Research shows charter schools are more segregated by race and class than are traditional public schools. I investigate an underexamined mechanism for this segregation: Charter schools project identities corresponding to parents’ race- and class-specific parenting styles and educational values. I use computational text analysis to detect the emphasis on inquiry-based learning in the websites of all charter schools operating in 2015–16. I then estimate mixed linear regression models to test the relationships between ideological emphasis and school- and district-level poverty and ethnicity. I thereby transcend methodological problems in scholarship on charter school identities by collecting contemporary, populationwide data and by blending text analysis with hypothesis testing. Findings suggest charter school identities are both race and class specific, outlining a new mechanism by which school choice may consolidate parents by race and class—and paving the way for behavioral and longitudinal studies. This project contributes to literatures on school choice and educational stratification.
AbdulkadirogluAtilaPathakParag A.SchellenbergJonathanWaltersChristopher R.2020. “Do Parents Value School Effectiveness?” American Economic Review110(5):1502–39.
2.
Achieve. 2010. International Science Benchmarking Report: Taking the Lead in Science Education. Forging Next-Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.
3.
ArumRichard. 1996. “Do Private Schools Force Public Schools to Compete?” American Sociological Review61(1):29–46.
4.
AsanteMolefi KeteRavitchDiane. 1991. “Multiculturalism: An Exchange.” American Scholar60(2):267–76.
5.
BailChristopher A.2014. “The Cultural Environment: Measuring Culture with Big Data.” Theory and Society43(3/4):465–82.
6.
BennettW. LanceSegerbergAlexandra. 2013. The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BerendsMark. 2015. “Sociology and School Choice: What We Know after Two Decades of Charter Schools.” Annual Review of Sociology41(1):159–80.
8.
BodineEdwardFullerBruceGonzálezMaría-FernandaHuertaLuisNaughtonSandraParkSandraTehLaik Woon. 2008. “Disparities in Charter School Resources: The Influence of State Policy and Community.” Journal of Education Policy23(1):1–33.
9.
BourdieuPierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BowlesSamuelGintisHerbert. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
11.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
12.
BrunerJerome S.1961. “The Act of Discovery.” Harvard Educational Review31:21–32.
13.
CalarcoJessica McCrory. 2011. “‘I Need Help!’ Social Class and Children’s Help-Seeking in Elementary School.” American Sociological Review76(6):862–82.
14.
CarrollGlenn R.1985. “Concentration and Specialization: Dynamics of Niche Width in Populations of Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology90:1262–83.
DeweyJohn. 1938. Experience and Education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
17.
EppleDennisFiglioDavidRomanoRichard. 2004. “Competition between Private and Public Schools: Testing Stratification and Pricing Predictions.” Journal of Public Economics88(7):1215–45.
18.
EricksonHeidi Holmes. 2017. “How Do Parents Choose Schools, and What Schools Do They Choose? A Literature Review of Private School Choice Programs in the United States.” Journal of School Choice11(4):491–506.
19.
FinniganKara S.2007. “Charter School Autonomy: The Mismatch between Theory and Practice.” Educational Policy21(3):503–26.
20.
FrankenbergEricaEeJongyeonAyscueJennifer B.OrfieldGary. 2019. Harming Our Common Future: America’s Segregated Schools 65 Years after Brown. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
21.
FrankenbergEricaSiegel-HawleyGenevieve. 2013. “A Segregating Choice?: An Overview of Charter School Policy, Enrollment Trends, and Segregation.” Pp. 129–44 in Educational Delusions? Why Choice Can Deepen Inequality and How to Make Schools Fair, edited by OrfieldG.FrankenbergE., and Associates. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
FullerBruce. 2009. “Policy and Place: Learning from Decentralized Reforms.” Pp. 855–75 in Handbook of Education Policy Research, edited by SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD.New York: Routledge.
23.
FurgesonJoshuaGillBrianHaimsonJoshuaKillewaldAlexandraMcCulloughMoiraNichols-BarrerIraTehBing-ruVerbitsky-SavitzNatalyaBowenMelissaDemerittAllisonHillPaulLakeRobin. 2012. Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts. Cambridge, MA: Mathematica Policy Research/Center on Reinventing Public Education.
24.
GartenJustinHooverJoeJohnsonKate M.BoghratiReihaneIskiwitchCarolDehghaniMorteza. 2018. “Dictionaries and Distributions: Combining Expert Knowledge and Large Scale Textual Data Content Analysis.” Behavior Research Methods50(1):344–61.
25.
GleasonPhilip M.2017. “What’s the Secret Ingredient? Searching for Policies and Practices That Make Charter Schools Successful.” Journal of School Choice11(4):559–84.
26.
GolannJoanne W.2015. “The Paradox of Success at a No-Excuses School.” Sociology of Education88(2):103–19.
GrimmerJustinStewartBrandon M.2013. “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis21(3):267–97.
29.
HanushekEric A.KainJohn F.RivkinSteven G.2009. “New Evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The Complex Effects of School Racial Composition on Achievement.” Journal of Labor Economics27(3):349–83.
30.
HanushekEric A.KainJohn F.RivkinSteven G.BranchGregory F.2007. “Charter School Quality and Parental Decision Making with School Choice.” Journal of Public Economics91(5):823–48.
31.
HernándezLaura E.2016. “Race and Racelessness in CMO Marketing: Exploring Charter Management Organizations’ Racial Construction and Its Implications.” Peabody Journal of Education91(1):47–63.
32.
HolmeJennifer Jellison. 2002. “Buying Homes, Buying Schools: School Choice and the Social Construction of School Quality.” Harvard Educational Review72(2):177–206.
33.
HuertaLuis A.ZuckermanAndrew. 2009. “An Institutional Theory Analysis of Charter Schools: Addressing Institutional Challenges to Scale.” Peabody Journal of Education84(3):414–31.
34.
JhaHarsh K.BeckmanChristine M.2017. “A Patchwork of Identities: Emergence of Charter Schools as a New Organizational Form.” Pp. 69–107 in Emergence, edited by SeidelM-D. L.GreveH. R.Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
KingBrayden G.ClemensElisabeth S.FryMelissa. 2011. “Identity Realization and Organizational Forms: Differentiation and Consolidation of Identities among Arizona’s Charter Schools.” Organization Science22(3):554–72.
37.
KirschnerPaul A.SwellerJohnClarkRichard E.2006. “Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist41(2):75–86.
38.
KozlowskiAustin C.TaddyMattEvansJames A.2019. “The Geometry of Culture: Analyzing the Meanings of Class through Word Embeddings.” American Sociological Review84(5):905–49.
39.
Lacireno-PaquetNatalieHolyokeThomas T.MoserMicheleHenigJeffrey R.2002. “Creaming versus Cropping: Charter School Enrollment Practices in Response to Market Incentives.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis24(2):145–58.
LareauAnnette. 2000. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. 2nd ed.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
42.
LareauAnnette. 2011. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. 2nd ed.Berkeley: University of California Press.
43.
LauenDouglas LeeFullerBruceDauterLuke. 2015. “Positioning Charter Schools in Los Angeles: Diversity of Form and Homogeneity of Effects.” American Journal of Education121(2):213–39.
44.
LazonderArd W.HarmsenRuth. 2016. “Meta-analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance.” Review of Educational Research86(3):681–718.
45.
LevinsonMeira. 2012. No Citizen Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
LubienskiChristopher. 2003. “Innovation in Education Markets: Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Competition and Choice in Charter Schools.” American Educational Research Journal40(2):395–443.
47.
LutzByron. 2011. “The End of Court-Ordered Desegregation.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy3(2):130–68.
48.
MaatenLaurens van derHintonGeoffrey. 2008. “Visualizing Data Using T-SNE.” Journal of Machine Learning Research9(Nov):2579–2605.
49.
MalkusNat. 2016. “Seeing Charters Differently: A New Approach to National Comparisons of Charter and Traditional Public Schools.” Journal of School Choice10(4):479–94.
50.
MasseyDouglas S.RothwellJonathanDominaThurston. 2009. “The Changing Bases of Segregation in the United States.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science626(1):74–90.
51.
McShaneMichael Q.HatfieldJenn. 2015. Measuring Diversity in Charter School Offerings. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
52.
MeyerJohn W.RowanBrian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology83(2):340–63.
53.
MikolovTomasSutskeverIlyaChenKaiCorradoGreg S.DeanJeff. 2013. “Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and Their Compositionality.” Pp. 3111–19 in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Vol. 2. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates.
54.
MohrJohn W.Wagner-PacificiRobinBreigerRonald L.2015. “Toward a Computational Hermeneutics.” Big Data & Society2(2):2053951715613809.
55.
MonarrezTomasKisidaBrianChingosMatthew. 2019. When Is a School Segregated? Making Sense of Segregation 65 Years after Brown v. Board of Education. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. 2018. “Data Dashboard.” Retrieved October1, 2018 (https://data.publiccharters.org/).
58.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2018a. Common Core of Data: Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January10, 2019 (https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp).
59.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2018b. Digest of Education Statistics, 2017: Enrollment and Percentage Distribution of Enrollment in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by Race/Ethnicity and Level of Education. Fall 1999 through Fall 2017. Retrieved October1, 2018 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_203.60.asp?).
NelsonLaura K.BurkDerekKnudsenMarcelMcCallLeslie. 2018. “The Future of Coding: A Comparison of Hand-Coding and Three Types of Computer-Assisted Text Analysis Methods.” Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0049124118769114.
OrfieldMyronGumus-DawesBarisLuceThomas. 2013. “The State of Public Schools in Post-Katrina New Orleans: The Challenge of Creating Equal Opportunity.” Pp. 159–84 in Educational Delusions? Why Choice Can Deepen Inequality and How to Make Schools Fair, edited by OrfieldG.FrankenbergE.and Associates. Berkeley: University of California Press.
64.
OwensAnnReardonSean F.JencksChristopher. 2016. “Income Segregation Between Schools and School Districts.” American Educational Research Journal53(4):1159–97.
65.
PainoMaria. 2018. “From Policies to Principals: Tiered Influences on School-Level Coupling.” Social Forces96(3):1119–54.
66.
PainoMariaBoylanRebecca L.RenzulliLinda A.2017. “The Closing Door: The Effect of Race on Charter School Closures.” Sociological Perspectives60(4):747–67.
Posey-MaddoxLinnKimelbergShelley McDonoughCucchiaraMaia. 2014. “Middle-Class Parents and Urban Public Schools: Current Research and Future Directions.” Sociology Compass8(4):446–56.
69.
PowellWalter W.HorvathAaronBrandtnerChristof. 2016. “Click and Mortar: Organizations on the Web.” Research in Organizational Behavior36:101–120.
70.
PrestonCourtneyGoldringEllenBerendsMarkCannataMarisa. 2012. “School Innovation in District Context: Comparing Traditional Public Schools and Charter Schools.” Economics of Education Review31(2):318–30.
71.
ReardonSean F.GrewalElena TejKalogridesDemetraGreenbergErica. 2012. “Brown Fades: The End of Court-Ordered School Desegregation and the Resegregation of American Public Schools.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management31(4):876–904.
72.
ReardonSean F.OwensAnn. 2014. “60 Years After Brown: Trends and Consequences of School Segregation.” Annual Review of Sociology40(1):199–218.
73.
ReardonSean F.TownsendJosephFoxLindsay. 2017. “A Continuous Measure of the Joint Distribution of Race and Income among Neighborhoods.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences3(2):34–62.
74.
ŘehůřekRadimSojkaPetr. 2010. “Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora.” Pp. 45–50 in Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks.
75.
RenzulliLinda. 2014. “Educational Transformations and Why Sociology Should Care.” Social Currents1(2):149–56.
76.
RenzulliLinda A.BarrAshley B.PainoMaria. 2015. “Innovative Education? A Test of Specialist Mimicry or Generalist Assimilation in Trends in Charter School Specialization Over Time.” Sociology of Education88(1):83–102.
77.
RenzulliLinda A.EvansLorraine. 2005. “School Choice, Charter Schools, and White Flight.” Social Problems52(3):398–418.
78.
RodaAllisonWellsAmy Stuart. 2013. “School Choice Policies and Racial Segregation: Where White Parents’ Good Intentions, Anxiety, and Privilege Collide.” American Journal of Education119(2):261–93.
RothsteinJesse M.2006. “Good Principals or Good Peers? Parental Valuation of School Characteristics, Tiebout Equilibrium, and the Incentive Effects of Competition among Jurisdictions.” American Economic Review96(4):1333–50.
81.
RubinDonald B.1976. “Inference and Missing Data.” Biometrika63(3):581–92.
82.
SaporitoSalvatore. 2003. “Private Choices, Public Consequences: Magnet School Choice and Segregation by Race and Poverty.” Social Problems50(2):181–203.
83.
SchneiderBarbaraCarnoyMartinKilpatrickJeremySchmidtWilliam H.ShavelsonRichard J.2007. Estimating Causal Effects Using Experimental and Observational Designs. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
84.
SchwartzH. AndrewUngarLyle H.2015. “Data- Driven Content Analysis of Social Media: A Systematic Overview of Automated Methods.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science659(1):78–94.
85.
ShankerAlbert. 1988. “Restructuring Our Schools.” Peabody Journal of Education65(3):88–100.
86.
SivakElizavetaSmirnovIvan. 2019. “Parents Mention Sons More Often Than Daughters on Social Media.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(6):2039–41.
87.
StataCorp. 2017. Stata 15 Multiple Imputation Reference Manual. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
88.
Leslie P.SteffeGaleJerry Edward. 1995. Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
89.
StonePhilip J.DunphyDexter C.SmithMarshall S.1966. The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
90.
TeskePaulFitzpatrickJodyKaplanGabriel. 2006. “The Information Gap?” Review of Policy Research23(5):969–81.
Van RossumGuidoDrakeFred L.2011. Python Language Reference Manual. Network Theory Limited.
95.
VasquezHeiligJameson BrewerJulian, T.WilliamsYohuru. 2019. “Choice without Inclusion? Comparing the Intensity of Racial Segregation in Charters and Public Schools at the Local, State and National Levels.” Education Sciences9(3):205–21.
96.
WaiteChelsea. 2019. A View from the Canopy: Building Collective Knowledge on School Innovation. Christensen Institute.
97.
WangKeRathbunAmyMusuLauren. 2019. School Choice in the United States: 2019. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
98.
WatanabeMaika. 2007. “Displaced Teacher and State Priorities in a High-Stakes Accountability Context.” Educational Policy21(2):311–68.
99.
WhorfBenjamin Lee. 1940. “Science and Linguistics.” Technology Review42(6):229–31, 247–48.
100.
YettickHolly. 2016. “Information Is Bliss: Information Use by School Choice Participants in Denver.” Urban Education51(8):859–90.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
