Critical Race Theory and the Proliferation of U.S. Charter Schools
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the feasibility of education reforms based
on market theory to create equitable education opportunities for students of color and
poor students in the United States, given the local and national contexts of race and
racism. Two experimental research design and five non-experimental design
comprehensive studies were analyzed for common and incongruent findings, methods,
frameworks, and implications. The authors use critical race theory (CRT) to critique the
proliferation of charter schools in the U.S. and demonstrate how market theory’s failure
to account for issues of race and racism reinstantiates inequitable schooling practices in
primarily urban areas. As various stakeholders continue to espouse the merits of market
theory as a framework to apply to education, educators must temper this discourse with
conversations concerning the local and national contexts where the implementations of
these grand experiments are taking place.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to examine the feasibility of education reforms based
on market theory to create equitable education opportunities for students of color and
poor students in the United States, given the local and national contexts of race and
racism. Data indicate that the majority of charter schools, which serve an overrepresentative sample of African American and Latino students in urban areas, have not
fulfilled their promise to be a viable alternative to failing public schools. Using the
example of charter schools in the U.S., the authors illustrate how market theory
recapitulates the racial and socio-economic status quo in education by compelling charter
schools to compete for “clients” in ways that further marginalize the neediest students
and obscure issues of unbalanced resources and limited school access.
Theoretical Framework
The authors use critical race theory (CRT) to critique the proliferation of charter
schools in the U.S. and demonstrate how market theory’s failure to account for issues of
race and racism reinstantiates inequitable schooling practices in primarily urban areas.
According to Delgado (1998-1999), market theory’s assumption of “rationale” actors
fails to account irrationality of race and racism in the US. Delgado holds that, “the thick
web of culture, language, and institutional inertia discourages the competitive frenzy
market place advocates place their faith in” (p 233). Market theory, in the form of charter
school reform, becomes an example of a theory, with potential for justice, that falls prey
to the entrenched, historical contexts of racism in the US, and the “inescapable tendency
to produce winners and losers, haves and have nots, rich and poor” (Delgado, p 219).
Because market theory does not accommodate the deeply embedded context of
race and racism in the US, charter school advocates consistently underestimate the power
of racism and classism in parental school choices and education policy decision-making
(Orfield, Lee, & Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2004; Caldas & Bankston, 2005). Thus,
the racialization of charter schools is demonstrated by the following indicators: high
levels of racial segregation in charter schools, high levels of white students in charter
schools with large populations of students of color in the surrounding areas, and racial
segregation of charter schools despite open enrollment policies and racially diverse
geographic areas (Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2010). Furthermore, the failure
of market theory to account for the racial politics in U.S. society makes charter schools a
tool to re-instantiate inequity and the status quo through its implementations.
Mode of Inquiry
Two
experimental
research
design
and
five
non-experimental
design
comprehensive studies were analyzed for common and incongruent findings, methods,
frameworks, and implications.
Data Sources
The following table is a summary of the eight studies analyzed for this paper.
Studies
Type of study
Conducted from
2007-2012
Location
Number Average
of
Impact
Charter
Schools
Impact
student
subgroups
Hanushek,
nonKain, Rivkin, & experimental
Branch, 2007
Texas
248
Negative
No impact by
income or race/
ethnicity
Ballou Teasley, non&
Zeidner, experimental
2008
Idaho
28
Positive for N/A
elementary;
non
for
middle
schools
Abdulkadiroglu,
Angrist,
Cohodes,
Dynarski,
Fullerton, Kane,
& Pathak, 2009
nonexperimental
and
experimental
Boston
28
Positive for N/A
middle and
high school
CREDO 2009
nonexperimental
14 states 2,403
and DC
Negative
by
More positive
for
lowerincome students
More negative
impacts
for
black/
Latino
students
Hoxby,
Murarka,
Kang, 2009
Experimental
New York
42
Positive
&
No impact by
race/ ethnicity
or gender
More positive
impact
for
students
in
higher grades
Zimmer, Gill, & nonBooker,
experimental
Lavertu, Sass,
7
states 231
and D.C
None/
negative
No impacts by
race/ethnicity
& Witte, 2009
Gleason, Clark, Experimental
Tuttle,
&
Dwoyer, 2010
Some positive
post-secondary
predictions for
Chicago
and
Florida
high
school students
15 states
36
None
Less
for
with:
negative
schools
lower
enrollment
use of ability
grouping
larger
proportion
of
lower-income
students
larger
proposition of
lower-achieving
students
Witte,
Wolf, nonDean, Carlson, experimental
2011
Milwaukee 10
positive
Positive change
in middle grades
No significant
change for 10th
graders
Source: Gleason, Clark, Tuttle, and Dwoyer, 2010, pgs. 83-85
Results
An analysis of the eight studies reveals five primary concerns regarding the outcomes of
charter schools. These five concerns are critical indicators highlighting the breakdown in
charter school public policy. 1.
Successful charter schools for limited number of
students, 2. Standardized Curriculum, 3. The Failure to Serve Children with High
Curricular Needs, 4. Resource Gap between Charter and Suburban Schools, 5. Failure to
address the white-black achievement gap. The conference paper utilizes the data from the
eight studies to provide detailed support for each of these concerns.
Discussion
Charter school reform provides limited, yet highly acclaimed schooling options to
prepare students of color to sustain the American workforce and contribute to the
economic stability of the country. Privileged career status opportunities remain the
purview of white college graduates, while graduates of color fill job positions with fewer
opportunities for career mobility and leadership, thus maintaining the economic gap
between white America and workers of color, while providing necessary workers for the
21st Century.
Scholarly Significance of the Work
Unless educators and research continue to challenge the current discourse of charter
schools, the majority of students of color, will remain stranded in subpar K-12 schools.
Research should be conducted at the local level to assist policy-makers, parents, and
educators assess the value of charter schools and place students in resource rich learning
environments. Policy makers must push for accountability processes that identify failing
schools, and close them through a fair, transparent, and expeditious process.
Connection to themes of the Conference
Issues of race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, cultural contexts, and other social
indicators significantly impact how theories of the market are introduce as policy and
taken up by citizens. Unless education researchers “critically examine the strengths
and weaknesses of different theoretical paradigms of learning and to explore how
different conceptions frame and influence educational change efforts” (ICSEI Aimes,
http://www.icsei.net/index.php?id=1653), the students in urban areas will continue to
experience social and economic marginalization in education.
References
Abdulkadiroglu, A., Angrist, J., Cohodes, S., Dynarski, S., Fullerton, J., Kane, T., and
Pathak, P. (2009). “Informing the debate: Comparing Boston’s charter, pilot and
traditional public schools.” Boston Foundation: Boston.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., and Zhang,
J. (2012). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC.
Retrieved [9/01/2012] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Ballou, D., Teasley, B., and Zeidner, T. (2008). “Charter schools in Idaho.” In M.
Berends, M.G. Springer, and H.J. Walberg (eds.), Charter school outcomes.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. New York. pp. 228-241.
Bulkley, K. E. (2011). Charter schools: Taking a closer look. Kappa Delta Pi Record,
47(3), 110-115.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). (2009). “Multiple choice:
Charter school performance in 16 states.” Stanford, CA.: Stanford University..
Delgado, R. (1998-1999). Rodrigo’s roadmap: Is the marketplace theory for eradicating
discrimination a blind alley? Northwestern University Law Review, 93(1), 215245.
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., Wang, J. (2010). Choice without Equity: Charter
School Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards. Los Angeles, CA:
The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA;
www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu.
Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C. C., and Dwoyer, E. (2010). The Evaluation of Charter
School Impacts: Final Report (NCEE 2010-4029). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J. F. Rivkin, S. G, and Branch, G.F. (2007). Charter school quality
and parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics,
91, pp. 823-848.
Hoxby, C. M., Murarka, S., and Kang, J. (2009). “How New York City’s charter schools
affect student achievement: August 2009 Report.” Second report in series.
Cambridge. MA.: New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project
Huerta, L. A., & Zuckerman, A. (2009). An Institutional theory analysis of charter
schools: Addressing institutional challenges to scale. Peabody Journal Of
Education 84(3), 414-431.
Orfield, G., Lee, C., & Harvard Civil Rights Project, C., MA. (2004). "Brown" at 50:
King's dream or "Plessy's" nightmare? : Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University
Stein, M., Goldring, E, and Cravens, C (2011). Dynamics of parent involvement in urban
charter schools: Parents’ perceptions, principals’ expectations, and student
achievement S. Auerbauch, Eds. School Leadership for Authentic Family and
Community Partnerships: Research Perspectives for Transforming Practice, p.
213-222. New York: Routledge
Witte, G, Wolf, P., Dean, A., Carlson, D. (2011). Milwaukee Independent Charter
Schools Study: Report on Two- and Three-Year Achievement Gains. SCDP
Milwaukee Evaluation. Report # 25. School Choice Demonstration Project.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED518594.pdf
Zimmer, R., Gill, G., and Booker, K., Lavertu, Saas, Witte, G. (2009). Charter schools in
eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition.
Santa Monica, CA.: RAND Corporation.