (see e.g., Buechler, 1996; Fitzgerald, Harris, Huidekoper & Mani,
1998; Lee & Croninger, 1994; Moore & Davenport, 1990; and Wells,
1993b. Charter schools, as schools of choice, have been targets of these same
allegations.
Reports appear mixed as to whether charter schools disproportionately
serve white students or whether they have contributed to increased segregation
among publicly funded schools. Studies conducted by charter advocacy
groups have found no evidence of ethnic or racial separation. Other,
more prominent national evaluations have concluded that charter schools
do not stratify students nor predominantly serve white children (e.g.,
Buechler, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 1997). Finally, a number of
investigations report evidence that contradict these national evaluations
(e.g., Cobb & Glass, 1999; Crockett, 1999; Horn & Miron, 1999; Wells,
1999; Wells, Holme, Lopez, & Cooper, 2000). We turn next to these national
evaluations. Their findings tend to be cited often, so they deserve
close inspection.
National Charter School Evaluations
The first national evaluation of charter schools reported that in most states charter
schools had "a racial composition similar to statewide averages or [had] a
higher proportion of students of color" than traditional public schools (U.S. Department
of Education, 1997, p. 24). As we shall argue, such statements may
serve to misrepresent charter schools and their potential to ethnically and
racially stratify students. In the first place, there is an overreliance on aggregate
data to answer the question of whether ethnic separation occurs among schools;
such aggregate data are incapable of achieving that purpose. Second, such statements
overgeneralize the circumstances of charter schools, which operate under
varying conditions, often as a result of differing state laws and regulations.
The Fourth-Year Report: A Closer Look
The latest among four U.S. Department of Education national evaluations
of charter schools again reports no evidence that charter schools are predominantly
white or that they segregate students (U.S. Department of Education,
2000). Such conclusions remain in question, however, for several reasons.
First, since not all charter schools are "schools of choice" to the same
degree, generalizations can be misleading if not inappropriate. Indeed, the
degree of choice offered by charter schools depends largely on the laws
under which they operate. Given the variation in charter legislation among
the 27 states with operating charters, generalizations should be restricted to
at most the state in which the charter schools reside. For instance, some state
charter laws do not require that schools maintain particular ethnic/racial
balances (e.g., Arizona), while others require ethnic/racial compositions to
reflect that of the sponsoring district (e.g., California), while still others
must reflect the ethnic/racial diversity of the surrounding area (e.g., Minnesota)
(U.S. Department of Education & RPP, 1999). Even within-state assessments
can be problematic when one considers the various types of charter
schools. There are urban charter schools, at-risk charter schools,
grassroots charter schools, and public and private conversion charter
schools. Other characterizations include teacher-led, parent-led, and entrepreneur-
initiated charter schools (Wells, 1999).
Moreover, methodological inadequacies have made the detection of stratification
impossible in cases where it might very well exist. The Fourth-Year
Report analyses rely too heavily on aggregate state and national data, which
are incapable of showing between-school ethnic/racial separation. These reports
have not found evidence of stratification because they fail to consider
the circumstances under which it is most likely to occur, namely, among
schools within a district, town, or community.
The U.S. Department of Education (2000) investigated enrollment compositions
at the national, state, and local levels. Percentages of white/nonwhite
students were aggregated and comparisons were made between charter
and traditional public schools. From these data, the report makes this case:
Critics and advocates alike have feared that charter schools would primarily serve
white students. This has not turned out to be the case. Overall, charter schools
enrolled a larger percentage of students of color than all public schools in the
states with open charter schools. (p. 30)
And further,
charter schools in approximately three-fifths of the charter states enrolled a higher
percentage of nonwhite students than all public schools in those states. (p. 32)
(These statements are not removed from a broader context--they are among
the main conclusions from the report.) Taken in the literal sense, these statements
are not incorrect. However, such comparisons between charters and
"all public schools" are inappropriate if the intent of these findings is to provide
evidence that charter schools do not stratify students. Including all public
schools in the comparison group compares what might be going on in a
particular neighborhood with what might be going on in an entire state. For
instance, why would one include in this comparison group average hundreds
of public schools located several hundreds of miles away from any charter
school? Such aggregated data could not speak to between-school segregation,
if it existed. If one is interested in seriously investigating the possibility of
ethnic/racial separation, a more appropriate comparison group would include
those public schools that are in proximity to charter schools.
To its credit, the report makes an attempt to examine the ethnic/racial variability
between schools (the "local level" analysis), but the manner in which
this was done again places the conclusions in question. After comparing the
percentage of nonwhite students among charter schools to surrounding districts'
percentage nonwhite students, the report concluded:
Sixty-nine percent of charter schools were within 20 percent of their surrounding
district's percentage of nonwhite students, while almost 18 percent had a distinctly
higher percentage of students of color than their surrounding district.
Approximately 14 percent of schools had a lower percentage of students of color
than their surrounding districts. (p. 30)
It is problematic that these figures are tallied across states, without regard
to size of school, size of district, ethnic/racial heterogeneity, or presence of
charter schools in any one state. Moreover, one might question the generous
leeway given charters when a 20% ethnic/racial imbalance in 69% of the charter
schools is dismissed as not evidencing segregation. (One wonders if the
Washington DC administration's benevolent attitude toward charter
schools--borne of a wish to stave off the even more radical reform of vouchers,
we believe--was intruding at this point in its analysis. We have seen in the
past at the federal level how the same research on class size, for example, can
be interpreted in radically different ways by different political parties.)
"Surrounding district" represents a better comparison group than all public
schools, but still falls short of the mark. Some states, such as Arizona, permit--
even encourage--nondistrict sponsors. In fact, only a handful of Arizona charter
schools are sponsored by public school districts, making within-district comparisons
less meaningful in that state. Further, most of these district-sponsored
schools were located well outside the boundary of the sponsoring district. Yet
the Department of Education's "local level" analysis relied on district comparisons
for all charter schools in their national sample.
Even in those instances where charters do belong to districts, comparisons to
district averages may not be the most sensitive technique for detecting
ethnic/racial segregation. Segregation can easily be hidden in district level analyses.
District schools, after all, can exhibit extreme variability in their ethnic/racial
compositions, for they are often highly segregated. Averaging the percentage of
white students among several district schools masks this variability. Furthermore,
in urban, secondary districts, which can span wide geographic areas, stratification
could be occurring in one corner of that district (e.g., between two high
schools and one charter school), but the averaged figures obscure any evidence.
Intra-district comparisons may make more sense for smaller, rural districts that
tend to have only one or two high schools.
Lastly, the Department of Education's local level analysis relied predominantly
on charter schools reporting data about the districts in which they reside
(see footnote 2 on page 31 in full report). Sound research requires that
the quality of such data be ensured by use of independent auditing of reports.
Evidence from Three States
Next, we present evidence of ethnic/racial stratification among charter
schools in Arizona, California, and Michigan. These three states currently
enroll over half (52%) of all charter school students in the United States and
contain nearly half of the nation's charter schools (U.S. Department of Education,
2000). The conclusions drawn here rest primarily upon findings from
three statewide studies.
Arizona
Arizona has arguably the most lenient charter legislation in the nation, which
is borne out by the sheer numbers of charters in that state. Arizona contains
nearly one quarter of the nation's charter schools. Charters are sponsored by
one of three boards. Two of these boards may approve up to 25 charter
schools per year; the third may grant an unlimited number. Virtually any individual
or organization inside or outside the state is eligible to receive a
charter, and very few applicants are turned down. Successful charter applicants
include entrepreneurs, former public school educators, school districts,
for-profit companies, nonprofit organizations, and private citizens. Teachers
in charter schools are not required to be certified.
Despite recent legislative attempts to amend the law to prevent abuses (the
Senate passed a bill that introduced familiar state regulations such as increased
financial accountability, more auditing of books, bringing charters
under state procurement laws, and the like), 11th-hour amendments were
slapped on by the Arizona House Majority Leader that stripped out nearly all
of the proposed new regulations. The governor and superintendent of
schools (the latter an ardent supporter of charter schools) expressed shock
and dismay at this almost inexplicable political maneuvering.
Data reported at the state level suggest that Arizona charter schools serve
an ethnically and racially diverse group of students, though they underrepresent
Hispanic students. For instance, in 1996, traditional public schools in
Arizona collectively served 56.8% white students while all charter schools enrolled
55.2% white students (Cobb & Glass, 1999). Put this way, there appears
to be little difference in the ethnic compositions between charter and
traditional public schools. But, as we have argued, averaged figures do not
speak to the possibility of between-school ethnic/racial separation.
Cobb and Glass (1999) compared the 1996 ethnic/racial compositions of
over 100 Arizona charter schools with those of nearby traditional public
schools. Geographic maps were used to analyze the ethnic/racial makeup of
each urban charter school (n = 55) in relation to nearby traditional public
schools of the same grade level. The maps provided rich, contextual information.
Various geographical characteristics such as major streets and highways,
reservation lands, mountainous regions, canals, military bases, census
tracts, and district boundaries comprised these digital maps. Descriptive data
relevant to the census tracts, district boundaries, and--most important--
nearby schools, were also available. Results indicated that the charter schools
were typically more white (on the order of 15 to 20% higher in the percentage
of white students enrolled) than the nearest traditional public schools.
Moreover, the charter high schools appeared to fall naturally into either college
preparatory schools that were largely white, or at-risk, vocational schools
that were predominantly minority. Intra-district analyses of 57 rural charter
schools (which often entailed comparing one charter school to one or two
traditional public schools due the smallness of rural school districts) showed
similar levels of ethnic/racial separation. These results confirmed, at least in
the case of Arizona charter schools, the often-mentioned claim that schools
of choice have the propensity to sort students along ethnic and racial lines
(e.g., Whitty, 1997; Willms, 1986, 1996).
A more recent study analyzed 1998 enrollment data in much the same
manner as the original investigation to determine if the degree of ethnic separation
had lessened, remained the same, or worsened two years later (Cobb,
2000). Numerous charter schools opened while others closed in the two years
following the previous analysis, resulting in significant changes in enrollment
patterns. For example, there has been a steady decline in the African American
population of charter school students in Arizona as predominantly
African American charter schools have encountered various problems with
nearly nonexistent state regulations, as remarkable as that might seem.
As in the previous analysis, this study (Cobb, 2000) also benefited from the
urban analysis. We present one of those here.
To remain consistent with the previous study, each of the 98 urban charter
schools was directly compared to the nearest traditional public school of comparable
grade level. Admittedly, this method lacks the capacity for detecting
ethnic/racial separation that the more inclusive mapping technique offers;
however, it summarily portrays charter/traditional public school differences in
ethnic/racial composition in a simple, straightforward manner.
The overall results of this latest study indicated that nearly a third of Arizona's
charter schools contributed to ethnic/racial separation during
1998–99. The encouraging news is that this percentage is considerably down
from two years prior when 46% of the charter schools were found to contribute
to this sort of stratification. However, when the number of charter
schools that are suspect of contributing are added, the difference across years
narrows significantly from 53% in 1996 to 47% in 1998 (see Cobb & Glass,
1999, or Cobb, 1999, for a complete explanation of what constitutes the "suspect
of contributing" classification). Furthermore, although the proportion
of charter schools that appear to have contributed to ethnic/racial separation
has lessened over the past two years, the numbers of students and schools that
have been affected has clearly increased. More Arizona students attended ethnically
and racially stratified charter schools in 1998 than they did two years
prior (76 schools in 1998 versus 45 schools in 1996). This level of segregation
is disturbing and deserves the attention of policymakers in that state.
Charter schools offer more than just choice of a school for students and parents,
they offer schools (or those that sponsor new schools) opportunities to
select students and parents. Indeed, charter schools can be selective primarily
due to their start-up nature. Consider that those that start up can (1) limit size
and thus enrollment, (2) narrow their curricular scope to attract or target certain
types of students (e.g., Ben Franklin schools in Arizona), and (3) choose
geographic location. This notion of selectivity is not limited to charter startups.
Even conversion schools--especially private conversion schools--already
have missions, students, and enrollment numbers in place. One charter school
in Arizona, founded by the wife of a Libertarian economics professor at the
University of Arizona, advertised for an academically elite clientele and told
parents who inquired about admittance for their learning disabled child that
the charter school would "not be a good fit" (personal communication). Another
charter school in Arizona that was predominantly white in an ethnically
diverse area prominently advertised its Mormon mission. It promised young
Mormons a school tailored to them with its "10 Reasons LDS Parents Should
Choose Life School" (Arizona Republic, 1998). To be sure, these are two extreme
examples; however, they are testimony to the notion that charter
schools, at least those operating under few regulations, may well result in
worse levels of stratification than other "pure choice" models, such as vouchers,
because of their start-up nature.
We encourage the use of improved methodologies to study the potential
stratifying effects of charter schools. For instance, student address data would
strengthen the mapping techniques employed by Cobb and Glass (1999). But
gaining access to these data can be difficult. We also urge researchers and policymakers
to make reasonable and appropriate comparisons when looking at the
enrollment compositions of charter and traditional public schools. As we have
demonstrated, it makes little sense to look at highly ethnically and racially homogeneous
areas to find evidence of segregation. Charter schools do locate in
predominantly white districts, and probably should not be included in overall
averaged figures. Lastly, we suggest that investigations be done by research
teams with representatives from pro-charter and anti-charter positions.
Michigan
In the aggregate, Michigan's charter schools--called "public school academies"--
serve proportionally more students of color than regular public
schools (Horn & Miron, 1999). But again, such averaged figures can mask
underlying disparities at regional and local levels. It would be inappropriate
to conclude that Michigan charter schools do not ethnically/racially segregate.
A more in-depth analysis would be required to answer that question.
In its 1999 study, the Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University
reported that, on average, charter schools in Michigan (at least the 62 schools
in their study) enrolled relatively more students of color than noncharter
public schools (51 to 33% respectively). The evaluators were quick to point
out, however, that these numbers do not necessarily support the conclusion
that charter schools are attracting more students of color than traditional public
schools, or that they have not contributed to ethnic/racial segregation in
their vicinity. Most charter schools in Michigan are located in urban areas,
which are predominantly minority. In fact, the data indicate that the charter
schools are actually serving disproportionately fewer minorities in diverse
areas. Sponsoring districts were 41% white on average while charter schools
in those districts were nearly 60% white on average. Horn and Miron, while
recognizing the limitations of charter-to-district comparisons (in this instance,
some students attend charters from outside districts in which they are
located), suggested that this provides evidence of ethnic segregation. They
reported: "in fact, in relation to the host districts, the [charter schools] as a
whole have fewer minorities. Thus, there is support for those who argue that
the charter schools are skimming and increasing segregation" (Horn &
Miron, 1999, p. v). They also state that, "while some schools . . . strive[d] to
increase racial and social diversity of the students, others [had] few, if any minorities
or students with special needs" (p. iv).
In the appendices of their report, Horn and Miron (1999) present comparisons
of the ethnic compositions among 61 charter schools and their host
districts. We calculated that 26 of 61 charter schools, or 43%, demonstrated
at least a 15% difference in percentage of white students. Of these 26, 14
were in the direction of enrolling more minority students while 12 were in
the direction of serving more white students. However, after removing charter
schools located in host districts that were ethnically and racially homogeneous
(that is, over 95% white, on average), the proportion of charter
schools that presented with at least a 15% difference increased to well over
half (24 of 45). Further, the percentage of charter schools that were significantly
more white than their host district increased to 27%.
Perhaps more troubling is the declining trend in enrollment among minority
students over a four-year period (see Figure 3). The evaluators attributed
this decline to newly formed charter schools, which were enrolling
greater numbers of white students. To the extent that new charters are locating
in ethnically/racially heterogeneous areas, this could be indicative of
white flight. Given that districts sponsoring charter schools are 41% white
(compared to the overall state average of 80% white), it does appear that
charters are locating in more ethnically and racially diverse communities.
We learned from the Horn and Miron study that state-averaged data may
not accurately portray a complete picture. Once again, we return to the comparisons
drawn in the U.S. Department of Education's Fourth-Year Report:
In order to examine the racial/ethnic variability across schools, we also calculated
the average of the schools' racial/ethnic percentages. On average, charter schools
enrolled a significantly lower percentage of white students (50 percent versus 63
percent) and a much larger percentage of black students (27 percent versus 17
percent) than all public schools in the 27 charter states. (2000, p. 30)
We want to point out that this "50%" figure is an average across schools,
and that there are many data points on either side of this mean. It could be
the case that those schools that comprise the upper part of this range (say,
70% and higher white) were mostly located in non-white areas, as Horn and
Miron had found in Michigan. Cast in this light, the data tell a different story.
California
A number of studies have reported that charter schools in California overrepresent
white students. For instance, the national First-Year Report revealed
that 37% of California charter schools, compared to 17% of traditional public
schools, had enrollments of 80% or more white students (U.S. Department
of Education, 1997). A separate study, one commissioned by the California
Legislative Analyst's Office, concluded that,
On the whole, charter schools served a population that was demographically similar
to the student population statewide. Within-district comparisons, however,
showed that in about 40% of charter schools students were more likely to be
White, and in about 60% of charter schools students were less likely to be low income
than other students in their sponsoring districts. (SRI, 1997, p. II-1)
The UCLA Charter School Study found that in 10 of the 17 charter
schools it investigated, at least one ethnic or racial group was over- or underrepresented
by 15% or more in comparison to the districts' composition
(Wells, 1999). Crockett (1999) found similar evidence of ethnic/racial segregation
in her comprehensive study of well over 100 California charter
schools. We explore this study in more detail below.
Crockett (1999) conducted a statewide analysis of all 123 California charter
schools that operated during the 1997–1998 school year. The analysis was an
attempt to discern, to the extent it existed, the ethnic/racial distinctness between
charter schools and their sponsoring districts. California charter law requires
charter schools to reflect the ethnic/racial balance of the district in which
they reside. (Wells [1999] previously reported that this rule was not being enforced,
at least among the 10 California districts in her study.) If discrepancies
in ethnic/racial student compositions were evident, Crockett sought to explain
those differences by way of school and district characteristics (e.g., urbanness,
grade level, geographic location and size, charter mission, and the like).
A closer examination of the 38 charter schools that were 25% and greater
distinct in ethnic/racial composition from their sponsoring districts revealed
that 20 (or 52%) of these exhibited a white–Hispanic inverse relationship;
that is, charter schools typically served more white students than the district,
on average, and conversely, the district schools served more Hispanic students,
on average. These percentages virtually offset one another. Of the 20
charter schools, 19 were in the direction of more white. This is strongly suggestive
of ethnic/racial separation.
Crockett was particularly interested in those charter schools that were
whiter than their district. Overall, 78 of the 123 charter schools (63%)
were whiter than their sponsoring districts. One in five charter schools (n
= 26) exhibited at least a 20-point difference in the percentage of white
students enrolled (all in the direction of the charter being more white).
The average difference in percentage white among these charter schools
was 32%. These schools tended to be located in urban areas, span the elementary
and middle school grades, espouse an academic (versus vocational)
mission, and be start-up (versus conversion) schools. In most instances,
the difference in percentage white (i.e., charter minus district
average) was matched by a corresponding deficit in the percentage of Hispanic
students (see Table 2).
Crockett noted the methodological weakness of using district averages (of
percentage ethnic/racial enrollments), as it ignores within-district
ethnic/racial heterogeneity. She further cautioned that "some charter schools
may reflect their locations in a way that puts them out of balance with their
sponsoring districts . . . particularly if the district is large." That said, Crockett
affirmed that "the findings of ethnic separation . . . are not limited to one
or two districts, but are in effect statewide" (p. 74). A map analysis of California
charter schools is currently under way, which we believe presents a
more powerful manner to investigate the possibility of ethnic/racial separation.
Nevertheless, the findings reported by Crockett are strongly indicative
of ethnic/racial stratification.
Finally, we think it is important to note that many charters in California
have experimented with mandatory parental involvement contracts, which
can serve to be exclusionary (Becker, Nakagawa, & Corwin, 1996). In a study
of 10 California school districts Wells (1999) also reported that charter
schools exercise considerable control over the types of students they serve.
Conclusions
The evidence presented here runs counter to some of the claims intimated
by highly regarded national evaluations of charter schools; namely, that
charter schools have not resulted in the ethnic/racial separation of students.
More careful inspection demonstrates that ethnic and racial stratification
can and does exist on the part of some charter schools. Comparisons among
proximal charter and traditional public schools in Arizona, Michigan, and
California suggest that a significant number of charter schools are disproportionately
more white by about 15 to 20% on average. These three states
account for over half of the nation's charter schools. Although we do not
generalize our findings to all charter schools, we do believe that substantial
evidence exists that charter schools in ethnically and racially diverse neighborhoods
are contributing to ethnic and racial segregation in the public
schools of our nation. Moreover, certain among state charter policies appear
to permit such sorting. These incidences of ethnic/racial separation are not
isolated nor insignificant.
Note. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (New Orleans, April 2000).
References
Arizona Republic. (1998, May 14). Charter school ad targets Mormons. p. A1.
Becker, H. J., Nakagawa, K., & Corwin, R. G. (1996). Parent involvement contracts
in California's charter schools: Strategy for educational improvement or method of
exclusion. Teachers College Record, 98(3), 511–536.
Buechler, M. (1996). Charter schools: Legislation and results after four years (Indian Education
Policy Center, Policy Rep. PR-B13). Bloomington, IN: School of Education
Office.
Cobb, C. D. (1999). Charter schools as schools of choice: Ethnic and racial separation in Arizona.
Cobb, C. D., & Glass, G. V (1999). Ethnic segregation in Arizona charter schools. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 7(1). Retrieved from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/v7n1.
Corwin, R. G., & Flaherty, J. F. (Eds.) (1995, November). Freedom and innovation in
California's charter schools. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory.
Crockett, C. (1999). California charter schools: The issue of racial/ethnic segregation. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Elmore, R. F. (1988). Choice in public education. In W. L. Boid & C. T. Kerchner,
Politics of excellence and choice in education: 1987 yearbook of the politics of education association
(pp. 79–98) New York: Falmer Press.
Fitzgerald, J., Harris, P., Huidekoper, P., & Mani, M. (1998, January). 1997 Colorado
charter schools evaluation study: The characteristics, status and student achievement data of
Colorado charter schools. Denver: Clayton Foundation.
Henig, J. R. (1995). Race and choice in Montgomery county, Maryland, magnet
schools. Teachers College Record, 96(4), 729–734.
Horn, J., & Miron, G. (1999, January). Evaluation of the Michigan Public School Academy
initiative: Executive summary. Evaluation Center of Western Michigan University.
Retrieved from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/.
Lee, V., & Croninger, R. G. (1994). Parental choice of schools and social stratification
in education: The paradox of Detroit. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(4), 434–457.
Moore, D., & Davenport, S. (1990). School choice: The new, improved sorting machine.
In W. Boyd & H. Walberg (Eds.), Choice in education (pp. 187–223). Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.
O'Neil, J. (1996). New options, old concerns. Educational Leadership, 54(2), 6–8.
SRI International. (1997). Evaluation of charter school effectiveness. Menlo Park, CA. Report
prepared for the State of California Office of Legislative Analyst. Written by
J. Powell, J. Blackorby, J. Marsh, K. Finnegan, & L. Anderson.
Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let's be realistic! School mix, school effectiveness
and the social limits of reform. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(1997). A study of charter schools: First-year report 1997. RPP International and the
University of Minnesota.
U.S. Department of Education & RPP. (1999). A comparison of charter legislation:
Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia incorporating legislative changes through
October, 1998. Retrieved from http://www.uscharterschools.org.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). The state of charter schools 2000--Fourth-year
report, January 2000. Retrieved from http://www.uscharterschools.org.
Wells, A. S. (1993a). The sociology of school choice: Why some win and others lose
in the educational marketplace. In E. Rassel & R. Rothstein (Eds.), School choice: Examining
the evidence (pp. 29–48). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Wells, A. S. (1993b). Time to choose: America at the crossroads of school choice policy. New
York: Hill and Wang.
Wells, A. S. (1999). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California
school districts. UCLA Charter School Study.
Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1992). Do parents choose school quality or school status?
A sociological theory of free market education. In P. W. Cookson Jr. (Ed.), The
choice controversy, (pp. 65–82). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Wells, A. S., Holme, J. J., Lopez, A., & Cooper, C. W. (2000). Charter schools and
racial and social class segregation: Yet another sorting machine? In Richard D.
Kahlenberg (Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility
(pp. 169–221). New York: Century Foundation Press.
Whitty, G. (1997). Creating quasi-markets in education: A review of recent research
on parental choice and school autonomy in three countries. Review of Research in Education,
22, 3–47.
Willms, D. J. (1986). Social class segregation and its relationship to pupils' examination
results in Scotland. American Sociological Review, 51, 224–241.
Willms, D. J. (1996). School choice and community segregation. In A. C. Kerckhoff
(Ed.), Generating social stratification: Toward a new research agenda. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
|
1968 Gene V Glass. (1968). Analysis of Data on the Connecticut Speeding Crackdown as a Time-Series Quasi- Experiment, Law ...
No comments:
Post a Comment