Charter Schools, Gentrification, and the
Division or Betterment of Urban Communities
Ngozi Max- Macarthy
Honors Undergraduate Thesis in Public Policy
Duke University
Fall 2014
1
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3
ABSTRACT
4
INTRODUCTION
5
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
7
URBAN REVITALIZATION AND GENTRIFICATION
EDUCATION POLICY AND GENTRIFICATION
THE RISE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS IN URBAN COMMUNITIES
CHARTER SCHOOLS AS COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
THE USE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS IN CREATING PLACE IDENTITY
DISCUSSIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOL EMERGENCE AND GENTRIFICATION
7
8
10
11
13
14
CHAPTER 2: DIRECTION OF STUDY
18
HYPOTHESIS
19
CHAPTER 3: CONTENT ANALYSIS OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
20
RESEARCH DESIGN
CONTENT ANALYSIS DATA COLLECTION
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS FROM THEMATIC CONTENT ANALYSIS
EMERGING THEMES FROM CONTENT ANALYSIS
LIMITATIONS
20
20
21
22
26
CHAPTER IV: METHOD 2: CASE STUDIES
27
RESEARCH DESIGN
OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
FORT GREENE, BROOKLYN, NY
HARLEM, NYC
27
28
29
39
CONCLUSION
44
REFERENCES
47
APPENDIX
51
2
Acknowledgements
I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me throughout
the course of this thesis. I am thankful for their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive
criticism and friendly advice during this study. I am sincerely grateful to them for sharing their
truthful and illuminating views.
I express my warm thanks to my thesis professor, Christina Gibson-Davis and my thesis advisor,
Shane Goodridge. Thank you both for your encouragement, your feedback, and your
perspectives. You both have shaped my writing tremendously over the last year. To the Sanford
School of Public Policy, thank you for your support and instruction.
I would also like to thank those in the neighborhoods of Fort Greene, Brooklyn and Harlem, New
York City for your conversations, laughs, and insight. While you are not quoted in this study,
your stories helped create this work.
Thank you,
Ngozi Max-Macarthy
3
Abstract
Historically, under resourced and poor performing school districts hampered policy
efforts to revitalize urban working class neighborhoods. The housing market works in tandem
with the education “market,” with schools influencing and being influenced by their surrounding
neighborhoods. This study analyzes the possible link between gentrification, or the rehabilitation
of working class neighborhoods, and the rise of charter school schools. Charter schools,
publically funded but privately operated, are growing exponentially under current local and
national school reform policies and provide alternatives to traditional neighborhood schools.
Through content analysis of newspaper articles and case studies on two New York City charter
schools and their neighborhoods, this study gains perspective on the relationship between charter
school creation and the changing socio-economic and cultural demographics of a neighborhood.
While the media analysis suggests that the perceived link is not widespread or heavily reported,
the case studies indicate that some community members perceive that the charter school is
related to the ongoing gentrification of the neighborhood. Those who perceive the link are
divided- while many view the charter school as increasing the racial and cultural divide in the
gentrified community, others view an emerging charter school as a sign for urban cultural,
economic revitalization and increased opportunities for historically underserved communities.
4
Introduction
For years, policy makers have attempted, and often failed, to revitalize, reform, and
improve low-income, under resourced urban communities. Recently, they have utilized a wellestablished assumption: school quality is closely linked to neighborhood quality. The
simultaneous use of education reform and changes in housing policy to holistically revitalize
low-income, urban communities strengthens the ties between schools and their surrounding
neighborhoods (Patterson and Silverman, 2013). These policies rely on the assumption that
education reform initiatives can influence the demographic makeup of a neighborhood (Davis
and Oakley, 2013; Smith and Stovall 2008). In the past, poor performing schools in the area
hampered efforts to rejuvenate low-income neighborhoods (Patterson and Silverman, 2013).
Wealthier residents were unwilling to move into lower-income neighborhoods undergoing
economic change because educational options were reduced to an expensive private school or a
low achieving public school (Butler and Robeson, 2003). Growing research suggests policy
makers utilize alternatives to the public school system, specifically charter schools, to encourage
wealthier residents to stay in a poorer community (Hankins, 2007; Patterson and Silverman,
2013; Davis and Oakley, 2013; Smith and Stovall, 2008; Lipman, 2009).
This study explores the claim that charter schools are linked to urban revitalization efforts.
Focusing on specific communities in which there are on-going tensions between community
members, especially over issues of gentrification, this work provides insight into a possible link
between emerging charter schools and ongoing gentrification of a community, the perception of
this link by both media and local community members, and the positive or negative associations
surrounding this link.
5
This study will begin by briefly defining the concept of urban revitalization and its
connection with gentrification. Next, it will explore the possible connections between charter
schools and urban demographic shifts and how that can theoretically create tensions in a
community. This study will use specific case studies to illustrate these points in urban
communities. Furthermore, this work, will analyze local media in efforts to unravel if there is a
wide spread association of charter schools and gentrification. Finally, this work will connect this
possible link to the broader implications for the charter school movement.
Main Question
Is there a perceived link between charter school emergence and the ongoing gentrification of a
neighborhood? If such a link exists, do community members and the media perceive it positively
or negatively?
6
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
Urban Revitalization and Gentrification
Urban revitalization is the rehabilitation of failing neighborhoods in cities. Cities such as
New York, Chicago, or Philadelphia often undergo city level renovations including the
rehabilitation of housing programs, the development of public spaces such as parks or
community centers, and a change in the public education system (Smith, 1996). Local city
officials measure the success of rehabilitation efforts by citing demographic or economic
changes. These changes include a higher standard of living in a community, an influx of the
middle class, more lucrative businesses, and a higher median income in the neighborhood (Davis
& Oakley, 2013). Thus, urban revitalization is often synonymous with gentrification, defined as
“the rehabilitation of working class and derelict housing and the consequent transformation of an
area into a middle-class neighborhood” (Smith and Williams, 1986:1). High levels of
gentrification represent successful urban revitalization efforts and a sign that the neighborhood is
experiencing positive economic change.
While the urban community might experience positive changes in the eyes of local
officials, gentrification and urban revitalization are coupled with inherent tensions in the
changing community. As the more affluent middle class move into the changing neighborhood,
property prices rise, which often pushes out longtime residents who can no longer afford rent.
The cost of living in the area also increases, since businesses recognize that they can charge
more to suit the finances of the incoming middle class residents. Those of the working class in
the neighborhood can no longer afford to live in the community and often move out (Smith &
Williams, 1986). Displacement is the most common fear for those in working class communities
undergoing gentrification (Atkinson, 2002). Residents in neighborhoods undergoing
gentrification often deal with class and social tensions, which create a fear of “other.” There are
7
inherent tensions between those who were there before and those who are coming in. Working
class neighborhoods often have a certain culture centered on shared experiences. Gentrification
represents a neighborhood cultural shift (Atkinson, 2002).
While urban renewals programs can bring positive change, the social conflicts elicit
emotions of xenophobia and a fear of potential replacement of ethnic communities with white
residents (Atkinson, 2002). These tensions grow stronger when education and the needs of
children affect this transitioning (Butler and Hamnett, 2007). Education reform tends to happen
in tandem with these cultural and economic shifts.
Education Policy and Gentrification
School policy has the ability to shape and be shaped by demographic, economic, and
social changes in its surrounding community (Lipman, 2009). While some federal dollars help
school districts operate, approximately 87.7 % of funds for schools come from the local and state
level, mainly from neighborhood property taxes (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Due in
part to this funding policy, and because schools often act as community meeting spaces,
education quality is closely linked to residence (Cucchiara, 2010). Indeed, there is a growing
acceptance that housing markets and what is known as education markets are closely linked
(Butler and Robson, 2003). Many parents choose housing based on its proximity to high
performing school districts, often paying more in property taxes for the opportunity to send their
child to a good school (Patterson and Silverman, 2013). Schools in low-income communities
often receive less funding tied to low property values in the surrounding neighborhood. Many of
these schools are also low performing, so the achievement of a school often mirrors the socioeconomic level of the surrounding community and its residences (Patterson and Silverman,
2013).
8
This link between schools and communities has been a focus in recent decades for local
reform, with many initiatives concentrating on both education reform and urban revitalization
(Patterson and Silverman, 2013; Davis and Oakley, 2013). Historically, underperforming schools
hampered efforts to rejuvenate neighborhoods (Patterson and Silverman, 2013; Smith and Stovall,
2008). More affluent parents and residents, those needed in an urban neighborhood to improve
the tax base, had little incentive to move into a neighborhood with a poor performing public
school (Hankins, 2007). Without more affluent residents, those schools continued to lose the
needed funds and resources, creating a cycle of underperforming schools in poor communities.
Policy makers then began to focus on the relationships between housing and school policy in
order to create long lasting change. Initiatives and policies began to emphasis how to both
revitalize a school district. The most common actions were to close poor performing schools,
bring in a new management, or increase the amount of parent options. At the same time, housing
initiatives were aimed at bringing in a stronger tax base made up of more affluent residents that
are middle or upper middle class, encouraging more business to invest in a low income area, and
creating more mixed income housing (Hankins, 2007; Patterson and Silverman, 2013; Davis and
Oakley, 2013; Smith and Stovall, 2008; Lipman, 2009).
The new policies focusing on both neighborhood rejuvenation and school reform could
theoretically lead to sharp demographic changes in a community as more middle class or upper
middle class residents move into working class neighborhoods, often lured by low real estate
costs and proximity to city centers (Lipman, 2009; Cucchiara, 2010). Since housing is greatly
connected to schools, many argue that gentrification is not only encouraged by changes in
housing policy but also by changes in school policy. These policy changes include increasing
mixed housing opportunities and encouraging local investment in the area, but also reforming,
9
and often closing, poor performing schools to create a better overall school district. One of the
most prominent school reform initiatives designed to expand the number of parent options and
reform a school district is to increase the number of charter schools in an area experiencing urban
revitalization (Patterson and Silverman, 2013).
The Rise of Charter Schools in Urban Communities
Charter schools are publically funded, independently run schools whose mission is to
increase school choice and competition in the traditional public school system. Charter schools
were first formed in Minnesota in 1991, with the idea that the local community should be able to
provide an education for its students that fits their specific needs (Budde, 1996). Charter schools
are publically funded and operate under the Department of Education, but have more freedom
within the structure and guidelines of the school system. For example, charter schools can have
longer school days and school years, a specific overarching school theme, or a curriculum that
tends to the needs of the children. Although the process differs from state to state, some allow
educators, parents, corporations or community members to bring a charter in front of the state’s
Department of Education for approval. That charter is a blueprint for how the leaders will run the
school, what the pedagogy would be, and why it is needed in the community. The state charter
authorizers can then approve or reject the charter. If approved, the charter school is under review
while it operates. After a certain number of years of review, if it does not show a path to success,
the charter can be revoked and the school disestablished. It is important to note that charter
school law differs greatly from state to state. These laws influence how charter operators run
their schools and various accountability measures. Federal support for charters started in 1995
with the Public Charter School Program, now called the Charter School Program, which supports
the establishment and maintenance of these schools through grants.
10
Since the first charter schools in 1991 in Minnesota, the growth of charter schools has
steadily increased and diversified. In 2000, there were over 1,500 charter schools in the country,
mainly in cities and serving at the elementary level. Charter schools have seen a steady increase
(Figure 1), and now there are over 6,000 charter schools nationwide, approximately 6% of all
public schools (The National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, 2014 Dashboard). These
schools now serve 2.3 million children nationwide, 4.6% of all students in public schools.
Charters have experienced 100% growth in attendance since 2007-08 to present day, especially
in urban communities (NAPCS, 2014).
Charter schools are diverse both in their student population and their management
structure. Some of the most recognized charter schools in the country are run by Charter
Management Organizations (CMOs). CMOs run a collection of charter schools, usually with the
same pedagogy and school organization. There are currently over 100 CMOs in the country,
operating over 600 charter schools (Charter School Tools, 2014). The largest of these CMOs is
the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP). KIPP operates 62 schools in 20 states and serves over
17,000 students. A charter management organization differs from what are known as “mom and
pop” charter schools that is only one school created usually by parents in the community or
former teachers. Within these two broader charter school types, there are huge disparities on
achievement level, parental engagement, and curriculum. There are mixed results as to whether
or not charter schools as a whole perform better than neighborhood public schools (CREDO,
2009).
Charter Schools as Community Schools
11
Budde defined the charter concept as an addition to the traditional public school system
in order to “create dynamics that will cause the main-line system to change so as to improve
education for all students" (Budde, 1996:73). Almost a decade before Budde, Albert Shanker, the
president of the American Federation of Teachers, first conceptualized American charter schools
and believed they could “reinvigorate the twin promises of American public education: to
promote social mobility for working-class children and social cohesion among America’s
increasingly diverse populations” (Kahlenberg and Potter, 2014:1). Charter schools were to
complement the traditional school system and gave community members the opportunity to
design a school that best fit the needs of the community’s children. In this way, the relationship
between a charter school and a community was meant to be symbiotic, with the school emerging
from the needs of the people (Budde, 1996). Just as local public schools were meant to fit the
needs of a neighborhood, charters were meant to act as a place of community for not just the
students, but for parents and community members to make a greater investment in the
community school. Indeed, much of the discussion surrounding charter schools emphasize the
role that “community” and place act on the school (Hankins, 2004). Charter schools often speak
of the need to return public education back to the community and tend to focus on historically
under resourced communities.
Many charter schools specifically target disadvantaged urban neighborhoods with high
minority populations to increase school options in low performing school districts (Buckley and
Schneider, 2007). More than half (55.8%) of all charter schools are located in cities. While the
largest percentage of charter school students are white (36%) charter schools serve a higher
percentage of black and Hispanic students compared to traditional public schools. Nationwide,
black students comprise 29% of charter school enrollment, compared to 16% in traditional public
12
schools. Similarly 27% of charter school students are Hispanic compared to 23% of traditional
school students (NAPCS, 2014). Urban charters schools grow in popularity usually because of
their mission to provide new and innovate techniques for the most underserved neighborhoods.
Many state legislatures offer incentives for charter schools to come into low-income areas
already undergoing urban revitalization (Hill and Lake, 2010). Initiatives that seek to improve
the state of housing in low-income neighborhoods also include policies that increase the number
of charter schools in a community (Hankins, 2007; Patterson and Silverman, 2013; Davis and
Oakley, 2013; Smith and Stovall, 2008; Lipman, 2009). Thus a rise in charter school emergence
could happen in conjunction with neighborhood rejuvenation and gentrification (Davis and
Oakley, 2013).
The Use of Charter Schools in Creating Place Identity
Research on gentrification suggests that gentrifiers, middle class residents who move into
a low-income neighborhood, demonstrate a need for place identity in their new neighborhood. In
a neighborhood undergoing rapid change and difference, the need for “community” is critical.
Theories of place-identity and the “narrative of belonging” are important in understanding the
needs of gentrifiers (Butler, 2003; Hankins, 2007). Butler and Robson (2003) explore
gentrification in South London and comment that the middle class in gentrifying neighborhoods
has a “nonplace,” meaning they do not have a set identity in their new neighborhood and their
narrative of belonging is evident. While they seek a sense of community in their new
neighborhood, they still bypass the public school system of the local community and send their
children to private schools, maintaining social exclusivity and distance. (Butler and Robeson,
2003). While there is a need for gentrifiers to create a sense of community, parents are still not
willing to fully commit to the public neighborhood school. Hankins (2007) argues that with the
13
creation of a charter school, parents are able to mitigate this contention between avoiding the
local school and creating a sense of community. These parents “are seeking and indeed willing to
produce a place-based community through their activities around a charter school” (Hankins,
2007: 117). Since charters are already encouraged in low-income areas through urban
revitalization initiatives and are supposed to be strongly tied to the community, middle class
residents in gentrifying neighborhoods center on these schools in their search for place-identity.
(Hankins, 2007; Combs, 2010).
Discussions of Charter School Emergence and Gentrification
Two major notions attempt to explain the link between charter schools and gentrification
(Davis and Oakley, 2013). The first suggests that charter schools can attract middle class
residents to a new community. Charters in this case often accompany other urban revitalization
efforts and serve as a sign that the neighborhood is undergoing change (Smith and Stovall, 2013;
Lipman, 2009). The second theory proposes that since gentrifiers are unhappy with the failing
neighborhood school, they in turn create charter schools as an alternative to pricey private
schools and underperforming public schools (Hankins, 2007; DeSena, 2006; Combs, 2010).
These theories are included in this study to highlight some of the discussion in the literature on
the links between charter school and gentrification. They are used to frame this discussion but
are not explanations or guiding principals in this study.
Theory 1: Charter Schools attract middle class families
Charter schools serve an important role in education reform and grow under initiatives
that encourage increase parent option and higher community involvement in schools; these
initiatives may also focus on urban revitalization of low-income urban neighborhoods. For
example, Renaissance 2010 was a large Chicago policy initiative that often serves as a case study
14
for researchers discussing the possible link between charter schools and gentrification (Lipman,
2009; Lipman and Haines, 2007; Smith and Stovall, 2008). Renaissance 2010 (Ren2010) was
designed to revitalize mainly Mid- South Chicago, an area with a low income, high minority
population, and poor performing schools (Lipman, 2009; Lipman and Haines, 2007). The mayor
teamed with business professionals, corporations, and community leaders to research how to
increase investments in the area, increase the number of middle class and affluent residents, and
rebrand the neighborhood. The two foci were housing and education: increasing the number of
mixed income housing and dramatically reforming the school district’s landscape. The plan
included closing 60-80 poor performing public schools, and opening 100 new schools, many of
them charter schools (Lipman, 2007; Smith and Stovall, 2008). The policy hoped to innovate a
poor performing school district, rebrand Mid-South Chicago and transform the neighborhood
into more middle class.
The changes under Ren2010 were aimed at attracting wealthier residents to working class
neighborhoods by providing the new occupier alternatives to failing public schools, while at the
same time creating better high performing schools for all residents (Davis and Oakley, 2013).
Those opposing urban revitalization strategies such as Ren2010 argue that these policies seem to
prioritize the wealthier residents over the working class, often minority population, and increase
neoliberal initiatives such as charter schools (Lipman, 2009; Lipman and Haines 2007; Smith
and Stovall, 2013). In case studies in Chicago, researchers found that policies such as Ren2010
led to increased tensions between races and class, with some current working class residents
fearing the closing of their schools and displacement from their neighborhoods (Smith and
Stovall, 2013; Lipman, 2009). Community members argued that the increased choice options
15
were not for the working class, but as choices only for the incoming wealthier residents (Smith
and Stovall, 2008).
Theory 2: Charters schools established by wealthier residents
The second theory in the link between charter schools and gentrification examines the
role that incoming, wealthier residents play in changing the school system. The literature
suggests that in many cases, wealthier, often more educated residents living in a working class
neighborhoods either create their own charter schools or decide to send their children to the new
charter school in the area (Combs, 2010; Davis and Oakley, 2013). Literature on gentrification
suggests that more affluent community members avoid the local public school for a multitude of
reasons- it is often poor performing, they do not like the teaching style, or the school is
dangerous for their children (DeSena, 2006). Wealthier community members are often more
educated than the local working class residents and demand a high quality of education for their
children. The more affluent residents have more of a political voice than that of the existing
residents because they have more social and economic capital (Hankins, 2007; Smith and Stovall,
2008). Often times the incoming residents enroll their children in private schools in the area,
home school, or travel outside of the district lines to get their child(ren) into better schools
(Hankins, 2007; DeSena, 2006; Butler and Robson, 2003).
However, with growing costs of private schools, and a lack of time and funds, there are
few school alternatives for residents who do not wish to send their child to the public school in
the neighborhood. Many argue that the evolution of the charter school fills this need of school
options (Combs, 2010). Scholars claim that new residents can create their own schools, create
their own community centered on the charter school, and subsequently create an identity around
this school (Hankins, 2007; DeSena, 2006). As explored earlier in this paper, gentrifiers use the
16
charter school as a statement of their place identity in the new community. In the same vein, by
rejecting the community’s institution, the local public school, the new residents send a sign of
rejection to the community, since the school is a reflection of the neighborhood. This new school
also attracts more wealthy residents into the neighborhood, increasing the influence that the
school has in the community (Hankins, 2007). DeSena, who researches gentrification in
Greenpoint, Brooklyn and the role of middle class mothers in choosing schools, comments on the
mothers’ rejection of the local, and in this case, well performing school: “The actions of the
gentry suggest that they remain cautious about social integration with working-class, immigrant,
and low-income residents and are unwilling to fully engage in the community with them… Their
social identity as artists and professionals with more affluence and education is reproduced and
reinforced by going to more upscale schools” (DeSena, 2006:254). While the new community
members may not see this act of school choice as political or social commentary (DeSena, 2006),
to the working class residents, it is another layer of the change and gentrification of their
neighborhood (Anderson, 2012).
17
Chapter 2: Direction of Study
The possible links between charter schools and gentrification are all relatively recent and
evolving. While school choice and gentrification are separately well-researched topics in the
fields of sociology and education (Patterson and Robert, 2013), not much has focused on the role
of policy in the possible link between choice and urban revitalization, especially with the rapid
emergence of charter schools. Most of the literature is based on specific case studies within
major cities, but not too many on New York, combining both quantitative and qualitative data as
this research does. It is difficult to analyze the link between charter school and gentrification
because of the diverse nature of charter schools and their urban communities.
The difference between “mom and pop” charter schools and charter management
organizations contradict the theory that charter schools are used to form place identity and the
definition of a charter school as a community school. CMOs create chain schools and map on the
same school discipline and focus onto different communities all over the country. This school
“pop up” process undermines the notion that charter schools should emerge from the specific
needs-and people- of the community, as Budde (1996) suggested. CMOs suggest that regardless
of differences between communities, a school can thrive- a change from the theory behind the
community school model. CMOs also do not relate with the idea that gentrifiers create charter
schools to ground their place identity. Since CMO leaders are not from the local communityeither gentrifiers or long-time residents- those in search of place identity do not create the
schools.
The real focus of this study is the perception of a link, rather than the actuality of a link.
This work will also speak to the future role role of schools in communities. If charters continue
to expand at their exponential rate, how will they affect or be affected by community change, and
18
will this help or hinder their goals to provide quality education to all students? Overall, this study
adds to this discussion and focused on the role of the charter school as a symbol for
gentrification and the possible implications for the expansion of the charter school movement.
Hypothesis
Changes in a school system often reflect the demographic changes in its surrounding
community. This study hypothesizes that there is an association between gentrification and
charter schools in urban areas. The perceived link should also bring mixed feelings as to whether
or not it is positive or negative for the community.
If my hypothesis were true, both media and community members would perceive the
emergence of a charter school as linked to the ongoing gentrification of a neighborhood.
Through support or protest, those in a gentrified neighborhood may recognize the charter school
as another symbol of changes in the community associated with incoming professional class
residents. If my hypothesis holds true, then the media would report the emergence of charter
schools and gentrification in the same articles describing school or neighborhood change.
If my hypothesis is not true, community members would not link ongoing gentrification
to the new charter school, so they might not use it in their language and would not use it in their
justifications for or against the charter school. The media, also, would not mention gentrification
of a neighborhood when speaking of the emergence of a charter school, and not link the social
and educational changes together.
19
Chapter 3: Content Analysis of Newspaper Articles
Research Design
This study used newspapers to examine if there is a media focus on the relationship
between charter schools and gentrification. Newspapers often serve as a pulse of popular opinion.
The sample of newspapers stemmed from sources in New York City. The discussion of charter
schools in New York City differs greatly from that in the rest of the country. Public schools in
New York City are funded differently than many other districts, and many charter schools are colocated with traditional public schools. New York Charter Schools are also highly publicized and
are often seen as examples of effective schools. In addition, New York’s size allows for a large
collection of local and international newspaper outlets.
Newspapers also appeal to and are driven by their readership. If there is a lot of coverage
of charter schools in relation to a gentrified neighborhood, this can provide some evidence of
how people in general perceive the interaction between the two. If there is little coverage of this
link, it may suggest this relationship is not a widespread thought.
Content Analysis Data Collection
This study conducted a thematic content analysis. Using the comprehensive archives on
Proquest for the Wall Street Journal (Wall Street Journal and Wall Street Journal Online) and
LexisNexis for the New York Times (New York Times and NYT Blogs), the study compiled
three groups of articles from each newspaper. This work limited the location region to New York
City and restricted the years of article publication to 2006 to October 1st 2014. The year 2006
was chosen because that was the start of the two charter schools in my case study, many
prominent charter schools in New York City, and also the founding of Success Academy Charter
20
Network, the largest charter management organization in New York City. This year represents a
time of great charter growth and media coverage in New York City.
The first group of articles focused solely on gentrification, searching for variations of
gentrification: “gentrification” or “gentrified” or “gentrifying”. The second group of articles
focused on charter schools, searching for exact phrases “charter schools” OR “charter school.”
The final search group of articles combined the two search prompts “gentrification or gentrified
or gentrify” AND “charter schools or charter school.”
In total, the collection included 233 articles. The study included all articles that appeared
in the final search group targeting both gentrification and charter schools from both newspaper
sources (n=34). The remaining 199 articles were split between the New York Times and The
Wall Street Journal. Random samples from the exclusive “charter school” and “gentrification”
search results were drawn and coded for reoccurring themes among using NVivo.
Overall Observations from Thematic Content Analysis
Most of the articles (n = 216) from the content analysis contained no connection between
gentrification and charter school emergence. These articles either exclusively discussed charter
schools with no mention of gentrification markers or vice versa. Many articles were real estate
profiles. These articles may mention gentrification and list the schools of the neighborhood, one
of which being a charter. This study deemed these articles as “unassociated” (See codebook for
further explanation).
In this study, an article was coded as having an association between charter schools and
gentrification if it spoke of charter schools and a gentrification signal in relation to one another.
For example, many articles suggested a charter school attracts middle class residents in the lowincome community, or a charter school “seeks space” in a gentrified community. Articles that
21
spoke of charter schools among better amenities and services that signal gentrification also were
deemed as those with an association. For example, in a list of neighborhood changes such as
better restaurants, development and upscale retail, charter schools are part of the list. Of the 233
articles, 17 were considered as showing an association.
Emerging Themes from Content Analysis
While 216 of the 233 articles in my content analysis sample did not discuss an
association between charter school emergence and markers of gentrification, the 17 articles that
connected the two themes suggested two major themes. The first is that charter schools are
sometimes perceived as tools for gentrification. The second is that gentrified communities are
potential sites for charter schools. Within these two themes, community members had mixed
results as to whether the schools divide the neighborhoods or are better for the community.
Overall, the coverage of these topics have grown since 2006. The number of articles
mentioning gentrification and charter schools has consistently grown in both the New York
Times and the Wall Street Journal (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Since 2010, the number of articles
discussing these topics has grown from year to year. The number of articles mentioning both
charter schools and gentrification has also grown since 2006 (Figure 4), with the majority of the
articles published after 2010. While the there is a small number now, the trend suggests that
more articles may emerge in the future.
Theme 1: Charter Schools as tools for gentrification
A major theme across the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal articles is the
notion that charter schools encourage gentrification by attracting middle class residents. Seven
22
out of the 17 articles marked as having an association discussed the ability of charter schools to
“attract white families” into a neighborhood without strong public schools. An article in the New
York Times on October 2008 reported that trustees of a new charter school wanted to create a
charter school to “attract young professionals” who would need “an education alternative” to the
public schools (New York Times, 2008). In an interview with Madeline Sackler, director of the
Lottery, The Wall Street Journal describes Harlem residents’ fear that a charter school would be
a “tool for gentrification” (The Wall Street Journal, 2010). When those interviewed in a 2013
New York Times article described the ongoing changes in their gentrifying community, they
included the development and increased amenities usually associated with gentrification.
Increased private business investing in the area such as “Whole Foods and movie theaters” are
coupled with “charter schools” that make town homes in the area “a unique opportunity” (New
York Times, 2013). These anecdotes support the claim that some perceive charter schools as
mechanism to change the demographics of a neighborhood and encourage gentrification. The
common debate is whether or not these changes divide or better the community.
Within articles that discuss charter schools as “tools for gentrification”, there is a
difference between articles that suggest this “tool” divides the community and articles that argue
it is better for the overall neighborhood. Out of the 7 articles that suggest charter schools bring in
gentrifies, 4 discuss the possibility of this process dividing neighborhoods. These articles use the
term of “other” that both gentrification and charter schools may bring. In a 2014 New York
Times article, the writer remarks that “private and charter schools are exacerbating the problem
of ‘apartheid’ schooling which also has much to “do with housing and rapid rates of
gentrification.” Other articles express similar sentiments and fear that “charters divide the
community” which are only compounded with gentrification (New York Times, 2014). Similarly
23
some believe that “these [charter] schools serve as new kinds of sorting machines, leading to
more racial or class segregation within local communities” (New York Times, 2006). The
division of communities is a common theme describing a possible negative outcome of the link
between gentrification and charter schools. If charters spurn gentrification, then schools facilitate
the further division of families who can send their children to charters and those who do not.
While some may believe that charter schools and gentrification divide the community,
the counter-argument is that these processes improve the overall situation of the community. Out
of the 7 articles suggesting that charters attract gentrifiers, 2 proposed that this process is for the
betterment of the community. The two New York Times articles suggest that with the rise of
charter schools and new amenities brought on by gentrification, the community now has
“educational alternatives” which signals that the “school district [is becoming] better” (New
York Times, 2006).
Theme 2: Gentrification Encouraging Charter Schools
The second overarching theme emerging from the content analysis is the idea that charter
schools seek out neighborhoods already undergoing gentrification. Gentrifies also create charter
schools in their new communities. Out of the 17 articles showing language relating to an
association between these two themes, 7 suggest that communities undergoing gentrification
bring in charters. For example, an early 2006 article in the New York Times reports that while
some parents “thought the gentrification of Harlem throughout the 1990s, would be accompanied
by the improvement of the older public schools, they did not see it happen. Instead the charters
started opening.” The articles portray the gentrified neighborhoods as a scene for charter schools.
Another article by the New York Times viewed Harlem as a natural choice for the epicenter of
24
charter school reform partly because of the “gentrification that made the neighborhood palatable
to middle-class families.” For reasons not explored in the articles, gentrified neighborhoods seem
to be prime locations for charter schools. One article suggests “the reason for opening a charter
in a gentrified neighborhood… is to bring more middle class and upper-middle-class families
into the publically funded charter system” (New York Times, 2012). Similar to how urban
development attracts middle class families, these articles suggest, in turn, these neighborhoods
attract more charter schools.
The perception that gentrification encourages the emergence of charter schools includes
the polarizing opinion that this process can either divide the neighborhood or better the
community. Of the 7 articles that mention gentrification attracting charter schools, 5 suggest that
this process divides the community and 2 articles speak to the betterment of the community. The
two articles discussing the betterment of the neighborhood, both from the New York Times,
propose that due to gentrification and charter school emergence, the academic level of the
community has increased. One resident of Harlem think the charter schools “have brought a new
flavor to the community” and have “brought the community to a new level academically,” a
reoccurring argument in favor of the emergence of charter schools in low-income communities.
The other article discusses how the local middle class in a community want to change the schools
“for all the students at the school, and for [the] community” and it cringes at the words “school
gentrification” as it implies “driving out locals,” which isn’t the case (New York Times, 2007).
These articles make the case that gentrification and the subsequent creation of charter schools
overall improve the academic conditionals all the students in the community, not just those who
are of the middle class background.
25
The counter argument to the suggestion that charter schools and gentrification better the
community is the idea that this influx of charter schools spurned by gentrification are mainly for
the middle class, and further divide neighborhoods along class and racial lines. A Wall Street
Journal article from 2012, stated that “charter operators seeking space in now middle-class
neighborhoods are ‘rubbing raw’ and that tensions arise with the establishment of “larger
management organizations without deep roots in the community” (Wall Street Journal, 2012).
Similarly, a former Harlem city councilman remarks that his major concern about those who
want to expand charters is that “many people running Harlem’s charter schools are not from
Harlem” (New York Times, 2007). Local parents from Harlem, as quoted in a New York Times
article, believe that the “improvements are not for them, but for a class of residents whose
middle-class backgrounds give their children a head start…this is not for all of us” (New York
Times, 2008). “This” refers to changes in the public school system and the influx of charter
schools. For many residents, the fact that school management does not have roots in the
community implies that the school is not for the local residents but for the new gentrifiers.
Limitations
My small sample size of newspapers limits the scope of analysis surrounding the possible
link between charter schools and gentrification. My newspaper choices also cover wide array of
international and business news, while this topic matter is usually local from neighborhood to
neighborhood. There is recognized bias in sampling from a particular region, including the
absence of varied perspectives from different regions, and the inability to make assumptions for
media outlets across the country, due to the lack of diversity. However, especially in relation to
the case studies, New York newspapers serve as an outlet for popular and diverse opinions.
26
Chapter IV: Method 2: Case Studies
Research Design
My case studies examine how a charter school interacts with its surrounding gentrified
neighborhood. My cases are Community Roots Charter School in Forte Greene Brooklyn, NY
and Harlem Success Academy 2 in Harlem, NY. Both charter schools are well known in New
York City because of their relatively high test scores, long waiting lists, and emphasis on school
wide innovation. Both built around 2006, the charter schools have gained wide spread media
attention for their passionate supporters and protesters. Fort Greene and Harlem have both seen
many signs of gentrification since 2000, including an increase in home ownership, increased
property values, and a decrease in the percentage of non-white residents. Both neighborhoods
have served as examples of gentrification in local media and praised for its high performing
charter school.
While every charter school has a different relationship with its surrounding community,
both Brooklyn and Harlem have encountered multiple signs of gentrification and exponential
increase in the number of charter schools over the last ten to fifteen years. However, the two
cases have important differences. Harlem Success Academy 2 is part of the Success Academy
Charter Management Organization, which runs the largest collection of charter schools in New
York City. Community Roots is a stand-alone charter school with currently no mission to expand.
The role of name recognition and branding may play an important role in the distinction between
my cases.
These case studies examine the possible relationship between the ongoing gentrification
of these neighborhoods and the creation of a new charter school, as it is seen through local
community members. Through an analysis of charter school emergence and gentrification
literature around these neighborhoods, this work gleans the the general sentiments of local
27
newspapers, previous scholars, and documentaries. Parents in the community and charter school
leaders are the primary people of interest since they theoretically have the most stake in changes
to the school system and community.
The case studies include background information on the neighborhood and the charter
school. They include U.S. census data and focus on variables that are often related to
gentrification. These variables include: median income level, median rent, percentage of
residents with high degrees, percentage of white residents (conversely, percentage of non-whites),
and median property values in these neighborhoods. The data are from the US 2000 census and
the 2012 American Families Census Survey for both neighborhoods, bounded by the charter
school’s zip code. While many students of the school may come from outside this zip code, the
background can provide a snapshot of some of the demographic changes specific to the charter
school’s area. This data is presented in a table (Tables 1 and 2). While, there is no “threshold”
for gentrification or a certain percentage change refers to a direct link to urban revitalization,
comparing the change the neighborhood’s past growth, and coupling this quantitative change
with qualitative data from various sources will help create a more complete narrative of the
changes of these communities.
Overview of Case Study Analysis
The following case studies illustrate the possible tensions that arise when charter schools
emerge in neighborhoods undergoing gentrification in New York City. After New York State
passed the Charter Schools Act in 1998, which allowed for the authorization of 100 charter
schools, New York City opened its first charter school, the Sisulu-Walker Charter School of
Harlem, in 1999. Since then, charter schools have grown rapidly in New York City, with an
average of 11 charter schools opening in New York City annually. Since 2006, the State has
28
steadily increased its charter school cap, and the two state organizations that authorize charter
school are now permitted to authorize up to 460 charters (New York City Charter School Center,
2012). Out of the 208 charters operating in New York State, 197 of them are located in New
York City, with the majority (77%) of those schools in Harlem, the South Bronx, and Central
Brooklyn. In 2013, New York City had over 58,000 students enrolled in charter schools, an
exponential increase since 2000 (Figure 5). The majority of the students enrolled in New York
City Charter Schools are of color with 59% African American and 34% Latino. Currently 77% of
New York Charter School students qualify for free or reduced lunch (New York City Charter
School Center, 2012). This percentage of African American students enrolled in charter schools
is significantly higher than the proportion enrolled in all of New York City Public Schools.
According to the New York City’s Department of Education, African Americans make up 28.3%
of New York City public schools. Hispanics make up 40.2 % and the city has 78.9% of its
students qualify for free and reduces lunch (New York City Department of Education, 2014).
To accommodate the growing number of new schools in New York City, charter schools
are often co-located with district schools. Co-location means that a charter and traditional public
school share a public building, including common facilities such as a cafeteria and a gym.
However, the school administration, rules, and leadership remain separate. It is important to note
that co-location occurs outside of charter schools. A majority of New York City public schools
are co-located with another school and at most buildings with co-location, there is no charter
present (Figure 6). The following case studies focus on two neighborhoods: Harlem in northern
Manhattan and Fort Greene in central Brooklyn. The two schools of focus, Community Roots
Charter School and Success Academy Harlem 2, are co-located with traditional public schools.
Fort Greene, Brooklyn, NY
29
Fort Greene is iconic for its signature row house brownstones, proximity to downtown
Manhattan, and easy transportation options, but has a long history with urban decay and
gentrification. With the development of the Naval Yard in 1801, which spurned business
development and services, Fort Greene has changed faces many times over the 19th and 20th
century. From a predominately white, working class neighborhood in the early 1900s, Fort
Greene declined for most of the mid-1900s. It was a site of many urban revitalization initiatives
and hosts one of the first public housing developments in the nation, Fort Greene Houses
established in 1944 (Freeman, 2006). As the community continued to decline until the mid-1970s
when it was officially considered a low-income area, the black population in the area at that time
greatly expanded. Lower and working class blacks owned many of the brownstones, but the
neighborhood still had a history of dangerous activity surrounding its public housing projects
(Anderson, 2012). Since the 1990s, Fort Greene has experienced a flow of gentrifying residents
moving into the neighborhoods for the historic brownstone architecture and its close proximity to
trendy, lower Manhattan (Anderson, 2012). In the first wave of Brooklyn gentrification, affluent
and white families, who traditionally bought property in the suburbs, were drawn to the housing
architecture of Fort Green. The New York Times referred to the process as “Brownstonerubia”
(Freeman, 2006). These beginning stages of gentrification from the late 1990s to early 2000s
changed the economic and cultural make-up of this community.
Today, Fort Greene boasts of its mixture of history, arts and culture. Its landmarks
include the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the Barclays Center, and spacious Fort Greene Park.
The current Fort Greene shows signs of bustling economic stability and diversity. With a current
population of about 40,000 residents, the neighborhood’s median household income is slightly
over $40,000. While 35.6% of individuals still live under the poverty level, median property
30
values have drastically risen to over $600,000. The area is also relatively diverse and well
educated with about 50% of the population being white and almost 40% holding at least a
bachelor’s degree (U.S. Census Data, 2012).
However, the Fort Greene, Brooklyn of today, is demographically different from the Fort
Greene of 2000. The change in Fort Green has been some of the largest in Brooklyn in regards to
ethnic makeup. According to the Center for Urban Research (2011), the black population in
Forte Green decreased by 31.5% 2000 and 2010. The Hispanic population also decreased by
21.6% over the ten years. Over the same time period, the non-Hispanic white population in the
area increased by 82.6%. Ethnic makeup of a neighborhood is not the only sign of gentrification.
US Census data for Forte Green’s zip code (112051) show other trends of gentrification in the
area. Median rent almost doubled from 2000 to 2012 from $511 to over $1,128. Median
household property value also more than doubled from $172,000 to $603,000. In addition,
percentage of those highly educated and income also reflects the gentrification of a community.
The median household income increased slightly over this period from $28,000 to close to
$42,000. The percentage of those with college degrees also increased slightly from 24.5% to
39.4%. The combination of large rises in rent, property values, and decrease in non-white
population signifies gentrification (Atkins, 2002) (Table 2).
Freeman (2006) coupled the economic and demographic changes in Fort Greene with
anecdotes of change in the local community. Through an ethnography of the Fort Greene/Clinton
Hill are of Brooklyn and Harlem, Freeman gathered residential voices of the gentrification of the
area and constructed how gentrification affected the lives of those in the neighborhood. In his
work There Goes the ‘Hood, Freeman, an associative professor at Columbia University, analyzed
1
Depending on neighborhood delineation, some other zip codes are considered Fort Greene. For the sake of this
case study, 11205 was chosen because it correlates to the zip code of Community Roots Charter School.
31
gentrification from the perspective of those who have lived in a neighborhood for a number of
years. Many long-time residents of Fort Greene associated gentrification with the emergence of
white faces. When a resident was asked how she knew the neighborhood was changing, she
replied “there used to be a time when you did not see whites on Myrtle Avenue after the sun
went down. That was unheard of.” However, in an interaction with a Hispanic store owner, she
asked” why are you fixing up the store now all of a sudden?” to which he replied, “Because more
whites are moving into the area” (Freeman, 2006: 98). Whether the new faces were moving in
because of a decline in the economy or the lower cost of living, everyone notices the changes in
public services. One neighbor remarked that the “neighborhood’s-uh just getting a little
better…you’re getting more police protection.” Another observes “the improvement, and
services that um, to having more things available” because the “whites demanded more”
(Freeman, 2006: 99). Anderson (1991) specifically refers to public schools in his observations
and comments that the “once segregated schools gain some middle class-white students, whose
parents become involved and require the schools to respond to their needs” (Anderson, 1991:
139). In 2012, Noel Anderson studied the relationship between two co-located schools, one
public and one charter, in the gentrified neighborhood of Fort Greene. In his chapter on “Hood
Politics: Charter Schools, Race, and Gentrification in Fort Greene, Brooklyn,” Anderson “views
the charter movement disguised as education reform as an engine of gentrification” (Anderson et
al, 2012: 5). He utilized these co-located schools to exemplify the differences between some
charter schools and their traditional public schools along race and class.
One building, Two Very Different Public Schools
Two schools, one a charter and the other a traditional public school, are co-located in the
P.S.67 School building in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, apart of District 13 in New York City Public
32
Schools. The traditional public school- the Charles Dorsey Elementary School- has a long history
in Fort Greene and is the site of Colored School #1, the first black school in Brooklyn after
slavery. With history dating back to 1827, the school was one of the first educational initiatives
ran by black Brooklyn residents (Kanakamedala, 2010). Today, the school has a history of low
attendance and poor academic achievement, and was targeted for closure in 2013, until kept alive
through parent advocates (Inside Schools, 2014). The New York State Tests on Math and
English Language Arts (ELA) are scored on a scale of 1-4, with proficiency level with 4 being
highly proficient. Only 4% of 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders at Charles Dorsey scored a 3 or 4 on the
state Math exams in 2014 (compared to a 38% citywide average), and only 5% scored 3 or 4 on
the ELA exam (compared to the 28% citywide average) (Inside Schools, 2014). Charles Dorsey
is the primary school for the students in the historic Fort Greene housing projects, Ingersoll
Houses, having a student population of 98% students of color and 86% of the students on free or
reduced lunch (Anderson, 2012). More than 10% of the student body is homeless (Inside Schools,
2014).
The charter school, Community Roots Charter School, opened in 2006, and has quickly
become a celebrated and progressive school for the area. The co-founders, Allison Kiel and Sara
Stone, conceptualized their type of school in their graduate school where they met. Both women
have experience in teaching and education management, and similar expectations and vision for
a progressive school. Kiel also admits that since she was pregnant with her first child and living
in Fort Greene, she “wanted a different educational opportunity in [her] own community than
what was present in the public schools” (Newman, 2011: 1). Community Roots was the answer
to Kiel considered a lack of diverse and inclusive educational options for families in Fort Greene.
According to its mission statement, Community Roots students will “meet or exceed the New
33
York State standards and be prepared to excel in the 21st century by becoming independent
thinkers and working productively within a diverse group of learners” (Communityroots.org,
2014. These high expectations and dedication to progressive thinking styles have seemed to
attract many people to the school. While many charters in New York City offer a more
traditional learning style with longer school days heavy on reading and math, Community Roots’
highly interactive, project based learning styles seems attractive to progressive white parents in a
neighborhood lacking in this type of learning style, judging by its long waiting lists (Robinson,
2012). In 2010, Community Roots was ranked as the 5th hardest charter school to get into with
an admission rate of 6.6% (New York Times, 2010). The low admissions rate is reflective of
some of the services available at community roots. Each classroom have 2 teachers, one of which
is trained in special education to attend to the 20% of special needs students at Community Roots
(Russo, 2009).
Under charter law, Community Roots has to accept any child in the district if space in the
school remains. However, it can recruit from the wider district area, which includes the
gentrified neighborhoods nearby (Anderson, 2012). This ability to recruit from the surrounding
neighborhood has affected the school’s demographic makeup. Around 40% of its student body is
white with a majority of its students living outside of the housing projects. Only 30% of the
students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The percentage of white students at Community
Roots is steadily increasing from 22 % in 2006 to 42.6 % in 2013 (NAPCS, 2014). The
percentage of black students has decreased from 59 % in 2006 to 37.5 % in 2013. The percentage
of students on free or reduced lunch has also decreased from 47% percent in 2006 to 26.8 percent
in 2012. Table 1 includes demographic breakdowns for Community Roots Charter, Charles
Dorsey and the entire District 13 in Fort Greene. While the student population of District if 11%
34
white, Community Root’s white population is 42.6%. Similarly, while the district has 71% of its
student eligible for Free or Reduced Lunch, Community Roots has 30%, a significant difference
from the 85.5% at Charles Dorsey. The traditional public schools percentages for black students
are very similar and the school has a higher percentage of students with disabilities and English
language learners compared to the district. Community Roots’ student population does not
reflect the overall racial and economic makeup of the school district.
While Community Roots is growing increasingly white it has recently committed to
maintaining a more racially and economically diverse school. In 2012, Community Roots joined
a coalition of charter schools dedicated to serving a diverse student body based on race and
socioeconomic status (Decker, 2014). According to the coalition agreement, these charter
schools invoked the sense of the 60th anniversary of Brown vs Board of education and claim that
“the problem of segregation persists. Charter schools need to be part of the solution” (Decker,
2014). With the belief that “diverse charter schools promote equality by ensuring that students
from different backgrounds have the same educational opportunities,” these schools vow to take
measures to ensure more integrated schools (Decker, 2014). The need for diverse schools seem
to be a change from the original mission of charter schools to focus exclusively on high-poverty
and minority communities, which many are now seeing as a flawed strategy.
Education reform advocates are now looking toward diverse charter schools schools as a
way to engage middle class parents (Russo, 2009). Stillman (2012) speaks of the importance of
integration and pedagogy for middle class parents in choosing a school. She writes, “ Many
gentry parents enter a “changing” school because it appears to have already changed enough to
match their most important school preferences — diversity and progressive pedagogy” (Stillman,
2012). For Community Roots, this commitment to diversity includes holding seats for students
35
coming from Fort Greene housing projects. Since this policy is more recent, time will reveal
whether or not it halts the reduction of black students and those eligible for free and reduced
lunch at Community Roots and creates a more stable and diverse community.
Though this charter school seems to have a commitment to diversity and interaction with
the surrounding gentrifying community, there are still signs of tension between those with
students in Community Roots and those in P.S. 67. The stark class and race differences between
these two schools, which share a building, creates tension within the already gentrified
community (Anderson, 2012). While the charter school must hold an impartial lottery for
enrollment, there is a wide representation of white and middle class children gaining admission.
Those in the black community, especially in the housing projects, view the charter school as a
way for white gentrifying families children to gain a superior education, and they view the
charter school as taking over their traditional school serving low-income students (Anderson,
2012). As the charter school continues to expand, it will take more space in the building, raising
concerns that the school will eventually take up resources and space from the traditional public
school. This fear is evident in the outrage from local residents who feel that they were “being
displaced by charter schools,” and by their gentrifiers (Anderson, 2012:370). The fear of
displacement from their community is exemplified in the creation and expansion of this charter
school. In public hearings discussing the expansion of the school, fliers depicting the expansion
as a “take over” ignited voices of resentment that Community Roots will grow as a “white school”
in the first black school in Brooklyn (Anderson, 2012, 376). When Community Roots first tried
to create a middle school in its original P.S. 67, local residents held an opposition rally with fliers
reading “The First Black School in Brooklyn Needs Your Help!” (Decker, 2011). The emphasis
36
that P.S. 67 was the “First Black School” instead of another local public school suggests there
are strong racial motivations for opposing the expansion of Community Roots Charter School.
This fear and discussions of race and class came to the forefront of public debate when
Community Roots sought space for its middle school students. In 2012, Community Roots
proposed to open up a middle school inside P.S. 287, close to its K-5 school. The public hearing
on the expansion of the school brought parents and community members who vehemently
opposed the co-location of the schools and those who welcomed the growth of the school. Those
opposed and those in favor fell along class lines, with middle class residents in the neighborhood
being more in favor of the school. One supporter of P.S. 287, a school that also wants to expand
its middle school in its building, noted that the “expansion brought up ‘racial’ issues that needed
to be addressed (Shell, 2012). The Department of Education denied P.S. 287’s attempts to build a
middle school in its own building, citing low enrollment. Supporters of P.S. 287 question the
support of Community Roots instead of the local public schools. “What about us?” claims a P.S.
287 parent, “What about this community and this school?” (Briquelet, 2012). His sentiments
allude to the belief that those at Community Roots are separate from the local community.
Supporters of the local public school also speak to the poor city progress report grades for
Community Roots. Every year the New York City Department of Education produces Progress
Reports for every public school in the department. The progress reports offer parents, teachers,
and administrators an overview of student performance (60% of the grade), student performance
(25%) and school environment (15%). The grades range from an “A” to an “F: and are based on
comparisons of a peer group of 40 schools with similar student populations and in general to all
schools citywide (New York City Department of Education, 2014). In the first year of
Community Root’s operation, it received an F on its NYC Department of Education progress
37
report. In 2009-2010 and again in 2011-2012, the department raised the score to a “C”. In the
year 2012-2013, Community made gains and received a B. In contrast, P.S. 287 received an “A”
in 2008- 2009, and two “B”s in the following years (Briquelet, 2012). However in the most
recent progress report for 2012-2013, Charles Dorsey received an “F” overall, suggesting a
decline in student performance and progress (Progress Report Overview, 2013). Despite the
changes in grades, supporters of the traditional public school believe “Community Roots is
robbing [their] children,” which further vilifies the school and classifies it as “other” (Briqulet,
2012). Despite city grades and opposition, feedback show that almost 100 percent of parents are
either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with Community Roots and praise its ties to the community
(Briquelet, 2012).
Those who support and oppose Community Roots Charter School both comment on the
relationship between the school and the community (Briquelet, 2012; Decker, 2011). For those in
favor, Community Roots represents a commitment to diversity in a changing gentrifying
neighborhood. Despite its less than stellar academic reviews, parents, many of them young
gentrifiers, are attracted to its diversity and progressive pedagogy. Created by two well-educated,
middle class white women in response to a lack of diverse education opportunities in the
gentrifying neighborhood, the charter school allowed for a creation of a community that reflected
the incoming neighborhood changes. For those opposed to the school, they see Community
Roots as separate from the local community and historic make up. The charter school “robs”
children from the neighborhood and is in opposition to the “black” school in the same building.
Community Roots is thus apart from the historic community. This division of perspectives of one
school is heightened with discussion of co-location and New York City’s prized capital- space.
In a gentrifying neighborhood, “community” is subjective and often divided. Community Roots
38
is an example of a school representative of a divided neighborhood and because of this division,
holds a school in mixed regard.
Harlem, NYC
In the early 20th Century, Harlem, New York City was synonymous with the black
Renaissance and a rise of black cultural playwrights, artists, and poets acting of voices for the
national black community. By the 1970s, as a result of prominent African Americans moving out
of Harlem, large-scale demolition for urban renewal, and abandonment of the neighborhood,
those black residents left were disproportionally poor and under resourced (Spencer, 2012).
Many unoccupied, rich historical neighborhoods in Harlem were cheap and a great location from
main center Manhattan (Roberts, 2010). As a result, the influx of non-Hispanic white, middle
class families moving into lower working class, predominately black Harlem has been
exponential, from 672 whites in Central Harlem in 1990 to 13,800 in 2008. Recent Census
articles show that blacks are actually no longer the majority in Harlem, as they currently making
up only 41% of the population (Roberts, 2010).
To many, Harlem is a prime example of the connection between for education reform and
gentrification. Harlem has a long history with gentrification given its proximity to the wealthy
Upper East and West side of Manhattan. “Harlem was a natural choice to be the epicenter of
school reform, given its prominent location, rich history, epidemic of poor student performance
and gentrification that made the neighborhood palatable to middle-class families” (Spencer,
2012: 1.). In 2002, under Mayor Bloomberg’s new school choice policies, which included the
opening of new schools, closing of over 100 schools, and the rise of charter schools, no
neighborhood was more affected than Harlem (Spencer, 2012). Due to these factors, there has
been a wide growth in the number of charter school options in the area, some gaining national
39
attention such as the Harlem Children Zone’s Promise Academies and Harlem Success
Academies. Being the focus of movies and articles alike, these schools have become a beacon for
the charter school movement and, with that, have experienced a wealth of criticism (e.g., Waiting
for Superman, 2010; The Lottery, 2010; Hanlon, 2012).
Evidence suggests that the Central Harlem neighborhoods have been gentrified (Center
for Urban Research, 2014). Currently, Harlem is 22.2 percent white with median property values
of over $400,000. About a quarter of the population holds at least a bachelor’s degree, which
contrasts the fact that 40% of individuals live below the poverty line (US Census 2000 and 2012).
The statics vary greatly from the Harlem of 14 years ago. The largest loss of blacks in Manhattan
occurred in Central Harlem North and Central Harlem South. The neighborhood lost about 5,000
black residents, from about 55,000 residents in 2000 to a little over 50,000 in 2010. At the same
time, the white population grew in that region by 5,600 in Central Harlem North and 3,700 in
Central Harlem South to 7,000 and 4,300 respectively. This increased their percentage from
3.5% to 16% of the total population in the Central Harlem North and from 1.2% to 5.8% in
Central Harlem South. In addition to changes in the ethnic makeup, the property value in this
area has greatly increased. Median rent more than doubled from $420 to $956 and median value
of houses has increased from $160,000 to almost $400,000. The median income has increased
slightly from $22,043 to $30,000 (Table 2).
Within this environment of demographical change is the push for education reform for
many of the under-resourced children still in Harlem. Historically, public schools in Harlem
failed to perform well on assessments, mainly statewide-standardized tests. In East Harlem and
Central Harlem, 50% of students were reading on or above grade level in traditional public
schools (Spencer, 2012). These low test scores and growing need for reform influenced the
40
growth of alternative schools in the area. This reform includes the increase number of charter
schools in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Currently, 25.1% of students in Harlem are enrolled in
charter schools, with many schools first opening in 2005 (Credo, 2013).
One of the most prominent Charter Management Organizations in the country and largest
in New York City is Success Academy Charter Network, formerly Harlem Success Academies.
Eva Moskowitz, former Chair of the New York City Council’s Education Committee, founded
Success Academies in 2006 with its first school, Harlem 1. Success’s dual mission to “build
exceptional, world-class public schools that prove that all children from all backgrounds can
succeed in college and life; and serve as a catalyst and national model for education reform and
help change public policies that prevent so many children from having access to opportunity”
brings to the school to the forefront of the New York Charter School debate (Success Academy,
About, 2014). The CMO now operates 32 charter schools in New York City with 9,000 students
in 4 boroughs, making it the largest management organization in the city (Success Academy,
About, 2014).
The growth of this organization has caused friction in varying gentrifying neighborhoods
around New York City. The popular documentary, The Lottery, chronicles the story of four
families in Harlem attempting to gain admission into one of the Success Academy Charter
Schools. Trying to open a charter school in New York City often includes closing a failing
school to open a charter or hosting the charter in the same school building as the traditional
public school. Scenes from the Lottery echo this fear of gentrification interlaced with the charter
school movement, as Harlem residents fervently oppose the opening of a new Harlem Success
Academy (Lottery, 2010). The film’s director, Madeline Sackler. expresses some of the
sentiments of the community: “there’s a lot of anger and fear of gentrification. It’s about race
41
and class, and people are scared” (Merrow, 2010). Embedded in gentrification are a fear of
displacement and a loss of community. To many people in Harlem, the charter school, whose
teachers and leaders are majority white, middle class, and young, is another manifestation of that
gentrification and that fear (Saulny, 2006). To some, the opposition to the growth of Harlem
charter schools is that “many people running Harlem’s charter schools are not from Harlem”
(Medina, 2010). Those running the schools do not represent the history of the neighborhood,
rather the new changes. Since charter schools’ establishment occurs almost simultaneously with
the ongoing gentrification of the neighborhood, charter schools in Harlem are sometimes framed
as a symbol of gentrification, especially those in Harlem that have to face the displacement and
increased cost of living that is inherent with gentrification (Lottery, 2010).
This fear of displacement is amplified when original residents of gentrifying
neighborhoods feel separated from the charter school process. Jeffrey Henig, a professor of
Political Science and Education at Columbia University, remarks that “the potential for conflict
is greater when communities feel decisions are being made out of the blue without them being at
the table,” and that “minority neighborhoods such as Harlem do not trust charter schools because
their expansion tends to fuel fears about gentrification” (Quinlan, 2012:1). This distrust of
Success Academy is not limited to Harlem. In 2012, the charter network attempted to expand to
Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Once a predominately Hispanic neighborhood, Williamsburg now has a
largely young and white demographic (Hanlon, 2012). Gardon Acosta, founder of El Puente, a
long-standing local community activist group, remarked that the ads for Success Academy were
targeted for “basically the white-upper-middle class community…basically saying its safe for
you and your middle-class children. It’s been an unsettling, racist approach” (Hanlon, 2012: 1).
Many local residents view Success Academy as an accelerant for further displacement” (Hanlon,
42
2012:2). Ad seen with Success Academy, charter schools that seem to attract middle class
residents in gentrifying neighborhoods are met with distrust and apprehension from long time
residents, adding to the perceived fear of displacement and change in their neighborhoods.
43
Conclusion
This mixed method analysis explored the possible link between charter school emergence
and gentrification, specifically in regards to the changes in racial and class dynamic. Focusing on
both a wide scope using newspaper content analysis and small focused case studies, this study
provides evidence of a growing association between some charter schools and the gentrification
of their neighborhoods. However, it does not provide concrete evidence that there is a pervasive
link between gentrification and charter schools.
The number of newspaper articles showcasing an association between charter school
emergence and gentrification (n =17) is a small percentage of the ongoing conversation about
these two themes. Coverage of charter schools and gentrification in the media has grown
exponentially, but the number of articles speaking of them in relation to one another remains
small (See Figures 2, 3, and 4). The two emerging themes of the content analysis, the idea that
charter schools attract middle class families and the notion that gentrification spurs the growth of
charters, reflect the theoretical framework presented in earlier chapters. Based on this small
coverage in the content analysis, the link between these two themes is not widespread or
pervasive in the media. If such a link does exist, it is limited to a smaller scope and isolated
instances.
The case studies of Community Roots Charter School and Harlem Success Academy 2
provide a focal analysis of how possible tensions between community members can revolve
around a charter school in a gentrified community. The sense of division and otherness are
reoccurring themes in both case studies. Some community members perceive the charter school
as an alternative, more diverse option to the local public schools. Others view it as a tool for the
44
ongoing gentrification of the neighborhood. In the case of Fort Greene, gentrifiers, who are also
educators, created a charter school to increase the educational opportunities for those in the
neighborhood focused on inclusion and increasing diversity of the area. This case study provides
some evidence for the theory that those in gentrified neighborhoods create charters as an
alternative, or counter, to the traditional public school system. Thus, gentrification facilitates
charter school creation. In Harlem, the growing success and expansion of a charter management
organization created rifts among long time residents, who have witnessed their neighborhood
undergo gentrification, and incoming young professionals seeking better opportunities for their
children. Harlem is a case example of perceived attempts of a charter school attracting white and
wealthier families into a neighborhood.
While the case studies provide evidence of racial and class tension emerging from the
growth of the charter school and the changing social dynamics of the neighborhood, this study
does not conclude that these tensions are sufficient to deem a strong link between gentrification
and charter schools. The newspaper’s chosen might have too wide of a breadth to capture local
neighborhood tensions in the same way case studies are able to. This scope may account for the
differences in findings between the case studies and the content analysis. Future studies may
focus on media analysis of more local outlets. The neighborhood instances, in New York,
Chicago, and Atlanta (Combs 2010; Lipman, 2009) provide a reference for this growing
association and a framework with which to understand the ties between a charter schools and its
surrounding community. Works surrounding the relationship between gentrification and charter
school supplement growing research on the influences of housing policy and school policy, and
vice versa. Recent papers on the effects of charter schools on surrounding property values
45
(Horowitz, 2011) provide preliminary evidence that charter placement can increase property
values by almost 4% in one New York City neighborhood (Shapiro and Hassett, 2013).
As charter schools continue on their projected trajectory to grow and expand in
neighborhoods across the nation, like all schools in the public sphere, they will inevitably
influence and be influenced by the demographic make-up and relations within the community.
Theorized as community schools, charters have the ability to reflect the wants and needs of the
community. In gentrified neighborhoods, tensions arise when there are multiple wants and needs
in growingly divisive communities. In response, community schools, and thus charter schools,
can either reflect these divisions or represent the betterment of these urban neighborhoods.
46
References
Anderson, N. S. "Hood Politics: Charter Schools, Race, and Gentrification in Fort Greene." The
World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City.
Lanham: Lexington Books (2012): 363-378.
Anderson, Noel S., et al. The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic
Politics in a Global City. Lexington Books (2012)
Atkinson, Rowland. Does Gentrification Help Or Harm Urban Neighbourhoods?: An
Assessment of the Evidence-Base in the Context of New Urban Agenda. ESRC Centre for
Neighbourhood Research Bristol (2002)
Briquelet Kate. "Schoolyard Brawl: Parents Fight Over Fort Greene Charter Expansion." The
Brooklyn Paper January 12, 2012
Brown, Jitu, Eric Gutstein, and Pauline Lipman. "Arne Duncan and the Chicago Success Story:
Myth Or Reality." Rethinking Schools 23.3 (2009): 10-4.
Buckley, Jack, and Mark Schneider. Charter Schools: Hope Or Hype? Princeton University
Press (2009).
Budde, Ray. "The Evolution of the Charter Concept." The Phi Delta Kappan 78.1 (1996): 72-3.
Butler, Tim, and Chris Hamnett. "The Geography of Education: Introduction." Urban Studies
44.7 (2007): 1161-74.
Butler, Tim, and Garry Robson. "Plotting the Middle Classes: Gentrification and Circuits of
Education in London." Housing Studies 18.1 (2003): 5-28.
Butler, Tim. "Living in the Bubble: Gentrification and its' Others' in North London." Urban
Studies 40.12 (2003): 2469-86.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). Multiple Choice: Charter School
Performance in 16 States. Stanford, California: Stanford University (2009).
Center for Urban Research. "New York City demographic shifts, 2000 to 2010." (2011)
<http://www.urbanresearchmaps.org/plurality/>.
Charter School Tools. "EMOs/CMOs/Management Companies." (2014)
<charterschooltools.org>.
Combs, Barbara Harris. "The Ties that Bind: The Role of Place in Racial Identity Formation,
Social Cohesion, Accord, and Discord in Two Historic, Black Gentrifying Atlanta
Neighborhoods." (2010)
47
Community Roots Charter School. ""Our Mission"(2014) "Web.
<http://www.communityroots.org/>.
Cucchiara, Maia. "Re‐ branding Urban Schools: Urban Revitalization, Social Status, and
Marketing Public Schools to the Upper Middle Class." Journal of Education Policy 23.2
(2008): 165-79.
Davis, Tomeka, and Deirdre Oakley. "Linking Charter School Emergence to Urban
Revitalization and Gentrification: A socio‐ spatial Analysis of Three Cities." Journal of
Urban Affairs 35.1 (2013): 81-102.
Decker, Geoff. "NYC Charter Schools Join National Coalition Aimed at De-Segregating Sector."
NY Chalkbeat July 1, 2014
Decker, Geoffrey. "Tempers Fray Over Community Roots’ Growth." The New York Times, sec.
The Local: April 4, 2011
DeSena, Judith N. "“What’sa Mother to do?” Gentrification, School Selection, and the
Consequences for Community Cohesion." American Behavioral Scientist 50.2 (2006): 24157.
Freeman, Lance. There Goes the Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Temple
University Press (2011)
Hankins, K. "Site of Exclusion? Practicing Social Citizenship and Transforming Urban Space
through the Creation of a Charter School" PhD Dissertation, University of Georgia, (2004)
Hankins, Katherine B. "The Final Frontier: Charter Schools as New Community Institutions of
Gentrification." Urban Geography 28.2 (2007): 113-28.
Hanlon, Greg. "‘How Long Have You Lived Here?’: An Argument about Eva Moskowitz,
Schools and the Future of Williamsburg." Capital New York. Capital New York, 23 Feb.
2012.
Hill, Paul T., and Robin J. Lake. "The Charter School Catch-22." (2010): 232-235.
Inside Schools. "P.S. 67 CHARLES A. DORSEY." 2014.
<http://insideschools.org/component/schools/school/591>.
Kahlenberg, Richard D., and Haley Potter. "The Original Charter School Vision." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 30 Aug. 2014.
Kanakamedala, Prithi. "P.S. 67 Charles A. Dorsey School." Place Matters. Place Matters, n/a.
48
Kimelberg, Shelley McDonough, and Chase M. Billingham. "Attitudes Toward Diversity and the
School Choice Process Middle-Class Parents in a Segregated Urban Public School District."
Urban Education 48.2 (2013): 198-231
Lipman, Pauline, and Nathan Haines. "From Accountability to Privatization and African
American Exclusion Chicago's “Renaissance 2010”." Educational Policy 21.3 (2007): 471502.
Lipman, Pauline. "Making Sense of Renaissance 2010 School Policy in Chicago: Race, Class,
and the Cultural Politics of Neoliberal Urban Restructuring." Great Cities Institute
Publication Number: GCP-09-02 (2009)
Medina, Jennifer. "In Harlem, Epicenter for Charter Schools, a Senator Wars Against Them."
The New York Times. The New York Times, 6 Mar. 2010.
Merrow, J. (n.d.). MOVIE REVIEW: The Lottery | Taking Note. Taking Note | Thoughts on
Education from John Merrow.
New York City Charter School Center. "About Charter Schools." 2012.
<http://www.nyccharterschools.org/about>.
New York City Department of Education. “Demographic Snapshots” (2014)
(http://schools.nyc.gov/Accountability/data/default.htm>
Newman, Maria. "Sara Stone and Allison Keil: Building Relationships." WNYC October 20,
2011
Patterson, Kelly L., and Robert Silverman. "Urban Education and Neighborhood Revitalization."
Journal of Urban Affairs 35.1 (2013): 1-5
Quinlan, Casey. "Point to PS 241/STEM Institute as Evidence That Charter Schools Are
Gobbling up Public Schools' Space." The New York Daily News. The New York Daily
News, 16 July 2012.
Roberts, Sam. "No Longer Majority Black, Harlem Is in Transition." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 5 Jan. 2010
Rowley, Dorothy. "School Closings: Subtle Move Toward 'Privatization'." Washington Informer:
(2013)
<http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.duke.edu/docview/1328944334?accountid=10598>.
Russo, Alexander. "Diverse Charter Schools." Education Next 13.1 (2013)
49
Sackler, M. (Director). (2010). The Lottery [Documentary]. United States: Great Curve Films.
Saulny, Susan. "Harlem, a Test Lab, Splits Over Charter Schools." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 2 June 2006
Shell, Mary. "Parents Clash Over Community Roots Expansion." The New York Times, sec. The
Local: January 12, 2012
Smith, Janet J., and David Stovall. "‘Coming home’to New Homes and New Schools: Critical
Race Theory and the New Politics of Containment." Journal of Education Policy 23.2
(2008): 135-52.
Smith, Neil, and Peter Williams. Gentrification of the City. Routledge, 2013.
Smith, Neil. The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. Psychology Press,
1996.
Stillman, Jennifer. "Charter Schools no Silver Bullet for Integration, but a Start." NY Chalkbeat
2012
Spencer, K. “School Choice Is No Cure-All, Harlem Finds” The New York Times. 2, September,
2012
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. "Dashboard." 2014.
<http://www.publiccharters.org/dashboard/home>.
Watson, Jamal E. "The Whitening of Black Neighborhoods." New York Amsterdam News: 1. Jul
10, 2003. Ethnic NewsWatch.
<http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.duke.edu/docview/390093127?accountid=10598>.
The World in Brooklyn : Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City. Eds.
edited by Judith N. DeSena and Timothy Shortell., Judith N. DeSena, and Timothy Shortell.
Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books (2012).
U.S. Department of Education. The Federal Role in Education:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src=ln \
U.S. Census Data, Accessed from Simply Map: April 14, 2014
50
Appendix
Figure 1: National Growth of Charter Schools
Figure 2: Charter School Related Articles
51
Figure 3: Gentrification Related Articles
Figure 4: Articles Discussing both Gentrification and Charter Schools
52
Figure 5 Growth in Charter School Enrollment in NYC
Figure 6: Co-location in New York City Pubic Schools
Source: Charter School Tools
53
Table 1: District 13 Demographics
Sources: New York City Department of Education Demographic Snapshots, 2014; National Alliance of Public
Charter Schools: Community Roots Charter School, 2014
District
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Year
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
School Name
P.S. 067 Charles A. Dorsey
P.S. 067 Charles A. Dorsey
P.S. 067 Charles A. Dorsey
P.S. 067 Charles A. Dorsey
P.S. 067 Charles A. Dorsey
P.S. 067 Charles A. Dorsey
P.S. 067 Charles A. Dorsey
Year
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Community Roots
Community Roots
Community Roots
Community Roots
Community Roots
Community Roots
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
% Asian
% Black
% Hispanic % Other
% White
13.2%
61.6%
15.3%
3.1%
6.9%
14.7%
61.5%
15.1%
1.1%
7.5%
15.6%
59.9%
15.0%
1.6%
8.0%
16.4%
58.3%
15.4%
1.2%
8.6%
17.3%
56.8%
15.3%
1.1%
9.5%
17.8%
54.4%
15.8%
1.9%
10.1%
18.6%
52.0%
16.0%
1.5%
11.0%
% Asian
1.2%
1.3%
1.3%
4.0%
5.3%
8.2%
7.6%
1.3%
0.5%
1.6%
2.0%
3.0%
3.1%
% Black
% Hispanic % Other
% White
73.5%
22.0%
1.6%
1.6%
71.4%
24.6%
1.3%
1.3%
62.7%
33.3%
1.3%
1.3%
52.0%
39.7%
1.2%
3.2%
53.0%
36.8%
1.1%
3.8%
50.7%
35.5%
1.3%
4.3%
50.0%
38.0%
2.2%
2.2%
47.3%
44.1%
36.8%
41.7%
37.5%
37.5%
6.0%
7.9%
12.8%
6.7%
11.0%
10.5%
18.7%
16.3%
15.6%
13.0%
7.4%
6.3%
26.7%
31.2%
33.2%
36.7%
41.1%
42.6%
% Students % English
with
Language
Disabilities
Learners
13.5%
4.1%
15.6%
3.1%
20.2%
7.5%
15.1%
8.7%
15.8%
10.2%
19.1%
9.2%
23.6%
8.0%
% Eligible for
Free or
Reduced
Lunches
69.7%
74.0%
78.5%
74.2%
75.1%
72.6%
71.0%
% Eligible for
Free or
Reduced
Lunches
95.5%
96.9%
93.9%
95.2%
97.0%
98.0%
85.5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
% Students % English
with
Language
Disabilities
Learners
10.7%
4.1%
11.1%
4.2%
11.2%
4.3%
11.4%
4.7%
11.2%
4.5%
11.6%
4.3%
12.0%
4.4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
23.0%
1.0%
30.0%
Table 2: Neighborhood Profiles
Sources: US Census Data 2000; Census Data from American Communities Survey 2012.
Harlem
Year
2000
2012
14,896
20.8
Percentage of
individuals
below the
poverty line (%)
43.7
26,214
22.2
40.2
Median
Income (in
dollars)
Percentage
of Whites
(%)
Percentage of
residents with a
bachelors degree
(%)
8.7
Median
Property
value (in
dollars)
160,000
Percentage
of rent
occupied
units (%)
95.3
22.5
441,700
91.1
Percentage of
residents with a
bachelors degree
(%)
24.5
Median
Property
value (in
dollars)
172,000
Percentage
of rent
occupied
units (%)
82.7
39.4
603,900
79.7
Median
Rent (in
dollars)
420
658
Fort Greene
Year
2000
2012
28,070
22.8
Percentage of
individuals
below the
poverty line (%)
35.9
42,434
48.6
35.6
Median
Income (in
dollars)
Percentage
of Whites
(%)
Median
Rent (in
dollars)
511
1128
54