© 2011 Elizabeth Morrison ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
© 2011 Elizabeth Morrison ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FAMILY GENTRIFICATION, STUDENT DIVERSITY, AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: A CASE STUDY OF A PARENT-ORGANIZED CHARTER SCHOOL by ELIZABETH MORRISON A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-Newark Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey Institute of Technology, & University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Joint Graduate Program in Urban Systems-Educational Policy is Written under the direction of Dr. Alan Sadovnik, Chair Approved by Dr. Jeffrey Backstrand Dr. Jason Barr Dr. Susan Semel _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Newark, New Jersey May, 2011 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Family Gentrification, Student Diversity, and Academic Achievement: A Case Study of a Parent-Organized Charter School By ELIZABETH MORRISON Dissertation Director: Dr. Alan Sadovnik In this study, I examine the history and effects of a parent-organized charter school in Jersey City, New Jersey in the context of the gentrification of the city. Based on ethnographic, survey, and school- and student-level achievement data, I analyze how the school influences equity and academic achievement. Using the concepts of cultural, economic, and social capital, I provide a comprehensive examination of how public school characteristics can attract or deter families from sending their children to particular schools. At the charter school, students from most subgroup outperform the state-specific subgroup average. On average, students demonstrate a small amount of growth over time; however, there are wide racial and economic achievement gaps between subgroups. The gaps narrow to some extent in math, but during middle school the gap expand in language arts. Interestingly, free-lunch students in more economically balanced cohorts perform better than free-lunch students in less economically balanced cohorts. The study has policy implications for both the state of New Jersey and Jersey City. At the state level, policies currently enable economic segregation in charter schools. ii Both a lack of busing services and an early application deadline create an advantage for privileged families. Similarly, the policies disadvantage low-income families, who may lack social networks and charter school information. Therefore, this study illustrates the importance of equalizing access to charter schools for all parents. This study also has implications for the Jersey City. Currently, Jersey City is assisting housing developments and local businesses with tax abatements and other incentives. However, the population Jersey City is attempting to attract will only remain in the city if the quality of the schools improves or school choice options increase. The focal school has successfully integrated families who would otherwise send their children to private school or leave the district. Without quality schools, wealthier families will leave Jersey City and its relatively high taxes for more affordable alternatives with better educational opportunities. Thus, the city’s already small tax base will become even smaller. More importantly, there will be fewer opportunities for low-income children to interact with middle- and high-income children and experience high-quality schools. iii Acknowledgements I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to a number of individuals who supported and guided me through the dissertation process. I am grateful to Dr. Alan Sadovnik and the other members of my committee: Dr. Jason Barr, Dr. Jeff Backstrand and Dr. Susan Semel. I remain indebted to my mentor Alan Sadovnik, for he has been the compass guiding me through the dissertation process. I thank him for his encouragement and support with both the research and writing. I would like to thank Susan Semel, my Master’s advisor and dissertation committee member, for encouraging me to enroll in the Rutgers PhD program and supporting me throughout the process. I am extremely grateful to Jeff Backstrand for his assistance with both the content and revision of my dissertation. I would like to thank Jason Barr for his patience and assistance with both the parent-survey and student-level data. I appreciate all the time he devoted to helping me with STATA and his quick responses to my numerous e-mail queries. In addition to my dissertation committee, I would like to thank my family and friends for their patience and support. This study required the insight of many parents to understand the relationship between parental choice and educational quality. I thank my parents, Gillian and Geoffrey Morrison; my brother, Philip; friends, Judith Schteingart, Mathieu Fialon, Shelley Skinner, and Deena Khalil for sharing their personal stories of how they navigated educational systems on behalf of their children. Also, I would like to thank the hundreds of LCCS parents who filled out parent surveys year after year and discussed their experiences with me. Additionally, I would like to thank LCCS’s iv administrators and teachers for welcoming me into their community and participating in interviews. Your voices were invaluable to this project. I would like to thank my friends for their support and encouragement: Tara Davidson, Joelle Tutella, Linda Silvestri, Emily Litman, and Judy Donnelly. In particular, I would like to thank Deena Khalil for her endless support in reading drafts, make sense of my data, and being my cheerleader. Similarly, I would like to thank Paige Teamey for helping me formulate arguments, acting as a sounding board to my theories, and providing her continual support. I would like to thank my mother and father for instilling in me the discipline to finish what I have started. Additionally, I am thankful for the many hours they dedicated to reading my drafts. I am grateful to my brothers, Phil and Doug Morrison, for their guidance and faith in my abilities. Finally, I am indebted to the sustaining support of my husband, Gareth Brown, throughout this endeavor. He designed figures, edited chapters, and pushed me to the finish line. I dedicate this study to the children of Jersey City who all deserve a thorough and efficient education. v Table of Contents Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 6 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7 Significance ......................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter Two: Literature Review: Mechanisms Promoting Diversity .................................... 11 Social Capital Theory ....................................................................................................... 12 Cultural Capital Theory .................................................................................................... 12 Choice Literature .............................................................................................................. 15 A History of Equity of Choice Programs .......................................................................... 18 Progressive Alternative Schools ....................................................................................... 19 Free Schools ...................................................................................................................... 21 Public Alternative Schools ................................................................................................ 24 Magnet Schools ................................................................................................................. 25 Charter Schools ................................................................................................................. 28 The Achievement Gap ...................................................................................................... 31 Charter Schools: Narrowing or Expanding the Achievement Gap? ................................. 35 Charter Schools: Equal Opportunities or Creaming? ........................................................ 40 School Location ................................................................................................................ 42 Recruitment ....................................................................................................................... 45 Parent Involvement ........................................................................................................... 46 Access to Information ....................................................................................................... 47 Charter Schools: Fiscal Disparities ................................................................................... 48 Curriculum and Pedagogy ................................................................................................. 49 Culture and School Size .................................................................................................... 53 Gentrification and Schools ...............................................................................................